HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2016, 6:02 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Interesting design, I like it.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2016, 6:10 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Interesting design, I like it.
Me too! Let's hope it gets built like that without being value engineered in any way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2016, 6:16 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Who is the developer?
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jul 3, 2016, 2:42 PM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,849
Love it!
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2016, 12:11 AM
boyinthecity's Avatar
boyinthecity boyinthecity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: san francisco
Posts: 91
an attractive, shorter sibling....

With Pelli Clarke Pelli being the architects, the materials and look are a nice fit with the salesforce tower. I really like the way the base of the tower curves and protrudes up and around the tunnel of the transit center.

Hope this one gets built before san francisco's "TechExit".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2016, 2:05 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Who is the developer?
Quote:
The site was recently purchased by a partnership of developers, Urban Pacific Development LLC and Hines, along with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS)'s Broad Street Principal Investments LLC.
Source
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2016, 4:13 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,859
Understated but the massing is really odd. At first glance the top portion looks much like McKesson Plaza, but now I see the fins. They actually make it worse for me (too much like 3 Wells Fargo in Charlotte). PCP does really nice when they have symmetry to work with. A parcel like this? Not so much. Looks like a poor mans KohnPedersenFox tower from the 90s but missing the crown and fussiness (see Montreal, Sydney, Frankfurt). A disappointment.
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2016, 7:58 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,039
I like what I see so far, but I still need to see what the building might like like from the east to more fairly judge it. It is also possible the design will be further refined before approved for construction. It is great to finally see this for the first time though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2016, 9:13 PM
hotwheels hotwheels is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 427
Renderings Released for Transbay Parcel F


Quote:
Following the 2011 demolition of San Francisco's 1939-built Art Deco Transbay Terminal, the first steps of a massive redevelopment project got underway. Although the central Transbay Transit Center is expected to open in 2017, the broader redevelopment plan calls for the addition of at least a dozen new towers for the immediate area, part of a city-building measure that will bring a significant amount of density to the heart of central San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 8:35 PM
tall/awkward tall/awkward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 85
I hope Parcel F turns out something like this other Pelli design, his unrequited design for Transbay Block 5, animated by Neorama on the link below (left column as you scroll down):

http://www.neorama.com/en/portfolio/

Last edited by tall/awkward; Sep 23, 2016 at 8:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 10:56 PM
don116 don116 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 119
Could be 806 ft

The latest plans cap it the tower off at 806 ft

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...-revealed.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 11:52 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,137
Wow that is great news- 806 ft. 62 floors. This will mean within a few years SF will have 3 towers over 800 feet., 1 over 1,000 feet., and 1 over 900 feet, plus the proposed lot near GGU that is around 700-800'+ but we have not had any concrete details or renderings yet.

Then the next tallest is BofA 555 California (or Trump SF tower) 778 feet.

I like that it's mixed use office/ condo/ hotel.

I wonder if 806' includes the crown?

Title change to reflect the new heights would be appreciated
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2016, 12:27 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
Wow that is great news- 806 ft. 62 floors. This will mean within a few years SF will have 3 towers over 800 feet., 1 over 1,000 feet., and 1 over 900 feet, plus the proposed lot near GGU that is around 700-800'+ but we have not had any concrete details or renderings yet.

Then the next tallest is BofA 555 California (or Trump SF tower) 778 feet.

I like that it's mixed use office/ condo/ hotel.

I wonder if 806' includes the crown?

Title change to reflect the new heights would be appreciated
The article says 64 floors.

555 California is 779', but more importantly, it is NOT Trump SF tower (that was practically a trolling comment). They own a 30% minority stake and Vornado Realty Trust owns 70%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2016, 3:39 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,039
It is 806 to the top of the parapet/highest point, and 64 floors including the mechanical on top. Since 181 Fremont is topped off by a thin 57 foot spire reaching only just 4 feet short of 806, Parcel F will generally appear taller by about 60 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2016, 1:58 AM
Justbuildit Justbuildit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
It is 806 to the top of the parapet/highest point, and 64 floors including the mechanical on top. Since 181 Fremont is topped off by a thin 57 foot spire reaching only just 4 feet short of 806, Parcel F will generally appear taller by about 60 feet.
That's terrific!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2017, 9:03 PM
don116 don116 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 119
They HAVE to put an observatory deck at the top of this tower. It's the last super tall in this part of the city. Should we start a petition??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2017, 7:43 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116 View Post
They HAVE to put an observatory deck at the top of this tower. It's the last super tall in this part of the city. Should we start a petition??
In an era of terrorism, decks open to the public are a huge risk. And they virtually require one or more elevators to service them alone (in a high end residential building, people paying that kind of money for an apartment wouldn't want to crowd into the elevator to get home with packs of tourists).

Even in all-office buildings, there are issues. The one trial in which I served as a juror involved a woman who was raped in an office building downtown arguing that the building OWNER was responsible because they allowed access to the building to the rapist (this in a building with many offices serving the public) and thus failed in a duty to provide security.

I'm sure that for both residential HOAs and the residents they represent and for commercial building owners and managers, there's almost nothing to be gained and a lot of hastle by having a building-top deck unless it can be combined with some function that makes money like a restaurant/bar. Even then, however, the recent record is that it isn't worth it (several such plaaces having closed).

I don't expect to see any observation decks in new towers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2017, 11:12 PM
don116 don116 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
In an era of terrorism, decks open to the public are a huge risk. And they virtually require one or more elevators to service them alone (in a high end residential building, people paying that kind of money for an apartment wouldn't want to crowd into the elevator to get home with packs of tourists).

Even in all-office buildings, there are issues. The one trial in which I served as a juror involved a woman who was raped in an office building downtown arguing that the building OWNER was responsible because they allowed access to the building to the rapist (this in a building with many offices serving the public) and thus failed in a duty to provide security.

I'm sure that for both residential HOAs and the residents they represent and for commercial building owners and managers, there's almost nothing to be gained and a lot of hastle by having a building-top deck unless it can be combined with some function that makes money like a restaurant/bar. Even then, however, the recent record is that it isn't worth it (several such plaaces having closed).

I don't expect to see any observation decks in new towers.
All the problems you're listing can be overcome and have been easily solved in other buildings around the world.

It's complicated for Parcel F because it will already have 3 lobbies for residential, office, and hotel. They should have done it at Salesforce Tower which is all office.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 1:39 AM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116 View Post
All the problems you're listing can be overcome and have been easily solved in other buildings around the world.

It's complicated for Parcel F because it will already have 3 lobbies for residential, office, and hotel. They should have done it at Salesforce Tower which is all office.
The elevator problem is a nonstarter. They have to build the building with at least one elevator specifically for the top floor, and that means taking floor space from every single floor in the building. With the price of office space in SF being so high, it would be a foolish move to give up your penthouse floor and a few percentage points of every floor in the building. This building has a small footprint compared to something like the Empire State Building.

The lobby problem is also a big one. The lobby for tourists to enter for this elevator would take more space than a lobby just for residents or office workers, who basically just use the lobby as an entry point and not like a queue and kiosk mix.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2017, 4:51 AM
don116 don116 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
The elevator problem is a nonstarter. They have to build the building with at least one elevator specifically for the top floor, and that means taking floor space from every single floor in the building. With the price of office space in SF being so high, it would be a foolish move to give up your penthouse floor and a few percentage points of every floor in the building. This building has a small footprint compared to something like the Empire State Building.

The lobby problem is also a big one. The lobby for tourists to enter for this elevator would take more space than a lobby just for residents or office workers, who basically just use the lobby as an entry point and not like a queue and kiosk mix.
More excuses. The same could have been said about the Shard in London, One WTC, Empire State Building, Willis Tower...the list goes on. SF planners and developers love to find reasons not to do something and make no effort to work around 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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 PM.

     

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