HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8381  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2017, 4:13 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,824
It's because most people here don't want to look like Miami or Vancouver, and why should we? I'm a skyscraper/highrise supporter, but not for seeing them everywhere in the City. San Francisco is beautifully unique, it is expanding its population at a rapid rate while still needing much improved transportation options, and people around the world generally love it here. Too many of you who don't live here have a plethora of ideas that don't fit. We are very fortunate to have what we're getting and have gotten across our downtown areas, including "The Hub" around Van Ness and Market. Educate yourselves as to what is actually happening around planning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8382  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2017, 4:27 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,202
The low rise white boxes all over the hills with the huge skyscrapers on the peninsula gives SF a uniquely dramatic aesthetic from far away and in the neighborhoods. SF should have the best of both worlds, tall towers and low rise residential areas. But surrounding cities should be shouldering the growth as well, since San Jose and Silicon Valley is where most of the jobs are being created, yet there are hardly any high rises in Mountain View and Palo Alto. High rises up to 400'+ should be built at the nexus of all CalTrain and BART stations throughout Northern California.

Last edited by mt_climber13; Mar 31, 2017 at 4:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8383  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2017, 6:19 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
I'm a skyscraper/highrise supporter, but not for seeing them everywhere in the City . . . . We are very fortunate to have what we're getting and have gotten across our downtown areas, including "The Hub" around Van Ness and Market. Educate yourselves as to what is actually happening around planning.
To be clear, I've been a San Franciscan for 35 years and I agree that almost no San Franciscans want to see highrises everywhere. I've never met anyone who would tear down a genuine Victorian or Edwardian residence to build a skyscraper or demolish any of the low-rise residential neighborhoods to build them. But I don't think that iew covers a lot of areas that could have been taller and more given to high rises than they are and on such is the area that was mentioned: Third St. That is a transit-dense corridor since we built the LRV line and it is mostly brownfield former industrial land. The only reason Third isn't zoned for 30-story towers like those in Vancouver that I can see is that it would spoil the views from Potrero Hill where resides a lot of political clout (including former Mayor Agnos who was also a leader in campaigns like the one to block the Warriors arena as I recall). And there was the "no wall on the waterfront" campaign that blocked a midrise that isn't on the waterfront but might have blocked some viw from the lower slopes of Telegraph Hill where dwell the infamous Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

Third St, Geary Blvd., the "Hub", SOMA west of 4th St and some other areas call out for taller, denser housing IMHO but, of course, not the Haight, the Castro, Noe Valley, th Mission and the other beloved historical "hoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
The low rise white boxes all over the hills with the huge skyscrapers on the peninsula gives SF a uniquely dramatic aesthetic from far away and in the neighborhoods. SF should have the best of both worlds, tall towers and low rise residential areas. But surrounding cities should be shouldering the growth as well, since San Jose and Silicon Valley is where most of the jobs are being created, yet there are hardly any high rises in Mountain View and Palo Alto. High rises up to 400'+ should be built at the nexus of all CalTrain and BART stations throughout Northern California.
Were it up to me, I'd tear down the white (mostly post-WW II) boxes leavng the prominent hills pristine and build more towers in the areas I just outlined. But I also mentioned that in the transit-oriented developments near BART stations all over the system, rather than 2-4 floor garden apartments and townhomes there should be towers except that, like in the city, the local NIMBYs fought them off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8384  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2017, 7:41 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,130
speaking of developments around Caltrain stations (altho not the 400' type) the office building on Brannan and almost Fourth, seen from Bluxome Alley (all of these from earlier this week)



concrete pour at the office building on Townsend and Sixth...





... and at 100 Hooper site





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8385  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2017, 5:16 PM
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justbuildit View Post
^^^^
What is keeping the Bay Area from going crazy with condo tower construction like we see in Miami and Vancouver? Seems like this is a perfect area for that kind of action and we should be seeing a lot more condos going up around the bay, not just around Rincon Hill. Miami west coast. I'd like to see SF skyline extend much further southward with condo towers. I hate that we are not seeing large towers going in south of the Bay Bridge and the skyline just suddenly ends at the bridge. That sucks.
Rendering of a proposed plan south of the Bay Bridge:

It's estimated that it will being 20,000 new housing units and 35,000 new jobs. Currently, they are going through environmental review before construction.

Source: http://news.theregistrysf.com/the-wonderful-waterfront/


Also, are you aware of Mission Rock project? The high-rises here aren't that tall, but it looks nice regardless. Right now it's a parking lot for the Giants. The area will still be owned by the Giants partly and will have a big parking garage.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8386  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2017, 5:19 PM
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
The low rise white boxes all over the hills with the huge skyscrapers on the peninsula gives SF a uniquely dramatic aesthetic from far away and in the neighborhoods. SF should have the best of both worlds, tall towers and low rise residential areas. But surrounding cities should be shouldering the growth as well, since San Jose and Silicon Valley is where most of the jobs are being created, yet there are hardly any high rises in Mountain View and Palo Alto. High rises up to 400'+ should be built at the nexus of all CalTrain and BART stations throughout Northern California.
They're not 400'+ but you should see the construction around Milpitas BART station. I can send you some renderings of it if you want.

Also, there's a lot of high rises coming up or recently came up around Santa Clara and Moffett Field area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8387  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2017, 6:27 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justbuildit View Post
^^^^
What is keeping the Bay Area from going crazy with condo tower construction like we see in Miami and Vancouver? Seems like this is a perfect area for that kind of action and we should be seeing a lot more condos going up around the bay, not just around Rincon Hill. Miami west coast. I'd like to see SF skyline extend much further southward with condo towers. I hate that we are not seeing large towers going in south of the Bay Bridge and the skyline just suddenly ends at the bridge. That sucks.
Blame Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger

http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?tit...erfront_Vistas
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8388  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2017, 4:17 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,824
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=131467&page=6

This thread does need to be revived.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8389  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2017, 5:59 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,130
Church and Market corner...





the little project just west of future One Oak





a peek inside at the Horror on Harrison (at Eighth)









Seventh and Rausch



Sixth and Howard



Fifth and Folsom

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8390  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2017, 7:24 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: 1,072
1554 Market St. (between Market/Oak)

In relation to Timbad's post yesterday here is a picture from Handel Architects web page at http://www.handelarchitects.com/proj...54-market.html

There has been no activity the last few days when I have walked by.

Except for the red building on the left the whole block between Market & Oak will be redeveloped within the next few years.

1554 Market St. by Apollo's Light, on Flickr
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8391  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2017, 5:13 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 684

_XRG4606 by Craig, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8392  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2017, 6:00 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
Also, are you aware of Mission Rock project? The high-rises here aren't that tall, but it looks nice regardless. Right now it's a parking lot for the Giants. The area will still be owned by the Giants partly and will have a big parking garage.
And like everything else in SF, the plan originally called for taller stuctures but not as tall as they should be at that site:


http://www.beyerblinderbelle.com/pro...9_mission_rock

Actualy, this version is more like it:


https://www.pinterest.com/james8528/buildings/?lp=true
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8393  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2017, 8:11 PM
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
And like everything else in SF, the plan originally called for taller stuctures but not as tall as they should be at that site:


http://www.beyerblinderbelle.com/pro...9_mission_rock

Actualy, this version is more like it:


https://www.pinterest.com/james8528/buildings/?lp=true
Wow, nice find. Thanks for posting this. I haven't seen these renderings of Mission Rock before.

I'm still puzzled into where the parking garage will be and how many spaces will it have vs. the current parking lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8394  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2017, 5:55 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,603
New BizTimes "crane watch" map--can you identify them all?


http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...co-crane-watch
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8395  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2017, 9:45 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
It's because most people here don't want to look like Miami or Vancouver, and why should we? I'm a skyscraper/highrise supporter, but not for seeing them everywhere in the City. San Francisco is beautifully unique, it is expanding its population at a rapid rate while still needing much improved transportation options, and people around the world generally love it here. Too many of you who don't live here have a plethora of ideas that don't fit. We are very fortunate to have what we're getting and have gotten across our downtown areas, including "The Hub" around Van Ness and Market. Educate yourselves as to what is actually happening around planning.
A lot of people from around the world love it right now too and that includes preserving freeways and 'drivability' so don't forget that. Transit needs to be expanded but not prioritized over cars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8396  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 12:05 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
A lot of people from around the world love it right now too and that includes preserving freeways and 'drivability' so don't forget that. Transit needs to be expanded but not prioritized over cars.
At least 2 existing freeways in SF, the termini of I-280 and of the Central Freeway as it approaches Market Street are under some threat. The Mayor seems to be a proponent of tearing down the last mile or 2 of I-280 to make developable land and the locals living around the end of the Central are pushing to remove more of it (the portion north of Market St was removed after it was damaged in the 1989 quake).

There will not be any more freeways constructed within the city in anybody here's lifetime.

And the city has an official "transit first" policy which it is carrying out in its usual bizarrely dysfunctional fashion by making driving personal vehicles ever more difficult by turning lanes over to bikes, making them unusable by putting "bulb-outs" at every corner and abandoning many to transit-only with red paint, but at the same time not making the all-out effort that would be required to make transit capable of efficiently and rapidly getting people where they need to go. It is telling that the city leadership themselves continue to drive themselves to work at City Hall and demand free parking. Past mayors have occasionally made a show of riding Muni but don't actually use it regularly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8397  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 12:36 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,824
We have torn down one freeway completely and shortened two others since the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, causing neighborhoods and areas to blossom. I'm all for transit, use it regularly, walk miles a week, yet also drive my car all over the City. Transit policies and priorities need to be balanced for as many types of people as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8398  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 2:29 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,603
^^When it comes to tearing down freeways, what needs attention is where and how they end and how that impacts both traffic and neighborhoods. You are right that the removal of the Central and Embarcadero has benefitted Hayes Valley and the Embarcadero neighborhoods. Those freeways were particularly egregious in how they treated existing neighborhoods such as the Embarcadero freeway practically hiding the Ferry Building behind a wall of concrete.

But I would argue on the downside that Gough St., which used to move well through Hayes Valley, now suffers near complete gridlock at times and I have read Oak and Fell west of Octavia are also impacted (I don't use those so can't say). Just as the neighborhood has blossomed, I think there's been a clear negative impact on traffic.

And removing more of the central so that it brings traffic to surface streets somewhere in SOMA could similarly snarl surface streets there including Mission, Duboce and so on. And unlike Hayes Valley, I just don't think the impact on that area is likely either to benefit enough or become attractive enough to be worth it.

The plans being developed for I-280 are another matter. I'd like to see more serious consideration being given to decking over the CalTrain rail yards and building on that "new" land such as I believe was done in New York.


http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/a...ed-6848002.php

If we need more developable real estate in that area, I'd prefer that to channeling freeway traffic into Mission Bay from whence it could go where? I foresee Gough-style gridlock on 16th St.


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...in-6254662.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8399  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 3:46 AM
LagunaPuerca LagunaPuerca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 3
It takes a special kind of madness to propose increasing automobile transport share in San Francisco, just as it takes a special kind of ignorance of history to suggest that the current state of US transportation infrastructure is due to "dysfunctional" municipal management. The Federal government has underwritten and subsidized the suburbanization of the US. Nine of ten transportation tax dollars in urban areas have exited the cores to subsidize suburban highway construction. But let's leave aside history for a moment, and consider the practical aspects of increasing auto infrastructure in San Francisco.

It is possible? The answer is no: unless we choose to initiate a Robert Moses style of neighborhood destruction (I highly recommend the chapter, "One Mile", from The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York -- it describes the construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway), there is no room for more freeway space in not just San Francisco proper, but nearly the entire Bay Area. Besides, continuing the "greatest mis-allocation of resources in human history" (JH Kunstler's acid phrase for the US suburban project) in a time when the consequences of unbridled CO2 release are becoming apparent, is the definition of madness.

But wait, haven't we been here before? There was, in San Francisco, this thing called the "Freeway Revolt". It explains, in part, why San Francisco proper has some appeal today: it is walkable, and habitable. It is a good place to live. Unlike Philadelphia, or Seattle, or many American cities, there is not a roaring freeway between the city and the waterfront. The neighborhoods that were torn apart by freeway construction did, as they did in most US cities, become ghettos. But some of those freeways have been removed, and, behold!, those neighborhoods are returning to life.

Two of the penultimate NIMBY movements: the Freeway Revolt, and the defeat of urban "redevelopment", saved San Francisco from the destruction and depopulation that typifies most US urban cores. Add to that the limits on high rise office development and a variety of laws limiting the destruction of neighborhoods (epitomized by the "Richmond Special") for the sake of a predatory rentier class, and the result is one of the most desirable cities to live in. E.g., St. Louis population, ~1945: ~800,000; 2000: ~360,000, 2010: 330,000. San Francisco population, ~1945: ~800,000; 1970: ~700,000; 2010: 800,000. The scale of urban abandonment in most US cities is breathtaking, and San Francisco has by and large escaped that fate. It is no accident. Democracy, when it exists, and works, is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8400  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2017, 7:13 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by LagunaPuerca View Post
It takes a special kind of madness to propose increasing automobile transport share in San Francisco, just as it takes a special kind of ignorance of history to suggest that the current state of US transportation infrastructure is due to "dysfunctional" municipal management. The Federal government has underwritten and subsidized the suburbanization of the US. Nine of ten transportation tax dollars in urban areas have exited the cores to subsidize suburban highway construction. But let's leave aside history for a moment, and consider the practical aspects of increasing auto infrastructure in San Francisco.

It is possible? The answer is no: unless we choose to initiate a Robert Moses style of neighborhood destruction (I highly recommend the chapter, "One Mile", from The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York -- it describes the construction of the Cross-Bronx Expressway), there is no room for more freeway space in not just San Francisco proper, but nearly the entire Bay Area. Besides, continuing the "greatest mis-allocation of resources in human history" (JH Kunstler's acid phrase for the US suburban project) in a time when the consequences of unbridled CO2 release are becoming apparent, is the definition of madness.

But wait, haven't we been here before? There was, in San Francisco, this thing called the "Freeway Revolt". It explains, in part, why San Francisco proper has some appeal today: it is walkable, and habitable. It is a good place to live. Unlike Philadelphia, or Seattle, or many American cities, there is not a roaring freeway between the city and the waterfront. The neighborhoods that were torn apart by freeway construction did, as they did in most US cities, become ghettos. But some of those freeways have been removed, and, behold!, those neighborhoods are returning to life.

Two of the penultimate NIMBY movements: the Freeway Revolt, and the defeat of urban "redevelopment", saved San Francisco from the destruction and depopulation that typifies most US urban cores. Add to that the limits on high rise office development and a variety of laws limiting the destruction of neighborhoods (epitomized by the "Richmond Special") for the sake of a predatory rentier class, and the result is one of the most desirable cities to live in. E.g., St. Louis population, ~1945: ~800,000; 2000: ~360,000, 2010: 330,000. San Francisco population, ~1945: ~800,000; 1970: ~700,000; 2010: 800,000. The scale of urban abandonment in most US cities is breathtaking, and San Francisco has by and large escaped that fate. It is no accident. Democracy, when it exists, and works, is a good thing.
nice one.

even the meager bridge on/off-ramps left over from the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway have a lingering deleterious effect on the trying-to-blossom Rincon Hill area, and the proximity of the bridge will probably never free it from what feels like pretty miserable traffic volumes to at least this person when walking around it.

freeways need to be removed as far as possible from urban areas. transit needs to be expanded AND prioritized over auto use. for the time being, this would just mean starting to balance the unequal situation that has existed, as LP mentions, so that everyone can use the streets.
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 8:05 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.