Quote:
Also, that one going up in Chile (Consterna) and that tall building in Jersey City. haha he really likes this motif. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Let's hope the TransBay tower gets its finances in order and breaks ground next year. I see the Terminal is moving on quite well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
SF has dozens of high rises under construction, approved and proposed right now, which doesn't quite sound like a little village to me...and 10-20 years ago a 1,070' tower would have been unthinkable. So really it's more like the little village big city that can (finally!!). Not to mention the plan has always been to build a tall skyscraper, not the tallest skyscraper on the west coast. Anyway, here have a nice rendering of the Transbay tower and the other towers proposed for the Transbay and Rincon hill redevelopment areas: http://i.imgur.com/Ord5U.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5uT6G.jpg source: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATT...TS/FA26000.pdf That sure looks like the type of development you see in a little village that can't! :rolleyes: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote (Wakamesalad): You have to leave and look at it from the outside in to really understand it. Los Angeles is a much more important city culturally, yet SF doesnt want to put up a fight and compete. The city is pretty stagnant, you must admit.
From 9 time zones away, SF seems to cast a pretty long shadow for a small city of 800K. It appears in the news, in advertising, in song, and in conversation often (especially in the contexts of tech and culture). 'Stagnant' is not a word that comes up. SF is generally mentioned in a more favorable light than our SoCal cousins (I'm not a hater; I like LA). SF is a good-looking rich girl who turns out to be smart and fun, too. Cities aren't measured by their skyscrapers. I love living in Bangkok, but if I had to choose between dynamic, sky-scraping Dubai and stuffy old low-rise Copenhagen, I take Copenhagen in a heartbeat. |
Quote:
That said...skyscrapers!!!! Yeah!!! They aren't necessary for city to be a city, but they sure are nice. |
Quote:
|
As was reported earlier, Metlife has pulled their partnership with Hines regarding the Transbay Tower. Matier&Ross had a small piece in The Chronicle about the possible ramifications and future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Tower of trouble: Funding for San Francisco's new Transbay Transit Center bus and rail hub has hit a $185 million snag. The hitch came when real estate giant MetLife pulled out as the primary investor of the neighboring, 1,070-foot-tall Transbay Tower at First and Mission streets - a deal that was intended to help fund the $1.5 billion, Grand Central Terminal-style transit hub. The pullout comes just ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline for the tower's primary developer, Hines, to cut a $185 million check for the site. Hines has to make a quick decision whether to go it alone on what would be the city's tallest skyscraper, bring in a new partner or bail on the development altogether, said Transbay project spokesman Adam Alberti. If Hines decides to exit, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority will have to start hunting for new buyers. And quickly, because the authority is depending on the tower money to be in the bank by spring to keep the new transit hub on schedule." |
^Doesn't sound like good news for the tower.
Some negativity in here! The idea that one tall building has much of, if any, impact on a city is comical to me. The fact that many residents don't much care about having the tallest building on the West Coast (whoopty do) is, to me, evidence of something in itself. SF is not LA, it's not NY, it's not Chicago, if that means SF is stagnant, then that's fantastic. I have lived in London, Madrid, Buenos Aires and SF never ever seems even remotely "stagnant" to me. Go to Doha Qatar, plenty of new tall buildings, completely stagnant. |
^ Either-Or Fallacy ? What's wrong with having both ?
|
Bingo^
Definitely not new news, like I said, it would probably be too good to be true for SF to build a 1070 foot tower. |
^So much pessimism. And whether this tower gets built or not doesn't have anything to do with it's height, it's the money that's an issue.
I'm going to wait for some more news before I decide this is dead. Too much work has been put into it all over several years, the terminal is dependent on it for money, and downtown SF is very desirable and has low office vacancy rates at the moment. And Hines is still involved at least...I don't think this project is guaranteed to die just because MetLife pulled out. |
^Good call Tech. I am in agreement with you. Time for some positive vibes on this thread.
|
Quote:
Of course I'm pessimistic, we've only heard bad news recently.. about a tower in the NIMBY capital of the world nonetheless |
Quote:
As for NIMBYs, SF may have lots of them, but it's not the "NIMBY capitol of the world". You don't build 53 highrises in 15 years by being the NIMBY capitol. |
Yea, I was exaggerating when I said it was the NIMBY capitol of the world, but I don't want to get my, or anyone else's hopes up too high for the projects. I just think it's going to be very hard for them to find funding elsewhere, hopefully they wait a while before cancelling the tower.
|
Maybe they should call Donald trump. He likes signature properties.:help:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.