SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Buildings & Architecture (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=397)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 61 floors (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199946)

mt_climber13 Oct 13, 2016 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliNative (Post 7592625)
Just make it 1100 feet and tie it with Wilshire Grand. Enough of this "tallest on west coast" nonsense. L.A. is willing to share the title. Truce? Besides, everybody knows U.S. bank/Library Tower is still the real champ (highest occupied floor, highest roof).

"enough of this tallest on the west coast nonsense"
"everybody knows US Bank/ Library Tower is still the real champ'

:haha::haha::haha:

Now that the heat is on they're coming out.

simms3_redux Oct 13, 2016 10:46 PM

I've been reading about the Wilshire Grand, and the LA Times, already a superior news outlet than the Chronicle, in my opinion, ran the best, most informative real-time expose/article on a single real estate development I've ever come across.

http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire...-construction/

This among countless other fair and balanced reports on the tower, its development, the impacts, opinions, benefits, etc.

Did I miss something similar on the Salesforce Tower? Admittedly I've only been around SF since 2012, before the Wilshire Grand was even a concept but long after the Salesforce Tower was just about shovel ready after years of politics, architect selection, and design/approvals. Amazing how slow we are up here.

homebucket Oct 13, 2016 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by don116 (Post 7592706)
I say put a 150 ft spire on it. I don't understand SF's gripe with spires...they actually look pretty cool. I think it could make SF tower a lot more striking.

I don't think SF has any gripes with spires. 181 Fremont has a spire. So does the Transamerica Pyramid and 345 California. I don't think a spire would look good on this tower though.

homebucket Oct 13, 2016 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simms3_redux (Post 7592732)
I've been reading about the Wilshire Grand, and the LA Times, already a superior news outlet than the Chronicle, in my opinion, ran the best, most informative real-time expose/article on a single real estate development I've ever come across.

http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire...-construction/

This among countless other fair and balanced reports on the tower, its development, the impacts, opinions, benefits, etc.

Did I miss something similar on the Salesforce Tower? Admittedly I've only been around SF since 2012, before the Wilshire Grand was even a concept but long after the Salesforce Tower was just about shovel ready after years of politics, architect selection, and design/approvals. Amazing how slow we are up here.

Very fascinating article. Definitely agree about the LAT > SFC. I have not seen anything similar on the SF Tower, but would be great to read something like that about it!

Valyrian Steel Oct 13, 2016 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simms3_redux (Post 7592732)
I've been reading about the Wilshire Grand, and the LA Times, already a superior news outlet than the Chronicle, in my opinion, ran the best, most informative real-time expose/article on a single real estate development I've ever come across.

http://graphics.latimes.com/wilshire...-construction/

This among countless other fair and balanced reports on the tower, its development, the impacts, opinions, benefits, etc.

Did I miss something similar on the Salesforce Tower? Admittedly I've only been around SF since 2012, before the Wilshire Grand was even a concept but long after the Salesforce Tower was just about shovel ready after years of politics, architect selection, and design/approvals. Amazing how slow we are up here.

Deconstruction of the old hotel started that year. The original Wilshire Grand project was announced in 2009.

CaliNative Oct 14, 2016 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valyrian Steel (Post 7592775)
Deconstruction of the old hotel started that year. The original Wilshire Grand project was announced in 2009.

If Salesforce puts up a spire, Wilshire Grand might just put up a taller spire. Just kidding. A tie at 1100' for Salesforce & Wilshire Grand seems the sensible "game theory" choice., but who really cares who has the taller spire? Both Wilshire Grand and Salesforce are magnificent. I like them both. I like both SF & LA.

CaliNative Oct 14, 2016 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by don116 (Post 7592706)
I say put a 150 ft spire on it. I don't understand SF's gripe with spires...they actually look pretty cool. I think it could make SF tower a lot more striking.

Spires are cool.

edwards Oct 14, 2016 12:42 AM

@SoCal Alan

http://i.imgur.com/87v8aay.jpg

Do you think the top of the tower will surpass the height of the cranes right now?

skySF Oct 14, 2016 2:28 AM

this evening - 10/13/2016
 
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7490/...cdbeed66_h.jpg

SFView Oct 14, 2016 3:33 AM

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/30/13126...yramid-tallest
Quote:

[UPDATE, 10/1/16: Not so fast. Helen Han, marketing director for developer Boston Properties, says their building is not yet as tall as all that. According to Han, the core of Salesforce Tower presently sits at just under 800 feet. Previously, Clark Construction's field office admin at the site confirmed a figure of 855 feet. No one at Clark has yet returned our messages about the discrepancy. Boston Properties estimates that the building will reach 853 feet in mid October, probably topping 823 feet in the coming week.]
The coming week was last week. What floor is the core at 823 feet? If 823 feet is at 58 floors, how do we get to 912 feet with 61 floors? I don't think those 3 floors will be 29'-8" high Even at 4 more floors (57 floors at 823 feet), they might be 22'-3" high. It seems like there would rather be room for 5 or 6 more floors to reach 912 feet to the roof.

Standard floor-to-floor height is 14'-8". I don't recall the source. Some floors may be taller.

I believe the building section we have been looking at is outdated more than we think.
https://www.imgur.com/9OrAKqZ.jpg

SoCal Alan Oct 14, 2016 3:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwards (Post 7592843)
@SoCal Alan

Do you think the top of the tower will surpass the height of the cranes right now?

I can't tell, because I don't know when the picture was taken, and also, I can't measure a sample of the floors to compare. Sorry.

SoCal Alan Oct 14, 2016 3:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView (Post 7593005)
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/2016/9/30/13126...yramid-tallest


The coming week was last week. What floor is the core at 823 feet? If 823 feet is at 58 floors, how do we get to 912 feet with 61 floors? I don't think those 3 floors will be 29'-8" high Even at 4 more floors (57 floors at 823 feet), they might be 22'-3" high. It seems like there would rather be room for 5 or 6 more floors to reach 912 feet to the roof.

Standard floor-to-floor height is 14'-8". I don't recall the source. Some floors may be taller.

I believe the building section we have been looking at is outdated more than we think.

I always went by 912 feet / 61 floors = 15 feet / floor.

SoCal Alan Oct 14, 2016 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan (Post 7592137)
Not all of the outer forms are raised yet, so when that's done (which should be today), you can call it:

(59-1)*15=870 feet (to the top of the forms)

Until then, it's 855 feet (to the top of the forms).

As of today, one could make the argument that we're definitely at 855 feet with concrete, and the top of the forms for the next floor is at 870 feet. Until they pump concrete for this placement of forms, we can say that we're at least, at 855 feet.

edwards Oct 14, 2016 4:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan (Post 7593015)
I can't tell, because I don't know when the picture was taken, and also, I can't measure a sample of the floors to compare. Sorry.

It was taken from the webcam right before I posted.

SFView Oct 14, 2016 6:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan (Post 7593018)
I always went by 912 feet / 61 floors = 15 feet / floor.

How does 823 feet fit into this scheme?

SoCal Alan Oct 14, 2016 6:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfview (Post 7593118)
how does 823 feet fit into this scheme?

912/61*55=822.3

SoCal Alan Oct 14, 2016 6:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwards (Post 7593043)
It was taken from the webcam right before I posted.

Which webcam? Can you post a link?

botoxic Oct 14, 2016 6:53 AM

Hines has issued a press release stating that as of 10/14, Salesforce Tower has reached a height of 867 feet and is the tallest building in San Francisco:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...-San-Francisco

The 867' figure represents the placement of core concrete for the 58th floor. The outer forms are one story (15') taller, and the inner forms currently reach up into the 60th floor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwards (Post 7592843)
Do you think the top of the tower will surpass the height of the cranes right now?

The total height of the exposed core (to the very top of the forms) is just under 130 feet. The top of the tower will be about 180 feet from the top of the forms, very close to the height of the cranes in the photo, but ever-so-slightly taller.

SFView Oct 14, 2016 7:28 AM

^^^Okay, now that makes more sense.

SFView Oct 14, 2016 7:32 AM

Congratulations - San Francisco's New Tallest in 44 Years!

:tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup: :cheers: :tup:


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.