The original plan was about 80 stories and 1200 ft. It's never too late to reconsider...

What's interesting is NIMBYism might all just disappear for the sake of two cities fighting each other to see who might have the tallest building on the West Coast.

We'll lose if LA doesn't care about shadows as much as SF does. They need to figure out how to make TBT taller without causing any "grievous" shadows. :???:

Transbay is entitled--as of right--to build up to 1200 ft. Above that, the city may allow mechanical and/or decorative elements--but considering the maximum allowable height and all that went into determining same, maybe not. Either way, the Wilshire Grand is only permitted to build as of right to 1100 ft., max. LA may grant a variance, but that may take extra time and effort.

Now you've gotten us all excited and dreaming for this fflint! I had forgotten that Hines shortened the tower on its own--let's hope Boston Properties wants to now restore the height!! :ohyeah

Actually, the Wilshire Grand is entitled for a building up to 1,250 ft due to the previous plans that were approved.

There's no opposition to the WG as far as I've heard. I know the previous design got some negative feedback due to the LED lighting that would cover the whole building but I don't think the new design has that feature.

We'll see what happens. Either way, I'll be happy to see two enormous new buildings going up simultaneously in California. ;)

I stand corrected!

Agreed. This is great, like NYC in the Deco 20s.

That is a very sexy looking building.

oh wow great news

Isn't the top 200 feet of the Transbay Tower already just decoration?

I find it exciting in any event that two new supertalls are planned for the west coast. The details on who will be taller are so convoluted and varied, I just don't care. The current plans have Transbay at 1070', Wilshire Grand at 1100'. That's only 30' feet of difference. Transbay's upper structural crown will make it "look" taller mass wise, as the crown height for the WG will be 1000' with a 100' spire. But the WG will have a higher occupied floor from all accounts, and the US Bank tower in LA still will retain highest roof and occupied floor. So all this back an forth is mute. As far as the constant city vs city, lets not go there. :) Both are attractive structures and will give each city an new landmark.

I don't think there's any city v. city here--both the Wilshire Grand and Transbay towers are awesome designs and California will finally get not merely one, but two supertalls.

That said, as with the ESB and Chrysler matchup in the Art Deco age, it's fun to see skyscraper developers trying to outdo each other in the height department--especially considering how only 12 years ago the tragedy of 9/11 led to a great deal of conjecture that we'd never build supertalls again.

This is great if it is true. I was wondering if we would ever get back to thinking more about this:

Original source: San Francisco Planning Department:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m...o/BLDGTOPS.jpg

I think it's refreshing for two cities on the west coast to reach for a tallest. Skyscrapers are back.

I went to the public forums before the official design plans were unveiled in 2007 and the plans by the city were that 1200' could be the maximum height to the roof, or perhaps opaque crown, but that spires could extend much further, perhaps to the 1375' proposed by SOM, or maybe higher? Who knows.
What I think will happen is that both towers will rise at the same time and there will be a final finish (by SF? :tup:) which will claim dominance.

Notice how all of the press releases during and since the ceremonial groundbreaking claim it as "the tallest building on the west coast?" Pretty brazen. Surely the developers and architects know that the WG is proposed at 1100'.

http://newnation.sg/wp-content/uploa...popcorn-3D.gif

Those of us looking for a 1930's style skyscraper d*** measuring contest are likely to be disappointed.

I don't think Hanjin/Korean Air honestly cares whether or not their building is taller than the Transbay Tower. They haven't even marketed the Wilshire Grand as the tallest building in LA (although media outlets and SkyscraperPage forumers clearly took notice). The project's website specifically refers to the Wilshire Grand as the "Second tallest building in LA skyline."

If Boston Properties does in fact decide to add something on top of the Transbay Tower to make it taller, I don't expect the Hanjin Group to up the ante.

That article mentioning the "superstructure" has been updated, and it looks like there might not actually be any extra height/superstructure/mystery spire planned for the tower:

http://www.mercurynews.com/san-mateo...est-skyscraper

Well their website is also a little slow to update. It still lists the tower as having 70 floors instead of 73. But I agree that they probably don't really give a hoot, otherwise I think they would've gone much higher.

All this talk about WG's spire as cheating is new to me, this whole time I thought they were adding a spire just so LA could actually have one lol

It's new to everyone, since you're the only one saying that.