HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 8:48 PM
L1011driver L1011driver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
It's new to everyone, since you're the only one saying that.
It was supposed to be a joke, but you left out the second part so now I look like a douche. Thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2013, 6:01 PM
Just-In-Cali's Avatar
Just-In-Cali Just-In-Cali is offline
Urbanite in Suburbia
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Los Angeles Metro
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
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.
There are a few posts a few pages back that seemed a bit that way, so I was just saying that we need to avoid that trap that always befalls any LA/SF based threads. But yes, so far, its been civil.

Transbay and Wilshire G are almost fraternal twins of each other. The stats tell the tale:

1070' (TB) vs 1'100' (WG) peak
920' (TB)vs 934' (WG) roof height.
Both to be completed in 2016-2017.

Transbay will make a striking impact on the SF skyline. I for one cant wait.
__________________
Blue State Heaven
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2013, 6:02 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 37,470
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1308926

Cesar Pelli’s Transbay Transit Tower, soon to be the tallest building west of the Mississippi, will reshape San Francisco’s skyline
The city by the bay will have a new heart in its skyline, once the tower’s 61 stories soar to 1070 feet.




Architect Cesar Pelli says he hopes his creation will add some spark to what has become a "rather boring skyline" in San Francisco.







By David Knowles
April 6, 2013


Quote:
A tower rises in the west. Designed by renowned architect Cesar Pelli, construction of San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Tower is now officially underway. A mixed use skyscraper that will reside atop the Transbay Terminal — a future rail hub that developers are billing as the west coast equivalent to Grand Central Station — Pelli’s sleek tower will reach 61 stories, 1070 feet into the sky, making it the tallest building west of the Mississippi River.

“The numbers don’t interest me,” Pelli told the Daily News. “What is important is that the building be visible above others.”

More than 200 feet taller than the iconic Transamerica Pyramid, the city’s highest man made peak since it was completed in 1972, Pelli’s design will go up just south of Market St., a part of town ripe for the addition of a bold architectural landmark.

“I have known San Francisco for over 50 years,” Pelli said, “and it used to have a much more cheery silhouette than it does today. I’m sad to say it has become a rather boring skyline because of building codes.”

Drawing inspiration from New York’s Empire State and Chrysler buildings, Pelli says the idea behind the Transbay Transit Tower’s tapered, illuminated crown is to draw the eye up into the sky.

“An architect has to be expressive,” Pelli, the founding partner of the firm Pelli Clarke Pelli, said. “This is going to be a very elegant and gracious tower. I wanted it to have a graceful note.”










__________________
NEW YORK. World's capital.

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2013, 6:16 AM
Valyrian Steel's Avatar
Valyrian Steel Valyrian Steel is offline
So-called president
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 941
Hope it starts construction soon. The evening skyline rendering reminds me of 2 IFC. Looks awesome towering over the other buildings surrounding it.
__________________
Michael Flynn, Sean Spicer, Reince Priebus, Anthony Scaramucci, Steve Bannon, Tom Price, Omarosa Manigault, Rob Porter, Rex Tillerson, Hope Hicks, H.R. McMaster, Scott Pruitt,Betsy DeVos, Jared Kurshner, Stephen Miller, Ryan Zinke, Ben Carson, Steve Mnuchin, John Kelly, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Mike Pence, Donald Trump.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 5:46 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,222
Quote:
“An architect has to be expressive,” Pelli, the founding partner of the firm Pelli Clarke Pelli, said. “This is going to be a very elegant and gracious tower. I wanted it to have a graceful note.”
It would seem that any notion of placing an antenna atop the TBT would not go over very well with the architect. It's a safe bet that's not going happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2013, 3:20 PM
kenratboy kenratboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 976
At this point, knowing what we know, what are the odds a/this 1,000'+ tower is built in downtown San Francisco? This was simply unthinkable not long ago. I'm excited!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2013, 3:28 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenratboy View Post
At this point, knowing what we know, what are the odds a/this 1,000'+ tower is built in downtown San Francisco? This was simply unthinkable not long ago. I'm excited!
The odds are something like 99 to 1? It's been approved and has had a groundbreaking with city officials already, including a $191,816,196.57 check to the city coffers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 4:54 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
Here's an update from Boston Properties. Hopefully this is a good thing, but it opens the possibility that they could pause the project after building the basement/foundation:

Quote:
Executives for the real estate investment trust said May 1 that they are exploring ways to speed development of the 1.4 million square-foot Transbay Transit Tower in San Francisco by nearly a year or more, while also examining whether to take on a capital partner.

[...]

Original plans called for construction on the Transbay Tower, slated to be the tallest building on the West Coast, to start as early as this summer and to be complete by 2016, just before the opening of the adjacent transit center.

Under questioning from an analyst about how the company intends to proceed with the project, including attitudes about building speculatively, Linde said the company has found a way to cut 10 months to 14 months from the timeline while creating a natural stopping point before starting vertical development when it can reassess the market.
And, here's the transcript from the earnings call:

Quote:
Joshua Attie - Citigroup Inc, Research Division
And Doug, just a quick one for you. You mentioned in your prepared remarks that you're working with Hines to shorten the delivery schedule on Transbay. Can you just talk a bit about how you will likely proceed on that project, whether how much capital you're going to put in before having any leases in place? Do you envision this going spec? And I guess how much can you shorten this delivery schedule, in terms of timing?

Douglas T. Linde - Director and President
So what we're -- the plans we're currently working on, Michael, are two: going to the ground and then go up to grade. And that probably eliminates somewhere between 10 and 14 months of time, depending upon when we get started. And once we get there, we'll have an interesting question to ask ourselves, which is how do we feel about the activity at 535 Mission, how do we feel about the other activity in the city, what pre-leasing commitments might we be able to make or have we made. And we'll sort of go from there, and it's a work in progress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 6:36 AM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 792
It sounds like incredibly good news. What I understand is this: The building is being built immediately, as a speculative gesture, to grade, including all underground foundation work. Essentially, they have given themselves more time to decide whether to go all the way to the top, while at the same time jump starting construction so that the building can be completed much faster ASSUMING a deal is made at the time the building reaches grade. IF no deal is made, then construction can still be put on hold for a year or two. HOWEVER, this move shows extreme confidence in the project, to the effect that these developers are risking millions of dollars on the early success of the tower, and this is all therefore a very happy thing for SF and the Transbay Tower.

This is the best thing that could have happened with this project, and it will mean its completion a year early IF all likely conditions are met.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 2:50 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,165
Several factors could delay this project indefinitely:

DotCom bubble burst 2.0 - facebook buying Instagram for $1 billion, facebooks initial value of billions of dollars which has been steadily sliding is about as stable as a sandcastle build in the amazon rainforest. Really, how volatile are commodities like facebook and twitter? Do you really think they will be around forever, or even that much longer? Look how fast MySpace came and went. These tech companies are fueling the office market surge in SF. It's a rather fleeting type of market.

San Francisco housing bubble burst, brought on partly by the above. The average rent is something like $2,800 and homes are selling for incredibly exuberant prices. Is this sustainable? Perhaps- with the support of foreign, especially Chinese, capital. But china is on the verge of their own economic/ real estate bubble disaster. Search for the 60 minutes piece on Chinese ghost cities.
The forfeiting of investment into treasure island is also telling about how china is starting to tighten her purse.

I really want this to be built, but, San Francisco's economy is dependent on mostly fleeting factors, unlike that of NY and LA. We'll see what happens. Fingers crossed!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 4:12 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post

I really want this to be built, but, San Francisco's economy is dependent on mostly fleeting factors, unlike that of NY and LA.
Not really. People always focus on the tech industry, but the Bay Area's economy is actually quite diverse. Healthcare, tourism, manufacturing, energy, transportation, finance, professional services, education, etc, are all large parts of the economy here.

Though it is the tech industry that's a big reason behind the current building boom, the extra sky high rents, and all the office space getting leased in downtown SF right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 4:34 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
Not really. People always focus on the tech industry, but the Bay Area's economy is actually quite diverse. Healthcare, tourism, manufacturing, energy, transportation, finance, professional services, education, etc, are all large parts of the economy here.

Though it is the tech industry that's a big reason behind the current building boom, the extra sky high rents, and all the office space getting leased in downtown SF right now.
"Bay Area" ≠ "San Francisco."

Tourism isn't going to build an 1,100 ft. office skyscraper.
Neither is any of the above you mentioned except finance. The financial industry is pretty strong in SF.. but my point was that once (if?) the tech bubble bursts we will see a huge ballooning of vacant space in the city.

Of course this could all be reversed if Google and Apple decided to headquarter in SF instead of building sprawling, unsustainable, insulated, boring suburban office parks in Sunnyvale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 5:04 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 792
Tech investors and VCs in general have learned a lot from the ridiculous investments of the late 90s. Also, don't forget that the population of San Francisco has been rising fast, and will rise even faster, even in the event of a tech bust, simply due to high population growth in California. Look for more growth when/if the immigration bill is passed, since the juicy part of the bill is giving more work VISAs to rich foreigners looking to do business in the valley/SF.

Speaking to the Transbay Tower in particular, the developer gave the city a $200 million check and is planning to finish the tower 10-14 months early. This tower was never meant to hold tiny startups anyway.

Facebook has been a household name for 8 years now and is 100 times larger than myspace ever was, predicting the demise of its business/business model simply because some financial people overpaid on its IPO year ago is way too doom and gloom. They are making an estimated $1.2 billion in advertising revenue in Q2 2013 alone. The fear that facebook couldn't transition its model to mobile has been proven false, as 30% of facebook's ad revenue is now from mobile, which is still growing dramatically faster worldwide than desktop facebook.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 5:11 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
"Bay Area" ≠ "San Francisco."

Tourism isn't going to build an 1,100 ft. office skyscraper.
Neither is any of the above you mentioned except finance. The financial industry is pretty strong in SF.. but my point was that once (if?) the tech bubble bursts we will see a huge ballooning of vacant space in the city.

Of course this could all be reversed if Google and Apple decided to headquarter in SF instead of building sprawling, unsustainable, insulated, boring suburban office parks in Sunnyvale.
Yet your post was mostly about Facebook, a company that has no SF office space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 5:57 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Employment in San Francisco by industry, from the US Census Bureau's 2012 estimates:

Civilian employed population 16 years and over
447,467

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
1,017

Construction
18,775

Manufacturing
26,510

Wholesale trade
8,948

Retail trade
42,440

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
15,599

Information
20,638

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing
41,850

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
88,339

Educational services, and health care and social assistance
88,415

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services
54,804

Other services, except public administration
23,616

Public administration
16,516

In any case, it doesn't matter that the Bay Area doesn't equal San Francisco when it comes to employment, because surrounding counties send 265,000 workers into the city each workday.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 6:24 PM
easy as pie's Avatar
easy as pie easy as pie is offline
testify
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 94109
Posts: 853
i feel like one of the main reasons that companies set up down the peninsula is precisely because of a lack of office space in sf, making some office park down in redwood city pretty much what a middle-sized company can reasonably afford. obviously, transbay tower won't be discount office space, but with such quantity (535 mission and this one), bp will have a lot of pricing flexibility. you know, or like apple could just dump the entire ring campus idea and just take 100% of the transbay tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 6:40 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 20,259
I really hope this one gets built!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 6:42 PM
Surrealplaces's Avatar
Surrealplaces Surrealplaces is offline
Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Cowtropolis
Posts: 20,259
Is it just me or does the scale seem out of whack? This rendering makes it look twice as tall as 555 California.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NYguy View Post




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 6:45 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
"Bay Area" ≠ "San Francisco."
Ah I see, San Francisco exists in a self-contained bubble that is not affected whatsoever by the rest of its metropolitan area (nor does SF affect the rest of the Bay Area at all). You learn something new every day!

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
Tourism isn't going to build an 1,100 ft. office skyscraper.
Neither is any of the above you mentioned except finance.
I never said they would. I was refuting your claim that SF's economy is based "mostly on fleeting factors", because that claim is entirely untrue. Also, your idea that no economic sectors but tech and finance can lead to skyscrapers is pretty silly. Let's see, what do we have in SF...we have a Shell tower, a Chevron tower, a Bechtel tower, tons of residential towers, etc, etc, etc, x100. I wonder how they ever got built, seeing that facebook wasn't involved????
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted May 3, 2013, 6:46 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by easy as pie View Post
i feel like one of the main reasons that companies set up down the peninsula is precisely because of a lack of office space in sf, making some office park down in redwood city pretty much what a middle-sized company can reasonably afford. obviously, transbay tower won't be discount office space, but with such quantity (535 mission and this one), bp will have a lot of pricing flexibility. you know, or like apple could just dump the entire ring campus idea and just take 100% of the transbay tower.
I'm pretty unacclimated to Valley real estate, but I believe office space down there is pretty unbelievably expensive. Stanford's down there and the principals and fund managers live down there, and you have the land to do a campus and the ability to own/operate your own office space. I'm like 99.99% sure that the reason that the Valley is where the tech industry migrates for the most part has nothing to do with "cost" in the sense that you or I might think of it. In SF, they have to lease space and deal with institutional property ownership that operates in a more rigid way due to debt/underwriting standards, and so there's just a lot less flexibility and control for tech tenants (and a lot less available space). I think Hines/BP and others are trying to devise underwriting structures and building structures better suited for the tech industry, hence this building if it ever gets out of the hole.

edit: Now that I re-read your post, we're on same page .
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 1:17 PM.

     

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