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 May 8th, 2013, 03:58 AM   #1021
yankee fan for life
Registered User
 
yankee fan for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Brooklyn new york
Posts: 832
Likes (Received): 195

Is this San Francisco first super tall ?
__________________
My heart beats for Brooklyn new york
yankee fan for life no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 8th, 2013, 04:10 AM   #1022
RegentHouse
City Development Shitlord
 
RegentHouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,216
Likes (Received): 771

Why did they add the slit? WHY?
RegentHouse no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 8th, 2013, 08:18 AM   #1023
tim1807
faster than buildings
 
tim1807's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Den Helder
Posts: 10,325
Likes (Received): 5334

Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee fan for life View Post
Is this San Francisco first super tall ?
__________________

Kanto, Highcliff liked this post
tim1807 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2013, 04:09 AM   #1024
112597Jorge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 425
Likes (Received): 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by PinkFloyd View Post
You forgetting about the US Bank Tower?
true, still the US Bank Tower will be the tallest building on the west coast to roof height upon completion of this tower and the Wilshire Grand
112597Jorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2013, 05:18 AM   #1025
Kenni
What?
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,220

Wait, how will the US Bank Building still be the tallest? It tops off at 310 mts.
__________________

Kanto, Highcliff liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2013, 06:20 AM   #1026
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3462

At the end of the day, it will be a personal opinion on what counts as height and what doesn't. USB will have the highest roof. Large parapets, crowns, or spires are added purely for visual effect.
__________________

-Corey- liked this post
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2013, 06:40 AM   #1027
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53453

Quote:
Originally Posted by PinkFloyd View Post


1070 feet is not to the roof. There's an added architectural parapet. The roof will be at 920 feet if I remember correctly.

[IMG]http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%20Street%20Rendering%20-%20Tower%20Crown.jpg[IMG]
www.socketsite.com

And it had to be tapered inward to avoid the shadows that forced a height reduction from 1,200 ft. It's weird that the one tower allowed to go that high in San Fran is sited so near parks covered by shade ordinances!



Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee fan for life View Post
Is this San Francisco first super tall ?
First and possibly last. This tower is a creature of the need to finance a huge public project. Any ordinary supertall proposal would have been cockblocked to hell and back by the NIMBYs and the craven politicos that pander to them.
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2013, 10:59 PM   #1028
theskythelimit
Registered User
 
theskythelimit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 548
Likes (Received): 117

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertpunk View Post
And it had to be tapered inward to avoid the shadows that forced a height reduction from 1,200 ft. It's weird that the one tower allowed to go that high in San Fran is sited so near parks covered by shade ordinances!
Where else are they gong to put it up, out in the Bay? Because this is where it would be as not to cast a shadow in Union Square or else where. The only other option is to shorten it and even the controversial former Supervisor of that District, C.Daily, wanted the height.One of the biggest controversies surrounding the tower's design was the issue of the building's considerable shadow. The structure is projected to cast a shadow over downtown parks as far away as Chinatown's Portsmouth Square. San Francisco is a very dense City and the options are limited.

In the mid-1980s, San Francisco voters approved a law aimed at curbing the growth of the city's downtown core by requiring all newly constructed buildings casting a shadow over city parks first gain approval from both the Planning and Recreation and Parks commissions. Both bodies have given the tower their blessings

[/QUOTE]
First and possibly last. This tower is a creature of the need to finance a huge public project. Any ordinary supertall proposal would have been cockblocked to hell and back by the NIMBYs and the craven politicos that pander to them. [/QUOTE]

I disagree and believe this is just the beginning. The Cities population is expected to grow 100 K + over the next 15 years and these people will be working in the City as Companies continue to grow. The suburban campuses might have been attractive 10 years ago but a lot of the population is returning to the City whereas 20 years ago they were heading to the suburbs.
__________________

phoenixboi08 liked this post
theskythelimit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2013, 06:27 AM   #1029
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3462









http://gossipy.co/sportsnews/new-gol...re-pretty-neat

http://urbaninitiativ3.com/updated-r...-new-sf-arena/
__________________
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2013, 07:58 AM   #1030
Simfan34
Complainer-in-Chief
 
Simfan34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,884
Likes (Received): 2461

boring



Bring this back!
__________________
(Don't forget Ethiopia and NYC, too!)
Simfan34 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2013, 09:07 AM   #1031
Gendo
Registered User
 
Gendo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: SE Idaho
Posts: 1,548
Likes (Received): 77

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simfan34 View Post
boring

Bring this back!
Heck, why not build them both?
Gendo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 10th, 2013, 04:40 PM   #1032
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 487

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gendo View Post
Heck, why not build them both?
We can also wish for trees that grow money

I like the Pelli design, even if it is more boring than the SOM design, and despite it being reminiscent of half the other towers Pelli has done. I think it will fit in pretty well in SF's skyline, though I'm still not sure whether I like it better with or without the "slits" in the crown.

Anyway, the reason that tower design was chosen over SOM was because the Pelli team had a better/more functional terminal, and was offering a lot more money for the land than the SOM team was. Tower design wasn't the primary motivation behind which project got chosen.

But in addition to the Transbay Tower, SF will soon be getting an 802' tower around half a block away from the Transbay tower site, at 181 Fremont, and possibly 915' and 750' towers, both just a block or so away as well...it's not another 1,000+ footer with that cool SOM design, but it's not a bad line up (181 Fremont has a nice design, reminiscent of the Bank of China tower, and the 915' one is actually by SOM too and also looks good, but there are no designs for the 750' one yet), especially in a city where a decade or two ago it seemed impossible that anything above 500' could get build.

Last edited by techniques1200s; May 10th, 2013 at 05:00 PM.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 12:30 PM   #1033
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,706
Likes (Received): 28342

cool renders! I had not realized it would be that much taller than the other buildings.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2013, 10:59 PM   #1034
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 487

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Offereins View Post
cool renders! I had not realized it would be that much taller than the other buildings.
The height is actually exaggerated in all of those renderings, and the 3rd one down also has the tower in the wrong place and orientation. The tower looks like it ranges from 1,200-1,400 feet tall in those renderings, when the true height is of course 1,070' tall.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2013, 11:34 PM   #1035
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3462

An architect's model of the Transbay Tower is illuminated inside a display case at the Embarcadero Center in San Francisco, Calif. on Friday, May 17, 2013.









More: http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/2013...-form/#12417-1
__________________

Highcliff liked this post
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2013, 12:40 AM   #1036
metsfan
Photographer
 
metsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Newtown, PA
Posts: 661
Likes (Received): 42

SF supertalls would need tuned mass damper plus bracing to keep framing members from breaking at joints during a strong earthquake. Not sure if base isolation would work or not additionally.
__________________
Lets Go Mets!
metsfan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2013, 10:10 PM   #1037
ILITS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 191
Likes (Received): 170

Quote:
Originally Posted by RegentHouse View Post
Why did they add the slit? WHY?
For naturalism. Maybe they don't like abstract art.
__________________
НІ КОМІБЛОКАМ!
ILITS no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2013, 11:25 PM   #1038
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3593

I recently came to the stark realization that I've started hoping for this tower to fail.

There's essentially nothing I like about it aside from the proposed cladding. It's tall enough to steal the spotlight away from Transamerica and BofA, but too stubby to be graceful; the natural new center to the skyline, but not original enough to be an icon. I'm not even pining for the SOM proposal at this point -- a supertall version of Millenium Tower or the Heller Manus tower would have easily been better.

At least the east span is nearly finished, and the Warriors' waterfront arena appears to be on its way. SF deserves more iconic architecture than this.

Last edited by MarshallKnight; May 22nd, 2013 at 07:11 AM.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2013, 11:30 PM   #1039
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 metsfan View Post
SF supertalls would need tuned mass damper plus bracing to keep framing members from breaking at joints during a strong earthquake. Not sure if base isolation would work or not additionally.
The tower of the new Bay Bridge span is built as a number of independent but connected tubes, which are allowed to essentially sway separately from one another, reducing the overall rigidity of the structure in an earthquake. I wonder if there's a way that that concept could be applied to an occupied building.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 22nd, 2013, 12:48 AM   #1040
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3462

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
...

SF deserves more iconic architecture than this.
I agree 100%.

For a building that will be SF's tallest for long time, it should be unique IMO, and not easily comparable to Pelli's other projects.
PinkFloyd 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 04:26 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