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
     
     
  #2141  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2009, 6:06 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Malcolm is now onsite, so I'm thinking that excavation for the west end of the terminal is either underway or about to be.

Notice the cement truck and pumping rig to the right:


The crane on the left is lowering sections of the large tubes you see in the foreground. The crane on the right was moving them over into position for the other crane:


From other side of the project:
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2142  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 6:46 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
City releases ambitious Transbay Terminal proposal
John Coté,John King, Chronicle Staff Writers
Thursday, November 19, 2009
(11-19) 15:43 PST San Francisco -- The recession hasn't stopped San Francisco's city planners from thinking big.

The Planning Department released an ambitious set of proposals today to turn the blocks around the Transbay Terminal into a commercial and transportation centerpiece of the region over the next two decades.

The 145-acre "Transit Center District" would redraw San Francisco's skyline with a half-dozen towers taller than almost any in the city, including one stretching at least 100 feet higher than the Transamerica Pyramid. The plan would widen the sidewalks and narrow the streets around a rebuilt terminal. It also would reroute most Bay Bridge commuter traffic outside the pedestrian-oriented district . . . .

The plan promotes creating "an elegant skyline ... with its apex at the Transit Center" by allowing the Hines tower to rise 1,000 feet in terms of occupied space. Another 200 feet would be allowed for mechanical equipment and sculptural flourishes so long as they cast minimal shadows.

To ensure "that this building be the crown of the skyline," the plan also would require it to climb at least 950 feet
. . . .
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...M8R8.DTL&tsp=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2143  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 4:17 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
San Francisco’s Draft Transit Center District Plan



The Planning Department's draft Transit Center District Plan ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi..._Draft_WEB.pdf ) is now online for the rectangle around the Transbay Terminal bounded by Market, Steuart, Folsom, and mid-block between 3rd and New Montgomery Streets on the west.

In addition to establishing a 1,000 foot height for the proposed Transbay Tower, the plan raises the height limit for six other sites to exceed the current 550 foot ceiling.



The five Core Goals of the plan:

1. Build on the General Plan’s Urban Design Element and Downtown Plan, establishing controls, guidelines, and standards to advance existing policies of livability, as well as those that protect the unique qualities of place.

2. Capitalize on major transit investment with appropriate land use in the downtown core, with an eye toward long-term growth considerations

3. Create a framework for a network of public streets and open spaces that support the transit system, and provides a wide variety of public amenities and a world-class pedestrian experience.

4. Generate financial support for the Transbay Transit Center project, district infrastructure, and other public improvements.

5. Ensure that the Transit Center District is an example of comprehensive environmental sustainability in all regards.

Highlights to come.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...rict_plan.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2144  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 5:51 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2145  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 4:30 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
looks good. im kinda disappointed they didnt go with 1200 ft tho for the tower
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2146  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 4:44 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
I love that the rendering shows Natoma as a pedestrian promenade. But I haven't heard that that is in the plan, nor is it indicated in the maps. It would be nice though.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2147  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 6:48 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay420 View Post
looks good. im kinda disappointed they didnt go with 1200 ft tho for the tower
They did! 1000 ft occupied + 200 ft ornamental/mechanical etc. (think wind turbine) allowed. But what's new is the minimum of 950 ft. I've never heard of SF imposing a height MINIMUM before. That means Hines (or whoever because I still won't be shocked if Hines sells their interest) can't scream "recession" and try to build something smaller and cheaper.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2148  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 6:52 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
I love that the rendering shows Natoma as a pedestrian promenade. But I haven't heard that that is in the plan, nor is it indicated in the maps. It would be nice though.
That has always been in the plan--turning Natoma into a pedestrian-only street with shops and other pedestrian retail on the ground floor of the terminal on the Natoma side. I don't want to go back through this thread and find the original renderings or descriptions, but I remember it being there, at least as an option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2149  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 4:16 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
They did! 1000 ft occupied + 200 ft ornamental/mechanical etc. (think wind turbine) allowed. But what's new is the minimum of 950 ft. I've never heard of SF imposing a height MINIMUM before. That means Hines (or whoever because I still won't be shocked if Hines sells their interest) can't scream "recession" and try to build something smaller and cheaper.
wow. that sounds too good to be true. thanks for correcting me
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2150  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 8:01 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Also from http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi..._Draft_WEB.pdf
another view - this time from the Bay Bridge showing no added crown(s).



The extra 200 feet on the top of the Transbay Terminal Tower is being fairly encouraged. It will be interesting to see how the potential shadow impact on Justine Herman Plaza will effect the design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2151  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 8:51 PM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 401
that is odd that they have that building on the corner of 2nd and natoma as being torn down to the frame of the first two stories. i guess its to make the entrance of the alley look more inviting?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2152  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2009, 9:53 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK View Post
that is odd that they have that building on the corner of 2nd and natoma as being torn down to the frame of the first two stories. i guess its to make the entrance of the alley look more inviting?
IIRC, they need to remove it for the underground rail connection.

BT - thanks for the info. Guess I've just forgotten about it, although now I vaguely recall that something like that might be done to Minna - probably just mixing it up.

There is a small condo building that I believe has first floor or underground parking on Natoma. I wonder what they plan to do about that.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2153  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2009, 3:48 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088


Here's the Rogers design. Note the tree-lined Natoma with little red specs I think are supposed to be umbrellas over tables for al fresco dining:



You can see it even better here:

Here on the SOM design, Natoma also seems to be pedestrian but without the trees:

I looked through the first 70 pages of the thread without finding the rendering of Natoma-as-ped-mall I remember but a lot of those old image links now no longer work. I did start to wonder whatever happened to Tyler82, though.

PS: Note this rendering of the "unoccupied" top 200ft of the Pelli tower design:


Last edited by BTinSF; Nov 28, 2009 at 1:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2154  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2009, 11:07 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
So you did decide to go back through the thread -- thanks for the detective work. It seems pretty clear and I like it!
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2155  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2009, 11:57 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Looks like I've been gone for too long. I'm glad they're finally pushing for a "reform" if you will, on the layout. Looks pretty good for me, and I too am surprised to see a minimum of height, it almost sounds too good to be true. Anywho, I like what I see so far. Can't wait to start seeing early signs of activity on site
__________________
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
     
     
  #2156  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2009, 2:56 AM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post


i really liked this one the best
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2157  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2009, 6:48 AM
HarshLiving's Avatar
HarshLiving HarshLiving is offline
Have No Fear
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Livingston,CA
Posts: 54
I like what I hear so far. But like most things in life, only time will tell.
__________________
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2158  
Old Posted Nov 30, 2009, 3:39 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarshLiving View Post
I like what I hear so far. But like most things in life, only time will tell.
Yes, how true, but it looks like it will be a l-o-n-g time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2159  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 6:47 AM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One View Post
i really liked this one the best
Yeah, me too, but we were in the minority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2160  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2009, 5:13 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
I didn't realize there would be need for this much eminent domain action for the terminal. It's a shame for these folks that the development that would otherwise be a huge improvement for their businesses will end up killing them in their present location instead. I hope they can all make a successful move.

From the SF Public Press:

Quote:


New transit center to displace SoMa neighbors
By Angela Hart
Dec 11, 2009


Business owners and residents in the path of San Francisco’s ambitious, new $4.2-billion transit-center redevelopment are voicing frustration that part of the neighborhood is being pressured to relocate. They include not only eight parking lots, but 26 other businesses and at least 24 live-work lofts.

...

Some small-business owners are conflicted. They say that while the project may be good for the city and for the region, it’s bad for their livelihoods. The nation’s struggling economic climate has taken a financial toll, they say, and it’s difficult to relocate when there’s no financing available. Moving will make it hard to sustain their current clientele...

Continue reading here.
The map answers a question I had about turning Natoma into a pedestrian lane: Access to parking at the small condo building won't be an issue as the building will be gone. We knew the building at Howard and Second would be demolished, but I had no idea that entire block would be gone. Also, I remember over a year ago there was much discussion about the possible demolition of the buildings on the southeast corner of Howard and Second. Apparently, those are all going too.

PS: Sorry about the size of the map.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
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 10:25 PM.

     

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