SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 117

OneRinconHill · #**2321** Posted **Jan 23, 2011, 4:06 AM**

The Transamerica Pyramid needs to stay the tallest building in San Francisco. Otherwise we are no longer going to be unique.

CyberEric · #**2322** Posted **Jan 23, 2011, 4:24 AM**

Thanks for the updates Peanut Gallery.

OneRinconHill, thanks for the laugh.

hruski · #**2323** Posted **Jan 24, 2011, 3:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill

The Transamerica Pyramid needs to stay the tallest building in San Francisco. Otherwise we are no longer going to be unique.

The Empire State Building needs to stay the tallest building in NYC or else that city will no longer be unique.

Big Ben needs to stay the tallest building in London or that city will no longer be unique.

St Peter's Basilica needs to stay the tallest building in Moscow or that city will no longer be unique.

RST500 · #**2324** Posted **Feb 7, 2011, 11:02 PM**

This is a design from London that would look good incorporated into the Terminal.

northbay · #**2325** Posted **Feb 8, 2011, 12:54 AM**

isn't the current design pretty close to that already?

http://transbaycenter.org/media-gall...r-architecture

viewguysf · #**2326** Posted **Feb 8, 2011, 6:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hruski

The Empire State Building needs to stay the tallest building in NYC or else that city will no longer be unique.

Big Ben needs to stay the tallest building in London or that city will no longer be unique.

St Peter's Basilica needs to stay the tallest building in Moscow or that city will no longer be unique.

Saint Peter's Basilica is in Vatican City, surrounded by Rome, not Moscow.

JDRCRASH · #**2327** Posted **Feb 8, 2011, 9:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill

The Transamerica Pyramid needs to stay the tallest building in San Francisco. Otherwise we are no longer going to be unique.

I disagree. Look at all the other big cities in America ALONE that are (or tried) stretching their skylines.

NYC: New One WTC (UC)
Chicago: Chicago Spire (dead/on-hold)
LA: Wilshire Grand (proposed)
Philadelphia: American Commerce Center (proposed)
Las Vegas: Crown Las Vegas (dead)
Miami: One Bayfront Plaza (proposed)

San Frangelino · #**2328** Posted **Feb 8, 2011, 3:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hruski

St Peter's Basilica needs to stay the tallest building in Moscow or that city will no longer be unique.

I think you mean St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow.

The Transamerica Pyramid will always be very prominent because of where it sits on the Skyline. That's unless they build a taller tower within a few blocks of it, which is highly unlikely. The Chrysler building doesn't dominate the Midtown Manhattan skyline, but it still one of the greatest icons of the city. I'm sure the Transamerica will have they same fate when taller skyscrapers are built.

Example:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...all_Street.jpg

dr_strangelove · #**2329** Posted **Feb 8, 2011, 5:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I disagree. Look at all the other big cities in America ALONE that are (or tried) stretching their skylines.

NYC: New One WTC (UC)
Chicago: Chicago Spire (dead/on-hold)
LA: Wilshire Grand (proposed)
Philadelphia: American Commerce Center (proposed)
Las Vegas: Crown Las Vegas (dead)
Miami: One Bayfront Plaza (proposed)

He was obviously being sarcastic now can we move on please

hruski · #**2330** Posted **Feb 8, 2011, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Frangelino

I think you mean St. Basil's Cathedral in Moscow.

The Transamerica Pyramid will always be very prominent because of where it sits on the Skyline. That's unless they build a taller tower within a few blocks of it, which is highly unlikely. The Chrysler building doesn't dominate the Midtown Manhattan skyline, but it still one of the greatest icons of the city. I'm sure the Transamerica will have they same fate when taller skyscrapers are built.

Example:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...all_Street.jpg

yes thanks.

sw5710 · #**2331** Posted **Feb 9, 2011, 6:53 AM**

Is the height still 1200' Or did they reduce it.

dr_strangelove · #**2332** Posted **Feb 9, 2011, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sw5710

Is the height still 1200' Or did they reduce it.

1200' from ground to top (including crown)

1977 · #**2333** Posted **Feb 14, 2011, 7:23 PM**

New video about the public art that will grace the new terminal. I love the outdoor cinema at the end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvaHLeeHvaY

peanut gallery · #**2334** Posted **Feb 14, 2011, 10:09 PM**

Nice! This is the perfect place for lots of large scale public art. I'm impressed that the pieces highlighted in the video are integrated into the terminal design and not just plopped into open areas.

CyberEric · #**2335** Posted **Feb 15, 2011, 8:22 PM**

Wow, that looks fantastic. Thanks!

patriotizzy · #**2336** Posted **Feb 15, 2011, 11:05 PM**

That video shows how beautiful the terminal's going to turn out. Looks very realistic, they did a great job with it. I like the led walls, with words running along them. The parks on the roof is a genius idea and the giant white beams are going to look amazing running through the entire terminal

Sonofsoma · #**2337** Posted **Feb 23, 2011, 11:12 AM**

So... Let me get this straight.

Caltrain is looking at shrinking future. Bleeding money and unable to operate its existing service, the board is practically desperate to find the least painful way to shrink itself by 40-50%. In any case, all the alernatives reduce Caltrian to a 'part-time' service. Under such circumstances, I can't imagine Caltrain is going to be launching any billion dollar capital projects.. (ie, tunneling under the city)

High Speed Rail. How many billion? 50, 60, 70, 80..110?
Cailfornia HSR is the new 'global warming'. Total joke! ...not gunna happen. get over it!
So what we have left is a multi-billion dollar bus station! Nice.

While I'm certainly glad the old transbay beast gone, the New Transbay Terminal project is just the latest in a string of billlion dollar plus 'transit' boondoggles that city liberals get all excited about..despite the fact they never live up to expectations; Bart to SFO, T-Line, Central Subway, Transbay Terminal and the Bart to OAK monorail or whaterver it is. oh but hey! that one is only costs a half a billion dollars! bargain

202_Cyclist · #**2338** Posted **Feb 23, 2011, 11:30 AM**

Sonofsoma, just because Glenn Beck told you high speed rail is a boondoggle, doesn't make it so. You know what is a boondoggle? Spending over $300B each year-- every single year-- on foreign oil. The US has five percent of the world's population and we use nearly 25 percent of the world's oil. Transportation in the US is responsible for 72 percent of that consumption.

The alternative to high speed rail isn't not spending anything. CA's population is already more than 38M and is expected to increase to 60M by 2050. As Dept. of Transportation Sec. Ray LaHood noted in the Washington Post last week, by the end of the century the US will add another 100M people-- the equivalent of adding another CA, FL, TX, and NY. The alternative to high speed rail is spending tens of billions (perhaps hundreds of billions) on highway and airport expansions-- investments that do nothing to improve air quality, encourage billions of dollars in transit oriented development, or do anything about our absolutely unsustainable use of oil. It is estimated that just to bring Hwy 99 up to interstate standards would cost $26B: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/27800

202_Cyclist · #**2339** Posted **Feb 23, 2011, 11:33 AM**

Sonofsoma, the federal Highway Trust Fund is bleeding money and has required subsidies from the general fund totaling more than $30B over the past four years.

http://transportation.nationaljourna...nd-battles.php

Even excluding the substantial externalities of automobiles, the gas tax only pays for half the cost of building and maintaining roads. This sounds like a boondoggle to me. According to Pew, “in 2007, 51 percent of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees—down from 10 years earlier when user fees made up 61 percent of total spending on roads. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.”

http://subsidyscope.org/transportati...hways/funding/

patriotizzy · #**2340** Posted **Feb 23, 2011, 7:17 PM**

^^^^ 202_Cyclist, your argument is impeccable. How can someone argue against that? I commend you