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
     
     
  #641  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:31 AM
briankendall briankendall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 72
Here are some of my observations.

SOM PRESENTATION: The clear winner was SOM. Their design was the best for a number of reasons.

1.) THE PRESENTATION overall was the clearest and most concise. Craig Hartman was really well spoken. The group had by far the best graphics and gave the most detail about the design overall. They went into detail about how it was a Platinum LEED, the green building materials, how it would react in an earthquake, what the uses were in the building, etc.

2. THE DESIGN of the tower was superb. I loved that the tower was a reference to the Eiffel Tower as they mentioned. This tapering feature gave the tower the strongest presence. The building felt like a true monument. The criss-cross design of both the tower and station was wonderful and elegant and was more complex and much more statisfying that Pelli's simpler design. I love the 120' base of the building with the passthrough that reminded me of the tall square elegance of La Defense. The 90'? tall graphics from MOMA that would be projected on the sides and top of the space was totally ingenious and very dramatic. When they put up the presentations in the North Light Court people were clearly gravitating to this design far more than the others. I also loved that the Sutro Library was going in the building(currently its near Stonestown... its a CA state library that has amazing genealogical information)

3. THE HEIGHT of the building was greater than the others. I asked the presenters and they confirmed it was 1200' to roof and 175' more for the crown for a total of 1375'. The model of the tower absolutely made it look like it was 1,600' though. In the model the tower was 2.5 times taller than The Millenium tower of 645'. The tower looked incredibly tall. I was surprised that it was only 1,375' (maybe it really is 1,600' and it will grow?! why would the model of the tower be out of scale to the surrounding buildings?) The architects also told me the building had 92 floors. There were 42 floors of housing at the top and on the very top were a few floors of public space that would have a cafe or restaurant (I asked the architect) and the upper floors were event spaces that would be operated by the hotel. The only thing I didn't like was that the narrow side of the tower was the side that faced the bay. The wider part faced north and south. But I loved how the tower looked different at different angles with twists and turns.

PELLI PRESENTATION:

The Pelli presentation was a clear second place. Unfortantely like the Rogers presentation it was difficult to hear them and it was a bit disjointed. They spent at least 65% of the presentation talking about the damn 5 acre park on top of the transit center. I loved the park and the design especially the openings that looked down on the inside and were ringed by Canary Island palms. Brilliant design although very few San Francisco roof gardens get used that much and this one is at least a few floors above the street level. I just don't see it as being utilized that much especially in this location (as opposed to Yerba Buena Gardens which feels very accessable and is well used.)

They focused on the park so much that Mr. Pelli only spoke about the tower for 2 minutes. And they didn't spend too much time talking about the functions and design of the interiors of the transit center too. It was very strange and lame that they didn't time their presentation ahead of time. The tower design was nice but boring and just like in the prestation where it was only spoken about for 2 minutes the tower felt like an after thought. The tower seemed to be the shortest (1,100'?) which I did not like at all. I am curious what the height is. The tower also seemed too similiar to Mr. Pelli's other grid-like tower across the street on Mission, which I love but why reference it... come up with something new! It was really dissappointing that like the Rogers tower it didn't excite me at all... not like SOM tower did which actually gave me goose bumps... yes I admit it.

ROGERS PRESENTATION

The Rogers presentation like the Pelli one was disjointed. Too many presenters and I could barely understand Rogers. The design didn't fit in with the aesthetics of San Francisco at all. The only thing I liked about the tower was how it was in designed with three, clear sections which was dramatic and unusual but the red "scaffolding" on the tower with all the exposed ductwork and exterior elevators is a really outdated concept even it was a reference to the Golden Gate Bridge (or Sutro Tower! at the worst) which was nice but the tower should not have to reference anything... it should have been a strong design unlike anything else like the the SOM tower was. It wasn't elegant or iconic. It did not inspire. Also, he didn't seem to have a clear understanding that this thing would really age physically in our damp foggy weather (exposed elevators on the outside...come on!) And at probably 1,100' to the roof an 1,286' to the top it was too short if the 1,200 foot Renzo towers get built. I wanted it to be 300' taller.

Last edited by briankendall; Aug 7, 2007 at 6:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #642  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:53 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by briankendall View Post
Here are some of my observations.

SOM PRESENTATION: The clear winner was SOM. Their design was the best for a number of reasons.

1.) THE PRESENTATION overall was the clearest and most concise. Craig Hartman was really well spoken. The group had by far the best graphics and gave the most detail about the design overall. They went into detail about how it was a Platinum LEED, the green building materials, how it would react in an earthquake, what the uses were in the building, etc.

2. THE DESIGN of the tower was superb. I loved that the tower was a reference to the Eiffel Tower as they mentioned. This tapering feature gave the tower the strongest presence. The building felt like a true monument. The criss-cross design of both the tower and station was wonderful and elegant and was more complex and much more statisfying that Pelli's simpler design. I love the 120' base of the building with the passthrough that reminded me of the tall square elegance of La Defense. The 90'? tall graphics from MOMA that would be projected on the sides and top of the space was totally ingenious and very dramatic. When they put up the presentations in the North Light Court people were clearly gravitating to this design far more than the others. I also loved that the Sutro Library was going in the building(currently its near Stonestown... its a CA state library that has amazing genealogical information)

3. THE HEIGHT of the building was greater than the others. I asked the presenters and they confirmed it was 1200' to roof and 175' more for the crown for a total of 1375'. The model of the tower absolutely made it look like it was 1,600' though. It was 2.5 times taller that The Millenium tower of 645'. The tower looked incredibly tall. I was surprised that it was only 1,375' because at that height it was clearly not to scale with the surrounding buildings of the model (maybe it really is 1,600' and it will grow?!) The architects also told me the building had 92 floors. There were 42 floors of housing at the top and on the very top were a few floors of public space that would have a cafe or restaurant (I asked the architect) and the upper floors were event spaces that would be operated by the hotel. The only thing I didn't like was that the narrow side of the tower was the side that faced the bay. The wider part faced north and south. But I loved how the tower looked different at different angles with twists and turns.

PELLI PRESENTATION:

The Pelli presentation was a clear second place. Unfortantely like the Rogers presentation it was difficult to hear them and it was a bit disjointed. They spent at least 65% of the presentation talking about the damn 5 acre park on top of the transit center. I loved the park and the design especially the openings that looked down on the inside and were ringed by Canary Island palms. Brilliant design although very few San Francisco roof gardens get used that much and this one is at least a few floors above the street level. I just don't see it as being utilized that much especially in this location (as opposed to Yerba Buena Gardens which feels very accessable and is well used.)

They focused on the park so much that Mr. Pelli only spoke about the tower for 2 minutes. And they didn't spend too much time talking about the functions and design of the interiors of the transit center too. It was very strange and lame that they didn't time their presentation ahead of time. The tower design was nice but boring and just like in the prestation where it was only spoken about for 2 minutes the tower felt like an after thought. The tower seemed to be the shortest (1,100'?) which I did not like at all. I am curious what the height is. The tower also seemed too similiar to Mr. Pelli's other grid-like tower across the street on Mission, which I love but why reference it... come up with something new! It was really dissappointing that like the Rogers tower it didn't excite me at all... not like SOM tower did which actually gave me goose bumps... yes I admit it.

ROGERS PRESENTATION

The Rogers presentation like the Pelli one was disjointed. Too many presenters and I could barely understand Rogers. The design didn't fit in with the aesthetics of San Francisco at all. The only thing I liked about the tower was how it was in designed with three, clear sections which was dramatic and unusual but the red "scaffolding" on the tower with all the exposed ductwork and exterior elevators is a really outdated concept even it was a reference to the Golden Gate Bridge (or Sutro Tower! at the worst) which was nice but the tower should not have to reference anything... it should have been a strong design unlike anything else like the the SOM tower was. It wasn't elegant or iconic. It did not inspire. Also, he didn't seem to have a clear understanding that this thing would really age physically in our damp foggy weather (exposed elevators on the outside...come on!) And at probably 1,100' to the roof an 1,286' to the top it was too short if the 1,200 foot Renzo towers get built. I wanted it to be 300' taller.
I'm with you on this one Brian, great job breaking it down. I also thought that SOM's tower was way taller than what they said. I was banking on at least 1500' and easily over 100 floors. Even though its likely the specifics will change over the next few months, I hope they change for the taller dirrection. Rogers proposal for the external elevators did not call my attention too much. I do however think the tower should have at least one panoramic elevator (like the one featured on the Glass Tower in the movie "The Towering Inferno"). A tower as beautiful as SOM's deserves to be at least 1500'.

Is it possible that the height given does not take into account the tower's open base, in which the actual height would be closer to 1475'-1500' or so? Also, I noted some tall building next to the SOM model, that looked like they were in the location of Piano's proposed towers. They certainly did not look like 1200' tall, but more like 800' - 900'.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #643  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 6:53 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by LWR View Post
If I were to choose one, based only upon the exact three photographed here, I would have to choose either Pelli or SOM. The other structure is much less elegant.

Nothing wrong with an elegant city hosting an elegant tower.
Elegantly stated LWR!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #644  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:04 AM
dl3000's Avatar
dl3000 dl3000 is offline
500 foot Groundscraper
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 492
Pelli fits in with the rest of the skyline, SOM is too Dubai, not the old established city of San Francisco. Pelli's is elegant and simple and provides a nice urban garden. I also like how it is sleek, like a 21st century Transamerica Pyramid.
__________________
"San Diego...drink it in, it always goes down smooth" - Ron Burgundy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #645  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:24 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^Once again, are YOU going to climb up six flights for your urban garden experience? And if not you, who in this neighborhood which, in spite of all the happy talk, is mostly offices? Cubicle gnomes playing hooky? Most of the time it's going to be pretty cold and windy up there.

Anyway, it's moot. When Chris Daly gets through forcing them to dump half that 1.6 million sq ft of office and offer 160,000 sq ft of affordable housing and 800,000 sq ft of total housing, Hines either won't want to build it or will want to cheapen it drastically.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #646  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:24 AM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 223
I really like SOMs design. iconic and elegant. But with all the political committees and approval process in SF, we will probably end up with Roger's design half the size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #647  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:31 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
I have given my proxy to Sylvia Johnson and I urge everyone to do the same . If you haven't a clue what I'm talking about, you needed either to be there or to have seen the final question period on TV.
LOL. I have done the same
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #648  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:35 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642
Well, all these proposals are quite impressive but I'm going to go with SOM's design as my favorite of the proposals. A tower like the one below would be look amazing in SF. Lastly, the terminal design is not lacking anything either.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #649  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:36 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,720
I feel a lot like I did after the LONG wait for a final freedom tower design. The waiting really is the hardest part but really, after having a look at these designs: San Francisco can't lose.

I'm sure all of these designs are still going to change a bit but the ideas expressed in the renderings and models are world class and I have no doubt that the final result will be also.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #650  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:38 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
For me, it's SOM all the way.

Although if you happened to be at the presentation, you might have heard that the Pelli proposal comes with some sort of "park". (100 times? 200 times? How many times do you think he said the word "park") A park below an all office building six stories up in the air is a waste though - sorry - cool idea, but won't get used.

The Rogers terminal was horrid. This project is about building a new transit center and a building - the Rogers team completely phoned in the transit center compared to the other two.

Last edited by Gordo; Aug 7, 2007 at 7:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #651  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 7:58 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Tyler gave us some quotes from John King's article to be published in tomorrow's Chron but here's the whole thing:

Quote:
BOLD PLANS FOR THE TRANSBAY TERMINAL
The West Coast's tallest building: 3 competing ideas show audacity that adds to the city's rising skyline

John King and Jonathan Curiel, Chronicle Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
More...
Three competing proposals for what would be the tallest building on the West Coast were unveiled Monday in San Francisco amid architectural hyperbole and political buzz.

There's no guarantee that any of the towers will be built, or that the design to be selected next month by public officials will reach the heights envisioned by the development teams. But the audacity of the designs -- and the favorable response from elected officials -- showed that the recent startling changes to the city's skyline are only a prelude to what could lie ahead.

"There they are," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said with a wave of his right hand as black mesh was pulled from three lavish large models. The event was held in a crowded event room at City Hall filled with dozens of people and several television crews. "Today is an historic day."

The three proposals range in height from 1,200 feet to 1,375 feet -- each extending well past the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid, the tallest tower in San Francisco. And each is accompanied by a transit terminal that is intended to function as a major civic gateway.

The competition is being held by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a regional government body created in 2001 to bring about the construction of a new transit terminal in San Francisco that backers say could become the regional equivalent of Grand Central Station.

The authority would sell or lease the tower site to a developer, with the proceeds going toward the estimated $983 million cost of the terminal and related infrastructure projects, such as new bus-only ramps from the Bay Bridge.

While the public attention is likely to be on the towers, public officials stress the transportation payoff of the new terminal located one block from Market Street and BART.

"Through this facility we can create a statement to the rest of the world while creating a seamless transportation network connecting the Bay Area to the rest of the region and state," said San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill, who chairs the Transbay authority's board of directors. "It will make daily commutes and longer trips easier."

Long-term plans for the transit complex include an extension of commuter rail lines from where they now stop at Fourth and King streets. The design would also allow for high-speed rail service from Southern California, although there is lukewarm support from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for putting a bond for such a system on the ballot.

In the early years of planning for the new terminal, it was assumed that any tower alongside it would climb no higher than 55o feet, the zoning cap now in the neighborhood. Now, though, public officials say the extra height is merited -- not just to boost the land sales, but to reflect the importance of mass transit and to show that San Francisco continues to measure itself against other cities of global status that also are seeing super tall towers proposed or built.

"It's certainly a banner day for San Francisco," said Dean Macris, the city's planning director. "One hundred years ago, no one could have imagined the city it is today."

Each of the bidders seized the opportunity to push the design envelope.

The most visually dramatic proposal is from a team that includes Skidmore Owings Merrill and Rockefeller Group Development Corp.

The team proposes a tower that would fold and twist as it rises and is topped by a publicly accessible rooftop space wrapped in glass. The first floor would be lifted 100 feet above the street.

By comparison, the design by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects for Houston-based developer Hines is relatively tame: a tapering, obelisk-shaped tower with a sleek skin. At the base there would be a glass-covered public square, while the transit station would be topped by an open-air rooftop garden extending more than two city blocks.

The third proposal is from a team that includes the Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, working for developers Forest City Enterprises and McFarlane Partners.

Like many designs by English architect Richard Rogers, this one has a muscular look. It rises straight up from a plaza on Mission Street and is topped by an enormous wind turbine framed by portions of the tower's metal structure that extends past the roof.

With an eye toward environmental issues, each of the three designs also emphasizes sustainable design elements such as the turbine.

For all the hoopla connected to the idea of a skyline-topping tower, there's no guarantee that any of the visions unveiled on Monday will be built -- or even that they'll be the deciding factor in determining which team wins the right to conduct exclusive negotiations with the authority.

Each proposal was evaluated in private last week at Fort Mason by an appointed jury that includes architects and engineers as well as a transportation expert and a real estate analyst. The jury will present its recommendation to the authority board on Aug. 30.

In evaluating the three proposals, jury members are directed to base 60 percent of their evaluation on the design for the transit station and on "functionality and technical issues," according to the evaluation sheet. As for the tower evaluation, economics are every bit as important as aesthetics, indicated by such directives as "The jury will focus on the timing and amount of revenue to the TJPA and the overall financial feasibility of the Tower proposal."

Another unresolved issue: how tall the tower will be allowed to be.

City planning officials aren't shy about wanting an extremely tall tower, and they encouraged the types of height in the proposals unveiled on Monday. But a full environmental study is needed before zoning can be changed -- and the formal planning work to test such heights only now is getting underway.

Whatever proposals do emerge will be scrutinized by potential foes in a city traditionally wary of high-rises. Indeed, a voter-approved proposition from 1984 makes it difficult to erect any tower that will cast shade on a public park. Tower foes also have allies at the city's Building Inspection Commission, where several members in the past year have voiced skepticism about the seismic safety of the narrow towers preferred by the city's Planning Department.

Still, support for the tower is considerable.

Besides public officials, it includes a number of environmental groups who in the past have lobbied for height limits but now see mass transit as a critical issue for the region. There's also support from civic groups that want to concentrate development in the core of the city -- the same impulse that prompted the residential towers now rising between Mission Street and the Bay Bridge.

But the tallest such tower -- One Rincon, which was recently topped off at Harrison and Fremont streets -- is 550 feet tall. Others near it are allowed to be no more than 450 feet. That's half the height of what the three development teams are proposing.

The Transbay authority is scheduled to vote on September 20 to select the development team. The goal is to have the new transit station in operation by 2014.


This is the Pelli Clarke Pelli proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal as seen from an aerial view. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and WRNS Studio and Hines


This is the Pelli Clarke Pelli proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal as seen from the bus level interior. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and WRNS Studio and Hines


This is the Pelli Clarke Pelli proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal as seen from Mission Square. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and WRNS Studio and Hines


The Rogers Stirk Harbour proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners and Forest City Enterprises in partnership with MacFarlane Partners with SMWM/Adamson/Arup/Olin Partnership


The Rogers Stirk Harbour proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners and Forest City Enterprises in partnership with MacFarlane Partners with SMWM/Adamson/Arup/Olin Partnership


The Skidmore Owings Merrill proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal as seen from SOM Park View. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Skidmore Owings Merrill LLC and Rockefeller Group Development Corporation


The Skidmore Owings Merrill proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal as seem from SOM South East Aerial. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Skidmore Owings Merrill LLC and Rockefeller Group Development Corporation


The Skidmore Owings Merrill proposed design concept for the Transbay Terminal as seen from SOM Tower Plaza. Illustration courtesy of Transbay Joint Powers Authority and Skidmore Owings Merrill LLC and Rockefeller Group Development Corporation

Online resources

For more information about the Transbay Terminal competition:

links.sfgate.com/ZOG
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...7/TRANSBAY.TMP
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #652  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:11 AM
SNT1 SNT1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 177
And the winner is... Pelli!

Love the 2IFC-esque design. Rogers' is meh. SOM's is alright but I just prefer Pelli's more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #653  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:35 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Do they want to put the affordable housing in the tower itself?? For some reason, $1 Billion transit center budget and affordable housing do not add up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #654  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:38 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
WOW, all three are amazing. I had high expectations but all three matched or exceeded them especially in regard to the terminal concepts. Really San Fran can't go wrong whichever way is chosen and San Fran should be proud whichever is selected. All should cement the perception of SF separating from the long jam of 3rd best skyline in the U.S. in my opinion. If I had to select I would steer towards

SOM
Pelli
Rogers

The only area where I think the SOM takes a backseat to the other two is the crown. While still nice I think the other two finish off a bit better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #655  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:47 AM
SNT1 SNT1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 177
I think SanFran already has the 3rd best skyline (if anything, 3rd best Postcardable skyline) in the USA. But this will close the huge gap from the top two by a bit! (just a bit)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #656  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:03 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Do they want to put the affordable housing in the tower itself?? For some reason, $1 Billion transit center budget and affordable housing do not add up!
San Francisco requires at least 12% of new housing to be affordable, I believe (someone will correct me if I've got the percentage off a bit but it doesn't matter--keep reading). That can be on-site or off-site. I did not hear any of these proposals say anything about off-site housing. Pelli/Hines (I'm betting mainly Hines) seems to want to finesse the issue by simply not having any housing. That won't work. Like I said, Daly has already said he doesn't oppose height per se but he wants affordable housing--I'm betting he will not only demand a substantial part of the project be housing but that 20%, perhaps more, of it be affordable. Sorry, Tyler, but that's the reality of SF politics. I think it's crazy too, but it's reality.

If it were up to me, I'd just be content for the city to get a first class transit terminal for the least amount of money and let it go at that. But I'm a hardcore capitalist pig.

One possible out for Hines would be to negotiate a contribution to the city's affordable housing coffers equivalent to the value of the amount of affordable units the city wants and they don't want to build. Then let a non-profit developer actually build them somewhere else. But so far I haven't even heard them offer that. And my impression has always been that Hines in particular gives nothing away--they will resist and if pushed too far they will walk away.

That's just one more reason I'd go with SOM if I were making the decision.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #657  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:46 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
With all the proposals aside, I think the meeting itself was a little out of order. Richard Rogers left me with a somewhat bad taste. They kept forcing him to repeat his name and interrupted him various times in the process. Also, there were way too many people up there speaking on his behalf, it was hard to understand some of the things they were talking about.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill did a nice job presenting. They had nice graphics and media to display and a good timed presentation overall. Naturally its what I would expect of a group such as them, very professional.

Pelli Clarke Pelli and Hines also dissapointed me. They spent about 28 of the 30 allowed minutes talking about the park and the terminal. They even had to go ovetime a few minutes while they rushed the tower portion of the presentation. I dont even think they showed all the slides for the tower.

All this and some of the people up for comment failed as well. One person went up and asked about some sort of restaurant at the top of tower and said they should include one. I thought it was wrong, clearly because the architect himself is present, heh. Then you got a lady come up and speak something into the microphone. I tell you, I could not understand a word she was saying, and I felt sorry for the person in charge of the captions, some of the parts were labeled as "inaudible", which called for some laughs here and there. Not what I expected to find at such a meeting, but I guess we all could use a laugh here and there.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #658  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 10:25 AM
sfmetropolitan sfmetropolitan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1
Thumbs up

Som all the way. Wow!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #659  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 1:35 PM
BANKofMANHATTAN's Avatar
BANKofMANHATTAN BANKofMANHATTAN is offline
Go Pens!
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 414
Pelli's is the better in my opinion, SOM's is decent, I don't care for the Rogers really, maybe if it were a different color...

What happened to the two 800' towers?
__________________
ONWARD & UPWARD
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #660  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 2:13 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
^those will be seperate proposals.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
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 9:10 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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