SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Buildings & Architecture (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=397)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 61 floors (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199946)

biggerhigherfaster Apr 1, 2013 5:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 6073861)
If they add a spire to the Transbay tower....:slob:

That could be amazing. I hope this news of a "superstructure" (whatever that may be....spire? antennae? a crown on top of a crown? Alien docking platform?) is true.


The original plan was about 80 stories and 1200 ft. It's never too late to reconsider...

Roadcruiser1 Apr 1, 2013 5:44 AM

What's interesting is NIMBYism might all just disappear for the sake of two cities fighting each other to see who might have the tallest building on the West Coast.

viewguysf Apr 1, 2013 5:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 (Post 6073865)
What's interesting is NIMBYism might all just disappear for the sake of two cities fighting each other to see who might have the tallest building on the West Coast.

We'll lose if LA doesn't care about shadows as much as SF does. They need to figure out how to make TBT taller without causing any "grievous" shadows. :???:

fflint Apr 1, 2013 5:56 AM

Transbay is entitled--as of right--to build up to 1200 ft. Above that, the city may allow mechanical and/or decorative elements--but considering the maximum allowable height and all that went into determining same, maybe not. Either way, the Wilshire Grand is only permitted to build as of right to 1100 ft., max. LA may grant a variance, but that may take extra time and effort.

viewguysf Apr 1, 2013 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6073872)
Transbay is entitled--as of right--to build up to 1200 ft. Above that, the city may allow mechanical and/or decorative elements--but considering the maximum allowable height and all that went into determining same, maybe not. Either way, the Wilshire Grand is only permitted to build as of right to 1100 ft., max. LA may grant a variance, but that may take extra time and effort.

Now you've gotten us all excited and dreaming for this fflint! I had forgotten that Hines shortened the tower on its own--let's hope Boston Properties wants to now restore the height!! :ohyeah

Valyrian Steel Apr 1, 2013 6:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6073872)
Transbay is entitled--as of right--to build up to 1200 ft. Above that, the city may allow mechanical and/or decorative elements--but considering the maximum allowable height and all that went into determining same, maybe not. Either way, the Wilshire Grand is only permitted to build as of right to 1100 ft., max. LA may grant a variance, but that may take extra time and effort.

Actually, the Wilshire Grand is entitled for a building up to 1,250 ft due to the previous plans that were approved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf (Post 6073866)
We'll lose if LA doesn't care about shadows as much as SF does. They need to figure out how to make TBT taller without causing any "grievous" shadows. :???:

There's no opposition to the WG as far as I've heard. I know the previous design got some negative feedback due to the LED lighting that would cover the whole building but I don't think the new design has that feature.

We'll see what happens. Either way, I'll be happy to see two enormous new buildings going up simultaneously in California. ;)

fflint Apr 1, 2013 6:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pink Floyd (Post 6073880)
Actually, the Wilshire Grand is entitled for a building up to 1,250 ft due to the previous plans that were approved.

I stand corrected!

Quote:

We'll see what happens. Either way, I'll be happy to see two enormous new buildings going up simultaneously in California. ;)
Agreed. This is great, like NYC in the Deco 20s.

SLC Projects Apr 1, 2013 8:14 AM

That is a very sexy looking building.

-Filipe- Apr 1, 2013 2:25 PM

oh wow great news

Towersteve Apr 1, 2013 7:11 PM

Isn't the top 200 feet of the Transbay Tower already just decoration?

Just-In-Cali Apr 1, 2013 10:27 PM

I find it exciting in any event that two new supertalls are planned for the west coast. The details on who will be taller are so convoluted and varied, I just don't care. The current plans have Transbay at 1070', Wilshire Grand at 1100'. That's only 30' feet of difference. Transbay's upper structural crown will make it "look" taller mass wise, as the crown height for the WG will be 1000' with a 100' spire. But the WG will have a higher occupied floor from all accounts, and the US Bank tower in LA still will retain highest roof and occupied floor. So all this back an forth is mute. As far as the constant city vs city, lets not go there. :) Both are attractive structures and will give each city an new landmark.

fflint Apr 1, 2013 11:03 PM

I don't think there's any city v. city here--both the Wilshire Grand and Transbay towers are awesome designs and California will finally get not merely one, but two supertalls.

That said, as with the ESB and Chrysler matchup in the Art Deco age, it's fun to see skyscraper developers trying to outdo each other in the height department--especially considering how only 12 years ago the tragedy of 9/11 led to a great deal of conjecture that we'd never build supertalls again.

SFView Apr 2, 2013 7:53 AM

This is great if it is true. I was wondering if we would ever get back to thinking more about this:

Original source: San Francisco Planning Department:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...o/BLDGTOPS.jpg

NYguy Apr 2, 2013 1:23 PM

I think it's refreshing for two cities on the west coast to reach for a tallest. Skyscrapers are back.

mt_climber13 Apr 2, 2013 10:15 PM

I went to the public forums before the official design plans were unveiled in 2007 and the plans by the city were that 1200' could be the maximum height to the roof, or perhaps opaque crown, but that spires could extend much further, perhaps to the 1375' proposed by SOM, or maybe higher? Who knows.
What I think will happen is that both towers will rise at the same time and there will be a final finish (by SF? :tup:) which will claim dominance.

Notice how all of the press releases during and since the ceremonial groundbreaking claim it as "the tallest building on the west coast?" Pretty brazen. Surely the developers and architects know that the WG is proposed at 1100'.

http://newnation.sg/wp-content/uploa...popcorn-3D.gif

blackcat23 Apr 2, 2013 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad (Post 6076003)
I went to the public forums before the official design plans were unveiled in 2007 and the plans by the city were that 1200' could be the maximum height to the roof, or perhaps opaque crown, but that spires could extend much further, perhaps to the 1375' proposed by SOM, or maybe higher? Who knows.
What I think will happen is that both towers will rise at the same time and there will be a final finish (by SF? :tup:) which will claim dominance.

Notice how all of the press releases during and since the ceremonial groundbreaking claim it as "the tallest building on the west coast?" Pretty brazen. Surely the developers and architects know that the WG is proposed at 1100'.

Those of us looking for a 1930's style skyscraper d*** measuring contest are likely to be disappointed.

I don't think Hanjin/Korean Air honestly cares whether or not their building is taller than the Transbay Tower. They haven't even marketed the Wilshire Grand as the tallest building in LA (although media outlets and SkyscraperPage forumers clearly took notice). The project's website specifically refers to the Wilshire Grand as the "Second tallest building in LA skyline."

If Boston Properties does in fact decide to add something on top of the Transbay Tower to make it taller, I don't expect the Hanjin Group to up the ante.

tech12 Apr 2, 2013 11:41 PM

That article mentioning the "superstructure" has been updated, and it looks like there might not actually be any extra height/superstructure/mystery spire planned for the tower:

Quote:

Asked about the Wilshire Grand, the communications
team for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority at first stuck to its position that the Transbay tower will be taller. Spokesman Adam Alberti even claimed San Francisco's new skyscraper will be significantly higher than 1,070 feet. He later acknowledged this was incorrect.

Alberti said the authority is not concerned with bragging rights, just a well-conceived project: "If that ends up with us having the second-tallest tower in the west by some standards, I don't think anyone will lose sleep over it."
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo...est-skyscraper

Valyrian Steel Apr 3, 2013 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackcat23 (Post 6076109)
Those of us looking for a 1930's style skyscraper d*** measuring contest are likely to be disappointed.

I don't think Hanjin/Korean Air honestly cares whether or not their building is taller than the Transbay Tower. They haven't even marketed the Wilshire Grand as the tallest building in LA (although media outlets and SkyscraperPage forumers clearly took notice). The project's website specifically refers to the Wilshire Grand as the "Second tallest building in LA skyline."

If Boston Properties does in fact decide to add something on top of the Transbay Tower to make it taller, I don't expect the Hanjin Group to up the ante.

Well their website is also a little slow to update. It still lists the tower as having 70 floors instead of 73. But I agree that they probably don't really give a hoot, otherwise I think they would've gone much higher.

L1011driver Apr 3, 2013 6:32 AM

All this talk about WG's spire as cheating is new to me, this whole time I thought they were adding a spire just so LA could actually have one lol

fflint Apr 3, 2013 9:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L1011driver (Post 6076560)
All this talk about WG's spire as cheating is new to me

It's new to everyone, since you're the only one saying that.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.