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.

Apparently, MetLife isn't involved with the Transbay Tower anymore. Also, the article is saying the tower is 1101 feet.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...y-project.html

More info at Socketsite.

MetLife pulling out can't be a good thing for this tower's progress...am I right to be nervous all of a sudden?

The height boost may be a mere misread (336 meters instead of 326) by the author.

My first ever post, and I nailed it!

Tall/awkward, welcome!

Yes this certainly doesn't seem like good news for the project.

*sigh*

Maybe a supertall for SF was too good to be true

Yeah, maybe they will have to try. Let's wait and see. If they approved it.

Heinz doesn't mess around. If there are tenants for this building they will find the financing.

how long are they giving themselves to find tenants?

SF needs this project, I really hope it doesn't fall through.

This will not fall through. The height limit zoning hasn't even been finalized yet.

This project has been in the works for over 10 years and has gone through so many political hurdles and so much political capital has been spent, that every last inch of height allowed is going to be used. The transbay jpa needs the revenue, and every other piece of city planning has been rewritten to have this tower as the "peak".

When is the question, not "if".;)

I hope this in the case rocketman... I was starting to hyper-ventilate thinking that this would fall through.

Like the Arc tunnel?:cool:

as dude said above - hines is an international super developer. if there's a team that can make this work, it'll be them. and given how critical this tower is to the long term success of the terminal mega-project, and how much political capital has already gone into this one, i can't see this getting built one way or another.

I'm assuming you mean can? I'm a little worried but not too much because I agree, it is a crucial project for SF

The tower is not a critical project for SF. It will be a great addition to our skyline, but it is not critical to the city. The train station is critical and the tower will help fund amenities to help the train station.

You just contradicted yourself..... The sales of the tower will be important to help fund the rest of the terminal/park

No, I did not contradict myself. The transbay tower is not crucial to SF. The train/transit station infrastructure, and which is under construction, is crucial. The Tower was always a separate and distinct commercial entity. The sale of the land was crucial to the funding of the station. That is done. The tower, of course, would provide additional tenant space in a very, very hot part of the city. But there are also plenty of titled spaces already coming out of deep freeze that will provide close to the same amount of square footage as the Transbay Tower. The development and community fees would be used to the park amenities (on top of the train station). But that was long term. Again, my comment was addressed solely to the post that said this is crucial to SF. It is not, there are plenty of building projects with permits in the process of being pulled.

uh, what? my understanding is that the station isn't fully funded and the proceeds of land sales and development around the terminal are a major source of revenue. like the ~$200 million that the sale and fees will bring into city coffers seems about as literal a definition of the word "crucial" as comes to mind.

I think the distinction that coyotetrickster is making is that the fees that Hines paid were crucial but the actual construction of the tower is not. Assuming Hines has paid their fees (I have seen confirmation of the agreed upon amount, but I don't know the status of actual payment) then it doesn't currently matter when they begin construction. There are plenty of other projects in the pipeline -- some of which are approved and ready to go once their developers have funding and decide to start -- so it's not like this tower is critical to filling demand right now. It could be in the future however.

Hello All. Long time reader, first time posting.

I just returned from Hong Kong and noticed the IFC in HK looks quite similar to the proposed TransBay tower in San Francisco. Any thoughts?

On a side note, the proposed Wilshire development in LA is projected to be 1250FT. Would there be a chance to raise the height of the TransBay Tower to be the tallest building on the West Coast?

I dont think anything is for sure for wilshire... first it was 2 towers now its just one i mean the current building isn't going to be fully demolished untill 2014.... Even if its taller i dont think it would be as impressive being that most if not all of downtown LA is dead and has no density. SOMA by the financial district isn't that lively either after 6pm but i'm sure with all the development and the daily/ongoing amount of people coming in from the terminal SOMA will be lively with people and new residents. Regarding height i do think it should be raised to atleast 1,100 i mean come one its just 30 more feet ! might aswell.....

wouldn't it be awesome if the top two floors of the tower be used as an observation deck/restaraunt im sure it would be a success since its the highest point in all the city , the views would be to die for ! Its only logical to do so. :shrug:

They were both designed by the same architect (Pelli I think).
Also, that one going up in Chile (Consterna) and that tall building in Jersey City. haha he really likes this motif.

Welcome to the forum! To answer your first question, that was the initial reaction from a lot of us upon first seeing it. As to raising the height: no, that's not going to happen. It's already been lowered to where it is today. If LA has a taller building, so be it.

Thank you for the welcome and answers. I know building such a large building could be financially risky to a developer and they maybe waiting for market conditions to improve a little. During the 1990s there was a lot of speculative buildings. I also believe Foudrey Square IV(?) is under construction and is speculative without a major tenant?

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.

And this is why San Francisco annoys me. The little village that could(n't).

I don't think many people really care about skyscraper height dick-measuring contests (everyone would lose to China and Dubai anyways). LA has had the tallest building on the west coast for decades now, it's not like SF's pride will be hurt or something if that continues. Also, I'm not sure why you think peanut gallery's opinion is that of all San Franciscans...not that his opinion even sounds like a "little village" opinion.

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:

This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. 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.

I walk around this city a lot, and see change and growth everywhere that mostly excites and stimulates me. 'stagnant' is one of the last terms I would use to describe it right now.

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.

You're right that SF is not stagnant, but you also have a somewhat skewed view of SF. The 46 square miles of SF city proper has 800,000 people (which is not at all small for an American city-proper), but the metro area has over 7 million people, making it the 6th largest metro area in the US. You mentioned tech, and while there is a lot of tech industry based in SF city-proper, most of it is actually based elsewhere in the metro area. As for SF being "a good-looking rich girl"...yeah on one hand that's what it is (and i know that is how it's often presented to the rest of the world), but on the other hand it's not at all. SF has lots of rich people, but it has a lot more poor people, working class, and middle class people, and it has grit, and crime, and an ugly side. Cities aren't one-dimensional caricatures.

That said...skyscrapers!!!! Yeah!!! They aren't necessary for city to be a city, but they sure are nice.

So what would it prove to the rest of the world if SF had the biggest building on the West Coast? I think SF packs a punch and holds it own with LA despite being much smaller in area and size. I would love to see a supertall rise in SF, but it we keep shooting for "mine is bigger than yours" we will never be satisfied.

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.

Of course I'm pessimistic, we've only heard bad news recently.. about a tower in the NIMBY capital of the world nonetheless

Understandable, but what I'm trying to say is that there's still hope for this. MetLife pulling out is not good news, but it's not necessarily the end of the project either.

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: