When I did my height estimates above for the 3 tallest Transbay towers, there were a number of points I estimated or guessed that are possibly consistent with the planners, in addition to the data I collected from different sources:
· · Planners are releasing information in careful steps to test outside reaction. If little or no negative reaction is encountered, the planners move up to the next step until the best overall plan is achieved. · · Graphics may show intentions more accurately than verbal descriptions. · · A shift of emphasis in the SF skyline should be shifted to the area around Transbay by creating a new highest mound of towers at that location. · · To achieve the shift, key buildings should be at least as tall as, or taller than current tallest building in SF - Transamerica at approximately 850’. · · It would take at least 3 towers to effectively create a highrise mound that steps down to the surroundings. · · Basic building heights are rounded to the nearest 50’. · · Basic floor-to-floor heights are averaged to 12.5’. · · Basic crown/mechanical heights are 10% of the basic building height rounded to the nearest 25’ added on top of the basic building height. · · Number of floors are rounded to the nearest 10 (or 5) depending on the basic building height. · · Basic height difference of towers above 850’ are probably greater than 150’. · · Heights of tallest towers should be varied to create a more interesting stepped height effect. No two major towers should be nearly the same height. · · The difference in height between the tallest and second tallest tower is greater than the height difference between the second and third. ALSO... (Old news we may have missed) Regarding the competition: Quote:
http://www.transbaycenter.org/transb...nt.aspx?id=323 Of all the uncertainties, one thing is clear: we still have a very long way to go before anyone knows what the final result will be. Just think of One Rincon Hill. By the way, remember this? Is wasn't all that long ago... http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...arlyscheme.jpg |
Thin towers widely spaced are not a wall.
|
I think the agenda for the meeting this friday comes out either today or tommorow, usually 72 hours before the meeting itself.
|
Let's just hope what happened at One Rincon Hill happens with the Transbay Towers as well.
|
If thats the case, then we wont know until the towers are almost under construction. But even so, yes, I still hope that the same thing happens, only that it happpens 3 times as big.
|
Well, they've posted the agenda, and its as follows:
12:00 ‑ SPECIAL MEETING ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Communications 4. Board of Director’s New and Old Business 5. Executive Director’s Report * Funding Update * Caltrain Downtown Extension Value Management Update * First Quarter Investment Report 6. Public Comment Members of the public may address the Authority on matters that are within the Authority's jurisdiction and are not on today's calendar. THE FOLLOWING MATTERS BEFORE THE TRANSBAY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY ARE RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION AS STATED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OR THE CHAIRMAN. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, and will be acted upon by a single vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Board or the public so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item. (7.1) Approving the Minutes of the August 31, 2006 meeting. (7.2) Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the TJPA and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority to provide updated ridership studies of the transbay corridor for $60,000. (7.3) Approving the agreement between Transbay Joint Powers Authority and the Municipal Transportation Agency for services to perform contract compliance and oversight in the amount of $64,800. (7.4) Approving a contract with David Tattersall & Company in the amount of $50,000 to provide real estate review appraiser services for a term not to exceed three years with an option to extend two years. SPECIAL CALENDAR 8. Appointing the Design and Development Competition Jury. 9. Presentation on the Design and Development Competition Request for Qualifications. 10. Presentation by Cambridge Systematics on Transbay Ridership Study. 11. Adopting the City and County of San Francisco CityBuild Program. 12. Approving the TJPA Citizen’s Advisory Committee Structure and Bylaws. 13. Approving a contract with Nancy Whelan Consulting in the amount of $1,800,000 to provide financial grant management for a term not to exceed three years with an option to extend two years. 14. Adopting the Reserve Policy identified as Board Policy No. 012, Category: Financial Matters. Theres a lot of stuff in there thats difficult to understand, but I guess the part that calls the most attention to me is the funding update. There is a chance that they'll call for an increase in heights if the have to, which is what I think most people want to hear anyways. They also mention the Caltrain extension, and I guess they will run on that for a bit. Hopefully this meeting ends with great news. |
Put me down for 'Friends of the Caltrain extension' - best of all, I don't pay CA taxes, so ha!
|
Great, bigger share of the taxes for me :rolleyes:
Reno isn't part of California ... not yet. :haha: :haha: |
Thats why we keep lots of guns and ammo on the ready :p
The biggest public works project in the state right now is ~$280 million and will be very beneficial to people and the economy. |
I dont think people understood why I mentioned the Sears Tower to begin with. I was thinking about it and assuming the current height is set to 1350' then it wouldnt be out of the question to increase that a bit to like 1500'. The second tower would be more or less 1350' and the third could be around 1150'. If they really wanted to use Chicago or even the John Hancock Center as a model for this endeavor, then it would make sense. The second heights that I put were for the event that they would have antenas or spires on top, which I would like, seeming that not too many building have them in SF.
Sears Tower (1451' / 1730') =========> Transbay Tower I (1500' / 1750') Aon Center (1136') ================> Transbay Tower II (1350' / 1550') John Hancock Center (1127' / 1500') ===> Transbay Tower III (1150' / 1400') The difference between the first and second tower is still 150' and by the current plan for the tallest, we're not that far away from 1500' anyways, might as well go for it. What a statement we could make by having the potential tallest tower in the US, out of nowhere too. :ack: :psycho: |
Special Calendar items #8 and #9 may be of some interest, as these items will be important components to the competition announcement. These components should emphasize the high level of quality and importance of what could well be a world recognized project. The inclusion of these items also better supports the notion that the competition announcement is soon approaching release.
The architecture and engineering of the Transbay Terminal and Tower Project is scheduled to be completed in 2009 according to TJPA. http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=ht...sbaycenter.org |
This isn't Dubai.
|
^ while i agree more height is neccessary, theres more to a good building than how tall it is. and for that matter, more to a city than skyscrapers. i just hope (renzo piano i think is good) that the buildings are well-thought out and stylish.
|
Yes, I am aware that SF inst Dubai, far from it. What I mentioned was more or less an legit idea, mind you. Something to say, it would be intresting if they did that. Honestly, in the end, I think the current plan is what they will go with. But until they specify a height, I guess its possible to speculate what is going to happen.
|
If the towers are too tall, they will look alienated from the rest of the skyline level which is around 500' (152m) to 600' (183m) at the Transbay Terminal. The Planning Commission probably won't like three towers sticking way up from the skyline because from afar. That's why there are two other towers to gradually smooth out the otherwise precipitous drop from over 1000' (305m) to the skyline level; around a 400' (122m) drop. If all the towers are over 1100' (351m), then there will be a large drop of 500' (152m) to the skyline level around the Transbay Terminal. It will take more towers to smooth out the drop and the Planning Commission doesn't want the Transbay area to be completely crowded with towers.
|
True true, but who's to say that something even bigger wont come after Transbay itself. I'm preety sure its only a matter of time before someone proposes something like what I said anyways, I guess I was just jumping ahead.
|
I don't like the "an" even taller tower here, but later he says three. competition begins tomorrow:
Quote:
|
Cool article - it looks like their concern matches mine: if you will build something this tall - it better be world class, it better be perfect.
|
Glad to see the unsightly parking lots disappear.
|
Well, they got the right idea. Obviously building someting of this magnitude must be done by the best. I'd love to see a building that tall, but I dont want to be starring at a concrete block either. They have to build something that makes citizens and tourists say ... "whoa". Only then, will the public accept supertall stuctures and perhaps even welcome them as freely as say Chicago or New York. This is good news, I cant wait until Friday's decision. :)
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.