HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 36 7.56%
#2 Cesar Pelli 93 19.54%
#3 SOM 347 72.90%
Voters: 476. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2006, 3:14 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint
^That's hawt
But that ^^^ could really scare the NIMBY's
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2006, 3:30 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
The really surprising thing to me is that most of those towers have already been approved. I count about 10 of them approved and, as we know 4 are under construction (the Millenium Tower is shown as complete in the rendering).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2006, 8:12 AM
SFBoy SFBoy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF
The really surprising thing to me is that most of those towers have already been approved. I count about 10 of them approved and, as we know 4 are under construction (the Millenium Tower is shown as complete in the rendering).
It's good to see that the SF fear of heights is disappearing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2006, 5:02 AM
Pandemonious's Avatar
Pandemonious Pandemonious is offline
Chaos Machine
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,290
Approaching 2 months since the last post was made in here. There is zero news about this tower?
__________________
My Diagram: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?m2346
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2006, 5:06 AM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,873
The Transbay Terminal project will be going on for the next 25 years,, give it some time... we still have many approvals,, land sales, financing, etc.. to go
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2006, 5:55 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 973
The way I see it in SF is, you have a busy, chaotic downtown (like it is now), but within 10 blocks, you can be in pre-war 2 story homes or other such buildings.

San Francisco is about contrast, and what better way to contrast the vast majority of the city (low-rise/single family homes) with a 1000' skyscraper downtown?

Lets do it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2006, 7:00 AM
kalmia's Avatar
kalmia kalmia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hammond, Indiana
Posts: 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark
But that ^^^ could really scare the NIMBY's

The reason housing is so expensive there is the lack of new housing developements. More of these types of projects could make housing more affordable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2006, 7:24 AM
Fabb's Avatar
Fabb Fabb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 9,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046
The Transbay Terminal project will be going on for the next 25 years,, give it some time... we still have many approvals,, land sales, financing, etc.. to go
I hate to admit that you're probably right.
But the important thing is that the tall one won't come last.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2006, 7:26 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046
The Transbay Terminal project will be going on for the next 25 years,, give it some time... we still have many approvals,, land sales, financing, etc.. to go
The 1000 ft plus tower is just a vague proposal at this point. They haven't even said how tall it will actually be (they are hinting at 1250 ft or more) and they certainly haven't sprung it on the NIMBYs who will doubtlessly scream so loud you'll hear them in Reno. I would actually call this quite literaslly "pie in the sky" except for the fact that some of the usual nay-sayers seem to want the TransBay redevelopment so badly, they may swallow the tower too which seems like the only way to pay for the terminal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2006, 7:29 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabb
I hate to admit that you're probably right.
But the important thing is that the tall one won't come last.
It may--or at least next to last. The land across Mission St where an 850 ft. building is proposed has already been aquired by a developer who seems game to build (and, of course, the Millenium on the other side of the terminal block is already under construction).

The 850 footer would be the nearer gray one in this picture (the Millenium will be just a bit taller than the existing building just to the left of the tallest dark blue tower and just behind that building):

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2006, 4:51 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 973
Is it just me, or are skyscrapers becoming less taboo and more accepted (at least by NIMBYs)? It seems that they are becoming more of a fact of life rather than some strange and alien thing that is built.

However, I firmly believe that if something is built in San Francisco that is over 700, 800 feet, it better be something architecturally significant - not just some glass 'thing' that looks like everything else being built. The Bank of America building (or 555 California...) and Transamerica tower are just beautiful and its nice they stand out, but if something taller is built, it better not be some trendy piece of modern junk - it better be something that people will want to look at for the next 100 years.

What makes a lot of the buildings in SF unique is their cladding/fact they are not just glass curtain walls, and I would hope something new and big would carry on this tradition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2006, 6:16 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I thought the development was pursuing to abolish height limits in this part of the city. They should just keep increasing the height until people start protesting. I wonder what would happen if they just kept going until they got to like 2000 feet ... heh, now that would be something amazing to see in SF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2006, 7:13 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence
I thought the development was pursuing to abolish height limits in this part of the city. They should just keep increasing the height until people start protesting. I wonder what would happen if they just kept going until they got to like 2000 feet ... heh, now that would be something amazing to see in SF.
i don't think we'll ever see SF abolish height limits altogether for any part of the city, including transbay or rincon hill. at transbay, you're see the planning department raise height on certain parcels to allow for increased development that will help fund the new transbay transit center. personally, i think a 2000' building would overwhelm san francisco's skyline. a 1000'+ would be just fine!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2006, 7:38 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I'm not sure, I think the FAA limit is 2000 feet anyways. I actually stole the idea from the Freedom Tower. It would be neat to see SF build a skyscraper with symbolic height(s) at 1849 feet (to roof) for the Gold Rush, 1906 feet (structural) for the 1906 earthquake, and 2000 or 2006 feet (spire) for the 100 anniversary of the earthquake. Now that should bring quite a bit of revenue and tourism

Maybe I'm getting too greedy, lol. 1,350 feet sounds great ... for now
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2006, 9:21 PM
samoen313's Avatar
samoen313 samoen313 is offline
millard fillmore
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ys
Posts: 199
mm, well i think for the same reasons none of the new wtc buildings are 911' tall, using the 1906 earthquake to provide a symbolic height doesn't really make sense. it wasn't really a triumph in san francisco, mostly an infamous disaster. 1776 was a great symbolic triumph for the us so therefore . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2006, 9:34 PM
EastBayHardCore's Avatar
EastBayHardCore EastBayHardCore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Inner Sunset
Posts: 5,047
Hey, lets crack the glass ceiling of 850 before we start thinking about 2000ft.

At this point anything above that 1250ft'er that people were floating around would be ridiculously out of scale imho.
__________________
"This will not be known as the Times Square of the West," City Council President Alex Padilla declared last week. "Times Square will be known as the L.A. Live of the East."

Will Rogers once said, "children in San Francisco are taught two things: love the Lord and hate Los Angeles."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2006, 10:44 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
It would be nice if we could avoid junking up this thread about an actual concept for the Transbay development with totally self-indulgent fantasies about dreamed-up towers that are totally divorced from all reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2006, 11:53 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
True, I guess I was just dreaming out loud

But yeah, just the fact that these towers exceed 853 feet, is a sign that times in SF are changing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2006, 3:12 AM
munkyman munkyman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 136
I never thought of a building height of 1906 feet or even 2006 feet, just because those dates don't commemorate something joyous or happy. But I have before thought of a building being 1,850 feet, to commemorate the year California was admitted to the union as a state. But of course, such a building could be built in any of the state's major cities, such as Sacramento, particularly since they are the capital. It would just look pretty odd there. Either LA or SF would be a better choice, but I think fear of earthquakes would preclude any building being much taller than 1,000 feet in those cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2006, 3:16 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Its definetly possible, just not right now. I think that after the public sees that having a supertall building like the Transbay Tower in SF is safe and visually apealing to both tourists and locals alike, then they will feel more comfortable discussing future buildings like this or taller.
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 8:10 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.