SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136300)

SFView Oct 20, 2006 5:50 AM

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.

kenratboy Oct 20, 2006 6:05 AM

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.

SFView Oct 20, 2006 6:58 AM

...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...

Reminiscence Oct 20, 2006 3:08 PM

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


AK47KC Oct 21, 2006 2:46 AM

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.

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 3:20 AM

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

AK47KC Oct 21, 2006 3:22 AM

I know, I want the terminal and towers now!

SFView Oct 21, 2006 3:36 AM

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

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 3:46 AM

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!

SFView Oct 21, 2006 3:51 AM

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.

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 3:55 AM

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.

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 4:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView
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.

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

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

AK47KC Oct 21, 2006 4:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy
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.


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.

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 4:43 AM

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

Reminiscence Oct 21, 2006 4:45 AM

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:

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 4:49 AM

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.

Reminiscence Oct 21, 2006 4:57 AM

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:

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 5:01 AM

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?

Reminiscence Oct 21, 2006 6:11 AM

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?

rgolch Oct 21, 2006 2:35 PM

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:

kenratboy Oct 21, 2006 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reminisence
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?

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!

northbay Oct 21, 2006 4:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy
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.

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;)

FourOneFive Oct 21, 2006 5:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reminisence
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.

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.

J Church Oct 21, 2006 5:51 PM

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.

Reminiscence Oct 21, 2006 6:24 PM

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.

kenratboy Oct 22, 2006 2:38 AM

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!

kenratboy Oct 22, 2006 2:39 AM

please delete post

Reminiscence Oct 22, 2006 5:44 AM

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 :)

SFView Oct 22, 2006 6:07 AM

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.

kenratboy Oct 22, 2006 6:14 AM

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!)

kenratboy Oct 22, 2006 6:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView
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.

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:

Reminiscence Oct 22, 2006 6:32 AM

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.

SFView Oct 22, 2006 7:06 AM

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.

northbay Oct 22, 2006 2:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy
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!)

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:

kenratboy Oct 22, 2006 3:46 PM

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!!!

FourOneFive Oct 22, 2006 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy
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.

kenratboy Oct 22, 2006 3:58 PM

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.

FourOneFive Oct 22, 2006 4:03 PM

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

Reminiscence Oct 22, 2006 5:06 PM

: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.

munkyman Oct 22, 2006 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reminisence
: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.

AK47KC Oct 22, 2006 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView
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.

If that is true, then I can't wait to see it rise! :banana: :banana: :banana: :)

Reminiscence Oct 22, 2006 11:03 PM

Quote:

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.
Oh man, I certainly hope not. Not that it would be a huge dissapointment, but its just that we've come so far, and the last time we asked the public, they seemed to back it. They have to do a very good job to explain to the public that this isnt going to be a wall 1500' high, but rather a thin and sleek looking tower that wont block much of the sun or views from the hills. I think thats what people are most concerned about, from the Embarcadero days.

EastBayHardCore Oct 22, 2006 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reminisence
Oh man, I certainly hope not. Not that it would be a huge dissapointment, but its just that we've come so far, and the last time we asked the public, they seemed to back it. They have to do a very good job to explain to the public that this isnt going to be a wall 1500' high, but rather a thin and sleek looking tower that wont block much of the sun or views from the hills. I think thats what people are most concerned about, from the Embarcadero days.

1500' now huh? You guys sure do like to play fast and loose with the numbers, don't you? I wouldn't hold my breath until they are U/C.

AK47KC Oct 23, 2006 12:07 AM

Whatever the final height is, I'm happy if one of the towers is at least 305 m, giving SF a well-deserved supertall skyscraper. But anyway if the second tower is a supertall skyscraper as well, that would be awesome!

Reminiscence Oct 23, 2006 12:14 AM

Quote:

1500' now huh? You guys sure do like to play fast and loose with the numbers, don't you? I wouldn't hold my breath until they are U/C.
Heh, no I just put 1500' out of pure exampleness (if thats a word). But I dunno, 1350' and 1500' arent all that far away from each other, at least in the eyes of the nimbys. I'll just wait untill they say something at the meeting.

I think they're suppose to release the agenda for the Friday meeting around Wednesday, but I'm not sure.

BTinSF Oct 23, 2006 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView
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.

I have trouble believing this could start before the Millenium Tower is finished because that could really cause chaos on that stretch of Mission St. And also we have 555 Mission going up just up the street.

AK47KC Oct 23, 2006 12:24 AM

The three Transbay Towers taller than 850' (259 m) better have some serious eye candy and light decorations at night to make them stand out. Just like with the case of One Rincon Hill, it would really suck if there was no lighting decor at all for these prominent towers.

Reminiscence Oct 23, 2006 12:26 AM

Since they recognize the Millenium Tower to be a landmark or even anchorage to the Transbay Project, I too would'nt think that any of the Transbay towers would start construction that soon. Perhaps the temporary terminal, but not the towers themselves.

AK47KC Oct 23, 2006 12:46 AM

^^^Unless they are in a rush to generate enough funds to build the new terminal.

SFView Oct 23, 2006 2:12 AM

Renzo's tower starting "before," could mean anytime before Transbay Terminal and Tower begins in 2010. Millennium and 555 Mission should be completed sometime before then.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.