SkyscraperPage Forum - SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

Viewing Page 102 of 168

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)

- - SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136300)

Neorama/Steelblue needed to add a disclaimer to their videos, before continuing to it to be available to the public.

Update on the temp terminal. Nothing thrilling; just slogging along:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3341/...8804fccf_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3611/...25edc6ea_b.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery (Post 4173904)

Update on the temp terminal. Nothing thrilling; just slogging along

At a time when there are predictions there will never be another SF residential highrise ( http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2134 ), slogging along is good. But I am getting increasingly nervous that before too long we will get news that the tower portion of this project is on indefinite hold. I'm actually pretty surprised we haven't heard that yet.

There still needs to be enough funding raised to help build the terminal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView (Post 4174471)

There still needs to be enough funding raised to help build the terminal.

Hines has already cut what they will pay for the land and right to build from $350M to $235M--and that's all they are going to pay: http://www.commercialpropertynews.co...5a3e0509c0549e . But they have the option of holding onto that land for as long as they want before they actually build as far as I know. And I am very nervous that their "partner" is MetLife Real Estate because the life insurers are in real trouble over their real estate investments because those investments are probably worth a lot less than the companies have been carrying them for on their books. Pouring money into a TransBay Tower would, for MetLife, be compounding their problem.

I believe "Phase 1" of the terminal itself (the above-ground portion and possibly the "train box") is fully or nearly fully funded and is probably receiving "stimulus" funds so it will probably go forward on schedule. "Phase 2" (the tunnel from 4th & King and the platforms etc for CalTrain and HSR) is NOT yet fully funded.

:previous: Thanks. Now I am getting nervous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF (Post 4173991)

In addition to the bad residential construction forecast, there is absolutely no demand for office space and there's plenty of surplus space all over downtown. I think that it's all over for a long time to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf (Post 4174874)

The vacancy rate is 19.8% as of today according to the SF Business Times: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...06/story9.html

Works for me:

Quote:

Friday, April 3, 2009
S.F. has chance to finally build an arena
San Francisco Business Times - by Stanford M. Horn

I’m holding in my hand a very formidable San Francisco Redevelopment Agency brochure. It has many impressive renderings of what the agency points to as San Francisco’s most important upcoming structure: a spectacular 20,000-seat downtown sports-entertainment-cultural-event-convention arena designed by one of Japan’s most renowned architects.

It’s dated 1969.

Now, 40 years later — and 120 million patrons too late to have helped the city’s economy — the Redevelopment Agency has an opportunity to make good on its promise.

San Francisco is the only major American city without a modern arena. Thus, San Franciscans get no big rock concerts, no indoor sports, no tournaments, no dog shows, no circuses, no political conventions, no sports trials, no family spectacles, no Barbra Streisand, no Irish dancers, no ethnic festivals, no Harlem Globetrotters, etc. The agency’s 40-year goal of bringing more pedestrian life, economic activity, attractions and jobs downtown via an arena remains just that: a goal.

Now the agency has a chance to champion an arena — in conjunction with the new Transbay Terminal: specifically, on the square block — bounded by Howard, Folsom, Main and Beale streets — that will soon house the temporary bus plaza.

The most successful arenas, like Madison Square Garden, are part of rail station and subway complexes. Since most events are held in evenings or on weekends, they provide revenue to transit agencies when they’d be running sparsely occupied trains. Instead, the agency plans more housing and a small park there. What an unimaginative concept for that strategic site!

How much more fruitful for the city’s well-being would a striking arena be than a few hundred additional apartments in concrete block structures? The alternative might be an iconic distinctively-shaped arena of modest height letting in lots of sunshine and open air, a new San Francisco icon. The planned park would make a wonderful, highly used entrance to such an arena, especially if were just steps from the new train station.

Privately financed AT&T Park created an unprecedented economic stimulus for San Francisco. A privately-financed arena could be expected to provide an even greater economic stimulus. The idea has grown even better with age and its linkage to the west’s main transit complex.

Stanford M. Horn writes on transportation and development issues.

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...ditorial3.html

Not me. I think this would be a waste of money. Arenas and stadia are regional resources. Every city in the region doesn't need one. We already have two modern arenas, both of which have excellent rail connectivity. HP Pavilion has a pretty full schedule (almost 200 dates a year, last I heard). Oracle Arena still has plenty of availability (about 100 dates a year). We don't need another one. Oracle is already underutilized. Throw another arena in the mix and it will be that much worse.

Temporary terminal construction webcam: http://temporaryterminal.org/webcam

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery (Post 4177414)

Well, don't worry--it ain't gonna happen. But I think as a performance space for major touring performers if for nothing else, DOWNTOWN SF needs an indoor arena-type space--at least as much as we needed a downtown ballpark (another "regional" resource but look how much better that is than what was).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF (Post 4208094)

The ballpark was privately financed and there was a known user for at least 90-100 days out of the year (81 games plus other Giants events - and hey, sometime they might reach the postseason). If we were talking about redeveloping the Oracle Arena site and bringing the Warriors here or something, it might be worth pursuing, but otherwise I also think it's a waste.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 4208243)

I too would be against the city doing it--as I am against the city paying for any sort of new sports facility--but there have been private proposals for an arena. The Giants, as I recall, offered to build one as part of their proposal at the waterfront lot, across McCovey Cove from their ballpark, next to Mission Bay.

How would you feel if there were a private developer who wanted to build an arena on that lot and would do all the worrying for you about leasing it? I'm pretty sure the ballpark neighbors, who don't much care for the outdoor concerts at AT&T Park, would be for it.

:previous: I'd be fine with that. In that scenario we're talking about private financing, as well as it being built on the fringe of an area. Arenas are terrible dead spots during times when not in use, so building one against the Bay or a hillside would be much better than building one downtown with current active uses on all sides, IMO. In addition, it would be right down the street from the Caltrain 4th & King station and other transit/large crowd infrastructure that exists for the ballpark.

Honestly it looks great, but as a non-San Franciscan who doesn't follow this very closely, all i can ever seem to think about when I look at these Pelli renderings is how awesome SOM's design is (and forever will be).

It looks like the design for the terminal is improving. I suspect there will also be improvements to the tower, but for now it seems most of the focus is on the terminal design.

That is the same nice animation from Steelblue.

I really like the leaning and horizontal round tube structural frames, but I wonder about the people who will need to work hard to keep them clean. Without maintenance, they could appear to collect dust and dirt over time, especially if they are white. I don't think they should change the design because of this though. The methods for cleaning may improve with technology over time as well.

Wow, that's a pretty incredible project as it appears in that video animation.

I think the reason I was so interested in reading science fiction when I was a kid was that I wanted to live in a world where projects like that were possible!

Just a reminder...

You can also see this video and other related Steelblue videos in higher quality original HD here:
http://www.vimeo.com/videos/search:steelblue

Viewing Page 102 of 168