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

[mt_climber13]

^your logic doesn't add up though. Why would NY and Chicago matter when comparing supertalls in California when there are buildings already built and going up in China, Mid East, and even Russia that are dwarfing anything in NY and Chicago? You could say that tallest West of Mississippi is not that impressive, but at the same time that would mean that tallest in the U.S. Is not that impressive either.

[phoenixboi08]

Neither, for that matter, would "The tallest in __[place name]__," post-Burj Khalifa.

People like superlatives. I don't know why, but they do.
Best to just let them have it.

I for one am partial to moving towards "Best Designed," but that's just me

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

^your logic doesn't add up though. Why would NY and Chicago matter when comparing supertalls in California when there are buildings already built and going up in China, Mid East, and even Russia that are dwarfing anything in NY and Chicago? You could say that tallest West of Mississippi is not that impressive, but at the same time that would mean that tallest in the U.S. Is not that impressive either.

My logic is in the context of the US only. If you want to extend the comparison of height to worldwide towers, then the debate over the height of SF becomes even more trivial. The point is I'd rather have the better tower rather than the slightly taller one.

[ozone]

Trying to defend a meaningless comparison or just being provincial with the "my city's skyscraper is bigger than your city's skyscraper" is silly. Plus it changes nothing including people's mind. Let's get back to what's real.

[Pedestrian]

The impression of a newby (who has been reading the site for years): This d*ck measuring nonsense is the least interesting, most annoying aspect of this site and the site would be best off with none of it. If the people who matter cared about it, they could easily slap a WTC I type spire on Oceanwide Center or this building and have the west coast "tallest" but they don't and niether should we. Incidentally, in the original design, the metal-screened crown of Salesforce was intended to have a structural purpose: All the designs submitted for the "beauty contest" for the Transbay tower had screened wind turbines at their tops, I believe, because they were all required to be as "green" as possible (this may also explain why there is no observation deck at the top although there are plenty of other reasons, starting with security, for that). But for some reason the turbine was eliminated once Hines won the contest.

The original design for Salesforce Tower

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...423046&page=61

There is historical information that suggests there was genuine interest on the part of the builders of the Chrysler Building in having New York's tallest but I don't think there's any that it has been a consideration with these West Coast buildings.

• Video Link

Generally, having the tallest within a city has marketing value. We don't know what Mark Benioff is paying to have the highest office in town and look down on the rest, but it is undoutedly more than if he were looking up at them. But he can't see LA even from there so he probably doesn't care if somebody has a higher office in that town and wouldn't pay a dime to be higher. Law firms especially seem to like to demonstrate prestige by having offices in tallest/best/most famous buildings, but on the other hand it's a waste of money for "back office" functions.

[mt_climber13]

^That is not the original design. It's an entirely different design from an entirely different architect.

And just because something is "nonsense" or "silly" to you doesn't make it so. Others have different opinions and viewpoints on the subject.

[Pedestrian]

I believe I clearly identified my comment as a personal "impession" but you did not identify yours as a personal disagreement. I also believe you are wrong about the turbines. But if you have evidence the "screen" on Salesforce was not originally meant to screen turbines I'd love to see it. I'm pretty sure I read when the "beauty contest" was ongoing that all the entered designs had windpower turbines and Pelli's design was one of those. In any case, the Pelli team seems not to have dropped the idea as of 2014: the design allows for that to still happen (although my personal opinion--note: PERSONAL OPINION) is it won't happen:

The building could exceed LEED Platinum: The building is pre-certified for LEED platinum. Boston Properties, however, is looking at ways to go past that such as adding wind turbines on the roof or other power generating features.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...-transbay.html

[dimondpark]

No that looks like the top of the SOM design for the Transbay Tower, not the Pelli design which was chosen and is currently under construction.

[Pedestrian]

Aside from the options it allows in terms of added green features, I see no reason for the screen rather than added rentable floors except for one other thing: The question of shaddows on Union Square. I think I read somewhere the screen won't cast a shaddow as occupied floors would--so the shaddowing effect is more like that of a 970' building--although it sure looks dense enough to cast a significant shaddow to me (note: more PERSONAL OPINION).

[SFView]

I think that both sides are right regarding WG and SF heights. It depends how one chooses to assess which one is the taller of the two. Yes, WG is taller by SSP standards, but SF looks taller by certain visual standards. The more one argues from one point of view, those who support the other will retreat to their opinion even more. Yes, this argument is inevitable, but pointless at the same time since there is no clear winner from a more subjective approach.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I believe I clearly identified my comment as a personal "impession" but you did not identify yours as a personal disagreement. I also believe you are wrong about the turbines. But if you have evidence the "screen" on Salesforce was not originally meant to screen turbines I'd love to see it. I'm pretty sure I read when the "beauty contest" was ongoing that all the entered designs had windpower turbines and Pelli's design was one of those. In any case, the Pelli team seems not to have dropped the idea as of 2014: the design allows for that to still happen (although my personal opinion--note: PERSONAL OPINION) is it won't happen:


http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...-transbay.html

I said nothing about turbines. What are you even talking about? I said the image you posted is not the original proposal for Salesforce Tower, because it isn't. It's the proposal by SOM, not Pelli, for the Transbay Tower.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I said nothing about turbines. What are you even talking about? I said the image you posted is not the original proposal for Salesforce Tower, because it isn't. It's the proposal by SOM, not Pelli, for the Transbay Tower.

Yes, this is the SOM proposal, but all 3 original proposals include some sort of roof turbines, if I remember correctly. When Pelli had to shorten and revise the design of their tower, the turbines were eliminated. The reduced space probably made keeping the turbines more impractical.

Part of the competition criteria included the desire to add some sort of crown or spire on the top of the tower. All 3 proposals had substantial crowns. This is not just to add height, but it is to hopefully add architecture interest to a tower meant to be iconic in San Francisco.

[Pedestrian]

^^Again, my recollection is that the original height WAS to be over 1200' but the shortening was for all the usual reasons buildings in SF (including the TransAmerca) get shortened but specifically, as I recall, shaddows (I think on Union Square).

[SFView]

Transamerica was reduced for views, not shadows. I'm not really sure how that helps, though. Better views of the sky, perhaps? I think it was done for more political reasons just to get it built actually. The Shadow Ordinance of 1984 is also the result of severe NIMBY pressure against tall buildings in San Francisco. Although it seems like a good cause, eventually it might strangle the city from further growth as demands for more space upward increases unless changes are made.

[NYguy]

This thread can also be closed if the endless city vs city fighting doesn't end.

[Phil McAvity]

^Who was fighting?

Brandon, thanks for the comparison. Salesforce is a supertall Wilshire Grand isn't, it's that simple. I also agree with Mr. Switzerland (Marcos) though, both of them are awesome.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

^Who was fighting?

Brandon, thanks for the comparison. Salesforce is a supertall Wilshire Grand isn't, it's that simple.

Who cares?

[don116]

Makes me sad when people post pictures of the SOM design. Oh what could have been : (

[SFSkyline]

The top level of steel is essentially the height of Oceanwide Center.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by don116

Makes me sad when people post pictures of the SOM design. Oh what could have been : (

Like I said before, it would have been even more sad if the SOM design would have had to have been shortened from 1375 to something like 1075 feet tall.