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

[edsg25]

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]

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

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

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]

reminds me of final fantasy video games. =/

[eweezerinc]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

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]

Originally Posted by eweezerinc

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]

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]

If only it had palm trees then it would work in SF.

[mongozx]

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.

[SupahSaints]

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.

[Bond James Bond]

Originally Posted by edsg25

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.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

You're comparing two antenna towers to a big, red exoskeleton?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Bond James Bond

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]

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.















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.

[cajun504]

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]

Originally Posted by mongozx

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:

Originally Posted by Skyman

[edsg25]

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]

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"?



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]

Atago Green Hills

[img]http://i1.************/mt3u45.jpg[/img]
The Landmark


2IFC


30 Hudson


South Station Tower


1IFC

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



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]

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).