3 ms·

> here's a counter-example in the way San Francisco's intended freeway layout was based on the existing layout of the City and County's nine districts This is

> here's a counter-example in the way San Francisco's intended freeway layout was based on the existing layout of the City and County's nine districts This is a counter-example if you ignore a ton of the impacted neighborhoods. These highways are not particularly innocent examples. Sure, some may be unavoidable (like the south-eastern neighborhoods), but some of the locations are (at least today) pretty busy and core parts of their neighborhood (eg. Irving St. in Inner-Sunset). The highway (101?) carving up the mission and then dividing the western addition from down-town would be rough if they built it as a limited-access road (which it appears to be based on the interchanges). Even modern-day 101 could have been along the rail-road or coast to avoid blocking the mission and Potrero... Dumping 80 into the western-addition also seems questionably-motivated as well.

Lammy 2y ago
> Dumping 80 into the western-addition also seems questionably-motivated as well. Most of it would have been under ground-level, both tunneled through the hill (emerging near the DMV) then a park-topped subway through the panhandle. Check out what Oak/Fell/Octavia would have looked like: https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4182283392 https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4182283392 The elevated Central Freeway (along the bottom) and the on/off-ramp pair in the center of the image were built. Here's what it used to look like to exit onto Fell westbound before 2002 when they created the most dangerous intersection for pedestrians and cyclists in the entire City (Octavia & Market) by tearing this down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGM-crlegA4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGM-crlegA4