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
     
     
  #1061  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2007, 11:52 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
That news really disappointed me today. They basically ordered them by amount the developer would pay. And the Pelli team offered the most. It's that simple.

It's not that I dislike the Pelli tower and terminal, but I was only truly excited by the SOM proposal. (And I have to admit, the additional 175 feet was no small part of that excitement.) I'll be happy with Pelli, but I would have been passionate about the SOM design.
SOM really screwed themselves over with that ridiculous double stacked bus idea. Whoever proposed that I'm sure will be fired if they don't win, as I feel this would be their main reason for losing. What's interesting and weird though is that all the tall towers proposed around this site will actually be much more interesting than the Pelli tower. I thought they wanted a "signature" tower. Guess money speaks loudest.

Pelli tower= 1200' Renzo Piano = 1200' x2 Let the 21st century Table Top begin !

I am kind of worried though.. what if these things come in way over budget (which they most likely will). Someone mentioned the first thing to get axed would be that park, which I believe would happen, because the park seems like it would be incredibly expensive to build.

Either way, we have 10 days until we reach the FINAL decision, which cannot be appealed, so, if Pelli does win, I am actually very excited by the park, and yes, it would look magnificent on the skyline. Guess what folks, SF just isn't a dynamic high rise city, and if Pelli wins and SOM opts out, then SF as an international icon probably won't even happen in this century. Yah I'm so sick of the NIMBYs reasoning "SF is the best city in the world! We are the 2nd to 5th most traveled destination in the world bla bla" which I believe they are pulling out of their asses, it's like these Americans who never leave and claim America is best nation on earth, without going anywhere or looking at reality. Guess what- other cities are stealing SFs tourism because they are doing great, huge projects that push them into the 21st century. Seems like a lot of people here just don't want that, and still think they live in 1937 and that the GG Bridge was just built and that SF is high up on the world scale. It isn't anymore. Still, I'd be happy with tall obelisks than short shoe boxes. :-)

Last edited by tyler82; Sep 11, 2007 at 12:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1062  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 12:06 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 527
Yep...it was all about the cash. The all-office aspect of the Pelli proposal allowed them to blow the competition out of the water.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when they get challenged on the lack of housing...how much is that $350 million figure going to come down because of it and will that be acceptable or will the dollar signs win the day?

Would really prefer to see mixed-use here to keep it active throughout the day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1063  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 12:14 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^Prediction: It won't stay all-office. Chris won't stand for both supertall height and NO HOUSING. As a member of TJPA board, he may even force them to go with one of the other proposals. Or he may wait. The winner just wins the right to enter into exclusive negotiations with the the TJPA and they are going to run into a buzz-saw if they don't find room for lots of affordable housing. The real question in my mind is whether, when they find they can't build a tower with just office, they really want this project at all. This would not be the first time the city pushes a competition-winning developer so hard they just say, 'Oh, forget it" (lets all go enjoy the sports facilities down on that old pier or the new cruise terminal).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1064  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 12:22 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
Pelli's team has already stated that they could easily modify their plan to be mixed use... my guess is that SOM's plan was simply not economical because of its agressive design.
Yes, but could they change from office to mixed/ affordable housing and still be able to give the city such a massive amount of $$ for the land? My guess is that's the only reason that they are able to offer such a larger sum, and that this jury is jumping to too big of conclusions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1065  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 12:59 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642
It seems SOM got the lowest rating from the Jury. Also, I do not care much for the Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects proposal. But welcome to the new SF if it gets chosen(just imagine a park/transit terminal and a slightly different exterior),



http://www.flickr.com/photos/swear/518345453/
__________________
“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
     
     
  #1066  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 1:03 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
If I remember correctly, Pelli can adapt to mixed-use if needed. I'm not sure how this would effect their economic advantage though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1067  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 1:15 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
They would want to choose the most boring design of the three, that is so San Francisco. I see why they Pelli remains as the top candidate. As some people have said, money speaks loud. Still, I'm quite dissapointed that SOM is actually last place. I just pray that TJPA reconciders this proposal.
__________________
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
     
     
  #1068  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 1:22 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Just remember, Rogers is the second choice.

The jurors have detailed predetermined evaluation criteria to help score each submission. Some issues of public concern may not be given as much priority for the jurors. Didn't someone say, "This is not a beauty contest?" I can't remember exactly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1069  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 1:27 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
They would want to choose the most boring design of the three, that is so San Francisco. I see why they Pelli remains as the top candidate. As some people have said, money speaks loud. Still, I'm quite dissapointed that SOM is actually last place. I just pray that TJPA reconciders this proposal.
I actually have hopes that SOM still might win.
One, because the Pelli Park would turn into a big homeless shelter. Hey, they'd be off the streets, but they'd be getting a pretty sweet park to stay in for free, too. If they city can't even get them out of GG Park, how in the hell are they going to prevent them from taking over a park that is located right where they are all centered anyway? (I actually called the TJPA today and the lady who answered was very delighted that I spoke for about 10 minutes explaining my opinions. I told her why Pelli shouldn't be chosen over SOM.. the homeless problem with the park was one of my main concerns, which she was very interested by).

Two, the whole penciling out problem, which BT mentioned, might force the Pelli team to just give up, since, if they have to adopt say, 25% of their units affordable housing, or whatever the number may be, they may very well be so disappointed and just give up on the whole project. If they don't, and they still have to make ends meet, then their building could suffer as they would probably use a lot cheaper building materials.

Three, there's no way in hell the Rogers proposal will win. TJPA states that public input is important in their decision, and the SF public would fight til their deaths before this monster were placed downtown.

Fingers crossed until Sep. 20 !!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1070  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 1:43 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Just remember, Rogers is the second choice.

The jurors have detailed predetermined evaluation criteria to help score each submission. Some issues of public concern may not be given as much priority for the jurors. Didn't someone say, "This is not a beauty contest?" I can't remember exactly.
I would love it if Rogers tower were built as part of the Transbay area, but I don't think it should be the signature tower. I think that turbine on top is the coolest thing I've seen on a building! Although, I think it would look really sweet and fit in better in Mission Bay Area, but I think it would go well with Heller Manass's 900' industrial looking proposal, also. Hopefully they will still pay attention to us after this circus is over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1071  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 1:58 AM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
The good news is that there is no way in hell that the city will not take this much money...

This is going to be approved folks, you can put a stamp on it.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1072  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 1:59 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Pelli AND Rodgers over SOM?

OUCH.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1073  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 2:07 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 tyler82 View Post
I actually have hopes that SOM still might win.
One, because the Pelli Park would turn into a big homeless shelter. Hey, they'd be off the streets, but they'd be getting a pretty sweet park to stay in for free, too. If they city can't even get them out of GG Park, how in the hell are they going to prevent them from taking over a park that is located right where they are all centered anyway? (I actually called the TJPA today and the lady who answered was very delighted that I spoke for about 10 minutes explaining my opinions. I told her why Pelli shouldn't be chosen over SOM.. the homeless problem with the park was one of my main concerns, which she was very interested by).

Two, the whole penciling out problem, which BT mentioned, might force the Pelli team to just give up, since, if they have to adopt say, 25% of their units affordable housing, or whatever the number may be, they may very well be so disappointed and just give up on the whole project. If they don't, and they still have to make ends meet, then their building could suffer as they would probably use a lot cheaper building materials.

Three, there's no way in hell the Rogers proposal will win. TJPA states that public input is important in their decision, and the SF public would fight til their deaths before this monster were placed downtown.

Fingers crossed until Sep. 20 !!
Way to go Tyler! Good job getting your voice heard. I agree, I still have high hopes that SOM will come from behind and steal the show. Pelli's park proposal is very nice, but the elevation just doesnt seem to work for something that size. I'm still a little confused however. If Pelli and Hines were to drop out for some unknown reason, who then would be next in line, or would there even be a next in line? Would they have to restart the whole competition process or is there some sort of procedure they follow to select another candidate? If SOM does not win, I'm going to wish they restarted the whole process (although not likely). I cant help but wonder what Sir Norman Foster and Santiago Calatrava came up with. I also agree with you that Rogers would work good in the city, but as a suplemental building close to Transbay, not that actual signature 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
     
     
  #1074  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 2:37 AM
caramatt caramatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 36
Does anyone know when the next planning meeting for the Transbay Area redevelopment project will be? I feel like with all this excitement, I'm ready to get into the nitty-gritty of raising height limits and deciding how specific areas will be zoned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1075  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 2:37 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
I would love it if Rogers tower were built as part of the Transbay area, but I don't think it should be the signature tower. I think that turbine on top is the coolest thing I've seen on a building! Although, I think it would look really sweet and fit in better in Mission Bay Area, but I think it would go well with Heller Manass's 900' industrial looking proposal, also. Hopefully they will still pay attention to us after this circus is over.
You do realize, right, that all 3 of the designs have turbines on top? And the Pelli/Hines is the most gimicky in the sense that the turbine produces power just to light of the crown as I understood it, whereas on the other buildings it's my understanding the power actually gets used by the entire building.

I'm actually not too concerned about the homeless taking over the park. They seem to be able to keep them out of the Yerba Buena Park remarkably well and this would be easier (just shut off the funicular and escalators at night). On the other hand, if I thought it could clean them out of the rest of the city, I'd be for putting up tents for them in this park and welcoming them. Wow! A solution to the homeless problem--THAT would be an architectural and city planning triumph!

My big concern is if Chris D doesn't get enough housing to suit him, he'll just say well, OK, build your office building within the current height limits. And that, of course, wouldn't produce enough money to do Phase II of the project and so in the end San Francisco wouldn't get much more than a fancy bus terminal. Come to think of it, that's the way such things usually go in this town.

See below.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1076  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 2:41 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
For those who missed this article in yesterday's Chron, it's pretty sobering and explains some of the high hurdles ahead in this project:

Quote:
Transbay Joint Powers Authority: Low-profile agency's big decisions
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, September 9, 2007

When a panel of experts delivers its verdict Tuesday on which team of architects and developers should build the tallest building on the West Coast, a little-understood agency that has operated largely outside the limelight takes center stage to make one of the most important land-use decisions in recent San Francisco history.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority will mull the panel's recommendation, but it has ultimate power to decide who wins the contest and the right to negotiate a deal to erect the new Transbay Terminal and its adjoining tower - two buildings that together are meant to become a Grand Central Station West, connecting Bay Area transit systems and serving as a possible high-speed rail link to Los Angeles.

Originally created to carry out a much less transformative project - extending Caltrain from Fourth and Townsend streets to downtown - the Joint Powers Authority's agenda has morphed in ways that mean its decisions now rival those of any other local government body in terms of their impact on San Francisco's future look and feel.

Those decisions are being made by a body whose political accountability to voters isn't what might be expected given their significance. Only one elected San Francisco official sits on the authority's five-member governing board, Supervisor Chris Daly, whose District 6 is home to the project.

One member, Mayor Gavin Newsom's base reuse director, Michael Cohen, is a designee of Newsom. The other three are Bay Area transit representatives - San Francisco Municipal Railway head Nathaniel Ford, AC Transit board member Elsa Ortiz, and San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill, who serves on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which runs Caltrain.

Moreover, the Authority's executive director, Maria Ayerdi, is a former lawyer for UPS who had modest professional public transit and land-use experience when she got the job, though she has received praise since then for her organizational skills and fundraising.

And a nagging truth is that the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is $2 billion short of the $2.4 billion estimated cost of extending Caltrain to downtown, which is the reason for the agency's existence in the first place.

"The rail extension is fundamental to this project because the terminal was planned to be a transportation hub for this area and well beyond it," said Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which oversees spending of special tax dollars for transportation improvements in the city.

"There needs to be a clear plan and timeline to get that done and it's not clear to me that there is one," Moscovich said.

A shared goal

In 1999, nearly 70 percent of San Francisco voters backed Proposition H, a local ballot measure to extend Caltrain to a new Transbay Terminal that would replace the obsolete 1939 bus depot at First and Mission streets.

Moscovich and other proponents have extolled the virtues of connecting the major transit systems in the Bay Area in one location along with future high-speed rail.

The Caltrain rail terminus at Fourth and Townsend was seen as discouraging commuters who wanted to travel downtown without having to make multiple transfers, though things have gotten easier with the expanded Muni service to the area, which took place as a new neighborhood grew up around the Giants ballpark at China Basin.

Prop. H required the San Francisco mayor and Board of Supervisors to carry out the plan to bring Caltrain to a rebuilt station downtown, and the city took the lead setting up a regional agency that would finance, construct and operate the new terminal.

In 2001, the city came together with AC Transit and Caltrain and, under state law, formed the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

The San Francisco members on the authority board represent the mayor's office, the Board of Supervisors and Muni.

Ayerdi, who worked to put the agency together as then-Mayor Willie Brown's transportation policy adviser, was appointed by the board to serve as its executive director, no doubt with at least a nudge from Brown himself.

While the job of the board was to construct a new transit hub, it quickly became clear that state, federal and local funding sources would not be enough to cover the cost of the project that is estimated at $3.4 billion.

As a result, the authority, in collaboration with city planning officials, made a series of decisions to increase building heights in the area to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new property tax revenue - money that normally would go into the city general fund for services but instead will help fund the terminal project.


A morphing agend

The rezoning allowed seven skyscrapers above 300 feet on public land and it was decided that a "signature" tower should be built adjacent to the terminal. The city Planning Department has since suggested allowing two towers as tall as 850 feet and bumping up the signature tower to more than 1,000 feet.

The three competing designs reviewed by the expert panel range in height from 1,200 feet to 1,375 feet.

While the authority and city planners have collaborated on decisions about the transit tower and other land-use changes, the authority has acted independently in awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to engineers, environmental experts and other consultants.

Started with $9.5 million in federal seed money, the authority has now spent more than $80 million in design, engineering planning, and land acquisitions.

The authority's design competition decision will not be reviewed by any higher body and cannot be appealed. And while board members say they will give strong consideration to the jury's recommendation, the final decision rests with them.

"I'll make my decision on what I think is in the best interests of the Transbay Terminal project," said Hill, who represents Caltrain and is the president of the board. "My decision will be based on what the jury says, but also on the policy of the board."

Learning on the job

Ayerdi, the authority's chief executive, didn't appear to possess the experience normally sought to run an agency with such autonomy and power.

She landed her previous post as Brown's transportation adviser after meeting the mayor at a Saturday open house he held at City Hall in 1998.

A year earlier she had obtained her license to practice law, and had worked in the legal department at United Parcel Service for several years. In a recent interview, Ayerdi, 40, characterized UPS as a quasi-transportation agency. She said she learned a lot about transportation after Brown hired her.

"I educated myself and learned from other transportation agencies first hand," she said. "I learned a lot on the job."

Hill said that Ayerdi has done a good job securing funds for the project and managing the design competition.

In February, however, Ed Harrington, San Francisco's city controller, who also serves as the authority's chief financial officer, questioned the assumptions the authority leadership seemed to be making about how it was going to get its job done - meaning extending Caltrain to downtown.

In a report, Harrington described the rail extension as a "very high-risk project," given that no money had been identified to cover most of the $2.4 billion cost.


Some funds have been secured, but a state high-speed rail bond, which could have brought $475 million to the terminal project, has bogged down in the Legislature. Meanwhile, a proposal for an extra fee on AC Transit riders traveling to the terminal has not been finalized.

Call for clarity

In an interview in February, Harrington said that those officials leading the terminal project need to devise a clear plan to fund the rail work.

"The fact that there is no one talking about where the money might come from is simply not good enough," Harrington said at the time. "A solution is not going to come out of nowhere."

In a recent interview, Ayerdi said that she and the authority's board have been meeting on a regular basis to resolve the funding shortfall and that she would have a plan by the first quarter of 2008.

And as the board prepares for the biggest decision in its brief history, some members admit that they may never achieve the lofty dreams that were the genesis for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

"It's still an open question of whether Caltrain will ever come downtown," Hill said. "That's a substantial amount of money for that to occur ... it's not available today and it hasn't been in the past."



E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../BAJ1RVRAG.DTL
And in case anyone isn't familiar with Ed Harrington, he's a highly respected and very capable bureaucrat. if he says the money ain't there, it probably ain't there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1077  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 2:42 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Pelli's Proposal doesn't look too bad

http://www.youtube.com/v/oBcL7KWa4wI

Yah, if this one is chosen, I will fight tooth and nail to get this thing built, just as hard as I would for SOM. I think it would be internationally recognized, not as much as SOMs, but perhaps just as much as the pyramid. And besides, we have to think about the entire area of Transbay, there seems to be a bunch of really advanced, sophisticated towers planned for this area, so by the time Pelli's is built it won't be such a sore thumb anymore. Maybe they plan on raising the height for the building, too, in order to add more units (Fingers crossed )

Last edited by tyler82; Sep 11, 2007 at 2:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1078  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 3:45 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Was any part of the Transbay recommendatoins concerned with seismic safety? It seems like the use of Redundancy in SOMs proposal would be the safest in an earthquake. Oh, and anybody check out Al Gore's movie? Within most of our lifetimes, this area of SF will be underwater, so I wonder what we plan on doing about that? I say, let the streets fill with water and turn it into a little Venice !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1079  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 4:14 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I saw the movie (good one). Thats when I got the image of San Francisco being flooded by our own bay waters. Of course, with SOM's proposal, we need not worry, as the first floor would be safely elevated about 100 feet from the water.
__________________
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
     
     
  #1080  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2007, 4:59 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^The Pelli/Hines park can be like a larger version of this:


Photo source: Me and my trusty Lumix
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 6:26 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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