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

[ozone]

Originally Posted by SFView

Like I said before, it would have been even more sad if the SOM design would have had to have been shortened from 1375 to something like 1075 feet tall.

I agree. In hindsight I think they made the right decision regarding the tower. The SOM proposal did not seem as easy to shorten (which it would have to do) without compromising the design. But we will never know. I'm pretty satisfied with what's going up.

[SFView]

I believe that once Salesforce Tower is completed and the crown finally lights up, many of us will forget all the arguments and what might have been, and be very happy and impressed with the final result.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by SFView

I believe that once Salesforce Tower is completed and the crown finally lights up, many of us will forget all the arguments and what might have been, and be very happy and impressed with the final result.

Im already glad we went with the Pelli design. It's turned out much more elegant and 'stronger' than how I thought it would look. The SOM design was my original favorite but in hindsight it looks like a pagaent evening gown.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Who cares?

Well since the designation changes here from "skyscraper" to "supertall" it makes categorizing it differently but even outside of our nerdy little hobby, i'll bet when a city gets a 1000+ footer, that is more notable than a shorter building so more people talk about it.

On a personal note, I don't really like being lied to and Wilshire Grand is basically a 934 footer trumped up to be a supertall but the fact remains that it isn't.

[Pierre9436]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Well since the designation changes here from "skyscraper" to "supertall" it makes categorizing it differently but even outside of our nerdy little hobby, i'll bet when a city gets a 1000+ footer, that is more notable than a shorter building so more people talk about it.

On a personal note, I don't really like being lied to and Wilshire Grand is basically a 934 footer trumped up to be a supertall but the fact remains that it isn't.

I agree. The Wilshire Grand is a beautiful building and I wish that we had a similar building in Denver, but I have never counted these types of spires as actual building height. The only exception might be the Empire State Building.

The US Bank tower is the tallest building in LA - in my eyes and just about everyone else's. If you work on the top floor of that building, every time that you look out the window in the direction of the Wilshire Grand you will say this is the tallest building in LA no argument. I'm sure that the Wilshire Grand is much nicer inside though and I would rather work there if given the choice.

A very similar observations is to say that 1 WTC is not 1776 feet tall. In fact, it's the same height as the old World Trade Center, and it's not even the current tallest building in NYC. I love the building and I was just there in September (I've been in the old WTC twice as well), but I'm pretty sure that's it's a few feet shorter than the old buildings were. The Sears tower is taller than 1 WTC as well. I believe that the Sears tower is around 1450 ft tall. In addition, NYC has several new buildings that will all be taller than 1WTC. Pretty soon, the Empire State Building will blend in and just look like the 10th-15th tallest building in NY.

Anyway, the Salesforce Crown is different. It's not a spire and it blends in with the frame of the building. I will personally count the crown of the Sales Force tower as the top of the building when viewing the building from anywhere on the ground. Visually it is the tallest on the West Coast. The US Bank tower is also a beautiful tower and it's huge, but if they were side by side the SalesForce tower will look slightly taller. Now if you work on the top floor of the US Bank tower you might say actually no this building is taller. In the end, they're all very nice buildings. I'm sure that LA will get another supertall in the next 10 years anyway. Hopefully Denver will get an 850+ skyscraper in the same period.

[fimiak]

This has been said hundreds of times before..but there is a difference between roof height and structure height. One WTC is 1776' because it is a structure that stands 1776' in the air. Just because office workers are occupying it at 1350' does not mean the structure is only 1350' tall. Permanent spires are a part of the structure, and therefore the same goes for Wilshire Grand.

Structure height takes precedence over roof height because as observers of human structures, we have to look at the height of the permanent structure, not simply the highest point where humans reside. Structure height is the standard for construction, architecture, development, and this forum. Roof height as being more important is an opinionated bias that does not reflect reality.

Salesforce Tower is 1070'/1080' because that is how high the structure goes, even if the top is just a metal facade.


With all that said..everyone in this thread agrees Wilshire's spire making the building taller than SF Tower is stupid and that Salesforce Tower is superior in every way..but that doesn't change the fact that structure height is true height.

[Pierre9436]

Originally Posted by fimiak

This has been said hundreds of times before..but there is a difference between roof height and structure height. One WTC is 1776' because it is a structure that stands 1776' in the air. Just because office workers are occupying it at 1350' does not mean the structure is only 1350' tall. Permanent spires are a part of the structure, and therefore the same goes for Wilshire Grand.

Structure height takes precedence over roof height because as observers of human structures, we have to look at the height of the permanent structure, not simply the highest point where humans reside. Structure height is the standard for construction, architecture, development, and this forum. Roof height as being more important is an opinionated bias that does not reflect reality.

Salesforce Tower is 1070'/1080' because that is how high the structure goes, even if the top is just a metal facade.


With all that said..everyone in this thread agrees Wilshire's spire making the building taller than SF Tower is stupid and that Salesforce Tower is superior in every way..but that doesn't change the fact that structure height is true height.

I agree that the Wilshire spire making the building taller is stupid.

I do not agree though that the Wilshire spire is part of the structure. It looks like an antenna in my opinion. Back in the 90's they didn't count the antenna's on the top of the WTC or Sears Tower as part of either structure. The same thing should apply to the Wilshire tower and the new WTC because they look like antennas. The spire on the WTC is more well integrated into the building than the old WTC, but it's still not really part of the building. So if they don't count the old antennas, I'm not personally counting these new spires. The Salesforce tower is the tallest in the west coast just like the Sears Tower is the tallest in the US until the Central Park Tower is complete.

[Pierre9436]

One last thing, the antennas on the Sears tower and the old WTC are/were as permanent of a structure as the new spire on the WTC. But they don't include the antenna on the Sears tower as part of the structure's overall height. Well, if they don't do that, then they shouldn't include it on the WTC.

[mt_climber13]

Looks like crown installation is commencing (taken from construction cam)

[don116]

So how do we get the city to add a 100 ft spire? Email Marc Benioff? Jane Kim? Ed Lee?

THey could think of it as an artistic improvement to the structure rather than upzoning, kind of like the Bay Bridge lights. The more I think about it, a spire could be pretty interesting on Salesforce Tower. It would shoot out of the lines in the crown.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Pierre9436

I do not agree though that the Wilshire spire is part of the structure. It looks like an antenna in my opinion. Back in the 90's they didn't count the antenna's on the top of the WTC or Sears Tower as part of either structure. The same thing should apply to the Wilshire tower and the new WTC because they look like antennas. The spire on the WTC is more well integrated into the building than the old WTC, but it's still not really part of the building. So if they don't count the old antennas, I'm not personally counting these new spires. The Salesforce tower is the tallest in the west coast just like the Sears Tower is the tallest in the US until the Central Park Tower is complete.

The CTBUH is full of shit too

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by Pierre9436

I do not agree though that the Wilshire spire is part of the structure. It looks like an antenna in my opinion. Back in the 90's they didn't count the antenna's on the top of the WTC or Sears Tower as part of either structure. The same thing should apply to the Wilshire tower and the new WTC because they look like antennas.

The WTC and Sears tower antennas were added later and not part of the original architectural design, so they are not counted in the official structural height. The spires on Wilshire Grand and 1WTC are part of the design of the tower, so they count as part of the official height. They were designed and not tacked on for utility purposes.

Im glad SF tower does not have a spire. I think it would not look cohesive with the rest of the tower.

[Marcos]

Interesting debate, and notwithstanding all of the technical realities mentioned above I remain on the side of antennas don't count; when I look at a building on the skyline my eye is directed to the roof line*, not anything that sticks out above it. If I'm six feet tall does my 4 inch pompadour make me 6 foot 4

In Philly they're building Comcast 2 which they say is 'taller' than Comcast 1 but only because of a lantern that rises above the first tower. But the roof line is lower and in every rendering I've seen the new building is shorter than the original & I see no way around that. Some may point out that a lantern is different than an antenna and is very well integrated into the building from the ground up, & it is, but does that really make any difference? Doesn't to my eye, it's a shorter building.

* and/or the apparent roof line, as in the case of Salesforce Tower - the top of the structure on top of the roof is where my eye will go so it all counts as part of the height, it's a beautiful building

[brantw]

12/12/16

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by Marcos

Interesting debate, and notwithstanding all of the technical realities mentioned above I remain on the side of antennas don't count; when I look at a building on the skyline my eye is directed to the roof line*, not anything that sticks out above it. If I'm six feet tall does my 4 inch pompadour make me 6 foot 4

In Philly they're building Comcast 2 which they say is 'taller' than Comcast 1 but only because of a lantern that rises above the first tower. But the roof line is lower and in every rendering I've seen the new building is shorter than the original & I see no way around that. Some may point out that a lantern is different than an antenna and is very well integrated into the building from the ground up, & it is, but does that really make any difference? Doesn't to my eye, it's a shorter building.

* and/or the apparent roof line, as in the case of Salesforce Tower - the top of the structure on top of the roof is where my eye will go so it all counts as part of the height, it's a beautiful building

Ok I am going to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument. I would say that if we are following the rules of 'structure height', your 4 inch pompadour does indeed make you 4 inches taller, as your hair is a part of the permanent structure of 'you'. If you wore a hat that was 4 inches high, you would not be 4 inches taller, since hats are non-permanent.

Also, it should be noted that antennas do not count towards height, and never have! That is because they are not a part of the permanent structure. Spires are counted because they are permanent structures, have no utility other than for ornament (like one's hair), and therefore count as structure height. Humans go by roof height, buildings by structure height.

[Yesh222]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Ok I am going to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument. I would say that if we are following the rules of 'structure height', your 4 inch pompadour does indeed make you 4 inches taller, as your hair is a part of the permanent structure of 'you'. If you wore a hat that was 4 inches high, you would not be 4 inches taller, since hats are non-permanent.

Also, it should be noted that antennas do not count towards height, and never have! That is because they are not a part of the permanent structure. Spires are counted because they are permanent structures, have no utility other than for ornament (like one's hair), and therefore count as structure height. Humans go by roof height, buildings by structure height.

I don't mind your argument, but I don't get why permanent antennas don't count. An antenna that will never be removed (e.g. the ESB's) are just as much part of the structure as a spire.

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Ok I am going to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument. I would say that if we are following the rules of 'structure height', your 4 inch pompadour does indeed make you 4 inches taller, as your hair is a part of the permanent structure of 'you'. If you wore a hat that was 4 inches high, you would not be 4 inches taller, since hats are non-permanent.

Also, it should be noted that antennas do not count towards height, and never have! That is because they are not a part of the permanent structure. Spires are counted because they are permanent structures, have no utility other than for ornament (like one's hair), and therefore count as structure height. Humans go by roof height, buildings by structure height.

Ok, just saying I disagree with the 'rules of structure height', or maybe said better think they're meaningless for all practical purposes to those of us (lay persons) admiring the buildings. And add to antennas 'spires' (& 'lanterns' in the case of the Comcast Technology Center). My point is a matter of diameter, when I look at Salesforce the metal section on top that doesn't contain any inhabitable or mechanical space is still part of the height of the building that I can appreciate when viewing the skyline as it shares a substantial and continuous diameter with the rest of the building, albeit tapering; most people looking at the building that know nothing about it won't know it's up there & will probably assume there's people roaming around up there. Meanwhile, the Wilshire and Comcast attain their heights with dramatically smaller diameter additions above the actual roof line; they are both shorter buildings for all tangible criteria that I can appreciate. And let's face it, what I can appreciate when looking at a building is all that matters to me, not a technical definition in a book somewhere...

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Well since the designation changes here from "skyscraper" to "supertall" it makes categorizing it differently but even outside of our nerdy little hobby, i'll bet when a city gets a 1000+ footer, that is more notable than a shorter building so more people talk about it.

On a personal note, I don't really like being lied to and Wilshire Grand is basically a 934 footer trumped up to be a supertall but the fact remains that it isn't.

You sound like you're about twelve. Good Lord, they're just buildings.

[Sky's the Limit]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Who cares?

While you apparently do not, it would appear several other people on this forum, myself included, do in fact care.

[botoxic]

SF giving Gotham a run for its money

@JamesMNgo on Twitter

The (right side) cladding at this angle forms a cool diagonal pattern that slightly reminds me of 350 Mission

thekenyeung on Instagram