Well, I guess the people have spoken (not really the people, but the few people who had the power at least), and its Pelli's to be built. I loved SOM's design, and for a while I thought they should use it for the TJPA Site nearby. I think that 1400' remark is a mistake, but if its true for some reason, then thats really good start. Some part of me says that if SOM's tower isnt built in SF, then it shouldnt be built at all :haha:.

So if the city asks Pelli to add residential floors to this tower, I wonder if they will let them build higher than 1200' to do so.

I dont know if the question is whether the city will allow them or if Pelli and Hines are up for it. I think if they city (most importantly, C. Daly) gets what they want, then they could theoretically build much higher. But of course, building a taller tower could be more expensive. If they offered 350 million already, I dont see what could stop them from doing so. I still dream of a 1500' or more tower, and hopefully, they only add floors from now on to make this work.

To me, its about the architecture. Some of the most meaningful and beautiful buildings in the world are 400' tall.

Loosing 200' doesn't make it disgusting and adding 200' doesn't make it god.

Un ugly design is an ugly design at any height. Why make something ugly more noticable by building it larger?

Well, at least John King didn't say anything critical about the tower in his (short) article today:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../BAO7S9J2H.DTL

...and the article also mentions that the tower probably won't begin construction until 2009, as it will take until then for zoning laws to be changed in order for a 1200'+ building to be built there.

Transbay Tower: 100% Office & 1200' ft
 

Re: The Pelli/Hines Transbay Tower:

The very well connected...Hines organization is all about Class-A Office. A residential and/or hotel component is very unlikely.

In the end, the competition was less about "design" than it was about money - raising money. The Pelli/Hines Teameasily outbid it competitors by pledging $350 Million toward the new terminal facility.

It is my understanding SOM was so stunned by Hines' $350Mil figure, they publically questioned it's legitimacy. Hines responded by announcing they already have tentative lease agreements on more than 40% of the tower and are committed to it being no less than 1200 ft tall

For this project anyway... They mean business.

Wow, I just read through all the public comment on SfGate. Ignorance is a wonderful thing.

Someone really needs to explain to me how other than maybe the first two hours of a summer day that the shadow from this tower will have any effect on a portion of the city beyond the shadows already created by the towers of the financial district.

Please expand.. less than 1200'??

Hmmmm.... smells like troll meat

Hahahahahaha... can you say SHELTERED and CLOSED MINDED, NO ROOM for debate or intelligence.. to say the absolute least

Ummm, No, I didn't say that.

There are some remarkably unfounded and ignorant (as well as childish) comments on there, from both the con AND pro-tower camps.

Very true. Heins does office and only (class A) office. At least of what I know from their Chicago projects, they'll usually build two buildings rather than create a mixed use tower.

Yep, Hines is so confident in this site that they are willing to maintain the $350 million offer even if forced to make some of it residential (according to the TJPA). The 40% pre-leased figure is very interesting and a good sign for the project.

Once I realized this competition included a bid on the land, I knew what would happen. There is no way the TJPA or the City would turn down an extra $200 million just for a better design. The SOM bid undervalued the land, and the City would have lost a lot of money.

I'm not sure what they can do to the building to make it look more "iconic" (extra height won't really change that). In the report, TJPA referred to it as "pearlescent" or something, which could be interesting, although it does not look that way in the renderings. Depending on the color and the glass, I'm hoping it looks better in real life.

Maybe they could make it more like a real obelisk with the four corners coming to a point. With an obelisk and a pyramid, we could have a whole Egyptian theme going on :)

It said no less than 1,200', so that is a good sign. Hopefully they increase the height to include some hotel or residential. I also hope they include some kind of public area, restaurant, or observation deck on top.

The media is all over the place on the height, I have heard/read 1200, 1300, and 1400. One is reporting it would be the second-tallest in the US, which means over 1250. So who really knows? On the Hines website, it says 1200, but not sure if that includes the crown and wind turbines.

I love this picture from the latest Chronicle story:
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...ansbay_257.jpg

It will really stand as a beautiful beacon; especially once the other towers go up around it. I do agree that it'll need to be at least 150' taller than the Piano towers for best effect.

However, I think its the perfect height for where it is.

It may not be the design I preferred (SOM) but I think it will make a stunning addition to the San Francisco skyline. Congrats on getting a signature tower of this magnitude. :tup: :) :cool:

I'm still a little vexed on what that height actually means, to the roof or to the top of the crown. Naturally, my hope is that figure is to the roof. I think its important to know exactly what they said. They seem to be ignoring projects that are proposed or that just started construction. Either way, I can certainly appreciate Hines' devotion to seeing this project go through. If I'm not mistaken, the article also mentions that the height limits (assuming there will be height limits in this part of town) should be devloped around the next 6-12 months. The process is just getting warmed up ...

The model and the renderings do appear to scale the tower taller than 1200 feet when I compare it to 50 Fremont at 600 feet right next to it. The actual height of the tower is still a temporary placeholder or benchmark from which to either grow or shrink, depending Planning (studies), upzoning, TJPA, economics, public comment, and local politics. Three years is still a lot of time for things to change before this project begins construction.

Although that is partially true, I still think that height is still an important part of architecture having to do with proportion, especially in skyscrapers.

I agree, imagine how much more majestic the Pyramid building would be at 1100 feet as originally proposed. The BofA kinda over powers it in most angles.