I feel tempted to try out the competition, just to see what would happen. I already have my proposal drawn out on paper, however, the rules of the selection seem very complex. Too bad I dont have access to a city massing model generator. Wish I could show it to someone, sigh ... :(

i think you should post it but thats just me...

Yeah, I thought about that because I wanted to see what other people thought about it, but ... I dont have a scanning device with me, poor me :(

Well, since there really has been no real news regarding Transbay, and because I know the design competition is in progress, I thought maybe I might show off a building I designed (or drew up rather, heh) :ack:

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5...innacleqv2.png

LOL, I would jump for joy if it was 114 stories - hell, if it turns out to be 100 stories, it will be AWESOME!

I just hope the top floor is actually well above 1000', not the garbage they are doing with the new WTC tower where the building itself is pretty meh, and they have a spire and such to make it 1776' tall.

However, with the goal of this project to get as much sq. ft. out of a given lot, I think we will see Hong Kong style determination to actually make it a tall building, not a short building with an antenna.

Actually, I would rather see no antenna at all, just a honest to goodness TALL building!

Well, I know I'm no match for Renzo Piano, but this drawing is my design for what has become known as Renzo's Tower, or the second tallest of the three I guess. So the tallest tower (1250+'), I'll draw up differently.

Looks like "The Towering Inferno" or the Sears Tower to me.

I actually think it resembles more to Trump Tower Chicago. However, its a coincidence that you say it looks like The Glass Tower and The Sears Tower because my design of the tallest of the three Transbay Towers is just that case (as soon as I am finished with it, I will show everyone so they can tell me what they think)

No offense, but that isn't at all the kind of shape, massing, or color I'd like to see for the Transbay Tower.

No, none taken. As for the shape, I was trying to look for something other than one big, gigantic box or rectangle because I know some people (myself included) are tired of seeing those around. As for the color, well, that can always be changed, I just choose any old color other than just plain white.

I love San Francisco, and I am not an architect, but I would love to see at least one tower that would get it's inspiration from the towers of (what I consider)the icon of San Francisco and the Bay area itself: The Golden Gate Bridge. Something that could update the elegant sort of gothic look of the bridge towers and maybe emphasize more their slight setbacks(the setbacks thus avoiding too much of a 'box' look). Maybe something that could incorporate the blue of the bay and sky and the vermilion of the bridge itself-maybe not the primary color of the building but maybe in some minimal yet noticeable way. lol as I said I am no architect but I think a landmark building in the area might want to draw from something in the area or it's history.:) Crazy idea? :D

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...e_bridge_2.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...uy/ggate22.jpg

Several folks in the SSP transbay tower design comp (not sanctioned:sly: ) also suggested that design approach. However, as the lead project manager for the competition has pointed out in various press releases, the design and the engineering will go hand in hand (more so than usual) to produce the tower. I would definitely not respond well to a international orange tower plonked down in the skyline. The color of the Gate works because of the intensity of the natural shoreline, sea and headlands... On a building it would look like a massive safety cone.

No offence, but no matter how good of a design you had, unless you are a major firm with an awesome portfolio, this would be 100% inaccessible to you or I. Anyway, even if they liked your idea, it would just be one little tiny part of the process and another firm would have to do everything else anyway (from studying wind, earthquakes, soil, and thousands of other issues).

Well I was suggesting just the form..something with a twist on the gothic- like feel of the towers-and accentuating setbacks so it would not be just a box..and with the vermillion(international orange) or blue being accent colors only-not the main or primary color of the building. a minimalist use of those colors so they would not be overwhelming. It would have to be done with style and class and grace-something that a landmark building for San Francisco should have of course.

I just see that taking ideas from the Golden Gate Bridge might not be a bad idea. Just plopping down an enormous International Orange box would of course be horrendous!:haha:

I would like to see San Francisco(my favorite city) do something so spectacular that it would open on a gust of superlatives, just like the Golden Gate Bridge did(longest span, highest bridge towers, etc.):)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even something like this idea from Reminiscence (see below)where you could use the vermillion instead of the yellow..or even have the primary color a more neutral color and use the blue and vermillion in bordering or like in the areas that are yellow in this building idea.
Just enough so it would cause one to think, 'I know those colors from somewhere?" and then the realization could set in.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...innacleqv2.png

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also I wonder how they are addressing the use of large amounts of glass in buildings going up in SF considering the seismic risk.
Are there limiting factors because of the seismic risk, and if so, what are they?
( I have read many of the posts in this thread but not all so if I missed this discussed already you all have my apologies.)

ratboy, the new WTC tower will be in 1368 to the roof, i think that qualifies as 'well above' 1000 feet

BizTimes says the following developers were represented at a "pre-submittal meeting" of the design competition: Forest City, Clark Realty Capital, Kenwood Investments, Wilson Meany Sullivan, Hines, Shorenstein, and Boston Properties. Design firms attending were SOM, Studios, HOK, Chong Partners, HellerManus, KMD, Fentriss Bradburn and Architectonica. The BizTimes says not to worry that this means no input from starchitects like Richard Rogers, Frank Gehry and Norman Foster because they would probably partner with one of the firms who were there if they get involved.

Here was my idea (again, just an idea) for the tallest of the Transbay Towers, I took both the Sears Tower and Glass Tower and sort of combined them into one. I tried to get to an approximate color as the Glass Tower and divided it into 10 sections of 149' (45m) each, with the exception of the first section which is 150' (46m). The other difference between this tower and the Sears Tower, is that here, the top of the sections end in a triangular shape, instead of the square shape you find at Sears Tower. The Squares next to the towers (one for when facing it from south and the other for when facing it from the north) show how the sections top out when viewing it from directly above the tower itself.

Section 1: 0' (0m) to 150' (46m) ; Floors 1 to 11
Section 2: 151' (46m) to 300' (91m) ; Floors 12 to 23
Section 3: 301' (92m) to 450' (137m) ; Floors 24 to 35
Section 4: 451' (138m) to 600' (183m) ; Floors 36 to 47
Section 5: 601' (183m) to 750' (229m) ; Floors 48 to 59
Section 6: 751' (229m) to 900' (274m) ; Floors 60 to 75
Section 7: 901' (275m) to 1050' (320m) ; Floors 76 to 90
Section 8: 1051' (320m) to 1200' (366m) ; Floors 91 to 106
Section 9: 1201' (366m) to 1350' (412m) ; Floors 107 to 120
Section 10: 1351' (412m) to 1500' (457m) ; Floors 121 to 134
Structural Top: 1501' (458m) to 1525' (465m)
Northwest Antenna: 1501' (458m) to 2010' (613m)

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1...gulumfooc9.png

:previous: Dude, are you familiar with the likely site for this building? It's potentially a block long east/west, but quite narrow--maybe 1/3 of a block at most. So your design should have those dimensions (east/west dimesnion should be about 3 times the north/south dimension). Also, what the city planners are almost certainly going to want is something fairly thin and elegant--and NOT bulky. In other words, anything like the Sears Tower is exactly what would bring the NIMBYs out in droves and give the Planning Dept. a collective heart attack.

Well, as I said, this in only an idea, meaning I'm not saying "Build this exactly as you see it, right now." This is more of a concept than anything, so its definetly still "modify-able"

Here is an idea for the third (and shortest) of the Transbay Series. Assuming that developers would like to achieve the greatest amount of space while not creating a bulky building at the same time, I tried to narrow the tower as I went up. At least this way, the NIMBYs wont complain so much from the views because the top is fairly narrow and slender.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2...ayspirech3.png

^^^I think those colors actuallygo well together(with the orange used sparingly. reminds me of buildings that use that green weathered copper as accents and on roofs).I wonder how that would look with a less intense blue..something with a blue tint or hue but glassy and reflective as well? I bet you are right about the Nimbys. Look at the Chicago Spire proposal-immensely tall but thin enough that nobody got too upset about it blocking any views. Same thing there I bet. Tall and thin also means that the entire site does not need to be used..I am not sure how wide the 1/3 block is but a symmetrical tower could just use the middle third and leave the other two thirds for something like pocket parks-like they did with the TranAmerica Pyramid and the pocket park planted with redwoods. Again the wood of the redwood tree brings me back again to that reddish orange color. that color would catch the color from the bridge as well as the trees. And blue of course for the sky and bay. JMO of course.*runs and hides* lol. :)

Right, you sort of have to use your imagination and take these "renderings" that I made, and give them a real life look, similar to what architectural firms give you. You had earlier made a reference to implementing the color of the Golden Gate Bridge, which was a pretty good idea in my opinion. As I said before, I believe the only problem in SF is people worried about views. We could theoretically build as high as we could if we just settled the view conflict. Now that we probably will get slender and majestically designed towers, they may very well be even taller than they're rumored to be.

I think these pictures show how well tones of orange can go with different tones of blue(all pics from the net-not mine) especially when it is not done in a garish way.


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...guy/orange.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...uy/orange4.jpg

Very subtle orange hues near the top of these buildings in this painting:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...uy/orange5.jpg

even in nature you will see these colors together: (Casper Wyoming)

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...files14134.jpg




And in this pic of Shanghai there are many different hues of orange and blue tones(not that I am approving of any of the particular architecture here-just talking about the colors)..also love the oranges and blues with the gold colors-gold being another San Francisco tie-in(the gold rush of 1848 basically starting of the city):

and yeah I know these are not the real colors-just showing this way in this picture with the sun on them and all-but they illustrate my point. :)
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...rangeshang.jpg



I think these reflect more of what I am talking about than an ugly International orange box..something that just borrows ideas and inspiration from the natural surroundings in the Bay area. It just seems like that would be a good idea for inspiration since the natural surroundings and structures(bridges n this case) of SF seem to define and impact that city so much more than many other US cities. The natural surroundings have determined the areas of development and the bridges(exemplified by the Golden Gate Bridge) are the lifelines that tie the areas together. I guess I am interested in this SF project since it is my favorite city(and my city Columbus just does not have alot going on right now).

Hmm . . . . Green weathered copper . . . . You mean like this?:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...15_freelan.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rialMuseum.JPG

http://www.designbuild-network.com/p...DE-YOUNG-3.jpg

well maybe 'green weathered copper' was incorrect..I was just referring to the green that is used on some buildings as a way a kind of how a different color can be incorporated in buildings in a sparing way. I was not referring to the color green as a color to use in SF necessarily.
*edit*
I guess what I meant was the green 'patina' that copper gets with age. It is artificially 'aged' to get that green patina and is used mainly in roofing of certain buildings.

Like the top of this building:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...cityhall-1.jpg

or the top of the skyscraper on the left:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...27952221-1.jpg

I wish we had stuff like this going on here. The most we have right now is a 20 story condo tower going up. What with this project and the Treasure Island project proposal in SF it must be nice!

Actually I think those tones/hues of orange, blue, and gold in the Shanghai pic(either at sunset or sunrise to get those different colors) would look great on a tall, tapering building in SF.

more pics of buildings with orange and blue hues together in Hong Kong:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...-S02-154-1.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...geIMG_1826.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...geIMG_1597.jpg
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...geIMG_1768.jpg

I think these and the Shanghai pics show that at least certain hues of orange and blue look good together.

When will the submitals for the project be released to the public??

I dont think that releasing the submitals before the designated period is over is a good idea. Because of this, I think it is safe to assume that it will at least be January 2007 before we start hearing more details emerge. All we can do now, is speculate, I guess.

Do you mean submissions, or is 'submitals' just some sort of SF developer lingo that I'm clued out about?

Remember "guyz"...
 

No one does it better than Mother Nature.

From a child:
Dear God,

I never realized how good purple and orange looked together, until I saw the sunset yesterday.

what i mean is when is the public going to be shown something like the final designs for the terminal and tower. Or is it possible that they transbay committee will not release anything until the final design has been chosen?

I think TJPA will wait until the design period is over before they say anything about the few designs that have been selected as finalists. Afterwards, we will all get a say on what looks best and whatnot, but I guess they will decide in the end. I dont think we should expect anything for at least another month.

Speaking of speculation, these are my previous drawings (slightly modified) along with some more familiar buildings, just for comparative purposes. Maybe not these colors or those designs, but something to this nature or size. :)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2...skylinevg1.png

Heres a dissapointing letter i recieved from someone at the TJPA about when the renderings will be released to the public:

Thank you for your interest. The Transbay Transit Center and Tower Design and Development Competition is a two-step process. We are currently in the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) phase, which does not require design renderings. The second stage of the Competition is a Request for Proposals (RFP) from an invited short list of teams that will be selected based on their Stage I qualifications submittals. The teams' proposals, which are not due until July 2007, will include design concepts. So any renderings that are created as part of this Competition will not be released to the public until August 2007. 

:(

Why is this a disappointment? The design process is just getting underway. And it's a good thing--the San Francisco market can only absorb so much new construction at a time. With several spec office buildings either underway or about to be (555 and 535 Mission, Foundry Square IV and the building at 2nd and Howard) and a number of highrise condos (One Rincon Hill, The Millenium, The Infinity, The Californian, the Turnberry project etc), it would not make sense to plan to build the TransBay buildings for 4 or 5 years (at least) anyway. There simply isn't the demand.

I just feel that with so many tall buildings goin up in other great cities around the world, sf shouldn't be stuck with an 850 footer, even if it is a great landmark. One rincon, Millenium tower, 300 Spear are all great projects, but none of them have the possiblility of changing how others view sf. I think that the sooner at least one of the shorter towers goes up the better. And just get the new terminal built. I use the current one every day going from sf to berkeley and its really an eyesore inside an out.

^^^

While I would love to see building levels in SF look more like the ones in Chicago, I do also think that we should approach that level gradually. The Transbay Terminal would seem, to me, as a jump start towards that reality. Most of the old NIMBY conservative ways have subsided and hopefully now, guidelines will be relaxed when dealing with building height. The truth is we dont know the heights at this moment. They've only said " 1000'+ , 850'+ and 850'+ ", which could end up meaning all three being above 1000'. Also, concidering that we may have some knd of rendering by next summer is encouraging news, that date will arrive in no time.

:previous: When you get the renderings, the "old NIMBY conservative ways" will resurface with a vengeance. I bet Sue Hestor is licking her chops for this fight. I just hope Dean Macris stays at the Planning Dept. long enough to lead the fight for the buildings. I think he's basically "one of us".

Macris quit.

Yeah, not having Macris on board could end up hurting us, especially with Hestor lurking in the shadows. Luckily, the commitee and the people seems to support Transbay.

Any replacement?

is it true that without macris, the whole project will fall apart? i heard that somewhere not sure though

Unlikely. Even Chris Daly's a booster. Pretty much the whole city political establishment wants the project. What's not so clear is whether they want a project that TALL--but the genesis for the height appears to be that that's what's needed to get the kind of money from developers they need to do the terminal portion of the project and so that has a lot of backing too unless somebody comes forward with a lower design that pencils out.

SEGUE . . . .

Speaking of designs, the BizTimes today is reporting the following teams are in on the design competition:

--SOM partnering with the Rockefeller Group

--Richard Rogers partnering with Forest City and SMWM

--Santiago Calatrava partnering with Kenwood Investments

and also likely, but so far uncertain are

--Norman Foster partnering with Related Companies, TMG Partners and possibly Heller-Manus.

--Shorenstein with ?

I'll try to post the article when they put up an HTML version Sunday night.

Not yet. There were rumors of someone from the East Bay, but who knows.

Daly isn't just a supporter, though--he's ready to get out and sell the project to progressives. I asked him point blank and he answered directly and sincerely, I thought. He understands that this is necessary for Transbay to happen, and he has been that project's champion--check his track record.

Macris would've been good for momentum, for keeping the process on track, but what's really needed for it to succeed is a navigator, someone with cred in the community. It's an Only Nixon Can Go To China sorta deal.

I really hope San Francisco gets some spectacular and stunningly beautiful design that is worthy of it. Something that says 'San Francisco"..and is iconic and elegant and becomes another landmark(and feasible of course).

*Holds out hope for San Francisco to get something incredible now that the original Chicago Spire is dead*

is it true that the two 850+ towers in the project will be completed before the terminal and 1000+ foot tower are done?

The problem is, it's likely we won't know it when we see it. The building which is now iconic of San Francisco, the TransAmerica pyramid, was hated when it was first proposed and built. I'm also afraid that whatever the architects come up with will be massaged into mediocrity by the endless review process and planning requirements that San Francisco requires. That happened more or less with the pyramid too which was was originally designed to be taller.

Good Lord..I just looked it up..too bad it did not get built at the 1150 foot design. And wtf with ""Pereira's Prick"..were they insane?



I actually think the US Bank building in LA would look really better in San Francisco. Kind of reminds me of the Coit Tower.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...anktowerla.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...oit20Tower.jpg



There are all kinds of decent buildings all over that look like some take on a San Francisco landmark.

A modern, slender and tall updated version of this old gracious building in Detroit would remind me of one of the towers of the GGB.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...andetrpit4.jpg



It even kind of has a twin in the background of the Detroit skyline..just span a bridge between them and..:)

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k4...ysfdetroit.jpg

maybe so, however i dont think theres any way that anything above 1000' would be approved by the city until now

I'm not even sure it should have been. We learned a lot in 1989 and 1991 about seismic design. I'm not even so sure we still know all we need to know to build supertalls in earthquake country, but we know more than we did before Loma Prieta, the 1991 LA quake and Kobe.

I want a few opinions about this. I heard someone talking about how cool it would be to have the 3 main towers be 1600', 1200' and 950'.

How long do you think until these kind of buildings might have little opposition in san franciso? or oakland... less likely