SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 36

kenratboy · #**701** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 9:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGII

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

I'm with you 100%. Looks hot.

Oh, and 1375 feet - no complaints. I would like to see one other building over 1000 feet, though

caramatt · #**702** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 9:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

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.

I still have to disagree with that. I had posted this before, but you may have missed it, or also may not agree that it's very similiar; it's SOM's Shanghai Center which is currently under proposal for construction. This new type of external support structure I think will become more and more popular in the future. It'll only be a matter of time until we can also say it's been done (plus Shanghai will undoubtedly get that thing up faster than passing through the hurdles of the planning process here in SF).

Para · #**703** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 10:04 PM**

SOM's is stunning. It's a design that just demands attention, and for a cities tallest building, it should.

Pelli's is good, although I do agree with the similarities between 2IFC, not that that s a bad thing however.

The other tower.......isn't doing it for me. I can see where they were going with it, but it just doesn't work for me at all.

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out.

That, and if SOM's really needs a home after the contest, I'll take SOM's in my city any day.

Reminiscence · #**704** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 10:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caramatt

I still have to disagree with that. I had posted this before, but you may have missed it, or also may not agree that it's very similiar; it's SOM's Shanghai Center which is currently under proposal for construction. This new type of external support structure I think will become more and more popular in the future. It'll only be a matter of time until we can also say it's been done (plus Shanghai will undoubtedly get that thing up faster than passing through the hurdles of the planning process here in SF).

I'm not trying to give any of the proposals a bad image (except for Rogers, which is just ... not good). I think the shape of the building itself will trigger an idea in more people's heads. In my opinion, this is a major reason why Transamerica has remained so popular all these years, where else do you find an 853' tall white pyramid in a city? The shape is what comes to people's mind, and if they see two or three buildings with the same shape, then its not really unique to the city, this is basically what I'm saying. Dont get me wrong, 2 IFC and Shanghai Center are very nice buildings, but I dont know how well it would do to put up another one and call it "the" SF skyscraper, just my opinion. I'd much rather pick SOM's for the tallest tower, and Pelli's for one of the shorter towers, heh.

tyler82 · #**705** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Para

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out..

According to SF GATE, their readers are split evenly over SOM and Pelli. Of course, it isn't up to us at all, it's up to the judges on Aug. 20!

Reminiscence · #**706** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 10:30 PM**

I dont know if people have seen it already, or if its been posted, but SOM has its article on its website covering its proposal.

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/trans...nter_and_tower

Newcastle Kid · #**707** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 10:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

By all means, proceed. Thanks for asking.

Thanks!

pizzaman355 · #**708** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 11:40 PM**

[img]dsc02557[/img]

pizzaman355 · #**709** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 11:43 PM**

How do you post pics? I went to the meeting and took pics.

BTinSF · #**710** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Para

SOM's is stunning. It's a design that just demands attention, and for a cities tallest building, it should.

Pelli's is good, although I do agree with the similarities between 2IFC, not that that s a bad thing however.

The other tower.......isn't doing it for me. I can see where they were going with it, but it just doesn't work for me at all.

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out.

That, and if SOM's really needs a home after the contest, I'll take SOM's in my city any day.

You are missing the fact that aesthetics may have very little to do with this decision. It's more about economics, politics, and how the "special interests" (including folks such as the AC Transit manager who sounded dubious about the SOM design) see it.

WonderlandPark · #**711** Posted **Aug 7, 2007, 11:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaman355

How do you post pics? I went to the meeting and took pics.

First, your photo needs to be put on the web somewhere, there are free sites like Flickr that you can upload to.

Then, when you post, that little yellow icon in the header bar with the mountain is the place where you post the link to your photo. When you right click on your photo online you get a url like this:

htt p://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/372726389_54f10ea2b0.jpg?v=0

you then put that link in the pop up box from the yellow mountain button gives you.

[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/372726389_54f10ea2b0.jpg?v=0[ /IMG]

I broke the code above so you can see what it should look like in your post.

so finally you get your photo like this example:

By the way there is a tutorial on this site somewhere about how to do it, too.

pizzaman355 · #**712** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 12:05 AM**

Para · #**713** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 12:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

You are missing the fact that aesthetics may have very little to do with this decision. It's more about economics, politics, and how the "special interests" (including folks such as the AC Transit manager who sounded dubious about the SOM design) see it.

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.

WonderlandPark · #**714** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 12:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaman355

Go SOM! I wanted to like Rogers, but SOM really wins. Good lord that is a big tower.

pizzaman355 · #**715** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 1:20 AM**

hectorant84 · #**716** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 2:22 AM**

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.

ltsmotorsport · #**717** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 2:36 AM**

SOM proposal blows everything out of the water. The terminal design integrated with the tower is the sexiest thing I've seen in a long time.

I do think though Rogers' tower would look great in Europe somewhere. Maybe London or Frankfurt.

pizzaman355 · #**718** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 2:40 AM**

Quote:

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 would love to see the building reach 1,500 ft but I'm pretty happy with 1200-1375 ft. I really liked how the Pelli Clarke bldg had the rooftop park, so maybe SOM will incorporate that into the design.

pizzaman355 · #**719** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 2:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy

I'm with you 100%. Looks hot.

Oh, and 1375 feet - no complaints. I would like to see one other building over 1000 feet, though

I think if one of these towers gets built, we will see a few mor 1,000+ ft tall buildings!

Reminiscence · #**720** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

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 agree with your opinions on the proposals. Right now, I wouldnt really bring LA into any of this, as this is our moment to shine. The towers proposed by Renzo Piano are separate from this proposal and will probably be shown off in the not too distant future.

Personally, I dont think we should get used to these heights and floor counts, I think its almost certain they will change. We could all use a lesson from Chicago's Chicago Spire. When first proposed, it was only 1600' to the roof. Now under construction, the design has changed significantly and the roof now reaches 2000'. I dont think we'll see a height increase of 400', but its bound to change, hopefully to somewhere around 1500' or more. As for the NIMBYs, I think the most damage they can do is postpone it slightly, but they cant stop it.