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 March 1st, 2017, 11:07 PM   #2681
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Precisely the point made in the article I linked to above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMD View Post
SF skyscrapers don't need observation decks
vs " flat " cities like Paris, London , NYC , downtown LA , because nothing beats the iconic , free eastward sunrise / night time dramatic views DOWN to its skyline , the Bay Bridge , the Bay and the East Bay skylines and hills from centrally located Twin Peaks , as well as the dramatic northward afternoon and esp sunset views of Alcatraz, the North Bay/Marin Headlands/Sausalito , the Bay and esp the Golden Gate Bridge from Mount Davidson , just a mile north of Twin Peaks .
( SF has 7 main " hills/peaks " ) !!
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 2nd, 2017, 12:45 AM   #2682
raider12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 449
Likes (Received): 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMD View Post
SF skyscrapers don't need observation decks
vs " flat " cities like Paris, London , NYC , downtown LA , because nothing beats the iconic , free eastward sunrise / night time dramatic views DOWN to its skyline , the Bay Bridge , the Bay and the East Bay skylines and hills from centrally located Twin Peaks , as well as the dramatic northward afternoon and esp sunset views of Alcatraz, the North Bay/Marin Headlands/Sausalito , the Bay and esp the Golden Gate Bridge from Mount Davidson , just a mile north of Twin Peaks .
( SF has 7 main " hills/peaks " ) !!
all incredible vantage points for sure and The City's topography yields eye candy all the time while you are walking or driving but they still blew it by not including the observation deck IMO
raider12 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2017, 01:08 AM   #2683
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

I'm sorry for bringing up the observation deck issue but that was the thing that bothered me. Even LA has a couple of observation decks on their 2 tallest buildings.

Last edited by lovecities888; March 2nd, 2017 at 01:20 AM.
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2017, 05:50 AM   #2684
Mplsuptown
Registered User
 
Mplsuptown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 2,168
Likes (Received): 713

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuwanda View Post
Bingo! Just as I said above, some folks regard buildings as public property. Of course, the busybodies always know better how to design and evaluate the economics of a vastly expensive construction project.

If the public want an observation deck, let them all get together and build one on the readily available public land.
You sound like you have all the answers. Good for you.
__________________
I ain't got time to breed

*And Major D., just leave the angry man's post up. - spectre000
Mplsuptown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2017, 06:04 AM   #2685
Nuwanda
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 484
Likes (Received): 341

Seems it's the obvious answer for people who don't like the way others choose to develop their properties.

A publicly-owned observation deck on public land. If these things are profitable, then it's a win-win. Right?

If they're not profitable then how can you complain that a building lacks one?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mplsuptown View Post
You sound like you have all the answers. Good for you.
Nuwanda no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2017, 11:33 AM   #2686
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,666
Likes (Received): 13245


@jbozman
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 2nd, 2017, 09:02 PM   #2687
jchernin
Registered User
 
jchernin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Santa Rosa/North Bay
Posts: 507
Likes (Received): 534


@Sky1Ron on Twitter
__________________
jchernin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2017, 11:50 AM   #2688
sergey220
Registered User
 
sergey220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Samara
Posts: 279
Likes (Received): 38

supertall?
sergey220 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2017, 07:42 PM   #2689
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by sergey220 View Post
supertall?
It is over 1000 feet tall so I guess that qualifies it.
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2017, 09:08 PM   #2690
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by sergey220 View Post
supertall?
To most people, supertall would be over 300 meters and this is 326 so yes.

Some others though, especially today think supertall is more like in the 350 to 400 meter range. To me, in the Western Hemisphere only New York and Chicago have supertalls.

300 meter buildings are big but don't have an overwhelming presence to me, whereas once you reach the size of Sears or WTC etc. that starts to happen.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 3rd, 2017, 09:49 PM   #2691
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
To most people, supertall would be over 300 meters and this is 326 so yes.

Some others though, especially today think supertall is more like in the 350 to 400 meter range. To me, in the Western Hemisphere only New York and Chicago have supertalls.

300 meter buildings are big but don't have an overwhelming presence to me, whereas once you reach the size of Sears or WTC etc. that starts to happen.
I know the Transamerica Pyramid isn't a supertall, but to me, it looks taller than the height would indicate. I don't know if I'm the only one who feels that.
__________________

jchernin, will101 liked this post
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2017, 12:38 AM   #2692
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 481

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Some others though, especially today think supertall is more like in the 350 to 400 meter range. To me, in the Western Hemisphere only New York and Chicago have supertalls.

300 meter buildings are big but don't have an overwhelming presence to me, whereas once you reach the size of Sears or WTC etc. that starts to happen.

Personally i believe that supertalls are a minimum of 500,000 meters tall. It's shame that all these cities around the world keep building these puny 300 and 400 meter low rises. So unimpressive.



Or maybe we can not make up our own arbitrary definitions and go with what is widely accepted? Including the definition that this very website uses? Why try to redefine supertall when there's already a new word for the new era of XXL supersized supertall skyscrapers on steroids ("megatall", which SSP recently created a subforum for).
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2017, 12:54 AM   #2693
raider12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 449
Likes (Received): 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
I know the Transamerica Pyramid isn't a supertall, but to me, it looks taller than the height would indicate. I don't know if I'm the only one who feels that.
nope! I agree with you
raider12 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2017, 01:00 AM   #2694
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
Personally i believe that supertalls are a minimum of 500,000 meters tall. It's shame that all these cities around the world keep building these puny 300 and 400 meter low rises. So unimpressive.



Or maybe we can not make up our own arbitrary definitions and go with what is widely accepted? Including the definition that this very website uses? Why try to redefine supertall when there's already a new word for the new era of XXL supersized supertall skyscrapers on steroids ("megatall", which SSP recently created a subforum for).
Yeesh, nothing to get upset about. I and many others just don't feel like 300 is that super anymore, I don't care what the official definition is. 400 though is still pretty super.

I live in San Francisco and love this building already but I see it everyday and it's tall for this city but not overwhelming or anything.
__________________

raider12 liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2017, 09:34 AM   #2695
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

In general, anything over 1000 feet tall is supertall to me. I guess when you go beyond 1500 feet tall, it can be classified as megatall.
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2017, 09:59 AM   #2696
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Quote:
Originally Posted by raider12 View Post
nope! I agree with you
I mean, if I didn't know it was only 850 feet tall, I would have thought it was over 1000 feet tall by just looking at it.
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 4th, 2017, 11:31 AM   #2697
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,666
Likes (Received): 13245

Twilight in San Francisco by Eric, en Flickr

San Francisco by rulenumberone2, en Flickr
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2017, 08:20 AM   #2698
Oasis-Bangkok
From Zero to Hero !!
 
Oasis-Bangkok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15,708
Likes (Received): 50779

skyline through the drizzle-1 by DJ shekky, on Flickr

skyline through the drizzle-2 by DJ shekky, on Flickr
__________________

goodybear, Munwon, will101, Federation2014 liked this post
Oasis-Bangkok no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2017, 11:04 AM   #2699
germantower
i ♥ NY
 
germantower's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,451
Likes (Received): 1155

Is there more development to occur around the transby corridor?
__________________
more SHoP less BIG
germantower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2017, 11:56 AM   #2700
redbaron_012
Registered User
 
redbaron_012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11,562
Likes (Received): 3095

How come new taller buildings shrink existing buildings ?
__________________
"Make no small plans, for they have not power to stir the blood" - Daniel H. Burnham
redbaron_012 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 01:48 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