daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Skyscrapers

Skyscrapers Discussions of projects under construction between 200-299m/650-999ft tall.
» Proposed Skyscrapers



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 24th, 2014, 12:06 AM   #21
bodegavendetta
everywhere like such as
 
bodegavendetta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,104
Likes (Received): 2651

I like it a lot. It will complement Transbay (er sorry...Salesforce) tower really well.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post
bodegavendetta no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 24th, 2014, 09:21 PM   #22
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

It's a terrific design and a wonderful contrast to all the midcentury boxes that predominate in downtown SF.
__________________
We are floating in space...

ChuckScraperMiami#1, Zaz965 liked this post
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2014, 10:28 PM   #23
ElDudarinodotcom
Registered User
 
ElDudarinodotcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ventura, Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 601
Likes (Received): 122

Here are larger versions of the renderings. You can see much more detail. There are actually indentations in the glass at the corners. It should be a very beautiful building. It would be nice to see some renderings from the other sides which are actually pretty thin.




http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/p...640ff6601cb#/0
Copyright: TMG/Foster + Partners
__________________
ElDudarinodotcom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 24th, 2014, 10:38 PM   #24
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 902
Likes (Received): 477

^haha you beat me by like a minute. I was just about to post those

I still think it might look a little better if it was slimmed down a bit, but now that I can actually see the details I like it a lot more. The smaller renderings mostly conveyed the massive size of the building in relation to 90% of the other towers on SF's skyline, and not so much the great design, which made it look a lot more awkward. I especially like that it doesn't seem like a completely smooth taper, but one that seems to follow the diagonal shapes of the "exoskeleton".

It's too bad the photos they used are old though (from 2007 or 2008). I'd love to see this view with all the new/under construction/planned towers.

Last edited by techniques1200s; July 24th, 2014 at 10:50 PM.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 25th, 2014, 12:11 AM   #25
KillerZavatar
also known as Wally
 
KillerZavatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Düsseldorf
Posts: 11,330
Likes (Received): 8230

transformation of a city that has a pretty similar skyline in old movies as it has in newer ones, i am really excited to see how this skyline changes in the coming years
KillerZavatar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2014, 08:13 PM   #26
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 902
Likes (Received): 477

A couple new renderings:





I like it even more now.
__________________
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2014, 08:38 PM   #27
612bv3
Registered User
 
612bv3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,712
Likes (Received): 101

I'm officially sold! Build it NOW!
__________________
My BART Fantasy Maps: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4.1 | Circle | Other Maps
612bv3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 26th, 2014, 11:39 PM   #28
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10266

It's a pudgy Verre. Build it SF!
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2014, 12:56 AM   #29
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
I still think it might look a little better if it was slimmed down a bit
John King (SF Chronicle architecture critic) agrees:

Quote:
S.F.'s proposed First Street tower needs to go on a diet
John King
Updated 10:35 pm, Friday, July 25, 2014

High-rises too often are designed with little regard for life on the ground, as if skyline flash is all that matters. In the case of San Francisco's newest tower proposal, we have the opposite problem.

The immense tapered shaft would be the city's second tallest, perched on 70-foot-high stilts rising amid an open plaza at street level. But from there up the vision turns into a real estate deal, at a scale more daunting than dynamic.

This doesn't mean the architects and developers should go back to square one. They need instead to bring a fuzzy vision into focus, both in terms of architecture and the appropriate fit for an already dense part of downtown.

The tower in question would be 910 feet high and 80 yards wide, filling the middle of the west side of the block along First Street between Market and Mission streets. The proposed height is 160 feet below the Salesforce Tower coming to First and Mission's southeast corner, but the girth means the two towers would contain the same amount of space, 1.35 million square feet.

. . . the tower would be held in place by cross-braced exterior columns, similar to the 100-story John Hancock Center in Chicago, but silvery rather than dark. The elevator cores would be pulled to the rear of the site, allowing for large, column-free floors and a structure that is 25 percent lighter than the building would be with conventional construction methods.

For the plaza below, the goal is that height and openness would energize the setting and draw people through. Existing alleyways would be linked visually and on foot; the ground-to-ceiling dimensions would be such that afternoon sun could slice into the space from above the historic, four-story warehouse-turned-housing that bumps the property line within the block.

It also helps that the project would retain the atmospheric trio of post-1906 structures at the corner of First and Mission between the two towers. They'd be a humanizing counterpoint to the drama on all sides . . . .

(Another welcome public touch the developers should add is a skyward observation platform and lounge - if not at the summit, then in the middle of one of the towers as they shift from commercial space to housing.)

But Behling (lead Foster partner on the project) also commented discreetly about the ongoing "struggle with massing ... to try and minimize bulk." And that's the catch.

The initial design filed last week with the city Planning Department feels enormous but expedient, an effort to pack in every possible square foot without exceeding zoning limits or casting excessive shadows on existing public parks.

For the first 400 feet the shaft would be nearly as wide as the long sides of the towers at Embarcadero Center. Then it would taper upward so that the crest is 25 percent more narrow than the base, as required by the plan for the neighborhood approved in 2012. But the tapering would only be on the north and south ends of the tower. Along First Street the newcomer would be a sheer glass-and-metal cliff.

Fortunately, there's time to make things better as TMG, Foster and the local firm Heller Manus Architects hash things out with planners . . . .

Keep the height, but whittle the square footage so that the bulk of the tower isn't so, yes, bulky. The main tower in the project will be a presence in the daily lives of thousands of nearby workers and residents. It needs to be uplifting, not overstuffed.

San Francisco is big enough that it can absorb its share of mundane buildings. Here, though, the stakes are too high - even higher than the proposed tower itself.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#photo-6643413
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2014, 01:04 AM   #30
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Originally Posted by KillerZavatar View Post
transformation of a city that has a pretty similar skyline in old movies as it has in newer ones, i am really excited to see how this skyline changes in the coming years
Between 2001 (or so . . . as projects from the late 1990s boom reached completion) and 2012 (or so . . . as the post-Great Recession boom took off), almost nothing was built in San Francisco. But since 2011 or 2012, the city has been transformed. There are at least 13 towers that will be very visible on the skyline but are not seen in the renderings for this building--in spite of the fact that one of them is nearly complete and 6 more are well along in construction.

Anyway, unless the movies you are seeing were filmed in the last year or 2--since which the city has become a forest of cranes--you wouldn't notice what has happened. 50 First street may, in fact, be the last project completed before the boom is over (or Parcel 5 in the Transbay Transit District, another nearby project may be).
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; July 27th, 2014 at 01:11 AM.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:49 PM   #31
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 902
Likes (Received): 477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
Between 2001 (or so . . . as projects from the late 1990s boom reached completion) and 2012 (or so . . . as the post-Great Recession boom took off), almost nothing was built in San Francisco.
This isn't true at all. The highrise boom continued through 2001 onwards, and only slowed down due to the recession. Here's a list of highrises built in SF, from 2000 to 2012, from tallest to shortest:

1. Millennium tower ------------ 645' - 2009
2. One Rincon Hill south tower -- 640' - 2008
3. One Rincon Hill north tower -- 541' - 2012
4. 555 Mission street ----------- 487' - 2008
5. St. Regis tower -------------- 484' - 2005
6. Infinity tower II -------------- 450' - 2009
7. JPMorgan Chase Building ------ 420' - 2002
8. The Paramount --------------- 420' - 2002
9. Infinity tower I --------------- 400' - 2008
10. Four Seasons Hotel ----------- 398' - 2001
11. 101 Second street ----------- 354' - 2000
12. InterContinental hotel -------- 340' - 2008
13. 55 Second Street ------------ 330' - 2002
14. 150 California ---------------- 330' - 2000
15. The Metropolitan I ----------- 266' - 2004
16. Bridgeview ------------------ 26 floors - 2002
17. One Hawthorne street ------ 25 floors - 2010
18. Trinity Place building I ------- 24 floors - 2009
19. US Federal Building ---------- 234' - 2007
20. SoMa Grand ----------------- 233' - 2007
21. The Watermark -------------- 22 floors - 2006
22. The Metropolitan II ---------- 217' - 2004
23. CCSF Chinatown campus --- 216' - 2012
24. BLŪ ------------------------- 209' - 2008
25. Argenta --------------------- 20 floors - 2008
26. P.U.C. Headquarters ------ 181' - 2012
27. The Brannan tower I --------- 18 floors - 2001
28. The Brannan tower II -------- 18 floors - 2001
29. The Brannan tower III ------- 18 floors - 2002
30. Courtyard San Francisco ----- 18 floors - 2001
31. Avalon Mission Bay I --------- 17 floors - 2003
32. Avalon Mission Bay II -------- 17 floors - 2006
33. Avalon Mission Bay III ------- 17 floors - 2009
34. Arterra --------------------- 16 floors - 2008
35. Madrone tower I ---------- 16 floors - 2012
36. Madrone tower II --------- 16 floors - 2012
37. Beacon west ---------------- 16 floors - 2003
38. Beacon east ---------------- 16 floors - 2003
39. Hearst Tower --------------- 155' - 2005
40. 199 New Montgomery street - 150' - 2004
41. International Hotel ----------- 15 floors - 2005
42. Gap Building ----------------- 15 floors - 2001
43. 125 Mason Street ------------ 14 floors - 2008
44. Foundry Square I ------------ 145' - 2007
45. Foundry Square II ------------ 145' - 2003
46. Foundry Square IV ----------- 145' - 2003
47. M.H. de Young Museum ------- 144' - 2005
48. Symphony tower ------------- 130' - 2007
49. The Heritage on Fillmore ------ 13 floors - 2007
50. 10th & Mission Family Housing - 12 floors - 2009
51. 301 Mission street ------------ 12 floors - 2008
52. Moscone Center expansion ---- 115' - 2003
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2014, 10:01 PM   #32
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
This isn't true at all. The highrise boom continued through 2001 onwards, and only slowed down due to the recession. Here's a list of highrises built in SF, from 2000 to 2012, from tallest to shortest
While most of those buildings are not high rises and make no impression on the skyline, you still are right. The period during which little or nothing was built did not begin in 2001 but in 2008 (I am talking about construction starts, not completions so the Millenium Tower, for example, was started well before 2009)--when the recession hit and the foundation being dug for 535 Mission was filled in. The building hiatus was about 4 years . . . it just seemed like 13. One Rincon Hill's North Tower was about the first of the new wave of buildings and it is typical, having been planned to follow on construction of the South Tower immediately in 2008 but, in fact, being delayed until 2012.

But that aside, I will reiterate my point: There has been a period as KillerZavatar observed during which San Francisco suspended major building (it was just shorter than I remembered as I conflated 2 booms into one--the dot-com of the late 90s and the 2003 - 2007 period after recovery from the dot-com crash).

The 3 or 4 year building suspension, however, is a good thing rather than a bad one because of San Francisco's Proposition M annual office construction cap. NOT building for those years has allowed the city to accumulate the banked square footage of permissible office construction that is allowing today's new boom.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; July 27th, 2014 at 10:17 PM.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 27th, 2014, 10:29 PM   #33
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53449

Anyone complaining of excess width here should remember Foster Partners' The Bow tower in Calgary:




These guys don't mind if their towers are:

desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2014, 07:50 AM   #34
Manitopiaaa
Illuminati Leader
 
Manitopiaaa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Alexandria, Nova, The Crown Commonwealth of Virginia (see sig)
Posts: 4,424
Likes (Received): 10266

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
This isn't true at all. The highrise boom continued through 2001 onwards, and only slowed down due to the recession. Here's a list of highrises built in SF, from 2000 to 2012, from tallest to shortest:
100m or 300' to be considered a highrise in SSC. A 115' tower has no impact on a skyline even in small cities, much less places like San Francisco.

So if we go by 300'+, we get these 14:
1. Millennium tower ------------ 645' - 2009
2. One Rincon Hill south tower -- 640' - 2008
3. One Rincon Hill north tower -- 541' - 2012
4. 555 Mission street ----------- 487' - 2008

5. St. Regis tower -------------- 484' - 2005
6. Infinity tower II -------------- 450' - 2009

7. JPMorgan Chase Building ------ 420' - 2002
8. The Paramount --------------- 420' - 2002
9. Infinity tower I --------------- 400' - 2008

10. Four Seasons Hotel ----------- 398' - 2001
11. 101 Second street ----------- 354' - 2000
12. InterContinental hotel -------- 340' - 2008

13. 55 Second Street ------------ 330' - 2002
14. 150 California ---------------- 330' - 2000

Bolded are from 2008-2014. So it looks like a boom now and a smaller boom in the 300-400' range in the early 2000s. And then little from 2003-2008 (except for 1 building)
__________________


Atlanta (6,451,262) - Boston (8,176,376) - Chicago (9,882,634) - Cleveland (3,483,311) - Dallas (7,673,305) - Denver (3,470,235) - Detroit (5,318,653) - Houston (6,972,374)
Los Angeles (18,688,022) - Miami (6,723,472) - Minneapolis (3,894,820) - New York (23,689,255) - Orlando (3,202,927) - Philadelphia (7,179,357) - Phoenix (4,661,537)
Portland (3,160,488) - San Diego (3,317,749) - San Francisco (8,751,807) - Seattle (4,684,516) - Tampa (3,032,171) - Washington (9,665,892)

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Manitopiaaa no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 28th, 2014, 03:09 PM   #35
iamtheSTIG
Registered User
 
iamtheSTIG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham - The city of Robin Hood
Posts: 4,228
Likes (Received): 4478

San Francisco is starting to get that Sci Fi city look to it with those skyline shots/renders!

This design is absolutely fantastic! One of a very few 'fat' buildings that actually really enhances the design and vise versa!
__________________
Aspiring property developer with major ambitions

Check out my Instagram

Nottingham Interactive Development Map
iamtheSTIG no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2014, 08:23 AM   #36
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

It would be nice, though, if the "other" building that's part of the project, the 600 footer, were as original as the taller one. Nobody really talks about that one and even the renderings of it are kind og vague and generic as though it were still quite tentative.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2014, 09:16 AM   #37
Meerkoet
Registered User
 
Meerkoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 13
Likes (Received): 4

Very nice design. It will redefine the skyline of SF completely.
Meerkoet no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2014, 10:54 PM   #38
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 902
Likes (Received): 477

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa View Post
100m or 300' to be considered a highrise in SSC. A 115' tower has no impact on a skyline even in small cities, much less places like San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
While most of those buildings are not high rises
This is a bit off topic, and I'm a little late replying, but...

They are certainly all high rises, by more than one definition (including on SSP and Emporis, which are my main sources for high rise data)...just not SSC's definition. Things are relative, and there is no single correct definition of what constitutes a high rise. Personally I would call anything over 300' a skyscraper, and SSC's cut-off of 300'+ for "high rise" and 650'+ for "skyscraper" seems way too exaggerated to me, and is obviously more geared towards cities that are filled with supertalls...if you follow the SSC definition, the only US cities with more than a handful of skyscrapers would be NYC and Chicago, which doesn't sound right at all. Hell, there are official definitions of "high rise" in use in America that are as low as 23+ meters, and as low as 15+ meters in parts of India. I think in a North American context at least, 115'/35m+ is certainly an OK cut off for "high rise" (though for simplicity's sake, i'd just make it 10+ stories/100'+)

Read this and then tell me that a 115' building can never be considered a "high rise":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_block#Definition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
-Emporis Standards defines a high-rise as "A multi-story structure between 35–100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12–39 floors."[4]
-According to the building code of Hyderabad, India, a high-rise building is one with four floors or more, or one 15 meters or more in height.[5]
-The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines a high-rise as "a building having many storeys".
-The International Conference on Fire Safety in High-Rise Buildings defined a high-rise as "any structure where the height can have a serious impact on evacuation"[citation needed]
-In the U.S., the National Fire Protection Association defines a high-rise as being higher than 75 feet (23 meters), or about 7 stories.[6]
-Most building engineers, inspectors, architects and similar professions define a high-rise as a building that is at least 75 feet (23 m) tall
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2015, 03:00 AM   #39
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Slender Project Could Block Penultimate Tower’s Views
April 10, 2015
82-84 First Street Site

When the Stanford Hotels Group paid over $2,000 per square foot for the two little buildings at 82-84 First and 510 Mission, building’s which sit on a slender T-shaped site across from the future Salesforce Tower, speculation ran rampant as to the group’s intent.

(The modest) T-shaped site sits in the middle of the Transbay District’s penultimate development site: 50 First Street upon which the 910-foot tower designed by Foster + Partners is slated to rise along with a 600-foot tower designed by Heller Manus fronting Mission.



The leading theory at the time of Stanford Hotels purchase was that the group was positioning for a payday from (the) developer of 50 First Street, gambling (they) would feel compelled to pay an even higher premium for the site in order to protect their project.

But (the old owner sold to) Beijing-based Oceanwide Holdings.

And now as we’ve roughly rendered below, Stanford Hotels has submitted plans for a slender 24-story building, with 42 condos over 365 square feet of retail space, to rise upon their site.



The proposed development would wrap around the historic building on the northwest corner of First and Mission and block the views and vistas of the first 255 feet of the two 50 First Street towers.

(Either) the Stanford Hotels’ proposal is simply an upping of the ante and intended to force Oceanwide’s hand (or) the northwest corner of First and Mission could sprout a jumble of three towers rather than two.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...comment-217706
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 11th, 2015, 03:22 AM   #40
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Eh, welcome to a big dense city with lots of buildings, this happens every day in NYC for example.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
50 first street, oceanwide center, san francisco, soma, transbay

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu