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: