SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[GlobeTrekker]

I am no developer expert. Have the pre-911 New York WTC and San Francisco 555 California top floor restaurants proven to be a negative investment? How about an observation level at the top instead?

I would think a restaurant would do really well, at least with the tourists if not the locals. Windows on the World (WTC) was the highest grossing restaurant in the US, according to Wikipedia.

I hope Piano's towers do not get cut down at all. I want SF to have a 100th floor, and that won't happen if it gets cut (one of the diagrams somewhere had Piano's complex at 101 floors). Also, Piano's complex will be just diagonal from Transbay, so together they can "peak" the skyline. There's no reason a peak has to be just one building.

[Nowhereman1280]

I am no developer expert. Have the pre-911 New York WTC and San Francisco 555 California top floor restaurants proven to be a negative investment? How about an observation level at the top instead?

Well the Signature Room in Chicago on top of the Hancock seems to be doing well, you have to make reservations at least a week in advance to get in there. Have to do it much earlier if you want a good time.

[tyler82]

I'd rather lobby for an observation sky lobby than a restaurant. There's TOO MANY damn restaurants in this city. How many times can California Fusion be done, sheesh !!

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Give me a restaurant!

I had the pleasure of going to both Windows On The World and the WTC observation deck, and preferred the restaurant much more. With the restaurant (and a great one at that) you had the luxury of relaxing and enjoying the view as you had delicious food/drinks/music and a comfortable chair, where with the observation deck you got to stand next to a window for a while. Yeah.

I really just hope we get ONE of those, if anything. :shrug:

[SFView]

Is it asking too much if we could get BOTH?

[northbay]

^ maybe for sf

[SFView]

:previous: Ah, ha! You're so right!:haha:

[Dream'n]

I'm sure there are a lot of skyscraper junkies who would like the chance to take in the view without the high price of a meal.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I'm sure there are a lot of skyscraper junkies who would like the chance to take in the view without the high price of a meal.

Having a restaurant wouldn't mean you'd need to spend $$$ on a meal to enjoy the view... I like going to the Carnelian Room (restaurant atop the BofA building) and buying an inexpensive drink or small dessert to sit back and relax with their cocktail lounge's fantastic view of SF. :notacrook:

[tyler82]

Having a restaurant wouldn't mean you'd need to spend $$$ on a meal to enjoy the view... I like going to the Carnelian Room (restaurant atop the BofA building) and buying an inexpensive drink or small dessert to sit back and relax with their cocktail lounge's fantastic view of SF. :notacrook:

If we can get an $8 elevator observation deck on little ol' Coit Tower, how about a $10 elevator to the top of the observation deck of Transbay? It would help bring in funds to the project, as well.

As long as Billdo Reilly doesn't invite another terrist attack to either tower

[SFView]

:previous: It could be more than $10. Tickets are basically $16.61 for adults to the 86th floor observatory at the Empire State Building. That's about 1050 feet up. There's another fee for going up to the 102 floor. Perhaps by the time Transbay is up, the fee there could be more than $20, if it is offered. It looks like they don't allow bags or luggage at ESB, but they do encourage cameras.

[SFView]

From:
http://www.archpaper.com/news/CA/2007_1024b.htm
10.24.2007

To the Highest Bidder

http://www.archpaper.com/images/news/CA/2007_1024_bidder.jpg
Courtesy Pelli Clarke Pelli / TJPA

The night of August 6 couldn’t have been a more exciting one for San Franciscans. Thousands watched as they saw their vested interests realized in the form of three ambitious design and development schemes for a new Transbay Transit Center and Tower located on a 12-acre site in the city’s South of Market district. A considerable improvement over the existing Transbay Terminal, a drab and inefficient facility built in 1939, the new 1 million-square-foot transit center will serve local and regional buses, and in future stages, a high-speed rail line connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. Surpassing the iconic Transamerica pyramid not not faraway, Transbay will be the tallest tower on the West Coast.

That night at City Hall, proposals unveiled by Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners (RSHP), Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM), and Pelli Clarke Pelli showed the potential for architectural innovation to sit alongside—not destroy—the city’s legacy of historic preservation. Each scheme had a striking newness to it, and it seemed as if the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (TJPA), the governing body behind the design and development competition, could not go wrong in choosing any of the three.

http://www.archpaper.com/images/news/CA/2007_1024_bidder2.jpg
Courtesy SOM/TJPA

http://www.archpaper.com/images/news/CA/2007_1024_bidder3.jpg
Proposals by SOM, top, and Rogers Stirk Harbour, above, included a hotel and condos, while Pelli’s is an office-only building. Courtesy Rogers Stirk Harbour & partners / TJPA

Fast forward to September 10, when the competition jury announced its recommendation of Pelli Clarke Pelli to the TJPA. In the jury’s statement, one message was loud and clear: by outbidding the other teams by nearly $200 million, the team of Hines and Pelli Clarke Pelli had made the TJPA a financial offer it could not refuse.

In a press release posted on TJPA’s website, the nine-person jury, which included local architects, engineers, planners, transit experts, and critics, issued the following statement: “The Pelli/Hines design for the Transit Center and Tower best met the TJPA’s operational, functional, and aesthetic requirements, and Hines’ offer of a purchase price [$350 million] for the Tower property was significantly higher than the offers by the other teams.” Although there had been surprisingly little discussion about the design-driven aspects of the winning proposal on September 20, the TJPA board voted unanimously in favor of the jury’s recommendation.

In design terms it remains to be seen if and how the Pelli/Hines proposal trumps the other schemes. A Peter Walker-designed park will top the glass and steel terminal’s roof, creating a tension between the apparent lightness of the building and the weight of the park, which includes grass swales and trees. A series of “light columns” will bring daylight into the terminal and connect commuters to the more leisurely atmosphere above. The adjacent 1200-foot tower will have a rectilinear base that tapers into a slightly conical form at the peak, topped by wind turbines, one of many green strategies incorporated into the project.

Unlike the other two proposals, which called for mixed-use towers including a hotel, offices, and condominiums, the Pelli/Hines proposal calls for an office-only tower. The single-use scheme is projected to be much more profitable than a mixed-use tower, although some argue that a mixed-use tower could enhance the project’s benefit to the public by providing a 24-hour draw to the 19-acre site.

http://www.archpaper.com/images/news/CA/2007_1024_bidder4.jpg
The entrance to the transit center by Pelli. Courtesy Pelli Clarke Pelli / TJPA

Even with such financial surety, there are no guarantees that Hines’ bottom-line approach for the tower will buy the best design for it— or for the transit terminal. It’s of course still early in the design process, but, pointed out San Francisco Chronicle critic John King, “the Transbay design isn’t ‘just right.’ It’s just OK.” Still, Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), remains optimistic about the potential for the project’s symbolic value: “There’s an old Renaissance idea that the tallest building in your community should express your value system. Transbay is a modern take on that idea, as it will mark the city’s commitment to public transit and a more sustainable form of urbanism.”

Julie Kim

Not much new here, but Julie Kim of The Architects Newspaper apparently agrees along with John King that Pelli's competition design is "just OK." I also agree. I would still like to see better.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Solid article. Did I mention how pissed I am that the Pelli tower won't have a hotel or even condos? The best I can hope for is working with/knowing someone who as an office in there someday... :shrug:

There had better be AT LEAST an observation deck... :hell:

[BTinSF]

^^^I'm hoping you have a shot at both (a hotel and condos) in the Piano building across the street which could easily be much more architecturally interesting anyway.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

^^^I'm hoping you have a shot at both (a hotel and condos) in the Piano building across the street which could easily be much more architecturally interesting anyway.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for too, BT. I'm just afraid that these developers aren't so excited about building mixed used towers... The trend in the neighborhood seems to be either all office or all residential (condos and hotels)

[BTinSF]

The developer of the Piano building has said he wants a hotel in the building and there'll have to be more than that because it'll be a good-sized building.

[Reminiscence]

While the prospect of having a hotel or hotels around this area is definetly a positive, I'm hoping that these calls will be answered by major luxury hotel chains such as Shangri-La, among others. Seems like we could use more 5-star hotels.

[BTinSF]

^^^Why do you say that? We've got Mandarin Oriental, Ritz Carlton, 4 Seasons, St. Regis and, as I posted elsewhere, the St. Francis is talking about converting rooms facing Union Square to "the highest priced rooms in SF". I personally would like to see a Peninsula and/or Shangri-La but I can't say there's a market for them without seeing some market research. And you could be sure the hotel companies would want to see it before considering the market.

[Reminiscence]

Well, I havent done any research myself. The last I heard, the vacancy rates were heading down and it looked like we were recovering from a few years ago. This led me to hope that perhaps with all the recent proposals in the works, we would hear new word from others like Sofitel or even Bloomingdale, proposals that never went through after the economy soured.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

The developer of the Piano building has said he wants a hotel in the building and there'll have to be more than that because it'll be a good-sized building.

That's good news, BT :yes:

[Reminiscence]

Heres what I did with a little extra time on my hands (which is rare at the moment). The three proposals and Renzo Piano's Towers compared to the Glass Tower, to scale (or very close to it). I tried to put some work into it.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2218/sfdiagramfantasyxc5.png

[SFView]

:previous: If only San Francisco could build ALL of these, but that's only a dream... Nice work!

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I'd like to see Rogers' "Eye of Mordor" @ ~975ft (to the top) as Transbay II...

...And SOM's design as the Transbay Signature Tower! :haha:

[botoxic]

From:
http://www.archpaper.com/news/CA/2007_1024b.htm

Not much new here, but Julie Kim of The Architects Newspaper apparently agrees along with John King that Pelli's competition design is "just OK." I also agree. I would still like to see better.
At least Julie Kim strongly hints at the truth of this fiasco: the Transbay Tower & Terminal "design competition" was nothing more than a land auction in disguise.

[GlobeTrekker]

:previous: Interesting diagram. I did not realize Pelli's was the shortest of the three proposals.

[Reminiscence]

:previous: If only San Francisco could build ALL of these, but that's only a dream... Nice work!

:previous: Interesting diagram. I did not realize Pelli's was the shortest of the three proposals.

Thanks guys. I added Millenium Tower to it now, so we can get a sense at how tall these towers actually are. The buildings are to scale.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7027/sfdiagramfantasyae7.png

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Comparisons like this make me even more pissed that we got stuck with the booorrrrrring Pelli tower. :yuck: Well, at least it'll be a supertall (hopefully!)

Good job Reminiscence! :tup:

I can't wait till Renzo comes out with some renderings, his project is now the object of my affection (Transbay no longer)

[Reminiscence]

Comparisons like this make me even more pissed that we got stuck with the booorrrrrring Pelli tower. :yuck: Well, at least it'll be a supertall (hopefully!)

Good job Reminiscence! :tup:

I can't wait till Renzo comes out with some renderings, his project is now the object of my affection (Transbay no longer)

Thanks a lot!

It should be a supertall, and I think that despite the city's past tendency to downgrade buildings, this one will remain untouched. Not only because the TJPA is backing it so far, but also because I doubt they'd want to lose their nice pile of cash from Hines.

As far as Renzo goes, if the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park is any indication, I'd we say we will not be dissapointed with his towers (at least as far as design goes).

[GlobeTrekker]

Comparisons like this make me even more pissed that we got stuck with the booorrrrrring Pelli tower. :yuck: Well, at least it'll be a supertall (hopefully!)

Good job Reminiscence! :tup:

I can't wait till Renzo comes out with some renderings, his project is now the object of my affection (Transbay no longer)

Do they have an approximate date to release renderings of the Piano complex, approvals, construction start, etc? The vacant lot next to Ecker Square has been sitting fenced off for a long time now.

[peanut gallery]

I added Millenium Tower to it now, so we can get a sense at how tall these towers actually are. The buildings are to scale.

That really puts things into perspective. Quibbling over 1375' vs. 1200' (which I have done plenty) is really moot when you consider the huge jump over the current tallest stuff being built. Nice diagram, Reminiscence.

[SFView]

That really puts things into perspective. Quibbling over 1375' vs. 1200' (which I have done plenty) is really moot when you consider the huge jump over the current tallest stuff being built. Nice diagram, Reminiscence.

There may be 4 or 5 new proposals between the heights of the Millennium and the Piano towers to also consider.

[toddguy]

Thanks guys. I added Millenium Tower to it now, so we can get a sense at how tall these towers actually are. The buildings are to scale.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7027/sfdiagramfantasyae7.png

Great work. Could you possibly add TAP to it given it is the current tallest in SF?

[BVictor1]

Heres what I did with a little extra time on my hands (which is rare at the moment). The three proposals and Renzo Piano's Towers compared to the Glass Tower, to scale (or very close to it). I tried to put some work into it.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/2218/sfdiagramfantasyxc5.png

Okay, after seeing this I had to comment. Being a huge fan of the Towering Inferno since I was a child, The Glass Tower didn't have a spire or anteanna atop it.

I don't think that it was 2,000' either. I'm going to have to check the special edition of the movie, because the height was stated in the special features.

[roadwarrior]

According to Wikipedia.org:

"In the film, the Glass Tower, a new but poorly-constructed San Francisco skyscraper - at 1,800 feet and 138 stories, also the world's tallest - catches fire on the night of its dedication. Firefighters battle the flames and make many daring attempts to rescue people trapped in the building. This includes a party of 300 dignitaries who were celebrating the building's dedication and became trapped in a restaurant on the 135th floor (called the Promenade Room)."

[Reminiscence]

Okay, after seeing this I had to comment. Being a huge fan of the Towering Inferno since I was a child, The Glass Tower didn't have a spire or anteanna atop it.

I don't think that it was 2,000' either. I'm going to have to check the special edition of the movie, because the height was stated in the special features.

This may or may not be true. I have seen the movie many times and I concider it one of my favorites as well. However, the drawing that I made was based on the diagram available here on Skyscraperpage. Here, they have the tip of the spire/antenna at the 2000' line. I'm not sure where the illustrator got his/her information from. Also, I have seen it stated at 1888' to the roof, depending on what floor to floor height ratio is used. The fact that multiple heights are given through various sources makes it seem like the actual height of the tower is a little vague, but if any official information is provided, I'll be more than happy to tweak the building a little.

[Reminiscence]

Great work. Could you possibly add TAP to it given it is the current tallest in SF?

Ask and ye shall recieve:

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1483/sfdiagramfantsasy2ko5.png

[rajaxsonbayboi]

:previous: nice job!

[CUCa]

Dec 4: In depth look at the Transit Center tower

11/27/2007 12:31 PM
This forum is December 4, NOT 11/27/2007
A noontime forum, held at SPUR, 312 Sutter St. (at Grant), Fifth Floor, from 12:30 to 1:30 pm. We are located close to the Powell St. BART station and several Muni lines.
Feel free to bring a lunch. SPUR Forums are open to the public, free for members and $5 for non-members.

A 1200-foot "slender, graceful tower" highlights the winning proposal by Pelli Clark Pelli Architects and Hines for the Transbay Transit Center. The center itself will house the city's downtown high-speed and commuter rail station and the transbay bus terminal, and be capped by a 5.4-acre city park, a green roof that is only part of the building's sustainability features. Paul Paradis, Hines Senior Vice President, will present the proposal in detail and answer your questions about this newest, perhaps grandest, addition to San Francisco's downtown skyline and streetscape.

http://www.spur.org/calendar_detail.asp?EventID=1363

I wonder if they'll have any new renderings at this meeting...

[Reminiscence]

http://www.spur.org/calendar_detail.asp?EventID=1363

I wonder if they'll have any new renderings at this meeting...

I would think so, as well as some new 3-D animations perhaps. I wonder what kind of questions people will be allowed to ask.

[munkyman]

SPUR is holding a meeting on Tuesday, December 4th, regarding the tower:

In depth look at the Transit Center tower
12/4/2007 12:30 PM

A noontime forum, held at SPUR, 312 Sutter St. (at Grant), Fifth Floor, from 12:30 to 1:30 pm. We are located close to the Powell St. BART station and several Muni lines.
Feel free to bring a lunch. SPUR Forums are open to the public, free for members and $5 for non-members.

A 1200-foot "slender, graceful tower" highlights the winning proposal by Pelli Clark Pelli Architects and Hines for the Transbay Transit Center. The center itself will house the city's downtown high-speed and commuter rail station and the transbay bus terminal, and be capped by a 5.4-acre city park, a green roof that is only part of the building's sustainability features. Paul Paradis, Hines Senior Vice President, will present the proposal in detail and answer your questions about this newest, perhaps grandest, addition to San Francisco's downtown skyline and streetscape.



I'm hoping someone can go and take notes, and then make a write-up on what is said there. I'm very interested in what they have to say but I can't go because of work.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

SPUR is holding a meeting on Tuesday, December 4th, regarding the tower:

In depth look at the Transit Center tower
12/4/2007 12:30 PM

A noontime forum, held at SPUR, 312 Sutter St. (at Grant), Fifth Floor, from 12:30 to 1:30 pm. We are located close to the Powell St. BART station and several Muni lines.
Feel free to bring a lunch. SPUR Forums are open to the public, free for members and $5 for non-members.

A 1200-foot "slender, graceful tower" highlights the winning proposal by Pelli Clark Pelli Architects and Hines for the Transbay Transit Center. The center itself will house the city's downtown high-speed and commuter rail station and the transbay bus terminal, and be capped by a 5.4-acre city park, a green roof that is only part of the building's sustainability features. Paul Paradis, Hines Senior Vice President, will present the proposal in detail and answer your questions about this newest, perhaps grandest, addition to San Francisco's downtown skyline and streetscape.



I'm hoping someone can go and take notes, and then make a write-up on what is said there. I'm very interested in what they have to say but I can't go because of work.

:previous: This sounds vaguely familiar...

[sfguy]

Ask and ye shall recieve:

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1483/sfdiagramfantsasy2ko5.png

:previous: Great job. BTW, could you add 181 Fremont to this diagram?

[Downtown Dave]

So is anyone going to this SPUR meeting today, or am I it?

[J_Taylor]

I'll be stuck at work, let me know how it goes

[peanut gallery]

I can't make it today either. Take good notes!

[Reminiscence]

-- Deleted Post --

[Downtown Dave]

There wasn't a whole lot new, I guess.

One tidbit was that Hynes expects to announce 60,000 sq feet "on the Embarcadero soon," which should be interesting.

Other stuff:

There will be 100,000 sq feet of underground parking
The bus terminal will be fully enclosed; the bus exhaust will be scrubbed before reaching the outside
The bus terminal is all transparent glass to make people "feel safe"
The park will feature streams and fountains with fish
This water will be "grey water" from the building
The top of the building will house wind turbines used to generate power to illuminate the crown
If there is no wind, crown will be dark; with high wind it will be brightly lit
A funicular will bring people up to the park level
A "box" will be prepared to eventually permit high speed rail to terminate here


People asked the usual questions about height and earthquakes. I asked him what he thought the chances were of the building being completed as designed without any mandatory alterations, and he said "Zero".

In this shot we see that they propose to extend the park all the way over the bus ramps, so that once may walk all the way up to the park on top of them:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/Transbay-2228.jpg

The wind turbines:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/Transbay-2226.jpg

The funciular can be seen at right on this plan. He described it as a "fun" means of access, not the primary means.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/Transbay-2227.jpg

[Blue 24]

They should build glass tower from the towering inferno, the designs is good the hight is good, and all they would have to change the name and no one would know! :tup:

[PBuchman]

Thanks for the great info Downtown Dave. For those of us who are sojourned out of state, like BTinSF and myself, it's much appreciated to get this kind of feedback from the local goings-on.

[Reminiscence]

:previous: Great job. BTW, could you add 181 Fremont to this diagram?

Allright, I added it. Due to the one rendering that we have, I tried to best imagine what it would look like from a different angle.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1575/sfdiagramfantsasy2hs5.jpg

[rajaxsonbayboi]

Allright, I added it. Due to the one rendering that we have, I tried to best imagine what it would look like from a different angle.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1575/sfdiagramfantsasy2hs5.jpg

SWEEEETT! IMAGINE IF WE HAD ALL OF THOSE o_o

[peanut gallery]

In this shot we see that they propose to extend the park all the way over the bus ramps, so that once may walk all the way up to the park on top of them

From the beginning, I thought the park was really just a gimmick. But this is pretty cool, actually. I walk around this area a lot and wouldn't mind doing a loop (or most of one) completely within a park -- even 6 stories off the ground.


People asked the usual questions about height and earthquakes.

Do people really think the architects, engineers, project managers, etc never thought about earthquakes? If I was up there, I think just once I'd say: Earthquakes? Oh, my god! We completely forgot about earthquakes! This thing will topple right over. Dammit, now we have to start all over!

[Downtown Dave]

Someone asked exactly that question in exactly that silly a manner. :)

Other people were unhappy with height ("can you just build two 600 foot towers instead"), the parking garage ("could you live without it") and whether they had "thought about the environmental impact of all of that glass". :)

[peanut gallery]

Allright, I added it. Due to the one rendering that we have, I tried to best imagine what it would look like from a different angle.

Nice work, Reminiscence. Looking at the lot size, I think 181 Fremont might be a bit more slender than that, but it's really hard to tell from the single rendering. I'd guess it's roughly a square footprint about the size of the skinny side of Millennium.

[viewguysf]

[QUOTE=peanut gallery;3207229]From the beginning, I thought the park was really just a gimmick. But this is pretty cool, actually. I walk around this area a lot and wouldn't mind doing a loop (or most of one) completely within a park -- even 6 stories off the ground.

Yes, the walk will be a great feature, but even without it, the park is far from a gimmick. Green roofs are very sustainable and this one goes far beyond that by actually providing a beautiful refuge for everyone in the downtown core. I think that it will be well utilized despite the height.

[Reminiscence]

From the beginning, I thought the park was really just a gimmick. But this is pretty cool, actually. I walk around this area a lot and wouldn't mind doing a loop (or most of one) completely within a park -- even 6 stories off the ground.


Do people really think the architects, engineers, project managers, etc never thought about earthquakes? If I was up there, I think just once I'd say: Earthquakes? Oh, my god! We completely forgot about earthquakes! This thing will topple right over. Dammit, now we have to start all over!

I've always thought the park was a good idea and I like how they extend the park to cover the ramps that lead to the freeway. Despite its elevation off the ground, I certainly would love to run a few laps around something like this every morning. Maybe I'm being a little selfish, but the less people, the better ... more park for me :haha:.

I cant help but laugh at how people keep asking about tall buildings in earthquake zones, making it seem like they're really that concerned about it. I'd think that if I was that concerned about it, I'd do a little research about it beforehand. Sounds like they've been playing Jenga way too long.

[Reminiscence]

Nice work, Reminiscence. Looking at the lot size, I think 181 Fremont might be a bit more slender than that, but it's really hard to tell from the single rendering. I'd guess it's roughly a square footprint about the size of the skinny side of Millennium.

Thanks!

Its hard to tell what the size really is from the rendering, much less when you're trying to make the building appear 3-D, like I tried to draw it. Hopefully we'll be hearing a little more from this proposal in the coming months of next year.

[cos2x]

Tuesday's meeting didn't have anything new, which is a shame.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

OK SF politics experts, do we know if there is an actual date when raising the height limits around Transbay will be voted on, and if so, when is it?

Has there even been a proposition (or whatever it would be) written yet to do so? :shrug:

[BTinSF]

News from Socketsite ( http://www.socketsite.com/ ) on the temporary terminal:

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Temp%20Terminal%20Map.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Temp%20Terminal%20Rendering.jpg

There was a community meeting to discuss traffic and parking changes related to it.

[peanut gallery]

According to that link, it looks like they've pushed back opening the temporary terminal by one month, but we're still looking at fall and winter 2009 for demo of the old terminal. Assuming I don't change jobs, I'll have an intimate view of that, by the way, as I work right next door.

If everything goes according to plan, we'll then see construction of the new terminal and the tower begin in Spring 2010. Sounds a long way off, but it will be here before we know it!

[coyotetrickster]

OK SF politics experts, do we know if there is an actual date when raising the height limits around Transbay will be voted on, and if so, when is it?

Has there even been a proposition (or whatever it would be) written yet to do so? :shrug:

You don't need propositions to amend the zoning. The request to up zone is being reviewed in the planning department and will be carried forward for consideration sometime in the first quarter of 2008 and allowing for public comment it should be approved by end of June 2008.

[BTinSF]

:previous: That was my recollection too but I read through the Planning Dept. web site and the public meetings or attention at the Planning Commission seem too far in the future to get mentioned yet. But that appears to just mean it's more than a month or two so I agree with you--from what we know I believe the timeline is for approval of the new zoning/height limits next summer. I'd expect an appeal to the Board of Supervisors and/or even a court challenge, though. I don't think the Hestor crowd is going to let this happen without a fight.

[SFView]

This Comment section article in the Architects Newspaper pretty much reflects my reaction to Hines' new tower proposal of similar height in New York (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=133753).

From the Architects Newspaper -- 01 01.30.2008
http://www.archpaper.com/this_issue_CA.htm
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/archnews1b.jpg
I winced when I saw the Times’ headline, “Next to MoMA, Reaching for the Stars.” Jean Nouvel’s new 75 story tower alongside the Museum of Modern Art reached back to Lyonel Feininger for inspiration, finally realizing his vision of an expressionist tower. It’s hard to imagine a stronger contrast to Cesar Pelli’s safely office like MoMA housing or Yoshio Taniguchi’s recent, buttoned- down expansion. “To its credit, the Modern pressed for a talented architect,” Times’ critic Nicolai Ouroussoff wrote, but he goes on to praise Hines, the tower’s “remarkably astute” developer. “Hines asked Nouvel to come up with two possible designs... and made the bolder choice.” That’s Hines in New York.

This fall, Hines also won the right to develop the Transbay Tower in downtown San Francisco. Pelli’s proposal for the transit hub component of the project is well done, but the tower is a version of his International Financial Center mega-tower in Hong Kong. As usual for Hines— they really are “remarkably astute” Pelli was a smart choice. The Airport Express station that serves Hong Kong’s financial district anchors the twin-tower IFC complex. From a credentials standpoint, that’s valuable experience. Plus a tower that’s up and-running is easier to price, even with differences in construction, than one-offs like Richard Rogers and SOM’s competing finalists. Armed with that knowledge, Hines played its trump card, offering up to $350 million for the land—more than twice what the other two developers were prepared to pay. That’s Hines in San Francisco.

Hines is Hines—the same smart operators, east and west. Given what they’re proposing for New York, blame for San Francisco’s less-than stellar tower falls somewhere else.

Jokingly called Dean Macris’ last erection, the Transbay Tower benefited from the recently departed planning czar’s determination to fulfill his long time vision of a city skyline marked by three accentuated “hills” two real and one manmade. This is the same vision that gave us One Rincon Hill, the first in a two-tower wonder by Chicago’s Solomon Cordwell Buenz. Compared to it, Pelli’s proposal is definite progress.

A lot of people have questioned the logic of Macris’ idée fixe, but that’s another article. The question here is how a competition that was advertised as being all about design proved to be all about money. Not that this is surprising, but in light of promises made—it feels like a bait and switch. And if I feel this way, imagine how SOM feels!

I wasn’t privy to the jury’s deliberations, but a few things stuck out along the way. In the initial interviews, Norman Foster failed to appear and his team was eliminated. While architect no shows are a standard mo. (and conform to Woody Allen’s maxim that “85 percent of life is showing up”), their reaction struck me as a surefire sign of provinciality. Another sign of that was the dearth of interesting architects in the mix.

Again, I didn’t make the rules, but at roughly the same time that the Transbay schemes were being unveiled, Thom Mayne won a competition for a new tower at La Defense in Paris that clearly breaks new ground. This was another reason to wince, since a second major work by Mayne might finally put San Francisco on the architectural map.

Of course, Calatrava made the cut, only to have a falling out with his developer. Perhaps he was chosen, like Icarus, to exemplify the dangers of the creative edge. That left SOM, whose tower—while drawing on a Chinese precedent—alone showed the originality that the competition promised. With its blend of structure and sustainability, it presented a credible future for tall buildings in the earthquake prone west coast. Plus, it was new, and that seemed to be what was wanted. (Unlike SOM’s, Richard Rogers’ peculiar tower was a throwback to his high tech, frame-and infill days, but vastly toned down with no real gain in use value, especially as office space.) SOM’s tower fit the bill, if the object had been to build a tower in San Francisco that broke the mold. In retrospect, no such luck.

The Transbay Tower reminds me of the new east span of the Bay Bridge, a chance squandered to do something on a par with the Golden Gate. San Francisco rises to its own occasions with about the same frequency as its earthquakes—maybe less frequently. In that sense, there’s no real mystery about the latest outcome. Still, it makes me wince.

JOHN PARMAN WRITES FOR
SAN FRANCISCO’S LINE
(WWW.LINEMAG.ORG) AND URBANIST.


Actually, if you don't already know, Norman Foster's team was dropped due to...
From San Francisco Business Times:
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/26/tidbits1.html?jst=s_cn_hl

Friday, February 23, 2007
Transbay rejection leaves architect's team with bad taste in their mouths
San Francisco Business Times - by Jim Gardner

A single dodgy dinner consumed in London a few weeks back is having an influence on the shape of the San Francisco skyline, 6,000 miles away.

When a design jury for the 1,000-foot Transbay Terminal and Tower met in early February, nobody was much surprised that jurors were only able to cull the international "starchitects" vying for the high-profile project from five to four.

Everyone, however, was perplexed at who didn't make the cut: Foster & Partners. The renowned English design firm of Sir Norman Foster is responsible for some of the world's most talked-about buildings over the last 30 years -- most recently a London office tower nicknamed the "erotic gherkin."

That's where the bad meal comes up, so to speak.

No one is quite sure whether the culprit was suspect curry and chips, bad toad in the hole or some other contaminated English delicacy. What is known is that David Nelson, No. 2 in the firm to Sir Norman himself, was supposed to be getting on a plane from London to San Francisco on Jan. 29 for the firm's Transbay qualifications interview on Jan. 30.

Instead, Nelson was in a very bad way with apparent food poisoning and not going anywhere.

So Foster's Transbay point man, Armstrong Yakubu, flew alone -- and into turbulence.

The design jury's nose was already out of joint that Sir Norman wouldn't be making an appearance. After all, other architecture rock stars with Transbay proposals -- Sergio Calatrava, Richard Rogers and Cesar Pelli -- all showed up in person.

Jeffrey Heller of Heller Manus, a local part of the design team, said no snub was intended. Foster travels for key design presentations, but otherwise stays close to work at the London studio. His presence wasn't seen as necessary.

"This was a qualification interview," said Heller. "It was an interview about the qualification of the developer and the design team. It was not a design interview. In fact, they told us not to bring anything related to the design."

Nevertheless, with neither Foster nor his right-hand man present to speak on their behalf, their firm was bumped from further consideration. Appeals for reconsideration went nowhere.

"It was assumed that the No. 2 guy and the partner in charge of the project would be sufficient, but people being people, the fact that (Nelson) wasn't there had a huge impact," said Heller.

Heller said the first-round knockout "stunned" the entire team, which in addition to Foster and Heller Manus included developers Related Cos. and TMG Partners.

It should stun the rest of us as well. Taking absolutely nothing from the quartet of supremely qualified architects still in the running, Foster's qualifications for a transportation-oriented project speak for themselves. Transportation has long been a Foster specialty. As for Nelson, his resume includes being lead designer on the Canary Wharf Underground station in London, Florence's high-speed railway station, and the Bilbao Metro in Spain.

-- Contributor: J.K. Dineen.

[SFView]

I think we already posted this John King article from the Chronicle from last September 21, 2007 (old news), but I don't recall seeing this graphic posted below in this thread.
Chronicle article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/BAO7S9J2H.DTL

From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/09/21/BAO7S9J2H.DTL&o=1
'Aggressive schedule' for proposed Transbay transit center, tower
The details are certain to change as the project evolves, but the complex selected by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority includes an 80-story office tower at First and Mission streets that would climb 1,200 feet and contain 1.6 million square feet of space. Alongside it, a transit station topped by a park would stretch from Beale Street nearly to Second Street. Illustrations by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects. Graphic by the Chronicle
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/09/21/ba_terminal.jpg
I believe I heard somewhere that the overall building color is changed to white, so it may look more like this rendering as the design we know of so far, even though the graphic is black-and-white.

[peanut gallery]

I know I missed that graphic back in September, so thanks for adding it. I still pine for the SOM proposal, but I'm coming around on this one. Reminders of some of the features, like this diagram provides, really help.

[CGII]

What a positively boring tower. I can't say I find anything a I like about it. It's completely uninspiring and that's a terrible trait to have when this building will absolutely dominate everything around it. The SOM was really a masterpiece and I'm blown away that tower received last ranks...

'Pelli's leftovers' is exactly what it is. Pelli designs such recycled, boring crap when it comes to skyscrapers that it could make me cry. Pelli obviously focused on the tacky and overdone terminal; the tower feels like some afterthought. Seriously, it looks more like a temporary massing study than a serious proposal. San Francisco shouldn't settle for this banal throwaway...but seeing as nobody there has the balls to take a risk with design I guess everyone will ultimately be doomed to see this thing 50 years from now and think 'damn...that was a bad choice.'

[Nowhereman1280]

Sergio Calatrava, Richard Rogers and Cesar Pelli -- all showed up in person

Sergio Calatrava eh? Never heard that one before.

[BTinSF]

San Francisco shouldn't settle for this banal throwaway...but seeing as nobody there has the balls to take a risk with design I guess everyone will ultimately be doomed to see this thing 50 years from now and think 'damn...that was a bad choice.'

You are mistaken. The design was chosen for 2 reasons: (1) Pelli's partner Hines is offering twice as much money for the site and the TransBay Authority still hasn't identified the source of all the needed funding; (2) The SOM design did not satisfy the needs of the transit representatives as they saw it. The SOM design was not rejected because it was/is too "risky". Once the selection committee saw the competing financial packages and the proposed bus routing through the terminal (which provoked skepticism concerning the SOM proposal from AC Transit the moment it was presented), I don't think they even seriously considered any of the other designs--nor can they unless somebody finds another couple of hundred million under a mattress somewhere.

[SFView]

Too bad we can't get some really nice billionaire(s) to help.

[CGII]

Damn. So this wasn't a design competition (like I thought) as much as an auction.

I had thought it was the developer/city seeking out designs.

[SFView]

I think someone on the jury panel said it wasn't "a beauty contest," or something like that, the night of the first competition presentations last August. They certainly made that clear in their final selection of the winner.

[peanut gallery]

Damn. So this wasn't a design competition (like I thought) as much as an auction.

Correct. As much as I wanted SOM, how can we expect them to just discard $200M when they're still way short of financing this thing? I don't like the decision, but I can understand it.

[BTinSF]

Damn. So this wasn't a design competition (like I thought) as much as an auction.

I had thought it was the developer/city seeking out designs.

It was the TransBay Joint Powers Authority seeking a team consisting of an architect and a developer to present a proposal for the site that would include a terminal and could include a tower to pay the bills (it was assumed all proposals would include a tower, because there would be no other way to make the development profitable, but it was uncertain what proportion of the tower space would be residential, commercial or other). Pelli paired with Hines and proposed an all-office tower which allowed them to provide the largest chunk of money to the TJPA. SOM paired with Rockefeller Development Group, and Rogers paired with Forest City and McFarlane Partners. They both proposed mixed-use towers (and SOM proposed a dual-level terminal using less of the site but making bus access more complex), apparently believing that putting some housing in the proposal would be attractive to the TJPA. But, like I said, they believed wrong because the TJPA needs money and they almost had to pick the design that brought in the most money as long as it met the transit needs. It also appears that SOM and Rogers thought that if their design was deemed the most attractive, they would be allowed to "tweek" the proportion of office in the tower and, hence, the financial contribution. But that didn't happen.

[peanut gallery]

Too bad we can't get some really nice billionaire(s) to help.

Maybe we can convince Larry Ellison that highrise development is as much fun as sailing.

[kenratboy]

Maybe we can convince Larry Ellison that highrise development is as much fun as sailing.

:haha:

Anyway, while I think there were better choices, I would be overjoyed if this was built at its existing height, or more. It has been decades in the coming.

[SFView]

Mayor Gavin Newsom: "People say, 'is this going to be exactly 1200?' Whatever... Not the truth... This is not the end of the process, or the public input, quite the contrary." As much as Hines says that the height and design will not change (much), it could still very well change. The studies by Planning due later this year, will help bring us closer to what may actually be feasible for much of the new development proposed for the Transbay area. Hopefully, we will find that 1200' or more will be acceptable for Transbay, and 1200' will be acceptable for the Piano's towers across the street, and not any shorter for both. Personally, for San Francisco to stand with so many other cities in the world building supertalls now and in the near future, something closer to 1400' would seem better. We just have to wait and see, and keep our fingers crossed. I also hope the Pelli's design for the tower gets improved and more interesting.

For anyone who missed this news story on KRON4, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS1nSk9uI2Q

As for anyone who thinks that the new Transbay Tower will be one lone 'finger' in San Francisco's skyline, this comment really doesn't hold much weight. There will be other new very tall towers that will accompany it nearby. It appears that for certain NIMBY's, lack of interest in new high-rise development leads to lack of knowledge.

[Reminiscence]

"This is the only design that had a park of this scale. They all had elements of recreation, but this was the only one that had a very large park element."

-- Yeah ... its also the only one that had an extra $250 million with the package.

People against this proposal are clearly looking at anything they can to try to put a negative spin on it. A middle finger? Give me a break ...

Newsom's commentary give some encouraging thought though, hopefully it gives insight to people who dont know much about whats going on.

Thanks for that link, SFView :)

[northbay]

so y would ppl be ok with a 50 story tower but not a 90 story one? its not like it makes much difference on street-level. i say we give them the 'finger'

[BTinSF]

--When have you ever seen a building design in SF get TALLER after public input?

--Nice balance on that KRON story (where were the advocates of a tall--even taller--structure?) I'm going to their web site to see if there's a place to emial them about that and I suggest others do the same.

--I don't trust Gavin on this one.

[BTinSF]

^^^Well, it's hard to find the "contact us" option but it's under the "About Us" tab at http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=510511&nav=menu130_9_1 and I used it to send this:

Sirs:

I am away from SF at the moment so it took a while for your story on the TransBay Transit Tower (comparing it to a raised middle finger) to catch up with me, but now that I've seen it I have to point out that the lack of balance was horrifying. As there are "advocates" for making it shorter, there are those of us who would like to see it taller (and also more attractively designed) but you didn't even mention that. San Francisco is changing. The old NIMBY perspective no longer represents a consensus in the city. Please take that into consideration next time you do a story on development issues.

[SFView]

--When have you ever seen a building design in SF get TALLER after public input?

Since it is evident that there is a good segment of the public now interested in TALLER, whereas they were not so vocal in the past, these people should now make their voices heard.

--Nice balance on that KRON story (where were the advocates of a tall--even taller--structure?) I'm going to their web site to see if there's a place to emial them about that and I suggest others do the same.

An excellent idea. Thanks.

--I don't trust Gavin on this one.

That goes without saying, but the fact remains: the heights and designs for Transbay and Piano towers, etc. are "not (yet) set in stone."

[peanut gallery]

--Nice balance on that KRON story (where were the advocates of a tall--even taller--structure?)

No kidding. I also love how their graphic showing the height used a bar about twice as wide as BofA. At the top this thing will be about half as wide. And how about a follow-up question to John Q. Heighthater about where all the money to build the new transit center will come from if this were only 50 stories?

[SFView]

The news story is clearly slanted towards making the new Transbay Tower look rediculously tall and out of place in San Francisco, and encouraging those who agree that they will have a chance to influence a shorter outcome.

[GlobeTrekker]

No kidding. I also love how their graphic showing the height used a bar about twice as wide as BofA. At the top this thing will be about half as wide. And how about a follow-up question to John Q. Heighthater about where all the money to build the new transit center will come from if this were only 50 stories?

I noticed that too; the purple bar was definitely out of scale. Why didn't they just put the shape of the building as the graphic? It's not like the design is complex or anything.

As to the middle finger analogy, it is a BUILDING, not a finger. Second of all, if it were anything like giving the finger, I think One Rincon is already doing that. :haha:

I did not see the comment to which Gavin was responding, but my first thought was that he's calming the NIMBYS down. The good thing is I do not think it will go much shorter if it means a lower offer. I don't see how the City can afford to lose money if it is already short of funding.

I think the skyline would look nice with several 1,200 foot towers diagonally from each other (Transbay and Piano). I have no idea the status of the Piano complex; however, it must be expensive keeping those vacant lots sitting there at 1st & Mission. Hasn't it already been over a year since they submitted the proposal?

[BTinSF]

I have no idea the status of the Piano complex; however, it must be expensive keeping those vacant lots sitting there at 1st & Mission. Hasn't it already been over a year since they submitted the proposal?

There is no firm proposal because the allowable height is not yet known. My understanding is the Planning Department hoped to have their recommendation for rezoning the height limits for the TransBay Project Area available this summer. But then I think the Board of Supervisors has to approve it. I doubt there'll be anything firm from the Piano developer until the rezoning is complete.

[GlobeTrekker]

There is no firm proposal because the allowable height is not yet known. My understanding is the Planning Department hoped to have their recommendation for rezoning the height limits for the TransBay Project Area available this summer. But then I think the Board of Supervisors has to approve it. I doubt there'll be anything firm from the Piano developer until the rezoning is complete.

Interesting... thanks for the info. It's amazing how long the process takes. But I guess it's good those lots are still vacant over a year later; hopefully that means the developer is patiently waiting for the City.

[Jobohimself]

It's kind of sad that I wake up every morning, 537 miles from San Francisco, and think to myself while shaving:

"For fuck's sake, PLEASE don't let the NIMBYs ruin Transbay for everyone..."

:(

[BTinSF]

Interesting... thanks for the info. It's amazing how long the process takes. But I guess it's good those lots are still vacant over a year later; hopefully that means the developer is patiently waiting for the City.

These lots have been sitting empty for over a decade and almost empty for several decades (once they had mobile classrooms for Golden Gate U. on them). As you may or may not know, back in the 90s the plan was to build this on them:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/333733383_ba5217bb90_o.jpg
Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/333733383_ba5217bb90_o.jpg

It's a Sofitel hotel--but the developer changed his mind (I think after the dot-com bust) and wanted to build a Travelodge or something (some kind of low-midrise budget place) and the Planning Dept said "not on that site you won't). So the lots stayed empty until this new developer bought them a year or two ago and proposed the Piano design.

[peanut gallery]

You guys know this, but for anyone reading along that might not know...the entire Piano lot isn't empty. The side facing First is built and occupied (at least the ground floor; I can't say for sure about the higher floors). So there's at least some income for the current owners.

[Reminiscence]

I've been waiting patiently for news on Piano too, but I think its safe to assume that we'll know at least a little more come this summer. When I walked next to the area in which this is to be built, I tried to imagine how awesome it would look like to have three supertall towers so close together. Indeed, I cant think of any other city in which they would be so close to each other, except maybe Dubai and others alike. Its a damn shame Sofitel never saw the light of day, but with what might be coming, I'll be more than happy. Still though, they got to build that hotel elsewhere, its not often we get radical designs such as those in SF.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

[B]

As for anyone who thinks that the new Transbay Tower will be one lone 'finger' in San Francisco's skyline, this comment really doesn't hold much weight. There will be other new very tall towers that will accompany it nearby. It appears that for certain NIMBY's, lack of interest in new high-rise development leads to lack of knowledge.

Now thats just stupid. middle finger?! wooooww. howcome all the anti-this and anti-that bullshit makes it on the news or gets covered by something. and anything "pro" never gets recognized. isnt kron 4 located it oakland near the jack london square? if so im about to go down there and smack some sense into them so they show both sides of the story,:hell:

[peanut gallery]

No, that's KTVU Channel 2. KRON 4 is in SF.

[SFView]

Now thats just stupid. middle finger?! wooooww. howcome all the anti-this and anti-that bullshit makes it on the news or gets covered by something. and anything "pro" never gets recognized. isnt kron 4 located it oakland near the jack london square? if so im about to go down there and smack some sense into them so they show both sides of the story,:hell:

Because most "pro" is not news, neither are most good news. Bad news and controversy are usually what attracts more attention in the news media.

[Reminiscence]

"Theres no news ... like bad news"

[nequidnimis]

And how about a follow-up question to John Q. Heighthater about where all the money to build the new transit center will come from if this were only 50 stories?
Either from user fees at the new transit center, or from charges on drivers who benefit from the reduced congestion the transit center and transit riders bring about. Why should the cost, even if it is only an emotional cost, in the form of a raised middle finger, be borne by San Francisco residents who never use the transit center, and only get downtown by foot or by subway?

[BTinSF]

^^^If you see it as a cost. Most of us here see it as a benefit.

[nequidnimis]

It's kind of sad that I wake up every morning, 537 miles from San Francisco, and think to myself while shaving:

"For fuck's sake, PLEASE don't let the NIMBYs ruin Transbay for everyone..."

:(


Unlike you, the NIMBY's live here, and will have to deal with these highrises daily. This is why they are concerned about their impact: shade, wind, views, blight. Not all highrises are successful. Look at the Philip Burton Building you dislike so much. Its main offense is it is too big for its context.

[nequidnimis]

As to the middle finger analogy, it is a BUILDING, not a finger.

The shape of a building carries a message.

[SFView]

...John Q. Heighthater...

Does anyone know who he really is, and what group he is with?

Also, the reporter said "90 stories," instead of the usual "80 stories" for the tower.