HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

    

Oceanwide Center 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
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 2:35 AM
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 wakamesalad View Post
181 Fremont is only zoned for 700', yet will rise 800' + with the spire.
The roof will only reach 700' and the spire brings it past 800'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 5:45 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
El Barto
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: East Coast to Cali
Posts: 3,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by simms3_redux View Post
The roof will only reach 700' and the spire brings it past 800'.
Yea... the diagram makes it look like the top floor is 700' and a crown extends a little further.

Quote:
The height limit is 850' to the roof for the larger tower, but as always there's room for a crown/spire on top of that. The previous design had a roof height of 835' and total height 915' for the taller tower, and 605' to the roof/640' in total for the shorter one (though the site of the shorter tower is apparently only zoned for 550').
Ah okay, so we could still end up with 900+ feet... how can they build higher than the zoning though? Special permission?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 7:28 AM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
181 Fremont is only zoned for 700', yet will rise 800' + with the spire.

This site is zoned for 850', which means it could rise 950'+ total. If it reaches 984' (300 meters), then San Francsico will have two supertalls under construction at the same time.

Transbay Tower is zoned for 1000', yet the roof height at the proposed 1,070' (including crown) is only 912'. Is it perfectly feasible to add more floors, maxing the roof height to the allowed 1,000', giving us a 1,100'+ Transbay Tower? I think (hope) so.
I believe its 10% of roof height. So this tall one at 850 could go another 85' to 935 tops.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 3:04 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
I believe its 10% of roof height. So this tall one at 850 could go another 85' to 935 tops.
181 Fremont is zoned 700', yet is 802' including crown and spire, which is more than 10% of the zoning allowance
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 6:15 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,040
Source: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/new...san-francisco/
Quote:
"The 605-foot residential tower reflects the scale of San Francisco’s existing tall buildings, while the 850-foot hotel, residential and office tower rises above it as a symbol of this new vertical city quarter. The super-sized office floor plates will give tenants a high degree of flexibility, and their open layout is supported by an innovative orthogonal structural system developed for seismic stability. The point where the towers touch the ground is as important as their presence on the skyline. At ground level, the buildings are open, accessible and transparent – their base provides a new ‘urban room’ for the region, and the new pedestrian routes through the site will knit the new scheme with the urban grain of the city.”

Under the Transbay Plan, a rezoning that was put in place to encourage density around the Transbay Terminal, the seven parcels at First and Mission are now zoned for an 850-foot tower and a 605-foot tower. The project will include a large floor plate office tower with frontage on First Street and a world class condominium portion that will be taller than any residential project on the West Coast.
With super-sized office floor plates, the number of office floors could be fewer. The greater the number of floors of the 850 foot tower are to be residential and hotel, the easier 85 floors can be had. Floor-to-floor heights for all floors may also be reduced if structural concrete is used instead of steel framing. Again, we should probably wait until we have more conclusive information regarding the height and number of floors.

If 85 floors are built, this could be the structure with the highest floor count for any building outside of New York and Chicago in the United States.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 6:32 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,176
This is a zoning map I got from Socketsite that shows the Transbay Heights. The 605 foot Foster tower is zoned for 700' (with 535 Mission, 350 Mission, and the Foster proposal, and a shorter Transbay Tower, we are looking at a net loss of about 750 vertical feet from all the shortened towers, very disappointing for the 2nd densest city in the U.S. So much lost potential!)

I'm still excited about the 750' parcel on Howard and 2nd that we haven't heard anything about. Another tower, taller than 181 Fremont, lurks in the shadows.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 6:46 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,040
Isn't that 700' area to the west (left) outside of the 50 First Street project area?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 7:27 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Isn't that 700' area to the west (left) outside of the 50 First Street project area?
Yeah. The site of the smaller tower is the one to the right that's zoned for 550'. I don't know what's going on with the height limit there, unless that map is incomplete or out of date, and the height limit there was also raised. Or maybe they think they can get an exemption from the height limit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
This is a zoning map I got from Socketsite that shows the Transbay Heights. The 605 foot Foster tower is zoned for 700'
No, that 700' site is across the street from where the shorter tower is proposed to go in. Which means we may get another 700+ footer in the future
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 7:58 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,229
You guys really are nerds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 8:22 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,040
That's right, we're nerds. But we're really cool nerds... You're here too.

Anyway, tech12 is right. We could see another tower in the order something like 181 Fremont somewhere in the future along Mission Street. There just hasn't been much talk about it yet. Almost the same goes for that 750' area to the south. We were calling it "TBJP South," or something like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 8:24 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
You guys really are nerds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 8:48 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
That map says "proposed" height limits. That would indicate it is out of date.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 8:55 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,040
Good point. The 550' area within 50 First Street site has since been raised to 605'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 9:07 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,176
The article I referenced says the proposed heights in the graphic were approved. But that was in 2012 and something may have changed. I can't find anything more current.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 10:11 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Good point. The 550' area within 50 First Street site has since been raised to 605'.
550' roof height + 10% crown allowance to conceal rooftop mechanical equipment = 605 feet

In certain cases, an architectural element may be approved above the 10% crown allowance, as occurred with the spire of 181 Fremont.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 10:53 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
181 Fremont is zoned 700', yet is 802' including crown and spire, which is more than 10% of the zoning allowance
181 is 702 to roof, 745 for parapet/screen, and 802 with the tip of the antenna. They were lucky and got to sneak a 50' antenna on top of that, but the rule of thumb of 10% still applies to 50 first, unless they put an antenna on top, but that isn't generally the case with foster. I hope this tower looks more like 2WTC than gherkin. I think the old non-foster renders are actually somewhere in between those two foster examples, I think he will stick close to them but with his own twist. I'd like to know when his renders are planned to be released.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 11:16 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 fimiak View Post
181 is 702 to roof, 745 for parapet/screen, and 802 with the tip of the antenna. They were lucky and got to sneak a 50' antenna on top of that, but the rule of thumb of 10% still applies to 50 first, unless they put an antenna on top, but that isn't generally the case with foster. I hope this tower looks more like 2WTC than gherkin. I think the old non-foster renders are actually somewhere in between those two foster examples, I think he will stick close to them but with his own twist. I'd like to know when his renders are planned to be released.
He is putting what I would basically call a glorified antenna on top of CITC in Philadelphia (a building that I actually like, BTW).

I'm personally very happy that Foster is collaborating on one of these projects. Foster doesn't really design buildings that I picture fitting into SF as well, however, I am very interested to see what he comes up with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 11:37 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,040
Botoxic, if you are correct, then they may be giving the crown height for the shorter Tower Two, and the roof height for Tower One. 60 floors at 550' and 85 floors at 850' might still work, if this is this case. Otherwise, I'm not sure the roof height for Tower One at somewhere less than 850' of crown height makes as much sense, unless the floor counts are wrong. Maybe this is enough speculation at this point. Let's just wait and see. For now I'm anxious to see more renders and info from Foster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 11:50 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
550' roof height + 10% crown allowance to conceal rooftop mechanical equipment = 605 feet
That adds up nicely, but the original design had the roof height at 605', not the total height. The total architectural height including the crown was 640'. So I think it's not crazy to assume that the 605' quoted for the new design is also to roof height, not full height. Or maybe the original design had the wrong idea about the height limit and was too tall?

We'll find out eventually.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2014, 11:51 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 803
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Botoxic, if you are correct, then they may be giving the crown height for the shorter Tower Two, and the roof height for Tower One. 60 floors at 550' and 85 floors at 850' might still work, if this is this case. Otherwise, I'm not sure the roof height for Tower One at somewhere less than 850' of crown height makes as much sense, unless the floor counts are wrong. Maybe this is enough speculation at this point. Let's just wait and see. For now I'm anxious to see more renders and info from Foster.
The floor count from that article is pure bullshit. Hruski pointed it out yesterday. Nobody is building a 10' ceiling height office space in downtown SF, because it becomes 9' with floors and would make for a tiny lobby. Transbay is 61 floors to 900', which is about 14.5'. That is the tall end, but not atypical for class A office space. I would guess this 850' building will have about 60-65 floors as well. The office space will be slightly taller, and the residential shorter, so the 50' extra that transbay tower has will be 50' saved on the residential portion of 50 first(making 50 first 850' and 60-65 floors mixed vs 900' TB with 60 floors for pure office).
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 > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:36 PM.

     

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