SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[BANKofMANHATTAN]

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

^those will be seperate proposals.

ah, thank you.

[SoCal Alan]

I like all three designs. How about we find space and build all three?

If/when one of these projects starts construction, I think I'll move to SF just to watch it get built!

[sentinel]

I have to say, I am really impressed with each of the three proposals; they each offer something vastly different from the other in terms of how they will re-shape the gorgeous San Fran skyline. I was trying to pick a favorite but honestly I can't because each of the three proposals is so unique and engaging in their own respective way that I wish all three of them could be built!

Kudos!

[Newcastle Kid]

Originally Posted by botoxic

Pictures (taken by me)...

Botoxic, do you mind if I post your pics on SSC? I will give full credit etc...

It's just we don't have much on these great plans yet

[botoxic]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Kid

Botoxic, do you mind if I post your pics on SSC? I will give full credit etc...

It's just we don't have much on these great plans yet

No problem - thanks for asking in advance.

Another poster at SSC uses pictures from this forum (including mine) all the time without asking permission or giving credit.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

San Francisco requires at least 12% of new housing to be affordable, I believe (someone will correct me if I've got the percentage off a bit but it doesn't matter--keep reading). That can be on-site or off-site. I did not hear any of these proposals say anything about off-site housing. Pelli/Hines (I'm betting mainly Hines) seems to want to finesse the issue by simply not having any housing. That won't work. Like I said, Daly has already said he doesn't oppose height per se but he wants affordable housing--I'm betting he will not only demand a substantial part of the project be housing but that 20%, perhaps more, of it be affordable. Sorry, Tyler, but that's the reality of SF politics. I think it's crazy too, but it's reality.

In the Transbay Plan, it's 15% minimum on-site, 20% minimum off-site (though off-site must be within the greater SOMA neighborhood). But, those numbers don't matter as much for this building (trust me on this), but more for the other towers that will be in the area - think Piano's. All of the proposals were known from the get go to not be entirely housing, and not even 40 or 50% housing. The supes (even Daly) will not block this from happening if they can be convinced that the only way to finance it is to not use housing. Even in the two proposals where housing was included - it was only 20-30 floors. That's not much housing, especially considering housing would be on upper floors.

[CGII]

I'm probably the first here to think so, but I really can't bring myself to love the Pelli. for multiple reasons, the greatest being that I just think it's too boring. Yes yes, I know, 'elegance' and all, but really it just looks like another blue glass box, with tapered edges.
From the smaller renderings, I realy dug the quirky terminal design, but up close I felt it was too much whimsy and not enough flow. It's too bad he couldn't scrape some of the interest off of the terminal and give it to the tower.

At first glance, also, I preferred Roger's proposal. It had interest, and colour, the latter of which neither Pelli nor SOM had. But I still can't get over the top, it just looks weird, and from some vantage points of the model it looks frighteningly like one of the towers from Lord Of The Rings, complete with an eye and everything.

At this point I give favour to SOM, unless Rogers can fix the top. There are some bits to the SOM tower that I find awkward, like the broad expanses on the North and South sides, and the way the pylons at the base don't seem to fit well with the rest of it, but overall I think it's the best thus far.

[San Frangelino]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I really love this image. I feel that it has the best profile of the three towers. First thought that struck me upon viewing it was "the maturing offspring of the Transamerica Pyramid and Chrysler building."

[Newcastle Kid]

Originally Posted by botoxic

No problem - thanks for asking in advance.

Another poster at SSC uses pictures from this forum (including mine) all the time without asking permission or giving credit.

Thanks alot mate!

[mthd]

http://www.sfgate.com/

there is a voting box at the bottom right... let the chronicle know what you think.

[Newcastle Kid]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Here is my stab at it (All these were taken by me)...

Do you mind if I post your pics at SSC along with Botoxic's? I will give credit of course

[wrab]

Ah, they are all nice - what a pleasant dilemma, to have to choose the winner.

[Frisco_Zig]

provincialism and irrational fear that San Francisco is famous for (I think part of it is the community planning tradition where everyone gets to be an expert) is starting

Too tall, shouldn't surpass the Pyramid, earthquakes, terrorists, too phallic women should be in charge, ruining our character, "I've been to XXX and I don't live there for a reason", community benefits

here we go

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

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

That was Sylvia Johnson, the most "San Franciscan" person in the room and the poster child for "better living through chemistry". I told you, I have given her my proxy vote to chose the winner.

No SF government meeting would be complete without somebody like her coming forth.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by CGII

I'm probably the first here to think so, but I really can't bring myself to love the Pelli.

Read what I wrote above. We are pretty much in agreement.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Gordo

The supes (even Daly) will not block this from happening if they can be convinced that the only way to finance it is to not use housing. Even in the two proposals where housing was included - it was only 20-30 floors. That's not much housing, especially considering housing would be on upper floors.

"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.

[tyler82]

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!

[pizzaman355]

On the Rodgers building, where is the wind turbine and what is the purpose of it?

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by botoxic

Pictures of SOM's model (taken by me):

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.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by pizzaman355

On the Rodgers building, where is the wind turbine and what is the purpose of it?

On the top. The purpose is to generate 10% 0f the building's power. These projects are all shooting for LEED platinum rating. Rogers claims his is "carbon neutral".