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 > Supertalls

Supertalls Discussions of projects under construction between 300-599m/1,000-1,999ft tall.
» Proposed Supertalls



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 November 30th, 2016, 12:02 PM   #2381
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Quote:
Originally Posted by kony View Post
^thanx,

i was not aware of the existence of OCEANWIDE Project. Now i know !!

Great project, SF is really going through a deep revitalization of its skyline : a long overdue, especially if you consider the huuuuge boom in highrises in GULF and CHINESE Cities those past 15 years !!!

What's next in the US : SEATTLE, HOUSTON , DALLAS ? ATL ?
Why overdue? SF already had a sufficient amount of highrises compared with it's population. Not that i'm complaining about this new boom.
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 30th, 2016, 03:16 PM   #2382
kony
Registered User
 
kony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hong-Kong / Paris
Posts: 5,370
Likes (Received): 1241

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim1807 View Post
Why overdue? SF already had a sufficient amount of highrises compared with it's population. Not that i'm complaining about this new boom.
it's not that much about the "amount" of highrises...it's more about the idea of having a skyline of the years 2000-2020 rather than having a skyline which looks like it didn't move since the 80's or 90's

so SF needed to make that statement that it was changing its much visible ''facade'' to make it look "younger".


Probably that a few new towers were built in SF in the past 15 years...but they were not enough to make that statement obvious...or maybe they were hidden, or not that ambitious.
kony no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 07:29 PM   #2383
The-E-Vid
Politically Incorrect
 
The-E-Vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 789

All the 'classic SF' wich is located on the west part of the city and 'NOMA' (if that term exists) will remain as it is for a while, most towers and other developments are taking place in SOMA and eastern side of the city..wich is good. That zone indeed was overdue and held so much potential for the housing needs of the city . The majority, if not all of the industrial zone and the old ports down 3rd st will be transformed as the City's economy is going in another direction in the near future and there's no much use for them. On the down side, many low income people live in that part of the city and most of these develpments are not precisely being made for them.
__________________

kony, bodegavendetta, Zaz965 liked this post

Last edited by The-E-Vid; November 30th, 2016 at 11:28 PM.
The-E-Vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 07:49 PM   #2384
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 487

Quote:
Originally Posted by kony View Post

Probably that a few new towers were built in SF in the past 15 years...but they were not enough to make that statement obvious...or maybe they were hidden, or not that ambitious.
There's actually been dozens of highrise buildings built in SF over the past 15 years. None exceeded 650' though, and the vast majority were under 450' tall, so many of them don't stand out at all, and none stand out as much salesforce (or 181 Fremont) of course.
__________________

kony liked this post
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2016, 09:10 PM   #2385
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,817
Likes (Received): 31846


the daily continuum by patrick boury, on Flickr


miraloma skyline panorama by patrick boury, on Flickr
__________________
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2016, 05:49 AM   #2386
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 535


by Alphawanderlust, on Flickr


Sunrise from Russian Hill
by Louis Raphael, on Flickr
__________________

The-E-Vid, cnbnca, Zaz965, gaab1972 liked this post
jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2016, 07:29 AM   #2387
Oasis-Bangkok
From Zero to Hero !!
 
Oasis-Bangkok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15,735
Likes (Received): 50851

Windows are going up on #salesforcetower #sanfrancisco by Steve Fadden, on Flickr
__________________
Oasis-Bangkok no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2016, 11:17 AM   #2388
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,668
Likes (Received): 13268


‏@JamesTheWineGuy
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2016, 02:24 PM   #2389
kony
Registered User
 
kony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hong-Kong / Paris
Posts: 5,370
Likes (Received): 1241

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-E-Vid View Post
On the down side, many low income people live in that part of the city and most of these develpments are not precisely being made for them.
same old gentryfication which happens anywhere.

on the downside it moves low income population away from their historic settlements

on the positive side, it helps requalifying abandonned neighborhood and make them more attractive
kony no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2016, 05:39 PM   #2390
The-E-Vid
Politically Incorrect
 
The-E-Vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 789

I think San Francisco still has enough room for everybody. I'm totally down for development of the guettoes and improvements in infraestructure and quality of life overall. Gentrification is just as normal as migration is but the city should put aside some of the income from the developmnets made for affluent customers and companies and use it to provide for relocations and developments for this people who are kicked out.

That happens in my perfect world..yeah right..
The-E-Vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2016, 08:02 PM   #2391
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is not allowed in SF to build tall buildings (500 ft or higher) on the west side and south side of the city as well as right next to the water. Am I wrong on that?
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2016, 10:59 PM   #2392
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 487

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is not allowed in SF to build tall buildings (500 ft or higher) on the west side and south side of the city as well as right next to the water. Am I wrong on that?
The entire city has varying height limits depending on where you are. Only some parts of downtown are zoned for towers of 500' or more. Much of the city outside of the core has a height limit of only 40 feet. Plenty of other areas are capped at 85 feet, or 120' or whatever. So no, under current zoning, 500' towers cannot be built on the west side or south side of the city, or directly along the waterfront anywhere.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2016, 11:22 AM   #2393
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
The entire city has varying height limits depending on where you are. Only some parts of downtown are zoned for towers of 500' or more. Much of the city outside of the core has a height limit of only 40 feet. Plenty of other areas are capped at 85 feet, or 120' or whatever. So no, under current zoning, 500' towers cannot be built on the west side or south side of the city, or directly along the waterfront anywhere.
Thanks for the info. I just wish there were more areas of the city that high rise buildings are allowed. I guess it is cause of the hills and this being earthquake country that they don't want high rise buildings all over the city.
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2016, 12:03 PM   #2394
erbse
LIBERTINED
 
erbse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: McLenBurg
Posts: 43,340
Likes (Received): 58077

Amazing stuff!

So, it sadly won't get an observation deck (for now).. Are there any other public amenities? A skybar or something? I mean, it'd really be a waste not to use the views up there at this perfect location. Maybe for security reasons they wouldn't do it, dunno.
__________________
GET FREE!
D W F


🔥 Tradition doesn't mean to look after the ash, but to keep the flame alive! 🔥
erbse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2016, 07:22 PM   #2395
BLACK DAHLIA
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: BALBOA ISLAND/PASADENA
Posts: 566

Quote:
Originally Posted by erbse View Post
Amazing stuff!

So, it sadly won't get an observation deck (for now).. Are there any other public amenities? A skybar or something? I mean, it'd really be a waste not to use the views up there at this perfect location. Maybe for security reasons they wouldn't do it, dunno.
Fully agree!..However,you can always go to the amazing (Herzog&De Meuron)De Young museum and enjoy incredible views from the Hamon Observation Tower.One of the greatest experience you can get in beautiful SF!
BLACK DAHLIA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2016, 08:15 PM   #2396
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3593

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim1807 View Post
Why overdue? SF already had a sufficient amount of highrises compared with it's population. Not that i'm complaining about this new boom.
If the building stock was "sufficient," SF wouldn't be experiencing an unprecedented housing affordability crisis. Truth is, the city needs to build much more than it is currently -- not to compete with top tier skylines, but to fill the immense demand for housing and office space that city politics have effectively made impossible to satisfy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
Thanks for the info. I just wish there were more areas of the city that high rise buildings are allowed. I guess it is cause of the hills and this being earthquake country that they don't want high rise buildings all over the city.
Geography and geology certainly plays some part of it. Earthquakes make the cost of constructing and reinforcing buildings above a certain threshold (right around 1000-1100 ft. if the Salesforce Tower and Wilshire Grand are any indication) cost-prohibitive. And then there's the issue of building on landfill and highly liquefiable soil (which affects Mission Bay, SoMa, the Marina and many other neighborhoods) also jacking up the cost and degree of difficulty.

But the largest factors are the draconian review process and intransigent homeowners who fight development tooth and nail. I don't want to derail this thread too much, but as this is the most popular SF thread and I'm sure plenty of users will be curious about what's driving/hindering development in the city, I figure it's worth posting a couple things about it.

First, I encourage everyone interested in the subject to read CityLab's fantastic article from last year: "How San Francisco's Progressive Politics Led To Its Housing Affordability Crisis" about the cultural roots of the problem. It's a cautionary tale about good intentions in the short term having lasting corrosive effects in the long term:

Quote:
...But progressive San Francisco had a fatal, Shakespearean flaw that would prove to be its undoing: It decided early on to be against new buildings. It decided that new development, with the exception of publicly subsidized affordable housing, was not welcome.

At the outset, let’s say the late 1960s, this stance seemed logical, even urgent. The previous era of city building had brought terrible projects of urban destruction: bulldozing black neighborhoods, ramming freeways through cities, building foreboding public housing towers. Across the country the movement to roll back modernist urban planning took on a preservationist bent: Since the bad guys were trying to destroy the city, the good guys needed to defend it from change.

But somewhere between 1970 and 2000, the context changed. It was, in fact, one of the most profound cultural and demographic shifts in American history: after years of suburban migration, people started moving to cities again.

...

Instead of forming a pro-growth coalition with business and labor, most of the San Francisco Left made an enduring alliance with home-owning NIMBYs. It became one of the peculiar features of San Francisco that exclusionary housing politics got labeled “progressive.” (Organized labor remained a major political force throughout this time period, and has allied with both pro-growth and anti-growth forces, depending on the issue.) Over the years, these anti-development sentiments were translated into restrictive zoning, the most cumbersome planning and building approval process in the country, and all kinds of laws and rules that make it uniquely difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to add housing in San Francisco.
SPUR has laid out a five-point plan to address affordability, and there are strong ideas in there like protecting the existing rent controlled stock and investing in publicly-subsidized housing, but it all hinges on:

Quote:
4. ADD SUPPLY AT ALL LEVELS

Our best guess is that if we added 5,000 units a year for a sustained period of time, prices would stabilize. While San Francisco has produced just 1,500 units a year over the past two decades, Seattle has averaged 3,000, adding the units in a way that has improved the vitality of its downtown and kept prices from rising as drastically. The lesson is clear: Making it easier to add housing supply keeps rents lower than making it hard to add supply does.

...

We can achieve more supply and more affordability through two types of reforms. First, we need to create more “zoned capacity” in the city — that is, more areas where city law allows housing to be added. The city usually does this by conducting neighborhood planning processes, in order to be precise about where to allow development and where not to. In fact, San Francisco has a great model for how to do the kind of planning that is community-driven and strengthens neighborhoods. (The Market and Octavia Plan, of which 38 Dolores (shown below) is a part of, and the Rincon Hill Plan are two good examples.) We just need to do more of it.

Second, we need to make it easier to actually build buildings that conform to the zoning rules we’ve decided on. In many American cities, permits are issued by city staffers, who merely check to make sure that a building conforms to the community’s zoning rules. But in San Francisco, even after we’ve done the work together of figuring out our zoning rules, buildings that fit them are routinely rejected, shrunk or delayed by years of process. We need to make our own plans count, by making it much, much easier to get permission to build according to zoning.
This is all to say -- in the context of a skyscraper forum celebrating a city's new tallest -- that San Francisco's current "boom" is actually artificially small, and pales in comparison to what it would be experiencing if the politics and policies of the city came into line with the vast demand. If zoning laws and the review process were unencumbered in the ways described above, I have no doubt that the rubber band (being tugged by decades of building well below what the market required) would snap back and we'd see a historic rush of construction and a sea of highrises, skyscrapers and supertalls in the city.
__________________

cnbnca, erbse liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2016, 01:44 AM   #2397
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
If the building stock was "sufficient," SF wouldn't be experiencing an unprecedented housing affordability crisis. Truth is, the city needs to build much more than it is currently -- not to compete with top tier skylines, but to fill the immense demand for housing and office space that city politics have effectively made impossible to satisfy.



Geography and geology certainly plays some part of it. Earthquakes make the cost of constructing and reinforcing buildings above a certain threshold (right around 1000-1100 ft. if the Salesforce Tower and Wilshire Grand are any indication) cost-prohibitive. And then there's the issue of building on landfill and highly liquefiable soil (which affects Mission Bay, SoMa, the Marina and many other neighborhoods) also jacking up the cost and degree of difficulty.



But the largest factors are the draconian review process and intransigent homeowners who fight development tooth and nail. I don't want to derail this thread too much, but as this is the most popular SF thread and I'm sure plenty of users will be curious about what's driving/hindering development in the city, I figure it's worth posting a couple things about it.

First, I encourage everyone interested in the subject to read CityLab's fantastic article from last year: "How San Francisco's Progressive Politics Led To Its Housing Affordability Crisis" about the cultural roots of the problem. It's a cautionary tale about good intentions in the short term having lasting corrosive effects in the long term:



SPUR has laid out a five-point plan to address affordability, and there are strong ideas in there like protecting the existing rent controlled stock and investing in publicly-subsidized housing, but it all hinges on:



This is all to say -- in the context of a skyscraper forum celebrating a city's new tallest -- that San Francisco's current "boom" is actually artificially small, and pales in comparison to what it would be experiencing if the politics and policies of the city came into line with the vast demand. If zoning laws and the review process were unencumbered in the ways described above, I have no doubt that the rubber band (being tugged by decades of building well below what the market required) would snap back and we'd see a historic rush of construction and a sea of highrises, skyscrapers and supertalls in the city.
Maybe I'm wrong and naive, but SF seems like there is very little land left to build a lot of housing or they just have to build taller buildings throughout the city in the future for anything. A lot of major cities in the world are just overpriced with demand way outweighing supply.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2016, 03:41 AM   #2398
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,817
Likes (Received): 31846


Untitled by Julius Ahn, on Flickr
__________________
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2016, 07:06 PM   #2399
Gudavalli
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 18,207
Likes (Received): 5125

1st Dec by me

SF Downtown1 by Gudavalli A, on Flickr

SF Downtown2 by Gudavalli A, on Flickr

SF Downtown3 by Gudavalli A, on Flickr

SF Downtown4 by Gudavalli A, on Flickr
__________________
Gudavalli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2016, 09:46 PM   #2400
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,668
Likes (Received): 13268

Salesforce by Jef Poskanzer, en Flickr

sunset 02dec2016 1/6 by Jef Poskanzer, en Flickr
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
salesforce tower, salesforce.com, san francisco, supertall, transbay, transbay tower

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 09:30 PM.


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