Just look at this – the sun! We hates it! We hates it forever.
Posts Tagged ‘fog’
It’s Late August, So Manhattanhenge is Here on McAllister Street, and Parallels, on Dreaded Sunny DaysWednesday, August 31st, 2016
Our SFMTA Wants to Claim It’s Increasing Parking Up at Twin Peaks, But It’s DECREASING Parking – One Simple Trick!Thursday, July 14th, 2016
Most of the tourists on top of that twin came from all the cars you can see on the left side. But all that parking is gone now, so tourists aren’t going to go to the top of Twin Peaks as much anymore.
What’s that, “good,” you say? Well OK, but why doesn’t the SFMTA just come out and say that? Instead, we get this:
Will any parking be added or removed? No parking is being proposed for removal. Today, informal (illegal) parking takes place at the center of the Figure 8 and occasionally in the outer lane of the roadway. This project will formalize parking at both the center and south intersections, increasing the number of available stalls. Parking in the travel lane will no longer be possible.
So they’re not “removing parking,” they’re simply blocking cars from getting to the parking spaces? And you can’t park on the side of a highway in CA anymore, is that correct, really?
So the real answer to the question Will any parking be added or removed is:
Yes. Hell yes.
But who are these people so uncouth and “informal” that they think they can park their rental cars on the side of the road and walk up a hill for a look-see? Just fucking tourists, that’s all. And it’s not even the same ones day after day and year after year – it’s a constant flow of new people from all over the Bay Area, California, ‘Mericah, and The Rest Of The World. Those are the people the SFMTA and the Rec and Park (RPD – it’s Frisco’s name for the Parks and Recreation Department) are getting rid of, at least on busy days.
Here you go:
Making Room to Enjoy Spectacular Twin Peaks by Aaron Bialick
Friday, April 15, 2016
But the SFMTA isn’t really making anything is it?
Access by foot and bike is pretty limited, the road that loops around the mountain top in a “figure 8” is underused by car traffic and the loop’s intersections are confusing.
OK, well, “access” by foot and bike will still be “pretty limited” after the SFMTA completes the scheme it came up with, right? And let’s take a look at that road, on a dreaded sunny day:
Now, would you say that the east (left) side of this figure 8 is “underused?” No, not at all!
Hey, is being “car-free” a good thing? Like is it as good as being something like herpes-free? One wonders.
On Tuesday, the SFMTA Board of Directors will consider approval of a pilot phase…
This means that the SFMTA is going to do what it wants to do, with the little bit of money it can scrape up to enact its ideology.
The project was shaped with community feedback…
First of all, there’s no community up there atop Twin Peaks. Second of all, if there is, it’s tourists (international, national, regional, and local) and this plan cooked up by the SFMTA is about as anti-tourist as one could imagine.
We’d also create legitimate parking spaces at the center and south intersections to address the illegal parking that already occurs.
WHAT WHAT? So all these People With Cars, the hundreds of People what congregate up there sometimes, they’re parking on the side of the highway “illegitimately?” So it’s legal but it doesn’t comport with SFMTA ideology? Or maybe it’s illegal, but our SFMTA hasn’t seen fit to put up signage what explains things nice and clear for visitors who don’t really have a good handle on English? And so all the scores of places where people park now and, indeed, the past century, all of that was not and is not “legitimate?” Whoo boy.
So the plan is to decrease access IRL and advertise this paint job (that doesn’t add ANYTHING) as one what will “increase” access.
Will that cost anything? Yes.
Will it cost the vaunted SFMTA anything. No, not really. Just a bit of paint…
Parkmerced Update: The “Townhomes” of Infamous “800 Summit” (“From the Low $1,000,000’s”) are the McMansions of FriscoMonday, April 11th, 2016
Well Summit 800 has certainly been getting attention the past week.
So now let’s take a visit Way Down South, even souther and wester than Parkmerced, which everyone would agree is pretty far south and west already, and make the case that these condos / townhomes / whatever are the McMansions of Frisco.
So what’s a McMansion, big housing on a small lot?
Well, you can’t get smaller lots than this, right? I mean, these places are abutting:
And take a look at this wall, below – no windows, right? Are they going to put more condos / townhomes / whatever in later on to cover this up? I mean, nobody else has windows on the side. Anyway, this is your McMansion hallmark – such a small separation betwixt units that there’s no real use for windows on the side:
“No City Limits” is the sign what’s mounted near the city limits, oddly. I mean this is the city limits, right?
All right, take a look. (And I’ll add that I’m not saying these units are McMansions, I’m saying that they’re the McMansions of Frisco.)
“In U.S. suburban communities, McMansion is a pejorative term for a “mass-produced mansion”. An example of a McWord, “McMansion” associates the generic quality of these luxury homes with that of mass-produced fast food by evoking the McDonald’s restaurant chain. The neologism “McMansion” seems to have been coined sometime in the early 1980s. It appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 1990 and the New York Times in 1998. Related terms include “Persian palace”, “garage Mahal”, “starter castle”, and “Hummer house”
The term “McMansion” is generally used to denote a new, or recent, multi-story house of no clear architectural style, which prizes superficial appearance, and sheer size, over quality.
Such very large, indeed expensive, but “mass produced” homes may sit on large lots: that is to say, an entire division of McMansions may be created (perhaps dozens or more at once), each on a large lot. However, in another usage “McMansion” is used pejoratively to refer to a house which replaced a smaller house, in a neighborhood of smaller houses, which seems far too large for its lot and thus crowds adjacent homes. (Indeed, such a McMansion may lack side windows due to the proximity to the boundaries – another McMansion-related cliché”
Our SFMTA’s Plan to “Increase Access” at Twin Peaks WIll Actually Decrease Access – Trying to Figure the Figure 8Friday, April 8th, 2016
IDK, man. On the one hand, SFGov promotes the 49-Mile-Drive, but OTOH, SFGov wants to make it more difficult.
Take a look here down below – where are all these cars going to go after this plan gets going?
The plan, advertised as one what would “increase access,” will decrease access, obviously. Parking areas will be decreased by a whole lot. Oh what’s that, that’s a good thing AFAYAC, Gentle Reader? Well, fine – but let’s agree that taking out scores of places for people to park is going to make for a less-busy Twin Peaks, for better or worse.
And hey, are these people glorious Pedestrians / People With Bikes or are they terrible, horrible People With Cars? One simply can’t tell. Some locals walk and bike up here, but I see very few tourists attempting to do so. Mostly they come by tour bus or car, FWICS.
On It Goes…
Using Photoshop to Market Blue Skies to Foreigners – Selling Summit 800 Condos/Townhomes Deep in the Fog BeltTuesday, April 5th, 2016
It’s the talk of the town these days.
But Google “summit 800 san francisco” and all you see are highly uncharacteristic blue skies. Isn’t that odd? I mean, we’re deep in the Frisco Fog Belt down there in the lower left corner of SF County, right?
Anyway, these shots come up in the above search. Don’t these Honolulu-style cloud look familiar? Aren’t they exactly the same in both images? What are the odds of that?
(Something’s gone wrong here!)
IDK, man. I just feel sorry for the out of towners buying these places.
Enjoy your fog, Newcomers!
Will the SFMTA/RPD’s Car Ban Plan for the East Side of Twin Peaks Increase Access or Decrease Access? Take a Look at This PhotoTuesday, March 15th, 2016
Take a listen, to Phil Matier here.
And then take a look, at what an Ivy Leaguer / Attorney / Former Gavin Newsom Jogging Buddy Who For Some Reason Is In Charge Of Our Park System has to say here:
As he sees it, the plan “increases the recreational accessibility of the area and makes it safer for bicyclists and pedestrians.”
As for safety, we’ll have to wait and see. But as for “accessibility,” this is going to be a Big Fat Decrease.
Here’s the east side of Twin Peaks Boulevard as it looks when the parking lot at Christmas Tree Point is all fulled up:
Where are these people going to go? Not Twin Peaks, that’s for sure. This plan will decrease access, certainly. (Or is the SFMTA going to run a shuttle bus up here? IDTS)
And oh, here’s how Phil Ginsburg attains access himself, using a car:
Proposed Figure 8 for Twin Peaks: Let’s See if SFGov’s Half-Ass Overgoverning is Better than Its Half-Ass UndergoverningWednesday, February 24th, 2016
Losing one lane of traffic should be no problem, but I don’t know where our tourists will be able to park after the SFMTA gets through.
They kind of make things up on their own now.
The fourth of July is prolly the busiest day of the year up here, for the fogworks shows you might be able to see some years
Rec and Park has no idea what it’s doing, as you can see, as per usual. What did they do, just put up some signs and walk away?
Anyway, that’s the update from the Wild West…