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 April 2nd, 2014, 01:47 AM   #1201
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Originally Posted by 112597Jorge View Post
to be a roof it must be a enclosed surface from one side of the tower to the other side of the tower, TBT's parapet is "tube-like", meaning that it is hollow, with 200 feet of glass panels arching up on all 4 sides of the tower.
TBT's "parapet" was originally intended to contain a pair of wind turbines:


http://www.greenbang.com/san-francis...tower_553.html

however the design has been "refined" and I believe the turbines were axed.

Quote:
Prior versions of the tower treated the crown as an open-air extension of the outer walls of the 60 floors below, with horizontal bands of glass and steel continuing upward even as they thinned out to allow light to pass through. The newest design adds a deep vertical slit that runs up each side of the crown, backed by perforated metal that will be lit at night for a sculptural effect.

"We wanted something visible at urban scale but almost Zen-like in its simplicity," said architect Fred Clarke of Pelli Clarke Pelli, who called the redone top a "transformative refinement ... the idea is to further lengthen and slim the profile and also create something more distinctly emblematic of the city."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...al-3888331.php

In any case, it is certainly architectural and by most definitions therefore a part of the building's "height" unlike an add-on mast or spire.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Kanto liked this post
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 2nd, 2014, 02:14 AM   #1202
CityTrip
Registered User
 
CityTrip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 40

Exactly, Like I said Transbay Tower is infact 1070' tall. Look at renderings of the Shanghi tower and the very top 75' to 100' is very similar to the Transbay tower, unused space. But the height is listed to the very top.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
CityTrip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 02:32 AM   #1203
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 Cal_Escapee View Post

In any case, it is certainly architectural and by most definitions therefore a part of the building's "height" unlike an add-on mast or spire.
1,100 feet is the height for the Wilshire Grand as defined by CTBUH. Spires count.

http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/los-...nd-tower/9686/
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 02:48 AM   #1204
CityTrip
Registered User
 
CityTrip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 40

Here's another angle. Someone could, if they where not afraid of heights, stand on the very top the Transbay tower and walk around all four sides, it's possible. But nobody is ever going to stand on top of the Wilshire's antenna, no matter how good they are. If you want to count your 100' plus toothpick as your final height then so be it. At least Transbay will look taller than Wilshire.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
CityTrip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 03:00 AM   #1205
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 CityTrip View Post
Here's another angle. Someone could, if they where not afraid of heights, stand on the very top the Transbay tower and walk around all four sides, it's possible. But nobody is ever going to stand on top of the Wilshire's antenna, no matter how good they are. If you want to count your 100' plus toothpick as your final height then so be it. At least Transbay will look taller than Wilshire.
I'd try it but neither tower exists yet. And it's not me counting parapets or spires as official height, it's the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

I wasn't trying to argue what elements should or should not count. Just putting the facts out there. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and can certainly disagree with CTBUH if they like.
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 03:09 AM   #1206
CityTrip
Registered User
 
CityTrip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 40

No worries, just pointing out some observations. I'll be glad when both towers are built because the west coast needs them. They help make skylines look greater.
CityTrip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 03:38 AM   #1207
Ghostface79
Registered User
 
Ghostface79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,536
Likes (Received): 4607

I'm impartial in this debate (I'm from NYC) but the tallest tower is clearly Transbay, this whole "stick on top of skyscraper" sham is getting ridiculous, after all we have the king of them here in NYC (1WTC). That doesn't pass the eye test and even the CTBUH seems to be rethinking their position on those sticks based on the recent debate on 1WTC
That said I'm pleasantly surprised to see that both LA and SF are getting supertalls, I heard Seattle might get one too, congrats guys!
__________________

Kanto, Assemblage23, Philly Bud liked this post
Ghostface79 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 03:46 AM   #1208
PinkFloyd
R.I.P. Chris Cornell
 
PinkFloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Fontana, California
Posts: 881
Likes (Received): 3462

To be honest, I'm not a fan of a lot of these skinny spires either. The only reason I like the one on the WG is because it will add something different to the LA skyline, which otherwise consists of mostly flat-topped buildings. I'm not really concerned about "which is the tallest", I'm just excited for the buildings themselves and what they will do for their respective 'hoods.
__________________

tinyslam liked this post
PinkFloyd no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 03:53 AM   #1209
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Quote:
Originally Posted by 112597Jorge View Post
to be a roof it must be a enclosed surface from one side of the tower to the other side of the tower, TBT's parapet is "tube-like", meaning that it is hollow, with 200 feet of glass panels arching up on all 4 sides of the tower.
You clearly didn't read any of my post... first of all, there is 135' of tube which looks just like the rest of the building... second of all a a lot of buildings, especially new ones around the world do this, including Shanghai Tower which I still consider a 2000+ footer.

Quote:
Here's another angle. Someone could, if they where not afraid of heights, stand on the very top the Transbay tower and walk around all four sides, it's possible. But nobody is ever going to stand on top of the Wilshire's antenna, no matter how good they are. If you want to count your 100' plus toothpick as your final height then so be it. At least Transbay will look taller than Wilshire.
I agree, there will definitely be walkways and access to the very top of TBT but hopefully Whilshire's spire doesn't look like a toothpick, some spires can have presence.

Quote:
I'm impartial in this debate (I'm from NYC) but the tallest tower is clearly Transbay, this whole "stick on top of skyscraper" sham is getting ridiculous, after all we have the king of them here in NYC (1WTC). That doesn't pass the eye test and even the CTBUH seems to be rethinking their position on those sticks based on the recent debate on 1WTC
That said I'm pleasantly surprised to see that both LA and SF are getting supertalls, I heard Seattle might get one too, congrats guys!
1WTC as much as I like the bottom of the building is one of the worst culprits in the world in that regard but to be fair it was originally supposed to have a beautiful, architectural and accessible spire that fit the building very well, now it's just another Conde Nast antenna due to the utter idiots behind the WTC project.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 04:08 AM   #1210
Jay
Registered User
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California to Barcelona
Posts: 4,054
Likes (Received): 1863

Looks like a 1070 foot building to me

__________________

Kanto, singoone liked this post
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 11:16 AM   #1211
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Originally Posted by PinkFloyd View Post
1,100 feet is the height for the Wilshire Grand as defined by CTBUH. Spires count.

http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/los-...nd-tower/9686/
Architectural spires count. This was the cause for the big breathe-holding event over WTC-1: Would they count the spire without the originally-planned cladding? They did. But "masts" don't count.

Anyway, I am not part of the Wilshire Grand vs TransBay fight. I don't care which is taller. But I do care that TransBay is properly measured and that includes the "parapet".
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 02:40 PM   #1212
tinyslam
Registered User
 
tinyslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,466
Likes (Received): 893

It amazes me how much it towers over the giant Transamerica pyramid. I hope I get a chance to return to San Fran and see this beauty some day
tinyslam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 05:00 PM   #1213
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,344
Likes (Received): 3592

It won't. The render above is greatly exaggerated. Maybe the original 1250 ft. version would have appeared that high, but not 1080.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 05:25 PM   #1214
tinyslam
Registered User
 
tinyslam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,466
Likes (Received): 893

Your right it is very exaggerated. Here they are side by side

tinyslam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 06:03 PM   #1215
Blue Flame
Get Silly!
 
Blue Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lexington,KY
Posts: 2,369
Likes (Received): 575

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinyslam
Your right it is very exaggerated. Here they are side by side
Transbay still looks a lot taller.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 08:09 PM   #1216
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
Transbay still looks a lot taller.
well...it is.

And honestly, I'm kind of glad it's 1,070' instead of 1,200+ like originally planned. The rest of the skyline is much shorter in comparison, and the taller height made it loom over the skyline a little too much IMO. Skylines with a single extra giant tower poking out look kind of funny to me unless the skyline is truly massive and relatively tall (as in NYC, Hong Kong, etc).
__________________

Eric Offereins liked this post
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 09:17 PM   #1217
ThatOneGuy
Psst! Check my signature!
 
ThatOneGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto - Bucharest - Freeport
Posts: 21,500

The Pyramid will remain more iconic, I think.
ThatOneGuy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 10:28 PM   #1218
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
well...it is.

And honestly, I'm kind of glad it's 1,070' instead of 1,200+ like originally planned. The rest of the skyline is much shorter in comparison, and the taller height made it loom over the skyline a little too much IMO. Skylines with a single extra giant tower poking out look kind of funny to me unless the skyline is truly massive and relatively tall (as in NYC, Hong Kong, etc).
In a way but I think 1200 could definitely have worked on SF's skyline, especially since more tall buildings are on the way.

But 1070' is good too obviously.
Jay no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2014, 11:09 PM   #1219
CityTrip
Registered User
 
CityTrip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 40

I wish it would have been 1200' also because there already is a tower a block or so away that there working on the foundation that is going to be about 850' Plus another 3 tower project that's being redesigned two blocks east with the tallest tower over 900' So actually 1200' wouldn't stick out that far once those towers are completed. But anyways, I'm happy with 1070' either way.
__________________

Kanto liked this post
CityTrip no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2014, 05:19 AM   #1220
CityTrip
Registered User
 
CityTrip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 182
Likes (Received): 40

Drove by the site today and they are definitely working on something. There was several crane type of machinery working at the same time.
CityTrip 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 01:56 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