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

[mt_climber13]

Only 1.35 million sq. ft.. wtf.. Bank of America (555 Cal) is still going to be the biggest building in San Francisco (1.5 million sq. ft.) even though it's only 779 ft. tall and built almost 50 years ago!

[boyinthecity]

yes, but the bank of america spurred a great number of changes.
one being (yet, much later) Proposition M.
gosh, i hope sue hester is no longer involved with this stuff...

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Only 1.35 million sq. ft.. wtf.. Bank of America (555 Cal) is still going to be the biggest building in San Francisco (1.5 million sq. ft.) even though it's only 779 ft. tall and built almost 50 years ago!

lol, what? There's always something to complain about, right?

555 California is a giant rectangular building, so it's not surprising it's still the largest in SF despite not being the tallest...seeing as none of the new tallest towers in SF are as fat and boxy as it is.

But 1.35 million square feet is also a big building--almost as big as 555 CA. Not to mention that there's a total of 12+ million square feet of office space currently under construction (3 million), approved (5.1 million) and proposed (4 million) in SF, so it's not like the city is running short on office space. And it's not like any of this is new info, if you've been paying attention at all. What's the big deal?


...next you'll be complaining that the windows on 50 First aren't quite window-y enough. It's not like there aren't legitimate things to whine about instead, like NIMBYs or naked crazy dudes on the bus or something.

[simms3_redux]

I don't think Wakamesalad was complaining. I think he's just amazed that even after Salesforce Tower (1,070 ft) and 50 First (915 ft) that 555 Cal (779 ft) will still be the largest.

As you say, though, it's all about floorplates and 555 Cal is a monster of a building.

SF FiDi's sheer square footage/density is achieved with those vintage 60s/70s/80s boxes with big floorplates. Drab architecture, but incredible employment density provided that these newer towers will only be able to match through the efficiency of their space (which allows more employees psf).

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by tech12

lol, what? There's always something to complain about, right?

555 California is a giant rectangular building, so it's not surprising it's still the largest in SF despite not being the tallest...seeing as none of the new tallest towers in SF are as fat and boxy as it is.

But 1.35 million square feet is also a big building--almost as big as 555 CA. Not to mention that there's a total of 12+ million square feet of office space currently under construction (3 million), approved (5.1 million) and proposed (4 million) in SF, so it's not like the city is running short on office space. And it's not like any of this is new info, if you've been paying attention at all. What's the big deal?


...next you'll be complaining that the windows on 50 First aren't quite window-y enough. It's not like there aren't legitimate things to whine about instead, like NIMBYs or naked crazy dudes on the bus or something.

Wow, calm down Cletus!

[fflint]

If Salesforce built office space all the way to the top of the crown instead of merely leaving it as decorative space, it would likely have the same square footage as Triple Nickle.

[mthd]

the comparison of 50 first to 555 cal is irrelevant for a lot of reasons, but the biggest is that 555 cal uses almost an entire block, whereas 50 first has a small, irregularly shaped site that's barely a quarter the size!

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Wow, calm down Cletus!

Says the guy who made a post in size 500 bolded font about how the salesforce tower was "dead", and is now upset that a giant building isn't quite giant enough.



It's all good, Jim-Bob.

[fimiak]

Prop M is a pain and will never allow SF to become what it should be. As a side note, if SF wanted to build a building as large as One WTC, it would take 4 1/3 years of Prop M accumulation.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Prop M is a pain and will never allow SF to become what it should be. As a side note, if SF wanted to build a building as large as One WTC, it would take 4 1/3 years of Prop M accumulation.

surprisingly, prop M has rarely been a limitation to office construction in the city. with average absorption of about 800ksf/year, the effect of a 950kfs/year cap is more to blunt the swings in the market than to actually decrease total office space constructed. other than the original beauty contests in the 80s, i'm not aware of any projects that didn't get constructed because of the prop M limit.

todco recently did a good analysis of this issue which was presented in their counter-proposal to the city's central SOMA plan.

that said, at the very least it should be adjusted to capture office space converted to other uses, e.g. 100 van ness.

[biggerhigherfaster]

Originally Posted by mthd

surprisingly, prop M has rarely been a limitation to office construction in the city. with average absorption of about 800ksf/year, the effect of a 950kfs/year cap is more to blunt the swings in the market than to actually decrease total office space constructed. other than the original beauty contests in the 80s, i'm not aware of any projects that didn't get constructed because of the prop M limit.

todco recently did a good analysis of this issue which was presented in their counter-proposal to the city's central SOMA plan.

that said, at the very least it should be adjusted to capture office space converted to other uses, e.g. 100 van ness.

It's possible that some proposals didn't even get proposed because of the prop M limit (i.e., developers saw the prop M limit and decided not to pursue/propose projects). In any event, prop M is silly and was motivated more by anti-development sentiment, not so much by moderating swings in the market. It raises the cost of commercial properties and hurts economy and jobs in SF

[Onn]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Prop M is a pain and will never allow SF to become what it should be. As a side note, if SF wanted to build a building as large as One WTC, it would take 4 1/3 years of Prop M accumulation.

As long as major developments are somewhat staggered Prop M. shouldn't be that big of an issue, even through the law is likely out of date. I would expect some more major projects in the city in the future, Cisco is on a tear. Even Los Angeles is going to quickly fall behind with this kind of growth. And there isn't really a comparison anywhere else in the Western US (outside of Seattle.)

[fimiak]

Exactly..every developer knows a prop M battle is coming up so they look at other cities. Its all about the missed opportunities. If the city is able to regain office space rights from buildings that converted to residential then that will be the most likely path for 2015/16.

[chris08876]

They should repeal prop M.

[JR Ewing]

Gorgeous!

SF is America's second city and deserves a landmark like this!

[spyguy]

[tech12]

^Nice!!

Where'd you get the new renderings from?

[1977]

Wow, such a great tower. Thanks for the renderings.

[Zapatan]

Hell yea! I hope this starts soon

[mdsayh1]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, just wondering when we could see this begin construction? This may sound strange but I think this building will alter the SF skyline more than any other building since 1 Rincon Hill. The mass from one side is just larger than anything we have seen in a while and while Salesforce will be taller this will be extremely impactful.