HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2006, 11:32 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
San Francisco: 2 1200', 2 900', 1 600' PROPOSED

12-21) 15:01 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- Developers have filed a proposal to erect the nation's tallest buildings outside of New York and Chicago - a pair of slender San Francisco towers that would climb 350 feet higher than the Transamerica Pyramid.

The plan, filed today with the city's planning department, envisions a cluster of unusually thin high-rises spread across two acres at the northwest corner of First and Mission streets: two 1, 200-foot towers, two 900-foot structures and a 600-foot companion.

Down on the ground would be an open plaza, covered passageways and two small existing buildings.

By comparison, the Transamerica Pyramid is 853 feet high and the Bank of America building is 779 feet. The only buildings in the United States of greater height than what is proposed for San Francisco are Sears Tower in Chicago and New York's Empire State Building.

Today's filing is an application to start the environmental review process, rather than a formal design unveiling. By the time that occurs, the heights and dimensions of the towers could change.

The lead architect for the project is Renzo Piano, who also is doing the new home of the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.

"It is highly conceptual at this point," Mark Solit, a member of the development team, said of the project. "Conceptual in terms of our discussion with the city, and conceptual in terms of Renzo Piano Building Workshop's vision of what they think might be appropriate."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AGUNN44C07.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2006, 11:51 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Holy Shit!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 12:40 AM
LongBeachUrbanist's Avatar
LongBeachUrbanist LongBeachUrbanist is offline
Ridin' The Metro
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Metro Blue, Wardlow Stop
Posts: 2,578
Taller and thinner? I'm way interested in the sketches. As well as the engineering assumptions: there's a lot of wind to have to deal with.
__________________
COMPLETE THE CENTRAL SUBWAY BY 2020!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 12:47 AM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,953
^ Not to mention seismic forces. So I presume this is in addition to the Transbay towers, no? If so, SF could be getting three towers above 1,000 ft.??
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 12:48 AM
sf_eddo's Avatar
sf_eddo sf_eddo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hayes Valley, San Francisco
Posts: 2,125
Renzo Piano!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 12:54 AM
sf_eddo's Avatar
sf_eddo sf_eddo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hayes Valley, San Francisco
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by colemonkee View Post
^ Not to mention seismic forces. So I presume this is in addition to the Transbay towers, no? If so, SF could be getting three towers above 1,000 ft.??
It seems to me like one of the 1,200 footers would be the actual signature Transbay Tower. But you're right, it's not clear from the article.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 1:22 AM
slock slock is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 373
Per usual, the Chronicle is a lot less clear than the Biz Times. It seems as though it's just the 1st & Mission Parcel, not the Howard or Transbay Tower.


Massive new project being proposed for San Francisco
San Francisco Business Times - 3:21 PM PST Thursday
by J.K. Dineen

A development team led by the Solit Interest Group is proposing to build a 1,200-foot tower at First and Mission streets, part of a quartet of astoundingly ambitious buildings being designed by superstar architect Renzo Piano.

The proposed building, which would dwarf any existing buildings on the West Coast, would be part of a 2.9 million-square-foot development that would include 600 condominiums, 470 hotel rooms, and more than 520,000 square feet of office space, according to an application filed Dec. 21 with the city.


The 1,200-foot proposed skyscraper, which would be the third tallest building in the United States, would lag only Chicago's Sears Tower, which is 1,450 feet, and New York's Empire State Building at 1,250 feet. San Francisco's tallest current building is the Transamerica Pyramid, which is 853 feet tall.

The 51,000-square-foot development site on the northwest corner of First and Mission streets was assembled by David Choo, the president of California Mortgage and Realty. Over the past two years, Choo has acquired four buildings on First Street between Mission and Market streets as well as three adjoining vacant parcels on Mission.

Last summer Choo brought on Mark Solit to head up the development team. Solit was a developer for the Hyatt Corp. and was also involved in building Embarcadero West at 275 Battery St.

The buildings -- 50 First St., 62 First St., 76-80 First St., and 88 First St. -- would be demolished under the proposal. They are all small, Class C office buildings with a combined square footage of 250,000.

At current construction costs, the project would cost more than $1 billion to build.

Piano, who designed the rebuild of the California Academy of Sciences now under way in Golden Gate Park, is a highly sought-after international superstar architect. He's behind the expansion of both the Whitney Museum in New York and the High Museum in Atlanta has public and private projects in Sydney, Tokyo and Paris, but recent American commissions have made him a familiar and golden name in the United States.

"He's certainly one of a very short list of preeminent architects in the world that have a significant body of work," said David Meckel, director research and planning and former dean of architecture at California College of the Arts. "He's done a lot of buildings and almost everyone of those building responds to place. No two look alike."

The proposed development would be made possible by a planned upzoning of the Transbay Terminal area that is currently under review. In July, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority agreed to a plan to build a trio of soaring towers that would help fund a new Transbay Terminal as well as a funding and phasing plan for the transit hub.

The zoning changes could bring as much as $250 million in new funding to the terminal project, according to the work of the planners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 3:51 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
I'm finding myself a little too excited about this proposal. It's fucking HAWT!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 5:48 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,718
WoW this seemed to come out of nowhere. Exciting and really it's about time for San Francisco. I'm excited to see the renderings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 6:30 AM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
wow, that's news. Not one, but two, 1200's and two 900's easily puts SF in the company of Chicago. This proposal would have a dramatic impact on Chicago's skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 7:34 AM
Btown Btown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 42
HOLY SHIT. are we sure that these arent the transbay towers but in fact a brnd new proposal?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 1:02 PM
Chase Unperson's Avatar
Chase Unperson Chase Unperson is offline
Freakbirthed
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Papa Songs.
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva View Post
wow, that's news. Not one, but two, 1200's and two 900's easily puts SF in the company of Chicago. This proposal would have a dramatic impact on Chicago's skyline.
Actually it puts SF in the company of NY and Chicago. NY has 5 buildings built or under construction with roof heights of 900ft or greater and Chicago has 7. It puts SF right with NY assuming no other proposals in NY are built that are over 900 feet until after these are done.

They should have no problem getting built in SF with they price they can charge per sq ft. Whoever builds these is going to make a bazillion dollars.
__________________
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 4:42 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is online now
City of Trees
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Urbs Indomita
Posts: 5,815
This is wonderful news for San Francisco, as it would dramatically elevate the city's skyline.


It will be interesting to see how this is received around San Francisco and whether or not the NIMBYs
come out in opposition because of the height.

Politcal support is what really matters most, and it appears San Francisco's politicians are ready to raise the
ceiling on it's skyline.


This is going to be fun to watch as it progresses...
__________________
”In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous.” ~~Aristotle

Last edited by urban_encounter; Dec 23, 2006 at 12:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 5:50 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,284
wow...that intersection is sure busy these days.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 6:56 PM
edluva edluva is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperial Teen View Post
Actually it puts SF in the company of NY and Chicago. NY has 5 buildings built or under construction with roof heights of 900ft or greater and Chicago has 7. It puts SF right with NY assuming no other proposals in NY are built that are over 900 feet until after these are done.

They should have no problem getting built in SF with they price they can charge per sq ft. Whoever builds these is going to make a bazillion dollars.
yeah, considering two of these will be taller than both JHC and Aon, they'd be the 2nd and 3rd tallest in Chicago, after the Trump is built. And two of these will be 900 footers. Chicago currently has two 900 footers also. An impressive leap-frog over LA I must say, and right into NY's seat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 7:02 PM
pdxstreetcar's Avatar
pdxstreetcar pdxstreetcar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,300
I hope the towers are attractive
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 7:09 PM
the94112's Avatar
the94112 the94112 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 120
The chronicle has a drawing of them on the front page today, waaaay too thin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 7:11 PM
munkyman munkyman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 136
Don't get me wrong, the heights sound exciting. But these are proposals. The Transbay Towers are proposals. The TransAmerica Pyramid was proposed at 1150', only to be reduced to 850'. Many other buildings were proposed in this city, and never made it off the drawing board. I'm not trying to kill excitement, just trying to remind people that things like this 1) take years and years to propose and flesh out, not to mention years more to build, and also that 2) these proposals meet a great deal of resistance in San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 7:15 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,133
And to think, just 3 years ago we were bitching about whether the Millenium tower would actually get built.

TWO 1200's??? Sweet jesus!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2006, 7:26 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,718


From the Chronicle. These are obviously not meant to be renderings so I don't think the thinness means anything. I'm assuming the actual design's will be significantly different and of varying widths (least I hope so).

----

San Francisco developers are proposing to build the nation's tallest towers outside of New York and Chicago -- a pair of slender high-rises 350 feet taller than the Transamerica Pyramid.

The plan presented Thursday to the city's Planning Department envisions a cluster of thin towers rising from 2 acres at the northwest corner of First and Mission streets. The cluster would include two 1,200-foot towers, two 900-foot structures and a 600-foot companion.

Threaded between them would be an open plaza, covered passageways and a three-story building that is not part of the project.

By comparison, the Transamerica Pyramid is 853 feet high and the Bank of America building is 779 feet. The only U.S. buildings taller than those proposed Thursday are Sears Tower in Chicago and New York's Empire State Building, which are 1,451 feet and 1,250 feet respectively.

Though unprecedented for San Francisco, the proposal is in line with what city officials have been saying for months -- that extremely tall towers will be allowed on a handful of sites south of Market Street. But details of the project are likely to change during the city's review process, which could take at least two years.

Indeed, one member of the development team on Thursday described the "environmental evaluation application" presented to the city as "a placeholder."

"It is highly conceptual at this point," said Mark Solit, the lead developer. "Conceptual in terms of our discussion with the city, and conceptual in terms of the architects' vision of what they think might be appropriate."

The site is across from the Transbay Terminal, itself the focus of a skyscraper design competition seeking what the guidelines describe as "an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline." As many as a half-dozen teams are rumored to be putting together bids.

City planners earlier this year suggested raising building heights around the terminal as a way to attract projects that in turn would generate tax revenue. That money could then be used for the terminal and related transit projects such as an extension of commuter rail lines from the Peninsula.

The lead architect for the proposed cluster of towers is Renzo Piano of Italy, who also is doing the new home of the California Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park.

Piano has likened the design approach to bamboo shoots rising from the ground, with different pieces stopping at different heights. The two tallest would be on First Street -- rising 1,200 feet on either side of the Jessie Street alleyway.

The height would be accented even more by the narrow dimensions of each tower. On the top 300 feet of the tallest towers, the floors would measure just 8,000 square feet -- less than half the size of the upper floors one block away at Fremont Center. That 600-foot-high office tower is currently the tallest high-rise south of Market Street.

The development site is now parking lots and four six-story buildings built in the decade after the 1906 earthquake.

According to the application, the new buildings would contain 600 residential units, 470 hotel rooms, 520,000 square feet of office space and a small amount of ground-floor retail space. However, Solit said, the final mix would evolve along with the project.

Any project of this scale will require detailed studies of how the buildings will affect the wind and block sunlight, as well as engineering studies to confirm that such tall, narrow towers can withstand a major earthquake.

During the past week, Solit and other members of the development team have shown the project to Supervisors Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin and members of Mayor Gavin Newsom's administration. Full architectural details are not expected before summer.

"If we're going to do these kinds of heights, this is the place," said Daly, who also is a member of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, which will oversee construction of a new terminal. "I like how the project works on the ground -- it's very porous and attractive to people on the street."

Daly suggested the most controversial aspect of the proposal could be the twin 1,200-foot towers.

"Every American is going to look at them and think of 9/11," he said.


Whatever form the project eventually takes, it shows that decision-makers no longer see dramatic building heights as something to avoid.

This wasn't the case in the decades after the Transamerica Pyramid began construction in 1970; that concrete spike at the foot of Columbus Avenue crystallized opposition to the transformation of San Francisco's skyline. An urban design plan the next year capped heights at 700 feet, and a 1986 update sliced off another 100 feet.

In recent years, though, the city has allowed residential towers in areas that before were kept low -- such as the towers now rising north of the Bay Bridge. Three are under construction, and two will top 600 feet.

San Francisco isn't the only city where the sky is now the limit.

Piano has 1,000-foot buildings in the works for the centers of both London and Boston -- two cities once as tower-wary as San Francisco. In Paris, a 984-foot tower proposal was announced last month for a site 3 miles west of the Eiffel Tower. The architect is Thom Mayne of Santa Monica, who designed the soon-to-open federal complex at Seventh and Mission streets in San Francisco
link

Last edited by SD_Phil; Dec 22, 2006 at 7:35 PM.
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 > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:30 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.