[J Church]

Apologies in advance for posting a thread consisting entirely, essentially, of a single photograph--but this shot I took last weekend really captures in a single pic, I think, some of the big changes taking place around town these days.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/143/360329552_464cf53a83_o.jpg

[LandofFrost]

Drove in over the weekend and was amazed at the level of constuction near the bay bridge. I asume those are all condos? The new federal court house is just insane (in a good way, i think).

[J_Taylor]

And I for one welcome our new real estate developer overlords
;)
Nice shot

[ltsmotorsport]

Weird to think that in such a progressive city this kind of change was basically not allowed to happen for a long time. Good to see change coming back to the city by the bay.

[fflint]

San Francisco isn't progressive in terms of development, and hasn't been for probably 50 years. The fact is, the city's natural setting is spectacular and it seems many residents--especially those with landscape views--really don't want the urban form of the city to interfere with the natural beauty outside their floor-to-ceiling windows.

Anyway, that photo really does capture the changes taking place today--long-planned, long-delayed, long-battled changes finally taking place today.

[munkyman]

nice changes. still a very long way to go.

[BTinSF]

I feel really ignorant of the city I've called home now for 25 years, but I can't figure out where you took that shot, even with a strong telephoto lens which I'm sure you used. Since the sign says "23rd St." the Muni line has to be either the J-Church or T-Third but the T line is too flat and I don't remember the J running down a street with a dedicated lane at 23rd (haven't been to 23 rd St in Noe Valley in a long time though). So where was it?

[BTinSF]

nice changes. still a very long way to go.

To achieve what exactly?

That is, what vision of the city do you feel we are so very far from?

[sf_eddo]

I feel really ignorant of the city I've called home now for 25 years, but I can't figure out where you took that shot, even with a strong telephoto lens which I'm sure you used. Since the sign says "23rd St." the Muni line has to be either the J-Church or T-Third but the T line is too flat and I don't remember the J running down a street with a dedicated lane at 23rd (haven't been to 23 rd St in Noe Valley in a long time though). So where was it?

It's off the T line, 3rd and 23rd, right?

[SLO]

....its always been the struggle between the progressives and the protectionists, as it is up and down the coast of California. When I was in college (not too long ago), we did a SF project, the city planners including the Head of Planning, while prepping us for the project encouraged 'towers', he said 'we like towers in San Francisco'.....

[J Church]

It's off the T line, 3rd and 23rd, right?

Yes.

And I for one welcome our new real estate developer overlords

:haha:

[BTinSF]

It's off the T line, 3rd and 23rd, right?

One h*ll of a lens. And I didn't realize there were even minor hills there. Looking forward to taking the ride and seeing such wonders.

[kenratboy]

There has been so much neglect of development (as in - lots of empty lots, old buildings nobody will miss but the homeless, etc.) that the amount of potential in the city is amazing.

Its not like NYC where they have to tear down a 20, 30+ story building to build a new one, there is actually open space, or a small, old building in the way - and most importantly, the desire to do so.

Good times indeed.

[ltsmotorsport]

fflint- I never meant progressive in development, but in culture, attitude, etc. Sorry if that was confusing.

Anyways, it is a really great picture, and I'm sure it's wetting everyone's appitite for what else is planned.

[fflint]

There has been so much neglect of development (as in - lots of empty lots, old buildings nobody will miss but the homeless, etc.) that the amount of potential in the city is amazing.
While the city is certainly not built out, it is not my experience that San Francisco has "lots" of empty lots. In fact, compared to similarly-sized cities of a similar age, we have very, very few vacant lots. Ditto for abandoned buildings.

[J Church]

One h*ll of a lens. And I didn't realize there were even minor hills there. Looking forward to taking the ride and seeing such wonders.

It's not bad. Surprised that one came out as crisp as it did, though--took it out the front window, handheld.

But it's a cool view without the zoom. Will be even cooler when One Rincon Hill is nearly 750' above the train.

[Reminiscence]

Very nice picture J Church. Intresting prespective from that point of view on how it will look like when finished. Personally I agree with fflint on the city. I dont know what bothers me more, empty and vacant looking parking lots, or the old, not so attractive buildings next to them. If we get rid of some of these, then we can create more "vacant" lots in a hurry.

[BTinSF]

While the city is certainly not built out, it is not my experience that San Francisco has "lots" of empty lots. In fact, compared to similarly-sized cities of a similar age, we have very, very few vacant lots. Ditto for abandoned buildings.

What people here keep pointing to (mostly people who don't live in the city) are the empty lots along Folsom that have resulted from removal of either ramps to I-80 or the Embarcadero Freeway. Fflint is essentially right. These lots are targetted for development but have been kept purposefully vacant up until now either while the eventual projects came to fruition or so that CalTrans could use them for staging the I-80/Bay Bridge ramp reconstruction.

There are other loci of underdevelopment such as along Third St and some scattered vacant lots elsewhere. Many of these lots are being held by investors who rightly see their value rising every year and aren't ready to sell yet. Others are waiting for city action like the Octavia plan (I'm thinking here of the northwest corner of Market & Van Ness) or the Mid-Market Plan and a few are being held up by politics (like Sup. Daly's foot on the neck of Mid-Market redevelopment and lack of consensus over the fate of Third St.). But compared to a city like Washington DC where, at least the last time I was there a few years ago, you could see vast swaths of empty storefronts and rubble-strewn lots, San Francisco has been building where building was possible for decades.

I can literally think of ONE vacant building not slated for demolition. It's the former Honda dealership at Eddy & Van Ness. It has been vacant for years--except for seasonal use as a "Halloween Superstore". I do know it is considered an architecturally significant building in the Van Ness Plan so I don't think it can be demolished or substantially altered, but I can't otherwise figure out why nothing has been done with it. I assume it must be owned by someone who wants some exorbitant price that no developer has yet offerred. I'm wondering if it's big enough for a Home Depot "neighborhood hardware store" concept or even a Target (it has 3 pretty good-sized floors including one with drive-in access). It could definitely be a Staples or Office Max. But the real point is that for every anomolous building like this in San Francisco, there's a reason even if we don't understand it.

[otnemarcaS]

^^^
I certainly remember and know that Honda building when I lived in SF. It was right behind my apartment building at Franklin and Eddy. Not surprised that it is still vacant.

[craeg]

There are a few buildings like that on Van Ness - and surprise surprise - they are all landmark buildings. I dont know if that means they cant be demo'd ever... but im sure it means headaches when anyone wants to do anything with them. I mean this is San Francisco - nothing is "as of right."

[coyotetrickster]

There are a few buildings like that on Van Ness - and surprise surprise - they are all landmark buildings. I dont know if that means they cant be demo'd ever... but im sure it means headaches when anyone wants to do anything with them. I mean this is San Francisco - nothing is "as of right."

Van Ness was, in the 30's, the equivalent of the auto row monstrosities in Oakland and San Jose. But, as SF was still the pre-eminent city of the West in the 30s (LA was in the rear view mirror, but horrors, it was just movie trash).. The majority of the remaining autorow buildings were designed by the same architects who worked with the Maybeck, Mead-Kim, Pfluger, and Morgan. That is why they are protected. The Van Ness Corridor has height limits of up to 140 ft, I believe, so the remaining buildings would need to be adaptive reuse (similar to the VanNess1000 complex). That project only worked because the developer was able to build all new at Polk and O'Farrell to offset the cost of the adjacent building renovation. The empty buildings still undeveloped or rehabbed seem to all butt up against residences...

[DubbaG]

Hey Steve... Your Mom really captures in a single pic, I think, some of the big changes taking place around town these days!

lawlz

[BTinSF]

they are protected. The Van Ness Corridor has height limits of up to 140 ft, I believe, so the remaining buildings would need to be adaptive reuse (similar to the VanNess1000 complex). That project only worked because the developer was able to build all new at Polk and O'Farrell to offset the cost of the adjacent building renovation. The empty buildings still undeveloped or rehabbed seem to all butt up against residences...

The old Honda dealership is only 2 floors--well below 140 ft (actually, I'm pretty sure the street wall there has to be no more than 40 ft. with higher heights set back). But I've long been wondering if a solution like the Ritz-Carleton residences would be feasible and legal: keep the "historic" fascade and build a new midrise inside it. Do you know?

[northbay]

very nice picture indeed. good capture of things to come. its odd tho how everything looks deserted.

[J Church]

very nice picture indeed. good capture of things to come. its odd tho how everything looks deserted.

It's the industrial stretch of Third. That, too, could change though ... we'll see.

Gavin, yo momma is so wide-angle, she can't fit on a fucking Breda.

[DubbaG]

Steve, that may have been the nerdiest thing you've ever said ever.

[DubbaG]

Quadruple post? Shit that's a new one for me.

[coyotetrickster]

The old Honda dealership is only 2 floors--well below 140 ft (actually, I'm pretty sure the street wall there has to be no more than 40 ft. with higher heights set back). But I've long been wondering if a solution like the Ritz-Carleton residences would be feasible and legal: keep the "historic" fascade and build a new midrise inside it. Do you know?
Good question BT. I'm not sure a 40 ft setback is mandatory, the design for the midrise where the old galaxy now hulks has no set backs, nor does the assisted living complex across the street from my gym. I've wondered whether an adaptive re-use '-- the type of 'facadism King decried last year -- would work. I can't figure out why it stays empty. It is possible the estate/owner is just not in a hurry. Patient money can be intractible.

[Frisco_Zig]

fflint- I never meant progressive in development, but in culture, attitude, etc. Sorry if that was confusing.

Anyways, it is a really great picture, and I'm sure it's wetting everyone's appitite for what else is planned.


"Progessives" in SF have often (and still do to some extent) see a battle between "downtown" and dispossessed minority groups from the neigborhoods. This fueled the anti-growth mentality sort of seeing it all as a zero sum game.

In some respects maybe they protected some of the great aspects of the City in a less enlightened time?

[Frisco_Zig]

While the city is certainly not built out, it is not my experience that San Francisco has "lots" of empty lots. In fact, compared to similarly-sized cities of a similar age, we have very, very few vacant lots. Ditto for abandoned buildings.

I would say there are many underutilized lots I assume because of zoning. Oddly (or maybe not because of the Auto) in most SF neigborhoods away from downtown the oldest apartment buildings are the tallest. I have some favorites on Irving, one on Geary by the beach and a few on 25th and Valencia

[AJphx]

might I ask what buildings are u/c in the photo? thanks.

[J Church]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=67546&page=10

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919&page=9

[dabcom]

Dude, that picture's of two stinkin' towers under construction, the infinity project. It's no big deal.

[kenratboy]

dabcom - what exactly are you replying to? If J Church, he was answering the question in the post above his.

[coyotetrickster]

Dude, that picture's of two stinkin' towers under construction, the infinity project. It's no big deal.

Dude, one tower is the Infinity Project, the other is Rincon Hill, so before you behave like a dismissive snot, do some fact-checking. You do know what a fact is, right? There are at least five other tower cranes in the vicinity of the two towers, subsurface foundation work on two more and approvals for three other 40+ towers (all of whom will be in the space between those two towers), as well as permit/proposals for two major developments with 800+ foot towers.

Yeah, there is a new San Francisco coming.

[dabcom]

no need to be sarcastic, coyote.

[coyotetrickster]

I was not sarcastic. I was dismissive. Same inferred tone as your post.

[dabcom]

Well, no need to have an attitude, coyote.

[coyotetrickster]

Well, no need to have an attitude, coyote.

Oaky, I'm going to apologize on principal. Whether I thought your initial post to be dismissive or not, my response should have been informative rather than snide. In looking at J Church's photo, there is a lot of info outside the frame (to borrow from Camille Paglia and a screenplay instructor at the Film Arts Foundation) condensed into the telescoped image. The two towers on the horizon, in and of themselves, aren't really that indicative of the changes underway. Also, the rail station at the intersection of 23rd St. means nothing to folks who don't live in the city (and to many of those who do live in the city). So why would J Church make that statement?

Easy. In the literal frame of the physical space outside the picture are sites representing the largest, most significant high rise boom in San Francisco since the Manhattan Meets Market St. phenomenon during DiFi's stint as mayor. That particular boom produced the Prop M measure limiting construction of high-rise offices in the city. And, unlike said whirl of construction, the anti-height 'progressives' have been remarkably silent and somewhat ineffective (Sue Hestor's yanking on John Burton's balls to cut down the height of UCSF's Heart tower, the exception). Instead, many of the old height foes are willing to trade heights for green-certified buildings, parks and street level amenities and more affordable housing in the decidedly low-rise SOMA districts.

Also, the physical infrastructure condensed in the perspective is probably the major engine of SF's high-income future: the biotech/life sciences facilities being built around UCSF's Mission Bay Campus. Combined with new, speedy light-rail access to the city's historic job core (The Financial District) and the new-emerging job center for Web2.0 and the life sciences companies current and to come around Mission Bay, the area in the fore front, Dogpatch -- and the whole eastern side of the city, are primed for a huge, huge influx of housing that will change the city's politics and breath new life into old, worn-out neighborhoods..

That is what J Church's photo represents.

[J Church]

Good post.

[Reminiscence]

^^^

I agree. Great analysis, I even learned a few things from that. :)

[coyotetrickster]

^^^

I agree. Great analysis, I even learned a few things from that. :)

It's more like an opinionated analysis with a pinch of polemic, but thanks regardless.:)

[BTinSF]

the whole eastern side of the city, are primed for a huge, huge influx of housing that will change the city's politics

Is that a way of saying, "No more Dalys"? Just wondering. ;) :rolleyes:

[coyotetrickster]

Is that a way of saying, "No more Dalys"? Just wondering. ;) :rolleyes:

Daley, Mirkin, erm Mirkirimi, (sp?), maybe even a firm no to Gonzalez redux and the end of Sue Heiffer's, I mean, Hestor's Reign of Terror. But, ask me what I really mean. Maybe enough new renters/voters will move in that we can overlay some sensible destiny over Lombard St. and turn it into a suitable Boulevard for entering the city instead of its current architectural homage to Daytona Beach.

[BTinSF]

Maybe enough new renters/voters will move in that we can overlay some sensible destiny over Lombard St. and turn it into a suitable Boulevard for entering the city instead of its current architectural homage to Daytona Beach.

OUCH! Maybe I should reveal that my entire family lives in DAYTONA BEACH (Well, Ormond Beach--just north of Daytona). Really. :(

[coyotetrickster]

OUCH! Maybe I should reveal that my entire family lives in DAYTONA BEACH (Well, Ormond Beach--just north of Daytona). Really. :(


Hey, I loved Daytona Beach when I was a kid. We'd go there when we'd visit my uncle in Orlando. It's lovely, but really, it needs a beach. Now, I wouldn't mind if the Marina were turned into a beach. Just think, no more Marina Chicks:D

[vanhattan]

Oaky, I'm going to apologize on principal. Whether I thought your initial post to be dismissive or not, my response should have been informative rather than snide. In looking at J Church's photo, there is a lot of info outside the frame (to borrow from Camille Paglia and a screenplay instructor at the Film Arts Foundation) condensed into the telescoped image. The two towers on the horizon, in and of themselves, aren't really that indicative of the changes underway. Also, the rail station at the intersection of 23rd St. means nothing to folks who don't live in the city (and to many of those who do live in the city). So why would J Church make that statement?

Easy. In the literal frame of the physical space outside the picture are sites representing the largest, most significant high rise boom in San Francisco since the Manhattan Meets Market St. phenomenon during DiFi's stint as mayor. That particular boom produced the Prop M measure limiting construction of high-rise offices in the city. And, unlike said whirl of construction, the anti-height 'progressives' have been remarkably silent and somewhat ineffective (Sue Hestor's yanking on John Burton's balls to cut down the height of UCSF's Heart tower, the exception). Instead, many of the old height foes are willing to trade heights for green-certified buildings, parks and street level amenities and more affordable housing in the decidedly low-rise SOMA districts.

Also, the physical infrastructure condensed in the perspective is probably the major engine of SF's high-income future: the biotech/life sciences facilities being built around UCSF's Mission Bay Campus. Combined with new, speedy light-rail access to the city's historic job core (The Financial District) and the new-emerging job center for Web2.0 and the life sciences companies current and to come around Mission Bay, the area in the fore front, Dogpatch -- and the whole eastern side of the city, are primed for a huge, huge influx of housing that will change the city's politics and breath new life into old, worn-out neighborhoods..

That is what J Church's photo represents.
:cheers: A very informative post, thank you, especially for an outsider like me. PS; I am very excited about all of the new plans for SF and for the east side in particular. I work in biotech, so who knows, it may be my new home or work home someday. :yes:

[kenratboy]

Cool info - it will be interesting to see if the transformation of the city kicks up like we think it will. There is so much potential, I just hope it happens sooner than later!

[coyotetrickster]

Cool info - it will be interesting to see if the transformation of the city kicks up like we think it will. There is so much potential, I just hope it happens sooner than later!

Thanks folks. Just remember, soon, is not a San Francisco Value:D