HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 40 8.05%
#2 Cesar Pelli 99 19.92%
#3 SOM 358 72.03%
Voters: 497. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1841  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 9:08 PM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hi123 View Post
^ I read somewhere that the groundbreaking would be in november 2008
I hope it's true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1842  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2008, 11:01 PM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
^yep. Here is where i read it. (From http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...ent.aspx?id=53)


Temporary Terminal Facility Design and Construction Process Launched
As a component of Phase I of the Transbay Transit Center program, the TJPA recently initiated the process for design and construction of the Temporary Terminal Facility located between Howard, Beale, Main and Folsom Streets. The Temporary Terminal, scheduled to break ground in November 2008, will serve passengers during the demolition of the old Transbay Terminal and construction of the new Transbay Transit Center. The facility will temporarily serve AC Transit, Greyhound, Golden Gate Transit, MUNI, SamTrans and WestCAT while the new Transit Center is under construction, from approximately 2009 until 2014.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1843  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 1:15 AM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
Everything i read about the transbay project says that the large tower will "fund the construction of the transit center". What do they mean by this? How can building a large expensive tower fund the construction of a large expensive transit terminal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1844  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 2:30 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hi123 View Post
Everything i read about the transbay project says that the large tower will "fund the construction of the transit center". What do they mean by this? How can building a large expensive tower fund the construction of a large expensive transit terminal?
Tax incentives?

Who cares as long as the funding supports this important and substantial project!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1845  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 3:49 AM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
^ Yeah as long as funding is in place i'm happy! And on a different note: Are the air rights in place for the 1'200 foot transit tower? Is it even sure that the city will allow the tower to be anywhere near that height?

Last edited by hi123; Aug 2, 2008 at 4:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1846  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 4:58 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hi123 View Post
Are the air rights in place for the 1'200 foot transit tower? Is it even sure that the city will allow the tower to be anywhere near that height?
According to Wikipedia:
On May 1, 2008, the city of San Francisco presented its Transbay zoning plan which includes seven towers exceeding the current 550 ft (168 m) height limit, with six towers ranging from 600 feet (183 m) to 800 ft (244 m) and the centerpiece 1,000 ft (305 m) Transbay Tower. Under the city plan, the height of the Renzo Piano towers would be reduced by one-third and the Transbay tower by one-sixth.
The reason for the height reduction may surprise you:
One of the reasons for this reduction was that the Transbay Tower, at 1,200 ft (366 m), would cast a shadow over Justin Herman Plaza near the Embarcadero, a violation of a 1984 law that prohibits structures from casting shadows over plazas and parks.
Which really sucks because the skyline will be affected as a result of their decision.

Of course, you can't please everyone:
A 1,000 ft (305 m) Transbay Tower would not shadow over a significant portion of Justin Herman Plaza.
Let us hope there are no more excuses!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1847  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 5:10 AM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
Good at least there are air rights for a the 1,000 foot main tower!awesome!

Last edited by hi123; Aug 2, 2008 at 8:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1848  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 5:37 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by fish View Post
The reason for the height reduction may surprise you:
One of the reasons for this reduction was that the Transbay Tower, at 1,200 ft (366 m), would cast a shadow over Justin Herman Plaza near the Embarcadero, a violation of a 1984 law that prohibits structures from casting shadows over plazas and parks.
We've discussed this here--in this and other threads--and it doesn't surprised any of us. Every San Franciscan paying attention is aware of this issue. And in fact, the shaddowing is apparently only a small portion of the Plaza and only in winter. However you should also be aware that the Board of Supervisors, the ultimate deciders on this project and this issue, can grant exemptions if it chooses.

The current proposal calls for a tower that's occupied to the 1000 ft level and capped by another 100-200 ft (I forget the exact figure) of sunlight-permeable structure containing wind turbines and decorative screens for a total of near 1200 ft. Since the terminal project needs as much money as possible from selling the rights and land to build the tower and since the lower the tower, the less the developer will pay, ultimately I still expect this proposal to win out.

By the way, I somtimes think every San Franciscan who cares about the city's skyline is a regular poster here--that's maybe 6 of us.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1849  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 5:44 AM
TechTalkGuy's Avatar
TechTalkGuy TechTalkGuy is offline
Mr. Technology
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,008
Not all of us are from San Francisco and there are thousands of threads in here to navigate.

Many of us are skyscraper enthusiasts who enjoy tall skyscrapers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1850  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 7:24 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by hi123 View Post
Everything i read about the transbay project says that the large tower will "fund the construction of the transit center". What do they mean by this? How can building a large expensive tower fund the construction of a large expensive transit terminal?
The competing developers put in bids for the rights to build the tower. The Hines/Pelli winning bid was $350 million, which will go towards construction of the terminal. The final amount may be revised though, depending on how the developers are asked to modify their proposal through the revision process.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1851  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 7:36 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
BT has it right, this is nothing new really, its been the case in San Francisco for the last 40 or so years since the rising of taller and taller buildings. In this case, I think the argument of taller = more revenue may win out. Because I didnt, and still dont, buy the TJPA's statement about Pelli's version having the most to offer or fitting in the best, and the fact that they took the $350 Million without even blinking an eye, it makes me think money will speak loudly again. Ultimately, I think its favorable to maintain the proposal as originally proposed.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1852  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 8:12 PM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
Seeing that the tower will be funding the construction of the transit center, Doesn't that pretty much guarantee the construction of the tower?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1853  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 8:27 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Pretty much. That's what I was saying above. And it also guarantees it will be taller than it might otherwise since the developer will pay more for the right to build taller.

While the first phase of the Transit Terminal (the basement shell and above ground structure with bus bays and BART connection) is funded, the second phase (the commuter and high speed rail buildout on the lower level and the rail tunnel connecting to 4th & Townsend where the rail terminal is now) is not, so they need as much money as they can get from the tower developer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1854  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 8:28 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Seeing as how this is San Francisco, nothing is ever written before its done. I would say there is a good chance the tower will be built. Most people would assume it will get built just because its such an integral part to the construction of the terminal. One of those cant have one without the other things I suppose. But again, the main thing being debated right now is just how high the tower will reach.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1855  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 8:34 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
There's almost no doubt the tower will get built. The only question is how tall. I think there could still be some question also about the second stage of the terminal, the CalTrain/HSR tunnel, especially if the HSR bond issue fails to pass in November.

One other thing that could delay the tower is the developer. I think an important reason they picked Hines/Pelli is that Hines is as financially solid an office developer as exists in this country right now. It's not only that they offered the most but also that they can be counted on to be able to come up with it. HOWEVER, times are tough and financing is hard to come by. If they begin to have doubts about the market or even have trouble getting financing, they could go into a stall mode or even, HORROR!, back out. As I just said, I think with Hines that's less likely than with other developers but they are tough cookies and will not hesitate to stall if they think the economics warrant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1856  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 8:44 PM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
But if Hines backs out can't the city just pick another developer willing to pick up the project?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1857  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 8:48 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
If they could find another one who could get financing but that would add several years before the thing is built and wreck the timeline for the terminal. Also, they might not be willing to pay as much--Hines offered twice as much as the other developers in the competition--and the project needs all the money it can get.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1858  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2008, 8:58 PM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
^ Yes and if Hines offered twice as much as any other developer that shows a serious commitment to this entire project. And seeing that so far this project is right on track it seems as though the only thing left to be debated is the height of the tower as you and reminiscence mentioned. If the tower is over 850 feet i'll be happy!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1859  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2008, 5:17 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
We've discussed this here--in this and other threads--and it doesn't surprised any of us. Every San Franciscan paying attention is aware of this issue. And in fact, the shaddowing is apparently only a small portion of the Plaza and only in winter. However you should also be aware that the Board of Supervisors, the ultimate deciders on this project and this issue, can grant exemptions if it chooses.

The current proposal calls for a tower that's occupied to the 1000 ft level and capped by another 100-200 ft (I forget the exact figure) of sunlight-permeable structure containing wind turbines and decorative screens for a total of near 1200 ft. Since the terminal project needs as much money as possible from selling the rights and land to build the tower and since the lower the tower, the less the developer will pay, ultimately I still expect this proposal to win out.

By the way, I somtimes think every San Franciscan who cares about the city's skyline is a regular poster here--that's maybe 6 of us.
Actually, I think of the "maybe 6 of us" regular posters here, we all care about the San Francisco skyline; but there are probably dozens of others who do not post here that care just as much or more.

From: http://www.sfgov.org//site/uploadedf...on_PART_2b.pdf
I haven't seen a limit on height for the "transparent" portion on top. Note that the ESB example extends more that 400 higher than the main roof, if we don't count the observation deck at 1250' as the roof. Even if we count the observation deck, we still get another 222' to the very top. The study seems to encourage reaching a total height in the realm of 1200' with such a top:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1860  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2008, 10:23 PM
hi123 hi123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 584
So when Hines won the rights to develop a transbay tower did the pelli design come with that? I found a posting on curbed sf from may stating that the transbay transit center has an approved contract with pelli but that the tower is a "seperate project" ? Can anyone shed some light on this situtation?

From a post in may on sf.curbed.com

"Our initial post stated that the TJPA had approved Pelli Clarke Pelli's design for the Transbay Terminal Center when, in fact, the TJPA has only awarded Pelli Clarke Pelli the contract to design the center— the tower itself is, in fact, a separate project; the renderings above imply a false equation between the two. In a note uncannily similar to a recent comment posted on the site— government officials can have avatars, too!— the Planning Department asked us to "simmer down" on the matter and to make the correction. Done. Please take the jump for the full press release, and accept our apology for any confusion we may have caused anyone. Stay tuned— now that Pelli Clarke Pelli won this contract, who knows who might design the tower? The possibilities, they are endless"


?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.