SAN FRANCISCO | Transbay Tower | 326m | 1070ft | 60 fl | Prep - Page 46

techniques1200s · May 26th, 2012, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

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.

I wasn't talking about which city had the tallest skyscrapers, but which had the most. Seattle and Philly have taller tallests, but less skyscrapers in total.

total number of skyscrapers, according to www.emporis.com (buildings above 100 meters/330 feet):

San Francisco: 68 (plus 412 high rises between 12 storeys and 100 meters, including planned and under construction)
Philadelphia: 49 (plus 364 high rises between 12 storeys and 100 meters, including planned and under construction)
Seattle: 39 (plus 242 high rises between 12 storeys and 100 meters, including planned and under construction)

If the transbay tower, and the proposed 915' and 700' tower all get built as proposed, the 5 tallest buildings in SF would be:

Transbay Tower: 1,070'
50 First Street: 915'
Transamerica pyramid: 853'
Bank of America tower: 779'
181 Fremont: 700'

Not a bad line up! It's great that the planning commission approved the transbay plan, now I hope the board of supervisors approves it too. I'm thinking they will.

May 26th, 2012, 05:59 AM

San Francisco will become a world-class destination with this tower added to their skyline.

Although I have personally never visited San Francisco, I grew up in Philadelphia and was always a skyscraper fan way back then.
I used to compare Philadelphia to other cities such as Pittsburgh, New York, LA, Chicago and San Francisco.
In fact, San Francisco is more similar to Philadelphia than just about any other city.
I had never realized that San Francisco had more skyscrapers in total than Philadelphia until techniques1200s pointed that out.

True indeed that Philadelphia has numerous skyscrapers much taller but hopefully, San Francisco will make some changes.
One thing I realized growing up comparing cities is that San Francisco is limited to tower height due to the steep sloping streets. Possibly also would be earthquakes in the California state.

Once again, San Francisco will be proud to host a new skyscraper on their beloved skyline!

Jay · May 26th, 2012, 06:24 AM

Philly has 2 skyscrapers that are a bit taller. Seattle has 1.

techniques1200s · May 26th, 2012, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

Philly has 2 skyscrapers that are a bit taller. Seattle has 1.

Yeah, and Philly also has 2 skyscrapers taller than SF's 2nd tallest (a total of 5 above 700' in Philly vs. only 2 for SF). But once you get under 700 feet SF has more skyscrapers. SF would be equal with Philly for the number of towers above 700' if/when all these new buildings get built, and would of course have the tallest tower too.

But all three cities have some amazing skylines regardless of which has more or taller skyscrapers.

May 26th, 2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by techniques1200s

Yeah, and Philly also has 2 skyscrapers taller than SF's 2nd tallest (a total of 5 above 700' in Philly vs. only 2 for SF). But once you get under 700 feet SF has more skyscrapers. SF would be equal with Philly for the number of towers above 700' if/when all these new buildings get built, and would of course have the tallest tower too.

But all three cities have some amazing skylines regardless of which has more or taller skyscrapers.

Ah yes, but let's not forget that both cities have enormous potential.

fooddude · May 26th, 2012, 06:29 PM

SF is already a world class destination..for it's culture, history, etc.

I hear technics1200's on the number vs height. Totally true. SF obviously does not have the tallest buildings; but the number they have and the density of their proximity to each other, makes SF feel like a city more so than any other city I've been to or lived in the USA (except nyc). I think SF feels more "city" than even Chicago many times, as the outskirts/neighborhoods around downtown-Chi doesn't feel too heavily populated and you don't see that many people walking around as compared to SF. Another example is LA. They have the tallest tower in the west, but only have a few skyscrapers and it doesn't feel like a city at all compared to chi, sf, nyc, any other world city, since it's so sprawled out and the majority uses cars.

fooddude · June 5th, 2012, 12:40 AM

So..is this officially "prep" and basically "UC" status now?

It should be moved to the UC forums section and out of "prop" forums

marp · June 5th, 2012, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertpunk

simply GREAT. it seems Pelli like using gardens to cover the roof of lower secondary buildings. dropping a pic of Pelli's tower under construction in Seville, Spain

Jay · June 6th, 2012, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fooddude

So..is this officially "prep" and basically "UC" status now?

It should be moved to the UC forums section and out of "prop" forums

What? This tower is nowhere near under construction. I don't it has even really been approved yet.

ElDudarinodotcom · June 6th, 2012, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

What? This tower is nowhere near under construction. I don't it has even really been approved yet.

The tower design has been approved, and the increased height limit was approved. NIMBYs tried to stop it due to the shadows it cast but they failed to do so. This essentially means the tower is approved. Construction will begin once the office space is needed. The developer has stated that the earliest that would be is the end of 2013.

Jay · June 6th, 2012, 12:52 AM

So not in the near future, it could be a year away.

Height increase? The height was decreased from 1200 to 1070

SF1977 · June 6th, 2012, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay

So not in the near future, it could be a year away.

Height increase? The height was decreased from 1200 to 1070

He meant the zoning for the Transbay neighborhood (where this tower will be constructed). See post #899.

Also, I've heard from numerous sources that this tower could be starting a lot sooner than originally thought, because Hines already has a lot of interest from "large tenants". We'll see. Regardless, "by the end of 2013" really isn't that far away, and there is plenty of construction around town to keep things exciting until this one breaks ground.

Jay · June 6th, 2012, 05:01 AM

yea It's good news nonetheless, I was just pointing out that the building currently isn't that close to construction.

SF1977 · June 15th, 2012, 05:45 PM

I had heard rumors about a 2015 completion. Now it looks like it might be a reality!

Quote:

Hines leaps ahead on Transbay tower
Tenant demand could push up start of 61-story highrise

Hines could start construction on San Franisco’s tallest office tower as early as next summer, if final city approvals go smoothly and the office leasing market continues to be strong.
Under the best-case schedule, which is six months more aggressive than projections Hines made in March, Transbay Tower and the adjacent 5.4-acre City Park would be completed in late 2015, according to Hines Executive Vice President Paul Paradis.
“We have started talking to tenants. We have sent out a proposal to one tenant who requested it. We have had a few other tenants ask us to do the presentation,” said Paradis. “I think the larger tenants in San Francisco or coming into San Francisco have a planning horizon that is starting to match with the potential delivery of the tower.”

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...bay-tower.html

fooddude · June 15th, 2012, 06:35 PM

I think this tower should go up rather quickly, yeah? Seeing how the weather there is always good, unlike nyc where there are snow storms and high winds.

Khaleejian · June 20th, 2012, 11:10 PM

Perfect height for San Francisco, in my opinion. The city doesn't need exaggeratedly tall buildings, like the ones you'd find in other cities. San Francisco can have a beautiful skyline, with beautiful architecture, while still maintaining its serenity. I hope construction starts in the near future.

Enigmatism415 · July 26th, 2012, 08:19 PM

I wouldn't have minded a 1200ft tower, as long as it wasn't any taller than that, and as long as no other building in the city rose above it for the next 50 years at least.

The highest floor able to be occupied is considerably lower than the architectural height anyway; it would be nice to have an observation deck and restaurant up there. I think the entire project will make a nice anchor point for the cityscape, bound by the bay bridge and the Transamerica Pyramid.

ZZ-II · July 27th, 2012, 12:38 AM

Great to read San Francisco will finally get a supertall

. That'll change the whole Skyline

techniques1200s · September 17th, 2012, 08:32 AM

Here's a new render of the Transbay tower and the other proposed towers for the Transbay redevelopment area and the neighboring Rincon Hill redevelopment area (i took the screen shots from here: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATT...TS/FA26000.pdf, but thanks goes to LWR at SSP for stitching them together into one picture):

The green boxy buildings are not final designs of course, it's just to show proposed locations and height limits.

KillerZavatar · September 17th, 2012, 11:55 AM

this looks like the building in Santiago, i hope it gets a similar modern facade, then it will look amazing.

May 26th, 2012, 05:59 AM	#902
fish Guest Posts: n/a Likes (Received):	San Francisco will become a world-class destination with this tower added to their skyline. Although I have personally never visited San Francisco, I grew up in Philadelphia and was always a skyscraper fan way back then. I used to compare Philadelphia to other cities such as Pittsburgh, New York, LA, Chicago and San Francisco. In fact, San Francisco is more similar to Philadelphia than just about any other city. I had never realized that San Francisco had more skyscrapers in total than Philadelphia until techniques1200s pointed that out. True indeed that Philadelphia has numerous skyscrapers much taller but hopefully, San Francisco will make some changes. One thing I realized growing up comparing cities is that San Francisco is limited to tower height due to the steep sloping streets. Possibly also would be earthquakes in the California state. Once again, San Francisco will be proud to host a new skyscraper on their beloved skyline!

June 20th, 2012, 11:10 PM	#916
Khaleejian Mr. Khaleeji Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Kuwait City, San Francisco Posts: 106 Likes (Received): 74	Perfect height for San Francisco, in my opinion. The city doesn't need exaggeratedly tall buildings, like the ones you'd find in other cities. San Francisco can have a beautiful skyline, with beautiful architecture, while still maintaining its serenity. I hope construction starts in the near future. __________________ Are we human, or are we dancer?

July 27th, 2012, 12:38 AM	#918
ZZ-II I love Skyscrapers Join Date: May 2006 Location: Near Ingolstadt in Bavaria Posts: 28,299 Likes (Received): 402	Great to read San Francisco will finally get a supertall . That'll change the whole Skyline __________________ Download the most up-to-date list of all Supertalls on this planet here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22508016/To...ary%202013.pdf Last Tower added: Eurasia - Moscow - 309m The Supertall-City-Ranking: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22508016/Su...ary%202013.pdf Last City added: Changzhou Follow me on Twitter: @Minecraft_87 Visit my Photo-Website: www.foto-kotzur.de

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 26th, 2012, 06:24 AM	#903
Jay Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Buenos Aires Posts: 2,013 Likes (Received): 28	Philly has 2 skyscrapers that are a bit taller. Seattle has 1.

May 26th, 2012, 06:29 PM	#906
fooddude Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: SF, NYC Posts: 286 Likes (Received): 3	SF is already a world class destination..for it's culture, history, etc. I hear technics1200's on the number vs height. Totally true. SF obviously does not have the tallest buildings; but the number they have and the density of their proximity to each other, makes SF feel like a city more so than any other city I've been to or lived in the USA (except nyc). I think SF feels more "city" than even Chicago many times, as the outskirts/neighborhoods around downtown-Chi doesn't feel too heavily populated and you don't see that many people walking around as compared to SF. Another example is LA. They have the tallest tower in the west, but only have a few skyscrapers and it doesn't feel like a city at all compared to chi, sf, nyc, any other world city, since it's so sprawled out and the majority uses cars.

June 5th, 2012, 12:40 AM	#907
fooddude Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: SF, NYC Posts: 286 Likes (Received): 3	So..is this officially "prep" and basically "UC" status now? It should be moved to the UC forums section and out of "prop" forums

June 6th, 2012, 12:52 AM	#911
Jay Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Buenos Aires Posts: 2,013 Likes (Received): 28	So not in the near future, it could be a year away. Height increase? The height was decreased from 1200 to 1070

June 6th, 2012, 05:01 AM	#913
Jay Registered User Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Buenos Aires Posts: 2,013 Likes (Received): 28	yea It's good news nonetheless, I was just pointing out that the building currently isn't that close to construction.

June 15th, 2012, 06:35 PM	#915
fooddude Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: SF, NYC Posts: 286 Likes (Received): 3	I think this tower should go up rather quickly, yeah? Seeing how the weather there is always good, unlike nyc where there are snow storms and high winds.

July 26th, 2012, 08:19 PM	#917
Enigmatism415 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 59 Likes (Received): 1	I wouldn't have minded a 1200ft tower, as long as it wasn't any taller than that, and as long as no other building in the city rose above it for the next 50 years at least. The highest floor able to be occupied is considerably lower than the architectural height anyway; it would be nice to have an observation deck and restaurant up there. I think the entire project will make a nice anchor point for the cityscape, bound by the bay bridge and the Transamerica Pyramid.

September 17th, 2012, 08:32 AM	#919
techniques1200s Registered User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 565 Likes (Received): 25	Here's a new render of the Transbay tower and the other proposed towers for the Transbay redevelopment area and the neighboring Rincon Hill redevelopment area (i took the screen shots from here: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATT...TS/FA26000.pdf, but thanks goes to LWR at SSP for stitching them together into one picture): The green boxy buildings are not final designs of course, it's just to show proposed locations and height limits.

September 17th, 2012, 11:55 AM	#920
KillerZavatar also known as Wally Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Duisburg Posts: 5,055 Likes (Received): 274	this looks like the building in Santiago, i hope it gets a similar modern facade, then it will look amazing.