The Planning and Recreation and Park Commission concluded that the proposed TransBay Tower will not greatly affect the surrounding Parks and plazas with a shadow the building will create.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ys-3941437.php

I'm glad to hear that. The shadow law sucks, particularly when it's enforced in the middle of downtown.

The SF Chronicle has reported that the Planning Commision met Thursday and gave final approval for the 1,070 ft Transbay Tower. Hines is still The developer for the project and it was mentioned in the article that they failed to pay the $5 million Line of credit by the Sept. 30th deadline.

What is a little positive is the last quote. " No one is circling a date on the calendar, but the talks can't go on in perpetuity."
Which tells me they want to see this thing get built in a timely manner.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...Ks-3962665.php

Great news! Finally got around to it. For what it's worth, Socketsite says the following in regards to Hines and the tower:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ise_by_pl.html

Sounds like the fact that Hines hasn't paid up yet really isn't a big deal.

Just wondering, has anyone stopped to think that the reason for the hesitancy might be that there is insufficient reason to believe there is a demand for a high-rise of that size? These buildings are built to make money, you know.

I'm sure plenty of people have though of that. SF currently has a low office vacancy rate (particularly SOMA, where the tower will be built), and over 1 million square feet have already been leased so far this year. So yes, it seems that there is demand for more office space in SF.

^Not likely, based on current rents/vacancy rates and the prestige/rent premium gained from having the tallest in such an iconic city.

Now, you might have a point if it was considered possible for other structures of similar height to be built in SF any time soon. However, that almost guaranteed monopoly is one of the things that makes this project pencil out.

Exactly, I would be much more worried if I owned one of its shorter neighbors. This will fill up easily, if not from external growth than from stealing clients from neighbors.

Great news all around!:cheers:

Hines is on record stating that they have received strong interest in the proposed Tower. What this Tower needs is an anchor corporation that will take a substantial amount of space. Possible naming rights?

If it's economically viable in this form, it will be built; if not, it won't be.

Thank you, captain obvious. And it seems that YES it is economically viable, at this time.

As the Chronicle article correctly notes, big institutional investors are much more attracted to entitled parcels in San Francisco--parcels that have completed the whole byzantine zoning/permitting/political process. With yesterday's approval, big money will be much more likely to step forward. All the Chicken Littles fretting over the sky falling on this project need to get a better grip on how things actually work.

Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci....html?page=all

This is good news. Boston Properties is a well known company and as the article stated, is vested in SF with in excess of four million square feet of property.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rancisco-tower

More info:

Source and article: http://news.theregistrysf.com/boston...sco-buildings/


And a follow up article by the SF Business Times:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...weighs-in.html

This is around the same time frame they expect the TransBay Terminalnto open. Good timing.

signature
 

not too much of a surprise anymore, but still nice to have the next step taken: Hines has signed

A few new tidbits on the Transbay Tower, from this article in the SF Business Journal:

The article goes on to mention that Google's timeframe is likely too soon for Transbay since their lease at Hills Borthers Plaza ends in 2015. But that's good news for Foundry Square III and 222 Mission.

The Wilshire Grand development released their details today and sadly, it will be 30 ft taller than the TransBay Tower. Too bad the SF tower can't extend the Tower by 31 ft to claim the tallest building on the West Coast.

On a side note, the TransBay development is not Turing out as hopes of multiple Supertalls in the Area. Looks like now it is down to Two buildings.

The Transbay development has never included multiple supertalls...the Transbay tower was always the only supertall proposed (unless the old 1200' Renzo Piano tower proposals on 1st street are included in the Transbay area, though I was under the impression that was separate). And the Transbay development area also includes more than two new buildings; there's the Transbay tower, the transit center itself, 181 Fremont, and a handful of other highrises proposed as part of the Transbay development area.

The Transbay district did include a series of super tall buildings. Most of them, including Renzo Piano, were cancelled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fra...ay_development

I still think it's amazing that we're getting even one supertall! I'll take it. We shouldn't get hung up on all these petty details anyway, the fact that a spindly needle will make the new LA building slightly taller, or that 50 First will be 70 feet short of a supertall. Both cities will look awesome after getting their new buildings...though we'll still have all that water as a nice backdrop...

^ I agree. If this thing gets built, that's good enough for me. Let's focus on the positive - no project is perfect.

Did not realize that this building is going to be taller than the Chrysler Building :tup:

Wilshire grand will only be "taller" because of that stupid skinny little spire. What a bunch of cheaters ;). If you could compare them side-by-side, Transbay would look like the taller tower because it will have more bulk above the 900' (and 1,000') mark.

That article has always been full of errors, and looks like it still is (i even edited it around a year ago to be more accurate, but someone quickly reversed my edits, and the article was made inaccurate again...lol wikipedia is completely retarded sometimes).

Anyways, the northern border of the Transbay development area stops at Mission street, which means it never included those Renzo Piano towers.

Yes, I agree that wiki is not the best source to quote. The TransBay Tower will be quite a site when it is completed.

A spire isn't "cheating" any more than a crown is. Both are nothing more than decorative elements used for visual effect. A crown being "bulkier" doesn't change that.

No you are cheaters. Cheating cheaters who are conSPIREing against us.

In case you missed it, that part of the post was tongue-in-cheek. I even added a wink smiley so no one would take it seriously...so much for that.

Image I found of the new proposed Transbay skyline

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/15/61/53.../3/628x471.jpg

This was back in 2007. Not sure how accurate it is today. Those towers behind Mission and 1st could be the 1200' Piano proposals (dead) or the SOM 900' proposals (still alive). The Transbay Tower is not even included in that model.

Some news as of late.

Boston Properties takes control of Transbay Tower, S.F.'s tallest building
J.K. Dineen
Mar 19, 2013

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...er-boston.html

Also here are some videos to show what the new skyline would look like for the reply below.

• Video Link

• Video Link

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bos...cel-2013-03-26

Boston Properties and Hines Close on Record Land Sale for Transbay Transit Tower Parcel
Ceremonial Groundbreaking of the West Coast's Tallest Tower Scheduled


March 26, 2013

There was a time I would have been really excited about that news. Unfortunately, I've been so disillusioned by the degradation of the terminal and tower that it's just another project to me now. Frankly, it feels like this entire proposal has been one giant bait and switch, but I doubt Hines planned this from the start. From the reduced price (down to basically what Rockefeller/SOM pitched), to the reduced height, to the dopey slits, to the terminal itself maybe losing its glass curtain wall, it seems like everything I found interesting that was originally promised has been stripped away. I'm far more excited about 50 First, 190 Fremont and just about everything going up on Rincon Hill than this.

Oh well. I won't belabor the point because I don't want to be the guy who constantly complains about a given project. I've said my piece and I'll try not to comment about it anymore. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong in the long run, and there are plenty of other projects to keep me occupied in the meantime.

I'm still jazzed about it because of the height and think it is going to make a dramatic statement on the skyline. It's also directly in my east northeast line of view and I'll be able to see it even from the back corner of my living room! I can't wait!

yeah, this one will be a fabulous addition to views from almost anywhere in the city, lounging at dolores park? beautiful view. sitting around at jessie square? beautiful view. coming over the bay bridge? beautiful view. from marin, this thing will look great. and beyond the height it'll do a huge amount of work getting us past our table top, bland skyline.

^That's a really good point. No matter what, a new pinnacle of this height will make the skyline more intriguing.

viewguy - that's another thing to look forward to: your photos of it rising!

Realize that this building will be completed a year before the Wilshire Grand Tower in Los Angeles. This will make the Transbay Tower the tallest building in the West Coast for a year if everything goes according to plan.

Edit: Some news from several months ago gives us hope that this building might have an observation deck. Apparently now that the building is under construction they are going to look into it.

http://inhabitat.com/san-franciscos-...he-west-coast/

http://sfist.com/2012/10/19/planning...ly_oks_wes.php

"Now that we are closing on the land and moving full speed ahead with the design, I'm confident that discussions will progress into leasing quickly."

Does this mean that the design is not finalized and still being perfected?

Have the transbay parcels even been height approved by the BOS and planning yet?

The tower has already been approved quite a while ago, and the design has already been perfected. Groundbreaking is later today. They are just trying to get tenants. Otherwise they are going to be building an empty building.

However the terminal building's design hasn't been finalized yet. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#photo-4332517

No Groundbreaking, Really
 

Not really a groundbreaking today. Just a ceremony/PR event to note the transfer of title and payment of $192M to Transbay. Actual groundbreaking and start of construction won't be until Summer at best. If that happens, should be completed way before the new Terminal which I've heard is delayed far more than what they're admitting publically.

It was an actual groundbreaking. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...200351781.html. This building should be moved to the Supertall Construction thread now.

Uh, no it wasn't. Just because they took some pictures while they shoved some shovels into some dirt specially piled on the site doesn't mean they are starting construction. You won't see construction on the site related to the tower for months. Design's not even finished yet. It was just a photo op.

My fellow architecture enthusiasts,
I for one am excited about the Transbay Tower. It's easy to get discouraged during the design process of a building compared to seeing the finished product. Transamerica has always been one of my favs, but to have seen it cut down from its original 1150 feet, and the "ears" added to it would have been frustrating. But in the end, in a city full of NIMBYS, after an era (the 1990s) in which there was almost nothing built of any size, it feels like a miracle to me to see a building twice the height of the original 550 feet proposed for it! And the slots at the top, while a very different look than what we're used to, I think will make it more interesting, especially when they are lit at night.

Tally me up as another person happy to see this thing rise. I really believe it's going to be a stunner once it's built. Keep in mind, this is going to be taller (spire included) than the Chrysler Building in NY, which is a pretty big deal for a town notorious for its NIMBYs. I never thought I would see the day.

Not that I care either way, but I found this to be an interesting quote:

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo...est-skyscraper

I knew it! This WILL be the tallest tower in the west coast, and the design has yet to be finalized. I'm guessing this will reach the original proposed 1200' ;)

It's possible. If I remember correctly, One Rincon Hill (tower 1) was pretty much sold as a 550 foot tower until ground was broken. As we know, that tower ended up being over 640 feet tall.

Or maybe, as stated, a surprise addition to the crown? Similar to this (one of my favorite buildings anywhere):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Building

I am still waiting for news on the observation deck ideas for this tower. One thing is for certain the design for the upper portions of the tower is still uncertain. We might even get a spire on this tower.

If they add a spire to the Transbay tower....:slob:

That could be amazing. I hope this news of a "superstructure" (whatever that may be....spire? antennae? a crown on top of a crown? Alien docking platform?) is true.

I would love to see TBT taller than currently proposed. I wish any height increase could be via occupied floors, but I'm not complaining if we just get a super-spire.