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
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 6:31 PM
rriojas71 rriojas71 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
^I dunno, I kind of like it. It's unique, which I'm typically a fan of.

I wish that we still had that giant spider on the Embarcadero, that thing was awesome. Too bad it was temporary.
I never saw the Giant Spider, but that sounds like it could be pretty cool. For me the sculpture of the Rock Monster would be fine if it just wasn't near the Terminal Tower.
Move it to the proposed Mission Rock park and it would be must better served and co-hesive with that project IMHO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 7:31 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 474
Quote:
Originally Posted by rriojas71 View Post
I never saw the Giant Spider, but that sounds like it could be pretty cool. For me the sculpture of the Rock Monster would be fine if it just wasn't near the Terminal Tower.
Move it to the proposed Mission Rock park and it would be must better served and co-hesive with that project IMHO.
But the whole point is that it's built with pieces of the old terminal...I think that's really cool.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 9:22 PM
rriojas71 rriojas71 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
But the whole point is that it's built with pieces of the old terminal...I think that's really cool.
Just like the fountain at Justin Hermann plaza was made from parts of the Embarcadeo Fwy, which is a nice hommage, but it's not a great piece of art in that location. I think being on the corner it is going to be an eyesore next to the sleekness of the terminal and the tower. Maybe they should put it inside the terminal instead.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I don't like it, maybe it will grow on me with time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2012, 10:14 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
^Are you talking about Vaillancourt Fountain? That was there way before the Embarcadero Freeway came down. It's been there since the early 70s at least.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2012, 2:05 AM
JayCortese's Avatar
JayCortese JayCortese is offline
Resident Man-child
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Calgary/Toronto
Posts: 139
Can it withstand a 9.0?
__________________
Toronto: Canada's Dubai
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2012, 9:21 PM
caramatt caramatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 36
I too hate the sculpture, at least the way it looks in the rendering. It's too bad, because Tim Hawkinson makes some beautiful work. The TJPA has some more info on their artist's page, along with a video covering all the site-specific work that is going to be part of the terminal developement. I definitely recommend watching it. I think the terrazzo floor specifically will be quite nice and unique.

http://transbaycenter.org/project/transit-center/public-art/tim-hawkinson
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2012, 6:18 PM
Charcusms Charcusms is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6
Number of floors?

The architect's website lists the number of floors at 80. Was this the old figure back when the height was closer to 1,200 feet?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2012, 6:38 PM
wakamesalad wakamesalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charcusms View Post
The architect's website lists the number of floors at 80. Was this the old figure back when the height was closer to 1,200 feet?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2012, 4:38 AM
Sam Hill's Avatar
Sam Hill Sam Hill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Denver
Posts: 356
Not only do I love this building, but I don't think it could be better placed in the skyline. Can't wait to watch it go up. Hopefully I'll be living in The City again by then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2012, 6:58 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charcusms View Post
The architect's website lists the number of floors at 80. Was this the old figure back when the height was closer to 1,200 feet?
yea that's it, but I'm wondering why they didn't change it on the website.

I wish there were more of a fight to get this thing back up to 1200', but considering it's SF, we're lucky with 1070
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 11:32 PM
rriojas71 rriojas71 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 119
[/QUOTE]

Interesting observation I came up with as I was looking at this aerial of Fidi and Soma. I was looking at the area where the TBTT will be located and I started noticing the shadows that were being cast by the other tall buildings and a thought immediately popped into my head. It seems to me that the sun's position is about late afternoon based on the direction the shadows are pointing (strectching NE, so the sun must be in the West).

With that being said, I don't understand how the Tower is going to cast shadows on Union Square or Justin Hermann plaza. Even if it does they won't be there for any extended period of time (being as though the sun is constantly moving). I just feel the whole shadow issue is a fairy tale concept the NIMBY's use to stop construction of super talls in SF at any cost.

I know this issue has been pounded into the ground, but just thought I'd point it out. A little food for thought.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2012, 11:42 PM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 239
The direction of the shadows also changes depending on what time of year. But I agree its all bullsh!t. If I could have any wish it would be to repeal that shadow law.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2012, 6:57 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOPA View Post
The direction of the shadows also changes depending on what time of year. But I agree its all bullsh!t. If I could have any wish it would be to repeal that shadow law.
Within the last week, I've read several postings in NYC threads that lamented shadows cast in certain parts of that city. I'm tired of discussing it since everyone has firm opinions, but the shadow law is very good when it comes to Union and Portsmith squares IMO. We would be greatly impovrished if they were deprived of sun on a regular basis. With that having been said, if a skyscraper would only cast a shadow for short periods of time during certain times of the year, I think we need to get on with building it. The shadow law is too strict, but I don't want to see it eliminated either. How about some moderation and compromise? This is something that Sue Hestor and her cronies don't want to do for sure.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 7:02 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
if a skyscraper would only cast a shadow for short periods of time during certain times of the year, I think we need to get on with building it. The shadow law is too strict, but I don't want to see it eliminated either. How about some moderation and compromise? This is something that Sue Hestor and her cronies don't want to do for sure.
I agree with this completely. A shadow law isn't bad per se. But when we stop a project because a tiny bit of shadow will hit a park for a few minutes in the morning on a small number of days per year (assuming the sun is even out first thing in the morning on those days), then we've gone way too far. There need to be better, more rational guidelines set for the threshold at which the shadow ordinance comes into effect.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2012, 11:53 PM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 33,547
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
Photo and information credits: SF Business Times


SFGate

I like this design. There are similar towers, but this seems more elegant. It's also about the same height as 3 WTC minus the spires (1,080 ft) to get a sense of scale.
__________________
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
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2012, 6:07 AM
OneRinconHill OneRinconHill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 90
The thing with the shadows is, that even if it's just in the Winter (which mind you is multiple months), the sun will be low enough on the horizon for the building to create a wide axis of a shadow (it's not just a tiny little shadow, remember it expands as it reaches the ground) that will cover a very large area. That's why the Transamerica Pyramid was designed the way it was, to get around that law.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2012, 6:16 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,468
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRinconHill View Post
The thing with the shadows is, that even if it's just in the Winter (which mind you is multiple months), the sun will be low enough on the horizon for the building to create a wide axis of a shadow (it's not just a tiny little shadow, remember it expands as it reaches the ground) that will cover a very large area. That's why the Transamerica Pyramid was designed the way it was, to get around that law.
The Pyramid was built before that law existed.

Last edited by viewguysf; Aug 18, 2012 at 6:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2012, 8:07 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,103
The top part of this building kind of reminds me of the old top design for One World Trade Center.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2012, 9:34 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
The top part of this building kind of reminds me of the old top design for One World Trade Center.

They look nothing alike, aside from the semi-transparent thing they have going on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2012, 12:44 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Americas y Europa
Posts: 3,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
The top part of this building kind of reminds me of the old top design for One World Trade Center.

Other than the fact that the old design for 1WTC was a horrible monstrosity and this building by pelli is beautiful, sure.
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 3:24 AM.

     

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