SAN FRANCISCO | 550 Howard Street (Transbay Parcel F) | 806 FT | 61 FLOORS

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by edwards

^ The glass curtain wall looks too similar to SF Tower's.

The archetype in SF for this intricate metal curtain wall type is the JP Morgan Building at 560 Mission, which has won a lot of praise from architects, and is becoming kind of a signiture of the Pelli firm.

[SFView]

While Pelli Clark Pelli are masters of the curtainwall, they are not as crafty at massing or shaping their skyscrapers - so far. The obelisk shape can't help them here. This is still a work in progress, so let's see what they come up with.

[Pedestrian]

^^I like the renderings above on this page. They look Art Deco to me--kind of retro to the golden ages of skyscrapers in the 1930s and 1950s. Some may say that makes them imitative and something that's "been done" but beyond Timothy Pfleuger's couple of ornate buildings, we don't have much from that era in SF and nothing near so tall.

[SFView]

^^^I don't know if this is gold or brass trim, but this rendering actually reminds me more of Steampunk. I do also see a bit of Art Deco as well. I actually like it.

[SFView]

Here is another similar article from sf.curbed.com with a couple additional renderings not seen in the previous Socketsite article:
http://sf.curbed.com/2017/2/8/145504...ing-550-howard

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by SFView

Here is another similar article from sf.curbed.com with a couple additional renderings not seen in the previous Socketsite article:
http://sf.curbed.com/2017/2/8/145504...ing-550-howard

Funny how Pelli can't acknowledge Foster's Oceanwide towers in their renderings of the skyline.

[SFView]

Here is the massing concept in question by Planning:

Source (also includes more detailed plans, sections and diagrams): http://notice.sfplanning.org/2016-013312PPA.pdf


Source: http://sf.curbed.com/2017/2/8/145504...ing-550-howard

As one of the four largest towers in the city, the Department recommends that the massing [ie, shape of the building] be more gently and iconically-shaped. The current massing asymmetry and steps might work as a formal strategy if repeated; as they only occur once within the most visible height of the tower, they seem episodic and less architecturally intentional.

The Department recommends that the project express significant façade depth, provide high-quality materials, and meet the architectural detailing and character of the neighborhood.

In other words, the current look is still more blocky and uniform than the city might prefer to see in such a huge and prominent structure.

[Pedestrian]

^^These are the people who approved the Bank of America Building which for 4 or 5 decades has been the second most prominent form on the skyline, blockiness and all.

[SFView]

^^^Same department - different people - different thinking.

[homebucket]

I agree. The best thing I can say about it is it looks... nice. In such a prominent location, I'd prefer something more sleek, iconic and special.

[mt_climber13]

I think the Aon towers in LA and Chicago are exemplary and they are nothing but blocks. This stands out so much because there aren't many towers this tall in SF. I like the simple block shape of it. The square shapes can provide nice complements to the points and cone shapes of the other taller towers.

[SFView]

^^^Look here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=227030

[edwards]

^ these will surely keep us busy for the next couple of years - keep em coming!

[chris08876]

I could agree with this. Given its prominence, I think its in the best interest for the sake of aesthetics for it to be super stellar. Key word is "super" as it's quite stellar already. So long as they don't modify the current proposal too much as it looks stunning in its blocky form.

The Department recommends that the project express significant façade depth, provide high-quality materials, and meet the architectural detailing and character of the neighborhood.

At least they like the proposal. Had they out flat rejected it, it would of been a problem. Hopefully they can modify it, and get this thing to hard cost stage ASAP.

[chris08876]

All you need to know about this project in PDF

Preliminary Project Assessment (PDF): http://notice.sfplanning.org/2016-013312PPA.pdf

Scroll down for diagrams, schematics.


Go to page 9 for the approvals process. Page 38 onwards for diagrams.

Edit: Just realized someone posted this.

[SFView]

^^^Perhaps Oceanwide Center is too distracting from the subject. Other new towers not yet up are also missing, and not needed for this presentation rendering. If the design gets revised, we should be seeing more updated renderings and drawings later anyway.

[don116]

Funny how there are no renderings of the view of tower from the west...I wouldn't be surprised if this is another case of a tower turning its back to the city.

Not a fan of Pelli's designs at all after this and Salesforce tower. He truly saved his worst for San Francisco.

[don116]

Here are the planning commissions comments on the tower

As one of the four largest towers in the city, the Department recommends that the massing [ie, shape of the building] be more gently and iconically-shaped. The current massing asymmetry and steps might work as a formal strategy if repeated; as they only occur once within the most visible height of the tower, they seem episodic and less architecturally intentional.

The Department recommends that the project express significant façade depth, provide high-quality materials, and meet the architectural detailing and character of the neighborhood.

If they want something more iconic, they should just flat out say 'go with another architect' because Pelli cannot think outside the box.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by don116

Here are the planning commissions comments on the tower



If they want something more iconic, they should just flat out say 'go with another architect' because Pelli cannot think outside the box.

Sounds like typical planning commission gobly gook bs. Arbitrary wannabe architect speak! Thanks for posting though!

[tech12]

I think it looks good, though I like the top half better than the bottom. It could look better.

Originally Posted by don116

Funny how there are no renderings of the view of tower from the west...I wouldn't be surprised if this is another case of a tower turning its back to the city.

You can see the west side right here: