Source:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Trea...sing_seas.html[/quote]

I thought work was suppose to begin late this year? Oh well, I'm just glad this is still on. Its going to be great watching this getting built along with Transbay.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments

"the master plan will be farmed out to individual architects to avoid an "architectural monoculture""

such a simple concept and yet so many cities with large projects do not conisider this... nice to see SF is going about this in a holistic manner.

I'm surprised the wind mostly hits the island from the southwest. I would have thought it comes in from due west or maybe a little northwest. And looking more closely at that image, those angled streets are lined up along a southwest/northeast axis, which doesn't fit with the intention of minimizing wind from the southwest. Perhaps Curbed meant to say the wind predominantly comes from the northwest.

Anyhoo, it's a cool-looking plan. Interesting to see they are looking at YB as well.

New image I found at this website: http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/10/...elopment-plan/

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/...-panoramic.jpg

Great looking plan. Really generous amounts of greenspace too...I wonder if they won't allow for a few more buildings later down the line if the project is successful.

Wow!

I had heard something about plans to redevelop parts of Treasure Island, mainly build a few highrises there, but I had no idea the plan was to actually completely raze every structure that's currently on it, remove almost all the streets and completely redevelop the area. I mean there isn't much on the island right now, but there are a few residences and businesses here and there.

Well anyway, I love the new plan, can't say I'm a big fan of the offset street grid though - cmon, the wind...? Who cares wind is wind it's all over the place :D We've been strictly following the square grid principle for almost all of our major cities regardless of topography (SF being the best example) or pretty much anything else, now all of a sudden we're supposed to care about the wind...? Can't say I'm a big fan, as a pedestrian I prefer perpendicular blocks, but the offset grid has its charm too I guess.

I'm assuming the plan for the green space is maybe a park for starters and then as demand increases it will get filled in...? Is the Sun Tower and all the other highrises still on track? They're obviously going for density and I do hope that a filled in island or just the developed area for starters has at least a density of 20,000/sq mi (isn't Treasure Island pretty much 1 square mile?) This has a huge potential of being like a second downtown, kind of like Miami's Miami Beach. And I do hope that as demand and population increase they consider adding a subway line, either MUNI or BART under the bay to Treasure Island. :D

So when are we gonna start seeing everything getting torn down?

(sorry that was a long and erratic post...)

They aren't razing every structure. The old crescent-shaped Headquarters building, which is rather historic, will stay.

If you'd spent any time on TI (worked there for 4 years), you'd understand how pervasive and annoying the wind can be. Anything reasonable that can be done to mitigate it should be done.

I am extremely skeptical about putting any density on this island. I know I wouldn't want to live there. I realize Ferry service is planned but that's fairly low capacity and won't carry cars, trucks or other personal vehicles. Otherwise, for everyone who lives there access to and from home is going to be via the traffic-choked Bay Bridge which now experiences gridlock for maybe 6-8 hours a day and, by the time TI is actually redeveloped, will likely be a parking lot 18 hours a day--not even counting the extra traffic load the TI development imposes. How would YOU like to realize that if you wanted to go to the Mission for Mexican food or a movie at the Metreon, you'd have to spend 30-45 minutes in bumper to bumper traffic each way?

I was thinking similarly.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

Unlikely. In SF, greenspace is more valuable than buildings. And the part of the island set aside for it is lower and more vulnerable to earthquakes which is why it is being set aside. The present plan does not allow for future development. One can't say what future generations will do, but that isn't what this one has in mind.

Treasure Island: Sold To The Bidder Across The Bay For $55M Plus...
from:http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments
http://www.socketsite.com/Treasury%2...0Rendering.jpg

:previous: Is that checkerboardy looking bit in the middle the collective farm?

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...22/focus4.html

Greenest delusions...
 

One has to deliberately turn a blind eye to the obvious to believe any of the plans to make Treasure Island into a green utopia are anything other than "just pretend."

Simply put.. as a development site Treasure Island is constrained as it is unique.
The man-made island was created to be site for a Worlds Fair lasting one year and was not engineered to support permanent development.

The military installation was never intended to be permanent when it hastily developed the island with the onset of WWII.

The island cannot be developed upon as it is today. It needs to be completely re-engineered and rebuilt including a raise of 10-15 feet...
The resulting project would be similar in scope to San Diego's Mission Bay. -- Ain't going to happen.

Not because it isn't technically feasible, but because it is not politically feasible in modern-day "green" California.

One day (sooner or later) California will come its senses and write a new state constitution that junks the current government and replaces it with a vastly smaller, less powerful government.

Until then... Dream on.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2010/0...eader_comments

We could have worse than a "min-Vancouver". We could have an all Heller-Manus island of beige stucco towers. That's what the planners probably need to focus on avoiding.

Right on, no offense to SF but it sounds like some of the people in city government have a giant stick... no better yet, branch, lodged up their... well you get the idea. Vancouver and its "perfectly machined, boring buildings".... right because with the exception of the Trans America tower/pyramid EVERY high-rise in SF is so damn unique and inspiring... right.

Since when is Vancouver boring? Vancouver has a beautiful skyline. Houston, on the other hand...

It does tend to have a problem San Francisco also has--a lot of buildings of the same height giving a "table top" effect. In San Francisco, the Planning Dept. itself needs to take a lot of the blame because the main reason is the PD's height limits. In Vancouver, I suspect it's economics since most of the buildings are residential and building costs escalate with height above a certain level.

If you read the article again, what they are proposing is to encourage a maximum of height and bulk variation. Leaving aside the Vancouver comparison, that's a good thing.