Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82
Rem- yes they were referring to Rogers'. It even says so right before they start bashing it. They actually like the SOM design but it's just too "BIG" for little old hippie granny San Francisco, oh yeah, and they're not selling out either, but instead trying to create a really great product.
It is kind of hard to bash the planning peeps for accepting a "sell out" when they desparately need money to get anything done. But then again I wonder, why do they need to tunnel under the city for the CalTrain tracks at all? Why not just relocate and build the new transbay center at the current terminus at 4th and King streets, saving millions if not billions of dollars? The infrastructe is already there, there are already two MUNI LRV lines that go right there, versus zero at the current 1st and mission zone. Someone in this forum argued this in the past, and I remember screaming WOLF because transbay is at such a better, central location, but when you really look at it, it would make more sense economically to just build the new station where the caltrain already is. But then we probably wouldn't get a cool huge tower, so then I"d have to change my mind on that one  |
I agree that the terminal would have made more sense at the 4th and King location, but as you said we're now getting a landmark tower because of the move. Also, when you think about the terminal's intended goal of being a new gateway to the city, it does make quite a bit more sense to be located just south of Market.
That said, don't forget that the Planning Department is studying the air-rights around the 4th and King station (
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi..._railyards.htm), so because of the move we may actually be ending up with towers in both locations. Which is a plus in my book
