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 35 7.38%
#2 Cesar Pelli 93 19.62%
#3 SOM 346 73.00%
Voters: 474. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2006, 4:23 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Let's wait for the next official announcement on Transbay before we continue to speculate on possibilities. Such announcements are due soon, and could contain even more good and unexpected surprises.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2006, 4:31 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 972
I also agree that the design will need to be world class or it will look awful.

Maybe once Rincon and some of the other under-way projects are done, we will have a better idea.

Guess the real test will be a firm drawing up a real plan and making some real renderings with the proposed building. My guess would be it would need to be staggered to look right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2006, 5:09 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
The competition and development plan announcements for Transbay should give a good framework for the basis of the new designs. The International Completition is expected to draw applicants from many of the biggest and best names in architecture on Earth. Even after the winners of the Transbay Terminal and Towers are selected, the designs and heights may continue to change towards further refinement, just as they are for the WTC buildings in New York City. San Francisco should not settle for anything less in quality and attention. Having Renzo Piano design at least one of the towers is a good start.

Last edited by SFView; Oct 18, 2006 at 5:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2006, 6:56 AM
AK47KC AK47KC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 95616, 94030, HK
Posts: 246
San Francisco really need a supertall skyscraper in its skyline. Glad to hear about these proposals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2006, 10:52 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,688
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought there was a special meeting somewhere around late October, I dont think they will announce anything final at this meeting, so whats so special about it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Oct 18, 2006, 9:17 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
We need to wait for the agenda to be posted by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA) on or after Tuesday, October 24, before we can better know the reasons for this “special meeting” Friday, October 27 at noon, Room 400, City Hall. It is still possible we may be getting a better first hand update from the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency instead. Again, we should also wait until any agendas are published, or actual meetings take place. However the situation, it is good to keep on alert.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 12:04 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,688
I heard they had cancelled the other two meetings that should have already taken place. So, there might not be anything "special" about it besides the date. But its always exiting to hear new news from TJPA regarding Transbay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 12:21 AM
Lecom's Avatar
Lecom Lecom is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: the Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 12,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMGarcia
But SF too Manhattanized already? Not even close.
If anything, it's Manhattan that's been San Franciscized lately.

Not that it's too much of a bad thing though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 4:07 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Yes, Reminisence, you are probably right. I am actually expecting the official information to come from SFRA. I was just hoping we could get some kind of preview or hints of information from TJPA. Maybe, maybe not...

Even if San Francisco adds one or two, or even three +1000 foot supertalls, it is still a very long way from becoming another Manhattan or Hong Kong. However, the planners are looking at Vancouver and Chicago as models. We are already seeing such influences in new construction such as 300 Spear, One Rincon Hill and others.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 6:43 AM
AK47KC AK47KC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 95616, 94030, HK
Posts: 246
^^^ Sigh, yea, that is true, according to emporis.com SF has only like 398 highrises and compared to NYC and HK which have 5,503 and 7,548 highrises respectively, San Francisco cluster of highrises seems like a small dot to NYC and HK.
__________________
建筑物 Construction >300 m.
香港 HK: 環球貿易廣場 ICC, 如心廣場 Nina Tower I , 港島東中心 One Island East
纽约市 NYC: 自由塔 Freedom Tower, 美洲银行中心 Bank of America Tower, 纽约时报中心 NY Times Tower
芝加哥 Chicago: Trump Tower, Waterview Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 10:45 AM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47KC
^^^ Sigh, yea, that is true, according to emporis.com SF has only like 398 highrises and compared to NYC and HK which have 5,503 and 7,548 highrises respectively, San Francisco cluster of highrises seems like a small dot to NYC and HK.
as a san franciscan who now lives in new york, i would never like to see my hometown let highrises spread across san francisco as they do in new york. san francisco truly does have a special character, and that would be destroyed if we buried it under highrises. that's not to say that i don't support highrise development in certain neighborhoods (financial district, rincon/transbay, treasure island, nob hill, SoMa, the van ness corridor, civic center, and mid-market).

new york and san francisco are two completely different creatures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 5:25 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,688
For me, Transbay is just the start of a wave. Historically, I would think SF is known more for its building density than its building heights. However, with people growing more and more against urban sprawl, and with SF being such a small area city (compared with other cities), eventually the city will need to grow taller to keep up with demand. In terms of comparision between SF and Hong Kong or New York, its not really usefull as the two arent even in the same realm. But there is definetly plenty of space for highrises in the city, just ask the people who are against all those empty parking lots in the city, I know I am.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 8:45 PM
sf_eddo's Avatar
sf_eddo sf_eddo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hayes Valley, San Francisco
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47KC
^^^ Sigh, yea, that is true, according to emporis.com SF has only like 398 highrises and compared to NYC and HK which have 5,503 and 7,548 highrises respectively, San Francisco cluster of highrises seems like a small dot to NYC and HK.
Skyscrapers are nice and all, and most of the new skyscrapers get all the attention, but it's not a fluke that the most interesting and lively parts of the City are more or less those neighborhoods with 3-5 story buildings - the Haight, the Mission, the Marina, Chinatown, North Beach, etc. are not known for their height-defying buildings, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 9:33 PM
Dream'n's Avatar
Dream'n Dream'n is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence
For me, Transbay is just the start of a wave. Historically, I would think SF is known more for its building density than its building heights. However, with people growing more and more against urban sprawl, and with SF being such a small area city (compared with other cities), eventually the city will need to grow taller to keep up with demand. In terms of comparision between SF and Hong Kong or New York, its not really usefull as the two arent even in the same realm. But there is definetly plenty of space for highrises in the city, just ask the people who are against all those empty parking lots in the city, I know I am.
Man could you imagine San Francisco having a high rise building boom to the tune of Hong Kong's! I'm not really sure I'd like it but then again I would. I feel so ambiguous.
__________________
I ain't got time to BREED
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 9:53 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 972
Honestly, I would like to see the skyscrapers only on the east side of the city, just more and bigger. But the area between San Jose and San Francisco, for example, I honestly don't think skyscrapers would really fit (well, the business are fine, where there is already stuff, as it does fit in well), but I think a lot of the charm of the area would be lost if it was too heavily-developed.

Also, it would be badass to have some 20, 30, 40 story stuff in the East Bay (like downtown Concord, Walnut Creek)

Another prime area will be the 880 corridor - this area will just become more and more urban (cue music from Scion commercial) as the value goes up, and people choose to live here to save on commutes and take advantage of the location.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2006, 11:58 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,688


Exactly as kenratboy said it. I think right now, I'd just like to see more skyscrapers and taller, much taller.

Theres some of the Bay Area that I would think can never have tall skyscrapers because of the nearby airports and thier FAA height regulations.

Its hard to imagine SF like Hong Kong but I think a comparision between SF and Chicago are more realistic. Not that its a downturn because Chicago has some nice architecture too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2006, 4:01 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
This was one of the image panels in the Transbay Downtown Heights Study presented by SFRA last May 31, 2006.



Notice the clustering of towers around Transbay Terminal have similarities.


...And here is an image from a SFRA publication given about 2 years earlier showing two conceptual "550 and 450" foot tall Transbay residential towers. The towers seem to have Chicago feel about them. The imagined towers are probably closer in height to those at One Rincon Hill.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2006, 4:01 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Edit double post

Last edited by SFView; Oct 20, 2006 at 4:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2006, 5:01 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,688
If I remember right, the presentation that was made, reflected the modeling of the Transbay Tower project similar to the area around The John Hancock Center in Chicago(which would explain the images above). The only thing we have yet to know is what the approximate heights for Transbay will be. Even though there is speculation that it will be somwhere aound 1250 feet or more, who knows what might happen after these upcoming meetings, especially since the time slated for the design of the Transbay Towers themselves is up and coming soon. We may end up modeling after The Sears Tower or higher and not The John Hancock Center, I say this being curious just how high they intend on taking this project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2006, 5:04 AM
Fabb's Avatar
Fabb Fabb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 9,017
If the new plan is inspired by Chicago, we won't be disappointed.
I only hope that it won't be reduced in magnitude. Last time they did it (the Embarcadero center that was a pale version of the Rockefeller center), the result was pitiful.
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 12:28 PM.

     

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