Speaking of the proposed rehabilitation of 1300 Third Street, a bit of context for how the former station might fit into the plans for a fully developed third street in Mission Bay.
San Francisco real estate tips, trends and the local scoop: "Plug In" to SocketSite™
Speaking of the proposed rehabilitation of 1300 Third Street, a bit of context for how the former station might fit into the plans for a fully developed third street in Mission Bay.
that’s a lot of new square footage & population density.
what’s going handle the traffic?
the photo shows: a single light-rail in each direction.
run by muni. who can’t even handle the current population density. living in this city is turning me into a republican.
It’s very close to 4th & King Caltrain.
As far as Muni goes, the first step to fixing it is to stop assuming that it’s impossible to fix. So I’m all for planning which assumes a working system. Urgent need -> political will -> actual improvements.
Is the “context” that is referenced the surrounding buildings or the site during an earthquake? Both leave me with the same uneasy feeling.
Would it not have been easier to correct the parallax in the photo than to distort the perspective to match?
Where’s the street-fronting retail that makes this something beyond an elaborate office park?
@seriously-people:
You’re right! If only there was a way to add more train cars and have them come with more frequency. And if only there was a way for Caltrain to be within and for people to place their feet in front of each other repeatedly in rapid succession causing them to gain momentum in a forward direction to take them to other locations. Such a problem. I hate it when there aren’t clear answers to a problem that doesn’t exist yet!
@Delancy:
Mixed-use buildings. See how the area around AT&T park was developed. Just like that.
I didn’t realize that Steven Holl was going to design all the buildings down there.
http://cdn.archdaily.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/713845730_2006831nama–0356d-copy-528×391.jpg
We made a huge mistake in failing to put the T-line underground. When the need becomes obvious, it’ll be “impossible” to do, just like Geary Blvd.
Agreed.
3rd St. is already a cluster****, way too narrow, can barely handdle the traffic now, especially when bikes get on it. I figure you could take the parking spaces away and make it like Market St. but then it turns into the horrible experience that is walking down Market St.
I agree. The T-line took a lot of space while keeping 2 full car lanes (pretty vital) and it was the only compromise they could do. Bikes came 3rd on the list and got dropped off, but cyclists are there.
I avoid cycling on 3rd street on commuting time or around Giant’s games. I’m not happy with cars and cars are not happy with me. The Bayview is not that far by bike and 3rd street is the only viable route. Next time they do something big there, they should drop a bike lane somewhere. The question is where.
They could have done an eminent-domain on 20 feet of the parcels that are now being covered with brand new buildings one after another and solved this issue. Making the Bayview real part of SF is essential to its revitalization.
Underground Muni is another story altogether. You want to get the most bangs for your bucks without breaking the bank as always and compromises always suck for someone.
Say what? I live in this area and these comments are so off base they are practically nuts.
Why would they put this line underground? Hello? Do you want to pay for that and wait 20 years for it?
3rd street is hardly ever busy, except for games, and when they build on the parking lots, more folks will have to come by train, ferry, or muni.
Undergrounding the T-third is impractical because it would have to be put really deep in order to clear China Basin and the Islais Creek. Not only would that extremely expensive it would also be a pain for riders to descend and ascend at every station.
Agreed. putting the T line underground would meant dealing with the low water table and tremendous cost and time frame.
As for cyclists, there other alternate routes besides 3rd St. just a block east is a beautiful bike route on the waters edge.
Wow, a lot of people have only been on 3rd St on game days…
The T needing to be underground?!?! LOL. You guys do realize that current service is only a fraction of what the line could conceivably handle, right, without ANY changes to the existing infrastructure?
I haven’t much liked 3rd Street for bicycling either. Then I found out that Illinois Street, one block closer to the bay, is both wider and has designated bike lanes. That street should be a better alternative to 3rd.
Yes, in the planning for Mission Bay, 3rd street was designated as the transit spine, Terry Francois (waterfront) was designated as the bike route and 4th Street was designated as the neighborhood/shopping/pedestrian street. I know bikes (or anyone) like the direct coroute, so Terry Francois isn’t ideal, but it’s sure a lot more pleasant the 3rd.
Personally, I don’t think 4th is developing to be a good shopping street (seems like the sidewalks were undersized), and unfortunately 3rd not shaping up to be beautiful at all….efficient at getting cars and transit through, maybe, but otherwise pretty unpleasant for bikes and peds.
I am surprised that after years and years of planning, some very simple things were missed in Mission Bay.
Anybody know why Terry Francois also runs with 19th street for three blocks in Poterero Hill?
Actually, scratch that. That’s not the name in parens under the 19th signs, come to think of it.
And apologies for the overposting, but I’ve answered my own question. The stretch of the street is named is Peter Sammon, and he was the pastor at St. Peter’s Church in Potrero Hill for 32 years: http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-03-23/news/17537887_1_social-change-plan-benefits-pastor
“And apologies for the overposting”
You mean for the last four years…….
no but if you want to think that then ok, typical internet persona guy.
typical internet persona guy.
The irony is that fluj/anonn is the typical internet persona guy more than anyone — has to chime in and argue every time he thinks “someone is wrong on the internet” about real estate. Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/386/
Undergrounding the T-third is impractical because it would have to be put really deep in order to clear China Basin and the Islais Creek. Not only would that extremely expensive it would also be a pain for riders to descend and ascend at every station.
Yes, there would also be fewer stops, since you’d have to dig out stations. There are probably other ways to separate it from traffic a bit more, but its utilization probably needs to increase quite a bit to cause too many problems.
Geary is still a far better candidate for undergrounding, although that’s been on the books for almost 80 years to no avail. Considering how long the T-Third was also on the books, I’m not hopeful.
Said the wikigenius who just needed to get a word in, while backing up an anonymous hater with nothing to add except petty meanness. That’s a laugh. I brought up a point about a street in the area, and added a bit of aside knowledge to this thread. Why did you have to talk @ me, dude? Come on.
I actually looked up the number of times I used Wikipedia as a reference on SocketSite, since it seems like a BS claim. I’m far more interested in facts and substance to make a good argument, and Wikipedia usually just has basic knowledge which isn’t great for making a strong argument. I’m certain that the number of other links I provide would easily dwarf Wikipedia by at least two orders of magnitude.
Nonetheless, I found three, none of which were used as the basis for any argument as far as I can tell:
1) because I googled “Jordan Park” to figure out where the hell it was
2) a Loma Prieta shake map that could be found on numerous sites
3) a description of Persian Palaces, since many people hadn’t heard of that term
I see fluj/anonn/flamerguy the realtormon here, although I did not specifically search for this:
https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/12/a_proposed_residential_street_frontages_ordinance.html
As you might note, I was largely providing knowledge about the T-Third. There is plenty more where that came from. As I mentioned, Milkshake’s comment about the water table is very important here. It’s probably one of the reasons Albion Castle has that spring. Thanks for the laugh, fluj.