SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 133

ozone · #**2641** Posted **Aug 2, 2012, 7:33 AM**

I totally agree with you. I was just commenting on Sue Hestor and her friends. I can actually understand them in a way. San Francisco has gone through many changes in a person's lifetime. Some things aren't as appealing as they once were. But that is always the case with every generation. And we have a choice to live in a static museum for tourists or in a real city that is dynamic and ever changing. I'm hoping that once the Transbay Tower is up in the air and the 1,000 foot barrier is broken that the height phobia will wane even more.

minicute · #**2642** Posted **Aug 3, 2012, 12:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

San Francisco must be the most stupidest city on the face of the planet for having laws like that. Who cares if skyscrapers block the sunlight to parks? New York City has plenty of buildings cast shadows on their parks and no one cares. The only stupid people that would care are the tanners. Otherwise it's stupid. People like her makes San Francisco look retarded and believe me my aunt lives there.

Those tall buildings which block light to parks and everything else- well that is what I can't stand about NYC! Lived there once and glad I left! Manhattan is the worst!

minicute · #**2643** Posted **Aug 3, 2012, 1:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

Actually there are lots of NIMBYs in NYC. And there's plenty of people in New York City who care about shadows in parks and other such things. The difference bwtn NYC and SF is that it has a much longer relationship with the skyscraper. Manhattan is synonymous with skyscrapers. San Francisco was still pretty 'long slung' even when Sue and her ilk were kids. Some people here still see skyscrapers as alien to San Francisco, which makes no sense to me. Sue is one of those people. And of course San Francisco has some issues peculiar to it- like hills with views and sunshine eradicating fog.

I think most in San Francisco realize that the 'damaged is done' and fighting heights -particularly in SOMA is counterproductive at this point.

My personal ideal is for the skyscrapers to be clustered in a single area- not scattered all over the city with the rest being mid and low rises and then detached homes in the outer regions. There should be a gradient and people should have a variety of heights and type of dwellings to live in. I actually think Paris pulls this off really well and they definitely have a history long before the skyscraper ever was conceived.

ozone · #**2644** Posted **Aug 6, 2012, 6:27 AM**

I'm not sure I completely agree. Obviously, skyscrapers everywhere wouldn't be very appealing but I think the idea of putting some on top of the hills was a pretty good one. I think Potrero Hill would be more attractive with some high-rise apartments on top. I also think it would be rad to have some skyscrapers on Twin Peaks.

pizzaguy · #**2645** Posted **Aug 6, 2012, 9:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by minicute

Those tall buildings which block light to parks and everything else- well that is what I can't stand about NYC! Lived there once and glad I left! Manhattan is the worst!

Oh no! Shade!

Run everybody!!!

minicute · #**2646** Posted **Aug 7, 2012, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Oh no! Shade!

Run everybody!!!

Fear of shade is not the reason why I don't want skyscrapers to dominate every corner of our city. Sunlight is essential for humans, we need a certain amount of it each day for physical and mental health and it regulates our internal biological clocks and moods. It is not the fear of something but rather the drive towards basic human needs that helps form my opinion on this. It is all a matter of maintaining a good quality of life for people. All the top cities in Mercer's quality of life ranking don't have skylines totally dominated by skyscrapers. If they do even have tall buildings they are located only in certain areas while the majority are mid and low rises.

http://www.mercer.com/articles/quali...ey-report-2011

If someone has a preference towards high-rises then they can live in the high-rise district area if they so choose and can afford but the high-rises should not dominate the entire landscape. As I mentioned in a prior post, there should be variety in types of dwellings. I personally prefer skyscrapers to make up only 10-20% of the buildings and all located within a high-rise district with the rest dominated by mid (7 floors) and low rises (3 or less floors).

I also want to add that I don't think we should mindlessly admire and worship NYC and try to imitate them. And we could never be NYC no matter how hard we try. Bigger and taller does not always mean better.

CyberEric · #**2647** Posted **Aug 7, 2012, 1:42 PM**

^ I agree with you for the most part, but I do feel the anti-shadow thing has been abused at times.

Tall buildings in the FiDi and nearby environs can be a very good idea. Density is important and has been a big part of SF's success in my view. Density is important for jobs, for transportation, for economical use of space, for exchange of ideas, for communication, for quality of life and so on. All of the cities in that Mercer report are fairly dense, and many of them do have skyscrapers. Sometimes density means it's a good idea to build a tall building that makes the best use of land and transportation. I am not saying we shouldn't consider the shadows these buildings make, and object to them at times, but I do think we have to avoid fighting every building that creates shadows. I'd rather see a skyscraper built than a "campus" in the suburbs that supports driving, sprawl, no local business, a destitute feeling and disconnection.

Sometimes when I'm in a park I wish I had MORE shade.

IMBY · #**2648** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 11:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMetropolitan

More housing for people is more important than people's veiws being blocked. It is very selfish of people to only care about their precious views. If it's good for the city as a whole, that's the most important thing.

It was always my impression, that the "kings" and "queens" of the hills make the ultimate decision what gets built in that city. Aren't they more powerful than the city council members?

I remember, way back in the early 70's, I was reading an article, while vacationing in San FranNimby, about a developer trying to get a 15 story building built there, at the base of the hills, and certain "kings" and "queens" of the hills complained it would ruin their views. Developer scaled it down to 8 stories, acceptable to the royalty on the hills, but alas! There was a small, vocal group at the base of the hills protesting that this building would block their views of the hills!

I will always be mystified by any developer even proposing building a McDonald's in that city!

IMBY · #**2649** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 11:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

I'm not sure I completely agree. Obviously, skyscrapers everywhere wouldn't be very appealing but I think the idea of putting some on top of the hills was a pretty good one. I think Potrero Hill would be more attractive with some high-rise apartments on top. I also think it would be rad to have some skyscrapers on Twin Peaks.

Having traveled widely throughout Latin America, this seems far more acceptable to build towers on the tops of hills down there. I noticed a big one going up on a hill in the city of Tegucigalpa, Honduras on my last trip there.

There's a high-rise apt. building atop a high hill in Tijuana, overlooking San Diego. I've been up to the top of that hill, and those killer views of San Diego are mind-blowing, even in a single detached home! Now the views from the upper floors of that high rise, looking down on Coronado/San Diego must be worth millions!

tech12 · #**2650** Posted **Oct 17, 2012, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMBY

It was always my impression, that the "kings" and "queens" of the hills make the ultimate decision what gets built in that city. Aren't they more powerful than the city council members?

I remember, way back in the early 70's, I was reading an article, while vacationing in San FranNimby, about a developer trying to get a 15 story building built there, at the base of the hills, and certain "kings" and "queens" of the hills complained it would ruin their views. Developer scaled it down to 8 stories, acceptable to the royalty on the hills, but alas! There was a small, vocal group at the base of the hills protesting that this building would block their views of the hills!

I will always be mystified by any developer even proposing building a McDonald's in that city!

Yes there are NIMBYs (and there were more back in the 70s), but SF has over 400 highrises, with 56 built in the past 15 years, and 150+ built built from 1960-1990 (but only 4 were built in the slow years from 1990-1997). So half of SF's highrises were actually built during or after the age of the crazy NIMBYs and the anti-Manhattanization movement...not bad. It's not like it's impossible to build anything here.

tech12 · #**2651** Posted **Oct 19, 2012, 4:58 PM**

The Transbay tower has been approved:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ise_by_pl.html

kchalmers · #**2652** Posted **Dec 19, 2012, 6:03 PM**

There is a 3D interactive first person perspective animation of a festively decorated Transbay Transit Center Grand Hall on the link below complete with symbolic toy train future HSR route:

http://www.steelbluellc.com/web/2012_holiday_card/

theskythelimit · #**2653** Posted **Dec 25, 2012, 2:20 AM**

John King article on an update of the TransBay terminal project.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#photo-3930235

fflint · #**2654** Posted **Dec 25, 2012, 6:36 AM**

Transbay Transit Center work progressing

John King
The San Francisco Chronicle
Monday, December 24, 2012

The biggest hole San Francisco has ever seen is being carved into an area between Second and Fourth streets, as round-the-clock work progresses to build San Francisco's new train terminal. Photo: Lacy Atkins, The Chronicle

....
For now, the brunt of the physical task is borne by the 150 or so workers toiling weekdays in around-the-clock shifts on the methodical excavation of the three-block-long space that will contain the rail platforms, concourse and train tracks for the terminal set to open in 2017. And even though work began in earnest more than a year ago, nothing structural will appear above ground before the spring of 2014.

The new center will be roughly a quarter mile long and 70 feet high, with a spidery glass form extending above First and Fremont streets. The aboveground portion will serve bus passengers as well as provide shops, circulation areas and a rooftop park.
....
"What you see is pretty standard around the world, this kind of deep horizontal bracing," Beck says before he and Adams lead a reporter down 82 steps within rickety scaffolding to the bottom of the artificial short-term canyon.

The scale is what makes things complex.

Both First and Fremont streets, for instance, now are bridges as they pass above the deepening hole. They rest on trestles that were installed over holiday weekends, a time when little traffic was heading through the Financial District.
....
"A year from now, on the street, you won't see much," Beck says. "With projects like this, you spend half the entire time below ground. Then the steel seems to go up overnight."

biggerhigherfaster · #**2655** Posted **Feb 19, 2013, 3:19 AM**

some close up views; any idea what all those giant tubes are?

ElDuderino · #**2656** Posted **Feb 20, 2013, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by biggerhigherfaster

some close up views; any idea what all those giant tubes are?

They are braces to hold the walls up while the foundation is built.

minesweeper · #**2657** Posted **Feb 28, 2013, 10:07 PM**

A quick snapshot of the western end of the site today:

tech12 · #**2658** Posted **Mar 16, 2013, 4:41 PM**

Apparently they may change the skin of the transit center from glass to metal:

Quote:

the architects now propose to cloak it in perforated aluminum, a change that would meet federal safety guidelines while trimming $17 million from the estimated $1.59 billion budget for the center's first phase.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#ixzz2NioFi5XJ

Looks worse to me, I hope they keep the original design. I wish they'd stop screwing with this thing. First the unnecessary slits on the top of the tower, and now this.

mt_climber13 · #**2659** Posted **Mar 16, 2013, 6:26 PM**

I really like the new design. All of this glass everywhere is becoming really overdone. The de young museum is one of my favorite buildings and this reminds me of that.

tech12 · #**2660** Posted **Mar 16, 2013, 7:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I really like the new design. All of this glass everywhere is becoming really overdone. The de young museum is one of my favorite buildings and this reminds me of that.

I agree that glass is a bit overdone these days, but In my opinion this design works better with it than with this metal mesh stuff. The mesh would look better at night though: