SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[Reminiscence]

Its interesting that they show the Empire State Building with its spire still shorter than Transbay. To the tip of its spire, ESB is 1472'. Despite this slight awkwardness, its a nice graphic.

Its also interesting that they're already comparing Transbay to Burj Dubai. :)

[BTinSF]

the transbay tower looks PUNY !!!

Keep repeating that at any and all public venues related to the question, especially if Sue Hestor or Calvin Welch are there.

[viewguysf]

Its interesting that they show the Empire State Building with its spire still shorter than Transbay. To the tip of its spire, ESB is 1472'.

That's because the 1,472' is to the tip of the antenna which is not officially part of the building. The same would be true for the Sears Tower or John Hancock Center.

[SFView]

Keep repeating that at any and all public venues related to the question, especially if Sue Hestor or Calvin Welch are there.

Yes, I'll never forget Sue Hestor saying that the Infinity Towers at 450 and 400 feet tall will be, "Huge, huge, huge, huge...," and Calvin Welch saying that similary density for Rincon Hill or Transbay can otherwise be achieved by using Northbeach as a model.

[aluminum]

ESB in that picture is AMAZINGLY and RIDICULOUSLY underscaled.

[Reminiscence]

That's because the 1,472' is to the tip of the antenna which is not officially part of the building. The same would be true for the Sears Tower or John Hancock Center.

Right you are. However, my point was that the graphic itself can be misleading. John Hancock Center for example is correctly drawn with the antenna reaching 1500' (if I remember correctly) making the graphic slightly taller than that of Transbay's. However, ESB is also shown with its antenna but significantly shorter than Transbay. While the building itself, as you pointed out, is shorter than Transbay, the antenna as drawn similar to JHC should still reach over Transbay.

[tyler82]

The man with one of the most boring personalities (you ever heard him speak?) relays his lack of spice and proponent in what you could call "whitewash" to his new article, "Place," here are some quotes:

"The word should be banished from the world of design, and with it the notion that the worth of new buildings is measured by how much they stick out - vertically, stylistically, you name it."

"...the idea that you grab attention by making people gawk? It is so 2002."

"But if we trumpet novelty as virtue, and visual prominence as a point of pride, the result could be an urban landscape knocked off balance."

[I]Sophistically put, John! We need more strip malls in SF. We don't need no stinking architecture! Tear out all the beautiful victorians and replace them with the anonymous styles of San Diego middle class homes.

"Eager to regain perspective, I closed my planning documents and strolled over to Powell Street, the center of touristic San Francisco. Here's what you find on the postcards for sale: the Golden Gate Bridge and the Painted Ladies of Alamo Square. Lombard Street. The gates of Chinatown and, yes, cable cars."

Wow, he argues against something outstanding and iconic, yet uses examples of SF icons to somehow prove his anti- iconic point? And, Yes, we should really cater to the tourists needs, not our own. Let's gut the city and make a big cable car roller coaster, and a Hooter's every block. There's a reason they stay in Fisherman's wharf, and a reason they SHOULD stay there :haha:

"But real icons aren't designed to be icons; they win the title by happening to be in wondrous sync with what a city is all about, or where it's headed."

So he believes the city is all about mediocrity, and that it's headed in that direction? Wow. What a critic! How did this tool get his job?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/28/DDVERKOBE.DTL

[craeg]

I encourage anyone who takes issue with John King's work to let him know and Cc the editor of the chron. Let them know what you think about his columns!

[tyler82]

Oh, and I love this comment from an SF Gate reader about the Transbay plans:

"Tallest and most modern - yuck! My lovely hometown is losing its unique charm. We are not Manhattan or Hong Kong. Our history and individuality is being destroyed bit by bit."
- Molly Griffin, Belmont

Hmmm, last time I checked, downtown San Francisco was quite a bit different "hometown" than.... belmont.

We are being dictated to by the suburbanites. Hey, they have their 2 acre lawns, huge energy consuming homes, 5 cars in the driveway, anonymous streets and strip malls. Why can't the whole world be like theirs? Why why why??

[craeg]

My comment on there got the most "recommended"!!! :)

[peanut gallery]

A lot of the locals already saw the proposals in person. But for those like me who missed them, some good news:

From sfgate: (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2007/08/30/BATLRROQV.DTL)

People interested in the competition to build a new San Francisco transit center and adjacent 1,000-foot-plus tower can examine the three rivals for themselves.

Each team's display boards and site models are on display through Sept. 16 in the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts at 701 Mission St. This is the first viewing opportunity since shortly after the proposals were unveiled on Aug. 6 at City Hall.

The three teams of architects and developers are vying for approval by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which sees the tower as a way to help finance the terminal for bus and future train service. The authority's board will select a team on Sept. 20.

"We are very appreciative of the public's interest to view the models and provide comment," said Maria Ayerdi, the authority's executive director.

The competitors are Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and the development firm Hines; Skidmore Owings & Merrill and Rockefeller Group Development Corp.; and Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners and Forest City Enterprises with MacFarlane Partners.

Yerba Buena Center is open from noon to 5 p.m. every day except Monday, when it is closed, and Thursday, when the arts center remains open until 8 p.m.

[tyler82]

Great idea, craeg. I just wrote out this letter, which I will send to the Chronicle and it's top editors and executive staff. If anybody would like me to add their name to my petition, please give me your first and last name and zip code. Petition letters have more strength and influence. I'll send it off in a few hours if anybody should choose to show their support (I'm looking for at least 10 names)

Here is my letter, titled "Please do not let John King be the voice of San Francisco- fire John King now !"

ear Mr. King, Editors of SF Chronicle,

It is time for John King to go. His voice is ruining my city. Over the years, I have had to read, in midst of cringing and disbelief, his childish, non provocative, uninspiring, bland "architecture critiques" of Bay Area architecture.
A point of my frustration lies in King's praising of big box retailers, such as Target, in suburban bay area towns, and strip malls, like those in the Fremont area, in such a way that you would think of these as one of man's greatest architectural achievements (at least this is how they come off when reading them).
At the same time, he is weary any kind of major, stimulating, exciting smart development in downtown San Francisco that would benefit the city as a whole.
John King has a chance to bring this city out of its conservative, fear mongering NIMBYism, and is instead giving them (the NIMBYs) more fuel to wreak more architectural havoc on my city. We can't be the 21st century city if we are stuck in the mindset of 40 years ago. Perhaps you guys need somebody younger and edgier to be a true leader for the new, increasing, and majority crowd of height and density proponents. John King is not your man. He fits into the mold of San Diego, Utah, or Colorado, but not San Francisco. We need somebody better, somebody who can argue, in more complex states of mind, why something should or shouldn't be built. King relies on verbal cliches for his "criticisms," words such as "glass, steel, slender, twisting, tall, ugly, pretty." We need somebody up to the task of bringing this city into the future, not somebody who is going to keep it in the darkened past.

Please, Mr. King, look for more work. You are keeping my city from growing the way it should.

[hectorant84]

Oh, and I love this comment from an SF Gate reader about the Transbay plans:

"Tallest and most modern - yuck! My lovely hometown is losing its unique charm. We are not Manhattan or Hong Kong. Our history and individuality is being destroyed bit by bit."
- Molly Griffin, Belmont

Hmmm, last time I checked, downtown San Francisco was quite a bit different "hometown" than.... belmont.

We are being dictated to by the suburbanites. Hey, they have their 2 acre lawns, huge energy consuming homes, 5 cars in the driveway, anonymous streets and strip malls. Why can't the whole world be like theirs? Why why why??


Molly is a miserable old hag from Belmont. Grrrrrrrrr... :yuck:

[hectorant84]

Tyler82 add me to your letter. I sent ya a message... Did ya get it?

[Kevinhatesnimbys]

ESB in that picture is AMAZINGLY and RIDICULOUSLY underscaled.10-4 on that good buddy. I don't know wtf is wrong with that diagram. Oh wait I see now, the buildings are all scaled incorrectly!

[tyler82]

My comment on there got the most "recommended"!!! :)

The NIMBYs are definitely in the minority this time!

[Chase Unperson]

Not a bad letter, but what is up with singling out Utah, SD and Colorado? What are their molds? How do you know that is their mold? How does King fit their molds?



Great idea, craeg. I just wrote out this letter, which I will send to the Chronicle and it's top editors and executive staff. If anybody would like me to add their name to my petition, please give me your first and last name and zip code. Petition letters have more strength and influence. I'll send it off in a few hours if anybody should choose to show their support (I'm looking for at least 10 names)

Here is my letter, titled "Please do not let John King be the voice of San Francisco- fire John King now !"

ear Mr. King, Editors of SF Chronicle,

It is time for John King to go. His voice is ruining my city. Over the years, I have had to read, in midst of cringing and disbelief, his childish, non provocative, uninspiring, bland "architecture critiques" of Bay Area architecture.
A point of my frustration lies in King's praising of big box retailers, such as Target, in suburban bay area towns, and strip malls, like those in the Fremont area, in such a way that you would think of these as one of man's greatest architectural achievements (at least this is how they come off when reading them).
At the same time, he is weary any kind of major, stimulating, exciting smart development in downtown San Francisco that would benefit the city as a whole.
John King has a chance to bring this city out of its conservative, fear mongering NIMBYism, and is instead giving them (the NIMBYs) more fuel to wreak more architectural havoc on my city. We can't be the 21st century city if we are stuck in the mindset of 40 years ago. Perhaps you guys need somebody younger and edgier to be a true leader for the new, increasing, and majority crowd of height and density proponents. John King is not your man. He fits into the mold of San Diego, Utah, or Colorado, but not San Francisco. We need somebody better, somebody who can argue, in more complex states of mind, why something should or shouldn't be built. King relies on verbal cliches for his "criticisms," words such as "glass, steel, slender, twisting, tall, ugly, pretty." We need somebody up to the task of bringing this city into the future, not somebody who is going to keep it in the darkened past.

Please, Mr. King, look for more work. You are keeping my city from growing the way it should.

[roadwarrior]

Tyler, I get your point of comparing SF to more "provincial" cities. However, I don't think that the San Diego analogy is valid for this point. I lived in SD for 6 years and can vouch that the public sentiment is far more in favor of downtown high-rises than here in SF. If you go down to the gaslamp quarter now, you will not recognize it. They have built tons of new condos and hotels. They don't have as many new office buildings, because frankly, SD doesn't really have the demand for downtown office space, as we see here in SF. The one issue I see with SD is the height limits for new downtown developments. It is similar to what we have up here in San Jose, with the downtown area right near the flight path into Lindbergh Field (SD airport). There, the FAA has imposed a 40-floor height limit, so the buildings there tend to look stunted. I think the public there would like to see more height and has fought for years unsuccessfully for an alternate airport site, but there really isn't much open space on the coastal plain in SD county for an airport, and the areas that are available are guarded by the military.

I am not as familiar with the dynamics in Utah and Colorado (but if I were you, I'd mention it as Salt Lake City and Denver, not refer to the entire states which are largely rural).

[San Frangelino]

Exciting News From http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/09/03/story1.html

Another tower added to Transbay
Developer SKS joins rush to new highrise district with 900-foot plan
San Francisco Business Times - August 31, 2007by J.K. Dineen

SKS Investments is proposing a 900-foot, mixed-use tower at 181 Fremont St., a razor-thin skyscraper that would play a prominent supporting role in the new Transbay District at First and Mission streets.

The 66-story tower would include 500,000 square feet of office space beneath about 140 residential condominiums, according to SKS principals and an application for environmental evaluation filed with the city.

http://img.bizjournals.com/u/f/sanfrancisco/20070903/coverimage.jpg

[tyler82]

Not a bad letter, but what is up with singling out Utah, SD and Colorado? What are their molds? How do you know that is their mold? How does King fit their molds?

I'm referring to their image on a world scale in comparison to SF, which is much more international, and deserves much more prestige in its architecture, not something regular and bland. I'm not sure of any iconic, landmark buildings in these places I mentioned, which is why I did mention them, and that is why I feel he would be better suited in aplace like that. He's just not a prestigious, cultured guy, or at least it doesn't come out that way in his writing.

[craeg]

There is another thread started on the 900' tower.

[tyler82]

Exciting News From http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/09/03/story1.html



http://img.bizjournals.com/u/f/sanfrancisco/20070903/coverimage.jpg

Looks like the city's plans for a group of supertall towers are leaking slowly to the media, one by one. Can't wait to hear and see the Piano proposals..

[peanut gallery]

Same here. I'm dying to see details on the Piano design.

[GlobeTrekker]

Hi, so reading this John King article got me to register so I could post something about it.. oh and also vote for the SOM design :)

I don't understand his point. I think he's trying to say that architecture should not be considered good or iconic based on height, but all three designs are tall. They were required to be. I think we all understand that a tall building does not necessarily equal good architecture.

Regarding being icons, the proposals have to include iconic language since that is what TJPA asked for. And he argues that we don't need more Market Street boxes, but then argues that buildings should not try to be iconic. So where does that leave us?

He also said last year, "If planners are serious about reshaping the skyline, do it to create a better city -- not to sell postcards or to thrill the erector set." (according to post #9 in this thread). Now he says, "Here's what you find on the postcards for sale: the Golden Gate Bridge and the Painted Ladies of Alamo Square. Lombard Street. The gates of Chinatown and, yes, cable cars." So what does he want? I think the design teams are trying to do both -- create a better city and an iconic design. What's wrong with that?

[tyler82]

Hi, so reading this John King article got me to register so I could post something about it.. oh and also vote for the SOM design :)

I don't understand his point. I think he's trying to say that architecture should not be considered good or iconic based on height, but all three designs are tall. They were required to be. I think we all understand that a tall building does not necessarily equal good architecture.

Regarding being icons, the proposals have to include iconic language since that is what TJPA asked for. And he argues that we don't need more Market Street boxes, but then argues that buildings should not try to be iconic. So where does that leave us?

He also said last year, "If planners are serious about reshaping the skyline, do it to create a better city -- not to sell postcards or to thrill the erector set." (according to post #9 in this thread). Now he says, "Here's what you find on the postcards for sale: the Golden Gate Bridge and the Painted Ladies of Alamo Square. Lombard Street. The gates of Chinatown and, yes, cable cars." So what does he want? I think the design teams are trying to do both -- create a better city and an iconic design. What's wrong with that?

This is my main point- the guy can't argue his way out of a one ended barrel. His articles appear to have different central arguments one after another (I like tall, tall is bad because it's not "SF", tall can be good but must be built beautifully, tall can be good and must be built plainly, etc., are all different themes I've read in different articles of his). He's just an empty suit at the Chronicle. His voice isn't very complex or sophisticated, he writes like he is turning in a book report. His style is very dull and he seems to not really know all the technicalities of architecture (hey, neither do i-- but i'm not hired by a national newspaper for this precise job, either!). I just think we need somebody better and more qualified who understands the city, lives, works, and plays here, and relies on public transportation to give the reading public the information it needs instead of emotional please of NIMBYism. Apparently this is just too much for the Chronicle to do on its own, so I'd just like to see the guy fired as quickly as possible. He's just not up to the task !

[viewguysf]

This is my main point- the guy can't argue his way out of a one ended barrel. His articles appear to have different central arguments one after another (I like tall, tall is bad because it's not "SF", tall can be good but must be built beautifully, tall can be good and must be built plainly, etc., are all different themes I've read in different articles of his). He's just an empty suit at the Chronicle. His voice isn't very complex or sophisticated, he writes like he is turning in a book report. His style is very dull and he seems to not really know all the technicalities of architecture (hey, neither do i-- but i'm not hired by a national newspaper for this precise job, either!). I just think we need somebody better and more qualified who understands the city, lives, works, and plays here, and relies on public transportation to give the reading public the information it needs instead of emotional please of NIMBYism. Apparently this is just too much for the Chronicle to do on its own, so I'd just like to see the guy fired as quickly as possible. He's just not up to the task !

Well stated!

[BTinSF]

^^^Tyler, you said it yourself back on page 11 or so:

This is the architecture he LIKES:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/08/16/ba_target14012_suzuk.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/08/16/ba_target14_006_pc.jpg
Both photos from John King columns on SFGate.

What more needs to be said? :frog:

Oh, and just for the record and the edification of anyone who doesn't know, this is who King replaced (only in the physical sense) at the Chronicle:

Allan Temko (1924-January 25, 2006) was a Pulitzer Prize-winning architectural critic and writer based in San Francisco.
Graduating from Columbia University in 1947, Temko taught for seven years in France and produced a landmark book about Notre Dame. Temko began writing for the San Francisco Chronicle in 1961. He also taught city planning at University of California, Berkeley and elsewhere.

Temko was an activist critic who defended the urban character and texture of San Francisco from, in his words, "a variety of villains: real estate sharks, the construction industry and its unions, venal politicians, bureaucrats, brutal highway engineers, the automobile lobby, and -- in some ways worst of all -- incompetent architects and invertebrate planners who were wrecking the Bay Area before our eyes." One of these villains, an architect named Sandy Walker, famously sued Temko over his 1978 description of Walker's Pier 39 project which began, "Corn. Kitsch. Schlock. Honky-tonk. Dreck. Schmaltz. Merde."
Temko was instrumental in the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway and memorably described the 1971 Armand Vaillancourt Fountain on the Embarcadero as a thing "deposited by a concrete dog with square intestines."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Temko

Back then, as I recall, King wrote about politics and he did OK at that.

[Reminiscence]

Yeah, one of those would look reeeallly good in place of the Transbay Tower :rolleyes:

Seriously, someone needs to throw that guy in the Bay waters :Titanic:

[monctezuma]

I think that the tower should be higher and not by the crown, but by the floors. It is ridiculous to see all the time that we are afraid of the heights. Nobody Else in the world is having a problem with tall buildings.

Sorry to get in the debate late, but here in Montreal, people will complain about a 20 story building proposed right in the middle of our downtown.

I tell you, enjoy those people afraid of a 70 story tower, cuz here, they are afraid of a 20 story tower. And btw, I hate those ppl.

[rocketman_95046]

Don't fear modernity
Jim Chappell

Sunday, September 2, 2007

There is a buzz in the air about the competition to build the new Transbay Terminal and accompanying landmark tower. This positive excitement is great news for a city that can often be ambivalent about any change in the physical environment. It shows that San Francisco has a new population who love cities, who are not afraid of cities, who not only are not afraid of modernity but who are ready to take up the challenges of 21st century urban life.

Two thousand years ago, an architectural writer named Vitruvius told us there were three characteristics of all good architecture - commodity, firmness and delight. As the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a collaboration representing eight Northern California governmental entities, debates the merits of the three competing development schemes for the Transbay Terminal site, I would submit that these three criteria are as valid today as they were two millennia ago.

Commodity, better understood as practical utility, refers to function. How do the proposed solutions work - for the pedestrian, for taxis, for arriving and departing buses, for the underground rail links to Caltrain and future high-speed rail, for the patrons of the tower? Functionality is, of course, the sine qua non of any solution to this complicated inter-modal facility. All modes must be served equally well. The proposal has to work. And in addition to this focused definition, we should ask, how do these projects work for their neighborhood and the city at large? Are they the right mix of uses to create a 24-hour urban district? Are they flexible enough to adapt to an ever-changing world?

Firmness, or what we call constructive strength today, is the second characteristic. How have the architects and structural engineers solved the design of a grand transit hall, great public spaces and a very tall tower? While few of us laypeople can evaluate the structural engineering, we do know the best solutions will be structurally and financially economic, and will express the underlying physics in the design. The best architecture is of the times, and honest to its structure.

And when it is all put together, does it create delight or positive aesthetic effect? Will it be a true landmark on the skyline? Will it create comfortable, attractive, safe and enjoyable pedestrian spaces? Will you and I go there, and feel good about it? While function and structure might be technical subjects, aesthetics of course is the area where everyone will have an opinion. Here is where fear of modernity is most apt to come forward.

My advice to the transit authority: Be bold. This complex will be around for the next 100 years. It will be the center of the region, a beacon for those first visiting the Bay Area as well as daily commuters and local residents.

San Francisco was once a national leader in architectural design, harkening back to architect Bernard Maybeck a century ago and William Wurster and Joe Esherick a half century ago. Today, there are many excellent architects in San Francisco who often do their best work elsewhere. San Francisco's planning director, Dean Macris, is trying to change this, to emphasize design excellence. Let's face it, public consensus in design can often result in mediocrity.

Now is the time for San Francisco to be bold in design. This is in the tradition of San Francisco - to be cutting edge, to be daring, to be modern. This is no time for failure of will - to be polite, to be afraid, to be receding. The Transbay Joint Powers Authority has a great opportunity to create a magnificent symbol for the next century. It should take it.

Jim Chappell is the executive director of the San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association (SPUR).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/02/EDA4RRMRG.DTL

[northbay]

^ nice article. i agree

lets be BOLD, shall we?!

[tyler82]

Don't fear modernity
Jim Chappell

Sunday, September 2, 2007



Jim Chappell is the executive director of the San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association (SPUR).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/02/EDA4RRMRG.DTL

I've met this guy and he is very nice and seems like a great advocate of great urban planning that we have on our side. I've been talking with the SPUR peeps in working/ volunteering with them. Their ideas for Mission Bay are quite simple, but also quite revolutionary (for this city and this neighborhood).

[tyler82]

Weigh in

On San Francisco's
changing skyline

Should the new Transbay Terminal tower go over 50 floors high? E-mail letters@sfchronicle.com

[GlobeTrekker]

Weigh in

Should the new Transbay Terminal tower go over 50 floors high? E-mail letters@sfchronicle.com

Why are they asking this question? The design competition has been public for many months (or years?) and it has called for a design that will surely be over 50 floors. In any event, we already have buildings that are over 50 floors (and more under construction, such as the 60-floor tower right next door). So what is the point in asking this? A more appropriate question might be 100 floors :haha:

[BTinSF]

^^The Chronicle seems to be on a campaign to stir up the NIMBYs and growth opponents so they'll have something to report about. They are getting more and more desperate as their paying readerhip collapses.

[tyler82]

^^The Chronicle seems to be on a campaign to stir up the NIMBYs and growth opponents so they'll have something to report about. They are getting more and more desperate as their paying readerhip collapses.

Either way, it doesn't hurt to write them a little note telling them what you think.
The whole 50 story thing is so archaic sounding too. That was probably the first question they asked 30 years ago before the pyramid rose. Do people even think of 50 stories as tall enough to create an argument these days? Rincon One itself is 60 stories, so why wouldn't a landmark public tower not be allowed to be taller than a private residential complex? Seems like they are running out of ideas to me.

[GlobeTrekker]

^^The Chronicle seems to be on a campaign to stir up the NIMBYs and growth opponents so they'll have something to report about. They are getting more and more desperate as their paying readerhip collapses.

That's what I was wondering too. I don't read the Chronicle so I'm not sure if they have a pro-NIMBY attitude, but asking an obsolete question about 50 floors seems like it might be trying to stir something up. 50 floors just doesn't even feel debatable given other, existing towers.

[GlobeTrekker]

Either way, it doesn't hurt to write them a little note telling them what you think.


I agree and will try to do one. I just don't understand the preoccupation with height. I understand the debate about high rises vs. no high rises, but if you're going to build one, why limit the heights? What difference does 500' vs. 600' vs. 800' feet make?

I even try to understand the NIMBYs and their concern over certain decisions in the past (such as Fox Plaza), but again, I don't understand how that has anything to do with heights in the financial district. :shrug:

[Nowhereman1280]

Ok, this is kind of off topic, but I just recieved wonderful news. I just found out that I have a paid internship in San Francisco with a developer secured for next summer. I have been following the rise of San Francisco's new skyline as it breaks free of the prior NIMBY stranglehold and am incredibly excited that I will probably be spending my summer there.

That last comment brings me to an on-topic question, what exactly was it that triggered this change of heart in the SF planning dept? It seems SF was devoid of tall projects for so many years and now they are just coming out of the woodwork...

[tyler82]

That last comment brings me to an on-topic question, what exactly was it that triggered this change of heart in the SF planning dept? It seems SF was devoid of tall projects for so many years and now they are just coming out of the woodwork...

My guess is market forces. The dot com boom and the sheer amount of capital that SF and the bay area distributes and produces forced the real estate market in SF, which has no more developable land, to shoot up. Silicon Valley is going through a similar building boom, withe new construction all over the place, but they are located in a large spread out valley (I like to call it L.A. minus the excitement), so they don't need tall buildings. We do. I think we had it coming for a long time, there's a history of booming finance in SF, starting with the gold rush. This is our first big boom of the century. I also believe former mayor Brown had a lot to do with it in his 8 years of reigning (yes, I use this word, because he was kind of like a king, and very stubborn. I always think of him that way from the Beach Blanket Babylon during his last days as mayor).

Of course, if there is a large destructive earthquake any time soon, we can kiss away any hopes of a real high rise neighborhood for at least the next 50 years.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Of course, if there is a large destructive earthquake any time soon, we can kiss away any hopes of a real high rise neighborhood for at least the next 50 years.

Hey Tyler, don't go tempting fate! (knock on wood):cool:
It's my hope that we see SOM's transbay proposal as well as many other highrises and supertalls contsructed in the city during the next couple of years, before another big one hits (a-la Loma Prieta) and scares developers away from contributing more massive monuments to SF's beautiful skyline.

By the way... Does anyone have any idea of when we (the public) can expect to see some kind of rendering of Piano's tower project? I can't wait!

[BTinSF]

Ok, this is kind of off topic, but I just recieved wonderful news. I just found out that I have a paid internship in San Francisco with a developer secured for next summer. I have been following the rise of San Francisco's new skyline as it breaks free of the prior NIMBY stranglehold and am incredibly excited that I will probably be spending my summer there.

That last comment brings me to an on-topic question, what exactly was it that triggered this change of heart in the SF planning dept? It seems SF was devoid of tall projects for so many years and now they are just coming out of the woodwork...

Dean Macris--who has always been "one of us" I think but whose height urges were suppressed when he was a career public servant--was brought back out of retirement to become the Planning Director when the former rather weak and politically subservient director quit. A lot of the new attitude stems from that. Also, a few politicians, especially Chris Daly (to give him some credit), have suddenly realized what they could get out of making deals with developers rather than opposing them at ever turn.

[roadwarrior]

^^The Chronicle seems to be on a campaign to stir up the NIMBYs and growth opponents so they'll have something to report about. They are getting more and more desperate as their paying readerhip collapses.

I've done a Google search for a few of the NIMBYs who have written letters to the editor in protest of the new towers. They all seem to be older San Franciscans (in their late 50s - 70s). I think that says a lot about the changing demographics of our city and how the Chronicle really likes to relish in its past laurels. It makes sense though, as their readers tend to be comprised of these older baby-boomers and above. Most younger people, like myself get more of our news off the internet, as we don't have time to sit down and read a paper every day. I guess it makes sense for the Chronicle to try to appease their older constituents, as they realize that the days of paper newspapers, sans the New York Times are numbered.

[BTinSF]

^^^I'm 62. I don't think age makes you either a NIMBY or a Chronicle reader. I used to be a Chronicle reader but began to pass when the paper became less interesting as it shrank and downsized to save money. I still read the Wall Street Journal every day and I look through SFGate (the Chronicle online) and AZStarnet (the Arizona Star online) every day. I must say I think back when more people read a good paper every day, the average person was better informed.

My guess is the Chron's NIMBY letter writers are older because older people have more time to write letters and have positive memories of a San Francisco they think will be wrecked by new development. Those who've spent any time in New York or Chicago probably wouldn't think that, but a lot of locals are really very provincial.

[roadwarrior]

^^^I'm 62. I don't think age makes you either a NIMBY or a Chronicle reader. I used to be a Chronicle reader but began to pass when the paper became less interesting as it shrank and downsized to save money. I still read the Wall Street Journal every day and I look through SFGate (the Chronicle online) and AZStarnet (the Arizona Star online) every day. I must say I think back when more people read a good paper every day, the average person was better informed.

My guess is the Chron's NIMBY letter writers are older because older people have more time to write letters and have positive memories of a San Francisco they think will be wrecked by new development. Those who've spent any time in New York or Chicago probably wouldn't think that, but a lot of locals are really very provincial.

I wasn't implying that most people of an older generation are NIMBY's. I have seen a lot of empty-nesters purchasing new condos in my area. My fiancee's aunt and uncle are considering it as well, so I know that there are many elders that are proponents of new high-rise developments.

I still think there are a number of people that do purchase newspapers. I subscribed to the WSJ while I was in business school. However, I think that people of my generation inherently tend to be more connected through the internet and are more accustomed to reading their news online. I read articles on SFGate, CNN.com, WSJ.com, etc daily, whereas my father still receives three daily newspapers.

My argument wasn't that most elders were NIMBYs, but that most NIMBYs are elders. I think many of them are from the flower child era of SF, where the dynamics were much different. What was mainstream during their youthful eras is now marginalized. I agree with you that these people look back to a different San Francisco and don't want to see change. However, I strongly believe that change can be a good thing and most of this development provides us with more options for the city, in terms of living, working and recreation.

[SFView]

^^^I'm 62. ...older (retired) people have more time to write letters... Now that you are retired, isn't this you on SSP Forums?:D

[tyler82]

SSP.. PLEASE update your servers! All day long I was unable to connect, and lost some posts because "server connection lost." This happens all of the time, probably 50% or more of the times I try to connect, and even late at night, but mostly during the day. Very frustrating.. please !

[BTinSF]

Now that you are retired, isn't this you on SSP Forums?:D

Absolutely--and I wonder how all you folks with no time to read the papers have so much time to post. But I'll leave it alone . . . .

I will mention, though, that back when I was working and reverse commuting to the burbs every day, one big reason I enjoyed taking BART was the opportunity to read my newspapers on the train: Chron on the way out, WSJ on the way back.

[tyler82]

Sorry to get political, but skimming through some old news about Virgin America and SFO, I came across this:

"Virgin America initially considered six cities for its headquarters – San Francisco, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. A team effort by elected officials, business leaders and tourism executives from both San Francisco and San Mateo counties and Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office eventually convinced Virgin America to locate its headquarters in Burlingame, CA., just south of San Francisco, and to base its operations at SFO... Virgin America is the only airline based in California and the first to have its headquarters in Northern California."

I think it says a lot about Newsom and his administration, from a purely development standpoint, about the potential that our city has under this man's leadership. He seems to be very good at brining in interesting ideas and businesses to the city. He's got my vote ! :tup:

[GlobeTrekker]

I think it says a lot about Newsom and his administration, from a purely development standpoint, about the potential that our city has under this man's leadership. He seems to be very good at brining in interesting ideas and businesses to the city. He's got my vote ! :tup:

United Airlines also recently considered moving its corporate headquarters to San Francisco. That was a longer shot for Newsom, I think, because of United's history with Chicago and its financial condition. But it's interesting they were considering it.

Hopefully with these new towers going up, San Francisco will become less expensive for office space.

[BTinSF]

^^^2 decades ago, United had a major maintenance hub in San Francisco. At that time, their "history" here was as strong as with Chicago but they decided to consolidate and chose Chicago as the place to do it.

As Wikipedia says: "United's early route system, formed by connecting air mail routes, operated north-and-south along the West Coast, and east-to-west along a transcontinental route from San Francisco to the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states via Denver, Colorado. The early interconnections made at San Francisco and Denver during this era became the basis of major United hubs in these cities, and still exist today."

They didn't start out in Chicago and I'm not sure when they moved their HQ there. But the roots aren't as deep as some think.

[Reminiscence]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this already, but Forest City Enterprises has a website devoted to its proposal. It may not be the best design by me, but I still enjoy reading about it.

http://www.transbayforestcity.com/

[Reminiscence]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this already, but Forest City Enterprises has a website devoted to its proposal. It may not be the best design by me, but I still enjoy reading about it.

http://www.transbayforestcity.com/

[tyler82]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this already, but Forest City Enterprises has a website devoted to its proposal. It may not be the best design by me, but I still enjoy reading about it.

http://www.transbayforestcity.com/


McDonald's McDonald's McDonald's. Of course John King loves this one-- he has no taste!

[SFView]

Taste is rather subjective. John King's taste is just DIFFERENT from yours and most other people. Just because something is popular, does not always mean that it's good. It is rare that something has both critical and popular acclaim, but when it does, it is something truly monumental. The Golden Gate Bridge is a good example. Monumental design is only a fraction of what is being judged. With all issues being considered, Pelli and Rogers still have a chance at winning. However, if public pressure to select SOM's design over the others helps to get it selected, then I say, "CHOOSE SOM!" As long as any potention negative issues can be reasonably resolved, then SOM might be the better choice. If the judges choose a design that more of the public does not like, the overall success of the project could suffer.

[tyler82]

Jury names favorite for Transbay terminal, tower
San Francisco Chronicle

There's now a front-runner in the race for the rights to build what could be the West Coast's tallest building: a proposal that includes an obelisk-like, 1,200 foot office tower next to a terminal topped by a park the length of five football fields.

That proposal - from Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and the development firm Hines - is the favorite of a jury of development experts assembled by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. The jury's recommendation was sent today to the Transbay authority's board of directors.

Full article: LINK (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2007/09/10/BAN4S2QK3.DTL)

My comment to SF Gate:
"My vote goes for SOM, but I would be happy with the Pelli proposal as well. I have a feeling it's not quite as boring in real life than it shows in the renderings, it has the possibility to be very monumental, beautiful, and crystal like. The park could be a cool idea, after all, they are building a huge roof top park in the new Cal Academy of Sciences in GG Park that nobody seems to be complaining about it 'never being used'. And SOM could still build their tower, perhaps a little shorter, in the proposed development sites surrounding the terminal where height limits are being raised. I just think GOD that Rogers design wasn't chosen, not so much for the tower, but because of his hideous transit station! I wish we could have all three towers going up at the same time!"

Yah, I would prefer SOM, but you know, tis proposal is pretty freaking amazing too, and I'd be happy as a school girl seeing this thing rise in the next few years. Can't wait ! :banana: :banana:

OK, and then I got to thinking, and had an epiphany, so I sent them a second comment:

"I think we are all forgetting one thing that will dismiss Pelli's proposal from winning: it is 100% office!! If Chris Daly sits on the TJPA board, there is no way he is going to let this happen without making them throw in some affordable housing, which they probably won't be able to do to make it pencil out to match the cost of the project with the funds it will produce. Yah, that's why they proposed giving the city more money, because they would MAKE more money off of it with all office space (office space is worth more than residential space), versus the other towers which have affordable housing and residential in them. Also, it violates an SF proposition that doesn't allow more than a certain amount of office space to come into the SF market at once, so don't worry SOM lovers, Pelli won't win, not with the way they have it set up now."

I never thought I'd be saying this, but Chris Daly could actually save the day!

[rocketman_95046]

Jury names favorite for Transbay terminal, tower
San Francisco Chronicle

There's now a front-runner in the race for the rights to build what could be the West Coast's tallest building: a proposal that includes an obelisk-like, 1,200 foot office tower next to a terminal topped by a park the length of five football fields.

That proposal - from Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and the development firm Hines - is the favorite of a jury of development experts assembled by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. The jury's recommendation was sent today to the Transbay authority's board of directors.

Full article: LINK (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2007/09/10/BAN4S2QK3.DTL)

My comment to SF Gate:
"My vote goes for SOM, but I would be happy with the Pelli proposal as well. I have a feeling it's not quite as boring in real life than it shows in the renderings, it has the possibility to be very monumental, beautiful, and crystal like. The park could be a cool idea, after all, they are building a huge roof top park in the new Cal Academy of Sciences in GG Park that nobody seems to be complaining about it 'never being used'. And SOM could still build their tower, perhaps a little shorter, in the proposed development sites surrounding the terminal where height limits are being raised. I just think GOD that Rogers design wasn't chosen, not so much for the tower, but because of his hideous transit station! I wish we could have all three towers going up at the same time!"

Yah, I would prefer SOM, but you know, tis proposal is pretty freaking amazing too, and I'd be happy as a school girl seeing this thing rise in the next few years. Can't wait ! :banana: :banana:

OK, and then I got to thinking, and had an epiphany, so I sent them a second comment:

"I think we are all forgetting one thing that will dismiss Pelli's proposal from winning: it is 100% office!! If Chris Daly sits on the TJPA board, there is no way he is going to let this happen without making them throw in some affordable housing, which they probably won't be able to do to make it pencil out to match the cost of the project with the funds it will produce. Yah, that's why they proposed giving the city more money, because they would MAKE more money off of it with all office space (office space is worth more than residential space), versus the other towers which have affordable housing and residential in them. Also, it violates an SF proposition that doesn't allow more than a certain amount of office space to come into the SF market at once, so don't worry SOM lovers, Pelli won't win, not with the way they have it set up now."

I never thought I'd be saying this, but Chris Daly could actually save the day!


Pelli's team has already stated that they could easily modify their plan to be mixed use... my guess is that SOM's plan was simply not economical because of its agressive design.

[rocketman_95046]

ooops, double post

[peanut gallery]

That news really disappointed me today. They basically ordered them by amount the developer would pay. And the Pelli team offered the most. It's that simple.

It's not that I dislike the Pelli tower and terminal, but I was only truly excited by the SOM proposal. (And I have to admit, the additional 175 feet was no small part of that excitement.) I'll be happy with Pelli, but I would have been passionate about the SOM design.

[rocketman_95046]

The difference...

"Another selling point: the developer offers to pay $350 million for the land where it would erect a 1.8 million square skyscraper - more than $200 million above the sales price offered by the other two design-development teams."

http://www.sfgate.com/flat/archive/2007/09/10/chronicle/archive/2007/09/10/BAN4S2QK3.html

[tyler82]

That news really disappointed me today. They basically ordered them by amount the developer would pay. And the Pelli team offered the most. It's that simple.

It's not that I dislike the Pelli tower and terminal, but I was only truly excited by the SOM proposal. (And I have to admit, the additional 175 feet was no small part of that excitement.) I'll be happy with Pelli, but I would have been passionate about the SOM design.

SOM really screwed themselves over with that ridiculous double stacked bus idea. Whoever proposed that I'm sure will be fired if they don't win, as I feel this would be their main reason for losing. What's interesting and weird though is that all the tall towers proposed around this site will actually be much more interesting than the Pelli tower. I thought they wanted a "signature" tower. Guess money speaks loudest.

Pelli tower= 1200' Renzo Piano = 1200' x2 Let the 21st century Table Top begin !

I am kind of worried though.. what if these things come in way over budget (which they most likely will). Someone mentioned the first thing to get axed would be that park, which I believe would happen, because the park seems like it would be incredibly expensive to build.

Either way, we have 10 days until we reach the FINAL decision, which cannot be appealed, so, if Pelli does win, I am actually very excited by the park, and yes, it would look magnificent on the skyline. Guess what folks, SF just isn't a dynamic high rise city, and if Pelli wins and SOM opts out, then SF as an international icon probably won't even happen in this century. Yah I'm so sick of the NIMBYs reasoning "SF is the best city in the world! We are the 2nd to 5th most traveled destination in the world bla bla" which I believe they are pulling out of their asses, it's like these Americans who never leave and claim America is best nation on earth, without going anywhere or looking at reality. Guess what- other cities are stealing SFs tourism because they are doing great, huge projects that push them into the 21st century. Seems like a lot of people here just don't want that, and still think they live in 1937 and that the GG Bridge was just built and that SF is high up on the world scale. It isn't anymore. Still, I'd be happy with tall obelisks than short shoe boxes. :-)

[WildCowboy]

Yep...it was all about the cash. The all-office aspect of the Pelli proposal allowed them to blow the competition out of the water.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when they get challenged on the lack of housing...how much is that $350 million figure going to come down because of it and will that be acceptable or will the dollar signs win the day?

Would really prefer to see mixed-use here to keep it active throughout the day.

[BTinSF]

^^^Prediction: It won't stay all-office. Chris won't stand for both supertall height and NO HOUSING. As a member of TJPA board, he may even force them to go with one of the other proposals. Or he may wait. The winner just wins the right to enter into exclusive negotiations with the the TJPA and they are going to run into a buzz-saw if they don't find room for lots of affordable housing. The real question in my mind is whether, when they find they can't build a tower with just office, they really want this project at all. This would not be the first time the city pushes a competition-winning developer so hard they just say, 'Oh, forget it" (lets all go enjoy the sports facilities down on that old pier or the new cruise terminal).

[tyler82]

Pelli's team has already stated that they could easily modify their plan to be mixed use... my guess is that SOM's plan was simply not economical because of its agressive design.

Yes, but could they change from office to mixed/ affordable housing and still be able to give the city such a massive amount of $$ for the land? My guess is that's the only reason that they are able to offer such a larger sum, and that this jury is jumping to too big of conclusions.

[BigKidD]

It seems SOM got the lowest rating from the Jury. Also, I do not care much for the Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects proposal. But welcome to the new SF if it gets chosen(just imagine a park/transit terminal and a slightly different exterior),


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/251/518345453_648c9ac491.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swear/518345453/

[SFView]

If I remember correctly, Pelli can adapt to mixed-use if needed. I'm not sure how this would effect their economic advantage though.

[Reminiscence]

They would want to choose the most boring design of the three, that is so San Francisco. I see why they Pelli remains as the top candidate. As some people have said, money speaks loud. Still, I'm quite dissapointed that SOM is actually last place. I just pray that TJPA reconciders this proposal.

[SFView]

Just remember, Rogers is the second choice.

The jurors have detailed predetermined evaluation criteria to help score each submission. Some issues of public concern may not be given as much priority for the jurors. Didn't someone say, "This is not a beauty contest?" I can't remember exactly.

[tyler82]

They would want to choose the most boring design of the three, that is so San Francisco. I see why they Pelli remains as the top candidate. As some people have said, money speaks loud. Still, I'm quite dissapointed that SOM is actually last place. I just pray that TJPA reconciders this proposal.

I actually have hopes that SOM still might win.
One, because the Pelli Park would turn into a big homeless shelter. Hey, they'd be off the streets, but they'd be getting a pretty sweet park to stay in for free, too. If they city can't even get them out of GG Park, how in the hell are they going to prevent them from taking over a park that is located right where they are all centered anyway? (I actually called the TJPA today and the lady who answered was very delighted that I spoke for about 10 minutes explaining my opinions. I told her why Pelli shouldn't be chosen over SOM.. the homeless problem with the park was one of my main concerns, which she was very interested by).

Two, the whole penciling out problem, which BT mentioned, might force the Pelli team to just give up, since, if they have to adopt say, 25% of their units affordable housing, or whatever the number may be, they may very well be so disappointed and just give up on the whole project. If they don't, and they still have to make ends meet, then their building could suffer as they would probably use a lot cheaper building materials. :yuck:

Three, there's no way in hell the Rogers proposal will win. TJPA states that public input is important in their decision, and the SF public would fight til their deaths before this monster were placed downtown.

Fingers crossed until Sep. 20 !!

[tyler82]

Just remember, Rogers is the second choice.

The jurors have detailed predetermined evaluation criteria to help score each submission. Some issues of public concern may not be given as much priority for the jurors. Didn't someone say, "This is not a beauty contest?" I can't remember exactly.

I would love it if Rogers tower were built as part of the Transbay area, but I don't think it should be the signature tower. I think that turbine on top is the coolest thing I've seen on a building! Although, I think it would look really sweet and fit in better in Mission Bay Area, but I think it would go well with Heller Manass's 900' industrial looking proposal, also. Hopefully they will still pay attention to us after this circus is over.

[rocketman_95046]

The good news is that there is no way in hell that the city will not take this much money...

This is going to be approved folks, you can put a stamp on it.:tup:

[Alliance]

Pelli AND Rodgers over SOM?

OUCH.

[Reminiscence]

I actually have hopes that SOM still might win.
One, because the Pelli Park would turn into a big homeless shelter. Hey, they'd be off the streets, but they'd be getting a pretty sweet park to stay in for free, too. If they city can't even get them out of GG Park, how in the hell are they going to prevent them from taking over a park that is located right where they are all centered anyway? (I actually called the TJPA today and the lady who answered was very delighted that I spoke for about 10 minutes explaining my opinions. I told her why Pelli shouldn't be chosen over SOM.. the homeless problem with the park was one of my main concerns, which she was very interested by).

Two, the whole penciling out problem, which BT mentioned, might force the Pelli team to just give up, since, if they have to adopt say, 25% of their units affordable housing, or whatever the number may be, they may very well be so disappointed and just give up on the whole project. If they don't, and they still have to make ends meet, then their building could suffer as they would probably use a lot cheaper building materials. :yuck:

Three, there's no way in hell the Rogers proposal will win. TJPA states that public input is important in their decision, and the SF public would fight til their deaths before this monster were placed downtown.

Fingers crossed until Sep. 20 !!

Way to go Tyler! Good job getting your voice heard. I agree, I still have high hopes that SOM will come from behind and steal the show. Pelli's park proposal is very nice, but the elevation just doesnt seem to work for something that size. I'm still a little confused however. If Pelli and Hines were to drop out for some unknown reason, who then would be next in line, or would there even be a next in line? Would they have to restart the whole competition process or is there some sort of procedure they follow to select another candidate? If SOM does not win, I'm going to wish they restarted the whole process (although not likely). I cant help but wonder what Sir Norman Foster and Santiago Calatrava came up with. I also agree with you that Rogers would work good in the city, but as a suplemental building close to Transbay, not that actual signature tower.

[caramatt]

Does anyone know when the next planning meeting for the Transbay Area redevelopment project will be? I feel like with all this excitement, I'm ready to get into the nitty-gritty of raising height limits and deciding how specific areas will be zoned.

[BTinSF]

I would love it if Rogers tower were built as part of the Transbay area, but I don't think it should be the signature tower. I think that turbine on top is the coolest thing I've seen on a building! Although, I think it would look really sweet and fit in better in Mission Bay Area, but I think it would go well with Heller Manass's 900' industrial looking proposal, also. Hopefully they will still pay attention to us after this circus is over.

You do realize, right, that all 3 of the designs have turbines on top? And the Pelli/Hines is the most gimicky in the sense that the turbine produces power just to light of the crown as I understood it, whereas on the other buildings it's my understanding the power actually gets used by the entire building.

I'm actually not too concerned about the homeless taking over the park. They seem to be able to keep them out of the Yerba Buena Park remarkably well and this would be easier (just shut off the funicular and escalators at night). On the other hand, if I thought it could clean them out of the rest of the city, I'd be for putting up tents for them in this park and welcoming them. Wow! A solution to the homeless problem--THAT would be an architectural and city planning triumph!

My big concern is if Chris D doesn't get enough housing to suit him, he'll just say well, OK, build your office building within the current height limits. And that, of course, wouldn't produce enough money to do Phase II of the project and so in the end San Francisco wouldn't get much more than a fancy bus terminal. Come to think of it, that's the way such things usually go in this town.

See below.

[BTinSF]

For those who missed this article in yesterday's Chron, it's pretty sobering and explains some of the high hurdles ahead in this project:

Transbay Joint Powers Authority: Low-profile agency's big decisions
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, September 9, 2007

When a panel of experts delivers its verdict Tuesday on which team of architects and developers should build the tallest building on the West Coast, a little-understood agency that has operated largely outside the limelight takes center stage to make one of the most important land-use decisions in recent San Francisco history.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority will mull the panel's recommendation, but it has ultimate power to decide who wins the contest and the right to negotiate a deal to erect the new Transbay Terminal and its adjoining tower - two buildings that together are meant to become a Grand Central Station West, connecting Bay Area transit systems and serving as a possible high-speed rail link to Los Angeles.

Originally created to carry out a much less transformative project - extending Caltrain from Fourth and Townsend streets to downtown - the Joint Powers Authority's agenda has morphed in ways that mean its decisions now rival those of any other local government body in terms of their impact on San Francisco's future look and feel.

Those decisions are being made by a body whose political accountability to voters isn't what might be expected given their significance. Only one elected San Francisco official sits on the authority's five-member governing board, Supervisor Chris Daly, whose District 6 is home to the project.

One member, Mayor Gavin Newsom's base reuse director, Michael Cohen, is a designee of Newsom. The other three are Bay Area transit representatives - San Francisco Municipal Railway head Nathaniel Ford, AC Transit board member Elsa Ortiz, and San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill, who serves on the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, which runs Caltrain.

Moreover, the Authority's executive director, Maria Ayerdi, is a former lawyer for UPS who had modest professional public transit and land-use experience when she got the job, though she has received praise since then for her organizational skills and fundraising.

And a nagging truth is that the Transbay Joint Powers Authority is $2 billion short of the $2.4 billion estimated cost of extending Caltrain to downtown, which is the reason for the agency's existence in the first place.

"The rail extension is fundamental to this project because the terminal was planned to be a transportation hub for this area and well beyond it," said Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which oversees spending of special tax dollars for transportation improvements in the city.

"There needs to be a clear plan and timeline to get that done and it's not clear to me that there is one," Moscovich said.

A shared goal

In 1999, nearly 70 percent of San Francisco voters backed Proposition H, a local ballot measure to extend Caltrain to a new Transbay Terminal that would replace the obsolete 1939 bus depot at First and Mission streets.

Moscovich and other proponents have extolled the virtues of connecting the major transit systems in the Bay Area in one location along with future high-speed rail.

The Caltrain rail terminus at Fourth and Townsend was seen as discouraging commuters who wanted to travel downtown without having to make multiple transfers, though things have gotten easier with the expanded Muni service to the area, which took place as a new neighborhood grew up around the Giants ballpark at China Basin.

Prop. H required the San Francisco mayor and Board of Supervisors to carry out the plan to bring Caltrain to a rebuilt station downtown, and the city took the lead setting up a regional agency that would finance, construct and operate the new terminal.

In 2001, the city came together with AC Transit and Caltrain and, under state law, formed the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

The San Francisco members on the authority board represent the mayor's office, the Board of Supervisors and Muni.

Ayerdi, who worked to put the agency together as then-Mayor Willie Brown's transportation policy adviser, was appointed by the board to serve as its executive director, no doubt with at least a nudge from Brown himself.

While the job of the board was to construct a new transit hub, it quickly became clear that state, federal and local funding sources would not be enough to cover the cost of the project that is estimated at $3.4 billion.

As a result, the authority, in collaboration with city planning officials, made a series of decisions to increase building heights in the area to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in new property tax revenue - money that normally would go into the city general fund for services but instead will help fund the terminal project.

A morphing agend

The rezoning allowed seven skyscrapers above 300 feet on public land and it was decided that a "signature" tower should be built adjacent to the terminal. The city Planning Department has since suggested allowing two towers as tall as 850 feet and bumping up the signature tower to more than 1,000 feet.

The three competing designs reviewed by the expert panel range in height from 1,200 feet to 1,375 feet.

While the authority and city planners have collaborated on decisions about the transit tower and other land-use changes, the authority has acted independently in awarding hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to engineers, environmental experts and other consultants.

Started with $9.5 million in federal seed money, the authority has now spent more than $80 million in design, engineering planning, and land acquisitions.

The authority's design competition decision will not be reviewed by any higher body and cannot be appealed. And while board members say they will give strong consideration to the jury's recommendation, the final decision rests with them.

"I'll make my decision on what I think is in the best interests of the Transbay Terminal project," said Hill, who represents Caltrain and is the president of the board. "My decision will be based on what the jury says, but also on the policy of the board."

Learning on the job

Ayerdi, the authority's chief executive, didn't appear to possess the experience normally sought to run an agency with such autonomy and power.

She landed her previous post as Brown's transportation adviser after meeting the mayor at a Saturday open house he held at City Hall in 1998.

A year earlier she had obtained her license to practice law, and had worked in the legal department at United Parcel Service for several years. In a recent interview, Ayerdi, 40, characterized UPS as a quasi-transportation agency. She said she learned a lot about transportation after Brown hired her.

"I educated myself and learned from other transportation agencies first hand," she said. "I learned a lot on the job."

Hill said that Ayerdi has done a good job securing funds for the project and managing the design competition.

In February, however, Ed Harrington, San Francisco's city controller, who also serves as the authority's chief financial officer, questioned the assumptions the authority leadership seemed to be making about how it was going to get its job done - meaning extending Caltrain to downtown.

In a report, Harrington described the rail extension as a "very high-risk project," given that no money had been identified to cover most of the $2.4 billion cost.

Some funds have been secured, but a state high-speed rail bond, which could have brought $475 million to the terminal project, has bogged down in the Legislature. Meanwhile, a proposal for an extra fee on AC Transit riders traveling to the terminal has not been finalized.

Call for clarity

In an interview in February, Harrington said that those officials leading the terminal project need to devise a clear plan to fund the rail work.

"The fact that there is no one talking about where the money might come from is simply not good enough," Harrington said at the time. "A solution is not going to come out of nowhere."

In a recent interview, Ayerdi said that she and the authority's board have been meeting on a regular basis to resolve the funding shortfall and that she would have a plan by the first quarter of 2008.

And as the board prepares for the biggest decision in its brief history, some members admit that they may never achieve the lofty dreams that were the genesis for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

"It's still an open question of whether Caltrain will ever come downtown," Hill said. "That's a substantial amount of money for that to occur ... it's not available today and it hasn't been in the past."

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/09/ba_terminal.jpg

E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/09/BAJ1RVRAG.DTL

And in case anyone isn't familiar with Ed Harrington, he's a highly respected and very capable bureaucrat. if he says the money ain't there, it probably ain't there.

[tyler82]

http://www.youtube.com/v/oBcL7KWa4wI

Yah, if this one is chosen, I will fight tooth and nail to get this thing built, just as hard as I would for SOM. I think it would be internationally recognized, not as much as SOMs, but perhaps just as much as the pyramid. And besides, we have to think about the entire area of Transbay, there seems to be a bunch of really advanced, sophisticated towers planned for this area, so by the time Pelli's is built it won't be such a sore thumb anymore. Maybe they plan on raising the height for the building, too, in order to add more units (Fingers crossed )

[tyler82]

Was any part of the Transbay recommendatoins concerned with seismic safety? It seems like the use of Redundancy in SOMs proposal would be the safest in an earthquake. Oh, and anybody check out Al Gore's movie? Within most of our lifetimes, this area of SF will be underwater, so I wonder what we plan on doing about that? I say, let the streets fill with water and turn it into a little Venice ! :haha:

[Reminiscence]

I saw the movie (good one). Thats when I got the image of San Francisco being flooded by our own bay waters. Of course, with SOM's proposal, we need not worry, as the first floor would be safely elevated about 100 feet from the water.

[BTinSF]

^^^The Pelli/Hines park can be like a larger version of this:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000131.jpg?t=1189486627
Photo source: Me and my trusty Lumix

[sfcity1]

Actually, I thought this was the least inspiring building. It is not unique to san francisco. It is in Asia and in Jersey City. To think that SF's main symbol is going to be a clone of buildings from other cities does not excite me.

But in the end, money talks, glory walks. Sad end.:(

[tyler82]

But in the end, money talks, glory walks. Sad end.:(

I have a feeling this is far from over and nobody knows what will happen or who the winner will be..

[Kevlar1981]

I have a feeling this is far from over and nobody knows what will happen or who the winner will be..

I hope you're right...I feel sick just thinking about the SOM proposal not being chosen.

[Kevlar1981]

If Pelli does win, I hope they raise the height to 1500', to make up for the lack of a unique design.

[BTinSF]

I have a feeling this is far from over and nobody knows what will happen or who the winner will be..

Or what modifications to the winning design will be required. The height could change (more likely down than up, but possibly up some if that's how Chris gets his housing), and the office/housing mix will almost certainly change. But since the fact that this developer is offering more than twice as much for the site--and the only way I can see them doing that is to build a "mostly office" building--it's going to be an interesting negotiation. I just hope somebody has asked Hines how much they are willing to pay for the site if they are required to add housing to their proposal BEFORE the final choice is made.

After seeing this choice and reading the article I posted above, though, my take is the TJPA is desperate for money and the other board members might shut Chris down. Since the TJPA design choice is not appealable but I believe the upzoning of heights is--like any zoning decision--where are we if Chris doesn't get what he wants in the design? Would he try to block the zoning change at the Board of Supervisors and thereby wreck the project??

[tyler82]

^ BT - do you know if is SOM still capable of modifying their design ahead of Sep. 20 in hopes of winning the nomination, or is the proposal not to be altered in any way from when they submitted it?

[BTinSF]

^^^I would guess if they want to make a change, they could before the choice is made. I'm wondering myself why they don't offer to redesign the terminal to eliminate the minipark and the stacked bus ramps, but unless they can also offer a lot more for the site I don't think it would be enough.

[GlobeTrekker]

Actually, I thought this was the least inspiring building. It is not unique to san francisco. It is in Asia and in Jersey City. To think that SF's main symbol is going to be a clone of buildings from other cities does not excite me.

But in the end, money talks, glory walks. Sad end.:(

I agree. I don't dislike the Pelli design, but it is hard to understand how it is the best or most unique design. I'm disappointed it seems more about who is willing to pay more; I did not realize that was a factor. I understand an extra $200 million is hard to turn down, but don't call it something it's not (a design competition).

I'm amazed they recommended Rodgers ahead of SOM. If the Rodgers tower is selected, I fear it will unleash a new wave of NIMBY-ism on SF for years to come.

Does anyone know if the advisory panel took public opinion into account, or is that done by the full board? Would it help to send in more comments? If Pelli is selected, I agree that they should ask for a taller tower with housing. This would let them keep their $350 million and have a mixed use tower, while (hopefully) not discouraging Hines.

[GlobeTrekker]

^^^I would guess if they want to make a change, they could before the choice is made. I'm wondering myself why they don't offer to redesign the terminal to eliminate the minipark and the stacked bus ramps, but unless they can also offer a lot more for the site I don't think it would be enough.

Why would they need to eliminate the park? Don't SOM's stacked bus ramps open more land for development? The TJPA needs to account for this in their financial analysis.

[BTinSF]

I'm amazed they recommended Rodgers ahead of SOM. If the Rodgers tower is selected, I fear it will unleash a new wave of NIMBY-ism on SF for years to come.



I'm not. When I heard the guy from AC Transit, a representative of which sits on TJPA, demur about the SOM bus ramp design at the presentation event, I figured that could be a deal-breaker. I don't think anybody wants the Rogers design so much as they simply didn't buy the SOM terminal design--they want it to extend the full multi-block length of the site and keep the freeway bus ramps as planned. I also bet John King (I think it was) was channeling their thinking about the uselessness of the grand terminal entrance facing east on Fremont St. since most passengers will enter from Mission or near the corner of 1st and Mission--the northwest side of the site.

[BTinSF]

Why would they need to eliminate the park? Don't SOM's stacked bus ramps open more land for development? The TJPA needs to account for this in their financial analysis.
That's what they said but see what I said just above--the bus people didn't seem to be onboard with this at the presentation and I bet they still aren't. The stacked ramps only open "more land" if you mean the park--it could be another development site or a park, but not both. But if it causes problems with the flow of busses through the terminal, it ain't gonna fly and I'm guessing that's the problem (that and what the SOM team is offering for the site).

[NYguy]

I have a feeling this is far from over and nobody knows what will happen or who the winner will be..

That's very true. I remember the WTC site planning competition, and it was all but certain - right up until the last day - that the World Cultural Center (twin lattice towers) would be chosen for the site plan. Not that they were the most popular, but that's what the LMDC board was leaning towards before then governor Pataki decided to make the final decision.

[slock]

I think anyone who wants the SOM design, as much as I do, should write emails. Write to the TJPA especially, write to every board member and share your thoughts. This will be the icon for San Francisco for the next hundred years. To think of that Great Hall and that amazing base on Mission and 1st not getting selected is heart breaking. Let's write as many letters as we can. The decision isn't final yet.

[NYguy]

More images from worldarhcitecturenews.com
http://worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=1378


http://worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.showprojectbigimages&img=1&pro_id=1378

http://worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.showprojectbigimages&img=2&pro_id=1378

http://worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.showprojectbigimages&img=3&pro_id=1378

http://worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.showprojectbigimages&img=5&pro_id=1378

http://worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.showprojectbigimages&img=6&pro_id=1378

[BTinSF]

Jury picks Hines for Transbay tower
San Francisco Business Times - 1:33 PM PDT Monday, September 10, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

Developer Hines and architects Pelli Clarke Pelli have won the Transbay competition and, pending another approval from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, will enter into exclusive negotiations to build a 1,300-foot tower and state-of-the-art train and bus station at Mission and First streets.

The winning Transbay terminal proposal by developer Hines and architect Pelli Clarke Pelli offered $350 million for the tower property, more than twice what the other two teams were willing to pay, according to the nine-person jury appointed by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

The astounding offer blew away the team ranked second in the competition, Richard Rogers Partnership and Forest City Enterprises, which offered $145 million for the tower land. The third-place team, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Rockefeller Group Development Corp., made a purchase price offer of $118 million.

"The exceptional financial offer put forth by the recommended team will increase the funds available to the Transbay Transit Center Program to $1.85 billion," said Maria Ayerdi, executive director of the TJPA. "Since our inception, we have been successful at fully funding the first phase of our program, and this offer builds upon that success to deliver necessary funding to help complete the rail extension," said Ayerdi.

The jury called all the proposals "exceptional" but ruled unanimously that the Pelli/Hines proposal "best met the TJPA's operational, functional, and aesthetic requirements. The Hines project calls for an 82-story oblisk-shaped tower with a 5.5-acre park atop the terminal itself.

The unanimous recommendation culminates an eight-month international design and development competition that was launched to select an outstanding and functional design that is economically viable and provides a sound economic return to the TJPA.

The jury report is at the beginning of a long negotiation process with the city. If the TJPA board goes along with the recommendation, the project would still need approvals from the city Planning Commision and Board of Supervisors. "The prize you get for winning this competition is entry into the San Francisco entitlement process," said Paul Paradis, Hines executive vice president.

The jury based its evaluation and ranking on how well each team's proposal met the evaluation criteria as listed in the competition manual. Scores, which were given by individual jurors and summed to derive each team's overall ranking, analyzed such criteria as design excellence, functionality and financial feasibility.

The new Transbay Transit Center at First and Mission streets would centralize the region's transportation network by accommodating eight transportation systems under one roof, including AC Transit, Caltrain, Muni, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, Greyhound, BART and a future California High-Speed Rail line. The area surrounding the Transit Center will be redeveloped to include housing, retail and an adjacent tower poised to redefine the city's skyline.

At a recent Chamber of Commerce presentation of the three plans, Paradis called the proposal "a real project.

"If we were to be selected, we could go ahead and build this," he said.


Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/09/10/daily7.html?t=printable

Cutting through all the fog, it's as I suspected: Money talks. And I don't think the TJPA can afford to pick another of the 3 choices.

That said, to clarify what's said above, the choice of the TJPA board is not appealable, but the zoning and other entitlements are, so once the TJPA has made its final choice on Sept. 20, the real fun begins trying to convince the Planning Dept. and Supervisors to approve the new height limits and office/housing mix. That is where Sup. Daly could be a real mischief maker if he is not satisfied with the project as it emerges from the TJPA. In that sense, he is first among equals on the TJPA board since he is the only one with a voice (and a vote) in the subsequent process.

[craeg]

One the one hand, I'm glad that SF has the chance of building something this large - on the other hand it is massively disappointing that they chose this boring boring boring design with a park 100 feet in the air. I mean, the G-D park is accessible by a FUNICULAR! - clearly a crappy homage to our lovely moving landmark cable cars.
My support for this project has waned considerably. San Francisco can now follow in the steps of NJ and HK. Yawn.

[Dream'n]

OK got it, wasn't about the best design, it was about who offered the most money. Well someones got to pay for that train.

[sfcity1]

Well, if no other city had this building, and if SOM never was in the running, I'd say this is an exciting development. The bus/train terminal on this design cleary is where the architect put alot of effort into designing and I really like it. The unfortunate consequence that I cannot get out of my head as the architectual statement for SF is now:

ITS? ITS? ITS? JERSEY CITY! NOOO!!!!!!!!

ITS? ITS? ITS? HONG KONG! NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

ITS? ITS? ITS? SAN FRANCISCO?????? :shrug:

[northbay]

cmon guys, is pelli really that bad?!? at least were getting a supertall and at least it isnt roger's design!

yea, i liked som's better, but i can live and be happy with pelli's tower

[craeg]

I dunno.... I think it is that bad. SF has been vehemently anti development for decades. We had a chance here to produce something new and daring - and we went for the safest most bland design (that kicked in the most money)
Now I understand why Pelli barely put any effort into their tower and spent almost the entire time talking about the park - they planned to kick in an enormous amount of money to smooth things over.
1.6 MSF of office space is really going to activate the street. oh yeah and maybe they'll throw in some residential if they absolutely have to.