San Francisco to Reshape Skyline

[Patrick]

San Francisco -- The recession hasn't stopped San Francisco's city planners from thinking big.






The Planning Department released an ambitious set of proposals Thursday to turn the blocks around the Transbay Terminal into a commercial and transportation centerpiece of the region over the next two decades.

The 145-acre "Transit Center District" would redraw San Francisco's skyline with a half-dozen towers taller than almost any in the city, including one stretching at least 100 feet higher than the Transamerica Pyramid. The plan would widen the sidewalks and narrow the streets around a rebuilt terminal. It also would reroute most Bay Bridge commuter traffic outside the pedestrian-oriented district.

Officials say they're confident the 147-page plan, which has been in the works since 2007, will bear fruit despite a stumbling economy that has stalled several projects in the area.

"This is a 25-year plan," said John Rahaim, the city's planning director. "There's no question in our mind that this is the part of the city that should grow much more dense. ... It's appropriate for us to embrace this, and make sure it happens well."

The draft pulls together previously aired concepts, such as taller towers, with new details ranging from bicycle-sharing programs to a districtwide energy network. It also suggests potential development fees to fund the estimated $567 million in public improvements.

The comprehensive plan's release marks the start of an approval process scheduled to culminate in hearings before the Board of Supervisors late next year.
'Crown of the skyline'

The focus of the new district would be the block of Mission Street between First and Fremont streets. That's where the Transbay Terminal is to be rebuilt to accommodate commuter rail service and the state's high-speed rail system. That project will be funded in part by proceeds from the sale of part of the block to the development firm Hines for construction of an iconic office tower.

The plan promotes creating "an elegant skyline ... with its apex at the Transit Center" by allowing the Hines tower to rise 1,000 feet in terms of occupied space. Another 200 feet would be allowed for mechanical equipment and sculptural flourishes as long as they cast minimal shadows.

To ensure "that this building be the crown of the skyline," the plan also would require it to climb at least 950 feet. By contrast, the Transamerica Pyramid is 853 feet.

This emphasis on height could prove to be the plan's most controversial aspect; besides the transit tower, the proposed zoning makes room for six other skyscrapers exceeding the city's 550-foot height limit.
A greener alternative

City planners say skyscrapers offer a way to place large amounts of housing and office space near transit. There also are environmental payoffs. The district is projected to produce 62 percent less carbon dioxide than a typical Bay Area suburban development with the same square footage, according to the report.

But the revised zoning is likely to draw fire from past critics of downtown growth, and not just for aesthetic reasons. Towers at the proposed heights could cast new shadows on nearby city-owned parks, which runs counter to a 1984 voter-approved sunlight protection initiative.

The extra height is just one part of the effort to transform the blocks bounded roughly by Market, Steuart, Folsom and Hawthorne streets - a once-forlorn area that already is home to a cluster of glassy towers erected during the past decade.

Sidewalks would be widened through much of the district to make the pedestrian environment more appealing, along with new midblock crossings. Bicycle lanes would be added on several streets.
Detour for drivers

Conversely, the plan criticizes the daily backup of Bay Bridge-bound traffic as "an inefficient and unsustainable use of the district's street network." It would divert commuters from Folsom and First streets as much as possible, and nudge drivers toward transit by capping parking spaces in the district at an as-yet-unspecified number.

"We can't even accept the amount of traffic we have today," city planner Joshua Switzky said. "We can't just settle at 70 percent of people taking transit. We need to get to 80 (or) 85 percent."

The plan to make a new, walkable downtown still faces hurdles, including developers potentially balking at the taxes and fees the city would levy in return for added heights.

"The fees we have on the table are based on what's feasible for developers," Rahaim said. "When the market turns around, there will be renewed interest. Downtown San Francisco will continue to be a desirable place to do business."
Transit Center District Plan

The Transit Center District Plan aims for "a high-density, vibrant employment center" with "an engaging public realm appropriate to its place in the city." The full plan - available at transitcenter.sfplanning.org - emphasizes small details as well as large goals:

Height limits: Heights would be raised above the city's current 550-foot height limit on six sites besides the central 1,000 foot tower. This includes room for a 600-foot tower at the rear of the landmark Palace Hotel. "The Palace is a special case for us," said mayoral adviser Dean Macris. "It's a grand old building that needs to stay economically viable."

Landmarks: The report recommends giving landmark status to four buildings, including the Phillips Building at 234 First St. and the marble-clad union hall at 240 Second St. An existing architectural conservation district along New Montgomery Street would double in size - but leave out three older buildings on sites along Howard Street where the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art seeks to add a new wing.

Plaza: The plan would add a public plaza to the northeast corner of Second and Howard streets. Engineers say the structures now there must be removed to build the rail tunnel to the new transit terminal; the half-acre space would include connections to the terminal's proposed 5.4-acre rooftop park.

Energy use: With an eye to long-term sustainability, the plan recommends a districtwide approach to energy and water conservation - including a $154 million investment in new systems to generate power and recycled water for the district as a whole.

Costs: The public improvements to the district are budgeted at $567 million (not including the transit center). How to pay for it? Mostly through focused taxes and fees on new construction, which means the pace of improvements would be tied to growth.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNQ71AM8R8.DTL

[vanshnookenraggen]

SoMa is everything that SoBoWaFt should be. [/douche]

[czsz]

Except SoMa pretty much had Fort Point-quality architecture all over it, a preexisting street grid, and no FAA limiting heights when its development got under way.

[JohnAKeith]

Wait. I must be confused. I seem to remember reading a draft of that news article but it was about Boston. Weird.

IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE:

Earlier today, The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) released an ambitious set of proposals to turn the blocks on the South Boston Waterfront into a commercial and transportation centerpiece of the region over the next two decades.

The 100-acre "Seaport District" will redraw Boston's skyline with a half-dozen towers taller than almost any in the city, including one stretching at least 100 feet higher than the John Hancock Tower, Boston's tallest. The plan would widen the sidewalks and narrow the streets around existing buildings. It also would reroute most Boston Logan Airport and Boston Convention and Exhibition Center (BCEC) commuter traffic outside the pedestrian-oriented district.

Officials say they're confident the 147,979-page plan (with another 18,394 pages of footnotes), which has been in the works since 1942, will bear fruit despite a stumbling economy that has stalled several projects in the area.

"This is a 25-year plan," said Kairos Shen, the city's planning director. "There's no question in our minds that this is the part of the city that should grow much more dense. ... It's appropriate for us to embrace this, and make sure it happens well. The BRA knows a lot about density, we thrive on denseness."

The draft pulls together previously aired concepts including the '100 Acre Plan'; included are taller towers, with new details ranging from bicycle-sharing programs to a district-wide energy network. It also suggests potential development fees to fund the estimated $567 million in public improvements.

The comprehensive plan's release marks the start of an approval process that is scheduled to culminate in hearings before the Boston Redevelopment Authority late next year. (Final approval will only take place after the proposed reorganization of the Authority takes place; Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino announced plans on December 1, 2009 to separate the BRA in two - one part for development and the other for planning. The newly-independent planning department will make final decisions on all proposals.)

The focus of the new district would be the blocks bordered by Seaport Boulevard and Summer Street from Sleeper Street (location of the Barking Crab) to Harbor Street (where the Boston Marine Park begins).

Included in this section are parcels of land owned by different developers. Previously proposed developments such as Waterside Place, Seaport Square, and the remaining buildings in the Fan Pier mixed-use project will fall under the auspices of the plan.

Part of the project will include a redesigned transportation and transit system. The "Silver Line", which in reality is nothing more than a bus that spends 70-80 percent of its time above-ground, running on the same roads as cars, will be moth-balled, replaced by a true "Bus Rapid Transit" system, complete with dedicated lanes. It will eventually merge three existing bus lines, giving riders a direct link from terminals inside Logan Airport to downtown Boston, under South Station, where riders may disembark to board the MBTA's Red Line subway system or commuter rail or Amtrak rail south and west of the city.

That project will be funded in part by proceeds from the sale of the site of Boston's City Hall, which will be moving to Dudley Square, in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood and by selling off much of the BRA's land-holdings, land that has sat fallow for years and which has been free of property tax payments, for decades. (The Boston Marine Park will be sold, next year, for example.) The city will also be smelting all of the signs around the city that currently have "Mayor Thomas M Menino" written on them. This alone is expected to raise $42 million.

The plan promotes creating "an elegant skyline ... with its apex in the Seaport District" by allowing the Hines' Company's 'South Station Tower' to rise 1,000 feet and then spread out like a spire into the Fort Point Channel and South Boston Waterfront neighborhoods.

This emphasis on height could prove to be the plan's most controversial aspect; besides the South Station tower, the proposed zoning makes room for six other skyscrapers exceeding the city's 600-foot height limit. The Federal Aviation Authority, which has ultimate control over the heights of buildings in the area due to the proximity of the international airport, has given initial approval to the plans.

The city's planners feel they have the majority of the communities' support because of the promise of residential housing being built first, before office and commercial space, lessening concerns the new district will become nothing more than a new 'financial district'. Off-the-record, officials also say they aren't too concerned about any controversies. One high-placed authority said, "We really don't care what they say. Their time has passed. What do they know about this sort of stuff, anyway?"

City planners say skyscrapers offer a way to place large amounts of housing and office space near transit. There also are environmental payoffs. The district is projected to produce 62 percent less carbon dioxide than a typical Greater Boston suburban development with the same square footage, according to the report. In an odd twist of fate, city planners believe that developers will be able to receive federal renewable-resource tax credits that may reduce the cost of building by as much as 12-15 percent.

The extra height is just one part of the effort to transform the blocks bounded - a once-forlorn area that already is home to a cluster of glassy towers erected during the past decade. Plans to redevelop what were once acres of parking lots have been proposed many times.

Sidewalks would be widened through much of the district to make the pedestrian environment more appealing, along with new midblock crossings. Bicycle lanes would be added on several streets. Dedicated bus lanes would make public transit an appealing alternative - even, a first choice, for workers and visitors to the district.

It would keep Convention Center visitors on Summer Street as much as possible, and nudge drivers toward transit by capping parking spaces in the district at an as-yet-unspecified number.

"We can't just settle at 70 percent of people taking transit," says planner Kairos Chen. We need to get to 80 (or) 85 percent."

The plan to make a new, walkable downtown still faces hurdles, including developers potentially balking at the taxes and fees the city would levy in return for added heights. The city has proposed a 2% transfer tax with the proceeds going back to the City, not into the pockets of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, as has been the case, previously.

"The fees we have on the table are based on what's feasible for developers," Chen said. "When the market turns around, there will be renewed interest. Downtown Boston will continue to be a desirable place to do business."

The Seaport District Plan aims for "a high-density, vibrant employment center" with "an engaging public realm appropriate to its place in the city." The full plan - available at yimbys.com - emphasizes small details as well as large goals:

Height limits: Heights would be raised above the city's current 550-foot height limit on six sites besides the SST 1,000-foot tower. This includes room for a 600-foot tower at the rear of the new Westin Hotel.

Landmarks: Because the land is mostly fallow, there are no landmarks. Developer can build, at will.

Energy use: With an eye to long-term sustainability, the plan recommends a district-wide approach to energy and water conservation - including a $154 million investment in new systems to generate power and recycled water for the district as a whole.

Costs: The public improvements to the district are budgeted at $787 million (not including payoffs). How to pay for it? Mostly through focused taxes and fees on new construction, which means the pace of improvements would be tied to growth.

Affordable housing: City planners have announced that new and affordable housing will be built completely off-site. "Financially, it makes no sense to build affordable housing in the Seaport District. In what world would we want to restrict growth by putting arbitrary price-controls on investors and developers?" says planner Chen.

On the hand, "There may be schools - there is some expectation that families will want to be a part of what we hope will turn into a 24-hour a day vibrant community." But, unlike other proposals making their way through the city (for example, the Congress Street Garage proposal where City Council President Michael Ross has been trying to hold his support hostage in return for the developer paying for the construction of a new school), the city will pay for the construction, if and when there is enough density and need for such a project.

At least 15% and as much of 30% of proceeds received by the City of Boston will be used for affordable housing initiatives in other parts of the city, spread between low-income and moderate income projects in the other downtown neighborhoods including Chinatown, the North End, Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End, and Roxbury and South Boston neighborhoods. According to Dot Joyce, spokeswoman for Mayor Menino, "Well, those are the neighborhoods most affected by the added congestion and density, shouldn't they receive some of the benefit? Plus, they pay the majority of property taxes in this city, anyway. They deserve something a little sweet in return."

[Patrick]

for anyone who is interested in reading further about this plan, here is a link to the draft proposal released for public comment. It is full of graphics that may be of interest to some, regarding the effects of current and proposed zoning changes on the skyline.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi..._Draft_WEB.pdf

[Lrfox]

Hasn't this been alive in some iteration for decades (including the Transbay proposal that died a while back)?

San Francisco has as much (if not more) trouble than Boston getting things (literally) off the ground. I was there two weeks ago and there was next to no construction at all. My girlfriend goes to school in the district that's proposed to get the makeover (much of it isn't bad as is, btw) and many of the people who live/work in that area are highly adverse and skeptical of any newer proposals. I asked one of her advisers (an architecture buff) about what he thought about the Transbay proposal (as it was proposed right around the corner from his office) and he laughed. He said some of the proposals were nice, the final one was O.K. but there wasn't a chance in hell of it getting off the ground.

Credit S.F. for being proactive, but I doubt much of the proposed activity will take place.

Originally Posted by vanshnookenraggen

SoMa is everything that SoBoWaFt should be. [/douche]

Agreed. Also, well put. I laughed a bit out loud.

[Patrick]

This is just a preliminary zoning proposal as to what would be allowed if a project could be viable. I agree that much is difficult to build these days, in SF as elsewhere, and in fact the article makes reference to these changes not happening until the market turns around. I guess the plan is merely to allow developers, if they choose to build to the maximum on the lots involved here, to do so in a way that would be more aesthetically pleasing and transit friendly way. If you look at the actual plan and notice what is capable of being built under a current build out scenario and compare it to what would be possible under the proposed changes the city looks a lot better under the second. This is a long range zoning plan, remember, not actual proposals.

[blade_bltz]

San Francisco has as much (if not more) trouble than Boston getting things (literally) off the ground. I was there two weeks ago and there was next to no construction at all.

I know I don't live in the city, and I don't attend any NIMBY meetings, but since coming out here I've been casually following SF development on skyscraperpage. Based on the postings there (usually via curbedSF), I can't help conclude that development in SF is proceeding/has proceeded at a much healthier pace than in Boston. Yes, many of the major tower projects have stalled...I admit I'm less interested in those anyway - same goes for Boston as well.

What I do see, every time I'm in the city, are new residential mid-rises popping up all over the eastern part of town, up and down Market St (including a 1900 unit beast), and all over Mission Bay. I've been riding into the Caltrain station at 4th and King for four years now, and in that span multiple Fan Piers have sprouted up from the ground. Most of it is bland and generic (or hideous, in the case of UCSF), but the Seaport will fare no better. Anyway, if you look through this thread, especially the most recent pages, you'll see a crapload of proposals. It's definitely true that construction has slowed in recent months...that's impossible to deny. Still, at least they have something to talk about up there. What is there in Boston besides that frikkin A st tower?!

And of course this is all following the recent tower boom (2008-2009), during which Millennium Tower (650'), One Rincon (640'), 555 Mission (485'), the Infinity (450' and 350'), the Intercontinental (340') were all completed.

[Patrick]

Without having been to San Francisco, I cannot comment on the pace of construction there. But, how you described the place (B_B) is how I would imagine things going there. I picture the pace of development in California to be much more fast paced, for numerous reasons. More people, less conservative. Better weather. I don't know if any of these things are right, and if they are I don't know if they matter. But I picture development of all sorts just being much more rapid in Cali than the northeast in general. Cities in the Northeast seem more well established, like they've already maxed out, and cities in California seem to be still growing. Boston and San Fran are similar in population for metro areas (according to some measurements anyway), but San Fran looks so much bigger to me.

The 2008-2009 statistic you quoted seems to fit in with a global trend. In the last decade more of the world's tallest buildings were completed than ever before. An odd thing is that, when America was leading the skyscraper boom, people thought they would be three things: office, steel, and in north america. Now, the tallest buildings are concrete or concrete-steel composite, residential, and in Asia. I am getting these statistics from CTBUH. interesting.

[a630]

That's right Patrick about it being just a zoning proposal, but I wouldn't place CA in the development friendly category. Environmental regulation here has trumped similar efforts anywhere else in the country for the last 40 years (see California Environmental Quality Act 1970 and California Coastal Act 1972). This zoning proposal, even though it is not a development proposal, in creating the potential for more development, would trigger a lengthy possibly multi-year Environmental Impact Review assessing community impacts, impacts on resources eg ground water air quality geology, of the potential build-out that may result from the plan. There are entire consulting companies that have sprung up to produce these phone-book sized reports for lots of money, that many cities and developers cannot afford. So the result is often just to prohibit change.

Personally, I think its BS, because what it ends up doing is simply displacing development to some peripheral area where developments get more favorable assessments in less well organized communities. It does not assess the relative costs to people or the environment of doing so, and my guess is it actually makes things worse because it contributes to the "sprawl" that environmentalists decry in the first place. Oh well.

[Patrick]

Interesting points, thanks for sharing. Actually, just the other day I was reading about the debate between environmentalists and developers regarding what is greener--high or low rise buildings. On the one hand you have smaller footprints (i.e. more efficient use of land) with high rises, which has ancillary (actually arguably even more important) benefits including population bases capable of supporting mass transit, and preservation of more natural land. However, environmentalists were arguing that these structures have "embodied" energy use, which from what I gathered meant they were arguing one must, in making a comparison, include for high rises all of the energy that goes in to making them and transporting goods for their consumption (and those of the people who work in them). It sounds like an interesting argument, but one I'm not sure that I ultimately agree with. However, I'm sure my interest in skylines means my assessment of the varying arguments is anything but impartial.

I am taking a class relating to many of the issues you spoke of with the environmental issues in California, interesting you should bring that topic up. California, if I'm not mistaken, is the only place in the country that is a non-attainment zone (for air and water quality standards) so bad that it can make regulations stricter than those of the federal government, which can then be followed by other states if they choose. I don't know if I have the facts 100% right but the bottom line is clear--California has virtually the worst environmental issues around. I understand this to be partly a result of sprawl, partly due to geography (mountains and valleys interacting in a negative way) and partly resulting from sheer population density.

One question I have for you is this: I know (unless I am mistaken) environmental impact statements only have to be filed for projects that require federal permitting (like, say, if a developer had to consult the army corps of engineers because it wanted to build on a waterway, which would require dredging and filling the area). Wouldn't this be the same for CEQA, and if so, what sort of permit would be required for projects of the sort envisioned in this plan? Perhaps I need to brush up a bit on my background knowledge. Also, I thought EIS were only required for actual "projects" individually, not for plans in their entirety. Or is that what you meant? This is complex for me, and I am trying to think this stuff through after having been briefly introduced to it a while back in school.

[a630]

CEQA was created to cover private projects with the type of environmental assessment that federal agency projects required through NEPA.
CEQA requires an environmental assessment with a few exceptions, for example rebuilding destroyed structures (although this may only be if they are under a certain size), accessory structures, individual housing units (this was in there at the beginning, maybe not anymore), utility repairs, grading on slight slopes ... this has changed over the years so i don't know the exact ones. An environmental assessment can lead to a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or an EIR, depending on the significance of project impacts (or cumulative impacts of one project in addition to others)
Zone changes, even though they themselves are not development, require an environmental assessment. Generally when you do the EA for a zone change you consider the maximum buildout that the zone change could lead to, so even the rezoning of one lot may lead to a mitigated negative declaration. A plan for an entire neighborhood like this would invariably trigger an EIR. For example, all of the individual community plans for the city of LA, which compose the land use element of the general plan and are regularly updated every 10 years or so, require their own EIRs. Specific plans, which I believe this SF plan is, always trigger EIRs too. This has the benefit of actual projects being able to refer to the wider EIR, assuming they are in within the scope of the plan, so it saves time and money down the road.

[Patrick]

I see...sounds pretty burdensome.

[Patrick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03sfstation.html

[czsz]

I wish every city in America were showing this kind of ambition or greater.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by czsz

I wish every city in America were showing this kind of ambition or greater.

Ditto.

[Patrick]

an interesting article I just found, which may perhaps shed some interesting light on the likely course of opposition to current plans to dramatically alter the SF skyline (focuses on transamerica tower)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNRF1B15V3.DTL

and just as an aside, for those interested in urban design, the City's planning director cited in the article (former, actually), Alan Jacobs, has written several interesting books, one of which I own entitled Great Streets. Great Streets is a Great book. essential for anyone interested in street level pedestrian friendly design. Think Newbury street in Boston...the whole book is full of ideas regarding streets across the world with the same type of vibrancy, diversity, and culture.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Streets-.../dp/0262600234

full of original illustrations as well.

[Lrfox]

Originally Posted by Patrick

and just as an aside, for those interested in urban design, the City's planning director cited in the article (former, actually), Alan Jacobs, has written several interesting books, one of which I own entitled Great Streets. Great Streets is a Great book. essential for anyone interested in street level pedestrian friendly design. Think Newbury street in Boston...the whole book is full of ideas regarding streets across the world with the same type of vibrancy, diversity, and culture.

Great links. I own Great Streets as well. Very cool. Reads a bit like a text book (size of one too), but I enjoy it greatly.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by Lrfox

Great links. I own Great Streets as well. Very cool. Reads a bit like a text book (size of one too), but I enjoy it greatly.

Yeah I know, it does read like a text book. I read somewhere that it is aimed at professionals (urban planners, designers, etc.) but nonetheless it is interesting for all. I particularly like the illustrations which, if I'm not mistaken, are all A Jacobs originals. Its the type of book that you can look at off and on rather than read through like a novel (I haven't read anywhere near all of it yet).

[tobyjug]

Originally Posted by czsz

I wish every city in America were showing this kind of ambition or greater.

I agree my friend. But here is the soft underbelly:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/n...ty-in-the-u-s/