SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors | ON HOLD

[Larkspirit]

The height first proposed for the pyramid was 1,150 feet. Residents on Russian and Telegraph hills objected to that height, claiming it would destroy their views. The compromise height of 853 feet was considerably shorter than the original concept.

[boyinthecity]

Originally Posted by SFView

Much of the building design had to do with the existing site conditions, zoning restrictions, and client needs. To have maximized floor plates as the client desires, the elevator cores are pushed to the corners spaces available at the west end of the site. This permits the largest free open office space possible within the confines of the building envelope and site. The architect team has done their best to integrate these limitations into what I feel is an excellent overall design solution.

Original source: San Francisco Planning






By the way, those of you who think the Parcel F is the last of the so called "supertall" sites in San Francisco, there is still another 700 foot plus site just west of Oceanwide Center. It is that "U" or backwards "C" shaped site just above Oceanwide in the bottom panel of the three drawings images above. This is the Golden Gate University site. Plans for this site are still pending.

To those rightfully skeptical of oceanwide center:

the above reference to "client needs" and such
is sorta painful and reads like a press release.

Some months ago, before the project was actually approved, i voiced concerns about the questionable western face of the building-- especially questionable in light of the way the renderings were presented.

As time has passed and the project has been approved anyway,
i have resigned myself to a Wait and See approach to this project.

In addition, after looking at the 50 first street details, i really dislike the exposed window washing equipment on the crown. too bad it was not disguised as was done on 399 fremont.

In addition, i believe a huge opportunity was lost when taking the blocky, painted aluminum, western face and not incorporating the same look and materials into the 605' building on mission street.

IMHO, this would have been kinda cool and interesting.

Yet, i have come to really think the eyesore is going to be the mission street tower which is a copy of horrible One Market Plaza. To me, the client needs were to build it "on the cheap".

For those who do not like the irregular elevators, bathrooms and utilities on the western face of 50 First Street, the client is depending upon the fact that the lower half of the tower is blocked by several office buildings. It seems as if the upper, residential third has a bit more symmetry.

In addition, for those using the original design(s) of the pyramid juxtaposed with the final design, the argument kinda falls flat when viewing an early conception below--- with the elevators attached to one face of the building.
(right side of the picture below)

After downsizing the pyramid, someone had the good sense to actually give it a more symmetrical appearance.

As much as I would have liked a taller pyramid to balance-out the skyline with the Salesforce Tower, I am happy we got the shorter, more symmetrical design we see today.

source: urbanlifesigns.blogspot.com

[SFView]

The thread for the Transamerica Pyramid is here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=172602

Source:
https://plus.google.com/photos/10352...49380337783490
Another image of what might have been...:


^^^Yes, I understand your dislike of the asymmetry, and you have valid points. That's okay. I am only pointing out why it may be that way. Even if an architect dislikes an element in the design, sometimes they are forced to make compromises to the best of their abilities. It is possible that may have been the case here, but we can only guess of the details.

In the case of the Pyramid, it does seem clear that the architect had to make changes due to extreme public pressure and the politics of the time. The building almost didn't get built, if it wasn't for the support of Mayor Alioto and others in power. He is in the photo at the far left.

[O-tacular]

One last example in the case for symmetrical elevator banks. Here's Foster's 425 Park Ave in NY. The back is elevators. Now why couldn't they do something centred like that on this building? It makes no sense to me. As it stands the front is a 10 and the back is a 2. It doesn't make any sense.

[SFView]

^^^As I have been saying, that sort of arrangement won't fit on the site we have for Oceanwide Center where maximized use of square footage is desired. The site is asymmetrical, so the building is designed to fit that shape. See the site plans above.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by SFView

^^^As I have been saying, that sort of arrangement won't fit on the site we have for Oceanwide Center where maximized use of square footage is desired. The site is asymmetrical, so the building is designed to fit that shape. See the site plans above.

The weird parcel shape I can see but you can't get much more floorplate efficiency than the plan I posted for 425 Park Ave. It also doesn't explain why there's what looks like a bank of elevators separate from the rest for the top half that sits off centre. I'm not trolling. I love the potential of this building and the entire front of it. I just can't fathom what's happened on the back side.

[SFView]

^^^Here is my guess why:

The protrusion inward at the west end center of the site prevents the placement of a single elevator core at that location, especially if large and open floor plates are desired. Placement of two separate elevators cores helps improve building circulation both vertical and horizontal, and improves use of available space. Having all elevators in only one core at one end of the building would not only be a difficult fit, it would increase travel distances from the far ends of the building. The two elevator cores are different sizes, because all of the room that is available for each of those spaces is needed. To summarize, trying to have all elevators near the middle of the floor plan, or at one end of the building doesn’t work as well in this case. It works for 425 Park Ave., because there is enough space for a more centralized layout to fit.

[boyinthecity]

for those currently discussing this project,
attached are some images i saved.

yes, it is obvious the developer squeezed every square inch of the site. personally, if i was working for the planning dept, i would have told them to tweak the design of the west face before approval. the current market is on a high, the city does not need to be desperate when it comes to the second tallest tower.

in addition, if you look closely at the attached, the rear view is always at odd angles. i loved it when foster partners also provided eye-level views of the building from twin peaks and dolores park. ie., so far away you could not see details.

lets face it. the client needs on this projects are $$$$$. i think there's about a million sq feet of office, not including residential above.

personally, i believe the shining example of taking a crap/small site
and doing something fantastic is 181 Fremont. Isn't it wonderful that the 181 developer did not hang the elevators and bathrooms off the side of the building? LOL!

PS: two additional questionable details.....
the model does not include or display the two huge, window washing cranes that will always be exposed at the top of the west face.
before viewing the details, i wondered why the crown of the building was questionably and oddly "offset".

in addition , i liked the metallic/painted aluminum nature of the building until i read that the client might not use it "if" market conditions are prohibitive. meaning: if the metallic is too expensive. again, sketchy.

source: sf planning dept.

[DJ1272]

When I first saw this rendering, I thought the white arrow was a spire. I'm not usually a fan of them (like with my hometown WG) but it actually would look good here.

[simms3_redux]

^Disagree in this case. The Foster design invokes a mixture of feelings in me that I get from proper pseudo-neo-gothic post-modern designs such as One Atlantic Center in Atlanta and neo-noir filmography centered in urban landscapes, such as depicted in the original Batman (with Jack Nicholson) and Sin City. The diagonal cross latices trailing up the immense height on a textured facade already give the tower exaggerated proportions from a pedestrian's perspective. The unique open air lobby and public space border on the scene out of a not so distant future, but with design elements that seem to hearken something out of a recent dreamy past.

It is to me a post-modern glass curtain wall version of those neo-gothic and stone fortress like towers depicted in the referenced movies above. A spire would contradict that theme in my mind.


On another note, I whole-heartedly disagree with people's nearly OCD-like obsession with the asymmetrical back and decision by the developer and design team to maximize FAR capacity/floorspace by utilizing a side-core floorplan. I can actually understand how this can bug people, but I fail to see how it can look as obnoxious as some people are making it out to be.

To me, the only genuine annoyance of lasting importance is how quickly and easily the scope, design, and EIR for this project were approved with permits issued, this being the second tallest tower in the city and taken together with the second tower constituting the largest project in the financial district since the development of EC, relative to the timeliness of approvals and then progress with projects throughout the city of less than 1% this project, or tower.

For instance, 2 blocks down from my apartment in Nob Hill, the transformation of a long vacant 2 story building with light industrial zoning into a 4 story building with 9 condos is 5 years in the making.

One can make an argument that the timeline of the Renzo Piano plan should be excluded from the whole timeline of this project due to the extent to which the design and scope was changed with subsequent changes in ownership, design teams, etc.


Long winded and obsequious/contrived sounding post, but I have too much time and lots of writing to get through today.

[Human Scale]

The design engages the eye. It's top tier design. The street level human interaction aspect will, soon, be qualified as master-class. And the architect, as is his specialty, was extremely considerate with all aspects and stipulations he and his team were given - whilst administering his own aesthetic stamp. Period.

[OneRinconHill]

But let's all remember that 45 Lansing uses the side core design, and it turned out absolutely awful and now makes Jasper one of the most hated buildings in the city.

[Human Scale]

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill

But let's all remember that 45 Lansing uses the side core design, and it turned out absolutely awful and now makes Jasper one of the most hated buildings in the city.

Odd cores are nothing new. It's how well it's done - how well it's considered. Couple years ago I had the honor of being in the audience when Norman Foster received the Louis Kahn Award at the University of Pennsylvania.

http://www.phaidon.com/agenda/archit...rs-louis-kahn/

Although I saw a crew film the talk, I have been unable to find it to rewatch it. It was a completely original one hour talk Mr. Foster did about inspiration. Norman Foster studied briefly under Kahn at Penn. He was inspired by Kahn's odd-core design of the Richards Medical Research Laboratory (at UPenn) when, decades later, Foster + Partners designed the *applauded* odd-core Shanghai Bank HQ in Hong Kong.

Yes architects recycle. San Francisco should be happy they have a firm that recycles well.

[timbad]

shrouded for demolition (First St side)



Mission St side. building being gutted

[botoxic]

Not sure exactly what it will entail, but John King (@JohnKingSFChron) tweets that the groundbreaking ceremony for Oceanwide Center will take place on December 8.

[mt_climber13]

[observatory]

Originally Posted by botoxic

Not sure exactly what it will entail, but John King (@JohnKingSFChron) tweets that the groundbreaking ceremony for Oceanwide Center will take place on December 8.

Thanks for the groundbreaking info! Can't wait

[don116]

Originally Posted by timbad

shrouded for demolition (First St side)

Man 1st street will look AMAZING. The contrast of the old buildings w/ fire escapes next to the 900 ft tower is just so cool and unique.

[shakman]

I though the buildings with the fire escapes are also coming down?

[tech12]

Originally Posted by shakman

I though the buildings with the fire escapes are also coming down?

The three buildings closest to the camera in that shot are staying. The shrouded building and the two right behind it are the ones that are getting torn down.