SAN FRANCISCO | TRANSBAY TOWER | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 60 floors

[xXSkyscraperDudeXx]

This tower really fits this Skyline! What a great comeback for San Francisco

[LMich]

Comeback? Don't call it a comeback!

Seriously, though, this is going to be an awesome addition to the city's skyline.

[Roadcruiser1]

It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!

You say that like it's a weird/surprising thing, or as if you don't consider the Chrysler building to be that tall. But the Chrysler building is pretty tall, as is the Transbay tower, and yes, both are taller than any building in SF (and taller than most buildings in New York, or any other city for that matter). Transbay also isn't going to completely dominate SF's skyline. The Transamerica and Bank of America buildings tower over their part of the financial district, and will stand out about as much, if not moreso than Transbay when viewing the skyline from the north (depending on where you're viewing it from). And there might be a 915' tower going up right down the block from Transbay as well.

[LMich]

Dont feed the, well, you know...

[Roadcruiser1]

I was being sarcastic. I wouldn't really be mean to my aunt's home town.

[rriojas71]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!

True SF's skyline is not on par with nor will ever match NYC's skyline, but what we lack in skyscrapers we more than make up with Natural beauty.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by rriojas71

True SF's skyline is not on par with nor will ever match NYC's skyline, but what we lack in skyscrapers we more than make up with Natural beauty.

And for a US city of it's size, SF actually does have a pretty large amount of highrises (which are of course mostly packed as densely as you can find them in the US, outside of NYC).

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!

In terms of physical impact, it will appear quite a bit larger than Chrysler though because it has a flat top at 1070 feet, where as Chrysler's "main mass" is more like 870 or maybe less, kind of an unfair comparison. And yes both of those buildings would dominate the skyline of most world cities.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

In terms of physical impact, it will appear quite a bit larger than Chrysler though because it has a flat top at 1070 feet, where as Chrysler's "main mass" is more like 870 or maybe less, kind of an unfair comparison. And yes both of those buildings would dominate the skyline of most world cities.

More like One 57 in New York.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by plinko

I think the skin (at least thus far in renderings) looks alot like what Pelli started to explore at the base of 2IFC, which is a fantastic building up close, but kind of unassuming and blah from a distance. Sort of the opposite of the Pyramid I suppose.



Let's hope that this facade has more depth than 2IFC.

Yes I can see that. The exterior treatment while not as important as the height just might make or break the tower- in terms of what the public think of it. I'm really interested in how they will finish the top section off. TBT is going to be a much more graceful and cleaner looking tower than 2IFC is. And it will also look better just because it's set back from waterfront and in the middle of other towers. I think I prefer the skylines that step-back and up towards a central pinnacle. To my eyes it's just what San Francisco's skyline needed. A tall counter balance to a rather monolithic skyline. The TBT, Transbay Terminal and Park-in-the-air is going to be awesome. All the new development is really impressive for any city but it's especially impressive for one of San Francisco's size. It's amazing how San Francisco is able to remain relevant over the years even after it's been long bypassed by more populated cities. I think part of it's success comes from it's ability to hang on to it's past while at the same time sort of reinvent itself every few years. Of course the whole Silicon Valley thing might have had something to do with it too. :-)

[SF born and RAISED]

There's a great article in the sfgate today about the TBT. There was a 22 inch model that was created. The slit on the top of the tower doesn't look as bad as the renderings. The model makes the building look much better than in pictures.

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/2013...-22-inch-form/

[blackcat23]

Originally Posted by SF born and RAISED

There's a great article in the sfgate today about the TBT. There was a 22 inch model that was created. The slit on the top of the tower doesn't look as bad as the renderings. The model makes the building look much better than in pictures.

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/2013...-22-inch-form/

[fflint]

Originally Posted by blackcat23

This elevation looks great! SF has built over the decades a plateau of 500-600 footers, and Transbay will soar above all of them--not too much height, and not too little.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by fflint

This elevation looks great! SF has built over the decades a plateau of 500-600 footers, and Transbay will soar above all of them--not too much height, and not too little.

I completely agree on the height being a nice fit for the skyline. As much as I would like a 1,200'-1,400' tower, like the original proposals, I think 1,070' fits in better while still being a significant milestone when it comes to skyscraper height in SF. The taller proposals seemed to dwarf the rest of the skyline a little too much, IMO. And it will fit in even more once 181 Fremont gets built, and especially if the nearby 915' and 750' towers also get built.