SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[kenratboy]

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

That looks AWESOME. Those new renders dispelled all of my fears of the SOM project. SOM all the way.

I'm with you 100%. Looks hot.

Oh, and 1375 feet - no complaints. I would like to see one other building over 1000 feet, though ;)

[caramatt]

I think the biggest problem I have with Pelli's design is the fact that there is already another building in Hong Kong with pretty much the same design going on. Because of this, we wont really get a unique building in San Francisco. Plus 2 IFC is taller than Pelli's proposal, which doesnt sit well with me. Its ok and all, but its been done, its been used. SOM's on the other hand, I dont recall any single building in the world that reminds me of that.

I still have to disagree with that. I had posted this before, but you may have missed it, or also may not agree that it's very similiar; it's SOM's Shanghai Center (http://www.som.com/content.cfm/shanghai_center)which is currently under proposal for construction. This new type of external support structure I think will become more and more popular in the future. It'll only be a matter of time until we can also say it's been done (plus Shanghai will undoubtedly get that thing up faster than passing through the hurdles of the planning process here in SF).

[Para]

SOM's is stunning. It's a design that just demands attention, and for a cities tallest building, it should.

Pelli's is good, although I do agree with the similarities between 2IFC, not that that s a bad thing however.

The other tower.......isn't doing it for me. I can see where they were going with it, but it just doesn't work for me at all.

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out.







That, and if SOM's really needs a home after the contest, I'll take SOM's in my city any day.

[Reminiscence]

I still have to disagree with that. I had posted this before, but you may have missed it, or also may not agree that it's very similiar; it's SOM's Shanghai Center (http://www.som.com/content.cfm/shanghai_center)which is currently under proposal for construction. This new type of external support structure I think will become more and more popular in the future. It'll only be a matter of time until we can also say it's been done (plus Shanghai will undoubtedly get that thing up faster than passing through the hurdles of the planning process here in SF).

I'm not trying to give any of the proposals a bad image (except for Rogers, which is just ... not good). I think the shape of the building itself will trigger an idea in more people's heads. In my opinion, this is a major reason why Transamerica has remained so popular all these years, where else do you find an 853' tall white pyramid in a city? The shape is what comes to people's mind, and if they see two or three buildings with the same shape, then its not really unique to the city, this is basically what I'm saying. Dont get me wrong, 2 IFC and Shanghai Center are very nice buildings, but I dont know how well it would do to put up another one and call it "the" SF skyscraper, just my opinion. I'd much rather pick SOM's for the tallest tower, and Pelli's for one of the shorter towers, heh.

[tyler82]

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out..

According to SF GATE, their readers are split evenly over SOM and Pelli. Of course, it isn't up to us at all, it's up to the judges on Aug. 20!

[Reminiscence]

I dont know if people have seen it already, or if its been posted, but SOM has its article on its website covering its proposal.

http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_transit_center_and_tower

[Newcastle Kid]

By all means, proceed. Thanks for asking. :)

Thanks!:)

[pizzaman355]

dsc02557

[pizzaman355]

How do you post pics? I went to the meeting and took pics.

[BTinSF]

SOM's is stunning. It's a design that just demands attention, and for a cities tallest building, it should.

Pelli's is good, although I do agree with the similarities between 2IFC, not that that s a bad thing however.

The other tower.......isn't doing it for me. I can see where they were going with it, but it just doesn't work for me at all.

I know nothing of S.F's NIMBYs and Politics, but from the views I've read in this thread, I believe Pelli's will be picked. It's less dramatic than the SOM design, and I think the skyscraper conservatism vibe that I'm getting from S.F., by what is said in this thread, I think a less extreme design will win out.







That, and if SOM's really needs a home after the contest, I'll take SOM's in my city any day.

You are missing the fact that aesthetics may have very little to do with this decision. It's more about economics, politics, and how the "special interests" (including folks such as the AC Transit manager who sounded dubious about the SOM design) see it.

[WonderlandPark]

How do you post pics? I went to the meeting and took pics.

First, your photo needs to be put on the web somewhere, there are free sites like Flickr that you can upload to.

Then, when you post, that little yellow icon in the header bar with the mountain is the place where you post the link to your photo. When you right click on your photo online you get a url like this:

htt p://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/372726389_54f10ea2b0.jpg?v=0

you then put that link in the pop up box from the yellow mountain button gives you.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/372726389_54f10ea2b0.jpg?v=0[ /IMG]

I broke the code above so you can see what it should look like in your post.

so finally you get your photo like this example:
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/372726389_54f10ea2b0.jpg?v=0

By the way there is a tutorial on this site somewhere about how to do it, too.

[pizzaman355]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1027/1044062677_23e8a21dc2_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1133/1044062927_2cc8ef6e77.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1054/1044062951_a86ec91aaa.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1221/1044062767_6f55e597b2.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1184/1044062607_9de62de352_m.jpg

[Para]

You are missing the fact that aesthetics may have very little to do with this decision. It's more about economics, politics, and how the "special interests" (including folks such as the AC Transit manager who sounded dubious about the SOM design) see it.

Again, I know little of the S.F. system of building. But I'd assume that it is easier to gain support for the seemingly less extreme Pelli design both in terms of economics, since I'm assuming it is cheaper because it's shorter and more simplistic, and politics, since the Pelli design is less radical and more likely to gain support from those politicians who against change.

I also think I said that I think the Pelli design will win, which I stand by in this post as well, even though I personally like the SOM design more.

[WonderlandPark]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1221/1044062767_6f55e597b2.jpg?v=0


Go SOM! I wanted to like Rogers, but SOM really wins. Good lord that is a big tower.

[pizzaman355]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1106/1045572454_1d402c9b0d.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1245/1045572852_9b9f0fcb18_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1413/1045572572_5340bf1d40_m.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1060/1045572482_cf0be4e961_m.jpg

[hectorant84]

My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.

[ltsmotorsport]

SOM proposal blows everything out of the water. The terminal design integrated with the tower is the sexiest thing I've seen in a long time.

I do think though Rogers' tower would look great in Europe somewhere. Maybe London or Frankfurt. :yes:

[pizzaman355]

My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.

I would love to see the building reach 1,500 ft but I'm pretty happy with 1200-1375 ft. I really liked how the Pelli Clarke bldg had the rooftop park, so maybe SOM will incorporate that into the design.

[pizzaman355]

I'm with you 100%. Looks hot.

Oh, and 1375 feet - no complaints. I would like to see one other building over 1000 feet, though ;)

I think if one of these towers gets built, we will see a few mor 1,000+ ft tall buildings!

[Reminiscence]

My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.

I agree with your opinions on the proposals. Right now, I wouldnt really bring LA into any of this, as this is our moment to shine. The towers proposed by Renzo Piano are separate from this proposal and will probably be shown off in the not too distant future.

Personally, I dont think we should get used to these heights and floor counts, I think its almost certain they will change. We could all use a lesson from Chicago's Chicago Spire. When first proposed, it was only 1600' to the roof. Now under construction, the design has changed significantly and the roof now reaches 2000'. I dont think we'll see a height increase of 400', but its bound to change, hopefully to somewhere around 1500' or more. As for the NIMBYs, I think the most damage they can do is postpone it slightly, but they cant stop it.

[mthd]

two of the videos SOM showed yesterday :

SOM Aerial Video 1 (http://www.431.org/misc/sspage/20070729aerialAnimation-nf2p.wmv)

SOM Aerial Video 2 (http://www.431.org/misc/sspage/20070730wideAnimation-i.wmv)

right click/save as please ;)

[Dolemite]

SOM's design is amazing.

[tyler82]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1138/1045599253_af86a7e24f_o.jpg

[kenratboy]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1060/1045572482_cf0be4e961_m.jpg

Anyone have a bigger picture of the floorplan as shown in this picture?

Thanks!

[rajaxsonbayboi]

My vote is for SOM's design. I despise the tower by Richard Rogers and find the work by Pelli hardly "iconic". Plus, the design by Pelli from what I've heard is a mediocre 1,100 ft. The design by Richard Rogers... What is that!? It reminds me of Sutro Tower with a glass tower trapped inside of it. The design by SOM is daring but NOT tall enough for my tastes. What about the towers proposed by Renzo Piano?? I hope SOM increases the height of its tower to 1,500 ft and the floor count to 100 + and give LA something to cry about. I'm dreaming... Ugh. Does anyone agree with me? Hopefully, those infamous SF nimbys don't come out of ground and start protesting.

i totally 100% agree with you and hope that the height of the tower gets raised to 1,500:cheers: but wouldnt be sad to see that it stays the same height.

[BTinSF]

Again, I know little of the S.F. system of building. But I'd assume that it is easier to gain support for the seemingly less extreme Pelli design both in terms of economics, since I'm assuming it is cheaper because it's shorter and more simplistic, and politics, since the Pelli design is less radical and more likely to gain support from those politicians who against change.

I also think I said that I think the Pelli design will win, which I stand by in this post as well, even though I personally like the SOM design more.

Just to be clear, any of the tower designs being cheaper (or not) is pretty much irrelevent to the decision committee. The way this will work is that the city will sell the tower site to the chosen developer for a sum of money which will be combined with other funds to build the terminal.

So the cost of the terminal matters to the TJPA but not so much the tower. The economics of that are up to the developer but clearly that's why Pelli/Hines would prefer to put all office (no housing) in their tower. They think that pencils out better with their design.

I say "pretty much irrelevent" because, of course, the TJPA wants a tower design that can be built and don't want--as they repeatedly made clear at the unvailing--to pick a deal that ultimately falls apart. And in that regard, as I watched the presentations, one thought that kept bouncing around my head was: These buildings won't be finished for at least 7 years--who here thinks both Richard Rogers and Cesar Pelli will be alive by then? Mr. Hartman of SOM is a bit younger but also SOM itself is a firm less identified with one man.

[CUCa]

I just emailed my comments to the TJPA (as you can and should do here (http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323)) which supported the SOM design. Honestly, the entrance plaza is fantastic; the way the tower meets the street creates what is sure to be a vibrant and dramatic public space. While I appreciate the idea of a rooftop Park in Pelli's design, a large park over 100 feet in the air will surely remain unused (as I think someone here has already pointed out). Access is key to the success of public spaces, and access to the terminal and it's spaces are maximized in the SOM concept. The tower is elegant and bold, like San Fancisco. It would be a true gateway to The City, a true icon.

I also let them know that I support a tower of over 1,200 ft. :)

[munkyman]

I just emailed my comments to the TJPA (as you can and should do here (http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323)) which supported the SOM design. Honestly, the entrance plaza is fantastic; the way the tower meets the street creates what is sure to be a vibrant and dramatic public space. While I appreciate the idea of a rooftop Park in Pelli's design, a large park over 100 feet in the air will surely remain unused (as I think someone here has already pointed out). Access is key to the success of public spaces, and access to the terminal and it's spaces are maximized in the SOM concept. The tower is elegant and bold, like San Fancisco. It would be a true gateway to The City, a true icon.

I also let them know that I support a tower of over 1,200 ft. :)


I sent in my comments as well, overall just praising the idea of this competition, and letting them know that I hope they choose the SOM design. Seriously, take the time to email the TJPA about your positive comments because those who are against this transit terminal proposal certainly will make their negative comments known.

[Wooster]

SOM's! wow, that is spectacular. I hope they pick that one. :tup:

[Reminiscence]

I sent in my comments as well, overall just praising the idea of this competition, and letting them know that I hope they choose the SOM design. Seriously, take the time to email the TJPA about your positive comments because those who are against this transit terminal proposal certainly will make their negative comments known.

I have already done the same. I urged them to pick the SOM design, even though I'm sure my opinion doesnt count for much, its good to let them know where I stand. I also voiced my desire to have a 1500' or taller tower built. I also think the rest of us should do the same before the cut-off date.

[EastBayHardCore]

Wow, as I see new pics and those vids of the SOM design I find myself loving it more and more. Not only is the tower unique but the terminal looks sexy as hell, unlike the Pelli design with that hokey looking park tacked on to the top.

[sfcity1]

I was never a big fan of SOM, but their rendering blows away the competition in my mind. The SOM building is graceful, futuristic, wavy, trend setting, and very unique, all very strong charactersitics of SF. The Richard Rogers building does not belong in SF as it looks industrial and gritty. Finally, Pelli has reproduced this design in many locations. It is not at all unique and a clone of a building should not be the height defining centerpiece of the SF skyline.

SOM all the way, blowing away the others with design, height, and :notacrook: :notacrook: :banana: SF character.

[BTinSF]

^^^Prior to release of the designs, I was afraid they'd pick the SOM design because SOM is, in effect, the home team. Now I'm praying they will. The home team's superior understanding of the city, I think, shows.

[viewguysf]

I have already done the same. I urged them to pick the SOM design, even though I'm sure my opinion doesnt count for much, its good to let them know where I stand. I also voiced my desire to have a 1500' or taller tower built. I also think the rest of us should do the same before the cut-off date.

I just sent mine too, praising the SOM|RGDC proposal and encouraging the height to be retained or increased. Just think what the Pyramid would look like today if it had been built to its originally designed 1,150 feet--we can't let that mistake happen yet again!

:skyscraper:

[BTinSF]

Here's the comment I sent them:

Sirs:

While I think all 3 of the submitted proposals are wonderful, in my mind the SOM design is the clear winner. To my mind it embodies both the simple elegance of San Francisco and the monumental form required of an "iconic tower". It would add an unmatched element of drama to our skyline that neither of the other designs can match.

In addition, I believe the other two designs have major flaws, especially in regards to the terminal designs. The Rogers proposal leaves the bus platforms of the terminal open at the sides to the elements. They regard this as helpful in reducing the projects energy usage, but I regard it leaving transit patrons too unprotected from San Francisco's cold wind, winter mist and summer fog. Similarly, the Pelli proposal's park is 6 floors above the street where I doubt it would get the kind of use that Yerba Buena gets because one can easily walk into Yerba Buena off the street without taking a funicular or multiple escalators. And as with the Rogers bus platform, the six-story high park is going to be mighty cold and windy on many a San Francisco day.

Frankly, I think the SOM notion of a grand transit hall and a monumental entrance is much more in keeping with what should be the unrelentingly urban nature of this part of the center of downtown.

Finally, I just want to join others to implore you NOT to allow the height of the tower to be cut down as was done to the TransAmerica Building so long ago. Both the form of our skyline and the significance of our city in the pantheon of great cities of the Pacific Rim demands that we have a building the equal of the Petronas Towers, Taipei 101 and the towers of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo.

Congratulations on the success of the design competition and please push forward quickly and deliberately to get the terminal and tower built.

[Thefigman]

Thanks to everyone for posting these terrific picks! I feel like I got better coverage here than if I went to the meeting myself.

I am so disappoionted in Pelli's design. I've seen that same building in HK and Jersey City. I have to say I expected more.

My favorite design is Rogers. When I see the design, I picture not only the Golden Gate Bridge, but the Sutro Tower to the SW, and I see the building really blending in with what's already the "high" points in the city.

SOM is very impressive as well. There would be no tears here if that one was picked, either. I just think that Rogers appeals to me the most.

[Complex01]

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

That looks AWESOME. Those new renders dispelled all of my fears of the SOM project. SOM all the way.


Man this tower has my vote. Its amazing, i love it. I love the base as well. What a great looking project...

:yes:

[Biff]

The SOM proposal is clearly the superior design in my opinion. It is the only one of the 3 that i would consider to be a world class design. I am a huge fan of Pelli, but his design is just a good looking, tall office tower - not something that is worthy of winning a design competition - not world class interesting. Rogers, to me, looks like it tries too hard to bring elements of SF into one building. I just don't like it.


So what is the process now? When will the winner be decided?

[kznyc2k]

I was never a big fan of SOM, but their rendering blows away the competition in my mind. The SOM building is graceful, futuristic, wavy, trend setting, and very unique, all very strong charactersitics of SF. The Richard Rogers building does not belong in SF as it looks industrial and gritty. Finally, Pelli has reproduced this design in many locations. It is not at all unique and a clone of a building should not be the height defining centerpiece of the SF skyline.

This basically sums up my thoughts. I love Pelli because he's one of the only guys out there who is still willing and able to do symmetrical buildings, but damn it -- how many more times is he going to reuse the same friggin shape? Hong kong's 2IFC and Jersey City, NJ's Goldman Sachs tower immediately spring to mind when looking at this one.

And about Rogers' proposal, it looks like it came out of the oven half-baked.. lots of great ideas, but the overal design is utterly lacking in refinement. This is the one I want to like the most, but as of now there's just too much stuff going on with it to effectively work as a skyline piece.

So SOM it is for me. It's oh-so-hip, yet classy at the same time, and for that I feel it would age well.

**HOWEVER, it should be noted that SOM's renderings are by far the slickest ones, so I wouldn't be surprised if people started changing their minds a bit if Pelli or Rogers released some more shiny renders of their own.

[Lecom]

Each design, though great-looking and sleek, seems to lack something. Pelli produced yet another of his rounded top towers, which were amazing the first time around but now are just getting repetitive. SOM's employs some truly innovative engineering techniques, and looks amazing from street level, yet on the skyline it comes off as just another box, despite its actually interesting, twisting massing. Rogers' is great in details, the massing is quite interesting and the building has Rogers' signature exterior structural support, yet something still seems lacking about the building. All in all, I don't have a favorite at this moment. They're all pretty much tied for second place as of now, with Pelli's probably being the most uninspiring.

[tyler82]

With a voting sample of 2882, SOM is beating Pelli in the SF Gate polls by 41%- 37%. The SF population clearly prefers SOM over the simple Pelli design, which is a very good thing! With a building like SOM's in our skyline, we can recapture our prominence in the world and finally have a graceful, world class skyline.
The problem with the skyline now is that all of the propositions and opposition in the past to tall towers created a weird table effect that sloped down to one side, very unsightly from most angles and not pleasant to the eye. This tower would beef up our city into one of the most dynamic skylines in the world. And I LOVE that SOM is based in SF, which means they probably have a better chance of winning, politics wise.

[paulsfca]

I voted for SOM in SF Gate's poll and highly praised the SOM design in an email to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. This design is world class and breath-taking. :yes: :yes: :yes:

[caramatt]

Remember that the TJPA jury is basing 60% of their selection on the terminal, and the remaining 40% on the tower. In that sense, I would actually say that Rogers has a fair chance, and it really could be considered anyone's game.

[pizzaman355]

Anyone have a bigger picture of the floorplan as shown in this picture?

Thanks!

Just right click on the pic and save it. Then go to MY PICTURES and you can zoom in on it.

[NYC2ATX]

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8133/retrieveassetcazxh6etke9.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5826/retrieveassetcahj70ukaa2.jpg


:eek: :eeekk: :psycho:

OMG


I just...wow. I'm awed.

[caramatt]

Wow, based on the way this thread is going, it's starting to seem like I'm the only one still rooting for PCP. Oh well. They just put a new rendering up for the crown on their website which gives a bit more detail. Here ya go:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1145/1052442147_f3753e0235_o.jpg

[NYC2ATX]

However, the SOM skyscraper itself, I'm not crazy about....it may grow on me. I feel though, that if this is selected, there will be a tweaking period. Hopefully we don't lose that fantastic terminal. I'd adjust to that skyscraper to keep THAT TERMINAL...WOW!

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah, the SOM terminal is absolutely stunning. And the more I look at it, the more I love SOM's tower design too. It integrates so well with the terminal and you can tell there was a lot of work put into the design of both tower and terminal.

[plinko]

SOM proposal blows everything out of the water. The terminal design integrated with the tower is the sexiest thing I've seen in a long time.

I do think though Rogers' tower would look great in Europe somewhere. Maybe London or Frankfurt. :yes:

Couldn't agree more Mike...

I'd rate them as follows:
1. SOM - that undulating shape is completely unique. Hartman really outdid himself. And while it may have the same structural concept as the Shanghai building, it's vastly superior in terms of visual elegance. That tower is the hot girl in the slinky dress sipping a martini. The integration of the terminal design seems to be great too, and SOM as a firm is notable for getting function right first. Hopefully that's the case here.

2. Rogers - A noted detail guy, it's very difficult to judge the true nature and layering of his design, but I see it as a very iconic and functional thing. The homage to the GG or Sutro are fine with me. My immediate reaction was that it would look amazing in the Frankfurt skyline. This is the girl it takes longer to know, but once you do you figure out that she's amazingly complex.

3. Pelli - Count me as one of those odd tower lovers who find 2IFC and GS to be decidedly uninteresting. They might be tall, they might have intricate but subtle facades, but they both are essentially background buildings when they should be straight up stars. I fear that this tower (the enlarged crown rendering did nothing to help allay this for me) is no different. Big, nice, and safe. Not what this contest should be about. A park 6 stories above the street? Pretty yes, probably an amazing public space, but likely to be VASTLY empty most of the time. This is the girl who has something going for her, but you take the chance only because you know she's a sure thing.

:cheers:

[tyler82]

Remember that the TJPA jury is basing 60% of their selection on the terminal, and the remaining 40% on the tower. In that sense, I would actually say that Rogers has a fair chance, and it really could be considered anyone's game.

What does Rogers' terminal got that SOM's doesn't got? Care to enlighten me?

[caramatt]

What does Rogers' terminal got that SOM's doesn't got? Care to enlighten me?

Nothing specific, I'd say they're about equal - which is why I said it could be anyone's game. Here are some renders of Roger's terminal from his website, which to me really looks like it captures the spirit of a transit station along with some beautifully integrated feats of engineering:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1265/1053140451_80abe11e70.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1119/1053140349_c657327519.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1007/1053140161_1709e436c8.jpg?v=0

Honestly, I'm really basing it on his Barjas airport, which is stunning, and since they actually look to be so similiar, I'll throw up some images of that as well:
http://thisismattia.typepad.com/this_is_mattia/images/2642_0503_1_w.jpg
http://thisismattia.typepad.com/this_is_mattia/images/2642_0475_1_w.jpg
http://thisismattia.typepad.com/this_is_mattia/images/2642_0451_1_w.jpg

Looking at these images again now compared to the renders, the terminal proposal actually looks extremely derivative of Barajas, but again, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing when the quality is so high.

[kenratboy]

Just right click on the pic and save it. Then go to MY PICTURES and you can zoom in on it.

:shrug:

There is no more detail to be had by saving the picture and zooming in...you just zoom in on the image and the pixels get bigger, you do not get anymore detail. Try it yourself and see what I mean.

I am actually trying to see details on those floorplans (see how they laid out the building).

[tyler82]

Nothing specific, I'd say they're about equal - which is why I said it could be anyone's game. Here are some renders of Roger's terminal from his website, which to me really looks like it captures the spirit of a transit station along with some beautifully integrated feats of engineering:




It looks more like it captures the spirit of a McDonald's playplace. What's with all the yellow??? Doesn't fit into downtown SF. I really like this tower, although I think it could be perfected, but it just doesn't fit into the city! It looks like it would be another Sutro Tower disaster.

[pizzaman355]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1060/1045572482_cf0be4e961_b.jpg

[hectorant84]

OH MAHHHH GAH!!! The more I look @ the design by Rogers the more I'm disgusted. I hate that tower design. It's ugly. That doesn't belong in San Francisco. I thought San Francisco had a new motto... "world class design." Not a building that looks handicapped with a back brace on each corner. SOM's design reminds me of the Freedom Tower in NYC and SF needs something like that. I'm tired of looking at the giant refrigerator boxes in the financial district. Ugh.

[kenratboy]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1060/1045572482_cf0be4e961_b.jpg

Thanks!!!

Interesting that there are two cores towards the top, and what is up with the void in the middle?

[BTinSF]

^^^Mr. Hartmann described the double cores as a major engineering feature of the building allowing, among other things, the rather grand passthrough from Mission St. to the terminal. And I can't recall if it also separates the core utiities from the office and/or hotel segments from those of the residential (one of the projects mentioned that) but it certainly could.

[tyler82]

My biggest hope for this project is that if something around 1500' is built, we could have a bunch of 900- 1000' buildings in the downtown area, as it will somewhat cure the anti- high rise sentiment in the past, because "view blocking" arguments won't work, if there is already a huge tower in place. This one building could be the best thing for a new, taller downtown!

When in hell is Piano releasing his renderings?? I'm visioning a supertall cylindrical shape with brown/ beige terra cotta exterior- very simple and elegant.

[craeg]

I for one hope that the piano renderings are not released anytime soon. The reception for the transbay tower in SF has been pretty damn positive for dont change anything anywhere ever San Francisco. I'm worried that an additional 2-3 towers in the 1k+ category would just be too much too soon.

[Reminiscence]

I for one hope that the piano renderings are not released anytime soon. The reception for the transbay tower in SF has been pretty damn positive for dont change anything anywhere ever San Francisco. I'm worried that an additional 2-3 towers in the 1k+ category would just be too much too soon.

Strange, but I agree. As much as I would love to hear about Renzo's towers right now, I think they should plan it carefully. Right now we're seeing mixed reaction for just one of the many towers to get built. I think they should be carefull to not give the public the idea that you're going on a building rampage. I think that about the time when they're ready to break ground on this tower (give or take a few months), it should be ok for them to reveal Piano's towers.

[BTinSF]

I for one hope that the piano renderings are not released anytime soon. The reception for the transbay tower in SF has been pretty damn positive for dont change anything anywhere ever San Francisco. I'm worried that an additional 2-3 towers in the 1k+ category would just be too much too soon.

Actually, I think it may be a pretty effective tactic to diffuse attention from any one of these projects.

[tyler82]

In all intended irony I think that the public will accept the Piano towers better than the transbay tower. Nothing like conservative architecture for the most "liberal" city in the world!

[Reminiscence]

As comical as it may be to read such articles, this is the rant of an obvious NIMBY over at SFBG. I could'nt help but laugh at how ridiculous this sounded:

Article written by Tim Redmond

If you don't like the notion of a 1,200-foot tower scarring San Francisco's skyline -- and I don't -- then maybe you ought to read this fascinating piece on Calitics, and stop for a minute to think about what this city, and this state, is doing.

Why do we have to live with a giant highrise office tower near the Transbay Terminal? Because if we don't, there won't be any money to build what should be the central transit link for the Bay Area, a landmark bus and train station on the scale (we're told) of Grand Central in New York. It's an essential part of the city's future.

But the project costs a lot of money, almost a billion dollars -- and nobody wants to pay higher taxes to fund this sort of thing. In fact, nobody in California wants to pay higher taxes for anything. So the folks at City Hall have decided that the only way we can have a new transit terminal is if we hock a piece of our city and our skyline to fund it. So we take some of the land on the terminal site and let a developer build a monstrosity of a highrise on it -- and that will bring in the money that we can't get any other way.

It 's the same reason we have that god-awful RIncon Tower sticking its ugly head into the sky: The developer offered to pay for a fair amount of affordable housing and other community amenities that the taxayers won't fund because local government can't raise taxes in California without reaching extraordinary lengths that are almost politically impossible. So here's the deal: You want affordable housing? Give a big developer the rights to do something awful, and in exchange, we'll get a few dollops of cash for civic needs.

Imagine, for a moment, what the state might look like if we'd had to cut this kind of deal to build the University of California system. You want nice colleges? Okay -- sell off the coast and let it become a giant Miami Beach. You don't want to do that? Too bad -- no world-class university system for your kids.

This is the devil's bargain we have agreed to settle for in 2007, and it sucks.

Its people with this type of mentality that are holding us back from amazing projects such as Transbay. People like this just hate height no matter what the building looks like. Its sad really, in my opinion.

[djvandrake]

:previous: It's more than sad, it's blantantly ignorant.

[tyler82]

As comical as it may be to read such articles, this is the rant of an obvious NIMBY over at SFBG. I could'nt help but laugh at how ridiculous this sounded:

Article written by Tim Redmond



Its people with this type of mentality that are holding us back from amazing projects such as Transbay. People like this just hate height no matter what the building looks like. Its sad really, in my opinion.

PPL like this don't hate height, they hate what height represents. They hate MONEY and corporations. Funny that these same people are the ones who want to tax the hell out of everything (what was up with that 20% parking lot tax bullshit in 2006?). If a developer wants to build a mixed commercial building on a commercial space (yes, airports and transit terminals are zoned commercial spaces), I say, good! The public education analogy this person used was dead before it left the ground.
Let the business interests pay for it. I actually prefer it that way, just think what kind of renderings we'd have if the project were government designed :yuck:

[Chase Unperson]

Yeah WTF is that guy talking about? Miami Beach is one of the best parts of the country. It would be great to have that in SF. What a horrible argument.

[BTinSF]

^^^Tim Redmond has been writing that kind of stuff for the Bay Guardian for at least 2 decades. I've met him--he's an interesting guy. But that view of things from that source is really a big yawn. Does anybody still read the BG?

[BTinSF]

Yeah WTF is that guy talking about? Miami Beach is one of the best parts of the country. It would be great to have that in SF. What a horrible argument.

Sorry, you lost me and 99% of CA there. Take a look at the many photo threads on Highway 1 and tell me you'd rather have half-empty condos lining the coast blocking public access to the Pacific. That's what he's talking about. This isn't Florida. For one thing, it's 30 degrees cooler.

[Gordo]

^^^Tim Redmond has been writing that kind of stuff for the Bay Guardian for at least 2 decades. I've met him--he's an interesting guy. But that view of things from that source is really a big yawn. Does anybody still read the BG?

When I'm in the mood for a good laugh, yes :banana:

[tyler82]

I believe Webster needs to redefine the word "liberal," or at least give it two classifications, as I, a flexible liberal, see myself distanced more and more from these kind of liberals every day!

[SFView]

It really isn't so ridiculous when you consider this to be rather a matter of opinion and taste. No matter how beautiful and cool you think a skyscraper can be, it is an ugly monstrosity to another. Skyscrapers are man-made objects. The bigger and taller they are, the worse it gets for certain people. To some, they can never match the beauty of nature itself. Perhaps Tim Redmond would feel much better if San Francisco remained as it was in 2006, 1958, or even 1847. I can appreciate natural vistas almost as much Redmond seems to, but outside of urban centers. Cities can be just as beautiful with tall modern skyscrapers in a different way, but that is just my own opinion. Maybe it is yours too. It is definately not Tim Redmond's. To him a skyscraper can never be beautiful. At least on SSP I don't feel alone.

[tech12]

You should have heard my old boss when I was doing landscaping. When ever we would come back across the bridge from Berkeley, he would bitch and moan about 1 Rincon Hill, saying how it was going to be the tallest building in SF (and tall is bad OBVIOUSLY :rolleyes: ...nevermind the fact he was wrong about the height anyways).

He would then say how 1 Rincon is so completely "unsustainable" because it's all electric (???), and if there's a fire you'll get locked in your room, because the locks are electric, and you wont be able to get out because the elevators won't work, and it'll fall over in an earthquake. All this from a 55 year-old man with years of construction experience (he's also an ex-hippy...).
Me and a co-worker actually had to inform him that buidings ARE in fact, required to have stairways, due to the fire-code (and plain-old common sense)...this is the type of ignorance and knee-jerk reaction we're dealing with here.

[kenratboy]

Like it has been said - these people don't hate the tower, they hate the fact that something has to be built to find it - be it good or bad. These people think that it (Transit Terminal) should just pop up overnight at no charge, compromise, or sacrifice.

Look at Europe - the business centers are mostly built around transit hubs, or vice verse. Its just good urban planning and it just makes sense.

Its just the cliche awful people who oppose things for the simple fact of opposing things. Thankfully, it looks like common sense and rational people will silence their ignorance and short-sightedness.

[SFView]

I know another ex-hippie that just hates One Rincon Hill, thinking that it is truly ugly. He also does not like the idea of new towers obscuring the hills of the city, and ruining the skyline. Most ex-hippies do not like tall buildings. San Francisco once was, and maybe still is the hippie or ex-hippie center of the world. At the same time around the late 60's and early 70's, it was almost going to be the third tallest skyline in the world. There was even a ballot initiative in 1971 to cap all new building in San Francisco at only 6 stories. Anything 7 floors or taller is considered a highrise. The initiative did not pass, but years of protest that followed eventually resulted in a bad skyline haircut at 550 feet.

[rocketman_95046]

I know that some of this is off target but it really conveys the excitement of change...

Heady Week For The City
C.W. Nevius

Thursday, August 9, 2007
You have to admit, this has been a pretty cool week for San Francisco.

Architects unveiled plans for a towering, landmark skyscraper that will transform the city's skyline. And Gap founder Donald Fisher offered to build a museum for his one-of-a-kind art collection, making San Francisco a mecca for modern art.

And then, oh yes, there was the national attention when Barry Bonds hit his record-breaking home run at AT&T Park. I got an e-mail from a friend in Asia on Wednesday, the morning after Bonds' blast. He said the story was on the front page of a Hong Kong newspaper.

"It's a pretty exciting time in San Francisco,'' said Mayor Gavin Newsom. "We can reflect on where we are and where we are going as a city.''

The mayor still has to deal with the misery and problems of the homeless and the hassles of the Muni system. But for a moment, these events reminded us what it is like to live in a city of substance, one reaching for the heights.

As Craig Hartman, an architect for Skidmore Owings and Merrill, says, the proposed tower rising more than 1,000 feet above the Transbay Terminal isn't a building -- it's a statement.

"This is an important signal to the rest of the world to continue to see San Francisco as a global city,'' says Hartman, whose firm submitted one of the designs. "Great cities have always marked their points of arrival with a mark in the skyline.''

Because when you build the tallest building on the West Coast, you're making an announcement to the rest of the world -- "Hey, take a look at this."

"It becomes an icon for the city,'' says Zigmund Rubel, president of the San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Architects. "It is what everyone looks for when they are coming in on an airplane.''

Typically, Hartman says, a statement tower like this should rise well above the surrounding structures. This one certainly qualifies, and the public controversy seems destined to rise to even greater heights. If you've looked at the comments on SFGate.com, you know that many residents are not pleased with the idea of the edifice.

That's all part of the process, of course. Go back and read the news clippings about the "outrage'' the Transamerica Pyramid caused when it was going up in the '60s and '70s. One critic wrote that the structure had "all the grace of a dentist's drill.'' Yet today it is an unmistakable, if not dominant, feature of the skyline.

Art, on the other hand, is often heard about but not seen. The Fisher collection, a comprehensive gathering of the work of modern artists, was much discussed but not often viewed, at least in total. His offer to build a museum to house the pieces was not only a big deal here, it was national news.

"This is tremendous,'' says John Buchanan, director of fine art for the museums of San Francisco. "It really nails San Francisco as a serious place to come face to face with modern works from the last 30 or 40 years or so.''

And then there is Bonds. In a perfect world, he'd be another kind of guy -- sunny, cheery and uplifting. Instead, he's more like a summer day in San Francisco -- forbidding, overcast and chilly.

But you have to admit, in an age of hired professionals, where your hometown team's hero may have grown up in Pennsylvania and played college ball in Indiana -- sorry, Joe Montana, but it's true -- Bonds is a legitimately local guy. He went to high school in the Bay Area, his dad played for the Giants, and AT&T Park will always be the House that Barry Built.

He is as identified with San Francisco as the Golden Gate. My son, no baseball fan, is just back from a summer in Washington, D.C.

"Wow,'' he said when he returned. "People really don't like Barry Bonds.''

Yeah, we know. But we're dealing with it. As a fan said on these pages not long ago, "He's a jerk, but he's our jerk.'' Other cities can boo him, but this week they weren't in the national spotlight. San Francisco was.

Now let's admit it, San Franciscans can be a little smug. When out-of-towners mention that they've seen one of the four B's -- the bridges, the bay, or Bonds -- up close and in person, locals sometimes resist the urge to point out that they live right here with them all the time.

And, of course, sometimes they don't resist.

That's one of the reasons why the recent columns about homeless campers and dirty hypodermic needles in the city's parks have hit so hard. It runs counter to our image of this as a world-class city, with restaurants to die for, and its own national radio talk show catchphrase -- "San Francisco politics.''

This week's news is more like it: soaring vision, lofty achievement and a reach for the heights.

It's like those tourists standing around the Powell Street cable car turnaround in their shorts and T-shirts, shivering.

"How,'' they want to know, "do you stand this cold?''

We prefer to think of it as cool.

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

[tyler82]

I know that some of this is off target but it really conveys the excitement of change...

Heady Week For The City
C.W. Nevius

Thursday, August 9, 2007
You have to admit, this has been a pretty cool week for San Francisco.


You forgot to mention the new imac :jester:

[rocketman_95046]

You forgot to mention the new imac :jester:

:haha:

[SFView]

You know, for something with "all the grace of a dentist drill," I see tourists from all over the world with cameras taking pictures of the Transamerica Pyramid from wherever they happen to see it. This is what I hopefully envision will happen after the new Transbay Tower is built. For now, the design I feel most suitable for the role is SOM's design. I already looks like a major future tourist landmark attraction to me.

all photos by SFView
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_0002.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_0005.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_0007.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_0049.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_0003.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_0006a.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_0024.jpg

[Reminiscence]

you forgot to mention the new imac

"and, there's more ..." - Steve Jobs

:haha:

[SFView]

By the way, Renzo Piano's towers are depicted in the SOM model. Not to draw attention away from Transbay, the two middle towers amoung the four of equal height across the street from Transbay, are reduced from 1200 to 900 feet tall. That is not an official design change.

[BTinSF]

^^^Like I've said elsewhere, I wish you'd also boldfaced the bit about the Fisher Museum. Between SFMOMA and the Fisher, SF will someday be THE important place for late 20th century art, the way Chicago is for late 19th and early 20th century impressionism (the Art Institute).

[CUCa]

Mmmmmm, more videos :D :D :D

Click Me (SOM) (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=SOMSanFrancisco&p=r)

[pizzaman355]

Mmmmmm, more videos :D :D :D

Click Me (SOM) (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=SOMSanFrancisco&p=r)

Looking at these videos, how could people not want something like this in there city. The building looks like it would be one of the best looking buildings in the world! :)

[skylife]

It's friggin' glorious!

[peanut gallery]

Those videos are amazing. Watching the exterior flyby, I just realized that the SOM tower also has some reference to St Mary's Cathedral. It's obviously much taller and more elongated, but the way the outline of the building twists as it rises is somewhat similar. I hadn't noticed that before.

[northbay]

Those videos are amazing. Watching the exterior flyby, I just realized that the SOM tower also has some reference to St Mary's Cathedral. It's obviously much taller and more elongated, but the way the outline of the building twists as it rises is somewhat similar. I hadn't noticed that before.

good observation!! i see the similarity.
the videos are great!

[tyler82]

Those videos are amazing. Watching the exterior flyby, I just realized that the SOM tower also has some reference to St Mary's Cathedral. It's obviously much taller and more elongated, but the way the outline of the building twists as it rises is somewhat similar. I hadn't noticed that before.

I too thought of St. Mary's. St. Mary's and Transamerica and Eiffel Tower had a monstrous child called Transbay!

[caramatt]

Pelli Clarke Pelli also put their little rendered video up http://www.pcparch.com/transbay/citypark.swf. It ain't nothing compared to the stuff put out by SOM, though.

Speaking of which, I also noticied that SOM's tower had the feel of St. Mary's, but there is something about it that reminds me of a Gothic Cathedral as well. Nothing specific enough to name, however.

[Plokoon11]

Spiderman, spiderman, man, it looks like a web.

[tech12]

Mmmmmm, more videos :D :D :D

Click Me (SOM) (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=SOMSanFrancisco&p=r)

Holy Shit, I have been converted. This is jaw-dropping :slob:

I love Pelli's design, but THIS is a signature tower. I hope we somehow get pelli's tower chucked in somewhere, even if it's scaled down to 800 ft. Man, I want both. The skyscraper gods need to converge on San Francisco, and by some miracle (as if this isn't already miracle enough, hehe), they need to give us both towers!

[Stepping Razor]

Holy Shit, I have been converted. This is jaw-dropping :slob:

I love Pelli's design, but THIS is a signature tower. I hope we somehow get pelli's tower chucked in somewhere, even if it's scaled down to 800 ft. Man, I want both. The skyscraper gods need to converge on San Francisco, and by some miracle (as if this isn't already miracle enough, hehe), they need to give us both towers!

I agree, for me it's SOM the winner in a runaway.

I do like the Pelli building, but more as a fabric building than the signature piece. I wonder if they could offer Pelli the chance to build a scaled-down (800 ft) version of his tower at the other big Transbay site, on Howard near 2nd. (You can see it as a semi-invisible placeholder in SOM's animations, dead center in the opening shot of the "Aerial Overview" YouTube, for example.)

[BTinSF]

^^^During the presentations, the Pelli team didn't even seem that interested in the tower--and maybe that's the problem. All they seemed excited about was their park.

[JMGarcia]

^Bad case of playing to their "perceived" audience.

I'm still so stunned something like this might actually get built in SF of all places I still haven't been able to shake off my haze and really comment on it.

[mthd]

i would strongly encourage all of you to do as btinsf and others have done and send your positive comments to the tjpa - http://www.transbaycenter.org/transbay/content.aspx?id=323

we've all seen the kinds of reactionary and sometimes misguided opposition to density and height that get published in this city. the more of us that let the powers that be know how many people support this project, the better.

and don't forget to vote for your favorite at sfgate http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/07/MNTMRD67A1.DTL

these really are exciting times for san francisco. let's keep the energy going.

[peanut gallery]

So, I ducked out of work this afternoon for the short stroll from Foundry Square to City Hall to gaze upon the greatness of these models, renders and diagrams. And guess what? They took them away this morning. I just couldn't get down there earlier in the week. Oh well. I did take this shot of what's currently sitting at the site of this dare-I-dream-it proposal. Yeah, I'd say one of these would be a distinct improvement. Personally, I'd like to see the SOM tower here, but I could also live with the Pelli.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1347/1067244239_a2c6708acf_b.jpg

BTW, for anyone not familiar with some of the other projects under construction in SF right now, that's 301 Mission on the left and Foundry Square 1 on the right.

[tyler82]

I'm still so stunned something like this might actually get built in SF of all places

Yah it kicks the freedom tower's ass :-)

[BigKidD]

Yah it kicks the freedom tower's ass :-)
I feel it's much more innovative than the Freedom Tower in regards to SOM's proposal.

[BTinSF]

BTW, for anyone not familiar with some of the other projects under construction in SF right now, that's 601 Mission on the left and Foundry Square 1 on the right.

301 Mission ;)

[tech12]

I agree, for me it's SOM the winner in a runaway.

I do like the Pelli building, but more as a fabric building than the signature piece. I wonder if they could offer Pelli the chance to build a scaled-down (800 ft) version of his tower at the other big Transbay site, on Howard near 2nd. (You can see it as a semi-invisible placeholder in SOM's animations, dead center in the opening shot of the "Aerial Overview" YouTube, for example.)

That's exactly what I was thinking, that spot on the other side of the terminal, where there's the big tower in the SOM pics. That would be nice...the SOM signature tower, and another beautiful(though less striking and innovative) skyscraper just a block away...

I can't wait until we get renderings for the other towers in the Transbay plan. Does anyone know when those towers are supposed to be built. Would they be going up at the same time as the Transbay Tower, or would the idea be that they go up after the main tower and terminal?

[Chase Unperson]

Sorry, you lost me and 99% of CA there. Take a look at the many photo threads on Highway 1 and tell me you'd rather have half-empty condos lining the coast blocking public access to the Pacific. That's what he's talking about. This isn't Florida. For one thing, it's 30 degrees cooler.

I didn't develop the whole coast with them. South Beach is a very very vibrant district. CA could use something like that (but like you said it would not go to well with a 50-55 degree wind whipping off the water and weeks of constant summer fog on Ocean Beach).

I just think it is funny when people try to dissuade me with things that I think are great, such as "manhattanization". You tell me some place is going to be like Manhattan, and I get excited. Who doesn't love NYC? Who doesn't love South Beach?