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

[don116]

Originally Posted by SFSkyline

So far, so good on the building's profile. Some of the renderings make the taper look too severe and pointy near the top. The slope we're seeing now looks good to me.

I agree. Anxiously waiting to see how the crown turns out. The thinner, more sleek, the better. If its bulbous, too round, then it will definitely look bad.

[Pedestrian]

It looks great and it's gonna look fine. The closer to completion the crown gets the clearer it becomes it's gonna look like BoyInTheCity's projection:

[ozone]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It looks great and it's gonna look fine. The closer to completion the crown gets the clearer it becomes it's gonna look like BoyInTheCity's projection:

Which was what again?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ozone

Which was what again?

What I posted again just above.

[don116]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It looks great and it's gonna look fine. The closer to completion the crown gets the clearer it becomes it's gonna look like BoyInTheCity's projection:

I'm guessing/hoping the crown will be a lot more angular than that projection.

This rendering from the salesforcetower website also hints that the crown will be a bit more 'pointy'.

[Pedestrian]

^^I don't think that difference would matter to anyone but you.

[don116]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^I don't think that difference would matter to anyone but you.

?

Yeah screw attention to detail. Who cares right? Just a building.

You can clearly tell that the second level of inner-crown they just put up is more arched than the projection.

[SFView]

Actually, from an architectural or design standpoint; proportion, balance and composition is of upmost importance. After satisfying the needs of the client and budget, and designing within all site and code constraints, the architect is left with creating the best design they are able. From what I understand of the design concept and believe will be the outcome, Pelli's design and shape for the crown should be just about right.

[Pedestrian]

^^These matters are all very subjective and all one has to do is read these pages to discover that 5-10 people will have 5-10 opinions about what is right and 5-10 ranges for what might be "good enough". My range for "good enough" on this subject (but perhaps not on others) is pretty wide. I'm willing to go with the architect's vision and the client's wishes on something like how "pointy" a building crown should be and even on whether my opinion, as one of 800,000 San Franciscans, should even matter much. Doesn't mean I won't have an opinion of perfection, which I may express, but I don't really expect it to matter much. "He who pays (and he who regulates), says."

By the way, I may as well also say that the power the SF approval process gives to individuals and groups who are niether paying nor charged with regulating in the name of the public to influence designs has a lot to do with why we have so much mediocrity. We need a louder voice in this town for letting the architect do it his (or her) way.

[Citizen]

I can't help but wonder how difficult window washing will be on Salesforce Tower. I'm very curious, considering the amount of segments and the depth of the curtainwall. Thanks in advance and my apologies if this has already been covered. Side note, this thing fires off a massive glare at sunset. It was blinding me while stuck in bridge traffic last night.

[don116]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

We need a louder voice in this town for letting the architect do it his (or her) way.

We need a louder voice to make them DO BETTER. My friend, a Rice U. Architecture graduate, says San Francisco is known as the city where the world's best architects design their worst buildings.

Look at all the plain cubes that sprouted up in Mission Bay, SoMa, even old financial district.

Developers are always conflicted between maximizing square footage on the project (thus the cubes/rectangle/block shaped buildings) and not getting it done at all due to pure opposition.

I've actually shown up to planning commission meetings demanding better architecture, and it has resulted in developers having to go back to the drawing board. One example is 330 Townsend:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...-caltrain.html

It will be the 2nd tallest building in central soma, and SCB wanted to do some horizontal glass boilerplate that stretched one full block. I said that design was unacceptable for such a prominent tower in the area with that height. I also mentioned that a good comparison or goal would be to do something like what they have Chelsea, manhattan; lots of beautiful, mid-rise modern architecture there.

The consensus from PC was they needed to produce a "more innovative and expressive design for the project overall that reflects the prominence that this building will have in the neighborhood and on the skyline".

[mt_climber13]

Let architects be architects.

don's post reminds me of one of my favorite books, "The Fountainhead."

[don116]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Let architects be architects.

don's post reminds me of one of my favorite books, "The Fountainhead."

Yeah let's architects express themselves with beautiful waterfront designs like this one in MIssion Bay



Jeez it would have been a nightmare if someone urged them to do something less plain and monotonous on one of the last few undeveloped waterfront parks in the city.

[don116]

Hard to tell from this photo, but there seems to be a strip of lights (maybe LED?) along the base of the crown. Could this be part of the art light installation? Doesn't look like construction lighting to me.

[SFView]

I have attended many design review meetings, and know people personally on both sides of the table. Yes, quality design is subjective. Yes, there are varying opinions, just as they are here. The review process can be difficult as a result. Generally, I find that the more people like a design, the better it is. Unfortunately, sometimes the final result doesn't always result in what more people like. Rather than getting into a long discussion of the many various reasons how a design can be effected through the process, I think we are rather lucky with we are getting lately in San Francisco. Some of it is quite good. ...And yes, that is just my subjective opinion. I can only guess if it would agree with popular opinion. ...Oh, and design isn't always the most important thing why a building gets built a certain way. Naturally, here on this forum we often place more importance on design.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by don116

Hard to tell from this photo, but there seems to be a strip of lights (maybe LED?) along the base of the crown. Could this be part of the art light installation? Doesn't look like construction lighting to me.

Maybe what we thought is a walkway is actually a lighting truss?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by don116

My friend, a Rice U. Architecture graduate, says San Francisco is known as the city where the world's best architects design their worst buildings.

Which happens precisely for the reason I said: Whatever the architect may wish to design, in SF he knows it won't happens until multiple "neighborhood activists" and others with no prticular qulifications to judge, all seeking their own version of "better", have their say and likely too much influence over the final product. It winds up being the architcture of th least offensive. Architects and developers must ask themselves, "Why bother?"

For once, I want the architect's version of "better"--the best he thinks he can do--and I don't care about any private citizen's opinion on some personal "better" idea. That includes private citizens on this site.

[timbad]

Originally Posted by don116

Yeah let's architects express themselves with beautiful waterfront designs like this one in MIssion Bay



Jeez it would have been a nightmare if someone urged them to do something less plain and monotonous on one of the last few undeveloped waterfront parks in the city.

you know that building has been there since the 1920s, right?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SFView

Maybe what we thought is a walkway is actually a lighting truss?

I have thought all along it's something to do with lighting. Perhaps a truss to support lighting, perhaps a walkway to access lighting for maintenance or some other purpose.

My other thought when it appeared only on the lowest level of the crown was an access walkway for window washing cranes but they don't need 2 or 3 levels of that so that pretty much leaves lighting as the most likely option.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by timbad

you know that building has been there since the 1920s, right?

I'm beginning to think he doesn't know and probably doesn't know about Bauhaus architecture either.

Consider this Bauhaus dormitory in Dessau, Germany. Classic for following function. And, except for the balconies, similar to the port building writ smaller.


https://www.we-heart.com/2013/10/22/...sslau-germany/

But note the railroad tracks running right in front of the SF port building. It was not intended to be any sort of showpiece but a basic, functional structure. Still, it has served a variety of useful purposes for almost 100 years. Hard to ask more than that.