HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1001  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2007, 3:27 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
I don't disagree with you Frisco, having been somewhat of a community activist or at least participating in events for years. I'm not totally anti-NIMBY, especially if I perceive that a project or whatever doesn't fit well where it is proposed. I'm a left-of-center moderate to liberal guy, not an ultra-progressive on most issues. Let's build wisely and well and make more dramatic statements, not just build to have the City full of new buildings of mediocre quality and/or appearance.

As for you Tyler, your lack of historical knowledge is becoming somewhat appalling (and I don't mean to be unkind with this statement). We used to have Republicans on the Board and in power here--that was when we had ugly, inappropriate buildings AND no civil rights. Wake up for God's sake! The last Republican mayor was George Christopher; he devastated San Francisco with "urban renewal" and personally saw to it that the Fox Theatre was demolished, among other things. He also supported a very repressive SFPD. Conservative supervisors John Barbagelata, Quentin Kopp and others drove us just as crazy as Chris Daly does today, perhaps more so.

I really feel that if people really can't appreciate this City for what it is and what it has stood for, they should have the courage to move elsewhere. That doesn't mean that I don't complain about it or want it to remain unchanged, but the culture here runs long and deep through many generations. Learn more about it. Please stop complaining about hippies and others about whom you know so very little. They made their contributions, both good and bad, to the City as did the Beatniks and many others. They were also the forerunners of the Gay Liberation movement which flowered here and led to the life that many of us enjoy today. Loosen up and enjoy it more! The City is looking better and better all the time.
Viewguy, I don't disagree with you that the political activism served some good in the past and that despite their best efforts, many monstrosities appeared on our skyline. At the same time, I think that many NIMBYs use the historical precedence (often 30-40 years ago) to push their agenda and to instill fear into residents. It really doesn't serve any benefit to the public, as the excuse of ugly buildings going up in the past halts or stalls some very attractive, badly needed developments. While these activists had their time and place in the city, they are out of touch with current day dynamics and are doing a disservice to our community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1002  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2007, 4:39 PM
POLA's Avatar
POLA POLA is offline
urbanphile
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Western Addition
Posts: 2,147
^You've got a good point too. Activism has changed very little in the last half centry, while urban planned has changed greatly. I sometimes get the feeling that some people here feel they missed out on the "sixties" and just want to protest something...
__________________
I'll make no subscription to your paradise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1003  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2007, 4:46 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^Maybe that's it. Having not missed out on the 60's, I have very little desire to either protest or be inconvenienced by other people's protests.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1004  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2007, 4:23 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by POLA View Post
^You've got a good point too. Activism has changed very little in the last half centry, while urban planned has changed greatly. I sometimes get the feeling that some people here feel they missed out on the "sixties" and just want to protest something...
Ugh...I didn't miss out on the 60's (but claim the 70's as my decade since I was running around SF in my 20's then, living the Tales of the City). The Summer of Love aside, I remember the 60's as the decade when many great buildings came down and many bad ones went up. It was also a time when I lost my President, my theater and my presidential candidate all in a row, a string of events that I hope I never see repeated.

You've all raised very good points worthy of respect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1005  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2007, 6:55 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
As for you Tyler, your lack of historical knowledge is becoming somewhat appalling (and I don't mean to be unkind with this statement). We used to have Republicans on the Board and in power here--that was when we had ugly, inappropriate buildings AND no civil rights. Wake up for God's sake! The last Republican mayor was George Christopher; he devastated San Francisco with "urban renewal" and personally saw to it that the Fox Theatre was demolished, among other things. He also supported a very repressive SFPD. Conservative supervisors John Barbagelata, Quentin Kopp and others drove us just as crazy as Chris Daly does today, perhaps more so.
I calls em as I seez em. Maybe I'm more of a 'clean slate' to the history of the city, and all that I am going by is what I've witnessed the past few years I've lived here. A bankrupted city, an unprecedented tax system unlike anything in the U.S. that is driving thriving businesses out of the city. A population of 800,000 that really hasn't changed in decades. A stagnant population that can be seen in the unwillingness to grow the hell up or change anything, I guess all you oldies (and I say this as not an unkind statement) could care less about my generation and our needs, just run around bankrupting everything, leaving a debt and a broken, traffic clogged city that we'll be paying off the rest of our lives. Thanks guys !!

If I were in charge (which will never happen due to my sloppy history :-p) this would be my legacy:

-24 hour BART
-24 hour Muni METRO
-Last call at 4AM or later
-Privatize MUNI!
-LRV lines down Geary, Columbus, and Lombard St.
-High Rise residences and offices bordering Mission to Brannan, from Embarcadero to 12th Street.
-Revamp the traffic ticket collection system to go to FUND street and transportation repairs and upgrades
-Require all homeless to have some sort of JOB, paid for by the city, such as cleaning or sweeping the sidewalks or performing other civic duties in exchange for room and board. Eliminate the bloated city workforce and budget.
- 10 story apartment units at every BART stop. 100 new residential units must be added every year for every 10 residential blocks (or something like that)

We have the potential to be a city of millions of people, so building more dense housing would be the responsible thing to do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1006  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2007, 1:32 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Another day in Paradise
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
We have the potential to be a city of millions of people, so building more dense housing would be the responsible thing to do.
this statement i like (the rest of it?, ehhhh ).

not that i want sf to be millions upon millions, but i think it can sustain at least 50% to 100% more people. the more of the housing "burden" sf takes on, the less pressure on the suburbs to expand ever further out. the infrastructure for density is there, so y not?

oh yea, nimbys
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1007  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2007, 11:39 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
See

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post

We have the potential to be a city of millions of people, so building more dense housing would be the responsible thing to do.
Right there I disagree with you (though I can't tell if you are serious). I would hate SF to be that dense (you are proposing radical change). Other than TOD and the downtown stuff (both of which I support) I like it as it is. We have a very European (though not Paris) density now and its very livable. So am I a NIMBY now? Everyone is at some point in th discussion


We live in a democracy and its a bitch sometimes.

I think the rest of the Bay Area is truly the environmental problem and not SF. You should consider concentrating your efforts there as I think it is more realistic. Lets add a few million people in the footprint of the urban Bay Area now and protect the delta and farm land! I think this we can really do this so this is where I want to concentrate my efforts in the future

And the privatizing Muni thing is ridiculous!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1008  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 12:13 AM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig View Post
Right there I disagree with you (though I can't tell if you are serious). I would hate SF to be that dense (you are proposing radical change). Other than TOD and the downtown stuff (both of which I support) I like it as it is. We have a very European (though not Paris) density now and its very livable. So am I a NIMBY now? Everyone is at some point in th discussion


We live in a democracy and its a bitch sometimes.

I think the rest of the Bay Area is truly the environmental problem and not SF. You should consider concentrating your efforts there as I think it is more realistic. Lets add a few million people in the footprint of the urban Bay Area now and protect the delta and farm land! I think this we can really do this so this is where I want to concentrate my efforts in the future

And the privatizing Muni thing is ridiculous!
There's a lot of places in SF where density should increase, specially around transit, Sunset, Richmond, along Geary, Third St and Mission St. It would be irresponsible for San Francisco to maintain its current density as there is a huge demand. As a homeowners, I would love it since it increases the value of my property, but that is selfish. I am sure we can maintain the uniqueness of San Francisco and still provide more new housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1009  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 6:25 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig View Post
And the privatizing Muni thing is ridiculous!
Why? Because MUNI would actually be required to WORK and be efficient?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1010  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 8:16 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Projects under construction, approved or proposed, gentlemen.

Stay on subject.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1011  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 8:54 PM
HarryBarbierSRPD's Avatar
HarryBarbierSRPD HarryBarbierSRPD is offline
Anti-NIMBY
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Projects under construction, approved or proposed, gentlemen.

Stay on subject.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1012  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2007, 8:26 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
From SFNew Developments...

The Market, Octavia neighborhood plan was approved, which calls for a 400' ! tower at Van Ness and Market, in place of the Honda dealership. This should really bring this intersection back to life!
photos SFNewDevelopments





There is the possibility of 400 foot towers on all four corners.

Now, the bigger picture for me is that it seems the planning department is becoming much more liberal in its height zoning, as you can see in this diagram (SFNewDevelopments):



Funny that some neighborhoods like Hayes Valley are actually losing height, to 'preserve' the neighborhood, because I guess you can have a 3 story monstrosity built (I'm thnking "The Hayes) instead of a beautiful glass tower and it somehow preserves the neighborhood all the better
I wish this city would focus more on bringing good DESIGN instead of short buildings which a lot have been proven to be simple and boring.


In other news, the CCSF board of Trustees has APPROVED the new 2 building campus and exempt city college from local city zoning laws. A 14 story, 215 foot tower will stand where the current height limit is 65' (fuck of HILTON!). Plans are to open the new facility in 2010.
photo SFGATE




What do these two stories have in common? They are great signs that the city and community is becoming much more liberal in allowing much taller heights in certain downtown neighborhoods in order to "preserve" the smaller neighborhoods, something that I think it is a great sign of things to come!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1013  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2007, 10:25 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Tyler

From what I can tell there is a lot of downzoning along with some mild upzoning with the only real change at Vanness

I might be wrong but the Market Octavia Plan appears to be watered down quite a bit from the initial conception. Certainly this seems hardly worth 8 years. Also this approval was of the general plan amendments but our BOS have yet to approve actual zoning

Its just rumor but from socketsite but to that point someone posted:

"Rumor has it that Supe Mirkarimi is looking at trying to raise developmental fees and affordability. He is also trying to create a Citizen Advisory Board to review all individual projects! This is after 8 years of planning and community input. Note that most of the heights have been reduced in the plan area and that developers are being required to pay $10 per sq ft. of additional developmental fees for new projects within this plan area. This is on top of the 15% affordable housing quotient and all other fees. Apparently this still isn't enough and the Supes are looking at raising it higher. Some of these projects may never get built."

I have a feeling this is far from a done deal

Also with the Chinatown CCSF deal the board of trustees basically voted to ignore the local zoning because they can. I am not sure anything can be gleaned about the City from that. This would not be possible in a private project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1014  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2007, 11:15 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco_Zig View Post
From what I can tell there is a lot of downzoning along with some mild upzoning with the only real change at Vanness

I might be wrong but the Market Octavia Plan appears to be watered down quite a bit from the initial conception. Certainly this seems hardly worth 8 years. Also this approval was of the general plan amendments but our BOS have yet to approve actual zoning

Its just rumor but from socketsite but to that point someone posted:

"Rumor has it that Supe Mirkarimi is looking at trying to raise developmental fees and affordability. He is also trying to create a Citizen Advisory Board to review all individual projects! This is after 8 years of planning and community input. Note that most of the heights have been reduced in the plan area and that developers are being required to pay $10 per sq ft. of additional developmental fees for new projects within this plan area. This is on top of the 15% affordable housing quotient and all other fees. Apparently this still isn't enough and the Supes are looking at raising it higher. Some of these projects may never get built."

I have a feeling this is far from a done deal

Also with the Chinatown CCSF deal the board of trustees basically voted to ignore the local zoning because they can. I am not sure anything can be gleaned about the City from that. This would not be possible in a private project

Thanks for the information!!

Seems like all that has really happened in the past 10 years is that the freeway was torn down. I haven't seen any new development at all in this area. Sad.
Why does it take 8 years to get something done? And how much are these city officials being paid? Do these morons not have a regular 9-5 schedule like the rest of us? Imagine what would happen if I told my clients "I'll get back to you in 8 years on this project" No wonder we are in such debt.

Somebody please pass me the doobie
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1015  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 5:31 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Seems like all that has really happened in the past 10 years is that the freeway was torn down. I haven't seen any new development at all in this area.
Then you simply haven't been looking. Hayes St. is a different world from what it was. It now looks and feels quite upscale (like Chestnut or Fillmore in Lower PacHeights)--as opposed to being dreary--with many new and seemingly successful businesses. And the Octavia Blvd has completely opened the neighborhood up--it's like a big, long park. Then there is The Hayes which is quite a large project but not the most significant impact on the area. And there have been several infill buildings built along Gough plus a couple more on Market near Octavia that have been approved and should be built soon--renderings have previously been posted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1016  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 8:35 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Then you simply haven't been looking. Hayes St. is a different world from what it was. It now looks and feels quite upscale (like Chestnut or Fillmore in Lower PacHeights)--as opposed to being dreary--with many new and seemingly successful businesses.

Yes and this is nothing new. I moved here in 2001, and, to me, it's nothing new. A lot of it was there before the freeway was torn down.

And the Octavia Blvd has completely opened the neighborhood up--it's like a big, long park.

You call that a development?? HAHAHAHA!! How many times have I seen anybody using this "park," how about zero- why don't they just call it a mini freeway or racetrack?

Then there is The Hayes which is quite a large project but not the most significant impact on the area.

Totally ruined that intersection of the neighborhood, what a boring, bland, suburban looking monstrosity. But, like I said, this isn't even open yet, after 10 years.

And there have been several infill buildings built along Gough plus a couple more on Market near Octavia that have been approved and should be built soon--renderings have previously been posted.

Do you really consider Ellis and Gough Hayes Valley, or the Market Octavia neighborhood? It might be that way on the blueprints, but in the real world, I no thinkee so
I do pay attention, thank you very MUCH

Vote Queen Rudy '08!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1017  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2007, 5:04 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^Tyler, the fact that you haven't seen the changes since 2001 doesn't mean they haven't occurred. You said there haven't been changes except the freeway being torn down indicating to me that was your time frame. All the changes I mentioned, which have hugely changed the neighborhood, have happened since the freeway came down (or began coming down because it came down in two stages). None of it "was there before". "Before" there were hookers and drug dealers hanging around under the freeway on Hayes.

"The Park" is very much used. I am referring especially to the block closest to Hayes. The last day with decent weather I was there the benches were full--no place left to sit--and the play equipment was packed with kids. It's like you live in an alternative universe.

I disagree with your assessment of The Hayes but regardless of what anybody thinks of the architecture, it will bring plenty more residents to the area and that's good. The other projects to which I referred are NOT at Ellis. This building is new in a space where there used to be freeway: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=s&ie=U...00828517994152 So is this building: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=s&ie=U...04923383485193 I believe they are at Gough & Fell.

I believe your time frame since 2001 is just too short. Part of the freeway came down a decade earlier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1018  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 9:57 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^Tyler, the fact that you haven't seen the changes since 2001 doesn't mean they haven't occurred. You said there haven't been changes [b]except the freeway being torn down
I was speaking of housing, construction. I've lived here from before the freeway was torn down, yes I remember the hookers. But all I see is the same empty parking lots sitting in the area where the freeway used to be. Do you drive in SF? Do you know what a pain in the ass that new Octavia Blvd is, for both pedestrians and traffic?? Especially out of towners. I consider it a big mistake that they are probably going to redesign in the future anyway because of all the accidents it has been causing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1019  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 11:03 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^Don't blame me. I voted to keep the freeway--3 times to my best recollection. As I expected, the result has been terrible for traffic (Gough is now traffic chocked where it wasn't before) but I have to admit it's been wonderful for the neighborhood. And as I keep telling you, the buildings I specified above are built on old freeway right-of-way as will be some new ones soon to be built between Market and Haight along the eastern side of Octavia Blvd.

By the way--they aren't going to redesign it--locals love it. They may modify a few things--like I also said, maybe they'll make turns onto the freeway from Market legal--but nothing major.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1020  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2007, 11:27 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^Don't blame me. I voted to keep the freeway--3 times to my best recollection. As I expected, the result has been terrible for traffic (Gough is now traffic chocked where it wasn't before) but I have to admit it's been wonderful for the neighborhood. And as I keep telling you, the buildings I specified above are built on old freeway right-of-way as will be some new ones soon to be built between Market and Haight along the eastern side of Octavia Blvd.

By the way--they aren't going to redesign it--locals love it. They may modify a few things--like I also said, maybe they'll make turns onto the freeway from Market legal--but nothing major.
I would still vote to tear the freeway down. It was a horrible presence for the neighborhood, have you lived in Hayes Valley? I used to work right at Fell and Laguna. The post- freeway plans, however, are the problem, not the missing freeway itself.

I really do like the aesthetic of the Octavia Blvd, but I think they got too ahead of themselves in trying to assimilate something Parisian into an American city, which is now obvious why it shouldn't be done again. European city planning just doesn't work here, we need something for US.
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 9:04 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.