This city needs no introduction

[fflint]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Wondering whether they would ever dare to retire their stock of old streetcars to operate some modern and bigger. These ancient and quaint in particular seem like part of the city heritage to entertain tourists.

I believe the rolling stock of New Orleans is much like these and fulfils that same tourist mission. It won't prevent the city from expanding their network, but would they give up on their ancient cars for some recent, longer and probably faster? Newer lines should operate some modern vehicles though.

I'm surprised at this post.

San Francisco does indeed have streetcars--but the vehicles in the photo you quoted are not streetcars. They are cable cars. Streetcars are propelled directly by electricity, while cable cars are propelled by underground cables.

And no, they'll never retire them--this is the last cable car system left in America, and are not only a major tourist attraction but also a huge part of San Francisco's civic identity. Accordingly, the cars, cables and wheelhouses are regularly refurbished.

It appears you may think this is the only form of rail in San Francisco, which concerns you due to their age and size, tourist orientation, etc. You'll be happy to learn, in addition to cable cars, San Francisco also has metro rail, commuter rail, modern light rail, historic streetcars, trolley buses, regular buses, ferry boats--there are all sorts of ways to get around that don't involve cable cars, should one desire to avoid them.

[Ant131531]

Love SF, but I've been hearing it's been losing it's "culture" recently. Great photos though...very interesting framing and composition.

[flar]

Originally Posted by boden

Great photos flar! I like the ones by Mrs. flar the best!

She really did take some of the best ones in this set, including my favourite:

http://www.metroperspectives.com/p620173176/e400d52fa

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by fflint

I'm surprised at this post.

San Francisco does indeed have streetcars--but the vehicles in the photo you quoted are not streetcars. They are cable cars. Streetcars are propelled directly by electricity, while cable cars are propelled by underground cables.

And no, they'll never retire them--this is the last cable car system left in America, and are not only a major tourist attraction but also a huge part of San Francisco's civic identity. Accordingly, the cars, cables and wheelhouses are regularly refurbished.

It appears you may think this is the only form of rail in San Francisco, which concerns you due to their age and size, tourist orientation, etc. You'll be happy to learn, in addition to cable cars, San Francisco also has metro rail, commuter rail, modern light rail, historic streetcars, trolley buses, regular buses, ferry boats--there are all sorts of ways to get around that don't involve cable cars, should one desire to avoid them.

Aren't the cable cars protected under historic preservation laws, and/or the National Register of Historic Places?

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Love SF, but I've been hearing it's been losing it's "culture" recently. Great photos though...very interesting framing and composition.

Its evolving into something like a mini-Manhattan. It's definitely increasingly difficult to live here unless you're a dual income couple or a tech worker...the income disparity is the worst it has ever been. Oddly, it seems to be easier for poor people (who are subsidized--come to my neighborhood and its full of people living in SROs for nothing) and rich people, but pretty bad for middle class folks in terms of affordability.

I think SF will always be progressive, quirky, and not full of chains (and always going to remain socially liberal), but I think it's just going to become a whiter/more asian boutique city for the wealthy elite.

From a visual standpoint, I don't mind the gentrification (shoot me for saying it, but I think there are more than enough filthy and gritty areas that I think really need to clean up and those that have started that process, are way nicer today).

[mousquet]

@flar thanks for your answer. I'll admit to please fflint, I actually happened to visit this city myself, cause it's a classic anyway. But didn't even bother trying anything of their public transportation. We just rented some cars, cause you know, we would have struggled a little bit too much to move around otherwise. Right?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

Aren't the cable cars protected under historic preservation laws, and/or the National Register of Historic Places?

Yes, the cable cars are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Originally Posted by mousquet

@flar thanks for your answer. I'll admit to please fflint, I actually happened to visit this city myself, cause it's a classic anyway. But didn't even bother trying anything of their public transportation. We just rented some cars, cause you know, we would have struggled a little bit too much to move around otherwise. Right?

Cool story, bro.

[flar]

Originally Posted by mousquet

@flar thanks for your answer. I'll admit to please fflint, I actually happened to visit this city myself, cause it's a classic anyway. But didn't even bother trying anything of their public transportation. We just rented some cars, cause you know, we would have struggled a little bit too much to move around otherwise. Right?

No, it's more difficult to move around by car than by public transportation in SF. Traffic is tight and parking is limited. I had a rental car for this vacation, but it stayed in the parking garage during our entire time in SF. You're better off getting a visitor's transit pass or renting bikes.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by flar

No, it's more difficult to move around by car than by public transportation in SF. Traffic is tight and parking is limited. I had a rental car for this vacation, but it stayed in the parking garage during our entire time in SF. You're better off getting a visitor's transit pass or renting bikes.

Agreed. I wonder if he was being sarcastic, but seriously, SF is one of the worst cities to drive around in the whole country. The traffic lights are often not synchronized, there are aggressive kamikaze bikers left and right, homeless people oblivious walking into the middle of speeding traffic, painfully slow Muni buses hogging lanes etc. For such a geographically small area it never ceases to amaze me how long it takes to get around! Not to mention parking is a bitch, and poor tourists often park in sketchy areas only to get their rentals broken into.

[Eightball]

Yeah, absolutely no reason to rent a car in SF. If you really hate public trans walk and take Uber.

[jg6544]

More sheer, mind-boggling beauty per square foot than anywhere else in the country.

[mousquet]

Mah whatever, call me an ignorant dumbass if you will, I'm still telling you no one around me ever thought of trying their public transportation. I think you guys should more easily realize and acknowledge that coming from Paris as a tourist, you simply don't expect mass transportation to be convenient anywhere in the US except in NY and maybe in Chicago, for their networks are large and dense enough. That seems trivial to me. So you prepare to pay for a car and we did manage our stay by car and on foot, even in SF, especially when we had to move out of the city. Don't worry about it, the stay was nonetheless pleasant, it's only good memories to me. I even once received a DJ from SF who came to work in Paris for a week after that, to spare him the price of a hotel, cause I'm thankful for my stays in the US. That was an interesting experience too.

In short, if you think I've been a victim of a wrong stereotype, then I'll be glad at you people when the stereotype is effectively proven wrong. It's kinda like American tourists coming to Paris while they expect to find themselves stuck in an outrageous overpriced seedy city.

[flar]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Mah whatever, call me an ignorant dumbass if you will, I'm still telling you no one around me ever thought of trying their public transportation. I think you guys should more easily realize and acknowledge that coming from Paris as a tourist, you simply don't expect mass transportation to be convenient anywhere in the US except in NY and maybe in Chicago, for their networks are large and dense enough. That seems trivial to me. So you prepare to pay for a car and we did manage our stay by car and on foot, even in SF, especially when we had to move out of the city. Don't worry about it, the stay was nonetheless pleasant, it's only good memories to me. I even once received a DJ from SF who came to work in Paris for a week after that, to spare him the price of a hotel, cause I'm thankful for my stays in the US. That was an interesting experience too.

In short, if you think I've been a victim of a wrong stereotype, then I'll be glad at you people when the stereotype is effectively proven wrong. It's kinda like American tourists coming to Paris while they expect to find themselves stuck in an outrageous overpriced seedy city.

Not trying to criticize you. I just think it's worth noting some of the things that make SF unique among American cities.

[MplsTodd]

Stunning collection! I especially liked your photos of the Victorian homes!

[mSeattle]

I've got to visit SF. Thanks for posting the great shots!

[Dr Awesomesauce]

It seems you've travelled fairly extensively in North America. Not to stir the pot but where does San Francisco sit on your list in terms of urbanness or whatever criteria you use to judge cities?

[Architype]

Almost perfect thread of almost perfect city.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Wow, you have managed to distill the city down to the greatest architectural treasures and locales. This was a truly gorgeous set!

This photo is a visual treat

Yup..When I think San fran, that picture captures what I see in my mind's eye for that city.

Great pics as always Flar!

[flar]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

It seems you've travelled fairly extensively in North America. Not to stir the pot but where does San Francisco sit on your list in terms of urbanness or whatever criteria you use to judge cities?

In terms of urbanness, San Francisco has a lot. It's bustling and high density. Narrow streets, solid streetwalls for miles outside of downtown, houses and apartments tower over the street. There is no empty space. You can probably find whatever you want, good or bad. It has a strong identity, you never forget you're in San Francisco. There are people from all over the world there at any given time. And like any major world city, you can smell the money in the air but this exists side-by-side with grittiness and counterculture. And I've already noted the many, many modes of transportation.

[subterranean]

First off, excellent photos and beautiful landscapes. A truly beautiful city.

A few years ago I visited for the first time and I had hyped it up so much in my mind as an urbanist's dream that I eventually was disappointed by a couple of realizations when I arrived. So many incredible things to love, to be sure. But since I couldn't afford to stay in the city itself, I found getting around to be problematic without a car. What I wasn't expecting is that although the area is incredibly dense, the bay itself spreads things out far more than I'd ever imagined and makes it pretty hard to get anywhere quickly.I guess I never realized the bay was so large. Coming from the great lakes state, it looks puny on a map