EDIT: See posts 74 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=14663446&postcount=74) and 88 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=14673699&postcount=88) for the latest models/renderings.

-- wjfox2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The winning design by Cesar Pelli:
http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Aerial_LoRez.jpg


Proposal to build two massive towers in SF
- John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Thursday, December 21, 2006

(12-21) 15:01 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Developers have filed a proposal to erect the nation's tallest buildings outside of New York and Chicago - a pair of slender San Francisco towers that would climb 350 feet higher than the Transamerica Pyramid.

The plan, filed today with the city's planning department, envisions a cluster of unusually thin high-rises spread across two acres at the northwest corner of First and Mission streets: two 1, 200-foot towers, two 900-foot structures and a 600-foot companion.

Down on the ground would be an open plaza, covered passageways and two small existing buildings.

By comparison, the Transamerica Pyramid is 853 feet high and the Bank of America building is 779 feet. The only buildings in the United States of greater height than what is proposed for San Francisco are Sears Tower in Chicago and New York's Empire State Building.

Today's filing is an application to start the environmental review process, rather than a formal design unveiling. By the time that occurs, the heights and dimensions of the towers could change.

The lead architect for the project is Renzo Piano, who also is doing the new home of the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.

"It is highly conceptual at this point," Mark Solit, a member of the development team, said of the project. "Conceptual in terms of our discussion with the city, and conceptual in terms of Renzo Piano Building Workshop's vision of what they think might be appropriate."

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/21/BAGUNN44C07.DTL

Wow. So this is in addition to the planned Transbay towers, I presume? If that's the case, SF may be getting 3 towers over 1,000 ft.

Wow. So this is in addition to the planned Transbay towers, I presume? If that's the case, SF may be getting 3 towers over 1,000 ft.


No this is the proposal for the transbay towers.

It's been quite a while since there a new high rise building being developed in SFO.I've been there and all the tourists are attracted with Golden gate bridge than the SF city. This will be a great project!

No this is the proposal for the transbay towers.

Apparently this is in addition to the Transbay towers..at least from the talk on SSP.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=122300

It's been quite a while since there a new high rise building being developed in SFO.I've been there and all the tourists are attracted with Golden gate bridge than the SF city. This will be a great project!

actually there are 3, 600 foot towers being built the right now.

Apparently this is in addition to the Transbay towers..at least from the talk on SSP.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=122300

Wow I did know that. Well the more the better

Thanks for the Info Armon! 3,600 Feet this is really huge tower.
What is this tower???

wow what an exciting tidbit. Possible good news for SF. I wonder how long it will take for a rendering?

Massive new project being proposed for San Francisco
San Francisco Business Times - 3:21 PM PST Thursday
by J.K. Dineen

A development team led by the Solit Interest Group is proposing to build a 1,200-foot tower at First and Mission streets, part of a quartet of astoundingly ambitious buildings being designed by superstar architect Renzo Piano.

The proposed building, which would dwarf any existing buildings on the West Coast, would be part of a 2.9 million-square-foot development that would include 600 condominiums, 470 hotel rooms, and more than 520,000 square feet of office space, according to an application filed Dec. 21 with the city.

The 1,200-foot proposed skyscraper, which would be the third tallest building in the United States, would lag only Chicago's Sears Tower, which is 1,450 feet, and New York's Empire State Building at 1,250 feet. San Francisco's tallest current building is the Transamerica Pyramid, which is 853 feet tall.

The 51,000-square-foot development site on the northwest corner of First and Mission streets was assembled by David Choo, the president of California Mortgage and Realty. Over the past two years, Choo has acquired four buildings on First Street between Mission and Market streets as well as three adjoining vacant parcels on Mission.

Last summer Choo brought on Mark Solit to head up the development team. Solit was a developer for the Hyatt Corp. and was also involved in building Embarcadero West at 275 Battery St.

The buildings -- 50 First St., 62 First St., 76-80 First St., and 88 First St. -- would be demolished under the proposal. They are all small, Class C office buildings with a combined square footage of 250,000.

At current construction costs, the project would cost more than $1 billion to build.

Piano, who designed the rebuild of the California Academy of Sciences now under way in Golden Gate Park, is a highly sought-after international superstar architect. He's behind the expansion of both the Whitney Museum in New York and the High Museum in Atlanta has public and private projects in Sydney, Tokyo and Paris, but recent American commissions have made him a familiar and golden name in the United States.

"He's certainly one of a very short list of preeminent architects in the world that have a significant body of work," said David Meckel, director research and planning and former dean of architecture at California College of the Arts. "He's done a lot of buildings and almost everyone of those building responds to place. No two look alike."

The proposed development would be made possible by a planned upzoning of the Transbay Terminal area that is currently under review. In July, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority agreed to a plan to build a trio of soaring towers that would help fund a new Transbay Terminal as well as a funding and phasing plan for the transit hub.

The zoning changes could bring as much as $250 million in new funding to the terminal project, according to the work of the planners.

I guess SF will look much better than LA, of course if the tendency to build such towers will continue in future, it would be nice to make SF the third skyscrapercity of US but anyway the city could be the best on the Westcoast

I hope San Francisco will look something like this very soon

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/ba_towers26_ph03.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/ba_towers26_ph01.jpg

Thanks for the Info Armon! 3,600 Feet this is really huge tower.
What is this tower???


LOL! I think he meant there are three 600ft towers under construction. Not a 3,600ft tower. That would be like 400 story tower.LOL.

nice!

LA cannot allow SF to overthrow it! :horse:

Sky's the limit South of Market
4 of developers' proposed high-rises would be taller than anything else in S.F.

John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Friday, December 22, 2006

San Francisco developers are proposing to build the nation's tallest towers outside of New York and Chicago -- a pair of slender high-rises 350 feet taller than the Transamerica Pyramid.

The plan presented Thursday to the city's Planning Department envisions a cluster of thin towers rising from 2 acres at the northwest corner of First and Mission streets. The cluster would include two 1,200-foot towers, two 900-foot structures and a 600-foot companion.

Threaded between them would be an open plaza, covered passageways and a three-story building that is not part of the project.

By comparison, the Transamerica Pyramid is 853 feet high and the Bank of America building is 779 feet. The only U.S. buildings taller than those proposed Thursday are Sears Tower in Chicago and New York's Empire State Building, which are 1,451 feet and 1,250 feet respectively.

Though unprecedented for San Francisco, the proposal is in line with what city officials have been saying for months -- that extremely tall towers will be allowed on a handful of sites south of Market Street. But details of the project are likely to change during the city's review process, which could take at least two years.

Indeed, one member of the development team on Thursday described the "environmental evaluation application" presented to the city as "a placeholder."

"It is highly conceptual at this point," said Mark Solit, the lead developer. "Conceptual in terms of our discussion with the city, and conceptual in terms of the architects' vision of what they think might be appropriate."

The site is across from the Transbay Terminal, itself the focus of a skyscraper design competition seeking what the guidelines describe as "an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline." As many as a half-dozen teams are rumored to be putting together bids.

City planners earlier this year suggested raising building heights around the terminal as a way to attract projects that in turn would generate tax revenue. That money could then be used for the terminal and related transit projects such as an extension of commuter rail lines from the Peninsula.

The lead architect for the proposed cluster of towers is Renzo Piano of Italy, who also is doing the new home of the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.

Piano has likened the design approach to bamboo shoots rising from the ground, with different pieces stopping at different heights. The two tallest would be on First Street -- rising 1,200 feet on either side of the Jessie Street alleyway.

The height would be accented even more by the narrow dimensions of each tower. On the top 300 feet of the tallest towers, the floors would measure just 8,000 square feet -- less than half the size of the upper floors one block away at Fremont Center. That 600-foot-high office tower is currently the tallest high-rise south of Market Street.

The development site is now parking lots and four six-story buildings built in the decade after the 1906 earthquake.

According to the application, the new buildings would contain 600 residential units, 470 hotel rooms, 520,000 square feet of office space and a small amount of ground-floor retail space. However, Solit said, the final mix would evolve along with the project.

Any project of this scale will require detailed studies of how the buildings will affect the wind and block sunlight, as well as engineering studies to confirm that such tall, narrow towers can withstand a major earthquake.

During the past week, Solit and other members of the development team have shown the project to Supervisors Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin and members of Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration. Full architectural details are not expected before summer.

"If we're going to do these kinds of heights, this is the place," said Daly, who also is a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which will oversee construction of a new terminal. "I like how the project works on the ground -- it's very porous and attractive to people on the street."

Daly suggested the most controversial aspect of the proposal could be the twin 1,200-foot towers.

"Every American is going to look at them and think of 9/11," he said.

Whatever form the project eventually takes, it shows that decision-makers no longer see dramatic building heights as something to avoid.

This wasn't the case in the decades after the Transamerica Pyramid began construction in 1970; that concrete spike at the foot of Columbus Avenue crystallized opposition to the transformation of San Francisco's skyline. An urban design plan the next year capped heights at 700 feet, and a 1986 update sliced off another 100 feet.

In recent years, though, the city has allowed residential towers in areas that before were kept low -- such as the towers now rising north of the Bay Bridge. Three are under construction, and two will top 600 feet.

San Francisco isn't the only city where the sky is now the limit.

Piano has 1,000-foot buildings in the works for the centers of both London and Boston -- two cities once as tower-wary as San Francisco. In Paris, a 984-foot tower proposal was announced last month for a site 3 miles west of the Eiffel Tower. The architect is Thom Mayne of Santa Monica, who designed the soon-to-open federal complex at Seventh and Mission streets in San Francisco

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_a01_5star.jpg
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_soma_map.jpg

to scale? Dang, they're skinny.

Well it feels good for SF to get these towers hopefully, but the city of angels is going to fight back.

Even though it isn't a competition for tallest in the state of California seeing as how LA has had the tallest buildings for a long time, cool for San Francisco.

If they dont watch out las vegas will catch them both.

Well Vegas does have a lot of u/c's and crzy projects, but as soon as Trump arrives in LA the show's over.

If they dont watch out las vegas will catch them both.

Mabye Houston will dust off the blueprints for that 6,000 foot tall tower and own everyone.

That looks great for SF.

Renzo Piano is a really great architect.

Look at this building he designed in Sydney.

http://skyscraperphotos.com/cit/dsy00/d/izsy075.jpg

This is the small covered plaza.

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

http://static.flickr.com/7/7480415_6c1354c5f6_m.jpg

So you could end up with a REALLY good looking building.

LOL! I think he meant there are three 600ft towers under construction. Not a 3,600ft tower. That would be like 400 story tower.LOL.


LOL didn't proofread :bash:
i mean three 600ft towers

Good for SF. If these towers are built, SF will have the greatest skyline in the West Coast and the 3rd tallest in the US. Too bad for LA.

I think SF will have to start building taller and taller like Manhattan because there is no room in the city to build any other way. Unfotunately for LA, there is still no demand for a new tallest. I doubt we will see anything taller than US bank for a while. Not that LA is not going to improve in a zillion other ways. Cus it is.

I guess SF will look much better than LA, of course if the tendency to build such towers will continue in future, it would be nice to make SF the third skyscrapercity of US but anyway the city could be the best on the Westcoast

I hope San Francisco will look something like this very soon

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/ba_towers26_ph03.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/ba_towers26_ph01.jpg



^^ It sure will dramatically change the Frisco Skyline*

LOL! I think he meant there are three 600ft towers under construction. Not a 3,600ft tower. That would be like 400 story tower.LOL.

LOL, I thought our genius engineers and great architects in US already have the plans like that of Japan. Hehehe :lol:

Good news to SF,it's time for a new tallest for SF :okay:

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_a01_5star.jpg
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_soma_map.jpg[/QUOTE]



I think, based on the redering they will look out of place, being that tall and thin. I would rather see a denser skyline but supertalls will ruin the skyline.

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/12/22/mn_soma_map.jpg

OMG! so they will demolish my Alma Mater--Golden Gate Univ :ohno:

If this happends, that should just about do it for a new 49ers stadium in San Fran. Can you say the Santa Clara 49ers.

To me San Francisco belongs to the category city that is perfect the way it is now (granted, every city is allowed to modernize and grow but the overall aesthetics of a city should be preserved). If its trademark building, the Transamerica pyramid, is overshadowed with these new proposed buildings it would mark the end of an era (in the same way that the construction of the Gazprom building in St. Petersburg marks the end of an era). I would thus prefer these buildings to be built lower than the Transamerica building.

Hey, don't you remember the futurist San Francisco portrayed in Bicentennial Man??

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/BicentennialMan/

It looks amazing!!!

:tiasd:

To me San Francisco belongs to the category city that is perfect the way it is now
Don't agree, cities are always evolving and saying "don't ever change it, it's perfect now" just turns it into a museum

I have to say, I don't like this because my first view of San Francisco is the current skyline, and I don't want it to dramatically change. I'm happy for SFO though.

Any official renders?

Don't agree, cities are always evolving and saying "don't ever change it, it's perfect now" just turns it into a museum

Absolutely, San Francisco should be allowed to change although it does seem perfect to me the way it is now, cities live off progress (especially given the development of Silicon Valley right to the south of San Fran, which created great wealth for the entire region). Even "museum cities" as you call them like Venice house modern buildings like the Guggenheim Museum, BUT maybe you would also agree that construction in unique cities (and San Fran clearly is one) should pay tribute to the existing ensemble. The Transamerica building is unique and building large overshadowing towers in its vicinity is not what I call complimentary architecture.

Absolutely, San Francisco should be allowed to change although it does seem perfect to me the way it is now, cities live off progress (especially given the development of Silicon Valley right to the south of San Fran, which created great wealth for the entire region). Even "museum cities" as you call them like Venice house modern buildings like the Guggenheim Museum, BUT maybe you would also agree that construction in unique cities (and San Fran clearly is one) should pay tribute to the existing ensemble. The Transamerica building is unique and building large overshadowing towers in its vicinity is not what I call complimentary architecture.

Well the site is nearly half a mile away from the Transamerica building..do you really think that it would be 'overshadowing' at that distance???

I have to say, I don't like this because my first view of San Francisco is the current skyline, and I don't want it to dramatically change. I'm happy for SFO though.

Oh but then after these have been built a new generation will think of San Fran with these towers. You might but it provides a new iconic skyline for the future.

I for one hope all these new tall projects get built. For myself and no doubt many others the skyline looks like it's remained stagnant for 30 years. It's hardly an advertisement for a city that's progressive and on the cutting edge of anything.

Well the site is nearly half a mile away from the Transamerica building..do you really think that it would be 'overshadowing' at that distance???

I'm talking more about the fact that the new structure would be the new dominant structure of San Fran and create a whole new effect when looking at the city from the Bay Bridge or the water. I think the ensemble fared well with Transamerica being the dominant building, why change a winning team? I have no problems with SanFran reinventing itself anew but maybe the buildings shouldn't be so tall.

So when will be seeing renders of these towers?

I'm talking more about the fact that the new structure would be the new dominant structure of San Fran and create a whole new effect when looking at the city from the Bay Bridge or the water. I think the ensemble fared well with Transamerica being the dominant building, why change a winning team? I have no problems with SanFran reinventing itself anew but maybe the buildings shouldn't be so tall.

Oh well I misunderstood what you meant then. Maybe you will like the renders and all when it all comes out? With the Transbay towers the Transamerica pyramid is going to be bypassed anyway-it looks like a new tallest is a done deal either with this project(even if they scaled it down) or the Transbay one. Hopefully you will like the new building designs and how they fit in and they can join the existing skyline in a harmonious way that will only enhance the beauty of the city-no matter what the height?

what about earthquakes?

what about earthquakes?

they don't matter

As far as the earthquakes are concerned, it is actually safer to be INSIDE the tower than in an old 10 story building!!! Even safer to be inside than outside

I think it will be very hard to overshadow the transamerica building without building very close to it. From the bay bridge side it would still stand out since it doesnt have much high rise around it.... from the golden gate that and the bank of america are the only things you can see.... dont really think these new buildings wouldnt make much of an impact on them.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v430/lancebloke/CIMG0016.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v430/lancebloke/CIMG0046-1.jpg

this is why i asked: supertall towers can CAUSE earthquakes

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=424753

To me San Francisco belongs to the category city that is perfect the way it is now (granted, every city is allowed to modernize and grow but the overall aesthetics of a city should be preserved). If its trademark building, the Transamerica pyramid, is overshadowed with these new proposed buildings it would mark the end of an era (in the same way that the construction of the Gazprom building in St. Petersburg marks the end of an era). I would thus prefer these buildings to be built lower than the Transamerica building.

Exactly my thoughts.
I feel the same about Paris and it's new projected towers higher than the Eiffel Tower.
I just hope the proposed towers for SF will be of high quality and really fit into the existing skyline.

I can remember a time when the Transamerica Building was seen as an ugly blot on the City's skyline, not as San Francisco's signature tower. Cities must grow and change if they are to survive, but it should be in a thoughtful manner with towers that are daring and innovative but which respect the locale where they are built.

I can remember a time when the Transamerica Building was seen as an ugly blot on the City's skyline, not as San Francisco's signature tower. Cities must grow and change if they are to survive, but it should be in a thoughtful manner with towers that are daring and innovative but which respect the locale where they are built.

Look, I do not doubt that tradionalists once winced when they first saw the new Transamerica building, same probably goes for the initial reaction to the Eiffel Tower in Paris, BUT one should never build modern buildings for the sake of having a modern image. With Silicon Valley, Stanford and Berkeley nearby, San Fran will always be in tune with modernity whether it has buildings similar to the size of Chicago's or not.

Rather than building tall, I think a tourist-magnet city like San Fran has more to gain by medium-sized state-of-the-art architecture (similar to the size of the Swiss Re building in London, but not necessarily the shape) that as you correctly say should pay respect to the locale where they are built (i.e., smth that is earthquake-safe).

High times for San Fran skyline
Posted 1/2/2007 11:05 PM ET
By John Ritter, USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO — This city's skyline, with its distinctive Transamerica Pyramid and pastel-colored buildings, juts out on a peninsula like a surfer hanging 10. From above the Golden Gate Bridge, sunset views can be postcard spectacular.

But a growing number of city officials and planners believe the skyline's form, a product of decades-old height restrictions, needs a shot of adrenaline.

"What you're struck by is how flat our skyline is," says Dean Macris, the city's planning director. "So we think it could be visibly enhanced if we had some peaking."

By that, Macris means height, and more height is clearly on the horizon. Last month, developers submitted a proposal to build four connected towers, two of which would be 1,200 feet tall. Only two other buildings in the USA are taller: New York City's Empire State Building and Chicago's Sears Tower.

The shorter towers in the plan, at 900 feet, would be taller than any other building in the city, including the Pyramid and Bank of America Center.

Tall seems to be in vogue as cities try to make bold architectural statements and create density in tight spaces. Boston, an old city whose tallest building is 792 feet, is considering a 1,000-foot tower that would dominate its skyline.

The 1,362-foot Freedom Tower at Ground Zero in New York would surpass the Empire State Building. The Trump tower in Chicago, now under construction, would be shorter than the Sears Tower, currently the USA's tallest skyscraper.

Work is expected to begin this year on Chicago Spire on the Lake Michigan shore, which at 2,000 feet would be the new height king.

Residential space needed

In San Francisco, with its chronic housing shortage, more height downtown is seen as a way to add badly needed residential units. The four towers, designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano, would be built in the booming South of Market area across from a proposed $1 billion transit center, which itself would have a nearly 900-foot tower above a train station.

The eminent Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, who designed the 150-story Chicago Spire, is competing in an international competition for the transit-tower design. Piano, whose work includes the Pompidou Center in Paris and Atlanta's High Museum expansion, is designing the California Academy of Sciences' new home here in Golden Gate Park. He also designed Shard London Bridge, which when completed will be Britain's tallest structure.

Piano's four-towers plan first will undergo environmental review, then face at least two years of design review.

"If the wind is at our back the whole way, which it won't be, we'll be fortunate to start building in 2010," says developer Mark Solit. The proposal submitted Dec. 21 is more of a concept than a floor plan, he says. The buildings will contain a mix of residential, office and retail space, he says.

Engineering studies will determine whether the towers could withstand earthquakes, always a concern in one of the world's most seismically active regions. Macris doesn't see a problem.

"Seismic experts regard tall buildings as functioning very well" in earthquakes, because their foundations are built on deep pilings sunk in bedrock, he says.

Still, the towers are likely to attract critics. John King, urban design writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, called Piano's concept "provocative and elegant" but "too much of a good thing."

King wrote that the scheme is "too tall for the site and too tall as a precedent for what might follow nearby." Better, he wrote, "if scaled at more modest heights."

City planners are studying how height should be incorporated downtown and may not approve buildings as tall as those conceived by Piano, Macris says. But 1,200 feet hasn't been ruled out, he says.

"Tall should not be equated with either good or bad,

says Henry Urbach, curator of architecture and design at San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art. "The skyline in a city like San Francisco is never fixed once and for all. For a city to evolve, it needs to be willing to risk its skyline."

Thin is in

The towers would be skinny by the standards of skyscraper construction over the past 50 years. Tall and slender is an a urban-design trend that has taken hold in Europe and, most prominently in North America, in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Piano has compared his towers to a cluster of bamboo shoots, with different shoots growing to different heights. Picture a pipe organ, Macris says.

Slender buildings block less light on the street. They don't restrict views as blockier buildings do. Their impact on pedestrians and traffic is lessened. Outside light reaches more of the interior space. And they simply look nice.

"Slender in the sky is a great aesthetic advantage. We're very conscious of that," Macris says.

In the 1920s and 1930s, before air conditioning, many slender skyscrapers were built, particularly in New York and Chicago, because windows could be closer to the core of a building. "When air-conditioning technology improved after World War II, we got a lot of pretty thick building in the sky," Macris says. "We'd like to return to some of that slenderness."

Since Piano's concept was unveiled, there have been concerns over its similarity to the World Trade Center towers in New York that collapsed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Chris Daly, a San Francisco supervisor whose district includes South of Market, says Piano's towers are shaped differently and represent more of a "Chicago look," although from one vantage point they do appear to be similar, side-by-side towers.

"It's probably not a coincidence," Daly says. "Piano probably did it on purpose. He's always trying to make his mark."

Nice news indeed

As a general rule, I think that cities should be built up as a dense cluster to give it a good skyline. Something like LA, which from certain POVs look like there are random and sparse towers sticking out of the ground, doesn't look as good as SF. The new buildings would look odd, especially if its thin, unless they were built in a close cluster that looked like it could be a single entity.

Thank you skyman for those images. They are great in helping to place these proposals.

^^ I can't see the pictures. :(

On the Cover of last months SF magazine there is a diagram of how SF Skyline will look in about 2020. The proposed Transbay Tower is aproved for at least 500 ft. but could be up to 1000ft. as it is portrayed in the diagram. There are also two proposed slim towers that could be even taller that resemble bamboo shoots. I hope they are not built as proposed because it will wreck the skyline a dwarf the transamerica pyramid. I would like to see the skyline grow denser but the suppertalls should be scaled back. please post any updates on the heights of the proposed towers.

On the Cover of last months SF magazine there is a diagram of how SF Skyline will look in about 2020. The proposed Transbay Tower is aproved for at least 500 ft. but could be up to 1000ft. as it is portrayed in the diagram. There are also two proposed slim towers that could be even taller that resemble bamboo shoots. I hope they are not built as proposed because it will wreck the skyline a dwarf the transamerica pyramid. I would like to see the skyline grow denser but the suppertalls should be scaled back. please post any updates on the heights of the proposed towers.

NIMBY come on, sompthing tall is going to get built. there is nothing you can do about it. the transbay tower could reach 1,500 feet. also with the other 1,200 ft. proposed towers there is going to be a big change in the skyline, love it.

Be nice the NIMBY's, it might be the difference between getting 1,000ft or 900ft or nothing at all:)

Renders anyone?????

so whats happening with these?

so whats happening with these?

please don't waste everyone's time.. especially those of us who have been waiting for way too long for the transbay terminal to burst out of the ground and snatch the west's tallest.

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p273/jakemarshall/200px-Shard_London_Bridge.jpg


^^ ^^
another renzo piano creation!

Skinny indeed!

SF could really do without stupidly tall towers -- it's got enough towers as it is, and needn't screw its charm up with latest trash. Tower crap is so yesterday, t'is a long time since a tower was special.

:lol:

Perhaps SF could do without although Renzo does deliver...but "Tower crap is so yesterday"? What do you mean? Have a look @ the site you're on.

Oh gosh, don't worry. :| That's Skybar talk.

We still aren't close to a render, but as said, Renzo delivers quality.

"Tower crap is so yesterday"? What do you mean?
Yawn . . . that it's been a long time since tall buildings were novelties.

LOL? It seems to me you might do with elevating your sense of humour . . . many notches' worth -- this is speak along the lines of solid foundations settled down to Earth.

That looks like a glass version of the Transamerica tower

^^ Right, that's the stupid thing with these soaring buildings -- people appear to not be convinced enough with their signature towers . . .

IMO I seriously doubt that this project ever sees the light of day. But, I've got my fingers crossed.

here's what ol' Renzo designed for Boston.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tmac9wr/WinthropSquare.jpg

^^ Great, now another city that could do without this let's-claw-at-our-ceiling trash getting woven in here -- whoever designed ^^ ain't prestigious enough as to show off the whole erection, eh?

Well, this is a skyscraper forum.

But [you] digress.

But here is a sampling of other websites you might find titilating:

www.homesandgardens.com

www.rachelray.com

www.blindgrecoromanwrestling.com

I found these on SSP
3 super tall proposals for transbay project
http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20the%20golden%20gate%20bridge.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1480/sectionvz0.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Aerial_LoRez.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0702.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0703.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/South%20East%20Aerial.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0708.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0706.jpg

What an amazing atrium!!


http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0708.jpg

here is a bigger rendering
http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Tower%20Plaza.jpg

The first one is ugly. It's some weird blend of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Sutro Tower.

The second is probably the best.

Holy crap, these visions are perfect I like all of 'em and I wanna see it in my city very soon :lol:

The one with the atrium is my favorite. 2nd looks too much a copy of International Finance Centre in Hong Kong.

I like SOM (the third one) design the best. The Pelli (second one) design look too much like IFC in Hong Kong.

WOW amazing..

Astonishing! 2 or 3 please :banana:

wow, 3rd one is my favourite, looks very European.

beautiful renders, can't wait to see the first supertall in San Francisco :)

I like both 2 and 3.

2 is not like the IFC in design, and 3 looks a bit odd, especially if it stands out so much in the skyline.

Just please not 1.

I prefer Pelli and SOM's designs over Roger's design. And Rogers is my favourite architect in the world. They're all good, but my favourite is SOMs. At the moment:)

BTW, LOTS more pics and models (and I think heights too, do you have heights yet?) over at Skyscraper Page Forums.

SOM= 420m, or 1,375ft tall:) Top floor is 360m, or 1,200ft:)

GREAT!!!!

Who want's more renders and models!?!:D

Model pics taken by Botoxic over at SSP, who kindly gave permission for me to post them here:

Roger Stirk Harbour & Partners:

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00077.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00078.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00079.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00080.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00081.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00082.jpg

Pelli Clarke Pelli:

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00066.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00067.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00068.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00069.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00070.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00083.jpg

SOM:

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00071.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00072.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00073.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00074.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00075.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00084.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00085.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00086.jpg

And SOM render from SSP:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1243/1035676673_38da517618_o.jpg

WOW San Francisco finally gets a supertall....or is there already one?

That looks like a glass version of the Transamerica tower

If you had any proper knowledge of the Shard/London Bridge project, you would realise how VERY different the scheme is. It has something like 9 sides, it's considerably taller, it's mixed use, features a facade which is draped over the building at disimilar angles (if that makes any sense, it's hard to describe it). It isn't even technically a pyramid shape because of it's base, and the angles of it's sides. The shilhouette won't even appear similar.

It's basically like saying Transamerica tower is another version of the great pyramids of Giza.

Pelli's is the shortest, at 360m (1,200ft)

Roger's is only slightly taller, at 373m (1,225ft). 82 floors.

These heights however may be top floor heights, Rogers especially has 2 huge spires and a wind turbine. I think these are top heights though, as they list SOM's as 420m, (1,375ft), which is to the very top.

All very tall though for the west coast:) Well, I'm sure these would be considered very tall in any American city.

If you had any proper knowledge of the Shard/London Bridge project, you would realise how VERY different the scheme is. It has something like 9 sides, it's considerably taller, it's mixed use, features a facade which is draped over the building at disimilar angles (if that makes any sense, it's hard to describe it). It isn't even technically a pyramid shape because of it's base, and the angles of it's sides. The shilhouette won't even appear similar.

It's basically like saying Transamerica tower is another version of the great pyramids of Giza.

I dont claim to have a "proper knowledge" of the project you mentioned. All I was doing was comment on that one picture.

Understand what other people are doing before saying something, no need to be so condescending.

Wow, that last design is stunning!

I dont claim to have a "proper knowledge" of the project you mentioned. All I was doing was comment on that one picture.

Understand what other people are doing before saying something, no need to be so condescending.

I wasn't being condescending, I was trying to educate you actually.

well, when most towers in the world do not have a sharp, pyramid top, the london shard resembles the Transamerica in that element.
so until more towers are built like these 2, the shard will be compared (in a good way!) to the transamerica tower. the shard is very modern and unique...its just the shape, especially to an american, is very familiar with transamerica.

Wow, that last design is stunning!

I agree. SOM design is my favourite, definately.

Comments from San Fran Gate Online:

Link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/08/07/BATMRD67A1.DTL)

God. NIMBYs always have to stick the oar in. I can't believe the comments about how they are only tall towers because men are in charge, and they are too phallic, and women should be incharge etc... Going on that backward logic, what the hell would they build? a giant hole. Clucking Idiots.

Though I like the way the Roger's design incorporated something local (Golden Gate Bridge) into their design, it's my least favorite, primarily because it's just too busy for my tastes. Pelli's design for their tower is really extremely plain and would hardly be iconic for such an esteemed city. The more I look at SOM's design, it simply gives me goosebumps, really! It's symbolic, intriguing, simple and yet elegant. My first thought was of the Eiffel Tower and it just seems so appropriate for two of the most romantic cities in the world to have something so in common.

Yes, those are my current thoughts too. But I never made the Eiffel Tower connection though.

Great projects, but SOM is the best! :okay:

i prefer the first one, but they are incredible!!

The SOM design is clearly the best... wonderful fluid lines and detailing. So elegant.

Pelli's design is nice, but too plain and a little too similar to the IFC in Hong Kong.

The Rogers design is too complicated, too contrived. His trademark "exposed steelwork" looks great on some towers - but not this.

SOM :applause:

what are the chances that the worst design gets chosen, I.e the first. It's a norm in most places. I hope the 3rd one gets picked. It also looks a little like Libeskind's original freedom tower in most angles.

The turbine atop Roger's tower will account for 10% of it's electricity, and apparently the design is carbon neutral. They are all supposed to be quite energy efficient.

i live in sf and would love to see the SOM tower be built...its stunning and elegant ( in my opinion ).:) :) :) :) :)

SOM makes the best designs :)

I wanted to like the Roger's design the most (my favorite architect) but don't. As already mentioned - the Pelli building is too much like IFC in Hong Kong. I'll have to go with the SOM proposal as best of the bunch.
I'll be heading over to City Hall today, to take a look at the models.

please please build SOM's tower. please.

More SOM renderings

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6117/retrieveassetcaauo62wzh9.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9348/retrieveassetca2cvd6wik8.jpg
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8479/pageresized294gr9.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8133/retrieveassetcazxh6etke9.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5826/retrieveassetcahj70ukaa2.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

Amazing... Beautiful tower. My favourite SOM design in the world I think!

and remember, there are still two 800ft tower buildings to be designed as part of this scheme!

FABULOUS... this simply has to be built.

absolutely :). SOM forever!!

The Pelli's project looks very, very similar to Costanera Center in Chile (by Pelli too).

I prefer SOM design, for a supertall, you need a design that became in an icon for the city. SOM make it perfectly ;)

I would have to go for the first one, the Rogers design. I don't think the other two are all that memorable. I also think the wind turbine is a great symbol of California's push in leading the world in green energy. It would certainly be a symbol of San Francisco.

my votes for the SOM, the first is just like the golden gate and the second just like the IFC and ICC in Hong Kong.
and that is an amazing skyline shot

SOM's renders make me think it this is one of the most beautiful building in the world.

absolutely love it!

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8133/retrieveassetcazxh6etke9.jpg
I think this has to be one of the most amazing and promising renders I've ever seen!!! Just stunning, almost like a futuristic cathedral, very imposing and present from street level, but at the same time very graceful and elegant, even modest.

SOM world class looks top draw think this is the best design of the 3 like the other 2 but the SOM tower is da bomb

Here we go guys, we're gonna have the best skyline in the west coast, for sure this skyline will kick LA's ass :banana:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFrumoredshrp.jpg

More models, these ones from Reminiscence, also on SSP:)

Pelli Clarke Pelli:

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/316/dsc01077sh6.jpg

Skidmore Owings and Merrill:

http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/1541/dsc01101pv9.jpg

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/7871/dsc01103ka1.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1623/dsc01107go3.jpg

Richard Rogers:

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4900/dsc01092jn4.jpg

i love the SOM design, it's like transamerica tower next gen. i hope it gets built, in 10 years hopefully...

SOM's proposal is by far the best.
Pelli's tower is a copy of other of his recent projects :(

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6117/retrieveassetcaauo62wzh9.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9348/retrieveassetca2cvd6wik8.jpg

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8479/pageresized294gr9.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8133/retrieveassetcazxh6etke9.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5826/retrieveassetcahj70ukaa2.jpg

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00074.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1027/1044062677_23e8a21dc2_m.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1133/1044062927_2cc8ef6e77.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1221/1044062767_6f55e597b2.jpg?v=0

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b208/rajaxson/Aerial_LoRez.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1243/1035676673_38da517618_o.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Tower%20Plaza.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00073.jpg



http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00072.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00075.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0704.jpg

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1480/sectionvz0.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/South%20East%20Aerial.jpg




it looks to me that this is 370 - 400 m tall

Here we go guys, we're gonna have the best skyline in the west coast, for sure this skyline will kick LA's ass :banana:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFrumoredshrp.jpgHoly shit....... Unreal rendering. And san francisco already kicks the LA skyline's ass, but if all of these buildings get built, holy, this skyline will be unreal!

SOM needs to be built.

Btw...both LA and San Francisco already have iconic skylines so lets not turn this into a LA/SF rivalry.

pelli's looks like his Mori building in Tokyo... but this version is nicer
http://www.tokyoarchitecture.info/Images/Buildings/Atago/AtagoGreenHillsMori-001.jpg

I find SOMs silly-looking... kinda not very serious... and SanFran has a good, solid, no messing-about skyline; its all very business-like. That tower might look good in Dubai or La Defense. So Im left liking Roger's tower... I think it would look the best when built, and is benefitted least by the renders...

I think all three are extremely beautiful designs, but my heart belongs to SOM's. It's so elegant and classy.

it looks to me that this is 370 - 400 m tall

I have posted heights already.

Pelli Clarke Pelli: 360m

Rogers Stirk Harbour: 373m

SOM: 420m

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1221/1044062767_6f55e597b2.jpg?v=0 i rely hope this bulding is going to be bult ! it is rely nice 420 m !
that is wat this citty neds !

Looks like a STR render :D
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9348/retrieveassetca2cvd6wik8.jpg

i hope SOM will win

i hope SOM will win



I second that.

The SOM design looks earthquake friendly as well.

The first one is hideous. The second one i would have wanted the most IF 2IFC hadn't existed.

Looks like a STR render :D
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9348/retrieveassetca2cvd6wik8.jpg

i hope SOM will win

me too ! end i think they will ass always ! it reminds me wery mutch of the SHANGHAI center

:banana:

actually, at first I thought the skidmore looked like the original freedom tower. The actual model from those pics now reminds me of the Russia Tower, but I agree the Skimore one is the best and not surprisingly, the tallest. I also do like Pelli's design, pretty much all of his creations are beautiful but I agree with most that the shape looks similar to 2IFC in HK.

damn, this project is gonna be massive. towers, shopping center, hotel, bus station, underground rail station (to LA, SD, and Sacramento). this alone will get the whole area around itr going up higher, and will then connect the downtown area to mission bay (ballpark area). the city will be very different 10 years from now. from one natives perspective. think its great!

welcome DiamondDogg :)

damn, this project is gonna be massive. towers, shopping center, hotel, bus station, underground rail station (to LA, SD, and Sacramento). this alone will get the whole area around itr going up higher, and will then connect the downtown area to mission bay (ballpark area). the city will be very different 10 years from now. from one natives perspective. think its great!

Now if only California can build that high speed train. Can you imagine San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all connected?

hope this gets built!!:banana: :banana: :banana:

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

Insane. Most beautiful skyscraper ever.

I found these on SSP
3 super tall proposals for transbay project
http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20the%20golden%20gate%20bridge.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1480/sectionvz0.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Aerial_LoRez.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0702.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0703.jpg

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/South%20East%20Aerial.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0708.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0706.jpg



the last ones the best.

wow, how tall is it?

wow, how tall is it?

SOM is 420M

WOW, SOME?? IS that the name? weird, what about the other tower?

^^ Check post 129

WOW,
Pelli Clarke Pelli: 360m

Rogers Stirk Harbour: 373m

SOM: 420m

Congrats San Francisco! its going to be an amazing tower!

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

Insane. Most beautiful skyscraper ever.

Starfleet HQ

actually, being a former trekker myself I believe that San francisco in the 24th century didn't have any of the scrapers today but a large midrise building to house starfleet HQ :) SOM definitely, for the height reasons too, SF will have the tallest building in the US outside Chicago/NYC/Las Vegas only if it's supertall gets built

Hehe, if not starfleet HQ then perhaps the building from the Towering Inferno...?

well, actually, hopefully not :hahano:

The SOM proposal is superb, I love the fan motif on the facade.

this topic is growing fast.

420 meters huh.. who says they aren't paying attention to San Franciscos heritage (well haight ashbury at least).

I can't decide between SOM and Pelli...

SOM i like the building base... very dramatic...
but Pelli's building cleaner overall...

SOM's station is very dramatic... almost calatrava-ish
Pelli's station incorporates a great park and it still looks nice...

hmm... glad i'm not the one making decisions!

I can't forget the SOM tower
It is always in my mind and i am jealous for SF :)
When will be the winner be announced?
So i hope PElli wins and SOM will make a similar for Istanbul (Trump Tower or Trump Plaza project) :D

SOM is 420M

also a reason to build the one from SOM :D

i really like the Rogers design i dunno its just something really different.

420 meters huh.. who says they aren't paying attention to San Franciscos heritage (well haight ashbury at least).

what does 420 mean? sorry to ask this seemingly obvious question even tho i live in sf.

what does 420 mean? sorry to ask this seemingly obvious question even tho i live in sf.

April 20th is kinda a national drug day. But he's talking about the height being 420 meters. That like 1,400 feet right?

The three renders are brilliant. Not to sure about the first concept but the other two are brilliant. I especially like the third one I think it will fit in with the rest of the skyline really nicely.

SOM´s proposal is by far the best one!
I love the atrium!!!

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9348/retrieveassetca2cvd6wik8.jpg

Damn....this is the most beautiful thing that I have seen in some time. First time that I saw this, I was dumbfounded, my eyes riveted to the screen!!!

SOM, this is one absolutely impressive design!!!

OMG!!!!!!!!!! SOM DESIGN IS... OMG VERY EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE! I love the rendering of shopping mall/park... Very futuristic! GET IT BUILT!!!!!!!! :cheers:

the SOM design is actually interesting, but it is a mix of 2 previous SOM designs.
the external brace design is actually derived from their proposal for shanghai's shanghai center, and the twisting form going up is from nanjing jin ling tower proposal.

Frisco'd regret its choice(s) if any of the proposals (posted the last four or five pages here) end up being erected -- my overiding question wonders how their interiors and exteriors would easily be kept clean -- that one with the curvy ribbing: all I see is grime in all its exterior creases . . . but then again demolition's an evolving industry nowadays, ain't it?

Your eyes were riveted to the screen? That sounds really painful.

The design is just a fad. Ever since Turning Torso every city wants one of these things. The first was original but now it's just cliche. Let's see: Dubai has two twisting tower projects, Chicago has one, China has one, now San Francisco has one. How can this be the most beautiful skyscraper ever when there is already one just like it and a half dozen others u/c? This guy is a genius? Give me a break. He's just cashing in on a fad. BFD

Erm..SOM's tower doesn't twist.

Your eyes were riveted to the screen? That sounds really painful.

The design is just a fad. Ever since Turning Torso every city wants one of these things. The first was original but now it's just cliche. Let's see: Dubai has two twisting tower projects, Chicago has one, China has one, now San Francisco has one. How can this be the most beautiful skyscraper ever when there is already one just like it and a half dozen others u/c? This guy is a genius? Give me a break. He's just cashing in on a fad. BFD
:applause:

Erm..SOM's tower doesn't twist.
Although ground around there's known to . . .

Erm..SOM's tower doesn't twist.

True, the shape is very unique; the middle of each side is 'pushed' away. Each side is (kind of) splitst up, and because of the fact that one side is 'pushed' away, it looks like it's twisted. And maybe it is a little bit, but not official. It's just a new variant of twisting.

It does twist, just not in the same way as other twisting towers. So, it's basically a rectangular prism with the widest faces tapering to points at the top as the shortest faces twist around to become the widest faces. They've taken the two short sides and wrapped them around the building and wherever there's empty space they fill it in with more facade.

Sure, it's a different kind of twist, but it's still a twist.


*I realize that buildings are frequently built in fads. Petronas, Jin Mao, and then Taipei 101. All of them pagoda designs. I think Jin Mao is the best - Petronas is ugly as sin and Taipei 101 is okay, but I don't think it has as much impact as Jin Mao. I just think that twisting a building is a gimmick.

It does twist, just not in the same way as other twisting towers. So, it's basically a rectangular prism with the widest faces tapering to points at the top as the shortest faces twist around to become the widest faces. They've taken the two short sides and wrapped them around the building and wherever there's empty space they fill it in with more facade.

Sure, it's a different kind of twist, but it's still a twist.



Let me get this straight

This tower
http://www.bizzbook.com/hamnen/bilder/TurningTorso/torsoLights.jpg
has a similar design to this tower? http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00072.jpg
IMO they have completely different designs

The only building it seems similar to is SWFC
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y162/cityz/Urban/ShanghaiWorldFinancialCenter5medium.jpg

Just because the shape of the bottom floor is different from the top floor it doesn't mean its a twisting tower.

Sure, it's a different kind of twist, but it's still a twist.


it's only a curving and not a twist ;)

If you look at the som proposal the thing is not twisting. Taking a brief look and yeah maybe I can someone thinking it twists. Look at it for more than a quick sec and you can see it has sharp angles that curve but do not twist. IMO this blows the turning torso way outta the water.

This SOM proposal is certainly the most elegant and impressive design I have ever seen for a skyscraper! Very, very nice!

I noticed that SOM design's structure and facade are inspired by Chrysler Building in New York City. I noticed about a dozen of skyscrapers got built or being built that are inspired by Chrysler Building. It is becoming a trend right now.

Petronas pagoda design??? I DON'T THINK SO! Petronas is based on the 8 sides Islamic star.

regardless of how good it looks, all the SOM proposals look the same pretty much nowadays....

Eh? You actually thnik that design looks like their other work? Do you need glasses?

SOM design is amazing.

1) Personaly, I don't like the design -> as if it will be UC forever
2) Very beautiful design, but there are look a likes if im right...
3) Very beautiful and unique design, I prefer this one mostly.

woah! thats effin nice!!!

The SOM design is quite beautiful especially the lattice work:)

regardless of how good it looks, all the SOM proposals look the same pretty much nowadays....

regardless of how good it looks, all the SOM proposals look the same pretty much nowadays....

Yes you're right. That proposal looks identical to Burj Dubai. (Sarcasm)

Why dont SOM has its own thread? since is 420 meters.....

Why dont SOM has its own thread? since is 420 meters.....

its not approved yet

So??? It doesnt have to be approved...

It does have it's own thread, this one.

So??? It doesnt have to be approved...

There are two other designs that have to be taken into consideration too, not just the SOM design. At this point, the winning design hasn't been chosen yet. Creating a thread for the SOM one would be pointless until we know it's the chosen design and approved.

Errmmm in fact SOM's design has 4 sides that twists, not curves, i find it quite evident. By far SOM's the best :okay:

:bow: Woow, great building in SF, for me SOM's design is the best.

SOM's is truly fantastic. The bottom section is a bit like The Spire for Chicago IMO.

Pelli's is well, like Pelli and Roger's one is like a supertall Pompidou Center lol

The brillaince of the SOM design is that it appears to be twisting when it's not. It's the most dynamic and beautiful tower I've seen in ages and hope to god it gets built.

When will they make the decison to pick the design out of three proposed designs? I hope they will select SOM design one.

This would be an awesome opportunity for San Francisco to further modernize it's skyline.

This would be an awesome opportunity for San Francisco to further modernize it's skyline.

Yeah it would be great.

Well I hesitate to follow the crowd, but the SOM one has my vote too!

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

i really don't like this one, too industrial. it's like a giant factory in the sky :ohno:

i agree.

Well, out of the three... SOM 1000%!
Elegant, tall, insanely elaborated imposing good-looking base/entrance... It's all there. This one might just become my favourite US building...

By the way, what the f*!k was Rogers smoking?! His granny's panties for sure.

Sorry but that thing above is hideous.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

i really don't like this one, too industrial. it's like a giant factory in the sky :ohno:

I agree. This tower is perfect fit for third world countries. San Fransisco deserves SOM design tower.

im sorry but what happend to variety.... shanghai centre, seoul super tower, jingling tower, magnolia plaza... and this... they all have very very similar designs... i like the rogers design because its different. not just another SOM proposal....

EDIT oh and add cathedral of christ the light to that list...

im not saying the SOM design is ugly. far from it, but i don't think SOM deserve the contract as they havent done anything new and original. it wont stand out as my as the rogers design.... and as for being to industrial.... people said that about the John Hancock centre... oh wait thats a SOM... lol

I agree. This tower is perfect fit for third world countries. San Fransisco deserves SOM design tower.

What a crappy comment. :bash:

What a crappy comment. :bash:

You know that is true. :) Again that is my opinion. :)

SOM's proposal is the sort of skyscraper that we in US the don't get. people say that Trump projects and the new WTC are too conservative, and to some extent thats true. This design defies the American skyscraper format. The Brits and French would love to get their hands on this one. BTW it is structurally similar to an extremely tall building SOM designed for Shanghai. I don't know why people people compare it to the SWFC, which is by KPF.

i have two questions. who or what is SOM?, and to colonel cadillac or anyone who knows, what does btw mean? i see it used all the time and i have never known. (just please dont make fun of me to much :))

SOM: Skidmore Owings Merrill, SOM Architects
btw: by the way

Anything else?

^^ yep..............imo?

imo: in my opinion

And a varaint you see sometimes

imho: in my honnest opinion

thank a lot man. sorry im such an idiot. :nuts:

No worries.

I hope the SOM proposal is used, it looks organic and futuristic at the same time.

SOM's proposal is the sort of skyscraper that we in US the don't get. people say that Trump projects and the new WTC are too conservative, and to some extent thats true. This design defies the American skyscraper format. The Brits and French would love to get their hands on this one. BTW it is structurally similar to an extremely tall building SOM designed for Shanghai. I don't know why people people compare it to the SWFC, which is by KPF.

yeah they compare it to the 700m ish shanghai centre design entrant for plot Z3-2. there is a thread all about the competition somewhere here. tbh some of my grounding for disliking the SOM design is the fact its very oriental. its not a very american design, although its beautiful in its own right. it doesnt fit with the rest of the skyline. im not a stickler before anyone brings up the chicago spire. but that is again a different style. however it is more compatible with american architecture than the SOM design here

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

i really don't like this one, too industrial. it's like a giant factory in the sky :ohno:

cool rendering.:cheers: :cheers:

what are you talking about?
Nothing, when one considers I'm in fact writing. I don't care where that blighted area be, I just wouldn't ever want to visit it, which doesn't appear to be Frisco anyhow.

SOM has the best tower. The Pelli design would be great if San Francisco existed in a void or it hadn't already been built several times already in other cities. The Rogers proposal is just fugly.

For the actual terminal though, I like the Pelli design the most, although SOM isn't that far behind. (AC Transit is already saying that it won't work, though.) Rogers seems to have treated it almost as an afterthought...I also don't like the idea of having the buses on the roof; the current terminal can already get pretty cold on the platforms, and it's enclosed.


Btw, shouldn't there be a seperate thread for the Transbay tower? It's a completely different project from the Renzo Piano proposal (which this thread is supposed to be about).

dang i'll be jealous of SF if they get the 3rd tower!!!!....... it's just amazing :D

hope this gets built.

Anyone who supports this project should email the competition jury with their comments: D&DComment@transbaycenter.org

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=323

*Please* everyone, send them your comments. I think most of us agree the Skidmore Owings Merrill proposal is the best, so please urge them to favour this design. And be sure to emphasise that this tower should NOT be reduced in height or compromised in any way! There are too many NIMBYs out there who could ruin this project.

I'll check it out...

THanks! I already sent them the comment. Of course I suggested them to select SOM design. :) I hope they will select SOM design.

I would know if there is a site with news and downtown rebuilding information.
I relate to something like...
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/ (New York).

Roger Stirk Harbour & Partners:


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00078.jpg



Does anyone else think of the evil tower in Lord of the Rings when they see that picture?


http://pakal.republika.pl/okozbaraddur.jpg

http://www.the-reel-mccoy.com/movies/2002/images/TheTwoTowers_poster.jpg

:nuts:

I do now!

:lol: :lol:

HAHA

Looks fun

All the the designs are a copy of older designs of the architects.

Pelli Clarke Pelli architects:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00083.jpg

end the international financial center in Hong Kong
http://www.chinesearchitecture.cn/CACN/Images/HongKong/Twoifc-001.jpg

SOM:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00072.jpg

end ther proposel in Shanghai for a new tower near the "Shanghai World Financial Center".
C:\Documents and Settings\Byuck Ruben\Mijn documenten\architectuur\towers\Plot z-3 designs

end that design is ugly en kitch, more reaffinement please.
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/DSC00080.jpg

Pelli one looks best :banana:

Amazing design by SOM, im going for that one! Pelli's design is great too, but a rework from HK's International Financial Center as mentioned by many in this thread.

Go SOM! :yes:

SOM looks like an Elvish Tower!!! I love it, very stylish:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1243/1035676673_38da517618_o.jpg

This one looks like the Tower of Mordor :lol:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg


Since I love elvish architecture and design, I will go for SOM.
God SOM are great tower designer! They could start atrilogy in that design!

Yes, SOM's proposal is clearly the best, it's just so dramatic.
It's the first time I see these since I was away for almost 2 weeks :)

In fairness I don't think the renders do the Rogers proposal justice and it'd probably be far better in reality, therefore that's my 2nd choice.

thanks for getting it back on topic^^

This one looks like the Tower of Mordor :lol:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg


Since I love elvish architecture and design, I will go for SOM.
God SOM are great tower designer! They could start atrilogy in that design!


Well young hobbit... I hope for you that Mordor didn't hear what you said because if I was him... After having MY kickass gothic tower compared to Rogers' clunky piece of crap... I would certainly send a bunch of orks to find your ass and teach you some manners!!:bash:

But somehow there is a ressemblance indeed.

^^ and now the epic battle begins for the best tower in middle earth (SFO).

I agree that the tower in Mordor is a alot better than that of Rogers'

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg
I'm sick of seeing this stupid shot where all it'd like to get off on offering up is Yankeeland's longest bus bay for its country's fourth-largest rendez-vous . . . eyesore!

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

25 years too late :(

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

Don't like it's design

hold on, why did everyone have to quote the picture?

It's the cool new thing to do...

^^ They must love their scroll-wheel?

hold on, why did everyone have to quote the picture?
Me, I already wrote why: Because of the dumb bus bay (being promoted over some underground train station) . . .

I love SOM's...for some reason it reminds me of a modern day Transamerica Pyramid.

cool,there called transbay supertall towers!!:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg

Don't like it's design

This building is so hot! It's original and different. I speculate that people don't like it just because it is not as tall as the others.

^^ Please tell me this is sarcasm.
The reason people don't like it is because the exposed metalwork is ugly and painted red of all colors! Also, the way the floors are placed is odd too. The Mechanical floors are sunk in, behind the real facade.
However, it is unique. I will give it that!

it is definitely not bad

it is definitely not bad

it is not bad, it is terrible....

^^ Please tell me this is sarcasm.
The reason people don't like it is because the exposed metalwork is ugly and painted red of all colors! Also, the way the floors are placed is odd too. The Mechanical floors are sunk in, behind the real facade.
However, it is unique. I will give it that!

It's called an opinion, if that's what BrooklynNYC wants to think about the proposal, then he has every right too.

It really does look like a modern day mordor.

might look better without the red, yuck!

yeah,but it still looks nice:)