Talk:Millennium Tower (San Francisco)

The very necessity of tags is a point worthy of discussion. We are supposed to be writing the highest quality encyclopedia we can. I will grant you that tags are routinely placed at the top. But there is no policy requiring them. My placement of the tag at the bottom is intended to be a compromise position, in the interest of improving the quality of this project. If you object to that placement, then explain why; if you believe that they improve the overall project, please explain why. I shall not move or delete the tag at this time; I do believe in discussion. Unschool 03:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:Well I removed the tag today because besides the current progress section, not much has changed about the building since I wrote this about a year ago. Hydrogen Iodide 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Francisco-CA/Millennium-Tower/14602289341 Was automatically rejected by a bot because of the "Facebook.com" domain. Please could an administrator add this link to the page, as it is relevant to the article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.169.30 (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the building sufficiently finished to change the verb tense and describe it as extant? I believe people are moving in there now. Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Millennium Tower (San Francisco). Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=700126165 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100910005302/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/06/state/n165842D24.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/06/state/n165842D24.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

How long has it been well-known that the building was tipping? Because I swear I read about it long ago, as in at least a couple years, and in resident interviews it seems it has been known for years, discovered by rolling marbles or bad pool games etc. Though I may be confusing with another San Fran building where they were talking about earthquake engineering or retrofitting, and I recall hysteresis being a new word I learned. I hate feeling like info was lost or removed, as could happen here by overzealous defenders of the building and company. Thank you. B137 (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it seems I may have been thinking of One Rincon Hill, which talks about earthquake engineering/earthquake retrofitting, and mentions hysteresis. Though I know I've heard of the tilting building before because when it began making the rounds lately I didn't even click on the article right away, because I was already familiar with it. I do say this has been notable and sourced enough to have been here much longer than a few months. B137 (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If a building sinks by over a foot this mean that all our height figures are off and need to be adjusted? Is there an official arbiter of these things? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is an interesting point that is often overlooked, sometimes the taller or more famous buildings and bridges are measured to within inches, but these numbers can not last. B137 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Millennium Tower (San Francisco). Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=757422598 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516012058/http://www.enclos.com/project/millennium_tower/ to http://www.enclos.com/project/millennium_tower/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Millennium Tower is still the most common phrase in the press for the development, but actually only refers to one of the two structures on the 301 Mission Street development. I was wondering if we should change the name of the page to cover both buildings? I know with 345 California Street the building names are just listed in the infobox, but that might be a bad example because there is only one tower. For now just bolding 301 Mission seemed like an ok compromise, I'm kind of hesitant to move the whole page without other opinions.DPedersen (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Would it be more important to point out that it's the tallest concrete structure in a 'level 4 seismic zone' overall, as per book source Reinforced Concrete Design of Tall Building rather than just that it's the tallest one in the city. B137 (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This sentence is in need of clarification:

:Underpinning Millennium Tower

:On December 4, 2018, Ronald Hamburger, the senior principal engineer at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, revealed in a press release on a final resolution to the Millennium Tower's tilting and sinking problem by underpinning the building.

I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Has the plan been approved or is it a proposal? To "reveal on" something isn't idiomatic. Presumably the "on" should be dropped. Dynasteria (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the tower was originally designed as a steel structure but was later changed to a concrete structure. A steel structure would have been lighter in weight than a much heavier concrete structure, and the concrete construction that was ultimately used has accelerated the rate of settlement. Is this true and if so, why doesn't the article mention it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.91.176.10 (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

With the scaled-down plan, the fix was completed in June 2023.

Sure?

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/series/millennium-tower/san-francisco-millennium-tower-foundation-sinking/3460782/

While the tower is no longer sinking anymore at the corner, and has reversed some settlement there, data shows there’s only been about an inch of tilt reversal, a quarter of what the model had predicted.

(..)

But two outside engineers say the data suggests instead of sinking at the opposite

(..)

''Poulos points to monitoring data that he says indicates the tower is now settling at the center an overall rate of about a tenth of an inch a year.

“A tenth of an inch is not that much but it's not heading in the right direction,” Poulos said, “and that would be a little bit of a concern to the longer term.”''

(..)

Pyke said the concern about center sinking in buildings, also known as dishing, is that the deformation can trigger cracks underneath foundations. Such cracks, he said, carry the risk of long-term corrosion damage. 92.72.244.79 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)