SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[Reminiscence]

I think its an interesting concept as well. We all know how windy San Francisco can be (well, more those of us who live here), so finding a way to harvest that wind and converting it into energy could be huge plus for us. If its already windy at street level, we might be looking at hurricane force winds or more near where this turbine is suppose to go. If the crown's luminence depends on the energy this turbine produces, I dont expect to see it go out much .

[toddguy]

Pelli first then SOM a close second and then Rogers a distant third IMO. Only thing I really HATE on any of them(towers only btw not the rest) are the 'tweezer' pincer things supporting the wind turbine on the Rogers one. UGH! looks like hell! Kind of surprised that the elegant and sweeping SOM design..ends up as a box on top! ???? If the top were not so square and boxy I might like it the best. Ground level area is stunning on it.

My prediction: Pelli will be chosen-Tower not too tall..not too 'out there'..and the large elevated park will win over for better or worse-and the office vs residential will become a moot point given all the other residential coming up. Just my opinion as an outside admirer of the city.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Are there any other skyscrapers with turbines up top elsewhere? The thought of a sustainable tower is so exciting to me!

There is that one proposed in Dubai...which is a city that i personally wouldn't model either my buildings or my environmental policy after.

I doubt the tower is fully sustainable...I'd rather see the turbines dropped.

[Vertigo]

Originally Posted by toddguy

.....Kind of surprised that the elegant and sweeping SOM design..ends up as a box on top! ???? If the top were not so square and boxy I might like it the best. Ground level area is stunning on it.

This is my only problem with the SOM design. The tower is fantastic and does a wonderful job of drawing the eye upward. Something I think all great skyscrapers should do. However the current top serves more as a cap than a fitting crown IMO.

It doesn't necessarily need something fussy or overly ornate on top. Just some element that continues the graceful flow that rises from the lower floors. At the moment I don't feel that the top looks as sophisticated and refined as the rest of the building.

Still, the structure has landmark written all over it. Incredible design..

[Alliance]

Ok. Ok. For everyone who thinks the tower ends in a box...look at the designs again. it doesn't. I approaches a square shape, never achieving it and the elegant folding of the sides is never terminated. This tower already has HUGE and gaudy top as it is. It certainly doesn't need anything more. It need less in my opinon.

Regardless, its certainly not a box.

This plows Pelli's bloated proposal out of the water, but then again I frequently do not like his work.

[Vertigo]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Ok. Ok. For everyone who thinks the tower ends in a box...look at the designs again. it doesn't. I approaches a square shape, never achieving it and the elegant folding of the sides is never terminated. This tower already has HUGE and gaudy top as it is. It certainly doesn't need anything more. It need less in my opinon.

Regardless, its certainly not a box.

This plows Pelli's bloated proposal out of the water, but then again I frequently do not like his work.

Well, the top looks 'boxy' when compared to the rest of the tower. From street level the top blends in better but from a distance is where I think the top looks less cohesive. And I agree that it doesn't need anything frilly. I think it just ends too abruptly.

[Steely Dan]

WOW!

i missed the dropping of these designs when i was out of town last week. holy crap there is some amazing potential here. i'm so excited for san francisco.

- the rogers design is very interesting but seems a bit out of place in san francisco. maybe i just need to stare at it some more, but my first impression is "hong kongish".

- the pelli design is too safe. it's not bad, but compared to the inventiveness of the other two schemes, it falls a bit short.

- the SOM design is full-on 100% grade-A total awesomeness! this is the one that MUST be built. it's pulled straight out of some magnificent dream. build it now!



would you san francisco regulars like me to add a poll to this thread so people could cast their vote for the 3 options?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Alliance

I doubt the tower is fully sustainable...I'd rather see the turbines dropped.

All three proposals are aiming for LEED Platinum designations and I believe all three teams suggested their proposals could, with some tweaks, have "zero carbon footprints". In other words, they may not be "fully sustainable" but they will advance the science of sustainable design. At least in the case of the Rogers design, and I believe the others as well, the turbine is intended to produce about 10% of the building's energy requirement.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

would you san francisco regulars like me to add a poll to this thread so people could cast their vote for the 3 options?

I would love that.

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

- the SOM design is full-on 100% grade-A total awesomeness! this is the one that MUST be built. it's pulled straight out of some magnificent dream. build it now!

You're not the only one that wandered in and was pleasantly surprized.

Originally Posted by BTinSF

All three proposals are aiming for LEED Platinum designations and I believe all three teams suggested their proposals could, with some tweaks, have "zero carbon footprints". In other words, they may not be "fully sustainable" but they will advance the science of sustainable design.

I see what you're saying.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by CityKid

I would love that.

cast your vote now.

[Steely Dan]

edit

[Arriviste]

That SOM proposal does something to me I thought only women could.

Lets hope to god that it gets built. Theres not a more beautiful proposal in the world right now.

[Nowhereman1280]

Holy crap this is some hott shit, Chicago will take whichever design between Pelli's and SOM wins, that Rodger's shit is interesting, but belongs in Asia...

The SOM design is by far my favorite, its so good I almost like it as much as the Chicago Spire design, simply breathtaking. Maybe Pelli or Rodgers will win and Garrett Kellher will buy the SOM design and build it in Chicago when CS sells out!!!

I don't care where it is built, that SOM design HAS TO GET BUILT somewhere... One of the best designs I have seen in a while!!!

Congrats SF!!! All three are winners (well not so much with Rodgers, but I assume that he won't win)...

[NYguy]

The choice is easy, SOM all the way. This is a great transit oriented project.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

not so much with Rodgers, but I assume that he won't win

In SF, one cannot make such assumptions. As you can see if you've read back a page or two, the Chronicle's not-so-esteemed architecture critic likes the Rogers design best but he wants to shorten it (shades of the butchery done on the TransAmerica). If you read back through his archives, he sings the praises of suburban strip centers and fast food outlets.

Others have said what is reality: The choice among these options probably won't be made based on aesthetics but on practical considerations like whether the bus ramps work (in the opinion of the bus operators). What will or won't salvage the height is whether it turns out to be possible to chop it down and still come out with enough money to pay for the terminal--because, make no mistake--those of us in San Francisco who want it to be tall because tall is good are a minority. The majority would prefer it be Victorian, 3 stories high and made of some sustainable wood product like bamboo.

[FourOneFive]

wow. SOM's design is destroying the others. big time.

[EastBayHardCore]

The SFGate poll had the SOM design beating out the Pelli by just a few % points. I was not expecting the results that we got here. Maybe SSP just has a major case of SOM fanboy....ism.

[tyler82]

My biggest hope is that the SOM proposal is broken ground within 2 years, and even if SOM isn't chosen, that either of the other two are built completely unaltered by NIMBYism.

My biggest fear is that the SOM tower is not built and is instead built in an American rival city and that we end up with a 800 foot Rogers tower with no crown.

Should my fears come true, I don't know if I could still be able to live in and support a city that is so ass backwards in all of it's claims of "progression." I'd probably move to Vancouver, NY, or Chicago, places that really get density and transit (well I can't say the transit part about Chicago or Vancouver cause I've never been to either).

This is a battle between the loons and the progressives. I will fight with all my might to get these things built, but if the city bows down to ignorance and fear, I've lost all hope for the west coast (even though I was born and raised here). I feel like this tower is a symbol of the ideological battle between us and them. This city hasn't even reached the 800,000 mark yet in population, since its establishment in 1700s (I'm thinking of Mission Dolores). The second densest city in the U.S. should not be halted like this. There is a reason it is so crowded here: people want to live here! Density and height are just smart, beside being exciting. Building more densely and taller will encourage people to get out of their sprawling resource hogging suburban homes, save us money on highway repairs, etc. etc. The benefits are endless, and if we can't build a goddam skyscraper, I don't want to live among such fools.

With that said, hopefully my fears will be laid to rest and the city ends up building this thing

[Alliance]

Originally Posted by FourOneFive

wow. SOM's design is destroying the others. big time.

Thats because its an amazing proposal. Hey...if you guys want the others, i think Chicago would gladly take SOM's proposal (speaking on Chicago's behalf of course).