HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

    

181 Fremont in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:23 PM
sfcity1 sfcity1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

Awesome stuff. This is likely the result of an exciting trend that has been initiated by people in charge of the city, including the mayor, with the transbay terminal (go SOM!). Nimbys have no say in this rather large part of the city full of vulnerable warehouses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:48 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
^^Am I looking at the image right? Standing near the corner of Mission and Fremont looking South East? If thats the spot, I am anxious to see what the back of this tower will look like so we can know what kind of presence this will have on the skyline. It looks as though it changes angles as you wrap around it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 5:52 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I think that if this building is pursuing wind turbines as well to give it a good LEED rating, that open space about halfway up the tower could a be a good place to put them. With Transbay so closeby, it will be interesting how much wind is diverted its way. I also wonder if the 900' taken into account the crown and spire on top. If not, this could be more like 935' or so.
__________________
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
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:05 PM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,134
Its sort of too bad the most banal towers of SF are on the waterfront. Many of the more interesting towers are buried behind blocky and poorly done 60's-70's towers. Sort of like Portland, who has also lined its waterfront with dreadful boxes.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:09 PM
Fabb's Avatar
Fabb Fabb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 9,017
I like it.
I wonder if the floor plates are square or triangular.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:13 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddguy View Post
That is the first thing I thought(Transamerica reference). those triangles at the base and especially about 2/3's of the way up are right out of Transamerica. I like it.
Really? I think it reminds me more of the bay bridge, structually, than the Pyramid. I don't know where you crazies are getting the pyramid reference. If this building were in any other city, would you still be thinking "OMG, Transamerica!" ??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:28 PM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
It's very difficult to believe a site this small can support a building taller than TAP. It's nice to see those rumors from six months ago becoming reality!
Waterview Tower in Chicao is being built on an extremely small site. I believe that the footprint is about 23,000 square geet and that building will be 1,047'.

It's not that unimaginable to see a building of 900' built on this proposed site.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:46 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by djvandrake View Post
The only thing holding me back from doing flips over the design is the exposed structure midway up. Other than that I love it and feel it's a fantastic proposed addition to SF.
I assume that's the mechanical floor and separates the residential from the office parts of the building. If you notice, it also allows for a setback to smaller floorplates for the residential. I like it. It adds interest to the building. Who knows--maybe they'll even stick some turbines in there in one more homage to the Greenies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 6:50 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
Its sort of too bad the most banal towers of SF are on the waterfront. Many of the more interesting towers are buried behind blocky and poorly done 60's-70's towers. Sort of like Portland, who has also lined its waterfront with dreadful boxes.
Well, as you probably know, that's another Planning Dept. policy. They want short/squat buildings on the waterfront and a "step up" as you go back from it. But I do think a few buildings like Hill's Plaza, the Ferry Building and AT&T Park save the day. I also wish somebody would buy and do a serious renovation on the Harbor Court Hotel. That could be elegant (my sister from Baltimore keeps telling me there's a Harbor Court there that is elegant).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 7:34 PM
Buck's Avatar
Buck Buck is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,768
Having recently visited the city for the first time, I am deeply in love with San Francisco. I was surprised at all the construction going on... I was only aware of some proposals and didn't know so many had begun construction. And as soon as I get back, there are big new proposals popping up all the time. I'm glad to hear of this one and I love the height... but the design leaves something to be desired. I certainly wouldn't fight it, but it's not original at all.
__________________
Reel Georgia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 7:35 PM
Buck's Avatar
Buck Buck is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,768
Having recently visited the city for the first time, I am deeply in love with San Francisco. I was surprised at all the construction going on... I was only aware of some proposals and didn't know so many had begun construction. And as soon as I get back, there are big new proposals popping up all the time. I'm glad to hear of this one and I love the height... but the design leaves something to be desired. I certainly wouldn't fight it, but it's not original at all.
__________________
Reel Georgia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 7:38 PM
Aleks's Avatar
Aleks Aleks is offline
cookies, skittles & milk
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,257
Is it 900 ft to the roof or the spire?
In some ways I agree with Stepahnopolis, San Francisco's skyline isn't as great as it should be. Minneapolis has an O.K. skyline actually, and you can't compare shots from Bay bridge to shots of the Minneapolis skyline.
__________________
...the greatness of victor is equally proportionate to the skill and obduracy of foe...
-Kostof-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 8:02 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,034
I think it's a good start for Heller Manus, although I would like to see the large triagular facade sections slighty more angled in slightly different planes. It looks like they started a little of the angle changes already, but the rendering is a little unclear in this regard.

Dean Macris mentioned about a dozen sites being studied for upzoning. If I'm not mistaken, that may include this project, Transbay Transit Tower, 1st and Mission (Piano), 350 Mission, TJPA Howard, six Transbay residential towers, and a possible site just west of the Piano towers.

I am hoping the mix will include another 1 or 2 more 1000+' towers along with Transbay and Piano, and that 350 Mission will return to 850' from being considered below 550'.

Yes, I agree with Reminisence that it is possible the 900' measurement is to the roof, The crown and spire may add to the total.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 8:23 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^This new proposal actually doesn't show up on the TJPA redevelopment scheme:


Source: http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...nt.aspx?id=373

but it does show in this rendering as a much squatter new building:


Source: http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...ay-aerial1.jpg

and it shows up here as the site of a 600-800 footer (after upzoning the height limit):


Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/3...3773d3b7_o.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 8:36 PM
EmpireCityGuy EmpireCityGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
socket site now has a larger image up http://www.socketsite.com/

The exoskeleton is a great feature. It's thin physique is very attractive as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 9:51 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Waterview Tower in Chicao is being built on an extremely small site. I believe that the footprint is about 23,000 square geet and that building will be 1,047'.

It's not that unimaginable to see a building of 900' built on this proposed site.
Having seen this site in person several times, I doubt this building's footprint is going to be much more than 15,000 sf at the most (probably closer to 12K). This figure is supported by the 500,000 sf of office space divided over what appears to be approximately 42 floors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
I also wonder if the 900' taken into account the crown and spire on top. If not, this could be more like 935' or so.
When the rumors about 181 first started circulating, weren't they talking about an 850' building? I have a feeling the 900' number includes the crown and spire, but we can always hope.

I wonder if there's any chance of this building getting started before TransBay (and I can see it going up faster as well)? 181 Fremont has the potential to hold the title of SF's tallest building for a short while!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 10:09 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
When the rumors about 181 first started circulating, weren't they talking about an 850' building? I have a feeling the 900' number includes the crown and spire, but we can always hope.
See the image I posted above--it says the TransBay height upzoning would be for a "600'-800'" building on that site. When this developer first indicated interest in the site, there was no hint they were thinking of a really tall building. I actually posted something from BizTimes about them buying the lot last year but it didn't mention height.

By the way, this reminds me that we've yet to hear any details on 350 Mission which, according to the same image above, filed for an 850 ft. building there which is a slightly larger (but not much larger) lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 10:18 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck View Post
it's not original at all.
It's Heller-Manus. They don't do no stinking "original" architecture--but I can only assume they work cheap and/or they have a sugar daddy at the Planning Department because they get far too much work in this town and a lot of it gets built (helping to explain why there are so many bad buildings). As sfview (I think it was) said above, for them this is a gem. At least they had the sense to copy something GOOD this time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 1, 2007, 11:15 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Really? I think it reminds me more of the bay bridge, structually, than the Pyramid. I don't know where you crazies are getting the pyramid reference. If this building were in any other city, would you still be thinking "OMG, Transamerica!" ??
I think people are comparing the "legs" to those on the Pyramid and they are somewhat similar.

I like the exposed structure about two-thirds of the way up, where it most likely transitions to the condos from the office plates. Everybody keeps complaining about our boxes here and then a number of them complain about this feature too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2007, 12:25 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
I think people are comparing the "legs" to those on the Pyramid and they are somewhat similar.

I like the exposed structure about two-thirds of the way up, where it most likely transitions to the condos from the office plates. Everybody keeps complaining about our boxes here and then a number of them complain about this feature too.
A box isn't inherently bad. It's what's on the outside that counts. Although, we do have a lot of unimaginative shoe boxes downtown. However, there are a ot that I actually like because they are clean, built of good, quality materials (hello freemasons!), and have a nice hue to them. 50 Fremont and Telesis tower are my favorite SF boxes.
This building could be considered another boring box, due to its shape, but it's exterior framing makes it so much more interesting. Yay for more boxes like this one !
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 > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:58 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.