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)

xXSkyscraperDudeXx May 12, 2013 1:18 AM

This tower really fits this Skyline! What a great comeback for San Francisco

LMich May 13, 2013 7:55 AM

Comeback? Don't call it a comeback!

Seriously, though, this is going to be an awesome addition to the city's skyline.

Roadcruiser1 May 13, 2013 5:53 PM

It's about as tall as the Chrysler Building but yet it will dominate the entire skyline of San Francisco. Go figure!

tech12 May 13, 2013 6:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 (Post 6126499)
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.

LMich May 14, 2013 7:34 AM

Dont feed the, well, you know...

Roadcruiser1 May 14, 2013 9:12 AM

I was being sarcastic. I wouldn't really be mean to my aunt's home town. :haha:

rriojas71 May 17, 2013 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 (Post 6126499)
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.

tech12 May 17, 2013 5:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rriojas71 (Post 6132132)
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).

Zapatan May 18, 2013 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadcruiser1 (Post 6126499)
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.

sbarn May 18, 2013 1:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 6132702)
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.

ozone May 18, 2013 1:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plinko (Post 6124609)
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.

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. :-)

SF born and RAISED May 19, 2013 12:56 AM

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/

blackcat23 May 19, 2013 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SF born and RAISED (Post 6133482)
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/

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/wp-c...19_0014_pc.jpg

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/wp-c...19_0026_pc.jpg

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/wp-c...19_0032_pc.jpg

http://blog.sfgate.com/johnking/wp-c...19_0040_pc.jpg

fflint May 19, 2013 3:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackcat23 (Post 6133490)

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.

tech12 May 19, 2013 3:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6133574)
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.

mt_climber13 May 20, 2013 3:31 PM

I still have no idea what color this tower will be. Every render is different.

White?
http://i.imgur.com/uQIbb.jpg

Blue?
http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/...reaking_10.jpg

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

Purple?
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news_im...sbay_tower.jpg

Silver?
http://www.newconstructionsf.com/san...1.48.56-AM.jpg

tall/awkward May 20, 2013 10:02 PM

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...

fimiak May 21, 2013 12:29 AM

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.

LMich May 21, 2013 7:54 AM

I was going to ask if he was colorblind, because quite frankly, it just looks like plain old reflective glass, to me.

mt_climber13 Jun 20, 2013 4:24 PM

When is this beast going to start construction?

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:33 AM.

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