SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[BTinSF]

^^^Well, it's hard to find the "contact us" option but it's under the "About Us" tab at http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.as...av=menu130_9_1 and I used it to send this:

Sirs:

I am away from SF at the moment so it took a while for your story on the TransBay Transit Tower (comparing it to a raised middle finger) to catch up with me, but now that I've seen it I have to point out that the lack of balance was horrifying. As there are "advocates" for making it shorter, there are those of us who would like to see it taller (and also more attractively designed) but you didn't even mention that. San Francisco is changing. The old NIMBY perspective no longer represents a consensus in the city. Please take that into consideration next time you do a story on development issues.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

--When have you ever seen a building design in SF get TALLER after public input?

Since it is evident that there is a good segment of the public now interested in TALLER, whereas they were not so vocal in the past, these people should now make their voices heard.

Originally Posted by BTinSF

--Nice balance on that KRON story (where were the advocates of a tall--even taller--structure?) I'm going to their web site to see if there's a place to emial them about that and I suggest others do the same.

An excellent idea. Thanks.

Originally Posted by BTinSF

--I don't trust Gavin on this one.

That goes without saying, but the fact remains: the heights and designs for Transbay and Piano towers, etc. are "not (yet) set in stone."

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

--Nice balance on that KRON story (where were the advocates of a tall--even taller--structure?)

No kidding. I also love how their graphic showing the height used a bar about twice as wide as BofA. At the top this thing will be about half as wide. And how about a follow-up question to John Q. Heighthater about where all the money to build the new transit center will come from if this were only 50 stories?

[SFView]

The news story is clearly slanted towards making the new Transbay Tower look rediculously tall and out of place in San Francisco, and encouraging those who agree that they will have a chance to influence a shorter outcome.

[GlobeTrekker]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

No kidding. I also love how their graphic showing the height used a bar about twice as wide as BofA. At the top this thing will be about half as wide. And how about a follow-up question to John Q. Heighthater about where all the money to build the new transit center will come from if this were only 50 stories?

I noticed that too; the purple bar was definitely out of scale. Why didn't they just put the shape of the building as the graphic? It's not like the design is complex or anything.

As to the middle finger analogy, it is a BUILDING, not a finger. Second of all, if it were anything like giving the finger, I think One Rincon is already doing that.

I did not see the comment to which Gavin was responding, but my first thought was that he's calming the NIMBYS down. The good thing is I do not think it will go much shorter if it means a lower offer. I don't see how the City can afford to lose money if it is already short of funding.

I think the skyline would look nice with several 1,200 foot towers diagonally from each other (Transbay and Piano). I have no idea the status of the Piano complex; however, it must be expensive keeping those vacant lots sitting there at 1st & Mission. Hasn't it already been over a year since they submitted the proposal?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by GlobeTrekker

I have no idea the status of the Piano complex; however, it must be expensive keeping those vacant lots sitting there at 1st & Mission. Hasn't it already been over a year since they submitted the proposal?

There is no firm proposal because the allowable height is not yet known. My understanding is the Planning Department hoped to have their recommendation for rezoning the height limits for the TransBay Project Area available this summer. But then I think the Board of Supervisors has to approve it. I doubt there'll be anything firm from the Piano developer until the rezoning is complete.

[GlobeTrekker]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

There is no firm proposal because the allowable height is not yet known. My understanding is the Planning Department hoped to have their recommendation for rezoning the height limits for the TransBay Project Area available this summer. But then I think the Board of Supervisors has to approve it. I doubt there'll be anything firm from the Piano developer until the rezoning is complete.

Interesting... thanks for the info. It's amazing how long the process takes. But I guess it's good those lots are still vacant over a year later; hopefully that means the developer is patiently waiting for the City.

[Jobohimself]

It's kind of sad that I wake up every morning, 537 miles from San Francisco, and think to myself while shaving:

"For fuck's sake, PLEASE don't let the NIMBYs ruin Transbay for everyone..."

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by GlobeTrekker

Interesting... thanks for the info. It's amazing how long the process takes. But I guess it's good those lots are still vacant over a year later; hopefully that means the developer is patiently waiting for the City.

These lots have been sitting empty for over a decade and almost empty for several decades (once they had mobile classrooms for Golden Gate U. on them). As you may or may not know, back in the 90s the plan was to build this on them:


Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/3...5217bb90_o.jpg

It's a Sofitel hotel--but the developer changed his mind (I think after the dot-com bust) and wanted to build a Travelodge or something (some kind of low-midrise budget place) and the Planning Dept said "not on that site you won't). So the lots stayed empty until this new developer bought them a year or two ago and proposed the Piano design.

[peanut gallery]

You guys know this, but for anyone reading along that might not know...the entire Piano lot isn't empty. The side facing First is built and occupied (at least the ground floor; I can't say for sure about the higher floors). So there's at least some income for the current owners.

[Reminiscence]

I've been waiting patiently for news on Piano too, but I think its safe to assume that we'll know at least a little more come this summer. When I walked next to the area in which this is to be built, I tried to imagine how awesome it would look like to have three supertall towers so close together. Indeed, I cant think of any other city in which they would be so close to each other, except maybe Dubai and others alike. Its a damn shame Sofitel never saw the light of day, but with what might be coming, I'll be more than happy. Still though, they got to build that hotel elsewhere, its not often we get radical designs such as those in SF.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Originally Posted by SFView

[B]

As for anyone who thinks that the new Transbay Tower will be one lone 'finger' in San Francisco's skyline, this comment really doesn't hold much weight. There will be other new very tall towers that will accompany it nearby. It appears that for certain NIMBY's, lack of interest in new high-rise development leads to lack of knowledge.

Now thats just stupid. middle finger?! wooooww. howcome all the anti-this and anti-that bullshit makes it on the news or gets covered by something. and anything "pro" never gets recognized. isnt kron 4 located it oakland near the jack london square? if so im about to go down there and smack some sense into them so they show both sides of the story,

[peanut gallery]

No, that's KTVU Channel 2. KRON 4 is in SF.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by rajaxsonbayboi

Now thats just stupid. middle finger?! wooooww. howcome all the anti-this and anti-that bullshit makes it on the news or gets covered by something. and anything "pro" never gets recognized. isnt kron 4 located it oakland near the jack london square? if so im about to go down there and smack some sense into them so they show both sides of the story,

Because most "pro" is not news, neither are most good news. Bad news and controversy are usually what attracts more attention in the news media.

[Reminiscence]

"Theres no news ... like bad news"

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

And how about a follow-up question to John Q. Heighthater about where all the money to build the new transit center will come from if this were only 50 stories?

Either from user fees at the new transit center, or from charges on drivers who benefit from the reduced congestion the transit center and transit riders bring about. Why should the cost, even if it is only an emotional cost, in the form of a raised middle finger, be borne by San Francisco residents who never use the transit center, and only get downtown by foot or by subway?

[BTinSF]

^^^If you see it as a cost. Most of us here see it as a benefit.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by Jobohimself

It's kind of sad that I wake up every morning, 537 miles from San Francisco, and think to myself while shaving:

"For fuck's sake, PLEASE don't let the NIMBYs ruin Transbay for everyone..."

Unlike you, the NIMBY's live here, and will have to deal with these highrises daily. This is why they are concerned about their impact: shade, wind, views, blight. Not all highrises are successful. Look at the Philip Burton Building you dislike so much. Its main offense is it is too big for its context.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by GlobeTrekker

As to the middle finger analogy, it is a BUILDING, not a finger.

The shape of a building carries a message.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

...John Q. Heighthater...

Does anyone know who he really is, and what group he is with?

Also, the reporter said "90 stories," instead of the usual "80 stories" for the tower.