HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10721  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2021, 3:00 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
We can say, however, that the existing tunnels extend to Union Street. In the past, the MTA has identified this as the likely site of a Washington Square subway station.

So the plain wording there shows they are definitely considering extending the "subway" at least part of the way to the Wharf, and any extension will likely run parallel to Columbus or Powell before hitting Jefferson.

If the route is to parallel Columbus, it cannot transition from subway to the surface until north of Greenwich, owing to the existing cable car tracks on Columbus between Chestnut and Greenwich.
The existing tunnels extend to the extraction site of the boring equipment at the former site of the Pagoda Palace Theater across the street from Washington Square on the corner of Union. The terrain here having a fairly significant downhill slope, my guess is the line would come to the surface somewhere nearby. Otherwise it would have to take a substantial dive deeper to stay underground and, again, this part of San Francisco is not any more congested than the areas where Muni Metro runs on streets on Judah or Church for example. I'd bet that any extension beyond Washington Square would not be underground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10722  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2021, 3:10 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Birds Aren't Real!
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
The existing tunnels extend to the extraction site of the boring equipment at the former site of the Pagoda Palace Theater across the street from Washington Square on the corner of Union. The terrain here having a fairly significant downhill slope, my guess is the line would come to the surface somewhere nearby. Otherwise it would have to take a substantial dive deeper to stay underground and, again, this part of San Francisco is not any more congested than the areas where Muni Metro runs on streets on Judah or Church for example. I'd bet that any extension beyond Washington Square would not be underground.
If there is to be an extension, then a Washington Square subway station will be constructed where the tunnels currently end. That means that, if the line is to be aligned with Columbus, there must then be at least another four blocks of subway before any portal is possible, again because of the existing cable car tracks on Columbus between Chestnut and Greenwich. If the line is aligned with Powell, then a portal is possible within two or three blocks, depending on how quickly the tunnels can be turned and then straightened out.
__________________
Donald Trump is America's Hitler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10723  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2021, 3:11 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
I don't think the cable car tracks completely preclude a tunnel portal in the block between Greenwich/Mason and Lombard.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10724  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2021, 3:14 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Thought this was a neat, trippy photo, although obviously digitally altered.



https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/com...his_hope_yall/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10725  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2021, 1:00 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
^^This isn't surprising. ... North Beach just doesn't qualify as sufficiently traffic-choked to give the cost of keeping it underground down Columbus serious consideration IMHO.
the point is, it would indeed be surprising if an underground option had indeed been ruled out: i.e., why would they have included it in the things you could vote on in that case?

the survey included basic cost-benefit analyses of various options mostly *to* the Fisherman's Wharf area, and some options were subway, some combos, and some mostly surface, as I recall.

the screenshot I posted was talking about any potential segment *from* FW to the west. I believe the way I responded after looking at all the analysis provided was that underground *to* FW made sense, but surface perhaps from the top of Van Ness to the west, if that segment were pursued.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10726  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2021, 8:54 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
the point is, it would indeed be surprising if an underground option had indeed been ruled out: i.e., why would they have included it in the things you could vote on in that case?

the survey included basic cost-benefit analyses of various options mostly *to* the Fisherman's Wharf area, and some options were subway, some combos, and some mostly surface, as I recall.

the screenshot I posted was talking about any potential segment *from* FW to the west. I believe the way I responded after looking at all the analysis provided was that underground *to* FW made sense, but surface perhaps from the top of Van Ness to the west, if that segment were pursued.
I suspect a station at Washington Square would be underground but be the last such on the line. Obviously nothing has been "ruled out". Nothing has even been formally planned. But my prediction, based on what I've seen in SF over the years, is that the line would come above ground beyond Washington Square. It's a cost thing. I mean if we were building more subways, Van Ness and Geary east of Japantown would be the next most obvious places but instead we are getting BRT (not even above ground rail).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10727  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2021, 9:00 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
SF YIMBY strikes again (and The Hub grows):

Quote:
Review Meeting Requested For 1338-1370 Mission Street, SoMa, San Francisco
BY: ANDREW NELSON 4:30 AM ON APRIL 2, 2021

A project review meeting has been requested for a high-density residential proposal at 1338 through 1370 Mission Street in SoMa, San Francisco . . . . Mission Street Management LLC is listed as responsible as the property owner.

1360-1372 Mission Street, between 1338 and 1370, is a mid-density infill notable for having 25 units operated by Mercy Housing, according to the organization. Mercy Housing is a leading affordable housing developer in the United States who has several projects proposed or nearly finished in the Bay Area.

The date for the project review meeting has not yet been established. Developers have requested that the meeting include staff for design, preservation, and environmental planning review.






https://sfyimby.com/2021/04/review-m...francisco.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10728  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2021, 9:54 PM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,552
100 Stockton - Crane removal today at the site of the former Macy's men's store. The telescoping crane in the middle was making a delivery to the roof of a building for the day. The closest in the photo is on the site on Market Street. My view will soon be most crane free north of Market St.!
Crane Coming Down @ 100 Stockton
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza 52nd year resident in 2023 - (the building everyone loves to hate :------>))
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10729  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2021, 2:16 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
This is for those worried about SF tech companies clearing out of prominent office space:

Quote:
Real Estate Deals: Vir Biotechnology lease
By Simon Campbell – Contributing Writer
Apr 2, 2021, 8:00am EDT

Vir Biotechnology’s deal to sublease part of Dropbox’s Mission Bay headquarters at The Exchange in Mission Bay was one of the biggest, and most significant, Bay Area leases of 2020. Anyone looking for pointers on how the Covid-19 pandemic is impacting working habits and the local real estate will find them here.

Across the Bay Area, biotech companies are looking for space to expand their operations in a market that is increasingly grateful for the health innovations they are propelling, and funding those breakthroughs accordingly. The hunt for prime Bay Area lab space is intensifying and this is a statement lease for Vir.

The situation is somewhat different for tech companies like Dropbox. In October the cloud storage behemoth announced that staff could work remotely even after the pandemic. In November, it listed 472,000 square feet of the 750,000 in the building for sublease.

This year, developer Kilroy Realty announced it has agreed to sell the building for $1.8 billion, a price that breaks the San Francisco per-square-foot record.

Vir will configure the building that is currently in shell condition into lab space with occupancy slated for 2022. Base rent at the property is $47.44 per square foot for the first year of the sublease and will increase by 3% annually until 2033.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...francisco.html

In case you are unfamiliar with Vir:

Quote:
GSK, Vir Biotechnology submit COVID-19 antibody treatment for FDA emergency use authorization
Tuesday, March 30, 2021 by Chris Galford

Investigational SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody VIR-7831 was submitted for emergency use authorization (EUA) at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week by developers GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) and Vir Biotechnology, Inc.

Pitched as a treatment for mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 among adults and adolescents at least 12 years old who are at risk of hospitalization or death, VIR-7831 performed well in trials. It demonstrated an 85 percent reduction in hospitalization or deaths compared to a placebo in the Phase 3 COMET-ICE trial. The interim analysis that serves as the companies’ basis for submission evaluated 583 patients.

Preclinical data suggested VIR-7831 targets an epitope of the viral spike protein, which may make it more difficult for it to develop resistance. In vitro data published in bioRxiv this month, based on virus assays, showed sustained activity against variants of SARS-CoV-2 currently circulating across the world, including the UK, South African, and Brazilian variants . . . .
https://homelandprepnews.com/stories...authorization/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10730  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2021, 2:34 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Creative Central SoMa Infill Project Closer to Reality
April 1, 2021

The creative plans for two equal-sized, but slightly offset, buildings to rise up to 85 feet in height upon the through-block Central SoMa parcel at 470-474 Bryant Street have just qualified for a streamlined review.

. . . the proposed development includes a demolition of the adjacent, modern looking building at 482 Bryant, around which the 470-474 Bryant Street lot currently wraps, as well. And as envisioned, the property lines for the two parcels would then be redrawn to allow for one 7-story building fronting Bryant Street and another fronting Stillman, each with six stories of new office space over a floor of “PDR” space and basement garages for a total of 26 cars.

And as the office component of one building was designed to precisely measure 49,999 square feet, and the other 49,830 square feet, the project team would not need to secure an allocation from the City’s effectively depleted pool of allowable office developments that measure 50,000 square feet or more in order to proceed, assuming the proposed approach, lot line adjustment and subsequent subdivision are approved.

All that being said, building permits for the project, which would take an estimated 18 months to complete, have yet to be proactively requested . . . .






https://socketsite.com/archives/2021...o-reality.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10731  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2021, 5:27 PM
unpermitted_variance unpermitted_variance is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Oakland
Posts: 113
Seems awfully wasteful to demolish a building that was built in 2015 for a structure that's not really all that much bigger. At least the design looks nice on the proposal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10732  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2021, 6:52 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
^Isn't that the history of pretty much every large city? A shorter building built in 1880 ---> Significantly altered shortly after ---> Top floor lopped off ---> Torn down and replaced in 1910 with a building 4 stories taller ---> Said building significantly altered 15 years later to "modernize" it ---> "Modernized" building torn down 1945 for taller building still ---> New building torn down 1966 ---> New 3 story bank branch built ---> New bank building torn down 1982 for new office tower.... And so on...
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10733  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2021, 6:21 AM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,552
1201 Sutter @ Polk - I walked by today. Nothing remarkable about this building. This corner has lots of memories for me. I walked almost to Broadway on Polk - many empty store fronts, few people on the street.

1201 Sutter Street, San Francisco
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza 52nd year resident in 2023 - (the building everyone loves to hate :------>))
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10734  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2021, 3:12 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Is that made of paper mache?
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10735  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2021, 6:41 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by unpermitted_variance View Post
Seems awfully wasteful to demolish a building that was built in 2015 for a structure that's not really all that much bigger. At least the design looks nice on the proposal.
Not really all that much bigger? We must be looking at different images. For one thing, it's more than twice as tall. For another, it has maybe triple (or more) the footprint.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10736  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2021, 12:22 AM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by unpermitted_variance View Post
Seems awfully wasteful to demolish a building that was built in 2015 for a structure that's not really all that much bigger. At least the design looks nice on the proposal.
The 2015 three story building only makes up about 10-15% of the entire property, the rest is an older two story building.

This photo from a previous Socketsite article gives a better sense of what is being demolished (the newer building only goes half way back, the older building wraps around it):


Last edited by AndrewK; Apr 10, 2021 at 12:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10737  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 10:33 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
The Draft Plans and New Timing for Temporary Terminal Site
April 7, 2021

The draft plans for the redevelopment of the southern third of the shuttered Temporary Terminal Site, a nearly 43,000-square-foot block bounded by a future extension of Clementina Street to the north, Main Street to the east, Folsom Street to the south, and Beale Street to the west, have been drafted by Mercy Housing and the Chinatown Community Development Center which have been awarded the rights to the project.

The proposed approach includes the development of two 9-story buildings, a 101-unit building on the eastern half of the site for low-income and formerly homeless families with household incomes of between 20 and 80 percent of the Area Median and a 153-unit building on the western half of the site for seniors making between 25 and 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), with a 6,000-square-foot child care center, around 6,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, a mid-block walk and open spaces between the two buildings and no off-street parking for any cars.

The conceptual design for the two buildings will be detailed and refined by Kennerly Architecture and Planning and Mithun | Solomon over the next couple of quarters and should be ready for approval by the end of the year, with permitting and funding applications expected to be submitted next year (2022) and construction now expected to commence in “late 2023” and be completed in “late 2025.”

And yes, a potential increase in the proposed height for the family building to rise on the eastern half of the site, which is already cleared to rise up to 165 feet in height, versus 85 feet as proposed, remains in play, with an evaluation of whether or not the proposed development “fully maximiz[es] the potential for housing units” on the site to be conducted and a potential adjustment, which could “significantly” alter the proposed unit count, to follow.

From the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII):

“A height of 85’ may be less challenging to finance given the lower tax-exempt bond request, however, preliminary studies indicate that a height of 165’ would yield an additional 46 units (bring the Block 2 East unit count to 147) and would likely result in a lower cost per unit. As a condition to the predevelopment loan, Mercy will further analyze development scenarios with heights at 165’ and 240’.”


[/quote]
https://socketsite.com/archives/2021...inal-site.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10738  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2021, 12:17 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
various things that didn't fit in their own threads (or whose threads have been closed)...

starting close to the most recent news above re: the temporary terminal site, Folsom St had almost *no* sections orange-plasticked-off anymore, finally! all the corner rainwater planter things looked done, bus shelters were up, pavers were in, and the street has been striped. could still get some green paint for the bike lanes, don't know.







in the same vein, Second St also looked much more wrapped-up, with plantings and more green paint





entrance to South Park





100 Folsom's thread is closed, but the passageway on its north side was open for the first time that I had noticed





the floating fire station



Muni platform Fourth and Brannan



the little one on Fourth near Folsom



Ninth and Howard (bonus of 5M in a couple)







I think some new saplings have been planted on Van Ness





the little one on Market and Gough/Haight



1500 Mission's thread is also closed, but I noticed a historic tableau on the side of the former Coca-Cola Bottling plant, which was nice. I had no idea it had belonged to a bus and truck manufacturer before Coke, and had not always been in the moderne style



the internal passageway through the complex



fencing still up around Trinity, whose thread is also closed for some reason



peeking through that fence



50 Jones, the project formerly known as 1066 Market





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10739  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2021, 5:37 PM
MayorQuinbee MayorQuinbee is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Oakland
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
various things that didn't fit in their own threads (or whose threads have been closed)...

50 Jones, the project formerly known as 1066 Market





What a rough block. All i can say is good luck
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10740  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2021, 7:41 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayorQuinbee View Post
What a rough block. All i can say is good luck
It's called "gentrification". The idea is maybe it won't be so rough if you can induce middle class folks to live there (and call the cops if things get too rough once they are there).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.