Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal
Article History
This is the latest version.
A conceptual illustration provided by the San Francisco Planning Department depicts expected skyline changes as viewed from Twin Peaks. The area’s buildings are currently limited to a height of 550 feet.
(Courtesy graphic)
A conceptual illustration provided by the San Francisco Planning Department depicts expected skyline changes as viewed from Twin Peaks. The area’s buildings are currently limited to a height of 550 feet.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - As an effort starts to raise revenue for a new downtown transit terminal that would eventually link nine public-transportation systems under one roof, city officials say the trade-off would be to approve up to seven new high-rise towers in the neighborhood that would exceed the area’s current 550-foot limit.

Taxes on the new properties could pump as much as $420 million into the transit terminal project, designed to link a raft of bus and train routes by 2019, including a tunnel to the Caltrain station at Fourth and King streets.

On Wednesday, The City launched a public relations campaign to introduce the proposed zoning and neighborhood changes.

A lively downtown neighborhood with housing, offices and parks would be wrapped around the new 1,000-foot Transbay Terminal tower, according to city plans unveiled to the public Wednesday night.

A handful of the neighboring office towers would be allowed to reach 700 feet and 800 feet — considerably higher than the area’s current 550-foot limit. Decorative spires on the buildings could be allowed to pierce even higher into the sky.

The City’s tallest building is currently the Transamerica building at roughly 850 feet, according to David Alumbaugh, a senior city planner.

Alumbaugh said the proposed building height limits were carefully crafted to sculpt a dramatic skyline that will serve as a “hinge” between the high-rise residential Rincon Hill developments and the separate cluster of existing downtown buildings.

New towers allowed as a result of the plans could create up to 13 million square feet of office space, plans show.

“The terminal is fully funded,” city Economic Director Michael Cohen said. “But the [Caltrain] tunnel is like $2 billion, and it’s got a pretty big funding gap.”

Streets in the area would prioritize transit and walking. Cars would be banned from Mission Street between First and Fremont streets, and traffic lanes would be removed from Main, Spear, Fremont and Howard streets to widen sidewalks and create transit-vehicle lanes, according to the proposal.

Supervisor Chris Daly, who represents the area, said increased height and density can be a “plus” in certain areas if it comes with appropriate community and citywide benefits.

“Clearly, Transbay would deliver a world-class, multimodal transit center,” Daly said.

Shadows from the Transbay Tower would reach the Ferry Building in the winter months, according to a preliminary study. Morning shadows would reach Union Square in the summer months, St. Mary’s Square in the fall, and Portsmouth Square in late fall.

An environmental review of the proposal is under way with sign-off from various city bodies expected to begin late next year, according to city officials.

jupton@examiner.com


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

11:46 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008 re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"

Examiner Reader said:
Despite how well the building may or may not be designed, one thing to consider is evacuation procedures. How are you going to quickly and efficiently evacuate everybody from a 1000ft plus building? It simply cannot be done...and for those living in earthquake prone San Francisco (and in an area prone to liquefaction nonetheless) quick evacuation is even more critical. Design engineers may say they can plan for every possible situation, but can we trust them? No, they are working for private industry, and they will simply tell city officials what they want to hear: that no matter what happens, everything will be all right. And the mis-informed city officials will agree. No, these towers are not right for San Francisco...I believe they should be no taller than 750 ft.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

12:06 PM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"

Chris said:
The Central Tower in downtown San Francisco was 315 feet when constructed (a renovation in the 1930's removed a decorative dome lowering the height 15 feet) in 1898 and it survived 1906 earthquake; it only suffered damage from the fire which followed the earthquake. The 853-foot tall TransAmerica building built in 1972, along with dozens of other highrise buildings, survived Loma Prieta in 1989 with no damage. The height of a building does NOT determine whether it will be damaged in an earthquake; rather, the method of construction and the type of soil/bedrock which it is constructed on determine whether a building will survive an earthquake. Many people in San Francisco have died in one or two-story buildings during an earthquake. As for terrorist attacks, terrorists can easily set off a bomb at the Farmer's Market on the Embarcadero and kill hundreds--there is no requirement to have a tall building to be a target for terrorists. Some posters are using emotion, not logic.

4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:55 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008 re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"

Examiner Reader said:
These flights of fancy development projects pop up when the Bay Area is without a major quake to keep politicians and developers in check. After the 1989 Loma Prieta Quake, high-rise construction in the Financial District and SOMA fell off considerably for the obvious reason(s)-- can you say landfill and liquifaction?

2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:28 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007 re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."

Examiner Reader said:
Great idea. A 100O ft. breakable glass tower, above a regional transit center, which can collapse on itself should there be a terrorist attack or major earthquake? Did same people approve this structure which approved Rincon Towers at the approach to Bay Bridge? When the "perfect storm" arises, and history proves it will, much of the transit in the Bay Area stands to be paralyzed in an emergency. I call that clean, clear thinking.

122 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:56 PM MST on Sun., Jul. 15, 2007 re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."

Gretchen said:
To have decent public services such as Muni, police, parks, street repair, health care and social programs, a city needs to have a large number of taxpayers. Low density cities cannot afford public services on the scale needed in SF. By adding a concentration of high density buildings south of Market, SF will gain a tax base that can help pay for the many services needed throughout the city. The envisioned design will not only increase the roll of taxpayers, but will do so in an area that has been under-utilized and run down. I see this as an opportunity to reinvigorate a stagnant part of the city while providing a new face to the Transbay terminal. A transit-centric residential area will empower people to live, work, and play in their own neighborhood without needing to drive. What's not to like about that?

170 agree | 144 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:02 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."

Otto Rite said:
The photograph shows the proposed San Francisco skyline as seen from Treasure Island. Looking toward downtown from upper Market Street in The City shows that even the first 50-story building that is now under construction in the area, 1 Rincon Hill blocks the existing view of the Bay Bridge. If more of these huge, hideous high-rises are built many San Franciscans will no longer be able to see portions of the Bayand the bridge and the East Bay hills, nor even, on certain days the sunrise! Grab your ankles people, here come the skycrapers! There USED to BE HEIGHT LIMITS, and for good reason. The planners and developers are out for one thing and one thing only: MONEY! Notice how it is implied in this article that the "new" downtown/financial district is going to be South of Market, while I suppose, the existing one is abandoned the way city dwellers left for the suburbs decades ago.

167 agree | 182 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:02 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."

Examiner Reader said:
I used to work close to the bus terminal and was surprised to find recent housing development almost intersecting with the Bay Bridge onramps leading towards Oakland. When the developers plan for the new Transbay terminal, will they take into account the new Bay Bridge construction and the landfill problems surrounding the areas where the new developments are being built? I like the idea of expansion, but what about taking a closer look at the solid earth beneath our feet, so to speak?

166 agree | 146 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:40 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."

City resident said:
This is where we need to be heading. The region needs to channel its growth into core areas like this, building on mass transit. Want to do something about climate change? Also the downtown skyline has become a dull blob, and more development in the area can help pay for public benefits and infrastructure, like the train extension and open space. Want high speed rail to happen? We need to set the stage and give it someplace worthy to come.

162 agree | 170 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
4:17 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."

Bob said:
I work one block from where this Hub is going to be built. This area is already congested, what will it be like when this Hub is built. There is no space, so where is the main building going to be built, underground? There are buildings going up on all sides of the Terminal now setting there. I think people better slow down, SF is moving too fast. Remember this is SF, a big town, not NYC a big city.

172 agree | 164 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:08 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."

Examiner Reader said:
I went to one of the new Transby Terminal and Rincon Hill meetings regarding the transition, and the designs are great. There will be even park space as well.

164 agree | 168 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:56 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."

An ex-employee for a sub-consultant on a bid team said:
Let your happy or angry feelings/comments/suggestions be heard. Be informed and go attend the workshops. We need to build consensus and make intelligent decisions for a project of this magnitude for ourselves but most importantly, the future generations.

161 agree | 187 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:50 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."

Happy Rincon Hill Resident said:
I'm excited to see those ugly bus ramps and the urine soaked Transbay Terminal demolished and a new Transbay Transit Center arise with community meeting rooms and other appealing amenities (along with the infrastructure for Caltrain and the dreamy high speed train). I understand the City wanting to go for 1200' height limits to increase the City's annual revenues. I do hope they leave the plan for the park/green space on Howard Street between Main and Beale in the plan - we MUST have some park space if we're to become a neighborhood; we MUST have a park for recreation and neighborhood (the Rincon Hill/Transbay) events. I look forward to watching this area rise from being the freeway onramp and trash can of the rest of the City to move the homeless into being a fabulous destination for future residents and FiDi workers.

163 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:47 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."

Angry Local Resident said:
This overpriced boondoggle represents the largest city landgrab in history. The next decade of local pol campaign contributions will be paid for by corps angling for a slice of the "redevelopment" projects. Last I checked the 2nd street historic corridore, due to be eminent domained by the city for this, was packed with new historic lofts, high tech startups and great restaurants. Why does the city need to take all this property for redevelopment?

178 agree | 188 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
 
 

(page generated in 0.49 seconds)