[FourOneFive]

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.

You make it seem as if these highrises will reach out and grab our children. :haha: These NIMBYs need to stop being provincial, and realize that San Francisco doesn't exist in a bubble. SF's Downtown serves not just the residents of the City, but the greater Bay Area. We need a world class transit center akin to New York, London, and Paris to strengthen our transit linkages with the rest of the region.

[FourOneFive]

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?

What a ridiculous comment. What of the San Francisco residents who work on the Peninsula or in Silicon Valley who will ultimately benefit from having commuter trains running directly downtown? You make it seem as if San Francisco residents only work in Downtown San Francisco. :rolleyes:

[Jobohimself]

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.

I live in both cities, and I can definitely tell you that the area is in dire need of redevelopment. The approval system in San Francisco is, at best, appalling. The most progressive city in the world, that wants everything to stay the same...so nothing ever gets done. San Francisco has a wonderful opportunity to make something world-class happen, and I am one of many that would love to see this plan come to fruition.

And for all the NIMBYs that bitch about height, they should move to San Diego, since it can't have world-class architecture.

[roadwarrior]

And for all the NIMBYs that bitch about height, they should move to San Diego, since it can't have world-class architecture.

SD may not have the height due to Lindbergh Field's air restrictions over downtown, but it does at least have a good volume of condos in existance and in development. It may not be progressing as fast as Vancouver, but it also isn't building up at the snail's pace that we see here in SF.

[Jobohimself]

SD may not have the height due to Lindbergh Field's air restrictions over downtown, but it does at least have a good volume of condos in existance and in development. It may not be progressing as fast as Vancouver, but it also isn't building up at the snail's pace that we see here in SF.

You have still failed to address the "world-class" part of my post, which was really what I was getting at.

[craeg]

The shape of a building carries a message.

Yeah, and the message is "GET OVER IT"
This YIMBY lives in the city instead of under the bridge like some other internet trolls.

[BTinSF]

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.

I'm left wondering what a skyscraper hater is doing trolling a skyscraper site.

But putting that aside, there are two ways to remedy the Burton Building problem as I said: change it or change the context--tear it down or build more highrises around it. Cities like New York are livable--even enjoyable--because they have the density, based on vertical development, to foster 24/7 living as opposed to present-day San Francisco where finding even something to eat after 10 PM is difficult.

I want more Manhattanization to make San Francisco as exciting and dynamic as Manhattan, and also to create places for those of us who can't afford $2 million Victorians with charming rear decks and views to die for. The nequidnimis viewpoint is ultimately elitist in the extreme: create the perfect little place for the few and send the rest to Concord or Vallejo.

[Jobohimself]

I also fail to see how one has to "deal with a highrise". Why is a blocked view of the approach to the Bay Bridge more important than creating a dense, livable, world class downtown?

[Reminiscence]

I dont mean to take sides against anyone, but I agree with the many of my fellow forumers. San Francisco needs this, and in a bad way. This may be our last chance in a while to truly build sky high and increase density in a part of town that could use it.

For those of you concerned about your world class views, surely you can see that this proposal greatly outweighs your interests. A 600' tower is just not gonna cut it and it would be a wasted oppurtunity to build so short at such an important site. The NIMBY arguments make no stand here and hopfully they will fail to sway the powers that be.

[nequidnimis]

I'm left wondering what a skyscraper hater is doing trolling a skyscraper site.
I actually love skyscrapers provided they are well designed and appropriate for their context. However, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, this is not a skyscraper that inspires, it is a skyscraper you can xerox.

[nequidnimis]

The nequidnimis viewpoint is ultimately elitist in the extreme: create the perfect little place for the few and send the rest to Concord or Vallejo.

Or Oakland, which is much closer. My first house was in East Oakland, a neighborhood that often makes the news but has good transit, and I lived in that house for fourteen years before I was able to move to San Francisco. The majority of my neighbors were actually very nice and I still see some of them (I wouldn't have stayed fourteen years otherwise). I believe housing and health care are universal rights. A condo in a good San Francisco neighborhood?

The reason I eventually was able to move to San Francisco is over those years my house appreciated, and I built equity. To start making San Francisco affordable to people earning the median income, prices in San Francisco would need to come down a third or more. It would be very traumatic for most home owners: no more re-fis in case of unexpected expenses, and a big check to write to the bank when you sell your place... Rejoice: prices have already started to come down. I believe the road to a condo in a good San Francisco neighborhood is the one I took: buy in an area that can only get better, and in so doing, with your fellow first time home buyers, make the area better, and eventually cash out and move to the place of your choice.

[Cbautz]

Pelli over SOM Design....WTF I am depressed

[BTinSF]

My first house was in East Oakland, a neighborhood that often makes the news but has good transit, and I lived in that house for fourteen years before I was able to move to San Francisco.
The reason I eventually was able to move to San Francisco is over those years my house appreciated, and I built equity. To start making San Francisco affordable to people earning the median income, prices in San Francisco would need to come down a third or more.

I think you and people like you are the reason it won't happen (prices coming down by a third). As long as San Francisco--almost any part of it, not just the "good" neighborhoods--remains the place most Bay Area residents would prefer to live, demand for homes there will only increase if prices come down at all.

But you have to ask why they want to live there. It has great views but there are arguably better views from Berkeley, Oakland, parts of Marin. Treasure Island may have the best views in the Bay Area but I wouldn't want to live there having experienced the place for 3 years working there. For some, SF's weather may be an attraction (gets neither too hot nor too cold but for others it may be a negative--foggy).

I suspect the main reason is a short commute and so much going on from restaurants to high culture to spontaneous gatherings and festivals. To keep the jobs in the city, we need to keep office rents as low as possible which means meeting demand for office space and that requires vertical development over time. And, as I've already explained, to keep the place lively and fun, more density means even more "happening" and more reasons to want to live here.

Nobody is going to build highrises in the Richmond, Sunset, Mission, Haight, Pacific Heights, Marina, Noe Valley etc. Those neighborhoods will remain largely as they are for those who can afford them--whether having built up equity in Oakland or not--but vertical housing and office development downtown can enhance the city's affordability and desirability for many and is very much worth doing even if it blocks a few people's views or otherwise detracts from their ideal vision of San Francisco when they chose to come downtown.

[BVictor1]

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?

I've raised my middle finger plenty of times at a cost to noone :)

There's no emotional cost in building this tower. How idiotic :koko:

Maybe with the reconstructed center, the people who never use the uninviting, decrepit current building will reconsider their options.

[BVictor1]

I actually love skyscrapers provided they are well designed and appropriate for their context. However, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton, this is not a skyscraper that inspires, it is a skyscraper you can xerox.

Well noone ever called her a genius either...

[hectorant84]

Ladies and gents... This building ain't gettin' any taller. If anything this building is going to get chopped down. I've given up with respect to ever seeing truly iconic skyscrapers in SF. First the debable last summer when the jury picked the most mundane design imaginable then the city is dragging it's princess slippers to make this happen. I mean come-the-fuck on! The pathetic part if SF politics is influenced by tree hugging, yoga posing, hybrid car driving, building are too tall, suffers from Bush - Cheney derangement syndrome, the US marines are our enemies, 9/11 was a government conspiracy fuck heads. I'm surprised Piano doesn't pack up his shit and run for the hills. Future San Francisican's prepare to gaze up at BofA, 101 CA Street, and the Transamerica Pyramid in 2208. The city is still going to be doing its environmental impact testing/BS or some shit like that. :haha:

[BTinSF]

Let me remind everyone that the issue here is not actually just one building. The TransBay Project envisions raising height limits of the entire project area and allowing several 900 ft plus buildings. And both the advocates and opponents of the signature tower understand that, uninspiring as it may, itself, be, if it gets built it breaks a barrier and other much taller buildings than anything presently in SF are likely to follow.

[SFView]

Ladies and gents...Future San Francisican's prepare to gaze up at BofA, 101 CA Street, and the Transamerica Pyramid in 2208... :haha:

When Dr. McCoy traveled back with the Enterprise crew onboard a Klingon ship to 1986 San Francisco from the 23rd century, his first comment upon seeing the old city from the ship's view screen for the first time was, "it doesn't look all that different." Was this scene from the movie, "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," a cruel or friendly prediction?

[nequidnimis]

Well noone ever called her a genius either...

Strange... My understanding is even her enemies give her points for intellect.

[SFView]

Let me remind everyone that the issue here is not actually just one building. The TransBay Project envisions raising height limits of the entire project area and allowing several 900 ft plus buildings. And both the advocates and opponents of the signature tower understand that, uninspiring as it may, itself, be, if it gets built it breaks a barrier and other much taller buildings than anything presently in SF are likely to follow.

Well, I sure hope you're right and Dr. McCoy is(will be) wrong. By the way BTinSF, weren't you also a doctor? ...Oh, and I wouldn't mind seeing more 'fingers' near the Piano either.

[Jobohimself]

This is an opportunity for not only San Francisco, but for the entire left coast. There was a time when San Francisco was at the forefront of its time, where revolution and progression were commonplace. Now it seems that a large chunk (but certainly not all) of the older generation of so called San Franciscans has completely disappeared up its own ass.

This will be a HUGE boon for the city. Increased tourism, a new, more efficient, environmentally friendly transit center, much needed office space, and majorly increased revenue.

What the fuck is wrong with that? There is no place for a NIMBY in San Francisco anymore. As I said before, they belong in SD, Honolulu, or Oklahoma City.

[nequidnimis]

This is an opportunity for not only San Francisco, but for the entire left coast. There was a time when San Francisco was at the forefront of its time, where revolution and progression were commonplace. Now it seems that a large chunk (but certainly not all) of the older generation of so called San Franciscans has completely disappeared up its own ass.

This will be a HUGE boon for the city. Increased tourism, a new, more efficient, environmentally friendly transit center, much needed office space, and majorly increased revenue.

What the fuck is wrong with that? There is no place for a NIMBY in San Francisco anymore. As I said before, they belong in SD, Honolulu, or Oklahoma City.


The older generation of San Franciscans blocked the construction of a network of freeways. Your vision of the city of the future is so 60's.

[SFView]

Careful not to confuse current city planning with that of the 60's.

[Jobohimself]

The older generation of San Franciscans blocked the construction of a network of freeways. Your vision of the city of the future is so 60's.

How is wanting an iconic, dense downtown "60"s? You can drill as much Panhandle propaganda into us that you wish; it still doesn't change the fact that the Transbay redevelopment is something that San Francisco needs and deserves.

[northbay]

Careful not to confuse current city planning with that of the 60's.

:jester:

How is wanting an iconic, dense downtown "60"s? ...the Transbay redevelopment is something that San Francisco needs and deserves.

yes, we need to put in place the concepts of new urbanism and this does that

[northbay]

How is wanting an iconic, dense downtown "60"s?

theres that word again. john king would have a fit.

for me, dense is actually the operative word, ill take an icon tho

[Jobohimself]

theres that word again. john king would have a fit.

for me, dense is actually the operative word, ill take an icon tho

:haha: True. But I still think that a new San Francisco landmark would be stellar, as a lot of us do.

[SFView]

Here is some more old news from August, 2007, but has anyone been keeping up? Tim Redmond wrote an anti-height article in the San Francisco Bay Gardian last August that we already discussed a bit earlier in this thread. Since then, he has been trounced on by several Transbay/Rincon Hill height supporters. There were a number of comments that I found interesting as Redmond tries to defend himself. After 20 posts, only one person is on Redmond's side so far. Rather than beginning to quote things (there a lot), see all of it here first:

http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/08/the_devils_bargain_at_the_tran.html

Is John King watching?

[Jobohimself]

Tim Redmond is a typical "progressive" douche.

Also, something tells me "Frank" is Tim Redmond signed in to the comments as "Frank". :rant:

[Jobohimself]

I read his other article as well, and it seems to be preaching speculative bullshit...what Redmond is supposedly against.

Unfortunately, he seems to be stuck in his own utopian view, where the bigger picture can ever be embraced because he thinks everyone should share his blind, "society-fringing" ego.

Typical SF Hyperliberal fodder.

Sad.

[SFView]

The mostly negative reaction to Tim Redmond's article is a very good sign. I hope that the city decision makers are aware that there is now a growing segment of the public in support of raising heights for Transbay and Rincon Hill, and that the old NIMBY thinking is finally loosing ground.

[NewAtlantisMiami]

It certainly is about time San Francisco got something taller than the Transamerica Pyramid. I was hoping for something like that the whole time I lived there in the 80s! I sure hope it happens! Anything taller would be fine with me. :tup:

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Typical SF Hyperliberal fodder.

Sad.

How is that type of world view 'liberal' in any way? Doesn't it directly contradict the meaning of the word 'liberal'? :sly:

[Jobohimself]

How is that type of world view 'liberal' in any way? Doesn't it directly contradict the meaning of the word 'liberal'? :sly:

Basically, what Tim Redmond is saying is that new skyscrapers = a corporate infringement on happy-go-lucky San Francisco.

He paints himself as liberal, but you are correct. It is contradictory in every sense of the word.

[Dale]

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but 'new skyscrapers = corporate infringement ...' sounds authentically liberal to me.

[hectorant84]

DAMN THOSE OVER ZEALOUS LIBERALS!!! lol! :yuck:

[roadwarrior]

How is that type of world view 'liberal' in any way? Doesn't it directly contradict the meaning of the word 'liberal'? :sly:

I believe the correct term is Limousine Liberal

[BTinSF]

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but 'new skyscrapers = corporate infringement ...' sounds authentically liberal to me.

First of all, most of the new skyscrapers going up in recent years have contained badly needed housing and although that housing is expensive, by law in San Francisco the developers must create 15-20% of it as "affordable" units (on site or off site). So opposing skyscraping condos is tantamount to opposing housing which has the effect of maintaining the shortage that makes SF the most expensive city in the continental US to buy a home. Is that "liberal"?

Yes, the TransBay tower, as proposed, will be all office but that is negotiable. The other proposals contained substantial amounts of housing and the one that was chosen could as well although that would probably mean a smaller payment from the developer since office is more lucrative than housing.

The fact is that no one is very upset about corporate occupancy or development of these towers. What bothers the opponents is that they aren't charming and Victorian and so don't fit their mental image of "San Francisco" even though San Francisco has always been a city of commerce, trade and industry.

[viewguysf]

DAMN THOSE OVER ZEALOUS LIBERALS!!! lol! :yuck:

Oh please--everyone needs to stop generalizing. Thank God for liberals, damn the Republicans and keep an eye on the "progressives". If you don't like liberals, move away from here; otherwise, educate yourselves about the benefits we all enjoy that derived from liberalism.

[BTinSF]

Oh please--everyone needs to stop generalizing. Thank God for liberals, damn the Republicans and keep an eye on the "progressives". If you don't like liberals, move away from here; otherwise, educate yourselves about the benefits we all enjoy that derived from liberalism.

I have, but only half the time. I don't dislike them enough to let them deprive me totally of the delights of a city that is no more theirs than mine.

[northbay]

Oh please--everyone needs to stop generalizing. Thank God for liberals, damn the Republicans and keep an eye on the "progressives". If you don't like liberals, move away from here; otherwise, educate yourselves about the benefits we all enjoy that derived from liberalism.

seriously

and tim redmond is not a liberal if anybody didnt catch that

[SLO]

I actually prefer the Cesar Pelli design. Its very elegant. Im sure it'll change before construction....

[Jobohimself]

Now that I think of it, the middle finger analogy works...maybe it's the Transbay Commission's gesture to the NIMBYs.

[Dougall5505]

found a couple renders of the terminal http://flickr.com/photos/nc3d/
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2317283838_84b83229ec_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2151/2316476261_4504eef918_o.jpg

[BTinSF]

^^^That's got to be one of the designs that didn't get picked: no "park" on top.

It's also interesting it doesn't seem to show the "signature" tower (or The Millenium) either as far as I can see.

[SFView]

:previous: Unless I am mistaken, they look like conceptual renderings based mostly on the desire for high speed rail transit in California. They do not look like any part of the Transbay design competition that took place last year.

[WildCowboy]

Yes, these were put out by the high-speed rail folks...no connection to actual architectural proposals.

Here (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/) is the CAHSR page that links to their Visualization Media Archive (http://www.nc3d.com/docman/california-high-speed-rail-media-archive/index.php)...drilling down through San Francisco --> Transbay Terminal --> Stills (http://www.nc3d.com/docman/stills/15.html) leads you to the original images.

[StatenIslander237]

am I naive in asking what "FLYCalifornia" trains are?

[BVictor1]

I actually prefer the Cesar Pelli design. Its very elegant. Im sure it'll change before construction....

It's simple and boaring. For the city's first supertall, there should have been more too it. I personally liked the SOM design. This was an opportunity for something special, not only in height, but in design. But I must say that I am pleased that S.F. is finally getting a true supertall.

Being a Chicagoan with a supertall proposal of it's own (no design has actually been released) that's suposedly going to be designed by Pelli on Wolf Point and Hines might be one of the joint developers. I pray that we don't get some ripped-off re-worked Pelli design. I'd like something fresh inventive and new.

If San Fransiscans want left overs, you can have them.

[FourOneFive]

If San Fransiscans want left overs, you can have them.

Well, that's an ignorant comment. If you had read through most of the thread, you would have realized most of us here wanted the SOM tower as well. Financially, Pelli/ Hines put together a stronger proposal that gave the most funding to build the new Transit Center.

[zilfondel]

theres that word again. john king would have a fit.

for me, dense is actually the operative word, ill take an icon tho

Here you go:

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/8860/foldercj9.gif

one icon, coming right up! :P

[BVictor1]

Well, that's an ignorant comment. If you had read through most of the thread, you would have realized most of us here wanted the SOM tower as well. Financially, Pelli/ Hines put together a stronger proposal that gave the most funding to build the new Transit Center.

I have read through much of the forum, and I do know that most of the forumers "here" were partical to the SOM design. But seeing as the "supposed competition" was to be based on architectural merits, that didn't happen.

[WildCowboy]

am I naive in asking what "FLYCalifornia" trains are?

It's just a concept for the visual materials for high speed rail in California.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

I have read through much of the forum, and I do know that most of the forumers "here" were partical to the SOM design. But seeing as the "supposed competition" was to be based on architectural merits, that didn't happen.

You're stupid! You obviously did not read the right things then. Most of us already stated that the "competition" was based not on architectural ingenuity but what was the best choice, so far as money and practicality goes, for SF. And thats why Pelli won because of the money that will be given to build the transit center! *sigh* And not because all of us San Franciscans enjoy crappy, lame, and boring towers that will represent our city. :sly: :rolleyes:

[SFView]

There is the possibility of design changes, since there are many factors the could effect changes towards a final approved design. We still don't know the possible final height yet. We still don't know if residential will be included within the tower. Will a substantial amount of public comment in favor of a more interesting redesign effect a more positive final outcome? I hope so.

[SLO]

^^Exactly, how likely is it the design will be the same. I still like it though.

[SFView]

:previous: It's still too early to know.

[BTinSF]

seeing as the "supposed competition" was to be based on architectural merits, that didn't happen.

You misunderstand the "supposed competition". There were a number of criteria not at all limited to architectural merit and one of the more obvious ones was the economics of the package. That's why the "contestants" were architech/developer teams rather than just architects. All the "teams" understood that the purpose of the tower, from the city's standpoint, is to generate funds to build the terminal. Some erred in thinking architectural glitz would overcome the lack of MONEY but that, at least in hindsight, was foolish when everybody could see that the TransBay Project is so-far short of funding.

[SFView]

You misunderstand the "supposed competition"...

I think a lot of us did, including some of the competitors.

[Richard Mlynarik]

I think a lot of us did, including some of the competitors.
Some of us pointed out that the competition was a farce at the time the, uh, unconventional terms of the "competition" were announced.

Nevertheless a number of talented and skilled people wasted a lot of time on actually attempting to design something that might have a chance of functioning, as opposed to cutting and pasting in the sub-cretinous, unworkable junk provided by the TJPA's consultants (PTG) and gluing on a pre-designed building from elsewhere.

If anybody wants an object lesson in how not just mediocrity, but outright professional incompetence dominate everything you see around you in San Francisco in any way connected with transportation, this is as good an example as any to follow.

The Pelli team did a truly clever job in maximizing financial return on design effort: unfortunately for the public the City and County of San Francisco did a perfect job of ensuring the inutility of the result.

[tech12]

I gotta say that while the SOM proposal was the most innovative and unique, the Pelli proposal is not at all bad. Yes it's similar to the tower in Jersey City (I think that was it?), and IFC in Hong Kong, but personally I like the facade and the crown from what I've seen in the renderings, and if it actually comes out very light colored like the renderings show, that would fit in nice in SF, with all the white and pastel colored buildings...Of course the larger amount of money was something that was badly needed as well, and barring any major changes, SF will finally be getting a 1000+ footer. Plus I look forward to checking out the 5 story-high park. I can't really complain...

If we get screwed out of something truly unique with the Piano towers though, I'm going to be a little pissed.

[Reminiscence]

I gotta say that while the SOM proposal was the most innovative and unique, the Pelli proposal is not at all bad. Yes it's similar to the tower in Jersey City (I think that was it?), and IFC in Hong Kong, but personally I like the facade and the crown from what I've seen in the renderings, and if it actually comes out very light colored like the renderings show, that would fit in nice in SF, with all the white and pastel colored buildings...Of course the larger amount of money was something that was badly needed as well, and barring any major changes, SF will finally be getting a 1000+ footer. Plus I look forward to checking out the 5 story-high park. I can't really complain...

If we get screwed out of something truly unique with the Piano towers though, I'm going to be a little pissed.

I pretty much agree with you on your entire post except with the "little pissed" part at the end. If we get screwed on Piano's towers, I'll be more than a little pissed.

[StatenIslander237]

It's just a concept for the visual materials for high speed rail in California.

I was asking because I also saw such a train included in a recent rendering of a Sacramento proposal. Is there any actual substance to the possibility of high-speed rail in Cali in the near future?

[WildCowboy]

I was asking because I also saw such a train included in a recent rendering of a Sacramento proposal. Is there any actual substance to the possibility of high-speed rail in Cali in the near future?

We're starting to get off-topic for this thread, so you might want to check out this one (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124572) for info on CA high-speed rail. $10 billion bond going on the November ballot to start construction.

[BVictor1]

You're stupid! You obviously did not read the right things then. Most of us already stated that the "competition" was based not on architectural ingenuity but what was the best choice, so far as money and practicality goes, for SF. And thats why Pelli won because of the money that will be given to build the transit center! *sigh* And not because all of us San Franciscans enjoy crappy, lame, and boring towers that will represent our city. :sly: :rolleyes:

Oh!!! Aren't we snippy? There's no need for name calling. I didn't disrespect you in any way :( .

I know what most of you have said, and I was saying my piece.

It's hard to tell what's enjoyed after seeing what's been built:yuck: . Although I do like One Rincon Hill by SCB.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

rabble...

[BTinSF]

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Terminal%20and%20Tower%20Rendering.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Terminal%20Rendering.jpg

^^^Both from http://www.socketsite.com

More at http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf

[SFView]

From: http://www.nbc11.com/newsarchive/15554380/detail.html
NBC11
SF To Hold Meeting On Tallest Skyscraper On West Coast

POSTED: 9:51 am PDT March 10, 2008
UPDATED: 10:24 am PDT March 10, 2008


SAN FRANCISCO --
by John Boitnott, Web Producer

The agency charged with guiding the creation of a massive new transit center and tower in downtown San Francisco will hold another community meeting Monday to discuss the plans as they currently stand.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) will present plans currently under way for the hub, which many have compared to New York's Grand Central Station.

The Transbay Terminal could provide service to more than 100,000 passengers each day, TJPA officials said.

The new transit center would replace the current Transbay bus Terminal at First and Mission streets in downtown San Francisco with a multi-modal transit hub that includes at least one tower that could become the tallest building on the West Coast

The project will also create a new neighborhood surrounding the Transit Center with 3,400 new homes, including 35 percent of them below market rate, TJPA officials said.

The meeting is one in a series of community meetings being held in order to keep San Francisco residents informed about and involved with the new development.

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier will attend the meeting, which will start at 6 p.m. Monday at the Calvary Presbyterian Church, 2515 Fillmore Street.

The Tallest Building In The West Could Rise

In Spetember, the board of directors of the TJPA made a final decision as to which tower/terminal proposal would earn exclusive negotiating rights with the city.

The Pelli-Hines plan already earned a unanimous endorsement from an advisory panel to the TJPA.

It is a 1,200-foot office tower, transit terminal and park.

“The selection of Pelli and Hines to build this transit hub and tower is a testament to the values, the vision and the excitement of San Francisco and the entire Bay Area region,” said Mayor Gavin Newsom. “We look forward to continuing the planning process and finally realizing the more than 20-year vision of a central transit station connecting our City with the region, state and country.”

“We are thrilled to team up with Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects/Hines to make the Transbay Transit Center a reality," said TJPA Board Chair Jerry Hill. Their proposal was a thoughtful consideration about what San Francisco needs in a transit center and in a new landmark tower.”

“It is a tremendous honor for our firm to have been selected, especially considering the quality of the other teams and designs,” said Gerald D. Hines. “This project includes the most innovative thinking from around the world in the fields of sustainability, transit design and urban planning. It will be one of the great places in San Francisco and a model for other cities.”

In November 2006, the TJPA launched an international Design and Development Competition to allow teams from across the globe to submit their vision for the project and compete for the rights to design what could become the Grand Central Station of the West.

Three teams in the final phase of the competition presented their design concepts to the TJPA Board of Directors on August 6, 2007.

The Richard Rodgers Partnership and Forest City Enterprises with MacFarlane Partners submitted a glass and steel tower plus transit terminal.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill and the Rockefeller Group Development Corporation proposed a tower that narrows as it climbs.

New York City's Empire State Building is 1,453 feet to the top of its antennae.

The top of the Pelli-Hines Transbay Tower would stand roughly 1,200 feet, dwarfing the 853 feet Transamerica Pyramid.

The Transbay Transit Center would be built on what is currently the site of San Francisco's dilapidated downtown bus station.

Money from the lease or sale of the land would help finance the estimated $938 million cost of building a new terminal and related structures, according to city leaders.

The transit center will accommodate eight regional transportation systems, including Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Caltrain, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority, Golden Gate Transit, San Mateo County Transit District, Greyhound, Bay Area Rapid Transit and the future California High-Speed Rail.

California High Speed Rail promises to reduce travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles to two and a half hours, according to officials.

The design would not only specify construction for a new transit center, but it would incorporate a new neighborhood with homes, shops and parks adjacent to the transit center, according to the Transbay Joint Authority.

Established in 1977, Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects (PCPA) has designed over 80 million square feet of urban, mixed-use projects for government, private, and corporate clients worldwide.

The firm’s portfolio includes some of the world’s largest private developments: Canary Wharf in London, World Financial Center in New York, International Finance Centre in Hong Kong, and Kuala Lumpur City Center in Malaysia

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Oh!!! Aren't we snippy? There's no need for name calling. I didn't disrespect you in any way :( .

I know what most of you have said, and I was saying my piece.

It's hard to tell what's enjoyed after seeing what's been built:yuck: . Although I do like One Rincon Hill by SCB.

okaaaaaayyy sorry

[StatenIslander237]

We're starting to get off-topic for this thread, so you might want to check out this one (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124572) for info on CA high-speed rail. $10 billion bond going on the November ballot to start construction.

;) Thanks for the tip.

[peanut gallery]

The project will also create a new neighborhood surrounding the Transit Center with 3,400 new homes, including 35 percent of them below market rate, TJPA officials said.

This would imply that the other Transbay towers are slated for residential, at least in part.

[SFView]

:previous: I believe that "3,400 new homes..." comes from here by TJPA:
http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.transbaycenter.org
Redevelopment Plan

A conceptual rendering
of the Transbay
Redevelopment Area
http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Redevelopment%20Plan_large.JPG

An integral part of the Transbay Project includes the creation of a new neighborhood surrounding the Transit Center. The Transbay Redevelopment Plan will transform a currently underutilized section of downtown San Francisco that consists of parking lots and irregular parcels of State-owned land left over from the Loma Prieta earthquake into a thriving transit-oriented neighborhood.

Adopted by the City of San Francisco in June 2005, the Redevelopment Plan will facilitate the development of nearly 3,400 new homes (35% of which will be affordable), 1.2 million square feet of new office, hotel, and commercial space and 60,000 square feet of retail, not including retail in the Transit Center. The buildings will include townhouses, low- and mid-rise buildings, and slender high-rise towers spaced apart to provide sunlight to proposed new plazas, parks, and widened sidewalks.

The Project Area is approximately 40 acres in size and is bounded by Mission Street in the north, Main Street in the east, Folsom Street in the south and 2nd Street in the west. Folsom Street will be the centerpiece of this new neighborhood and will feature widened sidewalks with cafes, markets and views of the San Francisco Bay.

Note that this discription still includes a "hotel" component as part of "1.2 million square feet" in the Transit Center. Pelli describes the tower itself as a "1.7 million-square-foot office tower" -- http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf. Unless I am mistaken, this data could be outdated from June 2005, if based on TJPA's web site's description. Also note the rendering.

By the way, has anyone noticed how Pelli's design for the tower, now more white, almost resembles the somewhat generic Transbay signature tower in the earlier conceptual renderings before the competition?

[Downtown Dave]

I found this image, showing the proposal with 555 and Millenium displayed, over at www.socketsite.com very helpful:

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%2C%20Millennium%2C%20555%20Mission%20Aerial.jpg

I didn't realize how many surface parking lots would be obliterated by this project, nor that the plaza by 555 Mission is intended to lead to the park. Plus, good bye Beale street overpass and its challenges. They really need to lock up the NIMBYs and get this project moving!

I'd like to know what exactly is intended for the parking lots on the other side of Mission Street not shown here. Any help?

[BTinSF]

^^^Which parking lots "on the other side of Mission St" are you referring to? I'm having trouble recalling any.

[Downtown Dave]

This one (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Beale+St,+San+Francisco,+CA+94105,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=37.789625,-122.396466&spn=0.003739,0.008454&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.78936,-122.398095&cbp=1,0,,0,4.739522648813992) and this one (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Beale+St,+San+Francisco,+CA+94105,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=37.79249,-122.395168&spn=0.003739,0.008454&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=37.792118,-122.394638&cbp=1,314.69168624704497,,0,-1.6887492228700858).

[PBuchman]

^^^The first one is the site of a conceptual supertall proposal by Renzo Piano, as part of the transbay project. This proposal has its own thread here:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=122300

Not sure if there are any plans for the second lot.

[nequidnimis]

I usually refrain from this sort of comments as they do not contribute much to the debate, but the latest Pelli renderings look great.

[BTinSF]

Not sure if there are any plans for the second lot.

I haven't heard of any.

The first lot, by the way, has not been used for parking which is why I didn't know what was meant and which is one reason I still have expectations the Piano proposal is alive since we haven't heard much from it (and probably won't until the height rezoning of the TransBay Project Area gets done).

[Downtown Dave]

I certainly hope it goes forward without delay -- it will plug the biggest gap remaining in the streetwall for quite some distance.

[hectorant84]

As of 7 April 2008, Burj Dubai has reached a height of 629 m (2,064 ft), with 160 completed floors... and SF is bitching and dwelling over 80 floors and 1,200 feet. Ugh. BTW this thread is boring. :slob:

[BTinSF]

^^^San Francisco doesn't have oil wells and Dubai doesn't have earthquakes--or a real city populated by a creative, cultured and sophisticated middle class like San Francisco's. If we had an emir making all the decisions for us and plenty of imported indentured labor, we probably would build more, higher too. And the place would be a place I don't want to live--like Dubai.

If you chose to post, why don't you wait until you have some actual information to convey.

[AJphx]

I think the transbay transit center is the most exciting part of this. And one of the most exciting projects going on. I wonder if this will this be one of the largest "transit centers" in the world?

[roadwarrior]

^^^San Francisco doesn't have oil wells and Dubai doesn't have earthquakes--or a real city populated by a creative, cultured and sophisticated middle class like San Francisco's. If we had an emir making all the decisions for us and plenty of imported indentured labor, we probably would build more, higher too. And the place would be a place I don't want to live--like Dubai.

If you chose to post, why don't you wait until you have some actual information to convey.

The last poster's comments of this thread as "boring" were not appropriate. However, I do think that he has a valid point about the NIMBYs here in SF fiercely resisting height for reasons that are not always logical (although this is changing slowly). I don't think that we need to have one or the other in terms of building height and skyscraper development or a middle class culture. If that were the case, we wouldn't have soaring skyscrapers in NYC or Chicago.

[hectorant84]

:sly:

[SFView]

The last poster's comments of this thread as "boring" were not appropriate. However, I do think that he has a valid point about the NIMBYs here in SF fiercely resisting height for reasons that are not always logical (although this is changing slowly). I don't think that we need to have one or the other in terms of building height and skyscraper development or a middle class culture. If that were the case, we wouldn't have soaring skyscrapers in NYC or Chicago.

Actually, if this thread seems is a little "boring," that's to be expected. There probably will be no significant news to post for a while, at least until we see more about the potential height upzoning that Planning is working on due sometime this summer. Until then, be patient.

As far as NIMBYs not being "logical," I think it's more of a case of personal taste, disliking tall buildings as overwhelming ugly monstrosities, etc., suggesting weak alternatives to the contrary, and for reasons that are not always valid from a more educated point of view. Most everyone has different tastes, and there's nothing anyone can do to change this. As I said this before, no matter how beautiful and cool a tall building may look to us, there is ALWAYS someone who will ABSOLUTELY HATE IT! This doesn't necessarily mean that they are dumb or stupid. They just don't like tall buildings, or buildings much taller than what already exists. In a city that encourages opinions to be heard, we are obviously going to hear from people who will strongly oppose heights. Fortunately, there now seems to exist more people who support increased heights in San Francisco, and most importantly, they have more valid reasons. This fact, should hopefully help make things easier for the real planners of Transbay and other potential upzoning areas in San Francisco.

[roadwarrior]

As I said this before, no matter how beautiful and cool a tall building may look to us, there is ALWAYS someone who will ABSOLUTELY HATE IT! This doesn't necessarily mean that they are dumb or stupid.

I don't completely agree with your assessment. Sure, most of the people who I've heard make the argument against tall buildings are book smart. However, I don't believe they are very knowledgeable about the economic benefits of the development of more office high-rises and tall condominiums and all the other benefits associated, such as easing the housing crunch (somewhat), slowing the rate of urban sprawl, creating a critical mass in entirely new neighborhoods, providing additional tax revenue for the city, etc. Many of the individuals that are aware of this are selfish and let their personal desire to maintain the status quo get in the way (fictional idea that this city is a quaint Mediterranean village). They believe that their views are more important than the goodwill of the city as a whole. Sometimes it is the thought that by opposing new development that doesn't meet certain criteria (i.e. a high % of affordable housing - Chris Daly), they are actually doing the city a service, and the vacant lot or dilapidated building that is currently used as a homeless encampment (while going through the approval process for redevelopment) is better than developing hundreds of new condo developments, if there isn't a high percentage of affordable units.

I personally think this is a fairly black and white issue. While we should strive to bring continued world-class architecture into our new developments, I strongly believe that the status quo is far worse than a few mediocre new developments.

[hectorant84]

Yeah!! There's some activity in this "boring" thread!!! I love keeping everyone on their toes. :cheers:

[SLO]

^you need to try out some other threads, theres some other cool ones....

[twinpeaks]

However, I don't believe they are very knowledgeable about the economic benefits of the development of more office high-rises and tall condominiums and all the other benefits associated, such as easing the housing crunch (somewhat), slowing the rate of urban sprawl, creating a critical mass in entirely new neighborhoods, providing additional tax revenue for the city, etc. Many of the individuals that are aware of this are selfish and let their personal desire to maintain the status quo get in the way (fictional idea that this city is a quaint Mediterranean village). They believe that their views are more important than the goodwill of the city as a whole. Sometimes it is the thought that by opposing new development that doesn't meet certain criteria (i.e. a high % of affordable housing - Chris Daly), they are actually doing the city a service, and the vacant lot or dilapidated building that is currently used as a homeless encampment (while going through the approval process for redevelopment) is better than developing hundreds of new condo developments, if there isn't a high percentage of affordable units.

I personally think this is a fairly black and white issue. While we should strive to bring continued world-class architecture into our new developments, I strongly believe that the status quo is far worse than a few mediocre new developments.

Well stated!

[hectorant84]

Damn it! The more I look at One Rincon Hill the more and more it looks like a giant air purifier. I understand this is a Transbay Tower thread, but it popped in my head. I thought I would share - Pelli's 80 story vibrator, and the Ionic Breeze tower. Love it! :rolleyes:

[BTinSF]

^^^Then why don't you post your brilliant insight in the proper place.

[hectorant84]

BTinSF... I love that I get on your nerves. Maybe my comments are a little too real for you. If you can't handle it... MY BAD. Maybe you should take that stick out of your ass because my comments are true to an extent. FYI its not my fault for pointing out the pansy ass NIMBYism that plagues SF. If you want an open debate bring it. :)

[c1tyguy]

^^^Then why don't you post your brilliant insight in the proper place.

I just don't think comments like this are necessary.. Everyone has their say. If you don't agree with it, don't acknowledge it if you cant do it in a respectful way.

It just starts arguments that are off topic and pointless for all of us.

[SFView]

I don't completely agree with your assessment. Sure, most of the people who I've heard make the argument against tall buildings are book smart. However, I don't believe they are very knowledgeable about the economic benefits of the development of more office high-rises and tall condominiums and all the other benefits associated, such as easing the housing crunch (somewhat), slowing the rate of urban sprawl, creating a critical mass in entirely new neighborhoods, providing additional tax revenue for the city, etc. Many of the individuals that are aware of this are selfish and let their personal desire to maintain the status quo get in the way (fictional idea that this city is a quaint Mediterranean village). They believe that their views are more important than the goodwill of the city as a whole. Sometimes it is the thought that by opposing new development that doesn't meet certain criteria (i.e. a high % of affordable housing - Chris Daly), they are actually doing the city a service, and the vacant lot or dilapidated building that is currently used as a homeless encampment (while going through the approval process for redevelopment) is better than developing hundreds of new condo developments, if there isn't a high percentage of affordable units.

I personally think this is a fairly black and white issue. While we should strive to bring continued world-class architecture into our new developments, I strongly believe that the status quo is far worse than a few mediocre new developments.

Yes, you put that very nicely. I agree as well! I left some important things out.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

WOW. i came here to see if something new was happening because of all of the postings but wow just wow. i smell a hint of immaturity and im just 18 hhhhmmmmm go figure. so back on topic. are there any dates coming up that we should be looking foward to?

[peanut gallery]

Construction on the temporary terminal is supposed to start this fall with demo of the old one about a year later. I'm not sure about next steps/timing for the tower. There is more work to be done in the approval process. They said up front that the competition was to engage in exclusive negotiations with a particular team. So there will be some back and forth.

[BTinSF]

I just don't think comments like this are necessary.. Everyone has their say. If you don't agree with it, don't acknowledge it if you cant do it in a respectful way.

It just starts arguments that are off topic and pointless for all of us.

I believe the other party started the argument coming here to troll. You'll notice the result: :banned:

The complaint that this thread is boring from the adolescent and impatient is due to the fact that we are all waiting for the Planning Department to release its recommendation for zoning/height modifications in the TransBay Project Area. I believe they are due this summer and then the real battle over height advocates and those opposed can begin. Until then, we'll just have to wait, whether we chose to do so patiently or impatiently.

[BTinSF]

I'm not sure about next steps/timing for the tower.

I don't think anyone is. Here is what the TJPA says about the timeline:

As a component of Phase I of the Transbay Transit Center program, the TJPA recently initiated the process for design and construction of the Temporary Terminal Facility located between Howard, Beale, Main and Folsom Streets. The Temporary Terminal, scheduled to break ground in November 2008, will serve passengers during the demolition of the old Transbay Terminal and construction of the new Transbay Transit Center. The facility will temporarily serve AC Transit, Greyhound, Golden Gate Transit, MUNI, SamTrans and WestCAT while the new Transit Center is under construction, from approximately 2009 until 2014.

That means the negotiations will have to be completed over the next year or so and the funding for the new terminal solidified. But I don't think it obligates the developer to construct the tower on any particular timeline. As long as the $300 million or whatever is finally negotiated is put up to pay for the terminal itself, I think they could wait to construct the tower when they think economic conditions are right--unless the TJPA obligates them to a particular schedule in the negotiations.

[roadwarrior]

I believe the other party started the argument coming here to troll. You'll notice the result: :banned:

He sounded distinctly like Tyler 82, disguised under a different screenname. :haha:

[SLO]

I believe the other party started the argument coming here to troll. You'll notice the result: :banned:


:haha: ha ha, I think he got banned for messing with BTinSF....