HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

    

Salesforce Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2041  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 10:24 PM
don116 don116 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
Just make it 1100 feet and tie it with Wilshire Grand. Enough of this "tallest on west coast" nonsense. L.A. is willing to share the title. Truce? Besides, everybody knows U.S. bank/Library Tower is still the real champ (highest occupied floor, highest roof).
I say put a 150 ft spire on it. I don't understand SF's gripe with spires...they actually look pretty cool. I think it could make SF tower a lot more striking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2042  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 10:31 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
Just make it 1100 feet and tie it with Wilshire Grand. Enough of this "tallest on west coast" nonsense. L.A. is willing to share the title. Truce? Besides, everybody knows U.S. bank/Library Tower is still the real champ (highest occupied floor, highest roof).
"enough of this tallest on the west coast nonsense"
"everybody knows US Bank/ Library Tower is still the real champ'



Now that the heat is on they're coming out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2043  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 10:46 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,440
I've been reading about the Wilshire Grand, and the LA Times, already a superior news outlet than the Chronicle, in my opinion, ran the best, most informative real-time expose/article on a single real estate development I've ever come across.

http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire...-construction/

This among countless other fair and balanced reports on the tower, its development, the impacts, opinions, benefits, etc.

Did I miss something similar on the Salesforce Tower? Admittedly I've only been around SF since 2012, before the Wilshire Grand was even a concept but long after the Salesforce Tower was just about shovel ready after years of politics, architect selection, and design/approvals. Amazing how slow we are up here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2044  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 10:58 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116 View Post
I say put a 150 ft spire on it. I don't understand SF's gripe with spires...they actually look pretty cool. I think it could make SF tower a lot more striking.
I don't think SF has any gripes with spires. 181 Fremont has a spire. So does the Transamerica Pyramid and 345 California. I don't think a spire would look good on this tower though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2045  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 11:06 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
I've been reading about the Wilshire Grand, and the LA Times, already a superior news outlet than the Chronicle, in my opinion, ran the best, most informative real-time expose/article on a single real estate development I've ever come across.

http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire...-construction/

This among countless other fair and balanced reports on the tower, its development, the impacts, opinions, benefits, etc.

Did I miss something similar on the Salesforce Tower? Admittedly I've only been around SF since 2012, before the Wilshire Grand was even a concept but long after the Salesforce Tower was just about shovel ready after years of politics, architect selection, and design/approvals. Amazing how slow we are up here.
Very fascinating article. Definitely agree about the LAT > SFC. I have not seen anything similar on the SF Tower, but would be great to read something like that about it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2046  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2016, 11:21 PM
Valyrian Steel's Avatar
Valyrian Steel Valyrian Steel is offline
So-called president
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
I've been reading about the Wilshire Grand, and the LA Times, already a superior news outlet than the Chronicle, in my opinion, ran the best, most informative real-time expose/article on a single real estate development I've ever come across.

http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire...-construction/

This among countless other fair and balanced reports on the tower, its development, the impacts, opinions, benefits, etc.

Did I miss something similar on the Salesforce Tower? Admittedly I've only been around SF since 2012, before the Wilshire Grand was even a concept but long after the Salesforce Tower was just about shovel ready after years of politics, architect selection, and design/approvals. Amazing how slow we are up here.
Deconstruction of the old hotel started that year. The original Wilshire Grand project was announced in 2009.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2047  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 12:18 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valyrian Steel View Post
Deconstruction of the old hotel started that year. The original Wilshire Grand project was announced in 2009.
If Salesforce puts up a spire, Wilshire Grand might just put up a taller spire. Just kidding. A tie at 1100' for Salesforce & Wilshire Grand seems the sensible "game theory" choice., but who really cares who has the taller spire? Both Wilshire Grand and Salesforce are magnificent. I like them both. I like both SF & LA.

Last edited by CaliNative; Oct 15, 2016 at 11:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2048  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 12:38 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116 View Post
I say put a 150 ft spire on it. I don't understand SF's gripe with spires...they actually look pretty cool. I think it could make SF tower a lot more striking.
Spires are cool.

Last edited by CaliNative; Oct 15, 2016 at 11:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2049  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 12:42 AM
edwards's Avatar
edwards edwards is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rincon Hill
Posts: 307
@SoCal Alan



Do you think the top of the tower will surpass the height of the cranes right now?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2050  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 2:28 AM
skySF skySF is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9
this evening - 10/13/2016

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2051  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 3:33 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,034
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/30/13126...yramid-tallest
Quote:
[UPDATE, 10/1/16: Not so fast. Helen Han, marketing director for developer Boston Properties, says their building is not yet as tall as all that. According to Han, the core of Salesforce Tower presently sits at just under 800 feet. Previously, Clark Construction's field office admin at the site confirmed a figure of 855 feet. No one at Clark has yet returned our messages about the discrepancy. Boston Properties estimates that the building will reach 853 feet in mid October, probably topping 823 feet in the coming week.]
The coming week was last week. What floor is the core at 823 feet? If 823 feet is at 58 floors, how do we get to 912 feet with 61 floors? I don't think those 3 floors will be 29'-8" high Even at 4 more floors (57 floors at 823 feet), they might be 22'-3" high. It seems like there would rather be room for 5 or 6 more floors to reach 912 feet to the roof.

Standard floor-to-floor height is 14'-8". I don't recall the source. Some floors may be taller.

I believe the building section we have been looking at is outdated more than we think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2052  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 3:45 AM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwards View Post
@SoCal Alan

Do you think the top of the tower will surpass the height of the cranes right now?
I can't tell, because I don't know when the picture was taken, and also, I can't measure a sample of the floors to compare. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2053  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 3:47 AM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/30/13126...yramid-tallest


The coming week was last week. What floor is the core at 823 feet? If 823 feet is at 58 floors, how do we get to 912 feet with 61 floors? I don't think those 3 floors will be 29'-8" high Even at 4 more floors (57 floors at 823 feet), they might be 22'-3" high. It seems like there would rather be room for 5 or 6 more floors to reach 912 feet to the roof.

Standard floor-to-floor height is 14'-8". I don't recall the source. Some floors may be taller.

I believe the building section we have been looking at is outdated more than we think.
I always went by 912 feet / 61 floors = 15 feet / floor.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2054  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 3:54 AM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Alan View Post
Not all of the outer forms are raised yet, so when that's done (which should be today), you can call it:

(59-1)*15=870 feet (to the top of the forms)

Until then, it's 855 feet (to the top of the forms).
As of today, one could make the argument that we're definitely at 855 feet with concrete, and the top of the forms for the next floor is at 870 feet. Until they pump concrete for this placement of forms, we can say that we're at least, at 855 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2055  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 4:10 AM
edwards's Avatar
edwards edwards is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rincon Hill
Posts: 307
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Alan View Post
I can't tell, because I don't know when the picture was taken, and also, I can't measure a sample of the floors to compare. Sorry.
It was taken from the webcam right before I posted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2056  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 6:27 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Alan View Post
I always went by 912 feet / 61 floors = 15 feet / floor.
How does 823 feet fit into this scheme?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2057  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 6:43 AM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfview View Post
how does 823 feet fit into this scheme?
912/61*55=822.3
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2058  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 6:44 AM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwards View Post
It was taken from the webcam right before I posted.
Which webcam? Can you post a link?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2059  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 6:53 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 676
Hines has issued a press release stating that as of 10/14, Salesforce Tower has reached a height of 867 feet and is the tallest building in San Francisco:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...-San-Francisco

The 867' figure represents the placement of core concrete for the 58th floor. The outer forms are one story (15') taller, and the inner forms currently reach up into the 60th floor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edwards View Post
Do you think the top of the tower will surpass the height of the cranes right now?
The total height of the exposed core (to the very top of the forms) is just under 130 feet. The top of the tower will be about 180 feet from the top of the forms, very close to the height of the cranes in the photo, but ever-so-slightly taller.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2060  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2016, 7:28 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,034
^^^Okay, now that makes more sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:25 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.