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!

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;)

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

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.

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!

please delete post

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 :psycho:

Also, I have to give credit to FourOneFive for having them listed on one of his threads :)

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.

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!)

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 :tup:

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.

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.

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.) :tup:

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.

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.

true. hopefully, we'll get a rendering like this by the end of october 2007:

http://wtc.com/images/popup/img_down.../196000-pu.jpg

:previous:

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.