congrats SF you have the highest rent prices in the world

[Bay Arean]

So if you don't build up, you build out...urban sprawl, which leads to loss of wild lands. Pick yer poison, tall boxes to live and work in, or environmental decay.

I think there is compromise in between. I think SF wents nuts from Willie Brown forward, especially with those Rincon Towers.

 

[Blankpage]

Getting most of those cars off the road might not be a bad thing either for those who appreciate clean air.
Tower living isn't for everyone but there are those amongst you that wouldn't mind being able to walk or the door and having a choice of several restaurants within a few block walking distance. Walking to the supermarket, city transit, cooler SF weather...
The population isn't getting any smaller, should people just keep moving further into the valley and continue losing hours of their lives per day with clogging up the highway system. All because a few old timers in SF don't want to lose their view of the bay from the first floor of their home.

 

[Ridley]

I think there is compromise in between. I think SF wents nuts from Willie Brown forward, especially with those Rincon Towers.

And that compromise will be way more expensive than things are now. Urban expansion leads to environmental loss that is irrecoverable. Its not sustainable unless you are willing to pay 2 million for your house instead of the current 1 million. Contain the beast

 

[Bay Arean]

All because a few old timers in SF don't want to lose their view of the bay from the first floor of their home.

A gross exaggeration, at least of what I was describing. In the case of the Kansas St house, there is a partial view of the Bay from back balcony on second story (its the living level, garage is below) of house. But go ahead and use hyperbole to justify messing it up for everyone on the block so some greedy ahole can build his five-story condo complex in a neighborhood of former single family dwellings and charge premium for top "penthouse" floor. It will solve all the problems on the Bay Bridge, you betcha.

 

[Blankpage]

A gross exaggeration, at least of what I was describing. In the case of the Kansas St house, there is a partial view of the Bay from back balcony on second story of house. But go ahead and use hyperbole to justify messing it up for everyone on the block so some greedy ahole can build his five-story condo complex in a neighborhood of former single family dwellings. It will solve all the problems on the Bay Bridge, you betcha.

If they sell their home they'll be able to afford a condo in the sky with an even better view and likely have money left over.
You can only hold off high density living for so long, it has its benefits. Ugly skylines isn't a good enough reason to oppose it.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

Some of these people

gross overstatement.
inadvertently comically incorrect image selected :laughing

... I think at least HALF of these people if not more do NOT want a bunch of ugly tall buildings. They want a single story house, a garage, devoid of cars but full of tools and a *next* to the driveway parking :laughing

 

[Bay Arean]

Ugly skylines isn't a good enough reason to oppose it.

Wow. In a nutshell. I guess we can always go to Prague or Barcelona, why have it nice here?

Each time a new project is proposed, it is a chance to get it right, to keep some kind of harmony. Throwing in the towel just seems crazy.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

If they sell their home they'll be able to afford a condo in the sky with an even better view and likely have money left over.
You can only hold off high density living for so long, it has its benefits. Ugly skylines isn't a good enough reason to oppose it.

You have to understand (first, you have to know, and get the fact), that new building situations in SF are "pretty weird" to put it mildly. Every single thing that is build is overly high, and grotesque.
This is a direct result of the fact that "developers" (I mean the builder or the capital holder whoever) want to maximize their units per sq footage.

The result is an absolutely devastating effect to the size of sidewalks and spaces nearby, AND the building looks overly tall.

Due to dearth of building blocks, this is happening like patchwork and that's why it always looks ugly. Except in downtown where it just looks bunched up AND the land is sinking wtf) in two buildings

And finally, many many people in SF and in your bridge picture that "want more building" in SF, will never be able to afford a new condo because some cost as much as TWO houses across the bridge. Again, due to the "developers".

In short, there needs to be a more gradual and building approach to spread width-wise. And once again, all over the neighboring 'burbs in the B.A. Lamorinda hello there oh I'm sure you're going to build :rolleyes

 

[Blankpage]

gross overstatement.
inadvertently comically incorrect image selected :laughing

Are you suggesting that this isn't the typical scene at the bay bridge EVERY morning.
Do you ever leave the city and see what east bay traffic looks like.

 

[Bay Arean]

Are you suggesting that this isn't the typical scene at the bay bridge EVERY morning.
Do you ever leave the city and see what east bay traffic looks like.

It looks like that in Santa Rosa, and in Pleasanton, and in Vacaville. So let's build up SF! Great plan. I own a home, I live in the east bay, I get around a lot, the Bay Bridge is just a visible, even iconic moment of our traffic woes to capture. But it's the entire region. It's no excuse for uncontrolled upward development in the various neighborhoods of SF.

 

[Blankpage]

It looks like that in Santa Rosa, and in Pleasanton, and in Vacaville. So let's build up SF! Great plan. I own a home, I live in the east bay, I get around a lot, the Bay Bridge is just a visible, even iconic moment of our traffic woes to capture. But it's the entire region. It's no excuse for uncontrolled upward development.

Doesn't have to be uncontrolled. Plan it out better since it is coming sooner or later.

 

[wazzuFreddo]

What I want is more BART trains. Would it be possible to make the Fremont line go more often than every 15 minutes in the afternoon?

It's asses to elbows all the way from Embarcadero to South Hayward every evening.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

Are you suggesting that this isn't the typical scene at the bay bridge EVERY morning.
Do you ever leave the city and see what east bay traffic looks like.

Nope

Are you ever reading ALL the posts.
Do you ever read there FULL content, over, their.

 

[Abacinator]

Are you suggesting that this isn't the typical scene at the bay bridge EVERY morning.
Do you ever leave the city and see what east bay traffic looks like.

Traffic is fucked ALL OVER the bay area. Building taller buildings in SF is going to help that how?

 

[yumdumpster]

Traffic is fucked ALL OVER the bay area. Building taller buildings in SF is going to help that how?

Ideally if you can lower cost to live in the city people who are forced to commute by vehicle can instead live closer to work and take the bus/walk etc.

I used to ride my bicycle every day, it was awesome.

Also studies have shown that getting something like ~7% of drivers off the road could have up to a 50% reduction in gridlock. Though I cant find that study right now. Anyways, what I was trying to illustrate is we dont need to get everyone off the road, simply getting 1 in 10 people to stop driving would make everyone elses lives easier.

 

[yumdumpster]

What I want is more BART trains. Would it be possible to make the Fremont line go more often than every 15 minutes in the afternoon?

It's asses to elbows all the way from Embarcadero to South Hayward every evening.

From what I have read, this is a system control issue. That bond measure, RR I think it was, is partly going to replace the the old block style system so they can run trains at tighter intervals. Also they are creating a new power substation for the transbay tube so they can increase the number of trains per hour they can run.

I have no idea when this stuff will be done but I would imagine its a priority as BART is crazy impacted with riders right now.

 

[Abacinator]

Ideally if you can lower cost to live in the city people who are forced to commute by vehicle can instead live closer to work and take the bus/walk etc.

I used to ride my bicycle every day, it was awesome.

Also studies have shown that getting something like ~7% of drivers off the road could have up to a 50% reduction in gridlock. Though I cant find that study right now. Anyways, what I was trying to illustrate is we dont need to get everyone off the road, simply getting 1 in 10 people to stop driving would make everyone elses lives easier.

TBH, I don't see any of that happening.

 

[Yakoo752]

From what I have read, this is a system control issue. That bond measure, RR I think it was, is partly going to replace the the old block style system so they can run trains at tighter intervals. Also they are creating a new power substation for the transbay tube so they can increase the number of trains per hour they can run.

I have no idea when this stuff will be done but I would imagine its a priority as BART is crazy impacted with riders right now.

that's what they say but the more people I can transit at the same time, the better my opportunity

a$$holes and elbows generates more net income

 

[yumdumpster]

TBH, I don't see any of that happening.

Not at current housing construction rates, no. Maybe if gas prices went through the roof or we started implementing something like a congestion tax maybe.

I would actually argue that SF needs a congestion tax really really badly.

 

[yumdumpster]

that's what they say but the more people I can transit at the same time, the better my opportunity

a$$holes and elbows generates more net income

I would agree, to a point, at some point people will start to put up with the drive if the trains are just too damn packed.

And BART ideally wants more people to ride off peak hours. The trains are pretty empty on weekends and the non peak hours on weekdays.