[craeg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fflint]

Holy Shit!

[LongBeachUrbanist]

Taller and thinner? I'm way interested in the sketches. As well as the engineering assumptions: there's a lot of wind to have to deal with.

[colemonkee]

^ Not to mention seismic forces. So I presume this is in addition to the Transbay towers, no? If so, SF could be getting three towers above 1,000 ft.??

[sf_eddo]

Renzo Piano!!!!!!!!!

[sf_eddo]

^ Not to mention seismic forces. So I presume this is in addition to the Transbay towers, no? If so, SF could be getting three towers above 1,000 ft.??

It seems to me like one of the 1,200 footers would be the actual signature Transbay Tower. But you're right, it's not clear from the article.

[slock]

Per usual, the Chronicle is a lot less clear than the Biz Times. It seems as though it's just the 1st & Mission Parcel, not the Howard or Transbay Tower.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fflint]

I'm finding myself a little too excited about this proposal. It's fucking HAWT!

[SD_Phil]

WoW this seemed to come out of nowhere. Exciting and really it's about time for San Francisco. I'm excited to see the renderings.

[edluva]

wow, that's news. Not one, but two, 1200's and two 900's easily puts SF in the company of Chicago. This proposal would have a dramatic impact on Chicago's skyline.

[Btown]

HOLY SHIT. are we sure that these arent the transbay towers but in fact a brnd new proposal?

[Chase Unperson]

wow, that's news. Not one, but two, 1200's and two 900's easily puts SF in the company of Chicago. This proposal would have a dramatic impact on Chicago's skyline.

Actually it puts SF in the company of NY and Chicago. NY has 5 buildings built or under construction with roof heights of 900ft or greater and Chicago has 7. It puts SF right with NY assuming no other proposals in NY are built that are over 900 feet until after these are done.

They should have no problem getting built in SF with they price they can charge per sq ft. Whoever builds these is going to make a bazillion dollars.

[urban_encounter]

This is wonderful news for San Francisco, as it would dramatically elevate the city's skyline.


It will be interesting to see how this is received around San Francisco and whether or not the NIMBYs
come out in opposition because of the height.

Politcal support is what really matters most, and it appears San Francisco's politicians are ready to raise the
ceiling on it's skyline.


This is going to be fun to watch as it progresses...

[dimondpark]

wow...that intersection is sure busy these days.

[edluva]

Actually it puts SF in the company of NY and Chicago. NY has 5 buildings built or under construction with roof heights of 900ft or greater and Chicago has 7. It puts SF right with NY assuming no other proposals in NY are built that are over 900 feet until after these are done.

They should have no problem getting built in SF with they price they can charge per sq ft. Whoever builds these is going to make a bazillion dollars.

yeah, considering two of these will be taller than both JHC and Aon, they'd be the 2nd and 3rd tallest in Chicago, after the Trump is built. And two of these will be 900 footers. Chicago currently has two 900 footers also. An impressive leap-frog over LA I must say, and right into NY's seat.

[pdxstreetcar]

I hope the towers are attractive

[the94112]

The chronicle has a drawing of them on the front page today, waaaay too thin.

[munkyman]

Don't get me wrong, the heights sound exciting. But these are proposals. The Transbay Towers are proposals. The TransAmerica Pyramid was proposed at 1150', only to be reduced to 850'. Many other buildings were proposed in this city, and never made it off the drawing board. I'm not trying to kill excitement, just trying to remind people that things like this 1) take years and years to propose and flesh out, not to mention years more to build, and also that 2) these proposals meet a great deal of resistance in San Francisco.

[tech12]

And to think, just 3 years ago we were bitching about whether the Millenium tower would actually get built.

TWO 1200's??? Sweet jesus!

[SD_Phil]

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

From the Chronicle. These are obviously not meant to be renderings so I don't think the thinness means anything. I'm assuming the actual design's will be significantly different and of varying widths (least I hope so).

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piano has 1,000-foot buildings in the works for the centers of both London and Boston -- two cities once as tower-wary as San Francisco. In Paris, a 984-foot tower proposal was announced last month for a site 3 miles west of the Eiffel Tower. The architect is Thom Mayne of Santa Monica, who designed the soon-to-open federal complex at Seventh and Mission streets in San Francisco
link (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/22/MNGI6N4GNI1.DTL)

[the94112]

Yes it does, at the bottom on the chronicle it says the height and the width ARE to scale.

[the94112]

It's like the Sears Towers, just taking apart each section.

[SD_Phil]

Yes it does, at the bottom on the chronicle it says the height and the width ARE to scale.

And yet the article itself makes it clear that these will taper so are we seeing the entire tower rendered as slender as the top or the top being made fat for some reason? I don't know. The picture, as I said, clearly isn't 100% accurate in terms of width. That being said the height itself is right. I think it looks good.

And honestly, I think comparisons to the WTC are far too early. We haven't yet seen a design and people (in the article) are already bitching.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

i think the towers are an awesome idea and i cant wait to hear more on the towers. take that L.A.

[plinko]

Forget the trade center and the Sears...

Imagine this...oh yeah and plus two additional towers 300' taller!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Hong%20Kong%20II/IMG_2591.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Hong%20Kong%20II/IMG_2599.jpg

Hell yeah!

[Arriviste]

So Jealous. When I saw Piano's name I was absolutely thrilled. SF is lucky.

[San Frangelino]

5 towers on 2 acres sounds like a mini skyline withing a skyline. I am loving it so far and am hopeful its accomplishable.

[ltsmotorsport]

It's great to hear from the article today that this project is indeed in addition to the Transbay project. Go SF!

[kenratboy]

NO WAY!

This cannot possibly be real - but it must be!

First question is what about infrastructure to support this complex? The city seems unwilling to go thru the pain of serious transit and utility growth for this stuff - you need some hard-core industry to support this stuff (as in, power, water, transportation, trash handing, etc.)

I hope this works out.

[craeg]

Everything I have read about this product has stated that the infrastructure to support this project is already in place.

[J Church]

^^ You know, it's really not that big of a project. It's a tall project, and that will present special challenges, but look again at the specs: a half-million square feet of office, a few hundred condos and a few hundred hotel rooms. And kitty-corner from the soon-to-be biggest transit hub on the West Coast. As for utilities and whatnot--it'll be in a drop in the bucket of downtown.

[kenratboy]

Thats good!

Could anyone even venture a guess as to the sucess of this project - are we 50/50, better, worse?

[botoxic]

Take it with a grain of salt, but this was posted on the socketsite message boards regarding Piano's proposal:

"A friend of mine works in the planning department and he told me they were practically drooling over these plans. Insane property tax base and absolutely NO infrastructure improvements needed. All of it right near transit and these buildings will absolutely flood the city with housing, allowing middle incomers an opportunity to come back in, not here, but in other areas that demand is sucked from by these projects.

The way he was talking about it, these projects can't go up fast enough for the city."

[J Church]

I saw that, but it's a bit of an exaggeration. 600 homes is not a lot in the grand scheme, as Planning well knows. But I don't wanna rain on anyone's parade--I'm sure staff were excited for various reasons, as they should be.

[coyotetrickster]

Everything I have read about this product has stated that the infrastructure to support this project is already in place.


Weighing in late on this, but, having spec'd out that area for a NOC/Internet II fiber drop, I can tell you its got power too spare (dual grid, ample teleconnectivity, plenty o water collection and since trash collection in SF is subcontracted to Norcal, it's easy to add capacity, even on towers as proposed by Choo and friends. Norcal is already ramping up capacity for the residential towers, so a bit more, not an issue. Transit. Really, Mission St. Market St. Three BART/Muni stations no more than five blocks in any direction (except Southeastern/due East). Not to mention the Transbay project and the extension of the Caltrain lines, plus the third street/chinatown subway. From an infrastructure concern, this is a no-brainer... It's all in place.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Sounds like the perfect project! congrats SF! i hope you dont hold the title too long! we'll take it back soon enough, im guessing by mid 2007!

[rs913]

Are there any renderings of what the SF skyline would look like from various directions with these towers added? Could be pretty darned impressive.

Combine it with a new Transbay terminal and SF will experience some major 21st-century transformation.

[botoxic]

Today's Chronicle contained some interesting information. First the good news: San Francisco's need for office space is increasing.

The Article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/29/BUG1QN99UR1.DTL&type=business)

Highlights:
Commercial landlords cashed in this year as vacancy rates dipped across the Bay Area and rents climbed. That's a trend that those in the industry expect to continue into 2007.

Asking rents for office space in San Francisco jumped 13.6 percent year over year to $34.30 per square foot in 2006, according to a preliminary tally by NAI BT, a commercial real estate firm.

Strong demand caused vacancy rates to fall to 10.6 percent in San Francisco, the lowest since the commercial real estate market crash after the dot-com meltdown. The Bay Area vacancy rate peaked in 2003 at 20.4 percent, rising from just 2.1 percent three years earlier at the height of the tech boom.

"Our economy in the Bay Area finally started to show significant improvement in 2006, and the commercial real estate market rebounded accordingly," said Keitaro Matsuda, senior economist at Union Bank of California.

Higher rents are being driven by an influx of new building owners who paid top dollar for property, strong job growth and a dearth of new construction, according to real estate brokers and economists.

Dwindling supply of prime office space is also putting pressure on rents, said Matsuda, the Union Bank economist. When vacancy rates ballooned in the early part of the decade, developers stopped building office space.

"The construction pace has generally been very slow nationally and very much so here in the Bay Area," Matsuda said. "We went through a long period without the significant addition of new space and that also has made the office market tighter as demand has started to surge."

In 2006, less than 300,000 square feet of combined new construction entered the market in San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and along the Interstate 80/880 corridor, compared with almost 2 million in 2002, according to NAI BT.

But that's changing. Tishman Speyer, the New York developer behind the Infinity condominium project that is rising on Rincon Hill, began work on a 33-story office tower at 555 Mission St. this year.

Others may soon follow. Queries from developers about office projects have gone up during the past year, said David Hobstetter, principal of KMD Architects in San Francisco. He attributed much of the interest to a public competition to design a new terminal and build a tower at the Transbay Terminal south of Market Street.

"It's being jump-started South of Market with the upcoming competition and the move on the part of the city to start considering higher height limits," Hobstetter said.

The slowdown of the residential market has also pushed real estate developers to again consider office space, Hobstetter said.

Agents say the recovery of the technology sector and a new wave of startup companies are fueling demand in San Francisco and Silicon Valley. "Tech companies are certainly a driver South of Market," Studley's Barker said. "They are definitely a growth engine."

Microsoft has said it is considering several sites in downtown San Francisco to expand its offices in the Bay Area, including the new Westfield San Francisco Centre mall.

The Bad News (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/29/EDGOULJ71D1.DTL)

The Letters to the Editor section is chock full of negative comments regarding the Piano proposal:

Tall is not necessarily beautiful
Editor -- Where did these guys who are designing these new buildings for Mission Street get their credentials as architects -- on the Internet? I could probably design a better-looking building then what they came up with.

Anyone can create a tall box, but to create a building among world-class grand architects, that's a whole different story. I surely hope, for once, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors doesn't let these monstrosities be built without significant design change. Just look at the new buildings proposed to replace the ones in New York.

When you look at buildings like the Transamerica or Bank America buildings, there you can see world-class design in a large building that had architects with extensive world-design experience.

GEORGE RAMAS
Walnut Creek

Doesn't add up
Editor -- So city planners say we need high-rises to generate tax revenue. The reality is high-rises cost more in terms of necessary city services than the tax money they generate. More firefighters, department of public works workers, sewage lines, etc., add up to a big tax bill. Bottom line -- if all the high-rises built in the last 30 years have brought in so much money, why aren't the cable cars 5 cents instead of $5?

JOE BIELSKI
Benicia

Icons of the ego
Editor -- The audacity of these foreign architects, so eager to put their personal stamp on our city -- I shake my head in amazement. Couple this with our sadly out-of-touch, starry-eyed city planner, and a handful of hypnotized supervisors with dollar signs in their eyes, and this equals a sad future for my beloved hometown.

If commercial space or overpriced residential housing is the goal, why not build five shorter buildings? Why these ridiculous monstrosities under the guise that we somehow need to "redefine" our skyline with new icons? Says who?

The cast of characters overseeing this movement astound me with their complete disregard of history, the character of San Francisco, or what would work best with our natural surroundings. Twin towers in San Francisco? Have these people lost their marbles? And a cluster of vacuous towers representing bamboo shoots? Where are we, Southeast Asia? Come on. We don't need another "iconic" development to define San Francisco, it has already been defined well enough. It's time to see these projects for what they are -- potential iconic tributes to the architects and the developers, not to our fair city.

CYNTHIA PHELAN
San Francisco

Shortsighted planning
Editor -- The issue is not tall. The issue is sustainability.

Yes, tall is a sustainable plan in terms of density. But what if all those new residents drive cars? Tall will only add to pollution and traffic congestion. Whatever happened to San Francisco's "transit first" planning initiative? And what about energy? Will Transbay Tall be a tall energy drain, or, with applications of photovoltaic technologies and other renewable energy options, will it be a net energy exporter such as the buildings for the new plan at Treasure Island?

Boston has just decided to amend its planning and building code to require all large scale development to be sustainable. What about San Francisco? What about the Transbay Tower?

JOHN A. LOOMIS
San Francisco

The long view
Editor -- The thought of very tall buildings in San Francisco makes me sad.

As a renter and environmentalist, I support increases in high-density housing. But as a geographer, I worry about the city losing what makes it special. San Francisco used to have a much more Mediterranean feel to it, with low, light-colored buildings spilling down the hillsides. The juxtaposition of buildings and the natural characteristics of hills and water has always been thrilling to see as one travels around the city itself and the greater Bay Area.

Previous graphics in The Chronicle have shown that proposed much taller buildings will begin to mask the city's natural character. I hope, as part of the environmental review, viewshed analyses not only from within the city but also from the East Bay and other surrounding areas will be considered. I suppose the proposed buildings represent progress, but it still makes me sad.

LAURIE L. WILLIAMS
Vacaville

[Reminiscence]

I dont think these people understand exactly whats going on here, the only things they're looking at are the building diagram and its height. Typical remarks of the standard NIMBY, failing to see both sides of the coin.

[SFView]

Hurry up with those renderings before the people start roaming the streets with torches and pitchforks!

[SoCal]

i think the towers are an awesome idea and i cant wait to hear more on the towers. take that L.A.

ha ha, :lmao: those are nice though, i think they will look beautiful in the skyline

[coyotetrickster]

I dont think these people understand exactly whats going on here, the only things they're looking at are the building diagram and its height. Typical remarks of the standard NIMBY, failing to see both sides of the coin.

All NIMBY Money has only one-side (theirs). I like the fact people who live in Benecia call it their city (as if). As you pointed out, none of these folks have read any of the articles about the Piano project. It's only 600 residents and 520K of office. Yeesh!

[defcon pilot]

I just returned and I'm already wanking! Go go Piano! :)

I dont think these people understand exactly whats going on here, the only things they're looking at are the building diagram and its height. Typical remarks of the standard NIMBY, failing to see both sides of the coin.

Seconded.

[FourOneFive]

I just returned and I'm already wanking!

that just doesn't sound right to me... ;)

[BTinSF]

I dont think these people understand exactly whats going on here, the only things they're looking at are the building diagram and its height. Typical remarks of the standard NIMBY, failing to see both sides of the coin.

Agreed. I'm willing to bet the towers design, when we can see it, is not two ultra-elongated boxes like the diagram showed. If they turn out to, in fact, be round or even spiral (a la Chicago) or some other more interesting shape, they would look totally different--and better--than the diagram.

Also, I wonder if the "deciders" actually pay any attention to the opinions of people who cannot vote (and do not pay taxes) in San Francisco such as many of the writers of letters to the Chron.

PS: Glad I logged on in spite of the limitation of a dial-up only connection here in vacation-land (Florida).

[briankendall]

Yeah the Chronicle article stated that only the upper 300 feet of each tower would be 8,000 sq. feet or 90 x 90 so I am assuming from that that they taper off towards the top although the bases can't be that big though given that its 5 towers on 2 acres.

[rs913]

I like the fact people who live in Binecia call it their city (as if).

Exactly. They're not even NIMBYs...they're NIYBYs, which are even more annoying.

There's another thread discussing a similar, skyline-changing Renzo Piano proposal (1000') in Boston. Boston Thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=99004)

[SFView]

My guess is that the floor plan for the top 300' is not square. Something more like 50' x 160' seems to work, but that is where my guessing stops. The Chronical diagrams may still not be entirely accurate, and the real designs could also change. Remember how much Infinity and One Rincon changed from the early renderings? We still do not even have the first renderings from the architectect for the Piano towers yet.

[defcon pilot]

that just doesn't sound right to me... ;)

Cmon, reach out and touch yourself dude! :notacrook:

[J_Taylor]

I just returned and I'm already wanking! Go go Piano! :)


That reminds me of a story a friend told me of his trip to Thailand:yes:

Anyway I cant wait to see the drawings:tup:

[botoxic]

8000 sf per floor is almost exactly the size of Rincon I, which has dimensions of approximately 100' x 80'.

If we assume 100 floors in each of the tallest two towers, 75 each in the middle two, and 50 floors in the short tower, the 8000 sf per floor figure pretty much applies throughout the entire complex.

Already I'm envisioning one Rincon, plus two Rincons 1.5 times as tall, and two Rincons twice as tall, only more cylindrical (like bamboo), and colored terra cotta reddish-pink!

Not nearly as skinny as depicted in the Chronicle graphic, and sure to make an AMAZING impact on the skyline!

[kenratboy]

There sure won't be a lot of room left on those bottom floors with the huge core needed for the 70, 80, 90 floors above!

It will be like Transamerica...but upside down!!!