SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[Stellar_Mass]

From a few nights ago. Repost.
https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/505/31423815710_4d69a44318_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PSPgC3)San Francisco (https://flic.kr/p/PSPgC3) by Jovan Nesbit (https://www.flickr.com/photos/143185754@N05/), on Flickr

[ozone]

Great shot. I knew SFT and Fremont would dramatically change the skyline but jeesh. Still shocking to see the major jump in height after so many years of a having a plateau.

[tech12]

Some people can't help from debating or playing the devil's advocate.

lol, I assume you're referring to me?

If so, all i did was refute your weird claim that they took artistic liberties by including sunshine and deciduous trees in the rendering.

[pseudolus]

lol, I assume you're referring to me?

I thought he was referring to me.

[NYC2ATX]

Right? :runaway:

We are lucky though but he's NYC to Austin TX so he's seen lots of both too

I'm actually back in NYC for a bit now, but even though I don't post often, I have kept up with this site regularly for years and have visited San Francisco, and even the not-nice corners have some nice aspects, in my humble opinion. You have a very high net niceness. :haha::P:cheers:

[AndrewK]

Looks like demo has begun for 1554 Market St. This project:
http://www.handelarchitects.com/projects/project-main/-1554-market.html

[botoxic]

Awesome aerial - I count nine projects under construction plus two more sites going through the approval phase.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0vPPctWQAAInue.jpg:large
@SkyIMD (https://twitter.com/SkyIMD) on Twitter (https://twitter.com/SkyIMD/status/813972313947258880)

[botoxic]

Blurry, but definitely gives the sense that the center and focus of the skyline have shifted to SoMa:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0zOXTeUkAA8y2j.jpg
@barronlee (https://twitter.com/barronlee) on Twitter (https://twitter.com/barronlee/status/814252539260452864)

[fimiak]

Looks like demo has begun for 1554 Market St. This project:
http://www.handelarchitects.com/projects/project-main/-1554-market.html

http://i.imgur.com/jX0Mnpgl.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/oM2VqtVl.jpg

[Jerry of San Fran]

While I was in Poland last week a building disappeared! I'm glad to see the site finally being cleared for the new development. The block between Oak and Market Streets is getting a lot of new building in the next few years.

https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/774/31155632043_e24071f6a5_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Pt7KXH)1554 Market St. Demolition (https://flic.kr/p/Pt7KXH)

[chris08876]

Apologize if this has been posted before, but its the first time I'm seeing it (rendering that is). Browsing Foster and Partners and stumbled upon this. Tried going back several pages and didn't see it. Is this new rendering for Oceanwide Center?


http://www.fosterandpartners.com/media/2477253/img1.jpg
Credit: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/oceanwide-center/

[observatory]

[Originally posted by Chris] Apologize if this has been posted before, but its the first time I'm seeing it (rendering that is). Browsing Foster and Partners and stumbled upon this. Tried going back several pages and didn't see it. Is this new rendering for Oceanwide Center?


Yes it is. Isn't it awesome? Can't wait for this one to go up... :tup:

[timbad]

...

in case you missed it, the (historic (https://laughingsquid.com/dirty-harry-sudden-impact-then-now-in-san-francisco-go-ahead-make-my-latte/)) McDonald's at Third and Townsend is no more, about to make way for a new hotel (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2016/10/soma-mcdonalds-shuttered-eleven-story-hotel-to-soon-rise.html)

https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5471/30508033675_18310b385e_b.jpg
...

and, it's gone (this is from about a week ago)

https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5537/32045186275_3bb375fa8b_b.jpg

[sfbams]

Awesome aerial - I count nine projects under construction plus two more sites going through the approval phase.

@SkyIMD (https://twitter.com/SkyIMD) on Twitter (https://twitter.com/SkyIMD/status/813972313947258880)

I like this plan view, but some of the perspective look odd. For example, on the bottom left, the Chase building looks to be slanted in the opposite direction to the rest of the buildings around it. Is this a composite photo?

[SFView]

This model is intended to highlight Oceanwide Center, but shows much of what is to come in the main part of downtown San Francisco in the next few years. The model was completed before designs for Parcel F were released, so that building is missing.

Source: http://skyrisecities.com/news/2016/12/oceanwide-center-celebrates-ground-breaking-san-francisco

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SF%20Downtown%20North%20Model.jpg (http://s102.photobucket.com/user/mrayatsfo/media/SF%20Downtown%20North%20Model.jpg.html)

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SF%20Downtown%20South%20Model.jpg (http://s102.photobucket.com/user/mrayatsfo/media/SF%20Downtown%20North%20Model.jpg.html)

[emanon]

I like this plan view, but some of the perspective look odd. For example, on the bottom left, the Chase building looks to be slanted in the opposite direction to the rest of the buildings around it. Is this a composite photo?

Also, check out the vertical lines on the PG&E building.

[botoxic]

Happy new year! 2016 may have been disappointing in many ways, but San Francisco's skyline progress was not one of them. Here's to continued growth and more to anticipate in 2017!
https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/689/31973253181_4313ac19d1_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/QHnheT)
SF Skyline (https://flic.kr/p/QHnheT) by lycheng99 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lycheng99/), on Flickr

[Jerry of San Fran]

I saw a notice at 1500-1540 Market St. for a hearing on January 5th before the San Francisco Planning Dept. Below in part is from the department's calendar. This one will be exciting to see get built. Glad to see some movement on this!

1500-1540 MARKET STREET/ONE OAK STREET - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The approximately 18,375-square-foot project site (Assessor Block 0836, Lots: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005) (District 5) is located at the intersection of Market and Oak Streets at Van Ness Avenue in the C-3-G (Downtown Commercial, General) use district, the Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District, and is within a 120/400-R-2 Height and Bulk District. The project entails demolition of the site’s two existing buildings (at 1500 Market Street on Lot 1, currently accommodating convenience retail use; and 1540 Market Street on Lot 5, occupied by office use) and construction of a 310-unit, 40-story residential tower (to a height of 420 foot-tall, including rooftop mechanical equipment) with ground-floor commercial space, an off-street loading space, and subsurface parking garage with 155 spaces, resident bicycle parking in a second-floor mezzanine and bicycle parking for visitors in racks on adjacent sidewalks.

[OneRinconHill]

Where exactly in Oakland is this from?

Happy new year! 2016 may have been disappointing in many ways, but San Francisco's skyline progress was not one of them. Here's to continued growth and more to anticipate in 2017!
https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/689/31973253181_4313ac19d1_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/QHnheT)
SF Skyline (https://flic.kr/p/QHnheT) by lycheng99 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/lycheng99/), on Flickr

[botoxic]

Where exactly in Oakland is this from?
I didn't take the shot, but the flickr tags indicate it's near the Claremont Hotel in Berkeley.

[timbad]

somewhat at random...

the shroud has come off the building on Folsom across from Mosso, at Fifth

https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/360/31366147173_53384cd00d_b.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/596/31366150633_3a71888336_b.jpg

I'd forgotten about this one on Tenth

https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/591/32138351346_1f687c01b7_b.jpg

https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/729/32138354526_abd1154ef9_b.jpg

South Park has gotten green again, but not open yet

https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/612/31366189833_44c6028e64_b.jpg

at the Schlage Lock site, some heavy equipment has moved on site and I noticed some digging, but this is all still prep - construction of the housing is supposed to start next year

https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5563/32138458166_3660bddaa5_b.jpg

https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/527/32138456686_e510cc8ea2_b.jpg

at 100 Hooper they've mostly pulverized the former concrete platform that the old storage containers sat on

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5578/32138486036_b1500fe512_b.jpg

rebar sprouting at the office building on Townsend near Sixth

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5681/32028413212_b5a1680ab9_b.jpg

the one on Market and 15th and Sanchez and it seems like three or four other streets at that intersection

https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/268/31261385813_e4dfcb49ec_b.jpg

https://c6.staticflickr.com/1/738/31261383733_106362a9a1_b.jpg

the step-down portion of that one

https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/675/31261387683_a5e711d764_b.jpg

the SE corner of 55 Laguna, which I surprised to see was still being worked on

https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/339/31230502524_cccb2b07bf_b.jpg

sidewalk is open on Laguna, but again, still work going on

https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/685/31230501254_9599bef5aa_b.jpg

looking back south. at least some of the retail locations seemed open; I noticed services for LGBT seniors, who make up the population of part of the development

https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/594/31230499444_64193e7f16_b.jpg

I'd been hoping to see some indication of work starting on the final building, which would be in the foreground here, but no

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5565/31923631732_bbca942653_b.jpg

and I can't get enough of this view; such a nice job they did on this

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5646/31923630672_6b816053f5_b.jpg

the one at Hayes and Laguna

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/356/31230523944_df32b42647_b.jpg

and that perplexing one at Hayes and Fulton has at least been covered up again

https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5594/31230520614_bee961caee_b.jpg

[viewguysf]

Don't worry. There are plenty of corners (~90%?) that are "not quite so beautiful" that don't make it into the tourist photos.

I just returned from being away for over a month, visiting nine countries in Central and South America. 90%?!? That's a gross overstatement because we truly live in one of the world's most beautiful cities. You can go through block after block in residential areas here and marvel at the architecture.

My comment is based upon extensive travel elsewhere too. I'm not one who puts down everywhere else, but let's realize the jewel (including the Bay Area) that we have.

[cv94117]

I'd been hoping to see some indication of work starting on the final building, which would be in the foreground here, but no

https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5565/31923631732_bbca942653_b.jpg

I've heard that the final building is slated to break ground this summer. Timing determined by the Mayor's office - something to do with scheduling of funding for city-funded affordable housing projects.

[Austinlee]

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/austindaniel/To%20post%20on%20SSP%20pics/The%20San%20Francisco%20residential%20hillside%20skyline_zpsqqge5udq.jpg

[viewguysf]

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

No new towers could be built on Russian Hill today!

[tech12]

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/austindaniel/To%20post%20on%20SSP%20pics/The%20San%20Francisco%20residential%20hillside%20skyline_zpsqqge5udq.jpg

NIMBYs didn't really organize and get height limits passed until after the skyscraper boom of the 1970s. Those buildings were all built before then. Of the five tallest ones, three are from the 1960s, and two are from the 1920s.

[Pedestrian]

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/austindaniel/To%20post%20on%20SSP%20pics/The%20San%20Francisco%20residential%20hillside%20skyline_zpsqqge5udq.jpg

San Francisco planning dogma says that the tallest structures should be located at the top of hills to emphasize rather than obscure the terrain (hills).

The buildings in the photo are from an earlier generation but those on Rincon Hill are the current manifestation of the policy.

[Austinlee]

Ok. I was wondering if it was a matter of them being built before a certain time period. And that seems to be the case.

[Pedestrian]

Ok. I was wondering if it was a matter of them being built before a certain time period. And that seems to be the case.

Not necessarily. The reason that Russian Hill would be an unlikely site for towers today has more to do with the fact that before the towers it was a viable, historic, low-rise neighborhood whereas Rincon Hill, which I mentioned, really wasn't. NIMBYism SF-style has its most success preserving long-time residential areas, preferably with pre-1906 structures throughout. It is less successful with areas that are industrial/commercial (hence no organized residents to fight for preservation of the status quo) and that have mainly post WW II development. But it isn't usually about terrain or skyline prominence (pro or con) except as that causes significant shaddowing of public open space (banned).

[Austinlee]

Not necessarily. The reason that Russian Hill would be an unlikely site for towers today has more to do with the fact that before the towers it was a viable, historic, low-rise neighborhood whereas Rincon Hill, which I mentioned, really wasn't. NIMBYism SF-style has its most success preserving long-time residential areas, preferably with pre-1906 structures throughout. It is less successful with areas that are industrial/commercial (hence no organized residents to fight for preservation of the status quo) and that have mainly post WW II development. But it isn't usually about terrain or skyline prominence (pro or con) except as that causes significant shaddowing of public open space (banned).

Isn't Rincon Hill downtown & part of the CBD?

[Pedestrian]

Isn't Rincon Hill downtown & part of the CBD?

Not really. Until the 1990s, "downtown" San Francisco meant the retail shopping district around Union Square, the Financial District centered on Montgomery Street (sometimes called "the Wall Street of the West") and the area between these and the Embarcadero. Officially, I think the Tenderloin was considered "downtown" also by the city if not by all residents (these neighborhood limits and designations are a thing San Franciscans like to argue over almost as much as where to et the best latte/burrito/sourdough/sushi etc etc). All of these are north of Market St. In the development cycle that coincided with the "dot-com" boom, a Financial District South began to develop along Mission St. east of 3rd or so and also a new highrise residential (apartments and hotels) area around the Yerba Buena Redevelopment District (Mission to FolsomHoward/3rd to 4th). Most of us began to think of these areas as part of "downtown".

But Rincon Hill was/is several blocks further south and was, until the construction of One Rincon Hill's first and tallest tower, largely old, ignored and low rise (although a couple 9-15 floor residential buildings had begun to encroach on the hill). Basically, it was an area you passed and hardly noticed when crossing the Bay Bridge--there was no reason to go there unless you lived in one of the buildings mentioned and it made no particular impact on the skyline. The freeways loop around it in the center of this photo (I think from the 1980s--certainly pre-1989):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/I-480_Junction.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincon_Hill,_San_Francisco#/media/File:I-480_Junction.jpg

[tech12]

Isn't Rincon Hill downtown & part of the CBD?

Yes.

Not really. Until the 1990s, "downtown" San Francisco meant the retail shopping district around Union Square, the Financial District centered on Montgomery Street (sometimes called "the Wall Street of the West") and the area between these and the Embarcadero. Officially, I think the Tenderloin was considered "downtown" also by the city if not by all residents

Uh, 1990 was 27 years ago dude. Rincon hill is definitely a part of downtown nowadays.

[Pedestrian]

Yes.



Uh, 1990 was 27 years ago dude. Rincon hill is definitely a part of downtown nowadays.

Uh, stop coding "dude" and learn how the city evolved. Rincon Hill only became downtown, if you wish to think of it as that, coincident with and as a result of the highrise development there, most of which is just now winding up. It's a very recent thing.

In any case, it is NOT and never was part of the "CBD". There is no business there. The new towers are all residential and even the service/retai storefronts meant to line Folsom have yet to take shape. It's more like a highrise suburb than part of the "central business district".

PS: I'm guessing 27 years is twice your lifetime so it does seem a long time.

[mt_climber13]

Lucas Museum to LA (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/No-Lucas-museum-for-San-Francisco-Los-Angeles-10848675.php)

[coyotetrickster]

Lucas Museum to LA (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/No-Lucas-museum-for-San-Francisco-Los-Angeles-10848675.php)


Ed Lee was the only San Franciscan who wanted Lucas' museum. We already rejected it the other year.

[tech12]

Uh, stop coding "dude" and learn how the city evolved. Rincon Hill only became downtown, if you wish to think of it as that, coincident with and as a result of the highrise development there, most of which is just now winding up. It's a very recent thing.

In any case, it is NOT and never was part of the "CBD". There is no business there. The new towers are all residential and even the service/retai storefronts meant to line Folsom have yet to take shape. It's more like a highrise suburb than part of the "central business district".

PS: I'm guessing 27 years is twice your lifetime so it does seem a long time.

The guy asked of rincon hill is a part of downtown now, not 27 years ago, dude (lol, coding? What the hell are you talking about?). You said no, which is wrong. It may not be full of office buildings, but it sure as hell is downtown.

And because you were wondering, i've been alive longer than 27 years (and spent 28 years living in SF), and know all about the history of SF's development, including rincon hill, which has been seeing new highrise construction for almost two decades at this point.

[pizzaguy]

Edit

[homebucket]

Let's get back on topic.

So anyone really care that the Lucas Museum is going to LA? I personally don't think it's much of a loss, aside from the loss of jobs from construction. I kind of like TI the way it is, an isolated tranquil foil to the urban jungle of SF. From what it sounds like, the area it's being built in in LA is going to benefit and grow much more from it than TI could have. We need to our precious, dwindling free space more wisely.

[SLO]

Let's get back on topic.

So anyone really care that the Lucas Museum is going to LA? I personally don't think it's much of a loss, aside from the loss of jobs from construction. I kind of like TI the way it is, an isolated tranquil foil to the urban jungle of SF. From what it sounds like, the area it's being built in in LA is going to benefit and grow much more from it than TI could have. We need to our precious, dwindling free space more wisely.

It would have been really cool on Treasure Island, just another attraction for the City.

[mt_climber13]

While they're at it, send the whole Lucas Digital Arts studio down there too. Cause f*** it!

[Justbuildit]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/I-480_Junction.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincon_Hill,_San_Francisco#/media/File:I-480_Junction.jpg[/QUOTE]

Anyone here wish they never demolished the Embarcadero Freeway? Personally I wish it was still there and was eventually connected with the Golden Gate Bridge. Will they ever build a freeway through the city to the Golden Gate? I guess SF is more of a destination city, not a city you drive through like Oakland.

[ChargerCarl]

Anyone here wish they never demolished the Embarcadero Freeway? Personally I wish it was still there and was eventually connected with the Golden Gate Bridge. Will they ever build a freeway through the city to the Golden Gate?

This is a troll post right?

[coyotetrickster]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/I-480_Junction.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincon_Hill,_San_Francisco#/media/File:I-480_Junction.jpg

Anyone here wish they never demolished the Embarcadero Freeway? Personally I wish it was still there and was eventually connected with the Golden Gate Bridge. Will they ever build a freeway through the city to the Golden Gate? I guess SF is more of a destination city, not a city you drive through like Oakland.[/QUOTE]

Everyone in SF, except Rose Pak, was delirious with joy when the Embarcadero Freeway was demolished. No one misses it. There will never be a x-SF Freeway to the bridge. The city proposed such a beast in the 50s and it was rejected wholesale.

[ozone]

Have you even been to San Francisco Justbuildit? I remember the Embarcadero Freeway. If you'd been around then I doubt you would have made that statement. The only thing the freeway made better was the Vaillancourt Fountain @ Herman Plaza. There was something cool about the way the big ugly fountain juxtaposed with the big ugly freeway overhead. But I'll take the unobstructed view of the of the Ferry Building, open waterfront, sunshine, palm trees, etc. over that any day. Freeway expansion in San Francisco is unnecessary since it's on the edge of the Continent and there's no traffic passing through to get somewhere else. Somehow people have been finding their way across the Golden Gate Bridge without the aid of a massive freeway for 79 years.

[emanon]

But the best views were from the freeway! Yes, I do miss driving on the Embarcadero Freeway.

Your comment about the "edge of a continent" is specious. Lot's of demand for north/south travel through SF.

[ChargerCarl]

But the best views were from the freeway! Yes, I do miss driving on the Embarcadero Freeway.

Your comment about the "edge of a continent" is specious. Lot's of demand for north/south travel through SF.

That land is more efficiently used as urban space.

[ozone]

But the best views were from the freeway! Yes, I do miss driving on the Embarcadero Freeway.

Your comment about the "edge of a continent" is specious. Lot's of demand for north/south travel through SF.

Ha-ha hardly think my comment was specious. Maybe in the myopic world of Bay Area micro-realities it seems so but there's not in fact 'Lot's of demand" for N-S traffic through San Francisco. Go compare the traffic numbers and patterns of other California cities before you reply. There's no reason to build a freeway to the Golden Gate Bridge. If you are arguing with that.. good luck.

[mt_climber13]

Have you even been to San Francisco Justbuildit? I remember the Embarcadero Freeway. If you'd been around then I doubt you would have made that statement. The only thing the freeway made better was the Vaillancourt Fountain @ Herman Plaza. There was something cool about the way the big ugly fountain juxtaposed with the big ugly freeway overhead. But I'll take the unobstructed view of the of the Ferry Building, open waterfront, sunshine, palm trees, etc. over that any day. Freeway expansion in San Francisco is unnecessary since it's on the edge of the Continent and there's no traffic passing through to get somewhere else. Somehow people have been finding their way across the Golden Gate Bridge without the aid of a massive freeway for 79 years.

Seeing as how the Bay Bridge is one of the busiest bridges in the country, not even including Golden Gate Bridge traffic, your comment is non- sensical.

Ever been down 19th ave? A freeway (whether it be underground or above ground) would do a lot for the traffic congestion that backs up the entire peninsula. 19th ave. is the deadliest street in SF for pedestrians because of this. Freeways, when constructed intelligently, are not inherently bad.

[ChargerCarl]

Seeing as how the Bay Bridge is one of the busiest bridges in the country, not even including Golden Gate Bridge traffic, your comment is non- sensical.

Ever been down 19th ave? A freeway (whether it be underground or above ground) would do a lot for the traffic congestion that backs up the entire peninsula. 19th ave. is the deadliest street in SF for pedestrians because of this. Freeways, when constructed intelligently, are not inherently bad.

So what? There's lots of demand to travel through manhattan as well, but it's still not an efficient use of resources to build a freeway running through it.

[ozone]

This conversation is dumb. No new freeways are going to be built so why argue about something that's never going to happen?

[POLA]

This is a troll post right?

Yes, stop feeding the troll/assholes.

[botoxic]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/744/32126298062_e71c1a03e0_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/QWTF9J)
On San Francisco Bay in mid January (https://flic.kr/p/QWTF9J) by Jake Dear (https://www.flickr.com/photos/jdear227/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/670/31463594073_094275f4fd_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PWk9kT)
Look down Market towards Embarcadero (https://flic.kr/p/PWk9kT) by LLux Operon (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tenover6/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/267/31413431354_4a14bbcfd1_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PRU3Hq)
Good Morning San Francisco (https://flic.kr/p/PRU3Hq) by Rex Montalban (https://www.flickr.com/photos/rexmontalban/), on Flickr

[emanon]

Yes, stop feeding the troll/assholes.

So those of us with an opinion different from yours are assholes? You're channeling trump.

[emanon]

Ha-ha hardly think my comment was specious. Maybe in the myopic world of Bay Area micro-realities it seems so but there's not in fact 'Lot's of demand" for N-S traffic through San Francisco. Go compare the traffic numbers and patterns of other California cities before you reply. There's no reason to build a freeway to the Golden Gate Bridge. If you are arguing with that.. good luck.

Read my post again. Where did I advocate for building more freeways?

"myopic world of Bay Area micro-realities"? What does that even mean?

If you're calling for stats about travel patterns in other cities, where are yours to prove your point?

[pizzaguy]

So those of us with an opinion different from yours are assholes? You're channeling trump.

jbi has been trolling the SF threads for awhile. He should've been banned by now

[viewguysf]

jbi has been trolling the SF threads for awhile. He should've been banned by now

He has trolled other threads (i.e. LA) too. Ignore him and his juvenile mind.

[NOPA]

I do think a tunnel under Divisadero between Lombard(ish) and California would be helpful for North-South travel. Driving over Pac Heights is just awful. Obviously a muni line is not going to happen. Although I doubt you could ever get a tunnel approved.

[edwards]

1/14/17

http://i.imgur.com/jEmYMemh.jpg (http://imgur.com/a/j1ZD2)

[botoxic]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2KGGqYVEAACshH.jpg
@trondw (https://twitter.com/trondw) on Twitter (https://twitter.com/trondw/status/820365548978454528)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2JoC0PUcAAJ5DU.jpg:large
@Benioff (https://twitter.com/Benioff) on Twitter (https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/820332481652015104)

[fimiak]

The west facing side of 181 Fremont (side with the red crane) in the picture above is spectacular. It is like the inverse of the South side, a dark frame and light windows. It is going to look so good. I can't believe SF is getting these amazing buildings all at once.

[timbad]

framework starting to go up on TransBay block ?6, the block just to the north of Solaire

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/634/31518590204_6a1683b0e2_b.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5595/31984116290_0aee6c7a18_b.jpg

a while back we talked about how the lobby of 350 Mission had been boarded up almost since the building opened. boards are down again, and fancy video screen is in operation:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/770/31984119250_8ba0b0ff27_b.jpg

some of the sidewalk-level fencing is down at 6x6 on Market

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5605/32240837401_ca7b2c51c1_b.jpg

close-up of entry

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/466/31984046790_bce4a24ce9_b.jpg

the replacement for the adult theater on Market is progressing (peeking through its back fence on Stevenson)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/433/32210961162_35323daa47_b.jpg

[plutonicpanda]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/I-480_Junction.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincon_Hill,_San_Francisco#/media/File:I-480_Junction.jpg

Anyone here wish they never demolished the Embarcadero Freeway? Personally I wish it was still there and was eventually connected with the Golden Gate Bridge. Will they ever build a freeway through the city to the Golden Gate? I guess SF is more of a destination city, not a city you drive through like Oakland.[/QUOTE]
I wish it were still there.

[mt_climber13]

Wow look how comparatively puny the skyline was then. And look near where Moscone is now, looks like blocks and blocks of surface parking lots. Definitely a different city back then, I can see why people around since the 70s and 80s would feel nostalgic and like the city is not the same as it was then.

I actually think Embarcadero freeway was cool, but I like freeways. I think 280 to 19th Ave to GG Bridge would be great for an interconnected elevated freeway. Big cities have big freeways. I remember the Central freeway and exiting off Fell st. Just had a more urban big city feel to it.

[fimiak]

I think they should bring back the Embarcadero freeway on the condition that they remove all public vehicles at ground level, exits are onto cross streets like Bay St and Broadway St. They will just keep a small two lane street that is only for emergency vehicles, a bike-way, and of course the E/F. Also the highway needs to be 'sculptural' and not an eyesore. :notacrook:

This is not going to pass anytime soon. It is simply not needed, and the money should rather be invested in another tunnel/bridge across the Bay.

[edwards]

They should've just moved it underground like the Alaskan Viaduct in Seattle.

[Pedestrian]

Anyone here wish they never demolished the Embarcadero Freeway? Personally I wish it was still there and was eventually connected with the Golden Gate Bridge. Will they ever build a freeway through the city to the Golden Gate? I guess SF is more of a destination city, not a city you drive through like Oakland.
I wish it were still there.[/QUOTE]

Will they ever build a freeway through the city? If they have a division of army troops to guard the construction maybe.

This was the original freeway plan as proposed:

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2013/08/1948-San-Francisco-Highway-Plan-908x1024.jpg
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/08/01/what-would-san-francisco-have-looked-like-without-the-freeway-revolt/

The citizens of the city took a look at the result of the beginning of the implementation of the plan and said, "No way!".

As an Angelino, you may not appreciate what has happened in Hayes Valley or along the Embarcadero without the hulking freeways but it's nothing short of a renaissance. And vote to put the freeways back up would lose 95% to 5%.

[Pedestrian]

look near where Moscone is now, looks like blocks and blocks of surface parking lots. .

I remember these. This was a result of 1950/60s "urban renewal". Before that 3rd St. was San Francisco's "Skid Row". This is what it looked like before is was a parking lot before it was the "Yerba Buena Redevelopment Area" (of which Moscone is a part):

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/data/13030/wf/ft6j49p0wf/figures/ft6j49p0wf_00090.jpg
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49p0wf&chunk.id=d0e4619&toc.id=d0e4619&brand=ucpress

They bulldozed the area pending redevelopment.

[botoxic]

The new San Francisco - love the Rincon Hill tower reflection from Salesforce

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/662/32250196861_8d23dbdd40_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/R8QFWV)
All is golden at 7am (https://flic.kr/p/R8QFWV) by bacalao (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bacalao/), on Flickr

[Car(e)-Free LA]

As someone who neither lives in San Francisco nor owns a car, I think SF would do well to construct a few new freeways to get a system that looks like this:
https://s23.postimg.org/d59uf6h8r/image.png
First off, it would ensure that all traffic that flows through San Francisco stays off city streets. This could be strongly encouraged by tolling everybody who exits the freeway into San Francisco. Furthermore, it would provide direct freeway access from all entrances to San Francisco to the Transbay Terminal, so busses from other counties wouldn't have to use city streets. Also, it would allow the narrowing and improving of Lombard St, Park Presidio Blvd, and 19th Ave.

Secondly, most new construction is either bored under existing neighborhoods or cut and cover, with the opportunity of new development/parks above through parks and low density neighborhoods. It also allows the removal of many redundant, above ground segments of freeway.

While I'm playing God, I would phase construction like this:
1. Remove the 280 from Mission Bay to the 101. Leave ramps intact for Southern Crossing.
2. Build cut and cover tunnel from 4th St./I-80 to 20th St./US 101. Then remove all the in between freeway and the central freeway stub and redevelop.
3. Build the tunnel project from the Golden Gate bridge, with ramps around Sloat Blvd for future eastward freeway.
4. Build the Tunnel from Mission St./I-280 to the aforementioned ramps. Then remove all of the 280 between Mission St. and Daly City and redevelop.
5. Build Southern Crossing (someday.) Be sure to include BART on it, probably starting at Fisherman's Wharf and following Van Ness to Caesar Chavez before bending southeast.

[coyotetrickster]

As someone who neither lives in San Francisco nor owns a car, I think SF would do well to construct a few new freeways to get a system that looks like this:
https://s23.postimg.org/d59uf6h8r/image.png
First off, it would ensure that all traffic that flows through San Francisco stays off city streets. This could be strongly encouraged by tolling everybody who exits the freeway into San Francisco. Furthermore, it would provide direct freeway access from all entrances to San Francisco to the Transbay Terminal, so busses from other counties wouldn't have to use city streets. Also, it would allow the narrowing and improving of Lombard St, Park Presidio Blvd, and 19th Ave.

Secondly, most new construction is either bored under existing neighborhoods or cut and cover, with the opportunity of new development/parks above through parks and low density neighborhoods. It also allows the removal of many redundant, above ground segments of freeway.

While I'm playing God, I would phase construction like this:
1. Remove the 280 from Mission Bay to the 101. Leave ramps intact for Southern Crossing.
2. Build cut and cover tunnel from 4th St./I-80 to 20th St./US 101. Then remove all the in between freeway and the central freeway stub and redevelop.
3. Build the tunnel project from the Golden Gate bridge, with ramps around Sloat Blvd for future eastward freeway.
4. Build the Tunnel from Mission St./I-280 to the aforementioned ramps. Then remove all of the 280 between Mission St. and Daly City and redevelop.
5. Build Southern Crossing (someday.) Be sure to include BART on it, probably starting at Fisherman's Wharf and following Van Ness to Caesar Chavez before bending southeast.

We heartily reject your advice. First, we do toll folks who come into the city over the Bridges. Those fees do not go to the city itself, but do go for bridge maintenance. The MTA is already looking at a new BART tube to come in from Alameda to support a new eastern subway route down to the massive Genentech campus/Oyster Point biotech center.

The Southern Crossing will never be built. and there will never be any freeways on the westside. The sheer wealth of the the neighborhoods that would be impacted is sufficient to litigate CalTrans for several decades.

[timbad]

I remember these. This was a result of 1950/60s "urban renewal". Before that 3rd St. was San Francisco's "Skid Row". ...

They bulldozed the area pending redevelopment.

... and the reason it sat like that for so long was because people stood up and demanded that the City give something back to the public after it razed the area and displaced those living there. so we got Yerba Buena Gardens and some low-income and senior housing along with the convention center and commercial stuff, instead of this:

https://boomcaliforniablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/boom.2013.3.4.46-f09.jpg?w=1000&h=996 source (https://boomcalifornia.com/2014/03/11/counterfactual-constructions/)

there are some good pics here (http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=LABOR_%26_YERBA_BUENA_CENTER) and a nice concise history here (http://yerbabuenagardens.com/history/).

[ozone]

^^^^ Thank the gods that we didn't end up with this oppressive chunk of soul-crushing Brutalism!

[coyotetrickster]

Well, if you ask me, the current Mexican Art Museum tower looks similar to the high rise in the back ground...

[ozone]

Well, if you ask me, the current Mexican Art Museum tower looks similar to the high rise in the back ground...

It looks like that tower is on Market Street, about where the Four Seasons is today, doesn't it? Aside from the fact they are both tall I honestly don't see the similarities. And unlike the old TBC model the upcoming MAM Tower will overlook a park/garden.

Are those huge block-long parking garages in the center? Ugh.

[homebucket]

View from Hunters Point.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/301/32107351910_e3df5f7830_o.jpg
Source: Me

[minesweeper]

Demolition of the old buildings is complete and excavation is underway for a 12-story, 109 unit building (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/06/modern-mid-market-development-aiming-for-spring-2017-opening.html) at 1546-1564 Market Street near Van Ness:

https://i.imgur.com/jLdNgORh.jpg

The new building will eventually be adjacent (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/11/refined-designs-and-renderings-for-prominent-mid-market-tower.html) to the One Oak tower.

[plutonicpanda]

We heartily reject your advice. First, we do toll folks who come into the city over the Bridges. Those fees do not go to the city itself, but do go for bridge maintenance. The MTA is already looking at a new BART tube to come in from Alameda to support a new eastern subway route down to the massive Genentech campus/Oyster Point biotech center.

The Southern Crossing will never be built. and there will never be any freeways on the westside. The sheer wealth of the the neighborhoods that would be impacted is sufficient to litigate CalTrans for several decades.
Ironically enough, I'd be willing to bet those are also people who own cars and don't use mass transit. Out of all the people that live there, how many do you think use bus or train?

[mhays]

The people with cars manage to get by, don't they, without those freeways?

[CaliNative]

We heartily reject your advice. First, we do toll folks who come into the city over the Bridges. Those fees do not go to the city itself, but do go for bridge maintenance. The MTA is already looking at a new BART tube to come in from Alameda to support a new eastern subway route down to the massive Genentech campus/Oyster Point biotech center.

The Southern Crossing will never be built. and there will never be any freeways on the westside. The sheer wealth of the the neighborhoods that would be impacted is sufficient to litigate CalTrans for several decades.

Tearing down the Embarcadero Fwy. was the best thing SF did. If there must be any freeways, they must fit into the urban fabric, or be underground where feasible with parks and buildings on top. Saving 10 minutes (assuming a freeway moves full speed, which it usually doesn't) isn't worth destroying neighborhoods. L.A. is finally learning what SF knew 30 years ago.

[SFView]

We owe San Francisco's current success, beauty and charm to the minimized construction and the removal of existing freeways in the city. Only when it becomes clear that the need to construct a new freeway or bridge outweighs the costs, it may be seriously considered. Here is a little background on Frank Lloyd Wright's 1953 Butterfly Bay Bridge proposal:

http://sf.curbed.com/2012/11/6/10309514/frank-lloyd-wrights-other-bay-bridge

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Tearing down the Embarcadero Fwy. was the best thing SF did. If there must be any freeways, they must fit into the urban fabric, or be underground where feasible with parks and buildings on top. Saving 10 minutes (assuming a freeway moves full speed, which it usually doesn't) isn't worth destroying neighborhoods. L.A. is finally learning what SF knew 30 years ago.

Hey. I agree. I want LA to tear down some freeways and get rid of parking requirements and the Embarcadero Freeway was a horrible addition to the city. However, if you read what I suggested, I proposed tearing down 4 sections of freeway in the city, and building almost all the new construction underground. This also opens up the possibility of narrowing literally every SF street with more than 2 lanes per direction.

[coyotetrickster]

Hey. I agree. I want LA to tear down some freeways and get rid of parking requirements and the Embarcadero Freeway was a horrible addition to the city. However, if you read what I suggested, I proposed tearing down 4 sections of freeway in the city, and building almost all the new construction underground. This also opens up the possibility of narrowing literally every SF street with more than 2 lanes per direction.

I recognize you were proposing underground cuts. However, we've already addressed the 101/80 spur to Mission with Octavia Blvd. The traffic backup there is legendary and we'd like to keep it that way, too discourage car use. We are already discussing dropping 280 at the 101 split, or near the 22d street CalTrain Station similar to what we've done for Octavia Blvd. Dropping the 101/280 spurs south of Mission is an interesting idea. If that happens, we won't create any spurs for the Southern Crossing. That will never be built.

[Pedestrian]

^^The freeway system in SF, as it is, functions at a minimal level, doesn't really disrupt any neighborhoods, and should be left alone. This San Franciscan does NOT support encouraging freeways congestion to cut car use even though I don't keep a car in the city. I still travel out of the city in rental or Zip cars occasionally and the freeway traffic is worse and worse every year. Last fall when I left the city on a multi-day trip to anther state, the Bay Bridge ramps were all gridlocked even at midnight and I had to go south to San Jose and thence to I-5. This not only is frustrating for those who live in the city and who work there or otherwise must come and go, but it is catastrophic for commerce coming and going (and that includes most of the food we city dwellers eat).

So while I don't want to put up new neighborhood-destroying freeways, I don't think there are any more existing ones we can dispense with, and I voted to keep/repair the Central Freeway spur that used to exist all 3 times the issue was on the ballot. In retrospect, the Hayes Valley renaissance probably was worth losing the Central past Market St, but I predicted--at the community meetings that were held--that none of the proposed replacements inclduing the Octavia Blvd. would work all that well handling traffic and I think I've been proven right.

[Pedestrian]

Another Mid-Market housing project approved, boosting development wave
Jan 27, 2017, 1:24pm PST Updated Jan 27, 2017, 2:11pm PST
Roland Li
Reporter San Francisco Business Times

Developers Tidewater Capital and War Horse LLC received unanimous approval on Thursday from the San Francisco Planning Commission for a 13-story project at 1028 Market St. . . . .

Craig Young, founder and managing principal of San Francisco-based Tidewater Capital, expects construction to start by the end of the year. The project is expected to open around late 2019. The project's budget and general contractor haven't been finalized, he said. A city planning report estimated the construction costs to be $61 million . . . .

Thousands of housing units have been approved or are under construction in the Mid-Market area. At 1028 Market's immediate neighbor, 1066 Market St., Shorenstein Residential has approval for a 304-unit project 301-unit project. Shorenstein overcame an appeal after the developer agreed to buy a nearby site in the Tenderloin for affordable units.

Group I's 1095 Market St., which calls for 242 condos and 232 hotel rooms, was also approved in November, but advocates for an LGBTQ historic district have appealed the project to the Board of Supervisors. A vote is scheduled for next Tuesday. Developer Encore Capital Management is also developing a 90-unit condo building at 1075 Market St. The massive Trinity Place project is also under construction, with phase three adding 541 units.

But Mid-Market has also seen challenges, with a slew of restaurant closings. The new 230,000-square-foot 6x6 retail center and 42,000-square-foot redeveloped Hibernia Bank are also still seeking their first tenants.

The 1028 Market St. project includes 9,657 square feet of ground-floor retail space, which Young plans to lease to neighborhood-serving retailers. The project will include 25 affordable units, or 13 percent of the project, for renters making up to 55 percent of the area median income. The project also includes 40 underground parking spaces . . . .

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/screenshot_1003_zpsgzi89tty.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/screenshot_997_zpsfjrfate4.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/screenshot_998_zpsvqkmgohr.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/screenshot_1000_zps5mm3zyxp.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/screenshot_1001_zpspwekcakq.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/screenshot_1002_zpsogqslvuq.jpg


http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/01/27/186-unit-mid-market-housing-project-approved.html?ana=e_du_prem&s=article_du&ed=2017-01-27&u=kgyD14TZJI3FvbdA37c%2FluRxObP&t=1485559643&j=77214201#g1

[a very long weekend]

imo, the 280 should end at 18th/mariposa. there's just too much land there being burned past mariposa park to justify the small amount of time that it saves. we're going to have an epic problem once that basketball stadium opens and the freeway there will encourage the wrong sort of modeshare/traffic pattern.

[coyotetrickster]

imo, the 280 should end at 18th/mariposa. there's just too much land there being burned past mariposa park to justify the small amount of time that it saves. we're going to have an epic problem once that basketball stadium opens and the freeway there will encourage the wrong sort of modeshare/traffic pattern.

I don't think the exact drop point is clarified. They are looking at traffic projection patterns for several intersections. I also think they need to incorporate growth projections from the Central SOMA Overlay/Upzoning. There is a lot of street restoration that could take place were the spur to drop near Mariposa. Even more if it dropped at Cesar Chavez.

[mdsayh1]

So does anyone know where the highest public accessible observation deck is in SF? I mean in or on a building. Not on top of Twin Peaks. Is it Coit tower?

[a very long weekend]

^ probably top of the mark. if you head there, be sure to pop into the tonga room for a zombie.

@ coyote trickster - pulling the 280 back to cesar chavez would be great if we had anything like a plan to upzone the surrounding areas. i'd love to see a shinjuku level of development go in there, believe me. the thing is that we have to be realistic - the people on potrero hill will do anything possible not to lose this freeway to new construction.

also, a super crucial piece of infrastructure going forward will be some form of shuttle or, in a fantasy world, dedicated lane BRT or even LRT down 16th between third and market. great links connecting castro station to 16th street bart to mission bay will be obvious. to make this work, the absolute minimum the freeway should be pulled back to would be mariposa park. you're right that traffic studies should determine exactly where it is, if that's even too close.

[L.ARCH]

The sales center for Lumina was demolished over the weekend. Guess this means 100 Folsom is about to begin?

[observatory]

The sales center for Lumina was demolished over the weekend. Guess this means 100 Folsom is about to begin?


YES!!! I LOVE the design of this building. Wish it could be as tall as the old BofA Building (but at that height, maybe not as close to the Bay).

[viewguysf]

The sales center for Lumina was demolished over the weekend. Guess this means 100 Folsom is about to begin?

That project has its own thread.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=212226&page=3

[edwards]

So does anyone know where the highest public accessible observation deck is in SF? I mean in or on a building. Not on top of Twin Peaks. Is it Coit tower?

The View Lounge (http://www.sfviewlounge.com)?

[botoxic]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/550/31735521104_9496acbf8f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/QmmQLY)
On the roof deck for some fresh air. It's pretty and nice out. Also, so many cranes! (https://flic.kr/p/QmmQLY) by Elizabeth K. Joseph (https://www.flickr.com/photos/pleia2/), on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/622/32558626975_bfa6c4a325_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/RB6ttv)
Had a nice flight around San Francisco during take off! #aerial (https://flic.kr/p/RB6ttv) by Eric Cheng (https://www.flickr.com/photos/echeng/), on Flickr

[Pedestrian]

It's driving me crazy that the spire on 181 Fremont looks like it's tilted outward from the center of the tower axis. It's an optical illusion because of the shape of the thing but it still looks that way. :shrug:

[plutonicpanda]

The people with cars manage to get by, don't they, without those freeways?
Anecdote. . . I can say the same thing about people in cars managing to get by without mass transit and even better by having a more direct means of transportation to their destination.

[plutonicpanda]

Tearing down the Embarcadero Fwy. was the best thing SF did. If there must be any freeways, they must fit into the urban fabric, or be underground where feasible with parks and buildings on top. Saving 10 minutes (assuming a freeway moves full speed, which it usually doesn't) isn't worth destroying neighborhoods. L.A. is finally learning what SF knew 30 years ago.
Seeing that Los Angeles has the biggest economy in California, I don't think the city has much to learn from San Francisco. Look SF is my favorite city. I love San Francisco. If I was God, sure, I'd build a new network of freeways in SF and the Bay Area, but I'm not and it obviously isn't going to happen. Too expensive and too many people who don't want freeways for very different reasons than people on here.

Also, about L.A. learning from SF: what are you referring to? L.A. has no plans to demolish any freeways. Plans for several new freeways around the LA area are planned. So what are referring to? Mass transit? If so, while SF has a great mass transit system in terms of how expansive it is in the core, yes, but how it has been maintained?. . . apparently not! Two different cities and different culture.

Edit: this will be my last post on this issue as I don't want to detract from the lovely updates that are being posted in San Francisco. I can certainly understand why you don't want freeways living in SanFran.

[ChargerCarl]

If so, while SF has a great mass transit system in terms of how expansive it is in the core,

Really? I think this is where it's weakest. The Bay Area has way too much transit infrastructure serving low density suburban areas in the boonies and not nearly enough serving potential high ridership corridors in SF/Oakland/Berkeley. And now we're going to extend it even further to San Jose.

I mean, my God, Geary doesn't even have a subway and is only now just getting BRT.

(I apologize if you guys don't want Bay Area transit discussions in this thread.)

[plutonicpanda]

Really? I think this is where it's weakest. The Bay Area has way too much transit infrastructure serving low density suburban areas in the boonies and not nearly enough serving potential high ridership corridors in SF/Oakland/Berkeley. And now we're going to extend it even further to San Jose.

I mean, my God, Geary doesn't even have a subway and is only now just getting BRT.

(I apologize if you guys don't want Bay Area transit discussions in this thread.)
Keep this in mind, I have yet to travel to European cities with great mass transit systems, so I only say that from my point of view.

[tech12]

Really? I think this is where it's weakest.

Except it's undoubtedly where it's the strongest, overall. SF city-proper has some of the most impressive transit coverage of any American city, and Oakland is no slouch either, though it's not in the same league as SF.

Though if you never ride the bus, and only consider trains to be "proper" public transit, i could see how you might come to the conclusion that coverage in the core sucks (i agree that for trains it does kinda suck, though it still is good by US standards).

The Bay Area has way too much transit infrastructure serving low density suburban areas in the boonies and not nearly enough serving potential high ridership corridors in SF/Oakland/Berkeley. And now we're going to extend it even further to San Jose.

I mean, my God, Geary doesn't even have a subway and is only now just getting BRT.

(I apologize if you guys don't want Bay Area transit discussions in this thread.)

Yeah, there should be more BART/Muni metro coverage in the core. Geary needs a subway yesterday, as does Van Ness and maybe 19th ave.

But dude...San Jose is one of the three major cities in the Bay Area, and BART is going to be serving the densest part of the city. BART to SJ is a good thing, and I'm not sure why you're throwing SJ into the same bucket as the suburbs.

[fimiak]

Today.
http://i.imgur.com/EErbV0ql.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/faVXuial.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/jqosudRl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/FzhEd2Yl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/sFKAsbQl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/4k13KrLl.jpg
Look for the trees on Transbay Center!