SAN FRANCISCO | 301 Mission Street | 645 FT / 197 M | 60 FLOORS - Page 27

VA_Gentleman · #**521** Posted **Jul 20, 2007, 8:28 PM**

Flipping through different threads looking at construction pictures it's amazing how much thicker the concrete supports are on the buildings in S.F. The last pictures look like it half of the floor space is columns. You guys had a 4.2 this morning too didn't you? I guess it makes sense.

WonderlandPark · #**522** Posted **Jul 20, 2007, 8:52 PM**

For some reason, I never looked it up and didn't realize that this would be 4th tallest in the city. So 2 out your top 5 are under construction, with hopefully more to come.

northbay · #**523** Posted **Jul 20, 2007, 9:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VA_Gentleman

Flipping through different threads looking at construction pictures it's amazing how much thicker the concrete supports are on the buildings in S.F. The last pictures look like it half of the floor space is columns. You guys had a 4.2 this morning too didn't you? I guess it makes sense.

yea - we have earthquakes so yes xtra precautions are taken. in general tho, highrises are safer than midrises in earthquakes as the building can sway to help dilute the earthquakes energy - rather than being rigid and than "snapping".

and yes, we had a 4.2 this morning

roadwarrior · #**524** Posted **Jul 20, 2007, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VA_Gentleman

Flipping through different threads looking at construction pictures it's amazing how much thicker the concrete supports are on the buildings in S.F. The last pictures look like it half of the floor space is columns. You guys had a 4.2 this morning too didn't you? I guess it makes sense.

I personally am glad that they're taking these extra precautions. I personally did not even feel the earthquake and slept through it, as did my dog. I live near the embarcadero in SF, on the 17th floor of a modern highrise. I am probably about 10 miles from the epicenter of the earthquake. While it looks like others in the area awoke to a large jolt, I felt nothing. I attribute this to the quality of modern high rise construction here in SF and the bay area in general. This was definitely a consideration for me when I moved here and looked into renting apartments.

BTinSF · #**525** Posted **Jul 20, 2007, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VA_Gentleman

Flipping through different threads looking at construction pictures it's amazing how much thicker the concrete supports are on the buildings in S.F. The last pictures look like it half of the floor space is columns.

This is actually a matter of considerable discussion in respect of a proposed revision of the building codes happening now. To boil it down, the debate has to do with whether modern design (such as "base isolation", "tuned mass dampers," "buckling restrained braces" and even flying buttresses) can produce buildings as strong as traditional earthquake-resistant buildings without all the concrete and rebar. Of the two tallest buildings presently going up in SF, we have one example from each camp (the "lightweight" one having been delayed a few weeks on account of the building inspectors hesitated to issue the building permit due to the design): 301 Mission is "traditional" whereas One Rincon Hill is "new wave". If this subject interests you, look at them both:

Here are some of the design features incorporated into One Rincon Hill

Here is a photo of One Rincon at an early stage of construction. Compare the amount of concrete to 301 Mission below it:

One Rincon Hill

Chronicle photo

301 Mission

Botoxic's photo

tyler82 · #**526** Posted **Jul 21, 2007, 12:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

I personally am glad that they're taking these extra precautions. I personally did not even feel the earthquake and slept through it, as did my dog. I live near the embarcadero in SF, on the 17th floor of a modern highrise. I am probably about 10 miles from the epicenter of the earthquake. While it looks like others in the area awoke to a large jolt, I felt nothing. I attribute this to the quality of modern high rise construction here in SF and the bay area in general. This was definitely a consideration for me when I moved here and looked into renting apartments.

If hi rises are built to sway more in an earthquake, why would you not feel it more as opposed to something closer to the ground? When I was living on the 7th floor, I could always feel the sway of the building during earthquakes way more than when i was on the ground floor.

jordan · #**527** Posted **Jul 21, 2007, 1:43 AM**

Will this building stick out on the skyline.. I was just tyring to picture of how it would look on the skyline.

Stephenapolis · #**528** Posted **Jul 21, 2007, 1:46 AM**

Very sharp facade that is going on this building.

BTinSF · #**529** Posted **Jul 21, 2007, 2:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jordan

Will this building stick out on the skyline.. I was just tyring to picture of how it would look on the skyline.

I don't think it'll make a big impression because it's not that much taller than a number of other city buildings including one right across the street. And most of us hope it will eventually be overwhelmed by the 1000+ ft TransBay Terminal buildings. This rendering probably shows it from the angle where it's best seen (upper deck of Bay Bridge, western end):

http://static.flickr.com/55/169714092_4d6727f252_o.jpg

Here's another from the architect's web site ( http://www.handelarchitects.com/main.html#1.0.1.1 ):

rocketman_95046 · #**530** Posted **Jul 21, 2007, 2:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

If hi rises are built to sway more in an earthquake, why would you not feel it more as opposed to something closer to the ground? When I was living on the 7th floor, I could always feel the sway of the building during earthquakes way more than when i was on the ground floor.

All towers are different based on their individual natural frequency. However, think of it this way, a building's flexibility can allow its base to move while the top stays stable.

BTinSF · #**531** Posted **Jul 24, 2007, 11:49 PM**

Progress on the "amenity building":

And the rest climbs higher:

Taken by me on 7/24/07

peanut gallery · #**532** Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 6:00 AM**

The glass on this building is very light sensitive and depending on the angle it looks either absolutely stunning or almost cheap in my opinion. Here's an example of what I mean.

Here it is on the shady side. This was taken at about 7:30am from the northwest side of the building so it is out of the direct sunlight:

I love the color in this shot, particularly on the side that faces due west (the right side of this photo).

Now look at it in the direct sunlight. This was taken at the same time of day but from the east side of the building:

In the direct sunlight, I'm just not nearly as pleased with the look. Fortuntely, we get plenty of fog in SF, so it should look good from all angles most of the time. I'm really curious how this one will look at night. I'm guessing it will look great.

FYI: these were shot on 7/20.

Reminiscence · #**533** Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 6:51 AM**

Not too spectacular of shots, but I though I'd share them anyway. These were taken by me on the night of the TJPA Workshop (7.25):

tyler82 · #**534** Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 3:38 PM**

The horizontal stripes on these buildings make them look less tall than they actually are... the architects should have stuck with all vertical stripes. Oh well.

The fact that this building is over 600', and is right near where the new Transbay tower will be, and that that is currently zoned for 550' tells me that the planning dept. is seriously wanting something much, much taller. During the presentation, I remember the speaker mentioning them wanting to raise the height to 850', which I believe he said as a way to ease into their real goal of something much, much taller. When he mentioned the "1000+ ft." option, he looked up and skimmed the audience, as if to read their expressions. I did as well, and nobody seemed unhappy with this prospect, from what I could tell.

Now, when he said "1000+ ft.", I think that is code for something around 1500 ft. or so.. he just didn't want to mention that right off the bat and create some sort of panic.. haha. That is why I think it is imperative that we all take time off to attend these meetings and gather support for a building that could very well be one of the tallest in the nation and, possibly, the world!

tyler82 · #**535** Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 9:36 PM**

Got back from a business meeting with the Vice Prez of Millennium Partners. Here are some shots of the gorgeous 3D model he has in his offices. Apparently, the top triangular part will light up at night. Take a look:

peanut gallery · #**536** Posted **Jul 27, 2007, 11:26 PM**

That is cool! What's the other model he has in there? I can see a peek of it in the first picture.

pseudolus · #**537** Posted **Jul 28, 2007, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

That is cool! What's the other model he has in there? I can see a peek of it in the first picture.

Four Seasons?

tyler82 · #**538** Posted **Jul 28, 2007, 1:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Four Seasons?

Yes it is Four Seasons, which is attached to Millennium Partners' offices. There were actually a ton of really cool looking buildings and models all over the place, and posters plastered all over the architect's walls. I'm not sure if they are buildings in other cities or future SF proposals. A lot of them were quite stunning, one I saw was a giant black rectangular box with steel/ aluminum framing wrapped around some of it.

BTinSF · #**539** Posted **Jul 28, 2007, 2:18 AM**

^^^To my eyes, that model looks considerably more slender than the reality and I'm looking forward to seeing how the crown actually turns out--the trim creates a real optical illusion.

tyler82 · #**540** Posted **Jul 28, 2007, 3:03 AM**

Seeing it in 3D was such eye candy and better than any rendering I've seen. I think the building doesn't look as thin now because it's only about half done.

This building reminds me of a certain building in NYC, with a triangle crown set to one side, except blue instead of white. Can't remember what that building is called.