SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[peanut gallery]

The building itself isn't bad, it's just uninspired IMO. That's not the worst thing in the world except this will be the tallest, most prominent building in the city for the foreseeable future (certainly in my lifetime). There is this one chance to make it something beautiful and iconic, but instead it will be bland and safe. And knowing the history, to me it will always seem stripped down to a certain extent. But that's just my personal perspective. We're all little blips on the timeline of history and someday a hundred or so years from now this might just be another tower among other taller ones. Life will go on and San Francisco will be fine.


I agree, but did you ever think SF would build a 1070 footer anytime soon?

Plus it raises the bar for the city heightwise and may eliminate some NIMBY sentiments, as in SF could see a building taller than this in the future, it's just a start.

The Renzo piano towers are dead, but is there still a possibility of high towers on those sites? Maybe they could be higher than this one?

Since the Transbay project came up I've expected it, but not until the next boom cycle (whenever that might be). As to your other points, historically the opposite happens. A new tallest will just make the anti-highrise crowd that much more determined and entrenched in their views. Generally, a new tower gets proposed, then it gets chopped up, downsized and hammered by every NIMBY group in the city. The Pyramid was supposed to be over 1000' and Embarcadero 4 was supposed to be about 800'. It happens to almost every proposal. I don't see this building changing that dynamic for the better.

Nothing else will be taller than this for as long as I can realistically envision. Things can always change, but this should be the tallest for a very long time.

[jg6544]

If I were a betting man, I'd bet against this thing ever being built to that height.

[tech12]

Why is everybody so surprised that the tower is now 1,070 feet? I thought that had been common knowledge for at least several months, if not longer...though I guess it may have been known mostly just with the people actively following the project.

I'm glad this isn't dead and I'm still liking it despite the decrease in height (still would be SF's first 1,000'+ highrise), though I'm also one of the few who preferred Pelli's design over the SOM design. It's not that I didn't like the SOM tower, but it struck me as a design that would possibly look outdated and maybe even a bit cheesy, 20 or 50 years down the line, especially considering how much taller than the surrounding towers the Transit Tower would be (thus causing it to be extra visible). The Pelli tower is a bit more boring and conservative in design, I can't deny that, but it seems to fit better with the existing skyline SF has to work with, while pushing the height envelope at the same time. And despite the relative "boringness" of the Pelli tower compared to the SOM one, it still seems pretty elegant and good-looking to me, especially in a city like SF where many skyscrapers are bland boxes from the 60s-80s. Another bonus is that by staying with a relatively conservative and somewhat shorter design, the wrath of dormant NIMBYs is less likely to be incurred upon completion.

One thing I'm excited about is the fact that if this does get built, we may be more likely to get additional buildings in the sub 1,000 foot range, but hopefully taller than the current 400-600 ft. plateau the city has going on. I'd love to see a few more 600+, 700+, and hopefully 800+ towers (including the 915 ft./640 ft. SOM proposal, and 700 ft. Heller Manus proposal) get built, which would provide new, shorter, peaks that would help fill in the gaps between the three main peaks of the Transamerica/Bank of America buildings, the Transit Tower, and One Rincon Hill.

We may not get another supertall for a long, long time, but I'm OK with that as long as this and a couple more 600-900 footers get built in addition to the more commonly proposed/built 200-400 foot towers. SF isn't a gigantic city (especially in terms of physical size), just a big one...and we already have a shit ton of highrises built and more planned, tons of office space built and planned (and tons more office space elsewhere in the region in SJ, Oakland, and the suburbs), lots of residential units recently built/under construction and planned (though we could always use tons more, especially affordable units) and a beautiful backdrop for it all regardless. Meaning, when it comes to economic growth, as well as skyscraper dick-measuring/civic pride type stuff, a single super tall seems perfectly acceptable to me for SF, at least at this point in time and probably the near future too. Plus, unless we get some decent infill in the 600+ foot range, having more super talls will just mean having yet more awkward looking peaks that are far taller than any surrounding buildings, unless they manage to get built right near the transit tower or Transamerica/BofA.

And fifteen years ago just the thought of this would have been insane, so all things considered I'm quite happy with the way things are going. I just hope this proposal stays alive and has no more height chopped off of it.

They can't. The FAA won't allow it due to the proxmity to the airport and a law from the 1970's also prevents it because no building can create shadows on parks and plazas.

I think you may be confusing SF and SJ. San Jose has FAA mandated height limits in the downtown of about 300 ft., due to the location of the airport, which is just north of DT SJ. SF's heights limits, as mentioned, are in large part because of NIMBYs complaining about their pretty views being blocked, so-called "Manahattanization", etc, etc (you know, the weird types who view SF as a quaint fishing village or some crap). Also, some anti-gentrification stuff was part of it, which as I understand actually helped save both the Tenderloin and Chinatown from getting drastically altered in the name of urban renewal (and racism) and the expansion of the downtown highrise core (which is what happened to a former Filipino area that was adjacent to downtown SF/Chinatown/North beach, as well as a huge chunk of the Fillmore district, aka the former "Harlem of the West")...so their is a good side to some of the NIMBY stuff at times. Can you imagine if both Chinatown and the Tenderloin were like Union Square and the financial district instead of what they currently are? Or worse, if they had been turned into a bunch of crime-ridden public housing projects, such as what happened in the Fillmore? It would have been quite a hit to SF's culture and lower class population.

That shadow stuff is relatively new though, If I'm not mistaken, and it's pretty dumb. The downtown area should be exempt, it's pretty ridiculous how some people expect parks in the middle of a sea of highrises (one of the largest highrise seas in one of the largest downtowns in the nation, no less) to be 100% shadow-free, especially seeing as 99% of those parks aren't exactly used for sunbathing or family picnics or anything like that.

I'm all for height limits in many areas, in the name of preservation of feel/rents/views/etc, as long as they aren't ridiculous (I'd like to see more 100-300 foot residential buildings in denser neighborhoods away from downtown, for example, including way more affordable stuff, but I'm also all for keeping many or most areas dominated by single family homes in the exact same form as they are) but existing downtown highrise areas, such as the Financial district, Union Square, SOMA, and Civic Center, should be allowed to build out to their full potential, or at least very close to it (and there's still plenty of potential in those areas, especially SOMA). Same goes for the tenderloin to an extent, but I would hate to see one of SF's remaining lower class areas get heavily gentrified, so I'm hesitant on that if it doesn't include lots of affordable housing. I wouldn't mind seeing more towers on Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Pacific Heights, or Cathedral Hill either, which are also existing highrise areas. Some more in SOMA/South Beach/Mission Bay, in the area south of Rincon Hill would be nice too (even if they're shorter ones), in order to soften the abrupt skyline drop-off from One Rincon hill. Basically I feel it's very possible for SF to have a much taller and more built-out skyline (and thus a larger population, more business, more money, etc, etc), while at the same time retaining it's many small-scale, historic, densely packed, lowrise and midrise areas, which some people seem to think is impossible for some reason (though many of those naysayers just want to keep their nice views, I think). So yeah, hopefully Sue Hestor and all the members of NIMBY groups such as the "telegraph hill dwellers" fall off a mountain or something, and SF can stop getting held back so much.

/end tangent

[aquablue]

I'm not from SF, but as a tourist, the Tenderloin is disgusting. What a waste of prime city center real estate. There is anti-gentrification and then there is just pure lunacy. A bunch of my friends from Europe were also disgusted and appalled that such a central location would be allowed to degenerate into poverty and crime just blocks from a well to do shopping area.

Please, redevelop that ugly area for the love of God! It really detracts from the 'beautiful city' image that your city likes to portray to the world. Surely such land is worth billions for development rights and could be turned into an interesting extension to your central retail core? Isn't there other less central areas where the homeless, druggies can move to?

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM. That's a load of CROCK argument. This is capitalism and economic reality and we live in a capitalist society. Land value = location. This is too good of a location to not milk for all the value that is there. When people bring up race as an argument against gentrification, I cringe. This is more class and economics than race. You can't afford the land you are on, tough luck, this is a capitalist society and money talks. We all have to just accept it, whatever race we are. If one race feels like they are being displaced unfairly, they should buck up and change their ways so they can afford to keep their property. Using race as a crutch is a recipe for continued failure.

[tech12]

I'm not from SF, but as a tourist, the Tenderloin is disgusting. What a waste of prime city center real estate. There is anti-gentrification and then there is just pure lunacy. A bunch of my friends from Europe were also disgusted and appalled that such a central location would be allowed to degenerate into poverty and crime just blocks from a well to do shopping area.

Please, redevelop that ugly area for the love of God! It really detracts from the 'beautiful city' image that your city likes to portray to the world. Surely such land is worth billions for development rights and could be turned into an interesting extension to your central retail core? Isn't there other less central areas where the homeless, druggies can move to?

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM. That's a load of CROCK argument. This is capitalism and economic reality and we live in a capitalist society. Land value = location. This is too good of a location to not milk for all the value that is there. When people bring up race as an argument against gentrification, I cringe. This is more class and economics than race. You can't afford the land you are on, tough luck, this is a capitalist society and money talks. We all have to just accept it, whatever race we are. If one race feels like they are being displaced unfairly, they should buck up and change their ways so they can afford to keep their property. Using race as a crutch is a recipe for continued failure.

Anti-gentrification isn't disgusting if it means you get to keep less fortunate people in their homes, and keep historic areas from being destroyed. As with anything, moderation or lack thereof plays a part in how good or bad it can be. Opposing any kind of improvement and trying to concentrate every single social service or undesirable thing in one single area, is stupid...but completely opposing any kind of aid to poorer people and the retention of the cultural and structural fabric of the city is also stupid.

Plus the tenderloin isn't simply a "disgusting place". Yeah, it can be...it's a poor neighborhood with a high crime rate. But if it were completely gentrified we wouldn't have as many lower class people or as much cheap housing in the city (there goes "little Saigon", along with a large chunk of SF's Vietnamese population for example), or as many cheap restaurants or historic bars, or as many old historic apartment buildings. And those are all things I appreciate. I firmly believe that not everything needs to be completely gentrified and made ultra "perfect" and expensive, and inaccessible to non-rich people. And I like the fact that the presence of the tenderloin means that downtown SF is one of the most economically and racially diverse downtowns in the nation.

And i mentioned racism only in reference to the urban renewal of the Fillmore, and I'm guessing to a lesser extent Manilatown, which were demolished in the 1950s-1970s after being declared "slums" (conveniently: the Fillmore was SF's first majority black neighborhood ever, in a city that 2 decades earlier had barely any black people. The fillmore was actually the most prosperous and famous black area as well, and was filled with black-owned Victorian homes, businesses, night clubs, etc...but It lasted only about 10 years before getting declared a slum and "renewed"). You better believe racism played a part in those decisions back then (though I agree that money was most likely by far and away the first thing on the mind of the city, but back then "undesirable" races being around meant lower land values, so it's all connected anyways. Nowadays, I'm sure it's all about the money though, and racism plays little to no part).

But this shit is way off topic now. Back to the tower: PLEASE GET BUILT TOWER, THANK YOU.

[aquablue]

Anti-gentrification isn't disgusting if it means you get to keep less fortunate people in their homes, and keep historic areas from being destroyed. As with anything, moderation or lack thereof plays a part in how good or bad it can be. Opposing any kind of improvement and trying to concentrate every single social service or undesirable thing in one single area, is stupid...but completely opposing any kind of aid to poorer people and the retention of the cultural and structural fabric of the city is also stupid.

Plus the tenderloin isn't simply a "disgusting place". Yeah, it can be...it's a poor neighborhood with a high crime rate. But if it were completely gentrified we wouldn't have as many lower class people or as much cheap housing in the city (there goes "little Saigon", along with a large chunk of SF's Vietnamese population for example), or as many cheap restaurants or historic bars, or as many old historic apartment buildings. And those are all things I appreciate. I firmly believe that not everything needs to be completely gentrified and made ultra "perfect" and expensive, and inaccessible to non-rich people. And I like the fact that the presence of the tenderloin means that downtown SF is one of the most economically and racially diverse downtowns in the nation.

And i mentioned racism only in reference to the urban renewal of the Fillmore, and I'm guessing to a lesser extent Manilatown, which were demolished in the 1950s-1970s after being declared "slums" (conveniently: the Fillmore was SF's first majority black neighborhood ever, in a city that 2 decades earlier had barely any black people. The fillmore was actually the most prosperous and famous black area as well, and was filled with black-owned Victorian homes, businesses, night clubs, etc...but It lasted only about 10 years before getting "renewed"). You better believe racism played a part in those decisions back then (though I agree that money was most likely by far and away the first thing on the mind of the city. Nowadays, I'm sure it's all about the money, and racism plays little to no part).

To each his own, pal. Keeping people in their homes is not the priority in a society that is market driven. We all live on the real estate we can afford, it is a fact of the system. Location = land value. Prices shouldn't be kept artificially low to satisfy some segment of the population. I don't complain that I can't afford to live in the top locations in the country and I accept the locations that I can afford based on my acceptance of the system. This should apply to everyone.

Although I prefer the pure market driven approach to real estate, there are compromises. You don't have to make an area 'ultra-rich' to make it safe and welcoming. There are ways to develop mixed class areas that are diverse. Having a crime infested district right in the middle of your downtown is just ridiculous waste of resources and sends the wrong message to tourists and investors.

Also, historic preservation and zoning ordinance can protect old apartment buildings from being torn down. Instead, they can be retrofitted and saved.

I am all for multiculturalism and having affordable housing to keep a city lively, but not if it means having a prime center city piece of real estate turning into an ugly crime infested no-go zone. That is the worst thing possible for the city's long term health.

Just modify the are, it isn't working. Crime in your downtown area must be eradicated. Land values must be allowed to appreciate and buildings retrofitted. The immigrants will find their own niche, they always do. Downtown SF land is too valuable to be allowed to decay and not to be utilized to its highest potential in bringing in the most revenue to the city. The city is insane to waste such an opportunity.

[flight_from_kamakura]

wow, cuca, thanks for that rendering from the iconic view at the top of dolores. amazing.

[THE BIG APPLE]

The current design ABSOLUTELY rocks. It is NOT a bad design, not at ALL. But to know something better (as with 432 Park Ave) could've been built, is a bit sad, and depressing.

[mt_climber13]

Is J Church still around? Can we update the title page and images with the new stats and renderings?

[SLO]

A very large photo from this week of the proposed site of the tower and transit terminal:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7036/6970055729_26ccdee1a7_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pbo31/6970055729/sizes/o/in/photostream/


That is stunning picture, I havent seen any shots from Rincon before.

[plinko]

I disagree with you. California has a lot of identity and one of them is unequivocally skyscrapers. Some of the first skyscrapers in the world were built right here in San Francisco. When visitors (and even locals) think of San Francisco they think of the Victorian houses with the skyline in the background, they don't think of Ocean Beach.
California is a lot more like the east coast than people here would like to admit. Sacramento's skyline looks like New Haven, Conn. San Diego's skyline reminds me of Boston. Los Angeles' skyline is like Brooklyn/ Long Island. San Francisco's skyline is very Manhattan. I can't think of any other state with as many skyscraper cities as California.

Not really. There really are only about three really iconic towers in this state that the general public outside California might recognize: LA City Hall, the Capitol Records Building, and the Transamerica Pyramid. For as many towers as there are in this state, one would think there would be more truly eye-catching towers...but alas there are not.

[Roadcruiser1]

Maybe Roadcruiser1 is confusing San Francisco with San Jose or San Diego? All our cities look the same to him.

I didn't. My aunt lives in San Francisco and I know what the city looks like. This tower was proposed to rise to 1,200 feet at one point until the FAA complained and it was REDUCED TO 1,070 FEET. Again the FAA not me. This is a response to everyone else too so it's not just you.

[Zapatan]

I didn't. My aunt lives in San Francisco and I know what the city looks like. This tower was proposed to rise to 1,200 feet at one point until the FAA complained and it was REDUCED TO 1,070 FEET. Again the FAA not me. This is a response to everyone else too so it's not just you.


Yea that is sad, but maybe it will pave the way for taller buildings in the future, you know help get over the NIMBYism.

[plinko]

I didn't. My aunt lives in San Francisco and I know what the city looks like. This tower was proposed to rise to 1,200 feet at one point until the FAA complained and it was REDUCED TO 1,070 FEET. Again the FAA not me. This is a response to everyone else too so it's not just you.

I'm calling BS. Source for this?

[peanut gallery]

I've followed this pretty closely and the FAA has never been mentioned publicly by anyone involved. I think you are mistaken.

[Gordo]

The FAA was never involved with this. Period.

[RobertWalpole]

I love SF, but it has a lame skyline. Other than the TA pyramid, its skyscrapers suck.

[THE BIG APPLE]

^ I love the SF skyline. But I can agree that the skyline is a one hit wonder. You look at it and it's not memorable, but it is beautiful. The SOM proposal would've MADE the SF skyline.

[CyberEric]

I think pretty much everyone agrees that the current proposal is not exactly exciting, but it's what we have, love it or not. That said, it's not bad, it's attractive in fact, and looks better now that it did when the height was first reduced. It will help with the uniform color of the skyline, it will help with the uniform height (other than the Transamerica and Bank of America tower), and these are both good things. True, if someone came up with a more interesting, iconic proposal, that would be great, but it's not happening.

The tallest building in a city is not always its most iconic.

The FAA having something to do with the height being reduced? I think you're mistaken.

As for the anti Tenderloin sentiment, this isn't the place.

[Zapatan]

The building itself isn't bad, it's just uninspired IMO. That's not the worst thing in the world except this will be the tallest, most prominent building in the city for the foreseeable future (certainly in my lifetime). There is this one chance to make it something beautiful and iconic, but instead it will be bland and safe. And knowing the history, to me it will always seem stripped down to a certain extent. But that's just my personal perspective. We're all little blips on the timeline of history and someday a hundred or so years from now this might just be another tower among other taller ones. Life will go on and San Francisco will be fine.




Since the Transbay project came up I've expected it, but not until the next boom cycle (whenever that might be). As to your other points, historically the opposite happens. A new tallest will just make the anti-highrise crowd that much more determined and entrenched in their views. Generally, a new tower gets proposed, then it gets chopped up, downsized and hammered by every NIMBY group in the city. The Pyramid was supposed to be over 1000' and Embarcadero 4 was supposed to be about 800'. It happens to almost every proposal. I don't see this building changing that dynamic for the better.

Nothing else will be taller than this for as long as I can realistically envision. Things can always change, but this should be the tallest for a very long time.



Tallest building in your lifetime? How can anyone make that prediction (Unless you're already 85)

I just don't see how it could make NIMBYism worse, the NIMBYs have lost if a 1070 foot tower goes up, then maybe someone will be inspired to build a taller building after. No one would have ever thought an 850 footer would go up in OK city but it did, so you can't realistically predict the future.

[Zapatan]

^Say what? Downtown SF isn't anywhere close to the airport and/or flight paths. The shadow ordinance is from initiatives passed in 1984 and 1989.

The height limits are all due to local planning laws/regs/neighborhood plans/initiatives/etc.

I will agree that it's unlikely that a new tower taller than this one will be allowed at any time in the near future, as that would require all sorts of things to happen (all of which are individually unlikely, and combined together are nearly impossible).


I seriousl fail to understand the obsession with height limits... if there is one building over 1200 feet or so it will make no difference to anyone's life. Why did the originally propose it taller in the first place if they knew it was just going to get shot down?

[Gordo]

I seriousl fail to understand the obsession with height limits... if there is one building over 1200 feet or so it will make no difference to anyone's life. Why did the originally propose it taller in the first place if they knew it was just going to get shot down?

This wasn't a case where someone "proposed" a 1200 footer - the competition for who got to build the 1200 footer was the culmination of literally 20 years of negotiations and planning around what was going to happen with the Transbay Terminal site, former freeway off-ramps, etc. The height had more to do with finding a way to fund the new train/bus station than anything.

Chopping it down to 1070 didn't have much to do with height limits - it was a decision made by the developer and signed off on by the city.

Maybe at some point we'll have developers clamoring to build a supertall in the city, but for whatever reason that hasn't been the case. I'd love to see height limits raised, but really more in other places than downtown. All things considered, I'm much more interested in 10-15 story buildings along the length of Geary than I am in a couple 1000+ footers downtown.

[Zapatan]

This wasn't a case where someone "proposed" a 1200 footer - the competition for who got to build the 1200 footer was the culmination of literally 20 years of negotiations and planning around what was going to happen with the Transbay Terminal site, former freeway off-ramps, etc. The height had more to do with finding a way to fund the new train/bus station than anything.

Chopping it down to 1070 didn't have much to do with height limits - it was a decision made by the developer and signed off on by the city.

Maybe at some point we'll have developers clamoring to build a supertall in the city, but for whatever reason that hasn't been the case. I'd love to see height limits raised, but really more in other places than downtown. All things considered, I'm much more interested in 10-15 story buildings along the length of Geary than I am in a couple 1000+ footers downtown.



So is there a city-wide height limit or not? If not, then a building could be built higher than this at some point.

If the 915 footer next to this building gets built SF will have 2 new tallest buildings instead of one. I don't see why people are so pessimistic about this.

[1977]

The more I look at this tower, the more I like it. It's going to be a wonderful addition to the skyline and looks like (at least from the early designs) it'll work well with the proposed SOM towers (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=185537) at First.

[Gordo]

So is there a city-wide height limit or not? If not, then a building could be built higher than this at some point.

If the 915 footer next to this building gets built SF will have 2 new tallest buildings instead of one. I don't see why people are so pessimistic about this.

The city-wide height limit is 40'.

There are hundreds of smaller zones at higher limits. This (and the space across from it) are the only parcels currently zoned to 1070' or higher. Height limits are mostly determined by neighborhood plans (including the height limits around the Transbay Terminal). There is no current push to change any neighborhood plans to allow a height higher than this building - and if there were, we'd be talking about a 10+ year process.

Sure, at some point there may be a taller tower, but at some point SF might also build 30 new subway lines - both seem equally likely in my lifetime. And...I don't think that the primary blocker of a taller tower has anything to do with height limits. Supertalls simply don't make a whole lot of sense economically, unless you can charge a huge premium for rents. It would make a lot more sense to just build a bunch more ~40 story towers if the office market in SF stays/gets stronger.

[Zapatan]

The city-wide height limit is 40'.

There are hundreds of smaller zones at higher limits. This (and the space across from it) are the only parcels currently zoned to 1070' or higher. Height limits are mostly determined by neighborhood plans (including the height limits around the Transbay Terminal). There is no current push to change any neighborhood plans to allow a height higher than this building - and if there were, we'd be talking about a 10+ year process.

Sure, at some point there may be a taller tower, but at some point SF might also build 30 new subway lines - both seem equally likely in my lifetime. And...I don't think that the primary blocker of a taller tower has anything to do with height limits. Supertalls simply don't make a whole lot of sense economically, unless you can charge a huge premium for rents. It would make a lot more sense to just build a bunch more ~40 story towers if the office market in SF stays/gets stronger.


If supertalls don't make sense why is this one being built in the first place? Along with the new tallest towers in LA and Miami?

[Zapatan]

The city-wide height limit is 40'.





Wait what? There are at least 20 buildings that go over 500 feet in SF, let alone 40 feet, how on earth is that true? I'm guessing that was a typo.



Anyway, keep in mind that if you had asked someone ten years ago whether a supertall would be built in SF in their lifetime everyone would have said no. Just like people said the new WTC would not be over 900 feet and 60-70 floors when it first came out. Look how wrong people were in both of those situations. It means you cannot predict the future, as many people on this forum believe they can.

[plinko]

Actually if you follow how development works at all in San Francisco you would know that it's one of the most difficult places to get anything done.

The only way THIS supertall is possibly going to get built is through a joint public-private partnership. NO developer in the city on their own could get one built. It just would never happen. The other adjacent parcels that were subsequently up-zoned were done so specifically due to the creation of a specific plan for that area, a result of YEARS and YEARS of negotiations between the city, the transit companies and unions, neighborhood groups, business leaders, etc.

It's not that there aren't developers who have the will to build something tall, it's just that there simply aren't too many allowed opportunities to do so.

The notion that because this supertall might be built that there will be others to follow is misguided and uninformed about how things work there.

And yes, there is a general 40ft height limit throughout the city (it wasn't a mistake). Certain areas and corridors are upzoned for additional height, the majority of which have been lowered over the years through extensive public process. The exception to this is, of course, SoMA.

[fflint]

Quoted for truth
Actually if you follow how development works at all in San Francisco you would know that it's one of the most difficult places to get anything done.

The only way THIS supertall is possibly going to get built is through a joint public-private partnership. NO developer in the city on their own could get one built. It just would never happen. The other adjacent parcels that were subsequently up-zoned were done so specifically due to the creation of a specific plan for that area, a result of YEARS and YEARS of negotiations between the city, the transit companies and unions, neighborhood groups, business leaders, etc.

It's not that there aren't developers who have the will to build something tall, it's just that there simply aren't too many allowed opportunities to do so.

The notion that because this supertall might be built that there will be others to follow is misguided and uninformed about how things work there.

And yes, there is a general 40ft height limit throughout the city (it wasn't a mistake). Certain areas and corridors are upzoned for additional height, the majority of which have been lowered over the years through extensive public process. The exception to this is, of course, SoMA.

[mt_climber13]

The demographics in the city are changing. I don't know anybody my age (and I'm 29) that is adverse to height, at least downtown.

[viewguysf]

Tallest building in your lifetime? How can anyone make that prediction (Unless you're already 85)

Zapatan, I admire your enthusiasm and inquisitiveness, but you are quite naive about life in San Francisco.

Consider this: I loved seeing the Transamerica Pyramid under construction and completed in 1972, when I was 19. In hindsight, it has been painfully disappointing to think that the City did not let Transamerica build the Pyramid to its originally planned height of 1,150', but cut off 297' to make it 853'. To date, 40 years later, nothing here has surpassed it. If and when the Transbay tower gets built, it could take another 40 years to build something taller, although that may never happen. By that time, I would be well over 100 and probably not living to see it.

That is how we can make the prediction that you questioned!

[jg6544]

I don't understand the fascination with having tall buildings. What are you compensating for?

[mt_climber13]

I don't understand the fascination with having tall buildings. What are you compensating for?

Then why are you registered with and discussing on a skyscraper forum?

[tech12]

I don't understand the fascination with having tall buildings. What are you compensating for?

I think you're on the wrong website.

Seriously though, how can you have over 200 posts on "skyscraperpage" yet at the same time have no idea what the benefits of skyscrapers are, or why so many people like them?

[1977]

The land price was chopped from $235 million to $185 million - still $40 million higher than the second highest bid by Forest City back in '08.

New Transbay deal: Land price cut to $185 million
San Francisco Business Times by J.K. Dineen, Reporter
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2012, 5:47pm PDT

A new agreement between the Transbay Joint Powers Authority and the developer of the proposed Transbay tower and terminal in San Francisco would reduce the amount paid for the land from $235 million to $185 million.
According to a exclusive negotiating agreement that was reached Feb. 9 but has not been made public, developer Hines will pay the city $140 per buildable square foot for the land. In 2007, during a historic real estate bubble, Hines had offered to pay $350 million for the land, a number that was slashed to $235 million in 2008 as the global economic recession set in.
The still lower land price reflects both current economics realities as well as the fact that the height of the proposed building has been shaved from 1,200 feet to 1,070 feet, a change which cut 450,000 square feet from the project, according to TJPA spokesman Adam Alberti.
Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/03/new-transbay-deal-land-price-cut-to.html?page=all

[1977]

A couple more renderings here (http://assets.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/Transbay_Exterior_Wall*900.jpg?v=1) and here (http://assets.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/Transbay_Street_View_Lobby*900.jpg?v=1).

Source: www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco

[Zapatan]

Zapatan, I admire your enthusiasm and inquisitiveness, but you are quite naive about life in San Francisco.

Consider this: I loved seeing the Transamerica Pyramid under construction and completed in 1972, when I was 19. In hindsight, it has been painfully disappointing to think that the City did not let Transamerica build the Pyramid to its originally planned height of 1,150', but cut off 297' to make it 853'. To date, 40 years later, nothing here has surpassed it. If and when the Transbay tower gets built, it could take another 40 years to build something taller, although that may never happen. By that time, I would be well over 100 and probably not living to see it.

That is how we can make the prediction that you questioned!


I'm not pretending to know everything about SF development, but the fact that a 1070' and possibly a 915' tower (the two new tallests in the city) are likely to be built shows that whatever NIMBY attitudes or city codes couldn't stop it and that's a very good thing. Even if it was a public-private partership the building will likely still get built, who says that can't happen again?

Philadelphia was the same way before liberty place went way above city hall, and now they have a new tallest 20 years later, as well as 8 skyscrapers that are higher than it. I know PHL and SF are different, and I'm not saying it's easy to get things done in SF but this very project proves it's not impossible. No one would have ever thought a 1000 footer could even be approved in the city, and now it likely will be.

[mt_climber13]

I am liking this tower more and more- The updated renderings look very Jetsons. 1070' is still amazingly tall and will be very dramatic from certain vantages that we are used to- Dolores Park, Twin Peaks, Alamo Square, Treasure Island, and driving on the Bay Bridge.
With the neighboring 900'+ SOM tower, 600'+ SOM tower, 600' 50 Fremont, and 650' Millennium Tower, the transformation of the skyline is going to be :jester: insane.
What I would really like would be more towers filling in the hole between TA and BofA

[fflint]

Key info from the Business Times article:

While it will pump less money into city coffers, the new land price should make the project economically viable. The tower will still be likely the most expensive building in town, but the rents Hines has to charge to make a profit will be more in line with other approved, unbuilt projects in downtown San Francisco, like Tishman Speyer’s 222 Second St.

In fact, the price per buildable square foot Hines has agreed to pay is actually less than Lincoln Properties paid for land at 350 Bush St. in 2007 and less than Salesforce paid for 14 acres approved for 2 million square feet in Mission Bay in 2010.

[jg6544]

Then why are you registered with and discussing on a skyscraper forum?

Because I'm interested in cities and in architecture and I don't believe "mine is bigger than yours is" is part of either.

The Transbay Tower is kind of a generic early 21st Century highrise and it doesn't matter how tall it is.

Period. End of story.

[jg6544]

have no idea what the benefits of skyscrapers are, or why so many people like them?

Highrises save space; they squeeze more people into a smaller footprint. But how many people or how tall they are seems to me to be beside the point. Is the Seagram Building or the Crown Zellerbach building of less importance because it's only 20 or so stories tall?

[fflint]

Highrises save space; they squeeze more people into a smaller footprint. But how many people or how tall they are seems to me to be beside the point. Is the Seagram Building or the Crown Zellerbach building of less importance because it's only 20 or so stories tall?
Yes. I worked at One Bush (formerly known as Crown Zellerbach) for four years. Job growth in the Bay Area will either concentrate in the dense, transit-oriented core or it will sprawl endlessly into the hinterlands. A building that fits more workers in the transit-rich core is better for the environment and makes public transit more sustainable than the alternatives. A building that can fit 5,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 workers within a BART, Muni, GG Transit, AC Transit, and SamTrans hub is far more important than a building that can only fit a few hundred workers on the same footprint. Density is important. Urbanity is important. Public transit usage is important.

[The Jerk]

^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.

[mt_climber13]

^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.

You think the air is that much different 1070 feet up? Do you wear an oxygen mask when you go to Twin Peaks?

[rocketman_95046]

^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.

:haha::haha:

HVAC and Lighting would be the same in a sprawling 1 story office building. Have you ever been to Tokyo? You think it sucks?

[tech12]

^There is a certain point where it becomes debilitating to the worker. Processed light and air. A dystopian, over-built Tokyo would suck in reality. But perhaps that's the point.

You think Tokyo is dystopian? If you dislike heavy urbanity, density, tall buildings, high public transit usage, and other things like that, than maybe you should live in a small town. San Francisco is not a small town...it's a large, dense, city, with no room to expand outwards, and a strong economy, so tall buildings make plenty of sense.

Also, processed light and air exist everywhere, not just skyscrapers. Ever use heat or AC or a dehumidifier? Ever fly in a plane or ride on certain trains/buses? Ever use a light bulb for anything? :haha:

[jg6544]

Yes. I worked at One Bush (formerly known as Crown Zellerbach) for four years. Job growth in the Bay Area will either concentrate in the dense, transit-oriented core or it will sprawl endlessly into the hinterlands.

That horse has already run away unless you refuse to believe that there are job centers in the Bay Area other than in the Financial District or South of Market.

But my original point was, why all this fascination with "mine is bigger than yours is"?

[rocketman_95046]

That horse has already run away unless you refuse to believe that there are job centers in the Bay Area other than in the Financial District or South of Market.

But my original point was, why all this fascination with "mine is bigger than yours is"?

because frankly the fascination has very little to do with "mine is bigger than yours". SF is in dire need of a central peak in the skyline for aesthetic reasons, and there a very practical reasons that cities like SF, Chicago, NY have taller buildings than say Gilroy, CA.

If it was all about "mine is bigger than yours" huge buildings would be built in the middle of nowhere because it would be cheaper and easier to do so.

[jg6544]

because frankly the fascination has very little to do with "mine is bigger than yours". SF is in dire need of a central peak in the skyline for aesthetic reasons, and there a very practical reasons that cities like SF, Chicago, NY have taller buildings than say Gilroy, CA.

If it was all about "mine is bigger than yours" huge buildings would be built in the middle of nowhere because it would be cheaper and easier to do so.

Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.

[mt_climber13]

Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.

^^Undebatable.

In other news, Rincon Hill tower 2 expects construction to commence this summer and will be built as rentals. :banana:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/03/one_rincon_hill_tower_two_site_sold_rentals_to_rise.html#comments

Perhaps the Rincon Hill threads needs to be brought back from the dead!

[aquablue]

Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.

As a visitor, I can say that YES, your city does need more interesting architecture and vibrancy, and this building will help. In fact, much of the downtown area in SF is dull, boring and needs spicing up with some new energy. Also, I find your skyline very underwhelming, and this building will make it far more attractive.

[Zapatan]

Ummmm, no. Gilroy isn't a center for anything but growing garlic. San Francisco, on the other hand, is a business center in a large metro. area, but why would a 1000' building make it less so than two 500' buildings. As for a "peak" in the skyline, don't the Transamerica building and Nob Hill do that already?

Finally, San Francisco is San Francisco. Unlike other cities, it doesn't need this building to make it special. I don't care whether they build it or not, frankly.

No offense but this website is called skyscraperpage.com, people like tall buildings here. If you can't see how a 1000+ foot building is more exciting in SF than two 500 some footers, then I am at a loss for words.

[BigKidD]

As a visitor, I can say that YES, your city does need more interesting architecture and vibrancy, and this building will help. In fact, much of the downtown area in SF is dull, boring and needs spicing up with some new energy. Also, I find your skyline very underwhelming, and this building will make it far more attractive.

I guess as a native to the SF Bay Area, the financial district can be somewhat barren on a non-weekday or perhaps even architecturally, but the city offers so much more than simply the central business district that serves its function well. Moreover, I welcome additional changes to the skyline, yet I don't desire the financial district to imitate the Loop in Chicago or Lower Manhattan in New York City. Each city has its distinctive characteristics, but they shouldn't necessarily emulate each other.

[jg6544]

I am at a loss for words.

And how many of them did it take you to say that?

[jg6544]

I guess as a native to the SF Bay Area, the financial district can be somewhat barren on a non-weekday or perhaps even architecturally, but the city offers so much more than simply the central business district that serves its function well. Moreover, I welcome additional changes to the skyline, yet I don't desire the financial district to imitate the Loop in Chicago or Lower Manhattan in New York City. Each city has its distinctive characteristics, but they shouldn't necessarily emulate each other.

Bingo!

[jg6544]

After all, it's not as though San Francisco were Houston or some god-awful place like that that had nothing but tall buildings.

[fflint]

And how many of them did it take you to say that?
For one who disdains forumers' interest in this project and has declared he "doesn't care" if the tower gets built or not, you are spending quite a bit of time in this thread antagonizing those who do. Your pseudo-psychological projections of forumers' purported deficiencies, and your existential conflict with this entire website's raison d'etre, are inappropriate and unproductive. If you wish to contribute something to the discussion of the Transbay Tower and Terminal, please do so--or please move along.

[jg6544]

If you wish to contribute something to the discussion of the Transbay Tower and Terminal, please do so

I have. I have said, I don't care whether it gets built or not. It adds nothing to San Francisco, a city I dearly love, and even if it gets built, whether it's 1000' or 500' or 100', doesn't matter. Happy now?

[Zapatan]

I have. I have said, I don't care whether it gets built or not. It adds nothing to San Francisco, a city I dearly love, and even if it gets built, whether it's 1000' or 500' or 100', doesn't matter. Happy now?


This is a website dedicated to skyscrapers (tall buildings)


I'ts kind of like me joining a sports forum right now and complaining about how much I don't care about sports...

[jg6544]

This is a website dedicated to skyscrapers (tall buildings)


Oh really? So topics such as transportation or L.A. Noir don't really exist and all those aerial and Flickr pictures contain skyscrapers?

What are you, twelve?

[tech12]

Oh really? So topics such as transportation or L.A. Noir don't really exist and all those aerial and Flickr pictures contain skyscrapers?

What are you, twelve?

SKYSCRAPERpage

Do you think that name was chosen for no reason? Skyscrapers are obviously a huge focus of this website. The people in this thread like skyscrapers (as do most people on this website, obviously), and I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by constantly repeating that you don't care about them yourself.

Will you stop your dumb derail now?

[jg6544]

SKYSCRAPERpage

Do you think that name was chosen for no reason? Skyscrapers are obviously a huge focus of this website. The people in this thread like skyscrapers (as do most people on this website, obviously), and I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by constantly repeating that you don't care about them yourself.

Will you stop your dumb derail now?

Evidently, you don't read or perhaps English isn't your first language:

"I have said, I don't care whether it gets built or not. It adds nothing to San Francisco, a city I dearly love, and even if it gets built, whether it's 1000' or 500' or 100', doesn't matter. Happy now?"

I don't dislike skyscrapers; I don't particularly dislike THIS skyscraper. I just don't care about it. There are a number of cities around the world that need to play the "mine is bigger than yours is" game. San Francisco is not one of them. My favorite skyscraper in the City is the (former) Crown Zellerbach building and my second is just across the street - the Shell building. Neither is over 30 stories tall. Being the tallest isn't intrinsic to being a well-designed skyscraper that passes the test of time.

[mt_climber13]

What are the odds that Hines will sell the rights to this site, and a newly designed skyscraper is built? These development flips have been very popular with in the past few years especially in the trans-bay high rise areas. Are we truly stuck with a height limit of 1070 feet, or is there any chance that the shadow ordinance Could make one exception in this special case? As I recall, the reason the height was chops for the trans Bay Tower was because it was going to cast a negligible shadow across Union Square during the wintertime for less than one hour in the early morning.

[plinko]

The Hines deal is a public-private partnership with the City. It's unlikely that it would be scrapped for another developer at this point unless said developer is willing to offer the city MORE money. This isn't a normal private development that would just be 'flipped'.

So no, there isn't likely to be a re-design unless there is some drastic change in the economy (good or bad) or Hines gets tired of Pelli (unlikely given PCP's penchant for producing safe earning buildings).

[Zapatan]

The Hines deal is a public-private partnership with the City. It's unlikely that it would be scrapped for another developer at this point unless said developer is willing to offer the city MORE money. This isn't a normal private development that would just be 'flipped'.

So no, there isn't likely to be a re-design unless there is some drastic change in the economy (good or bad) or Hines gets tired of Pelli (unlikely given PCP's penchant for producing safe earning buildings).


Kind of a good thing, wouldn't want someone to put something shorter on the site.

SF will get two new tallest and a bunch of new highrises, I think this plan should stay as it is :)

[plinko]

This plan only incorporates the 1,070ft tower, nothing else. The other buildings are purely speculative and their chances of coming to fruition are far more dependent on the economy than anything else.

[Zapatan]

This plan only incorporates the 1,070ft tower, nothing else. The other buildings are purely speculative and their chances of coming to fruition are far more dependent on the economy than anything else.

are the others planned by separate developers?

[ElDuderino]

Hey everyone....the ignoring of this jg6544 person starts............NOW

[plinko]

are the others planned by separate developers?

They are other sites entirely, developed by their individual owners and design teams. The Transbay is only the station and the supertall. That's it.

[patriotizzy]

Hey everyone....the ignoring of this jg6544 person starts............NOW

Why do that? He's being honest. This is a discussion forum, where anyone's opinions should be heard. Is it not? I like this building, although I agree they could come up with something a little more iconic.

[CyberEric]

I like all the passion in this thread, for a while no one was even bothering to come in here, and now we are alive! :)

The truth is this building is not going to make or break San Francisco. Many of us may never work or live in it, though we will see it frequently. It's a handsome building, but it will not likely not be an icon, unless the surface is incredible or the lighting is really captivating. The Transamerica Pyramid will likely remain the icon of highrises in SF (and even that is far eclipsed by the GG Bridge in terms of local architecture). And that's ok, the Empire State Building is still a far prettier and iconic building to my eye than the the new WTC (or the old ones for that matter). The tallest building is not always the icon. To be honest, I'd prefer the Piano designed towers to be built over this, but I still think this is a good addition.

[mt_climber13]

To be honest, I'd prefer the Piano designed towers to be built over this, but I still think this is a good addition.

How can you say that? Nobody has ever seen renderings of those buildings, and the project is dead! Unless you know something we don't

[RST500]

This project in Shanghai looks like a hybrid of Pelli and SOM. Anyone know the name of this project?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/yowhsing/som_1_q1vcD6pMwz0W.jpg

[Roadcruiser1]

I like all the passion in this thread, for a while no one was even bothering to come in here, and now we are alive! :)

The truth is this building is not going to make or break San Francisco. Many of us may never work or live in it, though we will see it frequently. It's a handsome building, but it will not likely not be an icon, unless the surface is incredible or the lighting is really captivating. The Transamerica Pyramid will likely remain the icon of highrises in SF (and even that is far eclipsed by the GG Bridge in terms of local architecture). And that's ok, the Empire State Building is still a far prettier and iconic building to my eye than the the new WTC (or the old ones for that matter). The tallest building is not always the icon. To be honest, I'd prefer the Piano designed towers to be built over this, but I still think this is a good addition.

What do you mean not likely. First of all this building will have an observation deck. That would instantly sell out because it will be the tallest in the city. Second of all this development will include residential spaces. So of course people will live near it, and it will become an icon of SF. You can think what you think but when the Twin Towers were completed in the 1970's they instantly became icons of New York City and quickly became a representation of New York as much as the Empire State Building was. It was seen in postcards, movies, animations, and even The Simpsons. Face it you only like the Transamerica Pyramid which over time will be overshadowed by other buildings.

[CyberEric]

How can you say that? Nobody has ever seen renderings of those buildings, and the project is dead! Unless you know something we don't

The renderings were made visible. I mistakenly wrote Piano who was originally attached to the project, it was SOM.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/10/a_trio_of_renzo_piano_som_towers_at_50_first_street_as.html

What do you mean not likely. First of all this building will have an observation deck. That would instantly sell out because it will be the tallest in the city. Second of all this development will include residential spaces. So of course people will live near it, and it will become an icon of SF. You can think what you think but when the Twin Towers were completed in the 1970's they instantly became icons of New York City and quickly became a representation of New York as much as the Empire State Building was. It was seen in postcards, movies, animations, and even The Simpsons. Face it you only like the Transamerica Pyramid which over time will be overshadowed by other buildings.

You have a point about the Twin Towers (speaking pre 9/11), they were not as beautiful but they were probably more iconic than the ESB, or perhaps equal. That was a passing comment, in my post I was mainly trying to use the new WTC as an example of a city where the tallest is not the most iconic, or should I say, the building that people think of when they think of a city. I think that of course depends on who you are, so it's a tricky assertion, but there is a case to be made. For another example, maybe I should offer Coit Tower is more iconic than many of the much, much taller towers in SF. Also, time will tell but I doubt the Shard will surpass Big Ben in London as an icon.

[Roadcruiser1]

You have a point about the Twin Towers (speaking pre 9/11), they were not as beautiful but they were probably more iconic than the ESB, or perhaps equal. That was a passing comment, in my post I was mainly trying to use the new WTC as an example of a city where the tallest is not the most iconic, or should I say, the building that people think of when they think of a city. I think that of course depends on who you are, so it's a tricky assertion, but there is a case to be made. For another example, maybe I should offer Coit Tower is more iconic than many of the much, much taller towers in SF. Also, time will tell but I doubt the Shard will surpass Big Ben in London as an icon.

You have to wait and see. You can't say that it is impossible, and One World Trade Center will most certainly be iconic because of what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The world will see that it is our way of coming back.

[plinko]

This project in Shanghai looks like a hybrid of Pelli and SOM. Anyone know the name of this project?

That's one of the entries for the Shanghai Tower competition, though I don't recall who the designer was. It would be somewhere is this thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=116595

[tech12]

That's one of the entries for the Shanghai Tower competition, though I don't recall who the designer was. It would be somewhere is this thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=116595

Yeah, it's not the design that won. I do see where the SOM + Pelli comparison comes from though.

[mt_climber13]

The renderings were made visible. I mistakenly wrote Piano who was originally attached to the project, it was SOM.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/10/a_trio_of_renzo_piano_som_towers_at_50_first_street_as.html



I thought maybe you were referring to the SOM. still, how can you tell anything from those renderings? We don't even know what color they will be.

[viewguysf]

What do you mean not likely. First of all this building will have an observation deck. That would instantly sell out because it will be the tallest in the city. Second of all this development will include residential spaces. So of course people will live near it, and it will become an icon of SF.

Who said it will have an observation deck? I've never heard that. It's also completely an office tower with no residential element. Are you sure you aren't confusing this Pelli tower with the SOM proposal?

[Roadcruiser1]

Who said it will have an observation deck? I've never heard that. It's also completely an office tower with no residential element. Are you sure you aren't confusing this Pelli tower with the SOM proposal?

Whoops lol.

[hruski]

I'm surprised this hasn't been posted:

Unlike the version of the plan that was selected with fanfare in 2007, this one has no obvious public link between the plaza at the tower's base and the 5.4 acre park that will sit atop the new Transbay Terminal next door, 70 feet in the air.

----

The one direct connection between the tower and City Park would be a fifth-floor bridge. Other than that, the only way to reach the park on opening day in 2017 will be from within the transit center.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/19/MN231NKVL4.DTL

Very disappointing. People aren't going to want to go through the transit center or the transit tower to get to that park. There needs to be a direct entrance from street level, or most people will never find a way in.

[Zapatan]

why is that dissapointing?

[hruski]

why is that dissapointing?

Seriously?

"Very disappointing. People aren't going to want to go through the transit center or the transit tower to get to that park. There needs to be a direct entrance from street level, or most people will never find a way in."

[tech12]

why is that dissapointing?

I have to agree with you. I thought those funicular things were somewhat cheesy and gimmicky (a tribute to the cable cars I'm guessing?), and looked like they would be less efficient than simple stairs and escalators. The fact that you need to go through the building to get to the roof shouldn't be much of a problem, though having access from the outside too would be better. What's the worst case scenario? The park is slightly less crowded on average? I'm pretty sure it will be a popular place regardless for nearby office workers, residents, people waiting for trains/buses, tourists, etc.

edit: On second thought, it would be kind of confusing for many tourists I think...but my point is I think the park will still see plenty of use.

[Zapatan]

Seriously?

"Very disappointing. People aren't going to want to go through the transit center or the transit tower to get to that park. There needs to be a direct entrance from street level, or most people will never find a way in."


I still fail to understand how entering the park directly from the street rather than cutting through a building is dissapointing. Either way, you enter the park. I don't really think that merits the word "dissapointing."

[peanut gallery]

I have to agree with you. I thought those funicular things were somewhat cheesy and gimmicky (a tribute to the cable cars I'm guessing?), and looked like they would be less efficient than simple stairs and escalators. The fact that you need to go through the building to get to the roof shouldn't be much of a problem, though having access from the outside too would be better. What's the worst case scenario? The park is slightly less crowded on average? I'm pretty sure it will be a popular place regardless for nearby office workers, residents, people waiting for trains/buses, tourists, etc.

edit: On second thought, it would be kind of confusing for many tourists I think...but my point is I think the park will still see plenty of use.

I'm not concerned if the funicular is included or not, but I think not creating direct access to the park from that plaza (be it stairs, ramps, funicular or whatever) is a missed opportunity -- a pretty serious one at that. That should be the grand entrance to the park, IMO. However, we have to remember that there will be a street-level access point on the far corner (by 2nd and Howard) so not everyone will have to go through the center itself or the tower. Unless of course that part of the plan has been changed as well.

I'll admit, I'm warming up to the design a little after seeing those two detailed views that 1977 posted. It should be an attractive and high quality building, and I can be happy with that even if I prefer what might have been. Someone on Socketsite brought up the idea of adding an observation deck. I wish they would consider that, and a restaurant too. They could add a couple more floors and keep the same overall height, then the crown wouldn't seem like such an artificial attempt to make the building appear taller (that's a pet peeve of mine).

[hruski]

I still fail to understand how entering the park directly from the street rather than cutting through a building is dissapointing. Either way, you enter the park. I don't really think that merits the word "dissapointing."

it's a barrier to entry

[Roadcruiser1]

I am very worried with the recent comments against the building on this thread recently. If everyone thought like them people would have never went past the stone age.

[Zapatan]

^What do you mean?

[Roadcruiser1]

^What do you mean?

The passing through the skyscraper to get to the park, the it won't be an icon thing. It's negative and I don't like it.

[WildCowboy]

If you have street-level entrances, the public can just stumble upon them and wander in. Entrances inside the terminal and tower mean that unless you have business in one of those buildings are specifically heading for the park, you're not just going to wander up there on a whim.

It'll get plenty of use without a street-level access, but not as much as if it did have one. You'll lose most of the random people who don't know of its existence, and being 50 feet in the air that'll be a fair number of people.

[hruski]

If you have street-level entrances, the public can just stumble upon them and wander in. Entrances inside the terminal and tower mean that unless you have business in one of those buildings are specifically heading for the park, you're not just going to wander up there on a whim.

It'll get plenty of use without a street-level access, but not as much as if it did have one. You'll lose most of the random people who don't know of its existence, and being 50 feet in the air that'll be a fair number of people.
Exactly. Who builds a public park and hides it from the public?

[peanut gallery]

A construction update (albeit from an old phone):

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6045/7012404213_2c761f6dd5_b.jpg

I found this interesting because you can see how the train box fans open on the western end to allow the trains to make the final turn into the station. That corner to the left of the shot sits on the far side of Natoma's old path.

[1977]

A construction update (albeit from an old phone):

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6045/7012404213_2c761f6dd5_b.jpg

I found this interesting because you can see how the train box fans open on the western end to allow the trains to make the final turn into the station. That corner to the left of the shot sits on the far side of Natoma's old path.

Thanks Peanut Gallery! It's great to see so much construction around town again.

[peanut gallery]

So true! I was counting cranes the other day and lost count just around MB, SOMA and the greater Civic Center area. I'm really happy for everyone in the construction business. I know it was tough for a lot of them for a long time.

[mt_climber13]

Great news for office development:
San Francisco leads the nation in commercial rent growth

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-05/san-francisco-leads-rent-growth-as-u-s-office-vacancies-decline.html

[jbm]

Here's a few shots taken on my phone this afternoon from a conference room in my office on 2nd x mission. you can see the most interesting action is right at the western edge. those large pipes that are diagonal are below ground level, but it looks like that structure they are building above them is just about at ground level. its hard to say from sure, as i haven't seen it up close.

well, it turns out i'm an idiot, or for some other unexplained reason cannot seem to properly embed photos...anyway, here are the links to the photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79204353@N05/6946102818

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79204353@N05/6946103048

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79204353@N05/6946103238/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/79204353@N05/6946103368/

[peanut gallery]

Nice shots, jbm. That's an interesting vantage point. Looks like you'll have a decent view of Foundry Square III as well. I worked in FSIV for years, waiting for the day they'd start that and the terminal. It figures: I change buildings and all this stuff starts!

I can post them inline or you:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7080/6946102818_445c69daa6_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5272/6946103048_efd5903326_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5200/6946103238_fd9a76083e_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7195/6946103368_aa2e81d933_b.jpg

[jbm]

thanks. i was following the instructions on posting images, but for some reason they were not appearing on my screen. just blank below the text.