SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors | ON HOLD - Page 8

Zapatan · #**141** Posted **Apr 2, 2014, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

The floor count from that article is pure bullshit. Hruski pointed it out yesterday. Nobody is building a 10' ceiling height office space in downtown SF, because it becomes 9' with floors and would make for a tiny lobby. Transbay is 61 floors to 900', which is about 14.5'. That is the tall end, but not atypical for class A office space. I would guess this 850' building will have about 60-65 floors as well. The office space will be slightly taller, and the residential shorter, so the 50' extra that transbay tower has will be 50' saved on the residential portion of 50 first(making 50 first 850' and 60-65 floors mixed vs 900' TB with 60 floors for pure office).

Transbay building roof is 945' I believe

SFView · #**142** Posted **Apr 2, 2014, 1:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

The floor count from that article is pure bullshit. Hruski pointed it out yesterday. Nobody is building a 10' ceiling height office space in downtown SF, because it becomes 9' with floors and would make for a tiny lobby. Transbay is 61 floors to 900', which is about 14.5'. That is the tall end, but not atypical for class A office space. I would guess this 850' building will have about 60-65 floors as well. The office space will be slightly taller, and the residential shorter, so the 50' extra that transbay tower has will be 50' saved on the residential portion of 50 first(making 50 first 850' and 60-65 floors mixed vs 900' TB with 60 floors for pure office).

Actually I was thinking more like 12' floors for commercial and 9' for residential and hotel. The commercial floor plates would be much larger than the rest, thus having less floors; but all this is just guessing and a bit of a stretch. Sometimes we try to make sense of claims which don't seem to make sense, even though they may not be true.

Yes I do agree that the 85 floor figure could very well be incorrect, and 60-65floor range makes much more sense. I was thinking this to myself more likely the case yesterday before I started writing down other possibilities. I'd rather not speculate on this anymore, until we have better data. None of us seems to have the hard answers yet, and the 85 floor number seems rather suspicious right now. We also seem to be unclear about the roof and crown heights.

mt_climber13 · #**143** Posted **Apr 2, 2014, 8:32 PM**

101 Cal is a class A office tower with a huge lobby that is 600' with 48 floors. If the 850' tower were full office with these specs, it would have 68 floors. If residential and hotel is added with lower ceilings, 85 floors definitely could be a possibility, depending on how many floors of commercial vs. residential.

fimiak · #**144** Posted **Apr 2, 2014, 9:29 PM**

But shouldn't it be obvious that the reporter saw 600' and 850' and then drew the conclusion of 60 floors and 85 floors?

You are stretching to get that 68 floors, since 101 Cal was designed in the 1970s with 12.5' ceiling height. Today it is most likely at least 13'. Transbay Tower across the street will have 14.5'.

You are still somehow adding 17 random floors to get the 85 floor count, by assuming residential/hotel will be significantly shorter. They may indeed be shorter, but definitely not by more than 2' per floor. So those residential floors would save just 20' for every ten floors. There is simply not enough space to ever reach 85 floors. I still believe it will be 60-65 when announced.

SFView · #**145** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 4:06 AM**

Would it going too far for someone here to send a friendly email to Emily Fancher regarding the source of the floor count information that she published? Sorry, I don't have an application that works for emailing her. You can email her via this San Francisco Business Times link:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...-transbay.html

If not, we'll just wait for more information.

mt_climber13 · #**146** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 7:14 PM**

I sent her an email a couple days ago.. let's see if she responds

SFView · #**147** Posted **Apr 5, 2014, 5:37 AM**

We should probably give the floor count issue a rest, until we start seeing the first schematic designs this summer. The floor count figures in the Emily Fancher's news story may have been rough target estimates given by Michael Covarrubias of TMG Partners, and could change once the design develops further. The heights given below are maximum roof heights for both towers. SOM's previous design for 50 First Street fall within the same limits.

Source: http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7211

Quote:

The development, located on an L-shaped site, will include 605-foot and 850-foot towers, containing 1.35 million square feet of office and commercial space and about 650,000 square feet of residential space. The distribution of program within each tower is still in flux, said TMG Partners president and CEO Michael Covarrubias. Extra large office floor plates and open layouts will encourage flexibility and interaction. Schematic designs should be available to present to both the city and the public by this summer, he said.

peanut gallery · #**148** Posted **Apr 10, 2014, 7:06 PM**

SFView! Long time no see. Good to see you posting again.

peanut gallery · #**149** Posted **Apr 10, 2014, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

You guys really are nerds.

Ha ha! Of course we are. Look in the dictionary and I'm pretty sure the third definition of nerd is defined as having a SkyscraperPage account.

SFView · #**150** Posted **Apr 12, 2014, 6:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

SFView! Long time no see. Good to see you posting again.

Yeah, thanks PG. Nice to see you again as well. The city has grown up a bit since I've be around here much last. I'm still watching most of what has been happening related to what is being talked about here. I've been more busy with other things these last few years, so I've become more of a lurker on SkyscraperPage. Besides, there is now so many wonderful nerds on the forum doing such a great job nit picking every big and little shred of information that comes along. I almost have little or nothing to add.

Okay, as they say - back to the thread topic. There's not much to add there now either.

spyguy · #**151** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 3:34 PM**

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#photo-6629968

A gasp-inducing plan for S.F. skyline, from the ground up
John King
Updated 7:59 am, Wednesday, July 23, 2014

A new pair of towers proposed for downtown San Francisco would include the city's second-tallest building - and perhaps its most startling public space, an open-air plaza set beneath the main tower's elevated first floor.

The project straddles the northwest corner of First and Mission streets, with a 605-foot tower on Mission and a broad 910-foot high-rise on First. By comparison, the Salesforce Tower under construction on the southeast corner will top off at 1,070 feet.

chris08876 · #**152** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 3:47 PM**

I can see the outlash that will occur:

Quote:

Did we leave Manhattan to live in Manhattan? NO! That kind of density is unlivable - sirens day and night. construction noise day and night, garbage and delivery trucks day and night, horns honking day and night. The noise is unbelievable.

Nothing would make John King happier than to turn San Francisco into another Manhattan. His proselytizing for density is really getting old.

One of the comments from the link posted above.

Onn · #**153** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 4:43 PM**

Holy Cow, that's a good looking tower! San Francisco going bananas!

mt_climber13 · #**154** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 4:49 PM**

How incredibly unimaginative.

Two Salesforce towers? No thank you.

It's bottom heavy and awkward looking. And it's so FAT! And I was excited for this project. Can Renzo Piano come back please??

I like the exoskeleton though.. the shape needs work.

And John King needs to buy a thesaurus.

Onn · #**155** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

How incredibly unimaginative.

Two Salesforce towers? No thank you.

It's bottom heavy and awkward looking. And it's so FAT! And I was excited for this project. Can Renzo Piano come back please??

I like the exoskeleton though.. the shape needs work.

I honestly don't know what you were expecting, but this is a deal San Francisco should take any day of the week. It looks like a great design with slopping edges and a great facade. Salesforce Tower is awesome.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...#photo-6629968

tech12 · #**156** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

It's bottom heavy and awkward looking. And it's so FAT!

That's what I was thinking. By itself it looks nice, but in those renderings it looks fat and awkward on SF's skyline. The old SOM design had a better shape IMO.

Onn · #**157** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

That's what I was thinking. By itself it looks nice, but in those renderings it looks fat and awkward on SF's skyline. The old SOM design had a better shape IMO.

Just looked at the designers of the tower in the article, its Norman Foster. That would drop some expectations right there. His designs tend to be somewhat generic. I wish he would stop doing tall towers.

brady&market · #**158** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 5:08 PM**

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

toddguy · #**159** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

That's what I was thinking. By itself it looks nice, but in those renderings it looks fat and awkward on SF's skyline. The old SOM design had a better shape IMO.

Agree that it is just too fat. It looks to be nearly 240 feet thick at the base! It looks like a hunkering behemoth. The nimbys will be in an uproar I imagine. Otherwise I like the diagrids and don't mind so much the nod to the shape of the Salesforce tower. JMHO.

Michael12374 · #**160** Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 7:05 PM**

I really like how fat it is. It would literally be a smaller salesforce tower if it was skinnier.