The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening.
It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a lot of time dodging cars on the sidewalk. I didn't notice as much this until I had kids, because while you can dodge the cars coming and going across the sidewalk as an adult (or the cars just parked on the sidewalk, which is common here but nearly impossible without curb cuts), for a kid, it actually is dangerous.
It's a shame that SF allows curb cuts to render even the sidewalks a hazardous place for people (esp kids) to walk, cause let's face it, SF likes to tout itself as a more urban city with a vibrant pedestrian life.
The irony is that curb cuts - the bit of concrete cut out of a curb so a car can get out of the driveway and onto the street, doesn't even increase parking much, since it divides the street up into tiny bits of actual curb too small to fit a car! What it does is take a spot from the public and turns it into a private "reserved" street space. In fact, one study estimated that 50% of garages in the mission are unusable for parking (used instead for storage or other purposes), so really, this is just a reserved parking spot on the street.
The thing that drove me nuts about curb cuts when I lived in SF were all the people who used them as sidewalk-blocking private parking spaces (which is illegal, not that the city ever did anything about it), forcing pedestrians into the street. It was especially maddening when I was pushing my bike up a steep hill; I can only imagine how frustrating it would be for those in wheelchairs or pushing strollers. Car culture makes people astonishingly selfish.
The city owns the fist two squares worth of sidewalk, if there are more those belong to the residence and you're allowed to park there. If your vehicle etc. block or intrude on the city parts you do get cited. Enforcement may vary, however. Plus you're free to call the SFmta to ticket violators.
Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "first two squares of sidewalk". I lived on Coso Ave in Bernal Heights, where a bunch of garage doors are right next to the sidewalks. Some of my neighbors would park their cars in their driveways, with the tail end sticking out into the street, and blocking sidewalk users from crossing their driveways as a result. I can't imagine how that could be legal.
Typically sidewalks are not uninterrupted planes of concrete, but are divided into squares so that in case there is sidewalk buckling, they have some give and don't break up the whole thing, plus repair is made easier.
So, usually the first two squares' width belong to the municipality, any others are property of the residence.
Brings me to the broader question: why are Californians so bad at urban planning? LA is a disaster, SF has endless issues and pitfalls, the Bay Area is a sprawling mess.
For a people who seem to pride themselves on being progressive, "enlightened" etc they sure are bad at livability, almost as bad as Texas.
My impression is that poor urban planning correlates more with era than geography. One thing I noticed while traveling in Europe is that while the old urban centers are pretty great, the outskirts, built during the automotive era, are no better than anywhere else. There's just less of it.
That said, in SF (according to the article), some pre-automotive buildings were actually retrofitted to reflect the new car culture and add garages.
Los Angeles is not particularly better or worse than any post-WWII automobile-centric metropolis, except that it's bigger than all others in the U.S. Compare it to Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, or Atlanta (focusing on downtown and suburbs more than the inner city core), and its primary problem is simply scale, not quality. As in -- it doesn't have a markedly worse quality than any of the other examples, it's simply just larger.
San Francisco is actually pretty well planned, but it's got exceptionally high demand, very limited land (courtesy of geography), and sits in the middle of what's essentially a post-WWII urban sprawl. Not quite so bad as L.A., but at ~1/3 the size, only slightly less so. Washington, D.C., is far worse in many respects.
For livable experiences in the U.S., you've generally got to either look to older cities (New York or Boston, say, not that either's wonderful), or smaller towns: Portland, Oregon, Boise, Idaho, Santa Fe, NM, old-town Wilmington in North Carolina, Knoxville, TN, to name a few examples. Some are older, some simply have managed to retain a smaller-town feel.
And the places which are just plain hellholes ... Industrial pop-up towns and burbclaves across the country. Hardly at all restricted to California.
This is funny to me cause I came from different background where parking on sidewalk or partially on sidewalk is very common, and there are no cut-outs in the curb. I think your POV is very American, and that is fine. Here are some examples of parking signs, in Poland you will get a ticket for example if you do not park diagonally with at least one tire over the curb when there is a parking sign indicating you must park like so even if your car is a supermini that would fit lengthwise and you wish to save your tire.
I've noticed when that is the case in Europe, the curbs are low and rounded, so it isn't hard too drive over them slowly. When they are high and square like in CA, it wouldn't be easy at all to get on the sidewalk (even if the fascist parking dictatorship were to allow it).
Has SF ever been considered or even wanted to be considered a kid/family-friendly place? Watching from the sidelines, it's never seemed like a priority.
People move away when their kids reach school age. Not so much because it isn't kid friendly, but because it's too expensive to raise a family here. Not too many young families can shell out three quarters of a million bucks for a house, and the schools are just so-so.
The only place that seems relatively sane (and relatively affordable) for families in SF is Noe Valley. If you have _tons_ of money, probably further north like Pac Heights.
And maybe, _maybe_ the area between Haight/Duboce Triangle near Duboce Park where there is a playground for kids seems to attract families. But even still, you can't go out at night around there as there have been lots of violent crimes in that area.
Neither, because policy has largely been written to favor those who already live on or own a given patch of dirt. Most of SF is neither millionaires nor being displaced.
1. The city is too expensive for a family. Practically no one can afford a 3 bedroom house or apartment (or one that will allow pets). Even if you can afford a house in the school district you want, it won't matter because ...
2. Living in a school district is not a guarantee for enrollment in that district. Your kids may be shipped on an hour long bus ride one way to a comparatively bad school across town. Your kids may be sent in opposite directions to different schools. Some changes recently may have improved the situation, if only slightly. All in the name of equality.
Not SF, but I feel exactly the same cars. After having my kid and him getting to the toddler stage I started to actually understand just how hazardous cars can be.
There is nothing I appreciate more these days than a open area with fencing or whatever else to keep cars at bay and let kids run around and be kids without parents having to constantly stay on guard that one of them might make a run for the street.
Street parking is really dangerous for kids. No visibility for drivers when a kid is crossing from a footpath and is shorter than many of the parked cars.
Driving an empty street, you can see children leaving their homes, crossing the verge, etc. In a street full of parked cars, you might only have a split second as they leave a gap between two parked cars to cross a street.
As a motorist and a parent of a toddler, I really don't like that from either side.
Kind of related. This week in Medellín, people got fed up of car dealerships parking in sidewalks and made fun interventions like practicing yoga and setting up beach furniture (article in spanish).
One of the cities this is popular in is San Francisco. And the data the article suggests is correct. If you don't have to worry about taking a car to park, you are more likely to spend more time in a local area with businesses available to spend your disposable income.
The second benefit is creating a sense of place. The place to see or the place to hangout in. This personal behavior of a local population can transform a regional neighborhood into a vibrant culture and/or community.
It's nice that this is getting some press, but my sense is that it's no longer news that pedestrianism has been on the rise in dense urban areas for a tick[0].
Philadelphia does not have a very good public transit system. It's fine if all you want to do is get to the center of the city, but to actually travel around the city it sucks.
And parts of Philadelphia have a severe parking problem. I'm convinced that the only reason South Philadelphia works is because 1/4 to 1/2 of its population isn't at home at any one point in time. It's like sailors hot-bedding on a submarine.
So if you're going to be an urbanite in Philadelphia, you have to live your entire life in Philadelphia, in your neighborhood. Which is probably why so many of the people I knew there hadn't even been out of the state, say nothing about to other countries.
For some people, that's all they want, a provincial life. It's not for me. I grew up surrounded by people with that very same attitude, in a rural environment, that attitude of "why would you ever even want to go somewhere else?" I really don't see the difference of it in an urban setting and I really just don't like being around it.
But I'm getting sick and tired of being treated like I'm a complete waste of a person for that reason. Seriously, the title is "Why parking spaces shouldn't always be wasted on cars", meaning the other times it's still wasted on cars, but it's somehow ok. It's just a smug sort of attitude.
South Philly resident here. Philadelphia has "pretty good" public transport compared to many other large cities. It is particularly easy to get around by bicycle and by foot. It is no problem to get to any part of the city proper by subway, bus, taxi, uber, bicycle or foot. There are connections to NJ via bus and PATCO. Much of the outer suburbs are connected via SEPTA. You can get to NYC via NJtransit (cheaply!) or Amtrak (more expensive). It is not perfect, but I have trouble understanding why you're complaining, where do you want the public transit to go that it doesn't already ??? BTW, the lax attitude about parking is true: I own a car and park it on the sidewalk in the alley behind my house.
I live in Bella Vista, a tiny neighborhood between Center City and South Philly and echo @angdis' sentiment. The Philadelphia subway system leaves a bit to be desired, but considering the trolleys, buses, and "regional" rail options, as well as the ease of making connections between most of these systems, Philly has a more than adequate public transportation system altogether.
Also -- Philly is one of the most walkable cities in the country. It's not difficult for someone to walk river-to-river or throughout University City to get where they're going.
I know plenty of folks that live and work within their neighborhood and rarely go elsewhere, but I know more people that explore all over the city and towns outside.
I agree that curbside parking is stupid. But Philadelphians refuse to allow new parking garages to be built. Curbside parking is often the only parking that is available, and any attempts to make other parking become rallying cries in political campaigns thanks to NIMBYism.
I see your point. An example in my city is free or exceptionally cheap parking for neighborhood residents only - even though we all pay the same taxes. This is one situation where regulation and a 'loud minority' appears to be less equitable than a free market.
On the bright side, I hear your weather is pretty good.
South Philly parking works because double- and triple- parking is practiced (and permitted by the parking authorities in neighborhoods). Just write your cell phone number on a piece of paper, place it on your dash, and go inside.
It's amazing how little this is practiced in other cities that should utilize available parking to its maximum.
Thankfully, my city has a better public transit system than SEPTA. At the very least, I don't have to buy a copper subway token from a machine that only takes paper money.
I think you've just gotten lucky, because I've gotten plenty of tickets in South Philly for being one inch past the "park between these signs" signs. I got a ticket once because I was parked
[ here ] [ ]
and the parking enforce had the order of the signs screwed up and thought I should be parked
In Chiang Mai near Chang Phueak Gate a sizeable paved area in front of a few mini-stores and a Ford dealership every day after 6 PM turns from parking space into busy street food market. Struck me as efficient use of space.
I think it's pretty common to use downtown parking lots for events on weekends. I know DC also has "rush hour lanes" -- parking spots that turn into a lane of traffic during rush hour.
It also doesn't help that Philadelphia's property taxes are based on decades-old property value assessments, and instead of reassessing buildings, they just jack up the property tax rate. If you build a new building today, you'll get murdered in taxes. That's assuming you don't get murdered on the union labor, or murdered by the unions if you try to avoid using union labor.
So in DC, there isn't as much residential property in the city proper. It's a lot of grandiose buildings meant more for showing off the might of the empire than for fitting in lots of people. Also, the housing tends to be newer, more vertically scaled, with their own parking garages. In Philadelphia, people hold rallies to block construction of parking garages.
Not sure what "city proper" means in this context, but something like 600,000 people live in the District, which is not a terribly large city. Very few of them live in grandiose buildings like you might see around the Mall. In fact, there are pretty strict height restrictions, which means there aren't any highrise apartments and vertical development is limited.
That's the point I was trying to make. The ratio between the available street space for parking and the people who need to park in the District is much higher than the in Philadelphia.
> Other research suggests that cyclists may actually spend more than drivers at some kinds of businesses because it's easier for them to pop in often and unplanned.
This is probably due to a shortage of parking spots.
It's impossible to have 'enough' parking spots. Induced demand shows that cars, like goldfish, always grow to fill the space they're given. It's politically difficult process, but just refusing to try to solve this problem (which leads to more New Urbanism-friendly locations) is often the right solution.
I've heard this theory applied to traffic, but not parking.
Because no, it isn't impossible. I've never had a problem finding parking when there's a parking garage nearby. E.g. 5th and mission. Just go to the top open floor, and there's always several spaces waiting for you.
It's just street parking that is difficult. Which makes sense because if you think about it, streets don't provide much parking. Maybe 1 car per shop.
Street parking is difficult to find because it cost less to park on the street, so people cruise around for spots instead of heading to a parking deck.
I just heard a Marketplace segment on this [1] where they talk about on-demand adjustable pricing. Very interesting.
The Parking Is Hell Freakonomics episode is pretty good. In it they estimate that there are something like 800 million parking spaces in the country and recounted a study by Donald Shoup that estimates that up to 30% of traffic in cities are people cruising looking for street parking.
Basically, we don't have a real market for parking in most cities, so people will keep their car parked on the street forever instead of using market forces to induce turnover which is better for the city(revenue) and the nearby businesses(more customers).
A counterexample: Las Vegas. All the casinos on the Strip have big parking garages that are free and don't fill up.
Perhaps it's possible only when the margins of a business are as spectacularly high as those of Vegas casinos, so that the parking facility as a loss leader is still net profitable overall. There's also the invisible hand of capitalism, as casinos compete in the market of convenience: a casino without such a facility will lose market share to those that do.
> Perhaps it's possible only when the margins of a business are as spectacularly high as those of Vegas casinos, so that the parking facility as a loss leader is still net profitable overall. There's also the invisible hand of capitalism, as casinos compete in the market of convenience: a casino without such a facility will lose market share to those that do.
Or land is so cheap because you're in the middle of nowhere.
Wouldn't providing superior alternatives be a better way to incentivize people to stop driving? This seems like encouraging people to eat healthy by hitting them with a baseball bat every time they look at McDonalds.
Vancouver in the winter is rainy and cold, but a refusal to cater to motorists (most of whom are from the suburbs anyway) hasn't negatively impacted businesses, and if anything has positively impacted them
Similarly Edinburgh - which is pretty damp, chilly and dark over the winter has had quite a few bars and restaurants invest in outside seating areas in tents on the street - particularly on George Street (where I work).
Wouldn't that just cause the clients that came by car (because of distance, health, whatever) to go somewhere else because there is no parking space? It looks to me like just another gentrification result. The new hip clients never needed those parking spots.
The problem with parking spots is that with single occupancy vehicles you're allocating 170 sq feet per customer for a few dollars. That's a terrible deal given real estate prices downtown.
Also very few people are going to drive a significant distance for tacos or ice cream.
Yes few people are going to drive significant distances for tacos or ice cream but people drive distances to shop and buy then tacos and ice cream. Those are also cars with a whole family in it. Try to park your van with 3 kids in it in that gentrificated area for some ice cream. But hell...you don't want those loud suckers in your fancy eco-cafe.
Upper class gentrification people don't need to drive to shop. They eat in restaurants or order online. Because they can afford it.
You are causing a separation of classes here again. The whole argument runs on it and the arrogant way this class handles that by writing such 1st world problem articles is disgusting.
It makes for interesting speculation for when automated cars come along and you don't need to park. Of course you don't need automation of you're willing to forgo parking via other services. Which leads to the many cities with adequate public transit/taxi service which already have areas configured with less parking. e.g. many European cities & New York city I would guess...
I wish valet parking was more prevalent. Does the additional real estate space from efficient parking lots/structures justify the labor cost of providing free valet to customers?
Of course, the real solution lies in eliminating personal car usage altogether (e.g. Uber)
There are definitely times when it would be inappropriate to take a bike over an uber, and times when it would be extremely inconvenient to walk.
For instance: tonight. St. Patrick's day will be my girlfriend and I going to a brewery about 10 miles from our house to try a beer they are brewing especially for today.
It would be irresponsible of us to bike home after drinking, and inconvenient to walk that far. We will almost certainly be taking an uber.
Kids can ride bicycles, too. And I see a lot of bicyclists have a covered trailer behind their bike for the smaller children. You just have to have safe, separated bike paths rather than just painting a line on the road.
It seems like roughly the same goal could have been achieved by condemning a comic book store and turning the space into a park. Is there anything to this article that isn't just the observation "People like to go where parks are" repurposed into anti-car propaganda?
The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use.
It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people.
> The city already owns the parking spots. No need to condemn anything. Just change the use.
OK, I'll be more explicit: I don't see any evidence that parking lots are special here. It sounds like you could build a park in the place of just about anything else and get the same benefit. It's not clear that this has anything to do with parking lots per se.
> It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people.
How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars?
>> It isn't anti-car propaganda to point out that huge swaths of valuable public real estate are dedicated to providing free storage for empty cars, and to suggest that there are other uses that would be more beneficial to more people.
> How is that not an expression of anti-car sentiment? Are you not suggesting making it less convenient to drive cars?
Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis. There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them.
> Because it's not a sentiment, the anti-car idea here emerges straight from a rational cost/benefit analysis.
No, it doesn't. That's precisely what I've been saying. This article doesn't at all differentiate the benefit of a park from the effect of removing parking, so there is no rational cost/benefit analysis here.
> There are many strong arguments for reducing the use of cars in cities - useful space lost to parking is just one of them.
I have a hard enough time finding parking in San Diego as it is. I would like to hear a strong argument for preventing me from ever going anywhere.
Well, I'd argue parking spaces are special: because they can be turned into free space, and then turned back into a parking space, very easily! Sometimes you don't even have to do anything - for proof, see parking restrictions intended to free up extra lanes during busy periods, that rely on nothing more than the time of day.
This makes the experiment quick and easy to do.
(You could also knock down a shop to see what would happen, but that would be harder to reverse, and the owner would be unlikely to agree to it.)
It's not as simple as "people like to go where parks are". Some parks will thrive while others are abandoned, and it depends largely on the surrounding neighborhood.
If you have a thriving neighborhood with people and businesses and things to do, then introducing a sunny park will make it better.
If you have a cluster of office buildings and parking lots with no one living there and no theatres or recreation, then a park will just mean there is even less to do there.
why are you so eager to defend cars and car-culture?
cars are the single most dangerous thing in the daily lives of most Americans. they are rolling manslaughter engines. they are destroying the environment, leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion. they have been undermining good public transportation infrastructure investment for decades. they are destructive of communities, encouraging sprawl and long distance commuting.
How about the freedom to set your own travel plans, efficiencies in travel with all the attendant economic benefits and vital tool in improving real estate quality?
The road-and-traffic free utopia you seek cannot exist.
>leading us inexplorably down a path of global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion
You forgot creating runny noses and ingrown toenails. Rhetoric is a tad overblown.
clearly we need the ability to travel. allowing every person on the planet (with sufficient money anyway) to ride around in their very own 3 ton machine, moving at 80 mph is not the right way to do it. a better world would have different vehicles than cars.
global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here.
seriously, you shouldn't be dismissive of these problems. there is a basic need to provide transportation to people. we have done a terrible job of finding a good solution to that needs. what we do now with cars is one of the most destructive and unsustainable ways possible to solve the problem.
> global climate destruction and natural resource exhaustion are realities. this is not overblown rhetoric. we are removing millions of years of fossilized plant-collected sunlight, previously sequestered deep in the crust of the Earth, and burning it at a rate so fast that the biosphere of the planet cannot keep up with the changes in the climate. there are other fossil fuels as well that contribute to this besides just the petroleum burned by cars, but petroleum burned by cars is a huge factor here.
These are not problems with cars, though. These are problems with internal combustion engines. Over the next half a decade, electric cars are going to take off in a big way, as EVs with low prices, long ranges and good performance characteristics become common (so far we know about the Model 3 and the Chevy Bolt, both coming in two years, and a significant range bump on the Leaf is likely by then too).
electric motors are more efficient than gasoline powered motors, so there is some real gain to using cars of that type. however, the electric energy still has to be generated by something, and frequently that something is a coal, gas, or oil burning power plant. its still better than burning the gasoline in the car engine directly but not a fundamental solution.
the fundamental solution is to drive less, to carpool more, and to reorganize our communities to make effective public transportation a focus instead of an afterthought. we have to find ways to meet the transportation needs of people without using so much energy to do so.
I don't particularly like cars. If I never had to drive again, I'd be ecstatic. But there isn't much of a choice there. I either have to drive or become a hermit, and that is an even less attractive option. What I guess you'd say I'm defensive of is my ability to lead a normal life.
There's lots of choices. Bikes, walkind, public transit and rideshare for nearby travel. Planes, trains and buses and boats for far travel. The only restriction in the relatively small percentage of the earth that's so crowded that there isn't an extra plot of land for you to leave your property on. And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.
It would take me several hours to get to work and back. It would be even worse for my wife. If we wanted to go out to dinner, the restaurant would be closed by the time we got there.
> walking
This is even slower than biking.
> public transit
About as slow as biking, but smelly and without the health benefits.
> rideshare
Unless I misunderstand, this involves cars, so it is not an alternative to them.
> And you're still allowed to go there - if you don't insist on bringing 2 tons of metal with you.
As discussed above, this isn't about insisting on bringing two tons of metal — it's about the lack of viable alternatives. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" won't eliminate the very real and valid reasons why most people in America drive cars.
I will say sometimes it's very much the snesible option--living close to where you work is sometimes really expensive, or otherwise unpleasant.
But it is important to realize this is a choice and acknowledge that you're choosing a trade-off, not simply a "I have to drive; I have no choice." Simply recognizing that you have agency in the decision is of value. It allows you to _consciously_ weigh the pros and cons, to become aware of potentially-unnoticed alternatives, and to recognize the costs (and benefits), both to yourself and the broader community.
we understand that you drive because you have to. the problem is that most people aren't trying very hard to imagine ways to drive less, or ways to build communities that don't utterly rely upon everyone owning a car.
its not a problem that an individual can fix overnight. its got to become a social movement with lots of new technology and new social institutions and new beliefs and values behind it.
as things stand now its easy to feel powerless and give up and say "doesn't matter, I'll be dead before our society changes enough to make not driving a viable alternative". and that's why nothing ever gets done about this problem. its still a problem though and at the rate things are going now we won't ever solve it before it becomes a crisis. so that's what will happen. inevitably there will be a crisis and then we'll have to confront the problem under much more desperate circumstances.
Here we go with privatizing public resources and assets again. It galls me to hear moronic, self-serving corrupt things like "...the growing economic case for deploying our streets differently, for use by more than cars." In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes, especially not for private profit, gain, or benefit of any kind. Whether it is clogging up the city of Austin for the monkey shit show that SXSW has turned into, or taking over public parking spaces for private enterprise profit it's corrupt misappropriation and misuse of public resources and funds. It's simply corrupt and the government, on all levels, should not be engaged in commercial revenue generation precisely because it invites corruption.
In a capitalist predatory economy and society like ours public resources and assets should almost never be used for private purposes
So, in non-capitalist economies, they should? :)
I find your rant misguided. Parking spaces are public resources being used for private benefits, i.e., for car owners. As a member of the "inferior" class of transit and foot travelers, I see no reason why your private use trumps any other.
The only galling statement is that it's "moronic" and "corrupt" for public lands to be used for anything other than the purpose of moving & storing your private car. It is public land, like any other, and can have many purposes that benefit the public. On a municipal level, those uses are decided by the democratically elected leaders. The economics of such a place are orthogonal to the use of public lands. If you are unhappy with the utilization of roads in your jurisdiction, take it up with your local leaders.
Sorry, could you elaborate on how "parklets" are a privatization of public resources? They seem to me like simply another use by the public. The article even mentions that a study found that not all the people using these mini parks are spending money at local businesses.
http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2008-06-01/eye-stre...
The image showing the difference between Park Slope (without curb cuts) and a stretch of Dolores street in San Francisco (with curb cuts) is really eye-opening.
It's a bummer, because a lot of SF really is small and walkable, but you know, we really do spend a lot of time dodging cars on the sidewalk. I didn't notice as much this until I had kids, because while you can dodge the cars coming and going across the sidewalk as an adult (or the cars just parked on the sidewalk, which is common here but nearly impossible without curb cuts), for a kid, it actually is dangerous.
It's a shame that SF allows curb cuts to render even the sidewalks a hazardous place for people (esp kids) to walk, cause let's face it, SF likes to tout itself as a more urban city with a vibrant pedestrian life.
The irony is that curb cuts - the bit of concrete cut out of a curb so a car can get out of the driveway and onto the street, doesn't even increase parking much, since it divides the street up into tiny bits of actual curb too small to fit a car! What it does is take a spot from the public and turns it into a private "reserved" street space. In fact, one study estimated that 50% of garages in the mission are unusable for parking (used instead for storage or other purposes), so really, this is just a reserved parking spot on the street.