SAN FRANCISCO | 181 Fremont | 802 FT | 52 FLOORS

[craeg]

Via socketsite http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/08/add_another_proposed_tower_to_the_transbay_mix_181_frem.html

Another tower, this one a mere 900 feet, has been proposed for the area surrounding San Francisco’s new Transbay Terminal and Tower. And according to J.K. Dineen, the “razor-thin skyscraper” at 181 Fremont “would include 500,000 square feet of office space beneath about 140 residential condominiums.”

The Fremont Street parcel is one of several sites where the city is considering allowing tall towers as a source of tax revenue to help bankroll the $3.4 billion Transbay Terminal and Tower. Under the plan, developers around the transit center and tower -- likely to soar 1,300 feet or more -- could build well above current 300- to 500-foot zoning restrictions in exchange for pumping millions of dollars in additional taxes to help pay for building new infrastructure in the Transbay District as well as the terminal programing itself. City officials estimate that taxes from upzoning the properties around the Transbay Terminal and Tower could generate $250 million.
Designed by HellerManus, the proposed tower “would have a glass curtain wall and exterior structural system…would seek a gold stamp of approval from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design… [and] include a highly efficient sawtooth glazing system that allows daylighting but reduces unwanted heating.”

And yes, as is now de rigeur, the “developer is also looking into solar power [and] wind turbines…”

[San Frangelino]

Here is an image to go along from http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/09/03/story1.html

http://img.bizjournals.com/u/f/sanfrancisco/20070903/coverimage.jpg

[tyler82]

Via socketsite http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/08/add_another_proposed_tower_to_the_transbay_mix_181_frem.html

Another tower, this one a mere 900 feet, has been proposed for the area surrounding San Francisco’s new Transbay Terminal and Tower. And according to J.K. Dineen, the “razor-thin skyscraper” at 181 Fremont “would include 500,000 square feet of office space beneath about 140 residential condominiums.”


Designed by HellerManus, the proposed tower …would seek a gold stamp of approval from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design… [and] include a highly efficient sawtooth glazing system that allows daylighting but reduces unwanted heating.”

And yes, as is now de rigeur, the “developer is also looking into solar power [and] wind turbines…”

This is the best news for the hopes of this project actually happening. Looks like another stylin' iconic (uh oh, don't tell John King!) tower for the SF Skyline to go with BofA, TAP, and Transbay!

[Steely Dan]

can you feel the awesomeness!?!

i know i can, even from that tiny little blurry image from the newspaper scan, the expressed structural elements already have me salivating to see more. san francisco ain't messing around no more; time to get some real height into what is already one hell of a skyline.

[BTinSF]

Can non-subscribers follow the link to that article? If not, I'll post it.

[Nowhereman1280]

Sweet, San Francisco may well have the second or third tallest and best skyline in the country when all these new buildings are completed. It should be real interesting to see what happens if SF keeps moving towards the obvious source of tax revenue, tall buildings...

[tyler82]

Poor Millennium, looks like it's going to be blocked from almost all sides: Transbay to the west (or southwest), 50 Fremont to the north, and now this one to the south! :D

The density of this neighborhood in 10 years is going to be some of the best in the world.

[paulsfca]

Can non-subscribers follow the link to that article? If not, I'll post it.

hi BTinSF...please post the article. thanks so much ! :tup:

[tyler82]

Sweet, San Francisco may well have the second or third tallest and best skyline in the country when all these new buildings are completed.

I keep hearing people say that SF will have the 3rd best skyline after all this is completed... Well, isn't this the case already? Really, you have NY and Chicago, which can be argued day and night over which is first or second, and that will always be the case so long as those cities are still standing, and then, I can't really think of another 'skyline city' than SF. LA might have a couple taller buildings, but I like to think our skyline is better already in density, appeal, etc.
So, I think we are the top 3 now, and we will be into the future. But with Chicago and NY also on the list, can't really ever beat them.

[San Frangelino]

socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

http://www.socketsite.com/181%20Fremont%20Rendering.jpg

[Steely Dan]

^ it looks like it's straight out of 1975. i LOVE it! it's not really neo-modern at all, just real deal last gasp of modernism from the mid 70s transported 30 years forward through time. and a nice homage to transamerica with those big diagonally braced truss sections at the base and half way up the tower.

big, bold, muscular, inelegant......... this is my kind of architecture.

[Nowhereman1280]

I keep hearing people say that SF will have the 3rd best skyline after all this is completed... Well, isn't this the case already? Really, you have NY and Chicago, which can be argued day and night over which is first or second, and that will always be the case so long as those cities are still standing, and then, I can't really think of another 'skyline city' than SF. LA might have a couple taller buildings, but I like to think our skyline is better already in density, appeal, etc.
So, I think we are the top 3 now, and we will be into the future. But with Chicago and NY also on the list, can't really ever beat them.

I suppose that could be true, but I mentioned in both height and quality. LA has greater height right now, a place into which SF will definitely move. Either way SF will be cementing the 3rd place title for a long long time...

[Nowhereman1280]

Re: New, Bigger Redering

That is one ugly mother fucker.... I love it!

Way old school, which is a good thing...

[BTinSF]

Another tower added to Transbay
Developer SKS joins rush to new highrise district with 900-foot plan
San Francisco Business Times - August 31, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

SKS Investments is proposing a 900-foot, mixed-use tower at 181 Fremont St., a razor-thin skyscraper that would play a prominent supporting role in the new Transbay District at First and Mission streets.

The 66-story tower would include 500,000 square feet of office space beneath about 140 residential condominiums, according to SKS principals and an application for environmental evaluation filed with the city.

The Fremont Street parcel is one of several sites where the city is considering allowing tall towers as a source of tax revenue to help bankroll the $3.4 billion Transbay Terminal and Tower. Under the plan, developers around the transit center and tower -- likely to soar 1,300 feet or more -- could build well above current 300- to 500-foot zoning restrictions in exchange for pumping millions of dollars in additional taxes to help pay for building new infrastructure in the Transbay District as well as the terminal programing itself. City officials estimate that taxes from upzoning the properties around the Transbay Terminal and Tower could generate $250 million.

Daniel Kingsley, a managing partner with SKS Investments, said the 15,500-square-foot site between the eastern edge of terminal and Town Hall restaurant lends itself to the sort of slender, airy tower city Planning Director Dean Macris has been promoting. Creating a home for new residents and workers next to the terminal would help foster the dense live-work, transit-based neighborhood that Transbay leaders are aiming for, he added.

"If the Transit Center is going to turn into the Grand Central Station of the West Coast, it needs to be appropriately supported with mixed-use projects and appropriate densities," said Kingsley. "This was a wonderful opportunity to do something right smack dab next to the terminal."

The project, designed by HellerManus, will be part of a consolidated environmental impact report that will take in all the major proposed developments in the Transbay District, according to Macris. The planning director said the 181 Fremont St. project has not been "vetted yet" but is one of several proposals that are "candidates" for Transbay upzoning.

"We'll have plenty to say about a dozen projects down there but not before next year," said Macris. "We're going through shadow analysis, wind analysis, traffic analysis. To say anything now would be premature."

The SKS proposal, which could cost $450 million or more to build, comes as a special jury is considering three proposals for the Transbay Terminal and Tower. The development teams include Rockefeller Group with architect Skidmore Owings Merrill, Hines with architect Cesar Pelli, and Forest City with architect Richard Rogers.

The panel is slated to make a recommendation on Sept. 9, with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority making a final decision on Sept. 20.

In addition to 181 Fremont St., other proposals within the district include the Solit Interests Group's Renzo Piano-designed scheme which could include as many as five towers at First and Mission streets, the tallest of which would likely soar more than 1,000 feet. The cluster of towers -- spaced out enough to allow sunlight to penetrate -- would help create a mound of structures in which the Transbay Tower, which will be among the tallest buildings in the United States, will be the centerpiece.

The building would have 13,000- to 14,000-square-foot floorplates on the lower office floors that would taper to 10,000 square feet on the residential floors above. SKS officials say the small floorplates will be able to cater to average downtown tenants seeking 5,000 to 15,000 square feet. Kingsley compared the building to 601 California St. -- SKS's home -- which has similar-sized floors.

"It doesn't lend itself to a 200,000-square-foot tenant, but it's perfect for 7,000-square-foot tenants like us," said SKS Managing Partner Paul Stein. "If we had our druthers, I think we would design smaller floorplates. Even if we had an opportunity to do something bigger, I don't think we would."

He added: "It may take longer to lease but once it's leased, you're less susceptible to big tenants leaving and having a lot of vacancy in the building."

The tower would have a glass curtain wall and exterior structural system. It would seek a gold stamp of approval from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, according to Kingsley. Environmental features will include a highly efficient sawtooth glazing system that allows daylighting but reduces unwanted heating. The developer is also looking into solar power, wind turbines and "chilled beams" -- overhead cooling units that use cold and hot water to modulate temperature.

"There is not a big single solution, but if you look at every single incremental solution -- as small as they might be -- and add it all together you can have an impact," said Kingsley. "That is the philosophy we have to follow."

SKS Investments -- a partnership of Kingsley, Paul Stein, and Julie Stein -- has made its name developing high-tech-oriented properties South of Market, including 501 Second St., 575 Brannan St., and 350 Rhode Island St. All three principals, however, have plenty of highrise experience: Kingsley was a longtime executive at Los Angeles-based Maguire Thomas Partners, participating in 3 million square feet of office development; Paul Stein was a vice president with Shorenstein Properties and a leasing director with Damon Raike; and Julie Stein was involved in more than $10 billion in commercial mortgage and equity transactions with Salomon Brothers and Rosen Consulting Group.

Paul Stein said the highrise "really brings us back to our roots more than anything."

"It's fine to see on a piece of paper, but the real joy comes in building it," said Paul Stein.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/09/03/story1.html

[San Frangelino]

I have to admit, though this comment will further solidify my being a total height whore, that I really hope this towers height at 900 ft is an indication that the Howard street Transbay tower will at least break 1000ft. I say put Pelli's design there and make it a perfect world.

But with something a little more serious, does anyone know the likely hood of this project with Prop M? I suppose I am under the impression that the limit is already being pushed without this proposal.

[BTinSF]

^^^This project, surprisingly, is "only" 500,000 sq ft of office. Prop M allows about 900,000 sq ft per year (I can't recall the exact number). And remember what I posted last week--there's a move afoot to strip some "entitled" buildings that haven't started construction within the required 18 months of their "entitlements", making that "banked" square footage again available. If that happens, this building could easily be built within a few years I believe. Even if it doesn't happen, I doubt Prop. M would stop it--it wpould have to compete with some other projects but given the emphasis on the TransBay area, I think it would get an allocation.

[aluminum]

Another 900' proposal adds to the list of so may tall proposals, maybe some day they'll build most of 'em.

[northbay]

hmm, a good heller manus design! - thats rare (might even be a first) :)

[tyler82]

socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

http://www.socketsite.com/181%20Fremont%20Rendering.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/architecture/1/0/B/8/pei-bankhongkong-pritzker.jpg(Emporis)

[plinko]

I find the design almost appalling, but the idea is nice. Anybody else bothered by the different sized vertical bracing bays? (I realize of course why they are like that, but it still looks odd).

[BTinSF]

^^^No, not bothered at all.

[botoxic]

Recently added to the endangered species list:
177-183 Fremont Street
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2002-04/S4010034.jpg
It's very difficult to believe a site this small can support a building taller than TAP. It's nice to see those rumors from six months ago becoming reality!

[KevinFromTexas]

I love it. Very fitting tower to complement the pyramid.

[BTinSF]

It's very difficult to believe a site this small can support a building taller than TAP. It's nice to see those rumors from six months ago becoming reality!
Here's another view of the site from Socketsite:

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20at%20Fremont.jpg
Photo: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/08/add_another_proposed_tower_to_the_transbay_mix_181_frem.html

[Aleks]

Nice to hear San Fran. is catching up in height with Seattle. For the amount of people living in San. Fran. they don't have any 1000 footers. I don't rally like the design. It might change a little, the green doesn't seem nice. Well, congrats San Fran. for another 900 foot+ proposal. Isn't this the third?

[Stephenapolis]

Wow. SF might have a great skyline in a few years. (That is not a shot at SF either. I just am not a big fan of much of the skyline.)

[rajaxsonbayboi]

:upload_71700: :omg: this totally turned my bad day into an AWESOME day!!:banana:

[Reminiscence]

Heller Manus' green glass is at it again. No matter though, the design is great. I see a very pleasant reference to Transamerica here. The height is also pretty good for the size of its lot. Overall, another great proposal for our city. I expect to see more proposals such as these over the next few years, keep em' coming :).

[BTinSF]

Wow. SF might have a great skyline in a few years. (That is not a shot at SF either. I just am not a big fan of much of the skyline.)

That's a view that several people here have suggested, but I wonder what they are talking about. I find it difficult and bizarre to view the San Francisco "skyline" in parts, whether they constitute "much of" it or just bits of it. San Francisco does have a lot of uninspired architecture which got built because it came out of the Planning Dept. design review sausage grinder which has a goal of inoffensiveness, not inspiration. But the skyline taken as a whole is really quite dramatic and spectacular, punctuated as it is by Coit Tower, the pyramid and now One Rincon Hill. And the setting--the bay, the bridges and the hills--makes up for a lot of bad planning and resultant mediocre architecture as well as providing unequaled (anywhere!) vantage points for viewing the skyline. Taken not in parts but as a whole, we have a great skyline now which these buildings would make much better.

[VA_Gentleman]

^I love the skyline because it is so dense. Maybe people have complaints because there aren't any particularly tall buildings. Of course SF sits near and earthquake hotspot so I'm rather glad that they haven't built taller until safer methods were devised.

[tyler82]

This building is an even greater reflection of this beauty, Maritime Plaza (photo: survivalarts.com) http://www.survivalarts.com/images/one_maritime_building.jpg

[viewguysf]

Wow. SF might have a great skyline in a few years. (That is not a shot at SF either. I just am not a big fan of much of the skyline.)

We have a great skyline right now which BT explains very succinctly. Just compare our skyline from the Bay Bridge with any shot of downtown Minneapolis for example...

[Stephenapolis]

^
I should have figured some of you would have taken my comments as a personnal attack. It wasn't. I just have never understood the big deal with the SF skyline. Yes SF is at one of the best locations on the Earth but that does not translate into a great skyline. What bothers me is that many of the best looking buildings in SF are blocked in by boxy 60's/70's buildings. With the exception of a few buildings it looks like a very boxy skyline from most angles.

[roadwarrior]

We have a great skyline right now which BT explains very succinctly. Just compare our skyline from the Bay Bridge with any shot of downtown Minneapolis for example...

Yeah, but I don't think that people are benchmarking our skyline against Minneapolis. I always hear people mention that our skyline isn't New York or Chicago.

I think that a few of these taller buildings (if they actually get built) will do wonders for the height issue. In addition, they should bring some life to the monotony that is the downtown high rises. I must say that when I recently visited downtown LA, while they certainly don't have the sheer concentration of high rises, their buildings look far more interesting (with the exception of the Transamerica Pyramid).

[BTinSF]

^
I should have figured some of you would have taken my comments as a personnal attack. It wasn't. I just have never understood the big deal with the SF skyline. Yes SF is at one of the best locations on the Earth but that does not translate into a great skyline. What bothers me is that many of the best looking buildings in SF are blocked in by boxy 60's/70's buildings. With the exception of a few buildings it looks like a very boxy skyline from most angles.

I didn't take what you said as an attack. I just disagree that the large number of bad buildings--the ones you call boxy--ruins the whole. I also tried to explain that SF has one of the most rigorous "entitlement" processes around which is the cause of much of the mediocrity because its goal is inoffensiveness, not grandeur and the planning bureaucrats can force good architects to modify their designs--often in response to the demands of NIMBYs. To be fair, this sometimes makes designs better as in the case of The Infinity, but in the building boom of the 60's and 70's that was rare.

[toddguy]

Heller Manus' green glass is at it again. No matter though, the design is great. I see a very pleasant reference to Transamerica here. The height is also pretty good for the size of its lot. Overall, another great proposal for our city. I expect to see more proposals such as these over the next few years, keep em' coming :).

That is the first thing I thought(Transamerica reference). those triangles at the base and especially about 2/3's of the way up are right out of Transamerica. I like it. :)

[viewguysf]

^
I should have figured some of you would have taken my comments as a personnal attack. It wasn't. I just have never understood the big deal with the SF skyline. Yes SF is at one of the best locations on the Earth but that does not translate into a great skyline. What bothers me is that many of the best looking buildings in SF are blocked in by boxy 60's/70's buildings. With the exception of a few buildings it looks like a very boxy skyline from most angles.

I didn't take it as a personal attack either and certainly agree with you that we have some fugly boxes downtown. It's the sheer density along with the nice buildings that makes the whole so interesting to me. Come back out and see how the latest batch of "shorter" buildings has contributed to the scene. :)

[viewguysf]

I must say that when I recently visited downtown LA, while they certainly don't have the sheer concentration of high rises, their buildings look far more interesting (with the exception of the Transamerica Pyramid).

You're right roadwarrier. LA has some gorgeous buildings but, in general, not an impressive skyline from most angles. One great exception is viewing them from Pershing Square in the heart of downtown--it's very impressive. The view from the east when driving in from Pasadena is good also.

[BTinSF]

Stephenapolis and all--just thought I'd give you one or two shots I took (photo police please note!) showing the SF skyline from a place a lot of people see it but rarely post it here and that show why I just can't accept it as "bad":

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000126.jpg?t=1188666596

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000128.jpg?t=1188666835

This, by the way, is pretty much what the Planning Dept. would want you to see: widely separated slender towers. It's what they talk about on Rincon Hill (which you can't see in these shots). What you do see, of course, is Russian, Nob and Telegraph Hills and Pacific Heights with the tallest downtown "icons" (those nasty things per John King) sticking up.

[djvandrake]

The only thing holding me back from doing flips over the design is the exposed structure midway up. Other than that I love it and feel it's a fantastic proposed addition to SF. :tup: :banana:

[sfcity1]

socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

http://www.socketsite.com/181%20Fremont%20Rendering.jpg

Awesome stuff. This is likely the result of an exciting trend that has been initiated by people in charge of the city, including the mayor, with the transbay terminal (go SOM!). Nimbys have no say in this rather large part of the city full of vulnerable warehouses.

[San Frangelino]

^^Am I looking at the image right? Standing near the corner of Mission and Fremont looking South East? If thats the spot, I am anxious to see what the back of this tower will look like so we can know what kind of presence this will have on the skyline. It looks as though it changes angles as you wrap around it.

[Reminiscence]

I think that if this building is pursuing wind turbines as well to give it a good LEED rating, that open space about halfway up the tower could a be a good place to put them. With Transbay so closeby, it will be interesting how much wind is diverted its way. I also wonder if the 900' taken into account the crown and spire on top. If not, this could be more like 935' or so.

[WonderlandPark]

Its sort of too bad the most banal towers of SF are on the waterfront. Many of the more interesting towers are buried behind blocky and poorly done 60's-70's towers. Sort of like Portland, who has also lined its waterfront with dreadful boxes.

[Fabb]

I like it.
I wonder if the floor plates are square or triangular.

[tyler82]

That is the first thing I thought(Transamerica reference). those triangles at the base and especially about 2/3's of the way up are right out of Transamerica. I like it. :)

Really? I think it reminds me more of the bay bridge, structually, than the Pyramid. I don't know where you crazies are getting the pyramid reference. If this building were in any other city, would you still be thinking "OMG, Transamerica!" ??

[BVictor1]

It's very difficult to believe a site this small can support a building taller than TAP. It's nice to see those rumors from six months ago becoming reality!

Waterview Tower in Chicao is being built on an extremely small site. I believe that the footprint is about 23,000 square geet and that building will be 1,047'.

It's not that unimaginable to see a building of 900' built on this proposed site.

[BTinSF]

The only thing holding me back from doing flips over the design is the exposed structure midway up. Other than that I love it and feel it's a fantastic proposed addition to SF. :tup: :banana:

I assume that's the mechanical floor and separates the residential from the office parts of the building. If you notice, it also allows for a setback to smaller floorplates for the residential. I like it. It adds interest to the building. Who knows--maybe they'll even stick some turbines in there in one more homage to the Greenies. ;)

[BTinSF]

Its sort of too bad the most banal towers of SF are on the waterfront. Many of the more interesting towers are buried behind blocky and poorly done 60's-70's towers. Sort of like Portland, who has also lined its waterfront with dreadful boxes.

Well, as you probably know, that's another Planning Dept. policy. They want short/squat buildings on the waterfront and a "step up" as you go back from it. But I do think a few buildings like Hill's Plaza, the Ferry Building and AT&T Park save the day. I also wish somebody would buy and do a serious renovation on the Harbor Court Hotel. That could be elegant (my sister from Baltimore keeps telling me there's a Harbor Court there that is elegant).

[Buck]

Having recently visited the city for the first time, I am deeply in love with San Francisco. I was surprised at all the construction going on... I was only aware of some proposals and didn't know so many had begun construction. And as soon as I get back, there are big new proposals popping up all the time. I'm glad to hear of this one and I love the height... but the design leaves something to be desired. I certainly wouldn't fight it, but it's not original at all.

[Buck]

Having recently visited the city for the first time, I am deeply in love with San Francisco. I was surprised at all the construction going on... I was only aware of some proposals and didn't know so many had begun construction. And as soon as I get back, there are big new proposals popping up all the time. I'm glad to hear of this one and I love the height... but the design leaves something to be desired. I certainly wouldn't fight it, but it's not original at all.

[Aleks]

Is it 900 ft to the roof or the spire?
In some ways I agree with Stepahnopolis, San Francisco's skyline isn't as great as it should be. Minneapolis has an O.K. skyline actually, and you can't compare shots from Bay bridge to shots of the Minneapolis skyline.

[SFView]

I think it's a good start for Heller Manus, although I would like to see the large triagular facade sections slighty more angled in slightly different planes. It looks like they started a little of the angle changes already, but the rendering is a little unclear in this regard.

Dean Macris mentioned about a dozen sites being studied for upzoning. If I'm not mistaken, that may include this project, Transbay Transit Tower, 1st and Mission (Piano), 350 Mission, TJPA Howard, six Transbay residential towers, and a possible site just west of the Piano towers.

I am hoping the mix will include another 1 or 2 more 1000+' towers along with Transbay and Piano, and that 350 Mission will return to 850' from being considered below 550'.

Yes, I agree with Reminisence that it is possible the 900' measurement is to the roof, The crown and spire may add to the total.

[BTinSF]

^^^This new proposal actually doesn't show up on the TJPA redevelopment scheme:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Redevelopment%20Plan_large.JPG
Source: http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=373

but it does show in this rendering as a much squatter new building:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbay-aerial1.jpg
Source: http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbay-aerial1.jpg

and it shows up here as the site of a 600-800 footer (after upzoning the height limit):

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/396128773_ec3773d3b7_o.jpg
Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/396128773_ec3773d3b7_o.jpg

[EmpireCityGuy]

socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

http://www.socketsite.com/181%20Fremont%20Rendering.jpg

The exoskeleton is a great feature. It's thin physique is very attractive as well.

[botoxic]

Waterview Tower in Chicao is being built on an extremely small site. I believe that the footprint is about 23,000 square geet and that building will be 1,047'.

It's not that unimaginable to see a building of 900' built on this proposed site.
Having seen this site in person several times, I doubt this building's footprint is going to be much more than 15,000 sf at the most (probably closer to 12K). This figure is supported by the 500,000 sf of office space divided over what appears to be approximately 42 floors.

I also wonder if the 900' taken into account the crown and spire on top. If not, this could be more like 935' or so.
When the rumors about 181 first started circulating, weren't they talking about an 850' building? I have a feeling the 900' number includes the crown and spire, but we can always hope.

I wonder if there's any chance of this building getting started before TransBay (and I can see it going up faster as well)? 181 Fremont has the potential to hold the title of SF's tallest building for a short while!

[BTinSF]

When the rumors about 181 first started circulating, weren't they talking about an 850' building? I have a feeling the 900' number includes the crown and spire, but we can always hope.



See the image I posted above--it says the TransBay height upzoning would be for a "600'-800'" building on that site. When this developer first indicated interest in the site, there was no hint they were thinking of a really tall building. I actually posted something from BizTimes about them buying the lot last year but it didn't mention height.

By the way, this reminds me that we've yet to hear any details on 350 Mission which, according to the same image above, filed for an 850 ft. building there which is a slightly larger (but not much larger) lot.

[BTinSF]

it's not original at all.

It's Heller-Manus. They don't do no stinking "original" architecture--but I can only assume they work cheap and/or they have a sugar daddy at the Planning Department because they get far too much work in this town and a lot of it gets built (helping to explain why there are so many bad buildings). As sfview (I think it was) said above, for them this is a gem. At least they had the sense to copy something GOOD this time.

[viewguysf]

Really? I think it reminds me more of the bay bridge, structually, than the Pyramid. I don't know where you crazies are getting the pyramid reference. If this building were in any other city, would you still be thinking "OMG, Transamerica!" ??

I think people are comparing the "legs" to those on the Pyramid and they are somewhat similar.

I like the exposed structure about two-thirds of the way up, where it most likely transitions to the condos from the office plates. Everybody keeps complaining about our boxes here and then a number of them complain about this feature too. :shrug:

[tyler82]

I think people are comparing the "legs" to those on the Pyramid and they are somewhat similar.

I like the exposed structure about two-thirds of the way up, where it most likely transitions to the condos from the office plates. Everybody keeps complaining about our boxes here and then a number of them complain about this feature too. :shrug:

A box isn't inherently bad. It's what's on the outside that counts. Although, we do have a lot of unimaginative shoe boxes downtown. However, there are a ot that I actually like because they are clean, built of good, quality materials (hello freemasons!), and have a nice hue to them. 50 Fremont and Telesis tower are my favorite SF boxes.
This building could be considered another boring box, due to its shape, but it's exterior framing makes it so much more interesting. Yay for more boxes like this one !

[tyler82]

Please, Mr. Manass (oops, I mean Manus), please no more sea green glass! Infinity is a great building, the color is a little overwhelming, though, and I think that it should be the only one downtown with that distinctive color. The green glass in the rendering kind of scares me, because the glass on Infinity looked like it was going to be very translucent and subtle, much like this one, and instead turned into the kryptonite castle.

This building gives me hope to some of the models I saw while doing a building inspection for the architects of the Millennium tower. They had a whole bunch of amazing, really cool high rise models that I've never seen before anywhere, so I guess that perhaps those are some proposals? They may not be for SF, but I'm hoping some of them are, because I saw some of the coolest shapes and styles and colors- black with a red and silver exterior skeleton/ frame, as one example. Of course, they would not let me take pics of those :D

[GlobeTrekker]

I think people are comparing the "legs" to those on the Pyramid and they are somewhat similar.

Can anyone tell if this new building is square or triangular in floor shape?

I like this design and glad to see another tall proposal! It also reminds me both of the building in HK and the TAP. Here are two photos (taken by me) which show why.. on the TAP, look at the triangles on the very bottom at the base.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1270/1299027902_7208d3d900.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1153/1299027896_cb7c615452.jpg?v=0

[tyler82]

Can anyone tell if this new building is square or triangular in floor shape?

I like this design and glad to see another tall proposal! It also reminds me both of the building in HK and the TAP. Here are two photos (taken by me) which show why.. on the TAP, look at the triangles very bottom at the base.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12548998@N06/1299027902/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12548998@N06/1299027896/in/photostream/

Sorry, I tried to link to my Flickr photos but it's not working... I'll try to fix it later.

It looks square. If you look at the midsection, you can see the ceiling, and it looks like there are two 90(ish) degree angles, but it does look like it is more of an irregular rectangle shape, with some of the sides caving in toward each other (what do they call those shapes? oblong rectangle or trapezoid.. or something). Should be interesting

[GlobeTrekker]

It looks square. If you look at the midsection, you can see the ceiling, and it looks like there are two 90(ish) degree angles, but it does look like it is more of an irregular rectangle shape, with some of the sides caving in toward each other (what do they call those shapes? oblong rectangle or trapezoid.. or something). Should be interesting

I noticed the "caving in" too which made me think it might not be square. But either way it looks good. I agree regarding the glass... sea green would look very different.

Does anyone know more about the "sawtooth" glazing system they mention? Is that used on other buildings?

[tyler82]

This building is very iconic (John King leave the room), and would be recognized all over the world. This proposal gets me so excited to see the rest of them, we could have around 10 different towers of this height and personality, all taller than the tallest building in SF. When the Transbay board talked about enhancing and redefining the skyline, I never realized it would be taken to this kind of (good good good) extreme!

[Reminiscence]

I think people are comparing the "legs" to those on the Pyramid and they are somewhat similar.

I like the exposed structure about two-thirds of the way up, where it most likely transitions to the condos from the office plates. Everybody keeps complaining about our boxes here and then a number of them complain about this feature too. :shrug:

I see a resemblance to Transamerica due to the base, as said by some of my fellow forumers. Also, the diagonal steel supporting structures on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge come to mind. I see the dividing segment in the tower as the housing for wind turbines as I dont really see where else they could go. One thing that makes me somewhat happy is the fact that it wont have a flat roof. The roof appears to take a lesson from nearby Millenium Tower, with a spire added as a bonus.

[Reminiscence]

Please, Mr. Manass (oops, I mean Manus), please no more sea green glass! Infinity is a great building, the color is a little overwhelming, though, and I think that it should be the only one downtown with that distinctive color. The green glass in the rendering kind of scares me, because the glass on Infinity looked like it was going to be very translucent and subtle, much like this one, and instead turned into the kryptonite castle.

I think the green glass must be this company's signature for moderate to tall buildings. While seeing more buildings with glass curtainwalls in San Francisco is good news, there is a such thing as too much of a good thing. Perhaps this is why Millenium appeals to me so much, not just the design of the building but the glass color as well. Hopefully some of the proposed buildings have different color glass such as silver transparent, or maybe even gold tinted (a la Glass Tower).

[scalziand]

It's nice to finally start seeing renders for one of the satellite towers. It makes it seem more like the whole transbay redevelopment will actually happen.

[BTinSF]

Please, Mr. Manass (oops, I mean Manus), please no more sea green glass! Infinity is a great building, the color is a little overwhelming, though, and I think that it should be the only one downtown with that distinctive color. The green glass in the rendering kind of scares me, because the glass on Infinity looked like it was going to be very translucent and subtle, much like this one, and instead turned into the kryptonite castle.



Eeeewe! Wait until you see 10th & Market (another H-M wonder). If it turns out anything like the rendering, you'll be begging for more like the Infinity. I'm telling you now, I thought the only place you could get that color was from wherever the Army bought the paint for the interior of WW II barracks.

[BTinSF]

Can anyone tell if this new building is square or triangular in floor shape?



The lot, as shown in the map I posted, is L-shaped and not very big so I've got to think the building uses as much of the available space as possible and a triangle wouldn't no matter where you put the apex. That makes it very probable it's rectangular.

[CGII]

Somebody needs to post the resemblance:

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/TheToweringInferno/towering06.jpg

[tyler82]

Eeeewe! Wait until you see 10th & Market (another H-M wonder). If it turns out anything like the rendering, you'll be begging for more like the Infinity. I'm telling you now, I thought the only place you could get that color was from wherever the Army bought the paint for the interior of WW II barracks.

I think the 10th Market proposal looks pretty good actually. Are you talking about its color or shape? I haven't seen too many renderings of the color.

[BTinSF]

^^^Did you do that? Very nice, but, er, I think you put the Fremont building on the wrong side of Mission. It's about midblock between Mission and Howard, not Mission and Market. ;)

Sorry for mentioning it, but maybe you can do a little fix?

[BTinSF]

I think the 10th Market proposal looks pretty good actually. Are you talking about its color or shape? I haven't seen too many renderings of the color.

The color: I call it "Barf green". The more generous might call it "sea foam". Or "hospital green" (but these days, only very old military hospitals) works too. I think there's a connection between its use in hospitals and "barf". If it's well camoflaged, you don't have to clean up those "accidents" quite so promptly.

[GlobeTrekker]

^^^Did you do that? Very nice, but, er, I think you put the Fremont building on the wrong side of Mission. It's about midblock between Mission and Howard, not Mission and Market. ;)

Isn't that a scene from Towering Inferno? They saw pretty well into the future! :)

I agree with the person who posted regarding the silver transparent glass. The way it reflects the sky is one of the things I like about the building in Hong Kong. In my photo I tried to capture it with the other silvery buildings nearby and a silvery sky to match.

And I also agree that this building will be iconic! :haha:

[Stephenapolis]

Somebody needs to post the resemblance:

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/TheToweringInferno/towering06.jpg

I did think of that too.
It also resembles a building in the same vicinity from the Star Trek TV shows.

[BTinSF]

^^^Oh, silly me, but in many ways it does look like the new TransBay Tower and the Fremont building except what I thought was the Fremont Building is on the wrong side of Mission.

One the other hand, there's supposedly an 850 ft proposal coming for a building pretty much just where that picture would seem to show it: 350 Mission. :rolleyes:

[Reminiscence]

The "smaller" building next to the Glass Tower, if my memory serves me right, is the Peerless building. Looks like it stands at about 1100', plus or minus 50 feet. While we dont have that scenario exactly, together with Transbay, it could serve as a model of whats to come (Peerless just needs to be moved to the right of the Glass Tower :haha: )

[Reminiscence]

Isn't that a scene from Towering Inferno? They saw pretty well into the future! :)

I agree with the person who posted regarding the silver transparent glass. The way it reflects the sky is one of the things I like about the building in Hong Kong. In my photo I tried to capture it with the other silvery buildings nearby and a silvery sky to match.

And I also agree that this building will be iconic! :haha:

Indeed. That is a nice picture with a good vantage point. The silver transparent glass that I was refering to would be like the type that Trump Tower Chicago has going on. The building itself is not breathtaking, but the glass makes up for that. Depending on the color of the sky, the building can be said to have a "mood".

This building should be iconic as it will stand out from the rest around it (for a couple of years perhaps). Of course, thats not King would have you believe. I can already see him ranting on this building. I'm guessing the only reason he has not said anything already is because he has yet to find out about it. :rolleyes:

[SFView]

The green glass look seems to have evolved from HM's 10th and Market design. I hope there are not too many more look alike colors and textures in towers in San Francisco. Skylines look much more interesting and dynamic with greater varieties of height, color, materials, shapes and design. It is great that San Francisco is finally getting away from the light colored pastel, non-glass look that has typified the city for most of the 20th century, but too much similar green glass is not so good either.

For those of us Trekkers, Trekkies and SF skyscraper fans out there, look here:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWcities-sanfran.html

The Towering Inferno movie was written and filmed in the early 1970's, when many thought San Francisco was heading towards being one of the greatest skylines in the world. This was about the same time protests against tall buildings in San Francisco was also at its most active. It is interesting that the gap between fantasy and approximate reality is taking about 40 years (1974-2014), or about the same time it is taking for many of those former protesters to reach retirement age.

[EastBayHardCore]

Awful. Honestly I'd give a small child the contract to design a supertall over H-M. This is terrible.

[SFView]

For such a prominent building, the city should consider having HM work with another great architect to do a redesign of this tower. Although it looks like HM is trying their best to improve their style -- and they are, it still looks almost as if a grade school kid designed this with the Building Architect Tool for the Simcity 4 computer game. Remember the huge improvement over HM's original design for the Infinity? I think it might be good to have another architect help here as well. San Francisco's tallest buildings, should also be among its best buildings. This tower should be more compatible in quality and style with the Transbay Transit Tower, Piano towers, and Millenium nearby. Otherwise, I am glad to see this project developing.

[tyler82]

Awful. Honestly I'd give a small child the contract to design a supertall over H-M. This is terrible.

I don't know why you all rag on them so much, Manass has created some really great stuff in the city. I took a look at their portfolio and was quite impressed.

[SFView]

Heller Manus is extremely well connected politically in San Francisco, and have succeeded in designing many large projects in the city. Some of their best solo work has been various mid to low rise buildings. Their two best tall buildings, 555 Mission and the Infinity, were done with the help of other architects - Kohn Pedersen Fox for 555 Mission, and Arquitectonica for the Infinity.

[Lecom]

^^^This project, surprisingly, is "only" 500,000 sq ft of office. Prop M allows about 900,000 sq ft per year (I can't recall the exact number). And remember what I posted last week--there's a move afoot to strip some "entitled" buildings that haven't started construction within the required 18 months of their "entitlements", making that "banked" square footage again available. If that happens, this building could easily be built within a few years I believe. Even if it doesn't happen, I doubt Prop. M would stop it--it wpould have to compete with some other projects but given the emphasis on the TransBay area, I think it would get an allocation.
I was also surprised about so little floor area for a 900 footer, but then again there is only so much space you can fit on such a small site. Great news for San Francisco in either case.

[BTinSF]

For such a prominent building, the city should consider having HM work with another great architect to do a redesign of this tower. Although it looks like HM is trying their best to improve their style -- and they are, it still looks almost as if a grade school kid designed this with the Building Architect Tool for the Simcity 4 computer game. Remember the huge improvement over HM's original design for the Infinity? I think it might be good to have another architect help here as well. San Francisco's tallest buildings, should also be among its best buildings. This tower should be more compatible in quality and style with the Transbay Transit Tower, Piano towers, and Millenium nearby. Otherwise, I am glad to see this project developing.

View, I really can't agree. I guess it's because I like this building as it is (not sure about the glass color because I'm not sure what it is). This strikes me as radically unlike most other H-M buildings which usually have an odd mix of glass areas and some other surface (the two you like--Infinity and 555 Mission--are the other two prominent exceptions). Also, I'd rather NOT see any coordination between the designs of the very tall buildings in the TransBay Area. I sure don't want it to look like some kind of overgrown planned community. I've said before that I like cities that grow organically, one building at a time based on one inspiration at a time. Let Piano do his thing, SOM (hopefully) do theirs and, (crossing all fingers and toes) H-M do theirs if they get the commission.

[tyler82]

View, I really can't agree. I guess it's because I like this building as it is (not sure about the glass color because I'm not sure what it is). This strikes me as radically unlike most other H-M buildings which usually have an odd mix of glass areas and some other surface (the two you like--Infinity and 555 Mission--are the other two prominent exceptions). Also, I'd rather NOT see any coordination between the designs of the very tall buildings in the TransBay Area. I sure don't want it to look like some kind of overgrown planned community. I've said before that I like cities that grow organically, one building at a time based on one inspiration at a time. Let Piano do his thing, SOM (hopefully) do theirs and, (crossing all fingers and toes) H-M do theirs if they get the commission.

I love this building, it exudes power, and masculinity and femininity at the same time, which is rare in a building this tall. I don't think it needs to be tweaked too much, or at all, but the glass could either make or break this design. The Infinity Green and Intercontinental blue are great- for their respective personalities and locations, but I don't want more buildings like these early iMac colors because, unlike a computer, you have to live with a building for 100 or more years.

As far as planning at the ground level, I think that each building should be distinct in its own ways, but in a way that still brings its neighbors together and doesn't single or exclude any one place out. I don't think it should look like one big planned community, with all the bases of these towers looking exactly the same and therefore "planned," but instead a bunch of little communities, block by block, coming together.

[BTinSF]

^^^We could use another "emerald green" a la 560 Mission, though. ;)

http://www.hines.com/toolkit_images/Project%20Photos/JPMorgan%20Chase%20Building/560%20Mission%20Ascending%20View_lres_web.jpg
Photo source: http://hines.com/property/detail.aspx?id=220

[ltsmotorsport]

^Love that tower.

I think the main thing that's bothering my about the design is the color/tint of the glass. Not a great design by any stretch, but is a decent start.

[tyler82]

^^^We could use another "emerald green" a la 560 Mission, though. ;)

http://www.hines.com/toolkit_images/Project%20Photos/JPMorgan%20Chase%20Building/560%20Mission%20Ascending%20View_lres_web.jpg
Photo source: http://hines.com/property/detail.aspx?id=220

One thing that surprises me about this building is that the building materials, at least at the ground level, are very cheap. Go up to one of the columns in front of the building and bang on it with your hand, you will hear a hollow echo sound and feel the hollowness and plastic feel/ sound of the columns. The column will actually even cave in a little if you bang hard enough. I thought that it would be some sort of metal or steel, but it appears to be thin, hollow plastic like material, which is very upsetting to me.

[SFView]

Okay. As long as there are some who think the design is good enough, I will settle for that. Like I said before, this is a good start for Heller Manus, and is one of their better designs. Perhaps before I judge the design any further, I would like to see more renderings from other angles.

[SFView]

I also think that seeing others come out in defense of Heller Manus for this project, is also a good sign.

[GlobeTrekker]

One thing that surprises me about this building is that the building materials, at least at the ground level, are very cheap. Go up to one of the columns in front of the building and bang on it with your hand, you will hear a hollow echo sound and feel the hollowness and plastic feel/ sound of the columns. The column will actually even cave in a little if you bang hard enough. I thought that it would be some sort of metal or steel, but it appears to be thin, hollow plastic like material, which is very upsetting to me.

Hmm, I am not sure about the columns, but the material on the curtain wall that connects the window panes is a dark green metal, maybe aluminum (you might be able to check it out in the street level cafe, but I can't remember for sure).

I don't know so much about steel frame construction, but wouldn't the columns at street level be casing around the steel beams? Maybe for street level they chose a plastic to resist denting or scratching. I will have to feel it next time I'm there :)

It has been interesting watching 555 go up and just how fast it rises. I have been waiting to see how the covering gets put around the steel frame and when/how they install the curtain wall.

[toddguy]

Really? I think it reminds me more of the bay bridge, structually, than the Pyramid. I don't know where you crazies are getting the pyramid reference. If this building were in any other city, would you still be thinking "OMG, Transamerica!" ??

'who said "OMG, Transamerica? ..and 'crazies'? YOU sound like the nut. Get some therapy..Geez.

[kenratboy]

Whoa! Looks awesome. Ugly and dated...but it works!

[Reminiscence]

Okay. As long as there are some who think the design is good enough, I will settle for that. Like I said before, this is a good start for Heller Manus, and is one of their better designs. Perhaps before I judge the design any further, I would like to see more renderings from other angles.

I agree. I'm pretty impressed with what I've seen so far, but I think its too premature to make any solid assumptions yet. After all, we've only seen one side of the building, the other side might make us love it or hate it (hopefully love it).

[peanut gallery]

This will be sitting directly south of SOM's proposed park just outside the Transbay grand entrance, so it's a good thing it will be extra thin. Something wide would shadow that park a good portion of the day.

I don't yet have a definitive opinion about the design. I'd like to see more renders from different angles and get a better sense of the color. I like the height though.

[SFView]

The folks at Screampoint (http://www.screampoint.com/v2/index.htm) who also did those wonderful animations for SOM's Transbay Competition submissions, have done some very basic generic massing studies showing 181 Fremont at 900', Transbay at 1200', and Piano at up to 900'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cOJrdhaJoI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgw3b4j6f7M

[BTinSF]

^^^Those make the TransBay tower look much blockier and "massier" than any of the submitted designs looks to me. Even I might not want a supertall "refrigerator" on our skyline.

[tyler82]

^^^Those make the TransBay tower look much blockier and "massier" than any of the submitted designs looks to me. Even I might not want a supertall "refrigerator" on our skyline.

I think BofA at 1200' would be pretty cool