The Harbour & Partners design is cool in that it reminds me of 3WTC, which is a favourite of mine, but it kind of looks a bit too industrial, too. Like a vertical steel mill. The SOM one is nice, modern, artistic and organic, though perhaps too much of the last two. It looks a bit like a tree trunk with vines on it. The Pelli design is notable in that it keeps it simple, but I'm not quite sure that I can see it in an American city, since it seems to belong in China, with its design being so reminiscent of many modern Chinese towers, most notably Hong Kong's ICC and 2IFC.

I dunno, they all have their strengths, they all have their drawbacks.

I agree the Pelli design has gotten a bit generic. Towers in HK and China already have these lines, not to mention ones in Jersey City and Nashville. Cost was a big factor in this choice since the SOM would have been more expensive and Pelli has a record of staying within a tight budget. I would be happy just to see this thing get started but the downtown SF leasing market hasn't been this bad since the 1970s!

at least this building will be built for sure. it should be set as "approved"

:banana::banana::banana:

:banana::banana::banana:

umm...yeah thats right.

No I think building a skyscraper in SF surpassing the height of the TransAmerica Paramid is a sin! :bash:

San Francisco has always been a progressive and forward thinking city, I think this would actually reenforce that image and with the current financial crisis that the state is going through, the extra jobs would be more of a blessing than a sin. San Francisco is a great city and it deserves a great tower like this.

umm...yeah thats right.

:banana::banana::banana:

at least this building will be built for sure. it should be set as "approved"

why are u so sure about this? could u give a link？

I am positive heres a link

http://transbaycenter.org/

^^you can never be sure but it looks pretty convincing

^^I think it's authentic.

And yes, SOM was superior. :lol: Of course, it replaced the park in the Pelli plan with the terminal without a park.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1056/1094385872_ca86bdf361_o.jpg

It's nice to see that SF might get a new tallest

What a sexy building. I hope it gets built, it would be a nice addition to the SF skyline.

Wrong! It's quite unique.
The only city with two buildings of the same height is Kaula Lumper. But they have a twin towers.
But make San Francisco be the only city with two different-design buildings with the same height.

New York City has the Chrysler Building (1930; 1,046 ft tall) & the New York Times Building (2007; 1,046 ft tall):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_New_York_City#Tallest_buildings

I hope this gets built.

Can't they just built the Terminal from Pelli, and the tower from SOM?! This would be awesome!

I like it. Very slender, very tall. :cool:

wont be completed til around 2017

One of the nicest projects in the US right now IMHO. Tall, slender, elegant and overall I really like the design, but I will have to agree with some of you. I believe the SOM design was a little nicer.

Anyway, I can´t wait to see it built.

As a native to L.A, I have to say I am so jealous of this project. It looks awesome. It makes me wish I lived there. You guys have done so much for your city center you really should be proud. We have made great leaps here in our beautiful city of L.A, but have a long way to go to bring it up to San Francisco, New York levels in terms of urban development and planning.

Keep up the great work, and I REALLY hope this thing gets built, after all what's good for one city is good for all of CALIFORNIA.:banana::banana:

:deadthrea

New video about the public art that'll grace the terminal inside and out...

http://transbaycenter.org/media-gallery/video-gallery/transbay-transit-center-public-art-program

^^Not sure about those floors. But I love the moving LED screen and what appears to be a movie/video screen in the rooftop park.

http://sydneyarchitecture.com/cbd/cbd024-AuroraPlace2.jpg

those rocks seems to take after the egg of Lady Gaga in the Grammys LOL

New video about the public art that'll grace the terminal inside and out...

http://transbaycenter.org/media-gallery/video-gallery/transbay-transit-center-public-art-program

Looks amazing.

From the video, it looks like they got rid of the glass roof over the main entrance and the trams to the roof park.

I didn't take any pictures, but the old Transbay Terminal is completely demolished and the Temporary Transbay Terminal is completed.

Also the 5 Renzo Piano towers proposed across, that included a 1000+ ft tower, has been canned. It's now 3 SOM towers, they will be 900+, 600+ and a 100+.

From the video, it looks like they got rid of the glass roof over the main entrance and the trams to the roof park.

I didn't take any pictures, but the old Transbay Terminal is completely demolished and the Temporary Transbay Terminal is completed.

Also the 5 Renzo Piano towers proposed across, that included a 1000+ ft tower, has been canned. It's now 3 SOM towers, they will be 900+, 600+ and a 100+.

wow that spumds great to at least have a 900 foot tower guaranteed...

San Francisco to start building Transbay Transit Center in May
Construction of the $4.2 billion Transbay Transit Center begins this spring. The multimodal transport center, targeted for completion in 2017, will have a 1,000-foot tower that will be the city's tallest and a 5.4-acre rooftop park complete with walking paths, playgrounds, cafes, gardens and a fountain.
- from the ASCE SmartBrief Newsletter

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2011/03/110307san_francisco_transbay_transit.asp

- deleted -

Interesting that the "1000 foot tower" isn't part of the slideshow pictures.

From that link:

Though still in the planning-and-review stage, the obelisk-like Transbay Tower will be directly adjacent to the terminal, allowing office workers to have direct access to the rooftop park. King calls the tower’s current design “a little generic-looking,” but Clarke promises an iconic building that will become one of the defining images of San Francisco’s skyline. Unlike the transit center, which has funding fully in place, Clarke says the tower is “at least one real estate cycle away.”

That tells me that the tower is getting a redesign.

It's good to hear them acknowledge the bland characteristics of the current tower design. The design itself isn't "bad" outright, but its been done before, and for the tallest building in SF to have such similarities to other buildings completed/under construction is just wrong. Hopefully a redesign will bring out a unique and inspired design, although I don't feel like Pelli will be able to get anywhere near the SOM proposal's amazing design. Prove me wrong Pelli! :cheers:

That tells me that the tower is getting a redesign.



that will be wonderful, i mean, i don't disagree with the actual design, but if they make a redesign, it will be cool.

Construction of San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center To Begin This Spring
http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2011/03/110307san_francisco_transbay_transit.asp

When the wrecking ball came down on San Francisco’s 71-year-old Transbay Terminal bus station in December, it marked the end of an era—and the beginning of a new one. The drab concrete structure will be replaced with the long-planned Transbay Transit Center, perhaps the most ambitious transportation hub to be built in the United States in the past few decades.

The $4.2 billion project, designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects, includes a multimodal transportation hub, a 5.4-acre rooftop park, and a 1,000-foot-tall tower that will displace the Transamerica Pyramid as the city’s tallest building.

Touted as the Grand Central Terminal of the West, the transit center, scheduled for completion in 2017, will be the focal point of a new mixed-use downtown neighborhood south of Market Street. Construction is scheduled to begin in May.

Funding will come from a variety of sources, including sales-tax revenues, bridge tolls, and federal loans and grants. In January, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the project would get $400 million in federal stimulus funds, part of a $2.25 billion grant for a high-speed-rail link between Anaheim and San Francisco.

In 2007, Pelli Clarke Pelli won a competition to design the new transit center, which is being developed by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. The glass-and-steel structure will occupy nearly five city blocks and accommodate buses, commuter trains, and California’s planned high-speed rail line, making it the nation’s first high-speed-rail station.

Planners say the terminal eventually will serve more 45 million passengers a year. Passengers will walk through a light-filled, multilevel facility with undulating glass panels supported by a network of steel columns. The key design element, however, is the rooftop park. “That was probably the boldest part of our proposal,” says Fred Clarke, senior principal of Pelli Clarke Pelli. “And I think it’s one of the reasons we were chosen for the project.”

Designed by Peter Walker and Partners Landscape Architecture, Berkeley, California, the park will be open to the pubic and occupy the transit center’s entire roof. It will include walking paths, playgrounds, cafes, an amphitheater, gardens, and a 1,000-foot-long fountain with water jets triggered by the movement of the buses below. Visitors will enter the park via stairs, escalators, elevators, and perhaps even by funicular.

The park, Clarke says, will help make the transit center a “great neighbor,” not merely a functional transportation hub for daily commuters. “The history of transit centers in the United States is not a happy one,” he says. “They are seldom neighborly buildings—the Port Authority in New York is a perfect example. [Transit centers] tend to be blights on neighborhoods rather than generators.”

But John King, the San Francisco Chronicle’s urban design critic, wonders how many people will actually use the elevated park. “There’s a lot of skepticism about it,” he says. “It may be too large and divorced from the city to really work.”

Though still in the planning-and-review stage, the obelisk-like Transbay Tower will be directly adjacent to the terminal, allowing office workers to have direct access to the rooftop park. King calls the tower’s current design “a little generic-looking,” but Clarke promises an iconic building that will become one of the defining images of San Francisco’s skyline. Unlike the transit center, which has funding fully in place, Clarke says the tower is “at least one real estate cycle away.”

King says few will miss the old Transbay Terminal building, which had fallen into disrepair and decay. Designed by noted San Francisco architect Timothy Pflueger and completed in 1939 as the terminal for commuter trains that once crossed the Bay Bridge, the concrete structure had long outlived its usefulness, even as a bus station. “It wasn’t Grand Central Terminal,” King says. “There was no real push to preserve it.”

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/1852/9transbaytransit.jpg

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/3487/8transbaytransit.jpg

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8008/7transbaytransit.jpg

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8955/6transbaytransit.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8624/5transbaytransit.jpg

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8211/4transbaytransit.jpg

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7678/3transbaytransit.jpg

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1954/2transbaytransit.jpg

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9898/1transbaytransit.jpg

Im pretty much only fixated on the tower aspect of the project. i really hope they make it over 1000 ft idc if theres a crown but its gotta be taller

^^ Thanks for your input.

This transit center looks so cool. I'd be more fixated on that. ;) But I'm sure the tower will be equal quality. :)

that station looks very futuristic!.. beautiful!

Hey, guys we now have a San Francisco forum and it would be great if people also post at the Transbay Terminal Project thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=902890). Thanks. :)

Maybe you could get us some actual info about the project? What's the official status? I just read an article that says that construction should start this spring. They started demolishing the old transport hub back in december. Has the demolition finished?

Can we safely say that the project got approved or that they're preparing the construction site for foundation works? Thanks in advance.

It's already cleared and I passed by it last Sunday. Constructions are going to start soon for sure if you see this barricaded area in the middle of this photo. :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2343/5717471868_e096803055_b.jpg

By pbo31 on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/)

That's great news. Are they still unsure about the tower though? Like the first thing they're going to build is probably just the transport hub right? What's the purpose of the tower actually? Mixed use?

Renderings of the park:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5294/5553834795_8dd104fd9b_b.jpg
Source: http://www.pcparch.com/
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5059/5553834449_6818603b41_b.jpg
Source: http://www.pcparch.com/
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5310/5553834135_1daae6ca67_b.jpg
Source: http://www.pcparch.com/
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5171/5553833883_e4c6b54f60_b.jpg
Source: http://www.pcparch.com/

That's great news. Are they still unsure about the tower though? Like the first thing they're going to build is probably just the transport hub right? What's the purpose of the tower actually? Mixed use?

The trasport hub for sure since its critical for the hi-speed rail system that is being planned.

I just got this from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Transbay_development) and it seems to be final:

On May 1, 2008, the city of San Francisco presented its Transbay zoning plan which includes seven towers exceeding the current 550 ft (168 m) height limit, with six towers ranging from 600 feet (183 m) to 800 ft (244 m) and the centerpiece 1,000 ft (305 m) Transbay Tower. Under the city plan, the height of the Renzo Piano towers would be reduced by one-third and the Transbay tower by one-sixth. 181 Fremont Street and Transbay Project II saw their heights cut to only 700 ft (213 m), while 350 Mission Street, currently at 550 ft (168 m), could rise as high as 700 feet (213 m).

The plan also permits buildings to rise as high as 600 ft (183 m) on a block of land bounded by Main (northeast), Howard (southeast), and Beale Streets (southwest). One of the reasons for this reduction was that the Transbay Tower, at 1,200 ft (366 m), would cast a shadow over Justin Herman Plaza near the Embarcadero, a violation of a 1984 law that prohibits structures from casting shadows over plazas and parks. A 1,000 ft (305 m) Transbay Tower would not shadow over a significant portion of Justin Herman Plaza. There is also concern that several existing and proposed buildings might turn the intersection of Mission & Fremont Streets into a glass canyon, as 50 Fremont Center, the Millennium Tower, 350 Mission Street and the Transbay Tower are built or planned to be next to the intersection.

Yes so those are the permissions and the plans. But it's still unsure if they're gonna build the towers at all right? The transport hub is what matters right. Maybe you could open a thread for the transport hub in general. You can do so in the general urban developments forum. Kind of the same idea as the WTC complex.

Nothing ever happens in SF...this is so annoying

^^ What are you talking about? They are just prepping for constructions. Have you visited our San Francisco forum (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3031)?

One Year In, Officials Say Transbay Terminal Construction On Schedule

One year has passed since city officials broke ground for San Francisco's new Transbay Transit Center, and transit authorities today said that construction is right on schedule.

The $4.1 billion transit hub, dubbed the "Grand Central of the West," will replace the old Transbay Transit Terminal at Mission and First streets. The old terminal was built in 1939 and declared seismically unsafe after the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989.

The new transit center will act as the terminus station for the planned high-speed rail system between San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as a hub for 11 other transit operators--Caltrain, AC Transit, BART, Golden Gate Transit, Greyhound, the San Francisco Municipal Railway, San Mateo County Transit District, Western Contra Costa Transit Authority, Lynx, Paratransit and Amtrak.

The first phase of construction, which includes the construction of a five-story transit center and new bus ramps, is scheduled to be completed in October 2017.

Demolition, the first stage of phase one, is expected to be finished by the end of this month and the second stage is already under way, said Robert Beck, a senior project manager for Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

The second stage--the installation of shoring--will allow crews to de-water and excavate the site. Construction crews will also begin construction of a buttress inside the shoring for stability at the end of this month. The buttress is expected to take 18 months to complete.

Construction of the center's below-grade structures--such as the rail levels, which will serve Caltrain and the high-speed rail--is set to begin in late 2012.

Phase two of construction will extend Caltrain's rail line from Fourth and King streets underground to the transit center.

Once finished, the transit center is expected to serve more than 100,000 passengers each weekday and more than 45 million passengers per year.

Erika Heidecker, Bay City News

http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/one-year-in-officials-say-transbay-terminal-construction-on-schedule.php

So which will this project or the Wilshire project in LA come up first? I was really interested in this project about 2 years ago. But after so long of nothing happening, I kinda lost hope/focus. But with what Animo posted, this seems to be a real project. It will reach 1200ft as the title suggests right? Because the wiki citation 4 posts above mine says 1000ft :/

Some appetizers for everyone. ;)

Work continues, though nothing visually interesting is happening at the moment -- mostly utility and shoring work. However, I did find a couple of renderings at the Webcor-Obayashi project website (http://www.webcor-obayashi.com/construction_progress.asp) that I hadn't seen before:

http://www.webcor-obayashi.com/images/Transbay%20-%20Isometric%203.jpg

http://www.webcor-obayashi.com/images/Transbay%20-%20Isometric%204.jpg

http://www.webcor-obayashi.com/images/Transbay%20-%20Isometric%206.jpg

http://www.webcor-obayashi.com/images/Transbay%20-%20Isometric%205.jpg

So which will this project or the Wilshire project in LA come up first? I was really interested in this project about 2 years ago. But after so long of nothing happening, I kinda lost hope/focus. But with what Animo posted, this seems to be a real project. It will reach 1200ft as the title suggests right? Because the wiki citation 4 posts above mine says 1000ft :/

This was answered at the Transbay Terminal thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=902890):

Looks like Renzo Piano's tower complex is unlikely to be constructed in the future.

Yes that proposal is dead and has been replaced by this one from SOM (915ft for tallest):

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5004174
A Trio Of SOM Towers At 50 First Street As Proposed


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/10/a_trio_of_renzo_piano_som_towers_at_50_first_street_as.html#comments

http://www.socketsite.com/50%20first%20tower%20one.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/50%20first%20Site.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/50%20first%20tower%20two.jpg

via: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/10/a_trio_of_renzo_piano_som_towers_at_50_first_street_as.html#comments

nice can't wait to see this get build.

October 5, 2011
The Plan For San Francisco's Tallest Tower And Transit Center District

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/259/transitcentertowerrende.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/255/transitcentertowerrende.jpg/)

At the center of the 145 acre Transit Center District, the proposed Transit Tower to be on Mission between First and Freemont will rise 920 feet to its roof and to 1,070 feet including its sculptural element, becoming the City’s tallest structure (1,000 feet to the highest enclosed space) and yielding 1.3 million square feet of office and 16,500 square feet of retail.

Currently zoned for heights ranging from 30 to 550 feet, as plugged-in people know, in addition to the the Transit Tower the Transit Center District Plan would allow for an additional six buildings to rise over 550 feet and up to 850 feet on First bewteen Stevenson and Elm Alley.

http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/38/transitcenterheighttabl.gif (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/transitcenterheighttabl.gif/)


http://socketsite.com/
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Also from http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf A great drawing showing the tower elevation and distribution of floors.

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7574/20070558edeir11149.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/836/20070558edeir11149.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

From SSP
1,070 ain't bad at all. I'm more disappointed that the design hasn't changed much. You can see more renderings by downloading this pdf.

http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf

Here are some of my favorites from the download.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6215080106_b4d1a2131d_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6111/6215081996_81d9e90144_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6213/6215082320_b1da7b0a87_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6151/6215120108_44099320e8_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6233/6215120382_bfaf210bbc_b.jpg

So... The San Fransisco skyline is about to completely change?...

Ok, I tend to love Cesar Pelli's designs, but he seems to be geting kind of repetitive. This looks like the bastard child between Costanera Center and that proposed tower in midtown manhattan.

Looks like the skyline image of San Francisco is going to be completely changed.

Nice!!!

IMO it's mostly similar to the Costanera Center.

Yea. Pelli doesnt have a whole lot of originality.

Ok, I tend to love Cesar Pelli's designs, but he seems to be geting kind of repetitive. This looks like the bastard child between Costanera Center and that proposed tower in midtown manhattan.

I 1000% agree with you, this really is 15 Penn. But I don't see that being any catastrophe since the design is good :cheers:

Btw, this surely is a gigantic project for San Francisco. I kinda don't think that something like this will become reality :dunno:

^^ This was actually designed before 15 Penn.

It's height was recently reduced from 1200 to 1070ft, but the design is pretty much the same. Even at 1070ft this will still make a huge impact on the SF skyline. Hopefully the reduction will get the ball rolling on this one. At 1200ft the building would have cast shadows over Justin Herman Plaza near the waterfront, which is a no-no in the eyes of many San Franciscans (stupid I know). The office space market in San Francisco is beginning to turn around, so a new tower definitely seems to be in order.

IMO it's mostly similar to the Costanera Center.

I Agree! :no:

Those building don't do anything for the skyline. And why does every new skyscraper have blue glass.

But why the height get cut down by around 50 metres or so?

But why the height get cut down by around 50 metres or so?

I already explained this above. At 1200ft the building would have cast shadows over Justin Herman Plaza near the waterfront which is not allowed.

Costanera Center 2? Which one is taller? is 1201ft the final height?

awesome project for the best city in the usa.

Costanera Center 2? Which one is taller? is 1201ft the final height?

Height is now 1070ft

From http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9429/unled1zb.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/51/unled1zb.jpg/)



http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/5245/unled2vw.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/unled2vw.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

I already explained this above. At 1200ft the building would have cast shadows over Justin Herman Plaza near the waterfront which is not allowed.

$#!+... I guess it's for the best. Stupid plaza. Skyscrapers everywhere have to have their limits, right?

Those building don't do anything for the skyline. And why does every new skyscraper have to blue glass.

I actually completely disagree. How can this be negative at all? 1,070 feet is a solid building, especially in SF, since its on a fault line. And im willing to bet that at night its going to look SICK. The top lights up...So im satisfied, this building will be great

I was talking about the Picture in the last page. With skyscraper models in blue and green

I was talking about the Picture in the last page. With skyscraper models in blue and green

Those are just models showing the allowed height for each plot. They are not actual renderings. The green are approved heights, and the blue are proposed. It's not hard to understand. How the hell does this have anything to do with blue glass. Think damn it :bash:

^^ I never said those models had anything to do, with the color of this building. I was saying blue skyscraper are played out and boring.

Anyone notice the 3 seconds of the SF skyline in the newest Star Trek Movie? Can someone find it and post a screen shot?

Bill Maher is a NIMBY douche :censored:

Transbay Tower plan raises shadow debate

Will Kane, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 12, 2011

San Francisco -- Reaching 1,070 feet into the air, San Francisco's proposed Transbay Tower would be the tallest building west of the Mississippi.

But if approved and built, it could also do something else, critics say: Its shadow, and the shadow of five other buildings proposed to rise at least 700 feet from an area near the old Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets, could stretch across Market Street and into the parks of North Beach and Chinatown, blocking the sun and turning the parks - at least at certain times of the day - into shadowy wastelands.

That's hyperbole, city officials say. Most parks, including Union Square, would be covered with a smidgen of shadow and only at certain times of the year, like early in the morning during winter, when the sun is low in the sky and most people aren't lounging there.

During most of year, they say, the shadows will miss most parks and open spaces and blend in with every other downtown shadow.

The plan will create a new, high-density downtown core with 1.3 million square feet of office space and 16,500 square feet of retail space. If approved, the project could bring millions of dollars to San Francisco's economy and support the Transbay Terminal, the city's new transit hub.
In the shadows

A newly released environmental analysis of the proposed development explains in detail what the impacts will be: Almost 90 percent of Portsmouth Square would be covered in shade most winter mornings, a 40 percentage point increase. At certain times, Union Square would be entirely shaded by new and existing high-rises, although only for a few minutes.

"What this does is eliminate a significant amount of public sunlight that the public can never get back," said Bill Maher, a proponent of a 1984 voter-approved initiative to prevent new buildings from shading public parks.

Proposition K requires that any new shadows on city parks be approved by both the Planning and Recreation and Park commissions. The development plans will also have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Let the sunshine in

The reality will be far better than the study, officials said. The environmental report analyzed the absolute worst-case scenarios, a theoretical building shaped like a refrigerator, said John Rahaim, the planning director. The planning code requires that the actual buildings be tapered to allow more light to reach the street, he said.

"It will never be that bad for two reasons: Not all the (proposed) buildings will be built, and every building will have a design," he said.

Gabriel Metcalf, co-chairman of a city committee formed to analyze Prop. K issues, said he didn't think the impacts were too severe, or surprising.

"Clearly there will be people who don't like this plan because it is San Francisco, (and) nothing like this could get done without controversy," said Metcalf, who is also head of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a smart-growth think tank.

Most days the parks will be just as they are now, he said. The total amount of new shadow cast on parks over a year - an arcane planning statistic - will increase by only very small amounts, in some cases no more than two-tenths of a percent.

But that increase, or any increase, is still too much for Maher and others. Letting a little shadow encroach onto a park is a slippery slope to a dark, gloomy downtown, he said.

"You can never build a downtown park once you build tall buildings; you can build space, but you can't build a park," Maher said. "I am just not in favor of selling the public sunlight."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/12/MNIU1LBU71.DTL

it's not very tall,but I like it better than other buildings,because it's in san francisco,a so beautiful city.

News about this project? Construction will start this year?

News about this project? Construction will start this year?

They are busy on the foundation already. I haven't been up close but I see them working on it. :)

They are busy on the foundation already. I haven't been up close but I see them working on it. :)

is demolition completed? it is on the stage of Foundation...

December 16

Work on the Transbay Terminal is underway but the tower is delayed pending market conditions. (the good news is that the office market in San Francisco is among the healthiest in the US)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7146/6539698177_6fa2ea23d9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremybrooks/6539698177/)
Transbay Cranes (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeremybrooks/6539698177/) by Jeremy Brooks (http://www.flickr.com/people/jeremybrooks/), on Flickr

construction camera from today. The tower location is in the middle on the right, kind of behind the glass clad building. The rest is the new transbay transit center which actually is under construction.

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/4707/80350272.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/685/80350272.jpg/)

http://transbaycenter.org/construction-updates/construction-cameras/beale-camera
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

it's not very tall,but I like it better than other buildings,because it's in san francisco,a so beautiful city.

It's the new tallest in San Francisco.

How is 326 meters not tall? Anything beyond 300 is supposed to be a supertall.


And with that Logic, that means Shanghai and Hong Kong only have 2 tall buildings and Beijing has none, so get off your high horse!

The design is so amazing.:bow:

aren't there other 900-1000 foot buildings planned for SF as well?

aren't there other 900-1000 foot buildings planned for SF as well?

The only one planned right now is the 915 ft tower at 50 1st street.

This is a great project for SF. Just the right hight and design :)

It's the new tallest in San Francisco.

How is 326 meters not tall? Anything beyond 300 is supposed to be a supertall.


And with that Logic, that means Shanghai and Hong Kong only have 2 tall buildings and Beijing has none, so get off your high horse!
No,the tallest in beijing is 330m.and has no spire.and HK has 3 supertalls by roof height.
I dont know the roof height of this building,perhaps less than 300m,but that's still amazing for san francisco.I think it's the most beautiful city of american if it adds more supertalls.

How about Renzo piano tower1&2? I hope san francisco will has 3 or more supertalls!

No,the tallest in beijing is 330m.and has no spire.and HK has 3 supertalls by roof height.
I dont know the roof height of this building,perhaps less than 300m,but that's still amazing for san francisco.I think it's the most beautiful city of american if it adds more supertalls.

You misunderstood my post,

You said 326 meters was "not tall"

I said by that logic, Beijing has no tall buildings, as it's tallest is that height, and Shanghai and Hong Kong only have 2 tall buildings as they both have only 2 buildings with a roof height above 326 meters.

I'm not saying that's true but when you say a 330 meter building is "not tall" then it is.

Trans-Gay Tower...no offense meant, to the people of San Francisco...i actually meant that as a complement to that most colourful of cities :cheers:

Transgay tower...

That actually sounds better than Transbay tower, and quite fitting for San Francisco. :lol:

You misunderstood my post,

You said 326 meters was "not tall"

I said by that logic, Beijing has no tall buildings, as it's tallest is that height, and Shanghai and Hong Kong only have 2 tall buildings as they both have only 2 buildings with a roof height above 326 meters.

I'm not saying that's true but when you say a 330 meter building is "not tall" then it is.
Eh,I see,I didnt care,
I think a 330meters tower with fog looks very tall,but if without fog,it doesnt look tall.this is the feeling that Beijing WTC 3 gave me.
Fortunately,San Francisco is always foggy.

How about Renzo piano tower1&2? I hope san francisco will has 3 or more supertalls!

Those were cancelled awhile ago

How about Renzo piano tower1&2? I hope san francisco will has 3 or more supertalls!

Of course, by 2100 San Francisco may have 3 supertalls.

Eh,I see,I didnt care,
I think a 330meters tower with fog looks very tall,but if without fog,it doesnt look tall.this is the feeling that Beijing WTC 3 gave me.
Fortunately,San Francisco is always foggy.

lol, that's some interesting logic you have going there. A 1,000+ foot building should be considered "tall" by anyone's standard. They don't call them "skyscrapers", or "super tall" for nothing...

Of course, by 2100 San Francisco may have 3 supertalls.


A lot can happen in 10-20 years

sfgate.com (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/12/BA3A1NJBIF.DTL&tsp=1)


Plans revamped for SF's tallest skyscraper
John King
Monday, March 12, 2012

http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Jay/transbay-tower-revised-2.jpg


(03-12) 11:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The long-dormant proposal for a skyline-busting skyscraper next to the Transbay Terminal has come back to life - a bit slimmer and shorter, but still aiming to be San Francisco's tallest tower.

The glassy white high rise would be 60 stories and 1,070 feet tall with an entrance at First and Mission streets, according to new plans submitted to the city. It would contain 1.35 million square feet of office space and be accompanied by a half-acre public plaza. The proposed height would extend 220 feet above the Transamerica Pyramid, which was completed in 1972 and is the city's tallest tower.

The filing is another sign that developers are confident the technology-driven revival of the city's economy is real and that there is a looming need for more commercial and residential space. It also comes as the Planning Department finishes work on a long-term plan for the area around the former terminal. A vote is expected late this spring on the plan, which includes environmental studies for the so-called "Transit Tower."

That plan must be in place before a vote on the tower. Even if all goes smoothly, developers say the earliest construction could begin is late next year, with a 2016 opening. "San Francisco is ready for more office space, so we want to advance as soon as possible," said Paul Paradis of Hines, the development firm selected in September 2007 to erect was then was proposed to be a 1,200-foot-tall, 1.8 million-square-foot tower on land controlled by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. The authority will use proceeds from the sale of this and other development sites to help fund the multimodal transit center now being built.

The revised tower keeps the obelisk form of the original design with office floors giving way to a see-through crown. The changes are subtle ones: The skin's lattice-like metal-work would taper in toward the glass at the curved corners, creating what the architects say will be a smooth vase-like effect. The glass would be a neutral color, behind aluminum mullions and spandrels painted pearlescent white. The outer grids would double as sunshades to reduce the tower's energy use.

[...]

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/12/BA3A1NJBIF.DTL#ixzz1owYeUhUE

Me gusta!

Hope this happens. San Francisco deserves it!

Looks great but of course I would have easily preferred the taller version :yes:

Wonderful news! A little shorter, but no biggy. As long as it gets built, that's all that matters.

Congrats to San Fransisco!

good news for San Francisco, but the design is a bit boring for a super tall imo

Just build it. We'll all come to appreciate it.

Nice elegant shape. Congrats to SF. :)

cool tower. like costanera center chile

Nice design.

Well good to see this isn't dead then.

Well good to see this isn't dead then.

far from it... it never was dead

Well good to see this isn't dead then.

The office vacancy rate in San Francisco is 8.5% (half the vacancy rate of Manhattan which has multiple supertalls in the pipeline) and the Class A vacancy rate is much lower. The only reason the tower is not starting up this year is all the construction on the Transbay Transit Center that would be difficult to choreograph the tower's construction around. Also a lead tennant needs to get signed but given the space needs of many firms in the Bay Area, that shouldn't be too difficult.

It's a very large, tight site:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7036/6970055729_26ccdee1a7_o_d.jpg
pbo31 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/) at Flickr

I prefer the previous design ...

3589710

^^ Pretty!

San Francisco deserves this!

As I mentioned elsewhere, what may make this tower possible is this:

office vacancy rate of 8.65 percent in SoMa at the end of 2011 versus rates of 23.6 percent in 2008 and 25.5 percent in 2009, and an overall office vacancy rate of 9.3 percent for San Francisco
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/03/the_latest_fad_sweeping_through_soma.html

plus the additional requirement by Salesforce.com for up to 2 million square feet for the headquarters they need but have recently decided not to build themselves.

There probably is not that much suitable space available in San Francisco. So something has to be built.

There are a number of shorter (but still attractive and desirable in their own way) office towers already approved but put on hold by the 2008 recession. These include 535 Mission and 350 Mission in blocks on either side of the Transbay tower (which would essentially be 401 Mission if it had an address). Together, the 3 would make a "campus" in excess of the 2 million square feet Salesforce wants. But, in any case, San Francisco now clearly needs a lot more downtown office space and the Transbay Tower has finally become economically feasible.

The only reason the tower is not starting up this year is all the construction on the Transbay Transit Center that would be difficult to choreograph the tower's construction around. Also a lead tennant needs to get signed

One quibble. The Tower cannot begin this year because the existing height limits at the site wouldn't allow it. The new height limits are in process of approval and almost certainly will be approved, but not on a timetable to get this building underway this year (the new height limits and other planning minutiae are here: http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf ). First the height limits need to be put in place. Then the final tower design itself needs specific approval by the Planning Commission (and possibly by the Board of Supervisors if there is a NIMBY appeal of the Planning decision).

And, oh-by-the-way, Hines needs to finalize the agreement to buy the site from the Transbay Authority and actually come up with the money (over $300 million was agreed on for the 1200 ft tower so the final figure will probably be proportionately less, possibly even less than that given economic conditions).

The terminal construction will be ongoing until 2016 so that isn't peculiarly a factor this year. Here is the schedule: http://transbaycenter.org/construction-updates/project-schedule

They are currently doing the excavation and shoring for the below-grade terminal structure (the so-called "train box" I believe which will be where the CalTrain and, hopefully HSR, platforms will be). A year from now the actual construction below grade commences and the following year, 2014, the above grade terminal construction.

One quibble. The Tower cannot begin this year because the existing height limits at the site wouldn't allow it. The new height limits are in process of approval and almost certainly will be approved, but not on a timetable to get this building underway this year (the new height limits and other planning minutiae are here: http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf ). First the height limits need to be put in place. Then the final tower design itself needs specific approval by the Planning Commission (and possibly by the Board of Supervisors if there is a NIMBY appeal of the Planning decision).

And, oh-by-the-way, Hines needs to finalize the agreement to buy the site from the Transbay Authority and actually come up with the money (over $300 million was agreed on for the 1200 ft tower so the final figure will probably be proportionately less, possibly even less than that given economic conditions).

The terminal construction will be ongoing until 2016 so that isn't peculiarly a factor this year. Here is the schedule: http://transbaycenter.org/construction-updates/project-schedule

They are currently doing the excavation and shoring for the below-grade terminal structure (the so-called "train box" I believe which will be where the CalTrain and, hopefully HSR, platforms will be). A year from now the actual construction below grade commences and the following year, 2014, the above grade terminal construction.

Hmm, I guess I was under the impression that the height limit was already raised. So it's still remotely possible that NIMBYs could shoot this tower down. I wonder why a simple variance for the single project couldn't have been awarded without rewriting the height ordinance. Anyway, that shouldn't slow things down much unless a court injuncts. As to the final sale, except for the site and whatever existing entitlements there are, there's nothing to buy until the tower has cleared all these obstacles. No wonder Hines is having to wait. And whatever the timetable of construction of the transit center, it's a complex site and that drives up costs. The longer the tower waits, the easier it will be to coordinate staging and other activities at the site.

Hmm, I guess I was under the impression that the height limit was already raised. So it's still remotely possible that NIMBYs could shoot this tower down. I wonder why a simple variance for the single project couldn't have been awarded without rewriting the height ordinance. Anyway, that shouldn't slow things down much unless a court injuncts. As to the final sale, except for the site and whatever existing entitlements there are, there's nothing to buy until the tower has cleared all these obstacles. No wonder Hines is having to wait. And whatever the timetable of construction of the transit center, it's a complex site and that drives up costs. The longer the tower waits, the easier it will be to coordinate staging and other activities at the site.

The terminal is under construction yet they need the money from the tower site for the construction of the underground rail connection. So it's very unlikely it will get shot down. Even the former ultra-development hostile Sup. Chris Daly was for this project (although he probably would have liked the shortest possible tower). I think there's a solid consensus on the plan as it has evolved.

They are changing all the height limits in an entire district because that's the way Planning operates in SF. There is a 20 (or so) year old Downtown Plan that established the current height limits and this is seen as a major revision of that. I can't recall if the Transit District was also an official Redevelopment Area (Gov. Brown abolished those starting in Jan) but that would have fast-tracked a lot of the process and would have allowed a lot of financial manipulation (tax increment financing etc) to get the terminal built.

Anyway, this project is pretty wired as far as the City goes. I'm still more worried about Hines and whatever sources of financing it may need in the current economic climate.

WOW this is really amazing. I guess this one easily goes to my top3 favourite projects being constructed in the world. The tower is amazing but all the other components of this project are outstanding too! This can change the city for better! I went to SF six years ago, but I wouldn't be surprised if I returned there in 3 or 4 years just to see again all these amazing changes!

Yup . . . times have changed.

New Transbay deal: Land price cut to $185 million
San Francisco Business Times by J.K. Dineen, Reporter
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2012, 5:47pm PDT - Last Modified: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 11:04am PDT

A new agreement between the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and the developer of the proposed Transbay tower and terminal in San Francisco would reduce the amount paid for the land from $225 million to $185 million.

According to a exclusive negotiating agreement that was reached Feb. 9 but has not been made public, developer Hines will pay the city $140 per buildable square foot for the land. In 2007, during a historic real estate bubble, Hines had offered to pay $350 million for the land, a number that was slashed to $235 million in 2008 as the global economic recession set in.

The still lower land price reflects both current economics realities as well as the fact that the height of the proposed building has been shaved from 1,200 feet to 1,070 feet . . . .

While it will pump less money into city coffers, the new land price should make the project economically viable. The tower will still be likely the most expensive building in town, but the rents Hines has to charge to make a profit will be more in line with other approved, unbuilt projects in downtown San Francisco, like Tishman Speyer’s 222 Second St.

In fact, the price per buildable square foot Hines has agreed to pay is actually less than Lincoln Properties paid for land at 350 Bush St. in 2007 and less than Salesforce paid for 14 acres approved for 2 million square feet in Mission Bay in 2010 . . . .

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/03/new-transbay-deal-land-price-cut-to.html?ana=e_bay_real&s=newsletter&ed=2012-03-15&page=all

Transbay Tower revision downsizes public frills
John King
Monday, March 19, 2012

The proposed Transbay Tower inevitably draws attention for its size, in this case a 1,070-foot-tall rounded shaft that would crown San Francisco's skyline.

But the troubling aspect of the revised plan unveiled this month is not the addition to the skyline. It's the subtraction on the ground.

Unlike the version of the plan that was selected with fanfare in 2007, this one has no obvious public link between the plaza at the tower's base and the 5.4 acre park that will sit atop the new Transbay Terminal next door, 70 feet in the air.

It lacks the tall canopy that was to shield the plaza from rain and wind while drawing eyes upward. Nor is there a cable car-like people mover to whisk visitors from plaza to park. Also missing: mezzanine-level shops that would connect to the adjacent terminal via a foot bridge and add another level of activity.

What has been removed, in short, is almost every public feature of an office tower that would be allowed to climb past current height limits because of public largesse. This might be good for the long-stalled project's bottom line, but it undermines one of the most ambitious park projects in the nation . . . .

While Hines offered significantly more money than did its two rivals, the agency also preferred the Hines concept. The novel aspect of the proposal - dubbed City Park - was the quarter-mile-long rooftop retreat that would create "the centerpiece of a new neighborhood ... with the attractions and activities that characterize great urban green spaces."

Hines' entry also emphasized that "for City Park to be a success, it must be accessible and welcoming."

And so the people mover was extolled as "an evocative way to encourage people to visit, and an attraction that can become a signature image for Transbay." The canopy was a way to signal the park's presence from afar while providing "an architectural link between the Tower and the Transit Center, unifying the urban composition."

That was then. Now, Hines has no financial stake in City Park's failure or success.

The terminal and its rooftop green are being built by the authority, not Hines. The developer is responsible only for the high-rise and the plaza at Market and Fremont.

The plaza would still be the main pedestrian approach to the terminal. The plaza and the rooftop park also share such elements as redwood groves. For the most part, though, it's as if the two spaces were separate worlds unto themselves.

The one direct connection between the tower and City Park would be a fifth-floor bridge. Other than that, the only way to reach the park on opening day in 2017 will be from within the transit center . . . .


Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/19/MN231NKVL4.DTL

One of my favorit projects in the world :)

A construction update



http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6045/7012404213_2c761f6dd5_b.jpg

3589710


This looks great! I really like the design, they went with the right one in my opinion.

^^ - Nice video, thanks DP.

I love the tower, but I feel its too similar to Costanera Center, y Santiago :/

Is in it?

http://www.urbanity.biz/fotocubo/blog2/render.jpg

It does, but it is a good design. :)

I love the tower, but I feel its too similar to Costanera Center, y Santiago :/

Is in it?

Both were designed by Cesar Pelli, and he seems to use the same basic shape over and over. Both are good looking towers, but this, that building in Santiago and 15 Penn in NY are all his recent work and look very similar.

3589710

Gorgeous!

I must admit I haven't paid any attention to this project. It's incredible.

This is awesome, when are they going to start building it ?

I love the tower, but I feel its too similar to Costanera Center, y Santiago :/

Is in it?

http://www.urbanity.biz/fotocubo/blog2/render.jpg

I thought the same.

Pelli buildings are both very similar.

^^ And another one from Pelli, 15 Penn Plaza (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=639801) in New York.

This is awesome, when are they going to start building it ?

The terminal with the rooftop park is already under construction. The tower portion could start by the end of next year.

The plan must be in place before any vote on the tower. If all goes smoothly, developers say the earliest that construction could begin is late next year, with a 2016 opening.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/12/BA3A1NJBIF.DTL#ixzz1sbD1PobE

Designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli...

Why can't Pelli build something this amazing in BA?

Is this newest design actually officially "approved" yet?? Or is this just another proposed design, maybe the 100th already.

It's been like 5-7 years in all these different proposed and rejected and forgotten about designs already, hasn't it?

When are they actually going to officially approve One and start building?

Any new news?

Wow, California might experience two new supertalls, this and LA's Wilshire grand.

Wilshire grand is slated to start around spring of next year and would be a few hundred feet taller than this, but would this start before spring?

Is this design final ? It's a good design, but i preferred the SOM proposal, it was bold, innovative, and strikingly beautiful. Once this is built, San Fran will definitely move past Seattle,Houston,Philly..etc, and become America's 3rd best skyscraper city

I have no real problems with this design, I'd give it a 6 out of 10.

Is this design final ? It's a good design, but i preferred the SOM proposal, it was bold, innovative, and strikingly beautiful. Once this is built, San Fran will definitely move past Seattle,Houston,Philly..etc, and become America's 3rd best skyscraper city

SF already has more skyscrapers than Seattle or Philly (and more total highrises than either as well). But maybe you were talking about aesthetics, and not just total number of skyscrapers?

1 skyscraper more than 1k' would suit SF very nicely. They only need one, and not really a bunch of them like NYC, etc. SF is beautiful and is like a European city to me. Kinda similar to the Shard being only 1k' but still the tallest in London and west-Europe and still making a dramatic and powerful impact to the cityscape, the tower in SF will give the same kinda awesome presence :)

sfgate.com (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/12/BA3A1NJBIF.DTL&tsp=1)

Just the way it works every time... value engineering, of course.

It is to be expected, but I wish for once it wouldn't happen. Companies and builders need to rediscover the immonetary value of civic pride and architectural accomplishment, that just because it is not efficient doesn't mean it should be avoided. Is it efficient to build a supertall in the middle of a village in China? No, but they do it anyway. Why? Because they can. We can too, and we should. We ought to scrap this insipid design (Pelli's work has declined at an astounding rate, literally all of his buildings look like this now, it's not funny) and return to the inspiring and iconic SOM design- a true way for this city, the living embodiment of (at least political) progress(ivism), to finally usher in the 21st century.

Just the way it works every time...

I would express some disappointment too but yesterday I was waiting for a friend sitting on a park bench in an area that happened to be shaded and freezing in the misty May cold (it was probably in the 50s at 11 AM) and I thought how those who argue about retaining all the sun on parks we can are, sadly, correct in this town. At 1200 feet or more, this building would have shaded a major park--Justin Herman Plaza--and that would be unfortunate. At 1000' it will still make the necessary architectural statement and have the necessary effect on the skyline (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1497437) so that's probably the right height for it.

value engineering, of course.

It is to be expected, but I wish for once it wouldn't happen.

I'm not so sure they will get away with the "value engineering" aspects of the proposed design change. I think the Planning Dept. may fight back concerning the funicular and public open spaces, especially the funicular which was deemed critical to get people to actually use the park on top of the terminal.

Shadows? My friend, you live in a city, San Francisco at that. It's always cold, and they'll always be shadows. The shorter design in simply a primus inter pares to SOM's design's pontifex maximus.

I'm not so sure they will get away with the "value engineering" aspects of the proposed design change. I think the Planning Dept. may fight back concerning the funicular and public open spaces, especially the funicular which was deemed critical to get people to actually use the park on top of the terminal.

This is good to hear. I as a distant observer but a person proud to see American skylines stand taller am not particularly excited- it won't affect it- but after all the whole complex is being built for the San Franciscans, and not me.

Shadows? My friend, you live in a city, San Francisco at that. It's always cold, and they'll always be shadows. The shorter design in simply a primus inter pares to SOM's design's pontifex maximus.


Not so here. The shadows on Justin Herman Plaza are the specific reason the height is being cut and it's not being done by the developer but by the city Planning Department (with full support by the Board of Supervisors) after shadow studies. San Francisco, in fact, has a law that public open spaces cannot be shadowed by new buildings and exceptions need "conditional use" authorization by the Planning Commission (appealable to the Supervisors).

Unlike New York, in this city temps rarely climb out of the 60s even in August and direct sunlight is a valuable thing.

Not so here. The shadows on Justin Herman Plaza are the specific reason the height is being cut and it's not being done by the developer but by the city Planning Department (with full support by the Board of Supervisors) after shadow studies. San Francisco, in fact, has a law that public open spaces cannot be shadowed by new buildings and exceptions need "conditional use" authorization by the Planning Commission (appealable to the Supervisors).

Unlike New York, in this city temps rarely climb out of the 60s even in August and direct sunlight is a valuable thing.

I totally agree. Park space in downtown San Fran is so scarce and a welcome respite from all the walking that residents and visitors do that protecting sunlight there is essential. Now one can debate about whether parks should be placed in areas slated for intense development but I remember when the only thing south of Market St was the Moscone Center. Not many people at that time might have considered that supertalls would ever be built in that (frankly) distressed area.

I would express some disappointment too but yesterday I was waiting for a friend sitting on a park bench in an area that happened to be shaded and freezing in the misty May cold (it was probably in the 50s at 11 AM) and I thought how those who argue about retaining all the sun on parks we can are, sadly, correct in this town.


Unlike New York, in this city temps rarely climb out of the 60s even in August and direct sunlight is a valuable thing.

SF overall really isn't cold. It's typically warm (60-70s) or a little bit chilly (50s), with some cold days or cold moments on an otherwise warmer day (usually because of wind more than anything else), with some truly hot days here and there. SF's average yearly high is 65, and the average yearly low is 51. The record high is 103, and the record low is only 27. Even SF's supposedly cold and miserable summers have average highs in the 60s and low 70s (any cold is typically just because of the fog and wind that blows in during the mornings and evenings, and which impacts the western half of the city the most). It's the kind of city where you'll even get some hot and sunny days in the middle of winter, while half the rest of the country is neck deep in snow and ice.

As for the sun being a valuable commodity...lol. SF is actually of the sunnier cities in the US, placing in the tier below the southwestern cities, which are at the top of course. And downtown especially gets more sun and warmth than say, the Sunset or Richmond districts, which are within SF's fog belt. You're a bit biased though, seeing as your point of comparison is Arizona. I mean, how else exactly can you imply that temps in the 60s are not warm? It may not be hot, or that warm, but it sure as hell isn't cold.

Is it efficient to build a supertall in the middle of a village in China? No, but they do it anyway. Why? Because they can. We can too, and we should.
I agree with the spirit of your post entirely but what you think is a village is , well , it's just not .
Wuxi (and that must be what you're referring to) is no rural village . Firstly , in China , people consider anything under 1,000,000 people to be a town .
Secondly , Wuxi is just another huge city in the Yangtze Delta megalopolis . We're talking about an area with like like 70 million people .

Wuxi is to Shanghai what Stockton is to San Francisco .

SF already has more skyscrapers than Seattle or Philly (and more total highrises than either as well). But maybe you were talking about aesthetics, and not just total number of skyscrapers?


Both of those cities actually have taller skyscrapers than SF, maybe a few less 500 footers though. But after this building and the 915 footer (forget the name) SF will be drastically different.

Both of those cities actually have taller skyscrapers than SF, maybe a few less 500 footers though. But after this building and the 915 footer (forget the name) SF will be drastically different.

Agreed

Big day for the Transbay neighborhood and tower:

Transit district development plan gets hearing
By: Ari Burack | 05/23/12 6:13 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Plans for the neighborhood surrounding the Transbay Transit Center are before the Planning Commission.
A plan to reshape the South of Market neighborhood surrounding the planned new Transbay Terminal, laying the groundwork for new development that could include the tallest building on the West Coast, passes before the Planning Commission today.

The commission will consider approval of the final environmental impact report and zoning changes for the Transit Center District Plan, The City’s vision for shaping development in the neighborhoods around the new terminal. The $4 billion project being built at First and Mission streets includes a new bus terminal and an extension of Caltrain that could also accommodate high-speed rail.

The district plan, in development since 2007, builds on city plans dating back as far as the mid-1980s to shift development further south of the old Financial District. The plans centers on the area between Market Street, The Embarcadero, Folsom Street and Hawthorne Street.

If approved by the Planning Commission, the plan will move on to the Board of Supervisors for final approval, possibly this summer.

“It’s an exceptionally important hearing,” said Joshua Switzky of the Planning Department. “Assuming they approve it, it would set the stage for entitling some important new projects and generate hundreds of millions of dollars for public improvements and infrastructure.”

One of those projects, the planned 61-story, 1,070-foot Transit Tower office building at the terminal site, could come up for approval at the Planning Commission in the fall. Although scaled down from its original planned height of 1,200 feet, it would still dwarf The City’s current tallest building, the 48-floor Transamerica Pyramid, which stands 853 feet tall and was completed in 1972.

“It’s still the iconic tower that The City was looking for from the beginning,” said Paul Paradis, senior managing director at Hines, the developer on the project.

The towering glass and white metal building is expected to help significantly fund the terminal project, with $575 million anticipated for the downtown rail extension, and street and open space improvements.

Paradis said that as the market improves in The City improves, available office space is diminishing. Construction on the tower could begin as soon as next year, he said.

“I think that it’s going to provide a much needed space for the tenants of San Francisco,” Paradis said. “We’ve been in discussions with some larger tenants already.”


http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/development/2012/05/transit-district-development-plan-gets-hearing

Good news for SF. It's gonna be a fantastic city.. as if it wasn't already :)

Well, it was approved by the Planning Commission:

UPDATE: The Transit Center District Plan was approved by the Planning Commission.

From the Planning Department:

Between now and 2035, approximately 17 percent of the projected job growth in San Francisco will occur in the area surrounding the new Transbay Transit Center. The project anticipates over 27,000 new permanent jobs will be accommodated in the District -- the most significant concentration of projected job growth in the entire city.
The new district will feature more than six million square feet of new office space, over 4,000 new housing units of which at least 1,200 units will be affordable, up to 1,000 new hotel rooms, and improved streets to enhance transit service and support walking and bicycling. The new Plan also proposes to create and fund over 11 acres of new public spaces such as parks, plazas and living streets.
The Department projects the Plan will raise $590 million in revenue from development.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_transit_center_district_and_tower_plan_u.html

Finally!!!!

Yipeeee!

It's been several years of rejected proposals (6-7 years or more??)...it's about time!

Time to move this to the App/UC forum

:D

Both of those cities actually have taller skyscrapers than SF, maybe a few less 500 footers though. But after this building and the 915 footer (forget the name) SF will be drastically different.

I wasn't talking about which city had the tallest skyscrapers, but which had the most. Seattle and Philly have taller tallests, but less skyscrapers in total.

total number of skyscrapers, according to www.emporis.com (buildings above 100 meters/330 feet):

San Francisco: 68 (plus 412 high rises between 12 storeys and 100 meters, including planned and under construction)
Philadelphia: 49 (plus 364 high rises between 12 storeys and 100 meters, including planned and under construction)
Seattle: 39 (plus 242 high rises between 12 storeys and 100 meters, including planned and under construction)

If the transbay tower, and the proposed 915' and 700' tower all get built as proposed, the 5 tallest buildings in SF would be:

Transbay Tower: 1,070'
50 First Street: 915'
Transamerica pyramid: 853'
Bank of America tower: 779'
181 Fremont: 700'

Not a bad line up! It's great that the planning commission approved the transbay plan, now I hope the board of supervisors approves it too. I'm thinking they will.

^^ San Francisco will become a world-class destination with this tower added to their skyline.

Although I have personally never visited San Francisco, I grew up in Philadelphia and was always a skyscraper fan way back then.
I used to compare Philadelphia to other cities such as Pittsburgh, New York, LA, Chicago and San Francisco.
In fact, San Francisco is more similar to Philadelphia than just about any other city.
I had never realized that San Francisco had more skyscrapers in total than Philadelphia until techniques1200s (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/member.php?u=22325) pointed that out.

True indeed that Philadelphia has numerous skyscrapers much taller but hopefully, San Francisco will make some changes.
One thing I realized growing up comparing cities is that San Francisco is limited to tower height due to the steep sloping streets. Possibly also would be earthquakes in the California state.

Once again, San Francisco will be proud to host a new skyscraper on their beloved skyline!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/mr-fish/Miscellaneous/BounceSmile.gif

Philly has 2 skyscrapers that are a bit taller. Seattle has 1.

Philly has 2 skyscrapers that are a bit taller. Seattle has 1.

Yeah, and Philly also has 2 skyscrapers taller than SF's 2nd tallest (a total of 5 above 700' in Philly vs. only 2 for SF). But once you get under 700 feet SF has more skyscrapers. SF would be equal with Philly for the number of towers above 700' if/when all these new buildings get built, and would of course have the tallest tower too.

But all three cities have some amazing skylines regardless of which has more or taller skyscrapers.

Yeah, and Philly also has 2 skyscrapers taller than SF's 2nd tallest (a total of 5 above 700' in Philly vs. only 2 for SF). But once you get under 700 feet SF has more skyscrapers. SF would be equal with Philly for the number of towers above 700' if/when all these new buildings get built, and would of course have the tallest tower too.

But all three cities have some amazing skylines regardless of which has more or taller skyscrapers.

Ah yes, but let's not forget that both cities have enormous potential. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y217/mr-fish/Miscellaneous/BigSmile.gif

SF is already a world class destination..for it's culture, history, etc.

I hear technics1200's on the number vs height. Totally true. SF obviously does not have the tallest buildings; but the number they have and the density of their proximity to each other, makes SF feel like a city more so than any other city I've been to or lived in the USA (except nyc). I think SF feels more "city" than even Chicago many times, as the outskirts/neighborhoods around downtown-Chi doesn't feel too heavily populated and you don't see that many people walking around as compared to SF. Another example is LA. They have the tallest tower in the west, but only have a few skyscrapers and it doesn't feel like a city at all compared to chi, sf, nyc, any other world city, since it's so sprawled out and the majority uses cars.