SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT | 61 FLOORS

[tech12]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I wish we could extend our crown by 35' or find a way to incorporate an attractive surprise last minute spire, as was done on NYC's Chrysler Building!

A spire is something I've always wanted for this tower. It would look great, in my opinion. I'm thinking a simple "middle of the roof" spire, not some off-set thing. The Chrysler building was always my comparison too, seeing as it's roughly the same height as Transbay, not to mention it had a last-minute spire added...which i hope would be the case for transbay too, not that I think it'll actually happen.

I can imagine that the last-minute addition of a spire or a few extra floors would cause delays, and maybe even kill the tower, what with studies/reports to determine the increased shadow impact on union square (as if it really would make any noticeable impact at all), NIMBYs freaking out about said "impact", not to mention those NIMBYs also freaking out about "evil, greedy, developers" ignoring the law/the height limits and such, filing lawsuits, and possibly getting laws passed banning any new skyscrapers, all in the name of "preservation of quaint village character" (and expensive views of course) or some such bullshit.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that the tower is going to stay at 1,070' feet, despite the reworked crown (which sure didn't make the building any taller, as far as I can tell), and the fact that it's now "63" stories. The extra 3 stories must be including the underground parking levels.

I'd love to be wrong though.

[1977]

A spire was incorporated in a lot of the earlier massing studies:

Source: www.sf-planning.org

It does give me a little hope that there's a chance we could see one added at a later time. I agree with you tech12, a spire in the middle of the building would work really well aesthetically. I envision the 4 'divots' on the crown aiming light toward the top of the spire to give a humble and ghostly nod to SF's former tallest - the Transamerica Building. The picture below faintly resembles what I'm talking about sans the spire. One can dream...


Source: inhabitat.com

[mt_climber13]

Spires do not count toward a buildings final height in the Transbay district, as presented during many of the public outreach meetings years ago. There very well may be a spire, and I assume that the very convenient lag we are seeing in construction behind the Wiltshire building is because a spire will be added at the last minute. I guess I'm just a lot more optimistic than the rest of you!

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Spires do not count toward a buildings final height in the Transbay district, as presented during many of the public outreach meetings years ago. There very well may be a spire, and I assume that the very convenient lag we are seeing in construction behind the Wiltshire building is because a spire will be added at the last minute. I guess I'm just a lot more optimistic than the rest of you!

I hope you're right! A spire could be added without NIMBYs going apeshit since it wouldn't cause shadows and the building was once approved to be taller.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I hope you're right! A spire could be added without NIMBYs going apeshit since it wouldn't cause shadows and the building was once approved to be taller.

And I hope you're right!

I can totally see NIMBYs that have so far been dormant suddenly flipping the hell out because an added spire would cause union square's "shadow allowance" to be exceeded by 0.00001% for five minutes on the second Friday morning in November of every fifth leap year.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Spires do not count toward a buildings final height in the Transbay district, as presented during many of the public outreach meetings years ago. There very well may be a spire, and I assume that the very convenient lag we are seeing in construction behind the Wiltshire building is because a spire will be added at the last minute. I guess I'm just a lot more optimistic than the rest of you!

I didn't know spires weren't included in height limits in the transbay district. It would be awesome to see one added.

[Onn]

I hope it doesn't have a spire, it would take away from the form of the building. And sadly it would probably end up being an antenna, not an architectural spire.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Onn

I hope it doesn't have a spire, it would take away from the form of the building. And sadly it would probably end up being an antenna, not an architectural spire.

I disagree- the tapered shape and flat top of this building demands a spire to complete it. It would be very graceful and powerful at the same time.


Remember, this site is only zoned for 1,000', not 1070'. Translucent crowns and spires are allowed to reach past zoned limits in the Transbay district.

[Valyrian Steel]

I think developers have bigger priorities than trying to sneak a spire so that it can be taller than another building. This isn't 1930's New York.

[fflint]

The SF Planning Department explicitly signed off on Transbay's 1070' structural height this past October. There are no current zoning issues, and if it is true spires are explicitly exempted from any further height restrictions in the Transit Center District (that would comport with Planning's disinclination to count mechanical floors/elements and rooftop decorative flourishes when measuring a building's height), then I guess the only impediment to a spire might be the Federal Aviation Administration, haha.

Here's the general height zoning map for the District, circa May 2012:

[tech12]

Originally Posted by fflint

The SF Planning Department explicitly signed off on Transbay's 1070' structural height this past October. There are no current zoning issues, and if it is true spires are explicitly exempted from any further height restrictions in the Transit Center District (that would comport with Planning's disinclination to count mechanical floors/elements and rooftop decorative flourishes when measuring a building's height), then I guess the only impediment to a spire might be the Federal Aviation Administration, haha.

Here's the general height zoning map for the District, circa May 2012:

What is the FAA height limit for SF anyways? The default FAA height limit for the US is 2,000'. In SF we already have Sutro Tower which reaches over 1,800' high, but I know I've seen planes flying lower than that over the city, so it must vary depending on location. I can't see how it would be lower than 1,200' or 1,300' in downtown SF though, seeing as all original transbay tower designs were in that height range, and the architects must have known what the FAA limits were...and if I'm not mistaken the Pelli design was shortened due to concerns about shadows on union square and Justin Herman plaza, not anything FAA related.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Translucent crowns and spires are allowed to reach past zoned limits in the Transbay district.

A good example of that is 181 Fremont on the above map. It's zoned for 700', which will be the height of its roof, but the building will be 802' with its crown and spire. Perhaps we'll get another tower taller than the Pyramid on the section zoned for 750'!

[simms3_redux]

Here's what Curbed had to say today:

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/1..._more.php#more

Currently: A call to the planning office reveals that the building permit has finally been issued as of September 27 along with a 6 month permit to reserve street parking around the site as of October 10. It appears initial excavation is just getting underway. Expect progress to be slow at first, but speed up as more earth is moved for the multi-story basement.

Some interesting pictures were posted, including one that captures Foundries 1, 3 (new) and 4.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Spires do not count toward a buildings final height in the Transbay district, as presented during many of the public outreach meetings years ago. There very well may be a spire, and I assume that the very convenient lag we are seeing in construction behind the Wiltshire building is because a spire will be added at the last minute. I guess I'm just a lot more optimistic than the rest of you!

it's true that a spire can extend past the height limit of the building, but only as specifically limited by the planning code. one of those limitations in the s-2 bulk district is:

such elements are demonstrated to not add more than insignificant amounts of additional shadow compared to the same building without such additional elements on any public open spaces as deemed acceptable by the Planning Commission

so unless the planning commission approves it, it won't have a spire. can't be done quietly or at the staff level.

[minesweeper]

Excavation continues:

[timbad]

there were at least four diggers in action today (Saturday), but all still seemed to be essentially at the surface:



has anyone mentioned recently: this. town. is. on. fiyahhh.

[rocketman_95046]

From what I can tell from the terminal cam, this crew is primarily focused on pulling out all the old wood pilings. Once those are gone they should start shoring and digging down.

[MisterD]

Hilarious, timbad. Now I can't get that song out of my head.

[minesweeper]

Looks like there was a minor accident at the Transbay Tower site yesterday when a small excavator tipped over:

http://sfist.com/2013/11/12/contruct...bay_termin.php

Hopefully it wasn't serious, but I imagine there's some OSHA paperwork to fill out now.

[shakman]

Originally Posted by minesweeper

Looks like there was a minor accident at the Transbay Tower site yesterday when a small excavator tipped over:

http://sfist.com/2013/11/12/contruct...bay_termin.php

Hopefully it wasn't serious, but I imagine there's some OSHA paperwork to fill out now.

As long as there were no serious injuries, the only paperwork should be internal. Even minor injuries on jobsites does not necessarily equate a visit from OSHA.

This mishap should not delay the project. Upright the excavator, institute preventive measures to ensure this never happens again and get back to work.

[fflint]

Minus 100 days without a workplace accident!