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

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

And this is why San Francisco annoys me. The little village that could(n't).

I don't think many people really care about skyscraper height dick-measuring contests (everyone would lose to China and Dubai anyways). LA has had the tallest building on the west coast for decades now, it's not like SF's pride will be hurt or something if that continues. Also, I'm not sure why you think peanut gallery's opinion is that of all San Franciscans...not that his opinion even sounds like a "little village" opinion.

SF has dozens of high rises under construction, approved and proposed right now, which doesn't quite sound like a little village to me...and 10-20 years ago a 1,070' tower would have been unthinkable. So really it's more like the little village big city that can (finally!!). Not to mention the plan has always been to build a tall skyscraper, not the tallest skyscraper on the west coast.

Anyway, here have a nice rendering of the Transbay tower and the other towers proposed for the Transbay and Rincon hill redevelopment areas:





source: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATT...TS/FA26000.pdf

That sure looks like the type of development you see in a little village that can't!

[mahanakorn]

Quote (Wakamesalad): You have to leave and look at it from the outside in to really understand it. Los Angeles is a much more important city culturally, yet SF doesnt want to put up a fight and compete. The city is pretty stagnant, you must admit.

From 9 time zones away, SF seems to cast a pretty long shadow for a small city of 800K. It appears in the news, in advertising, in song, and in conversation often (especially in the contexts of tech and culture). 'Stagnant' is not a word that comes up. SF is generally mentioned in a more favorable light than our SoCal cousins (I'm not a hater; I like LA).

SF is a good-looking rich girl who turns out to be smart and fun, too. Cities aren't measured by their skyscrapers. I love living in Bangkok, but if I had to choose between dynamic, sky-scraping Dubai and stuffy old low-rise Copenhagen, I take Copenhagen in a heartbeat.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by mahanakorn

From 9 time zones away, SF seems to cast a pretty long shadow for a small city of 800K. It appears in the news, in advertising, in song, and in conversation often (especially in the contexts of tech and culture). 'Stagnant' is not a word that comes up. SF is generally mentioned in a more favorable light than our SoCal cousins (I'm not a hater; I like LA).

SF is a good-looking rich girl who turns out to be smart and fun, too. Cities aren't measured by their skyscrapers. I love living in Bangkok, but if I had to choose between dynamic, sky-scraping Dubai and stuffy old low-rise Copenhagen, I take Copenhagen in a heartbeat.

You're right that SF is not stagnant, but you also have a somewhat skewed view of SF. The 46 square miles of SF city proper has 800,000 people (which is not at all small for an American city-proper), but the metro area has over 7 million people, making it the 6th largest metro area in the US. You mentioned tech, and while there is a lot of tech industry based in SF city-proper, most of it is actually based elsewhere in the metro area. As for SF being "a good-looking rich girl"...yeah on one hand that's what it is (and i know that is how it's often presented to the rest of the world), but on the other hand it's not at all. SF has lots of rich people, but it has a lot more poor people, working class, and middle class people, and it has grit, and crime, and an ugly side. Cities aren't one-dimensional caricatures.

That said...skyscrapers!!!! Yeah!!! They aren't necessary for city to be a city, but they sure are nice.

[CyberEric]

^Doesn't sound like good news for the tower.

Some negativity in here! The idea that one tall building has much of, if any, impact on a city is comical to me. The fact that many residents don't much care about having the tallest building on the West Coast (whoopty do) is, to me, evidence of something in itself. SF is not LA, it's not NY, it's not Chicago, if that means SF is stagnant, then that's fantastic. I have lived in London, Madrid, Buenos Aires and SF never ever seems even remotely "stagnant" to me.

Go to Doha Qatar, plenty of new tall buildings, completely stagnant.

[Dale]

^ Either-Or Fallacy ? What's wrong with having both ?

[Zapatan]

Bingo^


Definitely not new news, like I said, it would probably be too good to be true for SF to build a 1070 foot tower.

[tech12]

^So much pessimism. And whether this tower gets built or not doesn't have anything to do with it's height, it's the money that's an issue.

I'm going to wait for some more news before I decide this is dead. Too much work has been put into it all over several years, the terminal is dependent on it for money, and downtown SF is very desirable and has low office vacancy rates at the moment. And Hines is still involved at least...I don't think this project is guaranteed to die just because MetLife pulled out.

[rriojas71]

^Good call Tech. I am in agreement with you. Time for some positive vibes on this thread.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by tech12

^So much pessimism. And whether this tower gets built or not doesn't have anything to do with it's height, it's the money that's an issue.

I'm going to wait for some more news before I decide this is dead. Too much work has been put into it all over several years, the terminal is dependent on it for money, and downtown SF is very desirable and has low office vacancy rates at the moment. And Hines is still involved at least...I don't think this project is guaranteed to die just because MetLife pulled out.

Of course I'm pessimistic, we've only heard bad news recently.. about a tower in the NIMBY capital of the world nonetheless

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Of course I'm pessimistic, we've only heard bad news recently.. about a tower in the NIMBY capital of the world nonetheless

Understandable, but what I'm trying to say is that there's still hope for this. MetLife pulling out is not good news, but it's not necessarily the end of the project either.

As for NIMBYs, SF may have lots of them, but it's not the "NIMBY capitol of the world". You don't build 53 highrises in 15 years by being the NIMBY capitol.

[Zapatan]

Yea, I was exaggerating when I said it was the NIMBY capitol of the world, but I don't want to get my, or anyone else's hopes up too high for the projects. I just think it's going to be very hard for them to find funding elsewhere, hopefully they wait a while before cancelling the tower.

[theskythelimit]

Maybe they should call Donald trump. He likes signature properties.

[mt_climber13]

I hope the entire project is killed and that the SOM Rockfeller proposal is built. Guess we'll find out Sep. 30.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I hope the entire project is killed and that the SOM Rockfeller proposal is built. Guess we'll find out Sep. 30.

That won't happen since they're already building the transit terminal designed with the current tower. If the demand for office space is good, the tower will be built; if not, nothing will go up.

[theskythelimit]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

That won't happen since they're already building the transit terminal designed with the current tower. If the demand for office space is good, the tower will be built; if not, nothing will go up.

This is an interesting perdicament. Hines won the competition to design the Tower and Terminal. If the Tower does not get built, no money goes to build the Terminal. So basically, worst case scenerio is that the Tower does not get built and you have a hole in the ground where the Terminal should be.

Probably won't happen as the City would not allow the rebuild of the Terminal to be cancelled but there would be a delay.

[WildCowboy]

The crown gets a slit!

Some other nice tweaks...the funicular is back (but we knew that) and new public lobby in the tower with express elevator to the fifth floor to access the public park on the terminal roof. Fifth floor of the tower will also have retail opening onto a deck connecting to the park.

No specific word on what's going with the funding situation, but Hines says it's "comfortable with where we are" in terms of finalizing the parcel purchase.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...al-3888331.php

[rocketman_95046]

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

The crown gets a slit!

Some other nice tweaks...the funicular is back (but we knew that) and new public lobby in the tower with express elevator to the fifth floor to access the public park on the terminal roof. Fifth floor of the tower will also have retail opening onto a deck connecting to the park.

No specific word on what's going with the funding situation, but Hines says it's "comfortable with where we are" in terms of finalizing the parcel purchase.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...al-3888331.php

The quote from Hines is the best news we have heard in months

[mt_climber13]

Wow it keeps getting worse and worse.. what a joke!!

[tech12]

It doesn't look too bad. I like that the tower seems to have gotten slightly skinnier, with a somewhat pointier top, and it does look more distinctive now...though I'm not sure yet if I actually like the slit. I also like that there's going to be retail facing the rooftop park, and of course that fact that Hines seems ok without MetLife involved.

[tech12]

Here's another render from that SF gate article, showing how the slits down the sides of the crown would be lit up at night:



I wish they had released some bigger/better renders for this.