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 39 7.88%
#2 Cesar Pelli 98 19.80%
#3 SOM 358 72.32%
Voters: 495. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1181  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2007, 9:39 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Look at Chicago. They completely dominate that list and everything is either built or under construction. They don't mess around.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1182  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2007, 9:47 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Look at Chicago. They completely dominate that list and everything is either built or under construction. They don't mess around.
Yes but.. LAS VEGAS??? What the hell is going on in the world ???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1183  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2007, 9:52 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 rocketman_95046 View Post
nice to see the AP use SkyscraperPage.com as a reference!

I'd love to see Transbay as number 3 on that list. Also, I hope some of the other buildings in the Transbay neighborhood make it on that list as well .
__________________
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
     
     
  #1184  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2007, 10:32 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Yes but.. LAS VEGAS??? What the hell is going on in the world ???
It's the world's premier gambling city and the planet's biggest adult playland if you're into that type of thing. It's not at all surprising that they're reaching for the sky since the entire brief history of Las Vegas is one of reaching for superlatives.

As for Chicago peanut, it's the birthplace of the skyscraper and America's architectural capital--they have long taken that very seriously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1185  
Old Posted Sep 15, 2007, 11:53 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Look at Chicago. They completely dominate that list and everything is either built or under construction. They don't mess around.


Thanks. We're looking to expand shortly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
they have long taken that very seriously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
Tall buildings are being used to project a certain status for a city on a world stage. That's undoubtable," Wood said. "For a city to be taken seriously on a local or domestic or international scale, they want to be seen to be keeping up with the times, and tall buildings are part of that."
This is why we're glad that SF is taking the lead and keeping the West coast up with the Center coast and East coast. In my opinon, it looks like you'll get at least Transbay for sure simply becuase its so tied to the station. SOM might have a trick. Whcih SOM office designed the tower?

Last edited by Alliance; Sep 16, 2007 at 12:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1186  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 12:53 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
Whcih SOM office designed the tower?
But of course, SOM's San Francisco's office!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1187  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 1:21 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Did anyone hear about how earlier this week SOM had a public (i think) meeting regarding it's tower, and how so many people liked their design? I can't find the article, though I'm pretty sure it was from Bay City News Wire, and was on Cbs5...

I remember it said 40 or so people showed up...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1188  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 1:52 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 tech12 View Post
Did anyone hear about how earlier this week SOM had a public (i think) meeting regarding it's tower, and how so many people liked their design? I can't find the article, though I'm pretty sure it was from Bay City News Wire, and was on Cbs5...

I remember it said 40 or so people showed up...
I was hoping to hear someone went to this event. The timing of this event seems right for the people to voice their opinions about the recent news, at least the really informed ones. Perhaps with enough persuasion, SOM can push its bid much higher for Thursday? I searched for news about it, but all I found were things that I already knew (and this page by Rockefeller Group Dev. that has probably already been seen around here: http://www.rockgroupdevelopment.com/...transbay.html). I say that not building something as beautiful as SOM's design should be a crime.
__________________
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
     
     
  #1189  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 2:39 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Bye Bye Mission Bay



This is in relation to what I spoke of before with the effects of global warming for San Francisco in the year 2030.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1190  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 3:21 AM
Coriander Coriander is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
This is in relation to what I spoke of before with the effects of global warming for San Francisco in the year 2030.
As long as it takes to build anything in SF, I imagine that nevertheless they will have no problem erecting flood walls. No doubt, flood walls will come to characterize 21st century coastal cityscapes the world over.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1191  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 3:36 AM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coriander View Post
As long as it takes to build anything in SF, I imagine that nevertheless they will have no problem erecting flood walls. No doubt, flood walls will come to characterize 21st century coastal cityscapes the world over.

Especially in cities like NYC where hurricanes aren't an issue. SF and dealing with earthquakes would be interesting though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
nice to see the AP use SkyscraperPage.com as a reference!

Also, on this list. Trump Chicago should be listed at 1171, which is the roof, not spire height.

The whole list is wierd as the spire isn't counted on Freedom Tower, but is on Chrysler (which is below 1000' roof height).

U/C or Built Supertalls in the US. (roof height)

1 Chicago Spire CHI 2000
2 Sears Tower CHI 1451
3 Freedom Tower NYC 1368
4 Empire State NYC 1250
5 Trump Chicago CHI 1171
6 Aon Tower CHI 1136
7 JohnHancockCenterCHI 1127
8 Waterview Tower CHI 1047
9 US Bank Tower LA 1018
10 JPMChaseTower HOU 1002

You can see where the SF proposals would fit in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1192  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 5:40 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coriander View Post
As long as it takes to build anything in SF, I imagine that nevertheless they will have no problem erecting flood walls. No doubt, flood walls will come to characterize 21st century coastal cityscapes the world over.
Boston is going to have a hell of a time with building those levees:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1193  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 6:15 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
Hmm, I'm not so sure thats going to do much. The only other green feature this tower has, to my knowledge, is the window/curtainwall features Pelli breifly talked about. Its times like these where I wish they could have spent more time talking about the tower instead of saving it for the last 3 minutes. I know much about the park and the terminal, but little of the tower.
It has lots of green features. Like all three proposals, they plan to aim for LEED Platinum certification and a "zero carbon footprint" (meaning, I think, no net release of CO2 in its construction or operation). I'm not going to bother reading the lengthy proposal to find the details for you, but I'm sure they are there. I do know that, also like the other proposals, they intend to collect and recycle a lot of the water from the building, both water used in it and rain that falls on it, and some of it will be used to flush toilets and so on (I believe they plan on using "no-flush" urinals) and some will be used to irrigate the "park".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1194  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 6:24 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alliance View Post
In my opinon, it looks like you'll get at least Transbay for sure simply becuase its so tied to the station. SOM might have a trick. Whcih SOM office designed the tower?
The critical factor is whether the Planning Dept. can ram through the increased height limits and keep the Board of Stupidvisors from rolling it back or some NIMBY from putting a prop on the ballot to roll them back (putting something on the ballot is SO easy to do in CA).

There is no shortage of ready, willing and able (meaning flush with money) developers in the Bay Area (and a lot of national developers like Hines and Rockefeller anxious to do projects here)--the problem is that all the rules, restrictions and demands the city piles on them can quickly make a project uneconomic.

I do have hope that Renzo Piano wouldn't have signed on to that project (which is at the same intersection as the TransBay tower--1st & Mission) unless he knew that developer too was serious--and, frankly, now that a fairly uninspiring (if tall) design seems likely for the TransBay, I'm REALLY looking forward to whatever Renzo comes up with ("bamboo shoots" or whatever). But that too depends on those raised height limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1195  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 7:50 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Boston is going to have a hell of a time with building those levees:
Especially if the construction of their levees goes as well as the Big Dig did... Looks like everone in Baustun will be moving uphill in the not so distant future (hopefully to Chicago, you're all welcome here!!).


Anyhow, I'm worried that Pelli will be chosen and that incredible SOM design will completely go to waste. It needs to get built somewhere and not scaled down. I can think of a few places we could fit it around here... I don't think it should be built as one of the transbay towers because that would completely ruin the proportions of the building...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1196  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 2:17 PM
Alliance's Avatar
Alliance Alliance is offline
NEW YORK | CHICAGO
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,532
However, lets not forget that if SOM's SF office designed thier proposal, they have a much larger investment in this project that Pelli or Rogers.

I can't imagine them not fighting for it. This is a home game.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1197  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 6:09 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post


This is in relation to what I spoke of before with the effects of global warming for San Francisco in the year 2030.
Rehi Mission *Bay*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1198  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 6:12 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
John King Won't Quit

It's Sunday, so here comes ANOTHER attempt to slam a tall TransBay tower. Why is this guy so obsessed? What can we do about it? Now that he's giving ink to the opinions of lovers of OLD architecture, will he give equal time to US? I'm not holding my breath.

Quote:
Hopes for Financial District are high, but not too not tall
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Sunday, September 16, 2007

The architectural history buffs who toured San Francisco's Financial District on Saturday morning oohed at classical columns. They chuckled at long-ago gossip. They winced at icebox-like modern towers.

And nobody seemed thrilled that a new skyscraper might be allowed to climb far beyond everything that's already here - an idea likely to be endorsed this week by government officials.

"I much prefer 800 feet to 1,200 feet," said Jerome Dodson. "I like the idea of a new transit terminal marked by a new tower. But I probably wouldn't want it too high."

Dodson, a mutual funds manager, played tour guide Saturday - leading three dozen people through the shadowy canyons of San Francisco's office core, past at least three buildings that in different eras held bragging rights as the highest peak on the skyline. The tour also included the Transamerica Pyramid, which at 853 feet currently wears the city's tallest-building crown.

Not on the itinerary: the block of Mission Street between First and Fremont streets where three teams of developers and architects are competing for the right to build what could be the tallest skyscraper west of Chicago. The winning team in return would design and help pay for construction of a new mass-transit terminal that someday might serve trains as well as buses from across the region.

The competition is being held by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a regional board that controls the block. The teams propose towers ranging in height from 1,200 to 1,375 feet while offering as much as $350 million for the land. On Thursday, the authority's directors will select one team with which it will negotiate, the aim being a tower and terminal both ready by 2014.

There's support for the project from city politicians and planners, and even environmental groups that see dense transit-friendly development as a way to get people out of their cars. But on Dodson's tour, reactions ranged from lukewarm to ice-cold.

"I'd have to say I'm totally against it," said a man named Tom who moved to San Francisco after college in 1965. "What's happening right now south of Market Street is a total disaster, as far as I'm concerned. ... The whole thing to me seems to send the message, 'Go ahead and screw us, just leave the money at the door.' "


Not everyone was so adamant; indeed, the most recent wave of growth won praise from several people taking part in the three-hour tour sponsored by the San Francisco Museum & Historical Society.

"I like a lot of the new buildings South of Market and in South Beach. It's a lot better now," said Laura Shine-Revilock, who lives on Parnassus Heights and moved to the city in 1989.

Still, she questioned the wisdom of erecting a super-tall tower on landfill in earthquake country. She also is concerned that too many new towers could undo the positive changes.

"One canyon-like section like this is OK," Shine-Revilock said, standing on Montgomery Street, the heart of the Financial District, "but I'd hate to see us become like Manhattan, one tall building after another.
We've opened up the South of Market area - there's a lot of sun and vibrancy - and I'd hate to see that taken away."

Though the future was a presence on the tour, Dodson's narration focused squarely on the past.

In addition to pointing out distinctive facades, or having people crowd entryways to glimpse the lobbies inside, Dodson entertained the group with trivia about bankruptcies and mergers and financial skulduggery that went on behind the masonry walls.

He also made no effort to hide his affection for the stately buildings that date from before World War II. On Market Street, Dodson paused to linger over the terra cotta details of Bliss & Faville's Matson Building from 1921 - and then to direct attention to the 1983 Federal Reserve Bank next door, because "it illustrates why people don't like modern architecture. It's a blocky plain building with no redeeming feature, in my opinion."

Afterward, Dodson confessed that classical buildings are his favorite - but also that he thinks local architecture has improved since modern slabs filled the skyline in the 1960s and '70s.

Except for the height, he backs the Transbay design jury's preference for a 1,200-foot tower by Pelli Clarke Pelli that would taper as it rises, obelisk-like: "I like the simplicity of it all."

One member of the tour said he takes the changes in stride.

"If you protect everything, your city can't grow," said Ted Lee, a San Francisco native born in 1971, the year the Transamerica Pyramid was built. "As long as the city makes an effort to retain the best historical buildings, new ones are fine. Seventy years from now, they'll be history, too."

His thoughts on the Transbay Terminal competition?

"I actually don't have much of an opinion," Lee shrugged. Then he paused. "A building taller than the Pyramid might be too high, though."

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../BA10S7548.DTL[/quote]

PS: Tom, you're an idiot--and so are all these other Luddites. Perhaps we should build altars all around the base of the "pyramid" so that worshippers could make sacrificial offerings.

EVERYBODY--Time to tell John King how wrong he is and what WE think:

His email address is jking@sfchronicle.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1199  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 6:24 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
My open letter to John King:

Quote:
Dear Mr. King:

Week after week, you have given us a steady diet of opinion from folks, starting with yourself, who don't like tall buildings and worship at the altar of San Francisco's stunted architecture. Repeatedly you quote people who know so little about architecture that they don't understand that tall buildings are being built all over the world in earthquake country and some of them, such as in Taipei, have already withstood pretty good shakers. Your biases are clearly showing and getting tedious.

How about writing about those of us who LIKE tall buildings, who are cheering the possibility of one or more (hopefully more) 1200+ footers in San Francisco, who are more than willing to abandon the "cute" and allow San Francisco to join the ranks of other great cities who build tall buildings as symbols of their greatness. In case you're interested, you'll find lots of us at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...136300&page=48 but, I'm sorry to tell you, you won't find many fans of yours there. Still, check it out and give some ink to the other side of this debate. How about it?

B------ T-----
San Francisco
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1200  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2007, 7:13 PM
CityKid CityKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BK,NY/SF,CA/LB,CA
Posts: 480
^^^ Great letter.
__________________
Everytime you drive to the grocery store, you are killing a polar bear.
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 7:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.