SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 122

rocketman_95046 · #**2421** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 6:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

What was the original height? I agree, at least it's still over 1,000.
I agree on the design being a little boring still, those SOM towers look cool though.

Any news on when it will be built?! Where is Socketsite getting this new information?

^The draft EIR was just released for all the towers in the redevelopment district. Hopefully it gets approved quickly.

ElDuderino · #**2422** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

What was the original height? I agree, at least it's still over 1,000.
I agree on the design being a little boring still, those SOM towers look cool though.

Any news on when it will be built?! Where is Socketsite getting this new information?

Originally the top of the architectural element was set to be 1200' for the Pelli proposal.

ElDuderino · #**2423** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Frangelino

1,070 ain't bad at all. I'm more disappointed that the design hasn't changed much. You can see more renderings by downloading this pdf.

http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf

The tower is relatively boring, but it sure fits in nice right here

CyberEric · #**2424** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

^The draft EIR was just released for all the towers in the redevelopment district. Hopefully it gets approved quickly.

Gotcha, thanks! And yes, fingers crossed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

Originally the top of the architectural element was set to be 1200' for the Pelli proposal.

Ok good to know, so it will no longer be tallest on the west coast right?
Edit: Looks like the US Bank tower in LA will still be taller by 11 whole feet!

Looking at the old renderings of this building, it looked better before; more elegant. Now it looks squat and fat in comparison. It does however look like it fits better with the rest of the skyline in terms of height and may actually make the while skyline look better.

ElDuderino · #**2425** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 8:23 PM**

Also from http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf A great drawing showing the tower elevation and distribution of floors.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

CyberEric · #**2426** Posted **Oct 5, 2011, 9:03 PM**

I'm sorry, I mis-read and mis-typed earlier, at 1070' this would still be the tallest on the West Coast. US Bank tower is only 1,018 ft.

NYguy · #**2427** Posted **Oct 6, 2011, 2:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Frangelino

Would be nice for the skyline.

ElDuderino · #**2428** Posted **Oct 7, 2011, 10:51 PM**

From http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

peanut gallery · #**2429** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 6:47 AM**

It looks pretty good in that rendering from the Bay Bridge.

I'm not sure how long the draft EIR public review period will be, but Planning's website says the final EIR and plan approval process will start next year. Let's say the plan (and resulting height increases) is approved by 2013. Could the market get strong enough by then for Hines to think about starting? Maybe enough to get the tenant search going in ernest.

Roadcruiser1 · #**2430** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 1:58 PM**

It was originally to be 1,200 feet. It lost 130 feet worth of height in the final redesign.

Zapatan · #**2431** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 4:00 PM**

too bad it couldnt be 1200 feet but at least it's another supertall for the west coast!

Roadcruiser1 · #**2432** Posted **Oct 10, 2011, 5:29 PM**

I am actually pretty excited. This will be the first supertall skyscraper in San Francisco my Aunt's home city.

peanut gallery · #**2433** Posted **Oct 11, 2011, 9:31 PM**

SocketSite has a fascinating overview of the shadow study that has been conducted for the new Transbay District Plan EIR. We all discussed this at length many months ago.

Quote:

With one exception, shadow from any given potential building would cover part of any affected Section 295 park for less than 45 minutes per day over a period of time ranging from 4 to 12 weeks (one to three months) per year; the exception would be that Union Square would be newly shaded by up to about one hour per day, over a period of six months, by a 600-foot tower addition to the southwest corner of the Palace Hotel on New Montgomery Street. Most new shadow on Section 295 parks would be in the early morning hours, except that Justin Herman Plaza would be newly shaded in the early afternoon in late fall and early winter.

Not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly, but the study seems to say all the new buildings are probably OK in terms of Section 295, except the Palace Hotel tower. And even that will probably be OK because the time its shape adds new shadow to Union Square is not likely to change usage of it (not to mention we're talking about the far northwest corner sidewalk area).

I read through Section 295 and there's a provision to approve shadowing on a park if it doesn't negatively affect usage and/or is deemed insignificant. Personally, I don't see how any of these additional shadows will negatively affect the usage of any of these parks, since we're talking about less than an hour a day a few weeks a year and only on those particular days during those weeks when there is no cloud cover. That has to be the very definition of insignificant.

CyberEric · #**2434** Posted **Oct 12, 2011, 4:40 PM**

Article in the Chronicle this morning about the shadows, warning there is some NIMBY content: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNIU1LBU71.DTL

That map above makes me wonder, in the article in the Chronicle, they say that Portsmouth Sq will be shadowed, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

ElDuderino · #**2435** Posted **Oct 12, 2011, 5:10 PM**

Bill Maher is a douche

CyberEric · #**2436** Posted **Oct 12, 2011, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

Bill Maher is a douche

Is this the same Bill Maher as the commentator/comedian on HBO? Can't be.

WildCowboy · #**2437** Posted **Oct 12, 2011, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

Article in the Chronicle this morning about the shadows, warning there is some NIMBY content: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNIU1LBU71.DTL

That map above makes me wonder, in the article in the Chronicle, they say that Portsmouth Sq will be shadowed, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

That map above is for September 21st. Shadows would be much longer around December 21st, and that appears to be when Portsmouth Square would be shaded in the mornings.

CyberEric · #**2438** Posted **Oct 12, 2011, 8:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

That map above is for September 21st. Shadows would be much longer around December 21st, and that appears to be when Portsmouth Square would be shaded in the mornings.

Gotcha.

I hope no one pays this guy any mind.
He'd probably say "I want them to bulldoze Twin Peaks flat. It creates shadows on my park."

ElDuderino · #**2439** Posted **Oct 13, 2011, 12:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

Is this the same Bill Maher as the commentator/comedian on HBO? Can't be.

I doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

That map above is for September 21st. Shadows would be much longer around December 21st, and that appears to be when Portsmouth Square would be shaded in the mornings.

Yeah. Shaded for a few minutes on a freezing December morning. How will people ever cope?

Reminiscence · #**2440** Posted **Oct 19, 2011, 7:54 AM**

I see they've managed to reduce the height a bit. Still a supertall though, now get it built as is. The design is still a tad bland, but of course those are just renderings. Once it starts going up next to the terminal, I'm sure it'll look stunning. As for the shadows ... bah, I'd rather not even start up.