SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 83

northbay · #**1641** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Oh please--everyone needs to stop generalizing. Thank God for liberals, damn the Republicans and keep an eye on the "progressives". If you don't like liberals, move away from here; otherwise, educate yourselves about the benefits we all enjoy that derived from liberalism.

seriously

and tim redmond is not a liberal if anybody didnt catch that

SLO · #**1642** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 9:34 PM**

I actually prefer the Cesar Pelli design. Its very elegant. Im sure it'll change before construction....

Jobohimself · #**1643** Posted **Mar 5, 2008, 6:49 AM**

Now that I think of it, the middle finger analogy works...maybe it's the Transbay Commission's gesture to the NIMBYs.

Dougall5505 · #**1644** Posted **Mar 8, 2008, 8:17 PM**

found a couple renders of the terminal http://flickr.com/photos/nc3d/

BTinSF · #**1645** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 6:02 AM**

^^^That's got to be one of the designs that didn't get picked: no "park" on top.

It's also interesting it doesn't seem to show the "signature" tower (or The Millenium) either as far as I can see.

SFView · #**1646** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 6:55 AM**

Unless I am mistaken, they look like conceptual renderings based mostly on the desire for high speed rail transit in California. They do not look like any part of the Transbay design competition that took place last year.

WildCowboy · #**1647** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 7:09 AM**

Yes, these were put out by the high-speed rail folks...no connection to actual architectural proposals.

Here is the CAHSR page that links to their Visualization Media Archive...drilling down through San Francisco --> Transbay Terminal --> Stills leads you to the original images.

NYC2ATX · #**1648** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 7:44 AM**

am I naive in asking what "FLYCalifornia" trains are?

BVictor1 · #**1649** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLO

I actually prefer the Cesar Pelli design. Its very elegant. Im sure it'll change before construction....

It's simple and boaring. For the city's first supertall, there should have been more too it. I personally liked the SOM design. This was an opportunity for something special, not only in height, but in design. But I must say that I am pleased that S.F. is finally getting a true supertall.

Being a Chicagoan with a supertall proposal of it's own (no design has actually been released) that's suposedly going to be designed by Pelli on Wolf Point and Hines might be one of the joint developers. I pray that we don't get some ripped-off re-worked Pelli design. I'd like something fresh inventive and new.

If San Fransiscans want left overs, you can have them.

FourOneFive · #**1650** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

If San Fransiscans want left overs, you can have them.

Well, that's an ignorant comment. If you had read through most of the thread, you would have realized most of us here wanted the SOM tower as well. Financially, Pelli/ Hines put together a stronger proposal that gave the most funding to build the new Transit Center.

zilfondel · #**1651** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 6:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay420

theres that word again. john king would have a fit.

for me, dense is actually the operative word, ill take an icon tho

Here you go:

one icon, coming right up!

BVictor1 · #**1652** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 7:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourOneFive

Well, that's an ignorant comment. If you had read through most of the thread, you would have realized most of us here wanted the SOM tower as well. Financially, Pelli/ Hines put together a stronger proposal that gave the most funding to build the new Transit Center.

I have read through much of the forum, and I do know that most of the forumers "here" were partical to the SOM design. But seeing as the "supposed competition" was to be based on architectural merits, that didn't happen.

WildCowboy · #**1653** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 7:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by StatenIslander237

am I naive in asking what "FLYCalifornia" trains are?

It's just a concept for the visual materials for high speed rail in California.

rajaxsonbayboi · #**1654** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

I have read through much of the forum, and I do know that most of the forumers "here" were partical to the SOM design. But seeing as the "supposed competition" was to be based on architectural merits, that didn't happen.

You're stupid! You obviously did not read the right things then. Most of us already stated that the "competition" was based not on architectural ingenuity but what was the best choice, so far as money and practicality goes, for SF. And thats why Pelli won because of the money that will be given to build the transit center! *sigh* And not because all of us San Franciscans enjoy crappy, lame, and boring towers that will represent our city.

SFView · #**1655** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 10:40 PM**

There is the possibility of design changes, since there are many factors the could effect changes towards a final approved design. We still don't know the possible final height yet. We still don't know if residential will be included within the tower. Will a substantial amount of public comment in favor of a more interesting redesign effect a more positive final outcome? I hope so.

SLO · #**1656** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 10:58 PM**

^^Exactly, how likely is it the design will be the same. I still like it though.

SFView · #**1657** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 11:11 PM**

It's still too early to know.

BTinSF · #**1658** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVictor1

seeing as the "supposed competition" was to be based on architectural merits, that didn't happen.

You misunderstand the "supposed competition". There were a number of criteria not at all limited to architectural merit and one of the more obvious ones was the economics of the package. That's why the "contestants" were architech/developer teams rather than just architects. All the "teams" understood that the purpose of the tower, from the city's standpoint, is to generate funds to build the terminal. Some erred in thinking architectural glitz would overcome the lack of MONEY but that, at least in hindsight, was foolish when everybody could see that the TransBay Project is so-far short of funding.

SFView · #**1659** Posted **Mar 9, 2008, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

You misunderstand the "supposed competition"...

I think a lot of us did, including some of the competitors.

Richard Mlynarik · #**1660** Posted **Mar 10, 2008, 5:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView

I think a lot of us did, including some of the competitors.

Some of us pointed out that the competition was a farce at the time the, uh, unconventional terms of the "competition" were announced.

Nevertheless a number of talented and skilled people wasted a lot of time on actually attempting to design something that might have a chance of functioning, as opposed to cutting and pasting in the sub-cretinous, unworkable junk provided by the TJPA's consultants (PTG) and gluing on a pre-designed building from elsewhere.

If anybody wants an object lesson in how not just mediocrity, but outright professional incompetence dominate everything you see around you in San Francisco in any way connected with transportation, this is as good an example as any to follow.

The Pelli team did a truly clever job in maximizing financial return on design effort: unfortunately for the public the City and County of San Francisco did a perfect job of ensuring the inutility of the result.