im actually likeing Rogers proposal - if you were able to watch the presentations first hand you would of relized that rogers is totally capible of making the tower and terminal a reality. His ideas of mixed use were right where urban design should be ... a completely self contained tower...live, work, sleep, school, eat, shop, travel, recreation) what else do you need.
SOM's entry looked slick but there organization of the presentation i thought was all over the place
Ceaser pelli design was pretty damn sweet but i think that the park ontop of the terminal is a greeat idea but the thought of having another large park in SF for the homeless to sleep and panhandle in isnt a very good one.

What is up with the towers? I don't know the history of the these proposals...was a tower (program within) required by the city/developers? Could the program in the tower go in a lower building over the terminal?

the city wanted a TALL tower to establish San Francisco as a "progressive" city. We should be known for our architecture...and we are not! (we=SF). I dont really get the big fuss over why people dont like to have skyscrapers...it makes a city...cities are dense...density=high rise - high rises=more peeps per sqft - more peeps per sqft=a sustainible city...which is what the bay area is really know for!...sustainiblity
-If you want low rise buildings in your "city" move to LA! they seem to like the sprawl.

Sure, density creates cities...but I think to say an enormous, bombastic tower is more "sustainable" (whatever that means) because it has large amounts of lease-able space is a mistake.

Until the internet boom of the late 1990s, the World Trade Center towers were largely filled with Port Authority tenants, right? Without its government tenants, the towers would be considered wasted space, and now, developers are having a difficult time justifying the need to replace the lost square footage.

Say we were to build 4 - 30 story towers that would mean you would take up more land building 4 -30 story towers than you would if you built 1 - 1200' tower. That is part of being a sustainible city...build em high. Not spreading the city out. There are many other things that make a city sustainible but thats another thread.

-I understand most of the tenants in the world trade center were port authority or govt. used, but they could fill that building w/ just about any other office use. No? From what your saying they can't fill the new world trade center. What happened to the old tenents? New York City can find tenants for the new World Trade Center? WOW thats amazing!!!

-The only reason(to me at least) not to build a 1200" is that if there were a fire. The people up top wouldnt be able to be rescued by a firemans ladder. But if you look further into it when the WTC fell 3,000 out of 50,000 people died. I dont know, to me thats a hell of a feat when 2 planes crash into a building and they fall to the ground. 47,000 people evacuated from the building!!!!!!!!! BTW my condolences to the families and persons affected by this terrible catastrophe!

I dont know maybe the whole idea of a city is yesterdays news...lets just spread retail and office space all over the San Francisco...then it will really take me 1hr and 1/2 to get to work...why do I just drive...hell, why dont i just move to montana and build a new "city" there!

-BTW - ONE of the reasons the USA was attacked on 9/11 was b/c we are oil horders(if thats a word) A reason we horde oil is b/c we spread our cities out...we have to drive everywhere and heat and cool every individual home.

I think one of the criticisms of the SOM design was the way it impacted circulation at street level. Pelli proposed an elevated park, which was cool, but could end up attracting homeless people and vagrants.

Just make it beautiful -- that's all that matters. Program shmogram.

as a piece of sculpture, the SOM tower is pretty striking. i can't help but feel that it would never actually look like those renderings though, but what do i know.

that being said, the rogers tower looks like it would be a far more interesting place to hang out. it also is the only one that speaks to me in a san francisco kind of way. it's textured and layered and has lots of different terraces and view corridors from within the building.

if that's what generates excitement for local/area people to work/rent/buy/live/shop and eat there, then i'm all for it. otherwise, why the 'ell are we building this thing? just to sell condos to wealthy people from the pacific rim?

i'm definitely on board with the notion that the transbay terminal represents a great opportunity for san francisco to do something really cool and forward-thinking, and not just with the architecture...7 different transportation agencies under one roof, light rail access to sacramento/los angeles/san diego and all over the west. a local muni hub and more civic space if it all works out right. i just hope they choose a building that represents the strange and wonderful pastiche that is fog city.

the board of supervisors here has pretty much decided (from what i know) that the massing of a smaller selection of tall and slender towers would maintain more light/air at the street level than a comparable square-footage of mid-rises, hence the push for the transbay tower to be as tall as it's planned.

there are also a number of other completed and pending towers right near there, not just the much maligned Infinity Towers. (which hate them as i do from the damn dwell fracas, i'm growing to like them from the ground level...)

Stones, I'm not sure where you think the tenants that were in the WTC are, but they're not in tents on the construction site at ground zero. If their business are still running, they've spread themselves around new york city and the metropolitan area, condensed or decentralized their operations thanks to the wonders of the internet, etc. The drive to rebuild the lost square-footage at ground zero is driven by Larry Silverstein's zeal to replace lost income, and short sighted elected officials with no civic vision. Morgan Stanley is the new complex's only major tenant, offering to build one of Freedom Tower's sisters.

On the "sustainability" issue: I think it is simplistic and short sighted to say that one tall tower is better for the city because it creates maximum density. What about street life? What about excessive energy that its tied up in the construction and maintenance of tall structures? Who is going to afford to live in the housing units of this new tower? <I'd imagine that this question might be getting to to true intentions behind the decision to require a tall tower. Developers are going to be looking to recoop construction costs right? Unless rents or construction is subsidized, I wouldn't be able to afford to live in the new tower.

At any rate, I think the issue of civic sustainability is more subtle than "tall towers create greater density in less real estate and therefore is best"

I'm re-reading my post above, and I didn't mean to imply that you are simple or simplistic, Stones...just that the issue of sustainability here isn't as simple as you state it. Sorry!

just out of curriostiy, what are the logistics for making sure a 1200 ft tower doesnt get destroyed by the massive earthquake which is bound to happen sooner or later...