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

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by timbad

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

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

...I don't care about any private citizen's opinion on some personal "better" idea. That includes private citizens on this site.

Thank you both for your posts. Tim, I was going to respond to don116's lack of knowledge until I noticed you had already done it. "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." It's actually one of the last remaining developed sites and it certainly wasn't a waterfront park. Too many people spread uninformed, unaware, and/or juvenile opinions here and elsewhere.

Here's a familiar sounding one from SocketSite:

Posted by donjuan 3 days ago
They need at least 1 supertall to make up for the missed opportunity that was salesforce tower. this city needs its one WTC or empire state building equivalent. Pelli’s salesforce tower is at best neutral and at worst a joke that people will use to ridicule san francisco for decades to come (thanks to the phallic shape of the tower).

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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.

Right, and they are now adding another lighting truss 2 levels above that.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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.

There are always people that think that no matter how much better we think a tall building design is, it is still ugly in their eyes - not much better than a parking lot. They would much rather prefer the building more generic and blend in, rather than stand out. These people often scream the loudest. It's something like for some people trying to convince other members of their household that they want to have beautiful, large, tall high-end speakers in their living room, but they rather have them have the smallest or most invisible speakers possible, or nothing at all.

Okay, back more to topic...

[observatory]

^^^In reply to Pedestrian's quote above, I believe we are getting one with the upcoming Jean Gang tower, wouldn't people here agree? OK, back to SFTower...

Catching up on the recent posts here, I saw wakamesalad's post wistfully wishing SFT was built at its original 1200' height; I wholeheartedly agree. Are most folks disappointed (like us) that it wasn't built to its original height in order to "protect" a corner of Union Square for a couple hours in winter? Wouldn't that extra 130' be worth the added expense and be some of the most desired real estate in The City?

[edwards]

Have we surpassed 1000 ft yet?

[observatory]

Originally Posted by edwards

Have we surpassed 1000 ft yet?

Yes! The top of the concrete core topped out at 970' and so with the recent construction of the crown, we definitely went above 1K' within the last 10 days or so (see page 135 / botoxic comment #2689)

[mt_climber13]

[don116]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Thank you both for your posts. Tim, I was going to respond to don116's lack of knowledge until I noticed you had already done it. "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." It's actually one of the last remaining developed sites and it certainly wasn't a waterfront park. Too many people spread uninformed, unaware, and/or juvenile opinions here and elsewhere.

Here's a familiar sounding one from SocketSite:

Posted by donjuan 3 days ago
They need at least 1 supertall to make up for the missed opportunity that was salesforce tower. this city needs its one WTC or empire state building equivalent. Pelli’s salesforce tower is at best neutral and at worst a joke that people will use to ridicule san francisco for decades to come (thanks to the phallic shape of the tower).

I actually didn't know that building had been around since the 20s. But the grey Avalon towers on Berry are just as offensive.

Why are people so defensive of lazy architecture in San Francisco? I'm very much so pro-development. The Gang tower, Oceanwide Center, 181 fremont, SF Flower Mart, all excellent designs that both respect and augment their areas.

Let me guess, everyone here thinks One Rincon is beautiful too because the architect was able to express themselves? The Jasper too?

[don116]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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.

Thats a huge mis-representation of the issue. People don't show up to PC meetings over certain developments saying 'hey, how-about some Streamline Moderne architecture?'.

They say 'NOT IN MY BACKYARD!' or 'it should be 100 feet shorter!', 'make it 100% affordable'. I almost never see people comment on the architecture unless its an attempt to deride the proposal.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by don116

I actually didn't know that building had been around since the 20s. But the grey Avalon towers on Berry are just as offensive.

Why are people so defensive of lazy architecture in San Francisco? I'm very much so pro-development. The Gang tower, Oceanwide Center, 181 fremont, SF Flower Mart, all excellent designs that both respect and augment their areas.

Let me guess, everyone here thinks One Rincon is beautiful too because the architect was able to express themselves? The Jasper too?

I agree with you regarding much of Mission Bay housing, especially along the creek, including the newest one being completed in Block 1. I also concur with the buildings you mentioned above.

No one here likes Jasper and many of us have repeatedly disparached it. I hate it, wishing it had never been built.

[Blesha13]

I know this question was asked numerous times, but will there be any kind of LED lights on the crown such as holiday colors in December?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Blesha13

I know this question was asked numerous times, but will there be any kind of LED lights on the crown such as holiday colors in December?

That's what we're assuming, especially since it will be part of a public art feature.

[1977]

Originally Posted by Blesha13

I know this question was asked numerous times, but will there be any kind of LED lights on the crown such as holiday colors in December?

Michael says the tower has taken five or six RFPs from lighting artists to adorn the top of the tower. The 150-foot crown perching on the highest office space will include a transparent system with LEDs, creating a glowing beacon.

Read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco...medium=Browser

We now know the artist is Jim Campbell.
http://jimcampbell.tv/

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by 1977

We now know the artist is Jim Campbell.
http://jimcampbell.tv/

http://jimcampbell.tv/portfolio/publ.../icc_building/
This is great, my favorite building in HK. I am excited to see the result.

[1977]

Originally Posted by fimiak

http://jimcampbell.tv/portfolio/publ.../icc_building/
This is great, my favorite building in HK. I am excited to see the result.

I know! That is amazing. I can't wait to see what he comes up with for the SFT.

I haven't heard or seen any details about this since they announced Campbell was the winner. Hopefully, we hear something soon.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by 1977

We now know the artist is Jim Campbell.
http://jimcampbell.tv/

If it really is 150' then the tower height will be 1,120'. Notice on page 1 of the diagram the crown starts at 970' and the "tower top feature" is supposed to be only 115'. Unless the "glass screen wall" is included in his 150', which would make it a total of 168' (42'6" from top of floor 61 to top of glass screen wall + 115'6" from top of glass screen wall to top of "tower top feature"

[SFSkyline]

Aside from more height, the only design change I would have liked was an expression of the frame on the exterior. While rich in detail, I do think the curtain wall is a bit monotonous. If the three columns on each side building could have come through in the exterior simply in the form of thicker mullions, then I think it would be much more vertically-oriented and interesting.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by don116

everyone here thinks One Rincon is beautiful too because the architect was able to express themselves? The Jasper too?

Do you know that the SF Dept.of Building Inspection halted the construction of ORH tower 1 midway because they thought the design was too risky? I'm not personally a fan of the exterior form, and in a way it's my point that my personal ideas--and yours--should not really matter else we get architecture that must be acceptable to everyone which means thoroughly mediocre, but as an overall structure it's pretty radical and I appreciate that.

[City Wide]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

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.

Many years ago I asked a very good mid level architect about a participially bad parking garage and how could any well meaning architect design such crap. The answer was "cash for trash". In some ways that attitude is a cop out, but it also says a lot about the whole construction process. The architect and the design of the building is only one component in the puzzle. If the owner or whoever controls the cash doesn't care it would take the very unusual architect to do the education, spend the time, burn the paper and pencils, trying to create the atmosphere where a good design is valued.
We see the end result, but who knows what went into the end result. Almost always its not the architect who has any where near the final say.

[boyinthecity]

Wonderful lighting and colors this morning on the way into the city.
Salesforce is perfectly centered from this vantage point.


source: me