[Reminiscence]

Well, I guess the people have spoken (not really the people, but the few people who had the power at least), and its Pelli's to be built. I loved SOM's design, and for a while I thought they should use it for the TJPA Site nearby. I think that 1400' remark is a mistake, but if its true for some reason, then thats really good start. Some part of me says that if SOM's tower isnt built in SF, then it shouldnt be built at all :haha:.

[Kevlar1981]

So if the city asks Pelli to add residential floors to this tower, I wonder if they will let them build higher than 1200' to do so.

[Reminiscence]

So if the city asks Pelli to add residential floors to this tower, I wonder if they will let them build higher than 1200' to do so.

I dont know if the question is whether the city will allow them or if Pelli and Hines are up for it. I think if they city (most importantly, C. Daly) gets what they want, then they could theoretically build much higher. But of course, building a taller tower could be more expensive. If they offered 350 million already, I dont see what could stop them from doing so. I still dream of a 1500' or more tower, and hopefully, they only add floors from now on to make this work.

[Alliance]

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.

To me, its about the architecture. Some of the most meaningful and beautiful buildings in the world are 400' tall.

Loosing 200' doesn't make it disgusting and adding 200' doesn't make it god.

Un ugly design is an ugly design at any height. Why make something ugly more noticable by building it larger?

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Well, at least John King didn't say anything critical about the tower in his (short) article today:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/20/BAO7S9J2H.DTL

...and the article also mentions that the tower probably won't begin construction until 2009, as it will take until then for zoning laws to be changed in order for a 1200'+ building to be built there.

[Sonofsoma]

Re: The Pelli/Hines Transbay Tower:

The very well connected...Hines organization is all about Class-A Office. A residential and/or hotel component is very unlikely.

In the end, the competition was less about "design" than it was about money - raising money. The Pelli/Hines Teameasily outbid it competitors by pledging $350 Million toward the new terminal facility.

It is my understanding SOM was so stunned by Hines' $350Mil figure, they publically questioned it's legitimacy. Hines responded by announcing they already have tentative lease agreements on more than 40% of the tower and are committed to it being no less than 1200 ft tall

For this project anyway... They mean business.

[plinko]

Wow, I just read through all the public comment on SfGate. Ignorance is a wonderful thing.

Someone really needs to explain to me how other than maybe the first two hours of a summer day that the shadow from this tower will have any effect on a portion of the city beyond the shadows already created by the towers of the financial district.

[tyler82]

It is my understanding SOM was so stunned by Hines' $350Mil figure, they publically questioned it's legitimacy. Hines responded by announcing they already have tentative lease agreements on more than 40% of the tower and are committed to it being no less than 1200 ft tall
.

Please expand.. less than 1200'??

Hmmmm.... smells like troll meat

[tyler82]

Wow, I just read through all the public comment on SfGate. Ignorance is a wonderful thing.
.

Hahahahahaha... can you say SHELTERED and CLOSED MINDED, NO ROOM for debate or intelligence.. to say the absolute least

[plinko]

Hahahahahaha... can you say SHELTERED and CLOSED MINDED, NO ROOM for debate or intelligence.. to say the absolute least

Ummm, No, I didn't say that.

There are some remarkably unfounded and ignorant (as well as childish) comments on there, from both the con AND pro-tower camps.

[Alliance]

The very well connected...Hines organization is all about Class-A Office. A residential and/or hotel component is very unlikely.

In the end, the competition was less about "design" than it was about money - raising money. The Pelli/Hines Teameasily outbid it competitors by pledging $350 Million toward the new terminal facility.


Very true. Heins does office and only (class A) office. At least of what I know from their Chicago projects, they'll usually build two buildings rather than create a mixed use tower.

[GlobeTrekker]

It is my understanding SOM was so stunned by Hines' $350Mil figure, they publically questioned it's legitimacy. Hines responded by announcing they already have tentative lease agreements on more than 40% of the tower and are committed to it being no less than 1200 ft tall

For this project anyway... They mean business.

Yep, Hines is so confident in this site that they are willing to maintain the $350 million offer even if forced to make some of it residential (according to the TJPA). The 40% pre-leased figure is very interesting and a good sign for the project.

Once I realized this competition included a bid on the land, I knew what would happen. There is no way the TJPA or the City would turn down an extra $200 million just for a better design. The SOM bid undervalued the land, and the City would have lost a lot of money.

I'm not sure what they can do to the building to make it look more "iconic" (extra height won't really change that). In the report, TJPA referred to it as "pearlescent" or something, which could be interesting, although it does not look that way in the renderings. Depending on the color and the glass, I'm hoping it looks better in real life.

Maybe they could make it more like a real obelisk with the four corners coming to a point. With an obelisk and a pyramid, we could have a whole Egyptian theme going on :)

[GlobeTrekker]

Please expand.. less than 1200'??

Hmmmm.... smells like troll meat

It said no less than 1,200', so that is a good sign. Hopefully they increase the height to include some hotel or residential. I also hope they include some kind of public area, restaurant, or observation deck on top.

The media is all over the place on the height, I have heard/read 1200, 1300, and 1400. One is reporting it would be the second-tallest in the US, which means over 1250. So who really knows? On the Hines website, it says 1200, but not sure if that includes the crown and wind turbines.

[caramatt]

I love this picture from the latest Chronicle story:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay_257.jpg

It will really stand as a beautiful beacon; especially once the other towers go up around it. I do agree that it'll need to be at least 150' taller than the Piano towers for best effect.

[Alliance]

However, I think its the perfect height for where it is.

[djvandrake]

It may not be the design I preferred (SOM) but I think it will make a stunning addition to the San Francisco skyline. Congrats on getting a signature tower of this magnitude. :tup: :) :cool:

[Reminiscence]

It said no less than 1,200', so that is a good sign. Hopefully they increase the height to include some hotel or residential. I also hope they include some kind of public area, restaurant, or observation deck on top.

The media is all over the place on the height, I have heard/read 1200, 1300, and 1400. One is reporting it would be the second-tallest in the US, which means over 1250. So who really knows? On the Hines website, it says 1200, but not sure if that includes the crown and wind turbines.

I'm still a little vexed on what that height actually means, to the roof or to the top of the crown. Naturally, my hope is that figure is to the roof. I think its important to know exactly what they said. They seem to be ignoring projects that are proposed or that just started construction. Either way, I can certainly appreciate Hines' devotion to seeing this project go through. If I'm not mistaken, the article also mentions that the height limits (assuming there will be height limits in this part of town) should be devloped around the next 6-12 months. The process is just getting warmed up ...

[SFView]

The model and the renderings do appear to scale the tower taller than 1200 feet when I compare it to 50 Fremont at 600 feet right next to it. The actual height of the tower is still a temporary placeholder or benchmark from which to either grow or shrink, depending Planning (studies), upzoning, TJPA, economics, public comment, and local politics. Three years is still a lot of time for things to change before this project begins construction.

[SFView]

To me, its about the architecture. Some of the most meaningful and beautiful buildings in the world are 400' tall.

Loosing 200' doesn't make it disgusting and adding 200' doesn't make it god.

Un ugly design is an ugly design at any height. Why make something ugly more noticable by building it larger?

Although that is partially true, I still think that height is still an important part of architecture having to do with proportion, especially in skyscrapers.

[twinpeaks]

Although that is partially true, I still think that height is still an important part of architecture having to do with proportion, especially in skyscrapers.

I agree, imagine how much more majestic the Pyramid building would be at 1100 feet as originally proposed. The BofA kinda over powers it in most angles.

[twinpeaks]

I love this picture from the latest Chronicle story:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay_257.jpg

It will really stand as a beautiful beacon; especially once the other towers go up around it. I do agree that it'll need to be at least 150' taller than the Piano towers for best effect.

I think it would look even better if the crown grows higher and encloses to a point like an inverse cone. another nod to the pyramid and hills of SF. I still miss the beautiful SOM Transbay proposal, but I am sure I'll get over it someday.

[aluminum]

Although that is partially true, I still think that height is still an important part of architecture having to do with proportion, especially in skyscrapers.

Damn right.
What's the first thing that comes to mind when someone refers to a skyscraper ? Height, thats what.

[Alliance]

Damn right.
What's the first thing that comes to mind when someone refers to a skyscraper ? Height, thats what.

Then building is nothing more than a pissing contest.

[aluminum]

^^And I feel sorry for the losers.

[Reminiscence]

The model and the renderings do appear to scale the tower taller than 1200 feet when I compare it to 50 Fremont at 600 feet right next to it. The actual height of the tower is still a temporary placeholder or benchmark from which to either grow or shrink, depending Planning (studies), upzoning, TJPA, economics, public comment, and local politics. Three years is still a lot of time for things to change before this project begins construction.

This is true, and in fact, what I was doing last night. I noticed that it looked more like 1250' - 1300' when also in comparison to Millenium Tower, which is also next door.

[petter]

Some by far

[tyler82]

Ummm, No, I didn't say that.

There are some remarkably unfounded and ignorant (as well as childish) comments on there, from both the con AND pro-tower camps.

Yes Master

lighten up sheesh

[tyler82]

I love this picture from the latest Chronicle story:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_transbay_257.jpg

It will really stand as a beautiful beacon; especially once the other towers go up around it. I do agree that it'll need to be at least 150' taller than the Piano towers for best effect.

Love the pic of Gavin with what I believe is the wife of his campaign manager which he screwed. What a creep. But I'm voting for him anyway

It's a gorgeous tower and was my first pick when I saw all three, but SOM's terminal design and tower really grew on me and I became very attached to it. I hope they don't build it in any other city. It would look great all by itself instead of cluttered around a bunch of other towers

[GlobeTrekker]

The model and the renderings do appear to scale the tower taller than 1200 feet when I compare it to 50 Fremont at 600 feet right next to it.

I see what you mean. Doubling 50 Fremont seems to place 1,200 feet right at the top floor. So if the model is correct, maybe the top floor is at 1,200 and the crown/wind turbines add another 100 feet or so? The SF Business Times has it at 1,300'.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/09/10/daily7.html?ana=from_rss

[oak-sea]

The article and comments in the Chronicle today are mostly encouraging except this steaming turdlet:

"Most dramatically, the height could be reduced because of concerns over shadows or wind. And any rezoning goes through San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, where critics could argue that no tower should rise beyond the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid - now the city's tallest building."

The comments seem mostly in support of it. Weird how Transamerica and Transbay almost share the same name, and now it seems share the almost the same (ignorant) opposition.

[tyler82]

The article and comments in the Chronicle today are mostly encouraging except this steaming turdlet:

"Most dramatically, the height could be reduced because of concerns over shadows or wind. And any rezoning goes through San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, where critics could argue that no tower should rise beyond the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid - now the city's tallest building."

The comments seem mostly in support of it. Weird how Transamerica and Transbay almost share the same name, and now it seems share the almost the same (ignorant) opposition.

Yes but... something John King mentioned in his surprisingly unbiased article is that the less height the building is built, the less money the Transbay terminal gets. I don't know why these politicians wouldn't let them build it to it's true height just to appease some crabby Marin County and Peninsulans and loose out on all the much needed dough. The circumstances around this are much much more in favor of height than Transamerica ever was, because that was simply a corporate tower, not a public space desperate for funds.

[viewguysf]

I agree, imagine how much more majestic the Pyramid building would be at 1100 feet as originally proposed. The BofA kinda over powers it in most angles.

It was proposed at 1,150'; they scaled it down 297' to it's built height of 853'.

[BTinSF]

Wow, I just read through all the public comment on SfGate. Ignorance is a wonderful thing.

Someone really needs to explain to me how other than maybe the first two hours of a summer day that the shadow from this tower will have any effect on a portion of the city beyond the shadows already created by the towers of the financial district.

Anti-growth San Franciscans who've been paying ANY attention at all (typically by reading the SF Bay Guardian) are, by now, conditioned to complain about certain things: shadows, earthquake stability, wind effects, overloading the infrastructure. It's just a reflex thing and a sort of herd mentality. As is often the case, there are examples where these things are valid issues (Fox Plaza and the Burton Federal Building do have awful wind effects for example) but that just gives the naysayers license to repeat them like a mantra. See posts 944 and 945 at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3068410&posted=1#post3068410

And I hope no one misses their cover photo of One Rincon Hill, their new bad boy poster child.

[Reminiscence]

Here is the reply that John King sent me today. Yesterday's article was a good sign of change apparently ...

Mario:

Other people agree with you -- I hope you saw the letter in yesterday's paper -- but the Saturday piece was not meant as a definitive piece. It was straight news, driven by curiousity about what people with an interest in the older downtown landscape might think.

All the best,

John King

[pseudolus]

An interesting presentation here about the temporary terminal, including a timeline for the entire project. It has construction of the tower beginning in April 2010.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/Project/TempTerminalPublicOutreachMtg9-17-07.pdf

TJPA Created Apr-01
EIR Phase Sep-02 Feb-05
PMPC/DTX Preliminary Engineering Consultants NTP Feb-05
Program Planning and Phasing Strategy Development Dec-04 May-06
Approval of Recommended Implementation Strategy Jun-06
Select A/E, Design and Construct Temporary Terminal Jun-06 Jul-09
Bus Operations commence in Temporary Terminal Jul-09
Demolish Transbay Terminal Aug-09 Mar-10
Selection of Developer and TC Building A/E Jun-06 Oct-07
Negotiations with Developer and TC Building A/E Oct-07 Jan-08
Award A/E and Developer Contracts Jan-08
TC Building Design, Bid & Award Construction Feb-08 Sep-11
TC Building Construction, Testing & Commissioning Apr-10 Jan-14
Bus Operations commence in Transit Center Building Jan-14
Developer Environmental Clearance & Entitlement Jan-08 Oct-08
Transit Tower Design Sep-08 Aug-10
Transit Tower Construction Apr-10 Mar-14
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 1 Feb-05 Dec-07
Funding Plan (FP) for DTX Oct-07 Nov-10
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 2 May-10 Apr-11
DTX Final Design May-11 Jun-13
DTX Construction & Testing & Commissioning May-12 Apr-18
Rail Operations commence in Rail Station Apr-18
Caltrain Yard Improvements & Storage Construction May-18 Aug-21

[rajaxsonbayboi]

An interesting presentation here about the temporary terminal, including a timeline for the entire project. It has construction of the tower beginning in April 2010.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/Project/TempTerminalPublicOutreachMtg9-17-07.pdf

TJPA Created Apr-01
EIR Phase Sep-02 Feb-05
PMPC/DTX Preliminary Engineering Consultants NTP Feb-05
Program Planning and Phasing Strategy Development Dec-04 May-06
Approval of Recommended Implementation Strategy Jun-06
Select A/E, Design and Construct Temporary Terminal Jun-06 Jul-09
Bus Operations commence in Temporary Terminal Jul-09
Demolish Transbay Terminal Aug-09 Mar-10
Selection of Developer and TC Building A/E Jun-06 Oct-07
Negotiations with Developer and TC Building A/E Oct-07 Jan-08
Award A/E and Developer Contracts Jan-08
TC Building Design, Bid & Award Construction Feb-08 Sep-11
TC Building Construction, Testing & Commissioning Apr-10 Jan-14
Bus Operations commence in Transit Center Building Jan-14
Developer Environmental Clearance & Entitlement Jan-08 Oct-08
Transit Tower Design Sep-08 Aug-10
Transit Tower Construction Apr-10 Mar-14
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 1 Feb-05 Dec-07
Funding Plan (FP) for DTX Oct-07 Nov-10
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 2 May-10 Apr-11
DTX Final Design May-11 Jun-13
DTX Construction & Testing & Commissioning May-12 Apr-18
Rail Operations commence in Rail Station Apr-18
Caltrain Yard Improvements & Storage Construction May-18 Aug-21

omg so we wont even know what the final design is for two years! and two years of waiting until we finally see construction???! why does it take sooo ridicuously long to get anything done in sf?!

[Reminiscence]

Its a complicated process as usual, and will be so for the next few years. I guess our first thing to look forward to is the fairly iminent construction of the Temporary Bus Terminal. I'd say iminent because if its to be completed around June-July 2009, we should start seeing activity by April-May of next year. I'll feel a lot safer that this is going to actually be reality once this happens.

On a side note: has anyone come upon news of the other significant building in this plan, the TJPA Site?

[BTinSF]

has anyone come upon news of the other significant building in this plan, the TJPA Site?

What site are you referring to?

[Lecom]

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
Shame the tower wouldn't last too long if things keep going the way they are, cause if that's the case then in 2012 Emperor Bush will nuke the evil homosexual interracial terrorist Threat by the Sea in yet another successful military campaign to make the world a safer haven for freedom, Christianity and business interests.

[Reminiscence]

What site are you referring to?

The TJPA Site, which has nothing to do with the main tower and terminal, if I remember correct. One of the original "800'+" buildings closeby.

[slock]

The approval of the Pelli design concerns me regarding surrounding highrise development for 3 reasons.

1. The planning department is in the middle of studying height increases on surrounding parcels that will help fund the terminal. However, now they are planning on a giant park in the midst of some of the tallest towers proposed. I wonder if shadow considerations will force them to lower the 850' TJPA site, or the 900' Heller Manus, to prevent the park from being cast in shadows much of the day and year.

2. With the SOM proposal at 1375', the 1200' height of Pianos towers still allowed the Transbay tower to be the tallest structure in downtown. With Pelli only at 1200' it might force the reduction of other proposed heights to retain Transbay as the tallest of the bunch.

3. With Pelli proposing all office, versus SOM's mixed use, it sucks a lot of the wind out of the sails of the other proposed office buildings. With 1.8 million square feet proposed in Pelli's tower (almost two BofA Buildings) the probability of other sites being developed as office is very low. I'm not sure the market can even absorb Pelli in less than 5 years.

[BTinSF]

The TJPA Site, which has nothing to do with the main tower and terminal, if I remember correct. One of the original "800'+" buildings closeby.

The "TJPA" (TransBay Joint Powers Authority) is responsible for developing the terminal, disposing of the tower site (fronting Mission St between 1st & Fremont) in a manner that brings in some money to pay for Phase II of the Terminal, acquiring land needed for the "CalTrain to 1st & Mission" project (involving a number of sites between the terminal and 4th & Townsend) and planning the general redevelopment (and upzoning) of the neighborhood around the terminal. This involves a number of potential building sites including the "Piano" site at 1st & Mission, 350 Mission, 181 Fremont, 2 sites on Howard between 1st and 2nd etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/20/ba_high_rises.jpg
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/20/ba_high_rises.jpg

So I repeat, which site are you referring to?

[SFView]

The approval of the Pelli design concerns me regarding surrounding highrise development for 3 reasons.

1. The planning department is in the middle of studying height increases on surrounding parcels that will help fund the terminal. However, now they are planning on a giant park in the midst of some of the tallest towers proposed. I wonder if shadow considerations will force them to lower the 850' TJPA site, or the 900' Heller Manus, to prevent the park from being cast in shadows much of the day and year.

2. With the SOM proposal at 1375', the 1200' height of Pianos towers still allowed the Transbay tower to be the tallest structure in downtown. With Pelli only at 1200' it might force the reduction of other proposed heights to retain Transbay as the tallest of the bunch.

3. With Pelli proposing all office, versus SOM's mixed use, it sucks a lot of the wind out of the sails of the other proposed office buildings. With 1.8 million square feet proposed in Pelli's tower (almost two BofA Buildings) the probability of other sites being developed as office is very low. I'm not sure the market can even absorb Pelli in less than 5 years.

In regards to item #1:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=24887
POLICY 2.3
Preserve sunlight in public open spaces

Solar access to public open space should be protected. In San Francisco, presence of the sun’s warming rays is essential to enjoying open space. This is because climatic factors, including ambient temperature, humidity, and wind, usually combine to create a comfortable climate only when direct sunlight is present. Therefore, the shadows created by new development nearby can critically diminish the utility of the open space.

This is particularly a problem in downtown districts and in neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the downtown core, where there is a limited amount of open space, where there is pressure for new development, and where zoning controls allow tall buildings. But the problem potentially exists wherever tall buildings near open space are permitted.

Properties under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department or designated for acquisition are now protected by a voter-approved Planning Code amendment. It restricts the issuance of building permits authorizing construction of any structure exceeding forty feet ion height that would shade these properties from between one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset, unless it is determined that the impact on the use of the space would be insignificant.

A number of other open spaces designated in this Element or elsewhere in the general Plan are under the jurisdiction of other public agencies, or are privately owned and therefore not protected by the Planning Code amendments. These spaces should be given other forms of protection to assure they are not shaded during the hours of their most intensive use. Any new shading should be remedied to the extent feasible by expanding opportunities for public assembly and recreation in indoor and outdoor settings.

(Amended by Resolution 14400 adopted on 6/26/1997)
(Amended by Resolution 14467 adopted on 10/16/1997)

In regards to item #2:
An earlier TJPA publication no longer available online, stated that the Transbay Tower should be taller than the neaby towers by at least 150 feet. If I remember correctly, this was in regards to the 1000', 850', 850' scheme of about 2 years ago. We still need to wait for the studies by Planning to determine workable height schemes. As I said before, the 1200 or 1200+ foot heights between the Piano and Pelli towers are current benchmarks from which may possibly change.

In regard to item #3:
I asked a similar question in the 350 Mission thread.

[SFView]

The TJPA Howard Street and 181 Fremont Street towers are among 7 or more proposed tower sites that might cast shadows on the proposed rooftop terminal park. If TJPA Howard and 181 Fremont are not to cast any shadows on the park, they might need to be not any much taller than the park elevation itself. These sites are almost adjacent to the south of the park. Since the potential new park is not protected by the Planning Code, other potential tower sites are at serious risk of being drastically reduced, and this is a new park introduced as an extra bonus to the plan, I suspect this park could be exempt from the same shadow concerns.

[slock]

Even though the highrises might be exempt from laws limiting shadows on Parks, I think the Planning Department would not want shadows cast on this particular park because of its significance.

Furthermore, and one of the reasons I was very opposed to the Pelli tower, is that because they chose to put a park on the roof, there are just a few spots where light enters the interior, through the circular, palm lined skylights. Because of that, the restrictions might be tough because the shadows cast not only shade the park, but also restrict light entering the terminal itself.

The SOM proposal solved all of this by not having the park on the roof in the first place, and by being fully enclosed in glass, light could enter from any direction.

[Reminiscence]

So I repeat, which site are you referring to?

The site that I am refering to is what others have been talking about recently. The "TJPA Site" aka TJPA Howard Steet Tower on the image you provided is what I was talking about. The image that you posted shows it at "up to 850 feet", which, I'd like to think, is likely to increase now that Transbay has reached 1200' instead of 1000'.

If they for some unknown reason allow this to become a supertall, could they try to use SOM's tower for the design?

[SFView]

:previous: SOM's Transbay Tower would not fit on the Howard Street site. Perhaps another design by SOM for this location would be nice? Otherwise, there is not much public information to say about this site yet except that it may be another very tall part of the original Transbay trio that includes Transbay, Piano and TJPA Howard. Like the Piano plans, it may be better to hold off details until later.

[peanut gallery]

The Howard Street site is very small, even after they shift the bus ramp to the west. It's much smaller than the footprint available at the Transbay tower site, so they'd have to radically redesign the base at least.

edit: didn't mean to more or less repeat SFView. He was posting while I was typing. :)

[Reminiscence]

:previous: SOM's Transbay Tower would not fit on the Howard Street site. Perhaps another design by SOM for this location would be nice? Otherwise, there is not much public information to say about this site yet except that it may be another very tall part of the original Transbay trio that includes Transbay, Piano and TJPA Howard. Like the Piano plans, it may be better to hold off details until later.

I dont believe I've seen the site in person, and if I actually have, its certainly been a while. I didnt mean for the tower to be put as is, but rather to construct a tower with the shape and aesthetics that the SOM design had, slimmer of course, and perhaps not as tall. Having seen what SOM gave us for Transbay, I think they more than deserve to design a few more towers around there, as they didnt win the "competition."

[BTinSF]

:previous: SOM's Transbay Tower would not fit on the Howard Street site. Perhaps another design by SOM for this location would be nice? Otherwise, there is not much public information to say about this site yet except that it may be another very tall part of the original Transbay trio that includes Transbay, Piano and TJPA Howard. Like the Piano plans, it may be better to hold off details until later.

I don't believe there is a developer or architect for this site yet. It will likely be one of the last of the Transbay project sites developed unless someone spontaneously steps forward with a proposal for it. I don't expect that to happen until a decision is made about upzoning heights in the entire Transbay project area.

[viewguysf]

Even though the highrises might be exempt from laws limiting shadows on Parks, I think the Planning Department would not want shadows cast on this particular park because of its significance.

Furthermore, and one of the reasons I was very opposed to the Pelli tower, is that because they chose to put a park on the roof, there are just a few spots where light enters the interior, through the circular, palm lined skylights. Because of that, the restrictions might be tough because the shadows cast not only shade the park, but also restrict light entering the terminal itself.

The SOM proposal solved all of this by not having the park on the roof in the first place, and by being fully enclosed in glass, light could enter from any direction.

Good analysis--and scary to think about.

[tyler82]

I dont believe I've seen the site in person, and if I actually have, its certainly been a while. I didnt mean for the tower to be put as is, but rather to construct a tower with the shape and aesthetics that the SOM design had, slimmer of course, and perhaps not as tall. Having seen what SOM gave us for Transbay, I think they more than deserve to design a few more towers around there, as they didnt win the "competition."

SOM could possibly be able to keep their tower without reduction in height if what I understood from John King's recent article was that basically "more height means more money" and the Pelli Tower, which I believe officially, from ground to crown, is currently 1300', the TJPA let them add just a few more floors, making the building 1400- 1500' and then SOM could have their tower on one of the few available sites and preserve it's 1375' height, as well as have the twin Piano towers at 1200', would make for a very nice mountain shape.

[hectorant84]

I think Pelli's tower is only a mere 1,200 feet to the crown. Hopefully, Pelli and Hines revamps the design by adding more floors and increases the overall height to well over 1,200. However, I don't want to play with numbers... This is San Francisco, were lucky if we end up with 1,000 feet. :(

[tyler82]

This is San Francisco, were lucky if we end up with 1,000 feet. :(

Yes, but a lot of people weren't even expecting anything over 1000' being proposed for the Transbay Tower, and the heights that were introduced were off the charts.

[hectorant84]

Lets just hope for the best... My biggest concern is nimbys from San Anselmo :yuck: will have Transbay chopped in half. Someone had mentioned that Pelli's park may affect the height of the nearby towers due to shadows. Ugh. :hell: I have mixed feelings about the park :koko:... I hope SF doesn't cave when confronted by over zealous SF - Bay Area nimbys in the coming months. I'm also officially declaring my support for Pelli. I hope the old guy does not let us down. :yes: BTW, Tyler where did you hear/read that Pelli's tower is 1,300 feet because all I've seen is 1,200 :shrug:

[BTinSF]

^^^I don't think complainers who are not city residents or at least in prominent positions either in city government or advocacy organizations within the city matter much at all. All the old hippies in Mill Valley, Orinda or Belmont can complain all they want, but unless they have someone interested in their vote on the Board of Supervisors, they might as well be whining at the tides for coming in.

On the other hand, there are plenty of NIMBYs who ARE city residents and it's THEM I'm focused on. But I'm hoping the many San Franciscans who have moved to the city in the last decade looking for real urbanity will outnumber them.

Like I tell my friends (all of whom have been here going on 3 decades) when they get on their 80's high horses about "Manhattanization", New York is the "city that never sleeps" precisely BECAUSE it is so dense with people that there are always potential customers awake and so businesses are open to serve them. Highrise residential buildings are the source of that kind of density, so anybody who wants a city where you can get something to eat or drink, or find a place to party after midnight should welcome them.

[tyler82]

Like I tell my friends (all of whom have been here going on 3 decades) when they get on their 80's high horses about "Manhattanization", New York is the "city that never sleeps" precisely BECAUSE it is so dense with people that there are always potential customers awake and so businesses are open to serve them. Highrise residential buildings are the source of that kind of density, so anybody who wants a city where you can get something to eat or drink, or find a place to party after midnight should welcome them.

I don't understand this fascination with Manhattan. It's like when the GOP launched an all out assault on SF before the '06 elections, claiming we are aligned with Al Qaeda, so on so on.. what's with attacking other major American cities to get your cheap political point across? If you want to debate the issues with logic, great! But unstable emotional pleas aren't the way to go, and I believe this time around, WE have much more to offer in the field of logic and argument then ever before, and all they have is "I hate Manhattan" and "Shadows and earthquakes."

[SFView]

Here is a comparative size estimate found by scaling renderings from:
http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf
http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_presentation

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayheights1.jpg

[aluminum]

^ Great comparison to show how bad the pelli's version sucks in front of SOM's !

[rajaxsonbayboi]

damn that makes me sad again that SOM didnt win.

[BigKidD]

^ Great comparison to show how bad the pelli's version sucks in front of SOM's !
Pelli's tower is still impressive for SF though even if it's still not as grand as SOM's.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Pelli's tower is still impressive for SF though even if it's still not as grand as SOM's.

Yeah, true, but... SOM's is big AND beautiful:(

...and it's even bigger, too! :tantrum:

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Yeah, true, but... SOM's is big AND beautiful:(

...and it's even bigger, too! :tantrum:

:yes: i second that!:cheers:

[Stephenapolis]

Seeing them like that really makes the SOM proposal look even better. Too bad. :(

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

OK fellas, I have an update for you. I have been trying to find the official height statistics on the Transbay Tower proposal, IE whether or not the height is 1200' to the roof, the top of the entire structure, 1250', etc. I have been in contact with Diana Daly, the Marketing Coordinator of Pelli Clarke Pelli, as well as Paul Paradis, Senior Vice President of Hines in San Francisco.

In response to my E-mail (regarding the tower's height) to the marketing coordinator at Pelli Clarke Pelli, I received:

Dear A_____,

Thank you for your email and for your interest in the Transbay Transit
Center and Tower. We have posted a lot of the available information
about the Transbay Transit Center and Tower design on our website -
http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf. As stated in the project
description, the height of the tower is proposed to be 1200 feet and
80
stories. You can also find information about the project (including
press releases and the Jury's report) on the Transbay website -
http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323

If you have other specific questions, they will need to be addressed
with Hines. Their press release can be found at this website -
http://www.hines.com/press/releases/Transbay.aspx

Again, thank you very much for your interest in our project.

Kind Regards,

Diana Daly
Marketing Coordinator
Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects

After receiving that e-mail, I gave a call to Hines' headquarters in Texas, who in return relayed my question to the Hines SF office. A few hours later, I received this e-mail:

To answer your question, Transbay Tower is 1200 feet to the top of the entire structure.

Paul E. Paradis
Senior Vice President
Hines
101 California Street Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94111

So, there you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth (err, mouthes.) The height of the entire structure to it's pinnacle, as proposed, is 1200' tall. No more, no less.

[Reminiscence]

OK fellas, I have an update for you. I have been trying to find the official height statistics on the Transbay Tower proposal, IE whether or not the height is 1200' to the roof, the top of the entire structure, 1250', etc. I have been in contact with Diana Daly, the Marketing Coordinator of Pelli Clarke Pelli, as well as Paul Paradis, Senior Vice President of Hines in San Francisco.

In response to my E-mail (regarding the tower's height) to the marketing coordinator at Pelli Clarke Pelli, I received:

Dear A_____,

Thank you for your email and for your interest in the Transbay Transit
Center and Tower. We have posted a lot of the available information
about the Transbay Transit Center and Tower design on our website -
http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf. As stated in the project
description, the height of the tower is proposed to be 1200 feet and
80
stories. You can also find information about the project (including
press releases and the Jury's report) on the Transbay website -
http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323

If you have other specific questions, they will need to be addressed
with Hines. Their press release can be found at this website -
http://www.hines.com/press/releases/Transbay.aspx

Again, thank you very much for your interest in our project.

Kind Regards,

Diana Daly
Marketing Coordinator
Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects

After receiving that e-mail, I gave a call to Hines' headquarters in Texas, who in return relayed my question to the Hines SF office. A few hours later, I received this e-mail:

To answer your question, Transbay Tower is 1200 feet to the top of the entire structure.

Paul E. Paradis
Senior Vice President
Hines
101 California Street Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94111

So, there you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth (err, mouthes.) The height of the entire structure to it's pinnacle, as proposed, is 1200' tall. No more, no less.

Thanks for your efforts to uncover the truth Harry (if I may call you that :) ). This, to me, is not nearly tall enough and they have plenty of room to grow. Its way too early to say anything in concrete though, so what they're telling you is what they proposed right off the bat. The pinnacle structure itself is 100' tall, making the actual tower only 1100'. Either way, the important thing to realize here, is that this figure will change as the tower and terminal are modified and housing is added. As for the levels, 80 sounds too low. Millenium right across the street has 60, and thats no signature tower (even though it sure looks like one). SOM's proposal made me ponder if we would eventually end up with something over 1500' and over 100 levels. I still have hope this will happen with Pelli's tower, but right now all we can do is wait and pray. I believe the height limits (if there are any) should be ready within the next 6 months.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Thanks for your efforts to uncover the truth Harry (if I may call you that :) ). This, to me, is not nearly tall enough and they have plenty of room to grow. Its way too early to say anything in concrete though, so what they're telling you is what they proposed right off the bat. The pinnacle structure itself is 100' tall, making the actual tower only 1100'. Either way, the important thing to realize here, is that this figure will change as the tower and terminal are modified and housing is added. As for the levels, 80 sounds too low. Millenium right across the street has 60, and thats no signature tower (even though it sure looks like one). SOM's proposal made me ponder if we would eventually end up with something over 1500' and over 100 levels. I still have hope this will happen with Pelli's tower, but right now all we can do is wait and pray. I believe the height limits (if there are any) should be ready within the next 6 months.

I completely agree with you, and although at this point I am just hoping to have a structure that is at least 1200'+, I am also praying for the final plans to include something taller (and hopefully with a public observation deck on top!) :banana:

[Reminiscence]

I completely agree with you, and although at this point I am just hoping to have a structure that is at least 1200'+, I am also praying for the final plans to include something taller (and hopefully with a public observation deck on top!) :banana:

The fact that TJPA conciders the proposal as is right now "only the beginning," leaves me wondering just how flexibile Pelli and Hines are willing to be. I dont believe that C. Daly will let off without getting his housing, so I think its safe to assume this tower will have at least some housing in it.

SOM's tower was actually elevated 103' off the ground and the pinnacle was 175' tall, so the actual tower was right about the same size, at 1097'. The average level's height for SOM's tower is about 11.8'/floor, and Pelli's is about 13.8'/floor, most likely due to the whole tower being used for office. For some reason I've been thinking that even though everyone's comments did little to sway the TJPA's decision on who would win the competition, perhaps our comments stating our desire for a taller tower with perhaps a slightly modified design is something they'll now take into account while working with Pelli + Hines for the eventual final design of the tower.

[SFView]

Thanks for finding out the 1200 foot full height, even though it seems from the drawings and the model that the building appears to be taller. I am still somewhat curious what the architectural drawings actually say, although the current height may only be temporary. There is a good chance there may be one or more redesigns before the tower gets built. That typically happens on projects of such very large size. The coming years should prove to be rather interesting with the possible changes. Hopefully favorable public comment and political requests will have a positive effect on the design and height. We might not really know the final design until near the time construction of the new terminal and tower starts around 2010.

[SNT1]

SOM's version is taller? I want that one now. :banana:

[Reminiscence]

SOM's version is taller? I want that one now. :banana:

Most of us did as well. However, it was not to be :(.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Thanks for finding out the 1200 foot full height, even though it seems from the drawings and the model that the building appears to be taller. I am still somewhat curious what the architectural drawings actually say, although the current height may only be temporary. There is a good chance there may be one or more redesigns before the tower gets built. That typically happens on projects of such very large size. The coming years should prove to be rather interesting with the possible changes. Hopefully favorable public comment and political requests will have a positive effect on the design and height. We might not really know the final design until near the time construction of the new terminal and tower starts around 2010.

I know, so, considering that we won't know the actual dimensions/configuration of the building for at least a year or two, I believe it's time for me to pay attention to another project...

Hey Renzo, how about some renderings and statistics? :yes:

[NYguy]

Most of us did as well. However, it was not to be :(.

Destined to the same fate as some of the great unbuilts, like Foster's "kissing" WTC towers...:(

[BTinSF]

From the moment the building plans were announced (it) was a lightning rod for criticism.

(Critics) said . . . that the "inhuman building" in its pivotal location . . . would have a "devastating effect ... on the fabric of the city."

There were fears it would cast a shadow that could "shroud the surrounding area in Stygian darkness," as an overwrought Chronicle article . . . put it. Many hated the look . . . .

Lawsuits were filed to block construction, but the city's mayor . . . was solidly behind (it) . . . .

The controversy continued during construction.

The Los Angeles Times architecture critic John Pastier called the building "the world's largest architectural folly," (saying) "This is antisocial architecture at its worst; a form of disruption and anarchy as serious as anything that has occurred across the bay in Berkeley or Oakland."

Responding in The Chronicle, the building's architects tartly wrote: "If every new building were obliged to conform, in scale and style, to its immediate neighbors, our cities would still be aggregations of mud huts."

Sound familiar? This was written and said about the TransAmerica as reported at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/29/BUGO76TPTR1.DTL&type=printable

[SFView]

The Golden Gate Bridge also suffered criticism in the years before construction. Most thankfully, the final design by Strauss became the great masterpiece we all know. I hope that Pelli will eventually design a masterpiece that the world will come to know as well.

From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldengate/peopleevents/e_opposition.html
Unsafe, or Ugly
Bridge opponents voiced concerns about the Gate's geographical situation. Many engineers doubted that a bridge could be designed to withstand such a notoriously violent environment. Critics attacked Strauss' engineering abilities, and described his initial design as "an upside-down rat trap." Still more criticism came from residents who did not wish to disturb the aesthetic beauty of the Gate. Opponents of the bridge's construction were collectively known as the "Old Guard."

From: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/bridge/gg30.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/bridge/gg_dc001.html&h=236&w=419&sz=67&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=hL1XPsI-fxRtqM:&tbnh=70&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgolden%2Bgate%2Bbridge%2Bstrauss%2Bdesign%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DHPNW,HPNW:2006-12,HPNW:en%26sa%3DN
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/news_events/bridge/gg30.jpg
Joseph B. Strauss' proposed Golden Gate Bridge design.
Strauss, J. B., and M. M. O'Shaughnessy. Bridging the Golden Gate. [no date].
Source: Derleth Collection, Water Resources Center Archives.

[Stephenapolis]

^I like that bridge design better than the real Golden Gate.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

^I like that bridge design better than the real Golden Gate.

??????Eeew why?

[Reminiscence]

BT, were those arguments against Transamerica before or after they managed to cut it down in size?

[dimondpark]

^I like that bridge design better than the real Golden Gate.
what? its hella ugly:yuck:

[BTinSF]

BT, were those arguments against Transamerica before or after they managed to cut it down in size?

I don't know. The LA Times's comment had to be after because it was after it began construction. But the other stuff could have been before or after. Read the link and see what you think. But I loved the point about it being a pyramid in part because that design, being less bulky at the top, shaded less. Of course the Empire State is less bulky at the top too (take that as a hint about flat-topped refrigerators, Planning Dept.!). ;)

[kenratboy]

We are complaining about the height...but 5 years ago, nobody would even believe that a 1200' building in SF would happen...ever.

Not only that, but there is still the possibility of stuff between 853 and 1200 feet being built as well as this tower.

[Reminiscence]

We are complaining about the height...but 5 years ago, nobody would even believe that a 1200' building in SF would happen...ever.

Not only that, but there is still the possibility of stuff between 853 and 1200 feet being built as well as this tower.

Hmmm, I dont think I would say "ever". I knew we would have buildings of this magnitude, but the issue that I saw was why it has taken so long. Right now we can say that we will have a 2000'+ building in San Francisco, the only question is how long it will take for such a statement to become reality.

San Francisco, being one of the most important metropolitan center in the world, should already have buildings like the ones being proposed right now ... and we would have, were we not stuck with useless people in office decades ago.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Hmmm, I dont think I would say "ever". I knew we would have buildings of this magnitude, but the issue that I saw was why it has taken so long. Right now we can say that we will have a 2000'+ building in San Francisco, the only question is how long it will take for such a statement to become reality.

San Francisco, being one of the most important metropolitan center in the world, should already have buildings like the ones being proposed right now ... and we would have, were we not stuck with useless people in office decades ago.

Hear Hear!

[kenratboy]

Hmmm, I dont think I would say "ever". I knew we would have buildings of this magnitude, but the issue that I saw was why it has taken so long. Right now we can say that we will have a 2000'+ building in San Francisco, the only question is how long it will take for such a statement to become reality.

San Francisco, being one of the most important metropolitan center in the world, should already have buildings like the ones being proposed right now ... and we would have, were we not stuck with useless people in office decades ago.

You are absolutely right - but things have been so horrible for so long, its just a miracle things have fallen into place in the last few years (Rincon and the other 600' stuff, this project, and all the other stuff).

[viewguysf]

??????Eeew why?

Yeah, why?!? Have you seen the real thing in person? Better tend to your own bridges in Minneapolis. :stunned: (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[BTinSF]

You are absolutely right - but things have been so horrible for so long, its just a miracle things have fallen into place in the last few years (Rincon and the other 600' stuff, this project, and all the other stuff).

A miracle named Dean Macris.

And it's no accident things have been so horrible for so long. I am convinced San Francisco voters vote with their hearts and many of them have no real idea what they are voting on or what the candidates they vote for support. Put some beneft on the ballot and it will pass--nobody will ask who'll be stuck paying for it. How many voters really understand anything about the city's bonded indebtedness, how much interest we pay every year, our bond ratings and what they mean? Say we should build a new hospital for old people (I'm thinking Laguna Honda) and everybody cheers without asking who actually could use it and what portion of those who need such services or of those taxed to pay for it will derive any benefit.

I'm just going on trying to say that when some candidate for Supervisor or mayor says he's "progressive" and gets the backing of the right political clubs and machine godfathers (Burton et al), they get elected and few voters pay much attention to what they are likely to do. But then when they don't like what the people they voted in do, they give those they elected terrible approval ratings.

Me, I haven't voted for a supervisor who has won in decades. And I won't vote for a bond issue until they allow 100% of the taxes used to pay back the bonds to be passed through to renters as rent increases so that everybody--property owners and renters--has the same stake in the cost of government.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

(Image copyright Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP)
http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/29891/2001488958928431503_rs.jpg

Oh, the memories....:shuffle:

[Reminiscence]

(Image copyright Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP)
http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/29891/2001488958928431503_rs.jpg

Oh, the memories....:shuffle:

What could have been. Right now I just visualize this building for the other tall tower (which they here show as a transparent model closest to the vantage point of this picture), TJPA's Howard Steet Tower.

In any legitamate competition, SOM's proposal would have blown Pelli's out of the water long ago. But ... not here.

[tyler82]

In any legitamate competition, SOM's proposal would have blown Pelli's out of the water long ago. But ... not here.

I disagree. As just one very recent example, look at the whole freedom tower competition. Now I didn't pay much attention to it as to why or how the tower came to be because I'm not a NYer, but I do remember some very very nice towers being proposed and the bland, glass refrigerator box won as the "signature tower," however, I really like the other smaller towers on the site a lot more than the signature one. I hope we get the same fate with our Transbay area in that SOM is allowed to build it's tower here as well. I don't think SOM's San Francisco office will let all the hard work, planning, and passion just go to waste, they'll still want to build that great artpiece in our city, hopefully.

Even some NIMBYs on the chronicle comments admitted they liked SOMs tower.

[sfcity1]

I'll never feel good about Pelli's tower. It makes me think that I am living in New Jersey, where Pelli built the same style building for Jersey's signatature tower, and Pelli simply bought out the competition.

However, I really do like Pelli's terminal, and 1200 feet does serve the purpose of creating a very high height barrier. Tallest building on the west coast.

[roadwarrior]

I was thinking that the Pelli design for the terminal looked familiar to me. Then I remembered that I saw his design when passing through the terminal at Washington Reagan airport:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/innusa/1295276017/

From "innusa" on Flickr

I was trying to get it posted on here but was having trouble

[viewguysf]

I disagree. As just one very recent example, look at the whole freedom tower competition. Now I didn't pay much attention to it as to why or how the tower came to be because I'm not a NYer, but I do remember some very very nice towers being proposed and the bland, glass refrigerator box won as the "signature tower," however, I really like the other smaller towers on the site a lot more than the signature one. I hope we get the same fate with our Transbay area in that SOM is allowed to build it's tower here as well. I don't think SOM's San Francisco office will let all the hard work, planning, and passion just go to waste, they'll still want to build that great artpiece in our city, hopefully.

Even some NIMBYs on the chronicle comments admitted they liked SOMs tower.

Another good thing is that IMO, our signature tower will be much nicer than WTC's "Freedom Tower". It became even uglier after the NYPD suggestions were incorporated by morphing into a box on top of a tall concrete bunker. I think that it's an extreme disappointment and do not feel the same regarding the tower and terminal plan that we currently have, which I actually feel will be quite beautiful, especially the terminal and park.

That having been said, I was so disappointed that SOM wasn't selected that I haven't even said anything about it until now. I sense that we all went though some sort of collective delusion which built our hopes up so much. In the end, what we thought didn't matter at all. I can now very much rationalize why the Pelli/Hines project was chosen since it's close to ideal in the eyes of the TJPA. Not only is the terminal idyllic for them, but they also get a tall building that contributes significantly more money with a much smaller footprint than SOM.

[Reminiscence]

I disagree. As just one very recent example, look at the whole freedom tower competition. Now I didn't pay much attention to it as to why or how the tower came to be because I'm not a NYer, but I do remember some very very nice towers being proposed and the bland, glass refrigerator box won as the "signature tower," however, I really like the other smaller towers on the site a lot more than the signature one. I hope we get the same fate with our Transbay area in that SOM is allowed to build it's tower here as well. I don't think SOM's San Francisco office will let all the hard work, planning, and passion just go to waste, they'll still want to build that great artpiece in our city, hopefully.

Even some NIMBYs on the chronicle comments admitted they liked SOMs tower.

I also did not pay too much attention for the same reason as yourself. I have not given too much of an effort to search for past designs, but I'll take your word for it :). Most of the news I've heard has been from controversies surrounding the building, one of the biggest being the mayor using his "influence" to have a design selected. Also, the unatractive and tall concrete base suposedly serving as a security measure. In light of all this, I'm not sure if I would call this a legitamate competition.

Regarding the last part of your statement though, I agree with that. I hope you're right about it, and that they will choose it as the design of one of the complementary, maybe supertall, towers.

[SFView]

If SOM was choosen instead, I would have been afraid the tower would be ruined by design changes and the pressure to shorten the tower. With Pelli's design, I have more hope of the design being improved, and the height being increased. Also, with three proposals at the same height of 1200 feet, I think something has to change. Since the Transbay Transit Tower should be the tallest, I hope that the current height will be increased. If it is not, then Piano's towers and all other surrounding towers might need to be less than 1200, or even 1000 feet tall. Then Pelli's tower could end up being San Francisco's only supertall for the next several decades - sad for many of us here on SSP.

SOM should get a chance to design another tower in San Francisco, however I don't think their Transbay design would fit anywhere else in the city. Perhaps another twisting design with a similar exterior lattice, but on a smaller scale, on a smaller site might work?

Here is some background history and information on the Freedom Tower in New York City. As most of us know, this is another design competition that changed dramatically from the original. The surrounding shorter towers will be better designs than the tallest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

[NYguy]

I also did not pay too much attention for the
same reason as yourself. I have not given too much of an effort to search for
past designs, but I'll take your word for it :). Most of the news I've heard has
been from controversies surrounding the building, one of the biggest being
the mayor using his "influence" to have a design selected. Also, the
unatractive and tall concrete base suposedly serving as a security measure.

All you really need to know on the morphing of the Freedom Tower...

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/86402889/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/86403418/original.jpg

[Reminiscence]

All you really need to know on the morphing of the Freedom Tower...

Great graphic.

... Indeed, in the end, its possible Pelli's tower may look nothing like it does now.

[SFView]

Great graphic.

... Indeed, in the end, its possible Pelli's tower may look nothing like it does now.

That has been my point, exactly.


Excerps from TJPA's Final Jury Report may give some clue as to some of the potential changes ahead for Pelli's design of the tower:

From: http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/Board_Meetings/Agendas/2007/Item8_DDCompFinalReport.pdf
It should reflect an understanding of the
role the Tower plays in the urban form of
San Francisco.

The elegant, slender, light design of the
Tower is appropriate for San Francisco,
and the park, if properly built, managed,
and programmed, could be a huge
amenity. Both the Tower and the Transit
Center are very well woven together as
an urban form and are strong contributors
versus detractors to the urban fabric.
The “pearlescent” surface texture of the
Tower is in keeping with San Francisco
precedents, showing an understanding
of the sunlight and atmosphere of San
Francisco. However, with the minimization
of glass area, the Jury cautions against
the heaviness of mullions and spandrel
elements of the exterior wall.

The Transit Tower design concept should
demonstrate integration of green design,
seismic and structural innovation, and
constructability.

The Tower’s structural system is well thought-
out and tried and true. It is
simple and straightforward. However,
the structure is not necessarily innovative
and could contribute more to the overall
image and form of the Tower. Columns
of 11 feet in diameter are too big at
the top floors. Also, the additional large
columns added to the base appear to
provide no functional use and impede
circulation. The design needs more
structural exploration and/or expression
of varied uses to give it a better sense
of scale and viability. The minimization
of glass and use of fresh air floor-to-floor
contribute to the sustainable design.
In addition, the Tower could respond
to solar orientation, as opposed to its
current symmetry on all sides.

The Transit Center and Tower should be
the focus of an evolving neighborhood
and create an iconic architectural
image.

The Tower, paired with the Transit Center,
creates an iconic architectural image. It
is a simple, elegant solution. Its curved
form and “pearlescent” texture soften
the image. Art is integral to the design.
Its playful sculpture/turbines at the top of
the Tower change the presence of light as
the wind blows, contributing to the Tower
as a marker of the Transit Center and
icon of the area. It works well at the street
level, park level, and viewed from afar.
The design also considers and addresses
future redevelopment in the area using
the park as a catalyst for development.
The Jury felt the Tower could be more
operationally and functionally driven
and still be iconic. There is a slight
danger of it being too simple, creating
a need to enrich the design through
solar orientation, a mixed-use program,
and refinement of the scale at the
base. The singular use of the Tower is a
weakness as the all-office program may
not contribute to the vibrancy of a new
neighborhood, but the Team indicated
its flexibility to explore and analyze
residential and/or hotel uses. The Team
further acknowledged that a mixed-use
Tower would provide an authentic and
functional driver to establish variety in
the Tower’s façade and massing. Overall,
the Tower is a whole, elegant identifier of
central place. It is timeless and fits in San
Francisco.

The Jury will also focus on the overall
financial feasibility of the Tower
Proposal. Respondents should submit
the appropriate financial and pro forma
documentation that demonstrates a
development program that can be
financed and built.

...Hines also reminded the Jury that
their proposal does allow for the
potential that floors above 50 could
be devoted to residential rather
than office use. In response to an
interview question, Hines indicated
that their Purchase Price offer would
not change if the ultimate use of the
Tower included residential as well as
office.

[BTinSF]

In any legitamate competition, SOM's proposal would have blown Pelli's out of the water long ago. But ... not here.

I disagree. Winning a competition essentially means satisfying the judges the most. One may attempt to do that by providing a beautiful design and that seems to be what SOM did, but beauty that does not meet the functional requirements of the structure will not win--anywhere--and that appears to be where they slipped up. SOM took a chance on their design for the terminal, hoping they could convince the jury that the grand scale of their hall and the beauty of their design was worth a change in the desired pattern of bus routing through the structure--and they were wrong. The jury, and, I'm guessing, especially the transit representatives on it, simply didn't buy it. They were solidly focused on function over form. SOM took a gamble and lost.

[SFView]

From the same as above: http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...inalReport.pdf
There is a slight
danger of it being too simple, creating
a need to enrich the design through
solar orientation, a mixed-use program,
and refinement of the scale at the
base.

I think it is more than just "slight."

Overall,
the Tower is a whole, elegant identifier of
central place. It is timeless and fits in San
Francisco.

I think the design is not timeless. It looks more like a 1990's design - typical of several other of Pelli's towers in this time period. The bland simpleness of the design does blend well into the overall conservative blandness of San Francisco's skyline.

[Reminiscence]

I disagree. Winning a competition essentially means satisfying the judges the most. One may attempt to do that by providing a beautiful design and that seems to be what SOM did, but beauty that does not meet the functional requirements of the structure will not win--anywhere--and that appears to be where they slipped up. SOM took a chance on their design for the terminal, hoping they could convince the jury that the grand scale of their hall and the beauty of their design was worth a change in the desired pattern of bus routing through the structure--and they were wrong. The jury, and, I'm guessing, especially the transit representatives on it, simply didn't buy it. They were solidly focused on function over form. SOM took a gamble and lost.

I see what you're saying, and you prove some good points. However, I'm not convinced. The way I see it, I'll never know the true reason why SOM did not get chosen. All I can do is assume that the decision was made long before they actually made it, most likely from financial reasons. The statement you guys disagree on was more my personal feeling than anything. Its my fault though, I should have made that known before.