HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction

    

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
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 5:43 AM
biggerhigherfaster biggerhigherfaster is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
If they add a spire to the Transbay tower....

That could be amazing. I hope this news of a "superstructure" (whatever that may be....spire? antennae? a crown on top of a crown? Alien docking platform?) is true.

The original plan was about 80 stories and 1200 ft. It's never too late to reconsider...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 5:44 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,103
What's interesting is NIMBYism might all just disappear for the sake of two cities fighting each other to see who might have the tallest building on the West Coast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 5:48 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
What's interesting is NIMBYism might all just disappear for the sake of two cities fighting each other to see who might have the tallest building on the West Coast.
We'll lose if LA doesn't care about shadows as much as SF does. They need to figure out how to make TBT taller without causing any "grievous" shadows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 5:56 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Transbay is entitled--as of right--to build up to 1200 ft. Above that, the city may allow mechanical and/or decorative elements--but considering the maximum allowable height and all that went into determining same, maybe not. Either way, the Wilshire Grand is only permitted to build as of right to 1100 ft., max. LA may grant a variance, but that may take extra time and effort.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 6:10 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Transbay is entitled--as of right--to build up to 1200 ft. Above that, the city may allow mechanical and/or decorative elements--but considering the maximum allowable height and all that went into determining same, maybe not. Either way, the Wilshire Grand is only permitted to build as of right to 1100 ft., max. LA may grant a variance, but that may take extra time and effort.
Now you've gotten us all excited and dreaming for this fflint! I had forgotten that Hines shortened the tower on its own--let's hope Boston Properties wants to now restore the height!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 6:15 AM
Valyrian Steel's Avatar
Valyrian Steel Valyrian Steel is offline
So-called president
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Transbay is entitled--as of right--to build up to 1200 ft. Above that, the city may allow mechanical and/or decorative elements--but considering the maximum allowable height and all that went into determining same, maybe not. Either way, the Wilshire Grand is only permitted to build as of right to 1100 ft., max. LA may grant a variance, but that may take extra time and effort.
Actually, the Wilshire Grand is entitled for a building up to 1,250 ft due to the previous plans that were approved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
We'll lose if LA doesn't care about shadows as much as SF does. They need to figure out how to make TBT taller without causing any "grievous" shadows.
There's no opposition to the WG as far as I've heard. I know the previous design got some negative feedback due to the LED lighting that would cover the whole building but I don't think the new design has that feature.

We'll see what happens. Either way, I'll be happy to see two enormous new buildings going up simultaneously in California.
__________________
IMPEACH TRUMP
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 6:29 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pink Floyd View Post
Actually, the Wilshire Grand is entitled for a building up to 1,250 ft due to the previous plans that were approved.
I stand corrected!

Quote:
We'll see what happens. Either way, I'll be happy to see two enormous new buildings going up simultaneously in California.
Agreed. This is great, like NYC in the Deco 20s.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 8:14 AM
SLC Projects's Avatar
SLC Projects SLC Projects is offline
Bring out the cranes...
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 6,382
That is a very sexy looking building.
__________________
1. "Wells Fargo Building" 24-stories 422 FT 1998
2. "LDS Church Office Building" 28-stories 420 FT 1973
3. "111 South Main" 24-stories 387 FT 2016
4. "99 West" 30-stories 375 FT 2011
5. "Key Bank Tower" 27-stories 351 FT 1976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 2:25 PM
-Filipe-'s Avatar
-Filipe- -Filipe- is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 274
oh wow great news
__________________
I LOVE NY!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 7:11 PM
Towersteve Towersteve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 69
Isn't the top 200 feet of the Transbay Tower already just decoration?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 10:27 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: 490
I find it exciting in any event that two new supertalls are planned for the west coast. The details on who will be taller are so convoluted and varied, I just don't care. The current plans have Transbay at 1070', Wilshire Grand at 1100'. That's only 30' feet of difference. Transbay's upper structural crown will make it "look" taller mass wise, as the crown height for the WG will be 1000' with a 100' spire. But the WG will have a higher occupied floor from all accounts, and the US Bank tower in LA still will retain highest roof and occupied floor. So all this back an forth is mute. As far as the constant city vs city, lets not go there. Both are attractive structures and will give each city an new landmark.
__________________
Blue State Heaven
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 11:03 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
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.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 7:53 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
This is great if it is true. I was wondering if we would ever get back to thinking more about this:

Original source: San Francisco Planning Department:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 1:23 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is online now
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 33,949
I think it's refreshing for two cities on the west coast to reach for a tallest. Skyscrapers are back.
__________________
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
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 10:15 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,069
I went to the public forums before the official design plans were unveiled in 2007 and the plans by the city were that 1200' could be the maximum height to the roof, or perhaps opaque crown, but that spires could extend much further, perhaps to the 1375' proposed by SOM, or maybe higher? Who knows.
What I think will happen is that both towers will rise at the same time and there will be a final finish (by SF? ) which will claim dominance.

Notice how all of the press releases during and since the ceremonial groundbreaking claim it as "the tallest building on the west coast?" Pretty brazen. Surely the developers and architects know that the WG is proposed at 1100'.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 11:40 PM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
I went to the public forums before the official design plans were unveiled in 2007 and the plans by the city were that 1200' could be the maximum height to the roof, or perhaps opaque crown, but that spires could extend much further, perhaps to the 1375' proposed by SOM, or maybe higher? Who knows.
What I think will happen is that both towers will rise at the same time and there will be a final finish (by SF? ) which will claim dominance.

Notice how all of the press releases during and since the ceremonial groundbreaking claim it as "the tallest building on the west coast?" Pretty brazen. Surely the developers and architects know that the WG is proposed at 1100'.
Those of us looking for a 1930's style skyscraper d*** measuring contest are likely to be disappointed.

I don't think Hanjin/Korean Air honestly cares whether or not their building is taller than the Transbay Tower. They haven't even marketed the Wilshire Grand as the tallest building in LA (although media outlets and SkyscraperPage forumers clearly took notice). The project's website specifically refers to the Wilshire Grand as the "Second tallest building in LA skyline."

If Boston Properties does in fact decide to add something on top of the Transbay Tower to make it taller, I don't expect the Hanjin Group to up the ante.

Last edited by blackcat23; Apr 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM. Reason: word choice
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 11:41 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,037
That article mentioning the "superstructure" has been updated, and it looks like there might not actually be any extra height/superstructure/mystery spire planned for the tower:

Quote:
Asked about the Wilshire Grand, the communications
team for the Transbay Joint Powers Authority at first stuck to its position that the Transbay tower will be taller. Spokesman Adam Alberti even claimed San Francisco's new skyscraper will be significantly higher than 1,070 feet. He later acknowledged this was incorrect.

Alberti said the authority is not concerned with bragging rights, just a well-conceived project: "If that ends up with us having the second-tallest tower in the west by some standards, I don't think anyone will lose sleep over it."
http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo...est-skyscraper
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 12:01 AM
Valyrian Steel's Avatar
Valyrian Steel Valyrian Steel is offline
So-called president
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat23 View Post
Those of us looking for a 1930's style skyscraper d*** measuring contest are likely to be disappointed.

I don't think Hanjin/Korean Air honestly cares whether or not their building is taller than the Transbay Tower. They haven't even marketed the Wilshire Grand as the tallest building in LA (although media outlets and SkyscraperPage forumers clearly took notice). The project's website specifically refers to the Wilshire Grand as the "Second tallest building in LA skyline."

If Boston Properties does in fact decide to add something on top of the Transbay Tower to make it taller, I don't expect the Hanjin Group to up the ante.
Well their website is also a little slow to update. It still lists the tower as having 70 floors instead of 73. But I agree that they probably don't really give a hoot, otherwise I think they would've gone much higher.
__________________
IMPEACH TRUMP
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 6:32 AM
L1011driver L1011driver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 51
All this talk about WG's spire as cheating is new to me, this whole time I thought they were adding a spire just so LA could actually have one lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2013, 9:34 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by L1011driver View Post
All this talk about WG's spire as cheating is new to me
It's new to everyone, since you're the only one saying that.
__________________
"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
     
     
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 > Global Projects & Construction > Supertall Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:47 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.