HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

    

181 Fremont in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 11:36 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^No, not bothered at all.
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 1:09 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
Recently added to the endangered species list:
177-183 Fremont Street
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!
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 1:19 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is online now
Mr. Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: down the street from the taco trailer
Posts: 46,306
I love it. Very fitting tower to complement the pyramid.
__________________
i'm on my weekly world news garth brooks juice diet
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 2:11 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
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:


Photo: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2..._181_frem.html
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 2:46 AM
Aleks's Avatar
Aleks Aleks is offline
cookies, skittles & milk
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,257
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?
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 3:10 AM
Stephenapolis's Avatar
Stephenapolis Stephenapolis is offline
The True Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,573
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.)
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 3:15 AM
rajaxsonbayboi's Avatar
rajaxsonbayboi rajaxsonbayboi is offline
Pizza Pizza
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bay area
Posts: 84
this totally turned my bad day into an AWESOME day!!
__________________
l'architecture est le breuvage magique ce des feuls ma vie.
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 3:41 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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 .
__________________
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
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 4:15 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenapolis View Post
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.
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 4:30 AM
VA_Gentleman's Avatar
VA_Gentleman VA_Gentleman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 214
^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.
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:01 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
This building is an even greater reflection of this beauty, Maritime Plaza (photo: survivalarts.com)
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 10:16 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is online now
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenapolis View Post
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...
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 2:04 PM
Stephenapolis's Avatar
Stephenapolis Stephenapolis is offline
The True Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 8,573
^
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.
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 4:34 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
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).
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 4:43 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenapolis View Post
^
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.
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 4:45 PM
toddguy toddguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
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.
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 4:52 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is online now
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephenapolis View Post
^
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.
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:00 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is online now
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior View Post
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.
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:17 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
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":





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.
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:22 PM
djvandrake's Avatar
djvandrake djvandrake is offline
I'm going slightly mad.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 787
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.
__________________
My Chicago Pics, July 2009
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:24 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.