HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


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
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2006, 3:49 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2006, 4:06 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2006, 5:30 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2006, 5:51 PM
J Church J Church is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 12,883
Re: underground freeways:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...18/MN75921.DTL

Before you get too excited, the cost would probably be 11 figures.
__________________
San Francisco Cityscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2006, 6:24 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.

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.

Last edited by Reminiscence; Oct 21, 2006 at 6:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 2:38 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,006
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 2:39 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,006
please delete post
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 5:44 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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

Also, I have to give credit to FourOneFive for having them listed on one of his threads
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 6:07 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,042
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 6:14 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,006
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!)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 6:16 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 6:32 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 7:06 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,042
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 2:24 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!)
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.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 3:46 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,006
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!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 3:54 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!!!
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 3:58 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,006
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 4:03 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
true. hopefully, we'll get a rendering like this by the end of october 2007:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 5:06 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689


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.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2006, 10:08 PM
munkyman munkyman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence


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.
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 5:43 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.