Transbay Terminal: The Grand Central of the West | San Francisco

[bayviews]

Originally Posted by mongozx

I honestly am not in favor of the proposed height of the 1,000+ ft tall building. Even though it looks exaggerated in this rendering it just doesn't seem to blend in. Plus it'll overshadow Transamerica, a San Francisco icon. Much like the way the original WTC twin towers suddenly jutted out at the tip of Manhattan it just never looked right to me. I say keep the heights at around 800'. My 2 centavos. . .

You are right, the Transamerica has become a symbol of SF, & should remain such. But because of its unique pyramid. Transamerica will never be overshadowed even by the proposed Transbay supertalls. It will always stand out. Transamerica too was was very controversal when first proposed.

[Westsidelife]

I like the skyline the way it is right now. I think they should build buildings that are more proportionate to the current skyline and gradually build up...

[Westsidelife]

I like this a lot better.

[FROM LOS ANGELES]

LA has proposed 2 buildings taller than the US Bank in the 80s, the third one is going to get build period. And to be a the tallest in LA and stick out, it has to be at least 1100 feet, I doub't SF's building will even reach 1099. Still, if SF does get it, good for them, but i would still think the city made a mistake passing the Piramyd in height.

[bay_area]

Originally Posted by FROM LOS ANGELES

LA has proposed 2 buildings taller than the US Bank in the 80s, the third one is going to get build period. And to be a the tallest in LA and stick out, it has to be at least 1100 feet, I doub't SF's building will even reach 1099. Still, if SF does get it, good for them, but i would still think the city made a mistake passing the Piramyd in height.

I have no clue whatsoever why you say passing he Pyramid height is a mistake? It most certainly is not a mistake-especially for the sake of height-that's silly. The Transamerica Pyramid is the most famous building west of the Mississippi River. The US Bank Tower didnt change that, The B of A in Seattle didnt change that, and nothing that happens in San Francisco itself will change that-period

I like this a lot better.

That's all getting built except in the middle, there are going to be 2 towers 800 feet+ and 1 tower 1000+ feet tall. The drive across The Bay Bridge, already breathtaking is going to be even more amazing.

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by bay_area

I have no clue whatsoever why you say passing he Pyramid height is a mistake? It most certainly is not a mistake-especially for the sake of height-that's silly. The Transamerica Pyramid is the most famous building west of the Mississippi River. The US Bank Tower didnt change that, The B of A in Seattle didnt change that, and nothing that happens in San Francisco itself will change that-period


That's all getting built except in the middle, there are going to be 2 towers 800 feet+ and 1 tower 1000+ feet tall. The drive across The Bay Bridge, already breathtaking is going to be even more amazing.

I know, that's what I said. I prefer the skyline without the two in the middle. They should stick within a certain height range and then gradually build up.

[bay_area]

At this point as far as San Francisco is concerned-beggars cant be choosers. Nimbys have had the skyline under lock and key for over 3 decades and so now that locals support this tower as evidenced by a poll taken by The Chronicle yesterday where over 53% voted in favor of such a tall building-I say where do I sign?

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by bay_area

At this point as far as San Francisco is concerned-beggars cant be choosers. Nimbys have had the skyline under lock and key for over 3 decades and so now that locals support this tower as evidenced by a poll taken by The Chronicle yesterday where over 53% voted in favor of such a tall building-I say where do I sign?

Any renderings? Maybe I'll think differently then.

[Westsidelife]

double post

[Azn_chi_boi]

I like the Possible SF's skyline... but I would still think people will think TransAmerica Pyramid would still be the symbol of SF, even though maybe it won't be the tallest

[DarkFenX]

I think it fits very well since they are also adding two 800ft tower next to them. I say build them.

[bay_area]

Originally Posted by DarkFenX

I think it fits very well since they are also adding two 800ft tower next to them. I say build them.

I agree DarkFenX,
I understand the concern by the others but San Francisco cannot be pigeon-holed into an antique where any change is seen as sacrosanct. San Francisco is a living, breathing City that changes with time, just like everywhere else and the addition of a 1 thousand footer flanked on its sides by 2 800 ftrs(there's already a 600ftr across the street) will create an instant cluster(one helluva cluster at that). There's another 600 ftr being built a few blocks up the street. I think we will all be pleased with the outcome-while I love Florence, I dont want San Francisco to be relegated to that sort of status, where everything is to be preserved as is. LOL

[callanoj]

This problem comes up in every city that is known for it's older beauty. It's the same situation in Boston. Everybody is afraid that the quaintness will be affected by modern skyscrapers. I don't understand why it's an issue of height and not more of a design issue. If development authorities would simply be careful of the architects and designs they choose and not worry so much about height there should be no problem.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by bay_area

I agree DarkFenX,
I understand the concern by the others but San Francisco cannot be pigeon-holed into an antique where any change is seen as sacrosanct. San Francisco is a living, breathing City that changes with time, just like everywhere else and the addition of a 1 thousand footer flanked on its sides by 2 800 ftrs(there's already a 600ftr across the street) will create an instant cluster(one helluva cluster at that). There's another 600 ftr being built a few blocks up the street. I think we will all be pleased with the outcome-while I love Florence, I dont want San Francisco to be relegated to that sort of status, where everything is to be preserved as is. LOL

i agree. and as i said before, Soma can accomodate tall buildings in a way that areas north of Market cannot. As mentioned previously, Nob and Russian hills have been compromised not only by the growth of the skyline, but in terms of views and the loss of the way the lower skyline followed the contours of the hills. This is more than evident crossing the Bay Bridge or from the view from Sausalito, Angel Island, Tiburon, etc.

South of Market, on the other hand, has no negative effect on the hills. Inland from this part of downtown is the relatively flat Mission District and the backdrop of the high ridge of hills in the middle of the city (centered by Twin Peaks) is not really affected by downtown development. Meanwhile, the two freeways heading into the downtown area from the peninsula will benefit in view greatly by tall buildings in the Soma area.

[bay_area]

I forgot to mention that the plan for Treasure Island also calls for a 600-700 ft tower.

[godblessbotox]

Originally Posted by bay_area

I forgot to mention that the plan for Treasure Island also calls for a 600-700 ft tower.

what the hell is that, hong kong?

[bay_area]

Its an old Navy Station that the city is converting into a mixed-use retail/residential/commercial...there's also a lot of dedicated greenspace-somewhat stupid IMO because it was never green to begin with-its a manmade island connected to Yerba Buena Island.

Anyway, San Francisco in 1971-The Financial District was still a work in progress and SoMA was almost purely industrial

[Bay2Bay]

Amazing picture. I moved to SF in '77 and it amazes me how much more of the financial district had filled in with high-rises between the taking of that picture in '71 and the year I moved here. I guess the change in the City's appearance was too much too quick for some and you often heard people back then bemoan the "Manhattanization" of the City.

[bay_area]

LOL@Manhattanization.

A word coined in San Francisco, its seen as a negative term even today. As I stated in SSP, most of the anti-Manhattanization crowd were former Manhattanites and East Coasters themselves that didnt want to see San Francisco lose its charm by creating canyons of skyscrapers.

[-Corey-]

Originally Posted by SDfan

Not going to happen for at least 20 years.
.

Damn