It looks pretty much the exact same to me. I don't know why people are freaking out, its still a 1,000+ tower for San Francisco. That's a feat in itself. The design's not half bad either, I highly doubt Pelli will disappoint too much.

Pelli seems to use a photocopier for his architectural design.

While I agree that it doesn't necessarily look like a penis, it's vague resemblance to one is made more clear with the addition of this slit. It has 4 slits, yes, but from most non-aerial angles, it will have the appearance of ONE slit, thus resembling the external urethral orifice (slit) of a penis. Very disappointing considering the other options, namely the SOM proposal, that we had for this tower.

It vaguely resembles one yes, but as brought up before, all skyscrapers do, and this is The City, so who cares?

The design is great. The slits actually make it more unique in my opinion. The old design looked generic.

Yeah, I'm still not seeing it, beyond the typical "skyscraper = giant phallus" viewpoint that you hear from time to time in regards to pretty much any skyscraper. "OMG giant dick!" just is not my first reaction when looking at any renders of this tower, old or new, and it's generally not my reaction when viewing a skyscraper from the ground either. If that's how you want to see it, that's great, but I assure you that plenty of other people simply see a skyscraper, and one that doesn't look half bad, at that.

But you know your getting quality with him at least. That's something to be thankful over.

He's building a complex of three ascending towers, don't you see?! The shortest in Jersey City and tallest in HK have been built- now it's time for the middle tower in SF!

Genius:P

no offense to anyone, but the 'giant penis' theory is idiotic. if anything, this looks like a giant semi-futuristic torch, a light and glass structure. we in san francisco often have to suffer these moronic "a high rise is a man compensating" tropes all the time, and i'll tell you, if we had even 20% more high rises going up a year, that is, an extra 200 units coming to market every year, it would do more to save the low rise lifestyle that these clowns want to lock in.

but the facts are that in their greed and stupidity, the slight home-owning minority had defeated several thousand units of housing over the years, voting in flamboyantly anti-development, unique-in-the-nation regulations and creating an artificial land shortage that had made this medium-sized city (880,000 people) one of the most expensive in the anglophone world. literally, these oldsters and their addled-brained allies, so selfish and ignorant, have priced entire demographic cohorts out of the market. south of market and the southern waterfront are pretty much the last stand for affordability activists (until we redevelop the western addition) - we need to siphon new arrivals off into high rises in these areas or price pressures will only continue to force non-owners and lower-than-50k-per-annum types out of the city.

literally, every time i hear one of these well-ensconced 2000/yeah property tax types slithering about the evils of development, i have to wander into another room and chant my mantra.
/end rant

It's so hard to judge a building at this stage. When Transamerica was first proposed, a lot of people hated it, and I'm guessing many of those same people now embrace it as a symbol of their city. The Eiffel Tower was hated, too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is the next Eiffel Tower, but it's not going to be the disaster some people fear it will be.

I too was apprehensive when it won the competition, thinking I'd seen more interesting designs doodled on the stalls of men's rooms, but it's grown on me over time. And I don't think it's too phallic...though part of me wants to see Good Vibrations move their flagship store there...

Hello.

I've just joined after lurking for over three years on the San Francisco new projects and Construction forum. I recently discovered this thread and I feel I need to give my perspective on the issue of this future icon of San Francisco.

Let me first say that I love the city of San Francisco. I want it to thrive and build upwards. When the design at its full height was first selected, I thought it was perfect for the cityscape. It represented a modern San Francisco with a nod to the past by looking just a little like the Pyramid building. But when it was shortened, in my opinion, the elegance was lost.

It looks odd to me, now. It isn't quite finished being designed. I'm not a hater. I'm not puerile or an idiot for thinking it looks more like a penis than most buildings. I just want an awesome centerpiece for my favorite city. This is almost there.

Very similar to the "Wolf Point" proposal in Chicago!

Welcome Bluntcard.

I think we all wish it was still taller! Oh well.

It's the same architect, Pelli Clarke Pelli. Although I have to say, the Transbay tower is much nicer, but I think that's because it's further along in the development process whereas Wolf Point still has a long way to go to get to that point.

Some more info and new renderings of the tweaked design:

http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%...er%20Crown.jpg
www.socketsite.com
http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%...0Rendering.jpg
www.socketsite.com
http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%...%20Closeup.jpg
www.socketsite.com

More info.

It doesn't look like a giant penis to me... but if it had two round objects at the bottom then you'd be on to something.

Bottom looks great, cladding looks great...The top however has been cheapified. To me it looks like someone took the crown off, realized how afwul the tower looked without it, than tried to put a new one on (at a quarter of the budget.) :haha:

This rendering looks MUCH better.
That looks awesome.

the building looks way better now

I was just going to say, if your penis looks like that ... seek immediate medical help.

there needs to be a public observation floor ! its a must for the regions tallest building ! It would be nice if the lobby was more open and inviting like the SOM proposal that was a piece of art !