SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[mthd]

two of the videos SOM showed yesterday :

SOM Aerial Video 1

SOM Aerial Video 2

right click/save as please

[Dolemite]

SOM's design is amazing.

[tyler82]

[kenratboy]

Originally Posted by pizzaman355

Anyone have a bigger picture of the floorplan as shown in this picture?

Thanks!

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Originally Posted by hectorant84

My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.

i totally 100% agree with you and hope that the height of the tower gets raised to 1,500 but wouldnt be sad to see that it stays the same height.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Para

Again, I know little of the S.F. system of building. But I'd assume that it is easier to gain support for the seemingly less extreme Pelli design both in terms of economics, since I'm assuming it is cheaper because it's shorter and more simplistic, and politics, since the Pelli design is less radical and more likely to gain support from those politicians who against change.

I also think I said that I think the Pelli design will win, which I stand by in this post as well, even though I personally like the SOM design more.

Just to be clear, any of the tower designs being cheaper (or not) is pretty much irrelevent to the decision committee. The way this will work is that the city will sell the tower site to the chosen developer for a sum of money which will be combined with other funds to build the terminal.

So the cost of the terminal matters to the TJPA but not so much the tower. The economics of that are up to the developer but clearly that's why Pelli/Hines would prefer to put all office (no housing) in their tower. They think that pencils out better with their design.

I say "pretty much irrelevent" because, of course, the TJPA wants a tower design that can be built and don't want--as they repeatedly made clear at the unvailing--to pick a deal that ultimately falls apart. And in that regard, as I watched the presentations, one thought that kept bouncing around my head was: These buildings won't be finished for at least 7 years--who here thinks both Richard Rogers and Cesar Pelli will be alive by then? Mr. Hartman of SOM is a bit younger but also SOM itself is a firm less identified with one man.

[CUCa]

I just emailed my comments to the TJPA (as you can and should do here) which supported the SOM design. Honestly, the entrance plaza is fantastic; the way the tower meets the street creates what is sure to be a vibrant and dramatic public space. While I appreciate the idea of a rooftop Park in Pelli's design, a large park over 100 feet in the air will surely remain unused (as I think someone here has already pointed out). Access is key to the success of public spaces, and access to the terminal and it's spaces are maximized in the SOM concept. The tower is elegant and bold, like San Fancisco. It would be a true gateway to The City, a true icon.

I also let them know that I support a tower of over 1,200 ft.

[munkyman]

Originally Posted by CUCa

I just emailed my comments to the TJPA (as you can and should do here) which supported the SOM design. Honestly, the entrance plaza is fantastic; the way the tower meets the street creates what is sure to be a vibrant and dramatic public space. While I appreciate the idea of a rooftop Park in Pelli's design, a large park over 100 feet in the air will surely remain unused (as I think someone here has already pointed out). Access is key to the success of public spaces, and access to the terminal and it's spaces are maximized in the SOM concept. The tower is elegant and bold, like San Fancisco. It would be a true gateway to The City, a true icon.

I also let them know that I support a tower of over 1,200 ft.

I sent in my comments as well, overall just praising the idea of this competition, and letting them know that I hope they choose the SOM design. Seriously, take the time to email the TJPA about your positive comments because those who are against this transit terminal proposal certainly will make their negative comments known.

[Wooster]

SOM's! wow, that is spectacular. I hope they pick that one.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by munkyman

I sent in my comments as well, overall just praising the idea of this competition, and letting them know that I hope they choose the SOM design. Seriously, take the time to email the TJPA about your positive comments because those who are against this transit terminal proposal certainly will make their negative comments known.

I have already done the same. I urged them to pick the SOM design, even though I'm sure my opinion doesnt count for much, its good to let them know where I stand. I also voiced my desire to have a 1500' or taller tower built. I also think the rest of us should do the same before the cut-off date.

[EastBayHardCore]

Wow, as I see new pics and those vids of the SOM design I find myself loving it more and more. Not only is the tower unique but the terminal looks sexy as hell, unlike the Pelli design with that hokey looking park tacked on to the top.

[sfcity1]

I was never a big fan of SOM, but their rendering blows away the competition in my mind. The SOM building is graceful, futuristic, wavy, trend setting, and very unique, all very strong charactersitics of SF. The Richard Rogers building does not belong in SF as it looks industrial and gritty. Finally, Pelli has reproduced this design in many locations. It is not at all unique and a clone of a building should not be the height defining centerpiece of the SF skyline.

SOM all the way, blowing away the others with design, height, and SF character.

[BTinSF]

^^^Prior to release of the designs, I was afraid they'd pick the SOM design because SOM is, in effect, the home team. Now I'm praying they will. The home team's superior understanding of the city, I think, shows.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

I have already done the same. I urged them to pick the SOM design, even though I'm sure my opinion doesnt count for much, its good to let them know where I stand. I also voiced my desire to have a 1500' or taller tower built. I also think the rest of us should do the same before the cut-off date.

I just sent mine too, praising the SOM|RGDC proposal and encouraging the height to be retained or increased. Just think what the Pyramid would look like today if it had been built to its originally designed 1,150 feet--we can't let that mistake happen yet again!

[BTinSF]

Here's the comment I sent them:

Sirs:

While I think all 3 of the submitted proposals are wonderful, in my mind the SOM design is the clear winner. To my mind it embodies both the simple elegance of San Francisco and the monumental form required of an "iconic tower". It would add an unmatched element of drama to our skyline that neither of the other designs can match.

In addition, I believe the other two designs have major flaws, especially in regards to the terminal designs. The Rogers proposal leaves the bus platforms of the terminal open at the sides to the elements. They regard this as helpful in reducing the projects energy usage, but I regard it leaving transit patrons too unprotected from San Francisco's cold wind, winter mist and summer fog. Similarly, the Pelli proposal's park is 6 floors above the street where I doubt it would get the kind of use that Yerba Buena gets because one can easily walk into Yerba Buena off the street without taking a funicular or multiple escalators. And as with the Rogers bus platform, the six-story high park is going to be mighty cold and windy on many a San Francisco day.

Frankly, I think the SOM notion of a grand transit hall and a monumental entrance is much more in keeping with what should be the unrelentingly urban nature of this part of the center of downtown.

Finally, I just want to join others to implore you NOT to allow the height of the tower to be cut down as was done to the TransAmerica Building so long ago. Both the form of our skyline and the significance of our city in the pantheon of great cities of the Pacific Rim demands that we have a building the equal of the Petronas Towers, Taipei 101 and the towers of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo.

Congratulations on the success of the design competition and please push forward quickly and deliberately to get the terminal and tower built.

[Thefigman]

Thanks to everyone for posting these terrific picks! I feel like I got better coverage here than if I went to the meeting myself.

I am so disappoionted in Pelli's design. I've seen that same building in HK and Jersey City. I have to say I expected more.

My favorite design is Rogers. When I see the design, I picture not only the Golden Gate Bridge, but the Sutro Tower to the SW, and I see the building really blending in with what's already the "high" points in the city.

SOM is very impressive as well. There would be no tears here if that one was picked, either. I just think that Rogers appeals to me the most.

[Complex01]

Originally Posted by CGII

That looks AWESOME. Those new renders dispelled all of my fears of the SOM project. SOM all the way.

Man this tower has my vote. Its amazing, i love it. I love the base as well. What a great looking project...

[Biff]

The SOM proposal is clearly the superior design in my opinion. It is the only one of the 3 that i would consider to be a world class design. I am a huge fan of Pelli, but his design is just a good looking, tall office tower - not something that is worthy of winning a design competition - not world class interesting. Rogers, to me, looks like it tries too hard to bring elements of SF into one building. I just don't like it.


So what is the process now? When will the winner be decided?

[kznyc2k]

Originally Posted by sfcity1

I was never a big fan of SOM, but their rendering blows away the competition in my mind. The SOM building is graceful, futuristic, wavy, trend setting, and very unique, all very strong charactersitics of SF. The Richard Rogers building does not belong in SF as it looks industrial and gritty. Finally, Pelli has reproduced this design in many locations. It is not at all unique and a clone of a building should not be the height defining centerpiece of the SF skyline.

This basically sums up my thoughts. I love Pelli because he's one of the only guys out there who is still willing and able to do symmetrical buildings, but damn it -- how many more times is he going to reuse the same friggin shape? Hong kong's 2IFC and Jersey City, NJ's Goldman Sachs tower immediately spring to mind when looking at this one.

And about Rogers' proposal, it looks like it came out of the oven half-baked.. lots of great ideas, but the overal design is utterly lacking in refinement. This is the one I want to like the most, but as of now there's just too much stuff going on with it to effectively work as a skyline piece.

So SOM it is for me. It's oh-so-hip, yet classy at the same time, and for that I feel it would age well.

**HOWEVER, it should be noted that SOM's renderings are by far the slickest ones, so I wouldn't be surprised if people started changing their minds a bit if Pelli or Rogers released some more shiny renders of their own.

[Lecom]

Each design, though great-looking and sleek, seems to lack something. Pelli produced yet another of his rounded top towers, which were amazing the first time around but now are just getting repetitive. SOM's employs some truly innovative engineering techniques, and looks amazing from street level, yet on the skyline it comes off as just another box, despite its actually interesting, twisting massing. Rogers' is great in details, the massing is quite interesting and the building has Rogers' signature exterior structural support, yet something still seems lacking about the building. All in all, I don't have a favorite at this moment. They're all pretty much tied for second place as of now, with Pelli's probably being the most uninspiring.