HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


    Salesforce Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted May 12, 2013, 1:18 AM
xXSkyscraperDudeXx's Avatar
xXSkyscraperDudeXx xXSkyscraperDudeXx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Chicago, IL.
Posts: 104
This tower really fits this Skyline! What a great comeback for San Francisco
__________________
CHICAGO 4 LIFE!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted May 13, 2013, 7:55 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,744
Comeback? Don't call it a comeback!

Seriously, though, this is going to be an awesome addition to the city's skyline.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted May 13, 2013, 5:53 PM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted May 13, 2013, 6:12 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!
You say that like it's a weird/surprising thing, or as if you don't consider the Chrysler building to be that tall. But the Chrysler building is pretty tall, as is the Transbay tower, and yes, both are taller than any building in SF (and taller than most buildings in New York, or any other city for that matter). Transbay also isn't going to completely dominate SF's skyline. The Transamerica and Bank of America buildings tower over their part of the financial district, and will stand out about as much, if not moreso than Transbay when viewing the skyline from the north (depending on where you're viewing it from). And there might be a 915' tower going up right down the block from Transbay as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted May 14, 2013, 7:34 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,744
Dont feed the, well, you know...
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted May 14, 2013, 9:12 AM
Roadcruiser1's Avatar
Roadcruiser1 Roadcruiser1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,106
I was being sarcastic. I wouldn't really be mean to my aunt's home town.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 4:48 PM
rriojas71 rriojas71 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!
True SF's skyline is not on par with nor will ever match NYC's skyline, but what we lack in skyscrapers we more than make up with Natural beauty.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted May 17, 2013, 5:05 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by rriojas71 View Post
True SF's skyline is not on par with nor will ever match NYC's skyline, but what we lack in skyscrapers we more than make up with Natural beauty.

And for a US city of it's size, SF actually does have a pretty large amount of highrises (which are of course mostly packed as densely as you can find them in the US, outside of NYC).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted May 18, 2013, 12:13 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
Life enthusiast
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Barcelona, NYC, California
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 View Post
It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!

In terms of physical impact, it will appear quite a bit larger than Chrysler though because it has a flat top at 1070 feet, where as Chrysler's "main mass" is more like 870 or maybe less, kind of an unfair comparison. And yes both of those buildings would dominate the skyline of most world cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted May 18, 2013, 1:08 AM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapatan View Post
In terms of physical impact, it will appear quite a bit larger than Chrysler though because it has a flat top at 1070 feet, where as Chrysler's "main mass" is more like 870 or maybe less, kind of an unfair comparison. And yes both of those buildings would dominate the skyline of most world cities.
More like One 57 in New York.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted May 18, 2013, 1:12 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by plinko View Post
I think the skin (at least thus far in renderings) looks alot like what Pelli started to explore at the base of 2IFC, which is a fantastic building up close, but kind of unassuming and blah from a distance. Sort of the opposite of the Pyramid I suppose.



Let's hope that this facade has more depth than 2IFC.
Yes I can see that. The exterior treatment while not as important as the height just might make or break the tower- in terms of what the public think of it. I'm really interested in how they will finish the top section off. TBT is going to be a much more graceful and cleaner looking tower than 2IFC is. And it will also look better just because it's set back from waterfront and in the middle of other towers. I think I prefer the skylines that step-back and up towards a central pinnacle. To my eyes it's just what San Francisco's skyline needed. A tall counter balance to a rather monolithic skyline. The TBT, Transbay Terminal and Park-in-the-air is going to be awesome. All the new development is really impressive for any city but it's especially impressive for one of San Francisco's size. It's amazing how San Francisco is able to remain relevant over the years even after it's been long bypassed by more populated cities. I think part of it's success comes from it's ability to hang on to it's past while at the same time sort of reinvent itself every few years. Of course the whole Silicon Valley thing might have had something to do with it too. :-)

Last edited by ozone; May 18, 2013 at 1:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted May 19, 2013, 12:56 AM
SF born and RAISED SF born and RAISED is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 22
There's a great article in the sfgate today about the TBT. There was a 22 inch model that was created. The slit on the top of the tower doesn't look as bad as the renderings. The model makes the building look much better than in pictures.

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/2013...-22-inch-form/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted May 19, 2013, 1:13 AM
blackcat23's Avatar
blackcat23 blackcat23 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by SF born and RAISED View Post
There's a great article in the sfgate today about the TBT. There was a 22 inch model that was created. The slit on the top of the tower doesn't look as bad as the renderings. The model makes the building look much better than in pictures.

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/2013...-22-inch-form/






Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted May 19, 2013, 3:05 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackcat23 View Post
This elevation looks great! SF has built over the decades a plateau of 500-600 footers, and Transbay will soar above all of them--not too much height, and not too little.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted May 19, 2013, 3:20 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
This elevation looks great! SF has built over the decades a plateau of 500-600 footers, and Transbay will soar above all of them--not too much height, and not too little.
I completely agree on the height being a nice fit for the skyline. As much as I would like a 1,200'-1,400' tower, like the original proposals, I think 1,070' fits in better while still being a significant milestone when it comes to skyscraper height in SF. The taller proposals seemed to dwarf the rest of the skyline a little too much, IMO. And it will fit in even more once 181 Fremont gets built, and especially if the nearby 915' and 750' towers also get built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted May 20, 2013, 3:31 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,265
I still have no idea what color this tower will be. Every render is different.

White?


Blue?


Green?


Purple?


Silver?

Last edited by mt_climber13; May 20, 2013 at 4:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted May 20, 2013, 10:02 PM
tall/awkward tall/awkward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 105
Ha! It does look rather chameleonic in those various renderings, waka.

I think it's going to be white, but white coupled with glass can take on pretty much any color around it.

I too like the slots, especially at angles when you can see two of them. That first rendering with the slot straight on is probably the worst rendering...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted May 21, 2013, 12:29 AM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 885
The true quality of the glass cannot be really be seen from any of these renderings. The 'green' is the only one representing some potential reality. I hope they go for glass with more reflectivity than that rendering, however.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted May 21, 2013, 7:54 AM
LMich's Avatar
LMich LMich is offline
Midwest Moderator - Editor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Big Mitten
Posts: 31,744
I was going to ask if he was colorblind, because quite frankly, it just looks like plain old reflective glass, to me.
__________________
Where the trees are the right height
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2013, 4:24 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,265
When is this beast going to start construction?

They advertised summer 2013. Well, today is summer, where is it???

Last edited by mt_climber13; Jun 20, 2013 at 9:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:56 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.