HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

    

181 Fremont in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 4:57 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
SAN FRANCISCO | 181 Fremont | 802 FT | 52 FLOORS

Via socketsite http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2..._181_frem.html

Another tower, this one a mere 900 feet, has been proposed for the area surrounding San Francisco’s new Transbay Terminal and Tower. And according to J.K. Dineen, the “razor-thin skyscraper” at 181 Fremont “would include 500,000 square feet of office space beneath about 140 residential condominiums.”

The Fremont Street parcel is one of several sites where the city is considering allowing tall towers as a source of tax revenue to help bankroll the $3.4 billion Transbay Terminal and Tower. Under the plan, developers around the transit center and tower -- likely to soar 1,300 feet or more -- could build well above current 300- to 500-foot zoning restrictions in exchange for pumping millions of dollars in additional taxes to help pay for building new infrastructure in the Transbay District as well as the terminal programing itself. City officials estimate that taxes from upzoning the properties around the Transbay Terminal and Tower could generate $250 million.
Designed by HellerManus, the proposed tower “would have a glass curtain wall and exterior structural system…would seek a gold stamp of approval from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design… [and] include a highly efficient sawtooth glazing system that allows daylighting but reduces unwanted heating.”

And yes, as is now de rigeur, the “developer is also looking into solar power [and] wind turbines…”
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 5:17 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
Here is an image to go along from http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...03/story1.html

     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 5:30 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by craeg View Post
Via socketsite http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2..._181_frem.html

Another tower, this one a mere 900 feet, has been proposed for the area surrounding San Francisco’s new Transbay Terminal and Tower. And according to J.K. Dineen, the “razor-thin skyscraper” at 181 Fremont “would include 500,000 square feet of office space beneath about 140 residential condominiums.”


Designed by HellerManus, the proposed tower …would seek a gold stamp of approval from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design… [and] include a highly efficient sawtooth glazing system that allows daylighting but reduces unwanted heating.”

And yes, as is now de rigeur, the “developer is also looking into solar power [and] wind turbines…”
This is the best news for the hopes of this project actually happening. Looks like another stylin' iconic (uh oh, don't tell John King!) tower for the SF Skyline to go with BofA, TAP, and Transbay!
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 5:51 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 18,833
can you feel the awesomeness!?!

i know i can, even from that tiny little blurry image from the newspaper scan, the expressed structural elements already have me salivating to see more. san francisco ain't messing around no more; time to get some real height into what is already one hell of a skyline.
__________________
He has to go.
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 5:56 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Can non-subscribers follow the link to that article? If not, I'll post it.
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 6:03 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,495
Sweet, San Francisco may well have the second or third tallest and best skyline in the country when all these new buildings are completed. It should be real interesting to see what happens if SF keeps moving towards the obvious source of tax revenue, tall buildings...
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 6:15 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280 View Post
Sweet, San Francisco may well have the second or third tallest and best skyline in the country when all these new buildings are completed.
I keep hearing people say that SF will have the 3rd best skyline after all this is completed... Well, isn't this the case already? Really, you have NY and Chicago, which can be argued day and night over which is first or second, and that will always be the case so long as those cities are still standing, and then, I can't really think of another 'skyline city' than SF. LA might have a couple taller buildings, but I like to think our skyline is better already in density, appeal, etc.
So, I think we are the top 3 now, and we will be into the future. But with Chicago and NY also on the list, can't really ever beat them.
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 7:05 PM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
I keep hearing people say that SF will have the 3rd best skyline after all this is completed... Well, isn't this the case already? Really, you have NY and Chicago, which can be argued day and night over which is first or second, and that will always be the case so long as those cities are still standing, and then, I can't really think of another 'skyline city' than SF. LA might have a couple taller buildings, but I like to think our skyline is better already in density, appeal, etc.
So, I think we are the top 3 now, and we will be into the future. But with Chicago and NY also on the list, can't really ever beat them.
I suppose that could be true, but I mentioned in both height and quality. LA has greater height right now, a place into which SF will definitely move. Either way SF will be cementing the 3rd place title for a long long time...
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 7:38 PM
aluminum's Avatar
aluminum aluminum is offline
I love boxes.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 638
Another 900' proposal adds to the list of so may tall proposals, maybe some day they'll build most of 'em.
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 6:14 PM
paulsfca paulsfca is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Can non-subscribers follow the link to that article? If not, I'll post it.
hi BTinSF...please post the article. thanks so much !
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 6:03 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Poor Millennium, looks like it's going to be blocked from almost all sides: Transbay to the west (or southwest), 50 Fremont to the north, and now this one to the south!

The density of this neighborhood in 10 years is going to be some of the best in the world.
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 6:39 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 6:47 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Miami of Canada
Posts: 18,833
^ it looks like it's straight out of 1975. i LOVE it! it's not really neo-modern at all, just real deal last gasp of modernism from the mid 70s transported 30 years forward through time. and a nice homage to transamerica with those big diagonally braced truss sections at the base and half way up the tower.

big, bold, muscular, inelegant......... this is my kind of architecture.
__________________
He has to go.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Aug 31, 2007 at 7:09 PM.
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 8:49 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

(Emporis)
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2008, 1:52 AM
Chicagoguy Chicagoguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
(Emporis)
Haha that was my first thought when I saw this...it looks almost identical to the Bank of China Building in Hong Kong!
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:23 PM
sfcity1 sfcity1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

Awesome stuff. This is likely the result of an exciting trend that has been initiated by people in charge of the city, including the mayor, with the transbay terminal (go SOM!). Nimbys have no say in this rather large part of the city full of vulnerable warehouses.
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 8:36 PM
EmpireCityGuy EmpireCityGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

The exoskeleton is a great feature. It's thin physique is very attractive as well.
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 7:16 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
I have to admit, though this comment will further solidify my being a total height whore, that I really hope this towers height at 900 ft is an indication that the Howard street Transbay tower will at least break 1000ft. I say put Pelli's design there and make it a perfect world.

But with something a little more serious, does anyone know the likely hood of this project with Prop M? I suppose I am under the impression that the limit is already being pushed without this proposal.
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2007, 7:25 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^This project, surprisingly, is "only" 500,000 sq ft of office. Prop M allows about 900,000 sq ft per year (I can't recall the exact number). And remember what I posted last week--there's a move afoot to strip some "entitled" buildings that haven't started construction within the required 18 months of their "entitlements", making that "banked" square footage again available. If that happens, this building could easily be built within a few years I believe. Even if it doesn't happen, I doubt Prop. M would stop it--it wpould have to compete with some other projects but given the emphasis on the TransBay area, I think it would get an allocation.
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2007, 4:45 PM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^This project, surprisingly, is "only" 500,000 sq ft of office. Prop M allows about 900,000 sq ft per year (I can't recall the exact number). And remember what I posted last week--there's a move afoot to strip some "entitled" buildings that haven't started construction within the required 18 months of their "entitlements", making that "banked" square footage again available. If that happens, this building could easily be built within a few years I believe. Even if it doesn't happen, I doubt Prop. M would stop it--it wpould have to compete with some other projects but given the emphasis on the TransBay area, I think it would get an allocation.
I was also surprised about so little floor area for a 900 footer, but then again there is only so much space you can fit on such a small site. Great news for San Francisco in either case.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.