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 40 8.05%
#2 Cesar Pelli 99 19.92%
#3 SOM 358 72.03%
Voters: 497. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2721  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 6:38 AM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
SF benefits more by tying to LA. It's closer, is larger, and has more synergies with SF than either Portland or Seattle, even though Seattle's economy by itself is more similar to the Bay Area's.

Also, yes, anyone who has walked by the TB Terminal has noticed a lot of structural going on recently. The site west of the 1st St bridge is clearly on its way to poking out of the hole. And that is awesome.

The head of TBJPA won "Dealmaker of the Year" award yesterday by nomination from a panel of judges selected by the SFBT. I think despite all of the baller dealmakers in the city, she probably deserves that award. And it's just icing on the cake that she's a woman who's making as bold of moves as she is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2722  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 6:41 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
SF benefits more by tying to LA. It's closer, is larger, and has more synergies with SF than either Portland or Seattle, even though Seattle's economy by itself is more similar to the Bay Area's.

Also, yes, anyone who has walked by the TB Terminal has noticed a lot of structural going on recently. The site west of the 1st St bridge is clearly on its way to poking out of the hole. And that is awesome.

The head of TBJPA won "Dealmaker of the Year" award yesterday by nomination from a panel of judges selected by the SFBT. I think despite all of the baller dealmakers in the city, she probably deserves that award. And it's just icing on the cake that she's a woman who's making as bold of moves as she is.
Was she the one who lost SF over $100 million on the deal that Hines stiffed The city with after revoking half of the price of the land for Transbay Tower they promised after winning the competition? that still irks me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2723  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 3:43 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
Has anyone been keeping up with LA's train station progress? I know they are building a ton of subway lines, but how practical are they? It's a shame that HSR will terminate at what will most likely be a rental car office. Imagine SF being connected to a city like NY, Boston, or even Portland. Actually a Portland Seattle extension (and, ideally, Vancouver) would excite me more because of the rail and transit oriented planning of those cities, and their economies would boom with direct HSR to SF.

Does anyone know the plans to connect SF with Sacramento?
I didn't know LA was building a new station? I assumed they would use the existing Union Station for any future HSR. Also Amtrak Capitol line already connects Oakland to Sacramento and it's pretty successful. The problem with a direct connect to SF is that little thing called the Bay. I agree that connecting our state's two main metropolitan areas with HSR makes more sense in a lot of way. And as you pointed out LA is expanding it's subway and light rail so it will be possible to get around without a car if you choose. Also I think the fact that LA and SF are so different is in part why it will be very successful. If that makes sense. And right now lots of people fly and drive between the Bay Area and LA but hopefully in the future a lot more will be gong by train.

Btw looking at the construction photos I'm imagining how the rooftop park lined with towers will look -so very awesome!

Last edited by ozone; Mar 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2724  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 5:05 PM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,446
If CAHSR is built, it will connect to Los Angeles (and Metro Rail) via Union Station. Not sure where this talk about a rental car office originated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2725  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 6:57 PM
Folks3000 Folks3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
I didn't know LA was building a new station? I assumed they would use the existing Union Station for any future HSR. Also Amtrak Capitol line already connects Oakland to Sacramento and it's pretty successful. The problem with a direct connect to SF is that little thing called the Bay. I agree that connecting our state's two main metropolitan areas with HSR makes more sense in a lot of way. And as you pointed out LA is expanding it's subway and light rail so it will be possible to get around without a car if you choose. Also I think the fact that LA and SF are so different is in part why it will be very successful. If that makes sense. And right now lots of people fly and drive between the Bay Area and LA but hopefully in the future a lot more will be gong by train.

Btw looking at the construction photos I'm imagining how the rooftop park lined with towers will look -so very awesome!
BART has been looking at putting in a second Transbay Tube in about 20 years, and there is a lot of talk of including two tracks of standard gauge rail as well so intercity trains can access the Transbay Transit Center. I'm guessing this would turn the Capitol Corridor trains into a sort of commuter rail for San Francisco like Caltrain currently is. One issue is diesel trains cannot be used to access the underwater tunnel or Transbay Transit Center. So either part of the Capitol Corridor will be electrified so some trains can travel the full distance into the City, or some Capitol Corridor trains bound for the TTC will need to have hybrid locomotives that can switch over the electric power once they get close to the tunnel (I think this is the same issue they are having bringing the future "Coast Daylight" (New LA-SF Amtrak train) into the TTC as well). Lastly, it is possible Caltrain will simply be extended from to TTC to serve east bay. It would be pretty exciting to have both a metro system and a commuter rail system kind of like Chicago, BART sort of tries to be both at this time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2726  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 2:09 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Nothing can be seen above ground yet, but this shot gives a good impression of the developing skyscraper canyon that will be the view from the Transbay Terminal Park. Didn't realize it before, but the old Pac Bell building is going to make a gorgeous bookend to the park, especially at night.


Last edited by mt_climber13; Mar 29, 2014 at 3:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2727  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2014, 2:30 AM
Folks3000 Folks3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
Has anyone been keeping up with LA's train station progress? I know they are building a ton of subway lines, but how practical are they? It's a shame that HSR will terminate at what will most likely be a rental car office. Imagine SF being connected to a city like NY, Boston, or even Portland. Actually a Portland Seattle extension (and, ideally, Vancouver) would excite me more because of the rail and transit oriented planning of those cities, and their economies would boom with direct HSR to SF.

Does anyone know the plans to connect SF with Sacramento?
They are ok. Most of them are light rail lines, not really typical subway tech like BART, so they actually go pretty slowly (given that LA is freaking huge) and many travel on surface streets for part of their length slowing them down a lot (kind of like the MUNI light rail lines in SF, though the LA ones are definitely faster than MUNI). I have no idea what you are referring to rental cars for? HSR will eventually go from the TTC in SF to Union Station in LA, with spurs to San Diego and Sacramento after that. California is a MASSIVE economy all by itself, it doesn't need to connect with any other states for its rail system to be a boon. Even if HSR doesn't happen right away, there are still countless plans for regional rail.



I think this is the eventual plan from the MTC for train service to San Francisco. They will need a second transbay tube before about 2040 (the current one will reach capacity), so they are planning on having the new tube carry standard gauge rail as well, and are considering BART lines down Geary. This will allow commuter rail and intercity rail to reach the City. They have plans for the new subway line to come in on different SF streets on its way to Geary, such as Folsom or Townsend, in order for it to connect with the TTC. Caltrain can connect to East Bay, Some Capitol Corridor trains with hybrid locomotives can access SF. Suffice to say, pretty exciting long range future for San Francisco!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2728  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2014, 1:08 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
My comment about the rental car office was based on concerns certain groups had during the initial proposals for HSR... basically a "train to nowhere." I don't keep up with transit developments so I don't know what Los Angeles' plans are for connecting the metro with HSR through rail and subway service. It was an honest concern. I am a huge proponent of HSR and the $80 billion+ cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of expanding and maintaining our freeways, and is a much better investment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2729  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2014, 7:31 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
My comment about the rental car office was based on concerns certain groups had during the initial proposals for HSR... basically a "train to nowhere." I don't keep up with transit developments so I don't know what Los Angeles' plans are for connecting the metro with HSR through rail and subway service. It was an honest concern. I am a huge proponent of HSR and the $80 billion+ cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of expanding and maintaining our freeways, and is a much better investment.
It is planned to stop at Union Station.



This is a render of a not quite real upgrade that could happen before HSR is finished.


__________________
San Francisco Projects List ∞ The city that knows how ∞ 2017 ∞ 884,363 ∞ ~2030 ∞ 1,000,000
San Francisco Projects ThreadOakland Projects ThreadOceanwide Center - 275M/901'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2730  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 6:32 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Here's a shot looking across the terminal from Natoma and First toward 350 Mission (seen under construction in the background). The tower site is to the far left:



I didn't try to shoot it, but looking down into the hole you can see major progress on the train box. Shouldn't be too much longer a wait to see this reach street level.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2731  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2014, 8:05 PM
jbm jbm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 128
i walked by this site today for the first time in a few months (used to work on corner of 2nd x mission, but switched jobs). From the fremont st "bridge" you can clearly see that they are laying rebar along the bottom of the site. didn't have my phone with me, so no pics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2732  
Old Posted May 9, 2014, 6:25 AM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
Making progress:









The train box being built midway through block:





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2733  
Old Posted May 18, 2014, 7:06 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
... Also Amtrak Capitol line already connects Oakland to Sacramento and it's pretty successful. The problem with a direct connect to SF is that little thing called the Bay. ...
the irony of course is that in the early days of the old Transbay Terminal, there *was* a direct train connection between it and Sacramento.

and jumping over to today's (bad) news:

Quote:
Tough to figure what is going up faster - the $1.9 billion Transbay Transit Center or its cost overruns.

Located in the heart of downtown, the terminal was intended to be the city's state-of-the-art transportation hub, serving as both the northern station for high-speed rail to Los Angeles and the hub for Bay Area bus service.

Within two years of the much-heralded groundbreaking in September 2011, the estimated cost of the four-story bus terminal and underground train station had climbed to $300 million more than anticipated.

The hike prompted a scaleback in design - most notably, the building's undulating glass skin was replaced with perforated aluminum to save an estimated $17 million.

Now comes word that the project's costs have grown another $150 million - prompting the Transbay Joint Powers Authority to strip $53 million in "cosmetics" from the building to keep a lid on the overall budget.

"We're taking responsible and appropriate actions to manage and deliver the program on the $1.9 billion budget," says project spokesman Adam Alberti.

For one, the terminal's walls and beams will be "more bare bones" - rather than flecked with glass fibers to given them a more finished look.

The bus deck will also be bare concrete, and the ceiling design will use cheaper materials.

Fixtures that were supposed to be made of stainless steel will now be galvanized, painted steel.

The Transbay authority will also have to look for private donors and sponsorships to help pay for some of the rooftop park features that were originally budgeted into the project.

In other words - we're getting less for more.

And they still will need another $2.5 billion for the tunnel to bring the trains into the station.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2734  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 8:20 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Very much disappointed, but I can't say I didn't see this coming. Can't really have a project this size without cost overruns. Shame, it looked so great when the rendering came out, and now it might look totally different.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2735  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 8:43 PM
Onn Onn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The United States
Posts: 1,937
Yeah, that's definitely disappointing. They need to redouble their efforts to make sure this one comes out better than expected.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2736  
Old Posted May 20, 2014, 11:53 PM
Perklol's Avatar
Perklol Perklol is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
In other words - we're getting less for more
What why? There has to be a way to get extra resources. Maybe they can double the tolls on roads and bridges or neglect maintenance on some roads for a few years. Nothing harmful
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2737  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 6:11 AM
BStyles BStyles is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eveningsong View Post
What why? There has to be a way to get extra resources. Maybe they can double the tolls on roads and bridges or neglect maintenance on some roads for a few years. Nothing harmful
You do not use toll money to fund construction projects. It is used to maintain the infrastructure of what's already in place, and only that. The Port Authority over in New York is being penalized for exactly what you're suggesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2738  
Old Posted May 23, 2014, 8:00 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 965
Its not good to have fare changes that really hurt average people that have to use those corridors daily, politically that is a nonstarter. Also, infrastructure is an enormous expense, far greater than what tolls could raise.

This is why corporate taxation is crucial to infrastructure. Corporations are bigger benefactors of infrastructure, as an assumed multiple employees take use of it. They also provide tons of tax revenue that is not front facing, so that cities can actually build infrastructure.
__________________
San Francisco Projects List ∞ The city that knows how ∞ 2017 ∞ 884,363 ∞ ~2030 ∞ 1,000,000
San Francisco Projects ThreadOakland Projects ThreadOceanwide Center - 275M/901'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2739  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 5:59 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by BStyles View Post
You do not use toll money to fund construction projects. It is used to maintain the infrastructure of what's already in place, and only that. The Port Authority over in New York is being penalized for exactly what you're suggesting.
around here, *some* toll money is used for projects other than maintenance of existing infrastructure

Quote:
In fiscal year 2011-12, approximately 123.67 million vehicles crossed the seven state-owned toll bridges in the Bay Area, generating approximately $642 million in total toll revenues — including $139 million in base toll revenues, $116 million in Regional Measure 2 revenues and $387 million in seismic retrofit surcharge revenues.

The base toll revenues are used first to cover the ongoing operations, toll facilities maintenance and administration of the bridges. Remaining toll revenues fund debt service on Regional Measure 1 project financing and various transit and traffic-relieving capital projects that serve the bridge corridors.

Regional Measure 2 funds are used to fund the Regional Measure 2 projects.

The seismic surcharge toll revenues are used to fund a multibillion-dollar seismic retrofit program to strengthen and reinforce bridge structures and roadways on all of the seven state-owned Bay Area bridges, including the completed replacement of the eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.
source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2740  
Old Posted May 24, 2014, 4:54 PM
a very long weekend's Avatar
a very long weekend a very long weekend is offline
dazzle me
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: 94109
Posts: 823
yeah, why not use toll money for construction? just raise the toll an extra dollar on all the bridges and call it some surcharge for whatever you want to build (a second transbay tunnel, for instance).
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 7:26 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.