View Single Post
Old Posted Jun 12, 2006, 12:00 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
In spite of the carping from unreconstructed flower children and others, I think these buildings can get built. That's because the current crop of city politicians, generally an anti-development crowd, seem to want the new TransBay Terminal very badly--and they need the money developers will pay for a site for very tall buildings to pay for the terminal. They want it enough even to make the terminally short-sighted Sup. Chris Daly, another Eastern tranplant, specifically say he had nothing against tall buildings (really!!, I kid you not!).

What I can't figure out it WHY they want it so badly. The city center is slowly shifting south--toward the present CalTrain terminal, which already has excellent transportation links to the newish N-Judah/Third St subway line extention and, eventually (let us pray!) the cross-town subway. So why they want to spend billions (I think the latest estimate is something like $4 billion) to move CalTrain and, if it ever gets built, the high-speed link to LA, 6 or 7 blocks north, I don't know.

But if it results in a 1000' tower on Mission St, I'm for it! And I believe the version I read said "at least 1000 ft". Given the competition with LA and Seattle, if they go that high I bet they'll put on a spire or something to make it tallest in the west.

By the way, the opening post in this thread said no architects had been selected for the buildings, but it's looking very likely that Renzo Piano will do one of the 850 footers (the one at First and Mission, diagonally across the intersection from the thousand footer).

Incidentally, does anyone know if the site for the Piano building includes the empty lot formerly used by Golden Gate U. that was scheduled at one point to be a Sofitel? Or it is only the corner and adjacent lots where there are presently older buildings of modest (aprrox 7 or 8 stories) height?

Last edited by BTinSF; Jun 12, 2006 at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote