One thing I noticed though, the level below the “park” is for buses (driveway and waiting). That level is cantilevering out and the weight of the park and the bus levels are transferring to the ground by slanted tubular columns.

Also, These posted images seem to be two versions (from competition and later development, maybe)of design. A bit confusing to show the overall image of the center.

Yes, am disturbing this corporate flavored ‘we’re all green’ online promotion party: I see this project’s images as a true disappointment, with the developers, the architects that accepted their program without challenging it, along with the city planning / mayor’s office – as the various players in this failure.

My points:

1. Form: this project makes the naïve, ridiculous projects from dubai and shanghai look sophisticated. this is a conservative, wanna be 19th century Europe in disguise of 21st century building systems; I don’t’ remember seeing such a mish-mash of recognized past projects parts before; (yes, one may picture Britney Spears singing Bob Dylan with the Philharmonic orchestra).
San Francisco lost its lead 50 years ago to Los Angeles, its braver, bold Californian sister for a this reason.

2. Urban use/scale: this project will replicate the urban voids created around moscone conventions center, Bloomingdales, etc. with it’s ‘fancy’, repetitive huge and sterile (nothing can be changed / added) glazing systems, highly non-responsive to the street nuances along the block, and urban context. The proposed envelope is framing long vacant blocks that belong to (drive by) airports or shopping malls, not a vibrant urban center in a pedestrian city like san Francisco. This could be amended by allowing small, independent structures to form the outer tissue of this gigantic transportation center, will do better to both the city and the passengers. But hey – who needs the headache and financial complexity of creating good urban development (i.e. Amsterdam’s Borneo Island small lots as the large complexes facades) – we’ll just shove it down your throat, you’ll get use to it / ignore it. a much simpler façade system will save money and allow various infills to take part of this major space along the next generations.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time San Francisco developers are following the corporate lame tone, instead of creating new, unique urban development models, failing to incorporate the diverse, nonconventional local values.

I personally don’t like those buildings which provide ‘living’ spaces by actually partly replacing other ‘living’ spaces.

three steps above the city is a limited solution, doesn’t blend in very well.

[p.s. of course a little bit jealous about the scale commission they got.:)]