SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[Gordo]

BT, you should run against Daly in the next election (or with some wishful thinking, a recall election). We could use some development proponent with real, tangible goals here in District 6.

Daly can't run again - this is his last term. Sometimes ya gotta love term limits :)

EDIT: Didn't realize BT had already brought this up...

[tyler82]

They should just turn 2nd St. into a pedestrian only park with dedicated bike/ bus lanes. Has the city ever explored the possibility of closing down certain streets for bikes and pedestrians only?

[Reminiscence]

July 25th and August 6th: Two dates I've already marked on my calendar :) .

[kenratboy]

They should just turn 2nd St. into a pedestrian only park with dedicated bike/ bus lanes. Has the city ever explored the possibility of closing down certain streets for bikes and pedestrians only?

Its San Francisco - of course they have considered it!

[Gordo]

Its San Francisco - of course they have considered it!

Not really. San Francsico, despite what people think of it, is more attached to the automobile than many people want to believe. Seattle and Portland have transit only streets, we have huge drawn out fights over Geary BRT taking one of three or four lanes. Manhattan has had limited car access to much of Central Park for decades, we spend years squabbling over making around 10% of roads in GG Park car-free on Saturdays. Can you even imagine the fight that would take place if we talked about making an actual street bike and ped only? Sure, we've closed off a few alleys, but an actual, real street? Keep dreaming...

[BTinSF]

^^^The reason there are fights over closing streets in GG Park is because the streets they demand be closed are the ones on the downtown end of the park in and around the museums. Offer to close some streets out by the ocean for them and see how they react. They want the ones they want in part because those, and only those, are most disruptive to car traffic. It's as much of a power trip as it is about actually getting a place to ride and skate.

As for 2nd St., it is the heart of what was the "dot-com" district. Whether or not it has car traffic, it is lined with both economically significant businesses, residential lofts and significant development projects including one at 2nd & Howard.

[BTinSF]

They should just turn 2nd St. into a pedestrian only park with dedicated bike/ bus lanes. Has the city ever explored the possibility of closing down certain streets for bikes and pedestrians only?

Why, exactly, should they do that?

[Gordo]

^^^The reason there are fights over closing streets in GG Park is because the streets they demand be closed are the ones on the downtown end of the park in and around the museums. Offer to close some streets out by the ocean for them and see how they react. They want the ones they want in part because those, and only those, are most disruptive to car traffic. It's as much of a power trip as it is about actually getting a place to ride and skate.

That is true, though I think the main reason that the streets involved were picked is because they are the same ones closed on Sundays - and the ones with the most attractions. I don't really see a need for ped and bike only streets in most places, except for some of the tourist areas. Powell for a few more blocks from where it already is a ped only area - it's already not really needed for auto traffic with it ending at Eddy - and the sidewalks are always overflowing. Grant Street is another - make it ped only for most of the day with a few hours for truck deliveries. Do the same thing on Jefferson - or at least remove the parking lane - wider sidewalks are desperately needed down there.

[tyler82]

Why, exactly, should they do that?

To encourage biking (by creating a safe, bike only lane with no speeding cars driven by tourists or other crazies who don't know how to navigate anything) and also to create a pleasant, park like street without noisy and polluting autos everywhere. Why does everything have to be centered around a stupid car, and why can't we have streets that don't have to be for CARS, but for people, pedestrians, for strolling, etc. There isn't enough space like this downtown.

[viewguysf]

I'll also note that if 2nd St is to be laid waste as discussed above, it will first have to sit in limbo and deterioriate for 4 years (who, after all, is going to put any money, even for maintenance, in an area that's about to suffer what this one is). The graffiti "artists" and homeless squatters should love that but not so much those who own condos in the area.

I don't agree with this at all and think that it's an overly reactionary, pessimistic and simplistic assessment (rather like the type that Chris Daly might initially make). The fact that this could happen has been well known for a number of years now and Second Street and its environs still look just fine. I remember walking along the proposed route after first reading about the potential demolition; the article clearly stated some buildings that had just been constructed would have to be removed. That was amazing to me at the time so I can understand your shocked reaction now upon finally learning about this possibility.

[viewguysf]

To encourage biking (by creating a safe, bike only lane with no speeding cars driven by tourists or other crazies who don't know how to navigate anything) and also to create a pleasant, park like street without noisy and polluting autos everywhere. Why does everything have to be centered around a stupid car, and why can't we have streets that don't have to be for CARS, but for people, pedestrians, for strolling, etc. There isn't enough space like this downtown.

Look what happened to K Street in Sacramento when traffic was eliminated and it became the "K Street Mall". It quickly deteriorated and became a great magnet for the homeless population. Businesses also suffered and left. Look also at downtown Seattle, where they reversed their decision and reopened Pike Street to traffic after having closed it and created what I thought was a very attractive place to walk or bike.

I don't think that our Second Street is in the right location to be successful as a restricted street either. Look at how long we've been considering closing lower Market Street to private traffic--it's been proposed several times over many years and nothing has become of the plan. This one makes more sense to me if we want to have a true transit first policy in place.

[roadwarrior]

Look what happened to K Street in Sacramento when traffic was eliminated and it became the "K Street Mall". It quickly deteriorated and became a great magnet for the homeless population. Businesses also suffered and left. Look also at downtown Seattle, where they reversed their decision and reopened Pike Street to traffic after having closed it and created what I thought was a very attractive place to walk or bike.

I don't think that our Second Street is in the right location to be successful as a restricted street either. Look at how long we've been considering closing lower Market Street to private traffic--it's been proposed several times over many years and nothing has become of the plan. This one makes more sense to me if we want to have a true transit first policy in place.


Yeah, but for your failure examples, there are also successes at well. Look at 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica. That pedestrian only street is a great success. Unlike Sacramento, downtown SF is not just a location where people work 8-5, and drive to the suburbs. It is not an area where people just drive into their parking garage and grab lunch in their building. I believe that the critical mass is there in downtown SF both with residents (and growing rapidly) and with tourists who come into the city.

[tyler82]

Then simply don't use that example as what SF should do. Closing down the streets and installing trees, fountains, playgrounds, etc. where potholed pavement raceways once existed could entice more people to shop and play downtown, because, instead of feeling the rush rush, honk honk of walking down a typical cluttered, downtown sidewalk, imagine quiet(er) streets with no cars, just crowds of people, performance artists, public art displays, farmer's markets, etc. Real gathering places, like the kind I've read about in books :haha:

I'm using second street as an example, but I think that there could be something really cool developed if a certain number of streets in the city were closed to cars, and redesigned for pedestrians and LRV/ hi speed busses. This would encourage biking, because it would actually make it safe and convenient, and would be a step forward for us instead of just the constant arguing about how things "SHOULD" be better without any real plan.

This is just one of the ideas I've had to solve a huge problem we have: too many cars, too narrow sidewalks, too much development that is going to create even MORE traffic. What are other people's ideas, proposals about this area?

Look what happened to K Street in Sacramento when traffic was eliminated and it became the "K Street Mall". It quickly deteriorated and became a great magnet for the homeless population. Businesses also suffered and left. Look also at downtown Seattle, where they reversed their decision and reopened Pike Street to traffic after having closed it and created what I thought was a very attractive place to walk or bike.

I don't think that our Second Street is in the right location to be successful as a restricted street either. Look at how long we've been considering closing lower Market Street to private traffic--it's been proposed several times over many years and nothing has become of the plan. This one makes more sense to me if we want to have a true transit first policy in place.

[SFView]

July 25th and August 6th: Two dates I've already marked on my calendar :) .

Note that there will be some discussion regarding raising height limits in the area of the new Transbay Terminal at the July 25, 2007 meeting open to the public. Anyone here on SSP planning to attend? Any opinions here on height regarding the proposed Piano Towers, and how the Transbay and other new towers in the area should relate to them, and the rest of San Francisco's skyline?

Is anyone here also planning to attend the August 6, 2007 meeting?

[tyler82]

Note that there will be some discussion regarding raising height limits in the area of the new Transbay Terminal at the July 25, 2007 meeting open to the public. Anyone here on SSP planning to attend? Any opinions here on height regarding the proposed Piano Towers, and how the Transbay and other new towers in the area should relate to them, and the rest of San Francisco's skyline?

Is anyone here also planning to attend the August 6, 2007 meeting?

Is the July 25 meeting open to the public or just to residents of the neighborhood? What exactly goes on in these meetings, are opposing and proposing sides given equal time to debate their arguments, or is there some sort of vote taken, or what?
Since we all know that the NIMBYs are organized as always, it would probably be good for a bunch of pro- height protesters to show up at these meetings.

[SFView]

^^^These will be public meetings. Yes, it may help to have more "pro-height protesters", in case their are a number of NIMBYs present.

[roadwarrior]

So, who's going? I'd love to, but will be out of town on a consulting project.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

where would you go to see the public meeting?

[SFView]

^^^From SFGOV listing for "Events for July 2007":
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:m5qW35e00ngJ:my.sfgov.org/calendar/+july+25+transbay&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Transit Center District Plan
July 25
Time: 6:30 - 8:30 PM
Location: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts - Forum, 701 Mission Street ( btw. 3rd & 4th Streets )
Description: The Planning Department is initiating a planning effort for the southern portion of downtown San Francisco, with a particular focus on the vicinity of the Transbay Transit Center. Building on the recently adopted Transbay Redevelopment Plan as well as the 1985 Downtown Plan, this effort will examine the future of Downtown’s new core.
For More Information: Call Joshua Switzky at 415.575.6815 or email joshua.switzky@sfgov.org
Category: Meeting

...And from SocketSite:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/07/be_heard_on_the_heart_of_san_franciscos_new_downtown.html
Be Heard On The Heart Of San Francisco's New Downtown

http://www.socketsite.com/TCDP%20Kickoff.jpg

San Francisco’s 1985 Downtown Plan “envisioned the area around the Transbay Terminal as the heart of the new downtown.” And the Fourth and King Street rail yard (and Caltrain station) is in need of “development.”

Have a vision, voice or thought that will help “[f]ulfill the vision of the Downtown Plan and the promise of a Transit First city to create a new downtown center anchored by a world class multimodal Transit Center and supported by a grand civic public realm?” Well, here’s your chance to be heard (and for tipsters to keep us plugged-in).

“Following detailed analysis and computer simulation (e.g. urban form, shadow, wind, circulation), the study will produce new planning policies and controls for land use, urban form, building design, and public realm improvements for private properties as well as for properties owned or to be owned by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority in and around the adopted Transbay Redevelopment Project Area and Transbay Terminal.”
“The study will [also] produce policies, conceptual site plans, and implementation mechanisms for air-rights development of the 4th/King Street station and railyards, particularly given the need to reconfigure the facilities to accommodate the Caltrain Downtown Extension and California High-Speed Rail.”
The public planning process kickoff is July 25th with workshops running through the end of the year. Our thanks to Jamie (over at the RinconHillSF) for keeping us (and you) plugged-in.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_transit_center.htm
∙ Transit Center District Plan and Fourth and King Street Railyards Study [SFGov]

[Reminiscence]

I personally would love to go and lend a hand to the pro-height group. However, I have business in Eureka to take care of, so I wont be there. Perhaps the August 6th meeting will prove better off. I would love to hear what happens at the meeting though. Here's praying we end up with spectacular news.

[tyler82]

I'll be there, thanks for the info!

[nequidnimis]

^^^For $2.4 billion, we could provide free taxi service to every passenger who alights from CalTrain at 4th & Townsend for a long time.
Have you tried catching a taxi at rush hour? Even with an adequate supply of taxi, there would still be long lines as people wait for the people in front of them to board their taxi.

[mthd]

Have you tried catching a taxi at rush hour? Even with an adequate supply of taxi, there would still be long lines as people wait for the people in front of them to board their taxi.

i'm sure he wasn't serious but adding 29,000 taxi trips a day between 4th and king and 1st and mission is probably about the least responsible thing i could imagine from an urban, environmental, aesthetic, and social perspective.

[kenratboy]

LOL - I like how its a 'stupid car'. Thats cute. Are there smart cars other than the SMART Car?

$2.4 billion is a lot for what doesn't amount to a very significant piece - but I think its a critical thing that needs to happen in order for Transbay Terminal to be a success. For what is planned, it would not be acceptable to have to get off a train, fight your way to Transbay, and get on another train. The whole point is to get TO Transbay Terminal, not kinda near it. It annoys me to see huge projects being half-assed and not really a complete and unified system.

[viewguysf]

$2.4 billion is a lot for what doesn't amount to a very significant piece - but I think its a critical thing that needs to happen in order for Transbay Terminal to be a success. For what is planned, it would not be acceptable to have to get off a train, fight your way to Transbay, and get on another train. The whole point is to get TO Transbay Terminal, not kinda near it. It annoys me to see huge projects being half-assed and not really a complete and unified system.

The sad fact is that if the California high speed rail system isn't developed, there won't be another train to board once you get there. I really don't see what the new transit center is going to do to improve mass transit that much. If you think about it, couldn't all the money be better spent in another way, such as expanding the subway system? I know that the center will (or could) be stunning, but...

[kenratboy]

The sad fact is that if the California high speed rail system isn't developed, there won't be another train to board once you get there. I really don't see what the new transit center is going to do to improve mass transit that much. If you think about it, couldn't all the money be better spent in another way, such as expanding the subway system? I know that the center will (or could) be stunning, but...

Might it make CalTrain more desirable to ride? I am not thinking as much about the larger stuff as just improving transit in the Bay Area. These issues are definitely beyond my scope of understanding.

[BTinSF]

^^^The main argument for the terminal is that it brings CalTrain closer to downtown--that is, 1st & Mission vs 4th & Townsend.

My argument all along, not widely shared I realize, is that:

- "Downtown" is moving south and encompassing South of Market so that 4th & Townsend will not be all that far anyway, but with Mission Bay's offices and labs as a commuter destination also, ultimately 4th & Townsend could be a good spot for the terminal

- If the Central Subway is built, CalTrain riders will have direct access to the traditional Financial District (and BART) via 2 LRV/subway routes (the N to Embarcadero and Montgomery Stations; the T to Powell Station, as well as access to Union Square, Moscone Center and Chinatown. Arguably, this is as good or better access than being 1 or 2 blocks from Montgomery Station (with a tunnel to get there) alone.

- Even if you consider the multimodal TransBay Terminal idea better than a separate CalTrain with the connections I've outlined, is it over $2 billion better?

- I don't consider the proposed TransBay towers as part of the issue because I think developers would be happy to build highrises--as high as they are allowed--in that area. The problem there is simply that the political will may not exist to raise the height limits unless it must be done to raise the money to build the terminal. So, in the end, we are saying that if we want the highrises, we have to spend $2.4 billion on an arguably unnecessary terminal to get them. I just can't accept the notion that we have to waste this kind of money for that reason.

[Gordo]

How about this - we don't waste $1.4 billion on the Central Subway (sure to exceed $2 billion anyway) and send that money to help build BRT on all of the major transit corridors in the city and still have a few hundred million left to go towards the TTC?

[fflint]

How about this - we don't waste $1.4 billion on the Central Subway (sure to exceed $2 billion anyway) and send that money to help build BRT on all of the major transit corridors in the city and still have a few hundred million left to go towards the TTC?
If that were possible, then we would be having a different discussion entirely. Alas, that isn't possible. The federal funds are earmarked only for the Central Subway. We cannot use a penny of that for any other purpose, and if we don't build the CS then we lose all those funds to some other city.

[Gordo]

If that were possible, then we would be having a different discussion entirely. Alas, that isn't possible. The federal funds are earmarked only for the Central Subway. We cannot use a penny of that for any other purpose, and if we don't build the CS then we lose all those funds to some other city.


Oh, I'm well aware of that. But the federal funds are less than $800 million of the total. And my view is: wasting money is wasting money, regardless of where the majority of that money comes from. If the $800 million of Federal money can be used on a better project in another city, it should be. And if the remaining $600 million could be used on better projects here, it should be. Saying that we should build the Central Subway simply because we have earmarked "free" money is like saying I should buy a $50,000 GMC Yukon instead of a $20,000 Scion because GM is giving me a $10,000 rebate.

[roadwarrior]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. But the federal funds are less than $800 million of the total. And my view is: wasting money is wasting money, regardless of where the majority of that money comes from. If the $800 million of Federal money can be used on a better project in another city, it should be. And if the remaining $600 million could be used on better projects here, it should be. Saying that we should build the Central Subway simply because we have earmarked "free" money is like saying I should buy a $50,000 GMC Yukon instead of a $20,000 Scion because GM is giving me a $10,000 rebate.

I don't agree that it is wasting money. We need to think long-term. Its not necessarily what is needed now, but think 50 years from now. More than likely, there will be some form of high speed rail by then. At the very least, there will be commuter rail connections to the east bay, Sacramento and god-willing, Marin and Sonoma County. SF needs a transit hub of this order.

I agree with BT that the 4th & Townsend area is developing rapidly. I do feel that it needs a robust transit infrastructure (which it currently has). However, I just don't foresee it ever having the density (businesses, high rise condos, transit) that we are or will see in the Fremont & Mission area. Therefore, it is a better bet to build the transit center there. It may seem like an astronomical sum ($2.4 billion), but over the long-run, it is a very sound investment.

[Gordo]

To be clear - I am VERY, VERY, VERY much in favor of the Transbay Transit Center. My comments were in regards to the Central Subway.

[nequidnimis]

How about this - we don't waste $1.4 billion on the Central Subway (sure to exceed $2 billion anyway) and send that money to help build BRT on all of the major transit corridors in the city and still have a few hundred million left to go towards the TTC?

Subway trains can travel significantly faster than BRT and light rail as they do not need to slow down at intersections to avoid absent minded pedestrians or agressive drivers going through red lights. Their relative speed, compared to buses or light rail, makes subway trains an attractive alternative to cars.

[WonderlandPark]

It may be time for SF to start thinking like NYC is. A whole new pair of tunnels to link NJ to Penn Station is in the starting phases. SF should be thinking the same, a new tunnel to serve a long distance commuter rail need. SF to Oakland's station then skipping BART territory and connecting Stockton, Sacramento and the like. True long distance commuter rail. Housing may be stagnant, but it isn't getting cheaper, so there is still a strong incentive to build out in Stockton and Vallejo. Plus, if done right, this can bring future HSR into the city of San Francisco. Of course, the Transbay Terminal would be the logical end hub of a CR and HSR system.

And there is no practical way BRT would serve the same need as the Central Subway. The blocks, hills and congestion of the area would make the effort silly. I am a BRT fan, it can work, but dense inner-city is not the place for it.

[Gordo]

Subway trains can travel significantly faster than BRT and light rail as they do not need to slow down at intersections to avoid absent minded pedestrians or agressive drivers going through red lights. Their relative speed, compared to buses or light rail, makes subway trains an attractive alternative to cars.


I wasn't disputing that - that's obviously a fact (except maybe in Muni subways, that is). The point is cost/benefit analysis. Even if we leave out the $800 mil in "free" money from the Feds, is a subway with three/four total stops - and only one in Chinatown the best place to spend $600 mil? Is it better to upgrade service for X number of passengers by 50% or 4X number of passengers by 30%?

If we had loads of money to throw around, I'd say build subways everywhere, but we don't. The Transbay Transit Center is worth the money, IMO, because it improves access to and from the City by such a huge amount. But building the Central Subway sets work on other corridors within the City back not years, but decades. Do you seriously think we gain/keep more riders from their cars by improving one corridor by a lot instead of lots of corridors by a good bit?

Some more info:

http://www.examiner.com/a-833889~One_man_s_plan__Stockton_bus_only_lanes.html

[nequidnimis]

Yes, I believe that in order to get drivers out of their cars, you need to offer them a public transit experience that comes close to the convenience of their car. If it isn't close, it will be a simple decision for them to just keep driving. An incremental improvement to bus service, while nice for the bus riders, is immaterial to drivers.

[Gordo]

Yes, I believe that in order to get drivers out of their cars, you need to offer them a public transit experience that comes close to the convenience of their car. If it isn't close, it will be a simple decision for them to just keep driving. An incremental improvement to bus service, while nice for the bus riders, is immaterial to drivers.

Perhaps, but we've got decades before we'll have a good subway system that is more than Market St and Stockton (only to Chinatown). Do you honestly think that the Central Subway will get anyone to give up their car? That isn't even one of the goals of it - it's to provide better service to one of the most heavily used transit corridors. The vehicle trips that might disappear because of the Central Subway are negligible - except for buses.

You only need to look to other cities (LA's Orange line is the closest full-scale BRT to us) to see that a fancy bus with dedicated lanes can get plenty of people out of their cars.

[mthd]

^^^The main argument for the terminal is that it brings CalTrain closer to downtown--that is, 1st & Mission vs 4th & Townsend.

I don't think that's true. It is a true multimodal facility. The existing facility needs to be replaced. There is no downtown train station which could serve either Caltrain or High Speed Rail.

Downtown may be 'moving south' but there is no scenario at any time in the next 25 to 50 years in which there is a density of development centered around 4th & Townsend that comes anywhere near the density of development in the current Financial District. With the exception of a small number of potential air rights parcels, most of that area has already been planned, and most of that has already been developed. Envisinioning King Street as the next Market Street is just silly.

San Francisco needs a commuter rail terminal downtown. If BART served more than 1/3 of the population of the bay area, I would say we already had one... but it doesn't, and it never will. The (optimistic) projected combined ridership at the Transbay Terminal is almost 140,000 per day. Asking even a significant fraction of those people to get off their trains and transfer to a subway (which also has not even been built and can never compete in terms of speed) ignores what many would consider the very first rule of transit : minimize transfers.

I find it hard to understand that anyone who believes in density, urbanism, the environment, and cities in general would prefer to leave San Francisco's main rail connection more than a mile from downtown.... :shrug:

[nequidnimis]

LA's orange line is on a former railway alignment and features therefore a limited number of intersections with surface roads. Its operating speed is probably comparable to that of rail.

[tyler82]

If anybody wants to meet up beforehand and plan out some aggressive talking points we can use together at the meeting, PM me!

[Gordo]

LA's orange line is on a former railway alignment and features therefore a limited number of intersections with surface roads. Its operating speed is probably comparable to that of rail.

That's true, but trust me, I've seen many BRT systems around the world work that aren't on former rail lines and have to deal with signal priority (and do quite well) - Curitiba, Paris, Vegas, Vancouver to name a few. Going back to my original statement (many posts ago :)), I would lave to have subways criss-crossing the city. A lot of my displeasure with the Central Subway is personal - I want better transit in my lifetime. As it is now, the CS won't be finished for almost ten years. No other Muni or BART subway in the City will be started until construction on the CS is finished. Bus service will continue to get worse, especially if this "Parking for Neighborhoods" scam passes. I just hope that at least Geary and Van Ness BRT are finished in less than ten years, without too much watering down.

[kenratboy]

Got an e-mail today saying the proposals will be rolled out on August 6th!!!

I am very excited, lets hope for something TALL

Says it will be streamed live on the cities web site.

[tyler82]

Got an e-mail today saying the proposals will be rolled out on August 6th!!!

I am very excited, lets hope for something TALL

Says it will be streamed live on the cities web site.

Oh nice, what time is the streaming?

[Reminiscence]

Note that there will be some discussion regarding raising height limits in the area of the new Transbay Terminal at the July 25, 2007 meeting open to the public. Anyone here on SSP planning to attend? Any opinions here on height regarding the proposed Piano Towers, and how the Transbay and other new towers in the area should relate to them, and the rest of San Francisco's skyline?

Well, I made a suggestion way back in which they should alter the heights of the Piano Towers so as to avoid that "Twin Tower" look people might not want. In my opinion the view from Treasure Island should have the Transbay Tower as the pinnacle of the SF Skyline, being taller than the tallest of the Piano Towers.

Mind you, this is just my own version of this fantasy :)

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7306/googlesfskylineoq7.jpg

The Transbay Transit Tower should be the tallest at 1500' followed by the tallest Piano Tower at 1350'. The second Transbay Tower (or the TJPA Site) could reach 1250' followed by the second Piano Tower at 1200' (as originally intended). The third tallest Transbay Tower would reach 1050' while the third tallest Piano Tower would also reach 1050'. The fourth tallest Piano Tower would be 900' (as originally intended) while the shortest Piano Tower would reach 750'. The towers of course would be built in the slender fashion so shadows and blocked views are not a concern. In addition, the location of the towers will form a "peak" in the skyline. The designs themselves would be nothing short of breathtaking.

Thats a longshot, but when you dream you've got to dream big.

[SFView]

Got an e-mail today saying the proposals will be rolled out on August 6th!!!

I am very excited, lets hope for something TALL

Says it will be streamed live on the cities web site.

Could you please give us the link?

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Well, I made a suggestion way back in which they should alter the heights of the Piano Towers so as to avoid that "Twin Tower" look people might not want. In my opinion the view from Treasure Island should have the Transbay Tower as the pinnacle of the SF Skyline, being taller than the tallest of the Piano Towers.

Mind you, this is just my own version of this fantasy :)

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7306/googlesfskylineoq7.jpg

The Transbay Transit Tower should be the tallest at 1500' followed by the tallest Piano Tower at 1350'. The second Transbay Tower (or the TJPA Site) could reach 1250' followed by the second Piano Tower at 1200' (as originally intended). The third tallest Transbay Tower would reach 1050' while the third tallest Piano Tower would also reach 1050'. The fourth tallest Piano Tower would be 900' (as originally intended) while the shortest Piano Tower would reach 750'. The towers of course would be built in the slender fashion so shadows and blocked views are not a concern. In addition, the location of the towers will form a "peak" in the skyline. The designs themselves would be nothing short of breathtaking.

Thats a longshot, but when you dream you've got to dream big.


i like this dream. :tup:

[kenratboy]

Could you please give us the link?

I am not special, I just signed up for the mailing list!

http://www.pbase.com/canonken/image/82603693/original.jpg

[sfcity1]

I am not special, I just signed up for the mailing list!

http://www.pbase.com/canonken/image/82603693/original.jpg

Awesome. Can't wait to see what comes out of this.

[SFView]

I am not special, I just signed up for the mailing list!


Thanks. Here is the link to the City's website:
http://www.sfgov.org/

[mahanakorn]

I wasn't disputing that - that's obviously a fact (except maybe in Muni subways, that is). The point is cost/benefit analysis. Even if we leave out the $800 mil in "free" money from the Feds, is a subway with three/four total stops - and only one in Chinatown the best place to spend $600 mil? Is it better to upgrade service for X number of passengers by 50% or 4X number of passengers by 30%?

If we had loads of money to throw around, I'd say build subways everywhere, but we don't. The Transbay Transit Center is worth the money, IMO, because it improves access to and from the City by such a huge amount. But building the Central Subway sets work on other corridors within the City back not years, but decades. Do you seriously think we gain/keep more riders from their cars by improving one corridor by a lot instead of lots of corridors by a good bit?

Some more info:

http://www.examiner.com/a-833889~One_man_s_plan__Stockton_bus_only_lanes.html

Maybe this idea has previously been discussed and discarded, but I've never heard it suggested before: why not piggyback the central subway on top of the Caltrain bore under 2nd Street (a la Market Street subway)?

The subway could have stops at Brannan, Folsom, and Market, then continue up Montgomery with stops near California, Columbus/Broadway/Chinatown, Washington Square. A spur from the northern segment of the line could connect into the Trans-Bay Terminal, again atop or aligned with the Caltrain tunnel.

BRT could serve the Caltrain - 4th St - Stockton route, turning west after Chinatown along Broadway (to van Ness? to Fillmore? to the Presidio?).

Seems this alignment would get more service closer to where it's most needed (West SoMa, Financial District, Chinatown). But... would the funding authorities allow funding for the two projects to be combined?

[roadwarrior]

Maybe this idea has previously been discussed and discarded, but I've never heard it suggested before: why not piggyback the central subway on top of the Caltrain bore under 2nd Street (a la Market Street subway)?

The subway could have stops at Brannan, Folsom, and Market, then continue up Montgomery with stops near California, Columbus/Broadway/Chinatown, Washington Square. A spur from the northern segment of the line could connect into the Trans-Bay Terminal, again atop or aligned with the Caltrain tunnel.

BRT could serve the Caltrain - 4th St - Stockton route, turning west after Chinatown along Broadway (to van Ness? to Fillmore? to the Presidio?).

Seems this alignment would get more service closer to where it's most needed (West SoMa, Financial District, Chinatown). But... would the funding authorities allow funding for the two projects to be combined?

I personally like this idea and I'd like to see Muni extended to Columbus, Polk Gulch, Union, Chestnut and the Presidio. Its amazing that such a popular part of the city for both commuters and for those of us that like going into North Beach, Russian Hill, Cow Hollow or Marina for dinner/drinks have no choices for public transportation other than those crappy buses.

[Frisco_Zig]

Maybe this idea has previously been discussed and discarded, but I've never heard it suggested before: why not piggyback the central subway on top of the Caltrain bore under 2nd Street (a la Market Street subway)?

The subway could have stops at Brannan, Folsom, and Market, then continue up Montgomery with stops near California, Columbus/Broadway/Chinatown, Washington Square. A spur from the northern segment of the line could connect into the Trans-Bay Terminal, again atop or aligned with the Caltrain tunnel.

BRT could serve the Caltrain - 4th St - Stockton route, turning west after Chinatown along Broadway (to van Ness? to Fillmore? to the Presidio?).

Seems this alignment would get more service closer to where it's most needed (West SoMa, Financial District, Chinatown). But... would the funding authorities allow funding for the two projects to be combined?

That would actually serve the new residential high rise neighborhoods, Transbay terminal and the Financial district. Seems to make to much sense to be possible.

[tyler82]

Awesome. Can't wait to see what comes out of this.

The pessimist in me is telling me we will be underwhelmed. Bracing for the worst, hoping for the best!

[Reminiscence]

Looks like my dream has a chance after all:

From Socketsite.com:

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/9240/transbaytowerdesignschece2.gif

Frederick has heard rumblings of a 1,500 foot tower (despite the current height limits of 550 feet), and as Jamie notes, you can watch the unveiling on SFGTV (channel 26) if you can’t make it in person (on August 6th).

The public is invited to a Special TJPA Board Meeting on Monday, August 6th, 2007 from 6 pm to 9 pm in San Francisco City Hall Board Chamber Room where we will be unveiling the proposed design concepts for the new landmark Transbay Transit Center and Tower in downtown San Francisco.

Presentations will be given at the August 6th, Special TJPA Board Meeting, at City Hall, 6:00 to 9:00 PM, (in order) by the following teams:

* Richard Rogers Partnership/Forest City Enterprises/MacFarlane Partners
* Skidmore Owings and Merrill/Rockefeller Group Development Corporation
* Pelli Clark Pelli Architects/Hines

The design models will also be on display for the public Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 from 8 am to 6 pm in the North Light Court at San Francisco City Hall.

And while we have no interest in stealing the city’s thunder (and are probably aiming even higher than the tower), we are calling on all plugged-in tipsters that might have access to initial sketches, ideas or design concepts that were never submitted. Heck, we’ll even settle for homemade renderings (Godzilla anyone?) or additional rumors.

[tyler82]

Let's brainstorm some ideas that we can bring up in the meeting tomorrow at YBCA. I can be kind of a loudmouth, and very opinionated, but don't like talking in front of groups of people unless I am 100% confident in what I'm saying, which means references, statistics, and facts are a MUST!

SFView.. i got your message.. thanks! I agree that the Transbay Tower should be the tallest tower for some time to come, even taller than the Piano proposals, which means we have to make it taller than TAP by far.

I am purely focused on the skyscraper portion of this project, so CalTrain extensions, possible HSR tracks, etc. don't interest me (at this moment) as I believe this is a step by step process.

What kind of ammo do you think I would need to counter the NIMBY arguments . I don't want to be caught off guard and look stoopid!!

[SFView]

Let's brainstorm some ideas that we can bring up in the meeting tomorrow at YBCA. I can be kind of a loudmouth, and very opinionated, but don't like talking in front of groups of people unless I am 100% confident in what I'm saying, which means references, statistics, and facts are a MUST!

SFView.. i got your message.. thanks! I agree that the Transbay Tower should be the tallest tower for some time to come, even taller than the Piano proposals, which means we have to make it taller than TAP by far.

I am purely focused on the skyscraper portion of this project, so CalTrain extensions, possible HSR tracks, etc. don't interest me (at this moment) as I believe this is a step by step process.

What kind of ammo do you think I would need to counter the NIMBY arguments . I don't want to be caught off guard and look stoopid!!

You might let the people running the workshop do most of the explanations at first. They should be giving an introductory presentation at the beginning of the workshop that will cover major issues regarding the proposals, and the workshop itself. There is also the revealing of the Competition designs to wait for on August 6, 2007 as well. The July 25 Workshop Meeting will be the first of more to come in the months ahead.

[BTinSF]

What kind of ammo do you think I would need to counter the NIMBY arguments . I don't want to be caught off guard and look stoopid!!

That's pretty difficult because what the NIMBYs are going to argue is what they always argue: It'll shade someplace important, it'll increase windspeeds on the sidewalk, it'll exacerbate traffic and other problems, it's a disaster waiting to happen if it catches on fire, if there's a big quake or terrorists fly a plane into it, what we really need is more affordable housing (even though the housing it contains is supposed to be something like 35% affordable) blah blah blah. The point is, all they have to do is argue the fear and without access to the studies proving them off-base, it's hard to refute them. And you won't have access to the studies ahead of time. So what can you say?

I think what we just have to hope is that the economics of the plan require a really tall building--that is, only a really tall building will be able to command a price from the developer sufficient to fund the project. Because if it could "pencil out" within the current height limit, you can be pretty sure the realities of San Francisco are that they would not raise the limit.

[Reminiscence]

Looks like my business in Eureka has been cancelled. Good chance I'll be there tommorow. I'll do my research for the mean time.

[nequidnimis]

I understand social justce demands that the average housing unit be available to the average wage earner in San Francisco. To reach this goal, we need to vastly increase the supply of housing units: that's the law of supply and demand. The only way to sufficiently increase the supply is to siginificantly increase the height and density of what is built. Downtown is a good place to start.

[tyler82]

I understand social justce demands that the average housing unit be available to the average wage earner in San Francisco. To reach this goal, we need to vastly increase the supply of housing units: that's the law of supply and demand. The only way to sufficiently increase the supply is to siginificantly increase the height and density of what is built. Downtown is a good place to start.

Good point, may I use it?

[nequidnimis]

By all means. That's the reason for my posting it.

[roadwarrior]

Also, I have a couple other points that can be added (I won't be able to attend the meeting tonight)

1 - Environment - Building dense housing/offices here increases the pool of housing for people to choose from. This will provide more options for those people who may have otherwise chosen to live in the suburbs and commute to and from the city to work by car. This, coupled with the fact that the area has excellent public transportation within walking distance will reduce the reliance over the long-run on the automobile and will help SF curb carbon emissions and suburban sprawl (destruction of open spaces).

2 - Neighborhood Preservation - For all the preservation activists in the city, this will help ease the housing crunch. By building smartly (high density in an underutilized area) it will reduce demand in other areas. For all of those preservationists who are concerned about destroying old victorians in Pac Heights, Noe Valley, etc, this is an answer.

[SFView]

For more detailed background regarding Transbay Redevelopement, look here:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5583

Much of this material has already be discussed here on SSP.

The transit hub area around 4th and King will also be given attention at the workshops. See SSP Forum discussion here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=133568

[tyler82]

Back from the meeting. My camera actually turned on before I left the house, and was left on, so when I got there it was completely DEAD :hell: But.. there wasn't too much to take pictures of, and nothing that we haven't seen or read already.

The whole meeting was basically some guy, who was a very good speaker, standing at the podium generalizing the TransBay and Downtown plans pre- and post- Embarcadero Freeway, and how the city wants to change the density and height limits in the areas that are state owned (the bus overpasses, for example) and that these are really the only unspoken for parcels downtown, thus the intense planning process and public input necessary to begin development of this vital area. He said that this area needs to be dealt with in a mindset that looks toward the future. He also brought up something which I thought was very intriguing: that if height limits are raised and density increased in this area, that San Francisco can provide more competitive office space that is currently in Silicon Valley, thus bringing more business and jobs right downtown, which is the goal of the TransBay development plans.

He explained that the TJPA and City Planning commission has discussed raising height limits for the signature tower above the current 550' to 850', and possible 1000+ feet. The environmental review process will begin and will continue onto the next six months, so that when the planning commission decides how tall and what type of tower to build, those reports and reviews will already be taken care of.

I stayed for a little while for some of the questions. The ones who spoke while I was still there seemed to be very supportive of a very tall, beautiful tower, or at least had no open qualms about that. Their main concerns were providing enough underground transportation to be able to support the dense populations that will inhabit this area when all of these towers open, and one guy asked why there is no AmTrak or other express train service taking people directly to downtown SF, and that this is a major issue with tourists flying in, most likely to the Oakland Airport and San Jose, and taking in AmTrak (the station is in Emeryville and there is a very slow bus that drops people off at the Ferry Building).

The meeting was very brief and introductory, so there were no workshops or thorough discussions. The real date to mark is Aug 6, when the designs will be unveiled. These had better be immaculate so that the public will accept something 1000+ ft.

I think it very important that everybody take time off of whatever they are doing and plan ahead to attend these meetings, as we need as much of the support we can get for a 21st century world class anti- NIMBY downtown core.

[viewguysf]

Thank you so much for the prompt and well documented feed back--you're our hero tonight! :worship:

[nequidnimis]

I think it very important that everybody take time off of whatever they are doing and plan ahead to attend these meetings, as we need as much of the support we can get for a 21st century world class anti- NIMBY downtown core.

Yes, everybody's support here will be required to help turn San Francisco into a 21st century world class city, like Shangai, Taipei, Moscow, New York or Dubai... Also, our elected officials should take field trips to see how officials do it there.

[northbay]

Yes, everybody's support here will be required to help turn San Francisco into a 21st century world class city, like Shangai, Taipei, Moscow, New York or Dubai...

:haha:

id rather live in sf than any of those cities

i soooo wanna come down and peek at those proposals :slob:

[BTinSF]

one guy asked why there is no AmTrak or other express train service taking people directly to downtown SF, and that this is a major issue with tourists flying in, most likely to the Oakland Airport and San Jose, and taking in AmTrak (the station is in Emeryville and there is a very slow bus that drops people off at the Ferry Building).



A clarification: As somebody who takes AMTRAK fairly regularly, I've got to point out that there is a very nice new, modern AMTRAK station in Emeryville which is on the main line of several major routes including LA to Seattle and Sacramento to San Jose, not at the end of a long peninsula like SF. Non-high speed train service to SF would necessarily involve a long (timewise) detour unless somebody wants to pay for a tunnel under the Bay for AMTRAK. Meanwhile, the bus isn't at all slow. It meets the train, takes maybe 20 minutes to get into the city and makes pickups/drops in 4 locations: In front of Boomingdales on Market St., the Ferry Bldg, Fisherman's Wharf and one more I can't remember. Actually, last time I used the bus I slipped the driver $10 and he let me off at my front door.

Emeryville Station
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8a/Emeryville_Amtrak_station_November-2005.jpg/800px-Emeryville_Amtrak_station_November-2005.jpg

[SFView]

tyler82,

Great job! I am giving you my two thumbs up on this. Keep it going!

[Gordo]

Tyler, you left too early!

You missed the guy who went on and on about losing his views from Twin Peaks and the lady who complained about eminent domain stealing the building she is leasing.

Not too much new stuff at the meeting though.

[Reminiscence]

I too was at the meeting, and I must say it was preety informative. All went just like Tyler said so before. It seemed to me that most people had mass transit on their minds. Also, most of the people welcomed the idea of a tall transit tower (I recall one person mentioning 1500' and even 1800'), which is a very good sign. As usual, at least one person spoke about how the buildings would block the views of the Bay Bridge and such from the Twin Peaks. A few moments later, another gentleman spoke the complete oposite as an advocate to the towers (I sensed some tension between the two guys, heh). Another lady sitting near me was worried about what eminient domain would do to a historic building that she had been fighting to preseve as it sits on top of the proposed Caltrain extension tunnel. Also, I happen to sit right next to one of the architects of 45 Lansing who also spoke out about how buildings should be designed in the city, it was very informative to get such an insight. I wound up staying for the entire meeting, including all the question and comment time.

Overall, I was pretty satisfied and learned some new things in the process. I would say that at 20 years old, I was probably the youngest person there. However, I filled out a comment sheet to let them know my opinion as several of the TJPA members were present, along with Dean Macris. I look forward to August 6th, and will definetly attend that presentation as well.

Some shots that I took, or tried to take. My vantage point was not too good, but the slides shown were what we all have seen already, not much new. Sorry for the quality anyways :(.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/2703/dsc00978hl7.jpg

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9095/dsc00980to5.jpg

[tyler82]

A clarification: As somebody who takes AMTRAK fairly regularly, I've got to point out that there is a very nice new, modern AMTRAK station in Emeryville which is on the main line of several major routes including LA to Seattle and Sacramento to San Jose, not at the end of a long peninsula like SF.

As somebody who takes Amtrak rarely, into Sacramento, to visit family, I can say that the current situation SUCKS. Anybody who defends having to pay a regular Amtrak fare from the city, to have to take a diesel bus across the bay bridge, having to deal with regular rush hour traffic to get to this destination, just go make it to an ACTUAL Amtrak station, is pitiful (the idea, not the person), to say the absolute least.

SF downtown (not Emeryville, or San Pablo, or Anytown, USA) needs to be THE transit center for the west coast, and nothing less.

What I left with from this meeting was a very positive outlook and much energy to transform this area into nothing less than SPECTACULAR! I walked out of the forum optimistic for the future, which is a really great place to start for all of us!

PS... the fact that SF GATE (as of now) has no mention of this meeting (front page news: SANJAYA!) shows just how in touch they are with the REAL SF community.

[tyler82]

Tyler, you left too early!

You missed the guy who went on and on about losing his views from Twin Peaks and the lady who complained about eminent domain stealing the building she is leasing.

Not too much new stuff at the meeting though.

I have more important things to do in my life than to stick around and listen to petty arguments about some entitled snob's view being blocked ;)

[BTinSF]

As somebody who takes Amtrak rarely, into Sacramento, to visit family, I can say that the current situation SUCKS.

Do you have any idea how much longer it would take to get to Sacramento by train starting in SF? Several hours. You'd have to be crazy to do that vs. a 20 minute bus ride to Emeryville. Although even better is to take BART to Richmond and cross platform there to AMTRAK. Unfortunately, AMTRAK dropped Richmond as a stop for some of the long-distance trains like the Zephyr but I think the Capital Corridor still stops there. Anyway, it should.

[tyler82]

Do you have any idea how much longer it would take to get to Sacramento by train starting in SF? Several hours. You'd have to be crazy to do that vs. a 20 minute bus ride to Emeryville. Although even better is to take BART to Richmond and cross platform there to AMTRAK. Unfortunately, AMTRAK dropped Richmond as a stop for some of the long-distance trains like the Zephyr but I think the Capital Corridor still stops there. Anyway, it should.

An Amtrak train from TransBay to Sacramento, if more underground tubes and tunnels were built, would be quicker than sitting on a bus in the parking lot that is the east bound bay bridge. It takes me 2 hours (at least) round trip if I want to drive to Oakland or Berkeley from my house in the Sunset, if I leave after 2pm on any given weekday. Weekends aren't any better. I stand by my claim! :whip:

[dimondpark]

As somebody who takes Amtrak rarely, into Sacramento, to visit family, I can say that the current situation SUCKS. Anybody who defends having to pay a regular Amtrak fare from the city, to have to take a diesel bus across the bay bridge, having to deal with regular rush hour traffic to get to this destination, just go make it to an ACTUAL Amtrak station, is pitiful (the idea, not the person), to say the absolute least.


You could always catch BART to Richmond and board Amtrak there. The 2 stations are right next to each other if Im not mistaken.

[tyler82]

You could always catch BART to Richmond and board Amtrak there. The 2 stations are right next to each other if Im not mistaken.

My original point was that one of the forum attendees brought up a good point about people who are not from here, visiting SF and getting frustrated with the tedious transportation issues of getting downtown. Out of towners don't know where all the train stops and connections are, and since they spend buco bucks here, that is a big issue.

I can imagine the frustration of visitors before the BART extension was built to SFO, because that meant there was no direct way to get into downtown from outside of the Bay Area.

We've been 'outsourcing' too much of our city to other parts of the bay area, whether it be jobs to Silicon Valley, low cost airlines to Oakland Airport, Amtrak stations in the east bay, so on so on.

One other point I'd like to make is that, in the meeting, the planning commission's goal of getting more cars off the roads of downtown have failed, and that is because people from outside the city and the bay area find it easier to just drive across the bridge instead of having to take multiple methods of transport just to get downtown.

[tyler82]

Reading some of the Socketsite comments, from what I gather one of the posters asked a question (after I had left) about when heights would be finalized, and was told in 6 months, after the environmental review process was complete.
If all works out according to plan, looks like we'll be getting a nice late Christmas/ New Year's present!

[kenratboy]

Very good news - no protests or anything at the meeting!

People that were there - what sort of people were at the meeting? Was it mostly 'businessmen' or a whole mix?

Looking forward to the 6th...

[BTinSF]

An Amtrak train from TransBay to Sacramento, if more underground tubes and tunnels were built, would be quicker than sitting on a bus in the parking lot that is the east bound bay bridge. It takes me 2 hours (at least) round trip if I want to drive to Oakland or Berkeley from my house in the Sunset, if I leave after 2pm on any given weekday. Weekends aren't any better. I stand by my claim! :whip:

By the time that happens, if it ever happens, you'll be able to fly to Sacramento in your personal hybrid helocar.

As I said and now several other people, consider BART to Richmond.

[BTinSF]

You could always catch BART to Richmond and board Amtrak there. The 2 stations are right next to each other if Im not mistaken.

More like one above the other--As I recall you go downstairs from BART to get to AMTRAK or it could be the other way round--but it only works for the Sacramento trains I think because they discontinued Richmond as a stop for long distance trains (California Zephyr, Coast Starlight) and I think they should resume it.

[tyler82]

Very good news - no protests or anything at the meeting!

People that were there - what sort of people were at the meeting? Was it mostly 'businessmen' or a whole mix?

Looking forward to the 6th...

The developers were all standing up in the back in their expensive suits. It was a mix of 20 somethings, like myself, a few ratty haired hippie types with holes in their shoes (very few of these.. which is a good thing!), and primarily your everyday SFers that you see on the streets of downtown, Castro, Noe Valley, etc. I didn't witness any particular NIMBY militant activists, and when the prospect of 1000+ foot Transbay Tower was approached, people either seemed unfazed, amused (like myself, nodding my head in pleasure :yes: ), but I did not get any anti- height vibes at all in the meeting. People seemed very interested in the progress that the planning depts. have made so far.

There was a chance for attendees to leave comment cards, and I wrote down all of the comments you all give me, plus a few others I could think of, such as: raising the height limits would allow for more public space on the ground for parks etc.. I wrote in big letters that I support a supertall TransBay tower. I'm now on their mailing list and will post any news I receive from them. :cheers:

I also remember the speaker explaining that Folsom street will be a new shopping/ retail district for this new upcoming area.

[nequidnimis]

raising the height limits would allow for more public space on the ground for parks etc...

Sure, although do not count on the parks being there for more than a generation or so. At some point, the owners may tire of providing maintenance and security for the green spaces, letting the homeless take over, in which case building these spaces over would look attractive. In my neighborhood, Cathedral Hill, they have plans to build a new development over the tennis courts of a development built 40 years ago.

[briankendall]

Yeah the lecture was pretty good overall. Nothing any of us here hadn't heard before though. There was about 200 people there with a median age was over 40, 85% of the crowd were mostly middle aged men most of whom seemed to be professionals like architects and developers and skyscraper geeks like ourselves and a lot of people seemed to be with their co workers. I am really looking forward to the 6th with the unveiling of the towers that will be exciting.

[tyler82]

As a real estate consultant and appraiser, I just got back from an inspection for the Millenium Partners' offices on Market St. I met with the Vice President, who told me that he has seen the renderings of the new tower, and that it is around 1400'. He said the design is unbelievable, and that San Francisco needs it. Tried to get some renderings for us, but he didn't have any, only said that he saw some at a few meetings with the transbay peeps.

The Millenium offices has a 3D model of Millenium tower in their offices. Go to the 301 Mission thread for pics.

[CityKid]

That sounds amazing. I think I'm going to have to go to this meeting for the unveiling on the 6th.

[BTinSF]

^^^If you'd rather, the models/renderings or whatever will be available all the next day (Aug. 7) in the north lightcourt at City Hall.

[peanut gallery]

Tyler, you put that in singular. Has he seen all three proposals and all three are stunning and about 1400'? Or was he referring to one of the teams' work in particular?

[tyler82]

There is one signature tower at 1400 ' I'm not sure about the others. He said he saw just one of them, not sure which firm it was.

[roadwarrior]

There is one signature tower at 1400 ' I'm not sure about the others. He said he saw just one of them, not sure which firm it was.

I would love to see it. But, I question the safety of such a tall, slender tower. If this ever comes to fruition, would this be the tallest building in the world in an earthquake zone?

[tyler82]

I would love to see it. But, I question the safety of such a tall, slender tower. If this ever comes to fruition, would this be the tallest building in the world in an earthquake zone?

How would it be different than any other of the towers downtown, safety wise? Or houses in the Sunset, they are way less safe in an earthquake, yet people still live there. The Golden Gate Bridge was for a long time the tallest bridge in the world, and one of the tallest, if not the tallest, in an earthquake zone. It's all in the engineering.

[BTinSF]

I would love to see it. But, I question the safety of such a tall, slender tower. If this ever comes to fruition, would this be the tallest building in the world in an earthquake zone?

Of course not. Taiwan has very strong earthquakes and have had some since Taipei 101 (1474 ft to roof, 1670 to tip of spire) was built.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Taipei_101_at_night.jpg/250px-Taipei_101_at_night.jpg
Source: Wikipedia

[kenratboy]

As a real estate consultant and appraiser, I just got back from an inspection for the Millenium Partners' offices on Market St. I met with the Vice President, who told me that he has seen the renderings of the new tower, and that it is around 1400'. He said the design is unbelievable, and that San Francisco needs it. Tried to get some renderings for us, but he didn't have any, only said that he saw some at a few meetings with the transbay peeps.

The Millenium offices has a 3D model of Millenium tower in their offices. Go to the 301 Mission thread for pics.

I hope you are not teasing us - that sounds amazing!!!

Someone want to photochop a slim 1400' tower into the SF skyline where the tower should be built?

[tyler82]

On Monday I'll try to get a rendering ahead of schedule, as I have one more meeting with him. I can't promise anything, but if somebody would know how to get ahold of one, it would be this guy.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

shit i cant wait!!

[Reminiscence]

I hope you are not teasing us - that sounds amazing!!!

Someone want to photochop a slim 1400' tower into the SF skyline where the tower should be built?

For months now I've held the concept of building a tower around the height of 1500'. I've always tried to imagine it, but it seemed like people I talked to were not buying it when I mentioned it, saying it would be nice, but unlikely to get approved. I posted this a few pages back to provide something of a visual aide to what I was refering to. In this shot, the Transbay Tower appears at 1500', the tallest among the buildings in the central part of the skyline.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7306/googlesfskylineoq7.jpg

1400' is very nice, but if they build it at my height, they would top both Taipei and Sears Tower with a higher roof, and it would become the tallest building in an earthquake zone, a testament to advances in earthquake technology. I felt as if the meeting dropped hints that such a thing is possible and that they've given it some serious thought. This along with Tyler's research makes me think we'll find this to be reality at the unveiling on August 6th. A stellar design combined with superb engineering and this supertall height should make this one building the whole world will keep its eyes on. I certainly hope I see this in a few days :).

[sfcity1]

Wow! A possible 1400 footer and amazing architecture, this can be incredible. Developers keep telling me a whole new city is going to be built here, and it is like an area of development with no holds bars. If the 1400 footer gets approved, there is no turning back.

[tyler82]

For months now I've held the concept of building a tower around the height
1400' is very nice, but if they build it at my height, they would top both Taipei and Sears Tower with a higher roof, and it would become the tallest building in an earthquake zone, a testament to advances in earthquake technology.

Hopefully they start building in six months :D :D :D

[BTinSF]

^^^Calm down. The TJPA says on their web site ( http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.transbaycenter.org ) "Construction of the new landmark Transit Center and complementary Transit Tower is scheduled to begin in 2010 and be completed in 2014" so it ain't gonna happen in 6 months. In fact, it won't be completed in 6 years. And I'll be surprised if they hold to this timetable--that rarely happens in SF development.

[SFView]

I think adding another 200-300 feet over Renzo's buildings would look about right. It could be even taller, especially if a few other buildings between 850 to 1150 can be built nearby. Here are some "fantasy" renderings with generic box style buildings I did last January of 2007. Obviously, things have and will continue to change. Please note that none of the taller Transbay cluster buildings will block any views of the Bay or Bay Bridge from Twin Peaks. They will only block views of other tall buildings behind them. No views of San Francisco hills will be blocked as seen from driving on 101 and from the Bay Bridge in either direction as they are seen now.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayschemeSFMagView2.jpg

Schematic Conceptual View With Generic Transbay Tower
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFrumoredshrp.jpg

There's about 2 or 3 buildings I would make a little thinner. I would also make 350 Mission shown here at 850 feet a bit shorter, but but as for much of this who knows for certain?