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

mt_climber13

Jun 15, 2012, 3:26 PM

http://i.imgur.com/S9lWc7n.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OLc9ghy.jpg

415 Mission Street, San Francisco, California, USA

Architect: Pelli Clarke Pelli (http://pcparch.com/)
Developer: Boston Properties (http://www.bostonproperties.com) Hines (http://www.hines.com)
Area: 1.35 million sq. ft.
Use: Office

Construction completed May 22, 2018:

https://i.imgur.com/0JX2EA2.jpg

Photo credit https://www.instagram.com/p/BjFkEpfF1y2/?hl=en&taken-by=streets.win

Construction Camera (http://oxblue.com/open/clarkconstruction/salesforcetower)

Live construction video feed (http://www.salesforcetower.com/cam/)

Image copyright: Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects (www.pcparch.com)

From the architect:
"The tower takes the timeless form of the obelisk and has a slender, tapering silhouette. The walls are composed of clear glass with pearlescent white, metal accents. These horizontal and vertical accents gradually taper in depth to accentuate the curved glass corners. The walls rise past the top floor to form a transparent crown that appears to dissolve into the sky. Carved into the tower top is a vertical facet that will be lit at night. Like the transit center, the design for the tower emphasizes sustainability and has a LEED Gold objective."

http://i.imgur.com/cNk0S7E.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Salesforce-Tower-Crown-Installation-Exterior-Lighting.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/f4ei2OK.png

http://i.imgur.com/9z21JJQ.jpg

tele75

Jun 15, 2012, 4:25 PM

Awesome. Love it SF.

easy as pie

Jun 15, 2012, 9:42 PM

so for about 2 years, we'll have simultaneous construction on four separate sites, in addition to the new terminal itself - this supertall, 181 freemont, crescent heights' 524 howard, and tishman's rounding out the (irritatingly lowrise) foundry square development. now we're talking.

urbandreamer

Jun 16, 2012, 3:44 AM

Love it!

migol24

Jun 16, 2012, 5:43 AM

Suuweeeeet!! :awesome::dancingtaco::dancingbacon:cucumber::apple::banger::righton::leek::fireworks:

KevinFromTexas

Jun 16, 2012, 6:03 AM

That's going to produce some interesting skyline views looking down Columbus Avenue with it being so close to the Transamerica Pyramid from that angle.

migol24

Jun 16, 2012, 6:12 AM

That's going to produce some interesting skyline views looking down Columbus Avenue with it being so close to the Transamerica Pyramid from that angle.
It might peek out somewhere walking through FiDi being so tall. This is going to be epic. Bye, bye Seattle and Boston: hello Chicago and NYC. :cool:

TallBob

Jun 16, 2012, 9:08 AM

A tall one for SF!

Roadcruiser1

Jun 16, 2012, 3:24 PM

This will be the first building in San Francisco to soar over 1,000 feet. Celebration time :D.

NOPA

Jun 18, 2012, 10:25 PM

Thanks for splitting the thread on this planned tower and the under-construction adjacent terminal!

NYC GUY

Jun 19, 2012, 1:08 AM

This is a very good looking building. :)

tech12

Jun 19, 2012, 2:45 AM

Nice to see a new/separate thread for this tower! Next summer can't come soon enough...especially since the queen of the NIMBYs (Sue Hestor) has finally managed to put the tower on her radar of "evil skyscrapers that must be stopped at all costs". Though I have a feeling she'll be powerless on this occasion, thankfully.

Here are some older renders that have a somewhat different design, but which are at the correct height of 1,070 feet, so they give an idea of what it would look like on the skyline:

http://i.imgur.com/mDVAY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/krFKU.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/vZK4q.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/k5ViG.jpg

sources:
http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2007.0558E_DEIR1.pdf
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/10/the_plan_for_san_francisco_tallest_tower_and_transit_ce.html

And here's another render showing what it would look like from the bay/across the bay to the southeast (which happens to be one of my favorite angles of SF's skyline), along with the proposed Mission Rock development:

http://i.imgur.com/btOLX.jpg

jd3189

Jun 19, 2012, 3:37 AM

This will be the first building in San Francisco to soar over 1,000 feet. Celebration time :D.

More cities around the country need to at least have one or two supertalls on average. Especially major cities like San Fran and Miami.

mt_climber13

Jun 19, 2012, 3:42 AM

More cities around the country need to at least have one or two supertalls on average. Especially major cities like San Fran and Miami.

We're getting there!

Roadcruiser1

Jun 19, 2012, 4:04 AM

More cities around the country need to at least have one or two supertalls on average. Especially major cities like San Fran and Miami.

They would if they had the demand.

Miami will have One Bayfront Plaza which would be 1,010 feet tall, but I don't like the current design. The old one was better.

Zapatan

Jun 19, 2012, 5:29 AM

More cities around the country need to at least have one or two supertalls on average. Especially major cities like San Fran and Miami.

Aside from SF, LA and Miami have future potential supertalls.

If Chicago's wolf point tower gains a bit of height somehow it could too.

Which would make for 4 new supertalls outside NY

Anyway SF truly deserves this building!

tech12

Jun 19, 2012, 8:23 AM

They would if they had the demand.

It's not always about demand. Height limits play a part too, of course. SF had/has the demand, and would have had at least one supertall built decades ago if not for height limits (the Transamerica pyramid, at it's original proposed height of 1,150').

mt_climber13

Jun 19, 2012, 3:15 PM

It's not always about demand. Height limits play a part too, of course. SF had/has the demand, and would have had at least one supertall built decades ago if not for height limits (the Transamerica pyramid, at it's original proposed height of 1,150').

Fun fact: The Pyramid was the 5th tallest building in the world upon completion in 1972.

1977

Jun 19, 2012, 4:10 PM

Deleted

tech12

Jun 19, 2012, 4:23 PM

Fun fact: The Pyramid was the 5th tallest building in the world upon completion in 1972.

Yeah, I guess even at the reduced height, it still basically qualified as a "supertall" of the time.

mt_climber13

Jun 19, 2012, 7:50 PM

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/03/12/ba-transbaytower_SFC0107545758.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

I hope they don't install that stupid concrete monster, what an embarrassment that would be.

goldcntry

Jun 19, 2012, 8:54 PM

Fantastic build for SF! I am loving the crown.

rriojas71

Jun 19, 2012, 9:24 PM

I hope they don't install that stupid concrete monster, what an embarrassment that would be.

I couldn't agree more... that thing is atrocious. Where are the NIMBY's when you really need them.

Gordo

Jun 19, 2012, 9:50 PM

^I dunno, I kind of like it. It's unique, which I'm typically a fan of.

I wish that we still had that giant spider on the Embarcadero, that thing was awesome. Too bad it was temporary.

NYC GUY

Jun 19, 2012, 10:38 PM

Although that concrete sculpture isn't that great looking it could become something that tourists like taking pics with, Sort of like the Wall Street Bull.

1977

Jun 20, 2012, 12:01 AM

I don't hate it, I don't love it, but I do like the fact it will be constructed from salvaged pieces of the old Transbay Terminal.

Hawkinson will salvage some of the demolished material from the Transbay Terminal to reconstruct from the ruins, a figure to welcome travelers to the new Transit Center. The sculpture will be approximately 41 feet high and is constructed almost entirely from the demolished remains of the original terminal. The artist sees the sculpture as a “guardian”, intended to help travelers navigate a safe journey.
Source: http://transbaycenter.org/project/transit-center/public-art/tim-hawkinson

http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/2009/11/TTC_30.jpg
Source: www.transbaycenter.org

mt_climber13

Jun 20, 2012, 12:13 AM

I don't hate it, I don't love it, but I do like the fact it will be constructed from salvaged pieces of the old Transbay Terminal.

Source: http://transbaycenter.org/project/transit-center/public-art/tim-hawkinson

http://transbaycenter.org/uploads/2009/11/TTC_30.jpg
Source: www.transbaycenter.org

I've heard it been referred to as "The last bum to leave the terminal" I like that one!

easy as pie

Jun 20, 2012, 12:17 AM

i don't think i've ever even visited a city with worse public art that sf. i remember curbed did a "what's the worst public art in sf?" and it was practically a 12-way tie. this one would be a close 13th, just a terrible counterpoint to something so light and forward-looking. why not have an organic counterpoint, or something vivacious and expressive? why something like out of a child's cereal box or a 1990s video game?

i do like the redwoods though, ideally, i'd see some sort of crimson red totemic type thing, maybe a soft, even gently twisting, triangle rising from within the redwood grove, with seating below. in that vision, the redwoods would be very tightly spaced, with an earth floor and some low iron gating surrounding, like entering a glen. not sure how much time people spend at the transamerica redwood glen, but in the morning, with the dew or fog hanging out there, it's transporting.

mt_climber13

Jun 20, 2012, 12:21 AM

i do like the redwoods though, ideally, i'd see some sort of crimson red totemic type thing, maybe a soft, even gently twisting, triangle rising from within the redwood grove, with seating below. in that vision, the redwoods would be very tightly spaced, with an earth floor and some low iron gating surrounding, like entering a glen. not sure how much time people spend at the transamerica redwood glen, but in the morning, with the dew or fog hanging out there, it's transporting.

Although not technically in SF, but in the Presidio, I really like this piece of public art which is in essence what you just described:

http://lensdaisy.smugmug.com/Photography/throughmy7d/i-tZGxnp7/2/M/Spire-Arguello-Gate-M.jpg
http://lensdaisy.com/2011/09/26/presido-of-san-francisco/

homebucket

Jun 20, 2012, 1:37 AM

I like the addition of the elevated park. It reminds me of a mini High Line from NYC, which has been very successful. Too bad it doesn't snake its way all the way to the Embarcadero though!

tech12

Jun 20, 2012, 4:21 AM

I like the addition of the elevated park. It reminds me of a mini High Line from NYC, which has been very successful. Too bad it doesn't snake its way all the way to the Embarcadero though!

Old designs had the rooftop park extending south, along the top of the bus ramp to the freeway, making it even more like a mini high line park. You can see part of it in this rendering:

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/04/Transbay-Transit-Center-9.jpg
http://inhabitat.com/sfs-green-transbay-terminal-secures-171-million-for-construction/transbay-2/

Unfortunately it seems that it's no longer part of the design.

I hope they don't install that stupid concrete monster, what an embarrassment that would be.

Agreed. I wouldn't really mind if they built it somewhere else that's less visible/trafficked, because I like off the wall and weird stuff...but building it as the centerpiece sculpture of SF's new tallest tower? Hopefully not, I think they can do a lot better than that ugly pile of blocks. And can we tear down the giant bow and arrow on the embarcadero, while we're at it?

Although not technically in SF, but in the Presidio, I really like this piece of public art which is in essence what you just described:

http://lensdaisy.smugmug.com/Photography/throughmy7d/i-tZGxnp7/2/M/Spire-Arguello-Gate-M.jpg
http://lensdaisy.com/2011/09/26/presido-of-san-francisco/

Whoa that's pretty cool. I didn't know about it, which reminds me how little I go to the Presidio. Also, even though the Presidio is national park service land, it's still a part of SF.

easy as pie

Jun 20, 2012, 6:19 AM

tech12

Jun 20, 2012, 8:09 AM

yeah, like i almost never go to the presidio, i think i've been there a dozen times in my life. i don't know if the presidio is technically part of sf but, psychologically, it seems really removed. then again, so does st francis wood and stonestown and even the excelsior.

Same here, I've been to the Presidio maybe 10 times in the past decade, aside from driving through. It does feel like a different world compared to the rest of SF, but it is part of SF . It has over 2,000 residents and is in district 2 along with the Marina, Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, Seacliff, and some of the Western Addition and Russian Hill.

mt_climber13

Jun 20, 2012, 8:14 AM

Same here, I've been to the Presidio maybe 10 times in the past decade, aside from driving through. It does feel like a different world compared to the rest of SF, but it is part of SF . It has over 2,000 residents and is in district 2 along with the Marina, Pacific Heights, Presidio Heights, Seacliff, and some of the Western Addition and Russian Hill.

District 2- that's my hood ;)

CyberEric

Jun 20, 2012, 9:49 AM

tech12

Jun 20, 2012, 4:15 PM

I love the concrete monster, I hope they keep it there. Wouldn't it be considered NIMBY to oppose it?

And I like SF's public art, it's not all great, but at least it's there in relative abundance. There are a lot of other cities that have very little public art whatsoever and they'd do well to even have SF's mediocre pieces. I am living in London now, and there is so little public art it feels a bit sterile.
I find it interesting how hard people living in San Francisco are on the city sometimes, it's this funny self-loathing thing. I suppose it's everywhere.

I don't think it's very self-loathing to hate an ugly sculpture, especially one that's not even built yet. I actually like the sculpture in Justin Herman plaza, which is similar in that it's blocky and concrete, though some others thing it's 100% fugly. SF does have some good public art, but that proposed concrete block man wouldn't be an example, in my opinion, at least in that location.

mt_climber13

Jun 20, 2012, 4:32 PM

I love the concrete monster, I hope they keep it there. Wouldn't it be considered NIMBY to oppose it?

There are plenty of skyscrapers in SF I loathe as well. Yes, I suppose it is a type of NIMBYism if I were to campaign against it and waste taxpayer money on ballot initiatives to block it. To not like something is not NIMBYism.

1977

Jun 20, 2012, 5:43 PM

Honestly, they could put a bronze pile of crap on that corner and I wouldn't really care. I'm just happy to see an actual super tall in SF. I never thought I'd see the day!

peanut gallery

Jun 20, 2012, 5:48 PM

I've heard it been referred to as "The last bum to leave the terminal" I like that one!

HA! I like that too. That's exactly what I will call it from now on. Too funny!

We're wandering off topic here, but I think SF has very good public art. Some I consider good and some bad (a subjective thing for sure), but there is a good amount of it in the parts of town I frequent (mostly FiDi and other parts of the northeast). I think it stacks up just fine with most places I've been.

1977

Jun 20, 2012, 6:06 PM

originally posted by wakamesalad
i've heard it been referred to as "the last bum to leave the terminal" i like that one!ha! I like that too. That's exactly what i will call it from now on. Too funny!

+1!

rriojas71

Jun 20, 2012, 6:31 PM

^I dunno, I kind of like it. It's unique, which I'm typically a fan of.

I wish that we still had that giant spider on the Embarcadero, that thing was awesome. Too bad it was temporary.

I never saw the Giant Spider, but that sounds like it could be pretty cool. For me the sculpture of the Rock Monster would be fine if it just wasn't near the Terminal Tower.
Move it to the proposed Mission Rock park and it would be must better served and co-hesive with that project IMHO.

WildCowboy

Jun 20, 2012, 7:31 PM

I never saw the Giant Spider, but that sounds like it could be pretty cool. For me the sculpture of the Rock Monster would be fine if it just wasn't near the Terminal Tower.
Move it to the proposed Mission Rock park and it would be must better served and co-hesive with that project IMHO.

But the whole point is that it's built with pieces of the old terminal...I think that's really cool.

rriojas71

Jun 20, 2012, 9:22 PM

But the whole point is that it's built with pieces of the old terminal...I think that's really cool.

Just like the fountain at Justin Hermann plaza was made from parts of the Embarcadeo Fwy, which is a nice hommage, but it's not a great piece of art in that location. I think being on the corner it is going to be an eyesore next to the sleekness of the terminal and the tower. :slob: Maybe they should put it inside the terminal instead.
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I don't like it, maybe it will grow on me with time.

peanut gallery

Jun 20, 2012, 10:14 PM

^Are you talking about Vaillancourt Fountain? That was there way before the Embarcadero Freeway came down. It's been there since the early 70s at least.

JayCortese

Jun 21, 2012, 2:05 AM

caramatt

Jun 23, 2012, 9:21 PM

I too hate the sculpture, at least the way it looks in the rendering. It's too bad, because Tim Hawkinson makes some beautiful work. The TJPA has some more info on their artist's page, along with a video covering all the site-specific work that is going to be part of the terminal developement. I definitely recommend watching it. I think the terrazzo floor specifically will be quite nice and unique.

http://transbaycenter.org/project/transit-center/public-art/tim-hawkinson
(http://transbaycenter.org/project/transit-center/public-art/tim-hawkinson)

Charcusms

Jun 25, 2012, 6:18 PM

The architect's website lists the number of floors at 80. Was this the old figure back when the height was closer to 1,200 feet?

mt_climber13

Jun 25, 2012, 6:38 PM

The architect's website lists the number of floors at 80. Was this the old figure back when the height was closer to 1,200 feet?

:tup:

Sam Hill

Jun 26, 2012, 4:38 AM

Not only do I love this building, but I don't think it could be better placed in the skyline. Can't wait to watch it go up. Hopefully I'll be living in The City again by then.

Zapatan

Jun 26, 2012, 6:58 AM

The architect's website lists the number of floors at 80. Was this the old figure back when the height was closer to 1,200 feet?

yea that's it, but I'm wondering why they didn't change it on the website.

I wish there were more of a fight to get this thing back up to 1200', but considering it's SF, we're lucky with 1070 :sly:

rriojas71

Jul 16, 2012, 11:32 PM

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/ScreenShot2012-06-15at84520AM.png[/QUOTE]

Interesting observation I came up with as I was looking at this aerial of Fidi and Soma. I was looking at the area where the TBTT will be located and I started noticing the shadows that were being cast by the other tall buildings and a thought immediately popped into my head. It seems to me that the sun's position is about late afternoon based on the direction the shadows are pointing (strectching NE, so the sun must be in the West).

With that being said, I don't understand how the Tower is going to cast shadows on Union Square or Justin Hermann plaza. Even if it does they won't be there for any extended period of time (being as though the sun is constantly moving). I just feel the whole shadow issue is a fairy tale concept the NIMBY's use to stop construction of super talls in SF at any cost.

I know this issue has been pounded into the ground, but just thought I'd point it out. A little food for thought.

NOPA

Jul 16, 2012, 11:42 PM

The direction of the shadows also changes depending on what time of year. But I agree its all bullsh!t. If I could have any wish it would be to repeal that shadow law.

viewguysf

Jul 17, 2012, 6:57 AM

The direction of the shadows also changes depending on what time of year. But I agree its all bullsh!t. If I could have any wish it would be to repeal that shadow law.

Within the last week, I've read several postings in NYC threads that lamented shadows cast in certain parts of that city. I'm tired of discussing it since everyone has firm opinions, but the shadow law is very good when it comes to Union and Portsmith squares IMO. We would be greatly impovrished if they were deprived of sun on a regular basis. With that having been said, if a skyscraper would only cast a shadow for short periods of time during certain times of the year, I think we need to get on with building it. The shadow law is too strict, but I don't want to see it eliminated either. How about some moderation and compromise? This is something that Sue Hestor and her cronies don't want to do for sure.

peanut gallery

Jul 19, 2012, 7:02 PM

if a skyscraper would only cast a shadow for short periods of time during certain times of the year, I think we need to get on with building it. The shadow law is too strict, but I don't want to see it eliminated either. How about some moderation and compromise? This is something that Sue Hestor and her cronies don't want to do for sure.

I agree with this completely. A shadow law isn't bad per se. But when we stop a project because a tiny bit of shadow will hit a park for a few minutes in the morning on a small number of days per year (assuming the sun is even out first thing in the morning on those days), then we've gone way too far. There need to be better, more rational guidelines set for the threshold at which the shadow ordinance comes into effect.

NYguy

Jul 19, 2012, 11:53 PM

Photo and information credits: SF Business Times (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2012/06/15/hines-leaps-ahead-on-transbay-tower.html)

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/TransbayTower2012.jpg http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/ba-transbaytower_SFC0107545740.jpg
SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/18/BA231NKVL4.DTL)

I like this design. There are similar towers, but this seems more elegant. It's also about the same height as 3 WTC minus the spires (1,080 ft) to get a sense of scale.

OneRinconHill

Jul 25, 2012, 6:07 AM

The thing with the shadows is, that even if it's just in the Winter (which mind you is multiple months), the sun will be low enough on the horizon for the building to create a wide axis of a shadow (it's not just a tiny little shadow, remember it expands as it reaches the ground) that will cover a very large area. That's why the Transamerica Pyramid was designed the way it was, to get around that law.

viewguysf

Jul 25, 2012, 6:16 AM

Roadcruiser1

Jul 25, 2012, 8:07 PM

The top part of this building kind of reminds me of the old top design for One World Trade Center.

http://ptrck.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/freedom-tower-old-design1.jpg

tech12

Jul 25, 2012, 9:34 PM

The top part of this building kind of reminds me of the old top design for One World Trade Center.

http://ptrck.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/freedom-tower-old-design1.jpg

They look nothing alike, aside from the semi-transparent thing they have going on.

Zapatan

Jul 26, 2012, 12:44 AM

The top part of this building kind of reminds me of the old top design for One World Trade Center.

Other than the fact that the old design for 1WTC was a horrible monstrosity and this building by pelli is beautiful, sure.

1977

Aug 18, 2012, 5:50 AM

Apparently, MetLife isn't involved with the Transbay Tower anymore. Also, the article is saying the tower is 1101 feet.

MetLife No Longer Involved In San Francisco’s Transbay Project

MetLife Inc. (MET), the U.S. insurer with a $60 billion real estate portfolio, is no longer a partner in the Transbay Tower development in San Francisco, which would be the city’s tallest office building should it be constructed.[/B]
“MetLife is not involved in the project,” Christopher Breslin, a spokesman for the New York-based company, wrote today in an e-mail. MetLife was still a partner as of mid-June, according to San Francisco Business Times.
The 1,101-foot (336-meter) building in San Francisco’s South of Market area is being developed by Hines, which won a 2007 competition to design and construct the tower with MetLife as its financial partner. The Houston-based developer and MetLife negotiated a term sheet to buy land at First and Mission streets, Hines said in 2008.
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-16/metlife-no-longer-involved-in-san-francisco-s-transbay-project.html

More info at Socketsite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/08/san_franciscos_transbay_tower_partner_has_pulled_out.html).

tall/awkward

Aug 18, 2012, 10:16 AM

MetLife pulling out can't be a good thing for this tower's progress...am I right to be nervous all of a sudden?

The height boost may be a mere misread (336 meters instead of 326) by the author.

My first ever post, and I nailed it!

CyberEric

Aug 18, 2012, 10:21 AM

Tall/awkward, welcome!

Yes this certainly doesn't seem like good news for the project.

Zapatan

Aug 18, 2012, 6:58 PM

*sigh*

Maybe a supertall for SF was too good to be true

N830MH

Aug 20, 2012, 4:48 AM

*sigh*

Maybe a supertall for SF was too good to be true

Yeah, maybe they will have to try. Let's wait and see. If they approved it.

LeftCoaster

Aug 20, 2012, 3:21 PM

Heinz doesn't mess around. If there are tenants for this building they will find the financing.

Zapatan

Aug 20, 2012, 6:16 PM

how long are they giving themselves to find tenants?

SF needs this project, I really hope it doesn't fall through.

rocketman_95046

Aug 20, 2012, 7:01 PM

how long are they giving themselves to find tenants?

SF needs this project, I really hope it doesn't fall through.

This will not fall through. The height limit zoning hasn't even been finalized yet.

This project has been in the works for over 10 years and has gone through so many political hurdles and so much political capital has been spent, that every last inch of height allowed is going to be used. The transbay jpa needs the revenue, and every other piece of city planning has been rewritten to have this tower as the "peak".

When is the question, not "if".;)

rriojas71

Aug 20, 2012, 9:12 PM

This will not fall through. The height limit zoning hasn't even been finalized yet.

This project has been in the works for over 10 years and has gone through so many political hurdles and so much political capital has been spent, that every last inch of height allowed is going to be used. The transbay jpa needs the revenue, and every other piece of city planning has been rewritten to have this tower as the "peak".

When is the question, not "if".;)

I hope this in the case rocketman... I was starting to hyper-ventilate thinking that this would fall through.

liat91

Aug 22, 2012, 4:32 AM

easy as pie

Aug 22, 2012, 4:45 AM

as dude said above - hines is an international super developer. if there's a team that can make this work, it'll be them. and given how critical this tower is to the long term success of the terminal mega-project, and how much political capital has already gone into this one, i can't see this getting built one way or another.

Zapatan

Aug 22, 2012, 6:45 PM

coyotetrickster

Aug 25, 2012, 6:11 PM

I'm assuming you mean can? I'm a little worried but not too much because I agree, it is a crucial project for SF

The tower is not a critical project for SF. It will be a great addition to our skyline, but it is not critical to the city. The train station is critical and the tower will help fund amenities to help the train station.

lz131313

Aug 25, 2012, 7:34 PM

You just contradicted yourself..... The sales of the tower will be important to help fund the rest of the terminal/park

coyotetrickster

Aug 26, 2012, 7:01 PM

You just contradicted yourself..... The sales of the tower will be important to help fund the rest of the terminal/park

No, I did not contradict myself. The transbay tower is not crucial to SF. The train/transit station infrastructure, and which is under construction, is crucial. The Tower was always a separate and distinct commercial entity. The sale of the land was crucial to the funding of the station. That is done. The tower, of course, would provide additional tenant space in a very, very hot part of the city. But there are also plenty of titled spaces already coming out of deep freeze that will provide close to the same amount of square footage as the Transbay Tower. The development and community fees would be used to the park amenities (on top of the train station). But that was long term. Again, my comment was addressed solely to the post that said this is crucial to SF. It is not, there are plenty of building projects with permits in the process of being pulled.

easy as pie

Aug 27, 2012, 1:36 AM

uh, what? my understanding is that the station isn't fully funded and the proceeds of land sales and development around the terminal are a major source of revenue. like the ~$200 million that the sale and fees will bring into city coffers seems about as literal a definition of the word "crucial" as comes to mind.

peanut gallery

Aug 27, 2012, 4:55 AM

I think the distinction that coyotetrickster is making is that the fees that Hines paid were crucial but the actual construction of the tower is not. Assuming Hines has paid their fees (I have seen confirmation of the agreed upon amount, but I don't know the status of actual payment) then it doesn't currently matter when they begin construction. There are plenty of other projects in the pipeline -- some of which are approved and ready to go once their developers have funding and decide to start -- so it's not like this tower is critical to filling demand right now. It could be in the future however.

theskythelimit

Sep 11, 2012, 4:32 AM

lz131313

Sep 11, 2012, 4:59 AM

I dont think anything is for sure for wilshire... first it was 2 towers now its just one i mean the current building isn't going to be fully demolished untill 2014.... Even if its taller i dont think it would be as impressive being that most if not all of downtown LA is dead and has no density. SOMA by the financial district isn't that lively either after 6pm but i'm sure with all the development and the daily/ongoing amount of people coming in from the terminal SOMA will be lively with people and new residents. Regarding height i do think it should be raised to atleast 1,100 i mean come one its just 30 more feet ! might aswell.....

lz131313

Sep 11, 2012, 5:01 AM

wouldn't it be awesome if the top two floors of the tower be used as an observation deck/restaraunt im sure it would be a success since its the highest point in all the city , the views would be to die for ! Its only logical to do so. :shrug:

phoenixboi08

Sep 11, 2012, 12:59 PM

Hello All. Long time reader, first time posting.

I just returned from Hong Kong and noticed the IFC in HK looks quite similar to the proposed TransBay tower in San Francisco. Any thoughts?

On a side note, the proposed Wilshire development in LA is projected to be 1250FT. Would there be a chance to raise the height of the TransBay Tower to be the tallest building on the West Coast?

They were both designed by the same architect (Pelli I think).
Also, that one going up in Chile (Consterna) and that tall building in Jersey City. haha he really likes this motif.

peanut gallery

Sep 11, 2012, 6:58 PM

Hello All. Long time reader, first time posting.

I just returned from Hong Kong and noticed the IFC in HK looks quite similar to the proposed TransBay tower in San Francisco. Any thoughts?

On a side note, the proposed Wilshire development in LA is projected to be 1250FT. Would there be a chance to raise the height of the TransBay Tower to be the tallest building on the West Coast?

Welcome to the forum! To answer your first question, that was the initial reaction from a lot of us upon first seeing it. As to raising the height: no, that's not going to happen. It's already been lowered to where it is today. If LA has a taller building, so be it.

theskythelimit

Sep 12, 2012, 3:47 AM

Welcome to the forum! To answer your first question, that was the initial reaction from a lot of us upon first seeing it. As to raising the height: no, that's not going to happen. It's already been lowered to where it is today. If LA has a taller building, so be it.

Thank you for the welcome and answers. I know building such a large building could be financially risky to a developer and they maybe waiting for market conditions to improve a little. During the 1990s there was a lot of speculative buildings. I also believe Foudrey Square IV(?) is under construction and is speculative without a major tenant?

Let's hope the TransBay tower gets its finances in order and breaks ground next year. I see the Terminal is moving on quite well.

mt_climber13

Sep 15, 2012, 1:20 AM

If LA has a taller building, so be it.

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

tech12

Sep 15, 2012, 2:10 AM

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:

http://i.imgur.com/Ord5U.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5uT6G.jpg

source: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA26000.pdf

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

mt_climber13

Sep 15, 2012, 6:50 AM

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:

http://i.imgur.com/Ord5U.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/5uT6G.jpg

source: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA26000.pdf

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

This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. 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.

timbad

Sep 15, 2012, 7:24 AM

This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. 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.

I walk around this city a lot, and see change and growth everywhere that mostly excites and stimulates me. 'stagnant' is one of the last terms I would use to describe it right now.

mahanakorn

Sep 15, 2012, 10:06 PM

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

Sep 16, 2012, 4:30 PM

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.

rriojas71

Sep 17, 2012, 3:52 PM

This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. 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.

So what would it prove to the rest of the world if SF had the biggest building on the West Coast? I think SF packs a punch and holds it own with LA despite being much smaller in area and size. I would love to see a supertall rise in SF, but it we keep shooting for "mine is bigger than yours" we will never be satisfied.

theskythelimit

Sep 20, 2012, 7:29 AM

As was reported earlier, Metlife has pulled their partnership with Hines regarding the Transbay Tower. Matier&Ross had a small piece in The Chronicle about the possible ramifications and future.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tower of trouble: Funding for San Francisco's new Transbay Transit Center bus and rail hub has hit a $185 million snag.

The hitch came when real estate giant MetLife pulled out as the primary investor of the neighboring, 1,070-foot-tall Transbay Tower at First and Mission streets - a deal that was intended to help fund the $1.5 billion, Grand Central Terminal-style transit hub.

The pullout comes just ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline for the tower's primary developer, Hines, to cut a $185 million check for the site.

Hines has to make a quick decision whether to go it alone on what would be the city's tallest skyscraper, bring in a new partner or bail on the development altogether, said Transbay project spokesman Adam Alberti.
If Hines decides to exit, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority will have to start hunting for new buyers. And quickly, because the authority is depending on the tower money to be in the bank by spring to keep the new transit hub on schedule."

CyberEric

Sep 20, 2012, 12:26 PM

^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

Sep 20, 2012, 3:30 PM

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

Zapatan

Sep 20, 2012, 3:57 PM

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

Sep 20, 2012, 4:39 PM

^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

Sep 20, 2012, 5:11 PM

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

Zapatan

Sep 20, 2012, 8:30 PM

tech12

Sep 20, 2012, 10:28 PM

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.