HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9101  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2018, 11:58 PM
SFBuildings888 SFBuildings888 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9102  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 2:38 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBuildings888 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9103  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 6:22 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 770
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9104  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 10:04 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,141
Isn't this thread about construction projects? Please take all ye opinions elsewhere, thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9105  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 10:22 PM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
SF County should swallow SM, AL, CC, and SC Counties.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9106  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 11:09 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by mt_climber13 View Post
Isn't this thread about construction projects? Please take all ye opinions elsewhere, thanks
where's the upvote button?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9107  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 9:09 AM
SFBuildings888 SFBuildings888 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotetrickster View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9108  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 9:11 AM
SFBuildings888 SFBuildings888 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaguy View Post
SF County should swallow SM, AL, CC, and SC Counties.
They should swallow up parts of San Mateo County only
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9109  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 2:16 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBuildings888 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9110  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2018, 3:41 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: 1,005
Coyotetrickster - thanks for the link - a fascinating read!
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9111  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 8:26 AM
SFBuildings888 SFBuildings888 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotetrickster View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9112  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 4:15 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBuildings888 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9113  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 6:38 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is online now
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBuildings888 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9114  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 8:57 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
FiveTen Represent!?!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Zurich, Switzerland & Piedmont, California
Posts: 6,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaguy View Post
SF County should swallow SM, AL, CC, and SC Counties.
No thank u, I dont need SF telling me what to do.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9115  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 9:08 PM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9116  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2018, 11:01 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
FiveTen Represent!?!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Zurich, Switzerland & Piedmont, California
Posts: 6,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaguy View Post
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
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9117  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2018, 10:00 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,141
Welcome to Donald Trump's America.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9118  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2018, 9:56 PM
alpallord alpallord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 3
Delayed. One oak on the market due to rising costs.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...-van-ness.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9119  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2018, 11:25 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 881
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpallord View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9120  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2018, 11:38 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1977 View Post
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
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 5:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.