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 March 22nd, 2015, 11:02 AM   #1421
Baba O'Riley
Registered User
 
Baba O'Riley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 61
Likes (Received): 52

Would love to see a huge office tower similar in design to this one in Indy.

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff- "We'd like to build a Salesforce tower in Indianapolis, we just haven't found the right opportunity yet. ... If we can find the right developer, the right piece of land, we'd love to have a Salesforce tower here."
__________________

nsring, msquaredb liked this post
Baba O'Riley no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old March 22nd, 2015, 12:35 PM   #1422
Indica
Top of the World
 
Indica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Marina del Rey)
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 156

I expect this to sprout at about the same rate as the WG, now that there is an anchor tenant.

Does anybody know how high up is the highest occupied floor?
__________________
Just call me "Mr. Helpdesk"
Indica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2015, 05:00 PM   #1423
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 SpeedoPro View Post
Looks like this project was announced in 2006. Why so little progress?
It's San Francisco. Need I say more? I'm actually surprised and delighted to see this project moving forward at all.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.

keepthepast, jchernin, kevnasty27 liked this post
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2015, 06:10 PM   #1424
SpeedoPro
Registered User
 
SpeedoPro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 192
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
It's San Francisco. Need I say more? I'm actually surprised and delighted to see this project moving forward at all.
Why, too much red tape? San Francisco is my favorite city to travel to. Excited to see this beauty rise.
SpeedoPro no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2015, 09:46 PM   #1425
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 SpeedoPro View Post
Looks like this project was announced in 2006. Why so little progress?
Please read back through the thread for the detailed version of your answer.

The abbreviated answer: This is not a simple project where developer buys land, builds project. This started out as an effort to replace the 1930s-era TransBay Transit Terminal which originally was where one caught streetcars running across the Bay Bridge. In order to finance the new terminal, the idea was to sell parcels of excess city/state-owned land adjacent to the old terminal, one of which (in order to get the highest price) would be a site for a supertall that would be designed along with the terminal project and physically connected to it. And there was a "beauty contest" among architect/developer teams to pick the design of both.

Eventually the team of Hines/Pelli won the "contest" (notably, Richard Rogers was among the losers) and agreed to purchase the supertall site for $300 million (as I recall). But Hines seemingly got cold feet and decided to seek a partner to help fund the project. They sold the larger share of their interest to Boston Properties which is now in charge of development.

Boston Properties is a notoriously well but efficiently run (and publicly traded--which means it has to answer to Wall Street and stockholders) company and they decided to proceed with the foundation work as the terminal foundations (which were extremely complicated due to the presence of train boarding platforms on its lower levels) were being dug, but not to build above ground until an anchor tenant had been secured. This may have caused some delay though not much since Salesforce was signed as the anchor tenant while the early stage of foundation work was happening.

Finally, the terminal project has pretty much been planned all along for completion in 2017 and it has always been hoped that the tower would be completed simultaneously since the buildings were designed together and are physically connected. It now appears that that will happen.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2015, 09:55 PM   #1426
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 Blue Flame View Post
It's San Francisco. Need I say more? I'm actually surprised and delighted to see this project moving forward at all.
Yes, you need to say a great deal more. The issues with this project are totally different from those of most San Francisco development. In one notable example, the former anti-development supervisor, Chris Daly, who attempted to block many a project in his downtown district, was a chief proponent of this project in his capacity as a member (and, if memory serves, chair) of the TransBay Transit District Board. Partly as a result, anti-develpment NIMBYs got the cold shoulder on this one.

As a joint public/private project, this has been wired from the beginning as far as government approvals (the usual cause of delay in SF) but there were issues:

1. The design had to be picked via the "beauty contest"

2. The entire area had to be rezoned to permit heights above 760 ft.

3. Federal and state funding had to be obtained for the terminal and an auction of the land for private development had to be conducted.

4. An anchor tenant had to be found for the tower portion of the project.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; March 22nd, 2015 at 10:06 PM.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 22nd, 2015, 10:05 PM   #1427
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 Indica View Post
I expect this to sprout at about the same rate as the WG, now that there is an anchor tenant.

Does anybody know how high up is the highest occupied floor?
The "roof" is at 992 FT (302 M), the highest occupied floor (Mark Benioff's office--there's no "observation deck" or other public amenity planned at the top) being just below that. The remaining 78 ft or so is a screen for the mechanical equipment which originally was to include wind turbines. In the initial designs, this building was supposed to be "supergreen" with systems not only to generate wind energy but to trap rainwater for its toilets and plantings and all the rest. Most of the "greenest" features have been lost in the name of "value".

As far as construction timing goes, I estimate this project is about 9 months behind WG. That is, I expect the foundation pad to be poured this summer and the steel framework to break the street level by fall. It should be at the level WG is now by the end of the year. Just a guess, but the timing can be judged by progress on 181 Fremont, a steel-framed 800 FT tower under construction a block away on the same soils and requiring caissons of the same depth. The framework on that is just now breaking ground level, excavation for it having started about 6 months earlier than the Salesforce work got going seriously.

The foundation work for both projects (Salesforce and 181 Fremont) can be seen in this photo (uploaded last December), the former having the yellow crane in the top of the photo and the latter having the blue crane at the bottom of the photo. The work on the transit terminal is between them:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/jhowarth/15954824632/
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; March 22nd, 2015 at 10:23 PM.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 07:16 AM   #1428
geoking66
Registered User
 
geoking66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London, New York
Posts: 3,158
Likes (Received): 6900

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
1. The design had to be picked via the "beauty contest"
We haven't hit the Prop M allocation maximum yet, even with Park Tower. Close, though.
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
geoking66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 10:06 AM   #1429
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 geoking66 View Post
We haven't hit the Prop M allocation maximum yet, even with Park Tower. Close, though.
Not yet but the competition for the TransBay design was independent of that.

In fact, however, there are more projects in the pipeline (counting ones that haven't yet been presented to Planning) than would be allowed under Prop. M so there is already a certain urgency felt among developers to get theirs through.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 11:37 AM   #1430
Indica
Top of the World
 
Indica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA (Marina del Rey)
Posts: 368
Likes (Received): 156

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
The "roof" is at 992 FT (302 M), the highest occupied floor (Mark Benioff's office--there's no "observation deck" or other public amenity planned at the top) being just below that. The remaining 78 ft or so is a screen for the mechanical equipment which originally was to include wind turbines. In the initial designs, this building was supposed to be "supergreen" with systems not only to generate wind energy but to trap rainwater for its toilets and plantings and all the rest. Most of the "greenest" features have been lost in the name of "value".

As far as construction timing goes, I estimate this project is about 9 months behind WG. That is, I expect the foundation pad to be poured this summer and the steel framework to break the street level by fall. It should be at the level WG is now by the end of the year. Just a guess, but the timing can be judged by progress on 181 Fremont, a steel-framed 800 FT tower under construction a block away on the same soils and requiring caissons of the same depth. The framework on that is just now breaking ground level, excavation for it having started about 6 months earlier than the Salesforce work got going seriously.

The foundation work for both projects (Salesforce and 181 Fremont) can be seen in this photo (uploaded last December), the former having the yellow crane in the top of the photo and the latter having the blue crane at the bottom of the photo. The work on the transit terminal is between them:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/jhowarth/15954824632/
It will be very nice to watch both of these rise, and the two of them together will make a hell of an impact on the skyline!

I am glad to hear that the top occupied floor is just over 300m - that should place it as having the highest occupied floor in CA. US Bank Tower's highest occupied floor (on 72) is at 983' up from what I remembered.

I will be watching these both very closely. It will be very interesting to see how they beef up these buildings for seismic resistance. Its easy to see it on the WG and most LA towers (soil is pretty solid in DTLA for the most part), but these 2 towers rising are on landfill so caissons had to be pretty deep, so there will probably be more retrofitting (at the base) that is not viewable, when looking in from the outside.
__________________
Just call me "Mr. Helpdesk"
Indica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 06:00 PM   #1431
ABQ_X-PAT
A passion for Skyscrapers
 
ABQ_X-PAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Francisco California USA
Posts: 211
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba O'Riley View Post
Would love to see a huge office tower similar in design to this one in Indy.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff- "We'd like to build a Salesforce tower in Indianapolis, we just haven't found the right opportunity yet. ... If we can find the right developer, the right piece of land, we'd love to have a Salesforce tower here."
Just curious... Is Salesforce a major employer in Indy to justify a tower like this?
__________________

nsring liked this post
ABQ_X-PAT no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 07:50 PM   #1432
nsring
Registered User
 
nsring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Indy
Posts: 446
Likes (Received): 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQ_X-PAT View Post
Just curious... Is Salesforce a major employer in Indy to justify a tower like this?
Yes. they currently occupy three buildings and about 2000+ employees. Currently they have about 300 jobs open and will continue to grow. It's not as many employees as Lilly or IU, but it's still quite a large number.

Last edited by nsring; March 23rd, 2015 at 07:56 PM.
nsring no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 08:10 PM   #1433
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 Cal_Escapee View Post
Yes, you need to say a great deal more. The issues with this project are totally different from those of most San Francisco development. In one notable example, the former anti-development supervisor, Chris Daly, who attempted to block many a project in his downtown district, was a chief proponent of this project in his capacity as a member (and, if memory serves, chair) of the TransBay Transit District Board. Partly as a result, anti-develpment NIMBYs got the cold shoulder on this one.

As a joint public/private project, this has been wired from the beginning as far as government approvals (the usual cause of delay in SF) but there were issues:

1. The design had to be picked via the "beauty contest"

2. The entire area had to be rezoned to permit heights above 760 ft.

3. Federal and state funding had to be obtained for the terminal and an auction of the land for private development had to be conducted.

4. An anchor tenant had to be found for the tower portion of the project.
My point exactly. This faced considerably more hurdles to get approved in SF than it would of in other places. I've been to San Francisco many times, and my general impression of the city was that it isn't the type to easily approve huge projects, such as supertalls. San Francisco isn't the only place, mind you. I was quite surprised when the Shard was built in London, another place that wouldn't easily approve a major development/supertall. And as the forum member I quoted pointed out, this was first proposed in 2006. Do you consider 9 years a usual amount of time for a supertall to be approved and start construction?
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 08:29 PM   #1434
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 Cal_Escapee View Post

The foundation work for both projects (Salesforce and 181 Fremont) can be seen in this photo (uploaded last December), the former having the yellow crane in the top of the photo and the latter having the blue crane at the bottom of the photo. The work on the transit terminal is between them:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/jhowarth/15954824632/
Is that to indicate that excavation work hasn't really started yet on the Salesforce Tower? The plot with the yellow crane near the top hasn't even been excavated yet. How unfortunate. If so, this is even further behind than I thought.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 09:58 PM   #1435
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 Blue Flame View Post
Do you consider 9 years a usual amount of time for a supertall to be approved and start construction?
Not really considering all the steps required in this case. And if you really want to see delay and confusion, look at its prospective neighbor at 50 First St.. In theory, that's a much simpler project: An entirely private development on private land. But it's now had multiple redesigns and multiple developers and still nowhere near breaking ground no matter what they say . . . and all this in a city with a developing shortage of office space producing skyrocketing rental rates.

I linked to the 50 First thread in the SF section because finding its thread in the Skyscrapers section is too darned hard. And here's a rendering of all 3 buildings (50 First, Salesforce and 181 Fremont) plus the TransAmerica:


http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/p...640ff6601cb#/0
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2015, 10:03 PM   #1436
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 Blue Flame View Post
Is that to indicate that excavation work hasn't really started yet on the Salesforce Tower? The plot with the yellow crane near the top hasn't even been excavated yet. How unfortunate. If so, this is even further behind than I thought.
As I said, that photo is from December or earlier and posted just to show how close are the 2 buidlings. Look at more recent photos in this thread and read what I have written. The Saleforce excavation is down probably 2 or 3 levels (and the caissons are poured which took nearly a year--that's what they were still doing last fall in the photo) but I'm guessing that's about halfway based on how deep other 600 FT+ buildings have gone. The 600+/- FT Millenium Tower in the next block looked like the hole reached to H*ll (but was actually maybe 8-10 levels). That building, however, was built on a concrete pad without pilings or caissons so likely had a deeper foundation than the Salesforce will need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indica View Post
these 2 towers rising are on landfill so caissons had to be pretty deep, so there will probably be more retrofitting (at the base) that is not viewable, when looking in from the outside.
Yes: "The 55-story 181 Fremont tower, sited on land reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay after the 1906 earthquake, will be founded on 42 piers that plunge an average of 255 ft—with the deepest down 264 ft—to bedrock." Again, this is a block away and the rock depth at the Salesforce site is almost certainly about the same.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; March 23rd, 2015 at 10:13 PM.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2015, 08:54 PM   #1437
JohnFlint1985
I love New York
 
JohnFlint1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York - New Jersey
Posts: 15,621
Likes (Received): 6559

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
Not really considering all the steps required in this case. And if you really want to see delay and confusion, look at its prospective neighbor at 50 First St.. In theory, that's a much simpler project: An entirely private development on private land. But it's now had multiple redesigns and multiple developers and still nowhere near breaking ground no matter what they say . . . and all this in a city with a developing shortage of office space producing skyrocketing rental rates.

I linked to the 50 First thread in the SF section because finding its thread in the Skyscrapers section is too darned hard. And here's a rendering of all 3 buildings (50 First, Salesforce and 181 Fremont) plus the TransAmerica:


http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/p...640ff6601cb#/0
Interesting perspective!
__________________
RIP QuantumX & Desertpunk

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” Thomas Jefferson
"We Shall Never Surrender." Winston Churchill
“Not all those who wander are lost.” J.R.R. Tolkien
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." Oscar Wilde
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
JohnFlint1985 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2015, 11:38 PM   #1438
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 Cal_Escapee View Post
As I said, that photo is from December or earlier and posted just to show how close are the 2 buidlings. Look at more recent photos in this thread and read what I have written. The Saleforce excavation is down probably 2 or 3 levels (and the caissons are poured which took nearly a year--that's what they were still doing last fall in the photo) but I'm guessing that's about halfway based on how deep other 600 FT+ buildings have gone. The 600+/- FT Millenium Tower in the next block looked like the hole reached to H*ll (but was actually maybe 8-10 levels). That building, however, was built on a concrete pad without pilings or caissons so likely had a deeper foundation than the Salesforce will need.



Yes: "The 55-story 181 Fremont tower, sited on land reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay after the 1906 earthquake, will be founded on 42 piers that plunge an average of 255 ft—with the deepest down 264 ft—to bedrock." Again, this is a block away and the rock depth at the Salesforce site is almost certainly about the same.
Well that's good to hear. I was just a bit confused about those photos. I had missed the dates on them.
When should this rise above ground level? Maybe fall or winter this year?
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 25th, 2015, 11:04 AM   #1439
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Yes, as I said above, my guess is it will break street level by the end of this year. That means it will rise 1000 ft over the 18-24 months between then and the middle to end of 2017. That's the schedule and I think it's doable.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 26th, 2015, 07:21 AM   #1440
geoking66
Registered User
 
geoking66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London, New York
Posts: 3,158
Likes (Received): 6900

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Flame View Post
My point exactly. This faced considerably more hurdles to get approved in SF than it would of in other places. I've been to San Francisco many times, and my general impression of the city was that it isn't the type to easily approve huge projects, such as supertalls. San Francisco isn't the only place, mind you. I was quite surprised when the Shard was built in London, another place that wouldn't easily approve a major development/supertall. And as the forum member I quoted pointed out, this was first proposed in 2006. Do you consider 9 years a usual amount of time for a supertall to be approved and start construction?
San Francisco is notoriously difficult in development and real estate circles, probably the worst in the US. All you need to look at is the 8 Washington drama. It's really impossible to argue that. In fairness to Salesforce Tower, it's an engineering nightmare, but the same could easily be said of buildings in any earthquake-prone or landfill-based area.

London is actually not too bad, although the process can get somewhat complicated due to stringent English Heritage opposition in many key parts of the West End and City. They've sped things up considerably in opportunity areas, and many development clusters see pretty large amounts of construction (Canary Wharf, Nine Elms/Battersea/Vauxhall, Stratford, Wandsworth, King's Cross Central et al).
__________________

ChuckScraperMiami#1 liked this post
geoking66 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 09:51 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