SAN FRANCISCO | Transbay Tower | 326m | 1070ft | 60 fl | Prep

[fooddude]

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

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

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

Any new news?

[Mojeda101]

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

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

[iloveclassicrock7]

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

[ThatOneGuy]

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

[techniques1200s]

Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7

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

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

[fooddude]

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

[Simfan34]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

sfgate.com

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

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

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

Just the way it works every time...

I would express some disappointment too but yesterday I was waiting for a friend sitting on a park bench in an area that happened to be shaded and freezing in the misty May cold (it was probably in the 50s at 11 AM) and I thought how those who argue about retaining all the sun on parks we can are, sadly, correct in this town. At 1200 feet or more, this building would have shaded a major park--Justin Herman Plaza--and that would be unfortunate. At 1000' it will still make the necessary architectural statement and have the necessary effect on the skyline so that's probably the right height for it.

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

value engineering, of course.

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

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

[Simfan34]

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

Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee

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

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

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

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

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

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

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee

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

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

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

[techniques1200s]

Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee

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

Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee

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

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

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

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

Is it efficient to build a supertall in the middle of a village in China? No, but they do it anyway. Why? Because they can. We can too, and we should.

I agree with the spirit of your post entirely but what you think is a village is , well , it's just not .
Wuxi (and that must be what you're referring to) is no rural village . Firstly , in China , people consider anything under 1,000,000 people to be a town .
Secondly , Wuxi is just another huge city in the Yangtze Delta megalopolis . We're talking about an area with like like 70 million people .

Wuxi is to Shanghai what Stockton is to San Francisco .

[Jay]

Originally Posted by techniques1200s

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

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

[iloveclassicrock7]

Originally Posted by Jay

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

Agreed

[SF1977]

Big day for the Transbay neighborhood and tower:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/deve...n-gets-hearing

[fooddude]

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

[SF1977]

Well, it was approved by the Planning Commission:

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

From the Planning Department:

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

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...er_plan_u.html

[fooddude]

Finally!!!!

Yipeeee!

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

Time to move this to the App/UC forum