SFist: And The Nominees Are: Your Transbay Terminal Designs

guest

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 09:11:49 -0800

I know everyone hated on the RSH Design, but I still like it. And (via Curbed) I found a lot more pics about the project at the RSH web site.

guest

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:39:49 -0800

I guess we've all seen this by now... "Public Offered False “Choices” for Transbay Terminal" http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4807#more As I said before, the only convincing argument for this project that I have heard is that people are just stupid and deserve whatever they get.

guest

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:25:13 -0800

Well I hope somebody flies an airplane into it.

accidentalist

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:59:07 -0800

"Blah blah blah, if you're not for doubling the height of the skyline you must be determined to keep everything a 3-story Victorian," fishcakes. I think there's plenty of folks in the middle ground who love the Victorians and yet are also fine with more high-rises in the expanding SoMa-downtown..but who still wonder why we would want some transit tower to be this staggering visual pinnacle over the City. Taller than the other buildings, that's awesome, sure, but..it's just..it's huge. It's freaking HUGE! I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the second design invokes the Sutro Tower. That's quite an architectural gesture, given the controversy over that thing's construction.

guest

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:42:14 -0800

I don't think any of them reflect the character of San Francisco.

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:31:33 -0800

Take a look at the updated image of the Rogers tower at sfgate. I think the above one made it out by mistake. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=7&f=/c/a/2007/08/07/TRANSBAY.TMP

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:46:12 -0800

#3, Skidmore. But the idiots clinging to 3-story Victorians in this city will kill everything that's great about it, first of all the height :-(

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:12:11 -0800

I can't decide. Which one is more sustainable, more adaptive to its surroundings, has most meaning? Seriously, if we are just judging by looks, this could be counter productive.

guest

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:18:44 -0800

pelli!

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:50:45 -0800

"...#38, 39 you're dinosaurs, soon to be extinct, in SF. You are not mainstream with your outmoded and failed ideologies and the powerbase is shrinking one market rate condo at a time. We all know where the real fear comes from..." If by failed ideology you mean "free markets" the wealthy long ago figured out how to subvert free markets for their benefit. You plan a big big taxpayer bail out for your real estate conman friends' EXTREMELY bad business judgment doncha chump..... "S&P said on Aug. 1 that for the first time more than half of the borrowers it rates are ranked below investment grade. Forty-five investment grade companies are at risk of being cut to junk, Merrill Lynch said in an Aug. 6 report. " http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aHBtJawbNfho&refer=home

wallcloud

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:10:35 -0800

I'm really really torn! I am not sure whether the resemblance of Rogers Stirk Harbour's design to Sauron's Dark Fortress of Barad-dûr in the land of Mordor makes it something I should love or hate. I think I'm going to have to go for the giant vibrator, though. Hands down.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:49:30 -0800

These images of the SOM building are great: http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6117/retrieveassetcaauo62wzh9.jpg http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9348/retrieveassetca2cvd6wik8.jpg http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8479/pageresized294gr9.jpg http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/8133/retrieveassetcazxh6etke9.jpg http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5826/retrieveassetcahj70ukaa2.jpg http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7293/retrieveassetcaw9f6bqiu8.jpg

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:06:15 -0800

I am not sure if I should believe people who pontificate on the internet or the architect of SOM who states: "The Transit Center’s base isolation structural system will allow the facility to withstand a “2,500 year” earthquake" Tough one in an era where everyone is an expert.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:21:49 -0800

If height were the reason behind the twin towers attack, or any other, the Sears Tower would have been the first to go. #48's comment doesn't address the pentagon hit, the embassies, bridges, Madrid transit, etc. Really, height has very little to do with it. A tall building in SF will not necessarily make us a more likely terror target.

mariconsoy

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:55:22 -0800

[46] what tall building in the US is not related to business? The twin towers were the tallest blds on the east coast. They were easy to hit because they were so tall and wide. Huge box targets easy to hit by people who were not pilots.

RinconHillSF

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:32:16 -0800

Rincon Hill needs more park space for sure - Pelli is the design I love. The transit tower height is needed to increase property tax revenues for the City to take care of other essentials. Folks who think this is unnecessary need to get their head around the idea that about 20,000-30,000 folks will be calling Rincon Hill/Transbay neighborhoods their home over the next 8 years or so. This density, especially with that bottleneck of the Bay Bridge right on top of us, requires more use of public transit, bicycling, and walking rather than cars. Maybe a congestion toll for driving downtown during business hours to encourage it (and provide more money for public transit)? Think about it... see it in this video that shows how New York might adapt solutions from Copenhagen, Paris, and London to combat downtown traffic congestion: “Contested Streets: Breaking New York City Gridlock” is available for viewing over high speed Internet connections from Free Speech TV via their web site using this link: http://tinyurl.com/yw9fgt You may also visit the program’s web site at www.contestedstreets.com to buy a DVD copy of the documentary.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:17:57 -0800

In response to comment #11, terrorists are not interested in tall buildings. Height is not a prerequisite for their attacks. The World Trade Center was not attacked because it was TALL, but because it was a symbol of Global Trade and US Finances. Consider the other targets of 9/11: Twin Towers were a financial emblem. The White House (the attack of which was derailed), governmental. The Pentagon, Military. Currently, Al Qaeda is reportedly eyeing US embassies across the globe, none of which are high rises. So please, stop being so afraid of SF growing up. Growing UP prevents SPRAWL, and keeps San Francisco a city, rather than just a 'downtown' to the East Bay.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:07:45 -0800

#38, 39 you're dinosaurs, soon to be extinct, in SF. You are not mainstream with your outmoded and failed ideologies and the powerbase is shrinking one market rate condo at a time. We all know where the real fear comes from

Karst

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:55:32 -0800

"Karst, 1) This building, as previously stated, will not be housing, but hotel, office, and retail space, thus making your first point irrelevant." At least two of the designs likely have condos. From the Transbay web site it says of one design: "Combining destination and local retail, office space, hotel rooms, condominiums, and affordable housing" and of another: "a mixed-use tower" which usually means that it includes housing. "It's possible to have high-density housing that isn't an eyesore." Only one of those is an eyesore IMHO. "And besides, whatever density is gained is entirely offset by making them unaffordable market-rate units that are occupied primarily by rich out-of-towners who actually stay in them a couple of weeks a year." Where are you getting that information? That's totally not the demographic I'm seeing at the new developments. And FYI, building housing for evil rich people (such as human rights lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc.) lowers the cost of housing for everyone. Would you rather have them in their ivory towers or buying and renovating houses in the Mission? You can't stop market forces. This is supply and demand -- increase the supply and costs go down. And everyone benefits from all those Escalades not driving into the city. "As long as the city has the right to eminent domain if your real estate bubble finally collapses then knock yourself out." You really think if they build those condos they'll sit empty and there won't be any jobs to fill the offices?

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:39:25 -0800

Did they not say in the article that it has to be high for the city to be able to sell the development rights for enough money to pay to extend caltrain? Would you prefer a tax to raise the money? People seem to think that we can just build whatever we want that looks good, and somehow we're going to find the money to pay for it...must be nice to be able to live like that. This building is a way for the city to force businesses/tourists (who rent the office space or stay in the hotel) to contribute to mass transit. Personally, I'm not too thrilled with any of those designs for the towers, but the actual terminals look pretty good.

Brock Keeling

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:28:30 -0800

I'm torn between PCP's and Skidmore's ideas.

mariconsoy

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:07:58 -0800

[40] see the numerous posting at sfgate about quakes and the height of the building. ========= I said there that all the designers need to take mega doses of LSD and go back to the drawing boards and come up with something ultra creative. ====== I wonder who'll buy the naming rights to the bldg? I hope it's Air Pakistan or something like that so no crazies in babushkas decide to fly a plane into it.

seamus_furr

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:53:33 -0800

In spite of the sniping, I'm impressed that nobody mentioned earthquake risk.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:51:10 -0800

oh boohoo #33 do you see your chances of a tax assessment write down slipping one election at a time?

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:48:15 -0800

"...Oh boohoo number 30# Do you see your progressive power base slipping one building at a time?..." I'd watch my mouth if I were you buster because that progressive power base is the taxpayer base that is going to fund your government bail out. oh boohoo you see your collateralized debt market collapsing one bank at a time?

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:45:00 -0800

I'm sure all the Lord of the Rings geeks in San Francisco will rejoice if the Richard Rogers design wins. My friends can then make fun of me living in Middle Earth.

haighterade

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:25:50 -0800

The Pelli terminal/park is pretty great, but overall I like SOM the best. I hope they can get this thing done despite the whining negativism..

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:19:38 -0800

#1 - I really liked #3, but what won me over was the abundance of natural light and realizing it came with (seemingly) more open space than the third one. While the overall design of #1 is a little on the boring side, I felt #3 looked a little too monolithic and too much like a drink stirrer. #2 is just an unfinished mess.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:12:16 -0800

#1 and #3 look great, but I'm afraid the image linked in KWillets' post (#23) is what it'll look like when the preservationists and anti-growth crowd get done with whatever proposal "wins". I can just see them snickering at all of this now. "They think they'll get something like this built? Yeah, right. We always win. This is San Francisco. It's our turf."

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:09:32 -0800

Oh boohoo number 30# Do you see your progressive power base slipping one building at a time?

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:03:03 -0800

It looks like a future downward tax reassessment to me....

Grrg

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:47:31 -0800

Does anyone else get the feeling that the Richard Rogers proposal is one of those things that people submit to invited competitions that they don't actually want to win? Visually referencing the Golden Gate Bridge makes a certain kind of sense, but overall... it just seems unlikely. The picture of the Skidmore Owings proposal doesn't make it clear enough that the glass tower twists as it ascends. This seems to me to fulfill more than the others the requirement that the building be an "iconic presence." I agree that the video arch is gimmicky and pointless, but the massive white ribs? Those are fresh. I vote for number 3.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:40:02 -0800

There is only one person who will benefit and that is the developer who will make insane and obscene money at zero risk because the worst that can happen is a government bail out for the price of a relatively insignificant campaign contribution. The entire city suffers forever because one person can purchase our electoral system for less money than he spends on lunch. People are stupid and deserve what they get. That is the compelling rationale for this project.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:32:44 -0800

Karst, 1) This building, as previously stated, will not be housing, but hotel, office, and retail space, thus making your first point irrelevant. 2) Have you ever been to Vancouver, BC? That's what happens when ugly-ass glass condo towers dominate the skyline. It's possible to have high-density housing that isn't an eyesore. And besides, whatever density is gained is entirely offset by making them unaffordable market-rate units that are occupied primarily by rich out-of-towners who actually stay in them a couple of weeks a year. And to call the fees developers pay "extortion" is completely ridiculous. If they don't want to pay it, they can build their hideous tower in some other city. Most of us wouldn't miss it.

MisterPlow

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:31:00 -0800

kwillets ftw!!!

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:26:28 -0800

"...Why do people think that extortion like this which raises the price of real estate in SF even further is a good idea? What's wrong with the huge amount of property and transfer taxes that the city will get from the building to pay for services and impact issues? Say there's 1,000 condos that sell for $1 million each: SF will get about $15 million at move-in from the transfer tax and a minimum of $15 million every year forever from property taxes (which go up as condos are resold). On top of that, the condo owners will be paying SF sales tax and will support local businesses...." As long as the city has the right to eminent domain if your real estate bubble finally collapses then knock yourself out. Of course, the business plan is a GIANT GOVERNMENT BAILOOUT, just like the S&L bailout, right? That building is an abomination and people stupid enough to actually allow criminals to profiteer like this deserve whatever they get. SO we agree 100%.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:21:34 -0800

"I'm all for replacing the decrepit and scary Transbay Terminal with something safe and modern (the sooner the better), but considering all the empty real estate downtown already I question the wisdom of paying for this new transit hub by leasing offices inside a giant robot boner." Ummm, Real Estate is actually getting pretty scarce downtown. Downtown has lower office vacancy rates than any other part of the bay area.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:20:50 -0800

"The kickback (and the whole point) is we are getting a new transbay terminal with underground Caltrain/ HSR ready" If the city council did not insist on $100 million for community groups then they betrayed their city. The only one benefiting from this project is the developer who will make profit in the tens of millions of dollars at least. What kind of mad society have we created???????? The only argument I have heard in favor of this project that I agree with is that if the people of San Francisco are really this stupid they deserve whatever they get.

MarkBallew

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:17:09 -0800

I still think this is a bit much for bus stop. We won't even have HSR running to here, so the reality is that this is just another really big office building / hotel downtown. Not Too Exciting. Wake me up when we join the rest of the world with High Speed Rail instead of a tower near some belching diesel buses and constantly dirty, late, and small light rail cars.

KWillets

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:14:20 -0800

I've come up with another entry which is pictured here.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:07:43 -0800

the kickback to the city should be at least equal in proportion to Rincon" The kickback (and the whole point) is we are getting a new transbay terminal with underground Caltrain/ HSR ready

Karst

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:00:02 -0800

"should be taller than the Transamerica Pyramid as a matter of principle" What principle? That SF should encourage low density housing away from transit to destroy the planet and help global warming and make the planet's air even dirtier? These are LEED certified buildings that will get cars off roads, clean the air and save energy. From an environmental standpoint, higher the better. It's a terrible thing to do to the environment to force people to commute long distances to their jobs in SF when they could be living near work. There's nowhere near enough housing near jobs in the bay area. "the kickback to the city should be at least equal in proportion to Rincon" Why do people think that extortion like this which raises the price of real estate in SF even further is a good idea? What's wrong with the huge amount of property and transfer taxes that the city will get from the building to pay for services and impact issues? Say there's 1,000 condos that sell for $1 million each: SF will get about $15 million at move-in from the transfer tax and a minimum of $15 million every year forever from property taxes (which go up as condos are resold). On top of that, the condo owners will be paying SF sales tax and will support local businesses.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:59:41 -0800

As someone who lives in Rincon Hill and will likely use the transit pieces of the new Transbay Transit Center only on rare occasions (I love San Francisco, what can I say?) - the choice is easy to make. I want the 5.5 acres of public park space (elevated, okay fine) included in the Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects design. Rincon Hill has a little park called, appropriately, Rincon Park with that big Cupid's Span sculpture on one side and, sadly, two restaurants that I'll probably never be able to afford on the other half of the park. We really NEED more park space for the informal interactions and meeting of neighbors to help make it a true neighborhood. Pelli Clarke Pelli all the way, baby! The other designs just suck for folks who live in the area who won't actively use the transit stuff very often - nothing really added for us beyond retail space. The Rogers design looks like an evil, Sutro Tower descendant and the SOM design looks like it may share skin similar to the new Federal Building - blech. Pelli is the only design the seems to try to provide something to the neighborhood - to build some life with greenery and fountains where only concrete exists today.

Rachel

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:58:16 -0800

I dig the Pelli Clarke Pelli. It definitely looks early 21c., but at least it doesn't look mid-1990s like the Skidmore Owings Merrill (a vid screen arch? could that be more useless?). The Rogers Stirk Harbour looks like a half-finished idea from these images. A close up of what the other designs use as park space would help, as these images make it look like a strip of freeway dropped in the middle of the city. I don't think there's anything wrong with a building typifying the era in which it was built. Do people not laugh at the antiquated Victorian and Edwardian buildings throughout the city just because we're so used to them? Sure, they're charming because they're familiar. They're also outdated -- energy inefficient, etc. They trap us all in a late 19c. mind frame -- decorous on the outside, sharp and boxy on the inside. Why not the glowy excitement of Hong Kong instead of a paean to old sensibilities jaggedly piercing the skyline?

aj

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:57:29 -0800

Number three looks like a copy-n-paste of the Winter Garden at the World Financial Center in NYC. Not that this is a bad thing.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:55:15 -0800

one vote for S.O.M. and seeing as how this should be IRV (they're not building this thing for years anyway so we can afford to wait a few weeks for the results) I'll put down P.C.P. for my second choice.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:52:29 -0800

what empty real estate?

Chet Marlboro

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:47:18 -0800

I'm all for replacing the decrepit and scary Transbay Terminal with something safe and modern (the sooner the better), but considering all the empty real estate downtown already I question the wisdom of paying for this new transit hub by leasing offices inside a giant robot boner.

HappyChandler

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:45:49 -0800

Pelli Clarke Pelli is the obvious choice. Imagine the licensing fee auction between Good Vibrations and Big Al's on Broadway for use of the image. I can just imagine, the three speed, super-size, Transbay Terminal signature vibrator!

iris

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:45:33 -0800

Meh. They're all ugly. And what's up with it having to be the tallest building in SF? So the developers can get together at cocktail parties and say, "Heh, my building's bigger than yours." Maybe that's an architectural phallicy, though. (Badda bing)

aj

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:39:59 -0800

Whichever one actually has a rail station in it.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:36:24 -0800

yes the beloved Transamerica Pyramid shall never be surpassed. And what about earthquakes, terrorist attacks, community benefits? And they are all so phallic and they are all ugly because they don't resemble Victorians. They are already starting

mariconsoy

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:29:35 -0800

Skidmore Owings, except they should change the top to be bulbous so the building looks like a giant erection. Pink reflective glass would be cool too. Second choice Rogers Stirk, but make the external steel rainbow colors, or line the edges with neon like they do on some of the building in downtown Dallas. They all need to take a mega dose of acid to get some real creativity into these projects.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:25:53 -0800

To say that none of these buildings should be taller than the Transamerica Pyramid is completely asinine, and just the sort of hopelessly outdated, provincial thinking that has kept San Francisco from moving forward. To say the park would be sketchy, obviously disregards the success that has become of Yerba Buena Gardens. Regardless of which one gets built, I think it's exciting that we are even seeing the possibility before us, and can only hope that such small-minded attitudes such as some expressed here don't scuttle the entire project.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:24:16 -0800

While we're on it, I hate the last image of the giant square archway. It totally turned me off of the rest of the building design. It reminds me of the nasty overscale uncomfortable building in La Defense that look nothing like the rest of Paris, like they took a part of the DFW airport and dropped it next to an older city.

drgarage

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:20:56 -0800

If it really has to be one of these three, I guess my vote is for No. 1, because it has the most practical adjoining open space. It's defined as part of the larger building and won't have that awkward is this public is this private feel? Parks can get dangerous, and I think they all suffer from magical dreamland fantasies of how people will use open space to one degree or another. No. 3 is the worst in that regard -- it would become a sketchy park, no questions asked.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:20:15 -0800

I love the Rogers Stirk Harbour building. The other two look like organic-modernist CGI stuff from "I, Robot", and will look dated and aged ("hahah, that's was people in the 2000s used to think was futuristic. suckas!") by the time they're built. The RSH building echoes the Golden Gate Bridge as well, which still looks good and fits into the surroundings well.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:13:07 -0800

I said number one earlier (in the 3rd comment), but after taking a closer look, I want to change my vote to number three (Skidmore Owens). Their design is definitely the most ambitious, plus I like all the other buildings they've designed in the city.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:55:08 -0800

Skidmore Owings looks like the obvious winner. WTF is up with the second one? Did they think they were building a TV antenna?

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:50:16 -0800

"Second, the city should have the right to eminent domain if the condos cannot sell for 2 to 3 million each due to lack of US Taxpayer bailout of real estate scum." These are office buildings / hotels not condos, FYI. And I'll take number one, as the second one appears to be topped off with the eye of Sauron (though that could be cool).

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:36:20 -0800

First of all the kickback to the city should be at least equal in proportion to Rincon, so if the structure costs $500 million to build, which is realistic considering the project is a few years out, then that should be $100 million to community groups. Second, the city should have the right to eminent domain if the condos cannot sell for 2 to 3 million each due to lack of US Taxpayer bailout of real estate scum.

guest

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 08:28:59 -0800

They're all pretty ugly, and none of them should be taller than the Transamerica Pyramid as a matter of principle, but if you forced me to pick, I'd say #2. At least it adds a little color.