CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F.
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
)
If The City’s vision for a new Transbay Terminal goes through, it could drastically change the skyline.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The City’s vision for a newly rebuilt Transbay Transit Terminal is not just for a public transportation hub — it’s a plan for a whole new neighborhood.
The Transbay project is expected to bring together regional bus lines and a Caltrain connection within a new transit center at First and Mission streets. Transit advocates also hope to eventually bring the state’s first high-speed rail line to the modernized public transportation hub.
On July 25, the Planning Department will hold its first public workshop to introduce a planning effort for the Transit Center District — which, at this preliminary stage, has boundaries of Market, Main, Tehama and New Montgomery streets.
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority provided the Planning Department with approximately $240,000 to develop a comprehensive plan for the Transit Center District, including investigating possible changes to permitted building heights and density rules for the area around the current Transbay Terminal, Planning Department project manager Joshua Switzky said.
The area around the Transbay Terminal is zoned for up to 550 feet on the blocks immediately around the station. The rebuilt Transit Center project itself has been proposed to include an 800- to 1,000-foot high-rise that would include a hotel, as well as residential and commercial units. The development project is expected to generate revenue to help fund the rebuilding of the Transbay Terminal.
On Tuesday, bids from three design and architectural teams were submitted to the Planning Department for the Transit Terminal project, which, in its first phase, is estimated to cost $1 billion in already secured local, state and federal funding. A public presentation of those designs will be made on Aug. 6, project spokesman Adam Alberti said.
Prior to that, the July 25 public meeting will be used, in part, to discuss raising the height limits in the area, Planning Director Dean Macris said.
“We’ll need to do that to enable the terminal project to move forward,” Macris said.
Tom Radulovich, executive director of Livable City, a nonprofit that focuses on city planning policies, said that any discussions about new high-rises should also focus on building width and the amount of distance between buildings.
“Let some light into the area,” Radulovich said.
The second phase of the project, slated to begin in 2012, would create an underground extension that would bring the Caltrain line from its station at Fourth and King streets to the Transbay Terminal. The total cost for both projects is estimated at $3.4 billion.
What do you think of the Transbay plans?
Share your comments below.
Comments from Examiner Readers
11:46 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 9, 2008 re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"
Report as inappropriate
12:06 PM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008
re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"
Report as inappropriate
10:55 AM MST on Thu., May. 1, 2008
re: "Pitch reaches for sky to help build terminal"
Report as inappropriate
1:28 PM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:56 PM MST on Sun., Jul. 15, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
10:02 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
9:02 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
6:40 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
4:17 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood planned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
2:08 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
11:56 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
10:50 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
8:47 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007
re: "Neighborhood envisioned around transit hub in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
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
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
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
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
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 | 145 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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