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

[gillynova]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

reality:


http://www.sanfranciscodays.com/phot...view-north.jpg

Lmfao, nice find!

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

There is no BRT on Geary . . . yet . . . nor on Mission. I know of no plans to put BRT on Mission and doubt the width of the street would permit it. There ARE plans to do on Geary something similar to what's being done now on Van Ness but in the future after all the objections of Geary merchants about loss of parking etc are overcome.

Here are some renderings of the finished Van Ness project:






https://www.google.com/search?rls=en...6skCX_gl6a65M:

BART, of course, is something totally different. BART is wide-guage underground/elevated rail. The Van Ness and ultimately Geary BRT projects are not underground and not rail.

The Van Ness BRT is very similar to the Market St BRT, except there's no streetcars running along Van Ness. I still feel Van Ness has the potential to have a BART subway running underneath it in the near future, along with Lombard St west or Van Ness, and hopefully into San Rafael in Marin County.

I hope BART could develop a four-track subway underneath Lombard, Van Ness, and 7th St into Mission Bay once BART completes the second tunnel underneath the bay (highly needed right now), especially since President Trump is on the verge of taking the money reserved for the high speed line between SF and LA. And I hope Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, and the rest of the Bay Area delegation can make the second BART tunnel a huge priority!!!

[wanderer34]

Originally Posted by gillynova

^^ Wrong thread?

Also, not sure if you guys saw Pixar's new animated short film but here is what they showed San Francisco's skyline to be



Pixar's new short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZS5cgybKcI

It seems that the SF skyline is extended from downtown through North Beach/Fishermans Wharf and the Marina District. Just not sure if the current residents would allow suck tall towers over there, but who knows, in 20-30 years, that might change!

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

The Van Ness BRT is very similar to the Market St BRT, except there's no streetcars running along Van Ness. I still feel Van Ness has the potential to have a BART subway running underneath it in the near future, along with Lombard St west or Van Ness, and hopefully into San Rafael in Marin County.

There is no BRT on Market St. Where are you getting these ideas? What there is on Market St. is a streetcar system that does not have dedicated lanes where cars are not permitted as the Van Ness BRT will. BRT, of course, is busses, not rail vehicles like a streetcar. The Market St. streetcars do run in the center lanes of the street but cars are allowed in the same lanes.

I hope BART could develop a four-track subway underneath Lombard, Van Ness, and 7th St into Mission Bay once BART completes the second tunnel underneath the bay (highly needed right now), especially since President Trump is on the verge of taking the money reserved for the high speed line between SF and LA. And I hope Pelosi, Feinstein, Harris, and the rest of the Bay Area delegation can make the second BART tunnel a huge priority!!!

You are talking about something that might happen decades from now (but probably won't). There are no current plans to build new BART lines in San Francisco. What HAS been proposed and could happen in a closer time frame is to extend the Muni Central Subway line--which already goes to Mission Bay--from the terminus near the border of the Chinatown and North Beach neighborhoods it will have when it opens next year down Columbus Ave on the surface and from there ultimately to the Marina District through a tunnel under Ft. Mason.


https://sf.streetsblog.org/2018/12/0...way-extension/

Note: Since I think you are from out of town and may not realize it, Muni--the San Francisco Municipal Railway--is NOT BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

It seems that the SF skyline is extended from downtown through North Beach/Fishermans Wharf and the Marina District. Just not sure if the current residents would allow suck tall towers over there, but who knows, in 20-30 years, that might change!

No. Here is a recent photograph from Bernal Heights:


http://blog.junbelen.com/wp-content/.../Bernal-37.jpg

The buildings you are referring to are, I believe, on Nob Hill and extending to "the Hub" (Market/Van Ness intersection area).

[gillynova]

^^ Ah, I see where Pixar got their inspiration from.

I wonder how different it will look once The Hub is done

[AndrewK]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

It seems that the SF skyline is extended from downtown through North Beach/Fishermans Wharf and the Marina District. Just not sure if the current residents would allow suck tall towers over there, but who knows, in 20-30 years, that might change!

There are tons of residential towers on Russian Hill and in Cow Hollow, but they are all 50+ years old.

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by AndrewK

There are tons of residential towers on Russian Hill and in Cow Hollow, but they are all 50+ years old.

Before he was Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger was Russian Hill's first NIMBY.

http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?tit...erfront_Vistas

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

No. Here is a recent photograph from Bernal Heights:


http://blog.junbelen.com/wp-content/.../Bernal-37.jpg

The buildings you are referring to are, I believe, on Nob Hill and extending to "the Hub" (Market/Van Ness intersection area).

Neither of those pictures are that recent, its missing Salesforce and all the new towers next to Rincon hill. I would be more similar with Salesforce in the pic...

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SLO

Neither of those pictures are that recent, its missing Salesforce and all the new towers next to Rincon hill. I would be more similar with Salesforce in the pic...

Which makes the point even stronger that no development in North Beach or the Marina is needed to match the cartoon version of the skyline.

[Pedestrian]

Sexy Time Redevelopment Closer to Reality
March 1, 2019

. . . plans to redevelop the (shuttered Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality building at 1523 Franklin Street) are moving forward.

And as newly rendered by RG-Architecture for JS Sullivan Development below, a setback six-story addition to the building’s shell, which would be renovated, could now rise up to 84 feet in height upon the parcel, with seven full-floor condos (six three-bedrooms and one four) over a 650 square foot café space fronting Franklin Street and a basement garage for six stacked cars, assuming a variance from having to provide a rear yard, as mandated by San Francisco’s Planning Code, is approved next week.”

. . . the development has been formally challenged by a neighbor on Austin Street, including concerns that “dirt, debris, noise, dust, parking and vermin impacts due to, and during construction” will render his adjacent home uninhabitable for a couple of years.

. . . but the City’s Planning Department . . . notes that “construction ramifications are…outside the purview of the Planning Department, but typical to all construction in the City,”(and likely) the project will be approved as proposed.

(now)


(proposed)

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...o-reality.html

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

No. Here is a recent photograph from Bernal Heights:


http://blog.junbelen.com/wp-content/.../Bernal-37.jpg

The buildings you are referring to are, I believe, on Nob Hill and extending to "the Hub" (Market/Van Ness intersection area).

Russian Hill has a few residential towers too...but they stopped building them in the 1960s. Why? Was there a zoning change, or was it just "NIMBYs"? Activity on Nob Hill also seems to have stopped about then also. Seems like the wealthy areas don't want anything taller than 100 feet. And the (relatively) poorer and working class areas like Mission and Hunters Point fear "gentrification" so they don't want tall buildings either. This leaves just a few areas like Soma & Rincon & Ballpark/China Basin, along with downtown & Civic Center north of Market where tall buildings can be built. But maybe dense clusters are better rather than scattered high rises anyway.

However, the advantage of putting high rises on the hills is that bedrock is right at or close to the surface, so foundations are generally much cheaper & shallower & can be done faster since bedrock is right there. So maybe Nob Hill & Russian Hill at least should allow more. Maybe somebody can explain why they stopped building them on the hills in the '60s. I suspect it was NIMBYs.

[SFBuildings888]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Russian Hill has a few residential towers too...but they stopped building them in the 1960s. Why? Was there a zoning change, or was it just "NIMBYs"? Activity on Nob Hill also seems to have stopped about then also. Seems like the wealthy areas don't want anything taller than 100 feet. And the (relatively) poorer and working class areas like Mission and Hunters Point fear "gentrification" so they don't want tall buildings either. This leaves just a few areas like Soma & Rincon & Ballpark/China Basin, along with downtown & Civic Center north of Market where tall buildings can be built. But maybe dense clusters are better rather than scattered high rises anyway.

However, the advantage of putting high rises on the hills is that bedrock is right at or close to the surface, so foundations are generally much cheaper & shallower & can be done faster since bedrock is right there. So maybe Nob Hill & Russian Hill at least should allow more. Maybe somebody can explain why they stopped building them on the hills in the '60s. I suspect it was NIMBYs.

It might be cause it blocks certain views and/or it is earthquake country, so building high rises on the hills just doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

It might be cause it blocks certain views and/or it is earthquake country, so building high rises on the hills just doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore.

As a matter of fact, this statement is 180 degrees contrary to San Francisco Planning Dept. policy. Their stated policy it to put the tallest structures on the hills when possible so as to emphasize the terrain features rather than obscure them by having tall buildings in the valleys and short ones on the hilltops leading to an overall "table top effect".

The latest example of putting this into effect is One Rincon Hill, the tallest building in the Rincon/Folsom area which sits at the crest of the hill.

[pseudolus]

I guess everyone has me on ignore, since the link I posted above explains it all.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Before he was Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger was Russian Hill's first NIMBY.

http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?tit...erfront_Vistas

I missed your original posting of this link, but it’s a good one. The Fontana Towers are an ugly blot on the City that should never have happened.

[MyCitySFO]

When you get down to the real reason certain NIMBYs oppose skyscrapers, is it always boils down to ruining THEIR beloved view. "San Francisco was once light, hilly, pastel, open. Inviting." Bullshit.. It still is but with a killer skyline ! New York City hasn't disappeared.....ask a New York taxpayer if their city is less great because their skyscrapers are an economic disaster. Or Chicago or Toronto or .......

[viewguysf]

⬆️ That is true, yet I also believe San Francisco is a better city and showcases its unique setting by not having highrises along the northern and northeastern waterfronts.

As Pedestrian pointed out, there are reasons why tall buildings are better on the hills in certain neighborhoods. Since Telegraph Hill is not (and should not be) an option, that leaves Russian Hill and Nob Hill, yet you won’t find many suitable or possible places on either of them. Be happy with Chinatown, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, Fisherman’s Wharf, Fort Mason, the Marina, Marina Green, etc., the way they are. People come from around the world to see and enjoy them, just as we who live here do.

The City has spread tall and very tall buildings into new and growing areas, while keeping them out of others. I have found much excitement with that and what is to come.

[fimiak]

I honestly believe with the right level of density there could be 50,000 homes built in the Central Waterfront/India Basin/Hunters Point/Candlestick areas.

The traditional Telegraph Hill San Francisco doesn't really need to be touched at all. There are more access points to the areas I mentioned than the neighborhoods north of Downtown.

[HarshLiving]

Originally Posted by fimiak

I honestly believe with the right level of density there could be 50,000 homes built in the Central Waterfront/India Basin/Hunters Point/Candlestick areas.

The traditional Telegraph Hill San Francisco doesn't really need to be touched at all. There are more access points to the areas I mentioned than the neighborhoods north of Downtown.

Doesn't that just increase gentrification and continue to burden the communities of the mission and Bayview HP. I believe housing should be built all over, rather than concentrated to select areas.