HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 40 8.05%
#2 Cesar Pelli 99 19.92%
#3 SOM 358 72.03%
Voters: 497. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2601  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 3:46 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
No problem. The trick is getting the URL for the image itself (ends in .jpg) rather than the flickr page where it's hosted.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2602  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 4:05 AM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,585
Is the foundation done already? Or are they still blasting away?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2603  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 4:18 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
I don't believe so, but I'm no expert. I think they are still working on excavation and shoring for the train box.

Jamie Whitaker reports on his Rincon Hill blog that the Transbay Plan should be approved by the Planning Commission by the end of May and come before the BOS in June or July. This is huge news as it means Hines (and other developers in the area sitting on the properties slated for the tallest buildings) can start securing their entitlements as early as this summer. Click on the link above for more details on the remaining steps to approval and the key dates. Exciting times!
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2604  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2012, 12:26 AM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
I don't believe so, but I'm no expert. I think they are still working on excavation and shoring for the train box.

Jamie Whitaker reports on his Rincon Hill blog that the Transbay Plan should be approved by the Planning Commission by the end of May and come before the BOS in June or July. This is huge news as it means Hines (and other developers in the area sitting on the properties slated for the tallest buildings) can start securing their entitlements as early as this summer. Click on the link above for more details on the remaining steps to approval and the key dates. Exciting times!
Really can't wait! Thanks for the quick reply
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2605  
Old Posted May 22, 2012, 4:00 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Great news!

Quote:
Hines revives people mover for S.F. skyscraper plan
San Francisco Business Times
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 7:16am PDT

Hines has restored plans for a cable-car-like system connecting parts of its proposed 60-story building in San Francisco, the Chronicle reports.
The system, which would attract people to visit a rooftop park at the site, had been scrapped because of costs.
Hines has now brought the idea back in advance of its Thursday meeting with the city's Planning Commission.
Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...er-for-sf.html

More info here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2606  
Old Posted May 22, 2012, 8:09 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Photo I took of the Transit Center construction site- you really get a good idea of the immensity of the project with all the cranes poking up.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2607  
Old Posted May 23, 2012, 1:06 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
When will the tower officially start?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2608  
Old Posted May 23, 2012, 3:42 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
When will the tower officially start?
I don't think the tower has officially been approved yet (although it will be). The most optimistic projection says late 2013:

Quote:
If all goes smoothly, developers say the earliest that construction could begin is late next year, with a 2016 opening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2609  
Old Posted May 24, 2012, 3:58 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Big day for the Transbay neighborhood and tower:

Quote:
Transit district development plan gets hearing
By: Ari Burack | 05/23/12 6:13 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Plans for the neighborhood surrounding the Transbay Transit Center are before the Planning Commission.
A plan to reshape the South of Market neighborhood surrounding the planned new Transbay Terminal, laying the groundwork for new development that could include the tallest building on the West Coast, passes before the Planning Commission today.

The commission will consider approval of the final environmental impact report and zoning changes for the Transit Center District Plan, The City’s vision for shaping development in the neighborhoods around the new terminal. The $4 billion project being built at First and Mission streets includes a new bus terminal and an extension of Caltrain that could also accommodate high-speed rail.

The district plan, in development since 2007, builds on city plans dating back as far as the mid-1980s to shift development further south of the old Financial District. The plans centers on the area between Market Street, The Embarcadero, Folsom Street and Hawthorne Street.

If approved by the Planning Commission, the plan will move on to the Board of Supervisors for final approval, possibly this summer.

“It’s an exceptionally important hearing,” said Joshua Switzky of the Planning Department. “Assuming they approve it, it would set the stage for entitling some important new projects and generate hundreds of millions of dollars for public improvements and infrastructure.”

One of those projects, the planned 61-story, 1,070-foot Transit Tower office building at the terminal site, could come up for approval at the Planning Commission in the fall. Although scaled down from its original planned height of 1,200 feet, it would still dwarf The City’s current tallest building, the 48-floor Transamerica Pyramid, which stands 853 feet tall and was completed in 1972.

“It’s still the iconic tower that The City was looking for from the beginning,” said Paul Paradis, senior managing director at Hines, the developer on the project.

The towering glass and white metal building is expected to help significantly fund the terminal project, with $575 million anticipated for the downtown rail extension, and street and open space improvements.

Paradis said that as the market improves in The City improves, available office space is diminishing. Construction on the tower could begin as soon as next year, he said.

“I think that it’s going to provide a much needed space for the tenants of San Francisco,” Paradis said. “We’ve been in discussions with some larger tenants already.”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/deve...n-gets-hearing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2610  
Old Posted May 24, 2012, 6:28 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
John King provides his thoughts, as always, talks about shadows

I will say, he tries to be fair to all sides in this one.

Transbay plan - is new skyline worth more shadows?

San Francisco has never seen a neighborhood plan as ambitious as the one that goes to the Planning Commission on Thursday, or one that so audaciously seeks to fit 21st century urban values into a 20th century frame.

Height limits within the 145-acre Transit Center District would be raised to create a new southern skyline of office and residential towers amid new public spaces and transit services of every sort. There'd be widened sidewalks, new pedestrian crossings and bicycle lanes, perhaps even a district-wide geothermal energy plant.

That's why it is critical that the first building proposed under the plan's framework, a tower that would be the city's tallest, embody the values of an area intended by the city to be "an enjoyable and humane place to spend time."

Planners also need to be candid about the disruptive aspects of the plan that, whatever its other merits, would clear the way for towers casting new shadows across parks as far as Chinatown.

Those far-reaching shadows are the most troubling aspect of a proposal that in many ways deserves to be embraced.

The planning effort that began in 2007 in many ways is a response to what now is a 20-foot-deep hole in the ground: a transit terminal set to open in 2017 off Mission Street that would be cloaked in futuristic curves of glass. Buses from throughout the Bay Area will pull in on opening day. A second phase would include underground train tracks to make the station the final stop for commuter trains from the Peninsula and high-speed rail from Southern California...

Click the link for the rest of the article.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAIH1OJRRJ.DTL







__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2611  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 2:27 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
I much prefer the SOM design better. Why did that one lose again?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2612  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 2:49 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
the SOM design was too tall and caused shadows, as was the 1200 foot design for this current tower.

I'm glad to see higher towers rising in a place like SF but clearly NIMBYism is still rampant, luckily there is so much demand that there is really no choice but to build somewhat tall towers. If the city will see 2 new tallests this decade and a slew of other highrises I don't think we can complain much. I just hope the open air structure doesn't look too silly on top of the tower.

That article is stupid, if you don't want shadows don't live in a city, it's pretty simple.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2613  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 2:59 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Well, it was approved by the Planning Commission:

Quote:
UPDATE: The Transit Center District Plan was approved by the Planning Commission.

From the Planning Department:

Between now and 2035, approximately 17 percent of the projected job growth in San Francisco will occur in the area surrounding the new Transbay Transit Center. The project anticipates over 27,000 new permanent jobs will be accommodated in the District -- the most significant concentration of projected job growth in the entire city.
The new district will feature more than six million square feet of new office space, over 4,000 new housing units of which at least 1,200 units will be affordable, up to 1,000 new hotel rooms, and improved streets to enhance transit service and support walking and bicycling. The new Plan also proposes to create and fund over 11 acres of new public spaces such as parks, plazas and living streets.
The Department projects the Plan will raise $590 million in revenue from development.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...er_plan_u.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2614  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 3:50 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
the SOM design was too tall and caused shadows, as was the 1200 foot design for this current tower.

I'm glad to see higher towers rising in a place like SF but clearly NIMBYism is still rampant, luckily there is so much demand that there is really no choice but to build somewhat tall towers. If the city will see 2 new tallests this decade and a slew of other highrises I don't think we can complain much. I just hope the open air structure doesn't look too silly on top of the tower.

That article is stupid, if you don't want shadows don't live in a city, it's pretty simple.
The height of the SOM tower was not the reason it was rejected. Hines, the developer for the Pelli tower, offered twice as much money for the land (which they later rescinded after they won the contest- bastards!). Also, SOM's terminal proposal had some issues with AC Transit buses not being able to efficiently turn around or something stupid like that. AC Transit in effect helped kill that proposal.

The current Pelli proposal at 1070' still casts shadows on some parks (albeit during late fall/ early winter in the morning) but this is being looked over by planning and the BOS for all of the other benefits that this proposal brings to the table.

I still have hopes that somehow we will get the original 1200' plan. As I said before, nothing's a done deal until a crane is installed. The tower in those Warriors stadium renderings make me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2615  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 4:19 AM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 320
I'm sorry but who fucking cares about shadows!?! I honestly cannot understand why all these NIMBY's throw the biggest shitfit. Its a big city. It needs to grow. If they are going to complain about tall buildings then THEY should shoulder the cost of everybody else's higher rent and cost of living for not allowing enough supply.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2616  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 4:41 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
The height of the SOM tower was not the reason it was rejected. Hines, the developer for the Pelli tower, offered twice as much money for the land (which they later rescinded after they won the contest- bastards!). Also, SOM's terminal proposal had some issues with AC Transit buses not being able to efficiently turn around or something stupid like that. AC Transit in effect helped kill that proposal.

The current Pelli proposal at 1070' still casts shadows on some parks (albeit during late fall/ early winter in the morning) but this is being looked over by planning and the BOS for all of the other benefits that this proposal brings to the table.

I still have hopes that somehow we will get the original 1200' plan. As I said before, nothing's a done deal until a crane is installed. The tower in those Warriors stadium renderings make me

As long as it isn't shortened anymore from 1070 Im fine with whatever althogh 1200 would be amazing. But if they aren't actively trying to get it back to 1200 I can't see that happening.

It's SF, the bigger the dildo structure the happier people should be. (couldn't help myself)

Last edited by Zapatan; May 25, 2012 at 4:55 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2617  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 2:37 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
The height of the SOM tower was not the reason it was rejected. Hines, the developer for the Pelli tower, offered twice as much money for the land (which they later rescinded after they won the contest- bastards!). Also, SOM's terminal proposal had some issues with AC Transit buses not being able to efficiently turn around or something stupid like that. AC Transit in effect helped kill that proposal...
Hines did not rescind the extra money. The original price was based upon $/sqft. When the tower was shortened the sqft dropped thus the price dropped. The same thing would have happened if SOM won the bid and then was asked to shorten the building.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2618  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 5:11 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
Hines did not rescind the extra money. The original price was based upon $/sqft. When the tower was shortened the sqft dropped thus the price dropped. The same thing would have happened if SOM won the bid and then was asked to shorten the building.
The original offer was $350 million. In 2008, after winning the bid, they reduced it to $235 million. Now, the offer is $185 million. If the tower only shrunk by 130', then why is the offer almost half of the original?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2619  
Old Posted May 25, 2012, 7:45 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
I think it was a little of both. I think the original reduction was them basically asking for a discount due to changing market conditions. The latest reduction was due to less square footage. But I could be wrong about all that.

Quote:
“It’s still the iconic tower that The City was looking for from the beginning,” said Paul Paradis, senior managing director at Hines, the developer on the project.
I wouldn't say that, but whatever, it's the developer talking. It will be very tall and appears to be a quality building. But it's too conventional to be iconic IMHO. Transamerica is iconic and will continue to be regardless of taller buildings in the skyline.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2620  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 1:52 AM
NYC GUY's Avatar
NYC GUY NYC GUY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 575
So what does SOM's design look like and is that the current Design? Also how tall is it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:13 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.