Transbay Terminal: The Grand Central of the West | San Francisco [Archive]

bay_area

May 26th, 2006, 07:34 AM

Oh look, pigs are flying...2 towers 850' and 1 Thousand Footer are on the horizon for The City.

From 280(the tower in this rendering is about 1200 ft)
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/ba_towers26_ph01.jpg

From Treasure Island(the tower in this rendering is about 1200 ft)
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/ba_towers26_ph03.jpg

Transbay proposal includes possible tallest building on West Coast
San Francisco Business Times - 2:38 PM PDT Thursday
by Emily Fancher

San Francisco officials are proposing a 1,000-foot tower and two 800-foot towers in the area around the Transbay Terminal as part of a plan to redraw the city's skyline and raise additional funds to rebuild the terminal.

A revised vision for the area unveiled Thursday shows that officials envision the heart of downtown San Francisco shifting to the South of Market neighborhood over the coming decades -- with the new terminal, dubbed "the Grand Central Station of the West," at its center.
IBM West

The reworked plan is part of a broader rethinking of the phasing and funding of the proposal to rebuild the aging bus terminal at First and Mission streets and to create a high-density neighborhood on the 40 acres surrounding it.

The plan to integrate regional buses, BART and Muni at a new facility that also extends Caltrain from Fourth and King streets has been dogged with controversy and infighting for years. But previously warring officials have spent the past few months trying to find consensus and a path forward to build what will be one of the most expensive -- and some argue most important -- transit projects in Bay Area history.

Building up

If built, the approximately 1,000-foot tower would be the tallest building in San Francisco and possibly one of the 10 tallest in the United States. It would likely include housing, offices and a hotel.

"We think that in this generation of next big buildings, the city can be enhanced in its image and its skyline," Planning Director Dean Macris told the Business Times.

Macris said these buildings would be architecturally distinguished and give San Francisco what it needs: an internationally recognized skyline. "Cities are identified by their skylines," he said.

If approved in concept, the 1,000-foot tower would be built by a design and development team that would also build the terminal next to it. That team would be chosen through a glitzy international competition next year.

One of the proposed 800-foot towers would be on a state-owned parcel at Howard Street between First and Second streets, and Macris said his office is proposing the second one would be on the northwest corner of First and Mission streets where a private developer is already planning a massive mixed-use project. Macris declined to name the developer.

Macris introduced the revised plan to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board, the agency in charge of the $4 billion rebuild project, as well as to the Planning Commission at meetings on Thursday.

Several TJPA board members praised the revised plan and talked about a new spirit of collaboration that would help move the project to completion.

However, Supervisor Chris Daly, who sits on the TJPA board, lashed out against his longtime rival, Mayor Gavin Newsom. In a heated moment, Daly railed against the mayor, accusing his administration of delaying the Transbay project. Still, Daly said he has no problem with higher towers around the transit hub.

bay_area

May 26th, 2006, 07:36 AM

Proposed SoMa tower could be tallest building on West Coast

John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Thursday, May 25, 2006

If you've ever wanted to look down on the Transamerica Pyramid, stick around San Francisco for a few years and you might get your chance: City planners say it's time to make room for a new tower of at least 1,000 feet that could be the West Coast's tallest building.

The proposal was presented this morning to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a city agency that seeks to build a new transit terminal south of Market Street. Planners want to raise heights near the terminal site to allow two towers as tall as the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid -- and a third that would rise at least another 150 feet.

The high-rises would also generate money for the transit terminal, with revenue from land sales and property taxes being steered to the transit terminal.

City planners say that with new residential towers being built between Mission Street and the Bay Bridge, there's a new spot for a few extra-tall towers to finish the picture and create a distinctive peak on the skyline.

"We're looking at a trio of towers around the Transbay center that would mark a new center of downtown," said David Alumbaugh, a senior urban planner at the San Francisco Planning Department.

Officials stressed that today's presentation is only a starting point for discussion. A formal planning study and a full environmental impact report would be needed before any zoning changes could occur.

"We want to start the discussion of changing the rules," city Planning Director Dean Macris told the Transbay board. "We want to stretch and raise the imagination of the public."

At present, the tallest building on the West Coast is the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, at 1,018 feet.

__________________

wada_guy

May 26th, 2006, 12:20 PM

This must be the year of the new tallest in the USA. Baltimore, Boston, Nashville, and now San Francisco have all gotten in on this trend! I say build them!

edsg25

May 26th, 2006, 12:28 PM

I realize that the rectangular boxes in the drawings are there just to show height and have no relationship to the eventual achitecture of such structures. I would hope, however, that the top of the 1000+ ft. tower is anything but a rectangular box....which, IMHO, the SF skyline has far too many of.

The 101 and Yuerba Buena shots were terrific. I"m sorry they didn't have some others. I would have loved to see what this would have looked like from Twin Peaks and Sausalito/

Azn_chi_boi

May 26th, 2006, 01:54 PM

The new skyscrapers of SF better would have carm relating to the city than bulky boxes...

To add to the new tallest list of cities, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Chicago, New York... also have new tallest too... with also Wausau!

Seattle, LA, and SD need new tallest too!

Steely Dan

May 26th, 2006, 03:29 PM

would LA respond with an even taller building? would the collossus of the west allow a place like san fran to supercede them, or is LA to wrapped up in the idea of being LA to give a shit?

bay_area

May 26th, 2006, 03:39 PM

The 101 and Yuerba Buena shots were terrific. I"m sorry they didn't have some others. I would have loved to see what this would have looked like from Twin Peaks and Sausalito/

Hey, that's actually 280(the smaller freeway that connects Daly City to Downtown).

This must be the year of the new tallest in the USA. Baltimore, Boston, Nashville, and now San Francisco have all gotten in on this trend! I say build them!
San Francisco's proposal is probably going to pass because its part of a renovation project for the Transbay Terminal( Greyhound and Commuter Bus Terminal) and the tower is justified because the revenue from condo sales and office leases will help pay for the Terminal. There are also 2 850' towers as part of the same development.

callanoj

May 26th, 2006, 03:43 PM

This must be the year of the new tallest in the USA. Baltimore, Boston, Nashville, and now San Francisco have all gotten in on this trend! I say build them!
Hmm, I was all for Boston's 1000 footer. But now that it's become this trend......

bay_area

May 26th, 2006, 03:47 PM

would LA respond with an even taller building? would the collossus of the west allow a place like san fran to supercede them, or is LA to wrapped up in the idea of being LA to give a shit?
I dont think its a matter of "responding" to San Francisco. Its more a matter of what projects happen to be in the pipeline. If LA gets a taller building, I doubt it will be in "response" to San Francisco, but rather part of a vision for LA itself.

Just as this tower has nothing at all to do with LA. I personally hope it gets built. Long have we been mired by organized Nimbyism-this time around, their opposition has no teeth because this project is explicitely tied to a multi Billion transit project that will impact the entire state.

The Transbay Terminal is getting a $4 billion face-lift — putting under one roof BART, Muni and AC Transit as well as Caltrain, which would extend its rail lines from Fourth and King streets. Dubbed “The Grand Central of the West,” the project is also expected to include high-speed rail that would speed passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than three hours.

The new terminal is huge.
http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2810_Transbay/2810_0001_1_stage_image.jpg

The project includes a 600,000 square foot multi-level bus/rail facility that will accommodate 25,000 passengers per hour and link bus transit with commuter rail and the planned high-speed rail connection to Los Angeles. Additional elements include new ramp connections to the San Francisco Bay Bridge, a bus parking facility, a temporary terminal, and up to 6 million square feet of high density residential and mixed-use development on sites immediately adjacent to the Terminal facility.

http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,22,544

Are there any exterior renderings??

bay_area

May 26th, 2006, 04:02 PM

Here's a before and after-the blues are already under construction. The addition of the reds would finally give the skyline a real focal point.
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/mn_sf_towers.jpg

SILVERLAKE

May 26th, 2006, 06:01 PM

bay_area

May 26th, 2006, 06:04 PM

The Tower was originally supposed to be 700-900 ft. But the goal is now over 1,000 ft

Imagine this, only 200-400 ft taller.
http://static.flickr.com/39/78101299_632d8f01c9.jpg

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://static.flickr.com/36/78101301_8bf32e348d.jpg

The Transbay Terminal is going to be massive( DT SF to DT LA
in 3 hrs-no hassle with airports, traffic and parking-awesome)
http://static.flickr.com/39/78101300_948f350bf6.jpg

globill

May 26th, 2006, 06:24 PM

xzmattzx

May 26th, 2006, 06:38 PM

isn't there a "san francisco/oakland development news" thread for this? http://209.85.12.232/html/emoticons/huh.gif

bay_area

May 26th, 2006, 07:34 PM

I just hope any new skyscraper in SF doesn't act to diminish the dramatic topography.

it's already lost much visual "wow" factor in terms of coming down from Nob Hill.

Sorry, it's hard not to treat San Fran as a national painting.

build what you will.....I'll still visit like clockwork...
Very Good Point. And your visits are appreciated. :)

isn't there a "san francisco/oakland development news" thread for this?
Yeah,
But this is the biggest news for one of the world's most iconic skylines in the last 30 years and it marries a thousand footer, 2 850 footers and the largest Mass Transit Terminal in the west-that will combine 5 transit agencies including a Bullet Train to Los Angeles, another Major World City-all under one roof in the very heart of The City. It will take Downtown San Francisco to yet another level of vibrancy and I think it warrants consideration in this forum as well. :)

edsg25

May 26th, 2006, 10:57 PM

LA HAS WAY WAY TOO MUCH GOING ON TO WORRY ABOUT HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS.

AND YOU MISPELED FASCIST.

Translation: Silverlake is worried shitless about SF having a taller building than LA.

bayviews

May 26th, 2006, 11:48 PM

Thanks, for posting this important update re: the Transbay here.

If it actually eventually does happen, this would be a truly exciting & interesting transit-oriented development project that would be a dramatic addition to San Francisco’s skyline. True, lacking established structures of historical preservation interest, SoMa is the ideal place to raise SF’s height limits to a thousand plus. In terms of building up the skyline particularly in SoMa, SF really needs to take some pages from Vancouver.

It sometimes gets lost in the hype that this all started with the need to replace the aging Transbay Terminal, which connects the SF transit lines to the AC Transit bus lines serving the East Bay plus Greyhound. Hopefully, the Caltrain commuter rail connecting SF with the Peninsula & San Bay will be extended underground to link up with the new Transbay Terminal & BART. And if it ever happens, that Bullet Train to LA.

Whatever gets built as far as residential, commercial, etc. should be in addition to high-density, compatible with the original transportation functions that have driven the Transbay Terminal rather than vice versa. That is no new NIMBYs in residence complaining about transit noise!

Actually LA completed a somewhat smaller version of this in the mid-1990s, in the form of the Union Station Gateway Center. It serves as the junction of for AMTRAK, commuter, heavy, & light rail lines, buses, & MTA HQ. Hopefully, Gateway’s added new vitality to LA’s surrounding historic Alameda district.

The Transbay Terminal has not been without its planning & financial downsides. Don't know if its mentioned in this article, but it's outrageous about that $58 million that the SF taxpayers have had to cough up to that developer because of the bureaucratic planning blunders. If they haven’t already, some incompetent heads must roll. And let’s lose track of wherever that $58 million ends up!

bayviews

May 27th, 2006, 12:02 AM

ooops! ONE crucial word left out. Should be: Lets NOT lose track of wherever that $58 million ends up.

Outrageous that an already super rich developer gets $58 million in public monies for NOT building something!

samsonyuen

May 27th, 2006, 12:35 AM

That looks great, and it fits in well with the skyline. I hope something that tall gets built there.

bay_area

May 27th, 2006, 01:44 AM

It sometimes gets lost in the hype that this all started with the need to replace the aging Transbay Terminal, which connects the SF transit lines to the AC Transit bus lines serving the East Bay plus Greyhound. Hopefully, the Caltrain commuter rail connecting SF with the Peninsula & San Bay will be extended underground to link up with the new Transbay Terminal & BART. And if it ever happens, that Bullet Train to LA
Its this very possibility of getting trains beneath the Transbay Terminal that has converted me into a supporter of the HSR. I thought it was a colossal waste of time and money($25-$30 Billion is a lot-even for California). I mean, for petesake-that's 1 (small) block from Market St!

Downtown to Downtown-I couldnt resist that possibility. You could literally go to the Garment District in DT LA for the day and be back in the same time it takes someone commuting from San Joaquin County by car to and from The Inner Bay Area!?!?

In terms of building up the skyline particularly in SoMa, SF really needs to take some pages from Vancouver.
It seems like that's happening sorta-only taller. One Rincon Hill is gonna be 600 ft just a few feet from The Bay Bridge-that is crazy cool. :runaway:
http://www.urbanohio.com/OtherStates/California/SanFrancisco/2006/2006SanFran37.jpg
Photo by UrbanOhio

Bay2Bay

May 27th, 2006, 02:27 AM

edsg25

May 27th, 2006, 05:00 AM

SoMa is the safest part of the downtown area to build and not affect views. This area is different from north of Market, where high rise construction certainly has affected the views of Nob and Russian hills.

mid-town

May 27th, 2006, 05:21 AM

I've only been to SF once because my Dad's aunt lives in the city. It's a REALLY NICE city and I'll definitely be going back there and I'll get to see the new tower. Can't wait.

SDfan

May 27th, 2006, 07:36 AM

Seattle, LA, and SD need new tallest too!

Not going to happen for at least 20 years. :(

As for the new towers in SF, its always good news.

bay_area

May 27th, 2006, 08:05 AM

Framing debate on new towers for S.F. skyline
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Let's get one thing straight: San Francisco doesn't need another extra-tall tower, or three. Eye-popping skyscrapers won't make the natural setting more scenic or neighborhoods like North Beach more vibrant.

But as planners explore the idea of a 1,000-foot-plus tower near First and Mission streets, remember that tall buildings aren't un-San Franciscan, either. And if they make sense anywhere downtown, this is the place.

Those two points should frame the public debate about allowing three towers taller than the Transamerica Pyramid as part of the effort to fund a new Transbay Terminal for buses and trains from outside San Francisco. This is an opportunity to create great architecture -- but the towers need to be judged on the merits of whether they also serve the greater good.

The fact that skyline-transforming landmarks are being discussed shows another thing: The terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center didn't change the financial and psychological allure of tall buildings.

That wasn't supposed to be the case after Sept. 11, 2001 and the grim sight of 110-story structures dissolving in flames. Pundits somberly equated towers with targets, especially ones that rose above the crowd. One particularly exuberant Cassandra, author James Kunstler, proclaimed that "the age of skyscrapers is at an end. ... It must now be considered an experimental building typology that has failed."

Instead, cities across the globe are more open to height than ever before. In London, best known for its historic neighborhoods, a 1,004-foot-high tower next to London Bridge is expected to start construction next year. In Chicago -- never shy about scraping the sky -- a 2,000-foot corkscrew-shaped residential tower was approved last month that, if built, will be 600 feet taller than Sears Tower, the world's tallest building from 1974 until 1996.

Even smaller cities such as Sacramento and Louisville, Ky., are getting in the game. Often the landmarks-to-be are designed by well-known architects; in Sacramento, one is the work of Daniel Libeskind -- best known for crafting a master plan to rebuild the World Trade Center site.

The upward push is fueled by everything from the fading immediacy of Sept. 11 to the argument that dense downtown development might slow suburban sprawl. There's also the urge to show off -- for developers to act like big shots (see: Donald Trump) or cities to beckon for attention on the global stage.

There was a hint of this when San Francisco Planning Director Dean Macris made his first public presentation Thursday of the idea of raising heights in the area around First and Mission streets.

The plan would allow three towers above 850 feet, one of which would climb an additional 150 feet -- or more -- above the two others. Macris and other officials said the extra height could generate roughly $250 million in additional revenues to help build a new Transbay Terminal and extend commuter rail lines from the peninsula to the financial district.

But Macris also said bold new towers might freshen San Francisco's image.

"Cities are in a competitive global arrangement these days," Macris said on Friday. "We count enormously on our cable cars and our topography and all of that, but we are in fact a city. And the buildings in a city make an enormous difference to where people go and what they see and do. ... We have not paid a lot of attention to the drama of our skyline."

But drama cannot be the goal as planning evolves around First and Mission streets.

The most important factor in evaluating plans for a taller skyline is whether the result will improve how San Francisco looks and feels -- on the ground as well as in the air. There should be public spaces that offer respite from the downtown swirl and design guidelines so that the towers are lean and elegant and don't block important views.

The last thing we need are refrigerator boxes similar to what's on Market Street -- but 500 feet taller.

Seismic safety is critical as well: Would any sites pose engineering dangers? Modern skyscrapers often are the best buildings to be in during an earthquake because they're attached to the ground and designed with overlapping webs of protection. But there's no room for error.

Finally, the public benefits must be clear. There needs to be a trade-off for letting certain towers (and developers) stand out above the rest.

That's what is intriguing about the still-sketchy plan. New towers would help the Transbay project, which is behind schedule. And the show-offs wouldn't be high-rise intruders in a low-rise nook: They'd be at the junction of the traditional Financial District and the approved residential towers of Rincon Hill to the south.

In other words, there's a legitimate case to be made for raising heights near the terminal, especially after seismic and safety issues are reviewed.

But it's not essential to San Francisco's self-image, much less its global reputation, that such a change occur. This is a city that always has been measured by its visceral appeal rather than the way it thrusts into the sky.

If planners are serious about reshaping the skyline, do it to create a better city -- not to sell postcards or to thrill the erector set.

bayviews

May 27th, 2006, 10:12 PM

Its this very possibility of getting trains beneath the Transbay Terminal that has converted me into a supporter of the HSR. I thought it was a colossal waste of time and money($25-$30 Billion is a lot-even for California). I mean, for petesake-that's 1 (small) block from Market St!

Downtown to Downtown-I couldnt resist that possibility. You could literally go to the Garment District in DT LA for the day and be back in the same time it takes someone commuting from San Joaquin County by car to and from The Inner Bay Area!?!?

Yea that would be really convenient to be able to whiz from the Transbay Terminal in SF to Union Station Gateway in LA in just a few hours on a bullet train.

Downside is that even if the HSR gets the green light very soon, & its been under serious study for well over a decade, it'll still be a long way off before its up & running.

If this were China, HSR would have happened by now!

mr_storms

May 27th, 2006, 10:14 PM

I just posted a similar thread in Highrise news

bay_area

May 27th, 2006, 10:16 PM

Yea that would be really convenient to be able to whiz from the Transbay Terminal in SF to Union Station Gateway in LA in just a few hours on a bullet train.

Downside is that even if the HSR gets the green light very soon, & its been under serious study for well over a decade, it'll still be a long way off before its up & running.

If this were China, HSR would have happened by now!
Yeah, if we were in China-we'd be celebrating the 5th anniversary of the HSR and The City would be swimming in supertalls. LOL

mongozx

May 28th, 2006, 12:01 AM

UWMilwaukeeJay

May 28th, 2006, 02:03 AM

bayviews

May 28th, 2006, 04:37 AM

I honestly am not in favor of the proposed height of the 1,000+ ft tall building. Even though it looks exaggerated in this rendering it just doesn't seem to blend in. Plus it'll overshadow Transamerica, a San Francisco icon. Much like the way the original WTC twin towers suddenly jutted out at the tip of Manhattan it just never looked right to me. I say keep the heights at around 800'. My 2 centavos. . .
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/05/26/ba_towers26_ph03.jpg

You are right, the Transamerica has become a symbol of SF, & should remain such. But because of its unique pyramid. Transamerica will never be overshadowed even by the proposed Transbay supertalls. It will always stand out. Transamerica too was was very controversal when first proposed.

Westsidelife

May 28th, 2006, 04:38 AM

I like the skyline the way it is right now. I think they should build buildings that are more proportionate to the current skyline and gradually build up...

Westsidelife

May 28th, 2006, 05:53 AM

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/nathanh6686/mn_skyline-2vu.jpg

I like this a lot better.

FROM LOS ANGELES

May 28th, 2006, 06:28 AM

bay_area

May 28th, 2006, 08:01 AM

LA has proposed 2 buildings taller than the US Bank in the 80s, the third one is going to get build period. And to be a the tallest in LA and stick out, it has to be at least 1100 feet, I doub't SF's building will even reach 1099. Still, if SF does get it, good for them, but i would still think the city made a mistake passing the Piramyd in height.
I have no clue whatsoever why you say passing he Pyramid height is a mistake? It most certainly is not a mistake-especially for the sake of height-that's silly. The Transamerica Pyramid is the most famous building west of the Mississippi River. The US Bank Tower didnt change that, The B of A in Seattle didnt change that, and nothing that happens in San Francisco itself will change that-period

I like this a lot better.
That's all getting built except in the middle, there are going to be 2 towers 800 feet+ and 1 tower 1000+ feet tall. The drive across The Bay Bridge, already breathtaking is going to be even more amazing.

Westsidelife

May 28th, 2006, 08:19 AM

I have no clue whatsoever why you say passing he Pyramid height is a mistake? It most certainly is not a mistake-especially for the sake of height-that's silly. The Transamerica Pyramid is the most famous building west of the Mississippi River. The US Bank Tower didnt change that, The B of A in Seattle didnt change that, and nothing that happens in San Francisco itself will change that-period

That's all getting built except in the middle, there are going to be 2 towers 800 feet+ and 1 tower 1000+ feet tall. The drive across The Bay Bridge, already breathtaking is going to be even more amazing.

I know, that's what I said. I prefer the skyline without the two in the middle. They should stick within a certain height range and then gradually build up.

bay_area

May 28th, 2006, 08:51 AM

At this point as far as San Francisco is concerned-beggars cant be choosers. Nimbys have had the skyline under lock and key for over 3 decades and so now that locals support this tower as evidenced by a poll taken by The Chronicle yesterday where over 53% voted in favor of such a tall building-I say where do I sign? :)

Westsidelife

May 28th, 2006, 09:07 AM

Westsidelife

May 28th, 2006, 09:18 AM

double post

Azn_chi_boi

May 28th, 2006, 02:34 PM

I like the Possible SF's skyline... but I would still think people will think TransAmerica Pyramid would still be the symbol of SF, even though maybe it won't be the tallest

DarkFenX

May 28th, 2006, 03:10 PM

I think it fits very well since they are also adding two 800ft tower next to them. I say build them.

bay_area

May 28th, 2006, 05:03 PM

I think it fits very well since they are also adding two 800ft tower next to them. I say build them.
I agree DarkFenX,
I understand the concern by the others but San Francisco cannot be pigeon-holed into an antique where any change is seen as sacrosanct. San Francisco is a living, breathing City that changes with time, just like everywhere else and the addition of a 1 thousand footer flanked on its sides by 2 800 ftrs(there's already a 600ftr across the street) will create an instant cluster(one helluva cluster at that). There's another 600 ftr being built a few blocks up the street. I think we will all be pleased with the outcome-while I love Florence, I dont want San Francisco to be relegated to that sort of status, where everything is to be preserved as is. LOL

callanoj

May 28th, 2006, 06:02 PM

This problem comes up in every city that is known for it's older beauty. It's the same situation in Boston. Everybody is afraid that the quaintness will be affected by modern skyscrapers. I don't understand why it's an issue of height and not more of a design issue. If development authorities would simply be careful of the architects and designs they choose and not worry so much about height there should be no problem.

edsg25

May 28th, 2006, 06:27 PM

I agree DarkFenX,
I understand the concern by the others but San Francisco cannot be pigeon-holed into an antique where any change is seen as sacrosanct. San Francisco is a living, breathing City that changes with time, just like everywhere else and the addition of a 1 thousand footer flanked on its sides by 2 800 ftrs(there's already a 600ftr across the street) will create an instant cluster(one helluva cluster at that). There's another 600 ftr being built a few blocks up the street. I think we will all be pleased with the outcome-while I love Florence, I dont want San Francisco to be relegated to that sort of status, where everything is to be preserved as is. LOL

i agree. and as i said before, Soma can accomodate tall buildings in a way that areas north of Market cannot. As mentioned previously, Nob and Russian hills have been compromised not only by the growth of the skyline, but in terms of views and the loss of the way the lower skyline followed the contours of the hills. This is more than evident crossing the Bay Bridge or from the view from Sausalito, Angel Island, Tiburon, etc.

South of Market, on the other hand, has no negative effect on the hills. Inland from this part of downtown is the relatively flat Mission District and the backdrop of the high ridge of hills in the middle of the city (centered by Twin Peaks) is not really affected by downtown development. Meanwhile, the two freeways heading into the downtown area from the peninsula will benefit in view greatly by tall buildings in the Soma area.

bay_area

May 28th, 2006, 09:06 PM

I forgot to mention that the plan for Treasure Island also calls for a 600-700 ft tower.
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/12/15/dd_johnkingcolumn.jpg

godblessbotox

May 28th, 2006, 09:59 PM

I forgot to mention that the plan for Treasure Island also calls for a 600-700 ft tower.
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/12/15/dd_johnkingcolumn.jpg

what the hell is that, hong kong?

bay_area

May 28th, 2006, 10:06 PM

Its an old Navy Station that the city is converting into a mixed-use retail/residential/commercial...there's also a lot of dedicated greenspace-somewhat stupid IMO because it was never green to begin with-its a manmade island connected to Yerba Buena Island.

Anyway, San Francisco in 1971-The Financial District was still a work in progress and SoMA was almost purely industrial
http://pic.templetons.com/brad/pano/midpano/sf71.jpg

Bay2Bay

May 28th, 2006, 10:27 PM

^^
Amazing picture. I moved to SF in '77 and it amazes me how much more of the financial district had filled in with high-rises between the taking of that picture in '71 and the year I moved here. I guess the change in the City's appearance was too much too quick for some and you often heard people back then bemoan the "Manhattanization" of the City.

bay_area

May 29th, 2006, 04:14 AM

LOL@Manhattanization.

A word coined in San Francisco, its seen as a negative term even today. As I stated in SSP, most of the anti-Manhattanization crowd were former Manhattanites and East Coasters themselves that didnt want to see San Francisco lose its charm by creating canyons of skyscrapers.

-Corey-

May 29th, 2006, 06:52 AM

Not going to happen for at least 20 years. :(
.
Damn :cry:

jiggawhat?

May 31st, 2006, 01:02 AM

well, its just like the space needle...for years the seattle space needle was the symbol of seattle.....today, it barely makes the top ten list of tallest structures in seattle...yet it is still the symbol of the city. Whenever I think of San francisco i think of that pyramid tower, alcatraz and the golden gate. Whatever is built....it wont ruin the image of the city....if they built those towers around the pyramid building...then i would be worried. Otherwise...good for san fancisco!!!!

svs

May 31st, 2006, 02:32 AM

bay_area

May 31st, 2006, 07:42 AM

^^Luckily the Anti Manhattanization crowd isnt as big as in the 1970s and 80s.

edsg25

May 31st, 2006, 12:44 PM

I forgot to mention that the plan for Treasure Island also calls for a 600-700 ft tower.
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/12/15/dd_johnkingcolumn.jpg

bay_area, do people fear that mid-bay towrs would have an adverse effect on views...or could a couple of well placed buildings on TI actually enhance them?

another question: what effect will appreciable development on TI have on the rather precarious Bay Bridge interchanges on YB? How safe would more mid-bay on-and-off traffic be, particularly on the east bound lower level?

It seems like a shame that BART couldn't have been more farsighted and have gone under TI to give it rapid transit access (although admittedly that would have increased the length of the cross bay tube).

chicbicyclist

May 31st, 2006, 11:08 PM

Damn, we San Diegans need to get our act together and realize we are in the big boy's club, or should be. We are like LA's(the alpha type muscled guy) and SF's(the thin super model) fat middle sister with a low self esteem.

panamaboy9016

May 31st, 2006, 11:13 PM

How tall are these buildings going to be?

airmale007

June 1st, 2006, 05:08 AM

LA HAS WAY WAY TOO MUCH GOING ON TO WORRY ABOUT HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS.

AND YOU MISPELED FASCIST.

I can only hope this was intended to be an ironic statement...

If not.... it's "misspelled". Thank you.

bay_area

June 6th, 2006, 03:18 PM

An Architect has been chosen to design one of the 850-ftrs that's going to flank the 1,000-ftr.
Renzo Piano, famed architect in line to design new S.F. tower
San Francisco Business Times June 6, 2006

By J.K. Dineen and Emily Fancher

Superstar architect Renzo Piano has tentatively agreed to design an 850-foot tower at First and Mission streets, a significant coup for city planners as they build support for a denser, taller neighborhood around the Transbay Terminal.

The building would be constructed on a development site that has been quietly assembled by David Choo, the president of commercial mortgage lender California Mortgage and Realty. In the past three months, Choo's company has paid about $50 million for three buildings on the northwest corner of Mission and First streets.

Supervisor Chris Daly, whose district includes the site, raised the possibility of Piano's involvement at Transbay Joint Powers Authority meeting Friday morning. He later told the San Francisco Business Times that he had met Thursday with Choo and Planning Director Dean Macris to discuss the project. Other sources confirmed that Piano had agreed to design a building for the site, but that no contract had been signed. Daly said he does not have a problem with great height and density, but that negative impacts need to be offset. In Rincon Hill, Daly convinced developers to pay fees to support affordable housing and community groups.

'I'm interested in ensuring an open process and that the public has ample opportunity to participate,' Daly said.

If Piano signs on, it could be the first glamorous project in what city officials hope will be a new era of architectural distinction. Several months ago, Planning Director Dean Macris and Mayor Gavin Newsom announced an initiative to encourage more modern, innovative, high-quality design in San Francisco. Macris said Piano and Choo are in conversation, and expressed his admiration for the architect.

'The idea that we would have an opportunity for one of the world's leading architects to do a building at this location is great,' said Macris. 'We're looking forward to that possibility.' A global heavyweight

Piano, who designed the rebuild of the California Academy of Sciences now under way in Golden Gate Park, is known as an international superstar. He's behind the expansion of both the Whitney in New York and the High Museum in Atlanta and has public and private projects around the world 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 every one of those buildings responds to place. No two look alike.'

Meckel said Piano's work is rooted in the geography, climate and culture of a place.

'This is a very important project in heart of San Francisco that should be matched in importance with the talent chosen to design it,' he added. Plan approved

The news of Piano's interest in the First and Mission site comes as the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board Friday 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. After 30 years of planning - and political wrangling - over rebuilding the worn-out bus terminal, the approval was a historic moment.

'We've taken a significant step forward,' said Nathaniel Ford, chair of the TJPA. 'I see this as one of the most important projects in the country.'

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority's approval creates a two-step process to build a terminal that connects BART, Muni and regional bus services, as well as extend Caltrain from Fourth and King Streets, and could eventually bring in high-speed rail to Los Angeles. The TJPA also endorsed increasing some building heights in the 40-acre redevelopment area, embracing a vision for a 1,000-foot tower next to the terminal and two 800-foot skyscrapers nearby, including the Piano tower. The new heights will also need environmental review and approval by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The zoning changes could bring as much as $250 million in new funding to the terminal project.

The approval also kicks off an international competition to choose an architect and development team to design the 1,000-foot tower and the terminal - sure to attract high-caliber big-name architects on par with Piano. Construction on the terminal could begin as early as 2010 and wrap up in 2013, said Emilio Cruz, the program manager for the TJPA.

bay_area

June 6th, 2006, 03:24 PM

'08 groundbreaking plans OKd for downtown transit center
Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, June 3, 2006

The board overseeing the Transbay Terminal project unanimously approved plans Friday to break ground on the regional transit center's main building in downtown San Francisco in 2008.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority also approved recommendations by a review panel that authority members say could help streamline the project and reduce the sizable funding gap the $3 billion to $4 billion project still faces.

"I am very pleased with the vote," said Supervisor Chris Daly, whose district includes the project and who sits on the Transbay board. "The new transit center will be built. It was a significant vote today. Two months ago, it appeared we were not headed in this direction. It was a huge victory for advocates of the project."

Proponents want to replace the dingy Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets -- now used by several of the region's public bus systems -- with a transit hub that rivals New York's Grand Central Terminal and includes a downtown Caltrain commuter line and room for a future high-speed railway.

City officials are proposing building three tall towers on public land next to the transit center. The towers -- with one proposed to rise 1,000 feet -- could generate an additional $250 million in real estate sales and tax revenue for the project, officials said.

The review panel -- which included city land-use and transit planners -- has come up with other recommendations, including adding an underground train loop extending out from the terminal to the Embarcadero. The loop arrangement is believed to allow not only for more efficient train operations but for money savings by reducing the amount of land that would have to be acquired from private owners.

"It would be a huge increase in efficiency," said Michael Cohen, a real estate development adviser to Mayor Gavin Newsom who serves on the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board.

Plans for the new terminal have moved slowly since creation of the authority in 2001.

Proponents were disappointed when this year state officials delayed plans for a statewide vote on a high-speed rail bond that would include $475 million for the San Francisco leg of the project.

E-mail Charlie Goodyear at cgoodyear@sfchronicle.com.

mongozx

June 6th, 2006, 03:43 PM

^^Finally, great news.

I was wondering will they ever build any towers to the left of the BayBridge or is that area off-limits by the NIMBYs?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/nathanh6686/mn_skyline-2vu.jpg

bay_area

June 6th, 2006, 04:14 PM

There's a midrise called The Watermark being built left of the BB. I think its about 15 stories-other then that, Im not sure why. I think its nimbyism afraid the area will lose its warehouse chic vibe*rolls eyes*

bay_area

June 11th, 2006, 05:28 PM

Mystery player in Transbay project
$60M, 4 parcels and 1 question: 'Why?'
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

A small San Francisco mortgage lender has quietly spent $60 million for four pieces of land near the future Transbay Terminal, making it a major player in the city's ambitious plans to reshape downtown.

California Mortgage and Realty, a 25-employee firm that provides short-term commercial real estate loans, has purchased four key parcels around the northwest corner of First and Mission streets, a site that the city Planning Department identified last week as one of two spots suitable for 800-foot towers. Along with a dazzling 1,000-foot skyscraper at the current Transbay Terminal site, planners see towers at First and Mission and on Howard Street, between First and Second, as a crucial component of creating a high-density neighborhood around a new "Grand Central Station of the West" transportation hub.

Headed by 42-year-old David Choo, CMR bought 62 First St. in 2004 for $10 million. This year the company has shelled out another $50 million for three other buildings on the block: 76-80 First St., and 88 First St., and 50 First St., an acquisition which closed in late May for $26 million.

CMR's frenetic investment activity in the area has prompted speculation that the company is partnering with a prominent national developer. Planning Director Dean Macris declined to comment on any conversations the city has had with Choo but called him an "active guy with big aspirations." Macris said Choo and his company would be a key player in redesigning the Transbay plan to allow taller buildings.

"I'm not sure where he is in his process -- he has to make a decision on who is going to be the developer," said Macris. "Obviously this is a key piece of property in the city's future."

He added: "Anytime somebody has assembled a property of that size, the possibilities are manifold."

Speculation swirls
Sources in the real estate community say that Choo has told some national developers active in the area, including Tishman Speyer and Hines, that he intends to develop the property alone. Others suggest that CMR is working with an out-of-town developer and that an announcement is imminent, a position bolstered by the fact that the company has just recently signed on a public relations specialist as well as a political consultant.

Through representatives, Choo referred questions to CEO James Gala. Gala declined to elaborate on plans for the parcels. He downplayed the real estate development as "adjunct to the company's core business" of commercial mortgage lending.

"We're good investors. It is a stretch to refer to us as developers," Gala said. "We have real estate investment activities."

Gala said the decision to buy the properties was driven by "location, opportunity and timing" and that the firm has developed a sharp eye for value through its lending practice. With office rents rising and approximately 3 million square feet of commercial space being converted into residential condos, he said the company was bullish on office development.

"There is no plan, there are many ideas being presented," he said. "The discourse has begun and it's very, very early in the process."

More than one idea
Gala said Macris' vision of a high-density neighborhood anchored by a trio of breathtaking skyscrapers is "one of several ideas that have been discussed." He declined to say whether CMR has been involved in the new Transbay planning process, but said, "because of his stature, we listen intently when Dean speaks."

CMR also recently acquired a lot at 1540 Van Ness Ave., near the corner of Market Street. The company bought the old St. Francis theater at 949 Market St. in 2003 for $7.5 million, but sold it last year. Choo, through his California Mortgage and Realty, has owned apartment buildings in San Francisco in the past, including 860 Geary St. and 650 Ellis St., but sold them when he shifted his efforts to Oakland in 1995.

J.K. Dineen covers real estate for the San Francisco Business Times.

Holy highrises batman! LOL

bay_area

June 16th, 2006, 01:20 AM

WOW

Man, stop the freaking presses. I just talked to a really, really good source I have at the city and he says of the three main Transbay towers that:

a) they're looking not to upzone those parcels, but to abolish height limits and FAR on them (bulk, setbacks etc. would still be regulated);

b) the sort of height they're looking at for the main tower is--wait for it--1,250 feet.

mr_storms

June 16th, 2006, 03:20 AM

WOW
I read that too and my heart skipped a beat. 1250' is just crazy for SF

bay_area

June 16th, 2006, 03:51 AM

Yeah, its amazing. I cant freakin believe it...
:dance:

mr_storms

June 16th, 2006, 09:19 PM

from ssp
http://sfcityscape.com/forum/transbay_towers/view_from_treasure_island.jpg
http://sfcityscape.com/forum/transbay_towers/view_from_280.jpg
http://sfcityscape.com/forum/transbay_towers/aerial_view.jpg

bay_area

June 16th, 2006, 10:50 PM

Its gonna be awesome.....1,250 ft :runaway:

We've waited a long time for this one.

harvesterofsorrows

June 16th, 2006, 10:56 PM

Haha...

drmadham

June 16th, 2006, 10:57 PM

i think it fits perfectly

Dancer

June 17th, 2006, 12:58 AM

:cheer:OMG I’m so jealous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go San Francisco:cheer:

bayviews

June 17th, 2006, 02:29 AM

Its taken forever...

...But at last, Transbay Terminal is finally starting to look like a winner!

choyak

September 3rd, 2006, 10:50 AM

nygirl

September 3rd, 2006, 06:12 PM

Congrats to Sf.. Welcome to the 300 meter club.

bay_area

September 3rd, 2006, 06:55 PM

whodathunkit?

Now if only we can get this done before the nimbys wake up. LOL

Third of a kind

September 4th, 2006, 05:02 AM

are they going to expand on the mass transit though? yeah thats great for SF and all but what about some new subways!

bay_area

September 4th, 2006, 06:33 AM

um, I dont know if you read the thread but the entire project revolves around transit. Namely the building will be adjacent to a multi-billion dollar transit terminal that will accomodate BART, CalTrain, MuniMetro, Muni and ACTransit. It will also be the Northern Hub of a $30 Billion Bullet Train that will connect SoCal to NorCal.

The whole project revolves around transit.

edsg25

September 4th, 2006, 01:27 PM

Does anyone remember the original rejected height for Transamerica? I know it was well less than 1250 (and that for a tower that tapers to practically nothing at the top). Times do change.

This is a win/win situation when it comes to building a building of such height. I've said it before: Soma is a radically different location than downtown areas north of Market. While you can't stop progress, there was an unquestionable loss in the manhattaniztion of the city's traditional downtown area north of Market (from the Embarcadero to the financial district, and on to Union Square with the Market Street stretch down to Powell) affected views from the hills to the west (Nob, Russian). Not only that, the skyline altered the old flow of high rise structures accentuating the hillcrest rather than obliverating it.

South of Market carries no such baggage. What an ideal spot for this sort of construction.

bay_area

September 4th, 2006, 04:37 PM

true about soma^

but as far as Manhattanization(a phrase oddly enough, that was coined in San Francisco), The Times Squarish vision that some have for Van Ness@Market is as "Manhattan" as we could get imo. They are calling for the complete "taming", not gentrification, but "ARTSification"(rolls eyes) of Market between 5th and Van Ness. This would all culminate at Van Ness@Market where all the big, glittery signs and what not would create yet another focal point in SF. I hear there's even calls for another supertall and a couple of talls for that intersection. Of course this is all speculation but let's see how it all develops.

Silicon Francisco

September 4th, 2006, 11:10 PM

Its gonna be awesome.....1,250 ft :runaway:

We've waited a long time for this one.
Stop lying...

Does anyone remember the original rejected height for Transamerica? I know it was well less than 1250 (and that for a tower that tapers to practically nothing at the top). Times do change.

This is a win/win situation when it comes to building a building of such height. I've said it before: Soma is a radically different location than downtown areas north of Market. While you can't stop progress, there was an unquestionable loss in the manhattaniztion of the city's traditional downtown area north of Market (from the Embarcadero to the financial district, and on to Union Square with the Market Street stretch down to Powell) affected views from the hills to the west (Nob, Russian). Not only that, the skyline altered the old flow of high rise structures accentuating the hillcrest rather than obliverating it.

South of Market carries no such baggage. What an ideal spot for this sort of construction.
Construction end - 1972

Transamerica wanted a taller building (1,150 feet/350.5m) but the city planning commission would not approve it because it interfered with precious views of San Francisco Bay from Nob Hill.
:doh:

bay_area

September 5th, 2006, 01:24 AM

stop lying

put a sock in it.

Silicon Francisco

September 5th, 2006, 04:14 AM

put a sock in it.
You mean you want me to stop sharing in excitement with you? How disgusting and selfish.
isn't there a "san francisco/oakland development news" thread for this? http://209.85.12.232/html/emoticons/huh.gif
Yes, but that thread and the WC section in general are rather quiet. And if we can have Milwaukee fog pics thread here (no offense to that city) then we can sure have this...

bay_area

September 5th, 2006, 05:29 AM

*yawns*

SILVERLAKE

September 24th, 2006, 03:41 AM

Its gonna be awesome.....1,250 ft :runaway:

We've waited a long time for this one.

WELCOME TO THE 1000footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, LA, Houston and Chicago. It is nice to see our little brother growing up! :cheers:

Suburbanite

September 25th, 2006, 07:59 AM

WELCOME TO THE 1000footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, LA, Houston and Chicago. It is nice to see our little brother growing up! :cheers:
More like, Welcome to the much more exclusive 1250 footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, and Chicago.

Now that really puts this project into perspective.

StevenW

September 25th, 2006, 11:09 AM

San Francisco deserves this tower! :yes:
It's the GREATEST city! :yes:

techniques1200s

September 27th, 2006, 02:48 AM

Also remember that One Rincon hill, which is going to be 641' tall, is sitting on top of a 120' hill. Which means when it comes to the skyline view, it's almost an 800' tower.

bay_area

September 27th, 2006, 04:20 AM

yeah,
itll look a lot taller then it really is. LOL

bay_area

September 27th, 2006, 04:21 AM

More like, Welcome to the much more exclusive 1250 footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, and Chicago.

Now that really puts this project into perspective.

excellent point. I never thought of it that way.

edsg25

September 27th, 2006, 06:48 AM

a super tall building is nice. and no doubt will add a much needed punctuation mark to the southern end of downtown SF.

still....I'm more impressed by a city that can more than double the size of an already massive downtown shopping complex that will include a slew of new high end stores, plus the 2nd largest Bloomingdale's in the nation. You can count on one hand the number of US cities that can make something like this happen. And it's happening this week on Market Street. And lots of good things take place in SF that are under 10 floors high.

SF could use a 1250 foot building, I suppose. SF doesn't need a 1250 foot building to prove anything or to make it any more major than than the incredibly major place it is.

edsg25

September 27th, 2006, 06:54 AM

WELCOME TO THE 1000footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, LA, Houston and Chicago. It is nice to see our little brother growing up! :cheers:

Nice obvservation. Of course, I'm sure you meant to say:

WELCOME TO THE 1000footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, LA, Houston and another city. It is nice to see our little brother growing up!

harvesterofsorrows

October 2nd, 2006, 04:16 AM

Nice obvservation. Of course, I'm sure you meant to say:

WELCOME TO THE 1000footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, LA, Houston and another city. It is nice to see our little brother growing up!

No one cares about Chicago.

edsg25

October 2nd, 2006, 04:03 PM

No one cares about Chicago.

givemeabreak! chicago is the largest city in Indiana or Iowa or one of those "I" states. Somebody in state in boise, couer d'arlene, potato junction, or sun valley must care about to some degree, wouldn't you think?

edsg25

October 2nd, 2006, 04:08 PM

I would hope this new tower would not be another flat roofed SF high rise. Transamerica's Pyramid makes a strong statement from the north end of the CBD as it faces North Beach, the bay, and beyond. I would love to see this new structure balance Transamerica from the south, make a similiar one facing south from Soma over the bayside sections of the city and the freeways coming north from the peninsula. This building should provide as spectacular a view from Potrero Hill the same way that Transamerica does from Telegraph Hill.

Silicon Francisco

October 4th, 2006, 12:13 AM

givemeabreak! chicago is the largest city in Indiana or Iowa or one of those "I" states. Somebody in state in boise, couer d'arlene, potato junction, or sun valley must care about to some degree, wouldn't you think?
Huh? We have states that start with an I now? And just what exactly is the "Chicago" you guys speak of?

I would hope this new tower would not be another flat roofed SF high rise. Transamerica's Pyramid makes a strong statement from the north end of the CBD as it faces North Beach, the bay, and beyond. I would love to see this new structure balance Transamerica from the south, make a similiar one facing south from Soma over the bayside sections of the city and the freeways coming north from the peninsula. This building should provide as spectacular a view from Potrero Hill the same way that Transamerica does from Telegraph Hill.
Definately, LA is the land of flattops only.(required by law, I think highrises there need to be able to land a helicopter or something)

edsg25

October 4th, 2006, 12:02 PM

Huh? We have states that start with an I now? And just what exactly is the "Chicago" you guys speak of?

Imagine San Francisco without the hills, bay, bridges, fog, cable cars, and ocean, but with Dusty Baker managing the local nine....that's Chicago.

Oooops, that was last week. Dusty's gone. Afraid, Silicon, you're on your own with this one.

Meanwhile, you better get back to the map. Next you'll try to convince us there are no states that start with B, E, J, Q, X, or Z. An American scholar you are not.

Silicon Francisco

October 4th, 2006, 12:21 PM

Ah, sounds interesting. So much America to see, so little time. I'm already 20 for crying out loud!

WELCOME TO THE 1000footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, LA, Houston and Chicago. It is nice to see our little brother growing up! :cheers:
yaaay! happy welcome to america SF! parade time!!1

edsg25

October 5th, 2006, 01:42 AM

Ah, sounds interesting. So much America to see, so little time. I'm already 20 for crying out loud!

yaaay! happy welcome to america SF! parade time!!1

maybe UCLA will even open a branch in the Bay Area. I hear there is available land up in the hills between Oakland and Richmond for a satelite campus of some sort. Nice to welcome SF and the Bay Area to the big time.

Elsongs

October 22nd, 2006, 10:45 AM

would LA respond with an even taller building? would the collossus of the west allow a place like san fran to supercede them, or is LA to wrapped up in the idea of being LA to give a shit?

I'm not holding my breath. The job market in Frisco still isn't that hot to warrant all that square footage they're promising. Unless there's a job boom it ain't gonna happen. The population of SF proper is shrinking as well...

Elsongs

October 22nd, 2006, 10:46 AM

maybe UCLA will even open a branch in the Bay Area. I hear there is available land up in the hills between Oakland and Richmond for a satelite campus of some sort. Nice to welcome SF and the Bay Area to the big time.

Actually UCLA is originally a branch campus of UC Berkeley!

Elsongs

October 22nd, 2006, 10:49 AM

WELCOME TO THE 1000footer club. A club where the sole US members are NY, LA, Houston and Chicago. It is nice to see our little brother growing up! :cheers:

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston are the four largest cities in the USA, in that order. SF isn't even in the top 10.

Elsongs

October 22nd, 2006, 10:52 AM

Kickass project for SF. The skyline will be utterly amazing!!! And I see SF is planning for the future with high speed rail, what about LA, where is the planning for LAs terminal infrastructure to support this??? It would be super awesome to use high speed rail to visit SF!!!

There are plans underway to reconfigure the tracks in Union Station to go over the 101 Freeway so trains going south and eastbound do not have to travel north and turn around.

liat91

October 23rd, 2006, 10:39 AM

So is this really gonna happen, maybe more buildings, but a 1250 footer???

bay_area

October 23rd, 2006, 08:25 PM

I'm not holding my breath. The job market in Frisco still isn't that hot to warrant all that square footage they're promising. Unless there's a job boom it ain't gonna happen. The population of SF proper is shrinking as well...

The population of San Francisco is NOT shrinking according to the California State Department of Finance, which has its own estimates. The actual Census when taken in 2010 should put to rest any notion that The City is shrinking-estimates are just guesses.

If this tower is built then it will be mixed-use. There are never enough housing units in San Francisco. The anti-Manhattanization folks that squashed dozens of proposed supertalls in The City seem to be backing off for some reason.

And the job market in San Francisco-Oakland is actually leading all of Northern California-its not back to pre dot-com bust levels, but its not as bad as you might think.

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston are the four largest cities in the USA, in that order. SF isn't even in the top 10.
I saw no reference to population in his post? He was referring to the number of buildings over 1,000 feet tall. San Francisco may not be in the Top 10, but its downtown really creams the DTs of just about all the Top 10 in terms of quality except for NY and Chicago. Quite funny really.

jacerw99

October 24th, 2006, 05:19 AM

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston are the four largest cities in the USA, in that order. SF isn't even in the top 10.

It doesn't matter. San Francisco is more densely populated than any other major city in the US, except for New York. Yes, Chicago and Houston and LA are larger in overall population, but their city limits are massive in comparison. If San Franciso maintained its current density of approximately 17,000 persons per square mile, and had the geographical size of Chicago (227 sq. miles), its population would be almost 4 million. Or if it were as large as LA (469 sq. miles), it would have almost 8 million residents...or if it were as large as Houston (579 sq. miles) it would have almost 10 million residents at its current density! I am not criticizing LA or Houston or Chicago or any other city for being less dense--just pointing out that density can be just as influential on the skyline. Density impacts this city's skyline FAR more than population. There are almost 800,000 people packed into less than 50 square miles. Here, moreso than any other city in America (again, except for New York), building higher is becoming a necessity, not a status symbol.

Dampyre

October 24th, 2006, 09:23 PM

It doesn't matter. San Francisco is more densely populated than any other major city in the US, except for New York. Yes, Chicago and Houston and LA are larger in overall population, but their city limits are massive in comparison. If San Franciso maintained its current density of approximately 17,000 persons per square mile, and had the geographical size of Chicago (227 sq. miles), its population would be almost 4 million. Or if it were as large as LA (469 sq. miles), it would have almost 8 million residents...or if it were as large as Houston (579 sq. miles) it would have almost 10 million residents at its current density! I am not criticizing LA or Houston or Chicago or any other city for being less dense--just pointing out that density can be just as influential on the skyline. Density impacts this city's skyline FAR more than population. There are almost 800,000 people packed into less than 50 square miles. Here, moreso than any other city in America (again, except for New York), building higher is becoming a necessity, not a status symbol.

I fail to see any logic here. The fact is that San Francisco isn't 227 or 469 square miles, nor would it maintain that type of density if it was. I mean, really, San Francisco is NOT Paris.

Silicon Francisco

October 25th, 2006, 04:57 AM

SF isn't even dense really, its just those townhomes get subdivided and are everywhere.

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston are the four largest cities in the USA, in that order. SF isn't even in the top 10.
I think SILVERLAKE means little brother statewise. SF is actually the older sister.

Elsongs

October 27th, 2006, 07:22 AM

SF isn't even dense really, its just those townhomes get subdivided and are everywhere.

SF city is dense, but the rest of the Bay Area is spread out and heavily suburbanized, even moreso than Southern California.

edsg25

October 27th, 2006, 12:40 PM

San Francisco is the core of the huge and powerful Bay Area. San Francisco's city population is basically an irrelevant statistic.

San Francisco and Boston are two of the greatest cities in the United States, many times more important, more exciting, more powerful, more inviting than US cities far larger than east. In both cases, we're dealing with (relatively) small cities in very large metropolitan areas. It is the metro area population that is significant, not the city, in both cases. Municipal boundaries have little affect on the importance of cities and their metropolitan areas.

Do people honestly believe if the creation of "Greater New York" hadn't taken place at the end of the 19th century (when the four outer boroughs were brought together with the existing city of New York on Manhattan island), that the city of New York, only on Manhattan and around the 1.5 million range in population, wouldn't be the great city that is today? Municiapl population is irrelevant.

Trae

October 28th, 2006, 06:53 AM

I fail to see any logic here. The fact is that San Francisco isn't 227 or 469 square miles, nor would it maintain that type of density if it was. I mean, really, San Francisco is NOT Paris.

Agreed. San Francisco would not keep the density if it sprawled out more. Just like NYC. Outside of the five boroughs are places as suburban as Orlando or Charlotte.

bay_area

October 28th, 2006, 07:50 AM

I mean, really, San Francisco is NOT Paris.

And I wouldnt have it any other way.

TheProfessor

October 28th, 2006, 04:14 PM

I saw no reference to population in his post? He was referring to the number of buildings over 1,000 feet tall. San Francisco may not be in the Top 10, but its downtown really creams the DTs of just about all the Top 10 in terms of quality except for NY and Chicago. Quite funny really.

The SF skyline is overrated. Without the Transamerica Pyramid, it would be quite void and nondescript. It’s the overall setting (hills, bay, bridges) that makes SF visually arresting. Without that setting DTSF is a yawn and does not come close to the power and boldness of the New York, Chicago and LA skylines.

EtherealMist

October 28th, 2006, 05:05 PM

BalWash

October 28th, 2006, 11:37 PM

totally agree, city borders are just imaginery man made lines
Definately, in the Baltimore-Washington Metro Area, less than 15% of the eight and a half million people live within the cities of Baltimore and Washington.

Significantly more people are from the San Francisco Bay Area than cities like Houston. Unfortunately for SanFran, Houston is catching up.

edsg25

October 29th, 2006, 02:53 AM

Definately, in the Baltimore-Washington Metro Area, less than 15% of the eight and a half million people live within the cities of Baltimore and Washington.

Significantly more people are from the San Francisco Bay Area than cities like Houston. Unfortunately for SanFran, Houston is catching up.

I'm sorry. I don't care if Houston's population grows past New York's. In no significant way will Houston catch up with San Francisco. No city in the world can keep San Francisco from being what it most wants to be: San Francisco.

Silicon Francisco

October 29th, 2006, 02:58 AM

Hah! Houston grow to have a larger population!! That'll teach San Francisco Bay Area a lesson!!!

seapug

October 29th, 2006, 03:08 AM

i get tired of people talking about how terrible cali sprawl is. cali has 36,000,000 people. 32,000,000 of them live in either the l.a., s.f., sandiego, sacramento, fresno or stockton metros. the rest of cali is pretty undeveloped

mongozx

October 29th, 2006, 04:24 PM

The SF skyline is overrated. Without the Transamerica Pyramid, it would be quite void and nondescript. It’s the overall setting (hills, bay, bridges) that makes SF visually arresting. Without that setting DTSF is a yawn and does not come close to the power and boldness of the New York, Chicago and LA skylines.

I disagree. So NYC, Chicago, and LA are totally devoid of nondescript blocks? SF's skyline is fine as is. And when the Transbay Towers rise. . .WATCHOUT!

And what's with this San Fran vs. Houston comparison?

pics by innov8. . .

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1750/18sfbayarea16102006fpk5.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/4504/15sfbayarea14102006fkc9.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1184/26sfbayarea24102006foz9.jpg

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/6210/9sfbatarea102006frv7.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1053/13sfbayarea12102006fnp8.jpg

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5672/12ricon4102006fxu7.jpg

Houston who?

edsg25

October 29th, 2006, 04:36 PM

Hah! Houston grow to have a larger population!! That'll teach San Francisco Bay Area a lesson!!!

Silicon, try to explain to those with an edifice complex, those who love density and population for the sake of.....density and population, those whose relationship with the height of skylines is almost, well,...phallic:

San Francisco has no desire to play their cames. San Francisco afraid of Houston? Ha. SF doesn't give a shit that it is the 4th largest city in California and second largest in the bay area (and if someone asks you "Do you know the way to San Jose?"...tell them about 50 miles south of San Francisco). SF won't skip a beat when Sacto knocks it into 5th place.

San Francisco doesn't want to change its population, its character because of some preceived idea that it is in competition with other cities to do so.

There are two cities in this nation that are most a part of me throughout my life....living, friends and family, knowing intimately. They are CHICAGO and SAN FRANCISCO. And if you think that flat and hilly have little in common, you'd be wrong. Both are strong, enticing, wonderfully secure in what they have to offer and don't see themselves in the shaddow of any city. They're both simply too wonderful, as is. (but it all fairness for today if not the general discussion: the Bears will knock the crap out of the 49ers).

Trae

October 29th, 2006, 11:19 PM

I disagree. So NYC, Chicago, and LA are totally devoid of nondescript blocks? SF's skyline is fine as is. And when the Transbay Towers rise. . .WATCHOUT!

And what's with this San Fran vs. Houston comparison?

pics by innov8. . .

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1750/18sfbayarea16102006fpk5.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/4504/15sfbayarea14102006fkc9.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1184/26sfbayarea24102006foz9.jpg

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/6210/9sfbatarea102006frv7.jpg

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1053/13sfbayarea12102006fnp8.jpg

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5672/12ricon4102006fxu7.jpg

Houston who?

:| :blahblah:

Silicon Francisco

October 30th, 2006, 01:39 AM

Silicon, try to explain to those with an edifice complex, those who love density and population for the sake of.....density and population, those whose relationship with the height of skylines is almost, well,...phallic:

San Francisco has no desire to play their cames. San Francisco afraid of Houston? Ha. SF doesn't give a shit that it is the 4th largest city in California and second largest in the bay area (and if someone asks you "Do you know the way to San Jose?"...tell them about 50 miles south of San Francisco). SF won't skip a beat when Sacto knocks it into 5th place.

San Francisco doesn't want to change its population, its character because of some preceived idea that it is in competition with other cities to do so.

There are two cities in this nation that are most a part of me throughout my life....living, friends and family, knowing intimately. They are CHICAGO and SAN FRANCISCO. And if you think that flat and hilly have little in common, you'd be wrong. Both are strong, enticing, wonderfully secure in what they have to offer and don't see themselves in the shaddow of any city. They're both simply too wonderful, as is. (but it all fairness for today if not the general discussion: the Bears will knock the crap out of the 49ers).
SF's one stuck up gal, but no one can blame her. She's like NY and Paris stuffed on small island(or peninsula), but twice as rich. And Houston? The Wal-Mart Supercenter of American cities.

BalWash

October 30th, 2006, 05:47 AM

SF's one stuck up gal, but no one can blame her. She's like NY and Paris stuffed on small island(or peninsula), but twice as rich. And Houston? The Wal-Mart Supercenter of American cities.
I love you?:cheers1:
I gotta get to SanFran some time soon.

Silicon Francisco

October 30th, 2006, 06:35 AM

Sorry bud, I may be stuck up, but I'm actually a guy! I think you'll like it if you like DC, which is also unique. (I've argued that if those two cities were people, they would be married)

BalWash

October 30th, 2006, 06:53 AM

Sorry bud, I may be stuck up, but I'm actually a guy! I think you'll like it if you like DC, which is also unique. (I've argued that if those two cities were people, they would be married)
I kinda figured you were a guy from that post, but I meant the comment jokingly because the post was so good.
It seems as though pretty much every Washingtonian I've met that has been to SanFran has loved it.

TheProfessor

October 30th, 2006, 07:25 AM

Your pics kind of underscore my point--bay, bridges, hills--are what make SF visually appealing. The skyline is a nice compliment, but without the overall setting it would not be as special. Perhaps the Transbay Towers will add something more.

TheProfessor

October 30th, 2006, 07:29 AM

lammius

October 30th, 2006, 07:43 AM

I've heard the SF-DC comparison before, but I really think that SF's East Coast counterpart is Boston. The two cities are very similar in land area, urban design, scale and height of buildings, and even the view of SF from the off the shore of the Marina reminds me of the view of Boston from Cambridge (waterfront, old buildings up Beacon Hill in Boston/Telegraph Hill in SF, and the financial district behind)

SF - waterfront, Telegraph Hill, with Fin dist behind
http://luminouslens.baltiblogs.com/whitelight/images/San_Francisco_Skyline.jpg

Boston - waterfront, Beacon Hill, with Fin dist behind
http://www.boston-website.com/images/phototour/BOSTON-(Beacon-Hill,-Longfe.jpghttp://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Economics/14-123Spring-2005/2A4A3250-93C5-4B6F-AB9A-82FDBF626B0A/0/chp_boats_boston.jpg

TheProfessor

October 30th, 2006, 05:01 PM

Having lived in both DC and Boston, I agree with the Boston/SF comparison. They're much more similar to one another.

baruk

January 27th, 2007, 12:00 AM

They also have in common highly prestigious universities.

Silicon Francisco

January 27th, 2007, 04:20 PM

I can't speak for Boston, but its always the people outside of SF that want to make that comparison. SF shouldn't be compared, but I think NYC is the only city worthy because it draws people from around the world as tourists, and around the US to live, as dreamers. I like the DC comparison since they have interesting aesthetic contrasts and because they have around four thirds the GDP per capita of Luxembourg (I don't think any other cities/countries could compare), lots of high paying jobs (and even higher paying jobs in the suburbs) and SF has significant west coast government operations, like the SF hosting by far largest Court of Appeals and Federal Reserve districts. The 65,000 sf Carolands mansion just south of SF was even considered by the government to be purchased as a west coast White House in the early 1900's. SF and DC are nearly on the same latitude as well. SF has far more consulates ect. than Boston, more than Chicago and almost as many as Los Angeles. (damn LA!) DC of course has far more than any other city in the world, including London.

bay_area

August 10th, 2007, 06:58 PM

An iconic skyline looks like it will dramatically change in the future. San Francisco's ambitious plans to add a 1000ftr is looking better by the day. The Transbay Tower is expected to the centerpiece of the new Transbay Terminal Project(the terminal alone is expected to cost $4-$6 Billion)...I hope we dont mess this one up.

1. Richard Rogers Proposal
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/6755/aerial20view20looking20oq1.jpg
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1480/sectionvz0.jpg

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20the%20golden%20gate%20bridge.jpg

2. Cesar Pelli Proposal
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b208/rajaxson/Aerial_LoRez.jpg
Pictures of Pelli's model (taken by botoxic)

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

3.Skidmore Owings Merrill Proposal
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1243/1035676673_38da517618_o.jpg
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

I personally love SOMs the best. I really dislike Rogers' tower. Pelli's is very elegant but I prefer the last one.

tombantdesfoetus

August 10th, 2007, 07:21 PM

bay_area

August 10th, 2007, 07:30 PM

The first design is absolutely ghastly.

I really like the last one, as well. It seems to fit the San Francisco feel the best.

As for the Cesar Pelli design, I'd love to see that tower built here in Minneapolis.
okay, you can have it. :)

As far as the SOM tower, The Base is downright sexy. Im not too hot on the palm trees though.
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0708.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0707.jpg

eweezerinc

August 10th, 2007, 07:39 PM

I suppose the Skid design is the best. Pelli's makes me want to barf. Can he do ANYTHING new these days?? Its a completely recycled IFC.

tombantdesfoetus

August 10th, 2007, 07:59 PM

As far as the SOM tower, The Base is downright sexy. Im not too hot on the palm trees though.

Another thing I like about this design is the fact it reflects triangular elements of the TransAmerica pyramid, but in a much more modern design.

NovaWolverine

August 10th, 2007, 08:14 PM

3 by far

krudmonk

August 10th, 2007, 08:17 PM

I like the second one but it'll be shot down for having palm trees. That's too Los Angeles, right?

LouisvilleJake

August 10th, 2007, 08:31 PM

The SOM proposal is just awesome. I love it.

I also like the first rendering.

The Pelli is just so...Pelli. Really?

Jayayess1190

August 10th, 2007, 09:00 PM

I like the second and third, not sure which one I like more.

gladisimo

August 10th, 2007, 10:16 PM

I think these towers are all a bit too tall, i'd rather have them split into a couple that are 1000' or so each.

Don't look too good for the skyline, too much of a jump.

Of course, I choose third if i had to, 1 is just outright ugly.

edsg25

August 10th, 2007, 10:38 PM

SOM...by far. It looks more like the original concept of NYC's Freedom Tower than the current design looks.

Loved the roof garden of the Pelli proposal, but I guess a glassed in atrium setting gave me more concern about the interior than the amenity the roof garden would offer.

My hope: any future super talls in SF be built south of Market and narrow...which SOM seems to have met on both counts.

I can't think of any spot north of Market that wouldn't be totally thrown out of whack by a building like this one, so i am more than happy with where it would be.

Bond James Bond

August 10th, 2007, 10:58 PM

Tough choice. I like the base of the SOM one, but the tower part of the Rogers one I like best. So I'll call it a tie.

Bond James Bond

August 10th, 2007, 11:00 PM

I mean, c'mon peeps, this is just too cool not to build!

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

nygirl

August 11th, 2007, 12:30 AM

SOM all the way. I would also like to add that I would be very proud to have both the Pelli & Som designs in my city. Incredible. Supertall cali! Som base is fking amazing.

edsg25

August 11th, 2007, 02:02 AM

I like the second one but it'll be shot down for having palm trees. That's too Los Angeles, right?

winter gardens and atriums oftenhave palm trees....certainly evenin the North. I see nothing inconsistent to see them indoors in the new terminal...any more so than outdoors along the Embarcadero or on streets in the Mission.

nygirl

August 11th, 2007, 02:08 AM

I am officially envious.

Westsidelife

August 11th, 2007, 02:11 AM

I like the SOM one the most. The Richard Rogers proposal looks like it belongs in Hong Kong and the Cesar Pelli proposal is too simple.

soup or man

August 11th, 2007, 02:15 AM

How do you think LA feels? But we have Park 5th so we can't complain. Much.

1 looks like the Golden Gate Bridge and the Sutro Tower gave birth. It looks God awful.

2 is really nice and clean if not a bit boring.

3 is an embarassement of beauty. It looks like it's wearing a cloak. It's only the third time that I can say that this is as close to a perfect skyscraper as you can get (the other 2 is Bank of China and Signature in Nashville).

Westsidelife

August 11th, 2007, 02:22 AM

^I say let San Francisco have it. Los Angeles has had the privilege of having the "Tallest on the West Coast" title for years now and it should be passed on to our classy neighbor to the north. San Francisco only had the title for a year or so I believe before the Aon Center eclipsed the Transamerica Pyramid.

soup or man

August 11th, 2007, 02:25 AM

Oh I totally agree. San Francisco is LA's prettier sister to the north.

We still hate Barry Bonds though.

globill

August 11th, 2007, 05:06 AM

seems unanimous...

1. Ghastly
2. Pelli
3. Winner. Would be a shame not to see the SOM rise in SF.

edsg25

August 11th, 2007, 11:19 AM

what truly amazes me is that the architects that designed #1 thought they would have a prayer in hell of having such a building built in San Francisco. I cannot imagine a design less in tune with the nature of the city than this one. It is a virtually anti-San Francisco structure that belongs somewhere on a come-look-at-me Asian skyline, not in the man-and-nature built beauty of San Francisco.

The building should offically be named An Exercise In Futility. What a waste of time.

Bay2Bay

August 11th, 2007, 08:38 PM

I love the sweep of the SOM, it has a gracefulness that is reminiscent of the Eiffel Tower.

Bond James Bond

August 11th, 2007, 11:49 PM

Tough choice. I like the base of the SOM one, but the tower part of the Rogers one I like best. So I'll call it a tie.
Y'know, now that I think about it, I think the Rogers tower would look great in Chicago or Hong Kong or some other city, but as a couple people have pointed out, it just does not fit in SF very well. So I throw my full preference behind the SOM design.

Unionstation13

August 12th, 2007, 03:58 AM

reminds me of final fantasy video games. =/

eweezerinc

August 12th, 2007, 08:26 AM

Y'know, now that I think about it, I think the Rogers tower would look great in Chicago or Hong Kong or some other city, but as a couple people have pointed out, it just does not fit in SF very well. So I throw my full preference behind the SOM design.

I agree. I think that the Rogers would actually look very cool in Chicago.. Not sure why.
I don't HATE the design like everyone else does. There is a certain large part of me that is attracted to the less sweeping and gentle design.

edsg25

August 12th, 2007, 03:22 PM

I agree. I think that the Rogers would actually look very cool in Chicago.. Not sure why.

Chicago is about great architecture and wanting the best. Buildings are about fitting in and enhancing the skyline and this building clearly does not qualify. I think the Rogers design is as anti-Chicago as it is anti-San Francisco.

krazeeboi

August 12th, 2007, 08:23 PM

I think the Rogers building would look better without the side railing panel thingeys.

I like Pelli's, but I'd have to go with the SOM proposal.

Silicon Francisco

August 12th, 2007, 09:01 PM

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20the%20golden%20gate%20bridge.jpg
:ohno: If only it had palm trees then it would work in SF.

mongozx

August 12th, 2007, 11:37 PM

SupahSaints

August 13th, 2007, 12:06 AM

The first one doesn't look right in SF. The building also looks like it's unfinished with the scaffoldings in place. The second one by Ceasar Pelli (one of my fav architiects) reminds me too much of a copycat of the Bank of China tower in Hong Kong. The 3rd proposal is the best one....hope it wins. But I have faith SF won't have the tallest one for long. LA will build one taller than that one day soon. :banana:

Bond James Bond

August 13th, 2007, 01:46 AM

Chicago is about great architecture and wanting the best. Buildings are about fitting in and enhancing the skyline and this building clearly does not qualify. I think the Rogers design is as anti-Chicago as it is anti-San Francisco.
I disagree. The Rogers tower has a very "industrial" look to it which is fairly common in Chicago. The Hancock Tower and a whole bunch of other skyscrapers there are just like that.

http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/ChicagoSkyline.jpg

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20the%20golden%20gate%20bridge.jpg

krudmonk

August 13th, 2007, 01:59 AM

http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/ChicagoSkyline.jpg

http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/aerial%20view%20looking%20towards%20the%20golden%20gate%20bridge.jpg
You're comparing two antenna towers to a big, red exoskeleton?

edsg25

August 13th, 2007, 02:05 AM

I disagree. The Rogers tower has a very "industrial" look to it which is fairly common in Chicago. The Hancock Tower and a whole bunch of other skyscrapers there are just like that.

[img]http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/ChicagoSkyline.jpg[/img

Let me get this straight: a view of near north side of Chicago, removed from Chicago industry and developed for so much of its 20th century history on a Parisian model that became augmented by new buldings for basically the good life style is about an industrial look?

I can't imagine where that comes from? Did the architects of the Chicago school of architecture have any attachment to an industrial look? Did Mies van der Rhode and the international style relate to industry? I thought it was about form following function.

Don't get me wrong, Bond, I realize that no insult to Chicago architecture was the least bit suggested by you, nor am I in a defensive mode here about Chicago. It's just I don't think any of us in Chicago see our skyline as having any special sort of industrial link, nor do we believe the architects who designed our buildings paid any reference to industry in the designs they made.

Chicago is not really the "anything goes" type of skyline; a lot of attention is given to what goes up in town.

To be fair to you, please explain to us how Chicago differs from cities like NY, SF, Houston, Miami, Boston, LA, etc., in conveying any sor tof an industrial look. I just don't see it.

Bond James Bond

August 13th, 2007, 03:04 AM

Here's what I mean. I don't know if "industrial" is the right word, but to me that's a good way to describe this. I've noticed that Chicago has lots of towers with exposed steel, multiple "industrial-looking" spires at the top, etc. - a sort-of "aggressive" look. This is in contrast to a city like SF where towers tend to be sleek and reserved.

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/CAI/Images/TheLoop/DaleyCenter-004.jpg

http://www.chicagosnapshot.com/cs/archives/blackwhite/123103_hancock.jpg

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/CAI/Images/TheLoop/SearsTower-010.jpg

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/CAI/Images/GoldCoast/900NorthMichigan-006.jpg

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Images/TheLoop/225WestWackerDrive-005.jpg

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/CAI/Images/TheLoop/311SouthWacker-006.jpg

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Images/TheLoop/BoeingHeadquarters-001.jpg

Now, the Rogers tower would fit in well with all that. Maybe the spires at the top are a bit overdone, but overall I think it would fit in well in Chicago.

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

cajun504

August 13th, 2007, 03:58 AM

If I had to pick one, it would be 2, just becouse of the ground level. But I would like to see 2 & 3.

arturo

August 13th, 2007, 06:56 PM

I never liked the idea of these Transbay towers being too tall. 1200-1300 ft is way too tall for this particular skyline and as you can see from that render ^^ it sticks out like a sore thumb. I hope they pare it down to about 900-1000 ft. Even SOM's proposal would look as beautiful if cut down to that height. Probably even better and would blend in with BofA, Wells Fargo, Millenium, etc etc.

Even at 1300ft the Transbay Tower wouldnt really stick out because the plan is to have other tall buildings around it. That area would become the new peak in the skyline:

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

edsg25

August 13th, 2007, 09:22 PM

Bond, I respect your opinion, but I don't quite see it that way. Those same X's on Chicago's Hancock play out on SF's Alcoa.

As for San Fancisco's skyline, i like it but it really isn't very San Franciscan and cetainly not sleek and reserved in my eyes when compared with other cities. So many SF buildings have flat roofs. In fact, I often felt that Atlanta's more spired skyline or even the lower Manhattan of an earlier era would have been more in tune with SF than the present skyline.

Certainly there is nothing sleek and reserved about Transamerica, B of A, the Marriot Jukebox, the hulking St. Francis tower. In my eyes, the most sleek and reserved buildings would be those in Embarcadero Center (save for the Hyatt).

Shawn

August 14th, 2007, 10:32 AM

Cesar Pelli's one-trick pony is starting to get a bit stale. Just how many more times will he be able to mod this design into something "new"?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1006/southstationrenderingni5.jpg

This is South Station Tower (Boston), currently undergoing site prep work and scheduled for completion in late 2008. While not exactly identical to his other works, the massing and form are very similar to everything else Pelli has recently done.

I'm not saying his SF proposal is unattractive; on the contrary, it looks quite sharp. The problem I have is that no matter how sharp it looks, it's still makes me think of 2IFC in HK or 30 Hudson in Jersey City or The Landmark in Abu Dhabi or Atago Greens in Tokyo or . . . you get the idea.

Shawn

August 14th, 2007, 10:55 AM

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2003/12/232692.jpg
Atago Green Hills

http://i1.tinypic.com/mt3u45.jpg
The Landmark

http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/2ifc05.jpg
2IFC

http://newyorkssixth.com/directory/images/waterfrontsouth/goldman10.jpg
30 Hudson

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1006/southstationrenderingni5.jpg
South Station Tower

http://www.skyscrapers.cn/images/asia/cn/hk/ifc1.jpg
1IFC

Even Bloomberg Tower shares a lot of the same design principles found throughout Pelli's other signature towers:

http://www.geocities.com/nyskyscrapers/bloombergtower.jpg

Again, I'm not saying that individually any of these towers are bad (taken one at a time, I actually find them to be quite nice); I just think SF should aim for something a little more unique and a little less Two-International-Finance-Centre-but-different-sorta.

xXFallenXx

August 14th, 2007, 11:08 AM

the SOM is just too damn classly not to build. it has to be one of the best skyscrapers ever to be built (if it is).

OettingerCroat

August 15th, 2007, 07:14 PM

SOM BY FAR

TICONLA1

August 16th, 2007, 01:43 AM

I would go for the Pelli design if it did not taper off to the top, but instead was uniformaly vertical to the top.
Rogers, i like his work very much, but this is not a San Fransico building, if it were closer in design to the Index tower in dubai, but not a copy i might go for it.
So i guess i'll go for the SOM proposal, it (in my opinion) tapers to much also, but it would be great to watch the exterior structural elements being erected, and it is not to overwhelming, it COULD be a San Fransico building.

*NOR CAL*

August 16th, 2007, 09:17 AM

the 3rd HAS to be the one.. it's just too great.

2nd is nice and clean looking but I mean, it looks like that one in China or something.

psfca

August 16th, 2007, 07:32 PM

The SOM design is the best one IMO. I hope this one is chosen :) :) :) :) :)

Gary_A_Hill

August 16th, 2007, 08:53 PM

I like the second one but it'll be shot down for having palm trees. That's too Los Angeles, right?

Unfortunately, there are palm trees in San Francisco already. They don't belong here. They do nothing to improve the environment, as do native redwoods, and are merely an affectation of a certain class of designers, in my opinion.

krudmonk

August 17th, 2007, 02:45 AM

Unfortunately, there are palm trees in San Francisco already. They don't belong here. They do nothing to improve the environment, as do native redwoods, and are merely an affectation of a certain class of designers, in my opinion.
What's wrong with having all kinds? Palms are relatively benign, without invasive and destructive roots like said massive conifers.

The more trees and more varieties...the better, no?

Gary_A_Hill

August 17th, 2007, 04:41 AM

What's wrong with having all kinds? Palms are relatively benign, without invasive and destructive roots like said massive conifers.

The more trees and more varieties...the better, no?

No. Better is to use varieties appropriate to the setting. Admittedly, conifers are not appropriate as street trees, but a small grove of redwoods here and there in an urban California setting adds something. The palms which are objectionable (in my opinion) are the ones with very tall, bare stems, and a small clump of green 100 feet in the air. These are used merely for visual effect by California landscape architects. They add nothing useful in the way of shade or oxygenation. I'm guessing some architects like them because they don't obstruct the view of their overwrought works.

ALKUN

August 17th, 2007, 05:52 AM

I THINK THIS IS THE BEST DESIGN.
IT LOOKS REALLY GREAT FOR A CITY LIKE SAN FRANCISCO.

3.Skidmore Owings Merrill Proposal

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

PDXPaul

August 17th, 2007, 08:36 AM

I love the SOM design but I'm even more excited about TBT. But is this really going to happen? I mean come on, this is San Francisco, I mean really, 1200 feet with 1000ft evil helpers right next to it. Casting giant shadows that blot out the sun, because we can't build buildings taller than mountains ooooh ahhhhh! I mean I just heard about that proposal by the Gap guy, but shit the first thing that came to my mind was "Please, please no one protest this..."

Maybe I'm being too negative, I mean stuff has changed... some... but I'm still skeptical. I'll be happy when they break ground...

modestproposal

August 17th, 2007, 08:56 PM

They're all gorgeous. The last 2 do not look very original though...gorgeous nonetheless.

krudmonk

August 17th, 2007, 09:37 PM

Looking at the first one again, I think the red is what really kills it. It wouldn't look so obnoxious in a more mild color scheme.

arturo

August 17th, 2007, 09:55 PM

No. Better is to use varieties appropriate to the setting. Admittedly, conifers are not appropriate as street trees, but a small grove of redwoods here and there in an urban California setting adds something. The palms which are objectionable (in my opinion) are the ones with very tall, bare stems, and a small clump of green 100 feet in the air. These are used merely for visual effect by California landscape architects. They add nothing useful in the way of shade or oxygenation. I'm guessing some architects like them because they don't obstruct the view of their overwrought works.

i like a balance of palms, redwoods and native oaks. but palms are good for a number of reasons:

1) no desctructive root system
2) require little water
3) less upkeep than trees (prune once every 12-18 mos.)
4) dont produce a lot of organic waste like leaves and sap
5) we live in california for the sun! palms block little of it! :)

emanuv

August 20th, 2007, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by mongozx http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=14761855#post14761855)
I never liked the idea of these Transbay towers being too tall. 1200-1300 ft is way too tall for this particular skyline and as you can see from that render ^^ it sticks out like a sore thumb. I hope they pare it down to about 900-1000 ft. Even SOM's proposal would look as beautiful if cut down to that height. Probably even better and would blend in with BofA, Wells Fargo, Millenium, etc etc.

Originally posted by arturo http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=14679798#post14679798)
Even at 1300ft the Transbay Tower wouldnt really stick out because the plan is to have other tall buildings around it. That area would become the new peak in the skyline:

Originally Posted by Skyman http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=14679798#post14679798)
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFrumoredshrp.jpg

"Transamerica wanted a taller building (350.5m) but the city planning commission would not approve it because it interfered with precious views of San Francisco."

Are we sure that city planning commission would approve Transbay Tower?!? ...I haven't made up my mind yet.:ohno:

The US Bank Tower(LA) was designed to withstand an earthquake of 8.3 on the Richter Scale....while during the 7.1-magnitude Bay Area earthquake in 1989, the Transamerica Pyramid top swayed nearly a foot from side to side.:uh:

What about the design of Transbay Tower?!?

P.S.: ...that's pretty well!:okay:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8479/pageresized294gr9.jpg

arturo

August 20th, 2007, 09:35 PM

the sf plannign commission seems likely to approve these towers. after the high rise boom of the 70s the city turned its back on them but in the last 10 years has accepted that it's the only option they have. the resurgence of the area between market st and pac bell park is proving to be the place to build these new generation skyscrapers– tall and slender– as few will complain.

i think part of it is also san francisco's ego: the city feels it's losing out to la and san jose and wants to reclaim its place on the local and national level.

Robert Stark

August 21st, 2007, 12:41 AM

"Transamerica wanted a taller building (350.5m) but the city planning commission would not approve it because it interfered with precious views of San Francisco."

Are we sure that city planning commission would approve Transbay Tower?!? ...I haven't made up my mind yet.:ohno:

The US Bank Tower(LA) was designed to withstand an earthquake of 8.3 on the Richter Scale....while during the 7.1-magnitude Bay Area earthquake in 1989, the Transamerica Pyramid top swayed nearly a foot from side to side.:uh:

What about the design of Transbay Tower?!?

P.S.: ...that's pretty well!:okay:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8479/pageresized294gr9.jpg

love the design for the transbay but I don't care for the proposed skyline.

Johnny Drama

August 21st, 2007, 04:57 AM

holy shit. Look at that SOM building! I think we have winner and the second best proposed skyscraper (after the Chicago spire, of course)

Dancer

August 21st, 2007, 05:20 AM

OMG! I like SOM's design but Richard Rogers Proposal still has my jaw on the floor. You lucky ****! :cheers1:

emanuv

August 21st, 2007, 02:44 PM

i think part of it is also san francisco's ego: the city feels it's losing out to la and san jose and wants to reclaim its place on the local and national level.
what am I supposed to think about this?I realize that you come from san jose...:laugh:

The most high skyscraper of LA were built in 80s/90s...
sf plannign commission have change idea only 3 deacade later?!?:sly:

krudmonk

August 21st, 2007, 06:20 PM

what am I supposed to think about this?I realize that you come from san jose...:laugh:
Are you denying to animosity shown toward SJ and especially LA? We have no real reason to be hated, and yet we are for stupid reasons like having more people or Silicon Valley/Hollywood industry.

emanuv

August 21st, 2007, 07:57 PM

^^
I'm in love with SF...the second most densely populated major city in the U.S.
Surely there are some commonplaces...as you said...about LA...but everyone has a right to his own opinion!

so....please...don't lose one's temper!

The most high skyscraper of LA were built in 80s/90s...
sf plannign commission have change idea only 3 deacade later?!?:sly::|

arturo

August 21st, 2007, 08:49 PM

what am I supposed to think about this?I realize that you come from san jose...:laugh:

The most high skyscraper of LA were built in 80s/90s...
sf plannign commission have change idea only 3 deacade later?!?:sly:

well i live in san jose, but work near san francisco. i spend t least one day a week in sf or oakland so i'd say i'm pretty pan-bay area. i love san jose, but i also love every other city in the bay.

and the main reason the planning commission is now coming around to skyscrapers again is because a new part of the city (SOMA) has opened up to new construction. the main opposition in the 70s/80s came from residents in north beach/russian hill/nob hill because they were having their views of the bay blocked by the new buildings. the proposed builings now are well south of these neighborhoods and block very few peoples views.

LionKing

August 21st, 2007, 08:54 PM

1. Roger's building : Too macho, too industrial, too heavy-handed, convoluted and un-refined. Not deserving to be in an advanced civilization like SF/Bay Area.
2. Pelli's building : Been there, seen that. Too copy cat, too simple, not original enough for a one of a kind city that is SF. How can he even think of proposing something like this that has already been done in other cities? Does he not think SF deserves to have something totally unique? The only plus in this design is the roof top garden.
3. SOM building : Not too soft, not too hard, just right for SF. It's original, complex, cutting edge, dramatic, high taste. It displays the advanced technical know-hows of SF/Bay Area to conceive and then execute the un-conventionals. The spirit of free moving form, the boldness and creativeness that has made this area the high tech/biotech/IT mecca of the world are all in display here. It's a SF building - I LOVE IT.

emanuv

August 21st, 2007, 09:15 PM

well i live in san jose, but work near san francisco. i spend t least one day a week in sf or oakland so i'd say i'm pretty pan-bay area. i love san jose, but i also love every other city in the bay.
It was a real quip...naturally!
...luckily... aroused bitter controversy...only with krudmonk.

and the main reason the planning commission is now coming around to skyscrapers again is because a new part of the city (SOMA) has opened up to new construction. the main opposition in the 70s/80s came from residents in north beach/russian hill/nob hill because they were having their views of the bay blocked by the new buildings. the proposed builings now are well south of these neighborhoods and block very few peoples views.
well...let us hope all goes well...and residents in south beach, union square,theater district,civic center will be quiet!:)

NickABQ

August 21st, 2007, 11:40 PM

I am torn between Pelli's and SOM...think I would go with the last one though.

emanuv

August 21st, 2007, 11:48 PM

I am torn between Pelli's and SOM...think I would go with the last one though.
:cheers:

have anybody see the official site of SOM?
Moving San Francisco into the Future (http://www.som.com/content.cfm/moving_san_francisco_into_the_future) ...not only project details but there are also some animations...

StevenW

August 22nd, 2007, 01:52 AM

^^ Awesome! Thanks! :)

I love the SOM WITH the Pelli Garden. :D

krudmonk

August 22nd, 2007, 02:26 AM

Looking at it again, that archway at the base looks rather invasive.

LionKing

August 22nd, 2007, 06:18 AM

Looking at it again, that archway at the base looks rather invasive.I have to agree. It's a bit suffocating with all those metal "hulls" on a rather smallish enclosure. Get rid of it and do some vertical gardening.

emanuv

August 22nd, 2007, 03:12 PM

The second one by Ceasar Pelli (one of my fav architiects) reminds me too much of a copycat of the Bank of China tower in Hong Kong.
...you meant Two International Finance Centre!:tongue4:
http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixwm/2003/12/232692.jpg
http://www.skyscraperpicture.com/2ifc05.jpg
2IFC

I just think SF should aim for something a little more unique and a little less Two-International-Finance-Centre-but-different-sorta.
:okay:

2. Pelli's building : Been there, seen that. Too copy cat, too simple, not original enough for a one of a kind city that is SF. How can he even think of proposing something like this that has already been done in other cities? Does he not think SF deserves to have something totally unique? The only plus in this design is the roof top garden.
3. SOM building : Not too soft, not too hard, just right for SF. It's original, complex, cutting edge, dramatic, high taste. It displays the advanced technical know-hows of SF/Bay Area to conceive and then execute the un-conventionals. The spirit of free moving form, the boldness and creativeness that has made this area the high tech/biotech/IT mecca of the world are all in display here. It's a SF building - I LOVE IT.
exactly...that's what I mean.

anyway..Pelli's one is a nice project...I found an animation also about it!
It's a little bit slow loading it...but I counsell patience...:)
Cesar Pelli Proposal (http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf)

JoshuaSantos

August 22nd, 2007, 10:37 PM

1) Roger's - I don't hate this one as much as everyone else. I think this is the most original design and the one that has the most character. It really plays homage to the most famous landmark in SF, the golden gate bridge. Is it ugly by today's standards? Yeah, it probably won't work... but it was built 40 or 50 years ago I think it would make sense in SF.
2) Pelli's - Am I the only one that thinks this one looks like a huge misshapen penis? Or a marijuana blunt? Not a big fan.
3) SOM - Gorgeous building. Looks a little bit like it was attacked by spider man, but it is far and away the best design out of the 3. Has the WOW factor for me.

derek5

August 23rd, 2007, 01:00 AM

I'm going to disagree with most of you. I like Roger's tower the best.

Robert Stark

August 23rd, 2007, 01:20 AM