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 28th, 2006, 04:41 AM   #41
Indyman
Registered User
 
Indyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bloomington
Posts: 836
Likes (Received): 4

So when will be seeing renders of these towers?
__________________
Envy is the ulcer of the soul- Socrates
Indyman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 28th, 2006, 04:49 AM   #42
OhioTodd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 1,114
Likes (Received): 67

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Age View Post
I'm talking more about the fact that the new structure would be the new dominant structure of San Fran and create a whole new effect when looking at the city from the Bay Bridge or the water. I think the ensemble fared well with Transamerica being the dominant building, why change a winning team? I have no problems with SanFran reinventing itself anew but maybe the buildings shouldn't be so tall.
Oh well I misunderstood what you meant then. Maybe you will like the renders and all when it all comes out? With the Transbay towers the Transamerica pyramid is going to be bypassed anyway-it looks like a new tallest is a done deal either with this project(even if they scaled it down) or the Transbay one. Hopefully you will like the new building designs and how they fit in and they can join the existing skyline in a harmonious way that will only enhance the beauty of the city-no matter what the height?
OhioTodd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006, 09:18 AM   #43
shawarma
tov meod od mod
 
shawarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,526
Likes (Received): 0

what about earthquakes?
__________________
ISRAELI SECTION NEEDS A MOD!

Plus-enPlus, my daily urban Blog here at SSC

(Shawarma is not available right now while I feed the hamster that powers this account).
shawarma no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006, 03:45 AM   #44
Armon
Registered User
 
Armon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawarma View Post
what about earthquakes?
they don't matter
__________________
The Westside
Armon no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006, 06:31 AM   #45
choyak
Registered User
 
choyak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Buena Park, CA
Posts: 716
Likes (Received): 19

As far as the earthquakes are concerned, it is actually safer to be INSIDE the tower than in an old 10 story building!!! Even safer to be inside than outside
choyak no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006, 09:24 PM   #46
Lance
Most ignored user!
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Southend
Posts: 353
Likes (Received): 3

I think it will be very hard to overshadow the transamerica building without building very close to it. From the bay bridge side it would still stand out since it doesnt have much high rise around it.... from the golden gate that and the bank of america are the only things you can see.... dont really think these new buildings wouldnt make much of an impact on them.



Lance no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006, 11:40 PM   #47
shawarma
tov meod od mod
 
shawarma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,526
Likes (Received): 0

this is why i asked: supertall towers can CAUSE earthquakes

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=424753
__________________
ISRAELI SECTION NEEDS A MOD!

Plus-enPlus, my daily urban Blog here at SSC

(Shawarma is not available right now while I feed the hamster that powers this account).
shawarma no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2007, 10:53 PM   #48
lpioe
Registered User
 
lpioe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,141
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Age View Post
To me San Francisco belongs to the category city that is perfect the way it is now (granted, every city is allowed to modernize and grow but the overall aesthetics of a city should be preserved). If its trademark building, the Transamerica pyramid, is overshadowed with these new proposed buildings it would mark the end of an era (in the same way that the construction of the Gazprom building in St. Petersburg marks the end of an era). I would thus prefer these buildings to be built lower than the Transamerica building.
Exactly my thoughts.
I feel the same about Paris and it's new projected towers higher than the Eiffel Tower.
I just hope the proposed towers for SF will be of high quality and really fit into the existing skyline.
__________________




3ds Max Script to create stadium stands for given c-values


my stadium designs (all WIP / unfinished...)

1 - 2 - 3 - 4

lpioe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2007, 07:23 PM   #49
pchazzz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4
Likes (Received): 0

I can remember a time when the Transamerica Building was seen as an ugly blot on the City's skyline, not as San Francisco's signature tower. Cities must grow and change if they are to survive, but it should be in a thoughtful manner with towers that are daring and innovative but which respect the locale where they are built.
pchazzz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 2nd, 2007, 11:44 PM   #50
Golden Age
Registered User
 
Golden Age's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 441
Likes (Received): 150

Locality matters

Quote:
Originally Posted by pchazzz View Post
I can remember a time when the Transamerica Building was seen as an ugly blot on the City's skyline, not as San Francisco's signature tower. Cities must grow and change if they are to survive, but it should be in a thoughtful manner with towers that are daring and innovative but which respect the locale where they are built.
Look, I do not doubt that tradionalists once winced when they first saw the new Transamerica building, same probably goes for the initial reaction to the Eiffel Tower in Paris, BUT one should never build modern buildings for the sake of having a modern image. With Silicon Valley, Stanford and Berkeley nearby, San Fran will always be in tune with modernity whether it has buildings similar to the size of Chicago's or not.

Rather than building tall, I think a tourist-magnet city like San Fran has more to gain by medium-sized state-of-the-art architecture (similar to the size of the Swiss Re building in London, but not necessarily the shape) that as you correctly say should pay respect to the locale where they are built (i.e., smth that is earthquake-safe).
Golden Age no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007, 11:58 AM   #51
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,960
Likes (Received): 18220

High times for San Fran skyline
Posted 1/2/2007 11:05 PM ET
By John Ritter, USA TODAY

SAN FRANCISCO — This city's skyline, with its distinctive Transamerica Pyramid and pastel-colored buildings, juts out on a peninsula like a surfer hanging 10. From above the Golden Gate Bridge, sunset views can be postcard spectacular.

But a growing number of city officials and planners believe the skyline's form, a product of decades-old height restrictions, needs a shot of adrenaline.

"What you're struck by is how flat our skyline is," says Dean Macris, the city's planning director. "So we think it could be visibly enhanced if we had some peaking."

By that, Macris means height, and more height is clearly on the horizon. Last month, developers submitted a proposal to build four connected towers, two of which would be 1,200 feet tall. Only two other buildings in the USA are taller: New York City's Empire State Building and Chicago's Sears Tower.

The shorter towers in the plan, at 900 feet, would be taller than any other building in the city, including the Pyramid and Bank of America Center.

Tall seems to be in vogue as cities try to make bold architectural statements and create density in tight spaces. Boston, an old city whose tallest building is 792 feet, is considering a 1,000-foot tower that would dominate its skyline.

The 1,362-foot Freedom Tower at Ground Zero in New York would surpass the Empire State Building. The Trump tower in Chicago, now under construction, would be shorter than the Sears Tower, currently the USA's tallest skyscraper.

Work is expected to begin this year on Chicago Spire on the Lake Michigan shore, which at 2,000 feet would be the new height king.

Residential space needed

In San Francisco, with its chronic housing shortage, more height downtown is seen as a way to add badly needed residential units. The four towers, designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano, would be built in the booming South of Market area across from a proposed $1 billion transit center, which itself would have a nearly 900-foot tower above a train station.

The eminent Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava, who designed the 150-story Chicago Spire, is competing in an international competition for the transit-tower design. Piano, whose work includes the Pompidou Center in Paris and Atlanta's High Museum expansion, is designing the California Academy of Sciences' new home here in Golden Gate Park. He also designed Shard London Bridge, which when completed will be Britain's tallest structure.

Piano's four-towers plan first will undergo environmental review, then face at least two years of design review.

"If the wind is at our back the whole way, which it won't be, we'll be fortunate to start building in 2010," says developer Mark Solit. The proposal submitted Dec. 21 is more of a concept than a floor plan, he says. The buildings will contain a mix of residential, office and retail space, he says.

Engineering studies will determine whether the towers could withstand earthquakes, always a concern in one of the world's most seismically active regions. Macris doesn't see a problem.

"Seismic experts regard tall buildings as functioning very well" in earthquakes, because their foundations are built on deep pilings sunk in bedrock, he says.

Still, the towers are likely to attract critics. John King, urban design writer for the San Francisco Chronicle, called Piano's concept "provocative and elegant" but "too much of a good thing."

King wrote that the scheme is "too tall for the site and too tall as a precedent for what might follow nearby." Better, he wrote, "if scaled at more modest heights."

City planners are studying how height should be incorporated downtown and may not approve buildings as tall as those conceived by Piano, Macris says. But 1,200 feet hasn't been ruled out, he says.

"Tall should not be equated with either good or bad,

says Henry Urbach, curator of architecture and design at San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art. "The skyline in a city like San Francisco is never fixed once and for all. For a city to evolve, it needs to be willing to risk its skyline."

Thin is in

The towers would be skinny by the standards of skyscraper construction over the past 50 years. Tall and slender is an a urban-design trend that has taken hold in Europe and, most prominently in North America, in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Piano has compared his towers to a cluster of bamboo shoots, with different shoots growing to different heights. Picture a pipe organ, Macris says.

Slender buildings block less light on the street. They don't restrict views as blockier buildings do. Their impact on pedestrians and traffic is lessened. Outside light reaches more of the interior space. And they simply look nice.

"Slender in the sky is a great aesthetic advantage. We're very conscious of that," Macris says.

In the 1920s and 1930s, before air conditioning, many slender skyscrapers were built, particularly in New York and Chicago, because windows could be closer to the core of a building. "When air-conditioning technology improved after World War II, we got a lot of pretty thick building in the sky," Macris says. "We'd like to return to some of that slenderness."

Since Piano's concept was unveiled, there have been concerns over its similarity to the World Trade Center towers in New York that collapsed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Chris Daly, a San Francisco supervisor whose district includes South of Market, says Piano's towers are shaped differently and represent more of a "Chicago look," although from one vantage point they do appear to be similar, side-by-side towers.

"It's probably not a coincidence," Daly says. "Piano probably did it on purpose. He's always trying to make his mark."
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007, 01:00 PM   #52
Skyman
LA Resident
 
Skyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA UNITED STATES
Posts: 5,339
Likes (Received): 1383

Nice news indeed

Last edited by Skyman; March 10th, 2007 at 08:45 AM.
Skyman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007, 08:35 PM   #53
gladisimo
If I could be anyone...
 
gladisimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SF, FC, HK
Posts: 2,525
Likes (Received): 39

As a general rule, I think that cities should be built up as a dense cluster to give it a good skyline. Something like LA, which from certain POVs look like there are random and sparse towers sticking out of the ground, doesn't look as good as SF. The new buildings would look odd, especially if its thin, unless they were built in a close cluster that looked like it could be a single entity.
gladisimo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 3rd, 2007, 10:02 PM   #54
Mplsuptown
Registered User
 
Mplsuptown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minneapolis MN
Posts: 2,182
Likes (Received): 725

Thank you skyman for those images. They are great in helping to place these proposals.
__________________
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 10th, 2007, 08:38 AM   #55
CrazyAboutCities
Registered User
 
CrazyAboutCities's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
Posts: 8,549
Likes (Received): 240

I can't see the pictures.
CrazyAboutCities no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2007, 12:46 AM   #56
Robert Stark
BANNED
 
Robert Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 957
Likes (Received): 5

On the Cover of last months SF magazine there is a diagram of how SF Skyline will look in about 2020. The proposed Transbay Tower is aproved for at least 500 ft. but could be up to 1000ft. as it is portrayed in the diagram. There are also two proposed slim towers that could be even taller that resemble bamboo shoots. I hope they are not built as proposed because it will wreck the skyline a dwarf the transamerica pyramid. I would like to see the skyline grow denser but the suppertalls should be scaled back. please post any updates on the heights of the proposed towers.
Robert Stark no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2007, 04:10 AM   #57
drew1000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: dallas
Posts: 81
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Stark View Post
On the Cover of last months SF magazine there is a diagram of how SF Skyline will look in about 2020. The proposed Transbay Tower is aproved for at least 500 ft. but could be up to 1000ft. as it is portrayed in the diagram. There are also two proposed slim towers that could be even taller that resemble bamboo shoots. I hope they are not built as proposed because it will wreck the skyline a dwarf the transamerica pyramid. I would like to see the skyline grow denser but the suppertalls should be scaled back. please post any updates on the heights of the proposed towers.
NIMBY come on, sompthing tall is going to get built. there is nothing you can do about it. the transbay tower could reach 1,500 feet. also with the other 1,200 ft. proposed towers there is going to be a big change in the skyline, love it.
drew1000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2007, 04:21 AM   #58
PDXPaul
Registered User
 
PDXPaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 656
Likes (Received): 0

Be nice the NIMBY's, it might be the difference between getting 1,000ft or 900ft or nothing at all
PDXPaul no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2007, 10:15 AM   #59
Dr Drums
Best Quality Since 1982
 
Dr Drums's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Panama City
Posts: 2,782
Likes (Received): 1178

Renders anyone?????
__________________
Panamá: Tigre centroamericano y hub de las Américas, el progreso acaricia tus lares!
Twitter
Dr Drums no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 20th, 2007, 01:55 PM   #60
xXFallenXx
Registered User
 
xXFallenXx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 3,862
Likes (Received): 170

so whats happening with these?
xXFallenXx 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 02:43 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