SkyscraperPage Forum
Viewing Page 9 of 203
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

tech12 Oct 19, 2012 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5872648)
If it's economically viable in this form, it will be built; if not, it won't be.
Thank you, captain obvious. And it seems that YES it is economically viable, at this time.

fflint Oct 19, 2012 10:47 PM
As the Chronicle article correctly notes, big institutional investors are much more attracted to entitled parcels in San Francisco--parcels that have completed the whole byzantine zoning/permitting/political process. With yesterday's approval, big money will be much more likely to step forward. All the Chicken Littles fretting over the sky falling on this project need to get a better grip on how things actually work.

1977 Oct 24, 2012 2:56 AM
Quote:
Boston Properties partners with Hines on Transbay Tower

Boston Properties is joining Hines as the partner in the development of the Transbay Tower, a 1.4 million-square-foot, 61-story tower to be built next to the Transbay Transit Center.
In a statement Hines said it had finalized the formation of a joint venture with Boston Properties to acquire the project land from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority. The approximately $190 million acquisition is expected to close in the first quarter of 2013. Hines and Boston Properties each have a 50 percent interest in the venture.
In addition, on Oct. 18, the San Francisco Planning Commission granted final planning approval for the tower to proceed. Designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects, the building is slated to be the tallest on the West Coast, with its crown soaring to a height of 1,070 feet.
Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci....html?page=all

theskythelimit Oct 24, 2012 4:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1977 (Post 5877356)
This is good news. Boston Properties is a well known company and as the article stated, is vested in SF with in excess of four million square feet of property.

NYguy Oct 24, 2012 1:12 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rancisco-tower

Quote:
“We are very gratified to have both a stellar partner and the city’s nod of approval,” Gerald D. Hines, chairman of Houston-based Hines, said in the statement. “We think the tower will be a beautiful addition to San Francisco’s beloved skyline as well as an extremely desirable and sustainable workplace next to one of the state’s busiest transit hubs.”

1977 Oct 29, 2012 12:53 AM
More info:

Quote:
Boston Properties to Invest $1.4B in Two San Francisco Buildings

Boston Properties Inc. considered buying San Francisco’s 101 California St. from the Hines company but instead decided to develop the Transbay Tower with them: The yield will be better and the company will own a new building to boot.

The company expects to invest more than $1 billion along with Hines in the development of the 61-story edifice, spending in the neighborhood of $700 a foot to build 1.4 million square feet, company executives said.

The tower, reaching nearly 1,100 feet, will be the tallest in the city by approximately 200 feet and connected to a new $4 billion transportation terminal that has been labeled the Grand Central Station of the West.

The partners expect to complete the purchase of the land from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority in the first quarter of next year, paying $139 a rentable square foot, or approximately $190 million. The earliest the companies expect to initiate construction is in early 2014 with delivery expected in the later part of 2016 or early 2017
Source and article: http://news.theregistrysf.com/boston...sco-buildings/


And a follow up article by the SF Business Times:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...weighs-in.html

theskythelimit Oct 30, 2012 6:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1977 (Post 5883289)
More info:


Source and article: http://news.theregistrysf.com/boston...sco-buildings/


And a follow up article by the SF Business Times:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...weighs-in.html
This is around the same time frame they expect the TransBay Terminalnto open. Good timing.

timbad Nov 29, 2012 9:21 AM
signature
 
not too much of a surprise anymore, but still nice to have the next step taken: Hines has signed

peanut gallery Feb 5, 2013 11:58 PM
A few new tidbits on the Transbay Tower, from this article in the SF Business Journal:

Quote:
New tech-friendly Transbay Tower may come too late for Google
J.K. Dineen
San Francisco Business Times
Feb 1, 2013, 11:31am PST

In a Jan. 30 earnings call Boston Properties Executive Vice President Raymond Ritchey said the base of the Transbay Tower “will to be not only conducive to traditional office users but specifically attractive to the tech tenants that are dominating demand for space.” He said the tower would feature wide open, column-free floors and 14-foot slab-to-slab ceiling heights.

“We’re positioning this building not only to be the No. 1 building for professional users but the tech tenants as well,” said Ritchey. “We see also the possibility of putting that building within a building. So if a major user, a tech user comes, we could lease them the base with a separate arrival experience, separate elevator cores and then put traditional office space on top. So we’re looking at both sides of the market."

The joint venture partnership has already received a request for proposal from a technology tenant seeking 300,000 square feet, said Robert Pester, senior vice president and regional manager of San Francisco office. Pester did not specifically mention the tenant’s name, but Google is the only tenant of that size currently in the market. There has also been persistent chatter in the real estate community that Google has been looking at the Transbay project as well as two Tishman Speyer developments: 505 Howard St. which is under construction, but at 278,000 square feet may be too small for Google; and 222 Mission St., which is entitled for a 450,000 square foot tower.

In the earnings call Pester said Transbay is “in the very preliminary design” and the partnership is just “starting to think about construction drawings.”
The article goes on to mention that Google's timeframe is likely too soon for Transbay since their lease at Hills Borthers Plaza ends in 2015. But that's good news for Foundry Square III and 222 Mission.

theskythelimit Feb 8, 2013 12:58 AM
The Wilshire Grand development released their details today and sadly, it will be 30 ft taller than the TransBay Tower. Too bad the SF tower can't extend the Tower by 31 ft to claim the tallest building on the West Coast.

On a side note, the TransBay development is not Turing out as hopes of multiple Supertalls in the Area. Looks like now it is down to Two buildings.

tech12 Feb 8, 2013 3:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskythelimit (Post 6006141)
On a side note, the TransBay development is not Turing out as hopes of multiple Supertalls in the Area. Looks like now it is down to Two buildings.
The Transbay development has never included multiple supertalls...the Transbay tower was always the only supertall proposed (unless the old 1200' Renzo Piano tower proposals on 1st street are included in the Transbay area, though I was under the impression that was separate). And the Transbay development area also includes more than two new buildings; there's the Transbay tower, the transit center itself, 181 Fremont, and a handful of other highrises proposed as part of the Transbay development area.

theskythelimit Feb 8, 2013 6:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 6006374)
The Transbay development has never included multiple supertalls...the Transbay tower was always the only supertall proposed (unless the old 1200' Renzo Piano tower proposals on 1st street are included in the Transbay area, though I was under the impression that was separate). And the Transbay development area also includes more than two new buildings; there's the Transbay tower, the transit center itself, 181 Fremont, and a handful of other highrises proposed as part of the Transbay development area.
The Transbay district did include a series of super tall buildings. Most of them, including Renzo Piano, were cancelled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fra...ay_development

tall/awkward Feb 8, 2013 9:56 PM
I still think it's amazing that we're getting even one supertall! I'll take it. We shouldn't get hung up on all these petty details anyway, the fact that a spindly needle will make the new LA building slightly taller, or that 50 First will be 70 feet short of a supertall. Both cities will look awesome after getting their new buildings...though we'll still have all that water as a nice backdrop...

northbay Feb 8, 2013 11:50 PM
^ I agree. If this thing gets built, that's good enough for me. Let's focus on the positive - no project is perfect.

mt_climber13 Feb 20, 2013 6:49 PM
Did not realize that this building is going to be taller than the Chrysler Building :tup:

tech12 Feb 21, 2013 12:13 AM
Wilshire grand will only be "taller" because of that stupid skinny little spire. What a bunch of cheaters ;). If you could compare them side-by-side, Transbay would look like the taller tower because it will have more bulk above the 900' (and 1,000') mark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theskythelimit (Post 6006528)
The Transbay district did include a series of super tall buildings. Most of them, including Renzo Piano, were cancelled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fra...ay_development
That article has always been full of errors, and looks like it still is (i even edited it around a year ago to be more accurate, but someone quickly reversed my edits, and the article was made inaccurate again...lol wikipedia is completely retarded sometimes).

Anyways, the northern border of the Transbay development area stops at Mission street, which means it never included those Renzo Piano towers.

theskythelimit Feb 21, 2013 1:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 6022583)
That article has always been full of errors, and looks like it still is (i even edited it around a year ago to be more accurate, but someone quickly reversed my edits, and the article was made inaccurate again...lol wikipedia is completely retarded sometimes).

Anyways, the northern border of the Transbay development area stops at Mission street, which means it never included those Renzo Piano towers.
Yes, I agree that wiki is not the best source to quote. The TransBay Tower will be quite a site when it is completed.

Quixote Feb 21, 2013 1:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 6022583)
Wilshire grand will only be "taller" because of that stupid skinny little spire. What a bunch of cheaters ;). If you could compare them side-by-side, Transbay would look like the taller tower because it will have more bulk above the 900' (and 1,000') mark.
A spire isn't "cheating" any more than a crown is. Both are nothing more than decorative elements used for visual effect. A crown being "bulkier" doesn't change that.

tech12 Feb 21, 2013 1:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife (Post 6022658)
A spire isn't "cheating" any more than a crown is. Both are nothing more than decorative elements used for visual effect. A crown being "bulkier" doesn't change that.
No you are cheaters. Cheating cheaters who are conSPIREing against us.

In case you missed it, that part of the post was tongue-in-cheek. I even added a wink smiley so no one would take it seriously...so much for that.

mt_climber13 Feb 21, 2013 2:04 AM
Image I found of the new proposed Transbay skyline

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/15/61/53.../3/628x471.jpg

This was back in 2007. Not sure how accurate it is today. Those towers behind Mission and 1st could be the 1200' Piano proposals (dead) or the SOM 900' proposals (still alive). The Transbay Tower is not even included in that model.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 PM.
Viewing Page 9 of 203
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.