SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[kenratboy]

We are complaining about the height...but 5 years ago, nobody would even believe that a 1200' building in SF would happen...ever.

Not only that, but there is still the possibility of stuff between 853 and 1200 feet being built as well as this tower.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

We are complaining about the height...but 5 years ago, nobody would even believe that a 1200' building in SF would happen...ever.

Not only that, but there is still the possibility of stuff between 853 and 1200 feet being built as well as this tower.

Hmmm, I dont think I would say "ever". I knew we would have buildings of this magnitude, but the issue that I saw was why it has taken so long. Right now we can say that we will have a 2000'+ building in San Francisco, the only question is how long it will take for such a statement to become reality.

San Francisco, being one of the most important metropolitan center in the world, should already have buildings like the ones being proposed right now ... and we would have, were we not stuck with useless people in office decades ago.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Hmmm, I dont think I would say "ever". I knew we would have buildings of this magnitude, but the issue that I saw was why it has taken so long. Right now we can say that we will have a 2000'+ building in San Francisco, the only question is how long it will take for such a statement to become reality.

San Francisco, being one of the most important metropolitan center in the world, should already have buildings like the ones being proposed right now ... and we would have, were we not stuck with useless people in office decades ago.

Hear Hear!

[kenratboy]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Hmmm, I dont think I would say "ever". I knew we would have buildings of this magnitude, but the issue that I saw was why it has taken so long. Right now we can say that we will have a 2000'+ building in San Francisco, the only question is how long it will take for such a statement to become reality.

San Francisco, being one of the most important metropolitan center in the world, should already have buildings like the ones being proposed right now ... and we would have, were we not stuck with useless people in office decades ago.

You are absolutely right - but things have been so horrible for so long, its just a miracle things have fallen into place in the last few years (Rincon and the other 600' stuff, this project, and all the other stuff).

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by rajaxsonbayboi

??????Eeew why?

Yeah, why?!? Have you seen the real thing in person? Better tend to your own bridges in Minneapolis. (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

You are absolutely right - but things have been so horrible for so long, its just a miracle things have fallen into place in the last few years (Rincon and the other 600' stuff, this project, and all the other stuff).

A miracle named Dean Macris.

And it's no accident things have been so horrible for so long. I am convinced San Francisco voters vote with their hearts and many of them have no real idea what they are voting on or what the candidates they vote for support. Put some beneft on the ballot and it will pass--nobody will ask who'll be stuck paying for it. How many voters really understand anything about the city's bonded indebtedness, how much interest we pay every year, our bond ratings and what they mean? Say we should build a new hospital for old people (I'm thinking Laguna Honda) and everybody cheers without asking who actually could use it and what portion of those who need such services or of those taxed to pay for it will derive any benefit.

I'm just going on trying to say that when some candidate for Supervisor or mayor says he's "progressive" and gets the backing of the right political clubs and machine godfathers (Burton et al), they get elected and few voters pay much attention to what they are likely to do. But then when they don't like what the people they voted in do, they give those they elected terrible approval ratings.

Me, I haven't voted for a supervisor who has won in decades. And I won't vote for a bond issue until they allow 100% of the taxes used to pay back the bonds to be passed through to renters as rent increases so that everybody--property owners and renters--has the same stake in the cost of government.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

(Image copyright Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP)


Oh, the memories....

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by HarryBarbierSRPD

(Image copyright Skidmore, Owings and Merrill LLP)


Oh, the memories....

What could have been. Right now I just visualize this building for the other tall tower (which they here show as a transparent model closest to the vantage point of this picture), TJPA's Howard Steet Tower.

In any legitamate competition, SOM's proposal would have blown Pelli's out of the water long ago. But ... not here.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

In any legitamate competition, SOM's proposal would have blown Pelli's out of the water long ago. But ... not here.

I disagree. As just one very recent example, look at the whole freedom tower competition. Now I didn't pay much attention to it as to why or how the tower came to be because I'm not a NYer, but I do remember some very very nice towers being proposed and the bland, glass refrigerator box won as the "signature tower," however, I really like the other smaller towers on the site a lot more than the signature one. I hope we get the same fate with our Transbay area in that SOM is allowed to build it's tower here as well. I don't think SOM's San Francisco office will let all the hard work, planning, and passion just go to waste, they'll still want to build that great artpiece in our city, hopefully.

Even some NIMBYs on the chronicle comments admitted they liked SOMs tower.

[sfcity1]

I'll never feel good about Pelli's tower. It makes me think that I am living in New Jersey, where Pelli built the same style building for Jersey's signatature tower, and Pelli simply bought out the competition.

However, I really do like Pelli's terminal, and 1200 feet does serve the purpose of creating a very high height barrier. Tallest building on the west coast.

[roadwarrior]

I was thinking that the Pelli design for the terminal looked familiar to me. Then I remembered that I saw his design when passing through the terminal at Washington Reagan airport:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/innusa/1295276017/

From "innusa" on Flickr

I was trying to get it posted on here but was having trouble

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I disagree. As just one very recent example, look at the whole freedom tower competition. Now I didn't pay much attention to it as to why or how the tower came to be because I'm not a NYer, but I do remember some very very nice towers being proposed and the bland, glass refrigerator box won as the "signature tower," however, I really like the other smaller towers on the site a lot more than the signature one. I hope we get the same fate with our Transbay area in that SOM is allowed to build it's tower here as well. I don't think SOM's San Francisco office will let all the hard work, planning, and passion just go to waste, they'll still want to build that great artpiece in our city, hopefully.

Even some NIMBYs on the chronicle comments admitted they liked SOMs tower.

Another good thing is that IMO, our signature tower will be much nicer than WTC's "Freedom Tower". It became even uglier after the NYPD suggestions were incorporated by morphing into a box on top of a tall concrete bunker. I think that it's an extreme disappointment and do not feel the same regarding the tower and terminal plan that we currently have, which I actually feel will be quite beautiful, especially the terminal and park.

That having been said, I was so disappointed that SOM wasn't selected that I haven't even said anything about it until now. I sense that we all went though some sort of collective delusion which built our hopes up so much. In the end, what we thought didn't matter at all. I can now very much rationalize why the Pelli/Hines project was chosen since it's close to ideal in the eyes of the TJPA. Not only is the terminal idyllic for them, but they also get a tall building that contributes significantly more money with a much smaller footprint than SOM.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I disagree. As just one very recent example, look at the whole freedom tower competition. Now I didn't pay much attention to it as to why or how the tower came to be because I'm not a NYer, but I do remember some very very nice towers being proposed and the bland, glass refrigerator box won as the "signature tower," however, I really like the other smaller towers on the site a lot more than the signature one. I hope we get the same fate with our Transbay area in that SOM is allowed to build it's tower here as well. I don't think SOM's San Francisco office will let all the hard work, planning, and passion just go to waste, they'll still want to build that great artpiece in our city, hopefully.

Even some NIMBYs on the chronicle comments admitted they liked SOMs tower.

I also did not pay too much attention for the same reason as yourself. I have not given too much of an effort to search for past designs, but I'll take your word for it . Most of the news I've heard has been from controversies surrounding the building, one of the biggest being the mayor using his "influence" to have a design selected. Also, the unatractive and tall concrete base suposedly serving as a security measure. In light of all this, I'm not sure if I would call this a legitamate competition.

Regarding the last part of your statement though, I agree with that. I hope you're right about it, and that they will choose it as the design of one of the complementary, maybe supertall, towers.

[SFView]

If SOM was choosen instead, I would have been afraid the tower would be ruined by design changes and the pressure to shorten the tower. With Pelli's design, I have more hope of the design being improved, and the height being increased. Also, with three proposals at the same height of 1200 feet, I think something has to change. Since the Transbay Transit Tower should be the tallest, I hope that the current height will be increased. If it is not, then Piano's towers and all other surrounding towers might need to be less than 1200, or even 1000 feet tall. Then Pelli's tower could end up being San Francisco's only supertall for the next several decades - sad for many of us here on SSP.

SOM should get a chance to design another tower in San Francisco, however I don't think their Transbay design would fit anywhere else in the city. Perhaps another twisting design with a similar exterior lattice, but on a smaller scale, on a smaller site might work?

Here is some background history and information on the Freedom Tower in New York City. As most of us know, this is another design competition that changed dramatically from the original. The surrounding shorter towers will be better designs than the tallest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

I also did not pay too much attention for the
same reason as yourself. I have not given too much of an effort to search for
past designs, but I'll take your word for it . Most of the news I've heard has
been from controversies surrounding the building, one of the biggest being
the mayor using his "influence" to have a design selected. Also, the
unatractive and tall concrete base suposedly serving as a security measure.

All you really need to know on the morphing of the Freedom Tower...

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by NYguy

All you really need to know on the morphing of the Freedom Tower...

Great graphic.

... Indeed, in the end, its possible Pelli's tower may look nothing like it does now.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Great graphic.

... Indeed, in the end, its possible Pelli's tower may look nothing like it does now.

That has been my point, exactly.


Excerps from TJPA's Final Jury Report may give some clue as to some of the potential changes ahead for Pelli's design of the tower:

From: http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...inalReport.pdf

It should reflect an understanding of the
role the Tower plays in the urban form of
San Francisco.

The elegant, slender, light design of the
Tower is appropriate for San Francisco,
and the park, if properly built, managed,
and programmed, could be a huge
amenity. Both the Tower and the Transit
Center are very well woven together as
an urban form and are strong contributors
versus detractors to the urban fabric.
The “pearlescent” surface texture of the
Tower is in keeping with San Francisco
precedents, showing an understanding
of the sunlight and atmosphere of San
Francisco. However, with the minimization
of glass area, the Jury cautions against
the heaviness of mullions and spandrel
elements of the exterior wall.

The Transit Tower design concept should
demonstrate integration of green design,
seismic and structural innovation, and
constructability.

The Tower’s structural system is well thought-
out and tried and true. It is
simple and straightforward. However,
the structure is not necessarily innovative
and could contribute more to the overall
image and form of the Tower. Columns
of 11 feet in diameter are too big at
the top floors. Also, the additional large
columns added to the base appear to
provide no functional use and impede
circulation. The design needs more
structural exploration and/or expression
of varied uses to give it a better sense
of scale and viability. The minimization
of glass and use of fresh air floor-to-floor
contribute to the sustainable design.
In addition, the Tower could respond
to solar orientation, as opposed to its
current symmetry on all sides.

The Transit Center and Tower should be
the focus of an evolving neighborhood
and create an iconic architectural
image.

The Tower, paired with the Transit Center,
creates an iconic architectural image. It
is a simple, elegant solution. Its curved
form and “pearlescent” texture soften
the image. Art is integral to the design.
Its playful sculpture/turbines at the top of
the Tower change the presence of light as
the wind blows, contributing to the Tower
as a marker of the Transit Center and
icon of the area. It works well at the street
level, park level, and viewed from afar.
The design also considers and addresses
future redevelopment in the area using
the park as a catalyst for development.
The Jury felt the Tower could be more
operationally and functionally driven
and still be iconic. There is a slight
danger of it being too simple, creating
a need to enrich the design through
solar orientation, a mixed-use program,
and refinement of the scale at the
base. The singular use of the Tower is a
weakness as the all-office program may
not contribute to the vibrancy of a new
neighborhood, but the Team indicated
its flexibility to explore and analyze
residential and/or hotel uses. The Team
further acknowledged that a mixed-use
Tower would provide an authentic and
functional driver to establish variety in
the Tower’s façade and massing. Overall,
the Tower is a whole, elegant identifier of
central place. It is timeless and fits in San
Francisco.

The Jury will also focus on the overall
financial feasibility of the Tower
Proposal. Respondents should submit
the appropriate financial and pro forma
documentation that demonstrates a
development program that can be
financed and built.

...Hines also reminded the Jury that
their proposal does allow for the
potential that floors above 50 could
be devoted to residential rather
than office use. In response to an
interview question, Hines indicated
that their Purchase Price offer would
not change if the ultimate use of the
Tower included residential as well as
office.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

In any legitamate competition, SOM's proposal would have blown Pelli's out of the water long ago. But ... not here.

I disagree. Winning a competition essentially means satisfying the judges the most. One may attempt to do that by providing a beautiful design and that seems to be what SOM did, but beauty that does not meet the functional requirements of the structure will not win--anywhere--and that appears to be where they slipped up. SOM took a chance on their design for the terminal, hoping they could convince the jury that the grand scale of their hall and the beauty of their design was worth a change in the desired pattern of bus routing through the structure--and they were wrong. The jury, and, I'm guessing, especially the transit representatives on it, simply didn't buy it. They were solidly focused on function over form. SOM took a gamble and lost.

[SFView]

From the same as above: http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...inalReport.pdf

There is a slight
danger of it being too simple, creating
a need to enrich the design through
solar orientation, a mixed-use program,
and refinement of the scale at the
base.

I think it is more than just "slight."

Overall,
the Tower is a whole, elegant identifier of
central place. It is timeless and fits in San
Francisco.

I think the design is not timeless. It looks more like a 1990's design - typical of several other of Pelli's towers in this time period. The bland simpleness of the design does blend well into the overall conservative blandness of San Francisco's skyline.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I disagree. Winning a competition essentially means satisfying the judges the most. One may attempt to do that by providing a beautiful design and that seems to be what SOM did, but beauty that does not meet the functional requirements of the structure will not win--anywhere--and that appears to be where they slipped up. SOM took a chance on their design for the terminal, hoping they could convince the jury that the grand scale of their hall and the beauty of their design was worth a change in the desired pattern of bus routing through the structure--and they were wrong. The jury, and, I'm guessing, especially the transit representatives on it, simply didn't buy it. They were solidly focused on function over form. SOM took a gamble and lost.

I see what you're saying, and you prove some good points. However, I'm not convinced. The way I see it, I'll never know the true reason why SOM did not get chosen. All I can do is assume that the decision was made long before they actually made it, most likely from financial reasons. The statement you guys disagree on was more my personal feeling than anything. Its my fault though, I should have made that known before.