SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 66

Reminiscence · #**1301** Posted **Sep 20, 2007, 11:59 PM**

Well, I guess the people have spoken (not really the people, but the few people who had the power at least), and its Pelli's to be built. I loved SOM's design, and for a while I thought they should use it for the TJPA Site nearby. I think that 1400' remark is a mistake, but if its true for some reason, then thats really good start. Some part of me says that if SOM's tower isnt built in SF, then it shouldnt be built at all

.

Kevlar1981 · #**1302** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 12:07 AM**

So if the city asks Pelli to add residential floors to this tower, I wonder if they will let them build higher than 1200' to do so.

Reminiscence · #**1303** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevlar1981

So if the city asks Pelli to add residential floors to this tower, I wonder if they will let them build higher than 1200' to do so.

I dont know if the question is whether the city will allow them or if Pelli and Hines are up for it. I think if they city (most importantly, C. Daly) gets what they want, then they could theoretically build much higher. But of course, building a taller tower could be more expensive. If they offered 350 million already, I dont see what could stop them from doing so. I still dream of a 1500' or more tower, and hopefully, they only add floors from now on to make this work.

Alliance · #**1304** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 2:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aluminum

I hate the shape of pelli's version, but if it is 1400' then it is good to go and (because you're a Chicagoan) imagine how Chicago Spire would look if design remained exactly same, but scaled down to 1000' instead of 2000' ! Sometimes height 'alone' can impress.

To me, its about the architecture. Some of the most meaningful and beautiful buildings in the world are 400' tall.

Loosing 200' doesn't make it disgusting and adding 200' doesn't make it god.

Un ugly design is an ugly design at any height. Why make something ugly more noticable by building it larger?

HarryBarbierSRPD · #**1305** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 3:54 AM**

Well, at least John King didn't say anything critical about the tower in his (short) article today:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../BAO7S9J2H.DTL

...and the article also mentions that the tower probably won't begin construction until 2009, as it will take until then for zoning laws to be changed in order for a 1200'+ building to be built there.

Sonofsoma · #**1306** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 6:04 AM**

Re: The Pelli/Hines Transbay Tower:

The very well connected...Hines organization is all about Class-A Office. A residential and/or hotel component is very unlikely.

In the end, the competition was less about "design" than it was about money - raising money. The Pelli/Hines Teameasily outbid it competitors by pledging $350 Million toward the new terminal facility.

It is my understanding SOM was so stunned by Hines' $350Mil figure, they publically questioned it's legitimacy. Hines responded by announcing they already have tentative lease agreements on more than 40% of the tower and are committed to it being no less than 1200 ft tall

For this project anyway... They mean business.

plinko · #**1307** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 7:37 AM**

Wow, I just read through all the public comment on SfGate. Ignorance is a wonderful thing.

Someone really needs to explain to me how other than maybe the first two hours of a summer day that the shadow from this tower will have any effect on a portion of the city beyond the shadows already created by the towers of the financial district.

tyler82 · #**1308** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 8:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonofsoma

It is my understanding SOM was so stunned by Hines' $350Mil figure, they publically questioned it's legitimacy. Hines responded by announcing they already have tentative lease agreements on more than 40% of the tower and are committed to it being no less than 1200 ft tall
.

Please expand.. less than 1200'??

Hmmmm.... smells like troll meat

tyler82 · #**1309** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 8:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinko

Wow, I just read through all the public comment on SfGate. Ignorance is a wonderful thing.
.

Hahahahahaha... can you say SHELTERED and CLOSED MINDED, NO ROOM for debate or intelligence.. to say the absolute least

plinko · #**1310** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 8:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

Hahahahahaha... can you say SHELTERED and CLOSED MINDED, NO ROOM for debate or intelligence.. to say the absolute least

Ummm, No, I didn't say that.

There are some remarkably unfounded and ignorant (as well as childish) comments on there, from both the con AND pro-tower camps.

Alliance · #**1311** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 1:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonofsoma

The very well connected...Hines organization is all about Class-A Office. A residential and/or hotel component is very unlikely.

In the end, the competition was less about "design" than it was about money - raising money. The Pelli/Hines Teameasily outbid it competitors by pledging $350 Million toward the new terminal facility.

Very true. Heins does office and only (class A) office. At least of what I know from their Chicago projects, they'll usually build two buildings rather than create a mixed use tower.

GlobeTrekker · #**1312** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonofsoma

It is my understanding SOM was so stunned by Hines' $350Mil figure, they publically questioned it's legitimacy. Hines responded by announcing they already have tentative lease agreements on more than 40% of the tower and are committed to it being no less than 1200 ft tall

For this project anyway... They mean business.

Yep, Hines is so confident in this site that they are willing to maintain the $350 million offer even if forced to make some of it residential (according to the TJPA). The 40% pre-leased figure is very interesting and a good sign for the project.

Once I realized this competition included a bid on the land, I knew what would happen. There is no way the TJPA or the City would turn down an extra $200 million just for a better design. The SOM bid undervalued the land, and the City would have lost a lot of money.

I'm not sure what they can do to the building to make it look more "iconic" (extra height won't really change that). In the report, TJPA referred to it as "pearlescent" or something, which could be interesting, although it does not look that way in the renderings. Depending on the color and the glass, I'm hoping it looks better in real life.

Maybe they could make it more like a real obelisk with the four corners coming to a point. With an obelisk and a pyramid, we could have a whole Egyptian theme going on

GlobeTrekker · #**1313** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 2:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

Please expand.. less than 1200'??

Hmmmm.... smells like troll meat

It said no less than 1,200', so that is a good sign. Hopefully they increase the height to include some hotel or residential. I also hope they include some kind of public area, restaurant, or observation deck on top.

The media is all over the place on the height, I have heard/read 1200, 1300, and 1400. One is reporting it would be the second-tallest in the US, which means over 1250. So who really knows? On the Hines website, it says 1200, but not sure if that includes the crown and wind turbines.

caramatt · #**1314** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 5:05 PM**

I love this picture from the latest Chronicle story:

It will really stand as a beautiful beacon; especially once the other towers go up around it. I do agree that it'll need to be at least 150' taller than the Piano towers for best effect.

Alliance · #**1315** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 5:14 PM**

However, I think its the perfect height for where it is.

djvandrake · #**1316** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 5:20 PM**

It may not be the design I preferred (SOM) but I think it will make a stunning addition to the San Francisco skyline. Congrats on getting a signature tower of this magnitude.

Reminiscence · #**1317** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlobeTrekker

It said no less than 1,200', so that is a good sign. Hopefully they increase the height to include some hotel or residential. I also hope they include some kind of public area, restaurant, or observation deck on top.

The media is all over the place on the height, I have heard/read 1200, 1300, and 1400. One is reporting it would be the second-tallest in the US, which means over 1250. So who really knows? On the Hines website, it says 1200, but not sure if that includes the crown and wind turbines.

I'm still a little vexed on what that height actually means, to the roof or to the top of the crown. Naturally, my hope is that figure is to the roof. I think its important to know exactly what they said. They seem to be ignoring projects that are proposed or that just started construction. Either way, I can certainly appreciate Hines' devotion to seeing this project go through. If I'm not mistaken, the article also mentions that the height limits (assuming there will be height limits in this part of town) should be devloped around the next 6-12 months. The process is just getting warmed up ...

SFView · #**1318** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 6:20 PM**

The model and the renderings do appear to scale the tower taller than 1200 feet when I compare it to 50 Fremont at 600 feet right next to it. The actual height of the tower is still a temporary placeholder or benchmark from which to either grow or shrink, depending Planning (studies), upzoning, TJPA, economics, public comment, and local politics. Three years is still a lot of time for things to change before this project begins construction.

SFView · #**1319** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 6:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance

To me, its about the architecture. Some of the most meaningful and beautiful buildings in the world are 400' tall.

Loosing 200' doesn't make it disgusting and adding 200' doesn't make it god.

Un ugly design is an ugly design at any height. Why make something ugly more noticable by building it larger?

Although that is partially true, I still think that height is still an important part of architecture having to do with proportion, especially in skyscrapers.

twinpeaks · #**1320** Posted **Sep 21, 2007, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView

Although that is partially true, I still think that height is still an important part of architecture having to do with proportion, especially in skyscrapers.

I agree, imagine how much more majestic the Pyramid building would be at 1100 feet as originally proposed. The BofA kinda over powers it in most angles.