SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center - Page 129

tech12 · #**2561** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg6544

Oh really? So topics such as transportation or L.A. Noir don't really exist and all those aerial and Flickr pictures contain skyscrapers?

What are you, twelve?

SKYSCRAPERpage

Do you think that name was chosen for no reason? Skyscrapers are obviously a huge focus of this website. The people in this thread like skyscrapers (as do most people on this website, obviously), and I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by constantly repeating that you don't care about them yourself.

Will you stop your dumb derail now?

jg6544 · #**2562** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

SKYSCRAPERpage

Do you think that name was chosen for no reason? Skyscrapers are obviously a huge focus of this website. The people in this thread like skyscrapers (as do most people on this website, obviously), and I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by constantly repeating that you don't care about them yourself.

Will you stop your dumb derail now?

Evidently, you don't read or perhaps English isn't your first language:

"I have said, I don't care whether it gets built or not. It adds nothing to San Francisco, a city I dearly love, and even if it gets built, whether it's 1000' or 500' or 100', doesn't matter. Happy now?"

I don't dislike skyscrapers; I don't particularly dislike THIS skyscraper. I just don't care about it. There are a number of cities around the world that need to play the "mine is bigger than yours is" game. San Francisco is not one of them. My favorite skyscraper in the City is the (former) Crown Zellerbach building and my second is just across the street - the Shell building. Neither is over 30 stories tall. Being the tallest isn't intrinsic to being a well-designed skyscraper that passes the test of time.

mt_climber13 · #**2563** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 7:15 PM**

What are the odds that Hines will sell the rights to this site, and a newly designed skyscraper is built? These development flips have been very popular with in the past few years especially in the trans-bay high rise areas. Are we truly stuck with a height limit of 1070 feet, or is there any chance that the shadow ordinance Could make one exception in this special case? As I recall, the reason the height was chops for the trans Bay Tower was because it was going to cast a negligible shadow across Union Square during the wintertime for less than one hour in the early morning.

plinko · #**2564** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 7:28 PM**

The Hines deal is a public-private partnership with the City. It's unlikely that it would be scrapped for another developer at this point unless said developer is willing to offer the city MORE money. This isn't a normal private development that would just be 'flipped'.

So no, there isn't likely to be a re-design unless there is some drastic change in the economy (good or bad) or Hines gets tired of Pelli (unlikely given PCP's penchant for producing safe earning buildings).

Zapatan · #**2565** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinko

The Hines deal is a public-private partnership with the City. It's unlikely that it would be scrapped for another developer at this point unless said developer is willing to offer the city MORE money. This isn't a normal private development that would just be 'flipped'.

So no, there isn't likely to be a re-design unless there is some drastic change in the economy (good or bad) or Hines gets tired of Pelli (unlikely given PCP's penchant for producing safe earning buildings).

Kind of a good thing, wouldn't want someone to put something shorter on the site.

SF will get two new tallest and a bunch of new highrises, I think this plan should stay as it is

plinko · #**2566** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 7:37 PM**

This plan only incorporates the 1,070ft tower, nothing else. The other buildings are purely speculative and their chances of coming to fruition are far more dependent on the economy than anything else.

Zapatan · #**2567** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinko

This plan only incorporates the 1,070ft tower, nothing else. The other buildings are purely speculative and their chances of coming to fruition are far more dependent on the economy than anything else.

are the others planned by separate developers?

ElDuderino · #**2568** Posted **Mar 18, 2012, 11:12 PM**

Hey everyone....the ignoring of this jg6544 person starts............NOW

plinko · #**2569** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 5:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

are the others planned by separate developers?

They are other sites entirely, developed by their individual owners and design teams. The Transbay is only the station and the supertall. That's it.

patriotizzy · #**2570** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 6:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

Hey everyone....the ignoring of this jg6544 person starts............NOW

Why do that? He's being honest. This is a discussion forum, where anyone's opinions should be heard. Is it not? I like this building, although I agree they could come up with something a little more iconic.

CyberEric · #**2571** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 6:27 PM**

I like all the passion in this thread, for a while no one was even bothering to come in here, and now we are alive!

The truth is this building is not going to make or break San Francisco. Many of us may never work or live in it, though we will see it frequently. It's a handsome building, but it will not likely not be an icon, unless the surface is incredible or the lighting is really captivating. The Transamerica Pyramid will likely remain the icon of highrises in SF (and even that is far eclipsed by the GG Bridge in terms of local architecture). And that's ok, the Empire State Building is still a far prettier and iconic building to my eye than the the new WTC (or the old ones for that matter). The tallest building is not always the icon. To be honest, I'd prefer the Piano designed towers to be built over this, but I still think this is a good addition.

mt_climber13 · #**2572** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

To be honest, I'd prefer the Piano designed towers to be built over this, but I still think this is a good addition.

How can you say that? Nobody has ever seen renderings of those buildings, and the project is dead! Unless you know something we don't

RST500 · #**2573** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 9:08 PM**

This project in Shanghai looks like a hybrid of Pelli and SOM. Anyone know the name of this project?

Quote:

Originally Posted by staff

Roadcruiser1 · #**2574** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

I like all the passion in this thread, for a while no one was even bothering to come in here, and now we are alive!

The truth is this building is not going to make or break San Francisco. Many of us may never work or live in it, though we will see it frequently. It's a handsome building, but it will not likely not be an icon, unless the surface is incredible or the lighting is really captivating. The Transamerica Pyramid will likely remain the icon of highrises in SF (and even that is far eclipsed by the GG Bridge in terms of local architecture). And that's ok, the Empire State Building is still a far prettier and iconic building to my eye than the the new WTC (or the old ones for that matter). The tallest building is not always the icon. To be honest, I'd prefer the Piano designed towers to be built over this, but I still think this is a good addition.

What do you mean not likely. First of all this building will have an observation deck. That would instantly sell out because it will be the tallest in the city. Second of all this development will include residential spaces. So of course people will live near it, and it will become an icon of SF. You can think what you think but when the Twin Towers were completed in the 1970's they instantly became icons of New York City and quickly became a representation of New York as much as the Empire State Building was. It was seen in postcards, movies, animations, and even The Simpsons. Face it you only like the Transamerica Pyramid which over time will be overshadowed by other buildings.

CyberEric · #**2575** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

How can you say that? Nobody has ever seen renderings of those buildings, and the project is dead! Unless you know something we don't

The renderings were made visible. I mistakenly wrote Piano who was originally attached to the project, it was SOM.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...street_as.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

What do you mean not likely. First of all this building will have an observation deck. That would instantly sell out because it will be the tallest in the city. Second of all this development will include residential spaces. So of course people will live near it, and it will become an icon of SF. You can think what you think but when the Twin Towers were completed in the 1970's they instantly became icons of New York City and quickly became a representation of New York as much as the Empire State Building was. It was seen in postcards, movies, animations, and even The Simpsons. Face it you only like the Transamerica Pyramid which over time will be overshadowed by other buildings.

You have a point about the Twin Towers (speaking pre 9/11), they were not as beautiful but they were probably more iconic than the ESB, or perhaps equal. That was a passing comment, in my post I was mainly trying to use the new WTC as an example of a city where the tallest is not the most iconic, or should I say, the building that people think of when they think of a city. I think that of course depends on who you are, so it's a tricky assertion, but there is a case to be made. For another example, maybe I should offer Coit Tower is more iconic than many of the much, much taller towers in SF. Also, time will tell but I doubt the Shard will surpass Big Ben in London as an icon.

Roadcruiser1 · #**2576** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 10:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

You have a point about the Twin Towers (speaking pre 9/11), they were not as beautiful but they were probably more iconic than the ESB, or perhaps equal. That was a passing comment, in my post I was mainly trying to use the new WTC as an example of a city where the tallest is not the most iconic, or should I say, the building that people think of when they think of a city. I think that of course depends on who you are, so it's a tricky assertion, but there is a case to be made. For another example, maybe I should offer Coit Tower is more iconic than many of the much, much taller towers in SF. Also, time will tell but I doubt the Shard will surpass Big Ben in London as an icon.

You have to wait and see. You can't say that it is impossible, and One World Trade Center will most certainly be iconic because of what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11. The world will see that it is our way of coming back.

plinko · #**2577** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 10:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

This project in Shanghai looks like a hybrid of Pelli and SOM. Anyone know the name of this project?

That's one of the entries for the Shanghai Tower competition, though I don't recall who the designer was. It would be somewhere is this thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=116595

tech12 · #**2578** Posted **Mar 19, 2012, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinko

That's one of the entries for the Shanghai Tower competition, though I don't recall who the designer was. It would be somewhere is this thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=116595

Yeah, it's not the design that won. I do see where the SOM + Pelli comparison comes from though.

mt_climber13 · #**2579** Posted **Mar 20, 2012, 3:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberEric

The renderings were made visible. I mistakenly wrote Piano who was originally attached to the project, it was SOM.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...street_as.html

I thought maybe you were referring to the SOM. still, how can you tell anything from those renderings? We don't even know what color they will be.

viewguysf · #**2580** Posted **Mar 20, 2012, 6:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

What do you mean not likely. First of all this building will have an observation deck. That would instantly sell out because it will be the tallest in the city. Second of all this development will include residential spaces. So of course people will live near it, and it will become an icon of SF.

Who said it will have an observation deck? I've never heard that. It's also completely an office tower with no residential element. Are you sure you aren't confusing this Pelli tower with the SOM proposal?