[BTinSF]

^^^PLEASE write him yourself. Let's flood him with letters letting him know that these buildings have a constituency in 21st century San Francisco because it isn't the 1970s anymore.

[tyler82]

^^^PLEASE write him yourself. Let's flood him with letters letting him know that these buildings have a constituency in 21st century San Francisco because it isn't the 1970s anymore.

He interviewed a guy who moved here after college in 1965, meaning he is in his late 60s, early 70s. Come on John! Your biases are so incredibly visible now, you are going back and baiting the generations of years past who agree with you in a pathetic attempt to somehow prove that this old far is a mirror of the entire community of SF, when in fact it is the minority. How about the young generations, who want to make SF their home and will have to live with the consequences of opinions of people who will be dead by the time this thing is built.

[Reminiscence]

My open letter to John King:

Very nice, with a hint of sarcasm, I love it. :)

[Reminiscence]

Here's the comment I gave on his story:

I find Mr. King's columns more and more biased every time I read them. I greatly back Transbay as it signals a time of change. I think San Francisco has been plagued for too long by people who reject change and prefer to keep things the way they've been for the last 100 years. Its those people who need to leave the city and move into a small town that wont change for the rest of their lifetimes. Leave those that embrace the sight of change and growth in the city to dictate where the future of SF will go. Personally, I am dissapointed that SOM is currently not on top of the three designs to choose from but I am excited that Transbay is even happening to begin with, as something like this only comes by once a millenia (at least in SF). I, myself, a 20 year old, should have among the strongest voices here as it is I who will be living in the future SF that we choose to build starting now. Sure, I like the victorians and all that too but change should not be viewed as a negative by us.

The damage doesnt stop there, I'm planning quite an e-mail as well.

[Reminiscence]

Finally, here is my e-mail to Mr. King. Its not as good as BT's but I did my part to get my voice heard :).

Dear Mr. King:

I've read your articles for some time now, and I've resisted sounding off on each of them week after week. However, I can do so no longer. Your bias, along with other people who share your opinion against tall buildings, is unbearable. For example, in your last article you choose to quote people who have little or no knowledge of what beautiful architecture can be. Tall buildings are being built as I speak, or have already been built all over the world, and the people have embraced them as symbols of the city and the city's skyline. Clearly, your repeated stance againt tall buildings is becoming somewhat irritating, not just to me, but to a great deal of people welcoming this new change in San Francisco. The way you write your articles makes it seem like we who like tall buildings are a minority, when in fact we are now a majority supporting a common cause. I for one, do not think 1200 feet is enough, they can do much better than that. Perhaps you should concider those of us who greatly support this endeavor to bring a bold symbol to the world from San Francisco before you choose to write articles from people claiming to know what good looking buildings are. You shall find plenty of up here at this forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136300&page=48). As others have stated, you will not find a warming welcome as you have rejected us for too long. Nevertheless, please make an effort to cover both sides of the story in equal fashion.

Mario,
San Francisco/Chicago

[tyler82]

The weird irony over this whole situation is that I really do believe that if SOMs proposal were chosen, most San Franciscans would get behind it, even some of the NIMBYs. I've read some of their comments, declaring they hate the Pelli proposal because it is "phallic" (perhaps they just need to get LAID!), bulky, etc., but at the same time, saying they would have not such a problem if the SOM tower were built. It is an art piece, and would add grace to the skyline. That is why I hope hope hope that the TJPA listens to US instead of the $$$. If they still have to find a way to come up with over a billion dollars to fund the project, then they could probably find a way to come up with the funds short of what SOM and Pelli are proposing.

If SOMs tower were picked, I do believe there would be less of a fight.

[Reminiscence]

In case anyone is wondering how the individual scoring went, here is the table of results posted on Transbay's official website:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/3636/transbayevaluationsheetch1.png

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1600/transbayscoreslh0.png

Source: Transbaycenter.org

[roadwarrior]

In case anyone is wondering how the individual scoring went, here is the table of results posted on Transbay's official website:

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/3636/transbayevaluationsheetch1.png

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1600/transbayscoreslh0.png

Source: Transbaycenter.org

Any insights into how the evaluation process went? Were all evaluators in isolation when making the decisions or did they all gather in a room and verbalize their scores to one another?

I work with clients on evaluations of suppliers. I've noted that when you get a group together in a room, groupthink takes over and bias becomes a major issue.

[BTinSF]

He interviewed a guy who moved here after college in 1965, meaning he is in his late 60s, early 70s.

Tyler--I graduated from college in 1967 and I'm 62 (just). So he's not quite as old as you think. ;)

[roadwarrior]

Tyler--I graduated from college in 1967 and I'm 62 (just). So he's not quite as old as you think. ;)

I believe that age is measured more as a state of mind than in pure numbers. BT, with that measurement, you're fairly young in my book. Unfortunately, most of the people who complain about development in the city tend to be old in both measurements.

[slock]

Gentlemen,

I think we need to focus all of our energy not on John King, but on the TJPA. This is the week.

I belive that many of you favor the SOM proposal, as do I, and I think as Thursday approaches we need to make our perspectives known.

I've been thinking about it, and the more I consider the Pelli proposal, the less I like both its aesthetics and park, but its office only program. And I belive, this is its biggest weakness, and one we should exploit. In fact, the TJPA requested a mixed-use program, and while SOM complied, the Hines/Pelli proposal decided to use an all office configuration to attract attention with the value of its offer.

I have begun writing emails and will not stop until Thursday morning. I am attaching a back and forth with Gabriel Metcalf the head of SPUR in response to his comments in the Biz Times. Feel free to use any ideas in my writings as a starting point to hopefully write emails yourself. The impact of Thursday's decision on the future of the City cannot be understanded, let's make ourselves heard.

******************

Mr. Metcalf,

I want to begin by saying that I am an ardent fan of yours. I agree with you on many issues, from density and development, to a belief that curbing sprawl and inner city regeneration is the key to California and the Bay Area's future. I am always glad to read your opinion pieces both in the Urbanist, and in the San Francisco Business Times, because I agree with them 100%.

I do, however, disagree with your remarks in today's Business Times regarding the Transbay Terminal. I think that SOM is the clear winner in the competition for many reasons, a few of which I will go into very quickly. I think it is of the utmost importance to remember that this is a work in progress. Everyone I have spoken with, and a majority of the online polls and discussion forums, favor SOM by a large margin. It is a truly beautiful design, it is awe-inspiring, grand, and has an aesthetic worthy of San Francisco's newest icon. It is very well incorporated into the urban landscape, and even includes the participation of two local institutions, SFMOMA and the Sutro library. It also has a public element to it, the grand lobby and entrance, which will create one of the most scintillating intersections of any city in the country, will be open to the public. The Transbay Hall will become both a showpiece for the City, a civic gathering place, and a welcome mat for those arriving. With the Sutro Library, the restaurant halfway up the building, the condominiums above, and the observation deck, it is a true landmark that San Franciscans will have access to, be proud of, and feel a part of. This inclusion will also foster interest and enthusiasm for a project that has a rough entitlement and development process ahead of it. With these mixed-uses, a 24 hour vibrance will also exist on site. With people dining, visiting, travelling, commuting, working and living in this building, it will have a connection to the City around it and will become a cross roads for the daily activities of thousands.

Unfortunately, the Pelli proposal runs contrary to many of the aforementioned qualities. The building as proposed is all office. How many office buildings can you walk in and go see the incredible view from the top? How many office buildings can you even get past the lobby? Furthermore, after hours, and on weekends, I am concerned that this building will be dark and empty, with no life around it, and no public accessability. Yes, the park is a nice idea, but over 50 feet in the air with access by funicular, I don't see it being used nearly as often as imagined. I think it might end up more like the park on Crocker Galleria than Yerba Buena Gardens. And with land so valuable, an enclosed hall and terminal like the SOM proposal allows for all-weather use, whereas in rain and cold wind, the Pelli park will be empty and unused. With such an expensive project, I understand that the TJPA is strapped for cash and the terminal's development is of utmost importance. And I know that Hines' offer of $350 million blew the Jury away. But if either the heights are reduced, or a mixed use program within the building becomes part of the plan, will they still be able to offer that amount of money? I think the best proposal should win on merit and be tweaked through the entitlement process, rather than highest bidder with the least daring proposal accepted based on financials.

It is important that San Francisco be bold and cutting-edge in its designs; especially in the most important project in its history. This is a civic project on the grandest of scales. It is to center our region, identify our City, and truly embrace the ideals of the place we live. It will set the development trend for the next several decades. As a LEED Platinum building, the SOM proposal combines a truly beautiful new icon for the City with its engineering prowess, and environmental stewardship, this is the building for San Francisco. This is the building that will turn the page to the next great era of our City. I hope you agree with me - that an attractive, mixed use, publicly accessible building, designed by San Franciscans for San Francisco is the way to go.

***************

Well, thank you for the thoughtful email. And I have to say that I agree with you on most of your points.

My impression, too, is that most people think the SOM design is the most beautiful. But as you might imagine, as an organization, I tried to keep SPUR far away from any comments on which design is the best, or even which proposal as a whole is best. It just doesn't seem appropriate for us to weigh in on that. We have made sure that the process is legitimate and the criteria for selection are valid -- and beyond that we have been willing to trust the process.

That said, my comment in the Business Times concerns the use of the site and here I do think that my own opinion is that it is far better for the city and region if this project is all or mostly office. Here is my reasoning:
1. Downtown, as it was defined in the 1985 Downtown Plan, is almost fully built. We are out of sites.
2. Downtown San Francisco is by far the best place in the region to locate office jobs. Most people get to work without a car, in contrast to every other center job center in the Bay Area, including downtown Oakland and including office parks near BART. The environmental efficiencies of locating jobs in downtown SF are enormous.
3. Therefore we need to expand downtown. As far as we can tell, there are 2 logical directions for expansion: to the south into Transbay and to the west, along Mid-Market. Downtown is hemmed in by Rincon Hill, South Beach, and Yerba Buena in any case. That leaves one last possible remaining expansion zone for downtown, which is the Transbay neighborhood.
4. If we do not expand downtown in Transbay, we are faced with having to create a second downtown somewhere else (like Midtown, I suppose) or else shifting future office jobs into suburban office parks.

My $0.02.

Thanks for taking a minute to write me.

***************


Mr. Metcalf,

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my email, it is much appreciated.

I agree completely with your perspective that the Transbay area is where growth should happen in the coming decades. Supported by past transit investments like MUNI and BART, and future projects like the Central Subway and High Speed Rail, it is the most logical and ecological place in all of Northern California to add offices. San Francisco indeed has limited space for future office development, but more significantly, has limited sites that can be transformed into places for its citizens. Because of this, the Transbay Terminal and Tower should be the exception and truly mixed-use. This tower, with an iconic design, if SOM were selected, would house a place of civic dimension on par with City Hall, Golden Gate Park, and The Ferry Building. In fact, the Ferry Building is the perfect representation of my argument in favor of the SOM proposal, as the Ferry Building's evolution and place in the civic vocabulary correlates with its use at the time. As solely an office structure, and before its genesis as a food market, the Ferry Building was merely a portal, a pass through hallway to the ferry landings beyond. It was neither a destination, nor a part of the fabric of the City. Since its renovation, it has become a gathering place, written up in magazines, newspapers and travel guides, and is a requisite stop on any San Francisco visit. It is a place in which we gather, we linger, and we meet friends -- it has become a destination. The Transbay Terminal can mirror this dramatic transformation, but only if its program follows a similar template. With the Pelli proposal, the Transbay Terminal more closely aligns with the Ferry Building prior to its renovation; mostly office, limited access, and little use for the City's everyday inhabitants. It was a place of hurried passage to further destinations, holding little value in the public's imagination. In strong contrast, the SOM design offers a fluid and permeable place, much like the current iteration of the Ferry Building, with round the clock activity and a cornerstone presence in the City's civic, business, and transportation landscape. In an Associated Press article this weekend about cities transforming their skylines, you mentioned that this will be an exclamation point for San Francisco, a statement of values. But to go one step further, the SOM proposal would re-enforce those values more significantly, because in the public sphere they become an experience, as we meet in that space, live in that space, and greet visitors in that space.

Let's restore the tradition of building on a grand civic scale like those mentioned projects of City Hall, Golden Gate Park, and the Ferry Building. But let's restore the entire tradition and make it accessible to the populace, so they can feel a part of these places and support their presence in the City. A business district in the South Financial made up of tall office towers is something I completely agree with. But from each desk, and out each window, a building will be seen centering this new cluster. My hope is that it is a building alive with its citizenry's interaction, buzzing around the clock, and an emphatic reminder to the City, the Country, and the World, what San Francisco stands for. SOM offers this with their elegant and ground-breaking mixed use proposal. Let's hope that vision is realized.

[Reminiscence]

Very nice Slock, I too have made my opinions known by once again e-mailing the TJPA on my opinion. I literally begged them to reconcider the choice of the judges, and to favor SOM as their final choice. I believe the public is free to comment on the design choices through September 17th, which is tommorow. As said, now is definetly the time to make one last push for what we believe will be the best terminal and tower out there. The rest of us should do the same as well, the time is near.

On a side note, I'm also caught in the middle of a heated debate with another chronicle commenter on Transbay. Its quite amusing as she (or he) has no valid points to offer, and yet continues to argue against the project. Anyone care to join me? :haha:

[tyler82]

On a side note, I'm also caught in the middle of a heated debate with another chronicle commenter on Transbay. Its quite amusing as she (or he) has no valid points to offer, and yet continues to argue against the project. Anyone care to join me? :haha:

I had an exchange with a lady who claimed I wasn't the "real San Franciscan" and that San Francisco is the #2 tourist destination spot in the world and she didn't want SF to become "like LA and New Yawk."

All illogical. All can be disproved immediately. Then when I trumped the benefits of this project, and the fact that its goal is to be LEED certified, she insisted I was one of the developers of the project because I guess I was making too much sense.

Did a little research and found out she was a 60 year old mother of 4 living in MARIN county (SF's Orange County) for the past 25 years.



My letter to the authority:

Hello, I am a San Francisco resident for the past six years. I have written to the TJPA before and have voiced my opinion over the phone on the subject of the new Transbay tower and terminal, as well as attending the first public meeting of the Transbay redevelopment.

I believe that we do need a new landmark in the sky as well as a functional, appealing transit station serving busses, trains, and subways. We need a tower to define our role in the 21st century as an evolving city, changing for the better for the environment and for smart growth.
In my opinion SOM's tower fits these topics best and would be the best option for San Francisco's character and appearance on the world scale, and also the best option for the needs of San Francisco because, unlike the jury's recommendation of Pelli's 100% office tower design, SOM's tower is mixed use with office, residential, and affordable housing, a unique "city in the sky" that would be respected around the world. It fits the message of dense transit, work, and residential use best and the design is so eye catching that we would be the envy of the world for some time to come.

Pelli's proposal just isn't San Francisco. A 1200 foot office tower speaks to the needs of the business community alone, and not the citizens of SF that need a place to live. SOM's grand tower and terminal will make people want to come to San Francisco. The renderings alone make me mesmerized because of the massive scale and context of such human ingenuity.

I really hope that you reconsider the jury's verdict and choose the SOM proposal at its current height and splendor instead.

[peanut gallery]

Great work BT, slock and Reminiscence. I'll send another comment to the TJPA board too.

I can get behind Mr Metcalf's preference for 100% office. And if that view is shared by the board, why not allow Rockefeller to adjust their proposal based on 100% office? Otherwise, they are comparing apples and oranges.

[BTinSF]

Gentlemen,

I think we need to focus all of our energy not on John King, but on the TJPA. This is the week.



You don't think the TJPA Board members READ John King's articles? I sure do. How much time does it divert from a focus directly on the TJPA to dash off an email to John King trying to embarrass him into giving the other side? Mine took maybe 10 minutes. One such article from John King--making very clear that there are large number of San Franciscans who want a tall building--would carry a lot more sway with the TJPA than 5 or 10 individual emails directly to the TJPA I'm betting. Their inbox is probably overflowing and who knows if they even read the contents. I used to work for a Bay Area elected official who shall go nameless and I don't think she ever read her email. I'm less sure if she got summaries--tallies of the pros and cons on issues--from other staff members. But they ALL read the Chronicle and on this issue I bet they all read John King.

By the way, SPUR is a non-profit think tank, the salaries of whose officials are paid by donations and the membership. You bet your bippy they are going to be more responsive to thoughful letters than our elected rulers who set their own salaries.

[BTinSF]

My letter to the TJPA:

Gentlemen:

As you make your decision regarding a design for the new TransBay Terminal and Tower this week, I urge you to keep foremost in your minds the words of Daniel Burnham, "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized." In this instance, "little plans" would refer both to the overall project and to the building itself, especially the tower.

I have no doubt you will receive many communications (and read much more verbiage in the local press from self-appointed "archtecture critics") begging you to downsize the tower and telling you at a height above 1200 feet it is "un-San Franciscan". That is all nonsense. San Francisco is a great city hemmed in by water. It cannot grow horizontally and, if it is to grow at all, it must do so vertically. If it does not learn to do that--to grow tall--in an environmentally sensitive way, it will stagnate.

This building is an opportunity to show the world how to build a LEED platinum skyscraper and, if it is a stump of a thing, no one will pay attention. Furthermore, it is an opportunity to make clear that San Francisco is the center of the Bay Area with a building whose lighted top will be visible over most of the Bay Area like the great lighthouse of Alexandria. And it is an opportunity to save some portion of field and forest in some far flung exurb of the Bay Area by creating space for commerce where it should be--in the urban core--so that it does not have to sprawl over more and more outlying land.

Please just remember the words of Mr. Burnham. You will have opposition if you do, but you will also have a lot of support. If your deliberations and the subsequent negotiations with the chosen developer produce mediocrity, the project will have no enthusiastic support and, as Mr. Burnham said, will have less chance of being realized which would be a tragedy for San Francisco.

Sincerely,

B------ T------
---------------------------
San Francisco, CA 94---

[peanut gallery]

tyler, good work on yours too. Didn't mean to exclude you, but your letter wasn't up there when I started my post.

MARIN county (SF's Orange County)

Let's not get carried away here. :)

[Reminiscence]

Great work BT, slock and Reminiscence. I'll send another comment to the TJPA board too.

I can get behind Mr Metcalf's preference for 100% office. And if that view is shared by the board, why not allow Rockefeller to adjust their proposal based on 100% office? Otherwise, they are comparing apples and oranges.

Thanks Peanut Gallery, I say the same about BT, slock, Tyler, and yourself as well. In total, I let my opinion be known to both John King, the TJPA, and had an exchange with a NIMBY, which I will respectfully say I won. Not bad for a day. I really do hope that todays efforts were multiplied by others :).

[tyler82]

tyler, good work on yours too. Didn't mean to exclude you, but your letter wasn't up there when I started my post.



Let's not get carried away here. :)

Oh please, Mariners claim to be so much better than LA and souther California. They have much more in common than their differences.
Both are examples of vast urban sprawl with very low, one and two story horizontally spread homes with big yards, huge lawns which require lots of watering and resources, gated communities abound, and no working efficient public transit system, making their transport dependent on highways, ONE major highway, actually, which is always clogged. I do believe Mariners are more educated and affluent, but that is the only real difference that I can put my finger on.

If you are from MarinCo, please take no offense as I am sure you are aware of these problems as I see them with that area, it's just these ignorant NIMBYs and people who bash other cities (I myself happen to like LA very much, I just wouldn't live there) as a way to some how feel superior that I really can't stand.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Oh please, Mariners claim to be so much better than LA and souther California. They have much more in common than their differences.
Both are examples of vast urban sprawl with very low, one and two story horizontally spread homes with big yards, huge lawns which require lots of watering and resources, gated communities abound, and no working efficient public transit system, making their transport dependent on highways, ONE major highway, actually, which is always clogged. I do believe Mariners are more educated and affluent, but that is the only real difference that I can put my finger on.

Tyler, the sprawl in Marin is not nearly as massive or uniform as the sprawl in OC. In fact, I can't really recall any parts of Marin that are covered in sprawl except for a few areas on Novato and San Rafael. If you want to see massive sprawl go take a look at what's happening in the South Bay and the rapidly growing Pleasanton/Dublin/Livermore amalgamation. Marin, even with its inherent smugness, is a beautiful place that only adds to the value of SF by providing spectacular openspace and an underdeveloped, small-town feel right across the Golden Gate Bridge. Marin's symbiotic relationship with SF is one of only a handful of attributes that makes San Francisco better than New York City.

Luckily Marin has intentionally had a stance of stringent development restriction, allowing the area to NOT become a mass of sprawl much like San Mateo, for example, did in the 1960s/1970s.

[tyler82]

The Pelli terminal is actually quite stunning, at least from the outside. It's very futuristic and sci fi feeling, it reminds me of the Martian space colony in Journeyman


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1425/1395606126_864ff6da81_o.png

[rajaxsonbayboi]

i would like to write a letter to john king but i really dont know what to say. execpt for that hes a complete idiot!

[BigKidD]

The Pelli terminal is certainly interesting, yet it's the tower that I find underwhelming. At least in regard to SOM's proposed tower that creates a new "iconic" landmark for SF in my opinion.

[BTinSF]

i would like to write a letter to john king but i really dont know what to say. execpt for that hes a complete idiot!

Tell him what I did--that as a journalist he should at least acknowledge that there are lots of people on the other side of the issue (and many of them can be found right here).

[pseudolus]

According to Curbed SF (sf.curbed.com), today is the deadline for public comment. Email to d&dcomment@transbaycenter.org

Here's mine:

I urge the board to reject the jury's recommendation and instead select the SOM/Rockefeller Group proposal.

1. The board should not base its choice solely on the money offered. The Pelli proposal for 100% office makes a higher money offer possible, but does not conform with the program in the RFP. SOM and Foster should either be given a chance to make a new offer based on all-office, or Pelli should be required to amend its proposal to mixed used. I believe the latter is preferable.

2. There has been much talk about the park in the Pelli proposal. While this looks very attractive, the fact that the park is some 70 feet above the street and accessible only by escalators and a funicular makes me believe that it will not receive enough use to be a lively, comfortable space. Also at such a height it will be exposed to additional wind.

3. I understand that there is concern that the SOM proposal for a double-deck terminal is unworkable. I believe that SOM should be given the chance to modify the terminal, if necessary.

4. One of the objectives is to create a landmark tower. In this respect, the Pelli proposal is the weakest of the three. While my preference is for the lyric beauty of the SOM tower, the Foster tower is also more interesting than the bland Pelli proposal.

5. Whichever proposal is chosen, I believe it is in the city's and region's best interest to build the towers at their proposed heights, rather than be shortened.

E--- J------
26-year SF resident

[Reminiscence]

Great work pseudolus. Today is in fact the last day to comment and make our voices heard, or at least noticed. So I guess now its just a waiting game to see what news comes out. Are we expecting anything to happen or any news to come out before Thusday?

[SD_Phil]

SOM and Foster should either be given a chance to make a new offer based on all-office, or Pelli should be required to amend its proposal to mixed used. I believe the latter is preferable.



Aren't you here saying that you would prefer it if Pelli's proposal would be accepted but amended instead of SOM and Foster drawing up all-office alternatives?

Maybe you meant that the former was preferable and not the latter?

[SFView]

Here my comment sent to TJPA today:
It would be deeply regretful if the SOM submission for the Transbay Transit Center Competition is not selected. I believe that if given the chance to make adjustments to their tower and terminal design and program, SOM can better suit the needs of transit function, and provide an improved financial package. The tower design alone is a true monumental wonder. SOM’s tower is of ultimate beauty nearly on par with the Golden Gate Bridge for uniqueness, charm, and world class architectural and engineering merit. Furthermore, the money generated by potential interest from building tenants and visitors from around the world would probably be far greater and far sooner for SOM’s design than for any of the other design proposals presented. I urge you not to miss the opportunity to have a structure of such potential significance as an icon not just for San Francisco, but for the entire world.
Note that according to the TJPA website
http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=323
Comments from the public will be forwarded to the TJPA Board with the Jury’s recommendation at the September 20, 2007 Board Meeting.
I am not sure how much attention will be given to the large number of comments submitted, and how much effect it may have on the final decision at this meeting. Is it possible, only a small sample of the public comments submitted will be read, or considered? How much weight will public comments have on effecting the decisions of the jury? So far the jury rankings seem fairly consistent for 1. Pelli, 2. Rogers and 3. SOM across the board. Based on the criteria used for ranking each judgment category, could swaying any decisions different for the previous recommendations different from what has be presented be somewhat difficult, unless there is consistent, compelling and overwhelming evidence of public opinion to the contrary?

[hectorant84]

My reponse to Windex66...

Windex66... His or her pointless quibbles. Nimbys... their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. Windex is obviously an old fart that does not welcome change. After all it's the same naysaying people that paraded around the Transamerica Pyramid in the 70's. The Transamerica Pyramid is a legend, and a monument to San Francisco. Windex is clueless and obviously LOVES the dingy run down streets of SOMA. Windex will NEVER be satisfied with anything. He/she is a blathering idiot and is well past the help that normal anti-depressant's are able to provide. The only things that could help this loathesome, insane and pompous creature are a constant supply of methaqualone or a full frontal lobotomy. There is no point in arguing with geriatric nimbys, Windex and his or her ilk are loons and will bitch about everything, no matter what the scenario. Nimbys, after all, are loud mouthed liberal boors. You buy into left wing nimby propaganda you're mouth piece for it.

[hectorant84]

I called TJPA yesterday, left a message. They returned my phone call this morning. Was informed they would forward my message to the board. :cheers: :notacrook: I expressed support for SOM. :banana:

[tyler82]

My reponse to Windex66...

Windex66... His or her pointless quibbles. Nimbys... their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. Windex is obviously an old fart that does not welcome change. After all it's the same naysaying people that paraded around the Transamerica Pyramid in the 70's. The Transamerica Pyramid is a legend, and a monument to San Francisco. Windex is clueless and obviously LOVES the dingy run down streets of SOMA. Windex will NEVER be satisfied with anything. He/she is a blathering idiot and is well past the help that normal anti-depressant's are able to provide. The only things that could help this loathesome, insane and pompous creature are a constant supply of methaqualone or a full frontal lobotomy. There is no point in arguing with geriatric nimbys, Windex and his or her ilk are loons and will bitch about everything, no matter what the scenario. Nimbys, after all, are loud mouthed liberal boors. You buy into left wing nimby propaganda you're mouth piece for it.


WINDEX66 name is Mariam Weinstein, she is 60 years old and lives in San Anselmo and Fairfax (Marin County) for the past 30 years. She is a graduate of New College in SF (Yah, the same "college" that is getting their accreditation taken away). Just bring this up and she'll leave you alone
;)

[BTinSF]

I guess now its just a waiting game to see what news comes out

Given the differences in the monetary offers, I will be truly shocked if the Pelli/Hines proposal does not win. For that reason I focused my own email to the TJPA on just urging them to build what they build tall and bold and letting them know that the NIMBY voices they hear are not the only voices.

In truth, I don't dislike the Pelli design and if it were the only design we had seen, I'd love it. So now I just want to see them go forward and build it without whacking it down to something resembling a 3-story Victorian (just kidding, but San Franciscans know what I'm saying).

And as everybody involved in this understands, IF we can get something, anything, taller than the pyramid built, that barrier will be broken forever and more tall designs will have a chance.

[pseudolus]

Aren't you here saying that you would prefer it if Pelli's proposal would be accepted but amended instead of SOM and Foster drawing up all-office alternatives?

Maybe you meant that the former was preferable and not the latter?

I meant that, whichever tower is selected, it should be mixed use.

[oak-sea]

I'm excited to get whatever is chosen built. When the three designs were released I was so excited about all 3, eventually settling on SOM as my favorite. I'm just glad that this project is moving forward. Build it and other great buildings will follow. In 10 to 20 years I'll look back and remember the Pelli tower as the one that broke the ceiling. Way to go SF!

[BTinSF]

So the question is, if we get a brand new shiny expensive transit center, do the homeless get to move in right away and start sh*tting on the floor? What's to stop them?

Guards, homeless form odd kind of community at Transbay Terminal
C.W. Nevius
Monday, September 17, 2007

If all goes according to plan, by 2014 a glittering, towering Transbay Transit Center will be erected in the heart of San Francisco. Designers say the tower will not only be a transportation hub, but send a message as a symbolic gateway to the city.

As opposed to what the ramshackle 68-year-old terminal building says now - welcome to San Francisco and watch where you step.

A well-known homeless refuge, the current Transbay Terminal is the first sight bus passengers see of the city. But newcomers are more likely to worry about what is under their feet.

"The homeless pee on the floor, and they defecate on the floor," says security patrol captain John Dunn. "We'll see them standing there doing it, and there's nothing we can do but keep walking."

That probably sounds like another version of a familiar tale. An ineffective and overworked security force finds itself unable to cope with an unsolvable social problem. The homeless take over, leave a horrible mess, and no one does anything.

And there is something to that unpleasant view. I was in the terminal at 8 a.m. Monday. Thirty to 40 homeless men slumped on wooden bus benches. Some had bags of belongings, and some had nothing more than a heavy coat. We walked through once, went in to talk to the security patrol, and by the time we came back there was a pool of what appeared to be urine on the floor. We hadn't been gone 10 minutes.

Charles Drew, homeless and a Transbay Terminal regular, sat on a bench outside in the sun, and tried to explain.

"When one of us messes up," Drew says, "it looks bad for all of us. I tell them, 'Captain Dunn could spend his whole shift screwing with us.' But he doesn't. He gives everybody a chance."

Dunn, a 74-year-old retired military man, is a pragmatic fellow. He and his partner, Sgt. Joyce Black, a petite 60-year-old woman, have been given the bare bones of a policy. It is one part bureaucracy and two parts legal loopholes.

"We have met with California Highway Patrol about this many times," says Caltrans facilities manager Damien Harris, who is in charge of the terminal. "The problem is that there is no ordinance that says they can't be there. As long as their feet are on the ground and they are sitting up, we pretty much can't do anything about it."

Given that, it is the job of Dunn and Black to make the policy work.

"If their feet are on the floor," says Dunn, "we keep walking."

An odd little social agreement has emerged. Dunn and Black work the margins, enforcing the rules but without spite, while the homeless men (they are almost all male) cut the guff when told to sit up.

"You'd be surprised," says Dunn, who has worked the terminal for 10 years. "Some of these homeless people bristle up to us, and the others will say we are OK."

It is not, Dunn says, a job for everybody.

"When I first got here, I thought I was going to throw up," says Black, who has been at the terminal for seven years. "My stomach couldn't take the smell. But I decided, I don't care if they are nasty and stanky, they are still human beings."

All in all, it is not a satisfying state of affairs for anyone. We watched well-dressed commuters coming through the station, glancing at the men slumped on the benches and then looking away quickly.

"It's a very poor situation," says Harris. "It's like a merry-go-round. The homeless leave and then they come back."

Meanwhile, the down-and-outers are spending the day trying to get some rest while sitting up on a wooden bench. They're exhausted because they have been walking around the city all night.

"I don't sleep at night," says Drew, who admits he is a recovering crack cocaine addict. "A friend of mine got burned up just a few blocks from here. I'm 40 years old and I think my job is to keep myself safe."

So he hangs around the bottom floor of the bus terminal, hoping to pull together money for a Jack in the Box meal. And Dunn and Black try to work with the reasonable ones and ignore the crazy or malicious visitors.

"We're not cops, and we don't try to be cops," Dunn says. "It is not our job to clean this up. It is our job to endure this."

That sounds pretty grim. And when someone pees on the floor, it is. But against the odds, and with a little effort, Dunn, Black and some of their homeless visitors have formed a little community in this mess.

"I don't really have a family," Drew says. "Captain is my family. Joyce (Black) is my family."

I've been trying to decide. Is that the saddest thing I've ever heard, or the most uplifting?


Sound of

Have something to say about homelessness and vagrancy at Transbay Terminal? Call (415) 777-6268 to comment for an Open Mic podcast on sfgate.com.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/18/ba_nevius18_006ls.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/18/ba_nevius18_026_ls.jpg

Who's responsible for Transbay Termina

-- Agency: Caltrans

-- Official: Damien Harris, facilities director

-- How to reach them: (510) 286-6084

C.W. Nevius' column appears regularly. His blog, C.W. Nevius.blog, can be found at sfgate.com. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/17/BAOBS820J.DTL

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Given the differences in the monetary offers, I will be truly shocked if the Pelli/Hines proposal does not win. For that reason I focused my own email to the TJPA on just urging them to build what they build tall and bold and letting them know that the NIMBY voices they hear are not the only voices.

In truth, I don't dislike the Pelli design and if it were the only design we had seen, I'd love it. So now I just want to see them go forward and build it without whacking it down to something resembling a 3-story Victorian (just kidding, but San Franciscans know what I'm saying).

And as everybody involved in this understands, IF we can get something, anything, taller than the pyramid built, that barrier will be broken forever and more tall designs will have a chance.

When the three proposals first came out, I was completely behind SOM and strongly hoping that they would be picked to create San Francisco's new architectural icon (as you can see from my avatar.) Now that I have had some time to think about the results of the jury revealing their unanimous support for Pelli, after being a bit upset for quite some time, I too am just hoping that we will at least get to have a 1200'+ tower in our city, regardless of who designs it. I'm no longer losing sleep over SOM possibly not winning the competition, I'm just hoping that we'll be lucky enough to actually get something supertall in our skyline at all...

[plinko]

I've been reviewing the scores and the jury criteria for the projects and as an architect who has been through (and lost all) similar (albeit MUCH MUCH smaller scale) competitions I'd have to say that it's quite likely that we aren't seeing the whole story here.

The design is 50% yes, but the development team including ALL of the design consultants outside of just the architects are considered. Maybe the jury has individual or collective bias against some of these consultants. That alone could drop 20-30 points off a design.

Hines is a developer who gets EVERYTHING done. Any project type, anywhere. For decades. Can you say that about the other two developers? I don't know that answer (not enough information).

While SOM and Rogers have sexier towers and even terminals, are they expensive? Do they have MORE potential for cost over-runs than something that's a little more run-of-the-mill? Arup (with Rogers) may be THE most innovative structural engineers out there...but can they hit a budget?

My point is that the jury judging has ALOT more to do with the project team make-up, relationships, money, and past performance history than simply, is it a kick-ass design?

SOM may very well have put forth the most aesthetically pleasing and iconic design, may have presented their case better than the others, etc, etc, and still have been deducted major points because their project delivery was more cloudy, their project team a little less experienced or less favored by the city (I'm talking about everybody, even the acoustical and ADA consultants). The truth is, we may never know.

In the end it may be JUST about money and land values, but after reading the jury criteria, the architect in me begins to wonder if it's a little deeper than that.

========================================================

That being said, I for one would simply like to see any of these three proposals built. I don't care what the final height is, but as long as its the city's tallest and iconic, the actual height is splitting hairs. It's a great project that's been a long time in the making.

While I prefer SOM's tower and Rogers' terminal, the Pelli design is at least moderately visually interesting. He's a great architect, no doubt about that, and I've seen MOST of his major works in person (Canary Wharf being the most notable exception). With regard to Pelli's tower, I think it'll be tall, slender and an underwhelming piece of architecture. I don't think it'll be iconic. Having recently seen 2IFC in Hong Kong in person I have to say that it lives up to its reputation as being just a tall slender tower. Nothing special, nothing over the top, nothing memorable. I remember thinking as I stood at the base that it would be far more interesting if there were TWO of them (you know, that whole WTC dynamic). BTW, 1 and 2 IFC in Hong Kong bookend a major transit terminal Central HK. The program for said terminal is remarkably similar to that of the Transbay project. The engineers for the terminal were Arup. Who was SOM proposing to use?

Just my 10cents...

I'll take that unbelievable SOM entry experience over this anyday:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v202/plinko923/Hong%20Kong%20III/IMG_2411.jpg

[BTinSF]

Do they have MORE potential for cost over-runs than something that's a little more run-of-the-mill?

Your point is understood but just to note, with regard to the tower itself, the deal is structured such that any cost over-runs would be a problem for the developer, not the TJPA. The TJPA is just selling the land to the developer and entitling the project. I believe, though, that over-runs on the terminal would be a TJPA problem since that is actually TJPA funded.

With regard to the unknowable factors, that's what surprises me. SOM is a local firm--the only one--and Craig Hartman has gotten a lot of great local press as the architect of the Oakland Cathedral of Christ the Light. Big recent write up just on him in the SF Business Times which I posted.

[plinko]

^Yes, Hartman has an amazing reputation and design ability (I'd work for him in a second if I ever chose to move up there). That being said, who are all of the OTHER consultants being used? What experiences do they have working with the City of SF? How have they all performed budget-wise in past projects? My point was that its not JUST the architecture firm. It has to do with everybody involved. That old cliche about a chain and a link?

I understood before about tower cost over-runs being the responsibility of the developer. My concern was actually the terminal. Which one is ready for Design Development? The SOM terminal that apparently has major circulation issues? Or the Rogers terminal that has just a couple? Or the Pelli terminal that has virtually none? I'm generalizing here, but just 'going back and fixing it' is no small or inexpensive endeavor for the SOM team.

They are all great architects. The jurors know this. They are going to go by track record, functionality, and economics (not necessarily in that order). To the jurors, the tower is likely only relevant in terms of location and revenue generation.

[BTinSF]

The SOM terminal that apparently has major circulation issues?

Yes, I think this is what really killed SOM. You could tell at the original presentation that the AC Transit guy on the TJPA was NOT happy about that. I was hoping there would be a "fix" that wouldn't keep them from winning but apparently not.

[tyler82]

Yes, I think this is what really killed SOM. You could tell at the original presentation that the AC Transit guy on the TJPA was NOT happy about that. I was hoping there would be a "fix" that wouldn't keep them from winning but apparently not.

I spoke with a guy named "Brian" or something from SOM on the phone, and he told me that they let the TJPA know that they can alter any part of their terminal if need be. I just hope TJPA isn't as biased toward Pelli Hines like the jury was.

[Reminiscence]

I spoke with a guy named "Brian" or something from SOM on the phone, and he told me that they let the TJPA know that they can alter any part of their terminal if need be. I just hope TJPA isn't as biased toward Pelli Hines like the jury was.

This is somewhat good to hear. I'm glad that SOM can express that flexibility with the terminal. However, I'm still waiting for them to perhaps up their offer. If the jury's choices really were made based on amount of funds offered, then I think SOM can practically redesign (not that I want them to) the whole package, and it wont change much.

[plinko]

I spoke with a guy named "Brian" or something from SOM on the phone, and he told me that they let the TJPA know that they can alter any part of their terminal if need be. I just hope TJPA isn't as biased toward Pelli Hines like the jury was.

It's not a bias. Did you read the criteria for evaluation?

Think for a second if you were a juror and told to vote ONLY on the given criteria (making some assumptions):
1. All of the developers have solid reputations and track records.
2. All of the design teams and their consultants have solid reputations and track records.
3. Architecturally, all three are highly respected and guaranteed to produce a quality project.
4. Of the three terminals presented, one has major functional flaws, one has minor functional flaws, one has virtually none.
5. Of the three towers, one offers more than 2X the revenue of the other two.

So I ask, as a juror given this criteria, how can you NOT vote for Pelli? SOM can say all they want that they can re-design the terminal, but why should the jury take that into account when there the two other proposals don't require this lengthy and costly delay? AND, the SOM proposal generates the least amount of money for the city?

I'm not saying the process isn't broken, and I absolutely LOVE the tower proposed by SOM. But the more I look at it, it's quite obvious that SOM and their terminal designers completely dropped the ball. Creating the most beautiful design in the world doesn't mean jack if it doesn't function. Sad but true. :shrug:

I'm not so bothered by the all-office thing, particularly given the thoughtful response by that guy from SPUR. Makes sense.

[tyler82]

It's not a bias. Did you read the criteria for evaluation?

Think for a second if you were a juror and told to vote ONLY on the given criteria (making some assumptions):
1. All of the developers have solid reputations and track records.
2. All of the design teams and their consultants have solid reputations and track records.
3. Architecturally, all three are highly respected and guaranteed to produce a quality project.
4. Of the three terminals presented, one has major functional flaws, one has minor functional flaws, one has virtually none.
5. Of the three towers, one offers more than 2X the revenue of the other two.

So I ask, as a juror given this criteria, how can you NOT vote for Pelli? SOM can say all they want that they can re-design the terminal, but why should the jury take that into account when there the two other proposals don't require this lengthy and costly delay? AND, the SOM proposal generates the least amount of money for the city?

I'm not saying the process isn't broken, and I absolutely LOVE the tower proposed by SOM. But the more I look at it, it's quite obvious that SOM and their terminal designers completely dropped the ball. Creating the most beautiful design in the world doesn't mean jack if it doesn't function. Sad but true. :shrug:

I'm not so bothered by the all-office thing, particularly given the thoughtful response by that guy from SPUR. Makes sense.

Pelli's design is 100% office, and doesn't fit into the Transbay's definition of a dense "live and work space" accessible by public transportation. Sure, if SOM were 100% office, they could probably offer just as much money, maybe more.

It sounds biased in that the jury didn't look at SOMs willingness to adapt to changes as needed, and viewed Pelli's 100% office tower as something that can just be brushed aside and did not affect their score as part of the judging criteria.

[SFView]

Often I find that when people evaluate something that has at least one outstanding issue either positive or negative, all or most other issues being judged will be swayed in matching direction. Some may speculate that money is the main issue in this case, as it seems to correlate with the general voting.

[plinko]

Pelli's design is 100% office, and doesn't fit into the Transbay's definition of a dense "live and work space" accessible by public transportation. Sure, if SOM were 100% office, they could probably offer just as much money, maybe more.

It sounds biased in that the jury didn't look at SOMs willingness to adapt to changes as needed, and viewed Pelli's 100% office tower as something that can just be brushed aside and did not affect their score as part of the judging criteria.

(I'm just playing devil's advocate here)
Why should they? Why should they recommend that the TJPA allow the SOM team to go back and redesign the terminal (no quick or cheap feat) when there are two other more sound terminal designs? Remember, from a design standpoint, this is about the terminal, not the tower.

RE: the tower, who says that SOM can afford what Hines is willing to pay if their tower was all office? Have you seen the pro-formas? The truth is that Hines is willing to overpay, regardless of tower function. The other development teams are not. I've not read the original RFP, but does it explicitly state that the tower must be mixed use? Regardless, don't you think the TJPA has a responsibility to create a development that provides the most economic benefit for the city? I assure you that there's nothing in the RFP that stifles economic creativity. Show us a benefit and we will listen.

This is just how things work the development industry, particularly with public projects.

Would I like to see SOM get awarded the project and allowed to fix their terminal design? ABSOLUTELY! But if they'd been paying attention to begin with, they'd have been able to level the playing field a bit with a design that functions as required. Doesn't matter that their aesthetics are sexy as hell. If they don't function they don't get built. :cheers:

[caramatt]

Pelli's design is 100% office, and doesn't fit into the Transbay's definition of a dense "live and work space" accessible by public transportation. Sure, if SOM were 100% office, they could probably offer just as much money, maybe more.

It sounds biased in that the jury didn't look at SOMs willingness to adapt to changes as needed, and viewed Pelli's 100% office tower as something that can just be brushed aside and did not affect their score as part of the judging criteria.

Hey guys, no assumptions need to be made about the criteria used for judging. It's all outlined in the jury's report, along with the breakdown of how many points were possible out of each category. I think it's time we throw out any blanket indictments of bias, unless you start quoting specific comments from the report.

[tyler82]

Hey guys, no assumptions need to be made about the criteria used for judging. It's all outlined in the jury's report, along with the breakdown of how many points were possible out of each category. I think it's time we throw out any blanket indictments of bias, unless you start quoting specific comments from the report.

As a citizen, I just find it odd that the jury would gloss over the 100% office aspect and not even consider residential/ affordable housing as part of the main requirements of this project, that's all.

But it is about the terminal, more than the tower, so I can live with Pelli's terminal. I like it almost as much as SOMs, but I think Pelli's terminal, once built, will be admired all over the world for it's shape and design. The good thing about the roof park that will probably go unused is that I can escape from the street to an oasis above ground and may very well be the only one there! A very private feeling in the middle of a huge city.

Besides, businesses are getting the hell out of this city, how are they going to fill all that office space?

[Richard Mlynarik]

[...]
4. Of the three terminals presented, one has major functional flaws, one has minor functional flaws, one has virtually none.
No, not at all.

One of them is exactly what the "engineers" working for the TJPA (and its predecessor organizaitons) over the years came up with and is exactly what was in the conceptual plans.

That doesn't mean it's flawless. Far, far from it.

The other two teams actually thought about the issues, and were punished for the effort.

Make no mistake, we're getting the worst architectural and transportation outcome ... which is just what one expects in the San Francisco Bay Area.

[tyler82]

Make no mistake, we're getting the worst architectural and transportation outcome ... which is just what one expects in the San Francisco Bay Area.

At least we're #2 in the nation at something: traffic congestion! (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/18/BABQS8JV0.DTL)

...With no short term plan to fix it, at least not for the next 20 years, from what I've heard and read

[plinko]

No, not at all.

One of them is exactly what the "engineers" working for the TJPA (and its predecessor organizaitons) over the years came up with and is exactly what was in the conceptual plans.

That doesn't mean it's flawless. Far, far from it.

The other two teams actually thought about the issues, and were punished for the effort.

Make no mistake, we're getting the worst architectural and transportation outcome ... which is just what one expects in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Then all the more reason that no one should be suprised that Pelli is preferred. Doesn't suprise me one bit.

Is the base design that bad from a functional point of view or are you just one of those transit advocates who knows more than the engineers? Just a question...

The architectural debate is moot. Totally subjective.

[BTinSF]

Today I got this:

B_______:

I encourage you and other supporters of 1,200-plus-foot towers to write
to the paper, or submit an op-ed piece. My concerns have been with
scale, not with towers themselves. As for the Sunday piece, it came from
tagging along with a crowd of people interested in architecture, and
asking a dozen or so what they thought about what is going on in a
larger context. If any had come out for a 1,200 foot tower, I'd have
loved it as extra spice.

Thanks for your note,

John King

I think I detect he's a little irritated with me but it was nice of him to reply. Anybody want to take him up on the op-ed piece??

[tyler82]

Today I got this:



I think I detect he's a little irritated with me but it was nice of him to reply. Anybody want to take him up on the op-ed piece??

I would love to write something for after the 20th.. because you know people will start complaining then. Do you think there's a chance it would even get published? I know he doesn't like me after I sent him and his editors a scathing letter asking him to quit or be fired.

His explanation sounded really lame. All one sided. So his whole "scale" argument can be countered by saying "Yeah, the Transamerica Pyramid was out of scale at first, but without it we wouldn't have a postcard downtown skyline. The Empire State Building was out of scale at first (and still kind of is), and it's one of the world's most famous landmarks. A city's scale should be matched with the vision it wishes to acheive."

This whole Bay Area Traffic second worse in the country mess is good enough reason to build huge, tall buildings for people to live and work. When are people going to GET IT??

NIMBYs are such simpletons.

[slock]

I've continued writing letters. If you want to join me in a last push for SOM, here are four of the TJPA's emails:

chris.daly@sfgov.org
michael.cohen@sfgov.org
nathaniel.ford@sfgov.org
jhill@co.sanmateo.ca.us

[SFView]

I would love to write something for after the 20th.. because you know people will start complaining then. Do you think there's a chance it would even get published? I know he doesn't like me after I sent him and his editors a scathing letter asking him to quit or be fired.

His explanation sounded really lame. All one sided. So his whole "scale" argument can be countered by saying "Yeah, the Transamerica Pyramid was out of scale at first, but without it we wouldn't have a postcard downtown skyline. The Empire State Building was out of scale at first (and still kind of is), and it's one of the world's most famous landmarks. A city's scale should be matched with the vision it wishes to acheive."

This whole Bay Area Traffic second worse in the country mess is good enough reason to build huge, tall buildings for people to live and work. When are people going to GET IT??

NIMBYs are such simpletons.

I can understand John King being uncomfortable. But as we know, he and his editors are in the business of writing articles that encourage the selling of newspapers to their most likely target audience. If there are opposing views, it would only be fair for the Chronicle to publish them as well.

I don't think all or most NIMBYs are "simpletons." I think it is more a matter of personal taste. For some, no matter how beautiful, impressive, and justifiable you may think a taller building can be, it is still a cold hard unwanted overbearing giant eyesore to another. This will likely never change for people whose preferences are already set.

[slock]

I've been watching the animations for the Pelli and SOM proposals, and it finally dawned on me why I like SOM so much better. It's because it seems more urban and sleek. It is not just attractive, but feels more a part of the City, more integrated. The Pelli proposal somehow feels tacky and suburban. The curves and funicular seem more like a theme park than a sophisticated transportation hub.

The SOM proposal also seems to be more designed for people with the stacking of the bus slots and the Great Hall. I've always thought the four block long terminal was excessive and a waste of valuable space. The SOM design takes that and devotes it to pedestrains. I think it's better to try and make the double stacking work than to have four blocks of bus stops. The best cities are the ones designed for people, the worst for cars. I think that is being replicated here.

Finally, the big unmentioned issue about the Pelli park on the roof that no one in the press is talking about is that it will be completely surrounded by highrises. On immediate adjacent parcles there will be buildings, almost all of them above 200' feet and some 850' and 900' - and on the South side, with significant shadow impacts. That creates a dark and windy park and also could potentially be impacted by the law mandating sunshine on city parks.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

As sad is this is to say, it seems that the TJPA is already scheduled to announce Pelli as the winner in the meeting tomorrow morning, as per item #8 in their schedule.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=837

I know "It ain't over 'til it's over," but seeing that schedule makes me feel that this just cements Pelli's winning the competition. :(

[tyler82]

As sad is this is to say, it seems that the TJPA is already scheduled to announce Pelli as the winner in the meeting tomorrow morning, as per item #8 in their schedule.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=837

I know "It ain't over 'til it's over," but seeing that schedule makes me feel that this just cements Pelli's winning the competition. :(

Can't wait to hear what Daly has to say about it, the whole office thing. I just hope Pelli wants to make his building taller to fit the residential needs.

I'm really not as upset as I was at first when the jury released its verdict, and I don't think the terminal is tacky or suburban at all. It's not as grand as SOM's, but it's a lot better than what we have now.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I agree with you Tyler, I really hope that the tradeoff for having such a boring looking tower with no housing in it will be an extra 100' - 200' added for residential floors :tup:

And I do think that the Pelli terminal is pretty nice, even if the funicular-accessed park will be pretty pointless in the scheme of things...
...SOM's great hall sure would have been fantastic though...

[craeg]

I really dont like any of the pelli proposal, but money talks. I mean.... funicular? What a poor nod to our cable cars..

[Reminiscence]

Can't wait to hear what Daly has to say about it, the whole office thing. I just hope Pelli wants to make his building taller to fit the residential needs.

I'm really not as upset as I was at first when the jury released its verdict, and I don't think the terminal is tacky or suburban at all. It's not as grand as SOM's, but it's a lot better than what we have now.

Yes, I agree too. Sometimes I cant help but think that perhaps they offered such a huge sum of money in anticipation of being asked to increase the height of the tower or add more floors. It seems very unlikely, but its just a thought.

I still have mixed feelings about all this. It was a huge negative when SOM turned out to be last, but I think we can all agree that its not even a question that Pelli's tower is much much better than whats there now. I dont hate Pelli's tower, I just feel bad that SOM's was left to hang dry. If SOM had never proposed what they did, I would have greatly backed Pelli's. Oh well, lets see is any fireworks are set off tommorow.

[BigKidD]

As sad is this is to say, it seems that the TJPA is already scheduled to announce Pelli as the winner in the meeting tomorrow morning, as per item #8 in their schedule.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=837

I know "It ain't over 'til it's over," but seeing that schedule makes me feel that this just cements Pelli's winning the competition. :(
Well, now I can only hope that Pelli's proposal comes into being and that the tower's height is not cut down.

[tyler82]

So what happens after tomorrow? They announce the winner and they start digging? I know the environmental review process will be over any month now. How much longer do we have to wait??

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

So what happens after tomorrow? They announce the winner and they start digging? I know the environmental review process will be over any month now. How much longer do we have to wait??

Well, according to the TJPA, construction/demolition isn't supposed to actually happen until another year from now... :shrug:

[rajaxsonbayboi]

^^^are you serious? what starts construction first the tower or the transit station?

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

^^^are you serious? what starts construction first the tower or the transit station?

I would guess that the terminal would be finished before the tower is, as a temporary terminal will need to be used for commuters until the new terminal is complete. I imagine that they'll be building them concurrently, as the two structures are connected to each other.

And by the way, their website says construction phase 1 begins 2008, so if all of the design/planning/approvals/demolition is ready by the middle or even the beginning of the year, construction could start as soon as that.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

well thats somewhat good news. even though SOM isnt the one being constructed

[LWR]

said the old lady, as she kissed the cow.

[SFView]

said the old lady, as she kissed the cow.

Ha! Perfect!

I am hoping that the Planning study will prove that even taller than 1200 foot heights are acceptable. I think the Pelli tower will look much better at 1375 feet near Piano's possible 1200 footer(s). Let's also have SOM design the TJPA Howard Street tower. I will feel much better about SOM loosing to Pelli in the competition, if these alternatives were possible. Please do not shorten the Piano towers to compensate for a 1200 foot Pelli tower instead.

[roadwarrior]

So what happens after tomorrow? They announce the winner and they start digging? I know the environmental review process will be over any month now. How much longer do we have to wait??

Remember, they still need to convert the parking lot between Beale, Folsom, Main and Howard into a temporary bus terminal. I don't think that should take too long, as it is essentially just a parking lot with a few overhangs for people waiting for the bus in poor weather.

I personally am eager to see them demolish the current terminal and on-ramps. I live nearby and have to step over the homeless and their excrement on a daily basis. That should really help to open up the area.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Today is the day! still having my fingers crossed:fingerscrossed: in hoping that they still pick SOM

[slock]

Something interesting to consider, and something I used in my arguments against Pelli, is that all that parcels around the terminal are to be developed. Some of them, as we know, with the possibility of being 800' or 900'. This will really keep the Pelli park in shadows a lot of the year. And with the park surrounded by towers it will feel more like a landscaped alley than a park.

Now there are laws on the books, that new towers can't be built if they shade parks. I don't know if that's relevant here because it could be considered a private park. But nonetheless, it will drastically reduce the enjoyment of the Pelli park. And if they follow the laws about sunshine and shadows, could prevent the height increases of the very parcels that are meant to fund the terminal.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

...Somebody get back from the meeting and post the results already! :hell:

[tyler82]

...Somebody get back from the meeting and post the results already! :hell:

Any hopes of SOM winning are clearly just wishes at this point. There's nothing we can do except hope that their gorgeous tower doesn't go unused and that they are allowed to build it on one of only a few available sites left downtown where height restrictions are being reconsidered.

Let's keep those fingers and toes crossed!

[PBuchman]

Pelli's website has announced that they've won the competition.

http://www.pcparch.com

[hectorant84]

oh FUCK! damn it. leave it to san francisco to choose the boring design. idiots.

[aluminum]

How tall is the Pelli's version ?

[PBuchman]

How tall is the Pelli's version ?

1200 feet - 80 stories, as proposed.

[San Frangelino]

Hey! Maybe now San Francsico will take the title of "World's Shortest Railway" from Angel's Flight.

But in all seriousness, I am not that disappointed. Although it was not my first choice, it's not a bad "plain" tower and terminal. When I think about it, alot of my favorite skylines have mediocre "tallest buildings". I never thought much of Sear's design nor do I have much love for the new "Chicago Spire," but still "I THINK" (and I stress that its just an opinon) Chicago has the handsomest skyline in the country. And although the Empire is iconic and monumental, I think Chrysler will always be New Yorks greatest skyscraper. This tower is just nice and simple and big. Probably wont be great on it's own, but apart of a great skyline. I look foward to Renzo Piano's towers, the other towers that will be built around transbay, Treasure Islands tallest, and maybe something in Oakland (ya never know). For Pelli's tower, I really hope it gets built at its height and looks elegant. We should start a new thread for it and call it "the drama begins!"

As a sidenote, I really think I would like the tower a lot more if its were all done up in a creamy white like it looks in this model. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWyvF0P2zs&mode=related&search= . But I am confident that won't be the case. But if it were we could call it the "Milk Man!"

[GlobeTrekker]

1200 feet - 80 stories, as proposed.

The news just reported Pelli as the winner at 1,400 feet. Any truth to that, or just an error? I don't see anything new on the TJPA website...

[aluminum]

Pelli's version :

If 1200' = :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

If 1400' = :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

[tyler82]

The news just reported Pelli as the winner at 1,400 feet. Any truth to that, or just an error? I don't see anything new on the TJPA website...

Chronicle says 1200 ft.

"But even as they selected the Hines-Pelli team over two rivals, leaders of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority stressed that the proposal now on the table is a starting point, not a fait accompli.
Although the authority board was unanimous today in their decision to select the Hines-Pelli team, several members said they expected the tower to eventually include both residential and commercial space. The original tower proposal included only commercial space."

Which shows that they team was clearly biased toward Pelli, because the other two towers already had this. Someone mentioned why should TJPA allow SOM to change it's terminal if Pelli's already works better? Well then why would they allow Pelli to change it's tower in the same regard?? It's all about the money, this isn't a "design competition" at all.

[PBuchman]

I really think I would like the tower a lot more if its were all done up in a creamy white like it looks in this model.

You may not be too far off. I believe Pelli described the tower as "A beautiful, shimmering, white obelisk."

[San Frangelino]

You may not be too far off. I believe Pelli described the tower as "A beautiful, shimmering, white obelisk."

Alright, the Milk Man's here for delivery!

http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/m470393.jpg
From:http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s685079.htm

[caramatt]

As a sidenote, I really think I would like the tower a lot more if its were all done up in a creamy white like it looks in this model. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWyvF0P2zs&mode=related&search= . But I am confident that won't be the case. But if it were we could call it the "Milk Man!"

Did you guys notice that the rendering of the tower shown now on the splash page of PCP's site has been made much whiter than in the initial renderings? I think that's a more accurate depicition of what's currently proposed.

I'd actually gotten kind of attached to the idea of a purplish tower with a white glowing crown. Plenty of time for them now to refine the design, and, as the jury recommended, make it more unique and iconic.

[POLA]

I don't mind the tower, but that terminal looks like it will soon become dated, smelly, and filled with homeless... Kinda like the current one.

[plinko]

...Which shows that they team was clearly biased toward Pelli, because the other two towers already had this. Someone mentioned why should TJPA allow SOM to change it's terminal if Pelli's already works better? Well then why would they allow Pelli to change it's tower in the same regard?? It's all about the money, this isn't a "design competition" at all.

Because the terminal schedule and design is on the TJPA's dime. The tower is not. That's not bias. Not that difficult to understand.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

damn it. ooh well im not that dissapointed though. the very first time i saw all three proposals i actually favored the pelli design. but then i fell for SOM. so any chances of the city doing someting wonderful and building the SOM tower some place else in the city huh huh?

[rajaxsonbayboi]

The news just reported Pelli as the winner at 1,400 feet. Any truth to that, or just an error? I don't see anything new on the TJPA website...

omg that would be the best news ive heard in weeks!:tup:

[CityKid]

I'm probably the only person at this board who feels this way but YAAAAAAAAAAAAYY FOR PELLI! :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: This was my favorite design all along. I'll admit I did like the SOM design, but I think a lot of its appeal lay in its "shiny" renderings and mass marketing.

The battle has just begun though. Here's to hoping that they don't cut its height.

[oak-sea]

If no one is going to visit the park 4 stories up, why not hand it over to the homeless? A people's park with tents and outhouses and ranting lunatics. This just might solve the homeless problem!

[paulsfca]

I was soooo hoping they would pick SOM's design which IMO is exquisite. But the decision seems to have been made so I'm hoping for the best...that Pelli's terminal and tower comes out exceeding all our expectations...a 1400' stunning white obelisk! However, I will be emailing the TJPA hoping they utilize the SOM design on another parcel. :whip: :whip: :whip:

[twinpeaks]

I love the SOM tower and terminal. I am dissapointed it will not be the transbay tower.

-SOM should consider using a similar design for the Tower and Ferry Terminal for Treasure Island. I think SOM is the primary designer for Treasure Island redevelopment. It would look great accress the bay from San francisco.

-For the Pelli Park, they should partner SFMOMA to create a Sculpture park or something similar Chicago's Millenium Park.

[GlobeTrekker]

-SOM should consider using a similar design for the Tower and Ferry Terminal for Treasure Island. I think SOM is the primary designer for Treasure Island redevelopment. It would look great accress the bay from San francisco.

I like that idea a lot, and they should keep the 1,375' height :) The views from a tower like that on T.I. would be spectacular.

[Kevlar1981]

It's pretty disappointing that SOM wasn't chosen, but the fact that a 1000'+ skyscraper is going up at all in SF is cause for celebration. :cheers: Just imagine what it will look like next to the 1200' Piano towers. :slob:

[Alliance]

I'd assume the difference in the heigts is roof to those funky windmills?Pelli's version :

If 1200' = :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck:

If 1400' = :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

What a pointless pissing contest.

[aluminum]

I'd assume the difference in the heigts is roof to those funky windmills?

What a pointless pissing contest.

I hate the shape of pelli's version, but if it is 1400' then it is good to go and (because you're a Chicagoan) imagine how Chicago Spire would look if design remained exactly same, but scaled down to 1000' instead of 2000' ! Sometimes height 'alone' can impress.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I have lived in and near SF for all of my 23 years.... and I want a 1200'+ tower!

THEY HAD BETTER NOT SHORTEN IT!!!

[aluminum]

^^^ Thats the Spirit !

[tyler82]

The Pelli design screams San Francisco..

The TRANSbay tower

which looks like a big uncut penis
or a vibrator

hahahaha Sodom By The Sea shall live forever!!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1188/1409894827_b9281b0f41_o.png

Image copyright Pelli Clarke Pelli architects