Regardless, when completed this will be A. very sought after housing and B. one of the great urban success stories of recent times. Ambitious and thankfully though snobby at times, SF tends to get nuanced issues that other cities might be ignorant to.
|
Quote:
The place is cold, windy and an access nightmare. Unless some way is created to get to and from the island by rapid transit and/or car that is independent of Bay Bridge traffic (even a 24 hour ferry isn't good enough), I personally would never want to live there and I have trouble imagining others would and certainly that they would pay a premium to do so. |
Quote:
I'm not sure I believe much development is going to happen there this quickly either, but maybe . . . . |
New View of the Treasure Island Skyline I found at http://www.sftreasureisland.org/index.aspx?page=26
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/...0e070e20_o.png |
From: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2010/0...island_eir.php
Quote:
Some images I found in the EIR Documents http://www.sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=1828 http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/...be362ff4_b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4076/...45d671c2_b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4079/...0beff236_b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/...080a24cd_b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4138/...c0027e4a_b.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/...82037d94_b.jpg |
Thanks for pulling those out! I haven't taken the time to even download those docs yet. Those first two are really interesting. I haven't really thought about how this will all look from either the bridge or TI Rd, just from the city. Driving along the causeway will provide quite an impressive sight.
|
Treasure Island: ambitious plan for development
April 17, 2011 Read More: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNHE1IJT3A.DTL Quote:
|
I am interested to see what happens tonight with this.
|
I posted this on the "City Compilations" thread, but I'll also stick it here. It's shows the updated images and plans for T.I. The most obvious change is that the central tower has been reduced to 450ft. The adjacent towers have also been reduced in height. Other than that, things aren't drastically different.
The document:http://www.sftreasureisland.org/Modu...documentid=644 |
Sounds like it got approved!!! :)
"In a 4-3 vote the Planning Commission voted to approve the plan for the proposed $1.5 billion neighborhood on Treasure Island. Commissioners Bill Sugaya, Christina Olague and Kathrin Moore -- all appointed by the Board of Supervisors -- voted against the plan. The mayor's four appointees approved the plan. At the same meeting, the Treasure Island Authority - a separate oversight board - unanimously approved the plan. The development has been in the works since 1997 when the Navy closed the base. The plans include 8,000 residential units, a 450-foot high-rise, robust transit and a vibrant shopping area, developers say. The three commissioners who opposed the plan said they worried it was poorly considered and would actually do more harm than good. They made special note of the recent cut of 400 affordable housing units, the governance of the development and the environmental impacts of adding 19,000 new residents to the island. But supporters noted that no project of this scale could be perfect and the current plan was the best to improve the aging 403-acre Navy base. "Twenty-five percent (affordable housing) is still better than zero percent, and no project is zero percent," said Commissioner Gwyneth Borden. The project will now head to the Board of Supervisors for final approval." Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...#ixzz1KGnaMfrT |
What are the chances of it getting through the supes? It passed with Planning Commission with the votes of the four Newson-appointed members. The three Board-appointed members voted against it.
|
Does anybody know how Chris Daly's successor is on these issues? I guess you can't be worse that Mr. Daly.
|
That is good news! Thanks for the update!
|
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
If Treasure Island is really redeveloped like they plan. They will NEED to build either another bridge/tunnel connecting it with the peninsula or some type of mass transit system that stops on the Island. Considering the major shipping channel that runs underneath the western span of the Bay Bridge to the Port of Oakland and the extreme clearance needed for those ships, it seems like a tunnel would be the best option but would also be really expensive. I would love to see a purely Muni Metro tunnel, but considering that they just barely secured funding for the North Beach line, it seems unlikely that that will happen in the near future. Either way, the Bay Bridge is already a nightmare when it comes to traffic, and adding 15,000 additional residents plus businesses would completely cripple the Bay Bridge and traffic would grind to a snail pace all day.
Here's hoping they build a light rail tunnel and extend the bicycle path bridge across the western span of the bridge. |
I think a frequent ferry service should be enough if it runs every 8 minutes during peak periods and every 15 minutes after that (every 30 minutes late-night).
If there is demand for a second Transbay tunnel, then we can talk about rail transit to Treasure Island. In the long term, I could also see a reallocation of lane space on the Bay Bridge, turning the lower deck into two tracks/three eastbound lanes, with the upper deck becoming three westbound lanes and two reversibles. |
They're only allowing the equivalent of about 9,000 cars to be located on the island (8,000 parking spots in housing, plus ~1000 in street/commercial/etc parking). That's a negligible amount for the bridge to handle, considering that most won't be used at the same time. There will already be an added toll to leave the island (it's free now), and that can always be adjusted upward if traffic becomes a problem.
My worry is that the plan has far, far, far too few residences to make the island self-sufficient for many things, and also too few to make the rapid ferry services a decent investment. The whole plan is just far too small, IMO, and I fear that even the relatively small transit investments being made will become money pits for Muni or whatever operator gets saddled with them (Golden Gate Transit for the ferries?). It would need to be 40-50,000+ units before we could even begin to talk about some type of bridge or tunnel, and even then that probably wouldn't be enough to make spending money on a tunnel smarter than spending it on Geary or a second Transbay tube south of the current one to go under Alameda and into Oakland from that direction. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.