SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[peanut gallery]

Thanks BT. I corrected that above.

[brinvion]

SOM pulls of such a design that it totally takes my breath away. so many parts of this design mimic other ideas in architecture.

[SoCal Alan]

Originally Posted by tech12

Holy Shit, I have been converted. This is jaw-dropping

I love Pelli's design, but THIS is a signature tower. I hope we somehow get pelli's tower chucked in somewhere, even if it's scaled down to 800 ft. Man, I want both. The skyscraper gods need to converge on San Francisco, and by some miracle (as if this isn't already miracle enough, hehe), they need to give us both towers!

I agree. I really like SOM and hope this thing gets chosen and built.

[SoCal Alan]

Originally Posted by SFView

I know another ex-hippie that just hates One Rincon Hill, thinking that it is truly ugly. He also does not like the idea of new towers obscuring the hills of the city, and ruining the skyline. Most ex-hippies do not like tall buildings.

I really like the irony of his statement. Don't build new high rises because you're going to ruin the view of the high rises.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by The Agonist

I didn't develop the whole coast with them. South Beach is a very very vibrant district. CA could use something like that (but like you said it would not go to well with a 50-55 degree wind whipping off the water and weeks of constant summer fog on Ocean Beach).

I just think it is funny when people try to dissuade me with things that I think are great, such as "manhattanization". You tell me some place is going to be like Manhattan, and I get excited. Who doesn't love NYC? Who doesn't love South Beach?

You and I are in exact agreement about "Manhattanization". In fact, I have frequently used that word to tell my NIMBY friends I would love to see it happen to San Francisco because what makes New York the "city that never sleeps" is the density of people and San Francisco would be a lot more lively after 10 PM if it was even more dense than it is.

I'm not a fan of South Beach (FL), so much, though. To the extent that I can admire it, what I admire is dependent on the mix of tropical climate, authentic deco buildings and so on that would be impossible to recreate here. I do not, however, admire the superficiality of the social scene, the "body beautiful" ethos, the "see and be seen" attitude. Still, as long as what you want is to put more large buildings in appropriate places in San Francisco, I'm fine with that.

Let's please leave the coast outside the cities of CA as pristine as possible, though. The rest of my family lives in FL and I lived there for 10 years before moving to SF. I actually love Florida but I very much wish it had more and larger areas that had been preserved from development.

[SFView]

As much as I prefer SOM's design over the rest, there are many other issues that the judges will be looking at to determine the winner. One issue that AC Transit pointed out of concern, is the potential "fatal flaw" of having multi-level bus circulation. This issue was unknown to SOM until this meeting. Although, I feel that SOM is well capable of resolving this issue, I hope that it does not count enough against them to loose their chance of winning.

The entire TJPA meeting video on August 6, 2007 can be viewed here (length 2:47.10)

http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/Med...9&clip_id=3953

[mthd]

Originally Posted by SFView

...One issue that AC Transit pointed out of concern, is the potential "fatal flaw" of having multi-level bus circulation. This issue was unknown to SOM until this meeting. Although, I feel that SOM is well capable of resolving this issue, I hope that it does not count enough against them to loose their chance of winning.

SFView - SOM was well aware of the need to work out the two level bus scheme and has done so long before the meeting. As you probably know from the TJPA website, there have been two prior technical reviews with the TJPA technical staff to ensure that there were no 'fatal flaws' in the scheme. And, of course, SOM has worked with several of the world's leading bus transit engineers to validate the scheme from an analytical point of view.

The comparison to the port authority terminal in New York, while interesting and relevant in some ways, is a totally different scale of operation and connection to the city.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by SFView

As much as I prefer SOM's design over the rest, there are many other issues that the judges will be looking at to determine the winner. One issue that AC Transit pointed out of concern, is the potential "fatal flaw" of having multi-level bus circulation. This issue was unknown to SOM until this meeting. Although, I feel that SOM is well capable of resolving this issue, I hope that it does not count enough against them to loose their chance of winning.

The entire TJPA meeting video on August 6, 2007 can be viewed here (length 2:47.10)

http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/Med...9&clip_id=3953

When reading SOM's transbay page, I understood that they would allow AC Transit to store its busses on site, perhaps as an offset to AC's complaints.

[craeg]

SOM's proposal is leaps and bounds ahead of the other two. They just need to work with tjpa to iron out the issues.

[SFView]

Thanks for all your reassurances.

[BTinSF]

Transbay teams pile on amenities
San Francisco Business Times - August 10, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

While architecture critics debate the merits of the three Transbay proposals unveiled this week, development teams vying for the Transbay Terminal and Tower are quietly pushing cultural and neighborhood amenities to score political points and win the coveted competition.

The winner of the competition will design a regional multi-modal transit center to replace to the aging one at First and Mission Streets and San Francisco's tallest highrise tower adjacent to it. The private development of the tower will help pay for the costly transit infrastructure, that may eventually link Caltrain to the financial district and include high-speed rail.

The competition's jury will recommend a winner to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board, which is expected to choose a team on Sept. 20.

The amenities range from education (Forest City and architect Richard Rogers) to green space (Hines and Pelli Clarke Pelli) to art and culture (Rockefeller Group and Skidmore Owings Merrill).

The group led by the Rockefeller Group and Skidmore Owings Merrill has entered into an agreement with the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art to make the proposed station's soaring entryway an "electronic canvas" for the musuem's renowned digital arts collectoin.

Under the agreement, $10 million to $12 million would be invested into an endowment that would pay for SFMOMA to curate ongoing digital arts programming for the complex, including the dramatic 103-foot tall "portal" leading into the station's "great hall."

"The fundamental question for us is how you make this place culturally engaged with San Francisco," said Craig Hartman, a design partner with SOM.

In addition, Rockefeller has agreed to provide a 35,000 square foot home to the "Sutro Collection," a state of California-owned library housed at San Francisco State of 220,000 rare historic manuscripts, books, and maps. Consultant Glenn Isaacson of CMA -- which is working with Rockefeller on the project -- said the Sutro collection would include a reading room and exhibit space and would not have to pay rent for 40 years.

"No one knows it's there," said Isaacson. "It's a national treasure and it's buried."

The team featuring Forest City, MacFarlane Partners, and architect Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, is working with both City College and University of San Francisco. The institutions would likely take up 30,000 square feet, said Forest City Executive Susan Smartt. University of San Francisco is interested in a downtown campus and possibly an institute on sustainability and social justice. City College is looking into a facility for training transit and green technology workers.

"It's not an office building that closes on Friday and opens on Monday. It's a vertical city," said Maryanne Gilmartin, executive vice president of Forest City.

The most dramatic of the proposed neighborhood amenities is the 1,300-foot-long park Hines is proposing.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable

[CityKid]

Sorry guys, I like the SOM design, but I am still rooting for Pelli. Yes, I will use the park. Yes, i think people from Millenium, Infinity, Rincon Hill, the St. Regis, the Paramount, not to mention the buildings approved and the office buildings already built nearby will use it. I work in the South Financial District and as of now, we only have Yerba Buena gardens to go to and it's already packed, especially when it's nice out. I would be happy with SOM, but I would rather see Pelli's built.

[BTinSF]

^^^You're supposed to be working. I, on the other hand, am retired and go to Yerba Buena all the time where I never have any trouble finding all the room I need.

Also, the Transbay Project already calls for a new park on the north side of Folsom--200 block I believe. And it's at ground level. Finally, it may have escaped your notice, but the SOM design also has a small park east of Fremont.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

You're supposed to be working.

It's called lunch.

I, on the other hand, am retired and go to Yerba Buena all the time where I never have any trouble finding all the room I need.

You must not have gone when I have. Regardless, after they cram tens of thousands of people into Millenium, Infinity, Rincon Hill, the Californian, 201 Folsom, the Renzo Piano towers, the Transbay tower, its sister towers, among other projects, I am sure more park space will be needed.

Also, the Transbay Project already calls for a new park on the north side of Folsom--200 block I believe. And it's at ground level. Finally, it may have escaped your notice, but the SOM design also has a small park east of Fremont.

Yes, I did notice that they have a "small" park in the SOM design, but it's not a 5.4 acre park. I applaud that they're adding one on Folsom, but again, I don't think that will suffice. I actually like the fact that the park in the Pelli proposal is elevated. It's a rather unique design for the United States and is conducive (IMO) to San Francisco urbanism. I picture it being like the upper level of the Embarcadero Center, only taller and green.

Regardless, these are all opinions, and I would be content with the SOM design. I am just sticking up for Pelli here. May the best tower for San Francisco win.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by caramatt

Wow, based on the way this thread is going, it's starting to seem like I'm the only one still rooting for PCP. Oh well. They just put a new rendering up for the crown on their website which gives a bit more detail. Here ya go:

I really dig the PCP too... it's so graceful looking and the crown is sharp.
The SOM terminal is stunning but the crown on that tower seems over done IMO.
I'd like to see more color renderings of SOM so I can see what the skin colors
and textures are.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^You're supposed to be working. I, on the other hand, am retired and go to Yerba Buena all the time where I never have any trouble finding all the room I need.

Also, the Transbay Project already calls for a new park on the north side of Folsom--200 block I believe. And it's at ground level. Finally, it may have escaped your notice, but the SOM design also has a small park east of Fremont.

BTinSF is correct - the transbay plan includes a park the full block between main and beale and roughly 1/3 of the block between howard and folsom.

... and the RGDC|SOM scheme does include the option of a more than 1 acre park - smaller than the pelli park but also much closer to the ground. for reference, that's just a bit less than the size of the the big grassy oval at YBG.

[tyler82]

Pelli's project can't win without housing, nor should it. The point of the project is to encourage transit by clustering people together in a live/ work atmosphere. I don't u8nderstand why they want it to be all office space.

[BTinSF]

^^^Tyler, I've tried to explain: The towers all have to work out as financial successes for the respective developers. There'll be no city money going into them (on the contrary, the developers will be paying the city for the right to build them).

Generally speaking, office, if it can be filled, is going to be more lucrative than housing and with none of the "affordability" issues. This will be a premier office site. I posted elsewhere that the SF office rental market just topped the $100/sq ft/yr level again. That's $100K RENT per year for space the size of a modest 2 bedroom apartment. Think you could get $100K rent for residential space, even in this building--or sell at equivalent levels? And if the building claims rents at these levels, it can likely be sold for much more than the development costs once its up--there'll be no other address like it in town.

My impression has always been that the Hines crowd are tough customers and will strike the hardest bargain with the city. They are Texas boys. They'll give on the residential if they have to, but I still think they'll push the city's tolerance for gamesmanship to its limit. And in the end, I don't think they'll win.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^Tyler, I've tried to explain: The towers all have to work out as financial successes for the respective developers. There'll be no city money going into them (on the contrary, the developers will be paying the city for the right to build them).

Generally speaking, office, if it can be filled, is going to be more lucrative than housing and with none of the "affordability" issues. This will be a premier office site. I posted elsewhere that the SF office rental market just topped the $100/sq ft/yr level again. That's $100K RENT per year for space the size of a modest 2 bedroom apartment. Think you could get $100K rent for residential space, even in this building--or sell at equivalent levels? And if the building claims rents at these levels, it can likely be sold for much more than the development costs once its up--there'll be no other address like it in town.

My impression has always been that the Hines crowd are tough customers and will strike the hardest bargain with the city. They are Texas boys. They'll give on the residential if they have to, but I still think they'll push the city's tolerance for gamesmanship to its limit. And in the end, I don't think they'll win.

I understand what you're saying, and yes, I understand that office space is more lucrative than affordable housing, but my point is that the competition was meant to create a space where people could live/ work densely, encouraging public transit. It seems like Pelli could care less about the needs of SF and just wants to make money, which is why I enjoy the SOM proposal 100% more, they really seem to know the city a lot better (probably cause they're local) and I love that they include housing in their proposal, to get more of these people out into the streets at night! Downtown is a ghost town, and embarrassing when friends come into town and there's no life anywhere.

[craeg]

Sorry, I think the pelli design as is was pretty much a failure. To put out a design with no housing element at all - and to plan to put online so much office space in such short period of time ? Do you think EOP and all the other building groups are going to be pleased with over a million and a half sq ft flooding their currently very tight market?
And yes they can add housing to the plans later - that's not the point. You can add anything to the project later. It just shows a serious lack of understanding of the SF office/housing markets. Prop M limits the amount of new office that can be constructed per year in SF to 800k sq ft. They are going to have a very hard time getting around that limitation.