[BTinSF]

All I can do is assume that the decision was made long before they actually made it

Well I agree with you there. I think the AC Transit guy made very clear he wasn't happy at the initial presentation and I bet he didn't have much trouble convincing his colleagues.

[Reminiscence]

Well I agree with you there. I think the AC Transit guy made very clear he wasn't happy at the initial presentation and I bet he didn't have much trouble convincing his colleagues.

Right, its just that I have trouble understanding how their entire choice could have been based on this problem. Either SOM made little or no attempt to convince the judges that this problem could be fixed via a terminal redesign, or SOM could have made all the changes they wanted, and it wouldnt have mattered a bit because they were at a $200 million disadvantage.

[SFView]

Well I agree with you there. I think the AC Transit guy made very clear he wasn't happy at the initial presentation and I bet he didn't have much trouble convincing his colleagues.

His "fatal flaw" comment regarding the stacked bus terminal, might have been the most fatal comment of the entire review.

[tyler82]

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

That is very good to know, thanks for this excellent information. Sounds like the tower will be perfected throughout time.

Looks like they have quite a few recommendations for Pelli there, whereas on SOMs plan there was really just one, the stacked bus terminal, which could have been remedied. What a complete slap in the face to the SOM fans. If Pelli is allowed to alter his design at the request of the TJPA, why is SOM and Rogers not allowed the same?

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

That is very good to know, thanks for this excellent information. Sounds like the tower will be perfected throughout time.

Looks like they have quite a few recommendations for Pelli there, whereas on SOMs plan there was really just one, the stacked bus terminal, which could have been remedied. What a complete slap in the face to the SOM fans. If Pelli is allowed to alter his design at the request of the TJPA, why is SOM and Rogers not allowed the same?

This is just the crap we have to learn to expect with public projects... The freedom tower and now transbay tower are two examples. Hopefully once the details of Renzo's private project come out, we will have something truly exciting to spend our time musing over.:yes:

[Reminiscence]

This is just the crap we have to learn to expect with public projects... The freedom tower and now transbay tower are two examples. Hopefully once the details of Renzo's private project come out, we will have something truly exciting to spend our time musing over.:yes:

What I want to know is if the other two firms made an effort to make that knowledge known. If SOM went to TJPA and said "hey, dont worry about it, we can fix any part of the tower and modify to best suit you," then its not much of an insult. However, if they made minimal or no effort to modify the terminal design, then yes it is a devastating blow to us fans of the plan.

[mthd]

That is very good to know, thanks for this excellent information. Sounds like the tower will be perfected throughout time.

Looks like they have quite a few recommendations for Pelli there, whereas on SOMs plan there was really just one, the stacked bus terminal, which could have been remedied. What a complete slap in the face to the SOM fans. If Pelli is allowed to alter his design at the request of the TJPA, why is SOM and Rogers not allowed the same?

... because hines offered $350 million for the land. difficult for them to turn down an extra $200M or so.

in almost any situation like this, the competitors are willing to reconsider elements of the design. SOM stated their willingness to work with the TJPA engineers to satisfy any real functional criteria, up to and including the double deck configuration if absolutely required.

[mthd]

His "fatal flaw" comment regarding the stacked bus terminal, might have been the most fatal comment of the entire review.

you may also recall that in SOM's response it was noted that there were two meetings with the TJPA technical committee, the primary goal of which was to ensure that there were no 'fatal flaws' in the scheme. it isn't appropriate to go into the details but it's safe to say that SOM would not have proceeded with a scheme that they were told had 'fatal flaws.'

it was an unfortunate use of the term.

[GlobeTrekker]

What I want to know is if the other two firms made an effort to make that knowledge known. If SOM went to TJPA and said "hey, dont worry about it, we can fix any part of the tower and modify to best suit you," then its not much of an insult. However, if they made minimal or no effort to modify the terminal design, then yes it is a devastating blow to us fans of the plan.

I think the only modification that would have really made a difference is if they increased their bid for the land by at least an additional $200 million. There is just no way the TJPA or City would turn down that kind of money. Even if they had big issues with Pelli's design, they can pocket the money and then work with him to modify the design.

I believe they said somewhere in the final report that the tower risks being too bland or something to that effect. So maybe there will be some modifications, but it's hard to think what would change dramatically given the the form and similarities to other towers.

[Reminiscence]

I think the only modification that would have really made a difference is if they increased their bid for the land by at least an additional $200 million. There is just no way the TJPA or City would turn down that kind of money. Even if they had big issues with Pelli's design, they can pocket the money and then work with him to modify the design.

I believe they said somewhere in the final report that the tower risks being too bland or something to that effect. So maybe there will be some modifications, but it's hard to think what would change dramatically given the the form and similarities to other towers.

Pretty much what I've been thinking. It was just too much money to refuse. I cant really blame TJPA though, they would have really really been criticized if they'd of gone with SOM and found out they were short on funds in the end.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

If only Rockefeller had sucked it up and forked over an extra 200 mil to win the contract... :koko:

This proves that Hines just knew what they had to do to get things done their way (in this city.)

[BTinSF]

^^^None of these people are in this to do us any favors or even to create a great piece of architecture. They are in it to make money and if they couldn't see making money by offering over twice as much for the property, I don't blame them for not doing it. I'm actually more worried that Hines is pulling some kind of "fast one" that we don't yet understand.

[slock]

I actually think this is possible. I watched the meeting online and the Board was very adamant that they were concerned about a "bait and switch" with Hines.

They said they have 6 months, and if they change their offer, the TJPA will start the whole design competition process over.

I'm also curious to see the feasibility of Hines raising that amount of money in the current market.

[peanut gallery]

I think the only modification that would have really made a difference is if they increased their bid for the land by at least an additional $200 million. There is just no way the TJPA or City would turn down that kind of money. Even if they had big issues with Pelli's design, they can pocket the money and then work with him to modify the design.

Exactly how I see it as well. I'm concerned that when negotiations get underway, the bid amount will be lowered as the TJPA asks for changes as outlined by SFView above. They have some cushion, so they could theoretically lower it to a certain extent and still come in well above the others. More than anything, adding residential is the issue that could really lower their bid. I know they said it wouldn't, but that was when they were trying to win the competition. If the TJPA throw a lot of changes at them, they can easily say: "this is more than we assumed when we said that," etc.

A housekeeping thought: Is it time to change the thread title of this to better reflect where we are today? Should this thread focus on the main Transbay tower and list the height at 1200' since that's the reality as of today? We already have a separate thread for the Heller Manus tower on Fremont (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=137164). And as Howard and the others become real proposals we can always start new ones for those.

[tyler82]

^^^None of these people are in this to do us any favors or even to create a great piece of architecture. They are in it to make money and if they couldn't see making money by offering over twice as much for the property, I don't blame them for not doing it. I'm actually more worried that Hines is pulling some kind of "fast one" that we don't yet understand.

I'm sorry, but they are in it for all three: to do us a favor by providing a much needed civic space, to make it beautiful, and to make a profit.

If their bottom line is to just give us a sawed off tower, built as simply and cheaply as they can, and top it off with a bottom line bus terminal so that they can maximize their profits, then they should be forced out of the competition. I really do believe SOM's goal was to create something majestic, timeless, and attention grabbing and their dedication to this city could be seen in their project's sophistication and glamour. For somebody to say that all they should be interested in is to make money is entirely the wrongs message to give to developers, which is to say "whoever has the highest bid can do whatever they want to our city at street and sky level."

I believe (hope) that the money isn't the TJPA's only objective.

[BTinSF]

I'm sorry, but they are in it for all three: to do us a favor by providing a much needed civic space, to make it beautiful, and to make a profit.

If their bottom line is to just give us a sawed off tower, built as simply and cheaply as they can, and top it off with a bottom line bus terminal so that they can maximize their profits, then they should be forced out of the competition. I really do believe SOM's goal was to create something majestic, timeless, and attention grabbing and their dedication to this city could be seen in their project's sophistication and glamour. For somebody to say that all they should be interested in is to make money is entirely the wrongs message to give to developers, which is to say "whoever has the highest bid can do whatever they want to our city at street and sky level."

I believe (hope) that the money isn't the TJPA's only objective.

The "THEY" I was referring to are the developers--Hines, Rockefeller et. al.--and if you think their efforts are for any purpose beyond making money, you are a dreamer. SOM is not the developer of that project. I have no idea what the architects' motivations are--some of them may see themselves as artists or "creative" folks doing what they do for some higher motive. But the developers--the source of the money--just want to make more of it. And they aren't going to sweeten their offers, which was the point, if they think it will result in a loss or even in not making enough to be worth their effort.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

The "THEY" I was referring to are the developers--Hines, Rockefeller et. al.--and if you think their efforts are for any purpose beyond making money, you are a dreamer. SOM is not the developer of that project. I have no idea what the architects' motivations are--some of them may see themselves as artists or "creative" folks doing what they do for some higher motive. But the developers--the source of the money--just want to make more of it. And they aren't going to sweeten their offers, which was the point, if they think it will result in a loss or even in not making enough to be worth their effort.

I completely agree. Economically and logically thinking, the only reason that a developer decides to make a tower look 'beautiful' or 'iconic' is so the looks of the tower will also be a means of attracting tenants and business, and be another selling point to guarantee success in that investment. Why do you think that almost every other tower we have in SF is a boring, giant refrigerator? :shrug:

[tyler82]

The "THEY" I was referring to are the developers--Hines, Rockefeller et. al.--and if you think their efforts are for any purpose beyond making money, you are a dreamer. SOM is not the developer of that project. I have no idea what the architects' motivations are--some of them may see themselves as artists or "creative" folks doing what they do for some higher motive. But the developers--the source of the money--just want to make more of it. And they aren't going to sweeten their offers, which was the point, if they think it will result in a loss or even in not making enough to be worth their effort.

The developers, yes, that is their goal, to make money. I am referring more to Pelli, but doesn't Hines have the power to not allow Pelli to do something to their project because it might cost too much or be considered too elaborate? That's where I worry.

[BTinSF]

^^^Yes, as with much in life, the money men probably call the shots although, in fact, this would depend on their contract to which we aren't privy.

The idea is to make the thing attractive in whatever way it can appeal to the TJPA (appearance, functionality, whatever) but keep the costs down and, thereby, the profit up as much as possible. The cost of the land--the payment to the TJPA--is one of the costs along with labor, materials AND architect fees. All the developers had to choose where to allocate their costs--paying more for the land and less for the materials or labor was an option. So, of course, was increasing the return such as by making the building all office.

[Reminiscence]

They said they have 6 months, and if they change their offer, the TJPA will start the whole design competition process over.

Interesting ... I was not aware of the procedure should they reach that conclusion.

[SFView]

Hines did help succeed in developing the 600 foot tall 101 California Street along with Johnson/Burgee Architects back in the early 1980's. This building is one of the few non-banal, non-boring, non-refrigerater boxes built during the mid 60's to mid 80's high-rise building boom period in San Francisco. It is too bad that it is nearly hidden in a forest of surrounding refrigeraters nearly the same height. The boredom still dominates.
http://www.hines.com/property/detail.aspx?id=129

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Another update for you guys. I sent a few questions in the following e-mail to the Senior Vice President at Hines (In San Francisco.) It reads :

Thank you very much for your response, Paul.

I have been in communication with marketing coordinator Diana Daly
at Pelli Clarke Pelli, who directed my tower-specific questions to your
office. If at all possible, I have a few more questions that I am hoping
you can answer about the project, for our preliminary information on the
Transbay Tower proposal:

1- The current tower proposal's configuration being solely office
space, is there any chance that future designs (prior to construction)
could include residential space, such as condominiums or apartments,
within the tower? If so, would Hines be behind the idea of adding
residential space to the tower?
2- If it were decided that residential space would be added to the
tower, would a portion of the current 80 floors be converted from an
office configuration to residential, or would more floors (and more
overall height for the tower) be added to accommodate the housing? If
so, would Hines be behind the idea of adding height to the proposed
1200'?
3- Will the tower, as proposed or in future revisions of the
proposal, include any sort of publicly accessible observation deck or
restaurant at it's top? Is Hines behind the idea of having a public
observation deck or restaurant at the top of the tower?

I greatly appreciate your helping us learn more about this exciting
new project for San Francisco. We are very excited this opportunity for a new iconic structure, which we believe will be a wonderful addition to the city
and county of San Francisco, as well as it's beautiful skyline.

Thank you for your time,

A----- J-------

In response he sent the following e-mail:

A-----,

1. The project is currently an office building with retail on the lower
levels. The design allows for other uses such as residential or hotel
should we decide to move in that direction at a later time. The most
likely outcome is our current plan.
2. More height is very unlikely. Space currently planned for office
would be redesigned for residential.
3. No plans have been made for public space at the top of the tower.
This concept will be addressed during design development. Hines'
perspective is currently neutral until more information is available.

Thank you for your interest.

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

So, for the time being, that is where Hines stands. :sleep:

[peanut gallery]

The most likely outcome is our current plan.

Interesting. They expect it to stay 100% office. They must believe that the TJPA will not want to negotiate down a lower price to add residential (which in my novice opinion is the only way that will happen). Their overwhelming offer gives Hines quite a bit of leverage in this process.

[tyler82]

Interesting. They expect it to stay 100% office. They must believe that the TJPA will not want to negotiate down a lower price to add residential (which in my novice opinion is the only way that will happen). Their overwhelming offer gives Hines quite a bit of leverage in this process.

Screw Hines, I can't wait until the next competition. Hopefully SOM will stay with us!

[roadwarrior]

Screw Hines, I can't wait until the next competition. Hopefully SOM will stay with us!

At this point, I'd actually be happy if they did go through with the current plan. Knowing Daly and the NIMBY contingent, 1,200 feet is an incredibly optimistic scenario.

[SFView]

Could it be that Hines wouldn't want to change anything if they didn't have to? Three more years before construction is a very long time to last without change, especially in the political and economical climate of San Francisco. Furthermore, the Planning studies are not even here yet.

I hope that the height would not be reduced for changing the upper floors to residential to maintain the money offer. Could doing so bring heights of other planned towers nearby down as well, and less money for Transbay as a whole?

[Reminiscence]

Could it be that Hines wouldn't want to change anything if they didn't have to? Three more years before construction is a very long time to last without change, especially in the political and economical climate of San Francisco. Furthermore, the Planning studies are not even here yet.

I hope that the height would not be reduced for changing the upper floors to residential to maintain the money offer. Could doing so bring heights of other planned towers nearby down as well, and less money for Transbay as a whole?

Well, as they said, Hines apparently prefers not to alter their plan unless need be. But as you said, change happens, and its a long way before we actually start seeing construction. It could be that elections and such could also pose otherwise.

I wonder, is it possible that Hines bid a huge amount of money in anticipation of these changes that TJPA would ask for? If such is true, perhaps adding height and extra floors to the tower would have a minimal effect on the pocket? I'm not sure if thats even possible, I'm just exploring ideas here ...

[viewguysf]

At this point, I'd actually be happy if they did go through with the current plan. Knowing Daly and the NIMBY contingent, 1,200 feet is an incredibly optimistic scenario.

Agreed. It seems to me that the very least we could all lobby for at the proper time would be an observation deck--TJPA should insist upon that. Even the NIMBY's would utilize it.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Agreed. It seems to me that the very least we could all lobby for at the proper time would be an observation deck--TJPA should insist upon that. Even the NIMBY's would utilize it.

That is the one thing- aside from a 1200' height -that I want out of this project.

[SFView]

Pelli and Hines might have known that offering as much money as possible was a good way to gain an advantage over the competition. They found the right combination of sacrifices, including a less unique, less complicated design and no mixed-use, to help gain the financial edge they needed. The rooftop park idea also allowed them to distract attention from the otherwise less interesting tower - less building, more trees.

It is interesting that Pelli's tower design more closely resembles the general shape of many of the early schematics TJPA had produced before the competition.

I would also like an observation deck and rooftop restaurant.

[Reminiscence]

Pelli and Hines might have known that offering as much money as possible was a good way to gain an advantage over the competition. They found the right combination of sacrifices, including a less unique, less complicated design and no mixed-use, to help gain the financial edge they needed. The rooftop park idea also allowed them to distract attention from the otherwise less interesting tower - less building, more trees.

It is interesting that Pelli's tower design more closely resembles the general shape of many of the early schematics TJPA had produced before the competition.

I would also like an observation deck and rooftop restaurant.

I'm willing to bet they did know. After all, with TJPA mentioning that phase II does not have all funds accounted for, what better way to get attention on you than by dropping a $200 million stone in the pond. I'm trying to remain optimistic regarding Pelli and Hines, but something tells me we're heading for a dissapointment that might have a ripple effect on the surrounding buildings as well. Right now, I'm just looking forward to what the impact reports say about height issues and such.

About the observation deck: There has to be one up there, how could there not be? I can already imagine the view from that high up, it'll be like no other in the world.

[John Hinds]

Looks huge when you compare to the Transamerica Pyramid in the diagram.
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?c114

This is the tallest thing ever proposed in San Francisco, right?

[Reminiscence]

This is the tallest thing ever proposed in San Francisco, right?

Sadly, yes it is. The Glass Tower which many recognize from The Towering Inferno is still dreamed of by some (including me), but is only a fantasy tower. I guess if you count SOM's proposal at 1375', maybe thats the tallest ever proposed in SF.

[John Hinds]

Why are you guys complaining about it so much then.

The SOM design was way over the top. It would never have been feasible to build anything with cladding like that.

[R@ptor]

Sadly, yes it is. The Glass Tower which many recognize from The Towering Inferno is still dreamed of by some (including me), but is only a fantasy tower. I guess if you count SOM's proposal at 1375', maybe thats the tallest ever proposed in SF.

Wasn't the Transamerica Pyramid originally proposed with 1,200ft?

[Reminiscence]

Why are you guys complaining about it so much then.

The SOM design was way over the top. It would never have been feasible to build anything with cladding like that.

As some others have said, there is more to a building than just its height. The SOM design was visually striking and a sure landmark. The design was quite feasible as you will find from TJPA's report on its website, stating the expected construction costs for each of the three tower proposals. The Pelli design is a more conservative and safe approach, and lacks the punch that SOM had. The height is only a part of the problem. This is the reason why some people on here are "complaining."

Wasn't the Transamerica Pyramid originally proposed with 1,200ft?

It was actually 1150'. Knowing San Francisco's history, such a building was not possible at its time, not because we could'nt build it, but because too many people stood in the way. With so much oposition, I think we're lucky we ended up with what we have now at 853'.

[peanut gallery]

I was nosing around the TJPA site and noticed new details on the temporary terminal (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=854).

Most of you know this, but here is where it will go:
http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/TTsite.jpg

Here's the layout from above:
http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/aerial-map.jpg

One of the many changes that will happen with this will be reconfiguring of lanes around the terminal to give better access to/from the Bay Bridge to replace the elevated roadways the current terminal uses.

And to give you a sense of the look of it, here's a rendering:
http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/TTsecB.jpg

Check the TJPA site (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=854) for more detail. You also might want to read through Eric's excellent summary (http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/schematic-design-of-the-temporary-transbay-terminal/) at the Transbay Blog. He has a lot of great info on the flow, which transit services will be where and the timeline/phasing of the project.

[peanut gallery]

Wow, those came out a lot bigger here than on the TJPA site. Can anyone tell me how to resize them down a bit? Or are they OK at this size?

[SFView]

:previous: I am okay with it. I can see the detail much better. Thanks!

[hectorant84]

Its obvious Hines has no intention of increasing the height. I don't know what San Francisco's obsession is with 1,200 feet. NY surpassed 1,250 with Empire in the 30's. I don't know what is so iconic about 1,200 feet. Then again this is San Francisco land of the 600 - 500 foot tall refrigerator boxes that litter the financial district. I admit 1,200 feet would make a nice change but do we really need Renzo’s towers to be also 1,200 feet? Why not make Transbay taller than 1,200 feet? From the beginning I knew Pelli’s tower and park would be a problem. I’m almost convinced that the structural height of Renzo’s towers will be affected by Pelli’s bland tower and stupid rooftop park. San Francisco should take advice from Chicago’s city planning commission. They know how to bring in the extra revenue with exciting tourist attractions. San Francisco thinks Fisherman’s Wharf and Pier 39 will be its knight in shinning amour. TJPA should insist Pelli add residential floors, an observation deck, and a world class restaurant. I’m sick of Carnelian Room atop of 555 California Street because it’s overpriced, the food sucks, and the “observation – cocktail lounge” is loaded with snobby people that think they’re god’s gift to the world. FYI Windows on the World was the highest grossing restaurant in the US with revenue of $37 million in 2000. Its obvious SF is clueless and settles for less. It’s never willing to take a chance because of people like Chris Daly and his nimby friends. Nonetheless, I’m disappointed with the TJPA because SOM was supported by many and still they gave us the cold shoulder… Ugh. San Francisco is LAME.

[Reminiscence]

I was nosing around the TJPA site and noticed new details on the temporary terminal (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=854).

One of the many changes that will happen with this will be reconfiguring of lanes around the terminal to give better access to/from the Bay Bridge to replace the elevated roadways the current terminal uses.

Thanks for posting those peanut gallery, I would have done so as well, but in addition to being somewhat lazy at the time, I also assumed everyone knew more or less where it was going to be located.

I think its funny when you compare the temporary structures to what we'll have when the new terminal is completed. The difference is like night and day. I believe when the new terminal is complete, and they've demolished the temporary terminal, the cleared site will give way to tower(s) around 400' to 500' tall proposed as part of the Transbay Redevelopment plan.

[Reminiscence]

Its obvious Hines has no intention of increasing the height. I don't know what San Francisco's obsession is with 1,200 feet. NY surpassed 1,250 with Empire in the 30's. I don't know what is so iconic about 1,200 feet. Then again this is San Francisco land of the 600 - 500 foot tall refrigerator boxes that litter the financial district. I admit 1,200 feet would make a nice change but do we really need Renzo’s towers to be also 1,200 feet? Why not make Transbay taller than 1,200 feet? From the beginning I knew Pelli’s tower and park would be a problem. I’m almost convinced that the structural height of Renzo’s towers will be affected by Pelli’s bland tower and stupid rooftop park. Its obvious SF is clueless and settles for less. It’s never willing to take a chance because of people like Chris Daly and his nimby friends. Nonetheless, I’m disappointed with the TJPA because SOM was supported by many and still they gave us the cold shoulder… Ugh. San Francisco is LAME.

Once again, I think its important to realize that we must wait until the various studies are completed before we see "official" plans of what is to be constructed. 1200' is just the starting point really, which is why I've voiced my desire to have it made taller, but also plan to save my criticism until its been made official, if those are indeed the official details. As for Renzo's complex, we know even less about that. Renzo Piano did say they were not "wedded" to those specifications, meaning height(s) could change, we could see taller or shorter. Either way, details are still a few months away, but its important to know that change is in the air, and that we have a potentially great future in the "Post-Transamerica Era."

[BTinSF]

I like that "temporary terminal". Why don't we just make it permanent? ;)

[plinko]

Question about the temporary terminal:

Why build it? It looks like it sits in an area large enough to accomodate the new terminal and tower. Why not just continue to use the existing terminal and move the new terminal and tower down a few blocks? That would save quite a few million in unnecessary design and construction costs no?

Maybe I'm completely off here.

Anybody got a map of the blocks where the new terminal is supposed to go and where this temporary terminal is going?

I'm sure there's some logistical reason (most likely related to the Bay Bridge approach ramps)...I'm just curious...

[SFView]

The original location of the terminal is still the most ideal location for transit and traffic circulation, and other relationships to the surrounding area.

Hopefully the desire to build taller to help raise funds to support Transbay, will outweigh other issues like wind, shadows and traffic to the contrary. In wanting to create a balanced new downtown mound with the Tranbay Tower as its focus, it is important that this structure be at the tallest possible height acceptable by all or most of the standards being considered. I would be pleased, if the new studies conclude that Piano's towers can at least remain at 1200 feet or more, with the Transbay Terminal Tower at 1350 feet or greater, and such heights get approved. This also might more easily allow for one or more supertalls to be built nearby, and even more potential money for Transbay. However, it is still best to wait for Planning to determine what may be the most ideal heights for Transbay. The previous height study by Planning hinted at 1250 feet for Transbay, but that was before Piano, Pelli and 181 Fremont and others gave us more to consider.

[Reminiscence]

Question about the temporary terminal:

Why build it? It looks like it sits in an area large enough to accomodate the new terminal and tower. Why not just continue to use the existing terminal and move the new terminal and tower down a few blocks? That would save quite a few million in unnecessary design and construction costs no?

Maybe I'm completely off here.

Anybody got a map of the blocks where the new terminal is supposed to go and where this temporary terminal is going?

I'm sure there's some logistical reason (most likely related to the Bay Bridge approach ramps)...I'm just curious...

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3239/transbaylocationmodifielx3.jpg

Here the Transbay Terminal is bound by a yellow line and the Temporary Terminal to be built is bound by a red line. The arrows shown are the routes that the buses and such take or will probably take (I guessed on the Temporary Terminal's bus routes). The Transbay Tower location has a yellow star.

My guess is TJPA knows what they're doing when it comes to financial spending (as proven by selecting Pelli :rolleyes:), so they probably know its cheaper and more convinient for AC Transit and Caltrans to keep the current ramp alignment. I'd go with that logical reason, it makes the most sense.

[tyler82]

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/aerial-map.jpg

.

Why don't we just call this entire project the AC TRANSIT terminal and tower, I swear to God. I'd be very interested to find out just WHO sits on AC Transit's board and how they are connected to city hall.

[BTinSF]

Why not just continue to use the existing terminal and move the new terminal and tower down a few blocks?

A large part of the point of this project is to get a multimodal transit facility on Mission St at the center of the "new Financial District" and also just one block (rather than 2) from BART, allowing a tunnel (lined with shopping??) to connect CalTrain/CA HSR and BART (Montgomery St Station).

As you may know from my previous posts, I'm not one who thinks this is all so critical, but the project supporters seem to.

[SFView]

Why don't we just call this entire project the AC TRANSIT terminal and tower, I swear to God. I'd be very interested to find out just WHO sits on AC Transit's board and how they are connected to city hall.

If you look at it that way, it almost seems as if AC Transit is the most major key player in this entire project. Terminal function and usability especially for AC Transit is primary, and the tower is just extra to help pay for the terminal. Pelli/Hines wins! AC Transit will get what they want. Now that we have Pelli and Hines, we will just have to see how to best satisfy the rest of us. I hope that also includes those of us on SSP and others like us.

[CUCa]

Out of pure curiosity, why the tunnel to Montgomery BART and not Embarcadero? Aren't they the same distance from either end of the new terminal?

[plinko]

A large part of the point of this project is to get a multimodal transit facility on Mission St at the center of the "new Financial District" and also just one block (rather than 2) from BART, allowing a tunnel (lined with shopping??) to connect CalTrain/CA HSR and BART (Montgomery St Station).

As you may know from my previous posts, I'm not one who thinks this is all so critical, but the project supporters seem to.

Actually, now that I see the map I can see the postives to the current terminal location vs. a relocation. I think the proximity to Market Street and to BART is a huge positive. Still, there are plenty of places I can think of where the underground tunnels between transit types are fairly long (Kowloon Station in HK between MTR and the KCR comes to mind first). That tunnel connection is at least a 1/4 mile!

Still, the relocation and reconfiguration of the ramps is likely much more costly than the temporary terminal will cost.

Just thinking outside the box. :cheers:

[tyler82]

If you look at it that way, it almost seems as if AC Transit is the most major key player in this entire project. Terminal function and usability especially for AC Transit is primary, and the tower is just extra to help pay for the terminal. Pelli/Hines wins! AC Transit will get what they want. Now that we have Pelli and Hines, we will just have to see how to best satisfy the rest of us. I hope that also includes those of us on SSP and others like us.

AC Trans should focus on their own part of land and let us do our projects ourselves. Anyone who has waited and waited and waited for an AC bus, even in Berkeley where they are such "transit advocates," knows what I am talking about. The wait times are even worse than MUNI. I'd rather we focus on OUR OWN MUNI's operation needs and concerns over some East Bay bloodsuckers.

Am I bitter? You're goddam right I am !!

[tyler82]

Concerning the central subway, I just received a reply today in a letter I wrote on January 15 to SFMTA (wow, they should really think about hiring some new PR people :-D) in which I expressed interest in the central subway and possible Geary LRV lines. Here is the reply I got:

Dear Mr. Wierzbicki:

Thank you very much for your email and interest in the Central Subway Project. I apologize for the delay in responding but we have had a problem with our email system.

You are correct that there are studies currently underway regarding the Geary line and you can find more information on the SFMTA website. This project is separate from the Central Subway Project.

The Central Subway project is currently in the preliminary engineering phase. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Study/Report (SEIS/SEIR) is scheduled to be issued this month and will provide detailed information about the project. The project begins at Fourth and King Streets where it connects with the recently opened T-Third line and ends at Stockton and Jackson Streets in Chinatown. A possible extension from Chinatown to North Beach and beyond is not yet approved. There are several alignments being considered that are addressed in the SEIS/SEIR including the original 1998 EIS/EIR Alignment. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2010 with start of operations in early 2016.

If you provide your mailing address, we would be pleased to add you to our project mailing list. Also, the Central Subway project website (www.sfmta.com/central) provides updated information about the project and notices of public meetings.

Thank you again for your interest in the project and please let us know if you would like additional information.

John Funghi
Program Manager
SFMTA Central Subway Project
821 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Project Hotline: 415-701-4371
www.sfmta.com/central


If everything goes to plan, or at least somewhat adheres to it's planned timetable, we could have a new Transbay Tower, Transbay Terminal, Central Subway, and new Bay Bridge all opening within a couple years of each other!!

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Concerning the central subway, I just received a reply today in a letter I wrote on January 15 to SFMTA (wow, they should really think about hiring some new PR people :-D) in which I expressed interest in the central subway and possible Geary LRV lines. Here is the reply I got:



If everything goes to plan, or at least somewhat adheres to it's planned timetable, we could have a new Transbay Tower, Transbay Terminal, Central Subway, and new Bay Bridge all opening within a couple years of each other!!

Good research Mr. Wierzbicki, these projects are probably the most exciting our city has seen in over a decade... I can't wait...

[rocketman_95046]

Editorial

How high and how safe?
Sunday, October 7, 2007

Within yards of the Bay Bridge entry point into San Francisco looms the 60- story Rincon apartment tower. It's the first of a wave of ultra-tall high-rises expected to remake the city landscape, spreading sky-high offices southward from downtown and luring thousands of residents to new condo spires along a largely empty waterfront.

But it also makes people worry. How safe are these next-generation towers? Earthquakes are the first thought, but there's also fires, utility failures that could strand occupants and even anxieties about terrorism. The startling changes taking place on San Francisco's familiar streets have brought up such doubts.

The city's building bureaucracy begs to differ. With little notice, it has devised new policies to strengthen construction codes, tightening rules beyond any other city on the West Coast. The Fire Department has weighed in with guidelines for fire-proof elevators that would speed personnel to a blaze hundreds of feet above the street. Engineers in private firms and academia, who turn fanciful blueprints into reality, say that their profession has made huge strides in designing sturdy buildings in quake country.

Planning director Dean Macris, who is the city's top salesman for the ultra-towers, isn't fazed by doubts. Would he live or work in the upper reaches of the 60-story towers he favors? "Everyone I talk to says that these buildings are the safest places to be in an earthquake," he said.

Added Isam Hasenin, director to the city's Department of Building Inspection: "Building tall buildings isn't new." Last year, after a six-month study, his department added an extra condition for an expected surge of high-rises of 60 stories or more. A panel of outside engineers would pass on future plans along with city officials.

A quake on the scale of the 1989 Loma Prieta temblor would likely produce more air sickness than injury in a tall building. A one-second shake on the ground would be magnified to a six-second, side-to- side sway at 60 stories, suggested Berkeley engineering professor Hassan Astaneh, an expert in the field. Even a long quake near Bay Area fault lines isn't likely to collapse a modern high-rise, he said.

But it's not all about riding out a quake. Debra Walker, who is president of the commission overseeing building inspections and a longtime high-rise critic, offers another vision. Her concern is that the tall buildings would remain standing, surrounded by streets filled with glass and building materials. The structures will be uninhabitable and will turn thousands of office workers homeless. Her choice is smaller buildings in the 40-story range.

A more realistic worry is a familiar one. Newer and taller buildings, built to recent standards and made with more supple materials aren't the problem. "The city is better off thinking about all the small buildings," said Joe Maffei, an engineer who advised the city on adding extra reviews for tall high-rises.

This article appeared on page E - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/07/EDPTSK0EG.DTL

[BTinSF]

I said Montgomery and I believe that's the connection, but I'm not sure actually--it will connect to A BART station and I thinK it's Montgomery because I think that is a block away and Embercadero is more but I could be wrong. The point was that a terminal between Howard and Folsom like the "temporary" one is definitely further.

[tyler82]

I said Montgomery and I believe that's the connection, but I'm not sure actually--it will connect to A BART station and I thinK it's Montgomery because I think that is a block away and Embercadero is more but I could be wrong. The point was that a terminal between Howard and Folsom like the "temporary" one is definitely further.

I hope they choose Embarcadero, it would make more sense because then it could also connect to the Ferry Terminal.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/31481/2005054573549372582_rs.jpg
Embarcadero looks closer (and easier) than Montgomery to me.... ;)

[BTinSF]

^^^Looking at this muni map: http://transit.511.org/providers/maps/SF_7122007102947.gif it appears to me that the new terminal, which will extend just about from Beale to 2nd, is almost exactly between them and could connect to either. I tend to agree that in that case, Embaracadero would be preferable.

[slock]

Here's the study:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/Board_Meetings/Agendas/2007/Item8_BART%20Connector%20staff%20rpt%20w-pres-revised.pdf

[Reminiscence]

Here's the study:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedFiles/Board_Meetings/Agendas/2007/Item8_BART%20Connector%20staff%20rpt%20w-pres-revised.pdf

Thanks for providing that study slock. I think the most interesting tunnel would be the Beale Street alignment, obviously because it is the shortest of the four and because it seems to be the cheapest option. However, I also found the Ecker Place Tunnel option to be interesting because they mention the possibilty of tunneling through the "proposed private development project" on First Street between Mission and Stevenson streets. If I'm not mistaken, Renzo Piano's Towers are suppose to occupy that space. Tunneling through there could also link Piano's Towers to Transbay Terminal and Tower. Could that make funds available from another developer?

[peanut gallery]

Yep, that's where Piano's towers are supposed to go. On a purely selfish basis, I'd like to see one of the Embarcadero options. On particularly cold and rainy days, I could minimize my exposure to the elements by taking those tunnels from the foot of Market all the way to the backside of the terminal, which is right next to my building.

[tyler82]

Good research Mr. Wierzbicki, these projects are probably the most exciting our city has seen in over a decade... I can't wait...

In a decade?? If all of this works out according to plan, I'd say it's the most significant public works project since the construction of the GG and Bay Bridges.

Yes, I am one of the cheerleaders of the Central Subway. Yah, it's gonna cost a ton of money. But with the horrible debt this country is in coupled with the "labor" laws of this state and city (they should just call them 'delay-bor laws, since it's rare to see all of these CalTrans and city workers working all at once when they are grouped together.. but that's another topic!), what doesn't cost a ton? I envision great potential from the construction of the central subway, with surface travel down Columbus through North Beach, and possibly up Bay or Lombard Street to the Marina, and another surface car down Geary out to the Ocean. This city NEEDS to be connected to itself, if you live on the south west side, it's very difficult to make it to the north east side of town, and vice versa.

Hopefully the city gets off its lazy arse and allows developers to buy land parcels downtown which could actually FUND all of these much needed projects, the only other alternative is to hope that a Clinton admin. is put back into the white house. However, a Guiliani admin might be friendly to SF as well, seeing as how he was the mayor of that other liberal cess pool, New YOrk.

[peanut gallery]

US Today has an article on the Transbay project (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-14-Tower_N.htm). Normally I wouldn't care much what USA Today has to say about this (I only saw the article because it was linked from another site), but they do have a couple of quotes from the architecture and design curator at SF-MOMA and Dean Macris.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/10/14/sanfranciscox.jpg

SAN FRANCISCO — Where else but here, the cradle of psychedelic, would you expect a sleek, skyline-dwarfing skinny office tower crowned with a spin-in-the-wind, glowing, turbine-powered light show?

It's all part of a $1 billion development the city — like a few others with major projects underway — is betting will be the wave of the future: building up instead of out, the denser the better, stressing trains and buses over cars.

The proposed Transbay Transit Center with its possible 1,200-foot tower, elevated public park the length of five football fields and room for high-speed trains someday linking California's major cities, will be a "symbolic expression of our environmental values," says Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association, a public policy think tank.

"It's a statement that our highest value is ecology," he says. "Just as church steeples were always the tallest buildings in the Middle Ages, we're marking our transit hub as the most important spot on the skyline."

The joint agency formed to handle this project approved the skyscraper's design last month. Its developer, Hines, has announced a tentative financing deal. City officials have said they hope to move the project through the planning bureaucracy in 18 months.

According to David Goldberg, a spokesman for Smart Growth America, a national coalition working to slow sprawl, other sprawl-spoiled cities are embarking on long-term developments aimed at getting commuters out of cars and encouraging mass transit to cut pollution and traffic congestion:

•Atlanta's BeltLine project is an example: a rail loop around the city core with parks, trails and dense neighborhoods clustered at station stops.

•Another is Denver's voter-approved regional light rail and rapid bus system designed to concentrate future growth closer in.

•Salt Lake City's light rail system would do the same.

•Dallas has plans for "transit-oriented developments" around light rail.

•Even Los Angeles "is trying to figure out how to retrofit the prototypical automobile-driven metro area" around subway and light rail lines, Goldberg says.

"In a place like San Francisco, the notion of higher density and a mix of uses is not radical," he says. "But even there that kind of planning and development hasn't been real common."

The Transbay tower, which hasn't been named yet, would rise nearly 400 feet above the city's tallest structure, the Transamerica Pyramid, pending zoning changes to allow taller buildings. The skyscraper designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects would be part of a long-term effort to change San Francisco's relatively low, flat, "pancake" skyline, says city planning director Dean Macris.

The building and 12-block redevelopment area around it could support more tall towers, spaced among town house and condo neighborhoods, Macris says.

"In San Francisco, oftentimes tall buildings become political statements rather than a building form," he says. "Will there be pushback? Of course there will be." In the 1920s, three 400-foot-tall buildings caused a stir. Forty years later, the pyramid and 52-story Bank of America Center did the same.

"We want the skyline to rise to certain peaks to express the importance of certain locations in the city," Macris says.

The design of the tower could have done a better job of that, says Henry Urbach, architecture and design curator at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. "It's a competent building, but not one that will necessarily break new ground in urban space and urban infrastructure," he says. "We should insist on a building that people will come to San Francisco to see. This isn't it."

Peter Bosselmann, an urban design professor at the University of California, Berkeley, believes the building's height will be reduced. "I think it would stand out in a bad way," he says, because of San Francisco's tradition of height limits compatible with its hilly topography. Bosselmann also wonders whether office-space demand will bear out to make it profitable.

Hines will pay $350 million for land the tower will be built on in the city's south or market district. The money will help finance the transit center, a hub for light rail, commuter trains and, at some point, high-speed, or bullet, trains.

The tower would taper as it rises and provide 1.6 million square feet of office space, "not an absurd amount" in a city that absorbs 1 million new square feet a year, Hines Vice President Paul Paradis says.

"We think people have come to realize the benefit of tall in urban cores," he says. "That's why we're not seeing a lot of opposition."

As for those penthouse turbines, housed in a 100-foot-tall metal cage above the top floor, their purpose, for now, is aesthetic only. The wind would spin four turbines, powering a light that would glow brighter the stronger the gusts. Paradis says he believes technology will be perfected to take advantage of high winds and help generate energy.

"You need to make the turbines quiet and not vibrate too much for the space near them to be habitable," he says. "With the wind going as fast as it does and these turbines creating resistance, that's not an easy engineering problem."

[SFView]

From the USA Today article quoted above:
The design of the tower could have done a better job of that, says Henry Urbach, architecture and design curator at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. "It's a competent building, but not one that will necessarily break new ground in urban space and urban infrastructure," he says. "We should insist on a building that people will come to San Francisco to see. This isn't it."It is good to see an opinion that agrees with mine get published.

Peter Bosselmann, an urban design professor at the University of California, Berkeley, believes the building's height will be reduced. "I think it would stand out in a bad way," he says, because of San Francisco's tradition of height limits compatible with its hilly topography.True, if no other tall towers are to surround it, but that is not or should not be the plan.

Bosselmann also wonders whether office-space demand will bear out to make it profitable.Hines believes it will be profitable. I still question how so much office space in one building at 1200 feet tall might not shrink plans for other developments nearby, and reduce potential profit for the rest of Transbay and the surrounding area.

[Reminiscence]

[...] "But even there that kind of planning and development hasn't been real common."

Gee, I wonder why :rolleyes:


"In San Francisco, oftentimes tall buildings become political statements rather than a building form," he says. "Will there be pushback? Of course there will be." In the 1920s, three 400-foot-tall buildings caused a stir. Forty years later, the pyramid and 52-story Bank of America Center did the same.

This is one thing that bothers me, the fact that this might be the new glass ceiling for buildings for the next 50 years.


The design of the tower could have done a better job of that, says Henry Urbach, architecture and design curator at San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. "It's a competent building, but not one that will necessarily break new ground in urban space and urban infrastructure," he says. "We should insist on a building that people will come to San Francisco to see. This isn't it."

With Pelli's current design, I tend to agree with this statement. The tower is too plain and theres really not much that stands out except for its height and the glowing crown at night. I hope TJPA pushes for a more interesting design, something approaching the calliber that SOM had.


Peter Bosselmann, an urban design professor at the University of California, Berkeley, believes the building's height will be reduced. "I think it would stand out in a bad way," he says, because of San Francisco's tradition of height limits compatible with its hilly topography. Bosselmann also wonders whether office-space demand will bear out to make it profitable.


I'm not sure about this statement however, the current skyline doesnt seem to be too compatible with the hilly terrain, in my opinion. Most buildings are leveled and capped at a certain height usually around 500' - 600'. We need more buildings of different heights to accent these hills. It might stand out in a bad way by itself, but once we get these other proposals that are above 800' in there, it should look quite nice.

[SFView]

This is one thing that bothers me, the fact that this might be the new glass ceiling for buildings for the next 50 years.


That is why I am concerned with setting the height of Transbay at 1200 feet. Such a height might pressure all other towers, including the Piano towers, to be shorter for the next 4 decades or so, while other cities around the world and in the US continue to grow much much taller. Planning was asking for unlimited height and FAR. I would imagine that the current studies are looking for the tallest most balanced new skyline mound possible, and hopefully 1200 feet is only just the current place marker that Piano helped set last year.

There may be other issues, but just how tall a building at Transbay need to be before it casts enough unwanted shadow on protected open space?

[Reminiscence]

That is why I am concerned with setting the height of Transbay at 1200 feet. Such a height might pressure all other towers, including the Piano towers, to be shorter for the next 4 decades or so, while other cities around the world and in the US continue to grow much much taller. Planning was asking for unlimited height and FAR. I would imagine that the current studies are looking for the tallest most balanced new skyline mound possible, and hopefully 1200 feet is only just the current place marker that Piano helped set last year.

There may be other issues, but just how tall a building at Transbay need to be before it casts enough unwanted shadow on protected open space?

This is true, and pretty much what I was reffering to. Thanks for elaborating on it. This may or may not present a conflict for Pelli/Hines. They've made it known that they dont foresee an increase in height to the tower. I have high hopes with what planning was asking for, but Hines' relative confidence that things will go thier way (including a fully office building) has me on edge. I dont remember who it was, but someone mentioned that should Hines and Pelli fail to satisfy the demands of the public and/or the TJPA, that the design contest would be restarted all over again. Its too early to tell, but a little part of me is hoping for such an event to happen.

[mthd]

...
There may be other issues, but just how tall a building at Transbay need to be before it casts enough unwanted shadow on protected open space?

there are some shadows on protected open spaces at just over half the proposed height. the planning department will need to address this through some kind of prop k mitigation efforst if they are interested in buildings taller than the current height limits...

[BTinSF]

A lot of that criticism in the USA Today article is b*llsh*t. As far as the hills go, the Planning Dept. has a policy of emphasizing them by putting the tallest buildings on hill TOPS--a la One Rincon. So they need not be an impediment to height.

Where was Henry Urbach, the guy who said the building should be one people would come to SF to see, before the winner was chosen. I didn't see the letter to the Chronicle he MUST have written when John King was trashing "icons". As with marriage, having had his chance to make a difference, it is now time for him to "hold his peace".

If there is to be a 1200 ft "glass ceiling" for buildings in SF, I'll take it. I'm holding my breath the idiots like Prof. Bosselman don't have enough influence to cut it down to hold the TransAmerican height line.

Finally, as to the square footage, remember that the other new buildings in that area need not be all or even mostly office. If the TransBay Tower contains no housing or hotel, there will persist a need for such uses in other towers. I feel fairly certain Piano's will contain a hotel--I believe the developer has said so--and probably condos as well. I wouldn't also mind seeing a tall rental apartment tower in that area. But 1.8 million sq ft is essentially 2 years worth of Prop. M space and it will take 5 years to get the building up, while we have about 2 million sq ft "banked", as I recall, from years since 2000 when there was little development. That's about 6.5 million sq ft to work with and so I can't see a 1.8 million sq ft tower sucking the air out the development machine.

[mthd]

...That's about 6.5 million sq ft to work with and so I can't see a 1.8 million sq ft tower sucking the air out the development machine.

given the resurgence of the local economy, the tech companies looking for large amounts of space in sf ("stalwarts" like google and yahoo and upstarts like myspace and wikipedia) i think hines was right on in predicting little trouble leasing their 1.8M sf. i i believe you are correct that the prop M cap plus the backlog (which is almost empty now) will be used up over the next 5 years or so, and i do not think this space will sit unleased.

these are potentially amazing times for downtown, and for san francisco in general. we just need to make sure the forces allied against any development, even smart development don't win this time around.

[hectorant84]

I think everyone here should stop dreaming about Transbay being 1,400 feet or even 1,500. Its probably NEVER going to happen with Hines at the helm. I hope SF eventually gives Pelli and Hines the boot and restarts the design competition. That probably won't happen either but its a good "what if" question. Come on everyone, city hall and the planning commission is over flowing with pin heads and I'm almost certain this tower is not going to climb any higher than 1,200 feet. The structural height is more than likely going to be reduced. Keep in mind this city is way too conservative with respect to making bold architectural statements to the world. Hence, the word "conservative" in the most liberal city in the US. Don't get me wrong the Golden Gate Bridge and Transamerica are both FINE examples of what can be achieved when the planning commission does not listen to fuck head nimbys. I actually thought San Francisco would do something right with respect to its future and what happens? They pick the most boring, conservative design imaginable! The decision was based on money, not beauty and/or quality. I thought the point of this competition was to make a statement, to make it the Grand Central Station of the West, to have outsiders gasp in utter amazement, and to give those dicks in LA something to cry about. Obviously that's not happening. Completely the opposite! Not only was the competition based on money, but that stupid park that Pelli and Hines did not stop talking about on 08/06 - 08/07. Get real... San Francisco is over flowing with yoga posing, hybrid car driving, tree hugging liberals, what did you expect? Plant a few trees add a few fountains and WHOA DUDE! YOU WON! They also won the hearts of the homeless.... trees... grass... and fountains... hmm... sanctuary. :jester: :haha:

[BTinSF]

^^^Hector, Hector, Hector. Don't blame anyone but the other architectural teams. They are the ones who ignored the obvious and designed structures that did not fit the planned scheme of bus ramps in the case of SOM and/or produced a rather industrial and very "un-San Franciscan" design in the case of Rogers. Besides, it HAS TO be about money--they don't have enough lined up for phase 2 of the project and simply couldn't afford to give up $150 million. No matter what you think, that's the practicality of it.

Oh, how about dropping the boldface?

[hectorant84]

Dude, wake up and smell the coffee... Everyone with brain knew Pelli was going to win. My point, exactly about "un-San Francisican". Sorry, I'm just annoyed with the design, the 1,200 feet, and that god damn park. As you can tell! :) I feel like back handing the jury and the TJPA :P.

[nequidnimis]

a rather industrial and very "un-San Franciscan" design in the case of Foster.

Foster? Rogers. And by the way, given how Roger's project fared in opinion polls, think of the outrage if it had been selected. Also, beyond the beautiful sky-reflecting renderings and the Las Vegas style video screens at the base, the jury may have had issues with the bulk of the SOM tower. That only left them one choice.

[BTinSF]

^^^Yes, Rogers. I fixed it.

[hectorant84]

I have a solution to my anger... Be more positive and embrace the 80 story- 1,200 foot tall vibrator! :haha:

[peanut gallery]

From the USA Today article quoted above:
It is good to see an opinion that agrees with mine get published.

Same here. I completely agree with Henry Urbach. But we all know the competition came down to money, not aesthetics or the creation of an icon. I can't really fault the logic of that. Funding has to come from somewhere and I can't expect the TJPA to just turn their noses up at a huge pile of cash.

If there is to be a 1200 ft "glass ceiling" for buildings in SF, I'll take it.

I also agree with this. As much as I prefer the SOM design and height, I'm loathed to withhold support of the Pelli design as we will be lucky to get even a single 1200' tower. It's unfortunate, but it is reality.

[Reminiscence]

Same here. I completely agree with Henry Urbach. But we all know the competition came down to money, not aesthetics or the creation of an icon. I can't really fault the logic of that. Funding has to come from somewhere and I can't expect the TJPA to just turn their noses up at a huge pile of cash.



I also agree with this. As much as I prefer the SOM design and height, I'm loathed to withhold support of the Pelli design as we will be lucky to get even a single 1200' tower. It's unfortunate, but it is reality.

True. Even though I was upset SOM lost out, I dont blame the TJPA for the choice they made. Had they gone with SOM and were unable to secure funding in the near distant future, they would be getting hammered left and right. I dont dislike the Pelli design, I think its a nicely designed building. However, I just didnt think it was appropriate for the tower. One of the tall but shorter towers in the vicinity would have been more than a great place to put Pelli's tower. But, I guess the decision has been made and whats that is that.

I guess what I should have said was not so much a "1200' glass ceiling", but more like a 900' ceiling. Right now we have TAP at 853' and I guess we can argue that it currently is our limit to height, as nothing has been able to surpass it since its construction. 555 California comes fairly close at 779', but then everything else is around the x<600' range. So in reality we've had a 600' or so ceiling, until recently that is. My only concern is that this doesnt translate to the new towers planned.

[viewguysf]

I guess what I should have said was not so much a "1200' glass ceiling", but more like a 900' ceiling. Right now we have TAP at 853' and I guess we can argue that it currently is our limit to height, as nothing has been able to surpass it since its construction. 555 California comes fairly close at 779', but then everything else is around the x<600' range. So in reality we've had a 600' or so ceiling, until recently that is. My only concern is that this doesnt translate to the new towers planned.

555 California was completed four years before TAP, so at least we had a 74' gain at that time (versus the original 371' increase that was planned). I agree, let's be satisfied with the potential 1,200 feet that we can get and work to keep the surrounding new towers as tall as possible. 900' would be far preferable to 600+' in that regard. It may be a really hard sell after people see more tall towers on Rincon Hill. Even though it will improve that area, I don't anticipate that blocking more Bay Bridge views will be at all popular. Sue Hestor herself has stated as much.

[SFView]

Yes, 1200 feet is great, but with Pelli at 1200 feet, what about Piano?

[Reminiscence]

555 California was completed four years before TAP, so at least we had a 74' gain at that time (versus the original 371' increase that was planned). I agree, let's be satisfied with the potential 1,200 feet that we can get and work to keep the surrounding new towers as tall as possible. 900' would be far preferable to 600+' in that regard. It may be a really hard sell after people see more tall towers on Rincon Hill. Even though it will improve that area, I don't anticipate that blocking more Bay Bridge views will be at all popular. Sue Hestor herself has stated as much.

Its not that I'm not satisfied with 900'. I guess I just dislike the idea of a limitation, but thats just me. I'm not sure how difficult it will be to sell the idea. By the time all is set and done, a lot of the views should be blocked already, so its possible that people wont be so blue with the idea of building taller in those places.

In regards to Pelli and Piano being 1200', could it be possible that since the goal of planning and all is to form a peak or so to the skyline at this location, that the buildings in the vicinity may not be limited to 1200' after all, assuming Pelli's final height stays at 1200'?

[tyler82]

I would be happy with even a 900' cap. The 600' we have now gives the skyline a very ugly look.

Let's not get too ahead of ourselves and jump to too many conclusions. I think we should be prepared for a 1200' Pelli and the rest 900' (if we're lucky)

[peanut gallery]

In regards to Pelli and Piano being 1200', could it be possible that since the goal of planning and all is to form a peak or so to the skyline at this location, that the buildings in the vicinity may not be limited to 1200' after all, assuming Pelli's final height stays at 1200'?

At the risk of sounding like a total pessimist, I think it's far more likely that everything else is reduced to keep the Transbay Tower as the peak at 1200'. Unfortunately, that includes Piano. I sure hope I'm guessing wrong though.

[hectorant84]

I'm getting sad now. I guess all this pessimism is starting to mess with my head. However, I must remain somewhat "hopeful" because there's a slight chance Piano may wow us...

[Reminiscence]

I'm getting sad now. I guess all this pessimism is starting to mess with my head. However, I must remain somewhat "hopeful" because there's a slight chance Piano my wow us...

Heh, I think I'm partly, if not totally, to blame for this. Its a little too early to say anything so far that would cause us to jump out of our seats or to quiver in disgust. All we can really do now is speculate now that we have a starting point. Piano, I'm willing to bet, wont let us down. After all, his towers should be pretty prominent on the skyline. I dont think we'll end up with something as skinny as what was displayed on the Chronicle graphic long ago. If we do however, we had better not end up with floor to ceiling heights like this:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6812/204theresaofficeou6.jpg
Photo courtesy of Socketsite.com

[hectorant84]

Heh, I think I'm partly, if not totally, to blame for this. Its a little too early to say anything so far that would cause us to jump out of our seats or to quiver in disgust. All we can really do now is speculate now that we have a starting point. Piano, I'm willing to bet, wont let us down. After all, his towers should be pretty prominent on the skyline. I dont think we'll end up with something as skinny as what was displayed on the Chronicle graphic long ago. If we do however, we had better not end up with floor to ceiling heights like this:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/6812/204theresaofficeou6.jpg
Photo courtesy of Socketsite.com

Hey Reminiscence, if Transbay and Piano's towers get chopped down by a 100 feet or more, the drinks are on me. :cheers: That will give me an excuse to have lots and lots of martini's. :slob:

[tyler82]

Hey Reminiscence, if Transbay and Piano's towers get chopped down by a 100 feet or more, the drinks are on me. :cheers: That will give me an excuse to have lots and lots of martini's. :slob:

WHen I first heard of Piano's proposal (which was made public on my BDay, what a great present!!) I immediately thought he over estimated on the height intentionally so that after the mincing planning catastrophe process they would end up 900' or so as the tallest, which I think was his original intent for height. I think Transbay will stay at 1200 so that it will be as prominent as the planning dept. wants it to be.

[Reminiscence]

Hey Reminiscence, if Transbay and Piano's towers get chopped down by a 100 feet or more, the drinks are on me. :cheers: That will give me an excuse to have lots and lots of martini's. :slob:

Sounds good to me. I should be old enough to drink by then :haha:

[tyler82]

Sounds good to me. I should be old enough to drink by then :haha:

Are you kidding? Your kids will be old enough to drink by then

[SFView]

:previous: ...or you might even be a grandaddy by then!

It might not be at least until 2014 by the time either these towers reach where One Rincon Hill tower 1 is now. Can any of you tell me for certain just how tall One Rincon is from the ground up? Uhhh okay, let's not try to answer that here...

[Reminiscence]

Are you kidding? Your kids will be old enough to drink by then

Well, currently I'm only 20. I figured if construction is slated for 2010, and the EIR and all that is done within a year from now, I should be about 23 when we start seeing activity and we should hear something more certain about height sometime next year, when I'll be 21.

Dad? I would seriously doubt that.
Granddaddy? ... Get out of here :P

[peanut gallery]

Dad? I would seriously doubt that.
Granddaddy? ... Get out of here :P

Either way, we should all get together for a drink (or 12) when this and Piano start rising out of the ground. :tup:

[SFView]

Well, currently I'm only 20. I figured if construction is slated for 2010, and the EIR and all that is done within a year from now, I should be about 23 when we start seeing activity and we should hear something more certain about height sometime next year, when I'll be 21.

Dad? I would seriously doubt that.
Granddaddy? ... Get out of here :P

Your future kids, or grandkids might not necessarily be...your own...:haha:

Anyway, we should have a better idea what heights are possible once Planning completes their studies, but the Pelli and Piano heights could continue to change until near the time permits are issued. Also, some tallest building projects such as the Chrysler Building and Burj Dubai, keep their final heights secret until construction is complete. I don't know if that is still possible in San Francisco.

I think I also heard somewhere that both Pelli's Transbay, and Piano's 1st and Mission could go up around same time.

[SFView]

...Oh, and I sure hope they put a restaurant and bar at the top of Pelli's tower. THAT would surely be the best place to have those drinks to celebrate someday!

[tyler82]

...Oh, and I sure hope they put a restaurant and bar at the top of Pelli's tower. THAT would surely be the best place to have those drinks to celebrate someday!

100% office, my friend. Restaurants are way too risky for the profits of developments such as this.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

^^^it dosent hurt to hope. =]

[Reminiscence]

Either way, we should all get together for a drink (or 12) when this and Piano start rising out of the ground. :tup:

Agreed. I like how you slipped that "12" in there :haha:

[Reminiscence]

Your future kids, or grandkids might not necessarily be...your own...:haha:

Anyway, we should have a better idea what heights are possible once Planning completes their studies, but the Pelli and Piano heights could continue to change until near the time permits are issued. Also, some tallest building projects such as the Chrysler Building and Burj Dubai, keep their final heights secret until construction is complete. I don't know if that is still possible in San Francisco.

I think I also heard somewhere that both Pelli's Transbay, and Piano's 1st and Mission could go up around same time.

Not my own, yikes ... technology gone too far, heh.

I agree actually, its far too soon to really anticipate. If anything, I'd take One Rincon as a lesson. It seemed like the towers were going to be shorter, and then we heard about them being upgraded to 641' and 541' right before construction began. I dont really see the value of keeping the final height secret as we're not really competing for the tallest building in the world or some other highly prestigious record, but I'm not ruling it out nevertheless.

Seeing those towers rise at the same time is going to be something, we'll be the focus of attention for sure :)

[SFView]

100% office, my friend. Restaurants are way too risky for the profits of developments such as this.

I am no developer expert. Have the pre-911 New York WTC and San Francisco 555 California top floor restaurants proven to be a negative investment? How about an observation level at the top instead?