CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
S.F. Transit Center to tower over West
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Three different proposals for a new Transbay Transit Center all reached for the sky — at least 1,000 feet in the air — with a tower that included a hotel, shops, offices and residential units inside, adjacent to a rebuilt public transit terminal.
On Monday, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority unveiled proposed design concepts created by three architect/developer teams for what they hope will become the “Grand Central Station of the West.” If built, the skyscraper would become the tallest building on the West Coast, according to Transbay Joint Powers Authority board officials.
The revamped Transbay Transit Center is expected to unite regional bus lines, BART, and subsequently a Caltrain connection, together 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.
Each design included a minimum of 3,400 new homes — of which 35 percent will be below market-rate prices — within a massive tower that will include retail, offices and hotel.
Rebuilding the Transbay Terminal, the first phase of the Transit Center project, is estimated to cost $1 billion in already secured local, state and federal funding. The second phase, which would extend the Caltrain line from its station at Fourth and King streets, is expected to cost at least $2.4 billion in additional funding. To date, $500 million has been secured for the project, according to Transbay Joint Powers Authority Executive Director Maria Ayerdi, who added that establishing a design for the first phase of the project would help build funding momentum for the second phase.
Ultimately, The City’s vision for a newly rebuilt Transbay Transit Center is not just for a public transportation hub; it’s a plan for a whole new neighborhood. The planning department held a public meeting on July 25 to develop a comprehensive plan for a Transit Center District — including investigating possible changes to permitted building heights and density rules for the surrounding area. Such development would help generate revenue for the Caltrain extension, Ayerdi said.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said the new development high-rises were essential to growing The City’s housing, job growth and public transportation usage. He acknowledged that approving new height limits for the Transbay center’s tower and the surrounding neighborhood would be “controversial,” but said San Franciscans shouldn’t “fear this kind of change.”
The five-member Transbay Joint Powers Authority is scheduled to choose one of the three proposed designs at its Sept. 20 meeting.
The public can see models of the designs at City Hall today, or view them online at transbaycenter.org.
Project details
Transbay Transit Center project consists of three elements:
1) Rebuild Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets, including a 1,000-foot tower
2) Extend Caltrain from Fourth and King streets to new Transbay center, with accommodations for future high-speed rail
3) Create a neighborhood around Transbay Transit Center that would include 3,400 new homes
CONSTRUCTION PHASES
» Phase I: Transbay rebuild. Construction completed by 2014. Cost: $983 million.
» Phase II: Extension of Caltrain. Operational by 2018. Cost: more than $2.4 billion.
» Regional transportation systems that will connect at new center: Muni, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Caltrain, SamTrans and Greyhound.
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