SAN FRANCISCO | Park Tower at Transbay | 605 FT | 43 FLOORS

[timbad]

Originally Posted by edwards

Interesting FB going with a random "galaxy" painting when all of Salesforce's lobbies feature a LED display wall.

when I was looking at it in real life, I was thinking there's got to be more to it than that, it looks pretty schlocky as is. maybe something gets overlaid or projected on it

[viewguysf]

I think we can all agree that, one way or another, this tower isn't a real winner.

[Pedestrian]

The giant balconies are maybe the only interesting thing in this building and they take up a lot of what otherwise would be rentable floor space so I wonder if they'll get used and if businesses--remember this is all office building--will find them an attraction. Surely the developers must have made some sort of inquiries before they designed them in. But I'm always dubious about balconies and roof gardens in SF's cold, windy, sometimes foggy summer weather.

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by timbad

when I was looking at it in real life, I was thinking there's got to be more to it than that, it looks pretty schlocky as is. maybe something gets overlaid or projected on it

Could just be a base painting and more will go on top of this.

[Sky's the Limit]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I think we can all agree that, one way or another, this tower isn't a real winner.

"We all..."? Speak for yourself. I like this tower a lot, particularly its asymmetrical geometric massing. Kudos to Chicago's Goettsch Partners, pioneers in postmodern architecture, for their fine work on this project.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Sky's the Limit

"We all..."? Speak for yourself. I like this tower a lot, particularly its asymmetrical geometric massing. Kudos to Chicago's Goettsch Partners, pioneers in postmodern architecture, for their fine work on this project.

OK--I should have said most of us, based on those who have been posting.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Sky's the Limit

"We all..."? Speak for yourself. I like this tower a lot, particularly its asymmetrical geometric massing. Kudos to Chicago's Goettsch Partners, pioneers in postmodern architecture, for their fine work on this project.

+1

While I don't think it has turned out as nicely as I initially imagined, it's still way more interesting than other recent projects (Jasper, 33 Tehama, 340 Fremont, 222 Second).

[waterchicken]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I think we can all agree that, one way or another, this tower isn't a real winner.

I was hoping the downward taper angulation would visually read a bit more severe, but I am overall very happy with the building.

[mt_climber13]

Great addition to the SF skyline.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by homebucket

+1

While I don't think it has turned out as nicely as I initially imagined, it's still way more interesting than other recent projects (Jasper, 33 Tehama, 340 Fremont, 222 Second).

I was peppered for my criticism of 222 Second when it under construction and still dislike it today (except for the lobby), Jasper was bemoaned by almost everyone (I despise the west facade in particular), 340 Fremont was ve’d into mediocrity, and so on. We could also go back to earlier generations of awful buildings in our beautiful city setting. By comparison, Park Tower isn’t nearly as bad, it’s just somewhat disappointing to me. I long to have more dynamic architecture like some other world cities, but alas, that’s usually not the case here.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I was peppered for my criticism of 222 Second when it under construction and still dislike it today (except for the lobby), Jasper was bemoaned by almost everyone (I despise the west facade in particular), 340 Fremont was ve’d into mediocrity, and so on. We could also go back to earlier generations of awful buildings in our beautiful city setting. By comparison, Park Tower isn’t nearly as bad, it’s just somewhat disappointing to me. I long to have more dynamic architecture like some other world cities, but alas, that’s usually not the case here.

Agreed, which is why I said it has not turned out as nicely as I initially imagined. Like others have said, I wish the angle was more dramatic and breathtaking. But otherwise, I like the balconies, and DTSF does not get as much fog as the rest of the city anyway. (Many houses in the Sunset and Richmond have balconies and rooftop decks too, and I don't hear them complaining.) I just have no idea where people get the idea that it looks cheap and ugly though.

[Pedestrian]

^^You can't say anything here or most places on the internet without bringing forth all manner of people wanting to argue with you. That's why when I state an opinion I know is controversial, I often avoid revisting a thread for a few days--I don't want to argue the issue, just say what I think.

In this case, I think the building is ungainly and lacking grace and elegance (I don't recall anyone saying it looked "cheap"). It IS "interesting" which is its one saving feature, mainly because of the giant balconies. But I think the sloping wall is an architects way of saying, "Hey, look what I can do!". It doesn't make the building more attractive, just calls attention to it.

See you in a few days . . . maybe.

[Sky's the Limit]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

OK--I should have said most of us, based on those who have been posting.

That's a fair qualification, given the tone of a lot of posts. That said, another thing I'm impressed with about this tower is the high quality of the glass used in its curtain wall system, beautifully executed, similar to the fine work Rem Koolhass is doing at 400 Folsom.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

I think the building looks cheap and ugly.

@Pedestrian

[BobbyMucho]

ANYWAY, I'm excited to see how that massive open air lobby + display come together. It should add a bit more life to that pocket of the East Cut.

[observatory]

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

ANYWAY, I'm excited to see how that massive open air lobby + display come together. It should add a bit more life to that pocket of the East Cut.

Does anyone know the origin of the name "East Cut"? I've lived here my whole life and only recently have heard this new neighborhood name. Frankly I don't really like it...

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by observatory

Does anyone know the origin of the name "East Cut"? I've lived here my whole life and only recently have heard this new neighborhood name. Frankly I don't really like it...

An attempt to move us away from complaining about the tower somehow drove us to complain about the name of the neighborhood.

To answer your question about the name; it's a reference to the Second Street Cut through Rincon Hill that was made in the late 1860s to help shorten the travel time between South Beach/China Basin and what was at that time Happy Valley (area roughly bound by Market and Harrison, 1st and 3rd) and ultimately the central business district.

More info on the cut: http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=2nd_St._Cut and on Happy Valley (the first name for of the area in question): http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=HAPPY_VALLEY

I have no doubt the East Cut CBD site will have more info.

[observatory]

Thank you mucho Bobby! Not complaining, just stating my opinion...as for the Park Tower, I actually like it. The huge balconies on each side are a nice touch taking full advantage of the great views of the bay and of Salesforce Park and nearby forest of high rises.

[Big Sky]

Looks great

[edwards]

9/27/18