SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[paulsfca]

Originally Posted by atl2phx

geez, the SOM proposal is friggin rediculous! to me, it says san francisco all day long. SOM would be the best addition to the skyline ~ followed by the pelli proposal.

couldn't agree with you more...all three were amazing but SOM's proposal was both dynamic and elegant (in my opinion ! ) folowed by the Pelli proposal ! thanks for taking the pic !

[craeg]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Here's some complaints I've gathered from ppl on SF GATE, just to know in advance what we'll be dealing with:

"These designs are awful! What a terrible idea to wreck our lovely and distinguished skyline with such a monstrosity of a building. Who decided that this was a good thing for San Francisco? All these large, personality-less buildings that are going up in the Rincon Hill part of the city are terrible. Can we vote on this?"

" if the building is going to be very tall, would that make the city a target like the World Trade Center? Also, how many of the current SF residents have been in the 1989 earthquake? Will the building with over 80+ stories hold up to a 7.0 earthquake?"

Gotta love this one, a self proclaimed expert:
"The Loma Prieta quake was only a 6.9 magnitude. The great quake in '06 was much worse. I so question the wisdom of building so high, even over engineered. I heard from friends of showers of glass on Market Street in '89. Gad zooks I hope the architects and engineers are right and I am not."


And, the typical pseudo- liberal response: how are the poor laborers going to be treated?
"I heard someone from the labor union talking at the presentations last night and I certainly hope the company they choose has a good history with labor. That is important for San Fran."

"Yes, the transbay terminal needs to be replaced but nothing as tall, ugly, and sterile as those designs. Who knows if this will even fly? In the second paragraph of the article it reads "There's no guarantee that any of the towers will be built..." Let's hope that is the case."

"That horrific EYESORE that's being contsructed 2 feet from the bridge and COMPLETELY ruins the experience of coming over the bridge into the city and seeing the cityline and the BofA clock tower is bad enough! Now you're telling me you're putting in more that will dwarf the rest of the city and the TransAmerica building? That makes me very sad."


What is very uplifting is that the naysayers are way less popular in those forums than the proponents, by about 8 to 1. I wonder how much of these pseudo- liberal whiners are those dorks who are always spouting "Transit first! One more bike equals one less car!" but at the same time, are against building density, which encourages transit!

I expect these kinds of replys from the San Ramon Chronicle.
Keep in mind there is tremendous political willpower behind this happening and
a smaller tower wont pull in the dough which is sorely needed.

[spyguy]

I'm beginning to like the SOM one more than Rogers.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

"20-30 floors" seems like quite a bit to me. Anyway, how can they be convinced the only way to finance it is not to use housing when 2 of the 3 proposals use substantial amounts of housing? I keep thinking of Trinity Plaza where one or another SF power broker kept demanding more and more. I don't think they'll get it from Hines.

20-30 floors is only around 150-250 units at most, especially high in the tower. Even at 40% affordable, that's only 60-100 units. No one is going to derail the centerpiece of transit in SF, as well as the centerpiece of a new neighborhood that will yield thousands of affordable units, for a few extra affordable units. I'm not saying that they will get away with 100% office, I just don't think this is going to be a huge fight over more affordable units, like Trinity - we were talking almost 2000 total units there - and no major infrastructure being paid for by the development.

Now, the Piano towers - watch out. Daly will be expecting 35% or more affordable.

[BTinSF]

^^^Repeat after me: "Trinity Plaza".

The foolishness of SF politicians and special interests is not to be ignored.

[CGII]

That looks AWESOME. Those new renders dispelled all of my fears of the SOM project. SOM all the way.

[NYonward]

It will be interesting to see SF's appetite for a super-tall tower. I don't see it happening. It was hell enough here in NY trying to get a building to replace the World Trade Center.

[CGII]

While SF may be NIMBY capital of the US, I don't think it'll be nearly as difficult to build a 1500' tower here as it was in the wake of 3000 people dead.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^Repeat after me: "Trinity Plaza".

The foolishness of SF politicians and special interests is not to be ignored.

Agreed And I know you're kidding about Trinity Plaza, but the difference in the two projects is massive. Daly would lose a lot of progressive support if he starts stalling the biggest transit project in SF.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

With all the proposals aside, I think the meeting itself was a little out of order. Richard Rogers left me with a somewhat bad taste. They kept forcing him to repeat his name and interrupted him various times in the process. Also, there were way too many people up there speaking on his behalf, it was hard to understand some of the things they were talking about.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill did a nice job presenting. They had nice graphics and media to display and a good timed presentation overall. Naturally its what I would expect of a group such as them, very professional.

Pelli Clarke Pelli and Hines also dissapointed me. They spent about 28 of the 30 allowed minutes talking about the park and the terminal. They even had to go ovetime a few minutes while they rushed the tower portion of the presentation. I dont even think they showed all the slides for the tower.

All this and some of the people up for comment failed as well. One person went up and asked about some sort of restaurant at the top of tower and said they should include one. I thought it was wrong, clearly because the architect himself is present, heh. Then you got a lady come up and speak something into the microphone. I tell you, I could not understand a word she was saying, and I felt sorry for the person in charge of the captions, some of the parts were labeled as "inaudible", which called for some laughs here and there. Not what I expected to find at such a meeting, but I guess we all could use a laugh here and there.

Sorry, I was the guy in the blue V-neck who laughed first. I managed to contain myself until the closed captioning said "inaudible."

[tyler82]

I think one argument I heard takes the cake for most San Franciscan looney, where it was argued that the entire plans for the TransBay area is just a conspiracy theory brought on by the Freemason society. Yes, these are the "brains" we have to deal with !

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by tonyo

It will be interesting to see SF's appetite for a super-tall tower. I don't see it happening. It was hell enough here in NY trying to get a building to replace the World Trade Center.

Yes but we re- built an entire city quicker than it took you guys to build one city block

[PhxSprawler]

I love the SOM building. It looks very iconic and will look great in the world's top 10 (or 20 by the time it is built). I also like how unique the Rogers building is. In any case - good luck, S.F! Don't let this opportunity slide by!

[NYonward]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Yes but we re- built an entire city quicker than it took you guys to build one city block

Four blocks actually, combined into a superblock. But let's not get too technical here in comparing, after all you are off by only 95 years or so.

[munkyman]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Here is my stab at it (All these were taken by me).

Skidmore Owings and Merrill:

Has anyone else noticed that the SOM renderings from the meeting yesterday show what appears to be the Renzo Piano twin bamboo shoot towers? (to the right of both images above). If I remember correctly, those twin bamboo shoots were supposed to be 1'200 feet each. If those twin towers are indeed that tall, that would make the SOM tower what, 1600 feet? Unless I'm mistaking those twin towers for something else, or unless those twin towers are less than 1,200 ft. Anyways, I noticed that yesterday but forgot to post it.

SOM gets my vote. I think the base of the SOM tower is also drawing some inspiration from the spider legs of the Transsamerica Pyramid. That's the first thing I thought when I saw it. Plus it's visually elegant, without being caustic like the Roger's design.

Hope it gets built the way it was conceived.

[tech12]

^Judging by the height of other buildings in that pic, such as 50 Fremont and 301 Mission, the "bamboo shoot" towers look to be more in the 1000' range.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Kid

Do you mind if I post your pics at SSC along with Botoxic's? I will give credit of course

By all means, proceed. Thanks for asking.

[tech12]

The more I look at the renderings, the more and more I fall in love with the Pelli design...its subtle, elegant, detailed, and...beautiful...

arghhhhh It s amazing. I'm liking SOM more too (A LOT), but in my opinion it kinda screams, "LOOK AT ME I'M CUTTING EDGE AND CRAZY AND BOOOOOOLD BOOOOOOOOOOLD!!!!!!" and it's, in my opinion maybe a little much, when you take into account SF's past skyscraper phobia and the fact that it will be SO visible. I know the anti-"manhattanism" and NIMBYism is declining greatly, but it's not gone yet, and unfortunately I see a tower such as the SOM one possibly creating a backlash...more so than Pelli. As for Rogers' that one's out of the question, if you ask me.

I think we gotta save the really crazy tower for Piano's project, after we get everyone used to the fact that we're gonna be having some big buildings coming their way...

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by tech12

The more I look at the renderings, the more and more I fall in love with the Pelli design...its subtle, elegant, detailed, and...beautiful...

I think the biggest problem I have with Pelli's design is the fact that there is already another building in Hong Kong with pretty much the same design going on. Because of this, we wont really get a unique building in San Francisco. Plus 2 IFC is taller than Pelli's proposal, which doesnt sit well with me. Its ok and all, but its been done, its been used. SOM's on the other hand, I dont recall any single building in the world that reminds me of that. It does look like a cross between the Eiffel Tower and Transamerica, but thats a nice image. They just need to make it taller than what they say.

[tech12]

I really like SOM, and I would have no problem with it being built. On further thought, it might make the best transit tower (in terms of function, *though the park is nice on Pelli's*...as well as the grandeur. I guess it is a "signature" tower)...But give me the Pelli one dammit!

Let's have em both!