SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[SFView]

This is an interesting quote from the temporary terminal site I posted above:



Can someone smarter than me figure out approximate size (floors and height -- I know there is a new height limit, but they have a specific idea here; does it maximize the zoning?) of the building that would have 732 units in the space made available after the temporary terminal is no longer needed? Also, I love the sound of "widened sidewalks, cafes, markets" along Folsom. Right now, it feels sort of like walking along a freeway.

Well, I don't know about "smarter," but according to this map (see below) the site may be zoned for "50/85/450TB (feet), OS (open space), and 50/85/165TB (feet)." We could see a highrise of 45, and midrise of 16 stories, give or take a few floors, on the block surrounded by Howard, Main, Beale and Folsom Streets someday.

From http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/TCDP_workshop2_Apr3008_presentation_PART_2a.pdf:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/HTS1000.jpg


Here is another plan view of the entire Transabay and Rincon Hill areas. The open space is in the center of the block. Folsom Street is full of trees. With "Retail along Folson St.," will this be a new shopping street we were discussing potential sites for in another thread? Also note that no tower is shown at the site where the Californian was once planned.

From http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/TCDP_workshop2_Apr3008_presentation_PART_1.pdf:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TransbayZone1RinconHill.jpg

[SFView]

Okay, let me sort of correct myself. Folsom Street will not be closed to traffic, but will be the new neighborhood's "main street" with retail.

From http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/TCDP_workshop2_Apr3008_presentation_PART_3.pdf:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TransbayStreetscapeOpenSpacePlan.jpg

(sorry for the different sized images - I forgot my original zoom settings)

[peanut gallery]

Well, I don't know about "smarter," but according to this map (see below) the site may be zoned for "50/85/450TB (feet), OS (open space), and 50/85/165TB (feet)." We could see a highrise of 45, and midrise of 16 stories, give or take a few floors, on the block surrounded by Howard, Main, Beale and Folsom Streets someday.

Thanks. I never noticed that they had split it into two buildings with the open space mid-block. I like having the taller tower on Howard, which is shaping up to be another interesting canyon.


Also note that no tower is shown at the site where the Californian was once planned.

That is interesting. But they do show 45 Lansing and it seems to extend to the corner of Harrison and First, replacing the gas station. Creative license or a peak into the future?

[SFView]

I think the primary purpose is the show the guts of the plan of that which is more definite. It is probably better to leave out towers that are still yet to be determined.

[peanut gallery]

But the part that piqued my interest is 45 Lansing including the 76 station plot. I had heard a rumor several months ago that it was for sale. Could it be that 45 Lansing will fill that space?

[SFView]

Sorry, I missed that. This clue or tidbit should probably be in the 45 Lansing thread; but in regards to the site on the corner of Harrison and 1st, there was a permit filled on October 10, 2007 as follows...

From: http://services.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?page=PermitDetails
UNDERPINNING AS A RESULT OF ADJACENT, NEW CONSTRUCTION @ 45 LANSING

Sorry, I don't have any more information than that at this time, other than the site does seem intended for redevelopment. Anyone else know more?

[peanut gallery]

Has anyone checked out the Transit Center District Plan presentation (http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/TCDP_workshop3_Sep1708_presentation.pdf) (warning: this is a 5+MB pdf) from last week? Tons of interesting information in there.

Just a few interesting points:

1. The core Transbay district will be: 70% office, 30% non-office (residential, hotel, cultural). I had wondered why they seemed to be steering clear of residential, or at least mixed use, but their studies indicate there will be ample downtown residential in the coming decades, but that we could find ourselves short of office space by 2035.

2. They will create FAR exemption for any retail, community facilities, or publicly-accessible space provided at the level of the Transit Center rooftop park in adjacent buildings that is directly accessible by a footbridge from the park. In other words, developers who win rights to the various surrounding Transbay plots that connect their building to the park with a public space will get FAR exemptions.

3. They strongly discourage the use of arcades, those covered areas in front of a building that are outside, yet removed from the sidewalk with columns (think: 560 Mission). This is great because those spaces are dreary and dead. You only walk through to get into a building or to use as a passing lane.

3. We'll see set-backs at around 50-110' for taller buildings to create a "more human scale" streetwall.

4. As we've previously heard, everything we see on the northeast corner of Second and Howard will be gone for underground rail connection. In it's place will be a public park that provides a landmark street-to-roof access to the terminal park. This could be quite stunning.

5. How about this?:
Any building taller than 800 feet (i.e. Transit Tower) must have a facility of public accommodation at a level no lower than 650 feet
above grade that provides the general public the opportunity for views of the cityscape and Bay. Such facilities may include observation decks, restaurants, bars, lobbies, or any space accessible to members of the general public which does not require an appointment or membership, but which may charge a nominal fee for entrance.

Do check it out. All the above is only from the first half of the presentation. There is a lot more.

[WildCowboy]

New terms for the payments by Hines for the right to build the tower. Surprise, surprise...instead of $350 million, they're paying $235 million. Although the money will be paid sooner in a manner that is no longer dependent on their ability to lease the tower's space.

Tower developer cuts land payment
John King
Thursday, September 25, 2008

The developer selected to build what could become San Francisco's tallest tower has agreed to pay $235 million for the land where the high-rise would be located.

That's well below the $350 million offered by Hines, the development firm, when it was among three firms competing last year for the site at First and Mission streets now owned by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. But the deal has changed in another way: Most money will be paid shortly after the tower is approved.

The proposed terms are for Hines to pay $160 million within 90 days of the tower being approved by the Transbay board, with additional payments of $15 million each of the next five years. Hines would add $50 million more to build a park atop the mass transit terminal that the authority hopes to start building next to the tower site in 2010.

Hines' original offer delayed payments until an approved tower had 50 percent of its space preleased - a stipulation that in a slow economy could translate into years of delay because construction would be unlikely until that space was leased.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/25/BASQ134QLK.DTL

Wishing SOM/Rockefeller had bid $8 gazillion to win the rights and then renegotiated down to something they could afford. :rolleyes:

[peanut gallery]

With the $50M for the park, they are in effect paying $285M, which is $65M less in exchange for paying earlier than previously proposed. I think that's a fair trade for the TJPA to make given they need money ASAP to get the new terminal construction underway.

This answered a question I had, which was exactly when Hines' payments would be due: upon terms agreement, upon tower approval, etc. Didn't know about that 50% leasing stipulation, which I think was a big risk for actually getting the money. This deal not only means the TJPA gets its funding sooner, but this will put more pressure on Hines to get the tower built as they have assumed all the risk. With the 50% leased stipulation, they weren't on the hook at all.

[WildCowboy]

Business Times (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/09/22/daily48.html)has conflicting information...

Chronicle: $160 million upfront plus 5 annual payments of $15 million for a subtotal of $235 million with an additional $50 million for the park for a grand total of $285 million.

Business Times: $160 million upfront plus 5 annual payments of $3 million plus 0.5% of operating income (estimated to be ~$10 million over 66 years) for a subtotal of ~$185 million with an additional $50 million for the park for a grand total of $235 million.

Big difference...who's right?

Edit: Here (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/Board_Meetings/Agendas/2008/Item8_Hines.pdf) is the official agenda item info for the TJPA meeting. Business Times has it right...total of ~$235 million. See bottom of page 2, going onto page 3.

Under the purchase and sale agreement, Hines would pay $235 million to the TJPA, consisting of the following: (i) $160 million in cash within 90 days following final Project entitlement (the "Closing"); (ii) the net present value of $15 million in five installments over the five years following the Closing, (iii) up to $50 million for the rooftop public park as and when needed by the TJPA for construction of the park; and (iv) a participation payment equal to 0.5% of net operating income ("NOI") from the Project for a period of 66 years following Project stabilization with an estimated net present value of $10 million. The $160 million closing payment, the $15 million installment payment, and the $50 million rooftop public park contribution would be increased at the City Rate (as defined below) for any Closing after July 1, 2010.

[peanut gallery]

I really hope the Chronicle is right, but the Business Times usually get this stuff accurately. Hmmm.

[SFView]

...And how about the Examiner (slightly different subject)?

From: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/A_new_Transbay_Terminal_a_new_downtown.html
A new Transbay Terminal, a new downtown

By John Upton
Examiner Staff Writer 9/25/08

http://media.sfexaminer.com/images/Transbay+terminal.jpg
Commuters catch their buses at the Transbay Terminal. Cindy Chew/The Examiner

SAN FRANCISCO – City planners expect a multibillion-dollar rebuild of the Transbay Terminal to catalyze a South of Market transformation, turning the area into a leafy downtown with tapered towers, ground-floor stores and orderly traffic lanes.

At its center will be a new transit terminal at First and Mission streets that will be rebuilt with a 1,000-foot tower — a development city leaders say will make it the “Grand Central of the West.”

Construction of a temporary facility — needed in order to demolish and rebuild the existing terminal — is due to begin by the end of the year.

More than a new terminal, the Transbay project is part of an overall redevelopment plan for the area, bordered roughly by Third and Main streets and Market and Folsom streets. Within that area, on the 10 blocks of city-owned land left empty after the Central Freeway was torn down following the 1989 earthquake, The City’s Redevelopment Agency plans to build 39 residential buildings between four and 55 stories tall.

Construction of new skyscrapers, which could begin as early as 2010, will pull The City’s downtown toward the new terminal, according to Planning Director John Rahaim.

“The density of development and the height will be greater there than anywhere else,” Rahaim said.

Most of the land will be sold to developers, who are expected to complete construction of the units between 2012 and 2020, according to agency project manager Mike Grisso. The agency will solicit bids on two blocks of land from interested developers next month, Grisso said.

The remaining lots are privately owned, and the proposed new height rules intended to help the redevelopment raise revenue would allow some of the property owners to build up to 800 feet.

The Planning Department is currently in discussions with five owners of property in the area that are interested in developing their parcels of land, planner Sarah Jones said.

Along with looking up to the sky, planning and redevelopment officials are working to ensure that the Transbay redevelopment area improves the “quality of place” at the ground level.

A draft of design guidelines were released by the Planning Department earlier this month. The guidelines and the height rules are expected to be finalized by the Board of Supervisors late next year, Rahaim said.

Some of the proposed guidelines include requiring ground-floor retail, having narrow tower tops on buildings and possibly creating a network of sky bridges to connect buildings with a 5.4-acre rooftop park planned above the new transit hub.

The Planning Department is also refining plans to rebuild the streets with bike and transit lanes and wide sidewalks that will have plenty of park benches and, in some places, double rows of shady trees.

The head of a San Francisco planning think tank praised the proposed design elements.

“The Planning Department has created a plan that isn’t just about concentrating growth,” said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, “it’s also about creating gracious public spaces, making streets that are great to walk on and making buildings that will be beautiful to look at by tapering buildings to preserve views of the sky.”

Metcalf was critical, however, about how city planners have crafted the proposed new height rules to create a saddle-shaped skyline that arches up to the Transbay Terminal’s 1,000-foot centerpiece peak.

The City is wasting an opportunity to build needed office and residential space, just to create a particular look for the future skyline, he said.

“We should not sacrifice opportunities to live and work near transit just for the sake of sculpting a so-called mound seen from a distance,” Metcalf said.

jupton@sfexaminer.com

Construction likely to affect travel at Transbay Terminal

When the temporary terminal is opened for use to allow for the demolition and rebuilding of the current Transbay Terminal, its limited size will prevent the main bus line using the terminal from expanding its services until 2014.

The temporary facility will be located one block southeast from the current terminal, between Main and Beale streets and Folsom and Howard streets. It will operate for five years while a new permanent facility, which transit officials have predicted will become the

“Grand Central of the West,” is built at the site of the current station.

As with the current facility, the temporary terminal will be used by Muni, Golden Gate Transit, Greyhound, AC (Alameda-Contra Costa) Transit District and Western Contra Costa Transit Authority buses.

AC Transit will not be able to expand its services while the temporary terminal is used because of limited space, Transbay Joint Powers Authority project manager Philip Sandri said at a public meeting earlier this month.

Residents who attended the public meeting voiced concerns about the loss of 600 parking spaces, which will not be replaced, and the conversion of some lanes around the temporary terminal into bus-only lanes.

During the course of the temporary terminal’s construction, traffic disruptions are also expected, according to the authority.

Additionally, a “casual carpool” program will be relocated from the east side of Beale Street to the west side of Beale Street.

— John Upton

Officials hope voters endorse high-speed rail in November

A statewide high-speed rail measure on November’s ballot, if passed, could bolster San Francisco’s flailing fundraising efforts to build a tunnel to bring trains to the new Transbay Terminal, according to city officials.

The first phase of the new downtown transit terminal, which will accommodate buses, is expected to be built by 2014. A second phase, which would include a Caltrain station in order to extend the commuter rail from its current San Francisco terminal at Fourth and King streets is scheduled to open in 2018.

While funding has already been identified or secured for the $1.2 billion transit-center rebuild, another $2 billion needs to be raised for the $3 billion Caltrain tunnel project, according to agency figures for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

San Francisco’s downtown transit terminal would become a major stop on a high-speed rail network — taking passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco — if voters approve a $10 billion bond to build the system, Mike Cohen, director of The City’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, said.

“If the high-speed rail bond measure passes, it will give us an even more compelling case when we go to Sacramento and Washington seeking funds for the project,” Cohen said.

— John Upton

By the numbers

45 million: People getting on or off buses every weekday at the Transbay Terminal

$1.2 billion: Projected cost of the new Transbay Transit Center

1.3 miles: Proposed underground extension of the Caltrain commuter rail line from the current Fourth and King streets terminal to the new Transbay Transit Center

$3 billion: Projected cost to create an underground extension of the Caltrain rail line from its current Fourth and King streets terminal to the new Transbay Transit Center

1,000 feet: Proposed height of a new Transbay Tower that would rise above the transit terminal

800 feet: Proposed allowable height for some buildings that would be within the Transbay District redevelopment area

850 feet: Height of the Transamerica building — currently The City’s tallest

Sources: Transbay Joint Powers Authority; San Francisco Redevelopment Agency; San Francisco Planning Department

By the way, the Examiner also lists the heights of the following proposals (partial quotes):

50 First St., five to seven connected buildings between 600 and 1,200 feet
Palace Hotel, 700 feet
41 Tehama St., 547 feet
350 Mission St., 385 feet
181 Fremont St., 878 feet (Office up to the 44th floor, and residential from 45 to 56th floors)

All proposals except 350 Mission exceeds the current proposed zoning.

Oh, and I think John Upton meant "45 thousand" instead of "45 million" getting on and off the buses instead.

There is a tiny image of boxy looking tower on the front page of the Examiner. It looks like it could be around about 60 stories or so. It is flanked by a couple of other unrecognizable lighter colored towers, each about a third in height of the taller tower. Sorry, I can't find an image of it to post. Can anyone provide any further information on this rendering?

[peanut gallery]

45 million. That's funny.

I've read Hines official release on the deal with the TJPA and it sounds to me like the total package is indeed $235M. I think King got it wrong. The release also describes the tower as 1000' tall and that it "is planned to be the tallest building on the West Coast." Since the Library Tower is taller than 1000', can we assume they are just using 1000' as a general guideline, not the actual height? I just hope they don't make it 1019' (the Library Tower is 1018'). :)

[WildCowboy]

There is mention in the TJPA document that 1000 feet will be the highest occupied floor. So I'd assume the additional above that will push it well beyond the Library (US Bank) Tower.

[peanut gallery]

So it's a round number they're using. Excellent.

[SFView]

I also don't think 1000 feet is an exact number.

There were a couple of excellent posts back on page 87 of this thread that help explain the "1000 foot height limit" a little better

After attending the meeting, here is my understanding of the Planning Department's thought process:

The 1000' limit is reasonable because it would not cast significant shadows on key open space in the Downtown area, including Union Square, Portsmouth Square, and Justin Herman Plaza. However, increasing the height of the tower beyond 1000' could cause significant shadow impacts to Justin Herman Plaza and the area directly in front of the Ferry Building during the lunchtime period. The definition of "significant" shadows appears somewhat vague: at 1000', the tower would supposedly cause "20 minutes" worth of shade, but at over 1000' would cause "1 hour" worth of shade at this location. Based on the way the planner phrased things, this was the primary reason for limiting the tower to 1000'. He did leave it open and say that the Planning Department was not against having the crown of the building extend above 1000', and also brought up other considerations such as blurring of shadows at a distance and the uncertainties and constraints associated with the shadow models. However, the 1984 law protects certain open spaces, so I'm not sure if there's a way around that. And apparently, the Hines proposal may not be drastically affected since it's 1075' to the roof of the building, with the remaining height occupied by the turbines on top.

The planner also stressed that they wanted the Transit Tower to be the tallest tower on the skyline, meaning that other taller proposals such as the Piano towers across the street would end up lower than the initial 1200' proposals...

At the meeting Joshua clarified that the 1000' height limitation was measured strictly by the portions of a structure that would completely block out the sun, and in fact the original Pelli proposal would be measured as only 1065' under those parameters. This means that at most we will see a 65' shortening of the habitable portions of the tower, and the elegant lattice-like crown with wind turbines could absolutely remain...

“The Planning Department has created a plan that isn’t just about concentrating growth,” said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, “it’s also about creating gracious public spaces, making streets that are great to walk on and making buildings that will be beautiful to look at by tapering buildings to preserve views of the sky.”

Also repeated from the Examiner article above:
Metcalf was critical, however, about how city planners have crafted the proposed new height rules to create a saddle-shaped skyline that arches up to the Transbay Terminal’s 1,000-foot centerpiece peak.

The City is wasting an opportunity to build needed office and residential space, just to create a particular look for the future skyline, he said.

“We should not sacrifice opportunities to live and work near transit just for the sake of sculpting a so-called mound seen from a distance,” Metcalf said.

I tend agree with Metcalf. How do others feel about this?

[quashlo]

I tend agree with Metcalf. How do others feel about this?

I also agree with him. Personally, I'm not really that concerned about the overall "look" of the skyline, mostly because it's not something I really interact with much. Concern over "skyline aesthetics" is just the other side of the coin of the people who complain about losing their views of the Bay Bridge because of One Rincon Hill.

Frankly, I'm much more concerned with the design of the street-level environment and the transit operations (i.e., things like the underground walkway to BART, etc.). I'm probably in a minority here as well, but I don't feel the Transit Tower has to be the tallest tower in the skyline either, especially if that means that all the other proposals (particular 50 First) have to get knocked down just so the Transit Tower can maintain some sort of monumentalism. In fact, 50 First is my favorite proposal, precisely because it really puts its money where its mouth is. There is much talk about leveraging the terminal's transit services by building up, but I can't hide my disappointment with projects like 350 Mission (385 ft!?). And while there are lots of towers going up, there is also ample parking being proposed for all these projects, which only works against the concept of building a transit-focused district.

On another note, I was present at the second public workshop where they discussed the street-level design. One thing they talked about was extending the existing historic district to the south side of Mission to encompass some of those buildings (Walgreens, Sherman Clay Pianos, etc.). Personally, I was hoping these buildings would get the same kind of treatment as the Williams Building (St. Regis) and the proposed Mercantile Building (Mexican Museum / condo tower)... We might as well close the gap between the St. Regis and 101 Second. :)

[SFView]

I think if the Transbay Tower can maintain 1200' or taller, at least visually by structure, I would prefer the adoption of a slightly modified 1200' scheme, instead of the proposed 1000' scheme. With a hybrid 1000'/1200' scheme, 1000' would be permitted at 50 First St., 850' would be the height for the TJPA site on Howard St., and Transbay Tower could still be 1000' with a 200'+ "transparent" crown on top of it. This would be much more visually dramatic than the 1000' scheme, permit more valuable development, allow sunlight on Justin Herman Plaza in the winter, and would better emphasize the original new southern downtown mound concept.

[ltsmotorsport]

I gotta side with Metcalf too. I'm sure developements in the future would cover up any "look" of the skyline anyway, if only for a few angles.

[peanut gallery]

I'm with quashlo on prioritizing street and transit experience, but I'm not opposed to also trying to manage the overall look of the skyline as long those two things are taken care of.

How is the Howard St. TJPA site going to get around the park shadowing issue? At anything above 10 floors or so, it's going to throw a significant shadow on the new Transbay park.

[SFView]

How is the Howard St. TJPA site going to get around the park shadowing issue? At anything above 10 floors or so, it's going to throw a significant shadow on the new Transbay park.

If I am not mistaken, if the new Transbay park isn't under the Recreation and Park Commission's jurisdiction, then Proposition K doesn't apply. Can anyone confirm this? There is another park in the plan between Beale and Main Sts. that would also be in shadow from future residential Transbay towers. Hopefully these parks and open spaces will remain exempt from Prop K being that they are placed amid highrise zones. Justin Herman Plaza is also located adjacent to highrises, but since it's creation, has come under 1984 Prop K protection.

[Reminiscence]

Start the clock:



T-Minus Two Weeks Until Transbay Temporary Bus Terminal Start

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Temp%20Terminal%20Perspective.jpg

As a plugged-in tipster notes, it’s T-minus two weeks until the parking lots bordered by Folsom, Main, Beale and Howard streets will be closed and construction on the Transbay Temporary Bus Terminal will begin.

And while we'll keep you plugged-in with regard to its construction over the next year, it's the TJPA that will keep you in the loop with regard to related closures and detours.

[peanut gallery]

Halloween - the last day for that surface lot. I can't wait!

Now that the temporary terminal is just about to start, should we start a new thread in General Developments for the new terminal (including the temporary one) and not muddy up this thread, which is really about the tower? They really are separate, yet closely tied, developments.

[Reminiscence]

I've always thought we should keep everything in one place, but I'd be perfectly happy with either scenario. After all, we only have about a couple of years before we start seeing activity with the tower itself, and I doubt we'll have mountains of posts regarding only the temporary structure.

[peanut gallery]

According to the Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?&entry_id=31770), the Transbay Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors approved the revised deal with Hines yesterday. I think the next step now is for the revised zoning to be approved, at which time Hines will pay the first installment of $160 million.

[peanut gallery]

I've always thought we should keep everything in one place, but I'd be perfectly happy with either scenario. After all, we only have about a couple of years before we start seeing activity with the tower itself, and I doubt we'll have mountains of posts regarding only the temporary structure.

I can go either way as well. I was just thinking that other folks wanting to see updates on a tower might be disappointed in seeing updates for the next couple of years on the temp terminal, demo of the old terminal, and construction of the new terminal instead. Plus, each structure (tower and terminal) is pretty impressive in its own right. Does anyone else have strong opinions about this? Like I said, either way is fine by me.

[BTinSF]

Transbay Tower: A Little Cheaper, Just As Huge

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2008-10-transbaytower.JPG

One financial collapse, a city well over budget and many months later, the development firm that bid out to foot the bill for 1,000-foot-tall Transbay Tower is now set to pony up $115 less than they originally agreed to -- $235 mill as opposed to $350. The new agreement, approved by Transbay's Board of Directors, has the developer paying most of the money up front, at the closing of the land sale, with the rest paid out over the next few years. The price cut will keep Transbay on track where it might have formerly fallen by the wayside in this sad economy, and give the Transit Authority a larger and much-needed cash infusion in the immediate. The developer wouldn't have been able to raise the $350 large until it was able to lease out half the tower's space -- very unlikely to happen before construction is set to begin in 2010. But! More hoops! T-Tower still has to make its way through the rezoning process before ground can be broken. So don't expect any new oppressive shadows for at least a couple more years.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

But we knew all this.

[viewguysf]

I can go either way as well. I was just thinking that other folks wanting to see updates on a tower might be disappointed in seeing updates for the next couple of years on the temp terminal, demo of the old terminal, and construction of the new terminal instead. Plus, each structure (tower and terminal) is pretty impressive in its own right. Does anyone else have strong opinions about this? Like I said, either way is fine by me.

I also think that the entire development should be kept in one place since all of the components are very much dependent upon and related to one another.

[BTinSF]

I also think that the entire development should be kept in one place since all of the components are very much dependent upon and related to one another.

ditto

[peanut gallery]

Very well then. I'll not start a new thread. Thanks for the input!

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Well, Proposition 1a passed, looks like the vision of High Speed Rail connecting to San Francisco will be a reality! (Someday) :tup:

[peanut gallery]

Step one, close the parking lot for the temporary terminal, is complete:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/3007415572_d6fc62b95d_b.jpg
(Sorry for the distance. I couldn't find a closer spot to get an elevated shot.)

Surface lot, you are toast!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/3007392784_4edc07993b_b.jpg

Even the northwest corner, where CalTrans has been storing crap for years is totally cleaned out:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/3006555801_2511016a75_b.jpg

And the very first tiny bit of demo has begun:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/3006558915_cc172d1ef0_b.jpg

I believe this fencing will be used to surround the building in the background which should be next on the demo list:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/3006560923_dfe5a8a0e5_b.jpg

[Jibba]

^Good for SF. It is so damn exciting when a surface lot is soon to be no more.

[peanut gallery]

They have also closed the long skinny lot that runs along Main from Howard almost up to Mission. This was noted on the temporary terminal site and I verified that it is indeed closed. Anyone know how they are using this space? I don't see anything on any of the renderings. Could it just be a staging area for construction?

[HarshLiving]

It all started with the closing of a surface lot.

[kenratboy]

It is great to see progress on this project.

[BTinSF]

I am hopelessly confused as to where we are discussing aspects of this project beyond the tower itself, but the greater project took a mild hit recently it seems:

Transbay Transit Center going off track
By Katie Worth
Examiner Staff Writer 11/12/08

http://media.sfexaminer.com/images/sf.tunnel.jpg
Pricey proposal: It would cost $2 billion to extend Caltrain to the planned Transbay Transit Center.

SAN FRANCISCO – Statewide bullet trains have been presented by transit officials as the silver bullet. The City needs to finally bring rail transit downtown, but some are questioning whether a necessary extension should receive financial help from bonds for high-speed rail approved by voters Nov. 4.

Proposition 1A, passed in last week’s election, authorized $9.95 billion in bond money for a high speed-rail line that would take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in a mere 2½ hours. In anticipation of the project, the first phase of the new Transbay Transit Center is being built with the assumption that a major rail corridor will connect to the new terminal.

However, that would necessitate a $2 billion, 1.3-mile extension of Caltrain’s tracks from their current terminus at Fourth and King streets in Mission Bay to downtown’s Transbay Transit Center at First and Mission streets, as well as a “train box” — a massive space underneath the bus terminal big enough to hold six rail platforms and tracks — that could later be tunneled into and developed into a station for Caltrain and high-speed trains.

Transbay Joint Powers Authority spokesman Adam Alberti said the authority began lobbying for funds from the high-speed rail bond in a letter issued last month.

But at least one authority has eschewed the possibility that high-speed rail will pay for the extension.

“We do not need First and Mission. I am satisfied with Fourth and Townsend,” said Judge Quentin Kopp, chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority. “We are not going to pay an extra billion-plus dollars to take the high-speed rail an extra 1.4 miles.”

The extension will have to be resolved — and funded — by The City and Caltrain, he said.

But spokeswoman Christine Dunn said Caltrain has not considered devoting any funds to the project, and it would have to be funded by The City and the Transbay project.

Jerry Hill, a member of Transbay’s board of directors and state Assembly member-elect, said that though Transbay hopes to secure some funding for the extension from the high-speed rail, they are not seeing the project as a “cash cow,” and the success of neither high-speed rail nor the Transbay Transit Center depends on the extension.

Rod Diridon, Kopp’s colleague on the High Speed Rail Authority, said it would be a shame if high-speed rail did not reach downtown.

kworth@sfexaminer.com

Future rail projects

Caltrain wants to link to the planned Transbay Transit Center.

$9.95 billion Bond funding for high-speed rail approved by voters Nov. 4

1.3 miles Proposed underground downtown extension of Caltrain commuter rail line

6 Trains and platforms to be accommodated by proposed train station under the new Transbay Transit Center

$2 billion Unfunded cost to extend the Caltrain commuter rail line from Fourth and King streets to the new Transbay Transit Center

Sources: Transbay Joint Powers Authority, Caltrain, California High Speed Rail Authority, BayRail Alliance

Source: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Transbay_Transit_Center_going_off_track.html

Socketsite ( http://www.socketsite.com/ ) provides this graphic (common knowledge to san Franciscans but probably not others)

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Rail%20Extension.gif

[peanut gallery]

I am hopelessly confused as to where we are discussing aspects of this project beyond the tower itself

All the feedback I got was to keep it all here in one place, so that's what I'm doing.

The Examiner headline is a bit sensational (surprise, surprise!). Basically, it seems like Kopp is trying to offload some of the cost of HSR to the locals. He's also somewhat invested politically in the Milbrae station, which I think would benefit from HSR not going all the way to Transbay. That would make Milbrae the only station with all of BART, HSR and CalTrain. All-in-all, I think it's just a lot of posturing and HSR will go all the way to Transbay.

[BTinSF]

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Block%208%20Development%20Program.gif

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Block%208%20Aerial.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Block%208%20Off-Ramp%20Redesign-thumb.gif

The Request For Proposals to develop Transbay Block 8 (bounded by First, Folsom, Freemont and Clementina) is out and about and due back January 22, 2009. Once again, a one-acre parcel which is slated for a market-rate 450-550 foot residential tower and row of 50-foot townhouses along with a pair of 65-85 foot affordable housing podiums. In all, 597 potential housing units over 7,000 square feet of ground floor retail.

“As part of the Market-Rate Project, the for-profit developer will be required to demolish and reconfigure the existing Folsom Street Off-Ramp and construct public improvements on the site as detailed in the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Streetscape and Open Space Concept Plan.”

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

[livin' in the city]

Any activity on the temp. terminal site?

[peanut gallery]

Yes, but nothing terribly exciting yet. Some equipment is staged and they've removed a few small above ground structures. Most activity is along Main where they are digging a trench into the street. I'm guessing they're tying into utilities. I also saw a Planning notice that they will be building an office here. They have their construction trailers across Howard (in the slim parking lot I asked about earlier) so I'm not sure what this office is, unless the notice refers to the temporary terminal office. They haven't yet fenced off the two buildings in the southeast corner, but they are being prepped for demo.

[BTinSF]

Friday, November 21, 2008
Five developers vying to build at Transbay in S.F.
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

At least five housing developers are jockeying for the right to build a 550-foot residential tower at First and Folsom streets in San Francisco’s Transbay District, despite a devastating economic downturn that has depressed the value of the site and precluded some major builders from taking on the 597-unit project.

Developers looking at the site, known as Block 8, include Avant Housing, Intracorp San Francisco, the Emerald Fund, AvalonBay and Related Cos., according to interviews and a sign-in list from the redevelopment agency’s Nov. 13 “pre-submittal” meeting on the project. Developers expected to make especially strong bids include the rental real estate investment trust AvalonBay; Avant Housing, a joint venture between local builders AGI Capital and TMG Partners; and the New York-based Related, which is reportedly teaming up with Emerald Fund. Other developers attending the meeting included Chicago-based Mesa Development, luxury housing giant Toll Brothers and San Mateo-based SunCal Cos.

Mike Grisso, project manager for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, said he was “very happy” with the interest Block 8 is generating.

“People recognize it as one of the last great opportunities in this part of town,” said Grisso. “You always want to have a lot of people come out, and that can be challenging in troubled economic times.”

The 42,600-square-foot parcel is one of a dozen lots freed up when the elevated Embarcadero Freeway was knocked down after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. While nine of the 12 parcels are set to be eventually redeveloped with housing — two will be parks and one a 700,000-square-foot office tower — Block 8 is the largest. It calls for a 550-foot tower reaching above two midrise affordable apartment buildings and a row of townhouses that will open onto Folsom Street, a thoroughfare set to be rebuilt as a shopping boulevard with wider sidewalks, new greenery and outdoor seating. Redevelopment rules require that the project be 25 percent affordable. The project calls for 447 units of market-rate condos in addition to 150 units of affordable or below-market-rate housing. Money generated from the sale of block 8 will help pay for the new Transbay rail and bus terminal.

For the redevelopment agency, the timing of the request for proposal is unfortunate. San Francisco’s astronomical land values have softened since 2006 when Jackson Pacific sold 45 Lansing St. for about $30 million, or $125,000 per approved unit. While it’s difficult to say how much Block 8 will command, brokers pegged the value between $35 and $40 million, or $100,000 per buildable market-rate unit.

Several developers originally seen as strong contenders for the site, including Forest City, Millennium Partners and Tishman Speyer, are not expected to makes bids due to the soft market, according to architects and engineers who have had discussions with those companies about the site.

“The timing couldn’t be worse for the Redevelopment Agency right now,” said Russ Gatschet, senior pre-construction manager for Bovis Lend Lease, which is in talks with developers on the project. “I don’t know what the expected land value is, but I’m sure it’s more than any developer is willing to pay right now.”

Given the weak condo market and relatively strong rental climate, the project might make most sense for an upscale apartment builder like AvalonBay. AvalonBay Senior Development Director Meg Spriggs said her company has assembled a team and will make a proposal.

“We are looking at Block 8 fully recognizing that the economic climate is very difficult. While very financially challenged, Block 8 is an opportunity to do good high density, transit oriented development and collaborate with the city in a meaningful way,” she said. “Block 8 is a complicated, challenging deal and our hurdle is higher than it has been in many years. But, we believe that AvalonBay is uniquely positioned to take on these types of challenges and we aren’t afraid to dig in and take a good hard look.”

Eric Tao, a principal with Avant Housing and AGI, said the slowdown actually creates a window to chase intricate public-private partnerships.

“I’m not building a lot right now, I’m looking at (requests for proposals),” said Tao. “What we’re doing is planting seeds for when the economy is healthy again.”

Tao said the Redevelopment Agency will have to accept that the land value has decreased from its height in 2007.

“The land value is depressed, but if you get somebody building there, that creates jobs, taxes and fees,” said Tao.

Clark Manus, a principal of the architecture firm HellerManus Architects, said Block 8 has the advantage of being on Folsom Street and on flat land.

“Folsom is really the boulevard of choice for this new residential neighborhood,” Manus said. “There are a lot of Rincon Hill projects that are approved and are stalled or stumbling. The question you have to ask is, ‘Is this site better by virtue of being on the flats on Folsom?’”

Developers who take the long-term perspective on Block 8 will do well, he added.

“If you look at the moment, it’s scary,” he said. “It’s challenging, but you have to look beyond that.”


jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971


Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/11/24/story9.html?t=printable

[peanut gallery]

That's great. Way more interest than I expected. The real insight will come with the actual bids, but this is a good start.

JK mis-wrote this sentence:
It calls for a 550-foot tower reaching above two midrise affordable apartment buildings and a row of townhouses that will open onto Folsom Street,

The RFP calls for the townhouses to front Clementina and Folsom to be all retail.

[SFView]

...two will be parks and one a 700,000-square-foot office tower — Block 8 is the largest.

According to http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf this used to be a 1,700,000-square-foot office tower. The 1mil less square footage may be consistent with the Transbay Tower currently being shown at 550 feet, reduced from 1,200 or 1,000 feet, with "exact height to be determined pending further analysis."

see: http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sfra/Projects/04_Urban%20Form%20Framework.pdf

[WildCowboy]

^^^ The 700,000 sf tower mentioned there is not the Hines Transbay Tower. It is a project on "Block 5", on the "north" side of Howard between Main and Beale.

The 12 parcels they mention are separate from the terminal/tower project...what they're talking about is "Zone One" of the broader redevelopment area, shown in darker grey area here:

http://i33.tinypic.com/vsorcm.png

The Transbay Tower itself is outside of this area, "south" of Mission between Fremont and First.

[SFView]

:previous: Thanks for clearing that up.

[peanut gallery]

Yes, this is the one that is currently a surface lot under the existing ramp from the terminal. With the new configuration, the ramp will no longer cut across the lot, opening it for this new office tower.

[peanut gallery]

Hubba, hubba:
http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Park%20Rendering.jpg
source: SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2008/12/transbay_park_potential_posttemporary_transbay_terminal.html).

You're looking at the new park (and some surrounding future developments) where the temporary Transbay Terminal is being constructed. This is probably ten years away from reality, but I can't wait to see it happen.

[holeinground]

Here is another view shown at the temporary terminal groundbreaking yesterday:

http://steelbluellc.com/transbaypark2.jpg

[SFView]

Hubba, hubba:
http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Park%20Rendering.jpg
source: SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2008/12/transbay_park_potential_posttemporary_transbay_terminal.html).

You're looking at the new park (and some surrounding future developments) where the temporary Transbay Terminal is being constructed. This is probably ten years away from reality, but I can't wait to see it happen.

10 years is a long wait. It could be a little different by the time it becomes reality. I sure would like to be able to pan up that view though. Thanks for posting!

[peanut gallery]

10 years is a long wait. It could be a little different by the time it becomes reality. I sure would like to be able to pan up that view though. Thanks for posting!

I'm sure it will change, but it's still fun to fantasize. I too would love to pan up, around, over, etc. :) It just struck me that this will make a nice bookend opposite Jackson Square on the other side of the FiDi. Both have a central park with some low-rise residential surrounded by highrise residential and even taller office buildings nearby. It will be like a mirror image.

PS: thanks for posting the other image, holeinground. I missed that.

[Reminiscence]

Nice find guys, thanks for posting.

Those two towers in the background straight ahead I imagine is Tishman Speyer's 2nd phase following the completion of Infinity. They look a little more glassy, but that might just be the artist's rendition. Its certainly very detailed.

[BTinSF]

it's still fun to fantasize. I too would love to pan up, around, over, etc.

Enjoy: http://vimeo.com/2489687

[peanut gallery]

Well, it's safe to say that I'll be watching that a lot in the coming months. My goodness! Thank you, BT! (I'm doing that a lot tonight.)

[AndrewK]

i wanna go swimming in that pool at the californian.

[AndrewK]

oh and they appear to have put 325 fremont in the wrong place and rotated 90 degrees. just nitpicking.

[Reminiscence]

My goodness, that is one good looking presentation, thank you so much for posting that BT. I cant wait to start seeing more activity on site =)

[hi123]

Wow this will really enhance downtown.

[SFView]

...And here we go:

From: http://vimeo.com/2489687
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TB2008a.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TB2008b.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TB2008c.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TB2008d.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Brilliant still shots, this will for sure be the project to watch, at least on this side of the Mississippi.

Although ... I would have said it like this: "And here ... we ... go"

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/2514900209_562eeb4448.jpg?v=0

[peanut gallery]

Working on the temporary terminal site:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3210/3121175423_d975d1535a_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/3121999190_1a3fd2c963_b.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Thanks for the update p.g. Its nice to see some heavy machinery and loose rubble around. Hopefully we'll see some serious activity happening within the next 45 days.

Happy Holidays everyone!

[BTinSF]

Behind the scenes, Transbay district evolving
John King, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, January 5, 2009

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/01/04/ba-transbay0105__SFCG1231042214.jpg

Except for construction crews upending asphalt on a block destined to serve as a temporary bus terminal, San Francisco's much-ballyhooed Transbay district shows little sign of change.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/01/04/mn-transbay05_ph_0499613930.jpg

The calm isn't the result of economic ills, say the bureaucrats and architects focused on an area that 20 years ago was defined mainly by freeway ramps. There's ample work going on - but it's the sort that takes place in offices and hearing rooms, involving computers rather than cranes.

"Everyone wants to make this happen," said John Rahaim, the city's planning director. "We're full speed ahead."

The low-profile planning is a contrast to the sporadic drama of the past two years.

In 2007, government officials grabbed headlines with a competition for the rights to build a skyline-popping tower in San Francisco as part of an effort to fund a major transit hub at First and Mission streets. The Planning Department followed last year with a proposal for new zoning that would allow several towers to approach or exceed the height of the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid, the city's tallest building.

Now, three agencies are in the middle of initiatives for the area - and at least one development team is pursuing plans for a tower well under what planners have indicated they'll allow.

The most obvious sign of what's to come is on the block bounded by Howard, Beale, Folsom and Main streets. A longtime parking lot is fenced off to everyone but construction workers, while the block's two small one-story buildings await demolition.

The block this year will sprout a temporary terminal for buses bringing commuters to the Financial District from other counties. It's scheduled to open in August, followed by the demolition of the existing terminal.

If the schedule holds, the spring of 2010 would see a groundbreaking for the new Transbay Terminal. The $1.2 billion project includes the temporary terminal and bus ramps to the Bay Bridge and is part of a larger effort to bring commuter trains and high-speed rail within one block of Market Street.

"All told, upwards of 150 consultants are working on this right now," said Fred Clarke of Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects, the Connecticut firm designing the terminal.

The firm also was selected with developer Hines to erect an office tower on the Transbay block along Mission Street - a skyscraper that likely would climb at least 1,000 feet.

Besides turning heads, the tower will help fund the terminal. Hines has agreed to pay $235 million to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

"We haven't fully engaged in the work on the tower" given the moribund economy, Clarke conceded. Still, "We'll be starting the entitlement process in '09."

Those entitlements will be affected by the Planning Department's district plan for the area bounded roughly by Mission, Third, Folsom and Main streets.

Besides the zoning issues, planners will map out how the Transbay district - projected to be the densest part of the city - would work in terms of pedestrian ambience and traffic circulation. There also will be an economic component in terms of the fees that would be charged developers.

According to Planning Director Rahaim, the department hopes to release a draft of the plan in February. That would allow the formal public process to begin; it also would mark the start of environmental studies that are required before a plan is adopted.

"This is a plan for the long term," Rahaim said, downplaying the recession's impact.

Redevelopment bids soon

In the meantime, a fresh test of the area's appeal to developers will come Jan. 22, when the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency takes bids from developers vying for an acre-plus site at First and Folsom streets.

This is one of several blocks freed up by the demolition of the ramps that led from the Bay Bridge to the Embarcadero Freeway, which was razed in 1990. A 2005 redevelopment plan maps out the blocks as a residential district akin to what's taking shape on Rincon Hill, with thin towers rising from townhouse-scaled bases.

The First and Folsom site is zoned to allow a 450-foot tower as well as approximately 150 affordable apartments.

Whatever occurs with the redevelopment land, at least one private developer is pursuing plans for a Transbay tower.

The site is 350 Mission St., now occupied by a low office building. But it stands across from the Transbay Terminal, on a block where planners have proposed heights of 700 feet.

Instead, developer GLL Properties seeks to build an office tower of just 27 stories, roughly 350 feet. The lower height is dictated by the relatively compact site: Go any higher and the extra elevator banks would chew up too much rentable space.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/01/04/mn-transbay05_ph_0499614445.jpg

Unusual design

The design aims to make 350 Mission stand out in other ways. The glass skin would taper in and out both vertically and horizontally, aiming for a jewel-like faceted texture. At the ground, the lower 50 feet along Fremont and Mission streets would open to the sidewalk during the day - serving as a de facto public space.

"This can't be, because of its size, a landmark building on the skyline. It can be a landmark at street level," said architect Craig Hartman of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, the tower designer.

Like the Transbay tower, 350 Mission can't proceed until the larger environmental studies are complete. After that, the economy will call the shots.

"This is an entire district of the city that is transforming - not just in its density, but in its character," Hartman said. "We need to make it as different as possible from living in the suburbs."

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/05/BA7A151GAM.DTL

[peanut gallery]

I like the approach SOM has taken on 350 Mission. If it can't be a skyline changer, make it a street-level changer. Plus it would be a great looking building even at a shorter height, much like 535 would have been.

About its height, I thought there were FAR restrictions that limited the height but King says it was due to elevator/floor space issues. Is that because the new zoning also adjusts FAR?

[peanut gallery]

The blue-green pipes and orange cones indicate where the center island for the temporary terminal will be located:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/3172056607_45c2f26067_b.jpg

Still waiting for the two remaining buildings to be torn down.

[Reminiscence]

Great stuff guys, thanks for posting. I like 350 Mission also, at least by what the rendering shows it to be. After all, height isn't everything.

Its also good to see increasing activity at the temporary site, although I'm still wondering how they'll do with the freeway connector to the old terminal.

[BTinSF]

Wall Street Ripple: Transbay Evolving Ever So Slowly
If there's anyone in denial over the impact of the current credit crunch and fiscal crisis on office space and new building (or lack thereof), it appears to be the hundreds of planners and designers involved in developing the Transbay Terminal and its many shadowy towers. "Everyone wants to make this happen," says the city's planning director. "We're full speed ahead." Indeed, ground has been broken for the temporary bus terminal, set to open in August, followed by the demolition of the existing terminal. But the big boy himself, all $1.2 billion of him, is scheduled to begin going down in the spring of 2010. Now we don't mean to rain on the parade but, um, market allowing? Even evergreen optimist John King minces words, describing the Terminal's groundbreaking conditionally. But oh, avert your eyes from that ugly financial collapse because look, we're making shiny towers like diamonds! And don't be surprised when the deadlines for interested developers eyeing small Transbay plots are continually extended... Just sayin'.

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2008-10-transbaytower.JPG
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

[holeinground]

Working on the temporary terminal site (1/9/09):

http://www.steelbluellc.com/photos/temp_terminal.jpg

[peanut gallery]

^ Nice view you have there in 201 Mission.

Jaime at the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Blog (http://www.rinconhillsf.org/) wrote up his notes from last night's TJPA community meeting (http://www.rinconhillsf.org/2009/01/14/1513). This part is particularly interesting:

The folks at Pelli Clarke Pelli suggest building the train box of the transit center from the bottom up (as opposed to the current plans for building it from the top down, putting in the walls, so-to-speak (Bob had the technical language, but I didn’t write it down), and taking care of excavations for the trains later on). This suggested change would save about $100 million from the total project costs (all phases combined) and would reduce the risks associated with building the train box from the top down. However, it means a shift in need for $350 million for Phase I instead of Phase II to build the train box sooner rather than later. The Transbay JPA along with other related groups (Caltrain, High Speed Rail Authority, public policy groups like SPUR) are all aggressively seeking economic stimulus funds to get their respective (and interrelated) projects rolling faster, and hope to stir up the $350 million to pursue this change in construction of the train box.

The one possible negative for the Rincon Hill neighborhood of this possible change in plans is that the Transbay Temporary Terminal would need to exist for an additional 12 months (tentatively), until 2015 (instead of 2014), if the $350 million is raised and they build the train box of the Transit Center from the bottom up.

I'm not excited about waiting an extra year for the new terminal to be complete, but $100M is a lot of scratch.

Also, one of the two remaining buildings at the temporary terminal site is gone and the other is half way there. All but a little pavement in the southeast corner is gone too. Also, there are crews pulling cores around the old terminal again this week, in some of the same places (or very nearby) they have before. Don't know what that means exactly, but it definitely shows that things are still moving forward. These days, I'll take any little sign of progress I can.

[peanut gallery]

One down:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3366/3198401466_e0fea9095f_b.jpg

One (ok, half) to go:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3197564247_34fc287687_b.jpg

[Gordo]

I've read in several places about the plan that could save $100 million, but still can't figure out exactly how or why it would save that much. Does anyone have any clue? It sounds like they're saying that the plan now is to not build the train box until after the tower is built, but it would be cheaper to build the train box before the tower is built...am I reading that right? How in the world would they excavate something like the train box after the tower is built? It's not like the train box is going to be incredibly deep under the tower.

[rocketman_95046]

I've read in several places about the plan that could save $100 million, but still can't figure out exactly how or why it would save that much. Does anyone have any clue? It sounds like they're saying that the plan now is to not build the train box until after the tower is built, but it would be cheaper to build the train box before the tower is built...am I reading that right? How in the world would they excavate something like the train box after the tower is built? It's not like the train box is going to be incredibly deep under the tower.

very simply stated,,, actual CEs may want to correct me...

They build the structural components of the foundation, walls, and roof of the train box without removing the soil... they do this by pouring slurry, and then concrete into pre-drilled holes much like making caissons and slurry walls.

then when they are ready they remove the soil and "clean things up" by tunneling in.

[Gordo]

very simply stated,,, actual CEs may want to correct me...

They build the structural components of the foundation, walls, and roof of the train box without removing the soil... they do this by pouring slurry, and then concrete into pre-drilled holes much like making caissons and slurry walls.

then when they are ready they remove the soil and "clean things up" by tunneling in.

Ok, that makes sense. Now, next question - how does that option cost $100 million more, and if it does, why would it have ever been considered? :)

[BTinSF]

Ok, that makes sense. Now, next question - how does that option cost $100 million more, and if it does, why would it have ever been considered? :)

It would be considered because the cost is pushed back to "Phase II" (essentially the construction of the tunnel for CalTrain and HSR) from phase I. It costs more ultimately but less in the first phase (the above-ground terminal structure, bus ramps and so on).

[BTinSF]

Work progresses:

http://www.socketsite.com/Temporary%20Transbay%20Terminal%20Site%201-19-09.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

[WildCowboy]

Looks like they got three proposals for Block 8...competition is good!

Developers bid to build 550-foot Transbay District tower (http://washington.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/01/19/daily69.html)


Developers bid to build 550-foot Transbay District tower
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Three development teams are bidding to build a 550-foot residential tower at First and Folsom streets in the Transbay District, despite a crushing economic downturn that has depressed the value of the state-owned site and precluded some major builders from taking on the project.

The three partnerships vying to take on project are: AvalonBay and affordable housing partner Bridge Housing; Golub Real Estate Corp. with affordable housing partner Mercy Housing; and Avant Housing with affordable housing partner Citizens Housing.

A number of developers who had been looking at the project, including Toll Brothers, Related Cos., and Intracorp San Francisco, did not submit proposals.

Mike Grisso, project manager for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, said the agency was still reviewing the proposals, but that all conformed to the Request for proposal, which called for a 550-foot condo tower reaching above two mid-rise affordable apartment buildings and a row of townhouses that will open onto Folsom Street.

“They are all housing and they all have a similar number of units, there is not a big variety” said Grisso. “The program was pretty proscribed in terms of height limits and bulk limits and building sizes.”

The 42,600-square-foot parcel is one of a dozen state-owned lots freed up when the elevated Embarcadero Freeway was knocked down after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. While nine of the 12 parcels are set to be eventually redeveloped with housing — two will be parks and one a 700,000-square-foot office tower — Block 8 is the largest. It calls for a 550-foot tower reaching above two mid-rise affordable apartment buildings and a row of townhouses that will open onto Folsom Street, a thoroughfare that will eventually be reconfigured as a shopping boulevard with wide sidewalks, greenery and outdoor seating.

All three teams feature deep pockets and experience. AvalonBay, a national apartment real estate investment trust, has constructed 823 apartments in Mission Bay and has another development site near City College. Avant Housing is a joint venture between well-known Bay Area developers AGI Capital and TMG Partners and is backed by CalPERS. Golub is one of Chicago’s most prolific developers and has developed, owned, or managed more than 30 million square feet of commercial property and 50,000 multifamily units.

[BTinSF]

"backed by CalPers"?? CalPers no longer has "deep pockets". CalPers is hurting, especially with regard to their real estate investments. I'm surprised they aren't pulling back from that asset class almost completely.

[coyotetrickster]

"backed by CalPers"?? CalPers no longer has "deep pockets". CalPers is hurting, especially with regard to their real estate investments. I'm surprised they aren't pulling back from that asset class almost completely.

CalPers has less deep pockets, but it still has pockets. The recent 'alternate investment' fiasco stemmed from a stupid, stupid bet on raw land. This is one of those times we should be grateful, in a grudging to the point of resentment, for the restrictions on development imposed by Prop M. The artificial scarcity imposed from M mean this project, with these inducements, will move forward on a sooner rather than later time schedule. Not soon as in the next two years, but 2012-2013

[BTinSF]

The artificial scarcity imposed from M mean this project, with these inducements, will move forward on a sooner rather than later time schedule. Not soon as in the next two years, but 2012-2013

Nobody can argue that Prop.M hasn't smoothed the building cycles somewhat, making new projects now more likely than they would have been. But I think this economy is bad enough (and may get much worse) that we aren't going to see new non-residential highrise projects that quickly except in unusual circumstances. By that I mean the folks behind 555 Mission decided to just take a chance and build it and lucked out (535 was just a bit too late). Somebody could take a similar chance with this building but it will be a major risk in 2012-2013 and I wouldn't bet it'll happen then.

If money again becomes available for non-conforming mortgages (or they raise the limits on conforming ones), we might see some residential building in that time frame and I still think a project like 45 Lansing, targeted to buyers wealthy enough to not need a mortgage in many cases and not really competing with all the buildings recently completed for upper middle class buyers, could be among the first to go forward.

By the way, I was being a bit hyperbolic about CalPers but even so, new real estate investments by them at this time do surprise me. They have a lot of repair work to their portfolio to do.

[BTinSF]

I must say I'm filing this in the "Shouldn't they have figured this out a couple of years ago?" file:



Gavin Wants to Hold on Transbay Until It Gets Fast Train
The standoff begins: Gavin Newsom, while on way official important business in Paris, said that we should put construction on the Transbay Terminal on hold until we can find money to bring the high-speed rail downtown. Blame the High Speed Rail Authority. They're not planning on bringing the fast train into the city farther than the Caltrain station at 4th and King— leaving the billion-dollar Transbay Terminal and Tower project in a pretty awkward place. Says Newsom, in between sumptuous bites of foie gras: "We're not going to build a $2 billion bus station under my watch." According to NBC Bay Area, the Transbay Joint Powers Board has been mulling building the first phase of the terminal without the train terminal, and then coming back later to finish the job. Gavin, however, has come out against that, saying we should wait on the whole thing until we have the money (last estimated to be an extra $2 billion for the 1.3 mile extension). According to the SF Examiner, the High Speed Rail Authority finds Gavin's statement "puzzling." Sounds like they need to get their people to talk to Gavin's people.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

How long have they been planning this as a Phase I (bus terminal)/Phase 2 (bring CalTrain in) project? Several years at least!

Has this got something to do with the fact that Gavin arch-enemy Chris Daly is on the TJPA Board doing the planning for the terminal?

So what does Newsom want--a temporary terminal (under construction) in use for a decade (or more) and a giant surface parking lot at 1st & Mission? SF: The city that doesn't know how.

[BTinSF]

:previous:

I expected a little panic, a little wailing and gnashing of teeth. But nada--no comments at all. You guys are stolid as oxen. And now, apparently, you can forget it all anyway:


High-Speed's On Again for Transbay, Was Never Off?

That Examiner story about high-speed rail ending at 4th and King— maybe everyone should just forget it ever happened. Seems the man who caused all the hair-tearing, chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority Judge Quentin Kopp, has more or less forgotten about it anyway. In response to Gavin's "no train, no station" press release yesterday, Kopp apparently told a reporter that the statement was not only "puzzling," but also "gratuitous"— at least according to comments Kopp himself made at a high-speed rail scoping meeting last night. If that's not enough, the most current documents put out by the Authority all list the Transbay Transit Center as the preferred terminus for the city. Station-wise, the only major question remaining then is whether Redwood City or Palo Alto will get stops; Transbay, SFO, and San Jose Diridon are all slated for high-speed. At ease, dudes.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com

[Gordo]

:previous: I knew it was just Newsom being a jackass and wasn't really worried about it affecting anything.

[SFView]

:previous:

You guys are stolid as oxen...

Maybe the Chinese New Year - Year of The Ox is really having an effect on us. :D

[mahanakorn]

You always did turn a good phrase, BT :haha:

[Urban_logic]

So I heard something about this high speed rail line being done sometime around 2015. Is that still the case? Do you guys think it will be completed in phases or all at once? As much as I love hearing about projects, I always must have dates! A project is meaningless to me without a date.

[Gordo]

The full line (SF-Anaheim) won't be completed until about 2020. This website has a completion timeline for all of the different parts of the Transbay Terminal:

http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.transbaycenter.org

And this one has the timeline for the full system:

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

[BTinSF]

So I heard something about this high speed rail line being done sometime around 2015. Is that still the case? Do you guys think it will be completed in phases or all at once? As much as I love hearing about projects, I always must have dates! A project is meaningless to me without a date.

Read all about it here: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

There will be phases but the first phase is SF to LA (which upsets some folks in Sacramento).

I'm not sure when it's supposed to be in operation but the timetable is bound to slip. I doubt it will be open by 2015. Maybe 2020.

[peanut gallery]

I expected a little panic, a little wailing and gnashing of teeth. But nada--no comments at all. You guys are stolid as oxen.

I might have wailed and even gnashed a tooth or two. But I've been unable to check-in much lately. Damn job getting in the way of all my fun!

In the end, it was a bunch of posturing between politicians. Who would have thunk it?

[Reminiscence]

I might have wailed and even gnashed a tooth or two. But I've been unable to check-in much lately. Damn job getting in the way of all my fun!

In the end, it was a bunch of posturing between politicians. Who would have thunk it?

I hear thee. I'm in the same situation, but with school. That news most certainly didn't sit well with me, but that went away quick.

[viewguysf]

[QUOTE=peanut gallery;4058431]I might have wailed and even gnashed a tooth or two. But I've been unable to check-in much lately. Damn job getting in the way of all my fun!

Be glad that you have a job in today's pseudo-depression; besides, you won't have much to look at soon anyway. :sly:

[peanut gallery]

Be glad that you have a job in today's pseudo-depression; besides, you won't have much to look at soon anyway. :sly:

No doubt.

[viewguysf]

I really appreciated the great pics posted in both the 301 and 555 Mission threads of the Mission Street corridor development. Those pics, taken down the blocks from both the west and east, spoke volumes about how exciting this street was becoming as a partner to Market Street.

My view, of course, is only from the west and is markedly different than at street level, but it has fascinated me to watch it none the less. When I bought this place twelve years ago this month, I could see everyone's favorite 100 First Plaza/Delta Dental Building on Mission Street. After 101 Second went up two years later, the view was much improved with only the top of the 65 foot spire on Delta Dental sticking over it. As we all know, it took forever for the St. Regis Museum Tower to finally be completed in 2005, which completely changed the view again. [Remember how Starwood intentionally delayed it due to the bad economy after 9/11 and the dotcom implosion? It's unfair that tough times seem to be outnumbering good times, but I digress.]

The agony of watching the old style heavy construction of concrete buildings progress is practically unbearable. After waiting for the Paramount and St. Regis, it was time to do the same for the Millennium Tower. When would it ever pop into my view? I kept looking and waiting, watching your great pics in the threads. One night I noticed a glow above the St. Regis--the construction light was approaching! The crane eventually popped its head up with the double bonus of 555 Mission's crane too--joy had returned to this section of viewguy's view! It was exciting to look through binoculars or a telescope and watch a crane operator I now know do his thing atop that skyscraper (he's at One Hawthorne now).

I'm being very patient waiting for the Transbay Terminal Tower, but it's going to be amazing when it happens!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3260445151_481f7ac6f7_b.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Great story. I wish I could have seen the moment where Millennium first appeared in your field of view, but with all the pictures that were provided at that time, it was the next best thing. Transbay will be something to keep an eye out for sure, and all the other that I hope will go up also for that matter.

[peanut gallery]

It's hard to imagine that same shot with something sticking-up another 400' above 50 Fremont. They will have done a ton of work when it pops over St. Regis and still only be about half way there.

[peanut gallery]

Work continues on the temporary terminal. To the left is a large hole and they continue to do what looks like utilities work around the periphery.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3334/3272668127_a2484f7791_b.jpg

[dougsf]

This article was in the Chronicle last week. I'm surprised that I haven't seen any mention of it here. This could potentially mean some further delays with getting the TBT built. Would not another option be to forgo the train box and to build a light rail shuttle between the TBT and 4th and King (similar to the shuttles between the terminals at an airport)?


Unbuilt Transbay station could soon be obsolete

Rachel Gordon,Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writers

Monday, March 2, 2009

San Francisco's planned high-speed rail station in the new Transbay Terminal would be obsolete within two decades, state transportation officials warn, forcing them to rethink the design.

The proposed station would not be large enough to accommodate half the passengers expected to be using the system by 2030. In addition, the current scheme poses engineering challenges for a Caltrain extension to the Transbay Terminal downtown, officials said.

"Three sets of engineers met and they concurred that the design for the station was inadequate and useless for high-speed rail," said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority.

The problems have transportation officials scrambling to find fixes to assure that the rail projects don't miss out on federal stimulus funds.

The emergency funding bill contains an unprecedented $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects. President Obama indicated in his proposed budget last week that he would like to pump a further $1 billion annually over the next five years into such projects. The windfall provides opportunities that even the most optimistic rail supporters didn't envision.

Interested parties will have to make a case for their projects and compete for the money.

"I think we are well positioned to get these funds - unless we get in our own way," said Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional planning and funding agency.

California is the only state with a high-speed rail plan and funding.

Heminger has been tapped to mediate the dispute that involves the potentially competing interests of Caltrain, the California High Speed Rail Authority and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, the agency overseeing construction of the new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets.

The building - described by project sponsors as the Grand Central station of the West Coast, with bus and train service - is envisioned to be the San Francisco home of high-speed rail and the new Caltrain station, extending its service closer to the downtown job center than does the current terminus at Fourth and King streets 1.3 miles away.

As it stands, the first phase of the project would be built without a "train box," the skeleton of the underground train station. The idea is to build it later, when funding becomes available. But building the train box in the first phase could shave an estimated $100 million off the $490 million cost.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority board must decide by summer whether to move up building the train box in order to keep on schedule, said Adam Alberti, spokesman for the Transbay Authority. Construction on the new terminal is expected to start in early 2010.

But even if Transbay officials put the train box on the fast track, there's still debate over whether the current design - one platform and two tracks for Caltrain and two platforms and four tracks for high-speed rail - would be sufficient.

Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority, testified before the Metropolitan Transportation Commission governing board last week that it would not withstand the test of time.

"We have found out that the current design that was environmentally cleared gives us less than one-half of the capacity we'll need by 2030 to carry all the passengers," Morshed said.

The High Speed Rail Authority now believes that the station would have to be able to handle 12 trains an hour, or one every five minutes. Under that scenario, eight to 10 tracks would be required, Alberti said. He said the Transbay team only learned of that three weeks ago.

One idea being studied is whether a two-story underground train station would be feasible from engineering and funding standpoints.

Separately, Caltrain officials have raised concerns about the design pertaining to, in part, track alignment and slope.

The problems aren't insurmountable, said Michael Scanlon, executive director of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which operates Caltrain. But, he said, they require additional engineering work.

"The current alignment and design is fatally flawed," Scanlon told the Metropolitan Transportation Commission governing board last week.

Kopp said engineers from his agency and Parsons Brinckerhoff - the main consultant on the high-speed rail project - concur with Caltrain officials.

Alberti said the Transbay Authority has been working closely with Caltrain officials on preliminary design and engineering work. Until recently, he said, "at no time has Caltrain indicated that the rail design does not work for them."

Scanlon said in an interview that the worst thing to do would to be to construct a train box that wouldn't work. "I think we ought to slow down and get it right," he said.

Increasing the size or design of the train box could double the cost, but officials have yet to attach a final price tag.

Heminger said it's essential that a deal be brokered among the Transbay, Caltrain and high-speed agencies, which would require clearing funding and engineering hurdles. The goal, he said, is to apply for federal stimulus money with a unified voice. "It's critical," he said. "Even though we have a leg up, these funds are going to be competitive."

The U.S. Department of Transportation is expected to release the rules for the funding competition in about four months, which gives Bay Area and high-speed rail officials some breathing room. Heminger plans to convene another meeting with the Transbay, Caltrain and high-speed rail representatives this week.

E-mail the writers at rgordon@sfchronicle.com and mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

[CUCa]

Here's a long (really pretty) video with some good background and lots of amazing animations of the entire project.

More here:
http://vimeo.com/3589710

[CUCa]

Dp

[San Frangelino]

Did anyone else notice in that video, that there is only one of the one rincon hill twin towers constructed. Did the shorter one get completely canceled? Did I miss something

[pizzaguy]

The video is asking me for a password.