SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 61 floors - Page 29

ThatOneGuy · #**561** Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 4:40 AM**

What a stupid name.

fflint · #**562** Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 5:15 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

What a stupid name.

Don't be hatin'.

It's a home-grown company started and run by a 5th generation San Franciscan who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars for building and maintaining hospitals for women, children and cancer patients.

Onn · #**563** Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 6:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1977

Salesforce Tower construction site by sfadden, on Flickr

Nice shot, looking good! For a moment I thought this was the real tower.

MolsonExport · #**564** Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 3:59 PM**

"Salesforce" tower?

OhioGuy · #**565** Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 9:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

I like the name. Having the "-force" suffix commands power and strength, and I like the comparison to the Sears Tower, which we have come to associate so strongly with the skyscraper that one almost forgets it's a corporate name. Most importantly, it says a lot about the rebounding strength of the American economy that we are seeing company-branded supertall skyscrapers rising again.

cheers to San Fran

I agree. While I prefer the general name of Transbay Tower, the new name doesn't bother me at all.

(Though I'm still disappointed the USOC didn't relocate to Chicago several years ago. Apparently there were discussions about the USOC moving headquarters to the Sears Tower, which I hoped would mean renaming it the Olympic Tower... instead it's Willis Tower.)

ATLksuGUY · #**566** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 2:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

What a stupid name.

What a stupid comment. Anyways, always awesome to hear about a supertall going ahead in America. Congrats to SF. This is a beautiful tower and will be an icon for decades, at least. Can't wait to see this and the rest of the development move forward.

CCs77 · #**567** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 4:41 PM**

It is not that the name "Salesforce" is bad as such, but I still prefer it would have conserved the name "Transbay" It would be like a more perdurable name, if that company gets bankrupcy, merged or change its name, so will the building, some how losing part of its identity as it happened with the Sears Tower.

I Still hate that Willis Tower name, again, not that the name itself is bad, but Sears was the identity name of that iconic tower for over thirty years, it should have never been changed, as the Chrysler building remains the Chrysler even that company left it decades ago. When you said Sears Tower, everybody knew what building you were talking about, if you say Willis Tower, it is more like, What? (you takin'bout, Willis)

Transbay would be a name like Empire State, more representative of the city, as the building itself will be a symbol of the city. And it was cool that the title of the tallest building in SF were passed from one "trans" to another, it would also be representative of GLBT community of the city.

fimiak · #**568** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 5:44 PM**

I still think a lot of people have yet to realize the true potential lying in wait in the Salesforce Tower name. It is now the SF Tower! The tallest in SF will be SF Tower, it is totally appropriate. SF tower is a great name and is far better than 'transbay', which was confusing to lay people hearing transbay tower and transbay terminal. The sears/willis tower debacle was wrong to happen. The Chrysler bldg. in NY is still known as the Chrysler building, and the company was never even HQ'd there, Mr Chrysler simply financed its construction.

ozone · #**569** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

I still think a lot of people have yet to realize the true potential lying in wait in the Salesforce Tower name. It is now the SF Tower! The tallest in SF will be SF Tower, it is totally appropriate. SF tower is a great name and is far better than 'transbay', which was confusing to lay people hearing transbay tower and transbay terminal. The sears/willis tower debacle was wrong to happen. The Chrysler bldg. in NY is still known as the Chrysler building, and the company was never even HQ'd there, Mr Chrysler simply financed its construction.

Look if your company is putting down the dough to ensure this thing gets built I don't care what you call it. Call it the Benioff Building for all I care. I may be wrong but given that it is in SF I think it would be far more confusing to call it the "SF Tower" than the Transbay tower. Call it the Salesforce Tower -don't try and be cleaver by using it's initials. And SFT doesn't roll off the tongue either. Honestly, I've never met a "lay person" who was confused about the term Transbay -at least if they knew about the tower. In most people's minds both the tower and terminal are still kind of hypothetical at this point. But if you want a nickname why not call it "The Force?"

FMIII · #**570** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 6:37 PM**

The design is not really orignal, nor attractive.
A city like San Francisco deserved something better than that

tech12 · #**571** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII

The design is not really orignal, nor attractive.

Sure it is. Too bad you don't like it.

ozone · #**572** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII

The design is not really orignal, nor attractive.
A city like San Francisco deserved something better than that

I will reserve my finally judgement until the thing gets built. But look how many 'wow' designs have ended in disappointment. The architect is a master of the skin and with it's unusual crown, elegant tapered design and height I think it will come out much better than his similar IFC tower in Hong Kong. But if you dislike it so much maybe you should give us an example of what you think it should have been.

coyotetrickster · #**573** Posted **Apr 19, 2014, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

I will reserve my finally judgement until the thing gets built. But look how many 'wow' designs have ended in disappointment. The architect is a master of the skin and with it's unusual crown, elegant tapered design and height I think it will come out much better than his similar IFC tower in Hong Kong. But if you dislike it so much maybe you should give us an example of what you think it should have been.

Most folks on the SF pages preferred the SOM design offered up in the competition. Still, when framed by 181 and the Norm Fosters One First (920 ft), it will look amazing.

ozone · #**574** Posted **Apr 20, 2014, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Most folks on the SF pages preferred the SOM design offered up in the competition. Still, when framed by 181 and the Norm Fosters One First (920 ft), it will look amazing.

I was really hoping no one would go there. Look this is the tower we are going to get so learn to love it. At least it will not be an embarrassment which any of the other designs could have been. And it's not going to be close to being as bad as 1WTC turned out. So I'm happy. I agree that the towers going up around it will more than make up for any perceived lack of aesthetics. The height alone will make it pretty dramatic.

FMIII · #**575** Posted **Apr 21, 2014, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

I will reserve my finally judgement until the thing gets built. But look how many 'wow' designs have ended in disappointment. The architect is a master of the skin and with it's unusual crown, elegant tapered design and height I think it will come out much better than his similar IFC tower in Hong Kong. But if you dislike it so much maybe you should give us an example of what you think it should have been.

I gave an example of what it should have been but my post has been deleted. So I guess that only people who like this tower have the right to say something about it on this thread.
It is not an ugly tower and the height is quite impressive for a city like San Francisco. However, the height is the problem. I would have welcomed this design for an average project buried in a forest of supertalls in China. But for SF's tallest tower, the design it way too bland to be admired.

tech12 · #**576** Posted **Apr 21, 2014, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Most folks on the SF pages preferred the SOM design offered up in the competition. Still, when framed by 181 and the Norm Fosters One First (920 ft), it will look amazing.

Count me in as a someone who always liked the Pelli design best. It may not have been the most unique-looking of the choices, but it always seemed elegant and simple to me, and I think it'll fit in nice in the skyline. Plus, I was always a big fan of the roof park, which we never would have gotten with the SOM tower.

The SOM tower was nice too though.

ozone · #**577** Posted **Apr 21, 2014, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FMIII

I gave an example of what it should have been but my post has been deleted. So I guess that only people who like this tower have the right to say something about it on this thread.
It is not an ugly tower and the height is quite impressive for a city like San Francisco. However, the height is the problem. I would have welcomed this design for an average project buried in a forest of supertalls in China. But for SF's tallest tower, the design it way too bland to be admired.

Er ... OK. Now that know a little more about the source (you), I will consider that (your opinions).

SFView · #**578** Posted **Apr 21, 2014, 8:02 PM**

SOM may of had to reduce the height of their tower design by about 200 feet to the roof if they had won the competition instead.

Zapatan · #**579** Posted **Apr 21, 2014, 9:12 PM**

This tower is so beautiful

mt_climber13 · #**580** Posted **Apr 21, 2014, 10:46 PM**

This tower is the original transamerica pyramid, realized. The original pyramid proposal was around this height and didn't include the arms/ wings on the sides. Those were included in the shorter height to accommodate elevator shafts.