I never saw the Giant Spider, but that sounds like it could be pretty cool. For me the sculpture of the Rock Monster would be fine if it just wasn't near the Terminal Tower.
Move it to the proposed Mission Rock park and it would be must better served and co-hesive with that project IMHO.

But the whole point is that it's built with pieces of the old terminal...I think that's really cool.

Just like the fountain at Justin Hermann plaza was made from parts of the Embarcadeo Fwy, which is a nice hommage, but it's not a great piece of art in that location. I think being on the corner it is going to be an eyesore next to the sleekness of the terminal and the tower. :slob: Maybe they should put it inside the terminal instead.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I don't like it, maybe it will grow on me with time.

^Are you talking about Vaillancourt Fountain? That was there way before the Embarcadero Freeway came down. It's been there since the early 70s at least.

,

I too hate the sculpture, at least the way it looks in the rendering. It's too bad, because Tim Hawkinson makes some beautiful work. The TJPA has some more info on their artist's page, along with a video covering all the site-specific work that is going to be part of the terminal developement. I definitely recommend watching it. I think the terrazzo floor specifically will be quite nice and unique.

http://transbaycenter.org/project/transit-center/public-art/tim-hawkinson

Number of floors?
 

The architect's website lists the number of floors at 80. Was this the old figure back when the height was closer to 1,200 feet?

:tup:

Not only do I love this building, but I don't think it could be better placed in the skyline. Can't wait to watch it go up. Hopefully I'll be living in The City again by then.

yea that's it, but I'm wondering why they didn't change it on the website.

I wish there were more of a fight to get this thing back up to 1200', but considering it's SF, we're lucky with 1070 :sly:

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...5at84520AM.png[/QUOTE]

Interesting observation I came up with as I was looking at this aerial of Fidi and Soma. I was looking at the area where the TBTT will be located and I started noticing the shadows that were being cast by the other tall buildings and a thought immediately popped into my head. It seems to me that the sun's position is about late afternoon based on the direction the shadows are pointing (strectching NE, so the sun must be in the West).

With that being said, I don't understand how the Tower is going to cast shadows on Union Square or Justin Hermann plaza. Even if it does they won't be there for any extended period of time (being as though the sun is constantly moving). I just feel the whole shadow issue is a fairy tale concept the NIMBY's use to stop construction of super talls in SF at any cost.

I know this issue has been pounded into the ground, but just thought I'd point it out. A little food for thought.

The direction of the shadows also changes depending on what time of year. But I agree its all bullsh!t. If I could have any wish it would be to repeal that shadow law.

Within the last week, I've read several postings in NYC threads that lamented shadows cast in certain parts of that city. I'm tired of discussing it since everyone has firm opinions, but the shadow law is very good when it comes to Union and Portsmith squares IMO. We would be greatly impovrished if they were deprived of sun on a regular basis. With that having been said, if a skyscraper would only cast a shadow for short periods of time during certain times of the year, I think we need to get on with building it. The shadow law is too strict, but I don't want to see it eliminated either. How about some moderation and compromise? This is something that Sue Hestor and her cronies don't want to do for sure.

I agree with this completely. A shadow law isn't bad per se. But when we stop a project because a tiny bit of shadow will hit a park for a few minutes in the morning on a small number of days per year (assuming the sun is even out first thing in the morning on those days), then we've gone way too far. There need to be better, more rational guidelines set for the threshold at which the shadow ordinance comes into effect.

I like this design. There are similar towers, but this seems more elegant. It's also about the same height as 3 WTC minus the spires (1,080 ft) to get a sense of scale.

The thing with the shadows is, that even if it's just in the Winter (which mind you is multiple months), the sun will be low enough on the horizon for the building to create a wide axis of a shadow (it's not just a tiny little shadow, remember it expands as it reaches the ground) that will cover a very large area. That's why the Transamerica Pyramid was designed the way it was, to get around that law.

The Pyramid was built before that law existed.

The top part of this building kind of reminds me of the old top design for One World Trade Center.

http://ptrck.files.wordpress.com/200...ld-design1.jpg

They look nothing alike, aside from the semi-transparent thing they have going on.

Other than the fact that the old design for 1WTC was a horrible monstrosity and this building by pelli is beautiful, sure.