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
     
     
  #941  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 4:21 AM
aluminum's Avatar
aluminum aluminum is offline
I love boxes.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 637
I think we should stop now, you are misunderstanding me , I am misunderstanding you. Or else we'll be getting into very complex 3 dimensional patterns created by earth's motion, that change regularly with up and downs in gravitational forces because of unsymmetrical asteroid movements their locations and other planets, which change the eccentricity of the earth's elliptical orbit, and those changes are very often not predictable.
Apologize to go off topic. I won't discuss about the building's shadow again.

Last edited by aluminum; Aug 18, 2007 at 4:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #942  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 5:30 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561


Does anybody else see reminiscences of the Statue of Liberty at the very top?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #943  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 6:16 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Some of this may require careful study by Planning, but can anyone here give a rough estimate of the following?:


How tall would each of the three building designs need to be to begin to cast any potentially objectional shadow, for any potentially objectional length of time, on any public open space protected by the City from such shadows?

What, where, when, and for how long would be the worse case shadow scenerios?

Can we list all public open spaces, names and locations, that may be affected by Transbay in the building height ranges possibly being considered (+1200 - 1500 feet or more tall)?

What are the current threshold limits for casting new shadows on public open spaces in San Francisco? Is there a limit greater than zero for new shadows?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #944  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 7:36 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Our view
Transbay towers over short-sighted,
San Francisco Business Times - August 17, 2007

Reactions to three proposed designs for the Transbay Tower make it clear that, for a dwindling band of San Francisco activists, height remains an emotive issue.

It's emotive precisely because emotions are really all the height-haters have got left. The facts are in, and they stack up like a skyscraper in favor of a tall building -- indeed, San Francisco's tallest -- at this location.

And the band is dwindling because the intellectual battle over highrises in the city has been over for a while now: The highrises convincingly won. Indeed, if remaining height opponents are left naked of logical arguments to advance against the Transbay Tower, it is largely because highrise proponents have stolen their clothes and put them on.

For years, development activists have proclaimed that growth should be centered downtown, not in the neighborhoods; that development should be based on transit, not the other way around; and, most of all, that its location, scale and pace should be controlled by the public sector -- an expression of public deed, rather than user need or developer "greed."

Transbay addresses all these points directly.
It sits in the newest part of downtown. It exists precisely because of its link to the pending Transbay Terminal, destined to be the city's premier transit nexus. And the placing, size and timetable for the tower, as well as the competition for the right to build it, were established by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, with guidance from the city's planning department.

That's left the height-averse grasping at even more specious arguments. That towers create wind shear. That they collapse during earthquakes. That they exceed the capabilities of firefighters and other first responders. Valid points all -- in perhaps 1970 -- conclusively dealt with since.

Most pathetic of all, that San Francisco needs to remain quaint, "European," and the way it was when I moved here 10, 20 or 40 years ago. That, too, ignores the facts. Quaintness has never been among downtown's characteristics.


As far as San Francisco's continental aspirations go, please don't bother the Europeans -- they are too busy building skyscrapers at a frantic pace. London, Paris, Madrid, Moscow and others are in the midst of adding new generations of towers that will exceed previous city height marks.

All have embraced the urban reality of the 21st century: World-class cities must grow to remain so. It shouldn't be out, so it must be up. And that in density lies destiny.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority has been bold in holding out to architects and developers the opportunity to establish the highest peak on the city's skyline.

But what's happened so far is the easy part. Highrise foes may be dwindling, and threadbare of good arguments, but rest assured they will be loud, organized and eager to identify any weak points in the process that can be used to derail the whole thing.

The joint powers authority, its competition jury and San Francisco's political structure must stay strong in their conviction that skyscrapers like the Transbay Tower are an integral part of the city's future, and not be swayed by entreaties from the past. Political meekness will be enough to kill the boldest of designs.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #945  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 7:56 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Thanks for the great article. The last part scares me though
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #946  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2007, 3:05 AM
LWR's Avatar
LWR LWR is offline
Waiting for what's next..
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF: on top of a hill behind UCSF
Posts: 170
Exclamation The shadow knows...

Which is worse? Urban sprawl that extends to Oregon or Nevada/Arizona, or high-rise buildings (that do or do not cast a shadow)?

My vote is for Urban sprawl as the worse.
__________________
Show me a 12 foot fence and I'll show you a 14 foot ladder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #947  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2007, 4:11 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
I just keep looking at SOM's proposal and thinking this is exactly how the 21st Century San Francisco skyline should look. Now if San Francisco hadn't built a ton of skyscrapers since the 1950's and kept it's attractive 'low slung' skyline then yeah maybe the anti-height folks might have a point ..but pleaseeee.... that debate was over 40 years ago. The only way to go now is up. I really love SOM's design. The renderings have a graceful, almost ethereal quailty that is rarely seen in supertall proposals/projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #948  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 2:33 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


Does anybody else see reminiscences of the Statue of Liberty at the very top?
The only thing I see that connects both of those structures is how nicely it stands out from the surrounding landscape.
__________________
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
     
     
  #949  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 12:05 PM
Dream'n's Avatar
Dream'n Dream'n is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post


Does anybody else see reminiscences of the Statue of Liberty at the very top?
I see what you're seeing.
__________________
I ain't got time to BREED
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #950  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 2:13 PM
Leyla1971's Avatar
Leyla1971 Leyla1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
I think that the tower should be higher and not by the crown, but by the floors. It is ridiculous to see all the time that we are afraid of the heights. Nobody Else in the world is having a problem with tall buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #951  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 9:35 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leyla1971 View Post
I think that the tower should be higher and not by the crown, but by the floors. It is ridiculous to see all the time that we are afraid of the heights. Nobody Else in the world is having a problem with tall buildings.
I agree it should be taller and have more floors. I think if this was an all residential tower, it would easily have more than 100 floors. The entire tower itself needs to be upgraded and not just by a few feet. I'm not so sure about the last part of your statement though, there are other cities that dont have buildings as tall as ours yet (hard to believe ). Although now I think that soon, most cities will have no problem.
__________________
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
     
     
  #952  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 4:03 AM
ahdude27's Avatar
ahdude27 ahdude27 is offline
Schrute for President
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 86
good statue of liberty observation. i totally see it. i like it
__________________
There's too much green to feel blue
http://flickr.com/photos/26598659@N06/ < my photo page
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #953  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 4:31 AM
toddguy toddguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 873
Sorry (Alliance..IIRC..if not sorry Alliance..lol) but the top of SOM is still boxy to me. Of course given that the other 90% of the building(not to mention the terminal) is fantastic I suppose I can live with a top that is a little 'boxy'..expecially since it will be in SF so it will kind of 'fit in' that way.

And it is not like these designs will not be subject to a little 'tweaking' anyway right?..right???

The Pelli design if not chosen should be given to a nice salivating midwestern city though(NOT Chicago..they already have enough!!! hmph!) that would appreciate it and embrace it's latent 'conservatism'

*voted for the Pelli design cause I felt sorry for it as SOM was kicking the other's asses so badly*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #954  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 4:40 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Well, considering Pelli has already been chosen to design a supertall around this height for Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised (though I would be angered) that Pelli's Transbay proposal, should it not get seleceted, would be somewhat recycled for that proposal.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #955  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 7:07 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
WTF are you guys talk'n about? This is a proposal for San Francisco. How many times have you seen a skyscraper that was proposed in one town and not built in that town but instead it built in another town? Humm.. almost never. I loved Fantasy Island. BTW I didn't know a guy from Columbus HAD to 'live with' something in San Francisco but ..OK go ahead and call me a b-i-t-c-h. But I kinda like spires too -especially for tall towers.

And those who are seeing some visual connection with the Statue of Liberty are just the type of people who would also see Jesus' face on a burnt corn tortilla.

So for those of you in San Francisco how aware would say most residents are of this proposal and how supportive do you think most people are of it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #956  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 7:21 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
And those who are seeing some visual connection with the Statue of Liberty are just the type of people who would also see Jesus' face on a burnt corn tortilla.
Actually the way I can see the Statue of Liberty in SOM's proposal is near the top of the building where the shadows of the top structure creates the impression of the projections from the statue's crown. Nothing too far fetched.
__________________
“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
     
     
  #957  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 7:40 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
So for those of you in San Francisco how aware would say most residents are of this proposal and how supportive do you think most people are of it?
Pretty aware and maybe 50/50 support (at best). They are aware because One Rincon Hill has been so "in your face" that it has sensitized everyone to highrises. ORH just creates a new skyline all by itself, sitting as it does several blocks from any other high rises and you can see it from all over town. People either love it or they hate it but they see it and have opinions about whether they want more tall really tall buildings or not.

Fortunately for those of us who want to see a supertall built, the economic imperative to build it may be unstoppable because every significant politician in town seems to favor the new terminal and allowing a supertall may be necessary to get the funds for the terminal. At least that's what everybody has been thinking. Now if somebody comes in and shows that the terminal numbers pencil out with a shorter tower, all bets are off because that would just take the heat off everyone and they'd probably cave to the vocal height-haters.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #958  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 12:44 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Well, if you guys are concerned, write your alderman (or whatever you have).

Tell them breifly who you are and where you live (preferably in the district that Transbay will be in/SF).

Tell them extensively why the building woiuld be a positive development for the area and for SF.

Attempt to reinvoke campaign promises of economic development etc.

And then tell them that you vote depends on the approval of this building.

If you're nice (but firm) keeping the best interests of the city and ward at heart (don't say..."I want it because its tall"...say "it will be a major tourist attraction and bring greatly improved foot traffic to the shops and business around the terminal.") you're letters will be quite effective...in large numbers.

If you guys are worried about it...take action.
__________________
My: Skyscraper Art - Diagrams - Diagram Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #959  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 4:36 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
Well, if you guys are concerned, write your alderman (or whatever you have).

Tell them breifly who you are and where you live (preferably in the district that Transbay will be in/SF).

Tell them extensively why the building woiuld be a positive development for the area and for SF.

Attempt to reinvoke campaign promises of economic development etc.

And then tell them that you vote depends on the approval of this building.

If you're nice (but firm) keeping the best interests of the city and ward at heart (don't say..."I want it because its tall"...say "it will be a major tourist attraction and bring greatly improved foot traffic to the shops and business around the terminal.") you're letters will be quite effective...in large numbers.

If you guys are worried about it...take action.
We are already three steps ahead of you you this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #960  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 4:43 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
Well, if you guys are concerned, write your alderman (or whatever you have).
Ah, my man . . . if only, if only. We call 'em "Supervisors" and many of us disparage them with the term "stupidvisors."

This article's about mine (who happens to have a name familiar to Chicagoans except he spells it differently):

Quote:
Anti-gentrification forces stymie housing development
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Ron Mallia wants to build eight apartments and condominiums on an empty parking lot next to his Mission District auto shop and rent some of the apartments to his mechanics.

His project seems like the kind that would be endorsed by the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition, but the group has fought Mallia, insisting that his project not go forward until the city evaluates how new development on the city's east side will affect industrial land, jobs and housing.

The fight is one of many recent battles being waged by the coalition, a handful of community organizations focused on immigrants' rights, development and social services that was formed a decade ago to resist gentrification during the dot-com boom. Supervisor Chris Daly, a former tenant activist, takes credit for helping found the group, which has a reputation for staging street protests and illegally occupying private property.

More recently, it has used environmental laws to stall more than 50 market-rate housing projects before narrowly losing a bid this month to block a condominium project on Cesar Chavez Street that will replace a shuttered paint store.

But some longtime Mission residents and business owners question whether the group is going too far, blocking developments that would add middle-income and affordable housing to the neighborhood, in addition to cleaning it up and making it safer.

"They don't want any development at all in the Mission because any development makes the area better. ... They don't want that because they believe that by improving the area, the cost of housing might go up," said Mallia, who has owned gas stations and car repair shops in the Mission for 25 years.

In April, facing pressure from the coalition, the city Planning Commission approved Mallia's project but with the condition that he pay more than $150,000 in fees that will help fund city services.

Although Mallia believed he was getting a raw deal - similar projects have not had to pay such fees, he said - he did not want his project to stall while he paid taxes on the vacant lot.

Mallia's property, at 736 Valencia St., is among 2,200 acres in four South of Market neighborhoods - the Mission, Potrero Hill/Showplace Square, East SoMa and Central Waterfront - that the city is evaluating for possible rezoning. The Planning Department began examining the area in 2002, having seen that the neighborhoods had lost a big chunk of industrial space to live-work lofts and were being eyed by condominium developers.

More than 50 pending projects were halted in April 2006, when the Anti-Displacement Coalition persuaded the Board of Supervisors to force developers to examine how the projects would affect not just the environment but also the supply of industrial land and blue-collar jobs - and whether the projects were consistent with the city's policies encouraging more affordable housing.

"Through its land-use policies, San Francisco has been pushing for a richer city that does not cater to the people that are already here," coalition coordinator Nick Pagoulatos said.

The city is promoting biotech, green tech and the digital economy at the expense of industries such as printing, furniture repair, warehousing and shipping, he said.

Legal experts say the supervisors entered what appeared to be uncharted territory by adding employment and housing analysis to environmental review requirements.

"That argument is hard to make ... you have to have some factual basis for showing that jobs and affordable housing relate to an adverse environmental effect," said Tim Cremin, a land-use attorney at the Meyers Nave firm in Oakland.

Sean Elsbernd, a supervisor who voted against that expanded environmental review, was among the six supervisors to reject the coalition's appeal of the condo project on Cesar Chavez Street.

Elsbernd said that the coalition's interpretation of the environmental review was "one hell of a stretch," and that the argument could shut down all market-rate housing development in San Francisco.

"It's a slippery slope - with an environmental review you can look at the impact on traffic, pollution, density," Elsbernd said. "But with housing and jobs, how do you quantify in any meaningful way what the impact is on the environment?"

Sue Hestor, an attorney who represents the coalition, countered that jobs and housing do impact the environment and that environmental studies are intended to assess whether the city is meeting its affordable housing goals.

"If you don't have low-income housing in San Francisco, people who are the workforce in this city will have to commute from places like Tracy," Hestor said. "What happens if 100,000 people have to commute from Tracy to work in the city, isn't that an environmental impact?"

Online resource

To view San Francisco Planning Department information on zoning issues in the Mission and other areas in the eastern part of the city, go to:

links.sfgate.com/ZPW


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

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../BAFARK1GE.DTL
As it happens, he has said he doesn't oppose height "per se" in the TransBay Project as long as he gets all the "affordable" housing he wants so there is hope for the supertall, but a letter from me would not change his mind--I've written him plenty of letters on other subjects. This time I wrote the TJPA (TransBay Joint Powers Authority) and will probably write the mayor if the matter becomes an issue before him (he generally favors development though possibly not, by reputation, as much as his predecessor, Willie Brown).
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:45 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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