The Planning Department released an ambitious set of proposals Thursday to turn the blocks around the Transbay Terminal into a commercial and transportation centerpiece of the region over the next two decades.
The focus of the new district would be the block of Mission Street between First and Fremont streets. That's where the Transbay Terminal is to be rebuilt to accommodate commuter rail service and the state's high-speed rail system.
City planners say skyscrapers offer a way to place large amounts of housing and office space near transit. There also are environmental payoffs. The district is projected to produce 62 percent less carbon dioxide than a typical Bay Area suburban development with the same square footage, according to the report.
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 as 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. By contrast, the Transamerica Pyramid is 853 feet.
A rendering showing proposed building height and density:
Emphasis on density, building height, pedestrians, and transit? What planet are they on?! Ah yes, it's San Fransisco.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Personally, I'm not the least bit jealous. Â You couldn't pay me to live in the bay area. (that's my two cents anyway, I realize others may feel differently)
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."
icejammer wrote:Personally, I'm not the least bit jealous. You couldn't pay me to live in the bay area. (that's my two cents anyway, I realize others may feel differently)
Then THIS rhetorical question was over your head.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
icejammer wrote:Personally, I'm not the least bit jealous. Â You couldn't pay me to live in the bay area. (that's my two cents anyway, I realize others may feel differently)
Then THIS rhetorical question was over your head.
Of course, if you feel compelled to reply to a smart-|expletive| reply to a rhetorical question, it wasn't really a rhetorical question to start with....
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved."
icejammer wrote:Personally, I'm not the least bit jealous. You couldn't pay me to live in the bay area. (that's my two cents anyway, I realize others may feel differently)
Then THIS rhetorical question was over your head.
Of course, if you feel compelled to reply to a smart-|expletive| reply to a rhetorical question, it wasn't really a rhetorical question to start with....
I'm not sure that conclusion logically follows from your premise.
The point of this thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not you would move to San Francisco. It has to do with this AMAZING urban development initiative showing REAL leadership in city planning and governance, of which I think we should ALL be jealous. It may have been your two cents, but your rigid, negative response was completely unprovoked and beside the point.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Stargazer wrote:You couldn't pay me to live in SF either... here's a development plan which makes me jealous...
You mean that's not just your house in the Omaha suburbs? That's how I always pictured it .
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
DTO Luv wrote:Cool. SF will finally have a decent skyline.
The San Francisco skyline is kind of deceiving. Â I never though much of it until I went there, it definitely has a cavernous huge city feeling like NYC or Chicago when you are in the downtown IMO.
OUtside of Transamerica the rest of their skyline is pretty blah and dated. You think a city as oddball as SF would have more standout architecture on that large of a scale.
Brad wrote:When you come across the bay bridge it looks awesome, when you see it from the west its not as good because the city is built on a hill.
Sounds a lot like another city I know... Â 8)
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
SF is a great city. Probably one of America's top 4 or 5. It has its underbelly -- the Tenderloin district, but every city does. And how many other cities have well over 100 hotels in their Core Business/Tourist district? (NYC and Chicago probably are about it.) And how many have dozens of affordable ($100 or less for a room) hotels in their Core Business/Tourist district? I would wager SF is alone on that list. And mind you this is all in a city of less than 750,000 people.
I will wager those who don't care for the city haven't spent much time there. I have had the luxury of visiting the city regularly for the past 40 years, as I have family living in the city. Golden Gate Park is America's largest urban park. Yes, America's largest. It alone is worth several days of your tourist time. They have an unparalleled selection of restaurants, the equal of NYC, but many within walking distance of one another. Public transit is the envy of the western world. No city residence is more than 2 blocks from a rail or bus line. Chew on that fact for a moment. While I would prefer San Diego for the weather to SF, it never snows, and almost never rains from late April until late October. Residents are proud of their city like I have never seen anywhere other than NYC. The quality of architecture is right up there with Boston, NYC and Chicago.
More than any place I have been to, this city really has a heart and soul focused on the welfare of its fellow citizens.
DTO Luv wrote:I'll have to make it out there sometime. Despite what you all may think SF has never really done much for me but I'm sure I'd like it if I visited.
Have you visited before and not liked it? Â Or just never had any real desire to visit? Â I used to feel that way about LA until I visited it and fell in love with that city. Â Its funny how everyone has preconceived notions about things they have no personal knowledge about. Â Once they take the chance and come into contact with whatever they think they won't like, they do a 180 degree change. Â It was that way for me with LA, Boston, sushi, para-sailing, yadda yadda yadda. Â And coastal citizens have no clue that they will enjoy the Midwest (fly-over country) until they visit. Â Then they are often amazed with what we all have to offer. Â (Just don't tell them to come visit in December or January!)
nativeomahan wrote:And mind you this is all in a city of less than 750,000 people.
You know as well as any of us that city population really says nothing. SF is a HUGE metro. One of the biggest in the country with a CSA of 7,354,555 people.
San Francisco (and Northern California) is probably the only place in California that I have ANY interest in experiencing.
Thanks for the pictures. They're great.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
OK, my family in SF has sent us a photo or two over the past 40 years of a light dusting of snow on the grass. Â But compared to what I see outside my window (and I can barely see outside the top of some of my windows today!), it is inconsequential. Â If it snowed regularly in SF, with all those hills, the area would be uninhabitable.
P.S. Â It has even snowed on Miami Beach. Â I was there once when it got down into the 40s and you would have thought the locals were living in Greenland with all the fur lined parkas that appeared on the streets.
nativeomahan wrote:And mind you this is all in a city of less than 750,000 people.
You know as well as any of us that city population really says nothing. SF is a HUGE metro. One of the biggest in the country with a CSA of 7,354,555 people.
San Francisco (and Northern California) is probably the only place in California that I have ANY interest in experiencing.
