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
     
     
  #2041  
Old Posted May 1, 2009, 4:13 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
I'm getting pretty excited about the station. I like how much more open and light it will be on First and Fremont. It's so dark and dank under the current terminal.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2042  
Old Posted May 1, 2009, 2:52 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
I am sure they'll clean the glass for the first 10 years the Transit Center is open.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2043  
Old Posted May 1, 2009, 5:13 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,180
I have a little confession: my biggest architecture fantasy is to see this beautiful, massive Transbay terminal made even more grand and have it be one end of a trans-american high-speed rail line linking up to the another massive, gorgeous HSR terminal in Chicago - how amazing would that be?? Two of the greatest cities in the world with a direct, 2,700 mile high speed rail link that would then also act as main terminals for other rail lines to branch out of...one can only dream..sigh..
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2044  
Old Posted May 1, 2009, 6:22 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
See "Prediction #5" from The Ladies Home Journal 1900 for year 2000:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=168431

I seems people have be dreaming about this for many years. How about Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and New York all linked by HSR and ultra grand terminals?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2045  
Old Posted May 2, 2009, 10:59 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel View Post
I have a little confession: my biggest architecture fantasy is to see this beautiful, massive Transbay terminal made even more grand and have it be one end of a trans-american high-speed rail line linking up to the another massive, gorgeous HSR terminal in Chicago - how amazing would that be?? Two of the greatest cities in the world with a direct, 2,700 mile high speed rail link that would then also act as main terminals for other rail lines to branch out of...one can only dream..sigh..
And how would the duration of the high speed rail trip from SF to Chicago compare to that of the plane trip?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2046  
Old Posted May 3, 2009, 2:43 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by nequidnimis View Post
And how would the duration of the high speed rail trip from SF to Chicago compare to that of the plane trip?
It could provide extraordinary scenery and relaxing comfort for however long it lasts, which you can't say for any plane trip these days.

It's 1857 miles so, if the train could average 200 MPH it would take a bit over 9 hours. If it was slower, you can do the math. But getting there as fast as possible is not the #1 priority for everybody. Certainly not for me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2047  
Old Posted May 3, 2009, 12:31 PM
ethereal_reality's Avatar
ethereal_reality ethereal_reality is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lafayette/West Lafayette IN, Purdue U.
Posts: 14,884
I agree. I love sentinel's dream.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2048  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 7:43 AM
kpexpress's Avatar
kpexpress kpexpress is offline
In urbansim we trust
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
It could provide extraordinary scenery and relaxing comfort for however long it lasts, which you can't say for any plane trip these days.

It's 1857 miles so, if the train could average 200 MPH it would take a bit over 9 hours. If it was slower, you can do the math. But getting there as fast as possible is not the #1 priority for everybody. Certainly not for me.
Speed has always driven modern architecture, and now, more than ever, people want to get somewhere fast. It's hard enough to get away from the daily grind just to drive up the coast. I feel what you're saying and agree, but I think that "people" in general are idiots and just want their shit fast, cheap, and efficient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2049  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 7:50 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpexpress View Post
Speed has always driven modern architecture, and now, more than ever, people want to get somewhere fast. It's hard enough to get away from the daily grind just to drive up the coast. I feel what you're saying and agree, but I think that "people" in general are idiots and just want their shit fast, cheap, and efficient.
As someone who takes AMTRAK a lot, I can tell you there are enough people who aren't like that to fill up the existing trains. And I can't doubt if those trains could just stick to their snail-like schedules, there'd be a lot more. the chief complaint I hear from fellow passengers isn't how long the schedule says the train is supposed to take but that it takes even longer--many hours longer sometimes. People would flock to any train on a dedicated right of way so it could run on time IMHO--but especially a high speed one.

By the way, since when is flying today "cheap and efficient" (or even all that fast city center to city center)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2050  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 11:42 AM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
By the way, since when is flying today "cheap and efficient" (or even all that fast city center to city center)?
I hate people like you.

YOU'RE FUCKING FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET IN THE AIR!

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight. Ever. It's a miracle that we got the fuck up there in the first place. Don't take it for granted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2051  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 2:38 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Trump for Treason.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: No Trump. No KKK. No racism in the USA.
Posts: 4,580
^Pizzaguy: aviation is amazing but when delays cost airlines (http://www.airlines.org/economics/cost+of+delays/ ) an estimated $10B in FY08, excluding the value of passenger time, it is reasonable to ask if the aviation system is being used efficiently. Approximately 30% of arrivals in the New York area airports (Newark, LaGuardia, JFK) were delayed last year. At crowded airports such as Newark, O'Hare, and SFO, high speed rail provides a very good alternative to short-haul flights. This is especially true in congested regions where expansion of capacity-constrained airports is not possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2052  
Old Posted May 10, 2009, 7:06 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
As someone who takes AMTRAK a lot, I can tell you there are enough people who aren't like that to fill up the existing trains. And I can't doubt if those trains could just stick to their snail-like schedules, there'd be a lot more. the chief complaint I hear from fellow passengers isn't how long the schedule says the train is supposed to take but that it takes even longer--many hours longer sometimes. People would flock to any train on a dedicated right of way so it could run on time IMHO--but especially a high speed one.

By the way, since when is flying today "cheap and efficient" (or even all that fast city center to city center)?
There is an ever growing number of people who totally agree with BT's reasoning. To me, being against developing a new form of efficient transportation in favor of sticking with the predominant modes of the times (air and car) defies logic, progressive policies and potentially intelligent solutions to the problems of our times. It also displays an appalling lack of knowledge of both historical and progressive perspectives. This has nothing to do with denying the wonders of flight--I love it and it still amazes me that we can get such big planes into the sky in the first place, even though I understand how it is done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2053  
Old Posted May 11, 2009, 7:48 AM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
It could provide extraordinary scenery and relaxing comfort for however long it lasts, which you can't say for any plane trip these days.

It's 1857 miles so, if the train could average 200 MPH it would take a bit over 9 hours. If it was slower, you can do the math. But getting there as fast as possible is not the #1 priority for everybody. Certainly not for me.
Wouldn't do for those like me who barely get ten days vacation a year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2054  
Old Posted May 12, 2009, 5:35 PM
sammyg sammyg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaguy View Post
I hate people like you.

YOU'RE FUCKING FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET IN THE AIR!

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight. Ever. It's a miracle that we got the fuck up there in the first place. Don't take it for granted.
The point isn't that flying is a technological marvel, because cars and trains are as well. The point is that your "miracle" is neither CHEAP nor EFFICIENT in terms of transporting people from place to place.

At speeds of 225 mph, a ~ 9 hr trip compares pretty well to a SF-Chicago flight (half an hour to 45 minutes to get to SFO, showing up at least an hour early for security and check-in, 5 hours in the air, 45 minutes to an hour to get to the Loop). Based on European trains, it would cost about 2/3 as much, and would be more comfortable with more space, a dedicated dining car, etc.

This is of course assuming that Amtrak provides the same level of service as the European rail networks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2055  
Old Posted May 12, 2009, 7:50 PM
Surefiresacto's Avatar
Surefiresacto Surefiresacto is offline
thenorth.bandcamp.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orangevale
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammyg View Post
At speeds of 225 mph, a ~ 9 hr trip compares pretty well to a SF-Chicago flight (half an hour to 45 minutes to get to SFO, showing up at least an hour early for security and check-in, 5 hours in the air, 45 minutes to an hour to get to the Loop). Based on European trains, it would cost about 2/3 as much, and would be more comfortable with more space, a dedicated dining car, etc.
I am not against high speed rail, but it seems like you are assuming that there will be no commute to the station and no waiting prior to boarding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2056  
Old Posted May 13, 2009, 7:27 PM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaguy View Post
I hate people like you.

YOU'RE FUCKING FLYING THOUSANDS OF FEET IN THE AIR!

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight. Ever. It's a miracle that we got the fuck up there in the first place. Don't take it for granted.
Uh, I hope you're just trying to be cute. Just because something is miraculous doesn't mean it doesn't have some costly effects and it doesn't mean there isn't something better out there.

Chemotherapy is a miracle but it still makes you feel like crap and puke and waste away, and if you can avoid it by surgically removing the whole tumor, any doctor will tell you to avoid it.

Nuclear energy is a miracle but that doesn't mean people are going to be stoked to live nextdoor to a nuclear power plant or a missile silo. Ask the (former) residents of Pripayat how they feel about it.

Antibiotics are a miracle but they still give you diarrhea and stop working if you use them too much, and help create antibiotic-resistant superbugs when too many antibiotics get out into the environment. And they don't work on all pathogens.

Genetic engineering is a miracle but there is still risk in building superplants that they could outcompete native species and disrupt ecosystems.

Same for flight; it's a miracle, but sending millions of passengers thousands of feet in the air each year to take routine trips releases tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It takes a LOT of energy to lift a 100-ton aircraft 25,000 feet into the sky and keep it there for several hours. And airports are rarely close to downtown.

Last edited by Pizzuti; May 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2057  
Old Posted May 13, 2009, 8:20 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaguy View Post

You shouldn't ever complain about human flight.
I'll stop complaining about commercial flight when somebody figures out a viable business model for it. I have repeatedly read that the total profit of all airlines over the period since the first began flying is less than zero--a loss. That means that either airlines have to cut corners severely or the prices eventually have to go up. We need alternatives, not just for people like me who prefer some other way to get from point a to point b but also for those who like to fly, because the present system is a failure. It's even possible that flying for the masses simply cannot be done at a price point the masses are willing or able to pay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2058  
Old Posted May 15, 2009, 11:48 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Here's a look ahead to next steps on the temporary terminal. This just landed in my inbox:

Quote:
We have recently completed pouring the foundations for the two buildings on the site. You will begin to see more activity on the site as we move forward with the pouring of the new curb and gutter along Folsom and Main streets and along the east half of the sidewalk on Howard Street. Upon completion, the existing pedestrian detour will be moved and the current MUNI stop will be re-established near the corner of Howard and Main streets.

This week, the modular structures of the AC Transit and Security buildings began to arrive and they will be set up next week. The Greyhound modules are scheduled to arrive early next week.
__________________
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
     
     
  #2059  
Old Posted May 22, 2009, 6:18 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
City to SoMa Developers: Help Us Pay for Transbay Center


[Blue marks the Transit Center]

The multibillion-dollar Transbay Transit Center needs money to get built, and to help rake in that money, the city's proposing up to $850 million in extra development fees for building in SoMa's Transit Center District. Under the plan (fees would be spread out over a period of 20 years), there would be a $35 per square foot surcharge, plus other miscellaneous fees for transit, affordable housing, what have you. The city's aiming to steer the next wave (fingers crossed!) of development toward office, rather than condo, development to accommodate job-growth projections. But the fees would affect everyone in the district, which is bounded by Market, Steuart, Folsom, and Hawthorne (and where Hawthorne would be if it continued all the way to Market). Might the plan strangle new development in this economic climate? One developer says, "This (transit district) plan was not ill-conceived, but right now it can't be done." Aww, that's just loser talk.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2060  
Old Posted Jun 2, 2009, 6:05 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Looks like they're using pre-fab for the temporary terminal structures:


__________________
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 7:59 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.