SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by aluminum

^ Great comparison to show how bad the pelli's version sucks in front of SOM's !

Pelli's tower is still impressive for SF though even if it's still not as grand as SOM's.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Originally Posted by BigKidD

Pelli's tower is still impressive for SF though even if it's still not as grand as SOM's.

Yeah, true, but... SOM's is big AND beautiful

...and it's even bigger, too!

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Originally Posted by HarryBarbierSRPD

Yeah, true, but... SOM's is big AND beautiful

...and it's even bigger, too!

i second that!

[Stephenapolis]

Seeing them like that really makes the SOM proposal look even better. Too bad.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

OK fellas, I have an update for you. I have been trying to find the official height statistics on the Transbay Tower proposal, IE whether or not the height is 1200' to the roof, the top of the entire structure, 1250', etc. I have been in contact with Diana Daly, the Marketing Coordinator of Pelli Clarke Pelli, as well as Paul Paradis, Senior Vice President of Hines in San Francisco.

In response to my E-mail (regarding the tower's height) to the marketing coordinator at Pelli Clarke Pelli, I received:

Dear A_____,

Thank you for your email and for your interest in the Transbay Transit
Center and Tower. We have posted a lot of the available information
about the Transbay Transit Center and Tower design on our website -
http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf. As stated in the project
description, the height of the tower is proposed to be 1200 feet and
80
stories. You can also find information about the project (including
press releases and the Jury's report) on the Transbay website -
http://www.transbaycenter.org/transb...nt.aspx?id=323

If you have other specific questions, they will need to be addressed
with Hines. Their press release can be found at this website -
http://www.hines.com/press/releases/Transbay.aspx

Again, thank you very much for your interest in our project.

Kind Regards,

Diana Daly
Marketing Coordinator
Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects

After receiving that e-mail, I gave a call to Hines' headquarters in Texas, who in return relayed my question to the Hines SF office. A few hours later, I received this e-mail:

To answer your question, Transbay Tower is 1200 feet to the top of the entire structure.

Paul E. Paradis
Senior Vice President
Hines
101 California Street Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94111

So, there you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth (err, mouthes.) The height of the entire structure to it's pinnacle, as proposed, is 1200' tall. No more, no less.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by HarryBarbierSRPD

OK fellas, I have an update for you. I have been trying to find the official height statistics on the Transbay Tower proposal, IE whether or not the height is 1200' to the roof, the top of the entire structure, 1250', etc. I have been in contact with Diana Daly, the Marketing Coordinator of Pelli Clarke Pelli, as well as Paul Paradis, Senior Vice President of Hines in San Francisco.

In response to my E-mail (regarding the tower's height) to the marketing coordinator at Pelli Clarke Pelli, I received:

Dear A_____,

Thank you for your email and for your interest in the Transbay Transit
Center and Tower. We have posted a lot of the available information
about the Transbay Transit Center and Tower design on our website -
http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf. As stated in the project
description, the height of the tower is proposed to be 1200 feet and
80
stories. You can also find information about the project (including
press releases and the Jury's report) on the Transbay website -
http://www.transbaycenter.org/transb...nt.aspx?id=323

If you have other specific questions, they will need to be addressed
with Hines. Their press release can be found at this website -
http://www.hines.com/press/releases/Transbay.aspx

Again, thank you very much for your interest in our project.

Kind Regards,

Diana Daly
Marketing Coordinator
Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects

After receiving that e-mail, I gave a call to Hines' headquarters in Texas, who in return relayed my question to the Hines SF office. A few hours later, I received this e-mail:

To answer your question, Transbay Tower is 1200 feet to the top of the entire structure.

Paul E. Paradis
Senior Vice President
Hines
101 California Street Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94111

So, there you have it folks, straight from the horse's mouth (err, mouthes.) The height of the entire structure to it's pinnacle, as proposed, is 1200' tall. No more, no less.

Thanks for your efforts to uncover the truth Harry (if I may call you that ). This, to me, is not nearly tall enough and they have plenty of room to grow. Its way too early to say anything in concrete though, so what they're telling you is what they proposed right off the bat. The pinnacle structure itself is 100' tall, making the actual tower only 1100'. Either way, the important thing to realize here, is that this figure will change as the tower and terminal are modified and housing is added. As for the levels, 80 sounds too low. Millenium right across the street has 60, and thats no signature tower (even though it sure looks like one). SOM's proposal made me ponder if we would eventually end up with something over 1500' and over 100 levels. I still have hope this will happen with Pelli's tower, but right now all we can do is wait and pray. I believe the height limits (if there are any) should be ready within the next 6 months.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Thanks for your efforts to uncover the truth Harry (if I may call you that ). This, to me, is not nearly tall enough and they have plenty of room to grow. Its way too early to say anything in concrete though, so what they're telling you is what they proposed right off the bat. The pinnacle structure itself is 100' tall, making the actual tower only 1100'. Either way, the important thing to realize here, is that this figure will change as the tower and terminal are modified and housing is added. As for the levels, 80 sounds too low. Millenium right across the street has 60, and thats no signature tower (even though it sure looks like one). SOM's proposal made me ponder if we would eventually end up with something over 1500' and over 100 levels. I still have hope this will happen with Pelli's tower, but right now all we can do is wait and pray. I believe the height limits (if there are any) should be ready within the next 6 months.

I completely agree with you, and although at this point I am just hoping to have a structure that is at least 1200'+, I am also praying for the final plans to include something taller (and hopefully with a public observation deck on top!)

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by HarryBarbierSRPD

I completely agree with you, and although at this point I am just hoping to have a structure that is at least 1200'+, I am also praying for the final plans to include something taller (and hopefully with a public observation deck on top!)

The fact that TJPA conciders the proposal as is right now "only the beginning," leaves me wondering just how flexibile Pelli and Hines are willing to be. I dont believe that C. Daly will let off without getting his housing, so I think its safe to assume this tower will have at least some housing in it.

SOM's tower was actually elevated 103' off the ground and the pinnacle was 175' tall, so the actual tower was right about the same size, at 1097'. The average level's height for SOM's tower is about 11.8'/floor, and Pelli's is about 13.8'/floor, most likely due to the whole tower being used for office. For some reason I've been thinking that even though everyone's comments did little to sway the TJPA's decision on who would win the competition, perhaps our comments stating our desire for a taller tower with perhaps a slightly modified design is something they'll now take into account while working with Pelli + Hines for the eventual final design of the tower.

[SFView]

Thanks for finding out the 1200 foot full height, even though it seems from the drawings and the model that the building appears to be taller. I am still somewhat curious what the architectural drawings actually say, although the current height may only be temporary. There is a good chance there may be one or more redesigns before the tower gets built. That typically happens on projects of such very large size. The coming years should prove to be rather interesting with the possible changes. Hopefully favorable public comment and political requests will have a positive effect on the design and height. We might not really know the final design until near the time construction of the new terminal and tower starts around 2010.

[SNT1]

SOM's version is taller? I want that one now.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by SNT1

SOM's version is taller? I want that one now.

Most of us did as well. However, it was not to be .

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Originally Posted by SFView

Thanks for finding out the 1200 foot full height, even though it seems from the drawings and the model that the building appears to be taller. I am still somewhat curious what the architectural drawings actually say, although the current height may only be temporary. There is a good chance there may be one or more redesigns before the tower gets built. That typically happens on projects of such very large size. The coming years should prove to be rather interesting with the possible changes. Hopefully favorable public comment and political requests will have a positive effect on the design and height. We might not really know the final design until near the time construction of the new terminal and tower starts around 2010.

I know, so, considering that we won't know the actual dimensions/configuration of the building for at least a year or two, I believe it's time for me to pay attention to another project...

Hey Renzo, how about some renderings and statistics?

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Most of us did as well. However, it was not to be .

Destined to the same fate as some of the great unbuilts, like Foster's "kissing" WTC towers...

[BTinSF]

From the moment the building plans were announced (it) was a lightning rod for criticism.

(Critics) said . . . that the "inhuman building" in its pivotal location . . . would have a "devastating effect ... on the fabric of the city."

There were fears it would cast a shadow that could "shroud the surrounding area in Stygian darkness," as an overwrought Chronicle article . . . put it. Many hated the look . . . .

Lawsuits were filed to block construction, but the city's mayor . . . was solidly behind (it) . . . .

The controversy continued during construction.

The Los Angeles Times architecture critic John Pastier called the building "the world's largest architectural folly," (saying) "This is antisocial architecture at its worst; a form of disruption and anarchy as serious as anything that has occurred across the bay in Berkeley or Oakland."

Responding in The Chronicle, the building's architects tartly wrote: "If every new building were obliged to conform, in scale and style, to its immediate neighbors, our cities would still be aggregations of mud huts."

Sound familiar? This was written and said about the TransAmerica as reported at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

[SFView]

The Golden Gate Bridge also suffered criticism in the years before construction. Most thankfully, the final design by Strauss became the great masterpiece we all know. I hope that Pelli will eventually design a masterpiece that the world will come to know as well.

From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goldeng...pposition.html

Unsafe, or Ugly
Bridge opponents voiced concerns about the Gate's geographical situation. Many engineers doubted that a bridge could be designed to withstand such a notoriously violent environment. Critics attacked Strauss' engineering abilities, and described his initial design as "an upside-down rat trap." Still more criticism came from residents who did not wish to disturb the aesthetic beauty of the Gate. Opponents of the bridge's construction were collectively known as the "Old Guard."

From: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...NW:en%26sa%3DN

Joseph B. Strauss' proposed Golden Gate Bridge design.
Strauss, J. B., and M. M. O'Shaughnessy. Bridging the Golden Gate. [no date].
Source: Derleth Collection, Water Resources Center Archives.

[Stephenapolis]

^I like that bridge design better than the real Golden Gate.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Originally Posted by Stephenapolis

^I like that bridge design better than the real Golden Gate.

??????Eeew why?

[Reminiscence]

BT, were those arguments against Transamerica before or after they managed to cut it down in size?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Stephenapolis

^I like that bridge design better than the real Golden Gate.

what? its hella ugly

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

BT, were those arguments against Transamerica before or after they managed to cut it down in size?

I don't know. The LA Times's comment had to be after because it was after it began construction. But the other stuff could have been before or after. Read the link and see what you think. But I loved the point about it being a pyramid in part because that design, being less bulky at the top, shaded less. Of course the Empire State is less bulky at the top too (take that as a hint about flat-topped refrigerators, Planning Dept.!).