Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-23-2010, 08:41 PM
 
13 posts, read 40,645 times
Reputation: 13

Advertisements

Growing up in West Seattle, and living in SF for the last 7 years...I really doubt that it will get to the point that MI is. I know they have grand plans for Treasure Island, but the facts are that the majority of TI has some form of toxic soil, and there is low income housing sitting right on top of it. It will take a long long time to "kick out" the low income residents and clean up the soil enough so that the yuppies who would inevitably end up settling there wouldnt find something to complain and sue over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2010, 09:39 PM
 
24,396 posts, read 26,936,812 times
Reputation: 19962
I heard there was a push to develop it in 2005, but that was during the boom. There are also dangers about the island since it's a landfill, it could sink in the ocean during a major earthquake. Also because of it's past use there are toxins in the air that MAY increase cancer rates. I say build the new 49ers stadium on the island instead of Santa Clara .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,304,764 times
Reputation: 6471
Hard to imagine the demographic of Mercer Island draped on TI.

Love the stadium idea!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Metro Phoenix
11,039 posts, read 16,853,040 times
Reputation: 12950
I also spent a chunk of my childhood as well as about a year and a half of my adult life in Seattle, and then when I moved back to San Francisco a year ago, I lived on Treasure Island for six months.

My roommate was awful, which was the main reason I left. I actually liked it out there otherwise. First of all, it reminds me of my childhood on military bases... second of all, it's kind of cool being "in" San Francisco and being a short bus or car ride to SoMa, but then having a yard and being able to leave your window open at night and not hear anything.

There have been plans and whatnot to redevelop Treasure Island for some time, and I doubt that it will happen at any point in the next couple decades, at least. Why? A few reasons:

1. Radium in the groundwater
2. Plutonium in the groundwater
3. Asbestos in the groundwater
4. Landfill = liquefication during earthquake = unstable land, especially for a 60-story tower like they want to build there.
5. Social stigma: it used to be a navy base, then it was low-income housing... with radioactive exclusion zones on it... not the sort of place that upper-class, health-obsessed faux-liberals are going to beat down the door moving to.
6. Even if development plans go through, they call for primarily vertical living spaces (40-60 stories per tower) as opposed to a bunch of big houses (this would never get the OK from the SF board of supervisors), so it'd never have a Mercer Island-like vibe. There are some officer houses available for rent on the Yerba Buena portion, but not enough to really affect the feeling of the place.
7. Although the US gov't is currently paying for the residential areas to be cleaned up, there's still a huge portion of the island that hasn't been touched, and this is where contamination is the worst. This would take years in its own right.
8. The island is too "soft" to accomodate larger buildings as it is. If they wanted to build multiple towers, we're talking billions and billions of investment dollars to more or less rebuild the island. Where are those billions going to come from? The govenrment isn't interested, and neither are most investors and developers. They'd have to rebuild the seawalls, then they'd have to get rid of the current soil and redo everything so it's stable... the foundations of any tower would have to go all the way down through the island, to the bottom of the Bay, and then down further before the eventually hit bedrock stable enough to support such a massive structure.

In a nutshell... don't hold your breath
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2010, 04:44 PM
 
Location: San Diego, California Republic
16,588 posts, read 27,379,702 times
Reputation: 9059
Quote:
Originally Posted by 415_s2k View Post
I also spent a chunk of my childhood as well as about a year and a half of my adult life in Seattle, and then when I moved back to San Francisco a year ago, I lived on Treasure Island for six months.

My roommate was awful, which was the main reason I left. I actually liked it out there otherwise. First of all, it reminds me of my childhood on military bases... second of all, it's kind of cool being "in" San Francisco and being a short bus or car ride to SoMa, but then having a yard and being able to leave your window open at night and not hear anything.

There have been plans and whatnot to redevelop Treasure Island for some time, and I doubt that it will happen at any point in the next couple decades, at least. Why? A few reasons:

1. Radium in the groundwater
2. Plutonium in the groundwater
3. Asbestos in the groundwater
4. Landfill = liquefication during earthquake = unstable land, especially for a 60-story tower like they want to build there.
5. Social stigma: it used to be a navy base, then it was low-income housing... with radioactive exclusion zones on it... not the sort of place that upper-class, health-obsessed faux-liberals are going to beat down the door moving to.
6. Even if development plans go through, they call for primarily vertical living spaces (40-60 stories per tower) as opposed to a bunch of big houses (this would never get the OK from the SF board of supervisors), so it'd never have a Mercer Island-like vibe. There are some officer houses available for rent on the Yerba Buena portion, but not enough to really affect the feeling of the place.
7. Although the US gov't is currently paying for the residential areas to be cleaned up, there's still a huge portion of the island that hasn't been touched, and this is where contamination is the worst. This would take years in its own right.
8. The island is too "soft" to accomodate larger buildings as it is. If they wanted to build multiple towers, we're talking billions and billions of investment dollars to more or less rebuild the island. Where are those billions going to come from? The govenrment isn't interested, and neither are most investors and developers. They'd have to rebuild the seawalls, then they'd have to get rid of the current soil and redo everything so it's stable... the foundations of any tower would have to go all the way down through the island, to the bottom of the Bay, and then down further before the eventually hit bedrock stable enough to support such a massive structure.

In a nutshell... don't hold your breath
Yeah pretty much
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top