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

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

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.

Hey. I agree. I want LA to tear down some freeways and get rid of parking requirements and the Embarcadero Freeway was a horrible addition to the city. However, if you read what I suggested, I proposed tearing down 4 sections of freeway in the city, and building almost all the new construction underground. This also opens up the possibility of narrowing literally every SF street with more than 2 lanes per direction.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

Hey. I agree. I want LA to tear down some freeways and get rid of parking requirements and the Embarcadero Freeway was a horrible addition to the city. However, if you read what I suggested, I proposed tearing down 4 sections of freeway in the city, and building almost all the new construction underground. This also opens up the possibility of narrowing literally every SF street with more than 2 lanes per direction.

I recognize you were proposing underground cuts. However, we've already addressed the 101/80 spur to Mission with Octavia Blvd. The traffic backup there is legendary and we'd like to keep it that way, too discourage car use. We are already discussing dropping 280 at the 101 split, or near the 22d street CalTrain Station similar to what we've done for Octavia Blvd. Dropping the 101/280 spurs south of Mission is an interesting idea. If that happens, we won't create any spurs for the Southern Crossing. That will never be built.

[Pedestrian]

^^The freeway system in SF, as it is, functions at a minimal level, doesn't really disrupt any neighborhoods, and should be left alone. This San Franciscan does NOT support encouraging freeways congestion to cut car use even though I don't keep a car in the city. I still travel out of the city in rental or Zip cars occasionally and the freeway traffic is worse and worse every year. Last fall when I left the city on a multi-day trip to anther state, the Bay Bridge ramps were all gridlocked even at midnight and I had to go south to San Jose and thence to I-5. This not only is frustrating for those who live in the city and who work there or otherwise must come and go, but it is catastrophic for commerce coming and going (and that includes most of the food we city dwellers eat).

So while I don't want to put up new neighborhood-destroying freeways, I don't think there are any more existing ones we can dispense with, and I voted to keep/repair the Central Freeway spur that used to exist all 3 times the issue was on the ballot. In retrospect, the Hayes Valley renaissance probably was worth losing the Central past Market St, but I predicted--at the community meetings that were held--that none of the proposed replacements inclduing the Octavia Blvd. would work all that well handling traffic and I think I've been proven right.

[Pedestrian]

Another Mid-Market housing project approved, boosting development wave
Jan 27, 2017, 1:24pm PST Updated Jan 27, 2017, 2:11pm PST
Roland Li
Reporter San Francisco Business Times

Developers Tidewater Capital and War Horse LLC received unanimous approval on Thursday from the San Francisco Planning Commission for a 13-story project at 1028 Market St. . . . .

Craig Young, founder and managing principal of San Francisco-based Tidewater Capital, expects construction to start by the end of the year. The project is expected to open around late 2019. The project's budget and general contractor haven't been finalized, he said. A city planning report estimated the construction costs to be $61 million . . . .

Thousands of housing units have been approved or are under construction in the Mid-Market area. At 1028 Market's immediate neighbor, 1066 Market St., Shorenstein Residential has approval for a 304-unit project 301-unit project. Shorenstein overcame an appeal after the developer agreed to buy a nearby site in the Tenderloin for affordable units.

Group I's 1095 Market St., which calls for 242 condos and 232 hotel rooms, was also approved in November, but advocates for an LGBTQ historic district have appealed the project to the Board of Supervisors. A vote is scheduled for next Tuesday. Developer Encore Capital Management is also developing a 90-unit condo building at 1075 Market St. The massive Trinity Place project is also under construction, with phase three adding 541 units.

But Mid-Market has also seen challenges, with a slew of restaurant closings. The new 230,000-square-foot 6x6 retail center and 42,000-square-foot redeveloped Hibernia Bank are also still seeking their first tenants.

The 1028 Market St. project includes 9,657 square feet of ground-floor retail space, which Young plans to lease to neighborhood-serving retailers. The project will include 25 affordable units, or 13 percent of the project, for renters making up to 55 percent of the area median income. The project also includes 40 underground parking spaces . . . .

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...&j=77214201#g1

[a very long weekend]

imo, the 280 should end at 18th/mariposa. there's just too much land there being burned past mariposa park to justify the small amount of time that it saves. we're going to have an epic problem once that basketball stadium opens and the freeway there will encourage the wrong sort of modeshare/traffic pattern.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

imo, the 280 should end at 18th/mariposa. there's just too much land there being burned past mariposa park to justify the small amount of time that it saves. we're going to have an epic problem once that basketball stadium opens and the freeway there will encourage the wrong sort of modeshare/traffic pattern.

I don't think the exact drop point is clarified. They are looking at traffic projection patterns for several intersections. I also think they need to incorporate growth projections from the Central SOMA Overlay/Upzoning. There is a lot of street restoration that could take place were the spur to drop near Mariposa. Even more if it dropped at Cesar Chavez.

[mdsayh1]

So does anyone know where the highest public accessible observation deck is in SF? I mean in or on a building. Not on top of Twin Peaks. Is it Coit tower?

[a very long weekend]

^ probably top of the mark. if you head there, be sure to pop into the tonga room for a zombie.

@ coyote trickster - pulling the 280 back to cesar chavez would be great if we had anything like a plan to upzone the surrounding areas. i'd love to see a shinjuku level of development go in there, believe me. the thing is that we have to be realistic - the people on potrero hill will do anything possible not to lose this freeway to new construction.

also, a super crucial piece of infrastructure going forward will be some form of shuttle or, in a fantasy world, dedicated lane BRT or even LRT down 16th between third and market. great links connecting castro station to 16th street bart to mission bay will be obvious. to make this work, the absolute minimum the freeway should be pulled back to would be mariposa park. you're right that traffic studies should determine exactly where it is, if that's even too close.

[L.ARCH]

The sales center for Lumina was demolished over the weekend. Guess this means 100 Folsom is about to begin?

[observatory]

Originally Posted by L.ARCH

The sales center for Lumina was demolished over the weekend. Guess this means 100 Folsom is about to begin?

YES!!! I LOVE the design of this building. Wish it could be as tall as the old BofA Building (but at that height, maybe not as close to the Bay).

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by L.ARCH

The sales center for Lumina was demolished over the weekend. Guess this means 100 Folsom is about to begin?

That project has its own thread.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=212226&page=3

[edwards]

Originally Posted by mdsayh1

So does anyone know where the highest public accessible observation deck is in SF? I mean in or on a building. Not on top of Twin Peaks. Is it Coit tower?

The View Lounge?

[botoxic]

On the roof deck for some fresh air. It's pretty and nice out. Also, so many cranes! by Elizabeth K. Joseph, on Flickr


Had a nice flight around San Francisco during take off! #aerial by Eric Cheng, on Flickr

[Pedestrian]

It's driving me crazy that the spire on 181 Fremont looks like it's tilted outward from the center of the tower axis. It's an optical illusion because of the shape of the thing but it still looks that way.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by mhays

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

Anecdote. . . I can say the same thing about people in cars managing to get by without mass transit and even better by having a more direct means of transportation to their destination.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

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.

Seeing that Los Angeles has the biggest economy in California, I don't think the city has much to learn from San Francisco. Look SF is my favorite city. I love San Francisco. If I was God, sure, I'd build a new network of freeways in SF and the Bay Area, but I'm not and it obviously isn't going to happen. Too expensive and too many people who don't want freeways for very different reasons than people on here.

Also, about L.A. learning from SF: what are you referring to? L.A. has no plans to demolish any freeways. Plans for several new freeways around the LA area are planned. So what are referring to? Mass transit? If so, while SF has a great mass transit system in terms of how expansive it is in the core, yes, but how it has been maintained?. . . apparently not! Two different cities and different culture.

Edit: this will be my last post on this issue as I don't want to detract from the lovely updates that are being posted in San Francisco. I can certainly understand why you don't want freeways living in SanFran.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

If so, while SF has a great mass transit system in terms of how expansive it is in the core,

Really? I think this is where it's weakest. The Bay Area has way too much transit infrastructure serving low density suburban areas in the boonies and not nearly enough serving potential high ridership corridors in SF/Oakland/Berkeley. And now we're going to extend it even further to San Jose.

I mean, my God, Geary doesn't even have a subway and is only now just getting BRT.

(I apologize if you guys don't want Bay Area transit discussions in this thread.)

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Really? I think this is where it's weakest. The Bay Area has way too much transit infrastructure serving low density suburban areas in the boonies and not nearly enough serving potential high ridership corridors in SF/Oakland/Berkeley. And now we're going to extend it even further to San Jose.

I mean, my God, Geary doesn't even have a subway and is only now just getting BRT.

(I apologize if you guys don't want Bay Area transit discussions in this thread.)

Keep this in mind, I have yet to travel to European cities with great mass transit systems, so I only say that from my point of view.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Really? I think this is where it's weakest.

Except it's undoubtedly where it's the strongest, overall. SF city-proper has some of the most impressive transit coverage of any American city, and Oakland is no slouch either, though it's not in the same league as SF.

Though if you never ride the bus, and only consider trains to be "proper" public transit, i could see how you might come to the conclusion that coverage in the core sucks (i agree that for trains it does kinda suck, though it still is good by US standards).

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

The Bay Area has way too much transit infrastructure serving low density suburban areas in the boonies and not nearly enough serving potential high ridership corridors in SF/Oakland/Berkeley. And now we're going to extend it even further to San Jose.

I mean, my God, Geary doesn't even have a subway and is only now just getting BRT.

(I apologize if you guys don't want Bay Area transit discussions in this thread.)

Yeah, there should be more BART/Muni metro coverage in the core. Geary needs a subway yesterday, as does Van Ness and maybe 19th ave.

But dude...San Jose is one of the three major cities in the Bay Area, and BART is going to be serving the densest part of the city. BART to SJ is a good thing, and I'm not sure why you're throwing SJ into the same bucket as the suburbs.

[fimiak]

Today.











Look for the trees on Transbay Center!