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

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by timbad

freeways need to be removed as far as possible from urban areas. transit needs to be expanded AND prioritized over auto use. for the time being, this would just mean starting to balance the unequal situation that has existed, as LP mentions, so that everyone can use the streets.

You might be right if the only purpose of freeways in urban areas was to get city residents from one part of town to another but that's the least of their purposes. Everything we eat and buy in the city comes into it on a freeway and whenever those of us who live in the city want to leave and return we need a route to do so. So there has to be freeways that come into the city and go out from it. Transit does not take anyone to the Russian River or the Sierra or Carmel nor does it bring fresh produce or anything else to us. And there are even people like I used to be who commute, not into the city but out of it to a place where I once tried to get on transit: a 25 minute trip by car took over 2 hours on BART and AC Transit.

Once again I will say that the important question is how the traffic leading to the freeway routes into and out of town is routed because what we have now in some cases is very heavy traffic leading to and from the stumps of freeways that impedes not only people trying to get to and from th freeway itself but also people having no intention of using the freeway. I get on I-80/101 maybe twice a year but as it is I still must contend with near gridlock if I want to take Gough to Valencia to go to dinner in the Mission (which is true whether I'm on my scooter or in an Uber or taxi or even a Muni bus on Van Ness). There is no way around the fact this condition is worse since the Central Freeway came down. In that case, I will agree with the argument that the renaissance of Hayes Valley made it worth enduring the traffic, but each case is different and I do not think further truncation the Central would be worth the cost.

And I strongly disagree that funneling all the traffic coming up 101 and over the Bay Brdge (or would you tear that down?) onto surface streets would improve the liveability of the city in any way.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

And I strongly disagree that funneling all the traffic coming up 101 and over the Bay Brdge (or would you tear that down?) onto surface streets would improve the liveability of the city in any way.

I'm all for public transit, but i agree. Freeways serve a purpose, and it would cause a lot of problems to entirely remove them. I love SF...grew up there, and it was great that it had never been 100% scarred by freeways all over the place. But we do need them.

Also, SF actually does still get some freight train traffic, in the Bayview district/hunters point (which does still have a working cargo port and industrial stuff) and you can sometimes see them rolling through the middle of city streets, on rails that most people assume are unused. It's just not very heavy train traffic (compared to say, Oakland), for obvious reasons, and i think most of what they carry is scrap metal, gravel/dirt, garbage, and stuff like that. But yeah, most freight is coming and going on the freeways.

[Pedestrian]

We shouldn't overlook this newly-designed project on the site of the existing California Pacific Medical Center:

TMG Partners Plans To Build (very expensive) Family Housing In San Francisco
San Francisco
March 21, 2017 Julie Littman, Bay Area, Bisnow

TMG Partners wants to turn a hospital site into more housing in San Francisco.
The mixed-use developer submitted a proposal for a 250-unit development at the California Pacific Medical Center Sutter Health, California Campus. Its preliminary project application and environmental evaluation were submitted Friday. Designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects, the project incorporates the architectural character of the neighborhood. The residential community targets family housing with 80% of units with two or more bedrooms. The site will contain about 40 townhouses and apartment buildings ranging from 35 feet to 80 feet tall. Parking will be provided below ground to keep cars off the streets . . . .

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco/new...?utm_source=CopyShare&utm_medium=Browser

Oh to be a wealthy family in San Francisco.

[timbad]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

You might be right if the only purpose of freeways in urban areas was to get city residents from one part of town to another but that's the least of their purposes. Everything we eat and buy in the city comes into it on a freeway and whenever those of us who live in the city want to leave and return we need a route to do so. So there has to be freeways that come into the city and go out from it. Transit does not take anyone to the Russian River or the Sierra or Carmel nor does it bring fresh produce or anything else to us. And there are even people like I used to be who commute, not into the city but out of it to a place where I once tried to get on transit: a 25 minute trip by car took over 2 hours on BART and AC Transit.

Once again I will say that the important question is how the traffic leading to the freeway routes into and out of town is routed ...

And I strongly disagree that funneling all the traffic coming up 101 and over the Bay Brdge (or would you tear that down?) onto surface streets would improve the liveability of the city in any way.

I would simply argue that if the same amount of money had been invested in transit as has been invested in car use over the past few decades, traffic - and the need for so many freeway lanes so close to dense urban areas - would be reduced, one would hope significantly. there would be more (I was going to say plenty) room on the streets for those cars and trucks that really need to use them, such as the cases you mentioned. livability would be immensely improved.

[gillynova]

Salesforce tower is finally topped off!

[Pedestrian]

Cawfy tawk:

Architect Stanley Saitowitz calls SF planners “obstructive,” others agree
Designers claim city is inconsistent with planning code, doesn’t understand architecture
BY ADAM BRINKLOW APR 6, 2017, 2:05PM PDT

Noted local architect Stanley Saitowitz rankled the San Francisco Planning Department by calling planners “obstructive” in recent interviews. And he’s not alone.

First, San Francisco Chronicle urban design critic John King quoted Saitowitz’s comments in a column this week, which were pulled from Michael Webb’s new book, Building Community: New Apartment Architecture. In part, the starchitect says:

Dealing with the city Planning Department, which doesn’t understand architecture, is a very slow process. [...] We have a lot of trouble with the preservationist spirit in that department, now that almost every district of San Francisco is considered historic and every new building has to comply with its character. We firmly believe in respecting scale; Planning wants textbook replicas.

Saitowitz echoed those sentiments in a follow-up interview with King, adding that he wouldn’t mind the city’s process if the department produced better, bolder buildings.

His words loosened more than a few designers’ lips . . . .

http://sf.curbed.com/2017/4/6/15207572/architects-planning-department-san-francisco

Tawk amongst yourselves!

• Video Link

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by gillynova

Salesforce tower is finally topped off!

Jeez, no kidding?

Despite this thread being an oversized catch all, there are many San Francisco threads gillynova. Take a look at them and subscribe to what interests you. You'll see that the Salesforce Tower thread has closely followed that project.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/tags.php?tag=san+francisco

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

At least 2 existing freeways in SF, the termini of I-280 and of the Central Freeway as it approaches Market Street are under some threat. The Mayor seems to be a proponent of tearing down the last mile or 2 of I-280 to make developable land and the locals living around the end of the Central are pushing to remove more of it (the portion north of Market St was removed after it was damaged in the 1989 quake).

There will not be any more freeways constructed within the city in anybody here's lifetime.

And the city has an official "transit first" policy which it is carrying out in its usual bizarrely dysfunctional fashion by making driving personal vehicles ever more difficult by turning lanes over to bikes, making them unusable by putting "bulb-outs" at every corner and abandoning many to transit-only with red paint, but at the same time not making the all-out effort that would be required to make transit capable of efficiently and rapidly getting people where they need to go. It is telling that the city leadership themselves continue to drive themselves to work at City Hall and demand free parking. Past mayors have occasionally made a show of riding Muni but don't actually use it regularly.

I wouldn't be against that. What I would like to see which will never happen is a tunnel connecting the 101 from where it is downgraded to an at grade Boulevard to the newly reconstructed Doyle Dr. They could reduce lanes for all I care but it would be nice to have a more connected freeway system.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by LagunaPuerca

The Federal government has underwritten and subsidized the suburbanization of the US.

Europe does the same through social programs for residents in many major cities. How do people afford homes in many of the city centres in Europe? Look at the prices. I would looking at home prices in London and the costs were insane.

Transit there isn't a walk in the park either especially if you live far out in the sprawl. My point is, freeways and car based modes of transit infrastructure allow for cheaper housing that gives you a much larger square footage plus your own private yard which is why single family homes in the suburbs account for 80% of the new housing growth why the suburbs are growing and have historically grown much faster than the urban cities.

Any evidence of that is on Zillow for you to see. It doesn't take a "special" kind of person to see that. I'm not going to go on a limb and demean you for thinking a certain type of way. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I love San Francisco. When I get the money, my dream is to buy a home there and I'd even sacrifice owning a car if I had to.

Right now I live car free in Los Angeles and bike around. I see many benefits to urban car free lifestyle and walkability but I also see both sides of the picture.

As for your "the freeway removal made the neighborhoods spring to life" point, I can give you tons of examples where a new freeway was built or reconstructed and widened and new development followed(or "sprang to life"). I don't think the main factor was just the freeway being removed rather than new investment in the area. The freeway was torn down, a new street was built in its place, people saw the investment in the area, and took advantage of it. You can't simply say the only thing that drew that was the freeway itself not being there. If that were the case, than explain the many poor parts of cities that don't have freeways near them. In this case, I'd support the stub being removed because it wasn't an actual through freeway.

[fimiak]

Someone mentioned the suburbanization of the US and you mention central London...the world's Alpha city.

All highways in SF should be removed/downgraded and congestion pricing should be implemented. Congestion pricing already basically exists if you want to enter the city from golden gate bridge or bay bridge, but tolls entering the city from the South (via highways, not local roads) would be good for traffic, parking, and the transit budget. Next time you are in traffic in SF ask yourself if you would pay $5 to have fewer cars and more parking in the city.

[mt_climber13]

London also has a subway system that looks like this:



So, yeah, having less freeways can work for them.

Preventing more autos from entering the city and requiring those people to take public transit would implode the entire system as it stands right now.

And I'm sure that London's subway/ rail system has an average speed much higher than 15 mph.

I have a car and sometimes prefer driving but I will be the first to say that I would much prefer that there be a way to get around SF *quickly* by rail or subway than driving. Driving in the city is maddening.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by fimiak

All highways in SF should be removed/downgraded and congestion pricing should be implemented. Congestion pricing already basically exists if you want to enter the city from golden gate bridge or bay bridge, but tolls entering the city from the South (via highways, not local roads) would be good for traffic, parking, and the transit budget. Next time you are in traffic in SF ask yourself if you would pay $5 to have fewer cars and more parking in the city.

I think the idea of not having freeways enter the City is ludicrous and agree with Wakamesalad. Fortunately, it will not happen.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Someone mentioned the suburbanization of the US and you mention central London...the world's Alpha city.

All highways in SF should be removed/downgraded and congestion pricing should be implemented. Congestion pricing already basically exists if you want to enter the city from golden gate bridge or bay bridge, but tolls entering the city from the South (via highways, not local roads) would be good for traffic, parking, and the transit budget. Next time you are in traffic in SF ask yourself if you would pay $5 to have fewer cars and more parking in the city.

NYC is also an Alpha +++ city not just London. I don't understand what that has to with anything. Vancouver is more expensive than London if memory recalls and I just used London as an example because it's the most obvious one. Berlin, Venice, Paris, Amsterdam, etc. are all extremely expensive. Here in the US Portland, OR also is extremely expensive and congested. They focus on walkability and are against freeways perhaps more anti-freeway than San Francisco. I believe the point I am and was making by this is fairly obvious as I pointed it out in my last post.

I completely disagree with everything else you said giving an honorable mention to downgrading every freeway in SF. That's just absurd.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

London also has a subway system that looks like this:



So, yeah, having less freeways can work for them.

Preventing more autos from entering the city and requiring those people to take public transit would implode the entire system as it stands right now.

And I'm sure that London's subway/ rail system has an average speed much higher than 15 mph.

I have a car and sometimes prefer driving but I will be the first to say that I would much prefer that there be a way to get around SF *quickly* by rail or subway than driving. Driving in the city is maddening.

The entire city and region was designed was before the first automobiles came about. Even thought SF was built before that too, it's much more influenced by that fact given how much the city has expanded post WW2.

My point wasn't to compare the two cities exactly rather than just give an example of why freeways and cheaper housing work better in the US than they do in Europe.

Having less freeways might work for London not just because of the expansive subway system but that doesn't mean it'll work for San Francisco nor should that mean people who wish to drive should suffer because of that. I drive a car in San Francisco and I love it. That's just me however. I enjoy driving.

It is very easy to live in SF and not own a car. You have that choice. Many people are choosing otherwise and neglecting them is not the right to go.

[fimiak]

What I would like is for a new bridge to the south of the Bay Bridge to be built so 280 can go across the bay, which would mean it would free up the blocks taken by 280 north of Cesar Chavez.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I think the idea of not having freeways enter the City is ludicrous and agree with Wakamesalad. Fortunately, it will not happen.

Ditto

[botoxic]

Skyline photo dump

Market Street so green

San Francisco by Travis Estell, on Flickr


City nights by heavenlyglorysf, on Flickr

Three towers

Salesforce Tower by Sergio Ruiz, on Flickr


SF_SkylingFromBerkeley-5 by Shelly Prevost, on Flickr

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by botoxic

Market Street so green

Market St. is lined with London Plane Trees which the city's "deciders" on the subject seem to favor above all other species in spite of the fact that many of those on Market and elsewhere are clearly suffering from SF's incessant wind and lack of summer rainfall.

Friends of the Urban Forest seems to favor them in spite of telling us on their web site that

Needs extra water in hot or windy conditions. Highly susceptible to scale, powdery mildew, and anthracnose, although more resistant than other varieties. Performs best when planted in warmer areas.

Extra water in summer most of them do not get. FUF's evident opinon that it's SF's most appropriate street tree is apparently based on their view that it is

A beautiful, hardy tree well adapted to harsh urban conditions.

IMHO most of the trees on Market St look like they are barely hanging on by late summer and, in fact, the ones we planted in front of my condo did so poorly--after replacing them and trying again twice--that we finally had to beg the city to be allowed to replace them with a hardier species.

[gillynova]

One more pic:

San Francisco Skyline by Shelly Prevost

[LagunaPuerca]

@PlutonicPanda, you've made some good points. Cities tend to have densities dictated by the technologies and resources available when they developed.

Many North American cities developed when oil was inexpensive and the automobile and internal combustion engines had been invented. There is a significant sunk cost in any given land use pattern, and it may prove difficult to retrofit low-density, auto-based cities.

Despite this, I'm encouraged that battery, solar, wind, and autonomous vehicle technologies have been showing so much promise lately. It may be that we can establish auto "train" lanes on at least the busiest freeways, and thus mix non-autonomous modes (for low density areas) with autonomous modes (in a "train" state), and by so doing get energy efficiency nearly equal to other forms of mass passenger transport.

Thanks to wakamesalad, timbad, and others who replied.