SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[Dream'n]

Originally Posted by slock

I followed a link to the SOM website yesterday and noticed they have uploaded their entire TJPA presentation.

It takes a bit to load, but is well worth the wait. Shows the true genius of their proposal and has some stunning renders as well:

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_presentation

Those are sweet. I think if the SOM project gets picked it's gonna be my favorite project in the world. I absolutely love it. I may even have to move to San Francisco just to be near it and worship it and leave offerings.

[tyler82]

While skipping through the fantastic presentation of SOM, I came across something very interesting where they spoke of the Transbay plan not allowing entrance from the east or west, and that SOM "proposes" raising the building high above to meet that need. Does this mean the final tower height would actually be taller than 1375, or is that already taken into account?

[quashlo]

I think they are talking about how the height of the bottom floor of the building is raised high above the ground and over the entrance plaza, allowing for better circulation to and from the terminal.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by tyler82

While skipping through the fantastic presentation of SOM, I came across something very interesting where they spoke of the Transbay plan not allowing entrance from the east or west, and that SOM "proposes" raising the building high above to meet that need. Does this mean the final tower height would actually be taller than 1375, or is that already taken into account?

SOM's current design has the building raised 103 feet creating a vast open entry north/south video walled passageway. The 103 foot tall base is included in the total building height of 1375 feet. If I am not mistaken, there are 3 levels above the "roof" at 1200 feet, bringing the height to 1245 feet. The observation level is at 1215 feet.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by tyler82

While skipping through the fantastic presentation of SOM, I came across something very interesting where they spoke of the Transbay plan not allowing entrance from the east or west, and that SOM "proposes" raising the building high above to meet that need. Does this mean the final tower height would actually be taller than 1375, or is that already taken into account?

I was actually thinking about the same thing. It had occured to me that they measured that from the first floor making it 1478' in total. 1272' seems to be the actual height of the building, with "stilts" I guess you can say, lifting it 103' off the ground.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

I was actually thinking about the same thing. It had occured to me that they measured that from the first floor making it 1478' in total. 1272' seems to be the actual height of the building, with "stilts" I guess you can say, lifting it 103' off the ground.

We could only wish that it would be 1,478' in order to top the Sears Tower, but such is probably not the case.

[SFView]

All of the information presented on August 6, 2007 show the SOM proposal at 1375 feet. Does anyone have close-up photos they can post of the SOM tower building section presentation board? It shows building elevation marks and labels up through each level of the tower.

The final height and design of whatever of the 3 designs that is selected could actually change. Hopefully none of the designs, including Piano's across the street will be shorter that what has already been proposed. If SOM wins as I am hoping, I would prefer 1200 feet minimum for Piano, and 1375 feet minimum for Transbay. I wouldn't mind if Transbay is made taller at something like 1475 feet, but that depends on public opinion and careful study by Planning. I don't yet know of the feasibility of adding more hotel floors, and a rooftop restaurant, but I would like to see it if possible. If SOM can do this, plus resolving any issues with bus circulation in the terminal, the project would seem much closer to being ideal. It already looks like it could be a future world recognized landmark at the level of the Golden Gate Bridge, Empire State and Chrysler Buildings, and Transamerica Pyramid, if SOM's proposal is built. Pelli's design is sleek, but not so special; and Roger's design is interesting, but not as attractive for San Francisco. Let's hope that our opinions here on SSP will help count towards SOM winning the competition.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by SFView

All of the information presented on August 6, 2007 show the SOM proposal at 1375 feet. Does anyone have close-up photos they can post of the SOM tower building section presentation board? It shows building elevation marks and labels up through each level of the tower.

The final height and design of whatever of the 3 designs that is selected could actually change. Hopefully none of the designs, including Piano's across the street will be shorter that what has already been proposed. If SOM wins as I am hoping, I would prefer 1200 feet minimum for Piano

When I think of the twin 1200' proposition, I think I'd rather have one of them shorter to balance out the skyline more. Like 900'. Two 1200' towers next to a Transbay tower that wouldn't be too much taller would create another table effect. We need more spikes!

[SFView]

Originally Posted by tyler82

When I think of the twin 1200' proposition, I think I'd rather have one of them shorter to balance out the skyline more. Like 900'. Two 1200' towers next to a Transbay tower that wouldn't be too much taller would create another table effect. We need more spikes!

You are right. It's going to be interesting how things will be balanced out in the area of Transbay. Heights are still a long way from being fixed.

How about 1200', 1000', 800', 700', and 600' instead?
(Image extraction for original image posted on the now discontinued forum on sfcityscape.com)


Here is how it might look like with the Piano twins at 1200 feet and SOM at 1375 feet. SOM's crown does help make a visual difference, but I agree the difference can be made greater (my images):

[roadwarrior]

You know, I disagree about the potential tabletop effect with all the new high-rises. I think there are 2 key reasons why our current skyline has a table-top effect:

1 - There are about 20+ high-rises of similar height
2 - The current height limits creates multiple "stunted" buildings


While three supertalls within a block may diminish the full-effect of the transbay tower, I don't think they will be enough to create a table-top effect.

In addition, given that they will be about twice as tall as anything else currently in the area, having three towers will make the transbay tower not seem so much out of place.

[SFView]

I actually think that the Piano twins at 1200 and SOM at 1375 doesn't look so table-top, but Pelli's design matching at 1200 feet might. I think Rogers design would seem too short, unless Piano's design is somehow shortened. Perhaps, any of the 3 competition designs can be made taller (or shorter), if needed.

It might be better to wait to see what wins, and how Piano and the Transbay winner might make design adjustments along with what Planning finds. etc.

[BTinSF]

I think the proposed buildings, if built, would diminish the "table top" effect.

[Wooster]

When is the announcement of the winner?

I looked through that SOM presentation. That is genius. If it isn't picked it will be a horrible shame. It has the potential to be the greatest skyscraper in the world.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I think the proposed buildings, if built, would diminish the "table top" effect.

I am talking about another table top effect. We can have two flat tops in the same skyline. I just think more dramatic height relations would be much more viable from all the famous Bay Area perspectives.

[northbay]

2 supertall towers of 1200 and 1 of 1375 would not, imo, create a table top effect in a city with literally hundreds of (mostly short/stubby) high-rises and no current supertalls.

i dont know. more varying heights might look better tho

[BTinSF]

^^^I agree with northbay420

[SFView]

I also agree with northbay420. Furthermore, several more possible 800 to 1100 foot tall buildings in the area could also help create a more interesting balanced skyline.

[San Frangelino]

Sorry if this has already be noted, but has anyone else noticed that SOM has really gone all out on showcasing this proposal on their website. You can now even watch the presentation now http://www.som.com/content.cfm/movin...nto_the_future

I hope this is their way of saying," we're excited over the prospect and we really want to make it happen."

[San Frangelino]

Ok hope this isnt illegal, but I got this off the presentation page @ http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_presentation
and just had to share it. Lots of other great images too if you flip around.

And of course it doesnt include skyscraper currently rising that are of similar heights in other cities. Only the SOM buildings, minus the Empire State.


There is also an image that shows the massing of the building. I love the double wall on the residential floors. That means if I lived there I wouldnt get vertigo

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by San Frangelino

Ok hope this isnt illegal, but I got this off the presentation page @ http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_presentation
and just had to share it. Lots of other great images too if you flip around.

And of course it doesnt include skyscraper currently rising that are of similar heights in other cities. Only the SOM buildings, minus the Empire State.


There is also an image that shows the massing of the building. I love the double wall on the residential floors. That means if I lived there I wouldnt get vertigo

Geez, now the transbay tower looks PUNY !!! Thanks a lot for ruining my excitement