HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


View Poll Results: Which transbay tower design scheme do you like best?
#1 Richard Rogers 39 7.88%
#2 Cesar Pelli 98 19.80%
#3 SOM 358 72.32%
Voters: 495. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2621  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 5:14 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC GUY View Post
So what does SOM's design look like and is that the current Design? Also how tall is it?
SOM design - will not be built:
http://www.som.com/content.cfm/transbay_transit_center

Winning proposal by Cesar Pelli:
http://pcparch.com/project/transbay-tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2622  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 6:58 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOPA View Post
I'm sorry but who fucking cares about shadows!?! I honestly cannot understand why all these NIMBY's throw the biggest shitfit. Its a big city. It needs to grow. If they are going to complain about tall buildings then THEY should shoulder the cost of everybody else's higher rent and cost of living for not allowing enough supply.
Hi NOPA,

That issue has been extensively discussed in this thread and elsewhere. I'm glad to see the City being somewhat more flexible, since Proposition K, the "Sunlight Ordinance" that was approved by the voters in 1984 is quite strict. Read more about this here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAFI1AJLUA.DTL.

To go to the other extreme though and say, "who fucking cares about shadows!?!" would certainly not be good for San Francisco either. Can you imagine if Union Square, Portsmouth Square or other public plazas or parks were permanently shaded? It would make them far less inviting and livable. Great cities of the world (think Europe for instance) have wonderful sunny piazzas, squares, shopping areas and walkways. San Francisco is a dense city which needs its open and sunny public spaces.

Both sunlight and wind effects need to be extensively studied when major structures are proposed, but reasonable compromises need to be made for the betterment of the City through new development and preservation of what makes San Francisco the wonderful place that it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2623  
Old Posted May 26, 2012, 7:21 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 5,431
I absolutely love Cesar Pelli's design, I just wish it was full to the top without that open lattice work. 1200 feet would have also been nice.

But anyway, we should be greatful for this building, it and the other planned will drastically change SF's skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2624  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2012, 10:20 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Photo of terminal progress from the roof of 121 2nd St.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2625  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 3:27 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
I had heard rumors about a 2015 completion. Now it looks like it might be a reality!

Quote:
Hines leaps ahead on Transbay tower
Tenant demand could push up start of 61-story highrise

Hines could start construction on San Franisco’s tallest office tower as early as next summer, if final city approvals go smoothly and the office leasing market continues to be strong.
Under the best-case schedule, which is six months more aggressive than projections Hines made in March, Transbay Tower and the adjacent 5.4-acre City Park would be completed in late 2015, according to Hines Executive Vice President Paul Paradis.
“We have started talking to tenants. We have sent out a proposal to one tenant who requested it. We have had a few other tenants ask us to do the presentation,” said Paradis. “I think the larger tenants in San Francisco or coming into San Francisco have a planning horizon that is starting to match with the potential delivery of the tower.”
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...bay-tower.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2626  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 3:36 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
I created a separate thread for the tower. The height of the tower isn't even listed in the title of this thread and that is huge news and should be shared with the skyscraper community! This thread has become pretty confusing- is it about the park? the tower? the transit station? Just let me know in a PM if the separate thread should exist or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2627  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 6:24 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,233
I suggested that long ago but at the time everyone seemed to want to keep the discussion about the plan, tower and terminal all here. But I'm good with separating out the tower. If that means this becomes the terminal thread, then it should be moved to the general developments forum.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2628  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 10:41 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,246
Dear god, now Sue Hestor is attempting to stop the Transbay tower:

Quote:
Sue Hestor Seeks To Stop Transit Center Tower Development Short
Speaking of the Planning Commission approved Transit Center District Plan necessary for the Transbay Transit Tower and Terminal to rise, yesterday Sue Hestor filed an appeal of Planning’s approval on behalf of the Save Our Parks Sunlight Coalition, membership of which is comprised of Ms. Hestor’s organization, San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth.

The appeal alleges the Transit Center District Plan’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR): "Understates the shadow impacts on parks under the protection of Proposition K, a voter-approved ordinance that precludes new shadows on parks under the jurisdiction of the Recreation & Parks Commission" and "[m]isapplies Proposition K by assuming that the Planning Commission and Recreation & Parks Commission can increase the amount of shadow allowed on downtown parks."
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...lopment_s.html

Can she just die already? All she does is hold back the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2629  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 11:01 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,233
And I believe she's involved in the effort to derail 8 Washington. I don't want to wish death on her over something like this, but we all age eventually. I simply look forward to the day she is too old to care or do anything about development ever again. Or perhaps she can just tire of SF and move to some other place.

BTW, someone on SocketSite pointed out that her office is in the Flood Building, which shades the adjoining plaza far more than this ever will on Justin Herman Plaza. Hypocrite.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2630  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2012, 11:33 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 5,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
And I believe she's involved in the effort to derail 8 Washington. I don't want to wish death on her over something like this, but we all age eventually. I simply look forward to the day she is too old to care or do anything about development ever again. Or perhaps she can just tire of SF and move to some other place.

It's a bit harsh but sometimes I really think stupid people should just die, they don't do the world any good.

Considering it's SF and the USA I wouldn't be surprised if it got cancelled but it sounds like it's not definite
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2631  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 12:10 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,233
I hear you and get very frustrated by some of these folks, but we're ultimately just talking about a building here. I reserve my death wishes for child molesters, rapist/killers and the like. But whatever, this is just idle chatter on a message board after all.

It won't get cancelled, at least not because of Sue Hestor. The only thing that can realistically derail this now is the office market or financing market tanking. There's too much money from this tied to the transit center for the city to let that happen. Not to mention all the effort and consensus building that has gone into the overall Transbay plan. The news that Hines is at least preparing for a potential start earlier than expected is very encouraging.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2632  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 3:21 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Guys, this is a forum about skyscrapers and those that love them. Let's not drag mud and slime (NIMBYs and their issues) into these forums, which should be a positive place to talk about projects which WILL be built.
And wishing death on someone you disagree with brings you down to their level and should not be tolerated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2633  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 4:05 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
San Francisco must be the most stupidest city on the face of the planet for having laws like that. Who cares if skyscrapers block the sunlight to parks? New York City has plenty of buildings cast shadows on their parks and no one cares. The only stupid people that would care are the tanners. Otherwise it's stupid. People like her makes San Francisco look retarded and believe me my aunt lives there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2634  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 5:37 AM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,559
what park is the terminal going to be blocking anyways? can i have her job? you obviously don't need to be a genius, so why can't i have it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2635  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 7:43 AM
easy as pie's Avatar
easy as pie easy as pie is offline
testify
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 94109
Posts: 853
wokka wokka. anyway, there's no chance that this broad can derail this thing, it won't even slow it up. this sort of appeal is way more deadly in the neighborhoods, when some no-name is trying to add a floor to their house or whatever. for a plan like the transbay terminal area, there's almost nothing that could stop it now. sure, heights have been revised (AAAARRRRRRR) but even avalos and campos are behind these babies. this dame has a weird and likely to prove very unsatisfying hobby.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2636  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2012, 10:10 AM
Dylan Leblanc's Avatar
Dylan Leblanc Dylan Leblanc is offline
Website Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 9,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
I created a separate thread for the tower. The height of the tower isn't even listed in the title of this thread and that is huge news and should be shared with the skyscraper community! This thread has become pretty confusing- is it about the park? the tower? the transit station? Just let me know in a PM if the separate thread should exist or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
I suggested that long ago but at the time everyone seemed to want to keep the discussion about the plan, tower and terminal all here. But I'm good with separating out the tower. If that means this becomes the terminal thread, then it should be moved to the general developments forum.
Ok guys. This thread is being moved to the General Development section.

Here's the thread for the tower - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199946
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2637  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2012, 2:55 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc View Post
Ok guys. This thread is being moved to the General Development section.

Here's the thread for the tower - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199946
Nice move--thanks! It has already sparked interest and drawn in new people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2638  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 6:22 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,233
Progress on Tuesday. They're getting deeper:
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2639  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2012, 11:42 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
San Francisco must be the most stupidest city on the face of the planet for having laws like that. Who cares if skyscrapers block the sunlight to parks? New York City has plenty of buildings cast shadows on their parks and no one cares. The only stupid people that would care are the tanners. Otherwise it's stupid. People like her makes San Francisco look retarded and believe me my aunt lives there.
Actually there are lots of NIMBYs in NYC. And there's plenty of people in New York City who care about shadows in parks and other such things. The difference bwtn NYC and SF is that it has a much longer relationship with the skyscraper. Manhattan is synonymous with skyscrapers. San Francisco was still pretty 'long slung' even when Sue and her ilk were kids. Some people here still see skyscrapers as alien to San Francisco, which makes no sense to me. Sue is one of those people. And of course San Francisco has some issues peculiar to it- like hills with views and sunshine eradicating fog.

I think most in San Francisco realize that the 'damaged is done' and fighting heights -particularly in SOMA is counterproductive at this point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2640  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2012, 8:49 AM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Actually there are lots of NIMBYs in NYC. And there's plenty of people in New York City who care about shadows in parks and other such things. The difference bwtn NYC and SF is that it has a much longer relationship with the skyscraper. Manhattan is synonymous with skyscrapers. San Francisco was still pretty 'long slung' even when Sue and her ilk were kids. Some people here still see skyscrapers as alien to San Francisco, which makes no sense to me. Sue is one of those people. And of course San Francisco has some issues peculiar to it- like hills with views and sunshine eradicating fog.

I think most in San Francisco realize that the 'damaged is done' and fighting heights -particularly in SOMA is counterproductive at this point.
I don't know which San Franciscans you're talking about (hopefully nobody on this forum!). I think SF has a beautiful and distinctive skyline. What better compliment to the hills, bridges, and bay than a nice cluster of towers? I mean, yes there is a 500 ft flatline in the middle and most of the fidi pack is a little dated, but I like the diversity and texture that the new glass SOMA towers are adding. Once this whole development is built out in 50 years (I may or may not be exaggerating) I think it will look great!

And screw all those old SF'ers. I feel like they are so "entitled" to everything.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:52 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.