SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[ByTheBay]

As Phallic a design the Transbay Tower is, the redesign looks ironically like a camel toe. Such a shame SOM lost, smh.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

As Phallic a design the Transbay Tower is, the redesign looks ironically like a camel toe. Such a shame SOM lost, smh.

How is the pelli tower reminiscent of a dick, but SOM's isn't? The SOM tower is long and skinny too! Isn't that the criteria you're going by? Hell, i guess every downtown in the US is just a forest of giant dicks. As for the slits making it a camel toe...uh, i don't know about you, but i've never seen a four-sided vagina with 4 openings before. Let alone one that's over 1,000 feet tall, and made of metal. Have you?

If you hate the building, fine, but what's with these childish, and bad, genital comparisons? Lemme guess, you were one of the geniuses calling the Transamerica Pyramid "Pereira's prick" back when it was proposed?

[jbm]

On an unrelated note, it appears that a little bit of rebar has been laid at foundry 3. they are not done clearing dirt, but along the western edge, where they have dug deepest, there is definitely rebar laying around, and it appears that some has actually been laid in place.

the same can be said for 1600 market. still clearing dirt away, but on the western edge rebar has definitely been laid. this one might move quick given that its not that big a footprint.

[lz131313]

Originally Posted by jbm

On an unrelated note, it appears that a little bit of rebar has been laid at foundry 3. they are not done clearing dirt, but along the western edge, where they have dug deepest, there is definitely rebar laying around, and it appears that some has actually been laid in place.

the same can be said for 1600 market. still clearing dirt away, but on the western edge rebar has definitely been laid. this one might move quick given that its not that big a footprint.

you mean foundry 4? 1,2,3 are all done

[WildCowboy]

Originally Posted by lz131313

you mean foundry 4? 1,2,3 are all done

No, it is III. II and IV were the first ones to be built, followed by I.

[lz131313]

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

No, it is III. II and IV were the first ones to be built, followed by I.

oh yeah well i mean its all the same thing and design. I think they should have made the last building the tallest atleast 20 floors it looks like a campus.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by lz131313

oh yeah well i mean its all the same thing and design. I think they should have made the last building the tallest atleast 20 floors it looks like a campus.

Agreed. Just one of those buildings would look a bit out of place in my opinion, but the development seems even more out of place with three (and soon four) buildings that all look the same. And they unfortunately stand out even more because of their unique curvy roofs, which I never liked much. But, the plus side to that is the new Transbay terminal park will have some extra sun hitting it due to the lack of skyscrapers on that south-middle side, instead of being completely hemmed in by towers and perpetually in shade (which would be pretty cool too IMO, but I like sun as well).

[ByTheBay]

Originally Posted by tech12

How is the pelli tower reminiscent of a dick, but SOM's isn't? The SOM tower is long and skinny too! Isn't that the criteria you're going by? Hell, i guess every downtown in the US is just a forest of giant dicks. As for the slits making it a camel toe...uh, i don't know about you, but i've never seen a four-sided vagina with 4 openings before. Let alone one that's over 1,000 feet tall, and made of metal. Have you?

If you hate the building, fine, but what's with these childish, and bad, genital comparisons? Lemme guess, you were one of the geniuses calling the Transamerica Pyramid "Pereira's prick" back when it was proposed?

Wow, can't take a joke much? What's with the uptightness? I thought San Francisco is a city of 'anything goes' attitude, I should know I grew up there as a kid, though I must admit that was a decade and a half ago so maybe the demographic has changed so much that the city has lost its free spirit nature. I apologize, I will try maintain this response as monotone as possible from further on out to avoid much offense.

I don't hate the Pelli design btw, I just prefer the SOM one. And the outward tapering of the Pelli design versus the inward tapering of SOM achieves the comparisons to said offensive body part. The internet polls did favor SOM by a sizeable margin so a lot of people seem to agree which design is superior. Regardless, I don't consider the current design an eyesore, it's great that San
Francisco is getting a new tallest, it's just a rather unimaginative design that evokes similarities to Hong Kong's IFC. It's just my personal opinion that the city missed an opportunity to go with a more appealing design.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

Wow, can't take a joke much? What's with the uptightness? I thought San Francisco is a city of 'anything goes' attitude, I should know I grew up there as a kid, though I must admit that was a decade and a half ago so maybe the demographic has changed so much that the city has lost its free spirit nature. I apologize, I will try maintain this response as monotone as possible from further on out to avoid much offense.

I don't hate the Pelli design btw, I just prefer the SOM one. And the outward tapering of the Pelli design versus the inward tapering of SOM achieves the comparisons to said offensive body part. The internet polls did favor SOM by a sizeable margin so a lot of people seem to agree which design is superior. Regardless, I don't consider the current design an eyesore, it's great that San
Francisco is getting a new tallest, it's just a rather unimaginative design that evokes similarities to Hong Kong's IFC. It's just my personal opinion that the city missed an opportunity to go with a more appealing design.

Who said the penis was an offensive body part?

The city didn't get a choice in the design. It was the developer who picked the design.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

Wow, can't take a joke much? What's with the uptightness? I thought San Francisco is a city of 'anything goes' attitude, I should know I grew up there as a kid, though I must admit that was a decade and a half ago so maybe the demographic has changed so much that the city has lost its free spirit nature. I apologize, I will try maintain this response as monotone as possible from further on out to avoid much offense.

I grew up in SF too. And I'm definitely not uptight (well, aside from this topic I guess), but I think it's stupid to compare skyscrapers one doesn't like to dicks and camel toes, when it barely looks like either one. It's like you have to be intentionally obtuse just to see it as those things. And it was already annoying enough to see 500 people on socketsite and SFgate saying it, just because they didn't have enough reading comprehension skills to understand that "slits" is plural, and that they are on all sides. They had to all knee-jerk react and assume from the crappy render that was available that it was just ONE slit, and it looked oh so much like a dick just because of that, which is already stupid to begin with. And then what do you know...they get a better render, and all of a sudden they see they were wrong, and that the crown actually doesn't look much like a penis head, at all. And there hasn't been a single dick comparison on socketsite since. Because it's a bad comparison. And even if the tower isn't as amazing as SOM's it's still pretty nice, and worthy of more than people going "LOL DICKSSSSS" (and there are several buildings very similar to this around the world...i guess people in big cities world-wide are just blind to the fact that they are building these ugly penis-towers? ). You might as well just compare any skyscraper to a dick at that point. It's silly. So that's my explanation for getting all annoyed over this.

[bluntcard]

500 people suggesting a building looks like a penis is an indication that a lot of people think a building looks like a penis. It isn't lack of creative or mature thinking, it's just a fact. Who would care if it looked like a robot claw or a cigar or a torch? In a city where sexuality is expressed more openly than most cities, people might be most sensitive to a giant endless erection and the ridicule that it would incite. It looks like SF has a boner. Although I personally like this illustration much better than the previous one.

It's a showcase for this amazing city. It should be a centerpiece and flawlessly awesome. It isn't.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by bluntcard

It looks like SF has a boner.

San Francisco is a gay rapist menacing America's butthole with this vicious supertall boner! /histrionic anthropomorphism

Is it not enough for the haters to say, once, that they just don't care for the design and leave it at that? It's not like any one of us, or the city, can do anything about the ultimate design's aesthetics.

It's a showcase for this amazing city. It should be a centerpiece and flawlessly awesome. It isn't.

Nobody I know here, inside or outside the real estate development field, thinks this private real estate development "should be a centerpiece" for the city. That's SSP forum-think, not how San Franciscans think about this city. And "flawlessly awesome" is an awfully unrealistic standard for a San Francisco skyscraper.

[bluntcard]

[QUOTE=fflint;5862282)
Nobody I know here, inside or outside the real estate development field, thinks this private real estate development "should be a centerpiece" for the city. [/QUOTE]

Because everybody knows a private enterprise should be able to build any giant, penetrating monstrosity without the opinion or input of the people who will have to live with it forever.

[Gordo]

Hey, has anyone noticed that the Transbay Tower proposal looks like a dick?

















...and back to more interesting stuff now - I was out in the Richmond yesterday and noticed a bunch of earth moving equipment parked behind the shuttered Alexandria theater (18th and Geary). I remember a proposal to build some condos behind and turn the theater into a restaurant/retail/theater complex - does anyone know if that is now being kicked off? I haven't seen or heard anything about it for ages, and man, that theater is decrepit.

[lz131313]

Originally Posted by tech12

Agreed. Just one of those buildings would look a bit out of place in my opinion, but the development seems even more out of place with three (and soon four) buildings that all look the same. And they unfortunately stand out even more because of their unique curvy roofs, which I never liked much. But, the plus side to that is the new Transbay terminal park will have some extra sun hitting it due to the lack of skyscrapers on that south-middle side, instead of being completely hemmed in by towers and perpetually in shade (which would be pretty cool too IMO, but I like sun as well).

Totally agree ! They look like something that would fit in mission bay.... i really dont know why they were all designed the same ! Its a shame since that part of SOMA is prime land and they chose to build that. But yeah it will have more sunshine !

[markermiller]

Gordo... I know what you mean. I was by the old theater the other night, and OMG, it's nasty at night. According to RichmondSFBlog there's a community meeting this coming Friday:


The Alexandria movie theater closed in February, 2004 and since then has sat unused, deteriorating behind cyclone fencing. At times it’s been broken into and used by homeless, and at other times the front entry has been marred by graffiti and garbage. Last June, the theater’s blade sign had to be repaired and painted after high winds knocked portions of it loose.

The theater building has been on the selling block for awhile now, but there is interest in developing the property.

In January 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission heard from developers about plans for the property, which included a 221 seat theater and commercial retail space in the theater building, and a mixed use development on the back parking lot with retail space on the ground floor, residential units above, and underground parking.

And then it got quiet. We didn’t hear anything about the development moving forward and the theater continues to be a blight on the neighborhood.

Recently, Supervisor Eric Mar began asking questions again about the Alexandria and its development plans. It turns out that the development is still underway, though plans have changed since those that were shared in early 2011.

Peter Lauterborn, Legislative Aide to Supervisor Mar tells us, “the theater will stay part theater, part commercial, while the back lot is mixed use, with commercial on the ground floor and residences above.”

Sounds like the same plan, so why the delay? “They have changed the new building significantly in style and that has slowed it down somewhat. They claim the new design should fit in the neighborhood better,” Lauterborn said. He also sent us the rendering above which was provided by the architects.

On Friday, October 12, Supervisor Mar will host a neighborhood meeting about the Alexandria Theater to discuss its current upkeep as well as the revised development plans.

The agenda for the meeting includes a discussion of efforts by the Department of Public Works to keep the site clean in the short-term, and a presentation by the architect and the city planners on the development designs.

The meeting will take place at the Richmond District YMCA (360 18th Avenue) from 6pm until 8pm. You can find out more and RSVP via Facebook (though not required).

http://richmondsfblog.com/2012/09/20/pub...e-alexandria-theater-development-oct-12/

[ByTheBay]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Who said the penis was an offensive body part?

The city didn't get a choice in the design. It was the developer who picked the design.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only going by memory but what I recall was that the city leaders were the ones who voted on the winning bid to design the Transbay Terminal/Transbay Tower and the developer was later chosen. Due to the costs associated with the SOM proposal, the city chose the Pelli proposal to expedite the project in order to attract a developer due to that proposal's lower projected costs, therefore going with the safer and less daring design. It was intended to be a decision merited on functionality, but the catch to that was the tower was supposed to project an iconic signature look for the city and Pelli's design fails to achieve that I believe since it looks somewhat like a carbon copy of similar designs.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse but...

I didn't mean that the penis is an offensive body part, what I meant was I didn't intend to offend people by mentioning it.

In response to tech12:
Architecture that is iconic in nature are typically inspired by various physical forms in our environment. For example Beijing's bird's nest (self explanatory), Sydeny's opera house (Sails), TransAmerica pyramid (a pyramid), the Shard (a shard of glass), etc. There's even a skyscraper in Thailand that looks like an elephant and was intended to do so. Obviously comparisons will be made towards similar aesthetics. Most skyscrapers don't look like penises because penises don't have square edges at the top which how most skyscrapers are designed (boxy), but when it looks like a penis people will think it looks like a penis just the way people think the TransAmerica pyramid looks like a pyramid. There happen to be a few skyscrapers that do, such as the Gherkin and Torre Agbar. It is what it is! Had it been a building intended to be less iconic, then it probably wouldn't stir so much strong opinions but this thing will be front and center of the city's skyline. Again, I don't hate the design, it's symmetrical which I like, I'm not a huge fan of all these assymetrical skyscrapers that are being plopped up in various cities around the world just for the sake of dramatizing their respective skylines. I actually think it's rather sleek and a positive tilt towards modern 21st century architecture that San Francisco should embrace, I just don't see it as iconic, unless the design will make it infamous. But hey, even the Eiffel Tower in the beginning had it's fair share of naysayers!

[fflint]

Haters gonna hate, and hate, and hate and hate!

[caramatt]

Originally Posted by ByTheBay

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only going by memory but what I recall was that the city leaders were the ones who voted on the winning bid to design the Transbay Terminal/Transbay Tower and the developer was later chosen. Due to the costs associated with the SOM proposal, the city chose the Pelli proposal to expedite the project in order to attract a developer due to that proposal's lower projected costs, therefore going with the safer and less daring design. It was intended to be a decision merited on functionality, but the catch to that was the tower was supposed to project an iconic signature look for the city and Pelli's design fails to achieve that I believe since it looks somewhat like a carbon copy of similar designs.

You are wrong in fact. The teams were comprised of paired developers and architects from the get-go. The most important thing in the board of supervisor's eyes was how much each team would be willing to pay for the land the tower would be built on, which in turn would pay for the construction of the terminal. Hines offered the most for the land by a large margin, and they were chosen as the developer - along with their predetermined design by Pelli Clarke Pelli. The city could care less about how much the tower was going to cost the developer, it was more interested in the cost of the terminal and the amenities it offered to the city. Incidentally, SOM's proposal placed third in the final recommendations.

I for one am pumped about Pelli's tower going up, assuming that it still has the funding to do so. I think it'll look great on the skyline.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Alot of Cesar Pelli buildings look like Dicks....







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9sar_Pelli