Comments on: San Francisco Mayor to NYC: “Eat Your Heart Out.”

By: sfmotion

sfmotion — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 23:20:30 +0000

A couple simple points first: the Transamerica Pyramid is the tallest building in SF, not the BofA building.
And there won't be any car traffic flowing beneath the park or through the building at all. It will all have to go around. I don't think this will be a problem (it isn't now). And if it is a problem, who is it a problem for? Car drivers? What gives them the right to have a thoroughfare wherever they want? Isn't pedestrian experience worth anything? Lots if ask me...
But what I really wanted to say is that the building they want to build with the terminal was limited to 1000 feet or so for the most parochial reasons: the planning dept. wanted to keep this "sinuous skyline", an aesthetic point that they say is distinctive about SF. Sounds like a weak reason not to build higher (there will be other buildings in the area with heights around 800 ft. not 1200) and create more density.

By: vhamer

vhamer — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:43:45 +0000

is it me, or does newsom look like patrick bateman in that pic? maybe he's burying a body.

By: Nick From California

Nick From California — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:26:18 +0000

I meant to say 2007.

By: Nick From California

Nick From California — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:25:44 +0000

Back in 2008, there was a Transbay Terminal design competition:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/07/MNTMRD67A1.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/12/BAG0HRGIOS4.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/12/BAG0HRGIKG9.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/12/BAG0HRGIH04.DTL

By: McLovin

McLovin — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:26:42 +0000

This project is awesome. It doesn't interrupt anything as if you read the plan design, the park is above ground. Cars and traffic would flow underneath it. Plus the country's first true high speed rail will join SF and LA in two hours or so. Love it.

By: Matt Bamberg

Matt Bamberg — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:16:18 +0000

I remember many moons ago when talked about the Manhattanization of San Francisco. Now it's a good thing. Go figure!

Check out my new book "50 Greatest Photo Opportunities in San Francisco."

http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Photo-Opportunities-San-Francisco/dp/1598638009/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229134052&sr=8-1

By: Boris

Boris — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:33:27 +0000

What an atrocious building design. Pointless modernism that'll be out of date the moment it's built. All that curved glass is so expensive, fragile, and has poor relation to the street. Same goes for the pointless repetitive curving pathways on the rooftop park.

Any number of architects could have delivered something cheaper to build, yet better.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:22:57 +0000

> SF is getting on with it

Given that they're in no better financial shape over there than we are over here in NY, I seriously doubt they'll get very far.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:10:55 +0000

"Complete Second Ave subway"

Don't be so sure we get the top half. I believe Sheldon Silver's plan to kill it by slowing it down by three years while allowing East Side Access to move forward for Long Island commuters will be successful.

By: momos

momos — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:19:31 +0000

Newsom is right. Read it and weep, New York.

You're all trying to find things to nitpick. It's too big. Are there sufficient tracks. Is it taller or shorter than the Transamerica Pyramid. It interrupts the street grid.

The fact is, SF is getting on with it. And us?

RIP
Moynihan Station
Complete Second Ave subway
Congestion pricing
42nd St light rail
Laguardia airport rail link
Cross harbor freight tunnel

... and on and on

By: cochon

cochon — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:10:19 +0000

Rhywun, the bank of america building is taller than the transamerica building, so i doubt there was any howling.

looking at the renderings, i'd say that grand central has nothing to worry about. penn station on the other hand...

i liked the original transbay terminal building. shame they will tear it down.

By: one

one — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:31:21 +0000

"If the city manages to find the $2 billion necessary to complete the project..." Lots o' luck with that.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:42:59 +0000

I saw a presentation of this last year and it looks very promising. But it's imperative that they are able to get Caltrain and HSR into the terminal. IIRC, someone brought up the question of how they will deal with the homelessness that we currently see at the current terminal (what's to stop them from sleeping in this brand new facility)... I don't remember the response though.

The Market St Subway/BART may have a pedestrian connection to the Terminal, but that is just one of several options.

By: Bob Shoring

Bob Shoring — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:44:11 +0000

As impressive as it looks, what will really matter is how well it functions.

Will there be sufficient tracks to accomodate all the Caltrain passengers, plus high-speed, plus any other future inter-city trains? The current Caltrain station at 4th and Townsend has 12 tracks. If trains are just passing through you can get by with fewer, but if trains terminate there, ample track capacity will be critical. Otherwise the existing Caltrain Terminal would be preferable.

Like Grand Central in New York, will a subway line or two enter the terminal? If they have their act together, a Geary Subway would run from there. The BART/Metro Embarcadero station is about 3-4 blocks away.

This place has great potential, but it all has to come together, otherwise it will be an expensive bus terminal.

Bob Shoring

By: Jeffrey W. Baker

Jeffrey W. Baker — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:08:43 +0000

""" I thought no building was allowed to be taller than the Transatlantic Pyramid? There must have been howls of protest over erecting "the tallest building of the West". """ There are actually seven buildings in the proposed Transbay Redevelopment Plan that would be taller than the Transamerica Pyramid. Three of the proposed buildings would be the same height at 1200ft.

By: CBrinkman

CBrinkman — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:57:22 +0000

" There's no reason to interrupt the street level for five blocks to create monstrosities like this."

The renderings I have seen look nice at street level, with passageways through, unlike the current terminal. I don't think it blocks any throughways.

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:52:24 +0000

> Every suburbs in California, it seems, wants its
> walkable, 24/7, part residential downtown

Oh sure, everybody says they want that, but even here in NYC people complain if a new building is "too tall"--mostly they complain about traffic (of course) and between the lines they think it will hurt property values. Most people don't care, sure, but these people are particularly loud & get a lot of attention.

By: poncho

poncho — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:48:27 +0000

NYC to SF Mayor: "In Your Dreams."

Who dropped an SFO terminal in the middle of downtown SF?

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:13:20 +0000

(I thought no building was allowed to be taller than the Transatlantic Pyramid? There must have been howls of protest over erecting "the tallest building of the West".)

I've been writing four reports on San Francico four times a year since May 2005. There has been an evolution of thinking there, and most people have accepted the idea that density, particularly for commercial, is green, and so is redevelopment of older areas into walkable communities vs. suburban sprawl.

Every suburbs in California, it seems, wants its walkable, 24/7, part residential downtown (though with the housing bust they may not get it).

They still yell about Walmart and the development of still-undeveloped areas (increasingly scarce west of the mountains). But they want downtowns with lots of people in pedestrians. Same in LA (Downtown LA may not survive the bust) and San Diego (probably will, but all those condos might be middle class instead of "luxury").

By: Rhywun

Rhywun — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:32:07 +0000

> Rail stations don't need to be big

Yeah, Penn Station proved that....