It may not cast a shadow directly on it, but the bridge still destroyed the mansion's utility.

The alternative would have been to run the new east span south of the old one, instead of north. Apparently San Francisco preferred that option, but Oakland wanted the north alignment. I'm not sure why, all I've seen mentioned so far is that they chose that particular alignment to ensure drivers would get a good view of San Francisco while driving west...

San Francisco is the only place I know with this bizarre obsession that things shouldn’t be allowed to cast shadows on other things, as a general rule.

It’s just strange.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-supervisors-...

In the USA. For interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light . The second last paragraph comments on SF.

Very interesting. The concept has been soundly rejected in the US. Except for San Francisco.

How’s that working out?

I think NYC is king of sunlight regulation https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-manual/08_Shadows_2...

I mean actually read it. It basically says shadows don’t really matter much and you barely need to worry about them and then goes on to spell out in very clear detail what happens when they do matter so there don’t have to be moronic lawsuits every time someone wants to build a low rise apartment building.

I'm not sure I understand - https://sfplanning.org/resource/shadow-analysis-procedures-a...

40 feet, times of year, 20% shadow. make a model. At the surface level, they look similar to me. NYC has been doing that for a whole lot longer, I wouldn't doubt their planning department has a more refined process. But it's not like SF is alone in this kind of regulation.

My understanding is that NYC

* has smaller time requirements for sunlight; the planning requirements state that an area should have 4-6 hours of sunlight a day, whereas SF looks at if it gets any worse over any time period

* NYC only protects specific kinds of park uses for sunlight, so like sunlight is not material for a basketball court, for example.

Not sure who you think you’re arguing with

The inclusion of a solar-study to prove adherence to shadow regulation is a standard part of most types of development applications, not just in the USA but around the world. This kind of build out is regulated for many reasons: property damage, aesthetics, health, and with a renewed focus: energy use. This includes casting shadows over one’s own property.

That’s definitely a thing in other cities.

It's a thing in Tokyo as well, leading to some interesting building shapes.

https://thetokyofilesurbandesign.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/ja...

There was a case in Oregon, I think a couple decades ago, where an Indian tribe built a longhouse in town then tried to prevent construction of any building that might cast a shadow on it. I don't remember whether they aimed at the courts or city council, or how it turned out.

We have this in Austin too. Also the capitol view corridor, an inverted system protecting sightlines to the capitol building

Why is it strange? Sunlight is an extremely valuable asset, both physically and mentally. I actually find the opposite mindset (that sunlight doesn't matter) really strange.

I mean of course it matters.

But it definitely ain’t a valuable asset, it falls on pretty much the entire planet, excepting the infinitesimally small portions that are directly next to tall buildings. Even Ireland and Seattle from time to time.

But either way, the link I posted is about San Fransciso not approving a low rise apartment because it could cast a shadow on a basketball court for a few hours A YEAR, which is, in fact, insane in an urban housing crisis context.

Those in Plato's cave don't value sunlight either.