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 40 8.05%
#2 Cesar Pelli 99 19.92%
#3 SOM 358 72.03%
Voters: 497. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2541  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 4:29 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post

have no idea what the benefits of skyscrapers are, or why so many people like them?
Highrises save space; they squeeze more people into a smaller footprint. But how many people or how tall they are seems to me to be beside the point. Is the Seagram Building or the Crown Zellerbach building of less importance because it's only 20 or so stories tall?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2542  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 7:07 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
Highrises save space; they squeeze more people into a smaller footprint. But how many people or how tall they are seems to me to be beside the point. Is the Seagram Building or the Crown Zellerbach building of less importance because it's only 20 or so stories tall?
Yes. I worked at One Bush (formerly known as Crown Zellerbach) for four years. Job growth in the Bay Area will either concentrate in the dense, transit-oriented core or it will sprawl endlessly into the hinterlands. A building that fits more workers in the transit-rich core is better for the environment and makes public transit more sustainable than the alternatives. A building that can fit 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 workers within a BART, Muni, GG Transit, AC Transit, and SamTrans hub is far more important than a building that can only fit a few hundred workers on the same footprint. Density is important. Urbanity is important. Public transit usage is important.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2543  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 7:41 AM
The Jerk's Avatar
The Jerk The Jerk is offline
lite
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: nyc
Posts: 108
^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2544  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 8:12 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jerk View Post
^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.
You think the air is that much different 1070 feet up? Do you wear an oxygen mask when you go to Twin Peaks?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2545  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 4:15 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jerk View Post
^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.


HVAC and Lighting would be the same in a sprawling 1 story office building. Have you ever been to Tokyo? You think it sucks?
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2546  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 6:04 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jerk View Post
^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.
You think Tokyo is dystopian? If you dislike heavy urbanity, density, tall buildings, high public transit usage, and other things like that, than maybe you should live in a small town. San Francisco is not a small town...it's a large, dense, city, with no room to expand outwards, and a strong economy, so tall buildings make plenty of sense.

Also, processed light and air exist everywhere, not just skyscrapers. Ever use heat or AC or a dehumidifier? Ever fly in a plane or ride on certain trains/buses? Ever use a light bulb for anything?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2547  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 6:06 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Yes. I worked at One Bush (formerly known as Crown Zellerbach) for four years. Job growth in the Bay Area will either concentrate in the dense, transit-oriented core or it will sprawl endlessly into the hinterlands.
That horse has already run away unless you refuse to believe that there are job centers in the Bay Area other than in the Financial District or South of Market.

But my original point was, why all this fascination with "mine is bigger than yours is"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2548  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 6:35 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
That horse has already run away unless you refuse to believe that there are job centers in the Bay Area other than in the Financial District or South of Market.

But my original point was, why all this fascination with "mine is bigger than yours is"?
because frankly the fascination has very little to do with "mine is bigger than yours". SF is in dire need of a central peak in the skyline for aesthetic reasons, and there a very practical reasons that cities like SF, Chicago, NY have taller buildings than say Gilroy, CA.

If it was all about "mine is bigger than yours" huge buildings would be built in the middle of nowhere because it would be cheaper and easier to do so.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2549  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 9:24 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
because frankly the fascination has very little to do with "mine is bigger than yours". SF is in dire need of a central peak in the skyline for aesthetic reasons, and there a very practical reasons that cities like SF, Chicago, NY have taller buildings than say Gilroy, CA.

If it was all about "mine is bigger than yours" huge buildings would be built in the middle of nowhere because it would be cheaper and easier to do so.
Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2550  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 9:31 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.
^^Undebatable.

In other news, Rincon Hill tower 2 expects construction to commence this summer and will be built as rentals.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments

Perhaps the Rincon Hill threads needs to be brought back from the dead!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2551  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 10:41 PM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.
As a visitor, I can say that YES, your city does need more interesting architecture and vibrancy, and this building will help. In fact, much of the downtown area in SF is dull, boring and needs spicing up with some new energy. Also, I find your skyline very underwhelming, and this building will make it far more attractive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2552  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2012, 11:04 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.
No offense but this website is called skyscraperpage.com, people like tall buildings here. If you can't see how a 1000+ foot building is more exciting in SF than two 500 some footers, then I am at a loss for words.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2553  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2012, 4:41 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
As a visitor, I can say that YES, your city does need more interesting architecture and vibrancy, and this building will help. In fact, much of the downtown area in SF is dull, boring and needs spicing up with some new energy. Also, I find your skyline very underwhelming, and this building will make it far more attractive.
I guess as a native to the SF Bay Area, the financial district can be somewhat barren on a non-weekday or perhaps even architecturally, but the city offers so much more than simply the central business district that serves its function well. Moreover, I welcome additional changes to the skyline, yet I don't desire the financial district to imitate the Loop in Chicago or Lower Manhattan in New York City. Each city has its distinctive characteristics, but they shouldn't necessarily emulate each other.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2554  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2012, 6:09 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
I am at a loss for words.
And how many of them did it take you to say that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2555  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2012, 6:10 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigKidD View Post
I guess as a native to the SF Bay Area, the financial district can be somewhat barren on a non-weekday or perhaps even architecturally, but the city offers so much more than simply the central business district that serves its function well. Moreover, I welcome additional changes to the skyline, yet I don't desire the financial district to imitate the Loop in Chicago or Lower Manhattan in New York City. Each city has its distinctive characteristics, but they shouldn't necessarily emulate each other.
Bingo!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2556  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2012, 6:12 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
After all, it's not as though San Francisco were Houston or some god-awful place like that that had nothing but tall buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2557  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2012, 8:47 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
And how many of them did it take you to say that?
For one who disdains forumers' interest in this project and has declared he "doesn't care" if the tower gets built or not, you are spending quite a bit of time in this thread antagonizing those who do. Your pseudo-psychological projections of forumers' purported deficiencies, and your existential conflict with this entire website's raison d'etre, are inappropriate and unproductive. If you wish to contribute something to the discussion of the Transbay Tower and Terminal, please do so--or please move along.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2558  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2012, 3:54 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
If you wish to contribute something to the discussion of the Transbay Tower and Terminal, please do so
I have. I have said, I don't care whether it gets built or not. It adds nothing to San Francisco, a city I dearly love, and even if it gets built, whether it's 1000' or 500' or 100', doesn't matter. Happy now?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2559  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2012, 4:26 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
I have. I have said, I don't care whether it gets built or not. It adds nothing to San Francisco, a city I dearly love, and even if it gets built, whether it's 1000' or 500' or 100', doesn't matter. Happy now?

This is a website dedicated to skyscrapers (tall buildings)


I'ts kind of like me joining a sports forum right now and complaining about how much I don't care about sports...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2560  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2012, 5:10 PM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
This is a website dedicated to skyscrapers (tall buildings)
Oh really? So topics such as transportation or L.A. Noir don't really exist and all those aerial and Flickr pictures contain skyscrapers?

What are you, twelve?
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 11:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.