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 May 3, 2013 7:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 6114779)
Yet your post was mostly about Facebook, a company that has no SF office space.

I was referring to the Facebook effect.

Many tech start ups in SF have something to do with Facebook, one way or the other.

re: office space being expensive as the reason companies don't choose to locate in SF: the area around Sand Hill Rd. and 280 is the most expensive office real estate in the country, at least since last year when I read a market report about that. There are many other reasons companies choose sillyvalley- I think a lot has to do with what some would call extortion through payroll taxes to fund the SF supervisors pet projects. But with the SF population becoming older and more moderate, I have hope that saner politicians will soon run this city and won't scare away so many large businesses.

rocketman_95046 May 3, 2013 9:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad (Post 6115018)
I was referring to the Facebook effect.

Many tech start ups in SF have something to do with Facebook, one way or the other.

re: office space being expensive as the reason companies don't choose to locate in SF: the area around Sand Hill Rd. and 280 is the most expensive office real estate in the country, at least since last year when I read a market report about that. There are many other reasons companies choose sillyvalley- I think a lot has to do with what some would call extortion through payroll taxes to fund the SF supervisors pet projects. But with the SF population becoming older and more moderate, I have hope that saner politicians will soon run this city and won't scare away so many large businesses.

Why are you focusing on Facebook and Twitter period? Many SF tech start-ups are involved with LinkedIn, Google, SalesForce.com, etc... Web 2.0 is much more than just one or two companies. And look at their balance sheets, this is much different than Pets.com in the late 90s. And you just flat out ignored Fflints post.

mt_climber13 May 3, 2013 9:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 (Post 6115143)
Why are you focusing on Facebook and Twitter period? Many SF tech start-ups are involved with LinkedIn, Google, SalesForce.com, etc... Web 2.0 is much more than just one or two companies. And look at their balance sheets, this is much different than Pets.com in the late 90s. And you just flat out ignored Fflints post.

Maybe you're right. Hopefully the lesson has been learned.

And flint is on my ignore list, what did she say?

Gordo May 3, 2013 10:34 PM

^Just keep these notes in mind:

1. Google alone added more employees in 2012 than Facebook had total at the end of 2012. They did the same in 2011. And 2010. And 2009. And 2008.

2. Amazon, mostly through subsidiaries, has more Bay Area employees than Facebook. Microsoft has more than twice as many, with about 1000 employees in SF alone (some through Yammer).

Facebook gets a lot of press because it's something that every consumer understands and most use, but it's really a mistake to focus on them too much when talking about employment trends.

mt_climber13 May 3, 2013 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 6115237)
^Just keep these notes in mind:

1. Google alone added more employees in 2012 than Facebook had total at the end of 2012. They did the same in 2011. And 2010. And 2009. And 2008.

2. Amazon, mostly through subsidiaries, has more Bay Area employees than Facebook. Microsoft has more than twice as many, with about 1000 employees in SF alone (some through Yammer).

Facebook gets a lot of press because it's something that every consumer understands and most use, but it's really a mistake to focus on them too much when talking about employment trends.

How many of those jobs are in SF though?

Most of those employees work in Santa Clara county. If that is where more of the demand is for these types of companies, then that isn't going to increase any demand in downtown SF. Microsoft could add 100,000 employees in Santa Clara, and the vacant office market in SF would remain the same. It does, however, create stronger demand for the *housing* market in SF, since many of those employees choose to live in the city. Housing demand creates more demand for construction jobs, which could create an increase in demand in general contractors needing bigger office space and more employees. Many general contractors that build and renovate single family homes don't operate in class A office towers, however. And added residents creates more demand for retail space, restaurants, entertainment. But, again, class A office space is dependent on professional, high skilled corporations locating in downtown office centers.

I actually don't have much doubt that this will be built, and it is very encouraging that the developers want to steamroll the process. I was just point out some hypotheticals I've seen put forth by some investors worried about the possible bubble and I hope it doesn't happen.

hruski May 4, 2013 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simms3_redux (Post 6114919)
I'm pretty unacclimated to Valley real estate, but I believe office space down there is pretty unbelievably expensive. Stanford's down there and the principals and fund managers live down there, and you have the land to do a campus and the ability to own/operate your own office space. I'm like 99.99% sure that the reason that the Valley is where the tech industry migrates for the most part has nothing to do with "cost" in the sense that you or I might think of it. In SF, they have to lease space and deal with institutional property ownership that operates in a more rigid way due to debt/underwriting standards, and so there's just a lot less flexibility and control for tech tenants (and a lot less available space). I think Hines/BP and others are trying to devise underwriting structures and building structures better suited for the tech industry, hence this building if it ever gets out of the hole.

edit: Now that I re-read your post, we're on same page :).

Combine those two clauses and you have the real reason. In short, it's a network effect. Everyone wants to be where the hub is. New York for finance/fashion, LA for entertainment, etc.

NYguy May 10, 2013 1:38 AM

Breathtaking views...


http://gossipy.co/sportsnews/new-gol...re-pretty-neat


http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_as...s-Boards-2.jpg



http://urbaninitiativ3.com/updated-r...-new-sf-arena/

http://urbaninitiativ3.com/wp-conten...3_SFarena0.jpg



http://urbaninitiativ3.com/wp-conten...1-1024x536.jpg



http://urbaninitiativ3.com/wp-conten..._SFarena31.jpg



http://urbaninitiativ3.com/wp-conten...1-1024x512.jpg



http://urbaninitiativ3.com/wp-conten..._SFarena11.jpg



http://urbaninitiativ3.com/wp-conten...3_SFarena2.jpg

hruski May 10, 2013 3:13 AM

Man, that sure is a tall tower. Should be visible from just about anywhere you can see downtown.

philiprsf May 10, 2013 3:44 AM

something fishy about those photos
 
I'm wondering if these photos distort the height of the tower. They certainly distort the location. In the shot with the people on the lawn in front of the Warriors arena, the Transbay Tower is BEHIND the 50 Fremont building. WTF?

modernist May 10, 2013 4:13 AM

Lol, it looks like it's behind 555 California. If that was the case then the lawn render would be showing a 1600' plus tower. Also does not line up with the street grid at all. The rest really do seem to be descent enough renders, although it's pretty quickly apparent that everything is cgi, no photoshop here. Even the bay bridge, which nonsubtly fades into a solid gray bar from the truss is an illustration.

shakman May 10, 2013 2:47 PM

I have to agree. The renderings appear to be very distorted. Within NYguy's first posted photo of this page, the tower to the right appears to be Millennium Tower which is 645 ft tall. From there just make the comparison.

fimiak May 10, 2013 3:51 PM

They are renderings highlighting the warriors arena with the TBT tacked on in cheesy photoshop, don't take height and size to be accurate at all...

I drive by the dirt pit nearly every day, I wish they'd hurry up and pick a start date that is less vague (and earlier) than Q4 2013/Q1 2014.

ozone May 10, 2013 5:56 PM

It's like those old cartoons in the newspapers where you had to pick out the mistakes in the drawings. How about the night reflections of the towers in the bay?

But on a more serious note. The one thing I think C. Pelli has done better with is the skin. Has there been much discussion on this?

philiprsf May 10, 2013 11:18 PM

Pelli's skin and the Gran Torre Santiago
 
regarding the skin on the Transbay Tower, we may get an inkling by looking at his very similar design for the Gran Torre Santiago (formerly known as Torre Costanera) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Torre_Santiago), which is nearing completion and is just shy of 1000 feet high. I saw it last year when it was still in the framework stage and it certainly sticks out from its surroundings, unlike Transbay, which will have lots of tall neighbors. Anyway, it will be the tallest building in South America for awhile.

ozone May 10, 2013 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philiprsf (Post 6123887)
regarding the skin on the Transbay Tower, we may get an inkling by looking at his very similar design for the Gran Torre Santiago (formerly known as Torre Costanera) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Torre_Santiago), which is nearing completion and is just shy of 1000 feet high. I saw it last year when it was still in the framework stage and it certainly sticks out from its surroundings, unlike Transbay, which will have lots of tall neighbors. Anyway, it will be the tallest building in South America for awhile.

Well now I'm kinda depressed.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/esckudero/6186894401/

fflint May 11, 2013 12:42 AM

I don't see any real similarity between the skin of the Santiago tower--either in the renderings or in reality--and that in the renderings of Transbay.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8353/8...ee718b08_b.jpg
alobos Life at flickr

http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%...er%20Crown.jpg
www.socketsite.com
http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%...0Rendering.jpg
www.socketsite.com
http://www.socketsite.com/101%201st%...%20Closeup.jpg
www.socketsite.com

NYC2ATX May 11, 2013 1:33 AM

That's definitely true...while I agree that the final Transbay design is less striking that it probably could've been, Pelli is known for taking a building from decent to extraordinary with the facade treatment. Look at the Petronas Towers in KL. I almost find those towers more dazzling up close than far away. The jury's still out on the Transbay Tower, as far as I'm concerned.

Zapatan May 11, 2013 3:32 AM

The slits in the top look weird.. otherwise this building will drastically change the skyline... If that 915 foot tower gets built too (not sure if that's still alive) SF. will look completely different.

DURKEY427 May 11, 2013 10:03 AM

I love this building it realy makes San Francisco an even better looking city

plinko May 11, 2013 6:38 PM

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.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...IFC/IFC003.jpg

Let's hope that this facade has more depth than 2IFC.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:46 PM.

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