SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[CityKid]

^^^ The SOM design was not new and daring. They're building it in China. Behold the Jinling Hotel:

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/images/060615som2sm.jpg

(Found at archrecord.construction.com)

[slock]

I am so dissapointed. I have lost so much enthusiasm and excitement for this. The SOM design is one of the most elegant and innovative I have seen in years.

I read the Jury's full report and they discuss flow and functional issues with the SOM design. Well, it's a work in progress. Things can be tweaked and adjusted through the process.

The Pelli design is just so boring and bland. And no one is going to use the park. Maybe on a hot sunny day. But it will be completely surrounded by towers no less than 400 feet. It won't be like Yerba Buena Gardens, it will be like Crocker Galleria.

And if they want a truly active building with 24 hour life, they would mix the uses. You think anyone will be around on the weekend?

And finally in the Jury's report they say the Great Hall in SOM's proposal is too big and the entrance and incredible plaza could be overwhelming. Like how the Golden Gate bridge is too big? Or the way the Eiffel Tower is overwhelming? It's called ambition. And it's what makes grand projects awe inspiring.

I'm not giving up though, I've already written 8 emails and plan to write a lot more. We have until the 20th.

[slock]

2

[Reminiscence]

I guess Hines literally gave them an offer they couldnt refuse. Technically, they could refuse it, but emphasized by the fact that this is San Francisco we're talking about here and that funding is somewhat short for the entire project, I doubt it. Had funding not been a problem, I'm almost certain SOM's design would have been chosen. I dont really see the bus level structure as the problem thats killing SOM because Roger's terminal, as I understood it, featured a terminal similar to that of Pelli's (at least level-wise). It really is just the money offered by the 3.

Is it too late for SOM to cough up more dough, or to at least change its design for the bus terminal, or are we stuck with what we've got now?

[Reminiscence]

Delete -- Double Post

[paulsfca]

I am so dissapointed. I have lost so much enthusiasm and excitement for this. The SOM design is one of the most elegant and innovative I have seen in years.

I read the Jury's full report and they discuss flow and functional issues with the SOM design. Well, it's a work in progress. Things can be tweaked and adjusted through the process.

The Pelli design is just so boring and bland. And no one is going to use the park. Maybe on a hot sunny day. But it will be completely surrounded by towers no less than 400 feet. It won't be like Yerba Buena Gardens, it will be like Crocker Galleria.

And if they want a truly active building with 24 hour life, they would mix the uses. You think anyone will be around on the weekend?

And finally in the Jury's report they say the Great Hall in SOM's proposal is too big and the entrance and incredible plaza could be overwhelming. Like how the Golden Gate bridge is too big? Or the way the Eiffel Tower is overwhelming? It's called ambition. And it's what makes grand projects awe inspiring.

I'm not giving up though, I've already written 8 emails and plan to write a lot more. We have until the 20th.

Yes...I couldn/t agree more. I like Pelli's design, simple and elegant but it does pale in comparison to SOM's. I also emailed the TJPA in support of SOM's proposal and am hoping for the best though I think it may already be a done deal. If Pelli's offer is officially chosen on the 20th, I will send subsequent emails suggesting that SOM's design be used in another parcel slated for future development in the transbay area.

[paulsfca]

I am so dissapointed. I have lost so much enthusiasm and excitement for this. The SOM design is one of the most elegant and innovative I have seen in years.

I read the Jury's full report and they discuss flow and functional issues with the SOM design. Well, it's a work in progress. Things can be tweaked and adjusted through the process.

The Pelli design is just so boring and bland. And no one is going to use the park. Maybe on a hot sunny day. But it will be completely surrounded by towers no less than 400 feet. It won't be like Yerba Buena Gardens, it will be like Crocker Galleria.

And if they want a truly active building with 24 hour life, they would mix the uses. You think anyone will be around on the weekend?

And finally in the Jury's report they say the Great Hall in SOM's proposal is too big and the entrance and incredible plaza could be overwhelming. Like how the Golden Gate bridge is too big? Or the way the Eiffel Tower is overwhelming? It's called ambition. And it's what makes grand projects awe inspiring.

I'm not giving up though, I've already written 8 emails and plan to write a lot more. We have until the 20th.

Yes...I couldn/t agree more. I like Pelli's design, simple and elegant but it does pale in comparison to SOM's. I also emailed the TJPA in support of SOM's proposal and am hoping for the best though I think it may already be a done deal. If Pelli's offer is officially chosen on the 20th, I will send subsequent emails suggesting that SOM's design be used in another parcel slated for future development in the transbay area.

[caramatt]

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.

Maybe I missed something, but SOM's proposal does not look to interact or activate the streets surrounding the terminal in any way beyond the primary entrance. Both the Rogers and Pelli proposals emphasize the porosity of their terminal designs, and in both renderings and elevations showed the variety of shops and activities that would line Natoma and Minna streets. This may have been another reason as to why the jury looked so unfavorably on the SOM proposal. SOM does show the possibility of storefronts and cafes, but it really seems like an afterthought beyond the interior of the terminal. A large elevated cage (as beautiful as it may be) spanning that many city blocks does very little to enliven the area.

[WildCowboy]

Well, I only see one way for Pelli/Hines to add residential and still send $350 million into the TJPA's coffers: Add another 20 floors to the building. :tup:

[caramatt]

I don't know if this has already been linked, but the Transbay Authority has put up the full 106 page PDF of the jury's recommendation:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=323

Everyone should read through it. It has tons of great information, and makes the reasons for their decision much clearer.

[Reminiscence]

If all fails in the end, they should compromise. SOM's tower with Pelli's terminal. Of course thats just a dream as it could never happen.

[craeg]

I don't know if this has already been linked, but the Transbay Authority has put up the full 106 page PDF of the jury's recommendation:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=323

Everyone should read through it. It has tons of great information, and makes the reasons for their decision much clearer.

I read through the jury recommendations and they dont really clear much up for me.
Specifically why do they frame the discussion on the pelli tower differently than either the Rogers or SOM? With Rogers and SOM they talk about the jury's likes and dislikes. With Pelli, they talk about the same with the addition of how the likes can be fixed via "future design"
It's all bunk - Pelli has it in the bag.

[caramatt]

I read through the jury recommendations and they dont really clear much up for me.
Specifically why do they frame the discussion on the pelli tower differently than either the Rogers or SOM? With Rogers and SOM they talk about the jury's likes and dislikes. With Pelli, they talk about the same with the addition of how the likes can be fixed via "future design"
It's all bunk - Pelli has it in the bag.

I thought they did address that discrepancy, specifically with the structural design of the SOM tower being bound up in its height, and how the proposed future resolution of the problems associated with the open-air bus loading area of Rogers' terminal was "not convincing." SOM's terminal was essentially doomed from the get-go it seemed when they decided to stack the bus depot over two levels. Over and over again that came up as a primary issue. Also, the fact that the proposed park had no sources of funding behind its operation or development essentially made the arguments for shortening the terminal null.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Ok, so, I'm beginning to be less and less upset that Pelli is the apparent winner over the amazing SOM proposal, however I have some questions about his tower. The official height is listed at 1200', but is that 1200' to the top of the entire structure (parapet included,) or 1200' to the roof of the building, beneath the parapet? Does anyone know anymore details about the tower's heights than just "It's 1200 feet."

[tyler82]

I called up the SOM offices in San Francisco this morning and talked with a few people there about doing (tweaking) whatever the hell they have to do to get this thing into the finale and build it. They explained to me that the jury was just a "recommendation", we are in preliminary stages, and that anything can happen, and that they have notified TJPA that they can tweak any part of the design that need be, including the double stacked bus ramps if it is requested. The guy still sounded pretty confident, and didn't seem really fazed by the jury's recommendation, so all hope is not lost.

SOM is having a public education session about their terminal and tower tomorrow (Wednesday) night at 5:30 PM at Golden Gate University.

Their best words of advice to me was to write and call the TJPA board and let them know load and clear.

[rocketman_95046]

^Nothing will matter unless SOM gives more money...

Hines' was extremely confident in the fact that they could give $350 "even if" they had to add housing to their proposal. They said that they already had the financing in place and that they would be willing to help pay the upkeep on the park.

SOM needs to fix their terminal (more points were given to a good terminal rather than a good tower) and up the cash.

It would be irresponsible for the TJPA to give up $250 million and get a terminal that they are not happy with.

[Reminiscence]

^^ I agree. Its all in the money. Rogers gave only slightly more than SOM did, however, still got second place even though their terminal didnt feature a multi-level bus depot. This news regarding SOM's flexability is very encouraging to me. If they can somehow increase their offer by say, 75% (its no small number, but with Hines so far ahead, what can you do), and concieve a plan that eliminates this multi level depot, I'd say they would be right back in it. I can only hope.

[Reminiscence]

Delete -- Double Post (grrrr)

[Reminiscence]

Ok, so, I'm beginning to be less and less upset that Pelli is the apparent winner over the amazing SOM proposal, however I have some questions about his tower. The official height is listed at 1200', but is that 1200' to the top of the entire structure (parapet included,) or 1200' to the roof of the building, beneath the parapet? Does anyone know anymore details about the tower's heights than just "It's 1200 feet."

The SF Biz Times article that BT was kind enough to post not so long ago mentioned Pelli's tower at 1300', which got me thinking that maybe, just maybe, the tower reaches 1200' to the top floor only. However, I would find it wierd that they would talk about SOM's tower at 1375' (full lenght), and not mention Pelli's full lenght of 1300'. I'm betting its 1200' to the tip of the structure.

[Richard Mlynarik]

My take: The Rogers proposal was the only one of real architectural merit.

The light and open (and cheap!) bus deck, losing unnecessary structure and opening out the street, is thoughtful and elegant.

The Rogers tower design is exciting, visually arresting, context-sensitive while context-challenging, structurally clever, functionally balanced, intellectually engaging, and would, if built after years of philistine NIMBY hell, have come to be seen as an iconic asset to the city.

SOM was technically right to have reconsidered the bus deck design, but technically right has nothing to do with (habitually grotesquely incompetent and ignorant) Bay Area public transporation "engineering." I would very much like to have seen something like the two-level bus design go forward (recall that the conceptual bus terminal in the original approved EIS/EIR was partially double level.) The "great hall" of the SOM design, funnelling all rail passengers though one choke point despite the fact that trains are inherently long, skinny objects, is superficially appealing, but, I suspect, would ultimately be under-used without some (quite feasible) repurposing.

The SOM tower design has obvious appeal, as evidenced by the drumbeat of cheerleading for it here. The structural solution at street level certainly attracts my admiration, but overall I find the appearance too easy to please and a little too ready to fit in among the almost uniformly undistinguished towers of our little urban backwater. I don't expect to change anybody's opinion.

The Pelli proposal has nothing to recommend it at all from my perspective, apart from the cash premium. The park will be unused, the pandering demonisation of evil bus exhaust (to be magically cleansed by the parklands) was irritating, there's such a thing as too much Ned Kahn, no obvious thought was devoted to any transportion or pedestrian circulation issues, and the tower is nearly entirely without merit. (I say this despite the fact that the Pelli-designed but SF-Planning-step-back-butchered tower further down Mission Street is one of my favourite buildings in San Francisco.)


The competition outcome was about what one might have expected, given that it was set up as a development contest, and that the real sources of excitement and innovation in architectural design, and all global expertise in transporation engineering, were excluded from the process: the first by effectively limiting participation to the top tier of starchitects and mega-practices (no Finnish graduate students or small Taiwanese firms need apply; nor for that matter firms like GMP (http://www.gmp-architekten.de/2projects/lbb/lbb.htm) with real transportation engineering expertise); the second by setting in stone grotesquely incompetent TJPA/Caltrain/local-consultant "engineering" decisions made over the years and effectively disallowing putative terminal designers from doing design or engaging real experts -- in fact, deviation from sub-functional sub-mediocrity was actively punished by the jury and the agency technical team.


Oh well.
It's not like one can expect anythings in San Francisco to turn out optimally, or ever particularly well.
At least we will continue to have a functioning bus terminal in downtown San Francisco, something absolutely vital for the local economy and environonment, even if the hoped-for rail extension has been so catastrophically (and unnecessarily!) mis-designed that it may better remain unrealised for some time to come.

(At least we didn't get a self-derivative Calatrava toss-off...)

[tyler82]

I'm sure that by the time this thing actually gets built and that Pelli builds 3 500' square box towers instead of the single 1200' proposal due to public demand I'll be zipping around in my sea water powered air scooter and will have moved on to a real city and not just an empty victorian suit coasting on past generations of glamour and charm.
Even San Jose, mainly due to their high tech and businesses is getting more international attention than us.

As Pepi LePue always said, "Le sigh."

this was our chance to make SF a great international city. I'm scared that the NIMBYs are rising, more and more. Looking through the SF Gate comments, it looks like everyday there are more and more comments about fear of heights from all kinds of different people. It's turning into a battle field out there. And the planning process hasn't even officially STARTED on any of the building of the tower.

I guess I'd be happier that the Pelli tower gets chosen, and then chopped in half, versus the beautiful SOM tower having to go through such a demise.

We'll see after Sep. 20. Perhaps I'll have to filter my energies elsewhere, seems like it's all starting to go downhill, fast !

[pizzaman355]

Why the hell are people scared of heights!!! If they build the Pelli Building it better be taller than 1200' ft. This is the most boring design out of the three and wouldn't you know it, it won! I don't car if the park is 50 football fields long, when I go over the Bay Bridge I want to see a slender 1375' tall SOM design instead of the boring 1200' obelisk shaped Pelli building. I really hope the Piano buildings look better than the Pelli design.

[BTinSF]

My take: The Rogers proposal was the only one of real architectural merit.

The light and open (and cheap!) bus deck, losing unnecessary structure and opening out the street, is thoughtful and elegant.

The Rogers tower design is exciting, visually arresting, context-sensitive while context-challenging, structurally clever, functionally balanced, intellectually engaging, and would, if built after years of philistine NIMBY hell, have come to be seen as an iconic asset to the city.



Although I came to a different conclusion--favoring the SOM design for it's overall beauty of form and line, and, frankly, finding the Rogers design just too "busy"--I don't actually disagree with most of what Richard says (yeah, it shocked me too). The one thing I do strongly disagree with, though, is the above critique of the bus deck as "light and open (and cheap!)". That means no useful protection from the elements for passengers and I, for one, would expect not to have to use my parka and umbrella while waiting for a bus in January in a structure costing what this one will. At the very least it needs to be fully enclosed for protection from both rain and WIND and that would mean it would need a means of dealing with bus exhaust etc etc, adding greatly to the cost I imagine but still necessary.

[tyler82]

Even John King seems disappointed. Which is hard to believe because he's such a proponent of "mediocrity."

Tower pick: Pelli's predictability wins out over others' pizzazz

Forget dazzling icons (uh oh, there's that Word!) on the skyline. In choosing which team of developers and architects should be given the right to transform the long-decrepit Transbay Terminal, the competition jury stuck to the basics - and the bottom line.

Of the three teams in the running, the one led by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and developer Hines offers the least drama.

If it's possible to soft-pedal a proposal for a tower as tall as the Empire State Building, that's what the Hines-Pelli team did.

They have a terminal that works," said Don Stastny, who managed the competition for the Transbay Authority. "The park isn't just eye candy, it's an integrated part of the project. And the tower has a simplicity the jury really liked."

Where Skidmore went for a sensuous sheen in its tower, the design by the English firm Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners is like a scaffold rising 1,200 feet from the ground, with floors of different shapes and sizes locked within the gaunt frame. It would be like no tower in the United States, but the jury shrugged at this would-be icon (there's that Word again!), calling it "a burly, aggressive, and industrial structure that does not marry well with the light-colored ornamental buildings of San Francisco."

When the board of the authority votes on Sept. 20, it can ignore the recommendation - though it's awkward to discard the 42-page verdict of your own jury.

If the Hines-Pelli team does get the nod, the details are sure to evolve. San Francisco planners could insist on a smaller tower, which would translate to a smaller cash offer.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/11/MNN4S35NK.DTL


This guy changes his mind in every article he writes.

[BTinSF]

Looking through the SF Gate comments, it looks like everyday there are more and more comments about fear of heights from all kinds of different people.

Be aware that commentors on SFGate are not really "all kinds of people" but mostly the same people article after article. You have to register to comment and the average San Franciscan doesn't even read the Chronicle any more much less go to the trouble of registering on their web site. I did mostly just to comment on this issue (but I admit spouting off on other stuff is fun too ;) ). But there are some real trolls there--I'm seeing more and more comments deleted for being racist, obnoxious, obscene or something that offends even the Chron--since you, yes you Tyler, got me in the habit of even looking at the comments.

[Richard Mlynarik]

duplicate

[Richard Mlynarik]

duplicate

[Richard Mlynarik]

[...] The one thing I do strongly disagree with, though, is the above critique of the bus deck as "light and open (and cheap!)".
FYI "cheap" didn't mean "crappy construction" or "cut-rate"; it meant "unnecessary (and expensive) junk removed from the design".
That means no useful protection from the elements for passengers and I, for one, would expect not to have to use my parka and umbrella while waiting for a bus in January in a structure costing what this one will. At the very least it needs to be fully enclosed for protection from both rain and WIND and that would mean it would need a means of dealing with bus exhaust etc etc, adding greatly to the cost I imagine but still necessary.
I don't think you looked carefully enough at the proposal.

http://www.transbayforestcity.com/img/transit/main.jpg
http://www.rsh-p.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/image/2815_transbay/upper_level_boulevard_buss_waiting_area.jpg
http://worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1378_4_1000%20Transby%203.jpg
etc

(Tons of good renderings and plans at
http://www.rsh-p.com/render.aspx?siteID=1&navIDs=1,4,23,1394&showImages=table for future nostalgic regret at a badly missed opportunity.)

The bus waiting area would have been inside, under glass (though open to the air circulating below), directly adjacent to the bus loading areas. No storms or hurricanes involved.

The buses themselves would run outside, which is a fine place for above-zero-emission vehicles to operate.

The less-than-overwhelming jurors apparently objected to there being no awning over the area between the inside bus waiting area and the bus doors, and somehow believed that this was a fatal flaw that the entire massed architural might of RSH-Partnership and the globe-spanning engineering of Arup could not rectify.

[craeg]

There are trolls everywhere on the internet - all one need do is look at this thread for proof of that fact. I wouldnt read too much into the comments on sfgate as they dont even guarantee that the people commenting are people in SF - or the state for that matter.
My gut feeling is that this is a done deal and the pelli design will be chosen.
I'm definitely very disappointed about that fact. I felt like the SOM tower could have been the straw the broke San Francisco's ever provincial back, leading to more modern and meaningful architecture all over the city.
Having said all that... the Pelli design looks a lot better in person (thought it really resembles an uncut p****)

[tyler82]

the Pelli design looks a lot better in person (thought it really resembles an uncut p****)

potato? :haha:

[BTinSF]

I don't think you looked carefully enough at the proposal.

The bus waiting area would have been inside, under glass (though open to the air circulating below), directly adjacent to the bus loading areas. No storms or hurricanes involved.



Frankly, I can't make much of those renderings, but I watched the entire presentation and it not only appeared to me that the bus waiting area was not entirely enclosed but it seemed that the presenter tried to sell that as a plus (fresh air and all that). Anyway, it needs to be protected including any area passengers have to traverse to get on a bus. If it is--or would be--fine.

[BTinSF]

Tower pick: Pelli's predictability wins out over others' pizzazz
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Forget dazzling icons on the skyline. In choosing which team of developers and architects should be given the right to transform the long-decrepit Transbay Terminal, the competition jury stuck to the basics - and the bottom line.

Of the three teams in the running, the one led by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and developer Hines offers the least drama. Its terminal follows the station layout long sought by engineers at the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. The tower proposed next door is the only one that doesn't include condominiums and hotels along with office space.

Instead of pizzazz, the Hines and Pelli proposal offers a big park and an even bigger check - $350 million, more than twice what the other teams offered or the authority had expected. The argument is this: Let us build the tallest office tower San Francisco will ever see, and we can offer more money than a developer trying to juggle competing activities. We'll also toss in a 5.4-acre park that's wider than Market Street, albeit one perched 70 feet in the air.

If it's possible to soft-pedal a proposal for a tower as tall as the Empire State Building, that's what the Hines-Pelli team did.

"They have a terminal that works," said Don Stastny, who managed the competition for the Transbay Authority. "The park isn't just eye candy, it's an integrated part of the project. And the tower has a simplicity the jury really liked."

The other two teams tried to shake things up by tweaking rules and turning heads.

This is most obvious in the proposal designed the local office of Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

The firm's streamlined tower would twist and turn 1,375 feet into the sky. The jury loved the imagery, praising the "memorable and beautiful moves" - but it also noticed that the slender tower snakes upward from a base that consumes the entire block along First and Mission streets.

As for Skidmore's accompanying terminal, billed as a "great civic room" wrapped in glass and steel, the jury coolly suggested "it would never really be seen or appreciated the way it is presented."

Where Skidmore went for a sensuous sheen in its tower, the design by the English firm Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners is like a scaffold rising 1,200 feet from the ground, with floors of different shapes and sizes locked within the gaunt frame. It would be like no tower in the United States, but the jury shrugged at this would-be icon, calling it "a burly, aggressive, and industrial structure that does not marry well with the light-colored ornamental buildings of San Francisco."

All this can change, of course.

When the board of the authority votes on Sept. 20, it can ignore the recommendation - though it's awkward to discard the 42-page verdict of your own jury.

If the Hines-Pelli team does get the nod, the details are sure to evolve. San Francisco planners could insist on a smaller tower, which would translate to a smaller cash offer. There might also be a call to include housing, for a social statement as much as anything else.

What's certain is that the selection of Hines and Pelli would bring a predictability the other teams lack. Hines has been active in San Francisco for more than 25 years, so it knows the market. The Pelli firm has rolled out dozens of sharply tailored corporate high rises during that same period.

Predictability isn't the same as pizzazz. But in a project like this, with so many ingredients still in the air, it can be awfully hard to resist.

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/11/MNN4S35NK.DTL

:hmmm: So they got twice as much cash as they were expecting and for a much shorter tower they could get close to what they were expecting. I smell an "only in SF" deal here. :doh:

[Reminiscence]

They have a terminal that works," said Don Stastny, who managed the competition for the Transbay Authority. "The park isn't just eye candy, it's an integrated part of the project. And the tower has a simplicity the jury really liked."

Where Skidmore went for a sensuous sheen in its tower, the design by the English firm Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners is like a scaffold rising 1,200 feet from the ground, with floors of different shapes and sizes locked within the gaunt frame. It would be like no tower in the United States, but the jury shrugged at this would-be icon (there's that Word again!), calling it "a burly, aggressive, and industrial structure that does not marry well with the light-colored ornamental buildings of San Francisco."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/11/MNN4S35NK.DTL

... "They got a terminal that works?"

Of course they got a terminal that works, all three of them "work," thats not the point. This is suppose to be a signature tower that stands out as a new icon in San Francisco. If any tower has got simplicity, its Pelli allright. If thats what they were looking for, they found it.

... "A burly, aggressive, and industrial structure that does not marry well with the light-colored ornamental buildings of San Francisco."

This reason alone is already more than enough reason to build SOM's! The fact that this building does not marry well with the surrounding buildings is a good thing, this way we have something that doesnt look like a taller version of something we already have. If what we were having was truly a design competition, SOM would have no trouble winning this one. Way to go guys ... you struck down the best one and picked the most boring one, typical. Sigh, bunch of idiots ... :yuck:

[toddguy]

... "They got a terminal that works?"

Of course they got a terminal that works, all three of them "work," thats not the point. This is suppose to be a signature tower that stands out as a new icon in San Francisco. If any tower has got simplicity, its Pelli allright. If thats what they were looking for, they found it.

... "A burly, aggressive, and industrial structure that does not marry well with the light-colored ornamental buildings of San Francisco."

This reason alone is already more than enough reason to build SOM's! The fact that this building does not marry well with the surrounding buildings is a good thing, this way we have something that doesnt look like a taller version of something we already have. If what we were having was truly a design competition, SOM would have no trouble winning this one. Way to go guys ... you struck down the best one and picked the most boring one, typical. Sigh, bunch of idiots ... :yuck:

Isn't the bolded quote referring to the first(Rogers) proposal and NOT SOM? Are you not in fact then with that quote arguing for the first proposal?


*Also I knew they would go for Pelli's. I called it earlier in the thread. It was the safe way to go, and with the park and all... It was my favorite too. Although now that it appears the SOM is out, I feel bad.. :( I think I liked SOM more than I thought(skyscraper building partwise) even after calling the top 'boxy'..:(


*And no just because I am commenting and not in that area does not make me a troll or 'trolling' (referring to the remarks upthread by another poster). I infact have not seen alot of trolls or trolling in this thread.

[FourOneFive]

i'm very curious to see how the Pelli/Hines proposal will be affected (meaning the amount of $$$ they would be able to pay) once the TJPA demands that the tower be mixed-use. there is NO way the planning department and (especially) board of supervisors will allow 1.8 million sq ft office tower to be built. an approval would require some sort of exemption from Prop M. Plus, Supervisor Daly won't get any affordable housing units from an office tower.

[FourOneFive]

The "great hall" of the SOM design, funnelling all rail passengers though one choke point despite the fact that trains are inherently long, skinny objects, is superficially appealing, but, I suspect, would ultimately be under-used without some (quite feasible) repurposing.


i have a question here. of all the trains stations that i've been to around the world (London, Paris, Washington D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Milan, Madrid, etc.), it seems as if SOM's proposal (a great train hall with limited entry points onto the boarding platforms) isn't dramatically different. Even here in New York, the new Penn Station (Moynihan East/ Moynihan West) will be redesigned to have grand train halls with stairs, escalators, and elevators down to the underground platforms of New Jersey Transit, LIRR, and Amtrak.

i personally don't believe passenger circulation would have been that much of an issue, but i would love to here your rationale as to why you believe differently.

[craeg]

^ this is part of why I am so confused by the panel's current Pelli recommendation. The tower as designed is in violation of prop M - sure they can add housing, but they havent ...
And can you imagine how hard all the other office space companies are going to fight this? 1.8 msf of office space would have a very negative effect on the price per sq ft.

[peanut gallery]

With the huge financial cushion between the Hines/Pelli bid and the other two (and it turns out the TJPA's expectation) they'll have ample ability to reduce the amount of office space through shortening the building (sigh) and/or mixing-in housing.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Despite 42 pages of filler, this comes down to the huge difference in the amount each team bid. I can't argue against that either. This project will require a lot of money, especially the CalTrain extension. It's got to come from somewhere. Apparently, part of it will come at the expense of the design.

Two specific criticisms of the SOM design that I just flat out disagree with: 1.) the base filling the entire block is a plus, not a minus, especially since a good chunk of it it is open to the street anyway. 2.) The grand entrance and hall being not used - I think they will be used as many people will choose to enter from the Fremont side because it's so dramatic. Plus, the way the base of the tower is designed, people can freely enter from Mission and come into the side of the same grand hall anyway.

It all smells of nitpicking the better design just to justify taking the highest bid.

[BTinSF]

^^^Prop. M allows 875,000 sq ft per year. Since 2000, we have not used all of the annual allotments. A couple of Mission Bay Buildings, 555 Mission and Foundry Square I are the only office buildings of significance that I can recall built during those years. I couldn't find the exact figure on the total number of "banked" square feet but 7 years times 875,000 would be over 6 million. That makes it seem likely to me we have at least a couple million available PLUS over 4 million that will accrue between now and when this building could be available in 2012. Some of that is going to be used by other buildings like the PUC building at 525 Golden Gate that the City wants to build and will surely get Prop. M priority. But it seems clear there would still be enough to build several large office buildings including this one.

I recall Hines saying at the presentation that they expected to take several years to lease it all.

Bottom line: I think it's doable but it could crimp the office development pipeline for a year or two at some point and it would soak up much of the demand for several years.

[Frisco_Zig]

I guess we were all naive if we thought tower design has much to do with anything. The tower is a funding mechanism for the terminal and that supersedes all else

I guess if they can get rail downtown, HSR ready and a new modern bus terminal it is worth it

[fflint]

In theory, if Pelli provided half as much money for a tower that was whittled down to half the size of his initial proposal, the project would still bring in roughly the sum that was initially sought, no?

[rocketman_95046]

In theory, if Pelli provided half as much money for a tower that was whittled down to half the size of his initial proposal, the project would still bring in roughly the sum that was initially sought, no?


No, If you read the jury's report. Hines' payout was based on a sliding rule. the higher the floor the higher the price/sqft that would be given to TJPA. So if they cut the building in half the TJPA would lose much more than half the cash. Simply stated the taller the building the more profit TJPA gets.

Also in the report Hines stated that chaning a portion of the building would not impact the payout. I wouldnt worry to much about the height, its not like the terminal is over funded... they will need all the cash they can get.

[tyler82]

I wouldnt worry to much about the height, its not like the terminal is over funded... they will need all the cash they can get.

This is San Francisco. Emotion overpowers Logic.

[BTinSF]

In theory, if Pelli provided half as much money for a tower that was whittled down to half the size of his initial proposal, the project would still bring in roughly the sum that was initially sought, no?

Yes, more or less (not sure about "half" the size, but considerably shorter). That's what I tried to say above.

The thing is, though, even if they get $350M from Pelli/Hines, they still come up short on the $2.4B needed for phase 2. I'm just hoping they realize they have to maximize what they get even if it means accepting a tall tower. And this is a case where if there's a demand for housing--by Daly or anyone--that will tend also to force the tower skyward since for a given height I'm sure the developer will pay less for a residential project than for office.

Finally, we need to remember that the Planning Dept. seems to want tall for tall's sake. Remember their artistic little diagrams of a triple-humped skyline and all that? They were the ones who started the talk about buildings over 1000 ft. in this area.

So maybe where we'll end up is a tower that's not 1200 or 1300 ft but maybe 1050 ft, with a residential component (a substantial part of which is "affordable') and for which Hines will pay maybe $200M or $250M. That way the planners get their new skyline "hump", the housing people get to say they extracted housing from the evil developer and, I hope, Hines gets an economically viable project. Unfortunately, the TJPA will still need a lot of money from somewhere.

[Reminiscence]

Isn't the bolded quote referring to the first(Rogers) proposal and NOT SOM? Are you not in fact then with that quote arguing for the first proposal?

Good question. I'm actually not sure if this was directed at a specific proposal, but I recall hearing them say something similar to this about Skidmore's proposal. I could be wrong of course, that "them" I refer to could be John King :rolleyes:.

[tyler82]

Good question. I'm actually not sure if this was directed at a specific proposal, but I recall hearing them say something similar to this about Skidmore's proposal. I could be wrong of course, that "them" I refer to could be John King :rolleyes:.

Rem- yes they were referring to Rogers'. It even says so right before they start bashing it. They actually like the SOM design but it's just too "BIG" for little old hippie granny San Francisco, oh yeah, and they're not selling out either, but instead trying to create a really great product.

It is kind of hard to bash the planning peeps for accepting a "sell out" when they desparately need money to get anything done. But then again I wonder, why do they need to tunnel under the city for the CalTrain tracks at all? Why not just relocate and build the new transbay center at the current terminus at 4th and King streets, saving millions if not billions of dollars? The infrastructe is already there, there are already two MUNI LRV lines that go right there, versus zero at the current 1st and mission zone. Someone in this forum argued this in the past, and I remember screaming WOLF because transbay is at such a better, central location, but when you really look at it, it would make more sense economically to just build the new station where the caltrain already is. But then we probably wouldn't get a cool huge tower, so then I"d have to change my mind on that one ;)

[BTinSF]

Someone in this forum argued this in the past

C'est moi!

[caramatt]

Rem- yes they were referring to Rogers'. It even says so right before they start bashing it. They actually like the SOM design but it's just too "BIG" for little old hippie granny San Francisco, oh yeah, and they're not selling out either, but instead trying to create a really great product.

It is kind of hard to bash the planning peeps for accepting a "sell out" when they desparately need money to get anything done. But then again I wonder, why do they need to tunnel under the city for the CalTrain tracks at all? Why not just relocate and build the new transbay center at the current terminus at 4th and King streets, saving millions if not billions of dollars? The infrastructe is already there, there are already two MUNI LRV lines that go right there, versus zero at the current 1st and mission zone. Someone in this forum argued this in the past, and I remember screaming WOLF because transbay is at such a better, central location, but when you really look at it, it would make more sense economically to just build the new station where the caltrain already is. But then we probably wouldn't get a cool huge tower, so then I"d have to change my mind on that one ;)

I agree that the terminal would have made more sense at the 4th and King location, but as you said we're now getting a landmark tower because of the move. Also, when you think about the terminal's intended goal of being a new gateway to the city, it does make quite a bit more sense to be located just south of Market.

That said, don't forget that the Planning Department is studying the air-rights around the 4th and King station (http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_railyards.htm), so because of the move we may actually be ending up with towers in both locations. Which is a plus in my book :yes:

[tyler82]

I agree that the terminal would have made more sense at the 4th and King location, but as you said we're now getting a landmark tower because of the move. Also, when you think about the terminal's intended goal of being a new gateway to the city, it does make quite a bit more sense to be located just south of Market.

That said, don't forget that the Planning Department is studying the air-rights around the 4th and King station (http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_railyards.htm), so because of the move we may actually be ending up with towers in both locations. Which is a plus in my book :yes:

SPUR is planning on putting those caltrain tracks underground and using that land near the station for a 300- 400 foot tower as well as a walking park like district.

[Frisco_Zig]

SPUR is planning on putting those caltrain tracks underground and using that land near the station for a 300- 400 foot tower as well as a walking park like district.

I am not sure I would put it that way. SPUR is just a think tank. They even admitted in the paper that they are unsure of the financial and engineering implications of their proposal. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on that.

With regard to moving the terminal to 4th and King this is a a greatly inferior spot when you consider how buses are routed from the East Bay on ramps into the terminal as well as inferior for buses coming from Marin. What would the point be for the majority of commuters in passing there jobs and being dropped at 4th and King when the current terminal is often within walking distance to jobs? For train commuters it would basically be the same (a trip around the Embarcadero on the slow as hell N). There is no point in building anything unless it all goes to the TransBay

[tyler82]

I am not sure I would put it that way. SPUR is just a think tank.

Oh, yes, I know. I should rephrase to say that they plan to do all that stuff

[quashlo]

...there are already two MUNI LRV lines that go right there, versus zero at the current 1st and mission zone..
Are you forgetting the five-minute walk to Embarcadero or Montgomery?

Honestly, I can't see how the 4th/King location would be superior to the current location... First off, BART doesn't come anywhere close to 4th/King and as Zig pointed out, neither do AC Transit or GGT. Unless they magically build an elevated bus lane (like that'll ever happen), AC Transit would have to travel on city streets to reach that location.

And the current location wins out in terms of being close to the heart of the city. Yes, there's a lot of growth out in Mission Bay, but it's not anywhere near what's already at First/Mission and what's going up in the next decades.

What would have been smart would be to look at some way to combine the Central Subway and the Caltrain extension, although it's far too late into both projects for that.

[BTinSF]

Are you forgetting the five-minute walk to Embarcadero or Montgomery?

Honestly, I can't see how the 4th/King location would be superior to the current location... First off, BART doesn't come anywhere close to 4th/King and as Zig pointed out, neither do AC Transit or GGT.

It's superior in that it wouldn't cost $2.4 billion. That is not (yet) Federal money so it is money that COULD be reprogrammed to other transit uses. Think we could get a Geary subway for $2.4 billion? Which would you rather have?

BART doesn't come near 4th & King but 2 Muni Metro lines (T and N) connect 4th and King to the Embarcadero BART station and the Central Subway will connect it to the Powell BART Station.

Since you can also transfer from BART to CalTrain at Milbrae, what our $2.4 billion is getting "us" (meaning those of us who might want to connect from CalTrain or, someday, HSR, to BART) is not needing to make one extra transfer. And remember, the "us" being referred to are mainly peninsula commuters and/or people from the parts of SF served by the few BART stations in the City who might want to take CalTrain somewhere.

None of this seemed worth $2.4 billion to me at the time which is why I was part of the minority who voted "No" on the ballot measure about bringing CalTrain to the TransBay a few years back.

Like I said before, if I were "Emperor of San Francisco", what I'd do would be to eliminate height limits in the TransBay area and let developers like Hines build 1300 ft buildings if they want them there but also leave San Francisco's train station at 4th and King, building THERE a suitable station including, possibly, development such as SPUR is proposing.

[Frisco_Zig]

advocating leaving the bus terminal where it is and leaving the train station at 4th and King as is (maybe a small renovation of each)

I can see your point but I think it is shortsighted. It seems the money can be spent more wisely elsewhere and I agree that the City itself needs better transit

My opinion is we have to think more regionally. SF makes up only 11% of the region's population and this is not a good thing for traffic congestion or balance. SF has to reassert itself as the center of the region. According to one estimate from ABAG 30 million new sq feet of office space will be needed in SF alone over the next 30 years (1/2 of our current downtown size). New office space will also be built in the suburbs . How will all these people get to work? This is truly an investment in the future of the region that would be an asset even 100 years from now (think of regrettable missed opportunities of the past). If built for environmental reasons alone I imagine that some day there would be commuter trains traveling in both directions on the Peninsula from San Jose and Gilroy but also from further South and East. This new access to downtown and electrification (which could be as efficient as Bart) will someday spur new development of job clusters and housing along this natural corridor. There is really no other way for this region to stay competitive otherwise with what we have presently. Having people crush load onto the N Judah for a 25 minute ride doesn't cut it. Nobody is going to Chinatown (lets not even go there)

High Speed rail from the South and perhaps even another transbay tube (carrying Bart and conventional rail) and the terminus for a Geary subway are future possibilities.

It just unfortunate that everything is so disjointed and there is no vision on any level

[Frisco_Zig]

Also you are looking at his only from the perspective of a San Franciscan, "what our $2.4 billion is getting "us"

I imagine if the project is ever built, because it has a huge regional and State function, money would be coming not only from all bay Area cities who might benefit but also would be heavily funded by the State and Feds when they finally get their minds wrapped around fighting sprawl and supporting smart transit. I think we are already moving in this way

I doubt this is a choice between a Geary subway and the Transbay

[BTinSF]

^^^I think we also need a modern bus terminal where the decrepit TransBay sits. But as a pure bus station, it doesn't have to be multi-blocks long and it doesn't have to be fancy or terribly expensive. To me, we are spending all that money to have a terminal making it possible to what? Get off CalTrain and onto a bus? Off a bus and onto Caltrain? As opposed to taking Muni metro to the existing CalTrain location? I just don't see that what we get for $2.4 billion transit dollars with this project is worth that much.

Clearly we need good transit into and out of the city--a fully electrified "mini-bullet" CalTrain with a spur across the lower Bay connecting with the ACE line would be nice. Unlike those here who aren't fans of BART, I'd like to see it go to San Jose and maybe someday cross the northern Bay to Marin (I think the engineering to cross the Golden gate strait is prohibitive). There are all sorts of improvements that could solidify SF as the core of the Bay Area. But $2.4 billion to make unnecessary a short ride on Muni metro and/or bring the heavy rail terminus what? 6 blocks closer to Market St.?

Read what I posted above about the funding. It's pretty clear where the funding is or isn't coming from at this point. Here, once again, is an exerpt:

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."
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/09/BAJ1RVRAG.DTL&hw=TransBay+tower&sn=003&sc=386

So--the state money is "iffy", the AC Transit contribution is "iffy", as of yet there is no Federal contribution and so on. Maybe Nancy Pelosi, if she remains Speaker, can get us some money. Maybe the state HSR bond will eventually happen. Maybe AC transit (i.e. the East Bay) will kick in. And where, since this is so much about CalTrain, by the way, is any money from the Peninsula or South Bay?? Right now, though, this is pretty much a San Francisco project.

[tyler82]

So--the state money is "iffy", the AC Transit contribution is "iffy", as of yet there is no Federal contribution and so on. Maybe Nancy Pelosi, if she remains Speaker, can get us some money. Maybe the state HSR bond will eventually happen. Maybe AC transit (i.e. the East Bay) will kick in. And where, since this is so much about CalTrain, by the way, is any money from the Peninsula or South Bay?? Right now, though, this is pretty much a San Francisco project.

Where are we getting the money for the central subway? Isn't that going to cost more? And when will construction start on that?

Since the possibility of a Democractic controlled congress and a Dem. president looks better and better every day, I have a feeling that SF will be getting quite a lot more "attention" than the current doofus.

[Richard Mlynarik]

[...]Read what I posted above about the funding. It's pretty clear where the funding is or isn't coming from at this point. Here, once again, is an exerpt:[...]
That article was a hit-piece planted/sole-sourced by staff at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, and should be read in context.

The SFCTA's power-mad executive director, in particular, has been engaged in turf wars for years, seeking to expand his remit (http://www.sfcta.org/images/stories/Executive/Meetings/personnel/pdfs/05jun07pers/edcompensatmemo.060507.pdf), at what was created as a funding agency administering sales tax receipts, to be the lord and master of all he surveys, designing freeways (http://www.doyledrive.org/), designing subways (http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/273/92/), controlling huge project budgets, cutting deals to sabotage state-wide infrastructure (HSR via Pacheco is a SFCTA deal cut with VTA to ensure Central Subway pork flows), etc.

The TA's unmitigated record of failure (http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/271/90/) at all of these tasks, of course, not to mention its profound past incompetence at the very most basic (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/24/MNGP05QA061.DTL), checkbook-balancing-level (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/02/BAG125C3581.DTL) of financial management, doesn't need to be recounted (http://www.sfgov.org/site/controller_index.asp?id=28990).

And do recall that the TA's Mr Moscovich personally, through active agency collusion with a private real estate developer (http://www.sonic.net/users/mly/tmp/ass.pdf) along with the SF Mayor's Office, acting directly contrary to the public interest and in gross breach of public fiducial interest, has already cost the Transbay project many hundreds of millions of dollars in construction cost escalation alone, beyond the payout made to the developer. Quite the achievement!

The fact that a nominally independent, regionally-constitituted, legally-formed (http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=298) JPA is responsible for designing, building and operating an important and hugely expensive transportation facility and that the TA staff are not calling all the shots, is something that some power-hungry apparatchiks find unacceptable, and have since the turn of the century.


The Chronicle piece reads like a character assassination of another bureaucrat and a salvo in an inter-agency takedown war because, well, because it is. Read through again. Who are the sources? What are the substantive points made? Why is this appearing now? Qui bono?


And if any of you still have any doubts that we will never see any real progress of any type in our corrupt little third-rate fiefdom of city, well, this sort of thing shoud dispel them. It's hardly unique, of course.

(Oh, and please note I am no fan of the TJPA's technical accomplishments, though its political record is simply amazing to anybody who has followed the sordid record of the City and County of San Francisco's attempts to completely destroy the Transbay Terminal over three decades.)

Good thing we have nice weather, a beautiful physical setting, and not of lot of recent seismic activity, or one could get quite dispirited about the place.

[Richard Mlynarik]

Where are we getting the money for the central subway? [...]
"Earmarks". You know, the things Speaker Pelosi claims are a thing of the past.

The deal that has gone down is that in return for supporting BART to San Jose (and actively opposing anything which might be even remotely perceived as a more cost effective alternative to it, such as HSR between the Central Valley, Livermore, Fremont and San Jose), San Francisco gets promises that leverage will be applied at the state and federal level to secure further earmarks for the Central Subway. Santa Clara and San Francisco counties will continue, as in the past, to defund their obligations to their local bus riders and to the regional Caltrain system, in the latter case by pretending that a fictional future multi-billion HSR tooth fairy will suddenly dedicate two billion or exclusively to Caltrain, so we don't need to worry about that.

(And Oakland? Who cares about Oakland? The Alameda County CMA staff's priorities 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 are freeway and sprawl road projects, with the Caldecott Tunnel at the top of the list.)

You'll note that BART to San Jose and the SF Central Subway have been explicitly excluded from the federal (FTA section 5309) legislation that requires projects to pass even the lowest cost-effectiveness criterium.

In other words, business as usual. It's almost exactly the same tactics, and even almost exactly the same cast of characters, that brought us the last fifteen years of transportation disaster, where BART to Millbrae (1/3 predicted ridership), BART to Dublin and two utterly worthless VTA light rail lines were funded under fraudulent misrepresentation to the state and federal governments, while other, more cost-effective investments languished, and the hundreds of thousands of daily riders of Muni and AC Transit were hung out to dry.

They'll get the money. And we'll all be much the worse for it.

[BTinSF]

Where are we getting the money for the central subway? Isn't that going to cost more? And when will construction start on that?




"Earmarks". You know, the things Speaker Pelosi claims are a thing of the past.



Right. Which is why it makes more sense to oppose the "CalTrain to 1st & Mission" proposal than the Central Subway. Most of the Central Subway money, as "earmarks" can only be spent on that project and it would be very difficult to substitute any other project if we chose not to buiuld the subway. So far, the "CalTrain to 1st & Mission" idea has only local money behind it, money that we could redirect.

But let's be clear. This is all just idle chatter. Both projects are politically wired to the extent that they are doable. The subway seems to have enough funding to get done. The CalTrain/TransBay as yet does not and therein lies the problem although, again, Madams Pelosi/Feinstein/Boxer may come through as might (less likely IMHO) the state (especially if the next governor is somebody like Jerry Brown).

[tyler82]

(especially if the next governor is somebody like Jerry Brown).

Yah cause he did such a GREAT job with Oakland as mayor :yuck:

I am so SICK of these buddy buddy crony Brown-Brown-Feinstein-Burtons who have done absolutely nothing for the state of California this past decade. Time to clean house !!

[tyler82]

Oh and just to let you all know, in case any of you care, I am leaving the city and moving away for a year or so. This city has gotten out of hand for young people like me just out of college striving to make a living (I myself am a small business owner), so trying something equally nice and a lot less expen$ive for a change, to save up money and get my business off the ground, I'll be moving to Denver, Colorado, probably in 1- 2 months.
But hopefully I'll be back by the time this terminal and tower starts to get built! These are exciting times, if all of this actually does happen, so hopefully when I make my first million I can come back and be a part of the bottom tiered income of San Francisco :D

[BTinSF]

Yah cause he did such a GREAT job with Oakland as mayor :yuck:



Don't let's get started on that. I'll just say I disagree totally and offer the new regime by contrast. We feel the same about the Burtons and the SF Democratic political machine, though.

[tyler82]

Don't let's get started on that. I'll just say I disagree totally and offer the new regime by contrast. We feel the same about the Burtons and the SF Democratic political machine, though.

Which both Browns are a part of.

[fflint]

Stay on topic, people.

[BTinSF]

Hines reaches for sky with Transbay offer
San Francisco Business Times - September 14, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

With its $350 million roll of the dice on the Transbay tower, Hines is set to redefine not only the San Francisco skyline but shatter conventional wisdom on what land is worth in downtown San Francisco.

Hines shocked its competitors, many veteran real estate players -- and no doubt delighted the cash-hungry Transbay Joint Powers Authority -- by offering to pay $350 million for the Transbay land to develop an all-office, 80-story building

The generous cash payment was the key reason why the special Transbay jury selected Hines and architect Pelli Clarke Pelli, according to the jury report released Sept. 10.

Richard Rogers Partnership and Forest City Enterprises offered $145 million, while the third team -- Skidmore, Owings & Merrill and Rockefeller Group -- was prepared to shell out $118 million for the land.

While Hines still needs the OK from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority board, the sheer numbers will make the offer politically hard to reject, according to observers. The $3.4 billion rail and bus terminal is about 40 percent funded and an infusion of $350 million would bring to $1.8 billion the amount that has been set aside.

But the bid raised questions whether Hines overpaid for Transbay. One experienced housing and office developer called the total price "strange.

"I'm puzzled, and I don't know anyone in my business who is reacting differently," he said. "I've never seen a gap in values that large."

Hines' offer amounts to about $230 per square foot of leasable office space. That is $80 to $100 more than has been paid downtown recently for raw office land, according to multiple developers. The fully entitled highrise site at 350 Bush St. is in contract to sell for close to $175 per buildable square foot, itself a record.

"It is such an incredibly high price that if the city can really get a guarantee today on that price, they should take it," said real estate consultant Lynn Sedway of the Sedway Group, a subsidiary of CB Richard Ellis. "They need the money -- it's very important this project be funded."

But Sedway, who did consulting work for Forest City, said "questions remain.

"I don't see the financial feasibility," she said. "Maybe I'm missing something."

A simple, understated obelisk-shaped tower, the Hines design lacked the pizzazz of the other two proposals, which both included hotels, condos and extensive cultural uses. On the other hand, Hines proposal includes a 5.4-acre "CityPark" on top of the terminal itself. The park would cost $52 million to build, according to Hines' proposal, a cost that is included in the $350 million figure.

"The office tower with a retail base presents the soundest opportunity for the TJPA," Hines stated, according to the jury report, which added: "Hines indicated that it had run very sophisticated pro forma models and was comfortable in offering its purchase price without qualification."

Cushman & Wakefield Managing Director Dick Robinson said the lofty offer doesn't give the developer much flexibility as the highly political negotiations begin:"The question is, where is the wiggle room in that deal."

Development sources say Hines' willingness to go 100 percent office was largely responsible for their aggressive offer. Land for offices is worth more than land for housing or hotels, and by building offices, the developer will not have to build the mandated 17 percent affordable units housing developers must include.

Forest City team declined to comment but released a statement saying the "Transbay project is an outstanding opportunity and it is our hope that the TJPA carefully considers the economic viability of their final selection."

Keith Brown, a principal at CMA, a real estate consultant group that worked on the Rockefeller/SOM proposal, suggested that the 100 percent office development didn't jibe with the TJPA's long-standing statement that the project should be a hub of diverse, 24-hour activity.

"We did feel that the competition was encouraging mixed-use occupancy that would generate around-the-clock vitality and activity in the neighborhood. We programmed a building that achieved that at the highest level," said Brown.

Gabe Metcalf, executive director of SPUR, an urban policy think tank, said he is not bothered by the lack of housing.

"Transit-oriented development applies to office as much as it does to housing," he said. "The world needs the Bay Area to concentrate jobs in areas where people don't need to drive."

Real estate observers said the developer would probably need rents to average more than $100 per square foot on lower floors, and as high as $130 on upper ones, for the project to be financially feasible.

"Until San Francisco becomes world headquarters, like London or New York or Shanghai, which it is not, there just aren't that many companies with the ability to pay the rents to justify these costs," said Studley broker Kevin Brennan, who represents tenants. "I cannot fathom a scenario by which a building of that size gets absorbed at those rates."

Dan Fusalo, managing director of Real Capital Analytics, called the deal, "truly the most aggressive pricing we have seen for an office site on the West Coast," but suggested it's justified.

"At the end of the day, the uniqueness of the site and its potential as a hub of business and transportation is unmatched on the West Coast," he said. "It's Main and Main."

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971


Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/09/17/story4.html?t=printable

[peanut gallery]

I wonder how much Rockefeller would be willing to pay if they went 100% office with their proposal. Not likely to more than double it, I assume, which is what it would take to match Hines. But maybe they could close the gap enough to make it a competition again.

[craeg]

I dunno about all this. Too many things dont add up.

[tyler82]

Wow and I think rents are outrageous now... think about the effects this will have in real estate value in the city, and rents could climb even higher than they are now ($1900 for a one bedroom, since August, is what the Chron reported today)

Are they (Hines and Pelli) trying to inflate the land prices themselves in hopes of buying (investing) out a bunch of land in the area at market rate prices now, making buco bucks in the future when all this land is even more outrageous ?

[Richard Mlynarik]

I dunno about all this. Too many things dont add up.
Curious, indeed.
Either they're financial geniuses -- and that may indeed end up being the case -- or ...


Anyway, you know how it goes with PPPs in general and everywhere: the upside is all for one "P" and the downside risk ends up being entirely for the other "P" in the "Partnership".

[roadwarrior]

I'm concerned about this overpayment. Unless they have something behind their sleeve, this looks like a losing financial proposition to me. Perhaps they're considering this as a loss leader, implying that a successful project will lead to additional work in the city. On the other hand, I'd hate to see what occurred with the Bryant Street Pier, when Bovis Lend Lease couldn't make the finances work.

[tyler82]

On the other hand, I'd hate to see what occurred with the Bryant Street Pier, when Bovis Lend Lease couldn't make the finances work.

My worry is that they switch to really cheap building materials and get rid of all the fancy features of the building like the glowing crown, windmill, all that crap to scrap some dough. Nothing is "as is" yet.

[Reminiscence]

I dont see how they can remove items such as the windmill, as this building is suppose to be as green as possible pretty much. I too have been somewhat suspicious at the unusually high amount they offered. I'm still hopefull they seriously concider SOM and choose that.

[tyler82]

I dont see how they can remove items such as the windmill, as this building is suppose to be as green as possible pretty much. I too have been somewhat suspicious at the unusually high amount they offered. I'm still hopefull they seriously concider SOM and choose that.

According to BT, the Windmill on the pelli proposal is only used to power the "throbbing" illuminated crown

[Chase Unperson]

can someone post the three best images of each proposal on the first page? I'm having a hard time finding them.

[Reminiscence]

According to BT, the Windmill on the pelli proposal is only used to power the "throbbing" illuminated crown

Hmm, I'm not so sure thats going to do much. The only other green feature this tower has, to my knowledge, is the window/curtainwall features Pelli breifly talked about. Its times like these where I wish they could have spent more time talking about the tower instead of saving it for the last 3 minutes. I know much about the park and the terminal, but little of the tower.

[tyler82]

Hmm, I'm not so sure thats going to do much. The only other green feature this tower has, to my knowledge, is the window/curtainwall features Pelli breifly talked about. Its times like these where I wish they could have spent more time talking about the tower instead of saving it for the last 3 minutes. I know much about the park and the terminal, but little of the tower.

Yes I'm a loser who is staying home on a Friday night :haha: Just to get that out of the way..

I really admire SOM's recycled bottle construction method, and its solar voltaic panels above the terminal. I also think Pelli's park would be a huge resource and water hog, and their proposal just screams "money" instead of "green."

[Reminiscence]

Six years post-9/11, super skyscrapers rise from U.S. cities

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, September 15, 2007

The rivalry between Los Angeles and San Francisco permeates life in California, infiltrating debates on everything from sports and weather to cuisine and water consumption. When it comes to competing for the West Coast's tallest building, though, few would expect this city to enter the fray, much less end up on top.

Yet here in the land of earthquakes and cafe culture, plans are unfolding for not just the loftiest skyscraper on the coast, but the three highest high-rises west of the Mississippi River. All are part of a proposed downtown neighborhood to be built around a regional bus and train terminal — a Grand Central Station of the West — that is being promoted as an environmentally sensible magnet for development.

"What it will mean for San Francisco to have its tallest building be the Transbay Terminal tower is a statement that our highest value is ecology," said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a local public policy think tank. "It will be this exclamation mark saying the most important location in our city is the transit center."

Six years after many architects and urban planners predicted the indelible images of Sept. 11, 2001, would stifle Americans' enthusiasm for iconic skyscrapers, San Francisco is not the only U.S. city where the landscape is moving up. Instead, fueled by high land costs, disenchantment with suburban sprawl and urban one-upmanship, the nation is experiencing its biggest high-rise construction boom in decades.

From Miami and Las Vegas to Chicago and New York, buildings that would either eclipse or stand spire-to-spire with the 1,250-foot-tall Empire State Building are promising to reshape skylines. The 1,200-to-1,375-foot-tall tower that is supposed to help finance and attract riders to San Francisco's new public transportation hub is one of 11 buildings nationwide either planned or under construction that, if completed, would make the list of the 20 tallest buildings in the United States.

"Many people thought 9-11 would sound the death knell for tall buildings, and it's been the opposite," said Antony Wood, executive director of the Chicago-based Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. The collapse of the World Trade Center "probably induced the largest introspective analysis of the whole typology that has ever happened — is this a viable part of our cities or is it not? And like it or not, that has resulted in a resounding yes."

Compared to the high-rises that were erected in the 1970s, the new crop of super skyscrapers are more likely to be residential or government-supported expressions of civic or even national pride than symbols of corporate wealth, according to Wood. The 150-story, 2,000-foot-tall Chicago Spire rising near the shores of Lake Michigan, for example, would be both the tallest skyscraper in the U.S. and the world's tallest residential building.

"Tall buildings are being used to project a certain status for a city on a world stage. That's undoubtable," Wood said. "For a city to be taken seriously on a local or domestic or international scale, they want to be seen to be keeping up with the times, and tall buildings are part of that."

Planners, real estate agents and sociologists say the trend shows that Americans are willing to trust recent engineering advances conceived to help buildings stand up to earthquakes and terrorist attacks — and that their fascination with all things oversized outweighs their fears of disasters, both manmade and natural.

That especially became true as developing countries in the Middle East and Asia started putting up super-tall skyscrapers that made the World Trade Center look average in comparison.

"Everybody can be forgiven for having reactions after 9-11 that they want to reconsider today," said Miami Art Museum Terence Riley, who as the architecture curator of New York's Museum of Modern Art put together a 2004 exhibit on skyscrapers.

"Many people who had opinions like that saw the push to invent ever more technologically sophisticated, ever more high, tall buildings pass away from the United States, or at least appear to," Riley said. "One of the things that really bothered people was that it was evident that other people in Taiwan and Malaysia were going to take off where we left off, and in the end of the day they weren't going to let terrorists be that successful."

Brenda Calvin, a Las Vegas real estate agent who specializes in high-rise living, said customers who visit the city often but are tired of staying in hotels and want the convenience of 24-hour concierge service are snapping up condominiums like the ones under construction at the seven-tower MGM Mirage City Center. At up to 60 stories, the project's residential buildings would be nearly twice as tall as the condos considered high by current Strip standards.

"I have never heard anyone say, 'You know, now that I've been in this building I don't think I can do this,'" said Calvin, who lives on the eighth floor of a 21-story building. "I guess you can live your life and not fly on an airplane and not experience all the great things in the world out of fear, but that just doesn't make sense."

Last month, an Australian gaming company submitted plans for a 1,888-foot hotel/casino that would rank as the nation's second-tallest building. The Federal Aviation Administration is opposing the Crown Las Vegas, saying its height would pose a hazard to planes flying in and out of McCarran International Airport.

Supporters of the taller, denser neighborhood that has been proposed in San Francisco, a city known in architecture circles as much for its anti-development attitudes as its skyline, know they also have a future fight on their hands.

A regional transportation agency is scheduled to pick the winning design for the tower that would anchor the transit center on Thursday. The shortest of the three finalists would rise 350-feet above San Francisco's own Transamerica Pyramid. It would outreach the West's reigning top story, the 1,018-foot U.S. Bank Tower building in downtown L.A.

Anti-skyscraper sentiment has a long history in the city; voters passed a ballot initiative 21 years ago that created the country's first annual limit on high-rise development and required the local government to make neighborhood character and small businesses two of its top planning priorities. To get around the height restrictions, city officials would have to rezone 25 blocks near the current downtown where much of the land is located on soft soil that is especially unstable during earthquakes.

To overcome opposition, backers of the Transbay Tower and a pair of proposed 1,200-foot-tall buildings nearby that would also be among the nation's 20-tallest buildings are playing the green card. They argue that concentrating so many jobs and apartments so close to mass transit would keep commuters from driving into the city and lessen the need for development elsewhere, a concept known as "eco-density."

"None of this is going to happen unless a majority of people in the community want it to happen," Metcalf said. "My hope is that the environmental values of San Francisco will trump the conservatism of the city about change. And time will tell."
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/15/financial/f091015D74.DTL


I remain optimistic that one of these towers will be built at least as is currently designed. There seems to be a lot ot people who on board with the plan which is encouraging news to me. However, I agree with the statement that theres a fight on the way. Thursday's deadline is fast approaching and I hope they've taken time to really hear out the people on what they want the most. My only concern right now is the tower and the terminal really. I'm hoping SOM has a trick up its sleeve before then.

[rocketman_95046]

nice to see the AP use SkyscraperPage.com as a reference!:tup:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/16/mn_tallest_buildings_graphic.jpg

[peanut gallery]

can someone post the three best images of each proposal on the first page? I'm having a hard time finding them.

The TJPA site (http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323) has an overview of all three with renders, although I wouldn't necessarily say they're the three best of each. There are also links for their presentation boards with more info on each. Beware the SOM pdf, it's like 20MB.

You can also check out each design team's site. I've only looked at SOM's (http://som.com/content.cfm/moving_san_francisco_into_the_future), but I'm sure the other two have lots more to see.

[peanut gallery]

Look at Chicago. They completely dominate that list and everything is either built or under construction. They don't mess around.

[tyler82]

Look at Chicago. They completely dominate that list and everything is either built or under construction. They don't mess around.

Yes but.. LAS VEGAS??? What the hell is going on in the world ???

[Reminiscence]

nice to see the AP use SkyscraperPage.com as a reference!:tup:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/16/mn_tallest_buildings_graphic.jpg

I'd love to see Transbay as number 3 on that list. Also, I hope some of the other buildings in the Transbay neighborhood make it on that list as well :yes:.

[viewguysf]

Yes but.. LAS VEGAS??? What the hell is going on in the world ???

It's the world's premier gambling city and the planet's biggest adult playland if you're into that type of thing. It's not at all surprising that they're reaching for the sky since the entire brief history of Las Vegas is one of reaching for superlatives.

As for Chicago peanut, it's the birthplace of the skyscraper and America's architectural capital--they have long taken that very seriously.

[Alliance]

Look at Chicago. They completely dominate that list and everything is either built or under construction. They don't mess around.

:cool: :haha:

Thanks. We're looking to expand shortly.

they have long taken that very seriously.
:yes:

Tall buildings are being used to project a certain status for a city on a world stage. That's undoubtable," Wood said. "For a city to be taken seriously on a local or domestic or international scale, they want to be seen to be keeping up with the times, and tall buildings are part of that."

This is why we're glad that SF is taking the lead and keeping the West coast up with the Center coast and East coast. In my opinon, it looks like you'll get at least Transbay for sure simply becuase its so tied to the station. SOM might have a trick. Whcih SOM office designed the tower?

[viewguysf]

Whcih SOM office designed the tower?

But of course, SOM's San Francisco's office! :D

[tech12]

Did anyone hear about how earlier this week SOM had a public (i think) meeting regarding it's tower, and how so many people liked their design? I can't find the article, though I'm pretty sure it was from Bay City News Wire, and was on Cbs5...

I remember it said 40 or so people showed up...

[Reminiscence]

Did anyone hear about how earlier this week SOM had a public (i think) meeting regarding it's tower, and how so many people liked their design? I can't find the article, though I'm pretty sure it was from Bay City News Wire, and was on Cbs5...

I remember it said 40 or so people showed up...

I was hoping to hear someone went to this event. The timing of this event seems right for the people to voice their opinions about the recent news, at least the really informed ones. Perhaps with enough persuasion, SOM can push its bid much higher for Thursday? I searched for news about it, but all I found were things that I already knew (and this page by Rockefeller Group Dev. that has probably already been seen around here: http://www.rockgroupdevelopment.com/transbay/transbay.html). I say that not building something as beautiful as SOM's design should be a crime.

[tyler82]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com//gadgets/slideshows/49/webpix//slide_49_3.jpeg

This is in relation to what I spoke of before with the effects of global warming for San Francisco in the year 2030.

[Coriander]

This is in relation to what I spoke of before with the effects of global warming for San Francisco in the year 2030.

As long as it takes to build anything in SF, I imagine that nevertheless they will have no problem erecting flood walls. No doubt, flood walls will come to characterize 21st century coastal cityscapes the world over.

[Alliance]

As long as it takes to build anything in SF, I imagine that nevertheless they will have no problem erecting flood walls. No doubt, flood walls will come to characterize 21st century coastal cityscapes the world over.


Especially in cities like NYC where hurricanes aren't an issue. SF and dealing with earthquakes would be interesting though.
nice to see the AP use SkyscraperPage.com as a reference!:tup:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/16/mn_tallest_buildings_graphic.jpg

Also, on this list. Trump Chicago should be listed at 1171, which is the roof, not spire height.

The whole list is wierd as the spire isn't counted on Freedom Tower, but is on Chrysler (which is below 1000' roof height).

U/C or Built Supertalls in the US. (roof height)

1 Chicago Spire CHI 2000
2 Sears Tower CHI 1451
3 Freedom Tower NYC 1368
4 Empire State NYC 1250
5 Trump Chicago CHI 1171
6 Aon Tower CHI 1136
7 JohnHancockCenterCHI 1127
8 Waterview Tower CHI 1047
9 US Bank Tower LA 1018
10 JPMChaseTower HOU 1002

You can see where the SF proposals would fit in.

[tyler82]

As long as it takes to build anything in SF, I imagine that nevertheless they will have no problem erecting flood walls. No doubt, flood walls will come to characterize 21st century coastal cityscapes the world over.

Boston is going to have a hell of a time with building those levees: http://www.huffingtonpost.com//gadgets/slideshows/49/webpix//slide_49_2.jpeg

[BTinSF]

Hmm, I'm not so sure thats going to do much. The only other green feature this tower has, to my knowledge, is the window/curtainwall features Pelli breifly talked about. Its times like these where I wish they could have spent more time talking about the tower instead of saving it for the last 3 minutes. I know much about the park and the terminal, but little of the tower.

It has lots of green features. Like all three proposals, they plan to aim for LEED Platinum certification and a "zero carbon footprint" (meaning, I think, no net release of CO2 in its construction or operation). I'm not going to bother reading the lengthy proposal to find the details for you, but I'm sure they are there. I do know that, also like the other proposals, they intend to collect and recycle a lot of the water from the building, both water used in it and rain that falls on it, and some of it will be used to flush toilets and so on (I believe they plan on using "no-flush" urinals) and some will be used to irrigate the "park".

[BTinSF]

In my opinon, it looks like you'll get at least Transbay for sure simply becuase its so tied to the station. SOM might have a trick. Whcih SOM office designed the tower?

The critical factor is whether the Planning Dept. can ram through the increased height limits and keep the Board of Stupidvisors from rolling it back or some NIMBY from putting a prop on the ballot to roll them back (putting something on the ballot is SO easy to do in CA).

There is no shortage of ready, willing and able (meaning flush with money) developers in the Bay Area (and a lot of national developers like Hines and Rockefeller anxious to do projects here)--the problem is that all the rules, restrictions and demands the city piles on them can quickly make a project uneconomic.

I do have hope that Renzo Piano wouldn't have signed on to that project (which is at the same intersection as the TransBay tower--1st & Mission) unless he knew that developer too was serious--and, frankly, now that a fairly uninspiring (if tall) design seems likely for the TransBay, I'm REALLY looking forward to whatever Renzo comes up with ("bamboo shoots" or whatever). But that too depends on those raised height limits.

[Nowhereman1280]

Boston is going to have a hell of a time with building those levees: http://www.huffingtonpost.com//gadgets/slideshows/49/webpix//slide_49_2.jpeg

Especially if the construction of their levees goes as well as the Big Dig did... Looks like everone in Baustun will be moving uphill in the not so distant future (hopefully to Chicago, you're all welcome here!!).


Anyhow, I'm worried that Pelli will be chosen and that incredible SOM design will completely go to waste. It needs to get built somewhere and not scaled down. I can think of a few places we could fit it around here... I don't think it should be built as one of the transbay towers because that would completely ruin the proportions of the building...

[Alliance]

However, lets not forget that if SOM's SF office designed thier proposal, they have a much larger investment in this project that Pelli or Rogers.

I can't imagine them not fighting for it. This is a home game.

[pseudolus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com//gadgets/slideshows/49/webpix//slide_49_3.jpeg

This is in relation to what I spoke of before with the effects of global warming for San Francisco in the year 2030.

Rehi Mission *Bay*

[BTinSF]

It's Sunday, so here comes ANOTHER attempt to slam a tall TransBay tower. Why is this guy so obsessed? What can we do about it? Now that he's giving ink to the opinions of lovers of OLD architecture, will he give equal time to US? I'm not holding my breath.

Hopes for Financial District are high, but not too not tall
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Sunday, September 16, 2007

The architectural history buffs who toured San Francisco's Financial District on Saturday morning oohed at classical columns. They chuckled at long-ago gossip. They winced at icebox-like modern towers.

And nobody seemed thrilled that a new skyscraper might be allowed to climb far beyond everything that's already here - an idea likely to be endorsed this week by government officials.

"I much prefer 800 feet to 1,200 feet," said Jerome Dodson. "I like the idea of a new transit terminal marked by a new tower. But I probably wouldn't want it too high."

Dodson, a mutual funds manager, played tour guide Saturday - leading three dozen people through the shadowy canyons of San Francisco's office core, past at least three buildings that in different eras held bragging rights as the highest peak on the skyline. The tour also included the Transamerica Pyramid, which at 853 feet currently wears the city's tallest-building crown.

Not on the itinerary: the block of Mission Street between First and Fremont streets where three teams of developers and architects are competing for the right to build what could be the tallest skyscraper west of Chicago. The winning team in return would design and help pay for construction of a new mass-transit terminal that someday might serve trains as well as buses from across the region.

The competition is being held by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a regional board that controls the block. The teams propose towers ranging in height from 1,200 to 1,375 feet while offering as much as $350 million for the land. On Thursday, the authority's directors will select one team with which it will negotiate, the aim being a tower and terminal both ready by 2014.

There's support for the project from city politicians and planners, and even environmental groups that see dense transit-friendly development as a way to get people out of their cars. But on Dodson's tour, reactions ranged from lukewarm to ice-cold.

"I'd have to say I'm totally against it," said a man named Tom who moved to San Francisco after college in 1965. "What's happening right now south of Market Street is a total disaster, as far as I'm concerned. ... The whole thing to me seems to send the message, 'Go ahead and screw us, just leave the money at the door.' "

Not everyone was so adamant; indeed, the most recent wave of growth won praise from several people taking part in the three-hour tour sponsored by the San Francisco Museum & Historical Society.

"I like a lot of the new buildings South of Market and in South Beach. It's a lot better now," said Laura Shine-Revilock, who lives on Parnassus Heights and moved to the city in 1989.

Still, she questioned the wisdom of erecting a super-tall tower on landfill in earthquake country. She also is concerned that too many new towers could undo the positive changes.

"One canyon-like section like this is OK," Shine-Revilock said, standing on Montgomery Street, the heart of the Financial District, "but I'd hate to see us become like Manhattan, one tall building after another. We've opened up the South of Market area - there's a lot of sun and vibrancy - and I'd hate to see that taken away."

Though the future was a presence on the tour, Dodson's narration focused squarely on the past.

In addition to pointing out distinctive facades, or having people crowd entryways to glimpse the lobbies inside, Dodson entertained the group with trivia about bankruptcies and mergers and financial skulduggery that went on behind the masonry walls.

He also made no effort to hide his affection for the stately buildings that date from before World War II. On Market Street, Dodson paused to linger over the terra cotta details of Bliss & Faville's Matson Building from 1921 - and then to direct attention to the 1983 Federal Reserve Bank next door, because "it illustrates why people don't like modern architecture. It's a blocky plain building with no redeeming feature, in my opinion."

Afterward, Dodson confessed that classical buildings are his favorite - but also that he thinks local architecture has improved since modern slabs filled the skyline in the 1960s and '70s.

Except for the height, he backs the Transbay design jury's preference for a 1,200-foot tower by Pelli Clarke Pelli that would taper as it rises, obelisk-like: "I like the simplicity of it all."

One member of the tour said he takes the changes in stride.

"If you protect everything, your city can't grow," said Ted Lee, a San Francisco native born in 1971, the year the Transamerica Pyramid was built. "As long as the city makes an effort to retain the best historical buildings, new ones are fine. Seventy years from now, they'll be history, too."

His thoughts on the Transbay Terminal competition?

"I actually don't have much of an opinion," Lee shrugged. Then he paused. "A building taller than the Pyramid might be too high, though."

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/16/BA10S7548.DTL[/quote]

PS: Tom, you're an idiot--and so are all these other Luddites. Perhaps we should build altars all around the base of the "pyramid" so that worshippers could make sacrificial offerings.

EVERYBODY--Time to tell John King how wrong he is and what WE think:

His email address is jking@sfchronicle.com

[BTinSF]

My open letter to John King:

Dear Mr. King:

Week after week, you have given us a steady diet of opinion from folks, starting with yourself, who don't like tall buildings and worship at the altar of San Francisco's stunted architecture. Repeatedly you quote people who know so little about architecture that they don't understand that tall buildings are being built all over the world in earthquake country and some of them, such as in Taipei, have already withstood pretty good shakers. Your biases are clearly showing and getting tedious.

How about writing about those of us who LIKE tall buildings, who are cheering the possibility of one or more (hopefully more) 1200+ footers in San Francisco, who are more than willing to abandon the "cute" and allow San Francisco to join the ranks of other great cities who build tall buildings as symbols of their greatness. In case you're interested, you'll find lots of us at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136300&page=48 but, I'm sorry to tell you, you won't find many fans of yours there. Still, check it out and give some ink to the other side of this debate. How about it?

B------ T-----
San Francisco

[CityKid]

^^^ Great letter.