HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 39 7.89%
#2 Cesar Pelli 98 19.84%
#3 SOM 357 72.27%
Voters: 494. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2021  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 6:47 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Neorama/Steelblue needed to add a disclaimer to their videos, before continuing to it to be available to the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2022  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2009, 8:22 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Update on the temp terminal. Nothing thrilling; just slogging along:



__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2023  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2009, 8:52 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Update on the temp terminal. Nothing thrilling; just slogging along
At a time when there are predictions there will never be another SF residential highrise ( http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2134 ), slogging along is good. But I am getting increasingly nervous that before too long we will get news that the tower portion of this project is on indefinite hold. I'm actually pretty surprised we haven't heard that yet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2024  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 1:47 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
There still needs to be enough funding raised to help build the terminal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2025  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 2:59 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
There still needs to be enough funding raised to help build the terminal.
Hines has already cut what they will pay for the land and right to build from $350M to $235M--and that's all they are going to pay: http://www.commercialpropertynews.co...5a3e0509c0549e . But they have the option of holding onto that land for as long as they want before they actually build as far as I know. And I am very nervous that their "partner" is MetLife Real Estate because the life insurers are in real trouble over their real estate investments because those investments are probably worth a lot less than the companies have been carrying them for on their books. Pouring money into a TransBay Tower would, for MetLife, be compounding their problem.

I believe "Phase 1" of the terminal itself (the above-ground portion and possibly the "train box") is fully or nearly fully funded and is probably receiving "stimulus" funds so it will probably go forward on schedule. "Phase 2" (the tunnel from 4th & King and the platforms etc for CalTrain and HSR) is NOT yet fully funded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2026  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 4:56 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Thanks. Now I am getting nervous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2027  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 5:57 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
At a time when there are predictions there will never be another SF residential highrise ( http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...postcount=2134 ), slogging along is good. But I am getting increasingly nervous that before too long we will get news that the tower portion of this project is on indefinite hold. I'm actually pretty surprised we haven't heard that yet.
In addition to the bad residential construction forecast, there is absolutely no demand for office space and there's plenty of surplus space all over downtown. I think that it's all over for a long time to come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2028  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 12:29 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
In addition to the bad residential construction forecast, there is absolutely no demand for office space and there's plenty of surplus space all over downtown. I think that it's all over for a long time to come.
The vacancy rate is 19.8% as of today according to the SF Business Times: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...06/story9.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2029  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 12:30 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Works for me:

Quote:
Friday, April 3, 2009
S.F. has chance to finally build an arena
San Francisco Business Times - by Stanford M. Horn

I’m holding in my hand a very formidable San Francisco Redevelopment Agency brochure. It has many impressive renderings of what the agency points to as San Francisco’s most important upcoming structure: a spectacular 20,000-seat downtown sports-entertainment-cultural-event-convention arena designed by one of Japan’s most renowned architects.

It’s dated 1969.

Now, 40 years later — and 120 million patrons too late to have helped the city’s economy — the Redevelopment Agency has an opportunity to make good on its promise.

San Francisco is the only major American city without a modern arena. Thus, San Franciscans get no big rock concerts, no indoor sports, no tournaments, no dog shows, no circuses, no political conventions, no sports trials, no family spectacles, no Barbra Streisand, no Irish dancers, no ethnic festivals, no Harlem Globetrotters, etc. The agency’s 40-year goal of bringing more pedestrian life, economic activity, attractions and jobs downtown via an arena remains just that: a goal.

Now the agency has a chance to champion an arena — in conjunction with the new Transbay Terminal: specifically, on the square block — bounded by Howard, Folsom, Main and Beale streets — that will soon house the temporary bus plaza.

The most successful arenas, like Madison Square Garden, are part of rail station and subway complexes. Since most events are held in evenings or on weekends, they provide revenue to transit agencies when they’d be running sparsely occupied trains. Instead, the agency plans more housing and a small park there. What an unimaginative concept for that strategic site!

How much more fruitful for the city’s well-being would a striking arena be than a few hundred additional apartments in concrete block structures? The alternative might be an iconic distinctively-shaped arena of modest height letting in lots of sunshine and open air, a new San Francisco icon. The planned park would make a wonderful, highly used entrance to such an arena, especially if were just steps from the new train station.

Privately financed AT&T Park created an unprecedented economic stimulus for San Francisco. A privately-financed arena could be expected to provide an even greater economic stimulus. The idea has grown even better with age and its linkage to the west’s main transit complex.


Stanford M. Horn writes on transportation and development issues.
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...ditorial3.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2030  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2009, 4:26 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Not me. I think this would be a waste of money. Arenas and stadia are regional resources. Every city in the region doesn't need one. We already have two modern arenas, both of which have excellent rail connectivity. HP Pavilion has a pretty full schedule (almost 200 dates a year, last I heard). Oracle Arena still has plenty of availability (about 100 dates a year). We don't need another one. Oracle is already underutilized. Throw another arena in the mix and it will be that much worse.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2031  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2009, 8:57 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Temporary terminal construction webcam: http://temporaryterminal.org/webcam
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2032  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2009, 9:00 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Not me. I think this would be a waste of money. Arenas and stadia are regional resources. Every city in the region doesn't need one. We already have two modern arenas, both of which have excellent rail connectivity. HP Pavilion has a pretty full schedule (almost 200 dates a year, last I heard). Oracle Arena still has plenty of availability (about 100 dates a year). We don't need another one. Oracle is already underutilized. Throw another arena in the mix and it will be that much worse.
Well, don't worry--it ain't gonna happen. But I think as a performance space for major touring performers if for nothing else, DOWNTOWN SF needs an indoor arena-type space--at least as much as we needed a downtown ballpark (another "regional" resource but look how much better that is than what was).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2033  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2009, 10:10 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Well, don't worry--it ain't gonna happen. But I think as a performance space for major touring performers if for nothing else, DOWNTOWN SF needs an indoor arena-type space--at least as much as we needed a downtown ballpark (another "regional" resource but look how much better that is than what was).
The ballpark was privately financed and there was a known user for at least 90-100 days out of the year (81 games plus other Giants events - and hey, sometime they might reach the postseason). If we were talking about redeveloping the Oracle Arena site and bringing the Warriors here or something, it might be worth pursuing, but otherwise I also think it's a waste.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2034  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2009, 11:34 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
The ballpark was privately financed and there was a known user for at least 90-100 days out of the year (81 games plus other Giants events - and hey, sometime they might reach the postseason). If we were talking about redeveloping the Oracle Arena site and bringing the Warriors here or something, it might be worth pursuing, but otherwise I also think it's a waste.
I too would be against the city doing it--as I am against the city paying for any sort of new sports facility--but there have been private proposals for an arena. The Giants, as I recall, offered to build one as part of their proposal at the waterfront lot, across McCovey Cove from their ballpark, next to Mission Bay.

How would you feel if there were a private developer who wanted to build an arena on that lot and would do all the worrying for you about leasing it? I'm pretty sure the ballpark neighbors, who don't much care for the outdoor concerts at AT&T Park, would be for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2035  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2009, 12:44 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,125
I'd be fine with that. In that scenario we're talking about private financing, as well as it being built on the fringe of an area. Arenas are terrible dead spots during times when not in use, so building one against the Bay or a hillside would be much better than building one downtown with current active uses on all sides, IMO. In addition, it would be right down the street from the Caltrain 4th & King station and other transit/large crowd infrastructure that exists for the ballpark.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2036  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2009, 6:53 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
New renderings of the TransBay Transit Center:





















Video Link


Source all: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...travaganza.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2037  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2009, 7:47 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,374
Honestly it looks great, but as a non-San Franciscan who doesn't follow this very closely, all i can ever seem to think about when I look at these Pelli renderings is how awesome SOM's design is (and forever will be).
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2038  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2009, 4:33 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
It looks like the design for the terminal is improving. I suspect there will also be improvements to the tower, but for now it seems most of the focus is on the terminal design.

That is the same nice animation from Steelblue.

I really like the leaning and horizontal round tube structural frames, but I wonder about the people who will need to work hard to keep them clean. Without maintenance, they could appear to collect dust and dirt over time, especially if they are white. I don't think they should change the design because of this though. The methods for cleaning may improve with technology over time as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2039  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2009, 5:04 PM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 842
Wow, that's a pretty incredible project as it appears in that video animation.

I think the reason I was so interested in reading science fiction when I was a kid was that I wanted to live in a world where projects like that were possible!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2040  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2009, 6:09 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Just a reminder...

You can also see this video and other related Steelblue videos in higher quality original HD here:
http://www.vimeo.com/videos/search:steelblue
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:30 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.