[peanut gallery]

^^^^ It's part of the privilege for clocking over 10,000 posts. :haha:

[BTinSF]

^^^Unlikely for reasons I'll be happy to explain to anyone who PMs me. But now let's get back on topic. OK? Please?

[SFView]

OUCH! Okaaaaaaaay... Well anyway, here's that schedule again that I posted a while back. I don't recall the exact link, but it orginated from a presentation placed either on the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency or Transbay Joint Powers Authority web sites:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayschedule1.jpg

Note that according to this schedule the Transit Tower Design doesn't start until September 2, 2008, and may be completed about 2 years later. My guess is that Planning should have a new (height) study ready by September of this year.

[BTinSF]

^^^Very nice. Thanx. I wish this could somehow be "stickied" at the top of every page just to keep us reminded.

[SFView]

Hmmm...nice idea. How do we get this to happen? Is it the right size though?

[peanut gallery]

Yes, back on topic. Just having a little fun.

Great chart SFView. That looks like something from the TJPA site. The September timeframe for the height study sounds right based on the schedule showing Environmental Clearance and Entitlement by 10/31.

[caramatt]

Hey everybody, look what just popped into my mailbox:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2144/2417862254_9b4a628551_o.jpg


Let's all try to make it and push for those heights we need. Maybe we'll even get a preview of the most recent designs.

[c1tyguy]

^ Awesome! I'll be looking forward to being hearing more information about the transbay. Feels like we've been without updates for a while.

Wish I was in the area so I could attend. For those of you who will be attending, take detailed notes to share!

[peanut gallery]

I'm entering it in my calendar. Since that's a block from my work, I have no reason not to attend.

[SFView]

Any well versed articulate pro-height loud mouths out there willing to attend, just in case we need them?

[BTinSF]

Don't miss all the good stuff here: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_transit_center.htm

I'm not sure if any of it is new, but it's what's being referred to in the notice caramatt posted.

From the site:

The planning process is expected to proceed expeditiously, with core recommendations of the plans complete by late spring 2008. The Planning Department will hold a full complement of workshops to solicit public input on the development of these Plans.

A tentative schedule of the process is:

End February / Early March Public Workshop #2 (Land Use/Growth, Draft Urban Form Concepts)
Late March / Early April Public Workshop #3 (Urban Form, Public Realm, Transportation)
June Public Workshop #4 (Public Benefits/Financial, Final Urban Form and Public Realm Proposal)

[SFView]

Notice the poster shows a much toned down Transbay scheme at about 1000 feet or less. There are some new towers around Market and Van Ness, including a 400 footer there, and the usual bunch of remaining assorted proposed towers towards Rincon Hill. It's a pretty generic, schematic and appropriately "safe" looking poster to show the public. I wonder if the rendering could be from one of the height studies?

[rajaxsonbayboi]

He sounded distinctly like Tyler 82, disguised under a different screenname. :haha:

hahahaha hey i remember that guy. what ever happened to him? Banned aswell? and the diagram where it says that the tower design process doesnt begin till 9/2/08 but ends on 8/31/10?! :sly: why so long? and what was is happening as of right now if they are not altering the design that was chosen from pelli? are we waiting for the rezoning and if so is that what that flyer/email thingy is? lol sorry i ask ALOT of questions.

[BTinSF]

^^^I would suggest that you do 2 things:

1. Read through the last several pages of this thread

2. Go to the web site for the project and look around: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_transit_center.htm

If your questions still aren't answered, perhaps someone here can address them.

Briefly, the rezoning process is underway as evidenced by the upcoming public meeting mentioned above (the flyer)--zoning changes in San Francisco require public participation. No private developer including the Piano group is going to finalize their projects until the zoning is finalized. Similarly, I'm sure Hines and the TJPA are negotiating issues like not only the tower's probable height but also whether or not it remains 100% office and how much Hines is going to pay depending on what the desired mix of uses turns out to be.

The diagram you reference also shows that construction of the tower and terminal will begin pretty much as soon as demolition of the existing terminal is complete. But that demolition cannot begin until construction of the temporary terminal itself is complete. That is due to start in a couple of months. So between now and 2010 we have: Temp terminal construction followed by old terminal demolition followed by groundbreaking on the new terminal and tower.

[SFView]

Also note that as we are waiting on building height, etc. for the tower, "TC Building (Transit Center Terminal) Design" may already be in progress - see "Critical Path Schedule" above.

It may not necessarily be the same person, but "Tyler82" has many listings under Google Search.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Dang wish we could fast foward to 2010!

[c1tyguy]

Hey everybody, look what just popped into my mailbox:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2144/2417862254_9b4a628551_o.jpg


Let's all try to make it and push for those heights we need. Maybe we'll even get a preview of the most recent designs.

Who's going to the meeting tonight?!

[SFView]

Here is a web site link to help stay current on information related to the City Design Group - Transit Center District Plan:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_transit_center.htm

[Hal Incandenza]

Who's going to the meeting tonight?!

I'll be there wearing a Muni stocking cap.

[Reminiscence]

At the risk of reposting this article from elsewhere, here is the Chronicle version:

Core of downtown S.F. would move south under new plan for giant skyscrapers near Transbay Terminal

Robert Selna,John King, Chronicle Staff Writers

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

(04-30) 18:45 PDT San Francisco - --

A cluster of skyscrapers rivaling the Transamerica Pyramid would rise around the West Coast's tallest tower in an ambitious proposal that would shift the heart of San Francisco's downtown south of Market Street.

The zoning plan, unveiled tonight at a packed public meeting, would allow as many as seven new skyscrapers to surpass the current 550-foot height limits in an area surrounding the planned Transbay tower- a high-rise of roughly 1,000 feet adjacent to a new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets.

The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission must approve the zoning proposal, which is likely to be revised in response to public comments. A thorough environmental report is also required.

But planners argue that the taller skyscrapers are appropriate given the city's projected demand for office space and the desire for a dynamic skyline. An added bonus, they say, is that tax revenue from the new buildings would help pay for part of the multi-billion dollar transit hub intended to serve bus passengers from around the Bay Area and rail commuters from the Peninsula and further south.

"There is a renewed interest in heights given the constraints on the environment and a move toward transit-oriented development," said Dean Macris, a development adviser to Mayor Gavin Newsom and the former city planning director who oversaw much of the proposed rezoning. "But these changes are fully justified even if there was no transit center, given the growth projections for San Francisco over the next 25 years."

Macris said the proposal - which, in addition to the Transbay tower, makes room for at least six towers in the 600- to 800-foot range on selected sites along Howard and Mission streets - are a logical extension of the city's Downtown Plan. That 1985 rezoning sought to preserve historic buildings north of Market while steering growth south into what then was a moribund area.

Realistically, it would take at least 18 months for any proposed rezoning to go through the public process, meaning that it would be 2010 at the earliest before any extra-tall towers break ground.

The historic San Francisco concern over building heights isn't simply visceral. An 1984 voters approved a law that prohibits structures that cast shadows on public parks.

While studies are still being done on what shadows would occur at different times of the year in different locations, the likely loss of sunlight prompted planners to pull heights down from what some developers sought - though some new shadows are unavoidable.

The most obvious example is the proposed Transbay tower at First and Mission streets.

Last fall, the Hines development firm and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects were selected by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority to design and build a high-rise next to the new terminal. The team's plan calls for a 1,200-foot tower, with the top 175 feet devoted to wind turbines behind a metal screen.

At that altitude, planners now say, the skyscraper's shadow at lunchtime would cover most of Justin Herman Plaza, a popular park next to Embarcadero Center. At 1,000 feet, according to planner Joshua Switzky, "it barely touches the plaza at all."

Besides rezoning, planners are looking at such issues as historic preservation. They recommend that protection be extended to several clusters of older buildings along Mission and Howard streets.

Planners also seek widened sidewalks and bus-only lanes on some blocks, to make it easier for pedestrians and transit users to move through the area.

[tech12]

So, are they going to downsize the transbay tower to 1,000' so that the shadow doesn't cover Justin Herman Plaza? I thought we were past this stuff. Besides what's more important...a sunny place for a few dozen people to eat their lunch (an ugly place at that), or the tallest skyscraper west of Chicago? Plus, I thought the amount of money generated by the tower for the terminal was directly related to its height. Wasn't that the whole reasoning behind building such a tall tower in the first place?

I hope I'm overreacting, and this is just the Chronicle speculating (or maybe the exact heights are being downplayed or kept secret, so as to keep opponents quiet?). I bet if the shadow did cover Justin Herman Plaza, not too many people would really give much of a shit anyways, aside from the regular NIMBY crusaders.

[WildCowboy]

This is a hugely disappointing proposal. And don't expect it to get any better for height fans as the process moves forward...we can only hope it doesn't get worse. :yuck:

[tech12]

Seriously. I feel cheated because I thought something really would change with this proposal. But in true San Francisco fashion, something good has to be screwed with just to appease a small amount of people. Then again, this IS a 1000' tower. No one would have imagined such a thing 5 years ago. So while not perfect, it's still good.

If this does end up only being 1000' I guess we can hope the Piano towers come through, and that they do so at their original proposed height of 1200'.

[peanut gallery]

It sure sounds like the Chronicle is saying it will be lowered to 1000'. That's disappointing if true. Something they left out though is when exactly this building could shadow Justin Herman Plaza at midday. Certainly not right now or anytime through summer. I have to think it would only happen in the dead of winter. To me, that just shouldn't be an issue. But it is the law currently, so they may have no choice.

[quashlo]

After attending the meeting, here is my understanding of the Planning Department's thought process:

The 1000' limit is reasonable because it would not cast significant shadows on key open space in the Downtown area, including Union Square, Portsmouth Square, and Justin Herman Plaza. However, increasing the height of the tower beyond 1000' could cause significant shadow impacts to Justin Herman Plaza and the area directly in front of the Ferry Building during the lunchtime period. The definition of "significant" shadows appears somewhat vague: at 1000', the tower would supposedly cause "20 minutes" worth of shade, but at over 1000' would cause "1 hour" worth of shade at this location. Based on the way the planner phrased things, this was the primary reason for limiting the tower to 1000'. He did leave it open and say that the Planning Department was not against having the crown of the building extend above 1000', and also brought up other considerations such as blurring of shadows at a distance and the uncertainties and constraints associated with the shadow models. However, the 1984 law protects certain open spaces, so I'm not sure if there's a way around that. And apparently, the Hines proposal may not be drastically affected since it's 1075' to the roof of the building, with the remaining height occupied by the turbines on top.

The planner also stressed that they wanted the Transit Tower to be the tallest tower on the skyline, meaning that other taller proposals such as the Piano towers across the street would end up lower than the initial 1200' proposals.

One thing I thought that was great was the proposed "superstop" directly in front of the Transit Center--essentially, the block of Mission between First and Fremont would be closed off to vehicles and operate as an outdoor bus station / pedestrian plaza.

Also, the NE corner of 2nd and Howard would be converted to a park, as the historic buildings that currently occupy that corner would have to be demolished for construction of the Caltrain extension. This park is proposed to connect to the park on top of the Transit Center, as well as a pedestrian and bike path along the western span of the Bay Bridge.

My thoughts:
All in all, a fairly conservative proposal. Frankly, I am disappointed because the presentation started out with discussion of the huge future demand for office space in the C-3 district based on the SF and ABAG growth models. But there was no real discussion of how much office space could be provided with each of the height scenarios (850', 1000', 1200'). Although the planner did say that the financial analysis and other calculations for each height scenario would be forthcoming, I had a somewhat difficult time understanding why they chose 1000'. Frankly, it seems like 1000' was arrived at solely because of the shadow effects on Justin Herman Plaza, which seems to me a ridiculous reason considering how much net open space is being provided as a result of the Hines proposal.

I also noticed that most of the members of the public who asked questions or offered verbal comments generally showed a support for taller heights. One person voiced his concerns about earthquake engineering for the Transit Tower, but that was pretty much it for negative comments.

[caramatt]

At the meeting Joshua clarified that the 1000' height limitation was measured strictly by the portions of a structure that would completely block out the sun, and in fact the original Pelli proposal would be measured as only 1065' under those parameters. This means that at most we will see a 65' shortening of the habitable portions of the tower, and the elegant lattice-like crown with wind turbines could absolutely remain.

I thought the meeting was very encouraging on the whole, and I particularly liked their recommendations for widening the streets. The fact of the matter is that public opinion has to be behind this for anything to get approved, and to some the idea of 1000' is much more palatable than 1200' - even if the real difference is limited semantics as it would be in this case.

[SFView]

:previous:

So then we could have the roof at 1000', and maybe stretch the crown up to 1200', or maybe at least it could be 1100' to the top of the crown, or something in between? Maybe there is still some hope left.

As for other surrounding towers, it seems that there may not be any other exceeding the height of the Transamerica Pyramid. That may also include the Piano Towers. I don't yet know if five of the six 600' - 800' towers that are now mentioned to be possible are actually part of the Piano group, but that leaves at least one tower for the TJPA Howard Street site. Still, there are details and adjustments that have yet to be decided on. Let's hope that some of the shorter towers can still end up being somewhere taller than 800'. Let's also hope there can be more than just six 600' - 800' towers around the terminal. How about 181 Fremont, for instance?

Also, John King mentions the original Pelli crown as being 175'. If 1065' was to the roof, adding the crown would have made the tower closer to 1240'. If we shorten that by 65', we get 1175' (or 1000'+175' crown). Okay, we shouldn't be guessing numbers at this stage, but at least that helps ME feel a little better.

[Hal Incandenza]

:previous:

So then we could have the roof at 1000', and maybe stretch the crown up to 1200', or maybe at least it could be 1100' to the top of the crown, or something in between? Maybe there is still some hope left.



That was my distinct impression: they were trying to portray a relatively small decrease in height (1065 to 1000) as a major one (1200 to 1000), in the hope that the crown of the Transbay Tower will end up reaching well above 1000 with less of a fight. They also very much downplayed the Piano proposal--they showed a couple renderings with it included, but skimmed past it as if it was not really on the table. Whether that means Piano's proposal is floundering, or that the planning dept. is slow-playing their hand, I'm not sure.

[caramatt]

That was my distinct impression: they were trying to portray a relatively small decrease in height (1065 to 1000) as a major one (1200 to 1000), in the hope that the crown of the Transbay Tower will end up reaching well above 1000 with less of a fight. They also very much downplayed the Piano proposal--they showed a couple renderings with it included, but skimmed past it as if it was not really on the table. Whether that means Piano's proposal is floundering, or that the planning dept. is slow-playing their hand, I'm not sure.

I thought the Pelli proposal looked really out of proportion with the rest of the skyline in the renderings. Because it is essentially a cluster of multiple buildings, it coupled with a 1200' Transbay Tower gave that dreaded "tabletop" effect, albeit at 1200 feet!

Someone actually asked why it was necessary to have the Transbay be the tallest building in the area, and the answer given was that it served as a symbol of the importance given to public transportation in the Bay Area - a sort of popular ideal. I really liked that sentiment and think it should be upheld. From what we've seen it seems as though the Pelli towers could easily be knocked down to a max height of 850' with no real degradation in the cohesion of their design.

[peanut gallery]

Was the time of year ever brought up in relation to shadowing Justin Herman Plaza? Shadows change dramatically at different times of year. I can't imagine that the Transbay Tower's shadow, even at 1200', would reach all the way to the Ferry Building at noon anytime other than winter. Was this addressed?

[caramatt]

Was the time of year ever brought up in relation to shadowing Justin Herman Plaza? Shadows change dramatically at different times of year. I can't imagine that the Transbay Tower's shadow, even at 1200', would reach all the way to the Ferry Building at noon anytime other than winter. Was this addressed?

It was, and I believe that for at least six months out of the year a building at 1200' would not cast ANY shadows on ANY of the parks in question. I can't remember the specifics, but the planning department should post the results of their studies by next week on their website. Also included will be views from more than a dozen locations in SF with the towers rendered at each of the proposed height increments. Should be good fun to pore over.

[peanut gallery]

Definitely. Thanks caramatt.

[SFView]

Was the time of year ever brought up in relation to shadowing Justin Herman Plaza? Shadows change dramatically at different times of year. I can't imagine that the Transbay Tower's shadow, even at 1200', would reach all the way to the Ferry Building at noon anytime other than winter. Was this addressed?

The longest shadows are cast between December 20th or 23nd, or the Winter Solstice of each year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice). That is also the time when Transbay Tower's shadow zone would have the greatest arc sweep. Does anyone know how long a period shadows would be cast each day on Justin Herman Plaza?

I am also wondering if 600' to 800' for the shorter towers could mean just the base heights. If so, there still could be a chance of exceeding TAP's height to the very top of crown or structure for one or more of these towers. It may still be too early to know. For now, we could look forward to seeing those study renderings.

[SFView]

For now, we have this to see:
From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/05/01/BA3D10EPNG.DTL
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFHeightsStudy1.jpg

[Surrealplaces]

I wouldn't mind if they kept the eight limit to 1000' It would blend in nicely with the other towers.

[BTinSF]

Ya gotta love Curbed's snarky take on all this:


THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008

Bye Bye, FiDi: Transbay Plan Shifts City Core to SoMa

Transbay Terminal zoning plan revealed. The city trotted out a new master plan at last evening's public meeting that, if approved, will shift the city's downtown core to SoMA by surrounding the new Transbay Terminal building with a clusterfuck of skyscrapers— OK, seven skyscrapers— all exempt from the current 550-foot height limit in the area; the new Tranny Tower itself is expected to top out at around 1,200 feet. Many planners consider the proposal a natural extension of the city's downtown development plan, citing the bonus fact that increased tax revenues from the project could help to fund the new transit center. Expect this scheme to be banished back to the drawing board more than once: City constituents will say their piece on the project (hurdles #1-50). A full environmental impact must be conducted (hurdle #51), while sundry flaming hoops must be jumped through and burning coals walked over (hurdles #52-100). The plan is expected to take at least 18 months to traverse this bureaucratic obstacle course, with construction dates estimated to begin in 2010 at the earliest. Interestingly enough, though not surprising in the least, today's Chron report (good morning, Mr. King) eschewed the previously much-discussed public concern over earthquake safety for a riveting discussion on shadows and a tentative tip-toe around the topic of historical preservation (see hurdles #1-50). Brace.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

BT (actually in SF once again)

[Reminiscence]

Here are some other graphics from today's article:

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/01/mn_towers01.jpg

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/01/mn_study_zones.jpg

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/05/01/MNO010BB08.DTL

I dont think we should take all these numbers that come up seriously, and I think its too early to start making assumptions that our towers are going to be reduced in height (even though that seems to be our custom). I would think any height estimates are just that, estimates. The final plans wont be revealed for a while anyways, but at least we have something to wet our appetite.

[SFView]

It's going to be interesting to see how Renzo Piano may need to rework his "bamboo shoots" scheme from 1200', 900' and 600' to 800' and below. It may be a while before we see anything new from Piano. Reminscence is likely correct. These may only be the proposed base heights being presented. We still have a long while before designs and details of heights for each of these sites are approved and finalized.

[SFView]

...And here is the full Chronicle article attached to the latest images posted above (part of this is a repeat of the previous article):

Transbay plan would sprout new S.F. skyline
Robert Selna,John King, Chronicle Staff Writers

Thursday, May 1, 2008


A cluster of skyscrapers rivaling the Transamerica Pyramid would rise around the West Coast's tallest tower under an ambitious proposal that would shift the heart of San Francisco's downtown south of Market Street.

The city's zoning plan, unveiled Wednesday at a packed public meeting, would allow as many as seven new skyscrapers to surpass the current 550-foot height limits in an area surrounding the planned Transbay tower - a high-rise of roughly 1,000 feet adjacent to a new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets.

The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission would have to approve the zoning proposal, which is likely to be revised in response to public comments. A thorough environmental report is also required.

But planners argue that the taller skyscrapers would create a more dynamic skyline and are needed to meet the city's projected demand for office space. A bonus, they say, is that tax revenue from the new buildings would help pay for part of the multibillion-dollar transit hub intended to serve bus passengers from around the Bay Area and rail commuters from the Peninsula and farther south.

"There is a renewed interest in heights given the constraints on the environment and a move toward transit-oriented development," said Dean Macris, a development adviser to Mayor Gavin Newsom and former city planning director who oversaw much of the proposed rezoning. "But these changes are fully justified even if there was no transit center, given the growth projections for San Francisco over the next 25 years."

Macris said the proposal - which, in addition to the Transbay tower, makes room for at least six towers in the 600- to 800-foot range on selected sites along Howard and Mission streets - is a logical extension of the city's Downtown Plan. That 1985 rezoning sought to preserve historic buildings north of Market while steering growth south into what then was a moribund area.

It could take at least 18 months for any proposed rezoning to go through the public process, meaning that it would be 2010 at the earliest before any extra-tall towers break ground.

Shadows an issue
After city planners presented the new zoning ideas Wednesday, questions from the audience of about 250 - heavy with developers, architects and residents of newer downtown buildings - ranged from concerns about earthquakes to traffic congestion. No one expressed hostility, and some even voiced approval, for the proposed height increases.

In addition to pushing a plan that exceeds current height limits, planners also must confront a law approved by voters in 1984 that prohibits structures that cast shadows on public parks.

While studies are still being done on what shadows would occur at different times of the year in different locations, the likely loss of sunlight prompted planners to pull heights down from what some developers had sought - though some new shadows would be unavoidable.

The most obvious example is the proposed Transbay tower at First and Mission streets.

Last fall, the Hines development firm and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects were selected by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority to design and build a high-rise next to the new terminal. The team's plan calls for a 1,200-foot tower, with the top 175 feet devoted to wind turbines behind a metal screen.

At that altitude, planners now say, the skyscraper's shadow at lunchtime would cover most of Justin Herman Plaza, a popular park next to Embarcadero Center. At 1,000 feet, according to planner Joshua Switzky, "it barely touches the plaza at all."

Protecting older buildings
Besides rezoning, planners are looking at such issues as historic preservation. They recommend that protection be extended to several clusters of older buildings along Mission and Howard streets.

Planners also seek widened sidewalks throughout the area and the removal of some lanes of traffic. They also are considering prohibiting auto traffic in front of the terminal on Mission Street between First and Fremont streets.

A signature tower has long been imagined for the Transbay Terminal. In 2006, Macris and other officials floated the idea of a transit tower higher than the 853-foot Transamerica building, San Francisco's tallest structure.

Among their arguments: the supposed aesthetic benefits of accenting a skyline where towers built since 1985 have formed a sort of plateau in the air.

"The flattening-out of the skyline undermines the topography of the city" with its natural hills, said John Rahaim, who replaced Macris as city planning director in January. As for making the skyline's new "peak" be part of a transit center, "there is something to be said for this important public project to be the focal point," he said.

The rebuilt transit center is scheduled to open for bus service in 2014. The overall budget for that phase of the project is $1.2 billion, $411 million of which is expected from land sales.

The second phase, in theory, brings Caltrans commuter service and a high-speed rail line to the terminal by 2018. But only $1 billion in funding is identified for what is now estimated to cost $2.9 billion. As for the high-speed rail component, it relies on California voters giving their approval in November to a $10 billion statewide bond.

Whatever the terminal's fate, the vision of extra-tall towers around it could be controversial.

The construction of such attention-getting peaks as the Transamerica Pyramid and the 779-foot Bank of America building in the late 1960s and 1970s spurred an anti-height sentiment that led to the 1985 plan, which lowered heights to the current 550 feet.

The issue then died down. During the past five years, though, developers have answered the demand for luxury condos by erecting residential towers on long underutilized land south of Market Street on Rincon Hill - most prominently the One Rincon tower next to the Bay Bridge.

Most growth in office space
Five others in the 400-foot range are approved for the area. Closer to Transbay, 40 acres were carved out as a redevelopment district in 2005. The area is zoned for 3,400 housing units, most of them in high-rises that would be on publicly owned land once covered by freeway ramps.

Unlike the redevelopment district and Rincon Hill, most of the extra growth allowed under the proposed zoning announced Wednesday would be offices. The rationale, planners say, is that San Francisco needs to add an annual average of 1.1 million square feet of commercial space during the next 25 years to maintain its share of the Bay Area's jobs.

Though planners expect to fine-tune the specific zoning details during the review process, Macris said he does not expect the idea of extra height to meet stiff resistance.

"The reaction in the past was from some who didn't want San Francisco to change from being a smaller city to one that had international stature," Macris suggested. "People will talk about it a lot at first, and then they'll get used to it."

[PBuchman]

The longest shadows are cast between December 20th or 23nd, or the Winter Solstice of each year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice). That is also the time when Transbay Tower's shadow zone would have the greatest arc sweep. Does anyone know how long a period shadows would be cast each day on Justin Herman Plaza?

Was the time of year ever brought up in relation to shadowing Justin Herman Plaza? Shadows change dramatically at different times of year. I can't imagine that the Transbay Tower's shadow, even at 1200', would reach all the way to the Ferry Building at noon anytime other than winter. Was this addressed?

A few quick calculations using Google Earth, a little trigonometry and a nice solar position algorithm yield the following estimates:

* On the winter solstice, the shadow of a 1200' tower at the transbay site will traverse Justin Herman Plaza over the course of about and hour and a half (from roughly 12:35PM, when it first touches the northern end of the plaza, to around 2:10PM, when it last touches the southern end of the plaza.)

* By late January, the traversal time is reduced to around 45 minutes (around 1:30PM to 2:15PM)

* By around mid February, the shadow no longer affects the plaza.

* Similar (but not exact) traversal times can be determined for the fall months by assuming (rough) symmetry with the solstice. The plaza would begin to be affected by the shadow sometime around late October.

A few mitigating factors to consider:

* There may be other intervening buildings that would shade the same parts of the plaza during these times anyway.

* The plaza is sufficiently far from the tower site that it would move across fairly quickly; thus, any single location in the plaza would not be shaded for more than a few minutes each day, regardless of the time of year.

* The times when the plaza is shaded "significantly" may be somewhat less than the times stated above.

Also, I'm assuming that that grassy area to the north of the Embarcadero Center does not count as part of the plaza, so it wasn't factored into the my estimates. (I think that's Embarcadero Plaza anyway.) JH Plaza, I believe, begins at the east side of Steuart street.

DISCLAIMER (for any engineering types who might be offended at the looseness with which I used the word "symmetry"): I know, I know, solar position isn't really symmetric with respect to the solstices, but it's close enough for a quick approximation.

[peanut gallery]

Thanks PB. So that pretty much confirms my thought that the shadowing of a 1200' tower on JHP is, at worst, a minor nuisance for a couple of months a year. I'd sure hate to see much-needed funding for the new terminal disappear because of that (ie: Hines lowering their bid with a shorter tower).

[rocketman_95046]

Well the Chronicle's Editorial and Public Opinion pieces are out:yuck:
SSP people need to write in. the comments are rediculous!
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/

Up, up, up to the future?

Friday, May 2, 2008
San Francisco is making a momentous decision on its downtown skyline. Planners want to push growth upward by hundreds of feet and into a ring around a new transit hub on lower Mission Street.

The dreams are bold and exciting. But the risks for a small-scale - and self-conscious - city are important to ponder. Imagine a half dozen Transamerica needles surrounding an even taller 1,200-foot skyscraper, the highest on the West Coast. At the feet of these towers will be an underground bullet train to Southern California and other terminals for buses to the East Bay and rail service down the Peninsula.

It's a winning image of a bustling, booming downtown. But it comes with risks: windy concrete canyons, potentially humdrum designs, and dark, crowded sidewalks. The city's challenge will be expanding its downtown but with distinctive, human-scale designs. The results better be more than extra square footage at the cloud level.

The economics underlying the package may also be a problem. A high-speed train line and underground tracks running into the heart of the area aren't guaranteed and will cost billions. A future statewide ballot measure for the train could spell success or failure for the San Francisco link.

The city has prepared itself for high-rise expansion in recent years. It blessed blueprints for condo towers along the Bay Bridge waterfront, most prominently the 62-story Rincon tower within arm's reach of bridge traffic lanes. Last fall, the city chose a 1,000-foot-tall winner from four contenders for the center of the Transbay Terminal high-rise target zone.

It's a future that fulfills a decades-old picture of a compact urban center, built on transit, green-building technology, and soaring skyscrapers to sustain business growth. There's also a generational factor: this city that famously fought high-rises now greets even-bigger versions with little protest.

These are powerful factors that should guide a new downtown neighborhood taking shape. The challenge will be keeping this vision on track.

This article appeared on page B - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Hulking towers wrecked the city's charm
Friday, May 2, 2008
Editor - At this point it is irrelevant whether or not city planners override existing zoning ordinances to enable as many as seven new skyscrapers to surpass the current 550-foot height limit in and around a new Transbay tower ("A new skyline on S.F. horizon," May 1).

Not all that many years ago, even into the 1970s and very early 1980s, San Francisco was a great walker's town. The streets not only had a human scale, the buildings had an individuality and character that made walking in downtown a truly unique pleasure.

No more. San Francisco has "successfully" transformed itself into a security-guarded trash heap of me-too office towers. The city's once charming sidewalks and once unique skyline now resemble those of any other of America's interchangeable-part metropolises.

The sad, even tragic, fact is that we've already thrown the equivalent of acid on the face of what was once one of the world's most beautiful and interesting cities. Why should we suddenly pretend we care what happens next?

RILEY B. VANDYKE

San Francisco

Editor - Of all the examples of architecture-speak gobbledygook I've encountered in The Chronicle over the years (and there have been many) one of the arguments put forward for increasing the height limits on office towers South of Market is truly worthy of a "Bullitzer" Prize ("A new skyline on S.F. horizon," May 1).

I'm referring to the assertion that there has been a "flattening-out" of the skyline because towers already built "have formed a sort of plateau in the air" that can only be corrected by even taller towers on the order of the Transamerica Pyramid.

If there is a plateau in the air, it is the city of Oz where these architects dwell, dreaming up buildings to fatten the wallets of developers and politicians, while the charm and livability of the city is flattened.

HILLEL RESNER

Lafayette

[peanut gallery]

Wow, those are two doozies. If a flattened skyline at 600' is gobblygook (hey Hillel, I don't think there's a "d" in that non-word) to you, I don't think you should be commenting on the skyline. There's a lot you can criticize if you'd like, but the plateau is there and anyone can see it. It's hardly some developers' insider jargon.

I was pleasantly surprised with John King's take this morning. He has a reasonable view of the proposal and highlights the issues we should be concerned about: good design for these new buildings, sidewalk interaction, protection of smaller worthy/historic buildings in the area.

[peanut gallery]

I guess I should post the article.

Life on the ground key to new high-rise area
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Friday, May 2, 2008

If San Francisco planners have their way, a whole new neighborhood will grow up - literally - south of the traditional Financial District.

And here's the punch line: It could feel a lot like midtown Manhattan.

Swarms of pedestrians would navigate corporate plazas at the foot of glassy peaks. The wide grid of streets would be filled with cars much of the day, but a fair number of better-paid workers would be within walking distance of their high-rise homes.

This isn't the apocalyptic "Manhattanization" that local critics railed against back in the 1970s, when they warned that tall buildings would usher in blight and decay. This type of neighborhood can exude a dynamic urbanity that pulls housing close to office space and transit, all threaded by attractive strands of open space.

But unless care is taken on the ground, it also could be a dark, congested realm - no matter how the new buildings look from afar.

Given all the talk about a new skyline in recent years, there was a sense of anticlimax to what was unveiled Wednesday night by the San Francisco Planning Department.

Yes, the proposed zoning would allow seven towers to exceed the current 550-foot height limit. They would emerge from the existing clutter to form a sort of allegorical mound topped by a 1,000-foot tower at the Transbay Terminal site at First and Fremont streets.

Under this scenario, the summit would be 150 feet taller than the Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco's chart-topper since 1972. The flanking towers would be roughly as tall as the skyline's current runner-up, the 779-foot Bank of America building.

The idea also is to space things out, with at least 200 feet of open air between the towers once they reach the heavens.

"We think it's quite graceful," project manager Joshua Switzky said as he toggled through images of phantasmic silhouettes from such perspectives as Twin Peaks and Treasure Island. "We want to maintain and accentuate the downtown form, with the apex at the Transit Center."

As far as skyline aesthetics go, loosening the reins makes sense. Since the new towers would top off today's thicket of 400- to 600-foot high-rises, they wouldn't disrupt views that before were wide-open. They're also proportioned to build on what exists, rather than stick out like steroid thumbs.

At some point, the computer images morph into real structures of steel and concrete and glass, filled by thousands of workers and residents.

Here's where things get tricky.

Besides the obvious accents on the skyline, the proposed rezoning raises heights more "modestly" in other locations. There's space for a 400-foot tower connected to the Palace Hotel on New Montgomery Street, for instance, and a 450-foot shaft on Howard Street next to where a 700-foot tower is allowed. On Tehama Street - an alleyway - zoning would allow a 350-foot tower.

None of them is a skyline-popper. None of them would cast shadows on distant parks. At some point, though, the cumulative effect at street level could be overwhelming. Instead of cool towers providing contemporary accents, we'd have oversaturation.

Canyons of sleek glass.

The danger is most pronounced at the corner of Fremont and Mission streets.

Right now, there's a 600-foot office tower from 1985 on the northwest corner and, kitty-corner to it, a 650-foot residential tower that opens next year. On the northeast, the proposed height is 700 feet. And southwest? That's the Transbay site, where planners want their 1,000 foot centerpiece.

No matter how spread out the peaks might be, we would suffocate down low.

As the debate over the district moves forward during the next 18 months (or more) before there's a vote at the Board of Supervisors, it's essential that a balance be struck on the ground as well as in the air.

To their credit, planners are emphasizing the need for wider sidewalks in several locations and midblock crosswalks in others to create an urbane realm.

During the next few months, they also need to spell out how buildings on larger sites connect with the street. Instead of sheer cliff after sheer cliff, for instance, some high-rises could be tucked back on podiums of just three or four stories. Their bases would relate to the existing terrain of lower, older buildings, allowing breathing room at ground level while their towers soar toward the sky.

The neighborhood also needs strong protections for the masonry buildings that retain a flavor of its blue-collar past. Some are obvious landmarks. Others are disposable. With the ones in-between, it's best to err on the side of preservation.

Anyone who has visited midtown Manhattan in recent years knows how exhilarating it can be - a fast-paced world of gleaming stabs at the sky and jam-packed pocket parks, frenetic moments and inlets of calm. They also know the spots where it's all too much, a daunting press of construction where there's little hint of a world beyond.

San Francisco shouldn't be afraid to grow, and grow up. There's also no need to change it into something else.


For more information on Transbay area planning studies, go to transitcenter.sfplanning.org.

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

[SFView]

Thanks PB. So that pretty much confirms my thought that the shadowing of a 1200' tower on JHP is, at worst, a minor nuisance for a couple of months a year. I'd sure hate to see much-needed funding for the new terminal disappear because of that (ie: Hines lowering their bid with a shorter tower).

Now if someone can just come up with a practical sunlight diversion system of optical mirrors and lenses aiming light that would be otherwise be missing from JHP, and place it on the top of a 1200' or taller version of the Transbay Tower...

[BTinSF]

"It could feel a lot like midtown Manhattan"

Oh, the humanity! The horror!

Get out the Batman movies and see the future. Or maybe Bladerunner!

San Francisco 2015:

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Images/0200356_Refinery.jpg

[tech12]

Silly NIMBY's. What do they think San Francisco is? A small fishing village? Also all the whining about potentially dark, crowded streets downtown seems misplaced. It's downtown. It's not like the neighborhoods are losing their charm or something. 90% of the city is still "human-scale," and I didn't know skyscrapers ruined walkability (how is that even possible?). Plus half of the NIMBY's don't even live in SF.

When they think "skyscraper" they think this:

http://www.focusmag.gr/id/files/190788/mordor.jpg

[SFView]

Again, from one of the recent John King articles posted above:
"The reaction in the past was from some who didn't want San Francisco to change from being a smaller city to one that had international stature," Macris suggested. "People will talk about it a lot at first, and then they'll get used to it."
We can't really change other peoples opinions and tastes any more than we can change some of ours. Some want San Francisco to be more of a charming small European fishing village, while others want it to be more of a shinning bold world-class metropolis. We can site fictional extremes, - Coruscant and Mayberry, for instance - but maybe that is a little too extreme. I think it is better that we compromise to something that is more reasonable that works.

[BTinSF]

^^^Just as tastes in architecture vary, tastes in "working" vary. San Francisco isn't working for me when it's hard to buy a supper after 9 PM or a snack after midnight. It doesn't work for me as an overgrown small town because real cities offer 24 hour services for 24 hour people. And that takes a certain density. If you want things open after 9, you need enough people out and about after 9 to create the demand and make it worth the while of enough restauranteurs. That's what density does and in San Francisco there isn't room for sufficient additional density without additional height.

[viewguysf]

Hulking towers wrecked the city's charm
Friday, May 2, 2008
Editor - At this point it is irrelevant whether or not city planners override existing zoning ordinances to enable as many as seven new skyscrapers to surpass the current 550-foot height limit in and around a new Transbay tower ("A new skyline on S.F. horizon," May 1).

Not all that many years ago, even into the 1970s and very early 1980s, San Francisco was a great walker's town. The streets not only had a human scale, the buildings had an individuality and character that made walking in downtown a truly unique pleasure.

No more. San Francisco has "successfully" transformed itself into a security-guarded trash heap of me-too office towers. The city's once charming sidewalks and once unique skyline now resemble those of any other of America's interchangeable-part metropolises.

The sad, even tragic, fact is that we've already thrown the equivalent of acid on the face of what was once one of the world's most beautiful and interesting cities. Why should we suddenly pretend we care what happens next?

RILEY B. VANDYKE

San Francisco


That's patently absurd--this guy's a closeminded idiot! The majority of the "hulking towers that wrecked the City's charm" were built in the 70's. What about all those boxes on Market Street, some extending through to Mission? 333 Market, Bechtel and others are among the worst crap built here. Wake up Riley VanDickhead--we shouldn't pretend to care, we should actually care. If you don't care or like walking here in what still is one of the world's most beautiful and interesting cities, move to Reno, Peoria, Ashtabula or anywhere else.

[peanut gallery]

Also, the NE corner of 2nd and Howard would be converted to a park, as the historic buildings that currently occupy that corner would have to be demolished for construction of the Caltrain extension. This park is proposed to connect to the park on top of the Transit Center, as well as a pedestrian and bike path along the western span of the Bay Bridge.

I wanted to come back to this because we had some discussion several weeks ago about buildings at the southeast corner of Second and Howard that might be demolished for the Caltrain extension.

If one has to go, I hope it is the northeast corner, because it looks like this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/2461202086_eea3d88782_b.jpg

Nothing wrong with it, but nothing special either. The southeast corner, on the other hand, includes these buidlings:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2114/2460366257_8e968a841b_b.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4788/img0403on1.jpg

One caveat: I hope they don't go too far up Second street with the demolition, because just out of frame of the shot of the northeast corner, it gets much more interesting:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2275/2460368241_2935a0fb07_b.jpg

PS: I hope I'm not taking this thread too far off topic.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I'm glad to see that this thread has come back to life for the mean time...

If the NIMBYs end up successfully cutting the TB tower's height down for their precious hour of mid-winter sunlight in Justin Herman Plaza, I just hope that we can have a final height of at least 1,019 feet (hopefully some of you can figure out why) :cool:

[GlobeTrekker]

I'm glad to see that this thread has come back to life for the mean time...

If the NIMBYs end up successfully cutting the TB tower's height down for their precious hour of mid-winter sunlight in Justin Herman Plaza, I just hope that we can have a final height of at least 1,019 feet (hopefully some of you can figure out why) :cool:

I believe the Library Tower is 1,018 ft. to its structural height (including crown and helipad), right? Wikipedia has the top floor at 967.5 ft. If I read the articles above correctly, Transbay should still be permitted to have 1,000 ft to the top floor roof plus another 100-200 for the crown/wind turbines.

I wonder, however, if they would really make Pelli redesign the whole building for a 65-foot reduction in height? (1,065 roof to 1,000). I'm not sure how much time/money that would take, but it seems unnecessary and the transit center may risk a revised offer from Hines.

[Reminiscence]

That's patently absurd--this guy's a closeminded idiot! The majority of the "hulking towers that wrecked the City's charm" were built in the 70's. What about all those boxes on Market Street, some extending through to Mission? 333 Market, Bechtel and others are among the worst crap built here. Wake up Riley VanDickhead--we shouldn't pretend to care, we should actually care. If you don't care or like walking here in what still is one of the world's most beautiful and interesting cities, move to Reno, Peoria, Ashtabula or anywhere else.

Amen to that. Its these people that really put a halt to our growing ambitions. They act like the whole city is about to be transformed into some sort of super skyscraper city. This plan is only happening downtown, and a small part of it at that. Even Reno is embracing growth as I've seen some pretty big proposals there. I dont know about Peoria as I didnt go that far south when I was in Chicago, heh.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I believe the Library Tower is 1,018 ft. to its structural height (including crown and helipad), right?

You win!:D

BEAT LA!!!:banana:

[Frisco_Zig]

I was talking to my mom today about this proposal. She is a native San Franciscan and she seemed to have a few concerns about these big towers (I don't think the phrasing in the local press helped)

I explained my support for these towers and tried to give it context by explaining many of the ideas supported in this board about the environment, sprawl, economic competitiveness, transportation etc.

Putting this in context and explaining that the battle to save places like North Beach have already been won but this is a new era and these plans are more thoughtful really gained traction with her. She gets it now

People need to get the word out about this to help people see the big picture. This is a naturally conservative town when it comes to growth and allowing the market to work but the time is here. I am going to write to my supervisor to express my support and as much as possible I am going to spread the word to every friend and relative that I can

[SFView]

Is it just me, or does the overall plan feel more like downtown LA than Chicago's Magnificent Mile? Remember this from an older TJPA/SF Redevelopment presentation?
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/JHancockHybridProgram.jpg
Can you imagine if the presentation showed images of downtown LA instead? I know this isn't really the intention, and probably not how it will really look when built, but I still get that feeling of LA heights anyway right now. We still need to respect the law. Are there any other cities that have an unshadowed openspace law?

[SFView]

Highlights from: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_transit_center.htm (Presentations & Project Materials - April 30, 2008)
There are a few surprises if you look carefully.

What is currently being proposed:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TI1000.jpg

What has been proposed:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TI1200P.jpg

What is currently being proposed:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/HTS1000.jpg

What has been proposed:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/HTS1200P.jpg

What is having an effect on the proposal:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/EMBSHDW.jpg

What can be added to the proposal:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/BLDGTOPS.jpg

[tech12]

The first proposal with the 1000' tower is really nice in its self, though when compared to the 1200' one it of course looks a bit underwhelming.

As for the 1200' one it looks amazing, though I gotta say the 1200' piano towers look a little out of place as they create a steep drop off to the much shorter towers to the north. Plus, they just create another "tabletop effect" as they're right next to transbay.

[SFView]

Here are the open spaces of concern:
From: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi...sit_center.htm
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/shadow_analysis.jpg

[peanut gallery]

Thanks for pulling those out of the presentation, SFView. These quite clearly show the changes since we last heard anything official.

The first proposal with the 1000' tower is really nice in its self, though when compared to the 1200' one it of course looks a bit underwhelming.

That's a good point and I need to keep it in mind when looking at the current proposal. But I can't help feeling like they've taken out almost all the elements that made the original proposal such a dramatic improvement to the skyline. This is nice though, and it's still an improvement.


As for the 1200' one it looks amazing, though I gotta say the 1200' piano towers look a little out of place as they create a steep drop off to the much shorter towers to the north.

I agree. I prefer Piano and Transbay to be different heights and to have a step-down effect transitioning into the rest of the skyline. I just wish it could be 1200' to 1000' rather than 1000' to 800'.

[peanut gallery]

One other thing. The height maps that SFView posted seem to confirm that the demolition and open space will take place on the northeast corner as I'd hoped, rather than the southeast corner. That will also create the space for the new 700' tower on Howard, which I had previously thought would go to the east of the Transbay Terminal ramps. It looks to me like it will now sit to the west.

[tech12]

I agree. I prefer Piano and Transbay to be different heights and to have a step-down effect transitioning into the rest of the skyline. I just wish it could be 1200' to 1000' rather than 1000' to 800'.

I completely agree. It would be great to have the 1200' transbay and then a 1000/900/600 Piano or something.

As for the shortened zoning proposal. It looks really good, is what we have to remember. I mean, 5 years ago even that would have been unheard of. Of course I'm also disappointed that we might not see all these towers at their full height that we were looking forward too, but I'm also hoping the current idea to shorten them may not be final...At least not for all of them.

[SFView]

If the Transbay Tower can raise its height by some sort of "transparent" crown or spire, can we see other heights raised as well? I am also wondering if the Transbay Tower can incorporate a light well of some sort, can they put an observation deck somewhere above the shadow zone? I was also thinking, what if the Pelli crown continued up to a tapered point with a spire that continued even further up? It will be interesting what Pelli manages to comes up with, even with a base roof height dropped down to 1000'. I don't see a limit in structural height as long as shadows on JHP are reasonably minimized.

By the way, I would rather see Piano's scheme at 900', if the Transbay Tower can be 1200' or higher with a "transparent top." This way, Piano will be better able to modifiy his concept of "bamboo shoot" heights. Renzo Piano may be a master, but I am somewhat skeptical how well a 600'-800' height window for his scheme will be as successful as the 1200', 900', 600' height scheme previously suggested. There should be at least a 150' height different between Transbay and Piano; so would a taller Piano concept be acceptable, if Transbay extended up visually with some sort of transparent crown?

Since the plan is not yet finalized, there could be some effect or adjustments from public comment, etc. Also, if I am not mistaken, most of the heights proposed are the base heights of the buildings. Are not both Millennium and One Rincon Hill built in 550' zones?

[peanut gallery]

^^^^The maps you posted show ORH at 550. I can't tell what exactly Millennium was zoned for on there. Either way, that's a good point too.

[SFView]

How's this for a "transparent top?" It is the Lighthouse Tower proposed for Dubai at 1312' and 66 floors. Aside from a design that may not be so suitable for San Francisco's Transbay Tower site location, it does show what is possible adding height above the roof, while allowing light (and wind) to flow through.

From: http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com...&upload_id=998
Also see: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=129796
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/998_1_1000%20Atkins%20Lighthouse%201.jpg

[norcaldude21]

So, are they going to downsize the transbay tower to 1,000' so that the shadow doesn't cover Justin Herman Plaza? I thought we were past this stuff. Besides what's more important...a sunny place for a few dozen people to eat their lunch (an ugly place at that), or the tallest skyscraper west of Chicago? Plus, I thought the amount of money generated by the tower for the terminal was directly related to its height. Wasn't that the whole reasoning behind building such a tall tower in the first place?.

I couldn't agree more with you, Tech12.

I personally don't see how a building over 1000 ft. in the proposed area will cast a shadow all the way out to JH Plaza. I work in one of the Embarcadero towers near JH Plaza and Embarcadero Center 4 tower already casts shadows during the winter months. Did this law not exist back then? Besides, it usually rains during the winter months so you wouldn't see a shadow anyway.

The sky is the limit. A shadow that lasts a few minutes/hours should not be the pretext to go build a shorter tower. Going back to what Tech12 said, a taller building brings in more revenue. If SF really wants an icon and a tower that redefines the skyline, then they have to think tall. Otherwise, you are adding to the plateau.

[Reminiscence]

I think SFView makes some good points. I'm willing to bet that aside from these heights being mere estimates, they are estimates for the base heights rather than to the top of the structure. Plus, there is always the possibility that a few of these towers will be allowed to surpass the limit as ORH and Millenium have done I'm sure.

I think Capt. Barbosa in Pirates of the Caribbean said it best: "We figured them to be more like guidelines that actual rules."

[SFView]

I couldn't agree more with you, Tech12.

I personally don't see how a building over 1000 ft. in the proposed area will cast a shadow all the way out to JH Plaza. I work in one of the Embarcadero towers near JH Plaza and Embarcadero Center 4 tower already casts shadows during the winter months. Did this law not exist back then? Besides, it usually rains during the winter months so you wouldn't see a shadow anyway...

For background on the subject of shadow impact limitations on JHP under Proposition K, see: http://www.parks.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/recpark/meetings/Recreation_and_Park_Commission/supporting/2008/110107.pdf
Pages 6-7 under "JUSTIN HERMAN/EMBARCADERO PLAZA – SHADOW IMPACT"
...The Proposition K qualitative criteria established for Justin Herman Plaza states: "avoid mid-day and winter shadows." ...Additional shadow for Justin Herman Plaza...(should)...not exceed the standard of 0.1 percent of new shade cumulative limit criteria established in 1989.

Shading by weather is NOT considered.

[Reminiscence]

Is there a chance they'll ever repeal that proposition? It just seems so stupid to me to be that stringent on shadows. I mean 0.1% ... give me a break.

[SFView]

Is there a chance they'll ever repeal that proposition? It just seems so stupid to me to be that stringent on shadows. I mean 0.1% ... give me a break.

Stringent? Yes, but consider the history:
Failed Propositions (scoring better each time):
1971 Prop T - 80' maximum height limit in San Francisco
1972 Prop P - 160' maximum height limit in San Francisco
1979 Prop O - 260' maximum height limit in San Francisco
1983 Prop M - Developers to pay fully for transportation and housing impacts

Followed by Winning Propositions:
1984 Prop K - No shadows on Recreation and Park Department open spaces
1986 Prop M - 475,000 square feet of office space annual cap

also 1986 to present - maximum height limit reduced from 700' to 550' in San Francisco

I think if it wasn't for all the concerns over height, San Francisco might easily have been a much taller city, and third in the nation after Chicago, instead of seventh after Atlanta (http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html). I don't know of any other city in the world as much as San Francisco wanting to be so much taller, while wanting to be so much shorter. Aside from FAA issues, does anyone know of another city on Earth that has greater high-rise issue tension? It wasn't long ago we were talking about a 1375' skyscraper in a town that also wanted to be no taller than 80'!

See: http://www.spur.org/documents/990701_article_04.shtm

[peanut gallery]

I'm OK with not shadowing parks and open space. I like sunshine in those places. But when we're talking about an incremental increase in shade for a small slice of the day, during basically one month of the year -- a time of year that the space is not widely used anyway -- we've taken it way too far. Throw in the effect this could have on funding the new transit terminal, and we're shooting ourselves in the foot over nothing.

Side note: why isn't this under supertall proposals? It is currently proposed for at least 1000'.

[BTinSF]

^^^^The maps you posted show ORH at 550. I can't tell what exactly Millennium was zoned for on there. Either way, that's a good point too.

Here's the heights in the Downtown Plan adopted in 1989 and amended in 1995:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedimages/planning/egp/illus/downtown/map5.gif
Source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25010

[SFView]

I'm OK with not shadowing parks and open space. I like sunshine in those places. But when we're talking about an incremental increase in shade for a small slice of the day, during basically one month of the year -- a time of year that the space is not widely used anyway -- we've taken it way too far. Throw in the effect this could have on funding the new transit terminal, and we're shooting ourselves in the foot over nothing...


This is what the San Francisco voters wanted at the time. It seems like a good idea to have protected sunlight on open spaces to many people, and it is also a good way to control high-rise growth. The NIMBY's found an excellent way to help their cause. I don't know of any provisions for exceptions. Proposition K was passed long before any serious consideration for upzoning, and funding for a new terminal south of Market was needed. Could an exception case be made to the Board of Supervisors that they would approve? I think it would be difficult, but it also depends on how the public would respond to this issue. It is already clear that current zoning has reached a limit preventing San Francisco from growing were the benefits outweigh the limits. We now have good reason to upzone the heights. If one can prove that the potential benefits outweigh the current limits of shadowing over certain open spaces, then perhaps we have a valid case.

[SFView]

Justin Herman Plaza during the mid-winter:

Photo by Ingrid Taylar (http://sanfrancisco.about.com/od/holidaysspecialevents/tp/sanfranciscochristmaslights.htm)
http://z.about.com/d/sanfrancisco/1/0/8/I/-/-/embarcaderoskating500.jpg

From: http://marriott.homeandabroad.com/viewSiteDetails.ha?mainInfoId=40080
Shop 'til You Drop!
On market days and throughout the Christmas/Holiday season, the plaza is lined with San Francisco street artists selling their handcrafted wares (some of them very nice).

Sports Enthusiast
Also, during the winter holiday season there is the Kristi Yamaguchi Ice Skating Rink available for a glide.

[JDRCRASH]

From: http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com...&upload_id=998
Also see: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=129796
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/998_1_1000%20Atkins%20Lighthouse%201.jpg

It looks like the Index Towers' twin.

[Reminiscence]

I'm OK with not shadowing parks and open space. I like sunshine in those places. But when we're talking about an incremental increase in shade for a small slice of the day, during basically one month of the year -- a time of year that the space is not widely used anyway -- we've taken it way too far. Throw in the effect this could have on funding the new transit terminal, and we're shooting ourselves in the foot over nothing.

Side note: why isn't this under supertall proposals? It is currently proposed for at least 1000'.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Sure, I like sunshine in parks as much as the next person does, but whats the problem with limited shade for a small part of the day and during winter? Like you said, we're taking it tad too far. Even though its a good idea to control skyscraper growth, its sad that promising modern proposals might not get a waiver because of something passed 20 years ago.

[BTinSF]

It’s high time for SoMa to soar above San Francisco’s skyline
Ken Garcia
POSTED MAY 5, 10:35 PM

Taste is not a matter of dispute — though one would be hard-pressed to see that as an accepted truth in San Francisco, where the positions of four people can block a museum project or steer citywide transportation policy.

So it will be interesting to see whether the visions of the past will determine the skyline of the future, which holds promise for San Francisco during the next half-century.

I have always had an affinity for the Transamerica Pyramid — a building that helped launch the neighborhood protest movement in San Francisco and drew poison from the pen of a former columnist named Herb Caen. Yet that tower has come to define San Francisco nearly as much as the Golden Gate Bridge, and even those who find the Transamerica building aestethically challenged might wonder what all the fuss was about nearly 50 years ago, when it was being built.

The latest cycle of debate was stirred last week upon the presentation of the new Transbay Terminal tower plan, which would allow a number of new skyscrapers to scale beyond the current 550-foot height limit around a signature spire that would rise approximately 1,000 feet next to the proposed transportation hub.

http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/Image/sf.garcia(8).jpg

Now I’m not a proponent of the school that bigger is necessarily better, but there’s no reason that San Francisco’s skyline — which is unusually flat for the standards of major American cities — couldn’t use a bit of a dramatic, vertical push. The City’s limited land mass has created a dynamic where just about the only place to grow is up. The fact is, if San Francisco planners can find the right balance between density and livability, some new high-rises might lift The City above the level of drab design mediocrity in which it has long existed.

It also makes sense from a planning standpoint. As long as San Francisco’s policy is driven by transit-oriented development, any expansion must occur near its central business core, and the only place left for that type of growth is in the South of Market area that has long been zoned for it.

That should hardly ignite cries of “Manhattanization,” though in some quarters it undoubtedly will, but five to seven towers could add some architectural zest to a city clearly lacking it.

“It’s not like there’s going to be a dense forest of new towers,’’ said Dean Macris, San Francisco’s recent planning director who oversaw The City’s rezoning effort. “What you’re struck by here is how little change there has been physically over the years. But the planners here aren’t interested in height for its own sake.’’

Macris notes that there are good reasons to increase the height of some new buildings in San Francisco — namely growth projections and the need to increase office space to meet future demands. In addition, he said, global-warming issues will require planners to concentrate on increasing public-transit access.

The new skyline proposal also fits in the pattern of San Francisco development, in which height issues seem to spring up every 30 or 40 years. The Russ building and the Shell Oil building, both constructed in the late 1920s, were the tallest structures in The City until the mid-’60s. The Transamerica building, still the highest skyscraper in San Francisco, was completed in 1972.

The soon-to-be finished One Rincon Hill condominium tower has been a target of some criticism because it seems so out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. But that’s in large part because it stands alone — a South of Market architectural orphan — and it would fit in much better once the rest of the cluster of buildings in the Transbay Terminal plan were added to the landscape.

Of course, designs for those buildings will go a long way toward redefining the skyline, and San
Francisco doesn’t have a great track record for selecting architectural gems. Still, that’s not a reason to resist attempts to remake the South of Market area into the new downtown core as long as planners can figure out the right mix of light and shadows cast by the buildings and still make the streets around them user-friendly.

“I think people understand that density, if carefully planned, makes sense for a city of our scope,’’ Macris said.

Yet logic and good planning won’t stop the naysayers from trying to block the future — you only have to think back to the fight over the new de Young Museum to understand that. But progress has a way of surfacing with its pointy head. In San Francisco, it just takes a few years longer to make its presence felt.

The original plan for the Transamerica building called for the pyramid to be much taller and slimmer and more elegant. But some personal tastes intervened.

A proposed 1,000-foot-high Transbay Terminal tower could be good for The City’s stagnant skyline.


Source: http://www.examiner.com/blogs-103-Fault_Lines

[norcaldude21]

I think if it wasn't for all the concerns over height, San Francisco might easily have been a much taller city, and third in the nation after Chicago, instead of seventh after Atlanta (http://homepages.ipact.nl/~egram/skylines.html). I don't know of any other city in the world as much as San Francisco wanting to be so much taller, while wanting to be so much shorter. Aside from FAA issues, does anyone know of another city on Earth that has greater high-rise issue tension? It wasn't long ago we were talking about a 1375' skyscraper in a town that also wanted to be no taller than 80'!

See: http://www.spur.org/documents/990701_article_04.shtm


SFview, you are definitely right about SF possibly being the third in the nation. I think this might be our one shot to get a little closer to that. I'm really hoping that this city can bend it's strict rules a bit.

As far as cities with high-rise issues. I know our fellow neighbor to the north, Portland, has rather strict height limits. They don't want anything taller than their current tallest, "the big pink". I guess much like SF, the people that live on the hills don't want their views to be obstructed, etc.

Thanks for the article BTinSF. I'm glad to know that there's a lot of support out there.

[peanut gallery]

Good article by Mr. Garcia. We need more of that.

[BTinSF]

Just out of curiosity, under the new SSP scheme of things, why is this thread about a 1200' proposal not in the "Supertall Proposals" section? I actually had trouble finding it.

[peanut gallery]

I asked the same question on the last page. I don't think they put the Piano proposal in there either. They also need to move the Hotel Intercontinental into the completed builldings section. I guess with all the changes they haven't had time to go through and clean everything up. This one has been very active though, so you'd think it would have been noted.

[viewguysf]

I don't know of any other city in the world as much as San Francisco wanting to be so much taller, while wanting to be so much shorter. Aside from FAA issues, does anyone know of another city on Earth that has greater high-rise issue tension?

From what I understand, the citizens of Berlin voted to ban all further highrises period.

[SFView]

From what I understand, the citizens of Berlin voted to ban all further highrises period.

Really? Hmmmm...interesting.
Anyway, I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_restriction_laws
Wow! Bali, Indonesia can't exceed the height of a palm tree which is about 20 meters or 66 feet!

Actually, what I mean is the difference in range heights from what is orginally proposed and what gets built in San Francisco, and the quantity of reduced and cancelled proposals is proportionally larger than most other cities. Many of us know of how the Transamerica Pyramid was shortened by about 300'. There are scores of others; some we barely know about. At least nine of tallest towers in Reminiscence's SF proposed skyscraper list at the bottom of his posts are likely to be shortened or eliminated. San Francisco gets many proposals wanting to build taller, but restrictions resulting from public pressure often compresses them down. At least San Francisco is lucky it did not proceed with locating its airport on Treasure Island.

[Reminiscence]

Really? Hmmmm...interesting.
Anyway, I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_restriction_laws
Wow! Bali, Indonesia can't exceed the height of a palm tree which is about 20 meters or 66 feet!

Actually, what I mean is the difference in range heights from what is orginally proposed and what gets built in San Francisco, and the quantity of reduced and cancelled proposals is proportionally larger than most other cities. Many of us know of how the Transamerica Pyramid was shortened by about 300'. There are scores of others; some we barely know about. At least nine of tallest towers in Reminiscence's SF proposed skyscraper list at the bottom of his posts are likely to be shortened or eliminated. San Francisco gets many proposals wanting to build taller, but restrictions resulting from public pressure often compresses them down. At least San Francisco is lucky it did not proceed with locating its airport on Treasure Island.

I'm afraid to say that you will most likely be right about the reduced or eliminated proposals, too much of a good thing I guess.

Having the airport on Treasure Island would have been a disaster, having a skyscraper of this height might have been impossible.

[norcaldude21]

I really think SF realizes this might be their only shot for tall towers that will actually serve a great purpose. Plus, their strategic location could not be more ideal. All of the right elements are present.

Thinking ahead, if these buildings are built, this will definitely close down the curtain on future projects of this magnitude.

Yeah, I agree about the airport. Glad it was NOT built on Treasure Island. Then restrictions on height would be more intense and congestion on the Bay Bridge would have been a nightmare. Speaking of Bay Bridge, is there a thread for the new project?

[mthd]

^^^^The maps you posted show ORH at 550. I can't tell what exactly Millennium was zoned for on there. Either way, that's a good point too.

both millenium and ORH are in 550' height zones. 550 + 55' extension + exemptions for decorative mechanical screens/massing = either millenium or ORH.

[Reminiscence]

I'm hoping that at least a few of these towers will incorporate certain measures that will allow them to reach higher than the limit states. Such a radical example would include the new Bank of America Tower in New York City, which has a roof reaching 881' but a structural height of 1200', a pinnacle height of 319'.

[peanut gallery]

^^^I agree in principle, but I don't want to see a bunch of 6-700' buildings with 300' sticks on them like that building. Those look silly and would do nothing to alleviate the plateau effect. Something like an integrated crown housing turbines would work for me. Or a spire naturally extending from a pitched roof like Chrysler would be great.

[Reminiscence]

^^^I agree in principle, but I don't want to see a bunch of 6-700' buildings with 300' sticks on them like that building. Those look silly and would do nothing to alleviate the plateau effect. Something like an integrated crown housing turbines would work for me. Or a spire naturally extending from a pitched roof like Chrysler would be great.

Right. I agree, its important not to go overboard. I remember 181 Fremont had incorporated something to that nature, although nowhere near as extreme. I hope that project has not been affected with the recent rezoning proposal.

[SFView]

Right. I agree, its important not to go overboard. I remember 181 Fremont had incorporated something to that nature, although nowhere near as extreme. I hope that project has not been affected with the recent rezoning proposal.

It is - reduced to from something around 900' to maybe 700'?

[Reminiscence]

It is - reduced to from something around 900' to maybe 700'?

Hmm, thats too bad. I really do hope all of these numbers are not what Planning has in concrete. Otherwise, some of these projects might not reach the potential they could have had. Granted, even 700' is much better than whats there now.

[SFView]

I am still hoping that if they can find a good way to extend a "transparent" top on the Transbay Tower effectively to 1200' or taller, the surrounding zoning heights can be a little less restrained. As I mentioned, I would still like Piano design to be permitted to reach no less than 900' to the roof. I am not so sure if the new "downtown mound" idea would be as effective with the heights that are currently being proposed. It may look more like just an extension of the existing skyline to the south, with one new tallest spike at Transbay.

[peanut gallery]

I was just standing at Fremont and Mission looking up at 50 Fremont and Millennium, imagining the other two corners filled with Transbay at 1000' and 350 Mission at 700'. And you know, even at those heights it will be damn impressive. I mean, Transbay will be half again as high as Millennium. That is freaking tall! It won't look as good from a distance, but it made me feel better thinking about how amazing it will look from street level. And that's if they don't "cheat-up" with all the various possibilities everyone has mentioned in this thread.

[AndrewK]

in the close up of the crown in the pelli proposal, there are what appear to be eight floors of semi-transparent structure, presumably for mechanics and turbines. if that is allowed to extend above 1000 ft, thats at least another hundred feet right there.

[northbay]

progress!

from the chron:

SAN FRANCISCO
Transbay Terminal design contract OKd

John King

Friday, May 16, 2008

A $105 million architectural contract makes it official: Work on a new Transbay Terminal has begun in earnest.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority voted unanimously Thursday to sign a professional services agreement with Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects to design a facility for bus and train service at San Francisco's First and Mission streets, the site of the existing terminal.

The contract would extend through the construction process and includes the fees for 21 consultants whose work would be directed by Pelli Clarke Pelli, including landscape architects and a specialist in wind-tunnel testing.

Construction of a temporary facility at Fremont and Folsom streets is to begin this winter and be completed in 2009. The existing terminal would then be demolished and work would begin on its replacement, which is scheduled to open in 2014.
source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/16/BAQN10NJP1.DTL

[peanut gallery]

A bit of a formality, but a very important step nonetheless. Now the real work begins. I can't wait to see the next iterations of the design.

[WonderlandPark]

I don't know if this has been posted, in the 90+ pages of this thread, but its a large rendering of the terminal:

from artdaily
http://www.artdaily.com/imagenes/2008/05/18/Transbaytcr1.jpg

[nequidnimis]

This design will require some elaborate window washing equipment. Not to mention the problem of washing the glass on the inside. Unless no one at the TJPA intends to wash the glass... or the design is all "straightened" as it proceeds from concept to construction. Also, some of the glass panes are warped surfaces: I doubt glass is available in such shapes.

[c1tyguy]

^ Haha interesting point.. never thought about that. Maybe it will have a self-cleaning mechanism like the Pyramide du Louvre in Paris.