SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by caramatt

I love this picture from the latest Chronicle story:


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.

I think it would look even better if the crown grows higher and encloses to a point like an inverse cone. another nod to the pyramid and hills of SF. I still miss the beautiful SOM Transbay proposal, but I am sure I'll get over it someday.

[aluminum]

Originally Posted by SFView

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.

Damn right.
What's the first thing that comes to mind when someone refers to a skyscraper ? Height, thats what.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by aluminum

Damn right.
What's the first thing that comes to mind when someone refers to a skyscraper ? Height, thats what.

Then building is nothing more than a pissing contest.

[aluminum]

^^And I feel sorry for the losers.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by SFView

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.

This is true, and in fact, what I was doing last night. I noticed that it looked more like 1250' - 1300' when also in comparison to Millenium Tower, which is also next door.

[petter]

Some by far

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by plinko

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.

Yes Master

lighten up sheesh

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by caramatt

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.

Love the pic of Gavin with what I believe is the wife of his campaign manager which he screwed. What a creep. But I'm voting for him anyway

It's a gorgeous tower and was my first pick when I saw all three, but SOM's terminal design and tower really grew on me and I became very attached to it. I hope they don't build it in any other city. It would look great all by itself instead of cluttered around a bunch of other towers

[GlobeTrekker]

Originally Posted by SFView

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.

I see what you mean. Doubling 50 Fremont seems to place 1,200 feet right at the top floor. So if the model is correct, maybe the top floor is at 1,200 and the crown/wind turbines add another 100 feet or so? The SF Business Times has it at 1,300'.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...l?ana=from_rss

[oak-sea]

The article and comments in the Chronicle today are mostly encouraging except this steaming turdlet:

"Most dramatically, the height could be reduced because of concerns over shadows or wind. And any rezoning goes through San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, where critics could argue that no tower should rise beyond the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid - now the city's tallest building."

The comments seem mostly in support of it. Weird how Transamerica and Transbay almost share the same name, and now it seems share the almost the same (ignorant) opposition.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by oak-sea

The article and comments in the Chronicle today are mostly encouraging except this steaming turdlet:

"Most dramatically, the height could be reduced because of concerns over shadows or wind. And any rezoning goes through San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, where critics could argue that no tower should rise beyond the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid - now the city's tallest building."

The comments seem mostly in support of it. Weird how Transamerica and Transbay almost share the same name, and now it seems share the almost the same (ignorant) opposition.

Yes but... something John King mentioned in his surprisingly unbiased article is that the less height the building is built, the less money the Transbay terminal gets. I don't know why these politicians wouldn't let them build it to it's true height just to appease some crabby Marin County and Peninsulans and loose out on all the much needed dough. The circumstances around this are much much more in favor of height than Transamerica ever was, because that was simply a corporate tower, not a public space desperate for funds.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

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.

It was proposed at 1,150'; they scaled it down 297' to it's built height of 853'.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by plinko

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.

Anti-growth San Franciscans who've been paying ANY attention at all (typically by reading the SF Bay Guardian) are, by now, conditioned to complain about certain things: shadows, earthquake stability, wind effects, overloading the infrastructure. It's just a reflex thing and a sort of herd mentality. As is often the case, there are examples where these things are valid issues (Fox Plaza and the Burton Federal Building do have awful wind effects for example) but that just gives the naysayers license to repeat them like a mantra. See posts 944 and 945 at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=1#post3068410

And I hope no one misses their cover photo of One Rincon Hill, their new bad boy poster child.

[Reminiscence]

Here is the reply that John King sent me today. Yesterday's article was a good sign of change apparently ...

Mario:

Other people agree with you -- I hope you saw the letter in yesterday's paper -- but the Saturday piece was not meant as a definitive piece. It was straight news, driven by curiousity about what people with an interest in the older downtown landscape might think.

All the best,

John King

[pseudolus]

An interesting presentation here about the temporary terminal, including a timeline for the entire project. It has construction of the tower beginning in April 2010.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...Mtg9-17-07.pdf

TJPA Created Apr-01
EIR Phase Sep-02 Feb-05
PMPC/DTX Preliminary Engineering Consultants NTP Feb-05
Program Planning and Phasing Strategy Development Dec-04 May-06
Approval of Recommended Implementation Strategy Jun-06
Select A/E, Design and Construct Temporary Terminal Jun-06 Jul-09
Bus Operations commence in Temporary Terminal Jul-09
Demolish Transbay Terminal Aug-09 Mar-10
Selection of Developer and TC Building A/E Jun-06 Oct-07
Negotiations with Developer and TC Building A/E Oct-07 Jan-08
Award A/E and Developer Contracts Jan-08
TC Building Design, Bid & Award Construction Feb-08 Sep-11
TC Building Construction, Testing & Commissioning Apr-10 Jan-14
Bus Operations commence in Transit Center Building Jan-14
Developer Environmental Clearance & Entitlement Jan-08 Oct-08
Transit Tower Design Sep-08 Aug-10
Transit Tower Construction Apr-10 Mar-14
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 1 Feb-05 Dec-07
Funding Plan (FP) for DTX Oct-07 Nov-10
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 2 May-10 Apr-11
DTX Final Design May-11 Jun-13
DTX Construction & Testing & Commissioning May-12 Apr-18
Rail Operations commence in Rail Station Apr-18
Caltrain Yard Improvements & Storage Construction May-18 Aug-21

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

An interesting presentation here about the temporary terminal, including a timeline for the entire project. It has construction of the tower beginning in April 2010.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...Mtg9-17-07.pdf

TJPA Created Apr-01
EIR Phase Sep-02 Feb-05
PMPC/DTX Preliminary Engineering Consultants NTP Feb-05
Program Planning and Phasing Strategy Development Dec-04 May-06
Approval of Recommended Implementation Strategy Jun-06
Select A/E, Design and Construct Temporary Terminal Jun-06 Jul-09
Bus Operations commence in Temporary Terminal Jul-09
Demolish Transbay Terminal Aug-09 Mar-10
Selection of Developer and TC Building A/E Jun-06 Oct-07
Negotiations with Developer and TC Building A/E Oct-07 Jan-08
Award A/E and Developer Contracts Jan-08
TC Building Design, Bid & Award Construction Feb-08 Sep-11
TC Building Construction, Testing & Commissioning Apr-10 Jan-14
Bus Operations commence in Transit Center Building Jan-14
Developer Environmental Clearance & Entitlement Jan-08 Oct-08
Transit Tower Design Sep-08 Aug-10
Transit Tower Construction Apr-10 Mar-14
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 1 Feb-05 Dec-07
Funding Plan (FP) for DTX Oct-07 Nov-10
DTX Preliminary Engineering - Part 2 May-10 Apr-11
DTX Final Design May-11 Jun-13
DTX Construction & Testing & Commissioning May-12 Apr-18
Rail Operations commence in Rail Station Apr-18
Caltrain Yard Improvements & Storage Construction May-18 Aug-21

omg so we wont even know what the final design is for two years! and two years of waiting until we finally see construction???! why does it take sooo ridicuously long to get anything done in sf?!

[Reminiscence]

Its a complicated process as usual, and will be so for the next few years. I guess our first thing to look forward to is the fairly iminent construction of the Temporary Bus Terminal. I'd say iminent because if its to be completed around June-July 2009, we should start seeing activity by April-May of next year. I'll feel a lot safer that this is going to actually be reality once this happens.

On a side note: has anyone come upon news of the other significant building in this plan, the TJPA Site?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

has anyone come upon news of the other significant building in this plan, the TJPA Site?

What site are you referring to?

[Lecom]

Originally Posted by tyler82

The Pelli design screams San Francisco..

The TRANSbay tower

which looks like a big uncut penis
or a vibrator

hahahaha Sodom By The Sea shall live forever!!



Image copyright Pelli Clarke Pelli architects

Shame the tower wouldn't last too long if things keep going the way they are, cause if that's the case then in 2012 Emperor Bush will nuke the evil homosexual interracial terrorist Threat by the Sea in yet another successful military campaign to make the world a safer haven for freedom, Christianity and business interests.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

What site are you referring to?

The TJPA Site, which has nothing to do with the main tower and terminal, if I remember correct. One of the original "800'+" buildings closeby.