Interesting design, I like it.

Me too! Let's hope it gets built like that without being value engineered in any way.

Who is the developer?

Love it!

an attractive, shorter sibling....
 

With Pelli Clarke Pelli being the architects, the materials and look are a nice fit with the salesforce tower. I really like the way the base of the tower curves and protrudes up and around the tunnel of the transit center.

Hope this one gets built before san francisco's "TechExit".

Understated but the massing is really odd. At first glance the top portion looks much like McKesson Plaza, but now I see the fins. They actually make it worse for me (too much like 3 Wells Fargo in Charlotte). PCP does really nice when they have symmetry to work with. A parcel like this? Not so much. Looks like a poor mans KohnPedersenFox tower from the 90s but missing the crown and fussiness (see Montreal, Sydney, Frankfurt). A disappointment.

I like what I see so far, but I still need to see what the building might like like from the east to more fairly judge it. It is also possible the design will be further refined before approved for construction. It is great to finally see this for the first time though.

Renderings Released for Transbay Parcel F

I hope Parcel F turns out something like this other Pelli design, his unrequited design for Transbay Block 5, animated by Neorama on the link below (left column as you scroll down):

http://www.neorama.com/en/portfolio/

Could be 806 ft
 

The latest plans cap it the tower off at 806 ft

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...-revealed.html

Wow that is great news- 806 ft. 62 floors. This will mean within a few years SF will have 3 towers over 800 feet., 1 over 1,000 feet., and 1 over 900 feet, plus the proposed lot near GGU that is around 700-800'+ but we have not had any concrete details or renderings yet.

Then the next tallest is BofA 555 California (or Trump SF tower) 778 feet.

I like that it's mixed use office/ condo/ hotel.

I wonder if 806' includes the crown?

:help: Title change to reflect the new heights would be appreciated

The article says 64 floors.

555 California is 779', but more importantly, it is NOT Trump SF tower (that was practically a trolling comment). They own a 30% minority stake and Vornado Realty Trust owns 70%.

It is 806 to the top of the parapet/highest point, and 64 floors including the mechanical on top. Since 181 Fremont is topped off by a thin 57 foot spire reaching only just 4 feet short of 806, Parcel F will generally appear taller by about 60 feet.

That's terrific! :cheers:

They HAVE to put an observatory deck at the top of this tower. It's the last super tall in this part of the city. Should we start a petition??

In an era of terrorism, decks open to the public are a huge risk. And they virtually require one or more elevators to service them alone (in a high end residential building, people paying that kind of money for an apartment wouldn't want to crowd into the elevator to get home with packs of tourists).

Even in all-office buildings, there are issues. The one trial in which I served as a juror involved a woman who was raped in an office building downtown arguing that the building OWNER was responsible because they allowed access to the building to the rapist (this in a building with many offices serving the public) and thus failed in a duty to provide security.

I'm sure that for both residential HOAs and the residents they represent and for commercial building owners and managers, there's almost nothing to be gained and a lot of hastle by having a building-top deck unless it can be combined with some function that makes money like a restaurant/bar. Even then, however, the recent record is that it isn't worth it (several such plaaces having closed).

I don't expect to see any observation decks in new towers.

All the problems you're listing can be overcome and have been easily solved in other buildings around the world.

It's complicated for Parcel F because it will already have 3 lobbies for residential, office, and hotel. They should have done it at Salesforce Tower which is all office.

The elevator problem is a nonstarter. They have to build the building with at least one elevator specifically for the top floor, and that means taking floor space from every single floor in the building. With the price of office space in SF being so high, it would be a foolish move to give up your penthouse floor and a few percentage points of every floor in the building. This building has a small footprint compared to something like the Empire State Building.

The lobby problem is also a big one. The lobby for tourists to enter for this elevator would take more space than a lobby just for residents or office workers, who basically just use the lobby as an entry point and not like a queue and kiosk mix.

More excuses. The same could have been said about the Shard in London, One WTC, Empire State Building, Willis Tower...the list goes on. SF planners and developers love to find reasons not to do something and make no effort to work around it.