HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

    

Sun Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2009, 12:32 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Treasure Island to be protected from rising seas
By John Upton
Examiner Staff Writer 1/21/09

[img]http://media.sfexaminer.com/images/597*317/treasureisland.jpg[/img]
Vulnerable: Parts of San Francisco’s man-made island may be elevated with fill to protect developments scheduled to be built in 2010.Getty Images File Photo

SAN FRANCISCO – Dirt and other fill may be piled onto parts of Treasure Island to protect planned buildings from sea level rise due to climate change and other factors.

A multibillion-dollar plan for the 450-acre man-made island — including a ferry terminal, retail strip, three hotels and 6,000 new housing units, including a 60-story residential tower — was adopted in 2006 by The City.

But the low-lying island is vulnerable to floods if seas rise due to climate change, according to Kheay Loke, a developer with Wilson Meany Sullivan, which is partnering with Lennar Corp. on the project.

The flood risk will be greatest if rising seas coincide with a high tide and large storm, according to Loke.

Loke and a handful of engineers and city officials presented options last week to the Treasure Island Development Authority Board of Directors for protecting new buildings against climate change-related flooding.

To protect new buildings from floods, fill will likely be dumped beneath planned development sites, according to Loke.

The fill will be excavated from some of the 300 acres of island that’s slated to be used for parkland and sports fields, and additional fill will be imported to the island, according to Loke.

“It’s all about raising grades to enable gravity drainage, as opposed to relying on levees for protection,” Loke said.

The developers could also choose to build sea walls — which would serve the same function as levees in the Central Valley and New Orleans — around the island to protect against flooding, authority documents show.

The Board of Supervisors will ultimately decide how to protect the island from a potential 3-foot sea level rise over 70 years, according to Jack Sylvan, who oversees public-private partnership projects for The City.

Property taxes could be set aside to build sea walls, or take other flood-protection measures, if seas rise more than expected, according to Sylvan.

“The City is working on how it will address sea level rise in the future, assuming it does in fact happen,” Sylvan said.

Infrastructure work, including grading and seawalls, could begin by late 2010, according to Sylvan. Building construction is expected to start 18 to 24 months later, he said.
Source:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Trea...sing_seas.html[/quote]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2009, 12:56 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I thought work was suppose to begin late this year? Oh well, I'm just glad this is still on. Its going to be great watching this getting built along with Transbay.
__________________
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
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 5:43 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Treasure Island: Anti-Wind Street Grid + Mini-Telegraph Hill


[CMG Landscape Architects, via A/N Blog]

The ground-up green redevelopment of Treasure Island will orient major streets to block gusts of wind, which primarily hit the artificial island from the southwest. The result is a grid of streets rotated exactly 68 degrees, as determined by the geniuses at CMG Landscape Architects. And thus shall pedestrians enjoy the pedestrian-oriented modern village that's being built just for them on the grounds of the former naval base. Recall that, true to the principles of smart growth, density's the key word— only 100 acres of the island's total 400 will be future-ized. The rest? Open space. Plans also include turning the west-facing part of Yerba Buena into a some sort of mini-Telegraph Hill, with townhomes up and down the hill, capped by a new park. The 6,000 to 8,000 residences included in the master plan will be farmed out to individual architects to avoid an "architectural monoculture" with—alas— no fake Victorians.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 11:37 PM
FerrariEnzo's Avatar
FerrariEnzo FerrariEnzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,132
"the master plan will be farmed out to individual architects to avoid an "architectural monoculture""

such a simple concept and yet so many cities with large projects do not conisider this... nice to see SF is going about this in a holistic manner.
__________________
Super Secret
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 1:21 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
I'm surprised the wind mostly hits the island from the southwest. I would have thought it comes in from due west or maybe a little northwest. And looking more closely at that image, those angled streets are lined up along a southwest/northeast axis, which doesn't fit with the intention of minimizing wind from the southwest. Perhaps Curbed meant to say the wind predominantly comes from the northwest.

Anyhoo, it's a cool-looking plan. Interesting to see they are looking at YB as well.
__________________
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
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Nov 8, 2009, 3:45 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
New image I found at this website: http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/09/10/...elopment-plan/

__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2009, 5:32 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 8,010
Great looking plan. Really generous amounts of greenspace too...I wonder if they won't allow for a few more buildings later down the line if the project is successful.
__________________
Rubicon Brewing Co. 1987 - 2017
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2009, 10:11 PM
Yankee's Avatar
Yankee Yankee is offline
Martian
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: District of Columbia
Posts: 748
Wow!

I had heard something about plans to redevelop parts of Treasure Island, mainly build a few highrises there, but I had no idea the plan was to actually completely raze every structure that's currently on it, remove almost all the streets and completely redevelop the area. I mean there isn't much on the island right now, but there are a few residences and businesses here and there.

Well anyway, I love the new plan, can't say I'm a big fan of the offset street grid though - cmon, the wind...? Who cares wind is wind it's all over the place We've been strictly following the square grid principle for almost all of our major cities regardless of topography (SF being the best example) or pretty much anything else, now all of a sudden we're supposed to care about the wind...? Can't say I'm a big fan, as a pedestrian I prefer perpendicular blocks, but the offset grid has its charm too I guess.

I'm assuming the plan for the green space is maybe a park for starters and then as demand increases it will get filled in...? Is the Sun Tower and all the other highrises still on track? They're obviously going for density and I do hope that a filled in island or just the developed area for starters has at least a density of 20,000/sq mi (isn't Treasure Island pretty much 1 square mile?) This has a huge potential of being like a second downtown, kind of like Miami's Miami Beach. And I do hope that as demand and population increase they consider adding a subway line, either MUNI or BART under the bay to Treasure Island.

So when are we gonna start seeing everything getting torn down?

(sorry that was a long and erratic post...)
__________________
Before one surrenders to the hands of destiny one might consider the power of the human spirit and the force that lies in one's own free will.

Last edited by Yankee; Nov 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 12:19 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee View Post
Wow!

I had heard something about plans to redevelop parts of Treasure Island, mainly build a few highrises there, but I had no idea the plan was to actually completely raze every structure that's currently on it . . . .
They aren't razing every structure. The old crescent-shaped Headquarters building, which is rather historic, will stay.

Quote:
can't say I'm a big fan of the offset street grid though - cmon, the wind...? Who cares wind is wind it's all over the place . . . . They're obviously going for density and I do hope that a filled in island or just the developed area for starters has at least a density of 20,000/sq mi (isn't Treasure Island pretty much 1 square mile?) This has a huge potential of being like a second downtown, kind of like Miami's Miami Beach.
If you'd spent any time on TI (worked there for 4 years), you'd understand how pervasive and annoying the wind can be. Anything reasonable that can be done to mitigate it should be done.

I am extremely skeptical about putting any density on this island. I know I wouldn't want to live there. I realize Ferry service is planned but that's fairly low capacity and won't carry cars, trucks or other personal vehicles. Otherwise, for everyone who lives there access to and from home is going to be via the traffic-choked Bay Bridge which now experiences gridlock for maybe 6-8 hours a day and, by the time TI is actually redeveloped, will likely be a parking lot 18 hours a day--not even counting the extra traffic load the TI development imposes. How would YOU like to realize that if you wanted to go to the Mission for Mexican food or a movie at the Metreon, you'd have to spend 30-45 minutes in bumper to bumper traffic each way?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2009, 1:47 PM
FerrariEnzo's Avatar
FerrariEnzo FerrariEnzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport View Post
Great looking plan. Really generous amounts of greenspace too...I wonder if they won't allow for a few more buildings later down the line if the project is successful.
I was thinking similarly.
__________________
Super Secret
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2009, 5:37 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
How much is fair market value for the whole of Treasure Island? The Navy has said $240 million, while in the effort to completely redevelop the former naval base as a sustainable pedestrian community, San Francisco says $11 million. And thus stalling of the sale for years. Now Mayor Gav's flown to D.C. to hammer out details with the Pentagon over a Treasure Island sale. Hopes were after President Obama was elected that the impasse would clear up, and that the president would simply gift San Francisco the naval base for the sake of moving the economy along. That didn't happen, but after the usual Washington to-and-fro, lawmakers ended up with a compromise idea: San Francisco would make a small payment up front and then pay the Navy more money later as profits from land sales and developments roll in.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2009, 5:39 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport View Post
Great looking plan. Really generous amounts of greenspace too...I wonder if they won't allow for a few more buildings later down the line if the project is successful.
Unlikely. In SF, greenspace is more valuable than buildings. And the part of the island set aside for it is lower and more vulnerable to earthquakes which is why it is being set aside. The present plan does not allow for future development. One can't say what future generations will do, but that isn't what this one has in mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2009, 1:56 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
Treasure Island: Sold To The Bidder Across The Bay For $55M Plus...
from:http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments

Quote:
The Chronicle reports:

Mayor Gavin Newsom struck a deal today with the U.S. Navy to transfer Treasure Island to San Francisco for a $55 million guaranteed payment over several years, plus additional considerations that could make the total deal worth more than $105 million to the federal government.
The plan is for 6,000 homes to be created through private and public financing. Development partners Wilson Meany Sullivan, Lennar Corp. and Kenwood Investments will stake $500 million with the city providing an additional $700 million in bond money financed by property taxes collected once the development is completed. The initial $1.2 billion will pay for the project's infrastructure and some of the proposed housing.
Once again, infrastructure work for the SOM designed development of Treasure Island could start as early as 2011 with the first residences ready for occupancy in 2013 and an Island complete by 2022.
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2009, 1:59 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Is that checkerboardy looking bit in the middle the collective farm?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 1:16 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Friday, February 19, 2010
Planners envision green, walkable Treasure Island
San Francisco Business Times - by Eric Young

As they set out to build San Francisco’s newest neighborhood, Treasure Island planners are also trying to build its “greenest” neighborhood.

The 403-acre site, erected on landfill where the 1939 World’s Fair was held, will have as many as 8,000 homes, more than 400 hotel rooms, a shopping district and the second largest amount of open space in the city behind Golden Gate Park.

Guiding architects, developers and city officials has been an effort to create San Francisco’s most sustainable area . . . .

A vital element of Treasure Island’s plan stems from having highrise, mid-rise and other closely packed housing within about a quarter mile of a planned ferry landing and shopping district. That “density” — as it’s called in planning parlance — means most residents would be within walking distance of shops, other services and ferry service, reducing the need for cars . . . .

As a result, the island has large expanses of open space — about 330 acres worth — rather than pockets of smaller parks like those that dot the rest of San Francisco. Ball fields, urban farms and wetlands, for example, are all connected.

Planning for prevailing winds and the arc of the sun were another major influence on Treasure Island’s design . . . .

The streets on the island will intersect at 68 degrees — rather than the traditional 90 degrees — to give homes maximum exposure to the sun’s path and minimum exposure to westerly winds . . . .

Lines of trees and other shrubbery will be planted in open spaces to provide wind breaks. Also, along the edge of the island, berms will help disrupt the wind along walking paths . . . .

The island . . . will treat its own wastewater and recycle water for irrigation . . . .
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...22/focus4.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2010, 1:28 PM
Sonofsoma Sonofsoma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22
Greenest delusions...

One has to deliberately turn a blind eye to the obvious to believe any of the plans to make Treasure Island into a green utopia are anything other than "just pretend."

Simply put.. as a development site Treasure Island is constrained as it is unique.
The man-made island was created to be site for a Worlds Fair lasting one year and was not engineered to support permanent development.

The military installation was never intended to be permanent when it hastily developed the island with the onset of WWII.

The island cannot be developed upon as it is today. It needs to be completely re-engineered and rebuilt including a raise of 10-15 feet...
The resulting project would be similar in scope to San Diego's Mission Bay. -- Ain't going to happen.

Not because it isn't technically feasible, but because it is not politically feasible in modern-day "green" California.

One day (sooner or later) California will come its senses and write a new state constitution that junks the current government and replaces it with a vastly smaller, less powerful government.

Until then... Dream on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2010, 6:34 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
BIG PLANS
Treasure Island Draft Plans Want To Avoid A "Mini-Vancouver"



Yesterday, reports the SF Examiner, city staff and developers presented draft guidelines for the look and feel of Treasure Island's new eco-community, in particular towers. Looking to limit the shadow effect of a forest of skyscrapers, the plan is to go with a new trend toward slimmer buildings and to limit the width of towers with a menu of different sizes. To wit: a 600-foot tower can't be wider than 150 feet, while a 450-foot tower can't be wider than 145 feet. Short and stout, however, is apparently OK for buildings, with 70-footers able to go up to 200 feet wide. With all that said, the planning director stresses the point is to be flexible so the island doesn't look like Vancouver, with its perfectly machined and "boring" buildings.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2010/0...eader_comments

We could have worse than a "min-Vancouver". We could have an all Heller-Manus island of beige stucco towers. That's what the planners probably need to focus on avoiding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2010, 3:06 AM
FerrariEnzo's Avatar
FerrariEnzo FerrariEnzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
We could have worse than a "min-Vancouver". We could have an all Heller-Manus island of beige stucco towers. That's what the planners probably need to focus on avoiding.
Right on, no offense to SF but it sounds like some of the people in city government have a giant stick... no better yet, branch, lodged up their... well you get the idea. Vancouver and its "perfectly machined, boring buildings".... right because with the exception of the Trans America tower/pyramid EVERY high-rise in SF is so damn unique and inspiring... right.
__________________
Super Secret
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2010, 4:33 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,671
Since when is Vancouver boring? Vancouver has a beautiful skyline. Houston, on the other hand...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2010, 5:16 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Since when is Vancouver boring? Vancouver has a beautiful skyline. Houston, on the other hand...
It does tend to have a problem San Francisco also has--a lot of buildings of the same height giving a "table top" effect. In San Francisco, the Planning Dept. itself needs to take a lot of the blame because the main reason is the PD's height limits. In Vancouver, I suspect it's economics since most of the buildings are residential and building costs escalate with height above a certain level.

If you read the article again, what they are proposing is to encourage a maximum of height and bulk variation. Leaving aside the Vancouver comparison, that's a good thing.
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 9:37 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.