San Francisco garage question...

[JManc]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Golden Gate Park seems pretty lush.

It's pretty standard for an urban park. All the underbrush is kept clear. The Presidio on the other hand is how I'd imagine 'natural' SF which is pretty lush in parts that were left as is.

[Crawford]

Are there pics of pre-developed SF? I'd be surprised if that land looked like that prior to human (or at least white man's) habitation.

Wouldn't it look basically like the Marin Highlands, across the bridge? Like fog-swept and scenic Mediterranean "prairie" looking? At least on the Pacific side.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Yep. Treeless streets are miserable, unless the architecture is grandiose, or substantially interesting.

yep. trees and alleys are two of my all time favorite details for residential side streets.

compare these two bungalow belt streets from chicago. the first is classic chicago bungalow belt with alleys and parkway trees. it's not mind-blowing or anything, but still legitimately pleasant. the second is from the extreme NW side out by o'hare. they didn't run alleys through so every house has a garage right on the street with a driveway and then they put the sidewalk directly on the street curb, so no parkway/tree lawn for street trees.


i could easily live here without hating my life: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9537...7i16384!8i8192

W! T! F! (would someone, ANYONE, plant a goddamn tree?): https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654...7i16384!8i8192


those two examples so clearly demonstrate to me how we didn't have to build ugly residential streets that suck, we chose to.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yep. trees and alleys are two of my all time favorite details for residential side streets.

compare these two bungalow belt streets from chicago. the first is classic chicago bungalow belt with alleys and parkway trees. it's not mind-blowing or anything, but still legitimately pleasant. the second is from the extreme NW side out by o'hare. they didn't run alleys through so every house has a garage right on the street with a driveway and then they put the sidewalk directly on the street curb, so no parkway/tree lawn for street trees.


i could easily live here without hating my life: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9537...7i16384!8i8192

W! T! F! (would someone, ANYONE, plant a goddamn tree?): https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9654...7i16384!8i8192


those two examples so clearly demonstrate to me how we didn't have to build ugly residential streets that suck, we chose to.

The treeless neighborhood at least has some pretty immaculate lawns though. TruGreen making some serious coin out there...

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

You will be delighted to know that there is growing talk and pressure for redevelopment of even the large Market St. Safeway and its lot. If they can do it to that one, they will eventually do it to all of them east of Twin Peaks. In the western neighborhoods, who knows? I've been traveling out to 7th Ave lately during covid--much more orderly, civilized shopping experience than the ones that are closer to me.

Is the Tower Market still operating up at the top of Market Street/Twin Peaks? That used to be such a lovely store.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Are there pics of pre-developed SF? I'd be surprised if that land looked like that prior to human (or at least white man's) habitation.

Wouldn't it look basically like the Marin Highlands, across the bridge? Like fog-swept and scenic Mediterranean "prairie" looking? At least on the Pacific side.

It'd imagine it would look a lot like Fort Funston, at least the western half which was mostly sand dunes. The northern parts and eastern half probably looked more like the Presidio and Marin Headlands of today.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Are there pics of pre-developed SF? I'd be surprised if that land looked like that prior to human (or at least white man's) habitation.

Wouldn't it look basically like the Marin Highlands, across the bridge? Like fog-swept and scenic Mediterranean "prairie" looking? At least on the Pacific side.

Golden Gate Park is an entirely man-made environment, just like NYC's Central Park.

Golden Gate Park was built on sand dunes:

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

wow, what a cool "moment in time" capture, as the dunes are turned into city. what's the rough time period of that shot?

i love pics that like where you can see the original natural landscape right in the process of being utterly transformed.

so yeah, it looks like large trees were never really part of the landscape out there back in the day, and GG park is actually the artificial manmade exception.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

wow, what cool "moment in time" capture, as the dunes are turned into city. what's the rough time period of that shot?

i love pics that like where you can see the original natural landscape right in the process of being utterly transformed.

Looks like 1936.

[Gordo]

Golden Gate Park and the Presidio were almost entirely treeless before development, and now are mostly eucalyptus, an (obviously) non-native species that does pretty well in sand.

That said, as homebucket mentioned the real reason for crappy street trees in most of SF is improper planting space in the sidewalks and the preponderance of overhead power lines. There are some choice spots where both of those issues have been solved that do just fine with a big tree canopy over the street. SF should do much more of this, IMO.

[homebucket]

Not sure if trees were removed prior to the development of this area in this photo, but this was taken on 4/18/1906, the date of the 1906 earthquake.



How it looks today:
https://goo.gl/maps/c4KC7YBtzt9U4r9S9

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Outer Sunset is really blustery and tons of sea salt in the air. Doesn't seem like street trees would make much sense. I bet a car parked outdoors would see corrosion over time.

Most of coastal CA is semi-arid. Yeah, there are a bunch of lush northern microclimates, but not in SF proper, so it would probably be difficult to have lush streetscapes. But, yeah, looking at Golden Gate Park, it has decent tree cover, even near the ocean, so hardly impossible.

Coastal CA has a Mediterranean climate, not a semi-arid climate.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dktshb

surface parking lot that attacks all the homeless.

Did you mean where the homeless attack people (because people do get attacked in that lot and cars get vandalized)?

They are not going to build a Safeway in San Francisco with no parking nor should they. If they redevelop the lot, it will likely have multi-story housing, a Safeway on the ground floor and parking below ground.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Golden Gate Park and the Presidio were almost entirely treeless before development, and now are mostly eucalyptus, an (obviously) non-native species that does pretty well in sand.

That said, as homebucket mentioned the real reason for crappy street trees in most of SF is improper planting space in the sidewalks and the preponderance of overhead power lines. There are some choice spots where both of those issues have been solved that do just fine with a big tree canopy over the street. SF should do much more of this, IMO.

It's not just that. Some species do fine. Our Public Works Dept, is in love with London Plane Trees which do not tolerate the wind in SF nor the totally rainless summers. That's why eucalyptus does well. It's drought tolerant for one thing. But there are other species that would do better (though you also need one that won't push up the sidewalk).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

GG park is actually the artificial manmade exception.

It is totally an artificial exception and it owes a lot to the horse transportation of the day. Massive amounts of horse dung were used to "improve" the soil so all the plants there now could grow.