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

[phoenixboi08]

Originally Posted by theskythelimit

Hello All. Long time reader, first time posting.

I just returned from Hong Kong and noticed the IFC in HK looks quite similar to the proposed TransBay tower in San Francisco. Any thoughts?

On a side note, the proposed Wilshire development in LA is projected to be 1250FT. Would there be a chance to raise the height of the TransBay Tower to be the tallest building on the West Coast?

They were both designed by the same architect (Pelli I think).
Also, that one going up in Chile (Consterna) and that tall building in Jersey City. haha he really likes this motif.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by theskythelimit

Hello All. Long time reader, first time posting.

I just returned from Hong Kong and noticed the IFC in HK looks quite similar to the proposed TransBay tower in San Francisco. Any thoughts?

On a side note, the proposed Wilshire development in LA is projected to be 1250FT. Would there be a chance to raise the height of the TransBay Tower to be the tallest building on the West Coast?

Welcome to the forum! To answer your first question, that was the initial reaction from a lot of us upon first seeing it. As to raising the height: no, that's not going to happen. It's already been lowered to where it is today. If LA has a taller building, so be it.

[theskythelimit]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Welcome to the forum! To answer your first question, that was the initial reaction from a lot of us upon first seeing it. As to raising the height: no, that's not going to happen. It's already been lowered to where it is today. If LA has a taller building, so be it.

Thank you for the welcome and answers. I know building such a large building could be financially risky to a developer and they maybe waiting for market conditions to improve a little. During the 1990s there was a lot of speculative buildings. I also believe Foudrey Square IV(?) is under construction and is speculative without a major tenant?

Let's hope the TransBay tower gets its finances in order and breaks ground next year. I see the Terminal is moving on quite well.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

If LA has a taller building, so be it.

And this is why San Francisco annoys me. The little village that could(n't).

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

And this is why San Francisco annoys me. The little village that could(n't).

I don't think many people really care about skyscraper height dick-measuring contests (everyone would lose to China and Dubai anyways). LA has had the tallest building on the west coast for decades now, it's not like SF's pride will be hurt or something if that continues. Also, I'm not sure why you think peanut gallery's opinion is that of all San Franciscans...not that his opinion even sounds like a "little village" opinion.

SF has dozens of high rises under construction, approved and proposed right now, which doesn't quite sound like a little village to me...and 10-20 years ago a 1,070' tower would have been unthinkable. So really it's more like the little village big city that can (finally!!). Not to mention the plan has always been to build a tall skyscraper, not the tallest skyscraper on the west coast.

Anyway, here have a nice rendering of the Transbay tower and the other towers proposed for the Transbay and Rincon hill redevelopment areas:





source: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATT...TS/FA26000.pdf

That sure looks like the type of development you see in a little village that can't!

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by tech12

I don't think many people really care about skyscraper height dick-measuring contests (everyone would lose to China and Dubai anyways). LA has had the tallest building on the west coast for decades now, it's not like SF's pride will be hurt or something if that continues. Also, I'm not sure why you think peanut gallery's opinion is that of all San Franciscans...not that his opinion even sounds like a "little village" opinion.

SF has dozens of high rises under construction, approved and proposed right now, which doesn't quite sound like a little village to me...and 10-20 years ago a 1,070' tower would have been unthinkable. So really it's more like the little village big city that can (finally!!). Not to mention the plan has always been to build a tall skyscraper, not the tallest skyscraper on the west coast.

Anyway, here have a nice rendering of the Transbay tower and the other towers proposed for the Transbay and Rincon hill redevelopment areas:





source: http://mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATT...TS/FA26000.pdf

That sure looks like the type of development you see in a little village that can't!

This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. You have to leave and look at it from the outside in to really understand it. Los Angeles is a much more important city culturally, yet SF doesnt want to put up a fight and compete. The city is pretty stagnant, you must admit.

[timbad]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. You have to leave and look at it from the outside in to really understand it. Los Angeles is a much more important city culturally, yet SF doesnt want to put up a fight and compete. The city is pretty stagnant, you must admit.

I walk around this city a lot, and see change and growth everywhere that mostly excites and stimulates me. 'stagnant' is one of the last terms I would use to describe it right now.

[mahanakorn]

Quote (Wakamesalad): You have to leave and look at it from the outside in to really understand it. Los Angeles is a much more important city culturally, yet SF doesnt want to put up a fight and compete. The city is pretty stagnant, you must admit.

From 9 time zones away, SF seems to cast a pretty long shadow for a small city of 800K. It appears in the news, in advertising, in song, and in conversation often (especially in the contexts of tech and culture). 'Stagnant' is not a word that comes up. SF is generally mentioned in a more favorable light than our SoCal cousins (I'm not a hater; I like LA).

SF is a good-looking rich girl who turns out to be smart and fun, too. Cities aren't measured by their skyscrapers. I love living in Bangkok, but if I had to choose between dynamic, sky-scraping Dubai and stuffy old low-rise Copenhagen, I take Copenhagen in a heartbeat.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by mahanakorn

From 9 time zones away, SF seems to cast a pretty long shadow for a small city of 800K. It appears in the news, in advertising, in song, and in conversation often (especially in the contexts of tech and culture). 'Stagnant' is not a word that comes up. SF is generally mentioned in a more favorable light than our SoCal cousins (I'm not a hater; I like LA).

SF is a good-looking rich girl who turns out to be smart and fun, too. Cities aren't measured by their skyscrapers. I love living in Bangkok, but if I had to choose between dynamic, sky-scraping Dubai and stuffy old low-rise Copenhagen, I take Copenhagen in a heartbeat.

You're right that SF is not stagnant, but you also have a somewhat skewed view of SF. The 46 square miles of SF city proper has 800,000 people (which is not at all small for an American city-proper), but the metro area has over 7 million people, making it the 6th largest metro area in the US. You mentioned tech, and while there is a lot of tech industry based in SF city-proper, most of it is actually based elsewhere in the metro area. As for SF being "a good-looking rich girl"...yeah on one hand that's what it is (and i know that is how it's often presented to the rest of the world), but on the other hand it's not at all. SF has lots of rich people, but it has a lot more poor people, working class, and middle class people, and it has grit, and crime, and an ugly side. Cities aren't one-dimensional caricatures.

That said...skyscrapers!!!! Yeah!!! They aren't necessary for city to be a city, but they sure are nice.

[rriojas71]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

This has less to do with towers and more to do with attitudes. You have to leave and look at it from the outside in to really understand it. Los Angeles is a much more important city culturally, yet SF doesnt want to put up a fight and compete. The city is pretty stagnant, you must admit.

So what would it prove to the rest of the world if SF had the biggest building on the West Coast? I think SF packs a punch and holds it own with LA despite being much smaller in area and size. I would love to see a supertall rise in SF, but it we keep shooting for "mine is bigger than yours" we will never be satisfied.

[theskythelimit]

As was reported earlier, Metlife has pulled their partnership with Hines regarding the Transbay Tower. Matier&Ross had a small piece in The Chronicle about the possible ramifications and future.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tower of trouble: Funding for San Francisco's new Transbay Transit Center bus and rail hub has hit a $185 million snag.

The hitch came when real estate giant MetLife pulled out as the primary investor of the neighboring, 1,070-foot-tall Transbay Tower at First and Mission streets - a deal that was intended to help fund the $1.5 billion, Grand Central Terminal-style transit hub.

The pullout comes just ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline for the tower's primary developer, Hines, to cut a $185 million check for the site.

Hines has to make a quick decision whether to go it alone on what would be the city's tallest skyscraper, bring in a new partner or bail on the development altogether, said Transbay project spokesman Adam Alberti.
If Hines decides to exit, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority will have to start hunting for new buyers. And quickly, because the authority is depending on the tower money to be in the bank by spring to keep the new transit hub on schedule."

[CyberEric]

^Doesn't sound like good news for the tower.

Some negativity in here! The idea that one tall building has much of, if any, impact on a city is comical to me. The fact that many residents don't much care about having the tallest building on the West Coast (whoopty do) is, to me, evidence of something in itself. SF is not LA, it's not NY, it's not Chicago, if that means SF is stagnant, then that's fantastic. I have lived in London, Madrid, Buenos Aires and SF never ever seems even remotely "stagnant" to me.

Go to Doha Qatar, plenty of new tall buildings, completely stagnant.

[Dale]

^ Either-Or Fallacy ? What's wrong with having both ?

[Zapatan]

Bingo^


Definitely not new news, like I said, it would probably be too good to be true for SF to build a 1070 foot tower.

[tech12]

^So much pessimism. And whether this tower gets built or not doesn't have anything to do with it's height, it's the money that's an issue.

I'm going to wait for some more news before I decide this is dead. Too much work has been put into it all over several years, the terminal is dependent on it for money, and downtown SF is very desirable and has low office vacancy rates at the moment. And Hines is still involved at least...I don't think this project is guaranteed to die just because MetLife pulled out.

[rriojas71]

^Good call Tech. I am in agreement with you. Time for some positive vibes on this thread.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by tech12

^So much pessimism. And whether this tower gets built or not doesn't have anything to do with it's height, it's the money that's an issue.

I'm going to wait for some more news before I decide this is dead. Too much work has been put into it all over several years, the terminal is dependent on it for money, and downtown SF is very desirable and has low office vacancy rates at the moment. And Hines is still involved at least...I don't think this project is guaranteed to die just because MetLife pulled out.

Of course I'm pessimistic, we've only heard bad news recently.. about a tower in the NIMBY capital of the world nonetheless

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

Of course I'm pessimistic, we've only heard bad news recently.. about a tower in the NIMBY capital of the world nonetheless

Understandable, but what I'm trying to say is that there's still hope for this. MetLife pulling out is not good news, but it's not necessarily the end of the project either.

As for NIMBYs, SF may have lots of them, but it's not the "NIMBY capitol of the world". You don't build 53 highrises in 15 years by being the NIMBY capitol.

[Zapatan]

Yea, I was exaggerating when I said it was the NIMBY capitol of the world, but I don't want to get my, or anyone else's hopes up too high for the projects. I just think it's going to be very hard for them to find funding elsewhere, hopefully they wait a while before cancelling the tower.

[theskythelimit]

Maybe they should call Donald trump. He likes signature properties.