Yes, I think Embarcadero 4 was originally slated to be 60 stories tall. Because of the slab shape of the Embarcadero buildings running east-west lengthwise, it was probably a good idea to shorten it to 45 stories. Even as they are, the Embarcadero Center towers form a huge view blocking wall and large shadows to the north of the complex. I think they might have done better if they built Embarcadero 1 as 60 stories instead of 45, but that was the first tower built before I think the design was changed. Transbay should prove to be much better planned in so many different ways.

The general intention of the planners is to build the maximum amount that the City of San Francisco will accept. In doing so, the planners hope to raise the maximum amount of funds to help pay for the Terminal. Without going into details, there are many reasons why for this project, time and location, going taller is better. I also believe that taller, more world recognized, award winning designed structures, will be a much easier sell to potential tenants and condo buyers. We have already seen the success of One Rincon Hill.

With each successive release of official Transbay information, we have seen great changes in size, height, form and scope. Things have been getting more, and taller each time so far. We don't yet know the outcome of the next release, but we can only speculate based on past trends, and hope for the best.

I will again say - I have no issue with them building tall...VERY tall (think - crush everything West of Chicago) - but it better be the BEST architecture, BEST building, designs to NOT LOOK DATED IN TEN YEARS, and all that.

In other words - this should be the hardest building EVER for design and construction. It should be perfect.

My gut says - this cannot be some glass-clad, post-modern, trendy building. It needs to look organic, pleasing from every side at every elevation, look good during the day, look good at night, look good in the fog. Look at the current tallest buildings in the city, many have stone or concrete elements, as to look a bit more 'human' - I wonder if this trent will carry over.

They cannot fvck up San Francisco.

...Hence the reasons for the competition. Even after the winning design is selected, the final design and height may not be realized, or publicly released until around the time construction begins for the tallest tower and terminal in 2010. There should be a 4 year construction period to completion by 2014. We still have a long 7 to 8 year road ahead of us for at least the very tallest of the towers. Transbay is still in the very early stages, meaning many large changes are still possible. The schedule could also change, but the hope is to build sooner to help save from the rising costs of construction.

Approximately eight years = enormous amounts of forum posts to go...

Hmm, in the official Transbay Transit Center website, they have a timeline depicting more or less when certain events are to take place. Curiously enough they have the construction of the Transit Center Building slated for 2008-2014. When they say this, do they mean the construction of the temporary terminal, the actual tallest of the Transbay Towers, or something else entirely?

http://www.transbaycenter.org/transb...ent.aspx?id=58

That is the construction of the new replacement terminal. The temporary terminal would have already been constructed by the time they tear down the current terminal and build the new terminal. I heard a while ago that they wanted to construct the Transbay Tower at the same time with the terminal.

Wow, thats a long ass time to wait. It better be worth it!

I know, I want the terminal and towers now!

Basic Preliminary Transbay Terminal and Tower Construction Schedule:

Temporary Terminal 2008-2010
Old Terminal demolition 2010
New Transbay Terminal and Tower 2010-2014
Temporary Terminal demolition 2014

I just spent some time reading the Transbay website, my god, that is a HUGE project!

Any idea if they will offer long-term bonds for funding? I would even contemplate dropping $10,000 on it...as long as it is a guaranteed return!

In all honestly, I am shocked to learn they will 'start' on the project in 2008 (actual construction), and that it is so far along (as in, to the point where construction will start) - I thought this was still a 'plan'!!!

It is badass that Caltrain will go into the city itself, that will certainly make it much better for me to use! Makes it within walking distance of all the stuff I like to do (nice shopping downtown, Chinatown, financial district, basically the whole east side of the city!)

2008 for groundbreaking on a project this big is really pretty quick. I just want to see a commitment to some >1000' buildings!

It's possible that the tower being designed by Renzo Piano may start construction first, but that's only my guess. This tower seems shrouded in even greater secrecy. The final design, height and construction time of this tower could also surprise us. It should be at least 850 feet tall, and 150 feet shorter than the tallest Transbay Tower.

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.

Nice. Where can I get more info on Piano's tower?

I assume Piano's tower is different from...'THE TOWER' (the BIG one)?

I guess the a bridge in between the San Mateo Bridge and the Bay Bridge should be built to allow pass-thru traffic to bypass the city. I think a tunnel might be extremely expensive, especially in a city like SF.

Sorry, I mean from the Golden Gate Bridge, thru the city, and out onto 80. Think going from Marin County to SFO.

I think it would be awesome if they used the Sears Tower, John Hancock Center, and AON Center as models for the Transbay Towers. They seem to have the right dimentions and heights with The Sears Tower being around 150 feet taller than the other two. They would be much closer to each other of course, but with the same or more height as the already existent Chicago models.

I would actually oppose a traffic tunnel running under San Francisco, its just thats its too complex. Imagine, traffic is already packed, I dont even wanna imagine what it would be if they suddently decided to tear up the whole street for several months ... my god, total gridlock the likes of which we've never seen before.

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.

Patience gentlemen, patience ... hopefully soon we'll be able to feast our eyes on a growing Transbay project.:psycho: :psycho:

Well, depends if they cut and cover, or drill under. The Big Dig was 100% needed, and the city survived and prospered - I just wonder if SF would be the same. It would just be nice to eliminate all unnecessary traffic.

Hmm, it sounds good, but I dont know ... SF's geography is very tricky and with the hills and all, it might take a lot longer than Boston. :uhh:

Oh, no doubt it would be a huge PITA - but honestly - what would not be hard, expensive, and time-consuming in terms of any 'real' transit project?

Look at Transbay, $3.4 billion, a decade, and what, over a million man-hours?

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?

Can't wait to see some official designs.

Also, great to see SF also being one of the cities dominating the highrise thread. You guys have a lot going on.:tup: