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

[timbad]

framework starting to go up on TransBay block ?6, the block just to the north of Solaire





a while back we talked about how the lobby of 350 Mission had been boarded up almost since the building opened. boards are down again, and fancy video screen is in operation:



some of the sidewalk-level fencing is down at 6x6 on Market



close-up of entry



the replacement for the adult theater on Market is progressing (peeking through its back fence on Stevenson)

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Justbuildit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincon...0_Junction.jpg

Anyone here wish they never demolished the Embarcadero Freeway? Personally I wish it was still there and was eventually connected with the Golden Gate Bridge. Will they ever build a freeway through the city to the Golden Gate? I guess SF is more of a destination city, not a city you drive through like Oakland.[/QUOTE]
I wish it were still there.

[mt_climber13]

Wow look how comparatively puny the skyline was then. And look near where Moscone is now, looks like blocks and blocks of surface parking lots. Definitely a different city back then, I can see why people around since the 70s and 80s would feel nostalgic and like the city is not the same as it was then.

I actually think Embarcadero freeway was cool, but I like freeways. I think 280 to 19th Ave to GG Bridge would be great for an interconnected elevated freeway. Big cities have big freeways. I remember the Central freeway and exiting off Fell st. Just had a more urban big city feel to it.

[fimiak]

I think they should bring back the Embarcadero freeway on the condition that they remove all public vehicles at ground level, exits are onto cross streets like Bay St and Broadway St. They will just keep a small two lane street that is only for emergency vehicles, a bike-way, and of course the E/F. Also the highway needs to be 'sculptural' and not an eyesore.

This is not going to pass anytime soon. It is simply not needed, and the money should rather be invested in another tunnel/bridge across the Bay.

[edwards]

They should've just moved it underground like the Alaskan Viaduct in Seattle.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Anyone here wish they never demolished the Embarcadero Freeway? Personally I wish it was still there and was eventually connected with the Golden Gate Bridge. Will they ever build a freeway through the city to the Golden Gate? I guess SF is more of a destination city, not a city you drive through like Oakland.

I wish it were still there.[/QUOTE]

Will they ever build a freeway through the city? If they have a division of army troops to guard the construction maybe.

This was the original freeway plan as proposed:


https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/08/01...reeway-revolt/

The citizens of the city took a look at the result of the beginning of the implementation of the plan and said, "No way!".

As an Angelino, you may not appreciate what has happened in Hayes Valley or along the Embarcadero without the hulking freeways but it's nothing short of a renaissance. And vote to put the freeways back up would lose 95% to 5%.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

look near where Moscone is now, looks like blocks and blocks of surface parking lots. .

I remember these. This was a result of 1950/60s "urban renewal". Before that 3rd St. was San Francisco's "Skid Row". This is what it looked like before is was a parking lot before it was the "Yerba Buena Redevelopment Area" (of which Moscone is a part):


http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...&brand=ucpress

They bulldozed the area pending redevelopment.

[botoxic]

The new San Francisco - love the Rincon Hill tower reflection from Salesforce


All is golden at 7am by bacalao, on Flickr

[Car(e)-Free LA]

As someone who neither lives in San Francisco nor owns a car, I think SF would do well to construct a few new freeways to get a system that looks like this:

First off, it would ensure that all traffic that flows through San Francisco stays off city streets. This could be strongly encouraged by tolling everybody who exits the freeway into San Francisco. Furthermore, it would provide direct freeway access from all entrances to San Francisco to the Transbay Terminal, so busses from other counties wouldn't have to use city streets. Also, it would allow the narrowing and improving of Lombard St, Park Presidio Blvd, and 19th Ave.

Secondly, most new construction is either bored under existing neighborhoods or cut and cover, with the opportunity of new development/parks above through parks and low density neighborhoods. It also allows the removal of many redundant, above ground segments of freeway.

While I'm playing God, I would phase construction like this:
1. Remove the 280 from Mission Bay to the 101. Leave ramps intact for Southern Crossing.
2. Build cut and cover tunnel from 4th St./I-80 to 20th St./US 101. Then remove all the in between freeway and the central freeway stub and redevelop.
3. Build the tunnel project from the Golden Gate bridge, with ramps around Sloat Blvd for future eastward freeway.
4. Build the Tunnel from Mission St./I-280 to the aforementioned ramps. Then remove all of the 280 between Mission St. and Daly City and redevelop.
5. Build Southern Crossing (someday.) Be sure to include BART on it, probably starting at Fisherman's Wharf and following Van Ness to Caesar Chavez before bending southeast.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

As someone who neither lives in San Francisco nor owns a car, I think SF would do well to construct a few new freeways to get a system that looks like this:

First off, it would ensure that all traffic that flows through San Francisco stays off city streets. This could be strongly encouraged by tolling everybody who exits the freeway into San Francisco. Furthermore, it would provide direct freeway access from all entrances to San Francisco to the Transbay Terminal, so busses from other counties wouldn't have to use city streets. Also, it would allow the narrowing and improving of Lombard St, Park Presidio Blvd, and 19th Ave.

Secondly, most new construction is either bored under existing neighborhoods or cut and cover, with the opportunity of new development/parks above through parks and low density neighborhoods. It also allows the removal of many redundant, above ground segments of freeway.

While I'm playing God, I would phase construction like this:
1. Remove the 280 from Mission Bay to the 101. Leave ramps intact for Southern Crossing.
2. Build cut and cover tunnel from 4th St./I-80 to 20th St./US 101. Then remove all the in between freeway and the central freeway stub and redevelop.
3. Build the tunnel project from the Golden Gate bridge, with ramps around Sloat Blvd for future eastward freeway.
4. Build the Tunnel from Mission St./I-280 to the aforementioned ramps. Then remove all of the 280 between Mission St. and Daly City and redevelop.
5. Build Southern Crossing (someday.) Be sure to include BART on it, probably starting at Fisherman's Wharf and following Van Ness to Caesar Chavez before bending southeast.

We heartily reject your advice. First, we do toll folks who come into the city over the Bridges. Those fees do not go to the city itself, but do go for bridge maintenance. The MTA is already looking at a new BART tube to come in from Alameda to support a new eastern subway route down to the massive Genentech campus/Oyster Point biotech center.

The Southern Crossing will never be built. and there will never be any freeways on the westside. The sheer wealth of the the neighborhoods that would be impacted is sufficient to litigate CalTrans for several decades.

[timbad]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I remember these. This was a result of 1950/60s "urban renewal". Before that 3rd St. was San Francisco's "Skid Row". ...

They bulldozed the area pending redevelopment.

... and the reason it sat like that for so long was because people stood up and demanded that the City give something back to the public after it razed the area and displaced those living there. so we got Yerba Buena Gardens and some low-income and senior housing along with the convention center and commercial stuff, instead of this:

source

there are some good pics here and a nice concise history here.

[ozone]

^^^^ Thank the gods that we didn't end up with this oppressive chunk of soul-crushing Brutalism!

[coyotetrickster]

Well, if you ask me, the current Mexican Art Museum tower looks similar to the high rise in the back ground...

[ozone]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Well, if you ask me, the current Mexican Art Museum tower looks similar to the high rise in the back ground...

It looks like that tower is on Market Street, about where the Four Seasons is today, doesn't it? Aside from the fact they are both tall I honestly don't see the similarities. And unlike the old TBC model the upcoming MAM Tower will overlook a park/garden.

Are those huge block-long parking garages in the center? Ugh.

[homebucket]

View from Hunters Point.


Source: Me

[minesweeper]

Demolition of the old buildings is complete and excavation is underway for a 12-story, 109 unit building at 1546-1564 Market Street near Van Ness:



The new building will eventually be adjacent to the One Oak tower.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

We heartily reject your advice. First, we do toll folks who come into the city over the Bridges. Those fees do not go to the city itself, but do go for bridge maintenance. The MTA is already looking at a new BART tube to come in from Alameda to support a new eastern subway route down to the massive Genentech campus/Oyster Point biotech center.

The Southern Crossing will never be built. and there will never be any freeways on the westside. The sheer wealth of the the neighborhoods that would be impacted is sufficient to litigate CalTrans for several decades.

Ironically enough, I'd be willing to bet those are also people who own cars and don't use mass transit. Out of all the people that live there, how many do you think use bus or train?

[mhays]

The people with cars manage to get by, don't they, without those freeways?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

We heartily reject your advice. First, we do toll folks who come into the city over the Bridges. Those fees do not go to the city itself, but do go for bridge maintenance. The MTA is already looking at a new BART tube to come in from Alameda to support a new eastern subway route down to the massive Genentech campus/Oyster Point biotech center.

The Southern Crossing will never be built. and there will never be any freeways on the westside. The sheer wealth of the the neighborhoods that would be impacted is sufficient to litigate CalTrans for several decades.

Tearing down the Embarcadero Fwy. was the best thing SF did. If there must be any freeways, they must fit into the urban fabric, or be underground where feasible with parks and buildings on top. Saving 10 minutes (assuming a freeway moves full speed, which it usually doesn't) isn't worth destroying neighborhoods. L.A. is finally learning what SF knew 30 years ago.

[SFView]

We owe San Francisco's current success, beauty and charm to the minimized construction and the removal of existing freeways in the city. Only when it becomes clear that the need to construct a new freeway or bridge outweighs the costs, it may be seriously considered. Here is a little background on Frank Lloyd Wright's 1953 Butterfly Bay Bridge proposal:

http://sf.curbed.com/2012/11/6/10309...her-bay-bridge