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 May 10th, 2015, 03:36 AM   #41
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 915
Likes (Received): 504

new renderings:








I can't wait for this one to go up...I hope nothing gets in the way of it happening.
__________________
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 10th, 2015, 05:33 AM   #42
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,730
Likes (Received): 23112

stellar.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2015, 07:33 AM   #43
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

Wow!

When is this supposed to start anyway?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 16th, 2015, 06:06 PM   #44
Prince Valium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Zürich
Posts: 179
Likes (Received): 31

wonderful!
Prince Valium no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 18th, 2015, 01:51 PM   #45
ZZ-II
I love Skyscrapers
 
ZZ-II's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria
Posts: 33,531
Likes (Received): 6561

Cool, another tower taller than the transamerica pyramid
ZZ-II no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2015, 07:47 AM   #46
Hudson11
Stuck on the Cross Bronx
 
Hudson11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 9,730
Likes (Received): 23112

now "Oceanwide Center" http://www.mka.com/projects/featured/oceanwide-center



Hudson11 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2015, 08:14 AM   #47
Melonus
Registered User
 
Melonus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 75
Likes (Received): 289

Beautiful
Melonus no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2015, 05:19 PM   #48
Sharonda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 4

What's the point?

No I don't see the merit in this one (or three as I should say). Perhaps it's just a mild OCD but the correlation between the towers' heights just isn't strong enough to get me excited-I just don't get the need for the third tower
Sharonda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2015, 11:46 PM   #49
ElDudarinodotcom
Registered User
 
ElDudarinodotcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ventura, Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 601
Likes (Received): 122

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharonda View Post
No I don't see the merit in this one (or three as I should say). Perhaps it's just a mild OCD but the correlation between the towers' heights just isn't strong enough to get me excited-I just don't get the need for the third tower
There are only two towers proposed for this project. The original proposal included a smaller third tower at the corner of mission and 1st, but that has long since been remove from the proposal.

I love this proposal as is. I'm not really sure what the shorter 605 ft tower looks like, or whether we have even seen the final design, but who cares? The taller tower is incredible and will fit nicely into the skyline.
ElDudarinodotcom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 11th, 2015, 11:58 PM   #50
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,350
Likes (Received): 3597

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharonda View Post
No I don't see the merit in this one (or three as I should say). Perhaps it's just a mild OCD but the correlation between the towers' heights just isn't strong enough to get me excited-I just don't get the need for the third tower
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then you're looking at the wrong images -- this skyline images is not for a master plan from one project. Those are three separate developments: (from left to right) 181 Fremont, Salesforce/Transbay Tower and 50 First St./Oceanwide Center.



They're all being built by different developers and designed by different architects. They're only related insofar as they're all being built in the up-zoned Transbay neighborhood.
__________________
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 27th, 2015, 04:12 PM   #51
Prince Valium
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Zürich
Posts: 179
Likes (Received): 31

Gorgeous! SF Skyline is so sexy! definitely my 3rd favourite City in the USA..
__________________

prageethSL, cnd liked this post
Prince Valium no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old October 5th, 2015, 03:19 AM   #52
towerpower123
Let's Revive our Cities
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howell/Newark, NJ
Posts: 2,254
Likes (Received): 4190

Any news on this giant?
__________________
If I don't say otherwise, all of my images are on my blog,
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot.com/?view=sidebar

186 Newark, NJ Development projects MAPPED
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1874870
http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot....l?view=sidebar

See my DeviantArt account at http://towerpower123.deviantart.com/

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
towerpower123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2015, 07:35 AM   #53
prageethSL
Registered User
 
prageethSL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tomorrowland
Posts: 1,256
Likes (Received): 3045

Preparation work has been commenced.



david_h @ SSP
__________________
We are all drops of awareness, in an ocean of consciousness.

Munwon, iamtheSTIG liked this post
prageethSL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2015, 08:37 AM   #54
Munwon
Registered User
 
Munwon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Busan
Posts: 3,498
Likes (Received): 3255

This is a great tower!
Munwon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2016, 10:12 AM   #55
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,690
Likes (Received): 10283

- dmca
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2016, 05:17 AM   #56
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,056
Likes (Received): 1865

Shame about the height cut but it's still tall and looks amazing!
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2016, 05:57 AM   #57
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 915
Likes (Received): 504

The tower's website has the height at 905', not 850' (or the previous 910').

Also, the shorter tower is 625' not 605' as stated in the thread title (previously it was 636').

edit: also, it has the floor count at 61, not 59.

http://www.mka.com/projects/featured/oceanwide-center

I wouldn't be surprised if the business times reporter got total structural height confused with roof height (SF planning documents and such tend to only list roof height for buildings)...it wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't be surprising if the tower actually has been downsized though.
__________________

desertpunk, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by techniques1200s; January 24th, 2016 at 06:04 AM.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2016, 06:50 AM   #58
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,643
Likes (Received): 53485

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
The tower's website has the height at 905', not 850' (or the previous 910').

Also, the shorter tower is 625' not 605' as stated in the thread title (previously it was 636').

edit: also, it has the floor count at 61, not 59.

http://www.mka.com/projects/featured/oceanwide-center

I wouldn't be surprised if the business times reporter got total structural height confused with roof height (SF planning documents and such tend to only list roof height for buildings)...it wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't be surprising if the tower actually has been downsized though.
My head is spinning now!
__________________
We are floating in space...

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2016, 08:02 AM   #59
dendenden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 148
Likes (Received): 204

San Francisco is going to look so futuristic!
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
dendenden no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 25th, 2016, 08:00 AM   #60
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,690
Likes (Received): 10283

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
The tower's website has the height at 905', not 850' (or the previous 910').

Also, the shorter tower is 625' not 605' as stated in the thread title (previously it was 636').

edit: also, it has the floor count at 61, not 59.

http://www.mka.com/projects/featured/oceanwide-center

I wouldn't be surprised if the business times reporter got total structural height confused with roof height (SF planning documents and such tend to only list roof height for buildings)...it wouldn't be the first time. It wouldn't be surprising if the tower actually has been downsized though.
I hate these pissing contests about height but project web sites often are not updated for YEARS. It also strikes me as unlikely that the Business Times reporter on the development beat--these things are his JOB--would get more confused than posters here or that he would fail to confirm such facts with the architect he is interviewing. Also note that at 910 ft, the building would be the city's second tallest, not third as it will be a 850 ft. And the BizTimes article makes enough of an issue of that that it is nearly impossible to believe they had the facts wrong and the architect failed to correct them.

But everyone can believe what they want to believe. As far as I'm concerned, the official height of the building (taller tower) is 850 ft and that will change only when there is clarification from an official source that is current.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; January 25th, 2016 at 08:10 AM.
Cal_Escapee 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 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium