[HN Gopher] A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge
___________________________________________________________________
A mansion hidden directly under the Bay Bridge
Author : thunderbong
Score : 339 points
Date : 2023-05-04 09:25 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sfgate.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sfgate.com)
| ciabattabread wrote:
| That ramp in the back was a _recent_ development?! [0]
|
| [0] https://www.sfcta.org/projects/i-80-east-side-ramps-project
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would want to live
| in a place like that, even with the traffic!
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Very sad. Understandable, but sad.
| bombcar wrote:
| Seems like the perfect place for a museum, tbh.
| dontblink wrote:
| Could be one about WW2 actually!
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| There's already a significant museum in Nimitz's hometown:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Museum_of_the_Pacific...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| w10-1 wrote:
| It's hard to imagine that sentimental navy brass can gum up a
| critical roadway for over a decade -- contributing to the many-
| billion-dollar increase in bridge cost from the original plan.
|
| The interplay between civilian control of the military and the
| military putting bases or jobs in every congressional district is
| dicey.
| meindnoch wrote:
| NIMBYism runs deep in California.
| mulmen wrote:
| How do we fix it? Compulsory service with a peaceful election
| in exchange for higher education and lifelong healthcare?
| startupsfail wrote:
| Cars really should be put underground. Electric cars going in
| tunnels, not gasoline cars spewing the exhaust from the top of
| the bridge.
|
| ... _The mansion's bright white siding is turning dull and black
| from car exhaust._ ...
| cowsandmilk wrote:
| Turning black is almost certainly from tire dust, which
| electric cars also produce.
| crazygringo wrote:
| I'm all for that, if you're able to pay for it!
|
| Sadly, boring tunnels is a teensy bit more expensive than
| paving roads... :(
| startupsfail wrote:
| Every bit helps. If you look at the Central Expressway (Bay
| Area) and compare it to Lawrence Expressway. Lawrence sits
| above, goes via an overpass and generates a lot of noise.
| Central, on the other hand had been lowered down. And lets
| smaller roads to pass over it. A lot less noise.
| eastbound wrote:
| It puts the fun into "In 2000 we'll have flying cars" when the
| whole XXth century was spent building highways and ramps that
| were higher and higher into the air, and the whole XXIth will
| be spent trying to put them underground. The real futurist
| landscape is a city like Lyon in France, or Amsterdam, where
| cars are put away and we walk or bike to work.
| lobochrome wrote:
| Hem-hem Tokyo Hem-hem
| startupsfail wrote:
| Flying cars is a dream of baby boomers. To everyone else,
| this is a nightmarish scenario of unending noise and exhaust
| spewing from these baby boomers flying over the residential
| areas.
| systemtest wrote:
| Most of the times I have worked in Amsterdam people did not
| go to work by bike or on foot. Most people came in by car,
| the second largest group used the train into Amsterdam and
| only a small part was able to walk or bike to work. Those
| were usually upper-management, people able to afford housing
| in Amsterdam and not living in the surrounding suburbs and
| satellite cities. For them it was still a 25 minute bike ride
| to the industrial estate that the office was in, so sometimes
| they would call an Uber to work.
|
| Anecdotal though.
| tomrod wrote:
| We have plenty of flying cars today thanks to our crumbling
| infrastructure! It's that infernal hard stop at the end
| that's the problem. /s
| Zetice wrote:
| Why tunnels tho? Or rather, why single occupancy vehicles in
| tunnels? It just feels like a public transit system with extra
| steps...
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| Because a lot of people will never want to take public
| transit even if it was more convenient than it is now. In the
| US outside of NY, Chicago, SF, and perhaps a few others
| public transit sucks. Even adding 5 new light rail lines
| isn't going to change things in Houston when most people want
| suburban life and only go downtown for a sporting event or
| concert.
| beowulfey wrote:
| I'm not sure if your first sentence is true, but it's an
| interesting idea. My gut says even the most staunchly anti-
| local transit folks would still gladly use public transit
| in a city that has a good system (e.g. if they were to
| visit Paris, or Tokyo, etc).
|
| Saying people would _never_ use transit even if it were
| more convenient doesn't match the pattern of what I've
| observed actual humans do. It would be nice if there was a
| study on this.
| bombcar wrote:
| Visiting vs living is very different. Everyone I worked
| with in Rome drove to work, but the people I worked with
| were admittedly of a certain group.
| [deleted]
| fakedang wrote:
| Or, you know, shift the entire building away, brick by brick,
| if it's historically important for the city?
| sva_ wrote:
| I've been living on a busy street for the first time and the
| amount of fine dust from car exhausts is absolutely staggering.
| Never again.
| nine_k wrote:
| I think it's mostly not exhaust but the dust from the road
| top layer and from tires. Electric drive helps little with
| that.
| bombcar wrote:
| Brake dust, too. You find it all over things near
| completely electric rail lines, which have no gas or tires.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| If an electric car is in an accident and the battery catches
| fire, my understanding is it is very difficult to get under
| control.
|
| Something I am curious about is what will happen when we have
| hundreds of electric cars going through the Lincoln Tunnel?
| Will battery fires be better or worse than gas fires?
| mulmen wrote:
| The numbers say EVs catch fire at a lower rate than ICE so
| presumably there would be fewer, although EV fires are more
| intense.
|
| https://www.autoweek.com/news/a38225037/how-much-you-
| should-...
| paxys wrote:
| It takes a decade and many billions of dollars to dig a single
| tunnel in most cities in this country. So best of luck with
| your plan..
| RC_ITR wrote:
| It's an interesting chicken and egg problem in America.
|
| Have people lost the will to think big because others before
| them have failed, or do people assume that they will fail
| because they don't think big.
|
| I guess the asset-light strategy works sometimes (a lot of
| cities are regretting mass transit investments post-
| pandemic), but it sure doesn't seem to lead to better quality
| of life.
| startupsfail wrote:
| I understand that the price of a tunnel is somewhat
| comparable to the bridge.
| ink_13 wrote:
| You are misinformed. Consider the engineering challenges
| alone.
| avree wrote:
| "A frequently cited rule-of-thumb in transportation
| engineering is that tunnel construction costs two to three
| times as much as bridges, and that simple rule of thumb
| explains why there are so many more bridges than tunnels in
| operation today."
|
| What gives you your understanding? Mine is from multiple
| sources at the top of Google for the query "price of tunnel
| versus price of bridge"
| startupsfail wrote:
| I've never said it was the same. Somewhat comparable. In
| practice bridge is likely more expensive, if you take in
| the externalities accumulated over the lifespan of the
| bridge full of cars.
|
| Engineering costs its a matter of volume, what kind of
| ground you need to dig, expertise and experience. If you
| can get something like the Boring company up, costs would
| drop down.
|
| And engineering costs don't account for externalities of
| having a bridge full of noisy cars hanging there,
| polluting in every modality: view, noise, smell,
| splitting the neighborhood, reducing walkability,
| destroying the property value.
| lazide wrote:
| The bridge is literally on top of a bunch of faults.
| Tunnels are even more of a death trap. No thanks.
| jdechko wrote:
| I'm genuinely interested in the environmental discussion that
| took place during engineering that led to this decision. There
| are a couple of federal statutes pertaining to construction of
| roads on (or near) historic properties (FHWA Sec. 106 and 4f). I
| can't imagine that this was an ineligible historical resource
| given its age and historical significance.
|
| Even the alterations to view itself could have qualified, so I'm
| assuming that there were no feasible alternatives. There may also
| be some other nuances that the article didn't cover, so I'm not
| completely certain, but it's enough that I'm curious.
| virtualwhys wrote:
| FTA, $500 per day to rent an historic mansion overlooking the bay
| (i.e. before the bridge obstruction)
|
| I have a family wedding to attend back east this autumn and we're
| looking at around that (before "service fees" and taxes) to sleep
| 5 out in the sticks of New Hampshire -- short-term housing has
| truly gotten out of hand, basically everywhere.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Yeah Airbnb has become so outrageously expensive and is so much
| less convenient than a hotel that it's almost never worth it
| anymore, it's crazy.
| kaiwen1 wrote:
| Negotiate if you're staying for a month or more. I frequently
| get prices that are less than half the asking price.
| herbst wrote:
| You can always negotiate. When I did nomading I regularly
| only booked on or two days with booking and then asked for
| a deal for one or two more weeks if I liked the place.
|
| At least the 15% or so fee from booking portals are easily
| waved. If you are off season and the hotel is empty anyway
| they often are happy to go even further.
| switchbak wrote:
| Things must be different here (BC, Canada). I can't think of
| why I'd ever rent a hotel room when AirBnB's are usually a
| similar price and way more comfortable (usually).
|
| Unless I had a worry about cancellations I suppose.
| kelnos wrote:
| I live in the US, and for most places I travel in-country,
| my experience is similar to yours.
|
| There are exceptions, of course.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| They are comfortable during the stay, but not when you
| arrive or leave and waste so much time there.
|
| I never know if that Airbnb will have toilet paper, towels,
| shampoo, dishwashing liquid, etc. and for everything that
| they don't I have to do a supermarket trip and buy a
| quantity that would last 2 months when I'm staying 2 days.
|
| Then when you leave, despite paying 20% of cleaning fees,
| you may be asked to do the dishes, vaccum the floor, etc.
|
| All of that together has an extremely high cost, especially
| on a vacation.
| prmoustache wrote:
| In europe my experience is kind of the oposite. Airbnbs
| have been incrementally more expensive over the years. Thet
| are now as expensive as hotels, but without the quality of
| service.
|
| Only times I enjoy airbnb are when I am travelling alone,
| don't need more than a room, and want to actually have the
| opportunity to chat and get tips from the host.
| bombcar wrote:
| AirBnB is like the proverbial curled girl:
|
| When she was good, She was very good indeed, But when she
| was bad she was horrid.
| dmd wrote:
| I have the exact opposite experience -- as someone who always
| wants two adjoining rooms (for kids). Doing that in a hotel
| tends to cost as much as 3 times what an Airbnb would cost,
| and the airbnb is more comfortable. You just need to actually
| read reviews.
| culopatin wrote:
| Well you have a very particular scenario, but in most
| cases, having to clean up everything, take the trash out,
| doing dishes, cleaning grill, taking linens out, collecting
| towels and starting the washer while still getting kicked
| out at 10? And paying hundreds for cleaning on top of that?
| You can't enjoy the last day and you're paying for it.
| dmd wrote:
| I must be staying in very different airbnbs than you. I
| have never had to do any of that. But I only stay with
| Superhosts and only 4.8 or higher.
| virtualwhys wrote:
| Been there, not even sure how it's legal to charge a
| (usually quite substantial) cleaning fee while having the
| guest do 1/2 the work.
| late2part wrote:
| In a Napoleonic legal system it might not be. Perhaps the
| question you should ask instead is why is it not illegal?
| madaxe_again wrote:
| You choose poorly, I'm afraid to say. I ask my guests to
| do nothing but lock the door behind them, and I don't
| charge a cleaning fee.
| culopatin wrote:
| Yeah blame me all you want but you're an exception, not
| the rule. Good for you though and I hope to find more
| hosts like you.
| bombcar wrote:
| AirBnB just needs to add a "no cleaning fee" search
| option.
| coolsunglasses wrote:
| I've never had to do any of that. AirBNB is way cheaper
| for my family of 6 (3 adults, 3 kids)
| toofy wrote:
| you've been very lucky. the list of "chores" i've had to
| do at the airbnbs i've stayed at is unreal. even worse
| when i was paying absolutely ridiculous cleaning fees.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| If there's a high cleaning fee I just don't do the
| "chores"
| kelnos wrote:
| I've found that level of chores to be pretty rare (and
| nonexistent in more recent years), and there was a push
| over the last year or so (from Airbnb to their hosts) to
| do away with much of that sort of thing. Not sure how
| well it worked, though. At any rate, reading through
| reviews usually tells you if the chores are excessive.
| And if it doesn't, and you end up doing more work than
| you'd like, you can always include that in _your_ review.
| (I also noticed that nowadays many hosts advertise "no
| chores" in their listing description, or even listing
| title.)
|
| Personally I don't mind taking out the trash and starting
| the dishwasher before I leave. I draw the line at doing
| laundry or actual cleaning, though. I'm always torn on
| being asked to strip the beds that we've used. On one
| hand... annoying... but on the other, that tells me that
| they won't waste water and electricity/gas cleaning stuff
| that doesn't need to be cleaned, which I like. Sorta in
| the same line as when a hotel will ask you to hang towels
| that you're ok with using multiple times, and leave
| towels you want washed on the floor or in the tub.
|
| My assumption is that part of the reason for the
| excessive chores is that it's harder to turn around a
| property for a new guest when the cleaning crew isn't on-
| site. At a hotel, housekeeping just goes from room to
| room down the hall until they're done, and the hotel
| often has some amount of slack so even if housekeeping
| isn't completely finished, they can still check in new
| guests as they arrive.
|
| At an Airbnb, the cleaning crew may not even be at the
| property for the entire run of a dishwasher. But I
| suspect the hosts that want you to do things like start
| laundry don't have an extra set of bedsheets and towels:
| in that case, screw them, they're being cheap and making
| you work for it.
|
| > _You can't enjoy the last day and you're paying for
| it._
|
| You pay for nights, not days (same as a hotel).
| Regardless, I don't think I've ever "enjoyed" my last day
| in any kind of rented accommodation where the check-out
| time is noon or earlier. The entire morning is always
| about getting ready to leave.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I'm hearing AirBnB have for a little while now been playing
| fast and loose with reviews - genuine and fair negative
| reviews are being blocked, and it looks like this is to
| prevent (short-term) loss of revenue to AirBnB.
| extr wrote:
| Yeah what I've found with Airbnb is these days you need to
| optimize way harder for host quality/reviews and less for
| your actual preference in terms of location, price,
| furnishings. If the place has a 4.95, you will get what you
| pay for. 4.5-4.8 = there many be some hiccups. < 4.5 you
| might as well go to Vegas and put the money on black.
| r00fus wrote:
| It's sad because AirBnB has also similarly shrunk the "suite"
| class of room that we as a 5 person family need. So we're
| forced into using AirBnB/VRBO because hotels only offer 2+2
| (and most rental sites don't let you even look for 5 person
| rooms). Ugh.
| bastardoperator wrote:
| I'm trying to book multiple(4) rooms for 9 people and most
| places I've searched just don't seem to support the idea of
| a group traveling. I don't want to call every place, I'm
| just trying to shop.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sometimes, letting professionals help is the only way.
| They already know the places that can accommodate your
| party's size, and can often get very competitive rates.
| whitemary wrote:
| Hiring this type of professional does not come at a
| "competitive rate"
| t-writescode wrote:
| Travel Agents tend to be free (for the traveler), what
| are you talking about?
| perfmode wrote:
| where does one find a travel agent?
| WJW wrote:
| Unless they are also free for the person renting out the
| place, wouldn't they simply raise the price by the cost
| of the travel agent?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Similar to apartment locators, the "agent" is often paid
| by a commission from the apartment rather than by the
| person using the service. So this is one of those cases
| where you are the product.
| aetherson wrote:
| No doubt. But probably not specifically for this stay, so
| basically all the people who also rent this place without
| using a travel agent are subsidizing your use of the
| travel agent.
| ptudan wrote:
| Just search for 4. You're almost never going to get in
| trouble for sleeping 2 adults and 3 kids in a hotel room
| for 4.
| mc32 wrote:
| Often you can find that they will charge $xx per
| additional person, if you go over the listed figure (if
| you choose to declare the overage).
| late2part wrote:
| More often they will declare >N persons a 'fire safety
| hazard' and refuse for your safety and security. And to
| help them make more revenue.
| itsmartapuntocm wrote:
| Cruise ships do this too, even if the extra person is an
| infant.
| ahi wrote:
| From personal experience, just stick the youngest on the
| floor
| tomcam wrote:
| That's outrageous. You could trip over one and sprain
| your ankle. We just tied ours outside and told people the
| kids identified as dogs.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| What? Why?
| garbagewoman wrote:
| The author probably intended it to be an hilarious joke,
| but they assumed you are as well versed in Fox News
| identity politics as they, sadly, are
| tomcam wrote:
| You're right about the first part. I don't have Fox News
| so I'm not sure about the second part. I'm not
| particularly sad about it but thank you for your concern.
| runlaszlorun wrote:
| Personally, I got a good laugh out of it...
| byyyy wrote:
| [flagged]
| [deleted]
| greenhorn360 wrote:
| There's an active genocide going on but you just had to
| go there. This would have still been funny without this
| tired, old, cliche of a "joke"
| brd529 wrote:
| This has been our experience
| ClimaxGravely wrote:
| Pardon the sidebar. What does FTA stand for? Googling the term
| doesn't seem to yield results that make sense to me.
| deodar wrote:
| From The Article, I assume.
| coolsunglasses wrote:
| From the article
| [deleted]
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| Hotels in SF are affordable for some reason.
| tomcam wrote:
| Well, you're obviously not looking for abandoned navy mansions.
| Don't worry, I'm not charging for this valuable tip.
| stdbrouw wrote:
| They mention this was before the Loma Prieta earthquake which
| was in 1989; if we take inflation from 1980 to now into account
| that'd be $1600-1900 today. Probably still good value, esp.
| given the view, but I guess it does depend on how it was
| furnished at the time.
| samstave wrote:
| I, too, choose this man's Dead Wedding.
| smeej wrote:
| New Hampshirite here: Wherever you're trying to stay, it sounds
| like you're doing it wrong...
|
| Unless you're trying to be in, like, Lancaster during PorcFest
| or something.
| fsckboy wrote:
| you got me so excited!... till I could find no mention of
| pork and porcfest in the same sentence
|
| tl;dr Porc refers to porcupines, which is their mascot for
| libertarians
| cdchn wrote:
| Funny I had never heard about PorcFest until just now and
| drove by Roger's Campground less than an hour ago.
| smeej wrote:
| It's not that PorcFest is especially widely known. It's
| just that Lancaster doesn't have much in the way of
| inventory, and it books up for that one week, even though
| the event is at a campground.
| [deleted]
| xyst wrote:
| Car centric American infrastructure rears its ugly head once
| again. A once beautiful view spoiled by the concrete monstrosity
| gregoriol wrote:
| But hunderds of thousands times more useful is the bridge than
| the house
| systemtest wrote:
| Public transit still needs bridges to cross bodies of water.
| nchudleigh wrote:
| The ads on this site are unbearable on mobile.
| onychomys wrote:
| Brave blocks ads natively in their mobile browser, you should
| give them a shot.
| manquer wrote:
| Many sites are using adblocker blockers (including this one)
|
| don't know about Brave but mblock origin fails for this site
| on Firefox mobile on iOS
| mardifoufs wrote:
| ublock works on kiwi browser on android for this website.
| seszett wrote:
| I use uBlock on Firefox Android, as well as AdAway (which
| functions as a DNS adblocker) and I had no problem, and no
| ad.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > don't know about Brave but mblock origin fails for this
| site on Firefox mobile on iOS
|
| uBlock Origin with Firefox on the desktop seems to work for
| me, though there probably are a few differences between
| mobile and desktop.
| manquer wrote:
| A lot, Firefox ( and every other browser on iOS) are
| effectively skins on Safari. Apple will only allow third
| party browsers that use WebKit on the App Store.
| tomrod wrote:
| There is a lot I don't like about Brave, but I can't fault
| them for having the best mobile app on market (for me).
|
| Why not Firefox? Bad redesign release a few years back and
| now discernible way to change the accessibility so it holds
| always. Old.reddit text is too small to be read no matter
| what I've tried.
|
| None of the other browsers on Android I've found to be worth
| the time.
| prepend wrote:
| This seems like a cool place to secretly camp.
| hackernewds wrote:
| with that proximity to San Francisco, that idea likely has
| already been oversubscribed
| prepend wrote:
| Yeah, but likely there's some cycle of "there's lots of
| guards scaring away campers so no one camps, guards get lazy
| and it's empty so good for camping"
| ihaveajob wrote:
| Fun fact: You can reach it by bike from the east bay now, and it
| makes for a fun ride. Just be careful for side winds!
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Fun fact: You _still_ can 't reach Treasure Island or Yerba
| Buena island by foot or bike from San Francisco. People living
| on TI are entirely dependent on Muni and private automobiles,
| and even then SFMTA tried to cut service to Treasure Island a
| few years back.
| SmellyPotato22 wrote:
| Recently a regular ferry that goes between the island and the
| ferry building was established. It's a very pleasant ride and
| they allow you to take your bike on it.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Pretty neat that you can view the whole circumference of the
| house, and _almost_ read the plaque outside, in Street View:
|
| https://goo.gl/maps/8Xc6MUhmAdKQTXbHA
|
| It brings to mind good memories of family outings spent in former
| officer's housing, up in Officers Row at Fort Worden, WA. Hide &
| seek was a lot of fun.
| Aeolun wrote:
| They really did make that bridge as ugly as possible.
| kelnos wrote:
| From below, I suspect most structures like that are ugly. But
| personally I think the new bridge span looks nicer than what
| it replaced. Not gonna sing its praises, but I think it's an
| improvement.
| herbst wrote:
| European here. Bridges definitely can good good also from
| below.
| ant6n wrote:
| Looks like the house is in the shade of that bridge, contrary
| to various comments here.
| jfoutz wrote:
| also, interesting they had to design it not to cast a shadow on
| that house
|
| """ But the decision to build an architectural icon didn't end
| problems - it started new ones. The most bizarre was with the
| U.S. Navy. In 1998, it refused to let Caltrans onto Yerba Buena
| Island to finish its engineering work. The Navy's issue was
| whether the Bridge would overshadow the one-time home of Admiral
| Chester Nimitz, a hero of World War II.
|
| "We had to come up with a design where we wouldn't cast a shadow
| down onto that particular property," Ney explained, with the
| Nimitz home in the background and directly next to the new span.
| "We had to make sure that the bridge snugged up close enough to
| the existing one so that we weren't coming over the top of
| Admiral Nimitz' house." """
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-bay-bridge-competing-agains...
| CPLX wrote:
| San Francisco is the only place I know with this bizarre
| obsession that things shouldn't be allowed to cast shadows on
| other things, as a general rule.
|
| It's just strange.
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-supervisors-...
| pyuser583 wrote:
| That's definitely a thing in other cities.
| wrp wrote:
| There was a case in Oregon, I think a couple decades ago,
| where an Indian tribe built a longhouse in town then tried to
| prevent construction of any building that might cast a shadow
| on it. I don't remember whether they aimed at the courts or
| city council, or how it turned out.
| parasti wrote:
| Why is it strange? Sunlight is an extremely valuable asset,
| both physically and mentally. I actually find the opposite
| mindset (that sunlight doesn't matter) really strange.
| CPLX wrote:
| I mean of course it matters.
|
| But it definitely ain't a valuable asset, it falls on
| pretty much the entire planet, excepting the
| infinitesimally small portions that are directly next to
| tall buildings. Even Ireland and Seattle from time to time.
|
| But either way, the link I posted is about San Fransciso
| not approving a low rise apartment because it could cast a
| shadow on a basketball court for a few hours A YEAR, which
| is, in fact, _insane_ in an urban housing crisis context.
| bobsmooth wrote:
| Those in Plato's cave don't value sunlight either.
| zeagle wrote:
| In the USA. For interest:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light . The second
| last paragraph comments on SF.
| CPLX wrote:
| Very interesting. The concept has been soundly rejected in
| the US. Except for San Francisco.
|
| How's that working out?
| jfoutz wrote:
| I think NYC is king of sunlight regulation
| https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oec/technical-
| manual/08_Shadows_2...
| CPLX wrote:
| I mean actually read it. It basically says shadows don't
| really matter much and you barely need to worry about
| them and then goes on to spell out in very clear detail
| what happens when they do matter so there don't have to
| be moronic lawsuits every time someone wants to build a
| low rise apartment building.
| jfoutz wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand -
| https://sfplanning.org/resource/shadow-analysis-
| procedures-a...
|
| 40 feet, times of year, 20% shadow. make a model. At the
| surface level, they look similar to me. NYC has been
| doing that for a whole lot longer, I wouldn't doubt their
| planning department has a more refined process. But it's
| not like SF is alone in this kind of regulation.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| My understanding is that NYC
|
| * has smaller time requirements for sunlight; the
| planning requirements state that an area should have 4-6
| hours of sunlight a day, whereas SF looks at if it gets
| any worse over any time period
|
| * NYC only protects specific kinds of park uses for
| sunlight, so like sunlight is not material for a
| basketball court, for example.
| garbagewoman wrote:
| Not sure who you think you're arguing with
| quitit wrote:
| The inclusion of a solar-study to prove adherence to
| shadow regulation is a standard part of most types of
| development applications, not just in the USA but around
| the world. This kind of build out is regulated for many
| reasons: property damage, aesthetics, health, and with a
| renewed focus: energy use. This includes casting shadows
| over one's own property.
| karaokeyoga wrote:
| It's a thing in Tokyo as well, leading to some interesting
| building shapes.
|
| https://thetokyofilesurbandesign.wordpress.com/2016/05/24/ja.
| ..
| googl-free wrote:
| We have this in Austin too. Also the capitol view corridor,
| an inverted system protecting sightlines to the capitol
| building
| Camillo wrote:
| It may not cast a shadow directly on it, but the bridge still
| destroyed the mansion's utility.
|
| The alternative would have been to run the new east span south
| of the old one, instead of north. Apparently San Francisco
| preferred that option, but Oakland wanted the north alignment.
| I'm not sure why, all I've seen mentioned so far is that they
| chose that particular alignment to ensure drivers would get a
| good view of San Francisco while driving west...
| [deleted]
| bluenose69 wrote:
| I guess I'm listening to too much Lana Del Ray lately, because my
| first thought upon reading the title (all I could see above a
| subscription box) was of a tunnel under Ocean Boulevard, far down
| the coast.
| blahedo wrote:
| The article kept mentioning that it was the _re_ -building of the
| bridge that added noise and soot and such. But... there was a Bay
| Bridge there before, right? That island isn't very big, so the
| bridge couldn't have moved that far... how is the new bridge so
| categorically different for the view/air/noise of this house than
| the old one was?
| jedberg wrote:
| The old bridge was a couple 100 feet over, on the other side of
| the hill behind the house. Big difference if the freeway is
| behind a hill vs directly overhead. :)
| lovemenot wrote:
| >> In 1998, the feud between the Navy, which still owned Yerba
| Buena Island, and Brown went public. Navy officials expressed
| frustration that the new eastern span would flow directly over
| Nimitz House and the nearby historic residences of other
| officers. A Navy aide called the plan "devastating."
|
| Not In My Immediate Territorial Zone
| bombcar wrote:
| "Don't build here!"
|
| "Oh yeah? We're the state! You and what navy will stop us?"
|
| "We ARE the Navy!"
|
| "Oh."
| selimthegrim wrote:
| That's how Robert Moses' plans for a Manhattan bridge were
| stopped - when FDR blocked it on national security grounds
| for the Navy
| adolph wrote:
| The whole thing is a frankenbuilding but that add-on toilet on
| the back side is something else.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-06 23:02 UTC)