SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 38

tyler82 · #**741** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 4:17 PM**

With a voting sample of 2882, SOM is beating Pelli in the SF Gate polls by 41%- 37%. The SF population clearly prefers SOM over the simple Pelli design, which is a very good thing! With a building like SOM's in our skyline, we can recapture our prominence in the world and finally have a graceful, world class skyline.
The problem with the skyline now is that all of the propositions and opposition in the past to tall towers created a weird table effect that sloped down to one side, very unsightly from most angles and not pleasant to the eye. This tower would beef up our city into one of the most dynamic skylines in the world. And I LOVE that SOM is based in SF, which means they probably have a better chance of winning, politics wise.

paulsfca · #**742** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 5:06 PM**

I voted for SOM in SF Gate's poll and highly praised the SOM design in an email to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. This design is world class and breath-taking.

caramatt · #**743** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 5:38 PM**

Remember that the TJPA jury is basing 60% of their selection on the terminal, and the remaining 40% on the tower. In that sense, I would actually say that Rogers has a fair chance, and it really could be considered anyone's game.

pizzaman355 · #**744** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy

Anyone have a bigger picture of the floorplan as shown in this picture?

Thanks!

Just right click on the pic and save it. Then go to MY PICTURES and you can zoom in on it.

NYC2ATX · #**745** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

OMG

I just...wow. I'm awed.

caramatt · #**746** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 6:33 PM**

Wow, based on the way this thread is going, it's starting to seem like I'm the only one still rooting for PCP. Oh well. They just put a new rendering up for the crown on their website which gives a bit more detail. Here ya go:

NYC2ATX · #**747** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 6:34 PM**

However, the SOM skyscraper itself, I'm not crazy about....it may grow on me. I feel though, that if this is selected, there will be a tweaking period. Hopefully we don't lose that fantastic terminal. I'd adjust to that skyscraper to keep THAT TERMINAL...WOW!

ltsmotorsport · #**748** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 6:47 PM**

Yeah, the SOM terminal is absolutely stunning. And the more I look at it, the more I love SOM's tower design too. It integrates so well with the terminal and you can tell there was a lot of work put into the design of both tower and terminal.

plinko · #**749** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 7:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

SOM proposal blows everything out of the water. The terminal design integrated with the tower is the sexiest thing I've seen in a long time.

I do think though Rogers' tower would look great in Europe somewhere. Maybe London or Frankfurt.

Couldn't agree more Mike...

I'd rate them as follows:
1. SOM - that undulating shape is completely unique. Hartman really outdid himself. And while it may have the same structural concept as the Shanghai building, it's vastly superior in terms of visual elegance. That tower is the hot girl in the slinky dress sipping a martini. The integration of the terminal design seems to be great too, and SOM as a firm is notable for getting function right first. Hopefully that's the case here.

2. Rogers - A noted detail guy, it's very difficult to judge the true nature and layering of his design, but I see it as a very iconic and functional thing. The homage to the GG or Sutro are fine with me. My immediate reaction was that it would look amazing in the Frankfurt skyline. This is the girl it takes longer to know, but once you do you figure out that she's amazingly complex.

3. Pelli - Count me as one of those odd tower lovers who find 2IFC and GS to be decidedly uninteresting. They might be tall, they might have intricate but subtle facades, but they both are essentially background buildings when they should be straight up stars. I fear that this tower (the enlarged crown rendering did nothing to help allay this for me) is no different. Big, nice, and safe. Not what this contest should be about. A park 6 stories above the street? Pretty yes, probably an amazing public space, but likely to be VASTLY empty most of the time. This is the girl who has something going for her, but you take the chance only because you know she's a sure thing.

tyler82 · #**750** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caramatt

Remember that the TJPA jury is basing 60% of their selection on the terminal, and the remaining 40% on the tower. In that sense, I would actually say that Rogers has a fair chance, and it really could be considered anyone's game.

What does Rogers' terminal got that SOM's doesn't got? Care to enlighten me?

caramatt · #**751** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 8:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

What does Rogers' terminal got that SOM's doesn't got? Care to enlighten me?

Nothing specific, I'd say they're about equal - which is why I said it could be anyone's game. Here are some renders of Roger's terminal from his website, which to me really looks like it captures the spirit of a transit station along with some beautifully integrated feats of engineering:

Honestly, I'm really basing it on his Barjas airport, which is stunning, and since they actually look to be so similiar, I'll throw up some images of that as well:

Looking at these images again now compared to the renders, the terminal proposal actually looks extremely derivative of Barajas, but again, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing when the quality is so high.

kenratboy · #**752** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaman355

Just right click on the pic and save it. Then go to MY PICTURES and you can zoom in on it.

There is no more detail to be had by saving the picture and zooming in...you just zoom in on the image and the pixels get bigger, you do not get anymore detail. Try it yourself and see what I mean.

I am actually trying to see details on those floorplans (see how they laid out the building).

tyler82 · #**753** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 8:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by caramatt

Nothing specific, I'd say they're about equal - which is why I said it could be anyone's game. Here are some renders of Roger's terminal from his website, which to me really looks like it captures the spirit of a transit station along with some beautifully integrated feats of engineering:

It looks more like it captures the spirit of a McDonald's playplace. What's with all the yellow??? Doesn't fit into downtown SF. I really like this tower, although I think it could be perfected, but it just doesn't fit into the city! It looks like it would be another Sutro Tower disaster.

pizzaman355 · #**754** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 8:54 PM**

hectorant84 · #**755** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 10:15 PM**

OH MAHHHH GAH!!! The more I look @ the design by Rogers the more I'm disgusted. I hate that tower design. It's ugly. That doesn't belong in San Francisco. I thought San Francisco had a new motto... "world class design." Not a building that looks handicapped with a back brace on each corner. SOM's design reminds me of the Freedom Tower in NYC and SF needs something like that. I'm tired of looking at the giant refrigerator boxes in the financial district. Ugh.

kenratboy · #**756** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 11:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pizzaman355

Thanks!!!

Interesting that there are two cores towards the top, and what is up with the void in the middle?

BTinSF · #**757** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 11:38 PM**

^^^Mr. Hartmann described the double cores as a major engineering feature of the building allowing, among other things, the rather grand passthrough from Mission St. to the terminal. And I can't recall if it also separates the core utiities from the office and/or hotel segments from those of the residential (one of the projects mentioned that) but it certainly could.

tyler82 · #**758** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 12:09 AM**

My biggest hope for this project is that if something around 1500' is built, we could have a bunch of 900- 1000' buildings in the downtown area, as it will somewhat cure the anti- high rise sentiment in the past, because "view blocking" arguments won't work, if there is already a huge tower in place. This one building could be the best thing for a new, taller downtown!

When in hell is Piano releasing his renderings?? I'm visioning a supertall cylindrical shape with brown/ beige terra cotta exterior- very simple and elegant.

craeg · #**759** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 12:21 AM**

I for one hope that the piano renderings are not released anytime soon. The reception for the transbay tower in SF has been pretty damn positive for dont change anything anywhere ever San Francisco. I'm worried that an additional 2-3 towers in the 1k+ category would just be too much too soon.

Reminiscence · #**760** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craeg

I for one hope that the piano renderings are not released anytime soon. The reception for the transbay tower in SF has been pretty damn positive for dont change anything anywhere ever San Francisco. I'm worried that an additional 2-3 towers in the 1k+ category would just be too much too soon.

Strange, but I agree. As much as I would love to hear about Renzo's towers right now, I think they should plan it carefully. Right now we're seeing mixed reaction for just one of the many towers to get built. I think they should be carefull to not give the public the idea that you're going on a building rampage. I think that about the time when they're ready to break ground on this tower (give or take a few months), it should be ok for them to reveal Piano's towers.