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

[Virtual Urban Vision]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

caught this image in the examiner and felt sort of sick, i mean, i knew it was deep, but this deep??

Yep it's a subway, they're pretty deep. About there same as we have here in L.A. With escalators it doesn't seem so bad.

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by jbm

on a different note, my office has a view of foundry III (or at least the parking lot where its going) and the last couple of days it has been entirely devoid of cars. hopefully that means construction is starting in the near future.

I'm guessing May 1 is when they kicked everyone out? That would suggest they're planning to start this month.

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Moscone expansion is still on track.

I wonder where they're going to expand? Both 680 Folsom and 155 Fifth St were mentioned at one point as possible places to expand, but both have been bought up by other interests. It seems like the only possibility is the Moscone parking garage (which they mention) and under Howard Street. I wonder if that's enough space to meet the demand?

[peanut gallery]

Those were my assumptions. They mention connecting the north and south halls. To me, that means opening up everything under Howard, including space that is currently used for meetings/breakouts. Not sure how much square footage that is, but if they extend as far west as the current south hall goes, it might be quite a bit. That meeting space would be replaced and expanded by replacing the garage, which also would be connected underground (across Third). I was also intrigued by the mention of additional hotel rooms coming online in conjunction with the expansion. Could that mean the garage would be replaced by a new hotel with meeting (and small exhibition) space on the lower floors?

[timbad]

Originally Posted by NOPA

The Central subway would make a lot more sense if they increased the density near the stops. But of course that would make too much sense and god forbid the NIMBYs let improvements happen.

well, there is this, so some thought is being given to how the area should transform with the new line - it'll probably take forever, but abandon ye not all hope

from the above link:

This area, located generally in the vicinity of 4th St between Townsend and Market Streets, offers a unique opportunity for integration of transportation and land use. The Central Corridor Plan will propose changes to the allowed land uses and building heights, and will include a strategy for improving the pedestrian experience in this area. These changes will be based on a synthesis of community input, past and current land use efforts, and analysis of long-range regional, citywide, and neighborhood needs.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Virtual Urban Vision

Yep it's a subway, they're pretty deep. About there same as we have here in L.A. With escalators it doesn't seem so bad.

Some of the Washington and Rome Metro stations are also very deep--people here will just need to become more sophisticated with their subway usage.

[NOPA]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Not really in this case--Chinatown is as dense as it gets, Union Square is often packed and Moscone Center/Yerba Buena is also dense. What else would you do at this time? The air rights could eventually be developed over Caltrain, but that's not feasible now.

I disagree, Chinatown is dense, but it could be denser if we really wanted it to be (think tall buildings).

If this thing ever gets extended to Washington Square or even Pier 39 there could especially be more density up there (although it would never happen).

[Gordo]

^Guys, one of the fundamental problems with this whole line is that it is being built in a way that can't accommodate much future density/higher ridership.

And the issue with the deep station has to do with what making that trek gets you. In Rome or DC, you deal with a deep station because once you're there, you get access to a gigantic system that goes everywhere. With this system, you make a 10 minute trek into the depths of the earth for either a one stop trip to the north or for the trip south. Now, maybe over time there will be a greater network built to the north, or elsewhere, or more ridership going south of Moscone - BUT - see my first paragraph for the problem. If we ever get to the point where making the 10 minute deep dive is worth it to the average rider - the station will likely be well over capacity and need to be completely rebuilt...

[jbm]

Originally Posted by minesweeper

I'm guessing May 1 is when they kicked everyone out? That would suggest they're planning to start this month.

This morning they started tearing up the parking lot for foundry III. Did not make too much progress yet, but there were a few pieces of machinery starting work.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^Guys, one of the fundamental problems with this whole line is that it is being built in a way that can't accommodate much future density/higher ridership.

Please explain- are you talking about the size of the stations? The size of the platforms? Size of the rails? Size of the trains?

The line will be running down some of the densest neighborhoods in the country/ continent, so do we really need more density in those areas? I'd prefer density in other areas that could use it- Geary, Van Ness, Market/ Upper Market, along the N and L lines in the Sunset.

[spyguy]

Not sure if it was ever posted but I came across this rendering of what I assume was/is a proposal for Block 8 (Folsom and 1st).

From Chicagoarchitecture.info's blog post "Inside Solomon Cordwell Buenz"

Rendering in question: http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...4/IMG_2315.jpg

Closeup + photoshop:

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Not sure if it was ever posted but I came across this rendering of what I assume was/is a proposal for Block 8 (Folsom and 1st).

From Chicagoarchitecture.info's blog post "Inside Solomon Cordwell Buenz"

Rendering in question: http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...4/IMG_2315.jpg

Closeup + photoshop:

What a great find- I like what I see!

[peanut gallery]

Thanks spyguy! I love it. It sure looks taller than 550' (the limit for that block) compared to ORH in that rendering.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by NOPA

I disagree, Chinatown is dense, but it could be denser if we really wanted it to be (think tall buildings).

If this thing ever gets extended to Washington Square or even Pier 39 there could especially be more density up there (although it would never happen).

Chinatown is chill the way it is and I, as one of many, would be against tall buildings there, in North Beach or at the Wharf. There are many other locations in the City that need taller, denser development that would be appropriate for it.

[1977]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Not sure if it was ever posted but I came across this rendering of what I assume was/is a proposal for Block 8 (Folsom and 1st).

From Chicagoarchitecture.info's blog post "Inside Solomon Cordwell Buenz"

Rendering in question: http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info...4/IMG_2315.jpg

Closeup + photoshop:

Awesome find indeed! Looks promising. Thanks!

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Please explain- are you talking about the size of the stations? The size of the platforms? Size of the rails? Size of the trains?

The line will be running down some of the densest neighborhoods in the country/ continent, so do we really need more density in those areas? I'd prefer density in other areas that could use it- Geary, Van Ness, Market/ Upper Market, along the N and L lines in the Sunset.

I agree. I don't think the Central Line is going to be perfect, but it's going to be an improvement that will over time become part of more improvements.
And here's the main thing, it's happening no matter what anyone says, so get used to it.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Please explain- are you talking about the size of the stations? The size of the platforms? Size of the rails? Size of the trains?

The line will be running down some of the densest neighborhoods in the country/ continent, so do we really need more density in those areas? I'd prefer density in other areas that could use it- Geary, Van Ness, Market/ Upper Market, along the N and L lines in the Sunset.

It was discussed to death in some older threads here a few years ago - I think there was one thread specific to the project? The basic gist is the platforms are too small (length and width) and the circulation into and out of the station too restricted to ever provide enough service to replace existing street lines (30, 45, etc), let alone increased overall ridership.

There are other issues too - not enough trains systemwide and no budget to get more for the foreseeable future, astoundingly high operating costs that will likely mean cuts in Muni service elsewhere forever, lack of proper infrastructure being put into place to allow "short runs" just inside the tunnel, etc.

Originally Posted by CyberEric

I agree. I don't think the Central Line is going to be perfect, but it's going to be an improvement that will over time become part of more improvements.
And here's the main thing, it's happening no matter what anyone says, so get used to it.

It's in a tunnel, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean faster, cleaner, more reliable, etc - exactly what problem do you think this line is solving? The only one that I've seen is that it might keep you from getting wet while waiting for a ride (assuming the tunnel doesn't leak ). This is really one of those cases where I think that building nothing would be better than building something, simply because of the dramatically increased operating costs that this line will drain from the rest of the system, which will lead to declining quality of service everywhere else.

[fflint]

Guys, this thread isn't supposed to be about the merits of new subway lines. Perhaps the dedicated Bay Area thread in the transportation subforum is a better venue for that.

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by Gordo

It was discussed to death in some older threads here a few years ago - I think there was one thread specific to the project? The basic gist is the platforms are too small (length and width) and the circulation into and out of the station too restricted to ever provide enough service to replace existing street lines (30, 45, etc), let alone increased overall ridership.

There are other issues too - not enough trains systemwide and no budget to get more for the foreseeable future, astoundingly high operating costs that will likely mean cuts in Muni service elsewhere forever, lack of proper infrastructure being put into place to allow "short runs" just inside the tunnel, etc.




It's in a tunnel, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean faster, cleaner, more reliable, etc - exactly what problem do you think this line is solving? The only one that I've seen is that it might keep you from getting wet while waiting for a ride (assuming the tunnel doesn't leak ). This is really one of those cases where I think that building nothing would be better than building something, simply because of the dramatically increased operating costs that this line will drain from the rest of the system, which will lead to declining quality of service everywhere else.

I respectfully disagree with many of your points, but it doesn't matter al that much what you or I thinks; it's being built.
Fflint is right, we should take this to the transportation thread.

[minesweeper]

John King posted this picture of the 680 Folsom rehab yesterday: