[SFView]

Yes, I think Embarcadero 4 was originally slated to be 60 stories tall. Because of the slab shape of the Embarcadero buildings running east-west lengthwise, it was probably a good idea to shorten it to 45 stories. Even as they are, the Embarcadero Center towers form a huge view blocking wall and large shadows to the north of the complex. I think they might have done better if they built Embarcadero 1 as 60 stories instead of 45, but that was the first tower built before I think the design was changed. Transbay should prove to be much better planned in so many different ways.

The general intention of the planners is to build the maximum amount that the City of San Francisco will accept. In doing so, the planners hope to raise the maximum amount of funds to help pay for the Terminal. Without going into details, there are many reasons why for this project, time and location, going taller is better. I also believe that taller, more world recognized, award winning designed structures, will be a much easier sell to potential tenants and condo buyers. We have already seen the success of One Rincon Hill.

With each successive release of official Transbay information, we have seen great changes in size, height, form and scope. Things have been getting more, and taller each time so far. We don't yet know the outcome of the next release, but we can only speculate based on past trends, and hope for the best.

[kenratboy]

I will again say - I have no issue with them building tall...VERY tall (think - crush everything West of Chicago) - but it better be the BEST architecture, BEST building, designs to NOT LOOK DATED IN TEN YEARS, and all that.

In other words - this should be the hardest building EVER for design and construction. It should be perfect.

My gut says - this cannot be some glass-clad, post-modern, trendy building. It needs to look organic, pleasing from every side at every elevation, look good during the day, look good at night, look good in the fog. Look at the current tallest buildings in the city, many have stone or concrete elements, as to look a bit more 'human' - I wonder if this trent will carry over.

They cannot fvck up San Francisco.

[SFView]

...Hence the reasons for the competition. Even after the winning design is selected, the final design and height may not be realized, or publicly released until around the time construction begins for the tallest tower and terminal in 2010. There should be a 4 year construction period to completion by 2014. We still have a long 7 to 8 year road ahead of us for at least the very tallest of the towers. Transbay is still in the very early stages, meaning many large changes are still possible. The schedule could also change, but the hope is to build sooner to help save from the rising costs of construction.

Approximately eight years = enormous amounts of forum posts to go...

[Reminiscence]

Hmm, in the official Transbay Transit Center website, they have a timeline depicting more or less when certain events are to take place. Curiously enough they have the construction of the Transit Center Building slated for 2008-2014. When they say this, do they mean the construction of the temporary terminal, the actual tallest of the Transbay Towers, or something else entirely?

http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=58

[AK47KC]

That is the construction of the new replacement terminal. The temporary terminal would have already been constructed by the time they tear down the current terminal and build the new terminal. I heard a while ago that they wanted to construct the Transbay Tower at the same time with the terminal.

[kenratboy]

Wow, thats a long ass time to wait. It better be worth it!

[AK47KC]

I know, I want the terminal and towers now!

[SFView]

Basic Preliminary Transbay Terminal and Tower Construction Schedule:

Temporary Terminal 2008-2010
Old Terminal demolition 2010
New Transbay Terminal and Tower 2010-2014
Temporary Terminal demolition 2014

[kenratboy]

I just spent some time reading the Transbay website, my god, that is a HUGE project!

Any idea if they will offer long-term bonds for funding? I would even contemplate dropping $10,000 on it...as long as it is a guaranteed return!

In all honestly, I am shocked to learn they will 'start' on the project in 2008 (actual construction), and that it is so far along (as in, to the point where construction will start) - I thought this was still a 'plan'!!!

It is badass that Caltrain will go into the city itself, that will certainly make it much better for me to use! Makes it within walking distance of all the stuff I like to do (nice shopping downtown, Chinatown, financial district, basically the whole east side of the city!)

2008 for groundbreaking on a project this big is really pretty quick. I just want to see a commitment to some >1000' buildings!

[SFView]

It's possible that the tower being designed by Renzo Piano may start construction first, but that's only my guess. This tower seems shrouded in even greater secrecy. The final design, height and construction time of this tower could also surprise us. It should be at least 850 feet tall, and 150 feet shorter than the tallest Transbay Tower.

[kenratboy]

Here is another question - would it be feasible to have some sort of underground (think: Big Dig) road system connecting 101 to 80 in order to get 'pass-thru' traffic out of the city? Besides cars, it would allow buses to quickly get around, let necessary delivery and service vehicles move faster, and just make life better.

[kenratboy]

It's possible that the tower being designed by Renzo Piano may start construction first, but that's only my guess. This tower seems shrouded in even greater secrecy. The final design, height and construction time of this tower could also surprise us. It should be at least 850 feet tall, and 150 feet shorter than the tallest Transbay Tower.

Nice. Where can I get more info on Piano's tower?

I assume Piano's tower is different from...'THE TOWER' (the BIG one)?

[AK47KC]

Here is another question - would it be feasible to have some sort of underground (think: Big Dig) road system connecting 101 to 80 in order to get 'pass-thru' traffic out of the city? Besides cars, it would allow buses to quickly get around, let necessary delivery and service vehicles move faster, and just make life better.


I guess the a bridge in between the San Mateo Bridge and the Bay Bridge should be built to allow pass-thru traffic to bypass the city. I think a tunnel might be extremely expensive, especially in a city like SF.

[kenratboy]

Sorry, I mean from the Golden Gate Bridge, thru the city, and out onto 80. Think going from Marin County to SFO.

[Reminiscence]

I think it would be awesome if they used the Sears Tower, John Hancock Center, and AON Center as models for the Transbay Towers. They seem to have the right dimentions and heights with The Sears Tower being around 150 feet taller than the other two. They would be much closer to each other of course, but with the same or more height as the already existent Chicago models.

I would actually oppose a traffic tunnel running under San Francisco, its just thats its too complex. Imagine, traffic is already packed, I dont even wanna imagine what it would be if they suddently decided to tear up the whole street for several months ... my god, total gridlock the likes of which we've never seen before.

I thought the Replacement might come first, it makes sense after all. It would also make sense if the tallest of the Transbay Towers were built at the same time as the terminal itself, seeming that they will both be joined together. Renzo's tower, being one of the shorter ones I think would come later.

Patience gentlemen, patience ... hopefully soon we'll be able to feast our eyes on a growing Transbay project.:psycho: :psycho:

[kenratboy]

Well, depends if they cut and cover, or drill under. The Big Dig was 100% needed, and the city survived and prospered - I just wonder if SF would be the same. It would just be nice to eliminate all unnecessary traffic.

[Reminiscence]

Hmm, it sounds good, but I dont know ... SF's geography is very tricky and with the hills and all, it might take a lot longer than Boston. :uhh:

[kenratboy]

Oh, no doubt it would be a huge PITA - but honestly - what would not be hard, expensive, and time-consuming in terms of any 'real' transit project?

Look at Transbay, $3.4 billion, a decade, and what, over a million man-hours?

[Reminiscence]

Hmmm, I suppose if they were really going somewhere with an idea such as this, I'd back it. But where would you think would be a good place for this underground network to surface on the other side?

[rgolch]

Can't wait to see some official designs.

Also, great to see SF also being one of the cities dominating the highrise thread. You guys have a lot going on.:tup:

[kenratboy]

Hmmm, I suppose if they were really going somewhere with an idea such as this, I'd back it. But where would you think would be a good place for this underground network to surface on the other side?

Basically, you go south over the Golden Gate Bridge, there is a split - one way to get onto surface streets if you need to go into the north-end of the city - the other way takes you into a freeway under the city and takes you out to probably the small spur of 101 that ends at Market Street.

Along the way, there would be maybe 2 on/off-ramps.

It just doesn't make sense to have thru-traffic on surface streets in a city like San Francisco. It has nothing to do with 'encouraging' cars, its just about getting necessary traffic off streets that are unnecessary to use for thru-traffic.

Imagine driving down 880, having to get off before downtown Oakland, driving thru it, then getting back on 880. Doesn't make any sense unless you want to do something IN Oakland!

[northbay]

Here is another question - would it be feasible to have some sort of underground (think: Big Dig) road system connecting 101 to 80 in order to get 'pass-thru' traffic out of the city? Besides cars, it would allow buses to quickly get around, let necessary delivery and service vehicles move faster, and just make life better.

DUDE, YES! freeways are (or i should say WERE) for long distance travel. putting them out of the way sounds nice to me. if only real life were like simcity, sigh;)

[FourOneFive]

I thought the Replacement might come first, it makes sense after all. It would also make sense if the tallest of the Transbay Towers were built at the same time as the terminal itself, seeming that they will both be joined together. Renzo's tower, being one of the shorter ones I think would come later.


actually the two shorter 850+ towers would likely come before the completion of the terminal and transbay tower. the primary motivation of the two towers is to raise increased funding for the new center. the towers that we won't see built anytime soon will be the other various towers included in the plan.

[J Church]

Re: underground freeways:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/04/18/MN75921.DTL

Before you get too excited, the cost would probably be 11 figures.

[Reminiscence]

Well, keeping in mind that this is San Francisco we're talking about here, 11 figures of funds needed isnt exactly out of the question, its definetly not something we've never seen or heard of here before.

To get something like this off the ground, you're gonna need the approval of the public (something that might be a little difficult to get), patience from the drivers (if they can even summon more patience), and of course funds. I think people will initially reject the idea because its not exactly a desperate project, like say, the Replacement of the Eastern Span is. The geography willmake it even more expensive, some places you'll have to dig deep, others maybe not so much. But honestly, I would think that it makes much more sense to be able to maintain our surface road conditions before we start diving underground. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

As for Transbay, I guess the two shorter towers could be built first. I've been thinking so much about the tallest one, I almost forgot about the shorter one (who would've ever thought I'd actually forget about a roughly 1000 foot tower in SF!). I'm eager to see at least some preliminary renderings to Renzo's tower though, hopefully they annouce something about that at this meeting.

[kenratboy]

J Church - hey, its just money!

Thanks for the article, very interesting.

However - maybe we can all agree that it needs to be talked about and such. San Francisco is an amazing city, and I want nothing more than to see it stay that way.

Oh, I know its not official - but does anyone have a 'list' of the buildings that are proposed for the Transbay project, like:

1, 1250'
2, 850'

Something like that?

Thanks!

[kenratboy]

please delete post

[Reminiscence]

Well, this is the most rescent 'update' that I've heard ...

1. Transbay Transit Center Tower (1000 ft - 1250 ft ... although I've heard 1350 ft also)

2. Transbay Tower I (First and Mission, 850+ ft)

3. Transbay Tower II (Howard between Second and Third, 850+ ft)

4. Transbay Tower III (Main and Howard, 550 ft)

5. Transbay Tower IV (First and Folsom, 550 ft)

6 Transbay Tower V (Howard and Main, 450 ft)

7. Transbay Tower VI (Unknown, 400 ft)

8. Transbay Tower VII (Unknown, 300 ft)

9. Transbay Tower VIII (Unknown, 300 ft)

These height are a little old though, and with this meeting coming up, some of these could get taller, especially and hopefully those first three up there :psycho:

Also, I have to give credit to FourOneFive for having them listed on one of his threads :)

[SFView]

Here is a somewhat educated unofficial wild guess based on past information from various sources, but remember that the next official update may be different.

1. 1250' 100 story mixed use tower (1350' - 1375' with crown/mechanical) Transbay Terminal Tower by competition winner - greater than 1000' tall officially
2. 1000' foot 80 story mixed use tower (1075' - 1100' with crown/mechanical) by Renzo Piano - greater than 850', but at least 150' shorter than the tallest tower officially.
3. 850' foot 70 story mixed use tower (925' with crown/mechanical) possibly by competition winner - same height as #2 officially.

Please do not take this too seriously. This is only my best guess based on information from last May - June of 2006.

[kenratboy]

Cool, thanks!

We are a decent group of people :-)

LA has 1018' feet, and I want nothing more than to beat that (not because I have anything against LA, just want to kick up the building race!)

[kenratboy]

Here is a somewhat educated unofficial wild guess based on past information from various sources, but remember that the next official update may be different.

1. 1250' 100 story mixed use tower (1350' - 1375' with crown/mechanical) Transbay Terminal Tower by competition winner - greater than 1000' tall officially
2. 1000' foot 80 story mixed use tower (1075' - 1100' with crown/mechanical) by Renzo Piano - greater than 850', but at least 150' shorter than the tallest tower officially.
3. 850' foot 70 story mixed use tower (925' with crown/mechanical) possibly by competition winner - same height as #2 officially.

Please do not take this too seriously. This is only my best guess based on information from last May - June of 2006.

Yes, I know your info is a educated guess, but SF having TWO buildings above 1000'!? That would be amazing. Having...THREE would be...WOW!!!!! And just having a 100 story building.

I will only stand behind it if I can have lunch next to a window over 1000' in the air :tup:

[Reminiscence]

They would actually have 3 above 1000' if they went with my Sears Tower idea of having them based on The Sears Tower, John Hancock Center and the Aon Center. I only pray that they announce this at the next meeting, then I'll be like ... wow, lol.

[SFView]

I am not certain if there will be any announcements of note at the next meeting(s), but I think it will be soon for the design competition. I don't think the planners are looking at Sears Tower and Aon Center, but so far, I have seen John Hancock Center in Chicago and 2 IFC in Hong Kong pictured in two separate Transbay Terminal publications.

[northbay]

Cool, thanks!

We are a decent group of people :-)

LA has 1018' feet, and I want nothing more than to beat that (not because I have anything against LA, just want to kick up the building race!)

it would just be cool for cali to have 2 cities with 1000+ footers. (and yes, it would be even sicker that san francisco would be the taller city.) :tup:

[kenratboy]

Well figure - if SF will go through the trouble of making a 1000'+ building, no way in hell it will be under 1018', so I am sure you will get your wish!

If we get something that is 100 stories, that would be MINIMUM of what, 1100', and 1200-1300' with the extra crap?

I am gettin' excited. I never thought I would see a change in San Francisco like this!!!

[FourOneFive]

Well figure - if SF will go through the trouble of making a 1000'+ building, no way in hell it will be under 1018', so I am sure you will get your wish!

If we get something that is 100 stories, that would be MINIMUM of what, 1100', and 1200-1300' with the extra crap?

I am gettin' excited. I never thought I would see a change in San Francisco like this!!!

i hope you do understand that we probably won't see this building start rising till 2010 and finished in 2014, right? the transbay tower would be built in conjunction with the new terminal.

[kenratboy]

Nothing signifigant has been build in San Francisco for...20+ years.

If they break ground in 3-4 years (we are almost in 2007), I will be very happy.

Just the fact this is a dead serious proposal and project at the moment, and the City has an interest in it says a lot.

[FourOneFive]

true. hopefully, we'll get a rendering like this by the end of october 2007:

http://wtc.com/images/popup/img_downloads/enlarged_img/196000-pu.jpg

[Reminiscence]

:previous:

Who would've known huh? Imagine someone proposing this back in the 70's and 80's, man ... this plan probably would have died in a second, heh.

[munkyman]

:previous:

Who would've known huh? Imagine someone proposing this back in the 70's and 80's, man ... this plan probably would have died in a second, heh.

Not to burst your bubble, but the Transbay Tower plan is subject to some serious modification, as it is in the earliest of stages. No one knows what public reaction could ultimately be. We could end up right back where we started: with an 850 foot tower.

[AK47KC]

Here is a somewhat educated unofficial wild guess based on past information from various sources, but remember that the next official update may be different.

1. 1250' 100 story mixed use tower (1350' - 1375' with crown/mechanical) Transbay Terminal Tower by competition winner - greater than 1000' tall officially
2. 1000' foot 80 story mixed use tower (1075' - 1100' with crown/mechanical) by Renzo Piano - greater than 850', but at least 150' shorter than the tallest tower officially.
3. 850' foot 70 story mixed use tower (925' with crown/mechanical) possibly by competition winner - same height as #2 officially.

Please do not take this too seriously. This is only my best guess based on information from last May - June of 2006.

If that is true, then I can't wait to see it rise! :banana: :banana: :banana: :)

[Reminiscence]

Not to burst your bubble, but the Transbay Tower plan is subject to some serious modification, as it is in the earliest of stages. No one knows what public reaction could ultimately be. We could end up right back where we started: with an 850 foot tower.

Oh man, I certainly hope not. Not that it would be a huge dissapointment, but its just that we've come so far, and the last time we asked the public, they seemed to back it. They have to do a very good job to explain to the public that this isnt going to be a wall 1500' high, but rather a thin and sleek looking tower that wont block much of the sun or views from the hills. I think thats what people are most concerned about, from the Embarcadero days.

[EastBayHardCore]

Oh man, I certainly hope not. Not that it would be a huge dissapointment, but its just that we've come so far, and the last time we asked the public, they seemed to back it. They have to do a very good job to explain to the public that this isnt going to be a wall 1500' high, but rather a thin and sleek looking tower that wont block much of the sun or views from the hills. I think thats what people are most concerned about, from the Embarcadero days.

1500' now huh? You guys sure do like to play fast and loose with the numbers, don't you? I wouldn't hold my breath until they are U/C.

[AK47KC]

Whatever the final height is, I'm happy if one of the towers is at least 305 m, giving SF a well-deserved supertall skyscraper. But anyway if the second tower is a supertall skyscraper as well, that would be awesome!

[Reminiscence]

1500' now huh? You guys sure do like to play fast and loose with the numbers, don't you? I wouldn't hold my breath until they are U/C.

Heh, no I just put 1500' out of pure exampleness (if thats a word). But I dunno, 1350' and 1500' arent all that far away from each other, at least in the eyes of the nimbys. I'll just wait untill they say something at the meeting.

I think they're suppose to release the agenda for the Friday meeting around Wednesday, but I'm not sure.

[BTinSF]

It's possible that the tower being designed by Renzo Piano may start construction first, but that's only my guess. This tower seems shrouded in even greater secrecy. The final design, height and construction time of this tower could also surprise us. It should be at least 850 feet tall, and 150 feet shorter than the tallest Transbay Tower.

I have trouble believing this could start before the Millenium Tower is finished because that could really cause chaos on that stretch of Mission St. And also we have 555 Mission going up just up the street.

[AK47KC]

The three Transbay Towers taller than 850' (259 m) better have some serious eye candy and light decorations at night to make them stand out. Just like with the case of One Rincon Hill, it would really suck if there was no lighting decor at all for these prominent towers.

[Reminiscence]

Since they recognize the Millenium Tower to be a landmark or even anchorage to the Transbay Project, I too would'nt think that any of the Transbay towers would start construction that soon. Perhaps the temporary terminal, but not the towers themselves.

[AK47KC]

^^^Unless they are in a rush to generate enough funds to build the new terminal.

[SFView]

Renzo's tower starting "before," could mean anytime before Transbay Terminal and Tower begins in 2010. Millennium and 555 Mission should be completed sometime before then.

[kenratboy]

SFVIew - sorry, how tall are 'Millennium' and '555'?

[SFView]

555 Mission is 482' and Millennium or 301 Mission Street is 645'. If you don't already know, these buildings have their own dedicated threads in the "Highrises" section of this forum.

[Reminiscence]

Hmm, I seem to have missed it, but did they ever confirm that Renzo was the architect for one of the 850'+ towers?

[AK47KC]

I think a while ago I read in the paper that Renzo said he would design one of the 850' towers, but I don't remember what article.

[kenratboy]

Any chance it will be ABOVE 853'/260m (I am sure you know the signifigance of that number)?

[AK47KC]

I think that height figure of 850' (259 m) does not include mechanical floors, crowns, etc. so that the Renzo tower would probably break the Transamerica height barrier. You don't need to look far to see an example of this.

[briankendall]

I got the strong impression that the Renzo Piano tower was starting at 850' and I think somewhere here mentioned it could go up to 1050' earlier in this thread. It certainly looks to be above 1000' in the conceptual drawings J Church posted originally... and we have to remember the planning department is probably planning it to be taller than 850' but they don't want to freak people out so they just list the lowest height number.

[northbay]

...we have to remember the planning department is probably planning it to be taller than 850' but they don't want to freak people out so they just list the lowest height number.

yea, i def think this is true. weve got to remember were talking sf, king of nimbyism

[kenratboy]

yea, i def think this is true. weve got to remember were talking sf, king of nimbyism

But it looks like that is becoming less of an issue - at least an issue that is NOT blocking projects. Thank god, its about time.

[Reminiscence]

Like I said, I think people are just scared we'll end up with another wall like we have on Embarcadero. Once people see that it doesnt always have to be like that, then maybe they'll loosen up on the nimbyism and we'll have more towers like this and built more frequently. After all, this is just the beginning of the ripple effect to come.

[SFView]

When I did my height estimates above for the 3 tallest Transbay towers, there were a number of points I estimated or guessed that are possibly consistent with the planners, in addition to the data I collected from different sources:

· · Planners are releasing information in careful steps to test outside reaction. If little or no negative reaction is encountered, the planners move up to the next step until the best overall plan is achieved.
· · Graphics may show intentions more accurately than verbal descriptions.
· · A shift of emphasis in the SF skyline should be shifted to the area around Transbay by creating a new highest mound of towers at that location.
· · To achieve the shift, key buildings should be at least as tall as, or taller than current tallest building in SF - Transamerica at approximately 850’.
· · It would take at least 3 towers to effectively create a highrise mound that steps down to the surroundings.
· · Basic building heights are rounded to the nearest 50’.
· · Basic floor-to-floor heights are averaged to 12.5’.
· · Basic crown/mechanical heights are 10% of the basic building height rounded to the nearest 25’ added on top of the basic building height.
· · Number of floors are rounded to the nearest 10 (or 5) depending on the basic building height.
· · Basic height difference of towers above 850’ are probably greater than 150’.
· · Heights of tallest towers should be varied to create a more interesting stepped height effect. No two major towers should be nearly the same height.
· · The difference in height between the tallest and second tallest tower is greater than the height difference between the second and third.


ALSO...

(Old news we may have missed) Regarding the competition:

The two-stage competition will be launched in the fall of 2006 and is expected to take approximately 36 weeks for completion. "Fall" could mean anytime before December 21, 2006. We could have preliminary designs submitted by contestants by August or September of 2007, depending on when the competition commences. A final design that could end up being very different from the original will be developed and refined by the winning design team until final documents completed and approved. This could be as late as 2010 depending if there are other unkown factors that could shorten or lengthen the time. Note that final heights can also change until approvals and permits are granted. Normally, this could be about 3 months before construction begins, but for these projects I am not certain. I imagine the design for the temporary terminal might be a separate contract, and the designer may be sought for more directly by the city or TJPA.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323

Of all the uncertainties, one thing is clear: we still have a very long way to go before anyone knows what the final result will be. Just think of One Rincon Hill. By the way, remember this? Is wasn't all that long ago...
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/onerinconearlyscheme.jpg

[SFView]

Thin towers widely spaced are not a wall.

[Reminiscence]

I think the agenda for the meeting this friday comes out either today or tommorow, usually 72 hours before the meeting itself.

[AK47KC]

Let's just hope what happened at One Rincon Hill happens with the Transbay Towers as well.

[Reminiscence]

If thats the case, then we wont know until the towers are almost under construction. But even so, yes, I still hope that the same thing happens, only that it happpens 3 times as big.

[Reminiscence]

Well, they've posted the agenda, and its as follows:


12:00 ‑ SPECIAL MEETING

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call

3. Communications

4. Board of Director’s New and Old Business

5. Executive Director’s Report

* Funding Update
* Caltrain Downtown Extension Value Management Update
* First Quarter Investment Report

6. Public Comment

Members of the public may address the Authority on matters that are within the Authority's
jurisdiction and are not on today's calendar.

THE FOLLOWING MATTERS BEFORE THE TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION AS STATED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR THE CHAIRMAN.

CONSENT CALENDAR

7. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, and will be acted upon by a single vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Board or the public so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.

(7.1) Approving the Minutes of the August 31, 2006 meeting.

(7.2) Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the TJPA and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority to provide updated ridership studies of the transbay corridor for $60,000.

(7.3) Approving the agreement between Transbay Joint Powers Authority and the Municipal Transportation Agency for services to perform contract compliance and oversight in the amount of $64,800.

(7.4) Approving a contract with David Tattersall & Company in the amount of $50,000 to provide real estate review appraiser services for a term not to exceed three years with an option to extend two years.



SPECIAL CALENDAR

8. Appointing the Design and Development Competition Jury.

9. Presentation on the Design and Development Competition Request for Qualifications.

10. Presentation by Cambridge Systematics on Transbay Ridership Study.

11. Adopting the City and County of San Francisco CityBuild Program.

12. Approving the TJPA Citizen’s Advisory Committee Structure and Bylaws.

13. Approving a contract with Nancy Whelan Consulting in the amount of $1,800,000 to provide financial grant management for a term not to exceed three years with an option to extend two years.


14. Adopting the Reserve Policy identified as Board Policy No. 012, Category: Financial Matters.


Theres a lot of stuff in there thats difficult to understand, but I guess the part that calls the most attention to me is the funding update. There is a chance that they'll call for an increase in heights if the have to, which is what I think most people want to hear anyways. They also mention the Caltrain extension, and I guess they will run on that for a bit. Hopefully this meeting ends with great news.

[kenratboy]

Put me down for 'Friends of the Caltrain extension' - best of all, I don't pay CA taxes, so ha!

[Reminiscence]

Great, bigger share of the taxes for me :rolleyes:

Reno isn't part of California ... not yet. :haha: :haha:

[kenratboy]

Thats why we keep lots of guns and ammo on the ready :p

The biggest public works project in the state right now is ~$280 million and will be very beneficial to people and the economy.

[Reminiscence]

I dont think people understood why I mentioned the Sears Tower to begin with. I was thinking about it and assuming the current height is set to 1350' then it wouldnt be out of the question to increase that a bit to like 1500'. The second tower would be more or less 1350' and the third could be around 1150'. If they really wanted to use Chicago or even the John Hancock Center as a model for this endeavor, then it would make sense. The second heights that I put were for the event that they would have antenas or spires on top, which I would like, seeming that not too many building have them in SF.

Sears Tower (1451' / 1730') =========> Transbay Tower I (1500' / 1750')
Aon Center (1136') ================> Transbay Tower II (1350' / 1550')
John Hancock Center (1127' / 1500') ===> Transbay Tower III (1150' / 1400')

The difference between the first and second tower is still 150' and by the current plan for the tallest, we're not that far away from 1500' anyways, might as well go for it. What a statement we could make by having the potential tallest tower in the US, out of nowhere too. :ack: :psycho:

[SFView]

Special Calendar items #8 and #9 may be of some interest, as these items will be important components to the competition announcement. These components should emphasize the high level of quality and importance of what could well be a world recognized project. The inclusion of these items also better supports the notion that the competition announcement is soon approaching release.

The architecture and engineering of the Transbay Terminal and Tower Project is scheduled to be completed in 2009 according to TJPA.

http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.transbaycenter.org

[SFView]

This isn't Dubai.

[northbay]

^ while i agree more height is neccessary, theres more to a good building than how tall it is. and for that matter, more to a city than skyscrapers. i just hope (renzo piano i think is good) that the buildings are well-thought out and stylish.

[Reminiscence]

Yes, I am aware that SF inst Dubai, far from it. What I mentioned was more or less an legit idea, mind you. Something to say, it would be intresting if they did that. Honestly, in the end, I think the current plan is what they will go with. But until they specify a height, I guess its possible to speculate what is going to happen.

[AK47KC]

If the towers are too tall, they will look alienated from the rest of the skyline level which is around 500' (152m) to 600' (183m) at the Transbay Terminal. The Planning Commission probably won't like three towers sticking way up from the skyline because from afar. That's why there are two other towers to gradually smooth out the otherwise precipitous drop from over 1000' (305m) to the skyline level; around a 400' (122m) drop. If all the towers are over 1100' (351m), then there will be a large drop of 500' (152m) to the skyline level around the Transbay Terminal. It will take more towers to smooth out the drop and the Planning Commission doesn't want the Transbay area to be completely crowded with towers.

[Reminiscence]

True true, but who's to say that something even bigger wont come after Transbay itself. I'm preety sure its only a matter of time before someone proposes something like what I said anyways, I guess I was just jumping ahead.

[BTinSF]

I don't like the "an" even taller tower here, but later he says three. competition begins tomorrow:

SAN FRANCISCO
Transbay authority to entertain design ideas for new transit tower
- John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Thursday, October 26, 2006

Thirty-five years after the Transamerica Pyramid seemed to top off San Francisco's skyline once and for all, a new international competition could lead to construction of an even-taller tower near Market Street.

The competition would be managed by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a government body working to build a transit hub near First and Mission streets to serve buses and commuter trains. It would seek a development team to build the new center -- and also an adjacent tower that "is expected to be an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline" and help pay for the transit project.

On Friday, the Transbay board is expected to vote to proceed with the competition.

"A lot of the comments we've heard from the public is that they want a world-class station and a world-class transit tower," said Maria Ayerdi, executive director of the authority. "Design quality is paramount."

The idea to push beyond the once-controversial Transamerica Pyramid and its 853-foot peak gained momentum in May, when city planning officials suggested zoning changes to allow three skyscrapers in the Transbay area that would generate revenue for the project.

Any changes require extensive environmental studies; however, the Transbay authority can move forward on its own site and leave the tower details for later.

In the first round, where teams present their qualifications, the track record of each developer counts for less than the impression made by each team's architect, who must show a "flexible and imaginative attitude" as well as commit to "personal involvement throughout the life of the project."

The seven-member jury includes Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Robert Campbell of the Boston Globe, as well as three other architects and experts in transportation, engineering and real estate financing.

During the final round, when competitors submit their proposed projects, economics are more important: The rules say the main focus of judging will be "the overall financial feasibility" of the competing proposals.

Ayerdi said other factors will be evaluated beside finances and architectural flash.

"This has to be a world-class facility for the city and Bay Area to be proud of. And we don't mean how it looks, but how it operates," Ayerdi said. "The public has to feel welcome."

In other words, the terminal must be easy to use.

If the authority board approves the program on Friday, the competition would begin next week, with finalists selected in February and a decision on the development team coming in August.

The estimated cost for the overall project, which includes a below-ground rail extension from the Caltrain station on Fourth Street, is $3.4 billion. The target date to begin construction is 2010.

First and Mission isn't the only location in San Francisco where a new competition could change the look of a neighborhood.

A smaller competition began last week at Octavia Boulevard, where four sites along the distinctive thoroughfare that opened last year are being offered to teams that can deliver "excellence and innovation in urban infill and architectural design."

The five-block stretch from Market Street north to Hayes Street was covered for decades by two levels of ramps connecting Interstate 80 to the western side of San Francisco. After the system was damaged by the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, freeway opponents campaigned successfully to replace the ramps with a surface boulevard that separates local traffic from commuter lanes.

Of 12 parcels along the boulevard left empty when the freeway came down, four are now for sale. They include two 18-foot-wide slivers along Octavia between Fell and Oak streets, a block where ramps once touched ground, and a long site at the corner of Market and Octavia.

Those sites also were the subject of a 2005 competition held by the private San Francisco Prize. That contest attracted 167 entries and favored contemporary designs with an emphasis on environmentally friendly features. At the time, though, the land was not available for sale.

"The reason for doing this is to follow through on the design competition," said Rich Hillis of the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development. "We're putting our money where our mouth is."

The city's target is to select developers for the four sites by the end of January.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/26/ba_transbay_complex.jpg

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/26/BAGEFM036L1.DTL

[kenratboy]

Cool article - it looks like their concern matches mine: if you will build something this tall - it better be world class, it better be perfect.

[AK47KC]

Glad to see the unsightly parking lots disappear.

[Reminiscence]

Well, they got the right idea. Obviously building someting of this magnitude must be done by the best. I'd love to see a building that tall, but I dont want to be starring at a concrete block either. They have to build something that makes citizens and tourists say ... "whoa". Only then, will the public accept supertall stuctures and perhaps even welcome them as freely as say Chicago or New York. This is good news, I cant wait until Friday's decision. :)

[AK47KC]

Here it goes today! :)

[Reminiscence]

Yesss, too bad I couldnt go today, I wanted to say a few words. Anywho, cant wait to find out the news!

[SFView]

The competition begins Wednesday, November 1, 2006!

http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.transbaycenter.org

From this page, go to "Project Overview\Design Competion\Announcement of upcoming release of Design and Development Competition RFQ"


Also from this page you may also see a Community Meeting Presentation from October 11, 2006. Go to "Documents\Other Documents\October 2006 Transit Program Community Presentation"

Of particular interest may be the schedule:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayschedule1.jpg

[kenratboy]

SWEET!

From 'Lord of the Rings':

"The board is set... the pieces are moving"

(Followed by a really good home theater test scene).

[Reminiscence]

So, I guess by this we still have more or less another 2 years before the design of the Transbay Tower itself. Hopefully they'll grow more along the way. As for the design, I want to see what people have come up with :)

[kenratboy]

2 years is nothing - just the simple fact the ball is rolling is shocking. No mass protects in the streets, money seems to work out. As long as it happens, that will be cool.

[Reminiscence]

Yeah, according to the report, they seem to be doing a good job at allocating the funds. Of course, November 7 remains an important day, theres some measures that need to pass to keep the momentum going.

[tech12]

The competition begins Wednesday, November 1, 2006!



My birthday! Now there's a nice present;)

I can't wait to see some of the designs people come up with. Too bad it'll be quite a while..

[Reminiscence]

My birthday! Now there's a nice present;)

I can't wait to see some of the designs people come up with. Too bad it'll be quite a while..

That is a nice gift, happy birthday :5:

Now, what a coincidence it would be if they choose the final design on November 1, 2008. :haha:

[AK47KC]

Haha, two years will go by in a flash, especially with other projects going on.

[Reminiscence]

Thats right, we have other projects to take out attention, for the mean time :)

[Reminiscence]

- SAN FRANCISCO -

Search starts for team to design tower

John King

Tuesday, October 31, 2006


An ambitious international competition to find an architect and developer for what could be San Francisco's tallest building was launched yesterday by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

The authority's board, which consists primarily of local elected officials, voted unanimously to begin the competition as part of its effort to build a new transit center for buses and commuter trains near First and Mission streets. The competition seeks a designer for the transit center and the tower, as well as a developer to build the tower.

The schedule calls for interested teams to submit their qualifications in January. Finalists would submit detailed proposals and a design-development team would be selected in August. The authority hopes to begin construction in 2010.

Meanwhile, San Francisco's Planning Department will soon seek a consultant to study how to raise building-height limits around the terminal. Two skyscrapers in addition to the transit terminal tower could be allowed to exceed the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid, now the city's tallest building. Money generated by land sales and new property taxes would help fund construction of the transit center.

[Reminiscence]

I wonder if the same designer who wins the transit center competition also wins the right to the tower?

[Reminiscence]

- SAN FRANCISCO -

Only 'starchitects' need apply to do transit hub design

John King

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The Bay Area could be "starchitect" central next year.

The reason? The quest for a new Transbay Terminal -- one of those ongoing San Francisco sagas that, wonder of wonders, is beginning to look as if it will happen. Wednesday the competition begins to select an architect to design a new transit hub at First and Mission streets, and a skyscraping tower to help pay for it. The competition also seeks a deep-pocket developer to build the tower.

And with a project of this scale and complexity, only heavyweights need apply.

One celebrity architect expected to surface is Santiago Calatrava, a Spanish master renowned for sculptural imagery; his major American project right now is a soaring train station being built at the World Trade Center site. Other rumored big names include England's Norman Foster (whose firm has two sleek academic buildings at Stanford University) and Cesar Pelli, whose 560 Mission St. is one of San Francisco's best office towers.

At this point, the only players we know for sure are the seven jury members approved Friday by the Transbay Joint Power Authority. The group includes local architect Alison Williams, real estate economist Jerry Keyser and UC Davis Professor Susan Handy, an expert on transportation and land use.

The jury's architects stress that what will unfold over the next 10 months isn't a beauty contest.

"I'm glad design is paramount, because the program is extremely complicated," says Williams, a principal in the San Francisco office of Perkins + Will. She refers to the technical demands of a terminal that folds in bus routes, commuter trains from San Mateo County and, possibly, high-speed rail -- as well as a smooth fit with a tower next door that could exceed 1,000 feet in height, on a narrow site crowded by other towers.

"This is so structurally driven, it's not strictly an architectural pursuit," Williams says. "The design has to be tethered to the other disciplines."

The same point is made by Hsin-Ming Fung, whose firm Hodgetts + Fung is one of Los Angeles' top design houses.

"The station is really an engineering feat," Fung says. "It's not just wrapping a skin around a project. It's about solving a problem and working with other concerns."

Competing teams must submit their qualifications on Jan. 11; the jury will then select finalists who will present design proposals and financial offers in July. The schedule calls for selection of a design and development team in mid-August.

So if you see a dapper archi-type standing around First and Mission, elegant sketchbook in hand, you'll know why.

In an age where "edgy" and "ironic" are all the rage, a word like "beautiful" might seem quaint. But when the group San Francisco Beautiful handed out its annual awards this month, we were reminded that beauty can be civil and creative as well.

Friedel Klussmann, immortalized in countless Herb Caen columns as the woman who saved San Francisco's cable car system from extinction after World War II, founded the group in 1947. This year's awards focused on open space -- and the ingenuous passion of the city's residents.

The top award went to Octavia Boulevard, where a freeway was replaced last year by a landscaped thoroughfare after years of neighborhood activism. That change is still in progress -- lots alongside it will be filled by housing, for instance -- but it's already ignited the revival of Hayes Valley.

On a much smaller sale, the Robert C. Friese Award for Neighborhood Conservation went to the Quesada Gardens Initiative: one block of the crime-plagued Bayview neighborhood where residents turned a dumping ground for debris into a riot of flowers and vegetables and trees.

Other beautification awards went to Yerba Buena Gardens, the tile steps on 16th Avenue in Golden Gate Heights, the restoration of Mission Creek, the Newsom administration's street-greening initiatives and recent landscaping improvements at Candlestick Point. All are deserved.

Finally, a pre-election plug for a worthy cause: the proposed quarter-cent sales tax in Marin and Sonoma to turn long-empty train routes into a 70-mile commuter rail system between Larkspur and Cloverdale.

Yes, it would cost nearly $500 million to launch the line, its 14 stations and a parallel pedestrian-bike trail. No, highway congestion won't magically dissolve. But Measure R absolutely deserves support because it will help preserve the North Bay's cultural heritage.

What exists along the Highway 101 corridor today isn't the sort of undifferentiated sprawl that smears the South Bay. Rather, a string of unique communities have preserved their roots despite the pressure of growth. And a new thread of passenger rail would strengthen the fabric that still exists -- by underlying the importance of town centers, of low-key urbanity, of cities that grow in instead of out (development sites are adjacent to several potential stations, the perfect spot for new housing).

As for the sniping of opponents that the projected ridership of 5,300 passengers a day isn't worth the cost, consider this. When a light-rail service opened in the southwest Denver region in 2000, first-year ridership topped projections by 70 percent.

If you build it, they will ride.

Measure R translates to a transportation alternative and an investment in local communities. Not bad for a quarter-cent.

[kenratboy]

Awesome articles - thanks!

Looks like things are rolling (no pun intended).

Glad to see that this buildings won't be an ego-boosting temple to some lame ass architect - this needs to be a very functional and practical building before it does anything else.

[SFView]

Design & Development Competition

November 1, 2006
RFQ for Transbay Transit Center & Tower Design & Development Competition Released


http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=573

[rajaxsonbayboi]

i really hope that this idea comes possible. i think this city needs a new iconic structure. i mean SF is really late in the game. look at Dubai, its skline is doubling in size practically every month. with new towers it will make SF look like a place of business. and then we dont have to depend on tourism. i hope the city dosent turn to touristy look what happened to venice.

[Reminiscence]

I havent heard any news from the meetings yet, have there been any advances made since the last meeting?

Sigh, I wish I could enter the competition. I even made some building designs myself and I'm no architect, but I think they look good, hehe. :ack: :ack:

[Alliance]

i really hope that this idea comes possible. i think this city needs a new iconic structure. i mean SF is really late in the game. look at Dubai, its skline is doubling in size practically every month. with new towers it will make SF look like a place of business. and then we dont have to depend on tourism. i hope the city dosent turn to touristy look what happened to venice.

Don't forget, Dubai has uber-rich princes financing its development. The US doesn't have that.

[RandySavage]

^ not to mention extremely cheap labor from south asia.