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
     
     
  #1341  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 3:38 PM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 370
The approval of the Pelli design concerns me regarding surrounding highrise development for 3 reasons.

1. The planning department is in the middle of studying height increases on surrounding parcels that will help fund the terminal. However, now they are planning on a giant park in the midst of some of the tallest towers proposed. I wonder if shadow considerations will force them to lower the 850' TJPA site, or the 900' Heller Manus, to prevent the park from being cast in shadows much of the day and year.

2. With the SOM proposal at 1375', the 1200' height of Pianos towers still allowed the Transbay tower to be the tallest structure in downtown. With Pelli only at 1200' it might force the reduction of other proposed heights to retain Transbay as the tallest of the bunch.

3. With Pelli proposing all office, versus SOM's mixed use, it sucks a lot of the wind out of the sails of the other proposed office buildings. With 1.8 million square feet proposed in Pelli's tower (almost two BofA Buildings) the probability of other sites being developed as office is very low. I'm not sure the market can even absorb Pelli in less than 5 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1342  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 6:01 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
The TJPA Site, which has nothing to do with the main tower and terminal, if I remember correct. One of the original "800'+" buildings closeby.
The "TJPA" (TransBay Joint Powers Authority) is responsible for developing the terminal, disposing of the tower site (fronting Mission St between 1st & Fremont) in a manner that brings in some money to pay for Phase II of the Terminal, acquiring land needed for the "CalTrain to 1st & Mission" project (involving a number of sites between the terminal and 4th & Townsend) and planning the general redevelopment (and upzoning) of the neighborhood around the terminal. This involves a number of potential building sites including the "Piano" site at 1st & Mission, 350 Mission, 181 Fremont, 2 sites on Howard between 1st and 2nd etc.


Source: http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/200...high_rises.jpg

So I repeat, which site are you referring to?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1343  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 6:13 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by slock View Post
The approval of the Pelli design concerns me regarding surrounding highrise development for 3 reasons.

1. The planning department is in the middle of studying height increases on surrounding parcels that will help fund the terminal. However, now they are planning on a giant park in the midst of some of the tallest towers proposed. I wonder if shadow considerations will force them to lower the 850' TJPA site, or the 900' Heller Manus, to prevent the park from being cast in shadows much of the day and year.

2. With the SOM proposal at 1375', the 1200' height of Pianos towers still allowed the Transbay tower to be the tallest structure in downtown. With Pelli only at 1200' it might force the reduction of other proposed heights to retain Transbay as the tallest of the bunch.

3. With Pelli proposing all office, versus SOM's mixed use, it sucks a lot of the wind out of the sails of the other proposed office buildings. With 1.8 million square feet proposed in Pelli's tower (almost two BofA Buildings) the probability of other sites being developed as office is very low. I'm not sure the market can even absorb Pelli in less than 5 years.
In regards to item #1:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=24887
Quote:
POLICY 2.3
Preserve sunlight in public open spaces

Solar access to public open space should be protected. In San Francisco, presence of the sun’s warming rays is essential to enjoying open space. This is because climatic factors, including ambient temperature, humidity, and wind, usually combine to create a comfortable climate only when direct sunlight is present. Therefore, the shadows created by new development nearby can critically diminish the utility of the open space.

This is particularly a problem in downtown districts and in neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the downtown core, where there is a limited amount of open space, where there is pressure for new development, and where zoning controls allow tall buildings. But the problem potentially exists wherever tall buildings near open space are permitted.

Properties under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department or designated for acquisition are now protected by a voter-approved Planning Code amendment. It restricts the issuance of building permits authorizing construction of any structure exceeding forty feet ion height that would shade these properties from between one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset, unless it is determined that the impact on the use of the space would be insignificant.

A number of other open spaces designated in this Element or elsewhere in the general Plan are under the jurisdiction of other public agencies, or are privately owned and therefore not protected by the Planning Code amendments. These spaces should be given other forms of protection to assure they are not shaded during the hours of their most intensive use. Any new shading should be remedied to the extent feasible by expanding opportunities for public assembly and recreation in indoor and outdoor settings.

(Amended by Resolution 14400 adopted on 6/26/1997)
(Amended by Resolution 14467 adopted on 10/16/1997)
In regards to item #2:
An earlier TJPA publication no longer available online, stated that the Transbay Tower should be taller than the neaby towers by at least 150 feet. If I remember correctly, this was in regards to the 1000', 850', 850' scheme of about 2 years ago. We still need to wait for the studies by Planning to determine workable height schemes. As I said before, the 1200 or 1200+ foot heights between the Piano and Pelli towers are current benchmarks from which may possibly change.

In regard to item #3:
I asked a similar question in the 350 Mission thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1344  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 6:33 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
The TJPA Howard Street and 181 Fremont Street towers are among 7 or more proposed tower sites that might cast shadows on the proposed rooftop terminal park. If TJPA Howard and 181 Fremont are not to cast any shadows on the park, they might need to be not any much taller than the park elevation itself. These sites are almost adjacent to the south of the park. Since the potential new park is not protected by the Planning Code, other potential tower sites are at serious risk of being drastically reduced, and this is a new park introduced as an extra bonus to the plan, I suspect this park could be exempt from the same shadow concerns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1345  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 8:45 PM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 370
Even though the highrises might be exempt from laws limiting shadows on Parks, I think the Planning Department would not want shadows cast on this particular park because of its significance.

Furthermore, and one of the reasons I was very opposed to the Pelli tower, is that because they chose to put a park on the roof, there are just a few spots where light enters the interior, through the circular, palm lined skylights. Because of that, the restrictions might be tough because the shadows cast not only shade the park, but also restrict light entering the terminal itself.

The SOM proposal solved all of this by not having the park on the roof in the first place, and by being fully enclosed in glass, light could enter from any direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1346  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 9:08 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
So I repeat, which site are you referring to?
The site that I am refering to is what others have been talking about recently. The "TJPA Site" aka TJPA Howard Steet Tower on the image you provided is what I was talking about. The image that you posted shows it at "up to 850 feet", which, I'd like to think, is likely to increase now that Transbay has reached 1200' instead of 1000'.

If they for some unknown reason allow this to become a supertall, could they try to use SOM's tower for the design?
__________________
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
     
     
  #1347  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 10:21 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
SOM's Transbay Tower would not fit on the Howard Street site. Perhaps another design by SOM for this location would be nice? Otherwise, there is not much public information to say about this site yet except that it may be another very tall part of the original Transbay trio that includes Transbay, Piano and TJPA Howard. Like the Piano plans, it may be better to hold off details until later.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1348  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 10:25 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
The Howard Street site is very small, even after they shift the bus ramp to the west. It's much smaller than the footprint available at the Transbay tower site, so they'd have to radically redesign the base at least.

edit: didn't mean to more or less repeat SFView. He was posting while I was typing.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1349  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 1:20 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
SOM's Transbay Tower would not fit on the Howard Street site. Perhaps another design by SOM for this location would be nice? Otherwise, there is not much public information to say about this site yet except that it may be another very tall part of the original Transbay trio that includes Transbay, Piano and TJPA Howard. Like the Piano plans, it may be better to hold off details until later.
I dont believe I've seen the site in person, and if I actually have, its certainly been a while. I didnt mean for the tower to be put as is, but rather to construct a tower with the shape and aesthetics that the SOM design had, slimmer of course, and perhaps not as tall. Having seen what SOM gave us for Transbay, I think they more than deserve to design a few more towers around there, as they didnt win the "competition."
__________________
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
     
     
  #1350  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 2:57 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
SOM's Transbay Tower would not fit on the Howard Street site. Perhaps another design by SOM for this location would be nice? Otherwise, there is not much public information to say about this site yet except that it may be another very tall part of the original Transbay trio that includes Transbay, Piano and TJPA Howard. Like the Piano plans, it may be better to hold off details until later.
I don't believe there is a developer or architect for this site yet. It will likely be one of the last of the Transbay project sites developed unless someone spontaneously steps forward with a proposal for it. I don't expect that to happen until a decision is made about upzoning heights in the entire Transbay project area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1351  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 4:29 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by slock View Post
Even though the highrises might be exempt from laws limiting shadows on Parks, I think the Planning Department would not want shadows cast on this particular park because of its significance.

Furthermore, and one of the reasons I was very opposed to the Pelli tower, is that because they chose to put a park on the roof, there are just a few spots where light enters the interior, through the circular, palm lined skylights. Because of that, the restrictions might be tough because the shadows cast not only shade the park, but also restrict light entering the terminal itself.

The SOM proposal solved all of this by not having the park on the roof in the first place, and by being fully enclosed in glass, light could enter from any direction.
Good analysis--and scary to think about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1352  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2007, 4:33 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
I dont believe I've seen the site in person, and if I actually have, its certainly been a while. I didnt mean for the tower to be put as is, but rather to construct a tower with the shape and aesthetics that the SOM design had, slimmer of course, and perhaps not as tall. Having seen what SOM gave us for Transbay, I think they more than deserve to design a few more towers around there, as they didnt win the "competition."
SOM could possibly be able to keep their tower without reduction in height if what I understood from John King's recent article was that basically "more height means more money" and the Pelli Tower, which I believe officially, from ground to crown, is currently 1300', the TJPA let them add just a few more floors, making the building 1400- 1500' and then SOM could have their tower on one of the few available sites and preserve it's 1375' height, as well as have the twin Piano towers at 1200', would make for a very nice mountain shape.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1353  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 2:18 AM
hectorant84 hectorant84 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
I think Pelli's tower is only a mere 1,200 feet to the crown. Hopefully, Pelli and Hines revamps the design by adding more floors and increases the overall height to well over 1,200. However, I don't want to play with numbers... This is San Francisco, were lucky if we end up with 1,000 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1354  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 4:27 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by hectorant84 View Post
This is San Francisco, were lucky if we end up with 1,000 feet.
Yes, but a lot of people weren't even expecting anything over 1000' being proposed for the Transbay Tower, and the heights that were introduced were off the charts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1355  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 4:46 AM
hectorant84 hectorant84 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23
Lets just hope for the best... My biggest concern is nimbys from San Anselmo will have Transbay chopped in half. Someone had mentioned that Pelli's park may affect the height of the nearby towers due to shadows. Ugh. I have mixed feelings about the park ... I hope SF doesn't cave when confronted by over zealous SF - Bay Area nimbys in the coming months. I'm also officially declaring my support for Pelli. I hope the old guy does not let us down. BTW, Tyler where did you hear/read that Pelli's tower is 1,300 feet because all I've seen is 1,200
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1356  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 7:38 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^I don't think complainers who are not city residents or at least in prominent positions either in city government or advocacy organizations within the city matter much at all. All the old hippies in Mill Valley, Orinda or Belmont can complain all they want, but unless they have someone interested in their vote on the Board of Supervisors, they might as well be whining at the tides for coming in.

On the other hand, there are plenty of NIMBYs who ARE city residents and it's THEM I'm focused on. But I'm hoping the many San Franciscans who have moved to the city in the last decade looking for real urbanity will outnumber them.

Like I tell my friends (all of whom have been here going on 3 decades) when they get on their 80's high horses about "Manhattanization", New York is the "city that never sleeps" precisely BECAUSE it is so dense with people that there are always potential customers awake and so businesses are open to serve them. Highrise residential buildings are the source of that kind of density, so anybody who wants a city where you can get something to eat or drink, or find a place to party after midnight should welcome them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1357  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 4:40 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Like I tell my friends (all of whom have been here going on 3 decades) when they get on their 80's high horses about "Manhattanization", New York is the "city that never sleeps" precisely BECAUSE it is so dense with people that there are always potential customers awake and so businesses are open to serve them. Highrise residential buildings are the source of that kind of density, so anybody who wants a city where you can get something to eat or drink, or find a place to party after midnight should welcome them.
I don't understand this fascination with Manhattan. It's like when the GOP launched an all out assault on SF before the '06 elections, claiming we are aligned with Al Qaeda, so on so on.. what's with attacking other major American cities to get your cheap political point across? If you want to debate the issues with logic, great! But unstable emotional pleas aren't the way to go, and I believe this time around, WE have much more to offer in the field of logic and argument then ever before, and all they have is "I hate Manhattan" and "Shadows and earthquakes."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1358  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 1:53 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Here is a comparative size estimate found by scaling renderings from:
http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf
http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_presentation

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1359  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 2:50 AM
aluminum's Avatar
aluminum aluminum is offline
I love boxes.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 637
^ Great comparison to show how bad the pelli's version sucks in front of SOM's !
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1360  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 4:34 AM
rajaxsonbayboi's Avatar
rajaxsonbayboi rajaxsonbayboi is offline
Pizza Pizza
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bay area
Posts: 84
damn that makes me sad again that SOM didnt win.
__________________
l'architecture est le breuvage magique ce des feuls ma vie.
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 8:57 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.