HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 40 8.05%
#2 Cesar Pelli 99 19.92%
#3 SOM 358 72.03%
Voters: 497. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #681  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:03 PM
paulsfca paulsfca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by atl2phx View Post
geez, the SOM proposal is friggin rediculous! to me, it says san francisco all day long. SOM would be the best addition to the skyline ~ followed by the pelli proposal.
couldn't agree with you more...all three were amazing but SOM's proposal was both dynamic and elegant (in my opinion ! ) folowed by the Pelli proposal ! thanks for taking the pic !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #682  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:24 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Here's some complaints I've gathered from ppl on SF GATE, just to know in advance what we'll be dealing with:

"These designs are awful! What a terrible idea to wreck our lovely and distinguished skyline with such a monstrosity of a building. Who decided that this was a good thing for San Francisco? All these large, personality-less buildings that are going up in the Rincon Hill part of the city are terrible. Can we vote on this?"

" if the building is going to be very tall, would that make the city a target like the World Trade Center? Also, how many of the current SF residents have been in the 1989 earthquake? Will the building with over 80+ stories hold up to a 7.0 earthquake?"

Gotta love this one, a self proclaimed expert:
"The Loma Prieta quake was only a 6.9 magnitude. The great quake in '06 was much worse. I so question the wisdom of building so high, even over engineered. I heard from friends of showers of glass on Market Street in '89. Gad zooks I hope the architects and engineers are right and I am not."


And, the typical pseudo- liberal response: how are the poor laborers going to be treated?
"I heard someone from the labor union talking at the presentations last night and I certainly hope the company they choose has a good history with labor. That is important for San Fran."

"Yes, the transbay terminal needs to be replaced but nothing as tall, ugly, and sterile as those designs. Who knows if this will even fly? In the second paragraph of the article it reads "There's no guarantee that any of the towers will be built..." Let's hope that is the case."

"That horrific EYESORE that's being contsructed 2 feet from the bridge and COMPLETELY ruins the experience of coming over the bridge into the city and seeing the cityline and the BofA clock tower is bad enough! Now you're telling me you're putting in more that will dwarf the rest of the city and the TransAmerica building? That makes me very sad."


What is very uplifting is that the naysayers are way less popular in those forums than the proponents, by about 8 to 1. I wonder how much of these pseudo- liberal whiners are those dorks who are always spouting "Transit first! One more bike equals one less car!" but at the same time, are against building density, which encourages transit!
I expect these kinds of replys from the San Ramon Chronicle.
Keep in mind there is tremendous political willpower behind this happening and
a smaller tower wont pull in the dough which is sorely needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #683  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:45 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949







I'm beginning to like the SOM one more than Rogers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #684  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:46 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
"20-30 floors" seems like quite a bit to me. Anyway, how can they be convinced the only way to finance it is not to use housing when 2 of the 3 proposals use substantial amounts of housing? I keep thinking of Trinity Plaza where one or another SF power broker kept demanding more and more. I don't think they'll get it from Hines.
20-30 floors is only around 150-250 units at most, especially high in the tower. Even at 40% affordable, that's only 60-100 units. No one is going to derail the centerpiece of transit in SF, as well as the centerpiece of a new neighborhood that will yield thousands of affordable units, for a few extra affordable units. I'm not saying that they will get away with 100% office, I just don't think this is going to be a huge fight over more affordable units, like Trinity - we were talking almost 2000 total units there - and no major infrastructure being paid for by the development.

Now, the Piano towers - watch out. Daly will be expecting 35% or more affordable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #685  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:50 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^Repeat after me: "Trinity Plaza".

The foolishness of SF politicians and special interests is not to be ignored.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #686  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:06 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518


That looks AWESOME. Those new renders dispelled all of my fears of the SOM project. SOM all the way.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #687  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:11 PM
NYonward's Avatar
NYonward NYonward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,236
It will be interesting to see SF's appetite for a super-tall tower. I don't see it happening. It was hell enough here in NY trying to get a building to replace the World Trade Center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #688  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:13 PM
CGII's Avatar
CGII CGII is offline
illwaukee/crooklyn
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: rome
Posts: 8,518
While SF may be NIMBY capital of the US, I don't think it'll be nearly as difficult to build a 1500' tower here as it was in the wake of 3000 people dead.
__________________
disregard women. acquire finances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #689  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:21 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^Repeat after me: "Trinity Plaza".

The foolishness of SF politicians and special interests is not to be ignored.

Agreed And I know you're kidding about Trinity Plaza, but the difference in the two projects is massive. Daly would lose a lot of progressive support if he starts stalling the biggest transit project in SF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #690  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:21 PM
CityKid CityKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BK,NY/SF,CA/LB,CA
Posts: 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
With all the proposals aside, I think the meeting itself was a little out of order. Richard Rogers left me with a somewhat bad taste. They kept forcing him to repeat his name and interrupted him various times in the process. Also, there were way too many people up there speaking on his behalf, it was hard to understand some of the things they were talking about.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill did a nice job presenting. They had nice graphics and media to display and a good timed presentation overall. Naturally its what I would expect of a group such as them, very professional.

Pelli Clarke Pelli and Hines also dissapointed me. They spent about 28 of the 30 allowed minutes talking about the park and the terminal. They even had to go ovetime a few minutes while they rushed the tower portion of the presentation. I dont even think they showed all the slides for the tower.

All this and some of the people up for comment failed as well. One person went up and asked about some sort of restaurant at the top of tower and said they should include one. I thought it was wrong, clearly because the architect himself is present, heh. Then you got a lady come up and speak something into the microphone. I tell you, I could not understand a word she was saying, and I felt sorry for the person in charge of the captions, some of the parts were labeled as "inaudible", which called for some laughs here and there. Not what I expected to find at such a meeting, but I guess we all could use a laugh here and there.


Sorry, I was the guy in the blue V-neck who laughed first. I managed to contain myself until the closed captioning said "inaudible."
__________________
Everytime you drive to the grocery store, you are killing a polar bear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #691  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:24 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
I think one argument I heard takes the cake for most San Franciscan looney, where it was argued that the entire plans for the TransBay area is just a conspiracy theory brought on by the Freemason society. Yes, these are the "brains" we have to deal with !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #692  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:29 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyo View Post
It will be interesting to see SF's appetite for a super-tall tower. I don't see it happening. It was hell enough here in NY trying to get a building to replace the World Trade Center.
Yes but we re- built an entire city quicker than it took you guys to build one city block
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #693  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:44 PM
PhxSprawler's Avatar
PhxSprawler PhxSprawler is offline
Desert Dweller
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Phoenix Metro Fringes
Posts: 702
I love the SOM building. It looks very iconic and will look great in the world's top 10 (or 20 by the time it is built). I also like how unique the Rogers building is. In any case - good luck, S.F! Don't let this opportunity slide by!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #694  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:00 PM
NYonward's Avatar
NYonward NYonward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Yes but we re- built an entire city quicker than it took you guys to build one city block
Four blocks actually, combined into a superblock. But let's not get too technical here in comparing, after all you are off by only 95 years or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #695  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:02 PM
munkyman munkyman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
Here is my stab at it (All these were taken by me).

Skidmore Owings and Merrill:




Has anyone else noticed that the SOM renderings from the meeting yesterday show what appears to be the Renzo Piano twin bamboo shoot towers? (to the right of both images above). If I remember correctly, those twin bamboo shoots were supposed to be 1'200 feet each. If those twin towers are indeed that tall, that would make the SOM tower what, 1600 feet? Unless I'm mistaking those twin towers for something else, or unless those twin towers are less than 1,200 ft. Anyways, I noticed that yesterday but forgot to post it.

SOM gets my vote. I think the base of the SOM tower is also drawing some inspiration from the spider legs of the Transsamerica Pyramid. That's the first thing I thought when I saw it. Plus it's visually elegant, without being caustic like the Roger's design.

Hope it gets built the way it was conceived.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #696  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:11 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
^Judging by the height of other buildings in that pic, such as 50 Fremont and 301 Mission, the "bamboo shoot" towers look to be more in the 1000' range.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #697  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:18 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcastle Kid View Post
Do you mind if I post your pics at SSC along with Botoxic's? I will give credit of course
By all means, proceed. Thanks for asking.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #698  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:28 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
The more I look at the renderings, the more and more I fall in love with the Pelli design...its subtle, elegant, detailed, and...beautiful...

arghhhhh It s amazing. I'm liking SOM more too (A LOT), but in my opinion it kinda screams, "LOOK AT ME I'M CUTTING EDGE AND CRAZY AND BOOOOOOLD BOOOOOOOOOOLD!!!!!!" and it's, in my opinion maybe a little much, when you take into account SF's past skyscraper phobia and the fact that it will be SO visible. I know the anti-"manhattanism" and NIMBYism is declining greatly, but it's not gone yet, and unfortunately I see a tower such as the SOM one possibly creating a backlash...more so than Pelli. As for Rogers' that one's out of the question, if you ask me.

I think we gotta save the really crazy tower for Piano's project, after we get everyone used to the fact that we're gonna be having some big buildings coming their way...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #699  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:36 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
The more I look at the renderings, the more and more I fall in love with the Pelli design...its subtle, elegant, detailed, and...beautiful...
I think the biggest problem I have with Pelli's design is the fact that there is already another building in Hong Kong with pretty much the same design going on. Because of this, we wont really get a unique building in San Francisco. Plus 2 IFC is taller than Pelli's proposal, which doesnt sit well with me. Its ok and all, but its been done, its been used. SOM's on the other hand, I dont recall any single building in the world that reminds me of that. It does look like a cross between the Eiffel Tower and Transamerica, but thats a nice image. They just need to make it taller than what they say.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #700  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:41 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
I really like SOM, and I would have no problem with it being built. On further thought, it might make the best transit tower (in terms of function, *though the park is nice on Pelli's*...as well as the grandeur. I guess it is a "signature" tower)...But give me the Pelli one dammit!

Let's have em both!

Last edited by tech12; Aug 7, 2007 at 9:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.