SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors | ON HOLD - Page 37

Sky's the Limit · #**721** Posted **Nov 14, 2018, 11:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

I saw somewhere that it might not be finished till 2023 now? Hope that is not true.

What's your rush, you've got an eye on some office space?

SFBuildings888 · #**722** Posted **Nov 15, 2018, 8:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky's the Limit

What's your rush, you've got an eye on some office space?

Just want it finished as soon as possible. Plus, we are all getting older. Lol!

patriotizzy · #**723** Posted **Nov 15, 2018, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

Just want it finished as soon as possible. Plus, we are all getting older. Lol!

You're new here from what I can tell. I remember being new to this forum and being desperate for quick turnarounds. You will learn patience with time and realize the excitement is not in the finished product, but in seeing it come to life in its slow crawl. Like watching a baby grow, slowly but surely

Mr Saturn64 · #**724** Posted **Nov 15, 2018, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

You're new here from what I can tell. I remember being new to this forum and being desperate for quick turnarounds. You will learn patience with time and realize the excitement is not in the finished product, but in seeing it come to life in its slow crawl. Like watching a baby grow, slowly but surely

You know, I also agree with this. When I was a kid, I always wanted to see new buildings completed as quickly as possible. But now, I do like watching this rise, and looking at older photos of construction. I imagine you San Francisco people would agree that that's especially special when your first thousand footer comes up. It's more fun and interesting to watch it rise when you know it's going to be your new tallest.

Pedestrian · #**725** Posted **Nov 15, 2018, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Saturn64

I imagine you San Francisco people would agree that that's especially special when your first thousand footer comes up. It's more fun and interesting to watch it rise when you know it's going to be your new tallest.

Given the history of 1000 ft proposals in SF that were cut to substantially less than 1000 ft (see TransAmerica pyramid, proposed at 1150 ft) to appease NIMBYs and anti-growth fanatics, it's especially satisfying that one actually got built (even if it was proposed at 1200 ft).

SFBuildings888 · #**726** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 7:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

You're new here from what I can tell. I remember being new to this forum and being desperate for quick turnarounds. You will learn patience with time and realize the excitement is not in the finished product, but in seeing it come to life in its slow crawl. Like watching a baby grow, slowly but surely

Maybe it is just me, but I hate to wait for anything when I’m excited about something.

SFBuildings888 · #**727** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 7:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Given the history of 1000 ft proposals in SF that were cut to substantially less than 1000 ft (see TransAmerica pyramid, proposed at 1150 ft) to appease NIMBYs and anti-growth fanatics, it's especially satisfying that one actually got built (even if it was proposed at 1200 ft).

Too bad there will never be another 1000 ft tall building in SF.

Fvn · #**728** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

Too bad there will never be another 1000 ft tall building in SF.

Never is an awfully long time

Zapatan · #**729** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

Too bad there will never be another 1000 ft tall building in SF.

I never thought there would be one ever, but it happened.

Pedestrian · #**730** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 7:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

Too bad there will never be another 1000 ft tall building in SF.

When there's a need for one, there will be one. I look at the sharp demarcation between the highrise district and . . . something else . . . caused by I-80 and suspect someday people will ask why the north slope of Rincon Hill was considered suitable for highrises and the south was not. The city will evolve.

BobbyMucho · #**731** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

When there's a need for one, there will be one. I look at the sharp demarcation between the highrise district and . . . something else . . . caused by I-80 and suspect someday people will ask why the north slope of Rincon Hill was considered suitable for highrises and the south was not. The city will evolve.

I have no doubt we'll see more supertalls in the coming decades, but likely in places like San Jose as restrictions and funding for projects in the city tighten up. SJ will get denser and slowly become the Bay Area metro hub that it should (not that it'd be my first choice).

mizago · #**732** Posted **Nov 16, 2018, 10:06 PM**

Well, according to Star Trek we have a lot to look forward to! Except the whole WW3 part beforehand...

SFBuildings888 · #**733** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 9:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

I have no doubt we'll see more supertalls in the coming decades, but likely in places like San Jose as restrictions and funding for projects in the city tighten up. SJ will get denser and slowly become the Bay Area metro hub that it should (not that it'd be my first choice).

The SJ airport is the cause of SJ not having any high rise buildings in its downtown. They will never build a supertall building in SJ. They like the suburban character of the city.

mt_climber13 · #**734** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 2:50 PM**

Does anyone remember the twin 1200’ Renzo Piano towers originally proposed for this site?

chris08876 · #**735** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 3:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

Too bad there will never be another 1000 ft tall building in SF.

Its all about supply and demand. The city could do it, but the city is also its own worst enemy with inane caps on commercial space thats allowed to rise every year and too much community input on commercial projects, not to mention NIMBYS that are fierce. Proposition M I believe is the hurdle.

Plus SF regulates residential so much and the city is toying with Proposition 10 elimination which limits rent control. Its insanity whats going on. The city is its own worst enemy. IDK what is the fixation with making SF unaffordable. Its slowly sterilizing the city and limiting its true potential.

This development is beautiful IMO. Glad its rising. At least something positive going on.

coyotetrickster · #**736** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 6:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

The SJ airport is the cause of SJ not having any high rise buildings in its downtown. They will never build a supertall building in SJ. They like the suburban character of the city.

The FAA will never permit supertalls. Mineta is simply too close to the downtown core. That will result in a mid-rise, but dense skyline. Not very inspiring. If SJ can improve the walkability of its core and eliminate the wealth of parking lots, it will be a great anodyne to SF. We will be getting a new 800' tower, as Salesforce just committed to taking the office space for the Hines tower on Block F.

viewguysf · #**737** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 7:07 PM**

San Jose hasn’t exceeded 286’ yet and has to keep buildings mostly flat topped with no spires, etc. It won’t have skyscrapers, much less supertalls. San Diego is in a similar situation, but with a 500’ height limit.

Pedestrian · #**738** Posted **Nov 17, 2018, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

I have no doubt we'll see more supertalls in the coming decades, but likely in places like San Jose as restrictions and funding for projects in the city tighten up. SJ will get denser and slowly become the Bay Area metro hub that it should (not that it'd be my first choice).

As stated above, San Jose has more restrictions than SF without the central Bay location, the scenery, the history, the global name recognition and so on. I see no reason it "should be" the hub: The Bay is too shallow there so it isn't and won't be a port (SF no longer is either but it has acess to the port within minutes directly across the Bay). SFO is a more central airport with far more flights to more places even though it has its climatologic and geographic issues as well--but as with the port, easy access to Oakland's airport solves most of the issues.

fimiak · #**739** Posted **Nov 18, 2018, 7:32 PM**

It might just be that the only area in the entire bay that could be developed 900+ feet is around the Caltrain station in SF. I don't see it happening anywhere else. It would take a miracle to build something that size North of Market.

Pedestrian · #**740** Posted **Nov 18, 2018, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

It might just be that the only area in the entire bay that could be developed 900+ feet is around the Caltrain station in SF. I don't see it happening anywhere else. It would take a miracle to build something that size North of Market.

Keep in mind that it could only happen where it has because attitudes changed (and height limits in the TransBay area were rezoned higher). I think it's fairly certain they will change again but I'm not sure it will happen in SF before it happens, say, in Oakland. Oakland is the other place I could see a high rise cluster developing someday but that would also take a change just as it would to more intensively develop other SF neighborhoods.

But I do think it will happen.