HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 35 7.69%
#2 Cesar Pelli 87 19.12%
#3 SOM 333 73.19%
Voters: 455. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #441  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2007, 5:35 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY/Bellevue, WA
Posts: 3,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by nequidnimis View Post
LA's orange line is on a former railway alignment and features therefore a limited number of intersections with surface roads. Its operating speed is probably comparable to that of rail.
That's true, but trust me, I've seen many BRT systems around the world work that aren't on former rail lines and have to deal with signal priority (and do quite well) - Curitiba, Paris, Vegas, Vancouver to name a few. Going back to my original statement (many posts ago ), I would lave to have subways criss-crossing the city. A lot of my displeasure with the Central Subway is personal - I want better transit in my lifetime. As it is now, the CS won't be finished for almost ten years. No other Muni or BART subway in the City will be started until construction on the CS is finished. Bus service will continue to get worse, especially if this "Parking for Neighborhoods" scam passes. I just hope that at least Geary and Van Ness BRT are finished in less than ten years, without too much watering down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #442  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 6:43 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 927
Got an e-mail today saying the proposals will be rolled out on August 6th!!!

I am very excited, lets hope for something TALL

Says it will be streamed live on the cities web site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #443  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 7:34 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
Got an e-mail today saying the proposals will be rolled out on August 6th!!!

I am very excited, lets hope for something TALL

Says it will be streamed live on the cities web site.
Oh nice, what time is the streaming?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #444  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2007, 8:44 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Note that there will be some discussion regarding raising height limits in the area of the new Transbay Terminal at the July 25, 2007 meeting open to the public. Anyone here on SSP planning to attend? Any opinions here on height regarding the proposed Piano Towers, and how the Transbay and other new towers in the area should relate to them, and the rest of San Francisco's skyline?
Well, I made a suggestion way back in which they should alter the heights of the Piano Towers so as to avoid that "Twin Tower" look people might not want. In my opinion the view from Treasure Island should have the Transbay Tower as the pinnacle of the SF Skyline, being taller than the tallest of the Piano Towers.

Mind you, this is just my own version of this fantasy



The Transbay Transit Tower should be the tallest at 1500' followed by the tallest Piano Tower at 1350'. The second Transbay Tower (or the TJPA Site) could reach 1250' followed by the second Piano Tower at 1200' (as originally intended). The third tallest Transbay Tower would reach 1050' while the third tallest Piano Tower would also reach 1050'. The fourth tallest Piano Tower would be 900' (as originally intended) while the shortest Piano Tower would reach 750'. The towers of course would be built in the slender fashion so shadows and blocked views are not a concern. In addition, the location of the towers will form a "peak" in the skyline. The designs themselves would be nothing short of breathtaking.

Thats a longshot, but when you dream you've got to dream big.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #445  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 12:39 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
Got an e-mail today saying the proposals will be rolled out on August 6th!!!

I am very excited, lets hope for something TALL

Says it will be streamed live on the cities web site.
Could you please give us the link?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #446  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 3:14 AM
rajaxsonbayboi's Avatar
rajaxsonbayboi rajaxsonbayboi is offline
Pizza Pizza
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bay area
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
Well, I made a suggestion way back in which they should alter the heights of the Piano Towers so as to avoid that "Twin Tower" look people might not want. In my opinion the view from Treasure Island should have the Transbay Tower as the pinnacle of the SF Skyline, being taller than the tallest of the Piano Towers.

Mind you, this is just my own version of this fantasy



The Transbay Transit Tower should be the tallest at 1500' followed by the tallest Piano Tower at 1350'. The second Transbay Tower (or the TJPA Site) could reach 1250' followed by the second Piano Tower at 1200' (as originally intended). The third tallest Transbay Tower would reach 1050' while the third tallest Piano Tower would also reach 1050'. The fourth tallest Piano Tower would be 900' (as originally intended) while the shortest Piano Tower would reach 750'. The towers of course would be built in the slender fashion so shadows and blocked views are not a concern. In addition, the location of the towers will form a "peak" in the skyline. The designs themselves would be nothing short of breathtaking.

Thats a longshot, but when you dream you've got to dream big.

i like this dream.
__________________
l'architecture est le breuvage magique ce des feuls ma vie.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #447  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 4:01 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Could you please give us the link?
I am not special, I just signed up for the mailing list!

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #448  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 4:27 AM
sfcity1 sfcity1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
I am not special, I just signed up for the mailing list!

Awesome. Can't wait to see what comes out of this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #449  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 6:19 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
I am not special, I just signed up for the mailing list!
Thanks. Here is the link to the City's website:
http://www.sfgov.org/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #450  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 7:42 AM
mahanakorn's Avatar
mahanakorn mahanakorn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
I wasn't disputing that - that's obviously a fact (except maybe in Muni subways, that is). The point is cost/benefit analysis. Even if we leave out the $800 mil in "free" money from the Feds, is a subway with three/four total stops - and only one in Chinatown the best place to spend $600 mil? Is it better to upgrade service for X number of passengers by 50% or 4X number of passengers by 30%?

If we had loads of money to throw around, I'd say build subways everywhere, but we don't. The Transbay Transit Center is worth the money, IMO, because it improves access to and from the City by such a huge amount. But building the Central Subway sets work on other corridors within the City back not years, but decades. Do you seriously think we gain/keep more riders from their cars by improving one corridor by a lot instead of lots of corridors by a good bit?

Some more info:

http://www.examiner.com/a-833889~One...nly_lanes.html
Maybe this idea has previously been discussed and discarded, but I've never heard it suggested before: why not piggyback the central subway on top of the Caltrain bore under 2nd Street (a la Market Street subway)?

The subway could have stops at Brannan, Folsom, and Market, then continue up Montgomery with stops near California, Columbus/Broadway/Chinatown, Washington Square. A spur from the northern segment of the line could connect into the Trans-Bay Terminal, again atop or aligned with the Caltrain tunnel.

BRT could serve the Caltrain - 4th St - Stockton route, turning west after Chinatown along Broadway (to van Ness? to Fillmore? to the Presidio?).

Seems this alignment would get more service closer to where it's most needed (West SoMa, Financial District, Chinatown). But... would the funding authorities allow funding for the two projects to be combined?

Last edited by mahanakorn; Jul 22, 2007 at 8:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #451  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 11:00 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by mahanakorn View Post
Maybe this idea has previously been discussed and discarded, but I've never heard it suggested before: why not piggyback the central subway on top of the Caltrain bore under 2nd Street (a la Market Street subway)?

The subway could have stops at Brannan, Folsom, and Market, then continue up Montgomery with stops near California, Columbus/Broadway/Chinatown, Washington Square. A spur from the northern segment of the line could connect into the Trans-Bay Terminal, again atop or aligned with the Caltrain tunnel.

BRT could serve the Caltrain - 4th St - Stockton route, turning west after Chinatown along Broadway (to van Ness? to Fillmore? to the Presidio?).

Seems this alignment would get more service closer to where it's most needed (West SoMa, Financial District, Chinatown). But... would the funding authorities allow funding for the two projects to be combined?
I personally like this idea and I'd like to see Muni extended to Columbus, Polk Gulch, Union, Chestnut and the Presidio. Its amazing that such a popular part of the city for both commuters and for those of us that like going into North Beach, Russian Hill, Cow Hollow or Marina for dinner/drinks have no choices for public transportation other than those crappy buses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #452  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 11:34 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Hmmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by mahanakorn View Post
Maybe this idea has previously been discussed and discarded, but I've never heard it suggested before: why not piggyback the central subway on top of the Caltrain bore under 2nd Street (a la Market Street subway)?

The subway could have stops at Brannan, Folsom, and Market, then continue up Montgomery with stops near California, Columbus/Broadway/Chinatown, Washington Square. A spur from the northern segment of the line could connect into the Trans-Bay Terminal, again atop or aligned with the Caltrain tunnel.

BRT could serve the Caltrain - 4th St - Stockton route, turning west after Chinatown along Broadway (to van Ness? to Fillmore? to the Presidio?).

Seems this alignment would get more service closer to where it's most needed (West SoMa, Financial District, Chinatown). But... would the funding authorities allow funding for the two projects to be combined?
That would actually serve the new residential high rise neighborhoods, Transbay terminal and the Financial district. Seems to make to much sense to be possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #453  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 6:43 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfcity1 View Post
Awesome. Can't wait to see what comes out of this.
The pessimist in me is telling me we will be underwhelmed. Bracing for the worst, hoping for the best!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #454  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 9:03 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
Revised Schedule and Unveiling

Looks like my dream has a chance after all:

From Socketsite.com:



Frederick has heard rumblings of a 1,500 foot tower (despite the current height limits of 550 feet), and as Jamie notes, you can watch the unveiling on SFGTV (channel 26) if you can’t make it in person (on August 6th).

The public is invited to a Special TJPA Board Meeting on Monday, August 6th, 2007 from 6 pm to 9 pm in San Francisco City Hall Board Chamber Room where we will be unveiling the proposed design concepts for the new landmark Transbay Transit Center and Tower in downtown San Francisco.

Presentations will be given at the August 6th, Special TJPA Board Meeting, at City Hall, 6:00 to 9:00 PM, (in order) by the following teams:

* Richard Rogers Partnership/Forest City Enterprises/MacFarlane Partners
* Skidmore Owings and Merrill/Rockefeller Group Development Corporation
* Pelli Clark Pelli Architects/Hines

The design models will also be on display for the public Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 from 8 am to 6 pm in the North Light Court at San Francisco City Hall.

And while we have no interest in stealing the city’s thunder (and are probably aiming even higher than the tower), we are calling on all plugged-in tipsters that might have access to initial sketches, ideas or design concepts that were never submitted. Heck, we’ll even settle for homemade renderings (Godzilla anyone?) or additional rumors.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry

Last edited by Reminiscence; Jul 25, 2007 at 12:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #455  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2007, 12:48 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Let's brainstorm some ideas that we can bring up in the meeting tomorrow at YBCA. I can be kind of a loudmouth, and very opinionated, but don't like talking in front of groups of people unless I am 100% confident in what I'm saying, which means references, statistics, and facts are a MUST!

SFView.. i got your message.. thanks! I agree that the Transbay Tower should be the tallest tower for some time to come, even taller than the Piano proposals, which means we have to make it taller than TAP by far.

I am purely focused on the skyscraper portion of this project, so CalTrain extensions, possible HSR tracks, etc. don't interest me (at this moment) as I believe this is a step by step process.

What kind of ammo do you think I would need to counter the NIMBY arguments . I don't want to be caught off guard and look stoopid!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #456  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2007, 4:34 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Let's brainstorm some ideas that we can bring up in the meeting tomorrow at YBCA. I can be kind of a loudmouth, and very opinionated, but don't like talking in front of groups of people unless I am 100% confident in what I'm saying, which means references, statistics, and facts are a MUST!

SFView.. i got your message.. thanks! I agree that the Transbay Tower should be the tallest tower for some time to come, even taller than the Piano proposals, which means we have to make it taller than TAP by far.

I am purely focused on the skyscraper portion of this project, so CalTrain extensions, possible HSR tracks, etc. don't interest me (at this moment) as I believe this is a step by step process.

What kind of ammo do you think I would need to counter the NIMBY arguments . I don't want to be caught off guard and look stoopid!!
You might let the people running the workshop do most of the explanations at first. They should be giving an introductory presentation at the beginning of the workshop that will cover major issues regarding the proposals, and the workshop itself. There is also the revealing of the Competition designs to wait for on August 6, 2007 as well. The July 25 Workshop Meeting will be the first of more to come in the months ahead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #457  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2007, 4:46 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
What kind of ammo do you think I would need to counter the NIMBY arguments . I don't want to be caught off guard and look stoopid!!
That's pretty difficult because what the NIMBYs are going to argue is what they always argue: It'll shade someplace important, it'll increase windspeeds on the sidewalk, it'll exacerbate traffic and other problems, it's a disaster waiting to happen if it catches on fire, if there's a big quake or terrorists fly a plane into it, what we really need is more affordable housing (even though the housing it contains is supposed to be something like 35% affordable) blah blah blah. The point is, all they have to do is argue the fear and without access to the studies proving them off-base, it's hard to refute them. And you won't have access to the studies ahead of time. So what can you say?

I think what we just have to hope is that the economics of the plan require a really tall building--that is, only a really tall building will be able to command a price from the developer sufficient to fund the project. Because if it could "pencil out" within the current height limit, you can be pretty sure the realities of San Francisco are that they would not raise the limit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #458  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2007, 6:31 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
Looks like my business in Eureka has been cancelled. Good chance I'll be there tommorow. I'll do my research for the mean time.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #459  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2007, 3:08 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
I understand social justce demands that the average housing unit be available to the average wage earner in San Francisco. To reach this goal, we need to vastly increase the supply of housing units: that's the law of supply and demand. The only way to sufficiently increase the supply is to siginificantly increase the height and density of what is built. Downtown is a good place to start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #460  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2007, 3:54 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by nequidnimis View Post
I understand social justce demands that the average housing unit be available to the average wage earner in San Francisco. To reach this goal, we need to vastly increase the supply of housing units: that's the law of supply and demand. The only way to sufficiently increase the supply is to siginificantly increase the height and density of what is built. Downtown is a good place to start.
Good point, may I use it?
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 7:00 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.