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 39 7.88%
#2 Cesar Pelli 98 19.80%
#3 SOM 358 72.32%
Voters: 495. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #401  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 2:33 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior View Post
BT, you should run against Daly in the next election (or with some wishful thinking, a recall election). We could use some development proponent with real, tangible goals here in District 6.
Daly can't run again - this is his last term. Sometimes ya gotta love term limits

EDIT: Didn't realize BT had already brought this up...

Last edited by Gordo; Jul 14, 2007 at 2:37 AM. Reason: Add a sentence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #402  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 2:48 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
They should just turn 2nd St. into a pedestrian only park with dedicated bike/ bus lanes. Has the city ever explored the possibility of closing down certain streets for bikes and pedestrians only?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #403  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 4:49 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
July 25th and August 6th: Two dates I've already marked on my calendar .
__________________
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
     
     
  #404  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 6:34 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
They should just turn 2nd St. into a pedestrian only park with dedicated bike/ bus lanes. Has the city ever explored the possibility of closing down certain streets for bikes and pedestrians only?
Its San Francisco - of course they have considered it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #405  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 6:45 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
Its San Francisco - of course they have considered it!
Not really. San Francsico, despite what people think of it, is more attached to the automobile than many people want to believe. Seattle and Portland have transit only streets, we have huge drawn out fights over Geary BRT taking one of three or four lanes. Manhattan has had limited car access to much of Central Park for decades, we spend years squabbling over making around 10% of roads in GG Park car-free on Saturdays. Can you even imagine the fight that would take place if we talked about making an actual street bike and ped only? Sure, we've closed off a few alleys, but an actual, real street? Keep dreaming...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #406  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 8:58 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^The reason there are fights over closing streets in GG Park is because the streets they demand be closed are the ones on the downtown end of the park in and around the museums. Offer to close some streets out by the ocean for them and see how they react. They want the ones they want in part because those, and only those, are most disruptive to car traffic. It's as much of a power trip as it is about actually getting a place to ride and skate.

As for 2nd St., it is the heart of what was the "dot-com" district. Whether or not it has car traffic, it is lined with both economically significant businesses, residential lofts and significant development projects including one at 2nd & Howard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #407  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 9:00 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
They should just turn 2nd St. into a pedestrian only park with dedicated bike/ bus lanes. Has the city ever explored the possibility of closing down certain streets for bikes and pedestrians only?
Why, exactly, should they do that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #408  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 4:22 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^The reason there are fights over closing streets in GG Park is because the streets they demand be closed are the ones on the downtown end of the park in and around the museums. Offer to close some streets out by the ocean for them and see how they react. They want the ones they want in part because those, and only those, are most disruptive to car traffic. It's as much of a power trip as it is about actually getting a place to ride and skate.
That is true, though I think the main reason that the streets involved were picked is because they are the same ones closed on Sundays - and the ones with the most attractions. I don't really see a need for ped and bike only streets in most places, except for some of the tourist areas. Powell for a few more blocks from where it already is a ped only area - it's already not really needed for auto traffic with it ending at Eddy - and the sidewalks are always overflowing. Grant Street is another - make it ped only for most of the day with a few hours for truck deliveries. Do the same thing on Jefferson - or at least remove the parking lane - wider sidewalks are desperately needed down there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #409  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 5:15 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Why, exactly, should they do that?
To encourage biking (by creating a safe, bike only lane with no speeding cars driven by tourists or other crazies who don't know how to navigate anything) and also to create a pleasant, park like street without noisy and polluting autos everywhere. Why does everything have to be centered around a stupid car, and why can't we have streets that don't have to be for CARS, but for people, pedestrians, for strolling, etc. There isn't enough space like this downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #410  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 6:01 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
I'll also note that if 2nd St is to be laid waste as discussed above, it will first have to sit in limbo and deterioriate for 4 years (who, after all, is going to put any money, even for maintenance, in an area that's about to suffer what this one is). The graffiti "artists" and homeless squatters should love that but not so much those who own condos in the area.
I don't agree with this at all and think that it's an overly reactionary, pessimistic and simplistic assessment (rather like the type that Chris Daly might initially make). The fact that this could happen has been well known for a number of years now and Second Street and its environs still look just fine. I remember walking along the proposed route after first reading about the potential demolition; the article clearly stated some buildings that had just been constructed would have to be removed. That was amazing to me at the time so I can understand your shocked reaction now upon finally learning about this possibility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #411  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 6:13 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
To encourage biking (by creating a safe, bike only lane with no speeding cars driven by tourists or other crazies who don't know how to navigate anything) and also to create a pleasant, park like street without noisy and polluting autos everywhere. Why does everything have to be centered around a stupid car, and why can't we have streets that don't have to be for CARS, but for people, pedestrians, for strolling, etc. There isn't enough space like this downtown.
Look what happened to K Street in Sacramento when traffic was eliminated and it became the "K Street Mall". It quickly deteriorated and became a great magnet for the homeless population. Businesses also suffered and left. Look also at downtown Seattle, where they reversed their decision and reopened Pike Street to traffic after having closed it and created what I thought was a very attractive place to walk or bike.

I don't think that our Second Street is in the right location to be successful as a restricted street either. Look at how long we've been considering closing lower Market Street to private traffic--it's been proposed several times over many years and nothing has become of the plan. This one makes more sense to me if we want to have a true transit first policy in place.

Last edited by viewguysf; Jul 14, 2007 at 6:14 PM. Reason: spelling error
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #412  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 6:46 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Look what happened to K Street in Sacramento when traffic was eliminated and it became the "K Street Mall". It quickly deteriorated and became a great magnet for the homeless population. Businesses also suffered and left. Look also at downtown Seattle, where they reversed their decision and reopened Pike Street to traffic after having closed it and created what I thought was a very attractive place to walk or bike.

I don't think that our Second Street is in the right location to be successful as a restricted street either. Look at how long we've been considering closing lower Market Street to private traffic--it's been proposed several times over many years and nothing has become of the plan. This one makes more sense to me if we want to have a true transit first policy in place.

Yeah, but for your failure examples, there are also successes at well. Look at 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica. That pedestrian only street is a great success. Unlike Sacramento, downtown SF is not just a location where people work 8-5, and drive to the suburbs. It is not an area where people just drive into their parking garage and grab lunch in their building. I believe that the critical mass is there in downtown SF both with residents (and growing rapidly) and with tourists who come into the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #413  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2007, 6:56 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Then simply don't use that example as what SF should do. Closing down the streets and installing trees, fountains, playgrounds, etc. where potholed pavement raceways once existed could entice more people to shop and play downtown, because, instead of feeling the rush rush, honk honk of walking down a typical cluttered, downtown sidewalk, imagine quiet(er) streets with no cars, just crowds of people, performance artists, public art displays, farmer's markets, etc. Real gathering places, like the kind I've read about in books

I'm using second street as an example, but I think that there could be something really cool developed if a certain number of streets in the city were closed to cars, and redesigned for pedestrians and LRV/ hi speed busses. This would encourage biking, because it would actually make it safe and convenient, and would be a step forward for us instead of just the constant arguing about how things "SHOULD" be better without any real plan.

This is just one of the ideas I've had to solve a huge problem we have: too many cars, too narrow sidewalks, too much development that is going to create even MORE traffic. What are other people's ideas, proposals about this area?

Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Look what happened to K Street in Sacramento when traffic was eliminated and it became the "K Street Mall". It quickly deteriorated and became a great magnet for the homeless population. Businesses also suffered and left. Look also at downtown Seattle, where they reversed their decision and reopened Pike Street to traffic after having closed it and created what I thought was a very attractive place to walk or bike.

I don't think that our Second Street is in the right location to be successful as a restricted street either. Look at how long we've been considering closing lower Market Street to private traffic--it's been proposed several times over many years and nothing has become of the plan. This one makes more sense to me if we want to have a true transit first policy in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #414  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2007, 7:28 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
July 25th and August 6th: Two dates I've already marked on my calendar .
Note that there will be some discussion regarding raising height limits in the area of the new Transbay Terminal at the July 25, 2007 meeting open to the public. Anyone here on SSP planning to attend? Any opinions here on height regarding the proposed Piano Towers, and how the Transbay and other new towers in the area should relate to them, and the rest of San Francisco's skyline?

Is anyone here also planning to attend the August 6, 2007 meeting?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #415  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2007, 9:30 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Note that there will be some discussion regarding raising height limits in the area of the new Transbay Terminal at the July 25, 2007 meeting open to the public. Anyone here on SSP planning to attend? Any opinions here on height regarding the proposed Piano Towers, and how the Transbay and other new towers in the area should relate to them, and the rest of San Francisco's skyline?

Is anyone here also planning to attend the August 6, 2007 meeting?
Is the July 25 meeting open to the public or just to residents of the neighborhood? What exactly goes on in these meetings, are opposing and proposing sides given equal time to debate their arguments, or is there some sort of vote taken, or what?
Since we all know that the NIMBYs are organized as always, it would probably be good for a bunch of pro- height protesters to show up at these meetings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #416  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2007, 8:02 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
^^^These will be public meetings. Yes, it may help to have more "pro-height protesters", in case their are a number of NIMBYs present.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #417  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2007, 9:03 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
So, who's going? I'd love to, but will be out of town on a consulting project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #418  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2007, 9:08 PM
rajaxsonbayboi's Avatar
rajaxsonbayboi rajaxsonbayboi is offline
Pizza Pizza
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bay area
Posts: 84
where would you go to see the public meeting?
__________________
l'architecture est le breuvage magique ce des feuls ma vie.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #419  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2007, 6:01 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
^^^From SFGOV listing for "Events for July 2007":
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Quote:
Transit Center District Plan
July 25
Time: 6:30 - 8:30 PM
Location: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts - Forum, 701 Mission Street ( btw. 3rd & 4th Streets )
Description: The Planning Department is initiating a planning effort for the southern portion of downtown San Francisco, with a particular focus on the vicinity of the Transbay Transit Center. Building on the recently adopted Transbay Redevelopment Plan as well as the 1985 Downtown Plan, this effort will examine the future of Downtown’s new core.
For More Information: Call Joshua Switzky at 415.575.6815 or email joshua.switzky@sfgov.org
Category: Meeting
...And from SocketSite:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2..._downtown.html
Quote:
Be Heard On The Heart Of San Francisco's New Downtown



San Francisco’s 1985 Downtown Plan “envisioned the area around the Transbay Terminal as the heart of the new downtown.” And the Fourth and King Street rail yard (and Caltrain station) is in need of “development.”

Have a vision, voice or thought that will help “[f]ulfill the vision of the Downtown Plan and the promise of a Transit First city to create a new downtown center anchored by a world class multimodal Transit Center and supported by a grand civic public realm?” Well, here’s your chance to be heard (and for tipsters to keep us plugged-in).

“Following detailed analysis and computer simulation (e.g. urban form, shadow, wind, circulation), the study will produce new planning policies and controls for land use, urban form, building design, and public realm improvements for private properties as well as for properties owned or to be owned by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority in and around the adopted Transbay Redevelopment Project Area and Transbay Terminal.”
“The study will [also] produce policies, conceptual site plans, and implementation mechanisms for air-rights development of the 4th/King Street station and railyards, particularly given the need to reconfigure the facilities to accommodate the Caltrain Downtown Extension and California High-Speed Rail.”
The public planning process kickoff is July 25th with workshops running through the end of the year. Our thanks to Jamie (over at the RinconHillSF) for keeping us (and you) plugged-in.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi...sit_center.htm
∙ Transit Center District Plan and Fourth and King Street Railyards Study [SFGov]

Last edited by SFView; Jul 16, 2007 at 7:00 AM. Reason: additional information
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #420  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2007, 7:38 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I personally would love to go and lend a hand to the pro-height group. However, I have business in Eureka to take care of, so I wont be there. Perhaps the August 6th meeting will prove better off. I would love to hear what happens at the meeting though. Here's praying we end up with spectacular news.
__________________
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
     
     
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 1:44 AM.

     

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