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

[yankee fan for life]

Is this San Francisco first super tall ?

[RegentHouse]

Why did they add the slit? WHY?

[tim1807]

Originally Posted by yankee fan for life

Is this San Francisco first super tall ?

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by PinkFloyd

You forgetting about the US Bank Tower?

true, still the US Bank Tower will be the tallest building on the west coast to roof height upon completion of this tower and the Wilshire Grand

[Kenny]

Wait, how will the US Bank Building still be the tallest? It tops off at 310 mts.

[PinkFloyd]

At the end of the day, it will be a personal opinion on what counts as height and what doesn't. USB will have the highest roof. Large parapets, crowns, or spires are added purely for visual effect.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by PinkFloyd

1070 feet is not to the roof. There's an added architectural parapet. The roof will be at 920 feet if I remember correctly.

[IMG]http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%20Street%20Rendering%20-%20Tower%20Crown.jpg[IMG]
www.socketsite.com

And it had to be tapered inward to avoid the shadows that forced a height reduction from 1,200 ft. It's weird that the one tower allowed to go that high in San Fran is sited so near parks covered by shade ordinances!

Originally Posted by yankee fan for life

Is this San Francisco first super tall ?

First and possibly last. This tower is a creature of the need to finance a huge public project. Any ordinary supertall proposal would have been cockblocked to hell and back by the NIMBYs and the craven politicos that pander to them.

[theskythelimit]

Originally Posted by desertpunk

And it had to be tapered inward to avoid the shadows that forced a height reduction from 1,200 ft. It's weird that the one tower allowed to go that high in San Fran is sited so near parks covered by shade ordinances!

Where else are they gong to put it up, out in the Bay? Because this is where it would be as not to cast a shadow in Union Square or else where. The only other option is to shorten it and even the controversial former Supervisor of that District, C.Daily, wanted the height.One of the biggest controversies surrounding the tower's design was the issue of the building's considerable shadow. The structure is projected to cast a shadow over downtown parks as far away as Chinatown's Portsmouth Square. San Francisco is a very dense City and the options are limited.

In the mid-1980s, San Francisco voters approved a law aimed at curbing the growth of the city's downtown core by requiring all newly constructed buildings casting a shadow over city parks first gain approval from both the Planning and Recreation and Parks commissions. Both bodies have given the tower their blessings

[/QUOTE]
First and possibly last. This tower is a creature of the need to finance a huge public project. Any ordinary supertall proposal would have been cockblocked to hell and back by the NIMBYs and the craven politicos that pander to them. [/QUOTE]

I disagree and believe this is just the beginning. The Cities population is expected to grow 100 K + over the next 15 years and these people will be working in the City as Companies continue to grow. The suburban campuses might have been attractive 10 years ago but a lot of the population is returning to the City whereas 20 years ago they were heading to the suburbs.

[PinkFloyd]

http://gossipy.co/sportsnews/new-gol...re-pretty-neat

http://urbaninitiativ3.com/updated-r...-new-sf-arena/

[Simfan34]

boring



Bring this back!

[Gendo]

Originally Posted by Simfan34

boring

Bring this back!

Heck, why not build them both?

[techniques1200s]

Originally Posted by Gendo

Heck, why not build them both?

We can also wish for trees that grow money

I like the Pelli design, even if it is more boring than the SOM design, and despite it being reminiscent of half the other towers Pelli has done. I think it will fit in pretty well in SF's skyline, though I'm still not sure whether I like it better with or without the "slits" in the crown.

Anyway, the reason that tower design was chosen over SOM was because the Pelli team had a better/more functional terminal, and was offering a lot more money for the land than the SOM team was. Tower design wasn't the primary motivation behind which project got chosen.

But in addition to the Transbay Tower, SF will soon be getting an 802' tower around half a block away from the Transbay tower site, at 181 Fremont, and possibly 915' and 750' towers, both just a block or so away as well...it's not another 1,000+ footer with that cool SOM design, but it's not a bad line up (181 Fremont has a nice design, reminiscent of the Bank of China tower, and the 915' one is actually by SOM too and also looks good, but there are no designs for the 750' one yet), especially in a city where a decade or two ago it seemed impossible that anything above 500' could get build.

[Eric Offereins]

Originally Posted by PinkFloyd

http://gossipy.co/sportsnews/new-gol...re-pretty-neat

http://urbaninitiativ3.com/updated-r...-new-sf-arena/

cool renders! I had not realized it would be that much taller than the other buildings.

[techniques1200s]

Originally Posted by Eric Offereins

cool renders! I had not realized it would be that much taller than the other buildings.

The height is actually exaggerated in all of those renderings, and the 3rd one down also has the tower in the wrong place and orientation. The tower looks like it ranges from 1,200-1,400 feet tall in those renderings, when the true height is of course 1,070' tall.