SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed - Page 456

SFBuildings888 · #**9101** Posted **Apr 16, 2018, 11:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

If only we could annex Brisbane and Daly City we would be over 1 million by now.

I agree. SF shouldn’t have only 40 some sq miles of land for being a major city. I don’t know why it couldn’t have a bigger land area in the first place.

coyotetrickster · #**9102** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 2:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

I agree. SF shouldn’t have only 40 some sq miles of land for being a major city. I don’t know why it couldn’t have a bigger land area in the first place.

Because of California annexation laws. Plus, we don't want Daly City or Brisbane as part of the city.

fimiak · #**9103** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 6:22 PM**

The US is estimated to have an extra 100 million people by 2050 (438m)..they have to live somewhere. I don't see why people's opinions and tribal instincts should get in the way of long-term regional planning. The entire local region should be integrated into a borough system, including at the very least cities like Oakland, S. SF, Daly City, and the two airports.

This would enable even more bridges, tunnels, and other infrastructure projects.. which will have to come in the next 100 years whether people today want to fund them or not.

Imagine what NYC would be like if places like Staten Island, Long Island City, Flushing, Jamaica, even the Bronx were able to close themselves down to growth 100 years ago. The city would not be the same, yet this is exactly what San Francisco does. It is the ability for growth in the local region that made NYC and more (London, Paris, etc) far greater than if only the core city were allowed to grow.

And that is why I am voting for whoever promises the most growth.

mt_climber13 · #**9104** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 10:04 PM**

Isn't this thread about construction projects? Please take all ye opinions elsewhere, thanks

pizzaguy · #**9105** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 10:22 PM**

SF County should swallow SM, AL, CC, and SC Counties.

pseudolus · #**9106** Posted **Apr 17, 2018, 11:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

Isn't this thread about construction projects? Please take all ye opinions elsewhere, thanks

where's the upvote button?

SFBuildings888 · #**9107** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 9:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Because of California annexation laws. Plus, we don't want Daly City or Brisbane as part of the city.

Than why can LA and San Diego each have over 400 and 300 sq miles of land respectively? Also, San Jose has over a 100 square miles of land too.

SFBuildings888 · #**9108** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 9:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

SF County should swallow SM, AL, CC, and SC Counties.

They should swallow up parts of San Mateo County only

coyotetrickster · #**9109** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 2:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

Than why can LA and San Diego each have over 400 and 300 sq miles of land respectively? Also, San Jose has over a 100 square miles of land too.

http://www.trampsofsanfrancisco.com/...city-part-iii/

Well-researched post about the politics of San Francisco's city limits.

Jerry of San Fran · #**9110** Posted **Apr 19, 2018, 3:41 PM**

Coyotetrickster - thanks for the link - a fascinating read!

SFBuildings888 · #**9111** Posted **Apr 20, 2018, 8:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

http://www.trampsofsanfrancisco.com/...city-part-iii/

Well-researched post about the politics of San Francisco's city limits.

I read it and still a little confused.

coyotetrickster · #**9112** Posted **Apr 20, 2018, 4:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

I read it and still a little confused.

What's confusing? The city limits at one point in time were set at almost 500 Sq Miles. However, with the counties being established in 1850 and SF electing to be a combined county/city, the boundaries were set by the state legislature to be those of the county of SF, so those also became the city's boundaries. Over the years, politicians from other places in the region enacted legislation to ensure SF's boundaries were not expanded. Part of that was due to rampant corruption in the city, as well as in response to some noxious politicians.

viewguysf · #**9113** Posted **Apr 20, 2018, 6:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

They should swallow up parts of San Mateo County only

I remember not so long ago it was proposed that San Francisco become part of San Mateo County as its largest city. None of this is going to happen, nor in my opinion should it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have much stronger regional planning in a number of areas.

Can we move on from this discussion now instead of continuing to throw out wishes and opinions? Coyotetrickster explained the current situation well, fimiak presented one solution with a NYC borough type system (the five boroughs that comprise New York City are five separate counties), we could strengthen regional transportation and planning agencies that already exist, etc. Pizzaguy's suggestion would be the ultimate nightmare to me.

dimondpark · #**9114** Posted **Apr 20, 2018, 8:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

SF County should swallow SM, AL, CC, and SC Counties.

No thank u, I dont need SF telling me what to do.

pizzaguy · #**9115** Posted **Apr 20, 2018, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Pizzaguy's suggestion would be the ultimate nightmare to me.

I'm inspired by LA County, the largest in the US, which has been building new transit lines at a much faster pace than the Bay Area. A consolidated SF County, which would be the 2nd largest in the US, with one transit agency would serve us much better.

dimondpark · #**9116** Posted **Apr 20, 2018, 11:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

I'm inspired by LA County, the largest in the US, which has been building new transit lines at a much faster pace than the Bay Area. A consolidated SF County, which would be the 2nd largest in the US, with one transit agency would serve us much better.

LA is making up for wasted years and LA Metro ridership is down so not sure why u say we need to emulate that?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...124-story.html

mt_climber13 · #**9117** Posted **Apr 21, 2018, 10:00 AM**

Welcome to Donald Trump's America.

alpallord · #**9118** Posted **Apr 24, 2018, 9:56 PM**

Delayed. One oak on the market due to rising costs.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...-van-ness.html

1977 · #**9119** Posted **Apr 24, 2018, 11:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpallord

Delayed. One oak on the market due to rising costs.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...-van-ness.html

Bummer. That intersection definitely could use some love.

Pedestrian · #**9120** Posted **Apr 24, 2018, 11:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1977

Bummer. That intersection definitely could use some love.

While it isn't scheduled for groundbreaking until the city's new offices at Mission and S. Van Ness are completed about 2020, as far as I know the project across the street at 30 Van Ness as well as the other Hub projects are still on track: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=227458