The SocketSite Scoop: San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal Designs

Why did Rogers have to use the color red? (Is it some reference to the Golden Gate Bridge?) Take away the red and the Richard Rogers tower is very attractive.

Wow. Going to have to think on this, but any of them will make me go Wow. I would like to see how these will look next door to the Millenium towers that is absent in all the pictures.

I do not like that Rogers tower at all. And from what I can see of his Transit Center, he missed a lot of opportunity there. Maybe it would be nicer from an interior view, but from this view it doesn’t seem to be doing much. Both of the other tower designs seem much more elegant to me and both transit centers look interesting…it looks like they both have a green roof aspect that could be very cool for the neighborhood.

Love the Pelli Clark Pelli and the SOM proposals. The Richard Rogers proposal not so much – it makes me feel itchy.

If one of these gets built, you will have to have your lights on in the daytime at Millennium. The light quality in this area will become as dark as some of the canyons in New York and Chicago.
Cool Towers, hope the Rogers one gets picked and goes up.

I really like the Peli design. Clean and elegant. I also like the park and terminal appearance (at least from these few photos). I am surprised there are not more comments yet from other folks. Come on people, lets hear some opinions!

You can scale off 50 Fremont, which is about 600′ tall. The Rogers scheme looks like about 1000′ tall (in 1 of the sketches), the others about 1500′. Rogers seems to be rotating the building to match the north of Market grid – strange choice.
I know it is early in the game, but the Pelli scheme looks like a winner to me, Rogers is a dog, and the SOM design is a bit unreadable, but probably OK. SOM wins easily on the actual terminal eye candy.
It is all just archiporn anyway. This is the city that know’s “how not to”. Wait until Chris starts lobbying for workforce office space in the project!

Wow, I’m going to miss walking under the old one with all the homeless on the way to my building which appears to be omitted by some of these photos.
I don’t like any of these renderings, personally.

Do they have the funding to build any of these projects. With all the money drying up on Wall Street I am curious if this whole poject is still really possible?

Pelli. Hands down. The other two lack presence. They look generic, like they could be anywhere else in the word. Pelli’s design feels like San Francisco. I really hope it wins.

Oh, and all that glass — no wonder Socketsite is calling it the Tansbay Terminal. You can lie out and not get headlights from the wind 🙂

It will be interesting to see if one of these towers really gets built. The days of cheap money are over, and developers are going to have to do more than fog a mirror to get funds for a project such as this. What is the ratio of private/public funding for this project?
I like the new name….”Tansbay Terminal” 🙂

The Pelli design looks like a 21st Century knock- off of the Transamerica Pyramid. Is the Rogers design calling all birds, and trying to be an homage to the Sutro Tower?

The Rogers deign lacks elegance or any particular originality, and there’s no way it will get approved. My vote would be for Skidmore for the way it sort of echoes the Transamerica building.

The Pelli is the only one of the three proposals that will have only office space – the other two have mixed use with a hotel and residential. I don’t get it. They’re building a huge park – and it’s enormous – for the “locals”. I don’t get it. I vote SOM if only for the huge digital art entryway.

I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the Pelli design!! It represents what the neighborhood could be with a little more open space.
TO a lesser degree, the first design was cool.
I didn’t have any interest in the second design presented (sorry, not sure who that was).

I have a questions which is not related to the Transbay Terminal, but it is related to all the high rise condos. I have been living in a conventional wood frame house where doing any modifications to the rooms are easy, because there are sheetrocks on the ceiling and walls, wood on the floor. However, in a high rise you have sheetrocks on partition walls with steel studs, but what about the floors and the ceilings? I am sure that the hardwood planks (or carpet) is installed right above the concrete floor, but are there sheetrocks attached directly on the ceiling concrete, or is there any spacing in-between the sheetrocks and the concrete floor above you? For example, is it possible to add an electric outlet on the ceiling for motorized shades. I appreciate if any one out there would shed some light. Thanks

WouldBeHighriseOccupant: In most of the high rise concrete floor/ceiling buildings, the floor is directly on concrete, but the ceiling has framing creating 2-5 inches of space where they run wiring, sprinklers, and other needs.
As for these designs, Pelli has my vote. I still wish I could see the renderings with the Millennium next to them.

pelli is the only interesting design in my opinion. all these new units in downtown are going to drive real estate prices down. with 20K new untits coming to SF over the next 10 years, potential buyers will be in luck with this glut. The population in SF has not gone up since the 60s.

Rodgers stated 1100’+ (whatever that means), SOM stated 1200′ highest floor, 1375′ to the top, and Pelli didn’t say.
[Editor’s Note Pelli would stand at 1200′ as designed.]

I would say it comes down to choosing between the Pelli and SOM designs. The RRogers one is just fugly.

I know I’m in the minority here, but for some reason I kind of LIKE that Rogers building. It has this sort of insectile exoskeleton thing going on.
And it clearly would fit more in SE Asia than the US… but perhaps that’s not a bad thing, given SF’s large Asian heritage? It is sort of a blend of Sutro Tower and Taipei 101
It does need a little reworking to “smooth” it a little, but it is by far the most interesting of the BUILDINGS. Think of how much people hated the Eiffel Tower, or the Transamerica Pyramid!
But you all are right, it has the potential to be one big UGLY building too.
I agree with many: the Pelli park looks very cool, the building very boring. (although it would be somewhat unique in SF that doesn’t have too many glass towers yet)
The SOM building looks like the frontrunner to me. not too “out there” but has a little visual interest.
perhaps blend the SOM building with the Pelli park?
I’m excited! I love towers! (I’m giggling like a school girl!)

The Richard Rogers design is a perfect addition to San Francisco.
I wonder if the architects used this as inspiration?

The Pelli design is fabulous – very elegant! If this design doesn’t win, I’m leaving the city.

ArchiFan,
“Buildings need to be about cities and become responsible contextual citizens. They need not dominate the skyline.”
This kind of thinking is pervasive in our city and is the reason why we have so many bland towers.
Having towers with unique identities creates a skyline filled with a bit of chaos. That chaos makes it fun to look at.
Most importantly though, a building of this size should have a muscular design that stands out.

Last night really had nothing to do with high speed rail and was never meant to. Phase one has never included more than a “place” for HSR trains to arrive, which is what these teams included. Expecting them to talk more about a project they aren’t involved with is a little odd. Nothing said last night should be construed as either positive or negative for HSR.
tipster, what a bizarre post! 🙂
The Caltrain extension will happen. Projects of that size don’t falter because of funding problems when the right political will exists – the Caltrain extension is more of a certainty than BART to SJ. For your comment on Muni…what? Muni collects less than 20% of its budget through fares. Muni sells more than 100,000 Fastpasses each month. Even if Caltrain passengers account for 10% of total fares (a complete stretch of gargantuan proportions), that amounts to 2% of Muni’s budget. Do you really think Muni is going to go “bankrupt” through a loss of 2% of its budget?

It seems many people like the Peli design. Hopefully, people keep an open mind because these pictures are taken at very different angles. While the Peli design looks great, it could just be a matter of the particular vantage point in the picture. At first I didn’t like the Rogers design either just from looking at the first picture. The second picture of the Rogers design give a better glimpse of its impact on the skyline and how it might mesh with the GG Bridge. Looks great!

The Pelli design stands out for me as someone who lives in the neighborhood, who wants to have public space that folks can use to informally interact with each other (meet our neighbors), and who will not likely use the transit pieces of the Transbay Transit Center on only rare occasions. 5.5 acres of park space had me swooning as someone who lives about 4 blocks away – as opposed to today’s Transbay Terminal which I have walked past but never inside or utilitzed in any capacity.

“Nobody in London or Paris is breathless in anticipation for a taller tower, nor are they in L.A., Seattle or New York City”
Really? Have you seen the towers being built and proposed in London and Paris? NY? Does the new 1776 foot WTC tower count? LA and Seattle both already have taller towers than SF. Am I missing something?

Another thing about Pelli’s design. As configured, it has 1.6 MSF of office space and not a drop of residential.
If I am not mistaken, Prop M limits the amount of new office space that can be constructed to 800k sq ft a year. Bad screw up by the pelli team and not very in tune with SF.

It seems it is all glamour over substance. Towers, ballparks, convention centers etc. What about clean safe streets, fixing Muni, and affordable housing? These towers are fun, but I would rather live in a city that would be serious about fixing problems, not putting up a 1200 foot band aid. Who is the developer of this project and where are they getting all of this money? It better not be from my taxes!

Joe – there are ways around Prop M. They could essentially get the “rights” to 800k for two years. There have been several years since prop M where more than 800k was built – usually after a few years of much LESS than 800k built.
That said – I don’t think a 1.6 million sqft office tower was a good play politically for them.

You have to have money to maintain and fix the other things … thus the height of the building above 1000 feet … that’s funding for the other things we need.

Thank god the city is moving out of the Victorian era and realizes that the 21st century is upon us. But maybe there should be some kind of walled enclave for residents who prefer that time stands still, like M. Night Shyamalan’s ‘The Village’. Residents of the village could call skyscrapers “that of which we do not speak.”
I like the Pelli design, and wish it was finished today instead of 7 years from now. But anything would be better than the existing cesspool that is currently known as the transbay terminal.

Brutus, without distracting from the main thread (though we ARE talking about the building that was supposed to be the downtown rail terminal), it is true that fares only account for a fraction of muni funding. But the remainder is based in part on ridership. Take away 10% of the ridership and that other 80% evaporates with it.
According to your argument, muni could stop accepting all passengers, shut down the fleet and only lose 20% of its funding, which would be more than offset by the fact that there would be no operational expenses. Woo hoo! Keep the other 80% coming in!! Of course, the other 80% of the money would get shut down too.
If 20% is 1.50, Muni gets $7.50 per passenger from all sources. With 60 people packed onto a bus for 10 minutes, that’s $2700 per hour. You begin to see the problem for muni of discontinuing that service. It subsidizes the other lines and keeps muni’s clout high because the ridership numbers help give Muni clout.
I discussed the downtown rail extension with Southern Pacific Executives in the mid eighties. They all said it wouldn’t happen in their lifetimes. 20 years later, no progress. And they aren’t even talking about it in the designs. Not a good sign.

Caltrain extension is not for sure because they don’t have all of the money in the bank yet, for starters, for phase II that includes this big piece. They (Transbay JPA) have the funds right now for moving forward with a temporary bus terminal at Folsom and Beale (with other bordering streets being Main and Howard), demolishing the existing Transbay terminal, and getting this Phase I of the project rolling.
Public transit will get a boost IF (big IF) downtown congestion charges (tolls) come into being similar to London – the goal is to motivate more folks driving into the City all alone in their “Bowling Alone” (a book reference, check it out) cars today to switch to public transit (BART, Caltrain, bus, whatever). San Francisco learns this week if it is going to get a 20% or greater piece of $1 billion in funds from the US Dept. of Transportation to help pay for projects to reduce congestion downtown. Keeping my fingers crossed we win.

Once Caltrain is extended the line that is going to look even more ridiculous than it already does is Bart to Milbrae
It is possible that other commuter lines could be added over the Dumbarton train tressel in the future as well as trains all the way to Monterey (before we even talk about HSR)

I’m quite in favor of san francisco’s recent growth initiative. That said, 1,000 feet is way too tall for two reasons. (1) looks out of place with surrounding areas, and (2) we have earthquakes (in case anybody has forgotten). Talk to a structural engineer and they will agree that 1,000 feet is too tall for SF given the quakes.

Tom, I guess they don’t have these “earthquakes” you speak of in Taiwan (Oh wait! Yes they do!), yet Taiwan has a 1400′ tower. I’ve never met (or heard of) any structural engineer who would say something like “1000′ is too tall for SF given quakes.” That’s simple fear-mongering and I hope that most in the City don’t fall for it.

Tom I think you are wrong
Structural engineers would tell you to not live in a great percentage of the concrete apartment buildings with parking on the first floor and other buildings built through the 1970’s

But Mattian as far as I can tell we are taking about one new iconic structure centered in a new high rise area
I agree with you about Dubai and Shanhai both of which I’ve been to and disliked

Hi Brutus,
Thanks for your response.
First, I won’t be using Taiwan as a model for anything. And their ill-advised, 1,400 foot tower does nothing to affect my opinion. Talking to SF developers does. Leaving that aside, I usually fall back on common sense in situations like this. Do you really think that a 1,000+ foot tower makes sense in an earthquake zone?
And to reiterate, I’m probably as pro-growth as anyone reading this. I hadn’t previously read much about these plans and am shocked that a 1,000 foot+ tower is in the offing for SF.
Tom

Tom, generally I leave speculation about what is structurally sound to, you know, structural engineers. As I said before, I’ve never heard of a structural engineer that has stated that a tower would not be safe or structurally sound in SF based solely on it being above 1000′. I’m sorry, statements like that just sound like fear-mongering – like people looking at a 747 and saying, “My God! That plane is huge! No way I’d ever fly on something that big! It must be less safe because of that size!”

Hi Brutus,
Appreciate your view. I am not a structural engineer, but I have spoken to some. In addition to concerns I have heard from them, for me, it’s more an issue of common sense / basic math. I was in the area in 1989 when we had a quake of 6.9 centered 70 miles south of here. In Oakland, we had a freeway structure, which to paraphrase someone on the Chron comment board, surely must have “been built to account for seismic forces.” More than 50 people died there when a huge section of freeway collapsed. Last week an entire bridge fell down in minnesota due to construction vibration (granted, bridges and elevated freeways are different from buildings). Now let’s say we have a quake comparable to 1906, generally estimated to have been around 8 on the Richter scale. As u know, in the logarithmic Richter measure, a quake of 8 is 10 times as large as a 7 (1989 Loma Prieta). And let’s just say that the quake is centered in or near SF instead of 70 miles to the south. That would result in a quake much greater than 10x what was felt in this area during Loma Prieta.
I was on the second floor in Berkeley in ’89 and, trust me, you do not want to be in any skyscraper in the scenario described above, a possibility that is far from remote.

Response to Joe:
The Pelli team mentioned that the tower could be a split of residential and commercial. They referenced another project they had developed that changed from being all office to being residential/office.

From the website of the government of Hong Kong:
Earthquake risk in Hong Kong:
Several scientific studies carried out recently showed that in Hong Kong, the return period for an Intensity V (5) tremor would be 15 to 20 years and that for an Intensity VII (7) tremor would be 350 to 400 years.
Trend of felt tremors in recent years:
There is no evidence of an increase in the number of locally felt tremors in recent years. Since records began in 1979, there were altogether 53 felt tremors, 18 in the first ten years (1979¡V1988) and 19 in the subsequent ten years (1989¡V1998). In the last few years, three tremors were recorded in 1996, two in 1997, nil in 1998, eight in 1999, one in 2000, one in 2001, one in 2002, one in 2003, and four so far since 2004.
Last revision date: 27 Dec 2006
I love it when people post blatantly incorrect info as fact.

The Cypress structure wasn’t built to modern codes? I guess it depends on how you define modern. I define modern as anything I’m riding on, living in, or driving over.
Not sure why you have to label what I’m saying “fear-mongering.” I have no interest in anyone being fearful. On the contrary, I enjoy a nice, calm, happy City. All I’m doing is stating facts. I understand many folks want to feel safe living in SF. I live in SF. People want to make it binary–it’s safe or it isn’t. And the reality is it’s gray. You’re not 100% safe and you’re far from 100% doomed. You have to make your choices.
Regarding these building codes you seem so confident in… These same codes of 2007 will be way outdated in 2057. I hope you won’t ever be explaining how the transbay terminal building of 2008-2012 wasn’t built up to modern codes.
As well, building codes only have limited use. That’s not to say they’re useLESS. Engineers/code designers really don’t know what the standards should be. It’s only a guess. The world has very limited information on how structures react to large earthquakes in general, and extremely limited information on how structures react to an earthquake of, say, the magnitude of SF 1906. My point is that it’s simply laughable to locate one of the tallest structures in the country in earthquake-prone SF.

I had actually worked on the TransBay Transit Center here at Pelli Clarke Pelli. The tower is actually 1,200 feet tall. The tower is not only Retail and Offices, but it also has potential for Residences too (perhaps in the higher levels).

Ok Tom, we’ll have to agree to disagree if you believe a structure like the Colisseum is “modern” simply because it’s still here. I define “modern standards” to be what is known to be best NOW. A structure like the Cypress would NEVER be built today using the same codes. It has been shown all over the world that 1000′ highrises using current codes can be built in seismic zones.
Definition of fear-mongering:
Spreading discreditable, misrepresentative information designed to induce fear and apprehension.
I’m sorry, bringing up a poorly designed 1950’s era freeway that collapsed in an effort to discredit a 1200′ tower built in 2007 fits that definition to a T.

The structure that S.O.M. used for their project for TransBay, looks waay to heavy and thick, especially in their tower, and the base of their tower. The city is congested enough, we need something sleak like Pelli Clarke Pelli’s.

Unfortunately the Colisseum hasn’t survived either. Can’t say the same for its cross town relative and incredible survivor, the Pantheon. Maybe that’s the solution, scrap these three and build an SF Pantheon to the building codes of 126 AD.

After viewing the exhibit at city hall, I had the following comments:
The SOM proposal is by far the best of the bunch. The scale and proportions of the tower and transit center are very elegant, and the monumental entry portal to the tower and transit center will be incredible, unlike any high rise I’ve seen on the west coast. The amount of open space in the scheme seems appropriate for the neighborhood, but the location of the landscaped plaza is a bit odd. If part of it was on grade, then it could function as a generous public entry to the station. However, it is currently located above the MUNI bus transfer station, which makes it feel very disconnected. In fact, Many of the problems with the scheme result from the design of the MUNI bus shelter, which appears to be a bit of an afterthought. This part of the project should be screened with retail spaces at street level and treated with the same level of care as the rest of the design, to make it a more cohesive part of the city.
The Rogers scheme, with the excepton of the wind turbine on the roof, is terrible. Far too macho for this city…
The Pelli tower is bland and uninspired, and the transit center is a mess. The roof deck looks a little too much like a suburban shopping mall, and the scale of it is too large to be a truly vital urban space. Each element of the project appears to have been created by a different designer.

I also do not understand the whole need for a roof park on some of these projects above the transbay terminal? Why not let the terminal be a terminal, and have and identity of its own? I myself am not convinced this whole project is really going to happen, but it is fun to imagine it will. Is the idea that the rich get to drive into the tower garage and then whooosh up to their 92nd floor unit, while the poor go into a below park level dark terminal to wait for the bus?

“Far too macho for this city…”
What. Towers can’t be macho? Our city has become so sissyfied that I think we need to inject some testosterone into our skyline.
I’m tired of pansy-assed buildings. We already have Victorians — it’s time we get some real beef up there.

Step back and consider the new Transbay Terminal Center will function, in part, as a community center and gathering place for informal interaction between people – residents and visitors alike. The elevated park of the Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects design makes perfect sense for adding to the neighborhood beyond its function of acting as a transit center. Concerts in the park on top of Transbay Center – I want to go! 🙂
I do hope they pick a design that contributes to the neighborhood with public space in addition to the functional aspects that folks will use to travel around the Bay Area region. Otherwise, it may just be another building I walk by and ignore like today’s terminal.

LOL LOL LOL LOL rg – that is an absolutely hilarious story!
I’m thinking we make this into a movie. Picture this conversation between an Italian mob boss and a gangster (played by Brad Pitt):
Mob boss: So, ya sees, I gots this building, in Manhattan, and itsa ’bout to fall down. Can yous help me?
Pitt: Hmmm…yeah, I know a guy. But it’ll take four mil in unmarked bills on my doorstep tomorrow morning.
Mob boss: No problem! Done.
Pitt: We’ll go in, late at night, rip open the walls, weld everything up nice and neat, and be out by morning. No one will ever know.
Mob boss: Sounds genius. I’sa like it. Remember, this is our little secret.
Pitt: I don’t even remember what we were talking about…

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

The more I look at the SOM drawings, the more they look like Calatrava-lite. The swooping white arcs. The ribs and the glass. It seems that SOM knew Calatrava was not going to be in the finals and went for a derivative look. Imagine having a Calatrava design and the SOM design in the finals – they would be similar. Yet the SOM design is lacking the panache, the boldness, and the sheer extravagance of Calatrava. The opening of the terminal facing the park seems like a missed opportunity. It just ends….why not have it swoop up to the sky with a flourish? But SOM is tasteful – not revolutionary.

I saw the presentation on SFGTV-26 and was most impressed by SOM’s proposal.
One thing I was immediately struck by was how similar the specs. of SOM’s proposed Transbay Tower are to those of SOM’s John Hancock Center in Chicago (1100′ tapered tower, mixed-use: 45 residential/45 office etc..)
While the Hancock Center would likely be seen as too ‘rugged’ a structure for San Francisco, SOM’s evoking elements of the Eiffel tower in its design seems to be a direct appeal to way many San Franciscans see their city.
Critic’s may say SOM’s proposal is a ‘too safe’ or merely a stylishly updated design of one of its past creations, but I believe its a brilliant proposal… realistic and designed to win.
SOM’s task of selling its tower design to SF’s parade of skeptics & nay-sayers will be made all that much easier by being able to point to the unquestioned success of its older cousin in Chicago. After 40 years, The Hancock Center is still considered to be a masterpiece of engineering with aesthetics that have stood up to time.
Furthermore, The Hancock has demonstrated the financial viability of the mixed-use, super-high rise and the ability of a such a project to transform its surroundings.
Most visitors to Chicago over the past 25 years might find it hard to believe that there was nothing ‘magnificent’ about N. Michigan Ave. when SOM built The Hancock Center. Hopefully we’ll see the same kind of magic take place at First & Mission.
… $20 SOM comes out on top September 20th.

“If we can build one of these, then why can’t we fix Muni?”
We live in a mindlessly pro-union town. The SEIU has the BOS and mayor in its hip pocket. There’s no way MUNI can ever be fixed in this current environment.

“We live in a mindlessly pro-union town. The SEIU has the BOS and mayor in its hip pocket. There’s no way MUNI can ever be fixed in this current environment.”
There are a lot of things that need to change in SF if it’s ever going to be “affordable” (getting rid of rent control and softy b.s. attitudes toward homeless, for two), but getting rid of the unions, the last bastion of the middle class, is an atrocious idea. Unions gave us the weekend, so we can all sip chardonnay or One Gincon’s or whatever. Unions need to strengthen in this country (and city!) if we’re ever going to get our middle class back.

If you watch the presentations of these towers on SFGTV you can see where we have ended up in architecture. Rogers is part of the current craze of starchitects who almost seems to not know what he is presenting. He starts off going on about how much he understands and loves SF, and then finally presents a structure that is designed “for San Francisco”, but looks more suitable for Taipei, yet still seems to have a lot of potential as a design to be developed. Pelli too reminds us that these starchitects almost have nothing to do with the design except for coming on their private jet to “do the presentation”, and showing a slide on their powerpoint presentations of a napkin sketch they made while having dinner at Le Cirque. The S.O.M. presentation seemed the most serious, and also the design that took into account the existing fabric of San Francisco. It is rather fun to watch the anxious young staff that actually worked on the designs bite their nails and look perplexed as the partners or named brand star principal of their firm bumbles through what is really their design, such is the state of modern architecture I guess. To be honest I don’t like any of the three, but hopefully whatever is chosen will get better as the design is developed. I am sorry we need to bring in outside starchitects to do our tallest tower when we have plenty of great local grown talent (though one could call SOM local). I guess I should not push the local talent idea too far since I am posting this far away from S.F. while working on a private residence project for my firm.

I’m surprised no one has called out what to me is obvious. All of these designs, and One Rincon Hill, are such extreme terroist targets. A nice straight shot from SFO, too.
Not to mention, I’m not at all convinced these could be structurally sound enough to withstand the big one that has a statistically probable chance of hitting in the next 50 years. That area is not rock, as I understand, unlike One Rincon.

Brutus,
Do you work for a developer or the Mayor?
Tom

Brutus,
My point is that each of these are monuments to man’s hubris. We live in a city near several major fault lines. Erecting towers the heights of these is just asking for a disaster. Why? Not because the designs aren’t sound, but because corruption of the permit groups and the their buddies in the constructions companies is certain to ensure that proper codes aren’t followed.
True story: a coworker of mine told me recently that his father, a structural engineer, said 40 years ago–that “all these bridges” he was working on were going to “fall down.” This man received death threats when trying to point out flaws in the concrete, supports, and other building materials that were shoddy or under constructed due to kickbacks and other corrupt behavior.
Look what happened in Minneapolis. Think corruption doesn’t happen here? Except that here, we can depend on large earthquakes very soon that will expose flaws in construction pretty quickly. And more than half the bridges in the Bay Area are built to the same shoddy standards as the one in Minneapolis. Catastrophe is virtually guaranteed now in the event of another major earthquake.
No way in hell would I live in a tall building in SF that wasn’t in the very least, built on solid rock. The transbay area is NOT rock, according to the liquefaction reports I see on the USGS site. I’m no engineer, but I see a lot of folks more concerned about looks than safety here, and I was wondering how, if at all that was ever going to be addressed.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against progress or modernism or even the neighborhood. I live a few blocks away in SoMA in a decently tall building. I just wonder if there’s any common sense in those designs, that’s all.

I pick option 4
None of the above.
It is unfortunate that none of the schemes was truly innovative; In my opinion,they are just recycled schemes or ideas, from other projects that never came to fruition.

It’s mind blowing that we live in such a state of fear of earthquakes and terrorism. Maybe we should all live in holes in the ground in the great plains.
To tall building opponents, if you don’t like the idea of living or working in a highrise, don’t! The rest of us will enjoy living, working, and walking in a downtown that is getting better every day of the 10+ years I’ve lived here.
The City is going to eventually have a ton of tall buiildings. Six big ones on Rincon hill alone. And that is just for now. There will be more and more, so the Transbay tower and One rincon will be blending into the background. I bet in 50 years from now there will be dozens of buildings bigger than ORH in San Francisco. Better get used to it or move to a suburbs!

All buildings today do NOT drive piers into bedrock. EXAMPLE: Some of the new projects in Mission Bay. The City of San Francisco predicts that if a 1906 sized earthquake were to strike today, about 1/4 of structures in the city would fail and be not safe for habitation.

I was asked:
Do you have any proof to back up claims that “corruption of the permit groups and the their buddies in the construction companies is certain to ensure that proper codes aren’t followed.” If you do, I’d be calling the media right now.
Keep on believin’ there’s no corruption in the building trades and permit groups in SF. If you do, I’ve got some nice clean and non toxic land for you in Hunters’ Point. Or, more likely you are one of the corrupt. Wasn’t a major building contractor recently called out in the chron for shoddy substandard concrete on the Bay Bridge offramps?
And the corruption in SF’s permit group is legendary. Bribes, kickbacks, and payola GALORE. Just ask any homeowner who tries to get work done in the city. Just do a simple google query on SF building permit corruption.
Again, I don’t oppose progress or even tall buildings in general (having lived in Chicago and New York both for many years). But again I wouldn’t trust my LIFE and property on the lowball contractor who got the job through a corrupt bidding practice, receiving a kickback and paying off the BOS.

Richard Rogers; though literal I like the references to the GG and an Eichler tower – the top needs work though. SOM 2nd choice.

Option 4 for me too. None of the above. What a disappointment. If I absolutely had to pick one of the three I’d pick Rodgers, just because fewer people like it and some call it ugly. At least that’s something. The others are just so big and bland.
But with money getting so tight I doubt that the project as currently construed will actually go forward.

What is up with the palm trees in the Skidmore Owings blah blah blah design? This is a disturbing trend that I’ve watched seep into San Francisco over the years. This is NOT L.A. Palms are tired. It’s been done. I’d rather see sculpture or wind turbines.

I love the palm trees personally. Maybe they were not san francisco, but they sure are now. They are becoming ubiquitous, from Fisherman’s Wharf down to Mission Bay, and all the way to Van Ness…and beyond.

A bit late, but I guess its time to weigh in:
Pritzker-schmitzker — Richard Rogers’ mechanistic red-exposed-structure exoskeleton tower with its very weak plan-rotation move is already tired and dated seeming (as it would’ve been ten years ago!). Its hard to tell with his terminal portion, but from the images made available, it seems a bit too simplistic, if not downright anemic-looking next to that macho tower. He has done far better elsewhere.
Cesar Pelli’s tower is a nice enough dildo of a form, but ultimately, for such a prominent commission really seems to be no more than a one-liner. The renderings of his terminal are about as exciting as the average shopping center atrium in Singapore or anyplace else. And those “tree branch columns” within it are so cliched by now to be an embarrassment (there are at least a dozen such “unique” long-span structural designs built all over the place by now — been there done that). The ‘park-in-the-air’ on top is also simply not convincing as a great public urban space (more like suburban or exurban). In the end, this component is quite horrendous — with its overbearing axial symmetry, decked out in goofy repetitive rings of trees and those awfully heavy-handed repetitive undulating ‘flanks’ along the street– yuk. His recent dark green highrise on Mission looks brilliant compared to this.
SOM’s tower defintely offers the most sophistication, and even some welcome subtlety — particularly in comparison with the other two.
The terminal seems to suffer from some of the same overbearing symmetry as the other two — but so far it certainly seems more interesting than Rogers’ and clearly less banal than Pelli’s.
The sad fact is that design will probably have little to to do with the final building — it’ll be the total development package/team that wins. What’s sadder is how the horrible ordinariness of almost all of SF’s skyscrapers makes any of these look quite good. Maybe this state of affairs had the architects aiming lower in the first place.
To those regretting Calatrava’s absence: this critic for one is extremely relieved we’ll be spared yet another overly-literal and melodramatic ‘bird building’ or ‘corkscrew’ landing here, as has been dropped on other cities of late.
It was obviously way out of line to hope for something truly daring or innovative architect-wise or design-wise in this city…oh well.

Marvelous! San Francisco must become a bold city and make a bold statement to the world, if it expects to be respected and stand with the big guys, such as Chicago, New York, Shanghai, Dubai, L.A., Sao Paulo, etc. San Francisco has long been overdue for its time and now is it. When people come to a city, the first thing they see is its skyline, not its museums, theaters, parks, restaurants, but its skyline. Face it, this is what makes a city a place of recognition that being its downtown area and the height of its buildings. San Francisco had its day of height limits and squat buildings. Now is the time for San Francisco to get the recognition it deserves, which requires it to make a statement that will indeed be recognized worldwide. I hope San Francisco takes this chance on its destiny. All three desinges are wonderful and it would be a shame to forsake this gift of enginuity genius and progress.

An amendment to my comments above regarding Rogers scheme, after seeing much more of the project on that team’s website (linked to over at sf.curbed.com):
At SF Curbed they quote from Rogers’ project description regarding the design’s
“structural clarity, truth telling, visual honesty”. Well, like most “truths”, it’s more like a partial truth, or one side of the “truth”…
“Structural honesty” is a familiar premise in modern design in general, and it became the mantra for what has by now turned into a completely dated architectural ‘style’, that was perhaps interesting 30 or 40 years ago — e.g. see the Pompidou Center that Rogers himself designed with Renzo Piano in Paris, which informed the whole ‘British High Tech’ movement that followed, and that was informed itself by Britain’s own far more radical Archigram group.
The problem is that ‘honesty’ of expression as the end-all and be-all of architecture is simply not that interesting or relevant anymore, particularly in this complex, multivalent time we live in. Basically this is an overly-literal and heavy-handed, if not downright moralistic and boring, mode of architecture, and one that certainly doesn’t offer much subtlety, discovery or mystery in terms of experience. Moreover, this attitude generally prioritizes the object over and above the space made by the object — its basically old school macho modernism on steroids (as clearly exhibited in Rogers’ Tranny tower).
For recent welcome antidotes to this kind of single-minded, purported “truthfulness” in architecture, see for instance (locally even) Herzog & DeMeuron’s DeYoung Museum or Morphosis’ Fed. Bldg.
With the above thoughts in mind, the SOM scheme definitely emerges as best of the Tranny Shacks, by an even longer shot.

I actually think the opposite of the richard rogers tower. His design dogma has always been about honesty in the the building. Formal gestures are never gartuitous to inspire awe, but instead, he taps into the building elements and exposes these in order to be appreciated and therefore, the building’s true functions are revealed. The beauty and spectacle expressed in his buildings are drawn from its functions and not by any formal gimmckry.
For example, his inversion of what would normally be a center core building (by placing the cores on the outside instead of in) allows for the building to achieve a great deal of efficiency even when it is mixed use like this one. Cores could drop out on the outside and will only serve their designated areas. The activity of the glass elevators and the expterior circulation will animate the facade greatly 24/7 due to its mixed use program. The spectacle here is on the users of the the building and their movement, and top by a wind turbine that generates power as it is moving. It is a spectacle that is literal and visual and not derived from gratuitous formal moves. Its strength lies in its honesty – it does not try to be more than it is, but it its delight and spectacle is drawn by exposing the truth about itself. Physical Motion drives the concept which I think its so suited for a tower that supplements a transit center.

Even though Richard Roger’s design seems to be coming in 3rd in the “popularity polls” for the prettiest, it is worth another look. John King’s editorial in Sunday’s SFGate makes some very good points; and looks at it more from the perspective of the street level user – how the majority of San Franciscan’s will experience this once it is built. With some modification to the tower top, and a lower height, this proposal most clearly looks at home in SF (though for a city remowned for it’s libertine ways, perhaps Pelli’s Dildo Tower is an option). Roger’s at least references the surroundings and on 2nd thought, even the wind turbine seems relevant; a nod to the Bay Area’s environmental values and ultimately, a point of difference between this tower and the others, which could just as easily be ‘at home’ in another world metropolis.

Why do we think that bigger and taller is better. I think all the proposals are way to large. Architecture should blend in with the environment, not stand out like a sore thumb. It is all about ego and not good design.

I like the SOM one best and the Cesar Pelli one second. Both have sleek, beautiful designs and engaging terminal centers. I really hope the Rogers one doesn’t win.
The Rogers design looks like a Lord of the Rings tower (complete with huge evil eye) but mixed with a cheap Miami condo high-rise with bad color choice.

I finally got around to reading all these comments and the amount of misinformation is really staggering. As a close observer of this project, I’ll try to provide some background.
First of all, you can view all the history on the Transbay Joint Powers Authority website (www.transbaycenter.org).
As somebody noted, due to budget, the project is phased, however it is approved environmentally for the full project. The full project is rebuilding the existing seismically deficient bus terminal AND extending Caltrain to the new terminal. The total cost is about $3 billion, of which the TJPA has collected about $1.5 billion (not too bad). Since the value of the money diminishes over time, the TJPA staff recommended to its Board of Directors to phase the project and get the bus terminal built right away. That’s important because part of the financing for the terminal is coming from the sale of vacant Caltrans property on Folsom Street — and the state’s agreement to provide the proceeds of the land sales to the TJPA is dependent upon the bus terminal being in operation by 2016. Period. Since the state land is worth upwards of $500 million, there is a powerful incentive to get moving.
In response to another comment about figuring out the engineering on where the train portals will be, etc., that’s all being done right now under an existing contract with Parsons Transportation Group. That work is almost finished.
Finally a word on the functions of this terminal. While it is going to be a landmark for the city, it also needs to work for the buses and trains. The TJPA just completed a ridership study for the new terminal and that study predicts that within 25 years the eastbound transit demand out of San Francisco will exceed 37,000 trips in ONE HOUR. BART is unlikely to be able to carry more than 28,000 an hour, leaving the new bus terminal to move 8,000 in one hour (with the balance on ferries). 8,000 passengers in one hour is about triple what the current terminal does and is close to what a downtown BART station does in one direction in the peak hour.
So, in response to the comment that nobody will use it, that’s pretty unlikely. But not unexpected, since all the naysayers said nobody would use the Golden Gate Bridge 75 years ago and said the same thing about BART 40 years ago. Where are those people now? Humbled I hope.
Finally, we need to give credit where it is due, and it does not belong to the Mayor. He’s been mostly absent on this project until recently. Chris Daly sits on the TJPA Board, and he’s been a great champion, along with the East Bay representatives. It would be unfortunate if this terminal becomes Newsom’s legacy — because it really belongs to Chris.

I don’t like the pelli: Hate bulging towers! plus it’s being a duplicate -non original architecture- of his other tower in Hong Kong.
Rogers? Just another Hong Kong style architecture. will it fly in SF? what’s with these people using HK stlye for SF ?
SOM’s work is original architecture from what I see. Will obviously get refined later on. SOM projects start by ideas rather than forms. In addition to them being the skyscraper architects. SOM gets my vote.
This reminds me of a similar story with the Lotte tower in Seoul, Korea (112 floors). The city rejected the original design because they refused to have their new city skyline main feature to be a replice of the eiffel tower. SOM was brought in and they have redesigned the tower with original ideas.

its grossque
i m final year architecture student in India, i need more information about transport interchange center
please help me out for my thesis project