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 10th, 2016, 12:16 AM   #2421
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 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.
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.
You guys both make great points, and of course it's important to think about CSA/MSA when making these sorts of comparisons. But let's not forget one huge difference between the Chicago and SF Bay metros: Chicago is the undisputed economic engine of the Chicagoland metro (and arguably the whole Midwest), while SF is not even the local capital of its own most important industry. Sure, people may not know "San Jose" specifically, but I'd challenge you to find a person who owns a smartphone and doesn't know "Silicon Valley."

That is, to me, what's so remarkable about what's happening in SF right now. It's historically a finance town, and an enclave for wealthy hippies. Meanwhile, since the tech boom started in the 80s, Silicon Valley has been the epicenter, been home to every major tech headquarters for decades. And until very recently, it's been where the vast majority of tech labor and investment has been.

So it's a testament to the cultural gravity of San Francisco, that so many workers and new companies prefer its dense, walkable lifestyle with decent transit and great nightlife, that huge companies -- like Salesforce -- have had no choice but to invest billions in the city to build new headquarters there.
__________________

cnbnca, gaab1972, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 10th, 2016, 01:23 AM   #2422
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 487
Likes (Received): 341

Good point. Since density is a function of area and population it often is the go-to statistic for understanding why things are the way they are for various cities.

I made such points on the Wilshire Grand Center thread regarding LA's seemingly low number of high-rise buildings, including apartment blocks. LA has relatively low density for a city of such population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
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
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2016, 01:25 AM   #2423
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
You guys both make great points, and of course it's important to think about CSA/MSA when making these sorts of comparisons. But let's not forget one huge difference between the Chicago and SF Bay metros: Chicago is the undisputed economic engine of the Chicagoland metro (and arguably the whole Midwest), while SF is not even the local capital of its own most important industry. Sure, people may not know "San Jose" specifically, but I'd challenge you to find a person who owns a smartphone and doesn't know "Silicon Valley."

That is, to me, what's so remarkable about what's happening in SF right now. It's historically a finance town, and an enclave for wealthy hippies. Meanwhile, since the tech boom started in the 80s, Silicon Valley has been the epicenter, been home to every major tech headquarters for decades. And until very recently, it's been where the vast majority of tech labor and investment has been.


So it's a testament to the cultural gravity of San Francisco, that so many workers and new companies prefer its dense, walkable lifestyle with decent transit and great nightlife, that huge companies -- like Salesforce -- have had no choice but to invest billions in the city to build new headquarters there.
Great points and I'm excited about most of these buildings going up. I seem to really like the Oceanwide Center buildings that will be up in 5 years. Too bad we have to wait 5 years for that.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2016, 01:33 AM   #2424
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3593

Me too! In the groundbreaking press release, there was a comment by one of the investors that they were disappointed they weren't allowed to make it the city's tallest. I am a big fan of Salesforce Tower, but imagine a 1200-foot (and therefore presumably even sleeker) version of Oceanwide right next to it!
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2016, 02:05 AM   #2425
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
Me too! In the groundbreaking press release, there was a comment by one of the investors that they were disappointed they weren't allowed to make it the city's tallest. I am a big fan of Salesforce Tower, but imagine a 1200-foot (and therefore presumably even sleeker) version of Oceanwide right next to it!
I don't think SF will get another building that is at least 1000 feet tall. Generally, the people don't like it and the politicians most likely won't allow it.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2016, 02:38 AM   #2426
The-E-Vid
Politically Incorrect
 
The-E-Vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 789

Things change and so does people's mind. People oppose mostly when it's the first building because it changes their old views of their beloved towns, but once it's built it doesnt matter andpeople stop caring if there is 1 or 10 more buildings aorund it and there you have it..a cluster is born. Another 1000'' or another building surpassing Sales Force Tower will take a long while of course but probably not 40+ years wait as with the Transamerica Pyramid. It really depends on how well economy does in the Bay Area and not just SF county.
Life goes up and down, so does the economy. A couple of booms and bursts in the next 2 or 3 decades and it will bring another super tall. By that time I predict developments will be not just on SOMA and 3rd st but also towards current Financial District and Embarcadero around the Transamerica Pyramid before Broadway St. Tenderloin, Civic Center and even as far down as the central freeway on 12th St will have different looks.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by The-E-Vid; December 10th, 2016 at 02:43 AM.
The-E-Vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2016, 12:05 PM   #2427
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,668
Likes (Received): 13268

Folsom Street by Sergio Ruiz, en Flickr

San Francisco by Leland Barton, en Flickr
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2016, 06:42 AM   #2428
towerpower123
Let's Revive our Cities
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Howell/Newark, NJ
Posts: 2,244
Likes (Received): 4181

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-E-Vid View Post
Things change and so does people's mind. People oppose mostly when it's the first building because it changes their old views of their beloved towns, but once it's built it doesnt matter andpeople stop caring if there is 1 or 10 more buildings aorund it and there you have it..a cluster is born. Another 1000'' or another building surpassing Sales Force Tower will take a long while of course but probably not 40+ years wait as with the Transamerica Pyramid. It really depends on how well economy does in the Bay Area and not just SF county.
Life goes up and down, so does the economy. A couple of booms and bursts in the next 2 or 3 decades and it will bring another super tall. By that time I predict developments will be not just on SOMA and 3rd st but also towards current Financial District and Embarcadero around the Transamerica Pyramid before Broadway St. Tenderloin, Civic Center and even as far down as the central freeway on 12th St will have different looks.
Once it is finished and people realize how beautiful a supertall can be, they will realize it isn't as bad as the anti-urban NIMBY's believe it is. There will still be complaints, but many will realize the benefits for the attractiveness of the city, especially now as more and more people rediscover the city and urban life.
__________________
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/
towerpower123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2016, 10:05 PM   #2430
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 lovecities888 View Post
I don't think SF will get another building that is at least 1000 feet tall. Generally, the people don't like it and the politicians most likely won't allow it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The-E-Vid View Post
Things change and so does people's mind. People oppose mostly when it's the first building because it changes their old views of their beloved towns, but once it's built it doesnt matter andpeople stop caring if there is 1 or 10 more buildings aorund it and there you have it..a cluster is born. Another 1000'' or another building surpassing Sales Force Tower will take a long while of course but probably not 40+ years wait as with the Transamerica Pyramid. It really depends on how well economy does in the Bay Area and not just SF county.
Life goes up and down, so does the economy. A couple of booms and bursts in the next 2 or 3 decades and it will bring another super tall. By that time I predict developments will be not just on SOMA and 3rd st but also towards current Financial District and Embarcadero around the Transamerica Pyramid before Broadway St. Tenderloin, Civic Center and even as far down as the central freeway on 12th St will have different looks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by towerpower123 View Post
Once it is finished and people realize how beautiful a supertall can be, they will realize it isn't as bad as the anti-urban NIMBY's believe it is. There will still be complaints, but many will realize the benefits for the attractiveness of the city, especially now as more and more people rediscover the city and urban life.
Glad we're having this discussion right now, because as Curbed reported, there is a bill in the CA statehouse that could shake up the regulatory environment and effectively force SF into building more housing.

I got a bit more in depth about it over on the SF Projects thread -- since it's mostly a housing issue and won't directly affect office projects like Salesforce, that's probably the appropriate place to continue discussing it. But the long and short of it is, if the bill passes, depending on what Sacramento's override looks like/what changes SF makes to their development pipeline, we should see an even bigger boom than what we're currently experiencing, with more highrises, skyscrapers, and potentially supertalls to match.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2016, 11:29 PM   #2431
The-E-Vid
Politically Incorrect
 
The-E-Vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 789

Even if the discussion is off topic in this thread I think we could briefly talk about other projects that complement the SF skyline and Sales Force Tower as being the Jewell of the crown. This thread seems to be more alive to discuss the other projects in the City because the SF sub forum don't seem to get many visitors.

NYMBY'sm don't seem to be an big issue in SF anymore as it was when Transamerica Pyramid and 555 California were built, well yes there are neighborhoods in Central SF and in the west part of the city (Sunset, Richmond) that are still NYMBY but it's understandable, even if I don't live there I can still feel for them because there is better places to construct in SF than in this quiet 'suburban' SF neighborhoods. Once available land is over then they'll have no choice. As I posted a few pages back, I don't know how profitable - or necessary- are the industrial zone and the old ports and yards by 3rd St to the City's economy. Few years ago I worked for a company which had its warehouse in the area near by Evans st so I know some are still thriving and are very active business but others seem to be just wasting land and abandoned warehouses.


Some projects already started as with the Candlestick developments. Granted, I understand that SF as a county needs some of this lands for its needs for own landfills and such. The problem with the City is not an issue of aviliable land for housing construction but rather is a problem of affordable housing.
__________________

kony, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post

Last edited by The-E-Vid; December 11th, 2016 at 11:42 PM.
The-E-Vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2016, 11:04 AM   #2432
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,668
Likes (Received): 13268

The View from Conzelman Road by fksr, en Flickr
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2016, 10:14 PM   #2433
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,817
Likes (Received): 31846

This tower is definitely a game changer for SF. I could not think of any other North American city where a supertall would make such a positive impact in terms of the skyline. Like it's been said, I think SF moves to take the cake for best skyline in the West Coast after the completion of this tower. I would even go as far as saying that it ranks in the top 5 of North America.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2016, 10:15 PM   #2434
JuanPaulo
Guayaquil Vive Por Ti!
 
JuanPaulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Honolulu, Hawai'i
Posts: 20,817
Likes (Received): 31846


SF147 by Phil Inkelberghe, on Flickr
__________________
JuanPaulo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2016, 01:28 AM   #2435
UTEPman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 50
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuanPaulo View Post
This tower is definitely a game changer for SF. I could not think of any other North American city where a supertall would make such a positive impact in terms of the skyline. Like it's been said, I think SF moves to take the cake for best skyline in the West Coast after the completion of this tower. I would even go as far as saying that it ranks in the top 5 of North America.
It's getting there. I'd still put quite a few skylines ahead of it, such as:
NYC
Chicago
Houston
Dallas
LA
Miami
Seattle
Atlanta
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
UTEPman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2016, 03:07 AM   #2436
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTEPman View Post
It's getting there. I'd still put quite a few skylines ahead of it, such as:
NYC
Chicago
Houston
Dallas
LA
Miami
Seattle
Atlanta
No way are places like Atlanta, LA, Houston, Seattle, or Dallas better. Atlanta, LA, Houston, and Dallas doesn't even have any body of water around the downtown area of the skyline. Plus, they all have fewer high rises too than SF. I don't think Miami is better either. There are taller buildings in SF than Miami. I think in the US, it is only behind NYC and Chicago.
__________________

SanJosian, ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2016, 06:39 AM   #2437
The-E-Vid
Politically Incorrect
 
The-E-Vid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,219
Likes (Received): 789

Every city has its charms, I don't think Chicago skyline is that awesome..yes it's tall and has very iconic towers plus the Lake make it picturesque and indeed beautiful but for some reason I don't feel the vibe for it so I can understand if someone don't feel SF looks awesome..but it actually it does
Even before the Sales Force Tower, SF was already in the top 5 skylines, tied with Seattle because the share similar settings.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
The-E-Vid no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2016, 08:26 AM   #2438
kwonphilip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
No way are places like Atlanta, LA, Houston, Seattle, or Dallas better. Atlanta, LA, Houston, and Dallas doesn't even have any body of water around the downtown area of the skyline. Plus, they all have fewer high rises too than SF. I don't think Miami is better either. There are taller buildings in SF than Miami. I think in the US, it is only behind NYC and Chicago.
The Trinity River is near Downtown Dallas and I believe that is the body of water that tends to show up in images of the Dallas skyline.

Height isn't everything and stops really mattering at some point (until you get to another point). Aside from Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco doesn't have any iconic builds very visible, unless you also count the bridge. Dallas' skyline is much more interesting, especially at night.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
kwonphilip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2016, 08:33 AM   #2439
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwonphilip View Post
The Trinity River is near Downtown Dallas and I believe that is the body of water that tends to show up in images of the Dallas skyline.

Height isn't everything and stops really mattering at some point (until you get to another point). Aside from Transamerica Pyramid, San Francisco doesn't have any iconic builds very visible, unless you also count the bridge. Dallas' skyline is much more interesting, especially at night.
A river can't compare with the Bay. Also, there are no standout buildings in the Dallas skyline that is iconic. When you are looking at the SF skyline from the Bay Bridge, only NYC and Chicago look better.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2016, 08:38 AM   #2440
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by The-E-Vid View Post
Every city has its charms, I don't think Chicago skyline is that awesome..yes it's tall and has very iconic towers plus the Lake make it picturesque and indeed beautiful but for some reason I don't feel the vibe for it so I can understand if someone don't feel SF looks awesome..but it actually it does
Even before the Sales Force Tower, SF was already in the top 5 skylines, tied with Seattle because the share similar settings.
Seattle's skyline is inferior to SF's. Why? They have fewer high rises and I don't think it looks as good overall than SF's either. IMO, I still think only NYC and Chicago is better than SF's in the US.
__________________
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 09:42 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