HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2241  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 7:03 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,560



Wouldn't that be something.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2242  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 7:04 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,560
Seriously though, it's worse than the current NBC if you ask me.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2243  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 7:30 AM
HurricaneHugo's Avatar
HurricaneHugo HurricaneHugo is offline
Category Five
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,997
I still hate the Irvine tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2244  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 9:13 AM
bushman61988's Avatar
bushman61988 bushman61988 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: National City
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo View Post
I still hate the Irvine tower.
AGREED. Those renderings, while really cool, did absolutely nothing for this tower. It's still a f****** box!!! A Pretty filler tower that does NOT belong on THE most prominent site on our bayfront...Shame, SHame Shame. It'll be there forever while the phony architects try to pass it off as "Timeless".... I.M. Pei and Irvine can Suck my timeless cock!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2245  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 4:00 PM
eburress's Avatar
eburress eburress is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,527
^^ Unfortunately, I don't think there's much more anybody can do with the height limit the way it is. I've warmed to the building a little and think it probably is relatively timeless (unlike some, this won't look dated anytime soon), but it is a HUGE letdown for those of us who were expecting a "signature" tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2246  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 5:56 PM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,560
I was expecting a lot more.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2247  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 6:00 PM
ShekelPop ShekelPop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 83
I have to disagree with some of your negative feelings on Irvine's 700 tower, given the following:

1) Not a Twin Tower
2) No fins or other sea-like protruding edges
3) Not a build-by-number glass building that should be in Anaheim or Dallas
4) Doesn't look like a penis
5) Not a Hotel
6) Not a municipal project
7) Not Manchester development

the above criteria clearly demonstrates this is technically the finest currently-proposed office tower in the city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2248  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 7:01 PM
CoastersBolts CoastersBolts is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 72
The only thing I'm looking forward to regarding 700 West Broadway is that it is an office building. Had it been yet another unnecessary condo tower it would have been embarrassing seeing a darkened tower standing at such a prominent site every night. At least with an office structure, it will stand out at night by being illuminated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2249  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 7:12 PM
eburress's Avatar
eburress eburress is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShekelPop View Post
I have to disagree with some of your negative feelings on Irvine's 700 tower, given the following:

1) Not a Twin Tower
2) No fins or other sea-like protruding edges
3) Not a build-by-number glass building that should be in Anaheim or Dallas
4) Doesn't look like a penis
5) Not a Hotel
6) Not a municipal project
7) Not Manchester development

the above criteria clearly demonstrates this is technically the finest currently-proposed office tower in the city
All excellent points, although I would suggest that San Diego should consider itself lucky if it were to ever receive some of Dallas' build-by-number glass towers!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2250  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 7:38 PM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShekelPop View Post
I have to disagree with some of your negative feelings on Irvine's 700 tower, given the following:

1) Not a Twin Tower
2) No fins or other sea-like protruding edges
3) Not a build-by-number glass building that should be in Anaheim or Dallas
4) Doesn't look like a penis
5) Not a Hotel
6) Not a municipal project
7) Not Manchester development

the above criteria clearly demonstrates this is technically the finest currently-proposed office tower in the city
true, I especially like that it will be an office tower, it just seems like it represents a bow to conservatism and blandness on the part of world renowned architects who could have done so much better. I wonder how much of the plain design was done just because it is SD and how much different the building would have been if IM Pei and partners were tasked with a prominent signature tower in LA or SF or Seattle. Height is a hinderance but I would think such esteemed architects would have been able to create the "wow" factor in the design itself knowing it they would not be able to achieve it based on height.

The building is VERY OC - - I used to work up in Irvine and this seems like an exact replica of the Irvine Companies office towers in OC, in fact the whole NBC complex strikes me as being very Irvine-ish

Last edited by SDCAL; Aug 6, 2007 at 7:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2251  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2007, 8:17 PM
ShekelPop ShekelPop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDCAL View Post


true, I especially like that it will be an office tower, it just seems like it represents a bow to conservatism and blandness on the part of world renowned architects who could have done so much better. I wonder how much of the plain design was done just because it is SD and how much different the building would have been if IM Pei and partners were tasked with a prominent signature tower in LA or SF or Seattle. Height is a hinderance but I would think such esteemed architects would have been able to create the "wow" factor in the design itself knowing it they would not be able to achieve it based on height.

The building is VERY OC - - I used to work up in Irvine and this seems like an exact replica of the Irvine Companies office towers in OC, in fact the whole NBC complex strikes me as being very Irvine-ish
I'm glad you brought up these two items - the wow factor, and those Irvine towers. I was thinking about the same thing just now. I realized during my lunch that we shouldn't have ever expected any wow factor at all, because if you've seen those Irvine towers (the ones by spectrum apply, but especially those at 405 and Jamboree) then you're familiar with Donald Bren's notoriously specific design and color palate. Although he recently stepped down from Irvine Co.'s day to day operations, I'm fairly certain he controlled the design of the 700 tower because of its textbook design and color. Its one thing for Irvine Co. to purchase existing towers that break from his tastes, but an Irvine Co. original is sure to conform to his preferences, and he will never deviate from those, thus the reason all Irvine Co. constructed office towers in Irvine are essentially variations on the same theme. My most recent conclusion being that we were fooled by Pei Cobb's involvement and failed to realize its basically a Donald Bren designed building, which isn't awful, but surely not anything that would WOW us.

I also agree with your OC sentiment on the NBC complex in general, I also can't shake the feeling of that OC-ish office tower facing Harbor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2252  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 5:56 PM
IconRPCV's Avatar
IconRPCV IconRPCV is offline
Downtowner
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Califonia del Sur
Posts: 411
Lane field

Actually the development I am most excited about is Lane Field. This site, more than any other, is the most "Front Porchish" in the city, think all those cruise ship disimbarkers, and what is it that greets them, an ugly parking lot and a portable building doubling as a tourist info center. They can't build that site quick enough for me, it is totally embarissing as it is now. I only wish they could raze those horriblly garish Holiday Inns next door as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2253  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2007, 8:26 PM
obendega obendega is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 18
I am so with you on those Holiday Inn buildings.

That is a prime location and they are hideous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2254  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:10 AM
mongoXZ's Avatar
mongoXZ mongoXZ is offline
Pipe Layer
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 316
We should send the people at Manchester and The Irvine Company these pictures of what a real signature tower/development looks like.

San Francisco Transbay Terminal






Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2255  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 2:56 AM
eburress's Avatar
eburress eburress is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,527
^^ Although even that beauty of a building would look like a turd once you adjusted its height down to the point that it would be allowed in downtown San Diego.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2256  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 3:22 AM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,560
I don't like that design actually.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2257  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 6:21 AM
Crackertastik Crackertastik is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek loves SD View Post
I don't like that design actually.
irregardless, its a signature tower, not a box pretending to be a signature tower.

I honestly don't think san diego could have a signature tower, because to me it is supposed to stand out, stand alone, either taller or extremely unique. the height limitation restricts it completely.
__________________
No offense Lindbergh, but get outta here! We got 700 footers to put up!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2258  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 4:29 PM
eburress's Avatar
eburress eburress is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crackertastik View Post
irregardless, its a signature tower, not a box pretending to be a signature tower.

I honestly don't think san diego could have a signature tower, because to me it is supposed to stand out, stand alone, either taller or extremely unique. the height limitation restricts it completely.
I agree. Given our limitations, I think signature towers are practically impossible here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2259  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 4:46 PM
SDCAL SDCAL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 884
^I like the SF building design, the street level rendering looks cool
i agree that if that same design was brought down to 500 it would look like shit
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2260  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2007, 6:26 PM
Derek Derek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 9,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crackertastik View Post
irregardless, its a signature tower, not a box pretending to be a signature tower.

I honestly don't think san diego could have a signature tower, because to me it is supposed to stand out, stand alone, either taller or extremely unique. the height limitation restricts it completely.
Good point.
__________________
Portlandia
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.