There is another thread started on the 900' tower.

Looks like the city's plans for a group of supertall towers are leaking slowly to the media, one by one. Can't wait to hear and see the Piano proposals..

Same here. I'm dying to see details on the Piano design.

Hi, so reading this John King article got me to register so I could post something about it.. oh and also vote for the SOM design :)

I don't understand his point. I think he's trying to say that architecture should not be considered good or iconic based on height, but all three designs are tall. They were required to be. I think we all understand that a tall building does not necessarily equal good architecture.

Regarding being icons, the proposals have to include iconic language since that is what TJPA asked for. And he argues that we don't need more Market Street boxes, but then argues that buildings should not try to be iconic. So where does that leave us?

He also said last year, "If planners are serious about reshaping the skyline, do it to create a better city -- not to sell postcards or to thrill the erector set." (according to post #9 in this thread). Now he says, "Here's what you find on the postcards for sale: the Golden Gate Bridge and the Painted Ladies of Alamo Square. Lombard Street. The gates of Chinatown and, yes, cable cars." So what does he want? I think the design teams are trying to do both -- create a better city and an iconic design. What's wrong with that?

This is my main point- the guy can't argue his way out of a one ended barrel. His articles appear to have different central arguments one after another (I like tall, tall is bad because it's not "SF", tall can be good but must be built beautifully, tall can be good and must be built plainly, etc., are all different themes I've read in different articles of his). He's just an empty suit at the Chronicle. His voice isn't very complex or sophisticated, he writes like he is turning in a book report. His style is very dull and he seems to not really know all the technicalities of architecture (hey, neither do i-- but i'm not hired by a national newspaper for this precise job, either!). I just think we need somebody better and more qualified who understands the city, lives, works, and plays here, and relies on public transportation to give the reading public the information it needs instead of emotional please of NIMBYism. Apparently this is just too much for the Chronicle to do on its own, so I'd just like to see the guy fired as quickly as possible. He's just not up to the task !

^^^Tyler, you said it yourself back on page 11 or so:

This is the architecture he LIKES:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...4012_suzuk.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...t14_006_pc.jpg
Both photos from John King columns on SFGate.

What more needs to be said? :frog:

Oh, and just for the record and the edification of anyone who doesn't know, this is who King replaced (only in the physical sense) at the Chronicle:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Temko

Back then, as I recall, King wrote about politics and he did OK at that.

Yeah, one of those would look reeeallly good in place of the Transbay Tower :rolleyes:

Seriously, someone needs to throw that guy in the Bay waters :Titanic:

Sorry to get in the debate late, but here in Montreal, people will complain about a 20 story building proposed right in the middle of our downtown.

I tell you, enjoy those people afraid of a 70 story tower, cuz here, they are afraid of a 20 story tower. And btw, I hate those ppl.

Don't fear modernity
Jim Chappell

Sunday, September 2, 2007

There is a buzz in the air about the competition to build the new Transbay Terminal and accompanying landmark tower. This positive excitement is great news for a city that can often be ambivalent about any change in the physical environment. It shows that San Francisco has a new population who love cities, who are not afraid of cities, who not only are not afraid of modernity but who are ready to take up the challenges of 21st century urban life.

Two thousand years ago, an architectural writer named Vitruvius told us there were three characteristics of all good architecture - commodity, firmness and delight. As the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a collaboration representing eight Northern California governmental entities, debates the merits of the three competing development schemes for the Transbay Terminal site, I would submit that these three criteria are as valid today as they were two millennia ago.

Commodity, better understood as practical utility, refers to function. How do the proposed solutions work - for the pedestrian, for taxis, for arriving and departing buses, for the underground rail links to Caltrain and future high-speed rail, for the patrons of the tower? Functionality is, of course, the sine qua non of any solution to this complicated inter-modal facility. All modes must be served equally well. The proposal has to work. And in addition to this focused definition, we should ask, how do these projects work for their neighborhood and the city at large? Are they the right mix of uses to create a 24-hour urban district? Are they flexible enough to adapt to an ever-changing world?

Firmness, or what we call constructive strength today, is the second characteristic. How have the architects and structural engineers solved the design of a grand transit hall, great public spaces and a very tall tower? While few of us laypeople can evaluate the structural engineering, we do know the best solutions will be structurally and financially economic, and will express the underlying physics in the design. The best architecture is of the times, and honest to its structure.

And when it is all put together, does it create delight or positive aesthetic effect? Will it be a true landmark on the skyline? Will it create comfortable, attractive, safe and enjoyable pedestrian spaces? Will you and I go there, and feel good about it? While function and structure might be technical subjects, aesthetics of course is the area where everyone will have an opinion. Here is where fear of modernity is most apt to come forward.

My advice to the transit authority: Be bold. This complex will be around for the next 100 years. It will be the center of the region, a beacon for those first visiting the Bay Area as well as daily commuters and local residents.

San Francisco was once a national leader in architectural design, harkening back to architect Bernard Maybeck a century ago and William Wurster and Joe Esherick a half century ago. Today, there are many excellent architects in San Francisco who often do their best work elsewhere. San Francisco's planning director, Dean Macris, is trying to change this, to emphasize design excellence. Let's face it, public consensus in design can often result in mediocrity.

Now is the time for San Francisco to be bold in design. This is in the tradition of San Francisco - to be cutting edge, to be daring, to be modern. This is no time for failure of will - to be polite, to be afraid, to be receding. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority has a great opportunity to create a magnificent symbol for the next century. It should take it.

Jim Chappell is the executive director of the San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association (SPUR).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../EDA4RRMRG.DTL

^ nice article. i agree

lets be BOLD, shall we?!

I've met this guy and he is very nice and seems like a great advocate of great urban planning that we have on our side. I've been talking with the SPUR peeps in working/ volunteering with them. Their ideas for Mission Bay are quite simple, but also quite revolutionary (for this city and this neighborhood).

Chronicle wants SF public's opinions on allowing additional height in Transbay area.
 

Weigh in

On San Francisco's
changing skyline

Should the new Transbay Terminal tower go over 50 floors high? E-mail letters@sfchronicle.com

Why are they asking this question? The design competition has been public for many months (or years?) and it has called for a design that will surely be over 50 floors. In any event, we already have buildings that are over 50 floors (and more under construction, such as the 60-floor tower right next door). So what is the point in asking this? A more appropriate question might be 100 floors :haha:

^^The Chronicle seems to be on a campaign to stir up the NIMBYs and growth opponents so they'll have something to report about. They are getting more and more desperate as their paying readerhip collapses.

Either way, it doesn't hurt to write them a little note telling them what you think.
The whole 50 story thing is so archaic sounding too. That was probably the first question they asked 30 years ago before the pyramid rose. Do people even think of 50 stories as tall enough to create an argument these days? Rincon One itself is 60 stories, so why wouldn't a landmark public tower not be allowed to be taller than a private residential complex? Seems like they are running out of ideas to me.

That's what I was wondering too. I don't read the Chronicle so I'm not sure if they have a pro-NIMBY attitude, but asking an obsolete question about 50 floors seems like it might be trying to stir something up. 50 floors just doesn't even feel debatable given other, existing towers.

I agree and will try to do one. I just don't understand the preoccupation with height. I understand the debate about high rises vs. no high rises, but if you're going to build one, why limit the heights? What difference does 500' vs. 600' vs. 800' feet make?

I even try to understand the NIMBYs and their concern over certain decisions in the past (such as Fox Plaza), but again, I don't understand how that has anything to do with heights in the financial district. :shrug:

Ok, this is kind of off topic, but I just recieved wonderful news. I just found out that I have a paid internship in San Francisco with a developer secured for next summer. I have been following the rise of San Francisco's new skyline as it breaks free of the prior NIMBY stranglehold and am incredibly excited that I will probably be spending my summer there.

That last comment brings me to an on-topic question, what exactly was it that triggered this change of heart in the SF planning dept? It seems SF was devoid of tall projects for so many years and now they are just coming out of the woodwork...

My guess is market forces. The dot com boom and the sheer amount of capital that SF and the bay area distributes and produces forced the real estate market in SF, which has no more developable land, to shoot up. Silicon Valley is going through a similar building boom, withe new construction all over the place, but they are located in a large spread out valley (I like to call it L.A. minus the excitement), so they don't need tall buildings. We do. I think we had it coming for a long time, there's a history of booming finance in SF, starting with the gold rush. This is our first big boom of the century. I also believe former mayor Brown had a lot to do with it in his 8 years of reigning (yes, I use this word, because he was kind of like a king, and very stubborn. I always think of him that way from the Beach Blanket Babylon during his last days as mayor).

Of course, if there is a large destructive earthquake any time soon, we can kiss away any hopes of a real high rise neighborhood for at least the next 50 years.