SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Tower | 1,070 FT (326 M) | 61 floors

[mt_climber13]

^And all the women, elderly, families with young children that feel unsafe in the area are just being wimps too.

What a knucklehead.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

^And all the women, elderly, families with young children that feel unsafe in the area are just being wimps too.

What a knucklehead.

You've taken a survey have you? Yeah they are wimps too Crybaby generation.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by don116

Have you walked around 6th or 7th street? Doesn't even feel safe in broad daylight.

SOMA is a big place, and it sure as hell isn't all like 6th or 7th street.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by don116

That angle makes the rest of SoMa look like an urban dump. We need the Central SoMa plan ASAP.

"SoMa looks like an urban dump. We need the Central SoMa plan ASAP"--seems a bit off topic, but since you raise the issue--

Does the "Central SoMa Plan" have lots of affordable housing? Do you expect all the hard workers to commute from Stockton & Modesto? San Francisco has lost half its black population and much of its middle class and lower class in the last few decades. A city needs its working classes to run. The beat generation and hippies wouldn't recognize the place. The bohemians & poets are leaving town because of low bank balances.

Jack London and Jack Keruack and Alan Ginsberg would "howl" at what is happening. "Emperor Norton" would be sleeping on the sidewalks.

Nancy Pelosi's daughter made an excellent documentary on HBO on this "gentrification" recently. It still might be available on HBO. A large part of her film dealt with people being priced out of places like SoMa, the Tenderloin and the Mission District. The same thing is happening in Los Angeles.

Development is fine, but all (or most) of the new the housing seems to be built for the rich in San Francisco and Los Angeles. More affordable housing is badly needed, tens of thousands of units. Maybe more micro-units, under 500 sq. ft?

[don116]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

"SoMa looks like an urban dump. We need the Central SoMa plan ASAP"

What are you trying to do--gentrify the entire city & kick out the rest of the working poor and middle class? Who will do the hard work that makes a city run? Do you expect all the hard workers to commute from Stockton & Modesto??? San Francisco has lost half its black population and much of its middle class and lower class in the last few decades. All these tech geeks and idle billionaires driving up prices. A city needs its working classes to run. The beat generation and hippies wouldn't recognize the place. The bohemians & poets are being run out of town because of low bank balances.

San Francisco is becoming a city of the boring upper classes, a city of idle rich. The interesting characters are being priced out. Jack London and Jack Keruack and Alan Ginsberg would "howl" at what is happening. "Emperor Norton" would be sleeping on the sidewalks. Nancy Pelosi's daughter made an excellent documentary on HBO on this "gentrification".

All new large housing projects should contain at least 25%, or maybe 50% affordable units, under $1000 a month rent. Otherwise the parks will fill with people camping out in tents. Most people aren't rich. They will live somewhere.

Are you being facetious? Your argument is so ridiculous its hard to tell. The Central SoMa plan isn't displacing anyone. Its building on urban infill like parking lots and warehouses and the block and block of 1-story warehouses that are inefficiently being used as hipster retail.

Who's going to pay for affordable units? Developers are. How will we keep low income and minority populations in SF? The answer is developers will use a portion of their revenue to build subsidized housing and supervisors like London Breed will enact legislation to make sure its fairly distributed. They surely won't live in the dilapidated warehouses in Brannan.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by don116

Are you being facetious? Your argument is so ridiculous its hard to tell. The Central SoMa plan isn't displacing anyone. Its building on urban infill like parking lots and warehouses and the block and block of 1-story warehouses that are inefficiently being used as hipster retail.

Who's going to pay for affordable units? Developers are. How will we keep low income and minority populations in SF? The answer is developers will use a portion of their revenue to build subsidized housing and supervisors like London Breed will enact legislation to make sure its fairly distributed. They surely won't live in the dilapidated warehouses in Brannan.

Great that Central SoMa includes lots of "affordable" housing. I hope you are right about that. Pelosi's recent documentary on HBO said lots of poor are being displaced throughout San Francisco, including in SoMa but more so in the Tenderloin and Mission. I started a new thread on affordable "micro apartments", under 500 square feet (in NYC they are sometimes under 200 sq. ft.). Are they allowed in SF?

Back on topic, the Salesforce Tower looks great! Very impressive & classy building, great addition to downtown.

[botoxic]

Anyway...the 33 Tehama floor count indicates these are a few weeks old, but pretty cool nonetheless.

@sanfranmag on Twitter


@sanfranmag on Twitter

[SLO]

^incredible Ive always admired the workers on high rises, I couldn't do it, the views that tower will command are awesome as well.

[viewguysf]

big jump completed on north crane, south one still down for now...very exciting to see through binoculars

[homebucket]

^ Cool views! Especially facing the North towards FiDi. That's a new and unique view we haven't really seen before given the lack of taller buildings in SOMA. Too bad there won't be an observation deck.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by SLO

^incredible Ive always admired the workers on high rises, I couldn't do it, the views that tower will command are awesome as well.

Really. I'm getting vertigo just looking at the pictures- which are pretty awesome btw.

[ozone]

Delete

[ozone]

I'm surprised there are no public observation decks in any of the new buildings given San Francisco's view worthiness. But that costs money and there's lots of free views in the city.

[iamfishhead]

Originally Posted by ozone

I'm surprised there are no public observation decks in any of the new buildings given San Francisco's view worthiness. But that costs money and there's lots of free views in the city.

The SF Chronicle had a good bit on precisely that http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/p...se-6447721.php

It sounds like there won't be one in Salesforce Tower simply because it wasn't designed for it.

[mt_climber13]

Just take a drive or bus up to Twin Peaks, the views are more incredible than anything else you could get in the city. Most other cities don't have the benefit of topography and are dependent on observation decks on top of their towers.

If you want that downtown view I'd recommend an evening at Top of the Mark at the Mark Hopkins Hotel on the top of Nob Hill.

[homebucket]

True, there are plenty of great vantage points from around the City, but it's not the same as being in the middle of a sea of skyscrapers. The Top of the Mark has a nice view, but it's obviously not as tall as Salesforce. It'd be neat to be able to look down on all the other towers.

[mt_climber13]

Yes but then you wouldn't be getting the best view of all- the view of this tower itself!

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ozone

I'm surprised there are no public observation decks in any of the new buildings given San Francisco's view worthiness. But that costs money and there's lots of free views in the city.

The views from "The Top of the Mark" and the bar/restaurant (Carnelian Room?) at the top of the 52 story building on California St. (used to be BA headquarters) are great, and can be had for the price of a drink. Many hotels have rooftop bars. The Mark Hopkins is on top of Nob Hill, so the Top of the Mark is >600 feet above lower downtown (building is about 320' high, hill maybe another 300'). In L.A., the U.S. Bank Tower has an observation deck/bar/restaurant near the 1000' level, but they charge admission just to go up there! I believe the new Wilshire Grand plans an observation deck/restaurant at the top. In San Diego, there is a nice bar/restaurant/observation deck on the top of the Hyatt (about 500').

[observatory]

I completely agree with homebucket. I dream of the day when SF will get a true world-class observatory on a supertall in the middle of the forest of towers. It's true that SF has many great vantage points on hills from afar, but a perspective in the middle of all the action is greatly lacking. This would not only provide awesome views of the skyline itself (minus the supertall, but did that stop the ESB in NY or WT in Chicago?), but also incredibly better views of the gorgeous bay, islands, and bridge landmarks. I wonder if any plans are in the works for Oceanwide?

[observatory]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

The views from "The Top of the Mark" and the bar/restaurant (Carnelian Room?) at the top of the 52 story building on California St. (used to be BA headquarters) are great, and can be had for the price of a drink. Many hotels have rooftop bars. The Mark Hopkins is on top of Nob Hill, so the Top of the Mark is >600 feet above lower downtown (building is about 320' high, hill maybe another 300'). In L.A., the U.S. Bank Tower has an observation deck/bar/restaurant near the 1000' level, but they charge admission just to go up there! I believe the new Wilshire Grand plans an observation deck/restaurant at the top. In San Diego, there is a nice bar/restaurant/observation deck on the top of the Hyatt (about 500').

Yes, but Top of the Mark is not in the middle of the action. Also, the Carnelian Room on top of the old BofA HQ building was shut down almost a decade ago. That was the closest SF had to a great observatory. I think the new US Bank Tower observatory is a great idea, whenever I get to LA, I would definitely visit it as well as the new hotel lobby on the top of WG.