HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 39 7.89%
#2 Cesar Pelli 98 19.84%
#3 SOM 357 72.27%
Voters: 494. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 6:30 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,042
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:
The two-stage competition will be launched in the fall of 2006 and is expected to take approximately 36 weeks for completion.
"Fall" could mean anytime before December 21, 2006. We could have preliminary designs submitted by contestants by August or September of 2007, depending on when the competition commences. A final design that could end up being very different from the original will be developed and refined by the winning design team until final documents completed and approved. This could be as late as 2010 depending if there are other unkown factors that could shorten or lengthen the time. Note that final heights can also change until approvals and permits are granted. Normally, this could be about 3 months before construction begins, but for these projects I am not certain. I imagine the design for the temporary terminal might be a separate contract, and the designer may be sought for more directly by the city or TJPA.

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...

Last edited by SFView; Oct 27, 2006 at 5:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 6:32 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,042
Thin towers widely spaced are not a wall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 4:07 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I think the agenda for the meeting this friday comes out either today or tommorow, usually 72 hours before the meeting itself.
__________________
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
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 5:32 PM
AK47KC AK47KC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 95616, 94030, HK
Posts: 246
Let's just hope what happened at One Rincon Hill happens with the Transbay Towers as well.
__________________
建筑物 Construction >300 m.
香港 HK: 環球貿易廣場 ICC, 如心廣場 Nina Tower I , 港島東中心 One Island East
纽约市 NYC: 自由塔 Freedom Tower, 美洲银行中心 Bank of America Tower, 纽约时报中心 NY Times Tower
芝加哥 Chicago: Trump Tower, Waterview Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2006, 7:39 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 2:16 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
__________________
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

Last edited by Reminiscence; Oct 25, 2006 at 3:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 3:01 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,009
Put me down for 'Friends of the Caltrain extension' - best of all, I don't pay CA taxes, so ha!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 3:09 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Great, bigger share of the taxes for me

Reno isn't part of California ... not yet.
__________________
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
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 3:14 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,009
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 4:04 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 4:12 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,042
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 5:18 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,042
This isn't Dubai.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 10:31 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
^ 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 1:25 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 6:24 PM
AK47KC AK47KC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 95616, 94030, HK
Posts: 246
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.
__________________
建筑物 Construction >300 m.
香港 HK: 環球貿易廣場 ICC, 如心廣場 Nina Tower I , 港島東中心 One Island East
纽约市 NYC: 自由塔 Freedom Tower, 美洲银行中心 Bank of America Tower, 纽约时报中心 NY Times Tower
芝加哥 Chicago: Trump Tower, Waterview Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2006, 7:52 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
__________________
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
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 4:46 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
I don't like the "an" even taller tower here, but later he says three. competition begins tomorrow:

Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO
Transbay authority to entertain design ideas for new transit tower
- John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Thursday, October 26, 2006

Thirty-five years after the Transamerica Pyramid seemed to top off San Francisco's skyline once and for all, a new international competition could lead to construction of an even-taller tower near Market Street.

The competition would be managed by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a government body working to build a transit hub near First and Mission streets to serve buses and commuter trains. It would seek a development team to build the new center -- and also an adjacent tower that "is expected to be an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline" and help pay for the transit project.

On Friday, the Transbay board is expected to vote to proceed with the competition.

"A lot of the comments we've heard from the public is that they want a world-class station and a world-class transit tower," said Maria Ayerdi, executive director of the authority. "Design quality is paramount."

The idea to push beyond the once-controversial Transamerica Pyramid and its 853-foot peak gained momentum in May, when city planning officials suggested zoning changes to allow three skyscrapers in the Transbay area that would generate revenue for the project.

Any changes require extensive environmental studies; however, the Transbay authority can move forward on its own site and leave the tower details for later.

In the first round, where teams present their qualifications, the track record of each developer counts for less than the impression made by each team's architect, who must show a "flexible and imaginative attitude" as well as commit to "personal involvement throughout the life of the project."

The seven-member jury includes Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Robert Campbell of the Boston Globe, as well as three other architects and experts in transportation, engineering and real estate financing.

During the final round, when competitors submit their proposed projects, economics are more important: The rules say the main focus of judging will be "the overall financial feasibility" of the competing proposals.

Ayerdi said other factors will be evaluated beside finances and architectural flash.

"This has to be a world-class facility for the city and Bay Area to be proud of. And we don't mean how it looks, but how it operates," Ayerdi said. "The public has to feel welcome."

In other words, the terminal must be easy to use.

If the authority board approves the program on Friday, the competition would begin next week, with finalists selected in February and a decision on the development team coming in August.

The estimated cost for the overall project, which includes a below-ground rail extension from the Caltrain station on Fourth Street, is $3.4 billion. The target date to begin construction is 2010.

First and Mission isn't the only location in San Francisco where a new competition could change the look of a neighborhood.

A smaller competition began last week at Octavia Boulevard, where four sites along the distinctive thoroughfare that opened last year are being offered to teams that can deliver "excellence and innovation in urban infill and architectural design."

The five-block stretch from Market Street north to Hayes Street was covered for decades by two levels of ramps connecting Interstate 80 to the western side of San Francisco. After the system was damaged by the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, freeway opponents campaigned successfully to replace the ramps with a surface boulevard that separates local traffic from commuter lanes.

Of 12 parcels along the boulevard left empty when the freeway came down, four are now for sale. They include two 18-foot-wide slivers along Octavia between Fell and Oak streets, a block where ramps once touched ground, and a long site at the corner of Market and Octavia.

Those sites also were the subject of a 2005 competition held by the private San Francisco Prize. That contest attracted 167 entries and favored contemporary designs with an emphasis on environmentally friendly features. At the time, though, the land was not available for sale.

"The reason for doing this is to follow through on the design competition," said Rich Hillis of the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development. "We're putting our money where our mouth is."

The city's target is to select developers for the four sites by the end of January.



E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGEFM036L1.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 5:23 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,009
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 6:52 PM
AK47KC AK47KC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 95616, 94030, HK
Posts: 246
Glad to see the unsightly parking lots disappear.
__________________
建筑物 Construction >300 m.
香港 HK: 環球貿易廣場 ICC, 如心廣場 Nina Tower I , 港島東中心 One Island East
纽约市 NYC: 自由塔 Freedom Tower, 美洲银行中心 Bank of America Tower, 纽约时报中心 NY Times Tower
芝加哥 Chicago: Trump Tower, Waterview Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2006, 6:54 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
__________________
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
     
     
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 9:55 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.