SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 134

mt_climber13 · #**2661** Posted **Mar 16, 2013, 10:28 PM**

All these renderings keep reminding me how much I hate the shape of the architecture- all those bulbous protrusions. And how it awkwardly meets the street. I think the park is going to be a huge hit, however.

cv94117 · #**2662** Posted **Mar 18, 2013, 4:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

All these renderings keep reminding me how much I hate the shape of the architecture- all those bulbous protrusions. And how it awkwardly meets the street. I think the park is going to be a huge hit, however.

The park is, imo, a waste of money (and I disagree that it will be well-used). If you go to the Transbay Authority's meeting on sfgov tv, you'll see that they are $200-$300M over budget (at least that's what they're admitting to at this point) and changing out the glass for metal only puts a $17M dent in the overrun. Never mind that they are building a big hole in the ground for trains but have no idea where the money is coming from for the tunnel to get the trains there.

There is no money to finish the construction of, never mind operate, this thing as designed and I don't think they ever had the money. It needs to be stopped and re-designed to the extent that it can be, starting with eliminating the park. Otherwise we'll end up with nothing.

tech12 · #**2663** Posted **Mar 18, 2013, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cv94117

The park is, imo, a waste of money (and I disagree that it will be well-used).

I disagree. I know that I'll go up there from time to time when I'm in the area. I don't think it'll be crowded on a daily basis, seeing as it's going to be elevated (so a bit "hidden"), and be surrounded by more office buildings than residential ones, but I think plenty of people will make use of it. The fact that it'll be elevated and surrounded by towers is actually the main draw for me though, and I doubt I'm alone in thinking that...I can't wait to see the views from up there.

mt_climber13 · #**2664** Posted **Mar 18, 2013, 6:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cv94117

The park is, imo, a waste of money (and I disagree that it will be well-used). If you go to the Transbay Authority's meeting on sfgov tv, you'll see that they are $200-$300M over budget (at least that's what they're admitting to at this point) and changing out the glass for metal only puts a $17M dent in the overrun. Never mind that they are building a big hole in the ground for trains but have no idea where the money is coming from for the tunnel to get the trains there.

There is no money to finish the construction of, never mind operate, this thing as designed and I don't think they ever had the money. It needs to be stopped and re-designed to the extent that it can be, starting with eliminating the park. Otherwise we'll end up with nothing.

It appears that, after 20- 30 years of "planning," reality has finally caught up with the huge bubble that SF "progressives" live in. Spend spend spend.. oh wait there's no money!

Regarding the park, the high line in NYC is a huge success, and I consider this park to be a much more beautiful version of that.

easy as pie · #**2665** Posted **Mar 19, 2013, 12:03 AM**

^ yeah, buena vista is jammed with people pretty much any time the weather is even remotely nice.

Roadcruiser1 · #**2666** Posted **Mar 27, 2013, 6:43 AM**

Some good news for people that miss the glass skin in the 2010 design. It's coming back, but in aluminum form.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#photo-4332517

phoenixboi08 · #**2667** Posted **Mar 27, 2013, 12:15 PM**

The aluminum looks great!
Gives the feeling that the building can actually breathe.

peanut gallery · #**2668** Posted **Mar 27, 2013, 6:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

Some good news for people that miss the glass skin in the 2010 design. It's coming back, but in aluminum form.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#photo-4332517

I don't understand your post. For starters, this is the same article that Tech12 posted on the previous page and which started the whole conversation about the glass in the first place. Second, the glass hasn't gone anywhere yet. It has been in the proposal all along and now there is a new proposal (not final decision yet) to replace it with aluminum, which is what the discussion is already about. So we can't really miss the glass until it has been officially taken away.

And for the record, I do not like this idea at all.

minesweeper · #**2669** Posted **Apr 18, 2013, 4:21 PM**

The Urban Land Institute posted a set of photos from a tour of the construction site, including some photos from down in the train box:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ulisf/s...7633266927779/

ozone · #**2670** Posted **Apr 19, 2013, 5:22 PM**

Why couldn't the less exposed parts of the terminal be covered in perforated aluminum and the more public parts, like the entrances, be covered in glass?

minesweeper · #**2671** Posted **Jun 16, 2013, 9:04 PM**

Another photo of the western end of the site:

mt_climber13 · #**2672** Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 5:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by minesweeper

Another photo of the western end of the site:

Wow, I can't believe how squat the downtown SF skyline is in this area! Such low density for a large transit hub under construction. How much of this view will change with the addition of significantly tall towers? I can't think of many projects that will be built within this view. I keep picturing the skyline as you come out of Grand Central Station.. and then look at this.

ardecila · #**2673** Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 6:39 AM**

Yeah, but Grand Central didn't get that way until after the current station was built.

Yes, previous stations also existed on the same site at GCT, but busy railyards and noxious smoke kept development away. The 1912 GCT was coupled with a rebuilding of the New York Central's lines, with double or quad tracking and electrification, that set the railroad up for major commuter traffic. Pretty much exactly what Caltrain and CHSRA are planning.

The point is, the skyscrapers won't materialize until the transportation is there to support it.

simms3_redux · #**2674** Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 7:10 AM**

I got the same view today...I won't repost since it is the same. We must have just missed each other!

viewguysf · #**2675** Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 2:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Wow, I can't believe how squat the downtown SF skyline is in this area! Such low density for a large transit hub under construction. How much of this view will change with the addition of significantly tall towers? I can't think of many projects that will be built within this view. I keep picturing the skyline as you come out of Grand Central Station.. and then look at this.

Not that they would be major skyscrapers, but 222 Second and 524 Howard would figure prominently in the background of that view.

tech12 · #**2676** Posted **Jun 17, 2013, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Wow, I can't believe how squat the downtown SF skyline is in this area! Such low density for a large transit hub under construction. How much of this view will change with the addition of significantly tall towers? I can't think of many projects that will be built within this view. I keep picturing the skyline as you come out of Grand Central Station.. and then look at this.

Judging by this and other posts you've made...you're a pessimist, aren't you

I wouldn't say that area is low density. It's actually very dense structurally, there just aren't any skyscrapers there, just a handful of shorter highrises and low/midrises. Remember that until recently that was the outer fringe of downtown SF.

But that's going to change soon with 222 second and 524 howard, as well as 41 tehama. Plus, there's another site zoned for around 300-400 feet there, and the site zoned for 750' too, so there will definitely be a good amount of skyscrapers in that view eventually. Not to mention that if you were to simply turn around, you would see the existing wall of skyscrapers along mission street...which of course is about to have the addition of 535 mission and the transbay tower. And if you turn around some more, you'd also see 181 Fremont. And then turn around a little bit more and you might see the transbay block 9 tower, which is across from another site that's zoned for 550'. Transbay is already flanked by tons of skyscrapers on the north side, and don't worry, the southern side will be getting lots of them too.

mt_climber13 · #**2677** Posted **Jun 18, 2013, 8:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, but Grand Central didn't get that way until after the current station was built.

Yes, previous stations also existed on the same site at GCT, but busy railyards and noxious smoke kept development away. The 1912 GCT was coupled with a rebuilding of the New York Central's lines, with double or quad tracking and electrification, that set the railroad up for major commuter traffic. Pretty much exactly what Caltrain and CHSRA are planning.

The point is, the skyscrapers won't materialize until the transportation is there to support it.

Good point!

mt_climber13 · #**2678** Posted **Jun 18, 2013, 8:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

Not to mention that if you were to simply turn around, you would see the existing wall of skyscrapers along mission street...which of course is about to have the addition of 535 mission and the transbay tower. And if you turn around some more, you'd also see 181 Fremont. And then turn around a little bit more and you might see the transbay block 9 tower, which is across from another site that's zoned for 550'. Transbay is already flanked by tons of skyscrapers on the north side, and don't worry, the southern side will be getting lots of them too.

Good point!

peanut gallery · #**2679** Posted **Jul 12, 2013, 5:37 PM**

Extrapolating from this article at Curbed, the TJPA seems set on the aluminum skin.

fimiak · #**2680** Posted **Jul 12, 2013, 9:03 PM**

I have come to peace with the removal of the glass. I really do like the groovy pattern they chose to go with for the metal facade. Penrose Rhombus Tiling ftw. They just had better not drop the funicular now that its been promised, that is essential to getting the full use of the park space.