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

[1977]

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

That camera is great you can also see 181 Fremont, 535 mission, One Rincon Hill, and 201 folsom!

and a smidgen of 299 Fremont.

[mt_climber13]

The building is advertised with 13' high ceilings.. and with only 61 floors, that's 793'. Where is the remaining 277' coming from? That's almost 25 stories to be made up.. the crown looks to only be 6 floors high. The floors must be about 3' thick.. seems abnormal. Maybe it's to make up for the exhaust vents from the natural air circulation?

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

The building is advertised with 13' high ceilings.. and with only 61 floors, that's 793'. Where is the remaining 277' coming from? That's almost 25 stories to be made up.. the crown looks to only be 6 floors high. The floors must be about 3' thick.. seems abnormal. Maybe it's to make up for the exhaust vents from the natural air circulation?

I posted a cross-section diagram a while back. The 61 floors go up 912 feet, so it's about 15 feet per floor.

I guess once you subtract the thickness of the floor itself and the drop ceiling, you get down to 13 feet.

[mt_climber13]

I still cant believe this is under construction, without any lawsuits or obstructions of any kind. How in the heck did that happen?

[timbad]

Originally Posted by 1977

and a smidgen of 299 Fremont.

the time-lapse from this camera is going to be amazing over the next couple years as one by one all those projects sprout up

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I still cant believe this is under construction, without any lawsuits or obstructions of any kind. How in the heck did that happen?

Yeah, it's weird isn't it? Same deal for 181 Fremont. This city is confusing when it comes to NIMBYs. People freak out and oppose so much development, especially highrises, and in some cases that even includes highrises in parts of downtown that are already full of highrises...yet the the city's new tallest and third tallest buildings have been basically unopposed. I guess since those two towers (and others that have been unopposed) aren't blocking the favorite views and/or aren't directly next to wealthy NIMBY types (unlike say, 8 Washington and the Mexican Museum tower), they don't really care that much?

[rocketman_95046]

Originally Posted by tech12

Yeah, it's weird isn't it? Same deal for 181 Fremont. This city is confusing when it comes to NIMBYs. People freak out and oppose so much development, especially highrises, and in some cases that even includes highrises in parts of downtown that are already full of highrises...yet the the city's new tallest and third tallest buildings have been basically unopposed. I guess since those two towers (and others that have been unopposed) aren't blocking the favorite views and/or aren't directly next to wealthy NIMBY types (unlike say, 8 Washington and the Mexican Museum tower), they dThe omlyon't really care that much?

I would argue the contrary. Both the transbay and rincon hill plans took over 10 years to approve. and the rincon hill plan in particular was strongly appealed with sue hestor and her minions sending fliers and flooding planning and council meetings with speakers. Those were big fights, they just happened many years ago.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

I would argue the contrary. Both the transbay and rincon hill plans took over 10 years to approve. and the rincon hill plan in particular was strongly appealed with sue hestor and her minions sending fliers and flooding planning and council meetings with speakers. Those were big fights, they just happened many years ago.

I remember the initial complaints years ago that 1200' was too tall and would shade union square and bring on the apocalypse, etc, etc, but I don't remember hearing of much opposition to the tower once it was chopped to 1,070', which still seems like it's more than tall enough to get an army of NIMBYs opposing it and drafting anti-development ballot measures and such, if we're judging by other buildings in SF that have recently seen strong opposition.

I do remember reading a small article about queen NIMBY Sue Hestor opposing the tower a few years ago, but I only ever heard about it that one time. Combine that with the lack of anti-development ballot measures, lack of lawsuits (or were there lawsuits?), lack of Art Agnos appearing out of the blue to condemn the project, etc, etc, I assumed the ultra NIMBYs of SF simply weren't making a big deal out of it for whatever reasons.

[JWS]

I think the anti-development brigade would absolutely and virulently oppose this if it was higher up on their radar. What is deliciously ironic, however, is that their "anti 1% agenda" takes its cues from what the 1% most vocally oppose, which seems to mean Telegraph Hill proximity, blocking waterfront views (or views in general), etc. Outside of the Millennium, there are no wealthy condo owners in the area to fight this, and they just don't seem to care to put it to the ballot, file lawsuits, etc like we are seeing with 8 Washington, Mexican Museum tower, Mission Rock, the Warriors arena, etc.

With the lack of education many have shown on this issue, my guess is that these large scale projects may not even be on their radar. While we know every project coming up in the city, the vast majority of people I know are not even aware of the Transbay plan at all, let alone individual towers. Most of the anti-development bandwagons seem reactionary (ie, "we are now aware of this project and oppose it") as opposed to proactive (let's research what projects are coming up and fight them collectively, or fight the biggest ones). With the wealthiest using the "revolutionaries" as pawns by dictating what they should be fighting, I doubt you'll see any fight against these until they are halfway up the sky and have a significant visual impact.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by JWS

I think the anti-development brigade would absolutely and virulently oppose this if it was higher up on their radar. What is deliciously ironic, however, is that their "anti 1% agenda" takes its cues from what the 1% most vocally oppose, which seems to mean Telegraph Hill proximity, blocking waterfront views (or views in general), etc. Outside of the Millennium, there are no wealthy condo owners in the area to fight this, and they just don't seem to care to put it to the ballot, file lawsuits, etc like we are seeing with 8 Washington, Mexican Museum tower, Mission Rock, the Warriors arena, etc.

With the lack of education many have shown on this issue, my guess is that these large scale projects may not even be on their radar. While we know every project coming up in the city, the vast majority of people I know are not even aware of the Transbay plan at all, let alone individual towers. Most of the anti-development bandwagons seem reactionary (ie, "we are now aware of this project and oppose it") as opposed to proactive (let's research what projects are coming up and fight them collectively, or fight the biggest ones). With the wealthiest using the "revolutionaries" as pawns by dictating what they should be fighting, I doubt you'll see any fight against these until they are halfway up the sky and have a significant visual impact.

Those are some good points. I was also thinking that we might see more highrise opposition once these tall ones start to make a real impact on the skyline, but I'm surprised that such high-profile towers haven't seen opposition to the same degree that the comparatively tiny 8 Washington project did, or the Mexican museum tower, warriors arena, the giants development, post street tower, 555 Washington, etc. Some of those did have the bad luck of having been proposed next to established NIMBY strongholds like Telegraph Hill, but it still seems like a new tallest building for the city would be relatively well-known, especially among NIMBY types. I guess for a development nerd like me, it's easy to forget that for your average person none of this stuff is on their radar at all, like you said (until they get flyers in the mail or see news articles in the chronicle, or can actually see the buildings for themselves or whatever).

[fflint]

Never mind

[brantw]

From today

[JWS]

Originally Posted by fflint

As already noted, Transbay did face opposition, it just took place a long time ago before many of you were paying attention.

I think people know this, but are more curious why these very tall skyscrapers are not being mentioned in the current, and extremely vocal, fight against tech/development, which is publicly and very vocally decrying literally everything...IPOs, evictions, waterfront buildings, arenas, corporate shuttles, even new museums and hospitals for pete's sake...and yet hasn't made a peep about buildings that will ACTUALLY add significant height to the city. While they can't stop it at this point, I admit I'm a bit confused about how I haven't seen one disapproving mention of it anywhere. I genuinely think the new and growing crop of anti-development advocates are not aware of it, since like I said earlier, in a bizarre twist of fate it seems like the 1% are subtly dictating what the "people" are fighting for. I think it will be extremely interesting once the cores become visible and the general public realizes this is actually happening, and if I was planning on developing a tower, I would want to get my project underway WELL before then.

I think the overwhelming majority of SF residents, even those campaigning for 8 Washington/waterfront ballots etc, are only really aware of the projects with significant media coverage right now, which are/were 8 Washington, Warriors Arena, etc. Little do they know there are around 10 very, very deep holes in the ground that will become very visible in late 2014...that may shift some more outrage back to towers, when the cause du jour seems to very much be waterfront and Ellis Act right now.

[biggerhigherfaster]

The NIMBYs can't oppose everything; often that's not even in their interest

The pattern seems to be that they oppose projects that:
1) are right on the waterfront
2) are closer to the older rich areas like North Beach or Russian Hill

If it's in the heart of SOMA a few blocks away from the waterfront, they don't care, do what you want...unless maybe if it casts a long shadow over Union Square. The Museum Tower has this problem, but the main opposition is from the neighboring hotel(s), not some broader NIMBY movement

For similar reasons, NIMBYs seem to care less about changes along the eastern coast of the city facing the bay like BayView to Hunter's Point and Candlestick.

Projects in poorer areas will face some opposition from NGOs that have a vested interest in keeping areas blighted, but they really don't have that much clout. The real clout comes from rich folks who don't want their views blocked and can leverage on NGOs and politicians to support their cause under the guise of the benevolent public interest (e.g., helping the poor, not enough units for low income, reducing pollution and traffic). That's bullet points 1) and 2) are the most targeted and most likely to fail

[Roadcruiser1]

It's seems kind of weird. In New York City you can put an 1,800 feet building on the ground and no one cares, but in San Francisco you would get people suing you. What's the big problem?

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by JWS

I think it will be extremely interesting once the cores become visible and the general public realizes this is actually happening, and if I was planning on developing a tower, I would want to get my project underway WELL before then.

I think the overwhelming majority of SF residents, even those campaigning for 8 Washington/waterfront ballots etc, are only really aware of the projects with significant media coverage right now, which are/were 8 Washington, Warriors Arena, etc. Little do they know there are around 10 very, very deep holes in the ground that will become very visible in late 2014...that may shift some more outrage back to towers, when the cause du jour seems to very much be waterfront and Ellis Act right now.

I don't think this will be the case. One Rincon Hill is hated by many people, and has been around for over 5 years now. It is in a very prominent, isolated location, yet no legislation has passed, or even been proposed, to stop similar development. I would think that that tower alone, which appears to be the tallest building in San Francisco from many viewpoints, would be enough to jumpstart a campaign against tall development But since it has not happened yet, I don't think there will be any opposition to these new developments, since they will mostly be built inside of the skyscraper cluster already, and won't be so significant, as ORH is.

[biggerhigherfaster]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I don't think this will be the case. One Rincon Hill is hated by many people, and has been around for over 5 years now. It is in a very prominent, isolated location, yet no legislation has passed, or even been proposed, to stop similar development. I would think that that tower alone, which appears to be the tallest building in San Francisco from many viewpoints, would be enough to jumpstart a campaign against tall development But since it has not happened yet, I don't think there will be any opposition to these new developments, since they will mostly be built inside of the skyscraper cluster already, and won't be so significant, as ORH is.

based on this, the way to beat the NIMBYs is to build an anchor 50-60 story tower in a neighborhood...after that, building another dozen 30-40 story towers nearby will go unopposed

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by biggerhigherfaster

based on this, the way to beat the NIMBYs is to build an anchor 50-60 story tower in a neighborhood...after that, building another dozen 30-40 story towers nearby will go unopposed

Which is exactly what happened with Transamerica. I just hope it isn't another 50 years until something taller than Transbay is built. Maybe they will call it the Transpacific Tower?

The website (I think) states that excavation should be done in March:

"Below grade improvements and site work for the Transbay Tower are under construction, and so is our website. Please visit again in March 2014."

[BigDan35]

Subscribed!

[LWR]

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1

It's seems kind of weird. In New York City you can put an 1,800 feet building on the ground and no one cares, but in San Francisco you would get people suing you. What's the big problem?

SF nimbys