SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 61 floors - Page 97

SoCal Alan · #**1921** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justbuildit

Lol. I read SoCal Alan's post and my mind was about to explode trying to figure out how they could have 4.1 floors until I read down and saw it was a mistake.

I'm human, I admit it...

edwards · #**1922** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 3:21 AM**

King Kill 'em · #**1923** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 4:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justbuildit

What? This is a great day for San Francisco. It's about time! It always angered me that pathetic cities like Cleveland and Charlotte have had a taller tower than SF, but that's going to change soon.

Pathetic? Just smaller and less urban. i feel you though. It angered me that Atlanta had a taller tower than LA until recently.

SFSkyline · #**1924** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan

I believe that the top of the rebar is at floor 58. The top of the rebar is the fuzzy part shown higher than the inner forms on the semi-live cam, currently.

So that makes it (58-1)*15=855.

I'm not so sure. Isn't floor 49 the final full-core floor? If so, then it looks to me like floor 54 is the one inside the actual forms, with rebar up to 55 or 56.

ESysyn · #**1925** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 4:28 PM**

i cant wait for this to be done!!
the skyline will be drastically improved

SoCal Alan · #**1926** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFSkyline

I'm not so sure. Isn't floor 49 the final full-core floor? If so, then it looks to me like floor 54 is the one inside the actual forms, with rebar up to 55 or 56.

Miscalculation on my part for the top of the rebar:

Correct, floor 49 is the final full-core floor. The base of the shorter core is at floor 50.

I enlarged the semi live cam and measured from the top of the rebar, from floor 50, and I get roughly 7 floors.

So, I believe I'm incorrect. I believe the top of the rebar is at floor 57.

So, top of the rebar is (57-1)*15=840 feet.

And I measured to the top of the forms (where concrete will be pumped up to (and where the blue ends)) and that is 5 floors above 50, so the top of the forms should be at floor 55.

Hope this helps. Correct me if I'm wrong.

botoxic · #**1927** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 10:52 PM**

I also thought we had one more floor to go, but Curbed confirms that SF Tower surpassed TransAmerica sometime either yesterday or today (complete with misspelled url and all):

Salesforce Tower now taller than Transamerica Pyramid

Here is a picture to celebrate:

salesforce tower construction progress at 9.28.16 by pbo31, on Flickr

Justbuildit · #**1928** Posted **Sep 30, 2016, 11:13 PM**

This is getting exciting!

Next on the list, surpass the tallest tower in Charlotte (871), Dallas (921), Cleveland (947), Seattle (967), Houston (1,002), and Atlanta (1,023). Then San Francisco will have the tallest building in the U.S. outside of New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.

boyinthecity · #**1929** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 1:44 AM**

i wrote to the saleforce tower page on facebook about the height.

this was their reply: "Salesforce Tower We will pass the Pyramid mid October."

in addition, i put this graphic together regarding SF,Philly and L.A. some time ago. They are all fine towers and people can draw their own conclusion(s).

source images from this website.

bluntcard · #**1930** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 3:42 AM**

Great graphic. Salesforce is clearly the tallest.

There should be some rule about the width of a building’s affixation being at least a fourth of the width of the average width of a building for it to count as part of its height.
Taping a big stick to the side shouldn’t count.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boyinthecity

source images from this website.

SFSkyline · #**1931** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluntcard

Great graphic. Salesforce is clearly the tallest.

There should be some rule about the width of a building’s affixation being at least a fourth of the width of the average width of a building for it to count as part of its height.
Taping a big stick to the side shouldn’t count.

I think it has more to do with the fluidity of the design. Chrysler and One Liberty in Philly would not fit your criterion, but their spires look great in my opinion and should be counted. I posted this point in the WG forum and they had a hissy fit because I dared to take issue with their Frankentower.

DJ1272 · #**1932** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 5:21 PM**

Edit: nvm, my comment was almost as worthless as the person I quoted. Mods, please delete this.

Justbuildit · #**1933** Posted **Oct 1, 2016, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluntcard

Great graphic. Salesforce is clearly the tallest.

There should be some rule about the width of a building’s affixation being at least a fourth of the width of the average width of a building for it to count as part of its height.
Taping a big stick to the side shouldn’t count.

I disagree just as long as the height of the stick is not more than 25 percent of the height of the main body of the tower. That way I can't affix a 1,110 feet vertical pole to my 2 story house and say I have the tallest building in the US west of the Mississippi River. Speaking of that, is there any rule on that whereby if the height of the stick goes beyond a certain percentage of the height of the tower it cannot be added to the overall height of the structure? I would think there should be a rule that says if the height of the stick is more than 25 or 30 percent of the height of the main body of the tower it cannot be included.

Valyrian Steel · #**1934** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 12:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFSkyline

I think it has more to do with the fluidity of the design. Chrysler and One Liberty in Philly would not fit your criterion, but their spires look great in my opinion and should be counted. I posted this point in the WG forum and they had a hissy fit because I dared to take issue with their Frankentower.

That's one way to put. The other way is that SF forumers have been known to troll the WG thread since it started construction because they're mad at the CTBUH instead of being happy you're getting a new tallest in your city. You made a couple of snarky remarks and you got a response. Shocking.

franktko · #**1935** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by boyinthecity

I'm not a big fan of spires being counted in building height but that's the way it is... But fake walls are just in the same league as spires as far as I'm concern. So looking at these diagrams, I feel that US bank is still the tallest tower

That said, I just love these huge towers being built out west!!

DJ1272 · #**1936** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 2:36 AM**

I'm excited about 50 1st Street. It has a pretty futuristic, almost space-age design to it. Does anyone know if and when it will be started?

edwards · #**1937** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 5:12 AM**

Next month!

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=349

Human Scale · #**1938** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 7:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ1272

I'm excited about 50 1st Street. It has a pretty futuristic, almost space-age design to it. Does anyone know if and when it will be started?

It's interesting the two towers on the right of the diagram share the same lead architect at relatively the same point in his career. (Comcast and 50 1st, by Foster + Partners)

timbad · #**1939** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by botoxic

I also thought we had one more floor to go, but Curbed confirms that SF Tower surpassed TransAmerica sometime either yesterday or today (complete with misspelled url and all):

Salesforce Tower now taller than Transamerica Pyramid

...

... and KTVU News last night also reported that SF Tower is now the tallest, fwiw

DJ1272 · #**1940** Posted **Oct 2, 2016, 6:26 PM**

.