SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[SFView]

Hines did help succeed in developing the 600 foot tall 101 California Street along with Johnson/Burgee Architects back in the early 1980's. This building is one of the few non-banal, non-boring, non-refrigerater boxes built during the mid 60's to mid 80's high-rise building boom period in San Francisco. It is too bad that it is nearly hidden in a forest of surrounding refrigeraters nearly the same height. The boredom still dominates.
http://www.hines.com/property/detail.aspx?id=129

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Another update for you guys. I sent a few questions in the following e-mail to the Senior Vice President at Hines (In San Francisco.) It reads :

Thank you very much for your response, Paul.

I have been in communication with marketing coordinator Diana Daly
at Pelli Clarke Pelli, who directed my tower-specific questions to your
office. If at all possible, I have a few more questions that I am hoping
you can answer about the project, for our preliminary information on the
Transbay Tower proposal:

1- The current tower proposal's configuration being solely office
space, is there any chance that future designs (prior to construction)
could include residential space, such as condominiums or apartments,
within the tower? If so, would Hines be behind the idea of adding
residential space to the tower?
2- If it were decided that residential space would be added to the
tower, would a portion of the current 80 floors be converted from an
office configuration to residential, or would more floors (and more
overall height for the tower) be added to accommodate the housing? If
so, would Hines be behind the idea of adding height to the proposed
1200'?
3- Will the tower, as proposed or in future revisions of the
proposal, include any sort of publicly accessible observation deck or
restaurant at it's top? Is Hines behind the idea of having a public
observation deck or restaurant at the top of the tower?

I greatly appreciate your helping us learn more about this exciting
new project for San Francisco. We are very excited this opportunity for a new iconic structure, which we believe will be a wonderful addition to the city
and county of San Francisco, as well as it's beautiful skyline.

Thank you for your time,

A----- J-------

In response he sent the following e-mail:

A-----,

1. The project is currently an office building with retail on the lower
levels. The design allows for other uses such as residential or hotel
should we decide to move in that direction at a later time. The most
likely outcome is our current plan.
2. More height is very unlikely. Space currently planned for office
would be redesigned for residential.
3. No plans have been made for public space at the top of the tower.
This concept will be addressed during design development. Hines'
perspective is currently neutral until more information is available.

Thank you for your interest.

Paul E. Paradis
Senior Vice President
Hines
101 California St. | Suite 1000 | San Francisco, CA 94111

So, for the time being, that is where Hines stands.

[peanut gallery]

The most likely outcome is our current plan.

Interesting. They expect it to stay 100% office. They must believe that the TJPA will not want to negotiate down a lower price to add residential (which in my novice opinion is the only way that will happen). Their overwhelming offer gives Hines quite a bit of leverage in this process.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Interesting. They expect it to stay 100% office. They must believe that the TJPA will not want to negotiate down a lower price to add residential (which in my novice opinion is the only way that will happen). Their overwhelming offer gives Hines quite a bit of leverage in this process.

Screw Hines, I can't wait until the next competition. Hopefully SOM will stay with us!

[roadwarrior]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Screw Hines, I can't wait until the next competition. Hopefully SOM will stay with us!

At this point, I'd actually be happy if they did go through with the current plan. Knowing Daly and the NIMBY contingent, 1,200 feet is an incredibly optimistic scenario.

[SFView]

Could it be that Hines wouldn't want to change anything if they didn't have to? Three more years before construction is a very long time to last without change, especially in the political and economical climate of San Francisco. Furthermore, the Planning studies are not even here yet.

I hope that the height would not be reduced for changing the upper floors to residential to maintain the money offer. Could doing so bring heights of other planned towers nearby down as well, and less money for Transbay as a whole?

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by SFView

Could it be that Hines wouldn't want to change anything if they didn't have to? Three more years before construction is a very long time to last without change, especially in the political and economical climate of San Francisco. Furthermore, the Planning studies are not even here yet.

I hope that the height would not be reduced for changing the upper floors to residential to maintain the money offer. Could doing so bring heights of other planned towers nearby down as well, and less money for Transbay as a whole?

Well, as they said, Hines apparently prefers not to alter their plan unless need be. But as you said, change happens, and its a long way before we actually start seeing construction. It could be that elections and such could also pose otherwise.

I wonder, is it possible that Hines bid a huge amount of money in anticipation of these changes that TJPA would ask for? If such is true, perhaps adding height and extra floors to the tower would have a minimal effect on the pocket? I'm not sure if thats even possible, I'm just exploring ideas here ...

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

At this point, I'd actually be happy if they did go through with the current plan. Knowing Daly and the NIMBY contingent, 1,200 feet is an incredibly optimistic scenario.

Agreed. It seems to me that the very least we could all lobby for at the proper time would be an observation deck--TJPA should insist upon that. Even the NIMBY's would utilize it.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Agreed. It seems to me that the very least we could all lobby for at the proper time would be an observation deck--TJPA should insist upon that. Even the NIMBY's would utilize it.

That is the one thing- aside from a 1200' height -that I want out of this project.

[SFView]

Pelli and Hines might have known that offering as much money as possible was a good way to gain an advantage over the competition. They found the right combination of sacrifices, including a less unique, less complicated design and no mixed-use, to help gain the financial edge they needed. The rooftop park idea also allowed them to distract attention from the otherwise less interesting tower - less building, more trees.

It is interesting that Pelli's tower design more closely resembles the general shape of many of the early schematics TJPA had produced before the competition.

I would also like an observation deck and rooftop restaurant.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by SFView

Pelli and Hines might have known that offering as much money as possible was a good way to gain an advantage over the competition. They found the right combination of sacrifices, including a less unique, less complicated design and no mixed-use, to help gain the financial edge they needed. The rooftop park idea also allowed them to distract attention from the otherwise less interesting tower - less building, more trees.

It is interesting that Pelli's tower design more closely resembles the general shape of many of the early schematics TJPA had produced before the competition.

I would also like an observation deck and rooftop restaurant.

I'm willing to bet they did know. After all, with TJPA mentioning that phase II does not have all funds accounted for, what better way to get attention on you than by dropping a $200 million stone in the pond. I'm trying to remain optimistic regarding Pelli and Hines, but something tells me we're heading for a dissapointment that might have a ripple effect on the surrounding buildings as well. Right now, I'm just looking forward to what the impact reports say about height issues and such.

About the observation deck: There has to be one up there, how could there not be? I can already imagine the view from that high up, it'll be like no other in the world.

[John Hinds]

Looks huge when you compare to the Transamerica Pyramid in the diagram.
http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?c114

This is the tallest thing ever proposed in San Francisco, right?

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by Jonny 5

This is the tallest thing ever proposed in San Francisco, right?

Sadly, yes it is. The Glass Tower which many recognize from The Towering Inferno is still dreamed of by some (including me), but is only a fantasy tower. I guess if you count SOM's proposal at 1375', maybe thats the tallest ever proposed in SF.

[John Hinds]

Why are you guys complaining about it so much then.

The SOM design was way over the top. It would never have been feasible to build anything with cladding like that.

[R@ptor]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Sadly, yes it is. The Glass Tower which many recognize from The Towering Inferno is still dreamed of by some (including me), but is only a fantasy tower. I guess if you count SOM's proposal at 1375', maybe thats the tallest ever proposed in SF.

Wasn't the Transamerica Pyramid originally proposed with 1,200ft?

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by Jonny 5

Why are you guys complaining about it so much then.

The SOM design was way over the top. It would never have been feasible to build anything with cladding like that.

As some others have said, there is more to a building than just its height. The SOM design was visually striking and a sure landmark. The design was quite feasible as you will find from TJPA's report on its website, stating the expected construction costs for each of the three tower proposals. The Pelli design is a more conservative and safe approach, and lacks the punch that SOM had. The height is only a part of the problem. This is the reason why some people on here are "complaining."

Originally Posted by R@ptor

Wasn't the Transamerica Pyramid originally proposed with 1,200ft?

It was actually 1150'. Knowing San Francisco's history, such a building was not possible at its time, not because we could'nt build it, but because too many people stood in the way. With so much oposition, I think we're lucky we ended up with what we have now at 853'.

[peanut gallery]

I was nosing around the TJPA site and noticed new details on the temporary terminal.

Most of you know this, but here is where it will go:


Here's the layout from above:


One of the many changes that will happen with this will be reconfiguring of lanes around the terminal to give better access to/from the Bay Bridge to replace the elevated roadways the current terminal uses.

And to give you a sense of the look of it, here's a rendering:


Check the TJPA site for more detail. You also might want to read through Eric's excellent summary at the Transbay Blog. He has a lot of great info on the flow, which transit services will be where and the timeline/phasing of the project.

[peanut gallery]

Wow, those came out a lot bigger here than on the TJPA site. Can anyone tell me how to resize them down a bit? Or are they OK at this size?

[SFView]

I am okay with it. I can see the detail much better. Thanks!

[hectorant84]

Its obvious Hines has no intention of increasing the height. I don't know what San Francisco's obsession is with 1,200 feet. NY surpassed 1,250 with Empire in the 30's. I don't know what is so iconic about 1,200 feet. Then again this is San Francisco land of the 600 - 500 foot tall refrigerator boxes that litter the financial district. I admit 1,200 feet would make a nice change but do we really need Renzo’s towers to be also 1,200 feet? Why not make Transbay taller than 1,200 feet? From the beginning I knew Pelli’s tower and park would be a problem. I’m almost convinced that the structural height of Renzo’s towers will be affected by Pelli’s bland tower and stupid rooftop park. San Francisco should take advice from Chicago’s city planning commission. They know how to bring in the extra revenue with exciting tourist attractions. San Francisco thinks Fisherman’s Wharf and Pier 39 will be its knight in shinning amour. TJPA should insist Pelli add residential floors, an observation deck, and a world class restaurant. I’m sick of Carnelian Room atop of 555 California Street because it’s overpriced, the food sucks, and the “observation – cocktail lounge” is loaded with snobby people that think they’re god’s gift to the world. FYI Windows on the World was the highest grossing restaurant in the US with revenue of $37 million in 2000. Its obvious SF is clueless and settles for less. It’s never willing to take a chance because of people like Chris Daly and his nimby friends. Nonetheless, I’m disappointed with the TJPA because SOM was supported by many and still they gave us the cold shoulder… Ugh. San Francisco is LAME.