SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 61 floors

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

^yep, tallest office tower west of the Mississippi.

Not really. Salesforce's roof is 970 feet with the hollow parapet making up the next 100 feet. US Bank's roof is 1,018 feet. So take that as you will.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by brandonjxn

not really. Salesforce's roof is 970 feet with the hollow parapet making up the next 100 feet. Us bank's roof is 1,018 feet. So take that as you will.

1,070' > 1,018'

It will officially be taller and also look taller.

[BrandonJXN]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

1,070' > 1,018'

It will officially be taller and also look taller.

Well with that logic, Wilshire Grand will be taller than both of them.

[mt_climber13]

1) Wilshire Grand is a hotel, not an office tower. My original statement that this will be the tallest office tower in the west still holds true.
2) Wilshire Grand looks nowhere near taller than Library Tower.
3) Yes, WG will officially be the tallest tower in the west (but not the tallest office tower)
4) This is an SF thread about SF tower. You are free to debate Wilshire and LA towers on their threads.

[brantw]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Well with that logic, Wilshire Grand will be taller than both of them.

[BrandonJXN]

Both buildings cheat to attain their height. So least there's that fact LA and SF can agree upon.


https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5786/...bf591599_o.jpg

[mt_climber13]

^thanks for that clear image that proves that the SF tower will actually look like the tallest tower overall in the west instead of just officially being the tallest office tower

[BrandonJXN]

Either way, it's a pointless title to be honest. LA has 2 supertalls. SF has one. California has 3 supertalls regardless of needles or parapets.

[mt_climber13]

True, although SF is currently constructing a "near super tall" at 910'. And within a few years SF will have 5 towers over 800' (1,070', 910', 853', 806', 804') and LA will only have 3 (1,018', 934'+165' needle, 858') and if you are going for density of skyscraper clusters in addition to height, there's no comparison.


But you're right, it really is pointless, as you say, which is why I'm interested that you keep bringing it up?

[ozone]

These semantics will be lost on or ignored by most people. The Salesforce Tower is the tallest in San Francisco and I think most people who see it in person will imagine it to be the tallest of any of the other so-called new suppertall in the West. To the eye the hollow top of the SFT will appear as an extension of the building rather than like an oversized flag pole. That's not to diminish the WG because it's a fine building and great addition to the skyline. However, it doesn't even come across as LA's tallest which most fourmers will now concede. Having been able to observe the two towers (WG & SF) over the weekend it's pretty clear that whether or not it's technically taller the SFT already gives the impression of being so due to its context. That's just my observation. For those who haven't seen the still untopped SFT in person I can tell you it (along with the Fremont tower) has really changed the skyline of San Francisco.

[Marcos]

they're both really cool looking buildings & huge additions to their cities

[maru2501]

sorry to pick an old scab

I'm down with your arguments, being from chicago and going through this with sears tower v. one wtc

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Marcos

they're both really cool looking buildings & huge additions to their cities

How dare you with your impartiality, like some sort of Skyscraper Switzerland!

[ozone]

*delete* just to make the little control freak from mission terrace happy.

[pseudolus]

would the mods please delete the last 15 posts (including this one)?

[mt_climber13]

All posts are on topic and there is no point in deleting them.

[Marcos]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

How dare you with your impartiality, like some sort of Skyscraper Switzerland!

ha, it's all amusing; I'm in Philly where Comcast claims the tallest skyscraper in the city which will shortly be eclipsed in height by... another Comcast building however the new one's roof will be lower than the old one but it will sport a 'lantern' that juts up higher.

That hasn't caused any controversy or infighting

[Sky's the Limit]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Not really. Salesforce's roof is 970 feet with the hollow parapet making up the next 100 feet. US Bank's roof is 1,018 feet. So take that as you will.

Not really. According to this very website, Salesforce's roof is at 326.1 meters, US Bank's is 310.3 meters, and Wilshire Grand is at 284.8 meters. Nothwithstanding spires, crowns, antenna, and various and sundry architectural add-ons, the visually apparent "roof" is the standard height definition applicable to all buildings on this site.

[181Fremont]

Originally Posted by Sky's the Limit

Not really. According to this very website, Salesforce's roof is at 326.1 meters, US Bank's is 310.3 meters, and Wilshire Grand is at 284.8 meters. Nothwithstanding spires, crowns, antenna, and various and sundry architectural add-ons, the visually apparent "roof" is the standard height definition applicable to all buildings on this site.

Your post made everyone shut up. SF Tower is the true winner

[homebucket]

I think way too much is being made about which one is taller. Tallest West of the Mississippi is not that impressive, especially when NYC and Chicago have multiple supertalls. It's like a race to see who finishes in third place. Not exactly something to brag about.

Personally, I'd much rather have the more aesthetically pleasing tower that adds to the skyline rather than a marginally taller but mediocre building that blends in. Initially a skeptic of SF Tower, my opinion has changed, particularly due to how well the glass cladding is coming together and just how much it dominates the skyline. If it continues on its current trajectory, the crown should be spectacular.