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
     
     
  #921  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2007, 7:46 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
The Transbay downtown guidelines call for 3400 new housing units, and 1200 affordable units.

Who exactly qualifies for "affordable" housing in this city? For some reason, I don't think somebody like me, who worked through college, paid for most of my own school, and found it really hard to make ends meet, qualifies, but instead, those who are lazy welfare bums with 10 kids are better candidates (as is the case with all other governmental charities). How does one qualify and apply for an affordable housing candidate??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #922  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2007, 11:01 PM
OaktownRush OaktownRush is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10
Hey, did anyone else hear the NPR forum on Monday i think about the Transbay Terminal, they had all of the architects talk about why they believe their proposal was best.

Even though I think the SOM project is the best, Pelli did a much much better job selling his. Hes focused on talking about the park and ehy the new terminal will bring people together. I'm not sure if people will go to a park like that if its built (you would have to take escalators perhaps) but he was smart to talk about that.

The SOM one has an alternative proposal in case SF cant lift the ordinance that doesnt allow buildings to cast shade on parks. In the alternative one the building has alot of mirrors at the top designed to reflect sunlight down in order to pass the ordinance.

They had some commentators on to talk about the proposals, and they all seemed to favor SOM because it was environmentally friendly and also a little more daring than the Pelli one. No one seemed to take the Rogers one seriously on the air. Anyway, did anyone else here that on the radio?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #923  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2007, 11:18 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Thanks for the 411 Oaktown! Here is the link:

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R708141000

I didn't waste my time listening to John King's nonsense.

Cesar Pelli: "The park! The park!"

I agree that the park wouldn't get much use, and someone raised the good point that if the building were sold, the park could be destroyed or not well maintained. Really, that park could be built anywhere, and therefore shouldn't be seriously considered in the final outcome.

"It is an idea so big, and so important, that it is bound to happen." -Dean Macris

Last edited by tyler82; Aug 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #924  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2007, 11:52 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
The Transbay downtown guidelines call for 3400 new housing units, and 1200 affordable units.

Who exactly qualifies for "affordable" housing in this city? For some reason, I don't think somebody like me, who worked through college, paid for most of my own school, and found it really hard to make ends meet, qualifies, but instead, those who are lazy welfare bums with 10 kids are better candidates (as is the case with all other governmental charities). How does one qualify and apply for an affordable housing candidate??
there are different levels of affordability, but the majority are limited to "households with a combined income of no more than 100% of aera median income." for a project currently under construction that would mean the maximum amount a family of four could earn would be $80,319 to qualify. a single person would be limited to $56,200. there is a lot of information about this at http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_page.asp?id=48083
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #925  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2007, 11:53 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
I'm very curious what park SOM's proposal would shade? The ordinance as it stands now is only for city owned parks - so yerba buena would be exempt. Surely it couldnt cast a shadow all the way to union sq?
I expected John King to sound like a NIMBY - at one point he mentioned that he gets hate mail from both sides ..so.
I really see SOM as the only viable solution. I hope the TJPA see's the same.
I'd almost rather have the rogers one be built over the pelli. Pelli is sooooo boring. blah blah blah park. Hardly anyone uses the elevated park by the mall over by montgomery - and that is only 3 stories off the ground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #926  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 12:08 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by craeg View Post
I'm very curious what park SOM's proposal would shade? The ordinance as it stands now is only for city owned parks - so yerba buena would be exempt. Surely it couldnt cast a shadow all the way to union sq?
I expected John King to sound like a NIMBY - at one point he mentioned that he gets hate mail from both sides ..so.
I really see SOM as the only viable solution. I hope the TJPA see's the same.
I'd almost rather have the rogers one be built over the pelli. Pelli is sooooo boring. blah blah blah park. Hardly anyone uses the elevated park by the mall over by montgomery - and that is only 3 stories off the ground.
the shdow issue is definitely not unique to the SOM proposal - any of the proposals would shade union square, justin herman plaza, boedecker park, and possibly others for relatively short periods of time in the morning or evening.

the threshold for non-shadowing completely is not far from the current 550' height limit!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #927  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 12:08 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Does anybody else find it incredibly ironic that, across the street from this glorious transit only future hub and building, the Millennium Tower's entire base caters to valet parking and the allmighty vehicle?? What kind of statement does this say about SF, and how in the world can this alleviate congestion??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #928  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 4:38 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^Would YOU buy a $1M condo with no parking? Not many people would and developers are not as stupid as the SF Supes. Why not use the carrot of creating a good public transit system ( MUNI ) rather that the stick of trying to sell upscale condos with no place to stash the 5-series.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #929  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 4:42 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^Would YOU buy a $1M condo with no parking?
Yes.

People do it all over the world. SF is turning into LA more and more every day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #930  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 4:44 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^There aren't enough of you Tyler.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #931  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 4:57 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
union square is roughly a mile from the terminal. So a building 1375' casts a shadow almost a mile long?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #932  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 6:25 PM
PBuchman PBuchman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
^^^^ Union Square is around 3000 feet from the tower site, as the crow flies. Knowing the height of the building and the distance to Union Square you can solve the equation for shadow length to obtain the maximum altitude of the sun necessary for casting a shadow. This angle works out to be equal to arctan(1375/3000), or about 25 degrees.

So, if the sun's altitude is less than 25 degrees, and its azimuth is somewhere around 80 or 90 degrees (since Union Square is just slightly south of due-west from the tower site), a 1375 foot tower will cast a shadow on Union Square. This time of year this would occur around 7:00am.

More than half the year there would be no shadow cast on Union Square at all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #933  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 6:36 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by craeg View Post
union square is roughly a mile from the terminal. So a building 1375' casts a shadow almost a mile long?
at one hour after sunrise (per prop k), the sun is at about 9 degrees above the horizon. a nine degree right triangle with a 1200' short side has a 7500' long side...

however, that is NOT to say that all the schemes would cast major shadows on union square. with sun angles so low (10 to 25 degrees) there are already intervening buildings fully shadowing the square, and for most of the year the sun is not rising in the exact spot needed to cast a shadow in the precise direction from the transbay site to union square.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #934  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 8:02 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBuchman View Post
^^^^ Union Square is around 3000 feet from the tower site, as the crow flies. Knowing the height of the building and the distance to Union Square you can solve the equation for shadow length to obtain the maximum altitude of the sun necessary for casting a shadow. This angle works out to be equal to arctan(1375/3000), or about 25 degrees.

So, if the sun's altitude is less than 25 degrees, and its azimuth is somewhere around 80 or 90 degrees (since Union Square is just slightly south of due-west from the tower site), a 1375 foot tower will cast a shadow on Union Square. This time of year this would occur around 7:00am.

More than half the year there would be no shadow cast on Union Square at all.
Very nice, this made me recall some lessons from my calculus classes. This Union Square shadow topic isn't even a real concern in my opinion. Its not even a valid argument to use against this tower.
__________________
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
     
     
  #935  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 8:49 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
most of the year the sun is not rising in the exact spot needed to cast a shadow in the precise direction from the transbay site to union square.
And even during the limited time the sun is at the precise spot to cast a shadow there, it is completely hidden behind a blanket of fog more often than not (being early in the morning). It would be a shame to shrink this building because a sliver of shadow might fall on Union Square a couple days a year.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #936  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 10:55 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
And even during the limited time the sun is at the precise spot to cast a shadow there, it is completely hidden behind a blanket of fog more often than not (being early in the morning). It would be a shame to shrink this building because a sliver of shadow might fall on Union Square a couple days a year.
But that's the San Francisco way! I'm surprised we haven't turned into a third world country yet..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #937  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 12:48 AM
aluminum's Avatar
aluminum aluminum is offline
I love boxes.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 637
3000' shadow, thats means 25 degrees (or less) sun angle with horizon, thats right.

San Francisco is located at almost 37.5 degrees north. That means on Equinox days of March 21 and Sep 22 the angle of sun at noon will be 52.5 degrees from horizon. But many hours of the day it will be near 25 degrees or below.

In winter days sun's angle at noon will be 52.5 - 23.5 = 29 degrees only at days peak. Only 1 or 2 hours will it be more than 25 degrees. Rest hours, loooooong shadow.

At peak of summer days, sun's angle at noon = 52.5 + 23.5 = 76 degrees, most of the time it will be more than 25 degrees, but because of longer days, expect at least 3 to 5 hours of angle less than 25 degrees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PBuchman View Post

More than half the year there would be no shadow cast on Union Square at all.
More than half the year there would be shadow cast on Union Square.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #938  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 1:33 AM
PBuchman PBuchman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
^^^ aluminum - You've accounted for the solar altitude but not for the azimuth. As I stated previously, the requirement for casting a shadow on Union Square is a solar altitude < 25 degrees AND a solar azimuth of about 80 degrees (i.e. the sun must be in the northeastern sky).

At the equinoxes, the sun rises and sets at 90 and 270 degrees, respectively (+- about 1 degree due to atmospheric refraction.) It is only during the summer half of the year that the sun rises to the north of 90 degrees (and even less so that the sun is north of 80 degrees), which is a necessary criterion for shading the Square.

As I stated before, more than half the days of year there would be no shadow cast on Union Square at all. And considerably more than half at that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #939  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 2:55 AM
aluminum's Avatar
aluminum aluminum is offline
I love boxes.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 637
^^^ You are right that I didn't take azimuth into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBuchman View Post
AND a solar azimuth of about 80 degrees (i.e. the sun must be in the northeastern sky).
Hellooooooo, we are living in the Northern Hemisphere and north of Tropic of Cancer, Sun can NEVER, EVER be in northern eastern, north western or any northern sky.

Hey, If this Union Square is anywhere south of the building, it can NEVER cast a shadow on it. No matter what time, day or month it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #940  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 4:00 AM
PBuchman PBuchman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminum View Post
Hellooooooo, we are living in the Northern Hemisphere and north of Tropic of Cancer, Sun can NEVER, EVER be in northern eastern, north western or any northern sky.
That is simply not true.

I don't think you've completely thought through the dynamics of the seasonal variations in solar position. Here is a nice webpage that explains it:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=186

Also, here is the NOAA's solar position calculator:

http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/highlights/sunrise/azel.html

If you calculate San Francisco's sunrise azimuth for today's date, August 17, you'll find that it is 72.2 degrees. That's 17.8 degrees north of due-east. You can also confirm that sunrise coordinate with any number of astronomy or weather forecasting sites (or, simply, with your own eyes and a compass, provided that you're willing to get up at sunrise on a Saturday morning.)

My apologies to the forum for getting off-topic.

Quote:
If this Union Square is anywhere south of the building, it can NEVER cast a shadow on it.
Union Square is slightly south of the proposed tower, and it will indeed be shaded during the early morning hours on certain days of the year. As others have already noted, however, the shadow effect of the new tower will be substantially mitigated by the placement of existing buildings, the ubiquitous summer morning fog, and the fact that the early morning hours are not an especially busy time for Union Square tourists and sunbathers. As such, I can't imagine that it will be a major consideration for the city when working out the details of whatever proposal is chosen.
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 3:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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