A Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for San Francisco’s Transit Center District Plan and Transit Tower has been published by the San Francisco Planning Department. To recap:
The proposed Transit Center District Plan would build on the City’s 1985 Downtown Plan that envisioned the area around the Transbay Terminal as the heart of the expanded downtown, which at the time was concentrated north of Market Street. In contrast to the adopted 2005 Transbay Redevelopment Plan, which focuses mostly on public properties south of the Transit Center along Folsom Street, this new effort focuses on both private properties and properties owned or to be owned by the TJPA around the Transit Center itself and extending toward Market Street. The Plan will include mechanisms to direct fund the construction of the Transit Center and other public improvements in the area.
A few of the “issues” to be addressed in the EIR: Land use; visual quality; population, housing, and employment; archaeological and historical resources; transportation; noise; air quality; wind impacts, shadow impacts; recreation and public space; utilities and service systems; public services; geology, soils, and seismicity; hydrology and water quality; hazards and hazardous materials; energy. In other words, it’s going to take some time.
∙ Transit Center Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (pdf) [SFGov]
The biggest bummer is that JohnColins Bar/Lounge at 90 Natoma will have to be moved. I guess that falls under “hydrology”.
So does this mean we will not be seeing the transbay tower at a greater height than 1,000 feet?
What a shame.
Wake me in 2050 when they’ve actually started implementing any of this.
I guess heights are still in limbo.
“The Transit Tower, a high‐rise office tower (approximately 1,000 feet in
height, plus additional design features for a total height of up to approximately 1,200 feet)…”
I thought adjacent heights to the transbay tower would be bigger as well as the tower itself.
At this point it looks like shadow impacts are going to be too great to go higher than 1200 feet. You can blaim/celebrate the ordinance that no significant shadows can fall on city owned parks for that.
I do think SF is missing an opp to think big with this. When will there EVER be another chance to crack 1k feet?
I have a feeling the 1,000 foot cap is to the roof and not to the structural tip. I think we may see a 1,000 feet tower with a 150-200 foot crown or spire. I hope that this is the angle the Planning Department is taking to achieve the maximum height while limiting opposition. We saw a similar approach at One Rincon Hill. It was zoned at 550 feet but the final height was 641.
The only park that the transit tower would possibly shadow is only during winter months when the sun is never out anyway and it is Justin Herman plaza, you know, that park that is adjacent to the monstrous Embarcadero Center tower walls. So an adjacent skyscraper is ok but something 6 blocks away will not work? That does not make any sense.
For those that made it to the last public meeting, there is no ‘cutting off’ of the tower at all, the 1,000 ft limit is just to the roof, and the planners are encouraging transparent antennae and roof structures/ ornaments that could extent past 1,000 ft. if they do not produce shadows. These ornaments could even rise past 1200 ft., so I think everyone is jumping to too many conclusions here. The BOS hasn’t even voted on any of these proposals yet anyway.
The towers in this plan area that are 700 feet or taller will cast shadows that cover most of union square during some periods of the year. it is a geometric fact, and the shadow studies have been published for many past projects. you can probably dig out the drawing s from the 560 and 555 mission street eirs.
this is an issue of law – i think it is called prop k – and its not really an issue of whether anyone “feels” it is important. the law would have to be changed at the Board.
Everyone might as well have the fact pattern right when thinking about the transbay plan. There is no way this does not become a significant hurdle for the plan.
The shadow geometry issue sounds a little funny to me. Near sunrise or sundown, even a one story building can cast a shadow that is theoretically several miles long.
I hope whatever regulation governs shadowing of parks excludes the time periods from an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset. Otherwise it is just silly.
We know they’re imperfect, but based on the “Urban Form Simulations” for the Transbay Tower, we’re having a hard time seeing too many Transit District shadows cast upon Union Square.
whose behind this Bank of America? (-: When will be ever see a taller tower. there all starting to look the same height now coming across the bridge. very dissapointing…