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 February 22nd, 2016, 10:37 PM   #1741
franch
Registered User
 
franch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Copiapó-Región de Atacama
Posts: 2,716
Likes (Received): 1791

se nota que es el mismo arquitecto del costanera center (Santiago de Chile)
__________________
franch no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 23rd, 2016, 11:20 AM   #1742
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,667
Likes (Received): 13256


@brant
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 02:03 AM   #1743
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

I'm not sure if it's a new feature or I just failed to notice it before, but the construction cam site now has multiple cams. Their latest:








http://www.salesforcetower.com/cam
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

techniques1200s, PinPeat liked this post
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 03:17 AM   #1744
DUBAI10000
Registered User
 
DUBAI10000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Boston
Posts: 790
Likes (Received): 436

I too thought the name was boring and corny until I realized its the name of the tenant.
DUBAI10000 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 06:23 AM   #1745
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

I don't know much about construction of a skyscraper but the pace of the construction still seems to be at a very slow pace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
I'm not sure if it's a new feature or I just failed to notice it before, but the construction cam site now has multiple cams. Their latest:








http://www.salesforcetower.com/cam
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 07:39 AM   #1746
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

I believe that the base of the core, which supports all that is above, is the most complex and demanding part of the structure and simply takes longer. That was certainly true of this tower's neighbor at 181 Fremont (the tower whose steel you can see rising in the background of many shots of this one). Also, the movable form system that is being used for the core takes some time to get started and for people to learn how to use it most efficiently. And also it looks to me like there's been a lot of work happening down in the hole--it doesn't look as deep as it did as if a concrete floor has been poured. So I think now that we have concrete in place to street level and are rising above that, I think we will see things speed up. By one report they should begin the steel surrounding the core in about 6 weeks and that's when I expect an acceleration in the upward rise to begin.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; February 24th, 2016 at 07:44 AM.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 08:19 AM   #1747
lovecities888
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 333
Likes (Received): 188

Interesting. They said it would top out by the end of this year and still open by next year. I have a hard time believing they would be able to top out by the end of this year. But, what do I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
I believe that the base of the core, which supports all that is above, is the most complex and demanding part of the structure and simply takes longer. That was certainly true of this tower's neighbor at 181 Fremont (the tower whose steel you can see rising in the background of many shots of this one). Also, the movable form system that is being used for the core takes some time to get started and for people to learn how to use it most efficiently. And also it looks to me like there's been a lot of work happening down in the hole--it doesn't look as deep as it did as if a concrete floor has been poured. So I think now that we have concrete in place to street level and are rising above that, I think we will see things speed up. By one report they should begin the steel surrounding the core in about 6 weeks and that's when I expect an acceleration in the upward rise to begin.
lovecities888 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 08:28 AM   #1748
SoCal Alan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 46
Likes (Received): 69

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecities888 View Post
Interesting. They said it would top out by the end of this year and still open by next year. I have a hard time believing they would be able to top out by the end of this year. But, what do I know.
The installation of rebar seems to take a lot of time. I wonder if this pace will continue as the core continues to rise.
SoCal Alan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 09:57 AM   #1749
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 SoCal Alan View Post
The installation of rebar seems to take a lot of time. I wonder if this pace will continue as the core continues to rise.
I doubt it . . . as I posted just above.

To people concerned about this, I suggest looking through the 181 Fremont thread in Skyscrapers. All the same "it's so sloooooow" posts are there while the below-ground work was being done, but once the first floors, which were much more complicated were done, it began rising so that now it seems to be doing about a floor per week or a bot faster (in 2-floor segments).

It seems to me that 1 World Trade Center in New York was similar--the first few floors took a very long time because of the dense concrete construction (aside from structural issues, that was supposed to help make it resistant to truck bombs and other attacks).
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

jchernin liked this post
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 09:59 AM   #1750
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 lovecities888 View Post
Interesting. They said it would top out by the end of this year and still open by next year. I have a hard time believing they would be able to top out by the end of this year. But, what do I know.
I have no idea when it will top out. I missed any statement it would be this year. But both the tower and terminal are scheduled to open by the end of next year (2017) and there has been nothing to suggest they could miss that timetable.

But I'll bet it's roaring skyward by mid-summer.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 11:43 AM   #1751
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,667
Likes (Received): 13256


@socialchanger
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2016, 03:27 PM   #1752
usman4864
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 7
Likes (Received): 2

Yawn . . . that it's been a long time since tall buildings were novelties.
usman4864 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2016, 11:22 AM   #1753
potipoti
El de los aurones
 
potipoti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Madrid
Posts: 8,667
Likes (Received): 13256


@bigrobca
potipoti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2016, 04:14 PM   #1754
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 usman4864 View Post
Yawn . . . that it's been a long time since tall buildings were novelties.
That may be true, but considering that there aren't any in San Francisco, I would say that a supertall is a novelty in this case.

This building is somewhat like the Shard in London- it is the first and likely the last supertall to be built in the city for awhile.
__________________
A cynic is nothing but a realist with experience.
Blue Flame no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2016, 06:56 PM   #1755
BLACK DAHLIA
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: BALBOA ISLAND/PASADENA
Posts: 566

...Which is a good thing!
I do not support supertalls in SF
BLACK DAHLIA no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2016, 07:10 PM   #1756
MarshallKnight
Registered User
 
MarshallKnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: From the Bay to L.A.
Posts: 2,343
Likes (Received): 3591

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLACK DAHLIA View Post
I do not support supertalls in SF
And neither does the highly liquefiable soil!
Huh boy, it's too early for bad jokes...

In truth though, I'm mixed on the idea of more SF supertalls. On the one hand, I do think keeping a certain level of airiness and sunshine is important to keep the vibrant street scene alive. On the other, downtown is already so packed full of towers that as long as they're consolidated between Transamerica and the Rincon Hill, I can't really see the harm of building taller. And on yet a third (purely aesthetic) hand, I have a weird aversion to perfectly "centered" skylines like this:



I really prefer a number of offset peaks to spread the visual weight around. That's a big part of why the Wilshire Grand has me so excited -- DTLA has been a "one peak" town for 25 years, so I'm happy to see it balanced out, and I wouldn't mind something of similar height rising on either side of Salesforce to do the same.
__________________

Last edited by MarshallKnight; February 25th, 2016 at 07:53 PM.
MarshallKnight no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2016, 01:53 AM   #1757
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,986
Likes (Received): 1028

Well, if San Francisco is ever to reach its full potential--that is to say, the potential level of population its geography and economy means it could support--it'll need a whole lot more vertical development to offer even vaguely affordable housing to everyone who wants to live there. San Francisco is missing out on a lot of human goodness just to keep itself static.

Boston, too.

Side note, but not really: I can't wait to see this tower and its companions rise.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2016, 09:51 AM   #1758
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 484

Quote:
Originally Posted by usman4864 View Post
Yawn . . . that it's been a long time since tall buildings were novelties.
lol

You might be on the wrong website if tall buildings bore you.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2016, 11:38 AM   #1759
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 MarshallKnight View Post
I have a weird aversion to perfectly "centered" skylines like this:



I really prefer a number of offset peaks to spread the visual weight around.
San Francisco only has this appearance from this one spot. From other directions (very hard to find photos from), it has a very different appearance.






https://images.search.yahoo.com/sear...g&action=click

And, for example, there's a whole new high rise cluster planned for the Market/Van Ness/Mission intersections which won't even really be visible from the direction you posted:


http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...t-mission.html
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

Last edited by Cal_Escapee; February 26th, 2016 at 11:46 AM.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2016, 07:45 PM   #1760
BLACK DAHLIA
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: BALBOA ISLAND/PASADENA
Posts: 566

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshallKnight View Post
And neither does the highly liquefiable soil!
Huh boy, it's too early for bad jokes...

In truth though, I'm mixed on the idea of more SF supertalls. On the one hand, I do think keeping a certain level of airiness and sunshine is important to keep the vibrant street scene alive. On the other, downtown is already so packed full of towers that as long as they're consolidated between Transamerica and the Rincon Hill, I can't really see the harm of building taller. And on yet a third (purely aesthetic) hand, I have a weird aversion to perfectly "centered" skylines like this:



I really prefer a number of offset peaks to spread the visual weight around. That's a big part of why the Wilshire Grand has me so excited -- DTLA has been a "one peak" town for 25 years, so I'm happy to see it balanced out, and I wouldn't mind something of similar height rising on either side of Salesforce to do the same.





Well,i guess you're not a big fan of the "Ultima"concept then!lol!....
There's no question that San Francisco is currently in the midst of a housing shortage, and the city's limited space—along, of course, with extensive regulation and other factors—make it a tough place to build. Way back in 1991, Emeryville-based architect Eugene Tsui looked at how little space San Francisco had to offer and came up with a revolutionary vertical structure based on African termite mounds, the tallest non-manmade structures in the world. Tsui's goal was to make San Francisco "a benchmark for ecologic living for the entire planet."

The concept for the building, known as the Ultima, was undoubtedly a bit far-fetched. It would have held the entire population of San Francisco, with a capacity of one million people. The whole purpose of the building was to get rid of sprawl and leave room for open space in the city. Tsui's design laid out 120 levels, each of which would have had its own mini-ecosystem of lakes, skies, hills, and rivers. Waterfalls on the lower levels combined with aerodynamic windows would have given the building a natural cooling system, and the surface would have been covered with photovoltaic solar. The whole thing would have been two miles high.

Despite all the benefits, getting all of the residents of San Francisco to agree to build and move into one building would be virtually impossible, especially in a city that has the propensity to hate any form of new building. Then there were the costs, which were estimated at $150 billion.Thanks God there's probably no chance that a termite mound skyscraper for a million people will ever hit San Francisco.

Last edited by BLACK DAHLIA; February 26th, 2016 at 07:55 PM.
BLACK DAHLIA 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 12:02 PM.


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