HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 39 7.88%
#2 Cesar Pelli 98 19.80%
#3 SOM 358 72.32%
Voters: 495. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #321  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2007, 5:35 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^Things I learned from this

--I didn't know the terminal building would extend far enough west to be behind 555 Mission, but it will.

--"Parcel F" on north side of Howard between 1st and second: "850 ft. TJPA Tower"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #322  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 5:06 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^Things I learned from this

--I didn't know the terminal building would extend far enough west to be behind 555 Mission, but it will.

--"Parcel F" on north side of Howard between 1st and second: "850 ft. TJPA Tower"
Look at page 36 and beyond, they show a ground floor of the Transit Tower - is it tiny- the elevators take up most of the floor space. Will be interesting to see how this manifests itself into a 1000'+ tower (please happen!!!)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #323  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 5:23 AM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,061
Opps, ignore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #324  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 7:01 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
Look at page 36 and beyond, they show a ground floor of the Transit Tower - is it tiny- the elevators take up most of the floor space. Will be interesting to see how this manifests itself into a 1000'+ tower (please happen!!!)
Page 36 shows the Ground Floor level lobby smaller than the floors above in this early conceptual design. Compare this to the Concoarse Level plan on page 40.

Remember also that there should also be 550,000 sf. of office, 280,000 sf. of hotel, and 220,000 sf. of residential. This will need to fit floor plate sizes that are structurally, economically, and functionally feasible with whatever designs are developed. One may begin making very rough estimations of overall building height based on these factors, plus estimated average floor-to-floor heights per each of these 3 catagories. There should also be 25,000 sf. of retail space, and 190,000 sf. of below-grade parking.

Also see:
http://www.sfbctc.org/0107-transit.htm
http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=ht...sbaycenter.org

Last edited by SFView; Apr 4, 2007 at 7:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #325  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 5:03 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
Will be interesting to see how this manifests itself into a 1000'+ tower (please happen!!!)
Let us not forget that the first 1000'+ tower in the area may not be the Transit Tower but the Piano project across the street which has an architect and a developer who wants to build it--two things the Transit Tower doesn't yet have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #326  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 5:09 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Let us not forget that the first 1000'+ tower in the area may not be the Transit Tower but the Piano project across the street which has an architect and a developer who wants to build it--two things the Transit Tower doesn't yet have.
true enough, but both projects will likely have to wait for certain actions from the planning department. neither is possible without changes to height and FAR.

the transit tower has four architects and four developers who want to build it, we just don't yet know which one will get the chance.

if either of them actually get built (somewhat doubtful) they may well go up pretty close to the same time, which will be very, very cool.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #327  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 6:59 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I actually saw the powerpoint slide online and downloaded it a while ago. I did notice them mentioning that the tower would likely fall into the 800' - 1200' range, but I dont think thats the end of it really. They've upgraded this tower a few times now, and even when we see the design (which cant be soon enough), its possible they'll modify the height here and there. Good thing August isnt that far off, I cant wait to see what they come up with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
if either of them actually get built (somewhat doubtful) they may well go up pretty close to the same time, which will be very, very cool.
Agreed. Lets hope for the best.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #328  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 10:14 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Page 36 shows the Ground Floor level lobby smaller than the floors above in this early conceptual design. Compare this to the Concoarse Level plan on page 40.

Remember also that there should also be 550,000 sf. of office, 280,000 sf. of hotel, and 220,000 sf. of residential. This will need to fit floor plate sizes that are structurally, economically, and functionally feasible with whatever designs are developed. One may begin making very rough estimations of overall building height based on these factors, plus estimated average floor-to-floor heights per each of these 3 catagories. There should also be 25,000 sf. of retail space, and 190,000 sf. of below-grade parking.

Also see:
http://www.sfbctc.org/0107-transit.htm
http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=ht...sbaycenter.org
Your right, I only saw it after I posted and didn't correct my post.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #329  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2007, 10:21 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Let us not forget that the first 1000'+ tower in the area may not be the Transit Tower but the Piano project across the street which has an architect and a developer who wants to build it--two things the Transit Tower doesn't yet have.
I am confused - I thought all the 1000' tower proposals were directly part of Transbay Terminal (the master project).

So what 1000' projects are on the table and how are they related to (or not) Transbay Terminal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #330  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2007, 3:58 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
I am confused - I thought all the 1000' tower proposals were directly part of Transbay Terminal (the master project).

So what 1000' projects are on the table and how are they related to (or not) Transbay Terminal?
Go here and read under "History":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fra...bay_Supertalls

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._San_Francisco
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #331  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 6:08 AM
caligrad06 caligrad06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Thumbs up Please Build Transbay Project !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Transbay project sounds interesting, i truly hope that it is built
(this coming from an LA Native) however, this project needs to speed up or sumthing! im going to be a little mole for the San Francisco forumers and tell you guys that I have some friends in Big Time LA Architectural Firms, and also have friends in LA city hall and LA is right behind San Fransiscos Transbay Project. I've heard of towers currently on their way to being approved for construction, and these toweres will most certainly smash the current LA super talls ! the funding is in place, the land is readily available, and their are no public leaders or public moobs against any of the proposed plans like there may be in San Fransisco. But for the heads up i've seen the designs for the towers to be built and they are really impressive, one tower is proposed for 1,223 feet, another is for 1,363 feet, and the biggest on the list is for 1,455 feet (not including the Proposed spire to go ontop). There is also a plan for a space age type observations tower similar to the stratosphere tower in vegas that is on the drawing board so thats another that might be somthing to look for.These plans are kept out of the public eye for watever reason but for two reasons IM GUESSING . 1. to sneak up on San Franciscos,and 2. im guessing its due to the mass of construction already happening downtown including the well awaited L.A. Live tower,and other big towers being constructed. So if the Transbay towers and project a a for sure thing thats going to happen, i really do hope that construction starts soon so that San Francisco can get a little glory before LA steals that glory from San Francisco, i think its about time SF gets a face lift and is allowed som pride for atleast a couple of years. its Always about LA, maybe its time to be more about San Francisco in my opinion, let SF have Some GLORY FOR ONCE !, I TRANSBAY IS BUILT AND IN A HURRY AS WELL !!!!!!!!!!!.

Last edited by caligrad06; Apr 8, 2007 at 7:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #332  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 6:35 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Sounds like a dream or fantasy to me to be honest with you, as I have not heard anything at all, even rumors, of something so massive planned in LA. The reason I think theres nobody against them is because nobody knows about them, if indeed this is even true. I dont see why LA would want to build these on spite against SF, sounds fishy. It also sounds weird to me, I had a fantasy about towers around this height in SF a while ago.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #333  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 6:48 AM
caligrad06 caligrad06 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence View Post
Sounds like a dream or fantasy to me to be honest with you, as I have not heard anything at all, even rumors, of something so massive planned in LA. The reason I think theres nobody against them is because nobody knows about them, if indeed this is even true. I dont see why LA would want to build these on spite against SF, sounds fishy. It also sounds weird to me, I had a fantasy about towers around this height in SF a while ago.
im just a forunner for what im being told and givin pics of. if it werent for this thread about the transbay project i would have never known about the project, i actually heard about the LA towers befor the transbay towers. Whats big news to SF might only be big news to SF. i dunno, but dont be suprised if LA sneaks up and tops off yet again. Visit DT LA and witness all the construction cranes going up on big projects that LA forumers may know about but are not speaking of, im sure many kno of the towers in LA but honestly really dont care, its no big deal, theres no public parade in other words, just more buildings to add to the bunch.amd im not saying LA is building the towers out of spite against SF, i was just coming up with speculations for why LA is hidding the towers from the public eye. here are some pics of huge towers being built that no one other than LA forumers know about, as you will see, there are cranes every where, and this is only 5% of the cranes that are in LA right now, so don't be suprised if a supertall is built,thats all im saying, but other than that, i really do truly hope transbay is built and built in a hurry before any of these are built


Last edited by caligrad06; Apr 8, 2007 at 7:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #334  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 2:03 PM
nygirl1 nygirl1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 566
1,455 ft in La let alone 1300+', 1200+'? Not any time soon. It does sound like a fantasy. Be happy with your 1,018 footer. Go San Francisco go....
__________________
Brooklyn: The Motherland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #335  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 5:21 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
caligrad06, could you please not spam and pollute this thread with pictures of los angeles? if you want to discuss a pending project in los angeles (if there in fact is one), please start a new thread. thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #336  
Old Posted Apr 8, 2007, 8:28 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,061
caligrad06 - are you saying than on a SKYSCRAPER FORUM, people are not talking about really tall skyscrapers because they don't care?

That makes a lot of sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #337  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2007, 4:20 AM
rajaxsonbayboi's Avatar
rajaxsonbayboi rajaxsonbayboi is offline
Pizza Pizza
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bay area
Posts: 84
i dont believe that Caligrad06 is polluting the thread. he is just simply giving us a heads up for what might or might not be happening in L.A. and in my opinion i really do hope that transbay tower goes up!! and sooon before any L.A. developers beat us!!
__________________
l'architecture est le breuvage magique ce des feuls ma vie.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #338  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2007, 4:23 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^This thread is not about what's happening in LA nor is it supposed to be about a "city vs. city" contest. It's about San Francisco projects. Let's keep the LA discussion, and especially the LA pictures, in an LA thread, please.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #339  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2007, 4:32 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
OK, so back on topic. Here's is a part of the SFBizTimes article on Renzo Piano--the part regarding his work on the building at 1st and Mission:

Quote:
Piano's five-tower project at First and Mission streets is "about creating a sense of urbanity," Piano said. Unveiled at the end of 2006, Piano's design calls for a pair of 1,200-foot towers, two more of 900 feet and another 600 feet high. The towers, which will be part of an upzoning around the Transbay Terminal and Tower, will be thin and wrapped in terracotta to evoke bamboo shoots. Developed by Solit Interests Group, the proposed buildings would house 470 hotel rooms, 600 condos, and 550,000 square feet of office. The zoning changes that would allow the skyscrapers have yet to be implemented and already face opposition from some slow-growth advocates.

For an architect who is proposing San Francisco's tallest buildings, Piano does not come across as a strident advocate for height. He says he is not interested in breaking records. He recently walked away from a 1,000-foot project at Winthrop Square in Boston because the developer was pushing for a level of density that would have forced larger floorplates, and a clumsier structure.

"When you make tall buildings you have be careful not to fall in the trap of making aggressive, powerful, arrogant buildings," he said. "(Tall buildings) can be obsessive symbols of power. Somebody talks about phallic symbols and it is true. Sometimes tall buildings don't tell very interesting stories."

In contrast, Piano sees San Francisco as a "city about romanticism and light." Piano said he is planning to keep some of the three- and four-story buildings along First Street.


"Modern architecture and construction tends to want to destroy what is already there, but I think it's a mistake because the growth and transformation of cities is about layers, so it's a pity not to keep some element of memory," he said. "Those little buildings at First and Mission are part of the story."

He also said he is not wedded to the 1,200-foot height.

"It may not be that tall," said Piano. "We are not interested in that specifically. It is more subtle than that. They should be quite tall because they become more subtle and elegant and beautiful like that, and the city, from time to time, needs some bold, iconic buildings. There is nothing wrong about that. But I don't think this is the only story. We can do a building that is tall and iconic, but at the same time very tolerant, very light, very transparent. There is nothing wrong about that."


Transbay attracts stars
Piano is part of a small cadre of top architects that includes Santiago Calatrava, Richard Rogers, Norman Foster, Rem Koolhaas, and deYoung design tream of Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron. Along with Cesar Pelli and the firm Skidmore Owings & Merrill, Foster, Rogers, and Calatrava are all part of the competition to design the new Transbay Terminal and Tower.

Macris, a non-voting member of the panel that will pick the Transbay team, called Piano "the least ego-challenged" superstar architect.

"Renzo is very much enamored of the idea that San Francisco's grain has a building rhythm to it expressed in 25- to 50-foot lot frontage. He would like these buildings to continue that deal to keep the buildings looking separate."

Macris said he and Piano walked the south financial district and envisioned what the new area around Transbay might feel like.

"We imagined the train station and the area around it as the public statement for this generation, this generation's contribution to the central district of the city, not unlike what Union Square or Civic Center was for other generations," said Macris.

Piano said he wants to create a unique "public corner" across from the train station.

"It's a private scheme," Piano said, "but with very strong public implications."

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #340  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2007, 4:58 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
The first of two Mid-Course Reviews should be happening this week of April 16 2007. The second review will be the week of June 11, 2007.

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransB...n%20022307.pdf
Quote:
1.2.4. Mid-course Reviews: Each Respondent will be invited to two Mid-Course Reviews
of its Proposal. The Review is a day-long working session among the Respondent,
Competition Manager, TJPA staff, and TJPA consultants. The Reviews will provide
constructive feedback to Respondents to maximize the feasibility and functionality of
each Proposal. The Reviews may include discussion of design, technical functionality,
and financial terms. The Competition Manager will comment on issues arising during
Reviews that affect all Respondents and distribute the comments to the Respondents
in the same manner as answers to questions submitted during the Question and Answer
Period.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:51 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.