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

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

That's easy. The Man in the High Castle (er, office). Benioff is 52.

That's a relief. Good to know that all I have to do to gain admittance is show my multibillionaire club membership card to the age police.

[Pedestrian]

^^Isn't that pretty much the way it always is?

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

That's a relief. Good to know that all I have to do to gain admittance is show my multibillionaire club membership card to the age police.

Stop complaining and enjoy your senior discounts and free healthcare old man.

[don116]

Originally Posted by botoxic

If all goes well, in about five years that picture will be graced with at least 10 new towers greater than 400' - currently in the planning, approval, or construction phases. In addition to the nearly complete Salesforce and 33 Tehama (not to mention the unseen 181 Fremont), waiting in the wings we have:

160 Folsom (Gang)
Park Tower
Transbay Block 4 (F4)
Oceanwide Tower 1
Oceanwide Tower 2
400 Folsom
500 Folsom
524 Howard
550 Howard (Parcel F)
555 Howard

And just to stay slightly on topic, I offer a picture of SF from yesterday

salesforce tower & the impending SFMET, scott richard by torbakhopper, on Flickr

That looks pretty nice actually...

[boyinthecity]

Looks like the total height and shape of the tower might come close to this....

In addition, I am thinking that the open space at the very top will be utilized by
the window washing equipment....possibly something like the crane-like arm
on 399 fremont and/or the lumina towers.


source: tweaks by me and the oxblue park tower camera.

[1977]

^^^ That's great! Looks pretty close to me.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Also, is there going to be anyone over 30 yo?

Ridiculous aint it?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by boyinthecity

Looks like the total height and shape of the tower might come close to this....

From the renderings and models, the three glass levels of the crown will be around the remaining projecting half core with the six screen levels all above that. I just studied it with binoculars from here and it looks like that is how it will be.

[Justbuildit]

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t5...Mzc2OQ%3D%3D.2

[mt_climber13]

Looks like a spire structure to me

[don116]

Originally Posted by Justbuildit

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t5...Mzc2OQ%3D%3D.2

Other than Manhattan and Chicago...what other America city has that dense/tall of a waterfront? Truly remarkable.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Looks like a spire structure to me

Yes...although it probably will help support the screening, as was previously suggested, it could also have something put on top of it. Most likely, that's wishful thinking, but...

[TowerDude]

Still can't believe that they are not including an Observation Deck in this building. Views like that and they aren't going to let the public pay to see them? Crazy.

[SFView]

There are no restrictions from Planning from including an observation deck is such a building as Salesforce Tower; in fact it was encouraged (I remember seeing the actual text from a Planning document somewhere). It is rather more up to the client (Hines), to determine if it is economically feasible for them to include it. In this case, it isn't. The cost of including an extra dedicated elevator and loss of valuable office square footage, would be greater than the profit from tourism.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Yes...although it probably will help support the screening, as was previously suggested, it could also have something put on top of it. Most likely, that's wishful thinking, but...

Personally, I feel that Salesforce Tower would look much more iconic if it was to include a spire centered above the crown. With the center support in place, it would seem like a missed opportunity, if a spire isn't extended above it. I believe a spire would suit this tower well based on its shape, and its intended prominence. I don't yet know if this will be the case. I'm actually still okay without a spire, but...wishful thinking as well.

[Pedestrian]

I don't know what "looking iconic" means.

Webster's defines "iconic" as:

a : widely recognized and well-established <an iconic brand name>
b : widely known and acknowledged especially for distinctive excellence <an iconic writer> <a region's iconic wines>

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconic

So are you saying this building would look better with a spire? I marginally agree that a spire would suit it but I'm always confused by the application of SF's height and bulk restrictions. I'd rather have the building as it is than a shorter one with a spire.

[Pedestrian]

Re the spire discussion, note that the early renderings of the building as in this draft (from 2009) of the Transbay District Plan had one:


http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/CDG/d...ft_WEB_PT1.pdf

They were intended to show how we could have a building with the impact on the skyline of a 1200 footer but the shaddow effects on the Embarcadero of a 1000 footer.

[iamfishhead]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I don't know what "looking iconic" means.

Webster's defines "iconic" as:


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconic

So are you saying this building would look better with a spire? I marginally agree that a spire would suit it but I'm always confused by the application of SF's height and bulk restrictions. I'd rather have the building as it is than a shorter one with a spire.

Agree. Things don't look iconic. They are iconic. This building would be iconic no mater what simply because of its skyline prominence.

[SFView]

Certain pieces of art, or examples of architecture and design have become iconic by the unique and special way they look. Iconic status depends on popular opinion over time. A spire doesn't necessarily help a structure become iconic unless it is well integrated into the design. It is only my opinion that it could be done here based on what I see. If enough people disagree. then of course I could be wrong. Like I already said, I am already satisfied with the design without a spire, so maybe those of you who disagree with a spire are right.

[mt_climber13]

I don't know of any type of structure that would befit a spire more perfectly than a tapered one, which this is.