SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[BTinSF]

Just out of curiosity, under the new SSP scheme of things, why is this thread about a 1200' proposal not in the "Supertall Proposals" section? I actually had trouble finding it.

[peanut gallery]

I asked the same question on the last page. I don't think they put the Piano proposal in there either. They also need to move the Hotel Intercontinental into the completed builldings section. I guess with all the changes they haven't had time to go through and clean everything up. This one has been very active though, so you'd think it would have been noted.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by SFView

I don't know of any other city in the world as much as San Francisco wanting to be so much taller, while wanting to be so much shorter. Aside from FAA issues, does anyone know of another city on Earth that has greater high-rise issue tension?

From what I understand, the citizens of Berlin voted to ban all further highrises period.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

From what I understand, the citizens of Berlin voted to ban all further highrises period.

Really? Hmmmm...interesting.
Anyway, I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_restriction_laws
Wow! Bali, Indonesia can't exceed the height of a palm tree which is about 20 meters or 66 feet!

Actually, what I mean is the difference in range heights from what is orginally proposed and what gets built in San Francisco, and the quantity of reduced and cancelled proposals is proportionally larger than most other cities. Many of us know of how the Transamerica Pyramid was shortened by about 300'. There are scores of others; some we barely know about. At least nine of tallest towers in Reminiscence's SF proposed skyscraper list at the bottom of his posts are likely to be shortened or eliminated. San Francisco gets many proposals wanting to build taller, but restrictions resulting from public pressure often compresses them down. At least San Francisco is lucky it did not proceed with locating its airport on Treasure Island.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by SFView

Really? Hmmmm...interesting.
Anyway, I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_restriction_laws
Wow! Bali, Indonesia can't exceed the height of a palm tree which is about 20 meters or 66 feet!

Actually, what I mean is the difference in range heights from what is orginally proposed and what gets built in San Francisco, and the quantity of reduced and cancelled proposals is proportionally larger than most other cities. Many of us know of how the Transamerica Pyramid was shortened by about 300'. There are scores of others; some we barely know about. At least nine of tallest towers in Reminiscence's SF proposed skyscraper list at the bottom of his posts are likely to be shortened or eliminated. San Francisco gets many proposals wanting to build taller, but restrictions resulting from public pressure often compresses them down. At least San Francisco is lucky it did not proceed with locating its airport on Treasure Island.

I'm afraid to say that you will most likely be right about the reduced or eliminated proposals, too much of a good thing I guess.

Having the airport on Treasure Island would have been a disaster, having a skyscraper of this height might have been impossible.

[norcaldude21]

I really think SF realizes this might be their only shot for tall towers that will actually serve a great purpose. Plus, their strategic location could not be more ideal. All of the right elements are present.

Thinking ahead, if these buildings are built, this will definitely close down the curtain on future projects of this magnitude.

Yeah, I agree about the airport. Glad it was NOT built on Treasure Island. Then restrictions on height would be more intense and congestion on the Bay Bridge would have been a nightmare. Speaking of Bay Bridge, is there a thread for the new project?

[mthd]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^^^^The maps you posted show ORH at 550. I can't tell what exactly Millennium was zoned for on there. Either way, that's a good point too.

both millenium and ORH are in 550' height zones. 550 + 55' extension + exemptions for decorative mechanical screens/massing = either millenium or ORH.

[Reminiscence]

I'm hoping that at least a few of these towers will incorporate certain measures that will allow them to reach higher than the limit states. Such a radical example would include the new Bank of America Tower in New York City, which has a roof reaching 881' but a structural height of 1200', a pinnacle height of 319'.

[peanut gallery]

^^^I agree in principle, but I don't want to see a bunch of 6-700' buildings with 300' sticks on them like that building. Those look silly and would do nothing to alleviate the plateau effect. Something like an integrated crown housing turbines would work for me. Or a spire naturally extending from a pitched roof like Chrysler would be great.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^^^I agree in principle, but I don't want to see a bunch of 6-700' buildings with 300' sticks on them like that building. Those look silly and would do nothing to alleviate the plateau effect. Something like an integrated crown housing turbines would work for me. Or a spire naturally extending from a pitched roof like Chrysler would be great.

Right. I agree, its important not to go overboard. I remember 181 Fremont had incorporated something to that nature, although nowhere near as extreme. I hope that project has not been affected with the recent rezoning proposal.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Right. I agree, its important not to go overboard. I remember 181 Fremont had incorporated something to that nature, although nowhere near as extreme. I hope that project has not been affected with the recent rezoning proposal.

It is - reduced to from something around 900' to maybe 700'?

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by SFView

It is - reduced to from something around 900' to maybe 700'?

Hmm, thats too bad. I really do hope all of these numbers are not what Planning has in concrete. Otherwise, some of these projects might not reach the potential they could have had. Granted, even 700' is much better than whats there now.

[SFView]

I am still hoping that if they can find a good way to extend a "transparent" top on the Transbay Tower effectively to 1200' or taller, the surrounding zoning heights can be a little less restrained. As I mentioned, I would still like Piano design to be permitted to reach no less than 900' to the roof. I am not so sure if the new "downtown mound" idea would be as effective with the heights that are currently being proposed. It may look more like just an extension of the existing skyline to the south, with one new tallest spike at Transbay.

[peanut gallery]

I was just standing at Fremont and Mission looking up at 50 Fremont and Millennium, imagining the other two corners filled with Transbay at 1000' and 350 Mission at 700'. And you know, even at those heights it will be damn impressive. I mean, Transbay will be half again as high as Millennium. That is freaking tall! It won't look as good from a distance, but it made me feel better thinking about how amazing it will look from street level. And that's if they don't "cheat-up" with all the various possibilities everyone has mentioned in this thread.

[AndrewK]

in the close up of the crown in the pelli proposal, there are what appear to be eight floors of semi-transparent structure, presumably for mechanics and turbines. if that is allowed to extend above 1000 ft, thats at least another hundred feet right there.

[northbay]

progress!

from the chron:

SAN FRANCISCO
Transbay Terminal design contract OKd

John King

Friday, May 16, 2008

A $105 million architectural contract makes it official: Work on a new Transbay Terminal has begun in earnest.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority voted unanimously Thursday to sign a professional services agreement with Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects to design a facility for bus and train service at San Francisco's First and Mission streets, the site of the existing terminal.

The contract would extend through the construction process and includes the fees for 21 consultants whose work would be directed by Pelli Clarke Pelli, including landscape architects and a specialist in wind-tunnel testing.

Construction of a temporary facility at Fremont and Folsom streets is to begin this winter and be completed in 2009. The existing terminal would then be demolished and work would begin on its replacement, which is scheduled to open in 2014.

source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAQN10NJP1.DTL

[peanut gallery]

A bit of a formality, but a very important step nonetheless. Now the real work begins. I can't wait to see the next iterations of the design.

[WonderlandPark]

I don't know if this has been posted, in the 90+ pages of this thread, but its a large rendering of the terminal:

from artdaily

[nequidnimis]

This design will require some elaborate window washing equipment. Not to mention the problem of washing the glass on the inside. Unless no one at the TJPA intends to wash the glass... or the design is all "straightened" as it proceeds from concept to construction. Also, some of the glass panes are warped surfaces: I doubt glass is available in such shapes.

[c1tyguy]

^ Haha interesting point.. never thought about that. Maybe it will have a self-cleaning mechanism like the Pyramide du Louvre in Paris.