HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper 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 7.69%
#2 Cesar Pelli 87 19.12%
#3 SOM 333 73.19%
Voters: 455. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #701  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:47 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGII View Post


That looks AWESOME. Those new renders dispelled all of my fears of the SOM project. SOM all the way.
I'm with you 100%. Looks hot.

Oh, and 1375 feet - no complaints. I would like to see one other building over 1000 feet, though
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #702  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 9:48 PM
caramatt caramatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
I think the biggest problem I have with Pelli's design is the fact that there is already another building in Hong Kong with pretty much the same design going on. Because of this, we wont really get a unique building in San Francisco. Plus 2 IFC is taller than Pelli's proposal, which doesnt sit well with me. Its ok and all, but its been done, its been used. SOM's on the other hand, I dont recall any single building in the world that reminds me of that.
I still have to disagree with that. I had posted this before, but you may have missed it, or also may not agree that it's very similiar; it's SOM's Shanghai Center which is currently under proposal for construction. This new type of external support structure I think will become more and more popular in the future. It'll only be a matter of time until we can also say it's been done (plus Shanghai will undoubtedly get that thing up faster than passing through the hurdles of the planning process here in SF).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #703  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 10:04 PM
Para Para is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29
SOM's is stunning. It's a design that just demands attention, and for a cities tallest building, it should.

Pelli's is good, although I do agree with the similarities between 2IFC, not that that s a bad thing however.

The other tower.......isn't doing it for me. I can see where they were going with it, but it just doesn't work for me at all.

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out.







That, and if SOM's really needs a home after the contest, I'll take SOM's in my city any day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #704  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 10:18 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by caramatt View Post
I still have to disagree with that. I had posted this before, but you may have missed it, or also may not agree that it's very similiar; it's SOM's Shanghai Center which is currently under proposal for construction. This new type of external support structure I think will become more and more popular in the future. It'll only be a matter of time until we can also say it's been done (plus Shanghai will undoubtedly get that thing up faster than passing through the hurdles of the planning process here in SF).
I'm not trying to give any of the proposals a bad image (except for Rogers, which is just ... not good). I think the shape of the building itself will trigger an idea in more people's heads. In my opinion, this is a major reason why Transamerica has remained so popular all these years, where else do you find an 853' tall white pyramid in a city? The shape is what comes to people's mind, and if they see two or three buildings with the same shape, then its not really unique to the city, this is basically what I'm saying. Dont get me wrong, 2 IFC and Shanghai Center are very nice buildings, but I dont know how well it would do to put up another one and call it "the" SF skyscraper, just my opinion. I'd much rather pick SOM's for the tallest tower, and Pelli's for one of the shorter towers, heh.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #705  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 10:27 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Para View Post

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out..
According to SF GATE, their readers are split evenly over SOM and Pelli. Of course, it isn't up to us at all, it's up to the judges on Aug. 20!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #706  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 10:30 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
I dont know if people have seen it already, or if its been posted, but SOM has its article on its website covering its proposal.

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/trans...nter_and_tower
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #707  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 10:43 PM
Newcastle Kid Newcastle Kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
By all means, proceed. Thanks for asking.
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #708  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 11:40 PM
pizzaman355 pizzaman355 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
[img]dsc02557[/img]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #709  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 11:43 PM
pizzaman355 pizzaman355 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
How do you post pics? I went to the meeting and took pics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #710  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 11:46 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Para View Post
SOM's is stunning. It's a design that just demands attention, and for a cities tallest building, it should.

Pelli's is good, although I do agree with the similarities between 2IFC, not that that s a bad thing however.

The other tower.......isn't doing it for me. I can see where they were going with it, but it just doesn't work for me at all.

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out.







That, and if SOM's really needs a home after the contest, I'll take SOM's in my city any day.
You are missing the fact that aesthetics may have very little to do with this decision. It's more about economics, politics, and how the "special interests" (including folks such as the AC Transit manager who sounded dubious about the SOM design) see it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #711  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 11:51 PM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaman355 View Post
How do you post pics? I went to the meeting and took pics.
First, your photo needs to be put on the web somewhere, there are free sites like Flickr that you can upload to.

Then, when you post, that little yellow icon in the header bar with the mountain is the place where you post the link to your photo. When you right click on your photo online you get a url like this:

htt p://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/372726389_54f10ea2b0.jpg?v=0

you then put that link in the pop up box from the yellow mountain button gives you.

[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/372726389_54f10ea2b0.jpg?v=0[ /IMG]

I broke the code above so you can see what it should look like in your post.

so finally you get your photo like this example:


By the way there is a tutorial on this site somewhere about how to do it, too.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #712  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 12:05 AM
pizzaman355 pizzaman355 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23





Last edited by pizzaman355; Aug 8, 2007 at 12:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #713  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 12:22 AM
Para Para is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
You are missing the fact that aesthetics may have very little to do with this decision. It's more about economics, politics, and how the "special interests" (including folks such as the AC Transit manager who sounded dubious about the SOM design) see it.
Again, I know little of the S.F. system of building. But I'd assume that it is easier to gain support for the seemingly less extreme Pelli design both in terms of economics, since I'm assuming it is cheaper because it's shorter and more simplistic, and politics, since the Pelli design is less radical and more likely to gain support from those politicians who against change.

I also think I said that I think the Pelli design will win, which I stand by in this post as well, even though I personally like the SOM design more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #714  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 12:32 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaman355 View Post
Go SOM! I wanted to like Rogers, but SOM really wins. Good lord that is a big tower.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #715  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 1:20 AM
pizzaman355 pizzaman355 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
More Pics!




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #716  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:22 AM
hectorant84 hectorant84 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #717  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:36 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 7,782
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.
__________________
Yeah, I'm like an even less classy version of Tucker Max. - Snodrifter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #718  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:40 AM
pizzaman355 pizzaman355 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by hectorant84 View Post
My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.
I would love to see the building reach 1,500 ft but I'm pretty happy with 1200-1375 ft. I really liked how the Pelli Clarke bldg had the rooftop park, so maybe SOM will incorporate that into the design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #719  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:42 AM
pizzaman355 pizzaman355 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
I'm with you 100%. Looks hot.

Oh, and 1375 feet - no complaints. I would like to see one other building over 1000 feet, though
I think if one of these towers gets built, we will see a few mor 1,000+ ft tall buildings!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #720  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:49 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by hectorant84 View Post
My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.
I agree with your opinions on the proposals. Right now, I wouldnt really bring LA into any of this, as this is our moment to shine. The towers proposed by Renzo Piano are separate from this proposal and will probably be shown off in the not too distant future.

Personally, I dont think we should get used to these heights and floor counts, I think its almost certain they will change. We could all use a lesson from Chicago's Chicago Spire. When first proposed, it was only 1600' to the roof. Now under construction, the design has changed significantly and the roof now reaches 2000'. I dont think we'll see a height increase of 400', but its bound to change, hopefully to somewhere around 1500' or more. As for the NIMBYs, I think the most damage they can do is postpone it slightly, but they cant stop it.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
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 7:29 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.