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 December 4th, 2016, 09:29 PM   #2401
C4creeper
The architect of my world
 
C4creeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Paris
Posts: 101
Likes (Received): 63

What's the expected completion date of this tower?
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
C4creeper no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 5th, 2016, 01:08 PM   #2402
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,667
Likes (Received): 13256

San Francisco by dzanusz21, en Flickr

Twilight Burn by Maddog Murph, en Flickr

Grizzly Peak Sunset by Raja Ramakrishnan, en Flickr
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2016, 10:25 PM   #2403
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 534


@charlieisaacs on Twitter
__________________
jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2016, 12:40 AM   #2404
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by potipoti View Post
WOW! Now these photos are beyond impressive and gorgeous. When you look at these last two photos, you just have to think that SF might be the most gorgeous major city in the US and might have the best skyline outside of NYC in the US from this angle.
__________________
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2016, 07:26 PM   #2405
hugh
Registered User
 
hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,731
Likes (Received): 1227

Chron article on Salesforce Tower - and others ...

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/p...y-10778750.php
__________________
In art we trust.

cnbnca, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
hugh no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 8th, 2016, 11:44 PM   #2407
The-E-Vid
Politically Incorrect
 
The-E-Vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 789

Is there any projects going on that " height gap" between 181 Fremont and the cluster next to the bay bridge?
I know some of you are going to say that it's subjective and the gap can only be seen form this location but I mean one can clearly appreciate the height difference on that block specially now that Sales Force and 181 Fremont are being topped out.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
The-E-Vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 12:56 AM   #2408
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-E-Vid View Post
Is there any projects going on that " height gap" between 181 Fremont and the cluster next to the bay bridge?
I know some of you are going to say that it's subjective and the gap can only be seen form this location but I mean one can clearly appreciate the height difference on that block specially now that Sales Force and 181 Fremont are being topped out.
I'm not sure, but I know they are going to break ground this week on 2 buildings as part of Oceanwide Center. One of the buildings will be over 900 feet and the other over 600 feet tall.
__________________

The-E-Vid, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 01:17 AM   #2409
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,343
Likes (Received): 3591

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-E-Vid View Post
Is there any projects going on that " height gap" between 181 Fremont and the cluster next to the bay bridge?
I know some of you are going to say that it's subjective and the gap can only be seen form this location but I mean one can clearly appreciate the height difference on that block specially now that Sales Force and 181 Fremont are being topped out.
I agree it's a very noticeable dip. There are a few projects going up as part of the Transbay Master Plan that will create some infill between the two peaks of Salesforce Tower and One Rincon Hill:



I don't have the comprehensive list, but most of those sites already have towers approved (at least one's already in prep), mostly in the 500-600 ft. range. Unfortunately, because Rincon Hill itself is so much higher than the adjacent SoMa streets, it's unlikely that anything built in between will be quite as high. But the "gap" should have at least some quality infill of the same scale as the Market Street cluster.
__________________
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 02:26 AM   #2410
The-E-Vid
Politically Incorrect
 
The-E-Vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 789

Yeah One Rincon Hill has the advantage of the hill, pun intended lol. It only needs a couple of 600+ft towers aligned north-south from each other to fill the gap.. unless they build something taller on Rincon Hill in the future.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
The-E-Vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 02:33 AM   #2411
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 484

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-E-Vid View Post
Is there any projects going on that " height gap" between 181 Fremont and the cluster next to the bay bridge?
I know some of you are going to say that it's subjective and the gap can only be seen form this location but I mean one can clearly appreciate the height difference on that block specially now that Sales Force and 181 Fremont are being topped out.
Yeah, from the point of view in that picture, the gap will eventually be filled with the following towers:

Park tower - 605' (under construction)
400 Folsom - 575' (site prep)
500 Folsom - 440' (site prep)
100 Folsom - 400' (approved)
Transbay block 4 - 450' (proposed)
__________________
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 07:20 PM   #2412
kony
Registered User
 
kony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hong-Kong / Paris
Posts: 5,370
Likes (Received): 1241

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
WOW! Now these photos are beyond impressive and gorgeous. When you look at these last two photos, you just have to think that SF might be the most gorgeous major city in the US and might have the best skyline outside of NYC in the US from this angle.
Los Angeles and Chicago will not be happy by your statement
__________________
kony no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 07:48 PM   #2413
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,343
Likes (Received): 3591

Quote:
Originally Posted by kony View Post
Los Angeles and Chicago will not be happy by your statement
I agree it'll be hard for SF to match Chicago until it's got another couple supertalls -- which could quite literally never happen, at least until the city makes some big changes to its planning process. But when you realize you're talking about a city of 800k people versus a city of millions, you come to appreciate just how much SF is punching above its weight. And I'll take the bay, bridges and fog-covered hills over the shores of Lake Michigan any day.

As for Los Angeles, the prevailing sentiment on many of these forums (eg, World's Best Skyline, Best Western US Skyline, etc.) is that the San Francisco skyline is already far superior to LA's. As someone who splits my time between the two cities, I am deep in that camp. That said, LA's current development wave in South Park, the Arts District, Bunker Hill and outlying neighborhoods will certainly make it competitive and the Wilshire Grand is a truly remarkable addition. We'll see when that wave wraps up where the two cities stand. In any case it's a very exciting time to be... whatever the NorCal/SoCal version of bi-coastal is.
__________________
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 09:20 PM   #2414
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
I agree it'll be hard for SF to match Chicago until it's got another couple supertalls -- which could quite literally never happen, at least until the city makes some big changes to its planning process. But when you realize you're talking about a city of 800k people versus a city of millions, you come to appreciate just how much SF is punching above its weight. And I'll take the bay, bridges and fog-covered hills over the shores of Lake Michigan any day.

As for Los Angeles, the prevailing sentiment on many of these forums (eg, World's Best Skyline, Best Western US Skyline, etc.) is that the San Francisco skyline is already far superior to LA's. As someone who splits my time between the two cities, I am deep in that camp. That said, LA's current development wave in South Park, the Arts District, Bunker Hill and outlying neighborhoods will certainly make it competitive and the Wilshire Grand is a truly remarkable addition. We'll see when that wave wraps up where the two cities stand. In any case it's a very exciting time to be... whatever the NorCal/SoCal version of bi-coastal is.
You also got realize that Chicago has over 4 times the land area of SF and is all flat unlike SF which is mostly hilly and a lot of the skyline is on landfill and it is earthquake country as well. Much more easier to build in Chicago than SF and that is why SF's skyline is very impressive when you consider all those factors. When I look at SF's skyline from the East Bay, I would put it over Chicago's just from that angle. Of course, overall, Chicago's is better cause they got more taller buildings.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 09:52 PM   #2415
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,798
Likes (Received): 31787

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
You also got realize that Chicago has over 4 times the land area of SF and is all flat unlike SF which is mostly hilly and a lot of the skyline is on landfill and it is earthquake country as well. Much more easier to build in Chicago than SF and that is why SF's skyline is very impressive when you consider all those factors. When I look at SF's skyline from the East Bay, I would put it over Chicago's just from that angle. Of course, overall, Chicago's is better cause they got more taller buildings.
Actually the hills in SF make some of its buildings look way taller than they really are.... an advantage that flat Chicago does not have.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 10:09 PM   #2416
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanPaulo View Post
Actually the hills in SF make some of its buildings look way taller than they really are.... an advantage that flat Chicago does not have.
Is it just me, cause it seems like the Transamerica Pyramid is taller than its height? I know some buildings are about the same height as the Pyramid but it seems way shorter.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 10:44 PM   #2417
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
But when you realize you're talking about a city of 800k people versus a city of millions, you come to appreciate just how much SF is punching above its weight.
But that's not quite right, is it? Focusing on the "city" population is misleading and gives rise to the technically correct but economically and socially untrue idea that, for instance, only nine cities in the US exceed 1 million, which makes anyone with even a passing interest in these things scratch their heads and think, hmm, that can't be right.

It's the metropolitan or combined statistical area (CSA) that is the true measure of an urban area, both in economic and social terms. A city is simply a jurisdiction and can never reflect the true prominence of an urban area.

SF city may be 800k but the CSA is 8.7 million. Chicago has a population of 2.7 million and a CSA of 9.9 million, not too different. Their CSAs rank 5th and 3rd respectively, while their city populations rank 13th and 3rd.

Further, a city like San Antonio has a population (1.4 million) almost *double* that of SF's but a metro area of just 2.3 million. We may be technically correct to say that San Antonio is the far larger city, but we'd be missing the bigger picture which is what matters when we talk about the economic and social inputs that go into creating a large central business district and its associated buildings, institutions and services.

As mentioned above, the nine cities with pop. over 1 million in the US, which is often quoted... well, if you base true urban area population on CSA population, there are a whopping 54 such urban areas.

I'll grant that since a city is a legal jurisdiction, the size of a city can have one important influencing factor, that of regulatory effect. This is obviously one of the factors in large urban areas that feature clusters of skyscrapers that indeed exist in different jurisdictions. However, it's also obvious that a smaller city surrounded by a large urban area (such as SF) is under severe pressure to accommodate the economic and social needs of that catchment just as it enjoys the benefits of it.
__________________
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 11:30 PM   #2418
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
But that's not quite right, is it? Focusing on the "city" population is misleading and gives rise to the technically correct but economically and socially untrue idea that, for instance, only nine cities in the US exceed 1 million, which makes anyone with even a passing interest in these things scratch their heads and think, hmm, that can't be right.

It's the metropolitan or combined statistical area (CSA) that is the true measure of an urban area, both in economic and social terms. A city is simply a jurisdiction and can never reflect the true prominence of an urban area.

SF city may be 800k but the CSA is 8.7 million. Chicago has a population of 2.7 million and a CSA of 9.9 million, not too different. Their CSAs rank 5th and 3rd respectively, while their city populations rank 13th and 3rd.

Further, a city like San Antonio has a population (1.4 million) almost *double* that of SF's but a metro area of just 2.3 million. We may be technically correct to say that San Antonio is the far larger city, but we'd be missing the bigger picture which is what matters when we talk about the economic and social inputs that go into creating a large central business district and its associated buildings, institutions and services.

As mentioned above, the nine cities with pop. over 1 million in the US, which is often quoted... well, if you base true urban area population on CSA population, there are a whopping 54 such urban areas.

I'll grant that since a city is a legal jurisdiction, the size of a city can have one important influencing factor, that of regulatory effect. This is obviously one of the factors in large urban areas that feature clusters of skyscrapers that indeed exist in different jurisdictions. However, it's also obvious that a smaller city surrounded by a large urban area (such as SF) is under severe pressure to accommodate the economic and social needs of that catchment just as it enjoys the benefits of it.
Great points. A city like San Jose is bigger than SF in population and actually is the 10th city to go over the 1 million mark but how many people in the world know San Jose compared to SF? Every time I hear about people only mentioning about the city itself population as a market size, I shake my head, cause they don't know what they are talking about. The whole metro region really determines how important economically the main city is, not just the city itself.
__________________

Nuwanda, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 11:41 PM   #2419
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Heh, yeah, I was going to use San Jose instead of San Antonio to make my point but of course San Jose has the same CSA as SF which would have defeated my purpose.

The city, metro and CSA population tables are pretty interesting. Just as many small cities have very large CSAs, many large cities are almost conterminous with their CSAs.

I suspect the older a city's core is, the more likely it is to have a high city-to-CSA ratio since city limits were defined in the context of available transport and services. Modern cities perhaps suffer less from such limiting factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
Great points. A city like San Jose is bigger than SF in population and actually is the 10th city to go over the 1 million mark but how many people in the world know San Jose compared to SF? Every time I hear about people only mentioning about the city itself population as a market size, I shake my head, cause they don't know what they are talking about. The whole metro region really determines how important economically the main city is, not just the city itself.
__________________
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 9th, 2016, 11:49 PM   #2420
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
Heh, yeah, I was going to use San Jose instead of San Antonio to make my point but of course San Jose has the same CSA as SF which would have defeated my purpose.

The city, metro and CSA population tables are pretty interesting. Just as many small cities have very large CSAs, many large cities are almost conterminous with their CSAs.

I suspect the older a city's core is, the more likely it is to have a high city-to-CSA ratio since city limits were defined in the context of available transport and services. Modern cities perhaps suffer less from such limiting factors.
Another thing is, SF has only about 49 sq miles of land. From what I checked, all the cities in the top 12 largest has at least 100 to 200 sq miles. That is part of the reason why SF isn't in the top 10. SF is second to NYC in population density though. Pretty impressed with that.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 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 12:02 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