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 at least 300m/1,000 ft 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 May 8th, 2012, 11:55 PM   #881
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 289
Likes (Received): 14

Is this newest design actually officially "approved" yet?? Or is this just another proposed design, maybe the 100th already.

It's been like 5-7 years in all these different proposed and rejected and forgotten about designs already, hasn't it?

When are they actually going to officially approve One and start building?

Any new news?
fooddude no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old May 9th, 2012, 10:01 AM   #882
Mojeda101
IG: UrbanLosAngeles
 
Mojeda101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 614
Likes (Received): 383

Wow, California might experience two new supertalls, this and LA's Wilshire grand.

Wilshire grand is slated to start around spring of next year and would be a few hundred feet taller than this, but would this start before spring?
__________________
Any and all photos of my Los Angeles updates can be found at my Flickr
Any extras can be found on my Instagram
Mojeda101 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2012, 09:04 PM   #883
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,310
Likes (Received): 135

Is this design final ? It's a good design, but i preferred the SOM proposal, it was bold, innovative, and strikingly beautiful. Once this is built, San Fran will definitely move past Seattle,Houston,Philly..etc, and become America's 3rd best skyscraper city
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2012, 02:20 AM   #884
ThatOneGuy
BAИИED
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest
Posts: 14,047
Likes (Received): 9944

I have no real problems with this design, I'd give it a 6 out of 10.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 10:44 AM   #885
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 780
Likes (Received): 187

Quote:
Originally Posted by iloveclassicrock7 View Post
Is this design final ? It's a good design, but i preferred the SOM proposal, it was bold, innovative, and strikingly beautiful. Once this is built, San Fran will definitely move past Seattle,Houston,Philly..etc, and become America's 3rd best skyscraper city
SF already has more skyscrapers than Seattle or Philly (and more total highrises than either as well). But maybe you were talking about aesthetics, and not just total number of skyscrapers?
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 07:48 PM   #886
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 289
Likes (Received): 14

1 skyscraper more than 1k' would suit SF very nicely. They only need one, and not really a bunch of them like NYC, etc. SF is beautiful and is like a European city to me. Kinda similar to the Shard being only 1k' but still the tallest in London and west-Europe and still making a dramatic and powerful impact to the cityscape, the tower in SF will give the same kinda awesome presence
fooddude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 08:02 PM   #887
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,199
Likes (Received): 1485

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
Just the way it works every time... value engineering, of course.

It is to be expected, but I wish for once it wouldn't happen. Companies and builders need to rediscover the immonetary value of civic pride and architectural accomplishment, that just because it is not efficient doesn't mean it should be avoided. Is it efficient to build a supertall in the middle of a village in China? No, but they do it anyway. Why? Because they can. We can too, and we should. We ought to scrap this insipid design (Pelli's work has declined at an astounding rate, literally all of his buildings look like this now, it's not funny) and return to the inspiring and iconic SOM design- a true way for this city, the living embodiment of (at least political) progress(ivism), to finally usher in the 21st century.

Last edited by Simfan34; May 17th, 2012 at 08:10 PM.
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 08:10 PM   #888
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 2,622
Likes (Received): 3412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
Just the way it works every time...
I would express some disappointment too but yesterday I was waiting for a friend sitting on a park bench in an area that happened to be shaded and freezing in the misty May cold (it was probably in the 50s at 11 AM) and I thought how those who argue about retaining all the sun on parks we can are, sadly, correct in this town. At 1200 feet or more, this building would have shaded a major park--Justin Herman Plaza--and that would be unfortunate. At 1000' it will still make the necessary architectural statement and have the necessary effect on the skyline so that's probably the right height for it.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 08:13 PM   #889
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 2,622
Likes (Received): 3412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
value engineering, of course.

It is to be expected, but I wish for once it wouldn't happen.
I'm not so sure they will get away with the "value engineering" aspects of the proposed design change. I think the Planning Dept. may fight back concerning the funicular and public open spaces, especially the funicular which was deemed critical to get people to actually use the park on top of the terminal.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2012, 08:17 PM   #890
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,199
Likes (Received): 1485

Shadows? My friend, you live in a city, San Francisco at that. It's always cold, and they'll always be shadows. The shorter design in simply a primus inter pares to SOM's design's pontifex maximus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
I'm not so sure they will get away with the "value engineering" aspects of the proposed design change. I think the Planning Dept. may fight back concerning the funicular and public open spaces, especially the funicular which was deemed critical to get people to actually use the park on top of the terminal.
This is good to hear. I as a distant observer but a person proud to see American skylines stand taller am not particularly excited- it won't affect it- but after all the whole complex is being built for the San Franciscans, and not me.
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:23 AM   #891
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 2,622
Likes (Received): 3412

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
Shadows? My friend, you live in a city, San Francisco at that. It's always cold, and they'll always be shadows. The shorter design in simply a primus inter pares to SOM's design's pontifex maximus.
Not so here. The shadows on Justin Herman Plaza are the specific reason the height is being cut and it's not being done by the developer but by the city Planning Department (with full support by the Board of Supervisors) after shadow studies. San Francisco, in fact, has a law that public open spaces cannot be shadowed by new buildings and exceptions need "conditional use" authorization by the Planning Commission (appealable to the Supervisors).

Unlike New York, in this city temps rarely climb out of the 60s even in August and direct sunlight is a valuable thing.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2012, 02:40 AM   #892
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 45,789
Likes (Received): 18534

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
Not so here. The shadows on Justin Herman Plaza are the specific reason the height is being cut and it's not being done by the developer but by the city Planning Department (with full support by the Board of Supervisors) after shadow studies. San Francisco, in fact, has a law that public open spaces cannot be shadowed by new buildings and exceptions need "conditional use" authorization by the Planning Commission (appealable to the Supervisors).

Unlike New York, in this city temps rarely climb out of the 60s even in August and direct sunlight is a valuable thing.
I totally agree. Park space in downtown San Fran is so scarce and a welcome respite from all the walking that residents and visitors do that protecting sunlight there is essential. Now one can debate about whether parks should be placed in areas slated for intense development but I remember when the only thing south of Market St was the Moscone Center. Not many people at that time might have considered that supertalls would ever be built in that (frankly) distressed area.
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2012, 12:03 AM   #893
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 780
Likes (Received): 187

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
I would express some disappointment too but yesterday I was waiting for a friend sitting on a park bench in an area that happened to be shaded and freezing in the misty May cold (it was probably in the 50s at 11 AM) and I thought how those who argue about retaining all the sun on parks we can are, sadly, correct in this town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
Unlike New York, in this city temps rarely climb out of the 60s even in August and direct sunlight is a valuable thing.
SF overall really isn't cold. It's typically warm (60-70s) or a little bit chilly (50s), with some cold days or cold moments on an otherwise warmer day (usually because of wind more than anything else), with some truly hot days here and there. SF's average yearly high is 65, and the average yearly low is 51. The record high is 103, and the record low is only 27. Even SF's supposedly cold and miserable summers have average highs in the 60s and low 70s (any cold is typically just because of the fog and wind that blows in during the mornings and evenings, and which impacts the western half of the city the most). It's the kind of city where you'll even get some hot and sunny days in the middle of winter, while half the rest of the country is neck deep in snow and ice.

As for the sun being a valuable commodity...lol. SF is actually of the sunnier cities in the US, placing in the tier below the southwestern cities, which are at the top of course. And downtown especially gets more sun and warmth than say, the Sunset or Richmond districts, which are within SF's fog belt. You're a bit biased though, seeing as your point of comparison is Arizona. I mean, how else exactly can you imply that temps in the 60s are not warm? It may not be hot, or that warm, but it sure as hell isn't cold.

Last edited by techniques1200s; May 19th, 2012 at 12:08 AM.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2012, 04:22 PM   #894
Spocket
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 132
Likes (Received): 31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
Is it efficient to build a supertall in the middle of a village in China? No, but they do it anyway. Why? Because they can. We can too, and we should.
I agree with the spirit of your post entirely but what you think is a village is , well , it's just not .
Wuxi (and that must be what you're referring to) is no rural village . Firstly , in China , people consider anything under 1,000,000 people to be a town .
Secondly , Wuxi is just another huge city in the Yangtze Delta megalopolis . We're talking about an area with like like 70 million people .

Wuxi is to Shanghai what Stockton is to San Francisco .
Spocket no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 19th, 2012, 05:07 PM   #895
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Disunited States
Posts: 2,967
Likes (Received): 551

Quote:
Originally Posted by techniques1200s View Post
SF already has more skyscrapers than Seattle or Philly (and more total highrises than either as well). But maybe you were talking about aesthetics, and not just total number of skyscrapers?

Both of those cities actually have taller skyscrapers than SF, maybe a few less 500 footers though. But after this building and the 915 footer (forget the name) SF will be drastically different.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2012, 03:04 AM   #896
iloveclassicrock7
Vigilant Citizen
 
iloveclassicrock7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,310
Likes (Received): 135

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Both of those cities actually have taller skyscrapers than SF, maybe a few less 500 footers though. But after this building and the 915 footer (forget the name) SF will be drastically different.
Agreed
iloveclassicrock7 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 06:12 PM   #897
SF1977
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 18

Big day for the Transbay neighborhood and tower:

Quote:
Transit district development plan gets hearing
By: Ari Burack | 05/23/12 6:13 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Plans for the neighborhood surrounding the Transbay Transit Center are before the Planning Commission.
A plan to reshape the South of Market neighborhood surrounding the planned new Transbay Terminal, laying the groundwork for new development that could include the tallest building on the West Coast, passes before the Planning Commission today.

The commission will consider approval of the final environmental impact report and zoning changes for the Transit Center District Plan, The City’s vision for shaping development in the neighborhoods around the new terminal. The $4 billion project being built at First and Mission streets includes a new bus terminal and an extension of Caltrain that could also accommodate high-speed rail.

The district plan, in development since 2007, builds on city plans dating back as far as the mid-1980s to shift development further south of the old Financial District. The plans centers on the area between Market Street, The Embarcadero, Folsom Street and Hawthorne Street.

If approved by the Planning Commission, the plan will move on to the Board of Supervisors for final approval, possibly this summer.

“It’s an exceptionally important hearing,” said Joshua Switzky of the Planning Department. “Assuming they approve it, it would set the stage for entitling some important new projects and generate hundreds of millions of dollars for public improvements and infrastructure.”

One of those projects, the planned 61-story, 1,070-foot Transit Tower office building at the terminal site, could come up for approval at the Planning Commission in the fall. Although scaled down from its original planned height of 1,200 feet, it would still dwarf The City’s current tallest building, the 48-floor Transamerica Pyramid, which stands 853 feet tall and was completed in 1972.

“It’s still the iconic tower that The City was looking for from the beginning,” said Paul Paradis, senior managing director at Hines, the developer on the project.

The towering glass and white metal building is expected to help significantly fund the terminal project, with $575 million anticipated for the downtown rail extension, and street and open space improvements.

Paradis said that as the market improves in The City improves, available office space is diminishing. Construction on the tower could begin as soon as next year, he said.

“I think that it’s going to provide a much needed space for the tenants of San Francisco,” Paradis said. “We’ve been in discussions with some larger tenants already.”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/deve...n-gets-hearing

Last edited by SF1977; May 24th, 2012 at 06:18 PM.
SF1977 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 02:52 AM   #898
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 289
Likes (Received): 14

Good news for SF. It's gonna be a fantastic city.. as if it wasn't already
fooddude no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 05:26 AM   #899
SF1977
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 213
Likes (Received): 18

Well, it was approved by the Planning Commission:

Quote:
UPDATE: The Transit Center District Plan was approved by the Planning Commission.

From the Planning Department:

Between now and 2035, approximately 17 percent of the projected job growth in San Francisco will occur in the area surrounding the new Transbay Transit Center. The project anticipates over 27,000 new permanent jobs will be accommodated in the District -- the most significant concentration of projected job growth in the entire city.
The new district will feature more than six million square feet of new office space, over 4,000 new housing units of which at least 1,200 units will be affordable, up to 1,000 new hotel rooms, and improved streets to enhance transit service and support walking and bicycling. The new Plan also proposes to create and fund over 11 acres of new public spaces such as parks, plazas and living streets.
The Department projects the Plan will raise $590 million in revenue from development.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...er_plan_u.html
SF1977 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 11:16 PM   #900
fooddude
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SF, NYC
Posts: 289
Likes (Received): 14

Finally!!!!

Yipeeee!

It's been several years of rejected proposals (6-7 years or more??)...it's about time!

Time to move this to the App/UC forum

fooddude 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



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 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