SAN FRANCISCO | 75 Howard St | 240 FT | 20 stories

[San Frangelino]

From Socketsite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/01/the_75_howard_scoop_tower_rendering_and_the_proposed_pu.html):

The 75 Howard Scoop: Tower Design And Proposed Public Park
As we first reported last month, and for which we now have the renderings, the design for the proposed tower to replace the existing eight-story parking garage at 75 Howard Street is up to 31 stories and 350 feet, 150 more than for which it’s currently zoned, with 186 condos over a ground floor restaurant, café, and 175 underground parking spaces.

On Thursday, January 10, the project sponsor is holding a community meeting to discuss their plans, 6pm at the Embarcadero YMCA. As always, we’ll keep you plugged-in.

http://www.socketsite.com/75%20Howard%20Rendering.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/75%20Howard%20Plaza%20Rendering.jpg

[tech12]

Not bad, though I think it's a little boxy for such a prominent location on the embarcadero. A crown would make it look much better in my opinion. I'm excited that we might get increased height limits there and another skyscraper right on the waterfront though. Whenever I look at those squat boxy highrises that are there now, I just think of what could be if the height limits were raised.

[Austinlee]

I like the park better than the tower. But hey, who asked me!

[Dylan Leblanc]

Couple more renderings here from http://75howard.com/

http://75howard.com/uploads/5165e7e6cb493.jpg

http://75howard.com/uploads/5165f8825394e.jpg

[WonderlandPark]

It kinda just goes away, in that last pic from the Bay Bridge I have to really look to see where this thing is. Maybe that is the idea. Its OK, nothing special, another blocky tower for San Francisco.

[viewguysf]

I like the park better than the tower. But hey, who asked me!

I agree--this thing is boring at best and another semi-ugly box at its worst. :yuck:

[bluntcard]

I personally love the blocky, un-fussiness. It's modern and clean. Commercial buildings sort of have an obligation to attempt to stand out in the crowd. To be a calling card for businesses residing in it. Residential can be more low key. And a rounded, ornate tower means you have to live in a rounded, ornate condo. Not something I like. Just my opinion.

I'd love to see some floor plans. I want to live here.

[mt_climber13]

I hope they do something about the sewage pipes in this area. Has anybody been at this intersection? Literally smells like ....

[peanut gallery]

I like the glazing and the contrast between the base and tower. I just wish they would do something different with the top: angle the crown, add an integrated spire of some sort (an architectural element that completes the top, not a lame stick), anything so it's not another flat top.

[fflint]

I'm glad this site will no longer be a crappy garage, but wish this tower were a little slimmer at the top. If I were king of SF, I'd give the developer extra height in exchange for some deep setbacks.

[JWS]

Well, with B and C getting shot down, I'm guessing we can kiss this one goodbye now...

[mt_climber13]

Good riddance, this thing is hideous

I'd be concerned about that beautiful Arena, but polling shows SF is overwhelmingly in favor of it, in fact by similar margins of those that were opposed to 8 Washington. 8 Washington was a class war statement that the "progressives" wanted to make. Funny because it was financed by mega developer Boston Properties and wealthy condo owners nearby the proposal who both wanted to protect their views.

[minesweeper]

B and C probably did these guys a favor. I think it was always an extreme long shot to get approved anyway.

They should just stick to 200', assuming the project is still viable. They're lucky that it's already zoned for 200' and not something lower. Getting single project variances for luxury residential is just politically untentable right now.

[biggerhigherfaster]

B and C probably did these guys a favor. I think it was always an extreme long shot to get approved anyway.

They should just stick to 200', assuming the project is still viable. They're lucky that it's already zoned for 200' and not something lower. Getting single project variances for luxury residential is just politically untentable right now.

Depends where it is. This one is borderline--it's on the waterfront, but it's more in the SOMA area where there aren't built-up "old money" interests

I don't think opposition is as strong to developments along the South/East part of the city. On the other hand, "older" areas like PacHeights, Marina, Russian Hill, and North Beach are impossible to build on

[1977]

A few more renderings of the proposed project:

https://www.som.com/sites/default/files/IDAMS_ImageLibrary/gallery/40060159_125835.jpg

https://www.som.com/sites/default/files/IDAMS_ImageLibrary/gallery/40060161_125705.jpg
Source: www.som.com

[easy as pie]

yeah, there's no chance on earth that'll be built, tragically

[mt_climber13]

DOA.

Developers, get a damn clue.

[pseudolus]

https://www.som.com/sites/default/files/IDAMS_ImageLibrary/gallery/40060161_125705.jpg
Source: www.som.com

Shutters? Balconies filled with people? Must be the famous Steuart Street Mardi Gras parade.

[fflint]

The new renderings are a vast improvement.

[JWS]

Something must be wrong with me, because I really do not hate this. I sort of like it, and the new renderings make me like it even more. It will never get built.

[viewguysf]

Something must be wrong with me, because I really do not hate this. I sort of like it, and the new renderings make me like it even more. It will never get built.

I'd rather sacrifice this building in favor of others. To paraphrase someone earlier, the owner and developer should demolish the parking garage, build an interesting 200' building, and be satisfied with that.

[minesweeper]

This one is still alive (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2015/01/developer-of-contentious-waterfront-tower-set-to.html?page=all), and the developers want to make it more palatable by funding the low-income housing project at Taylor and Eddy (http://www.tndc.org/indevelopment/eddy-taylor-apartments/):

To stave off political and neighborhood resistance about building a tall residential tower near San Francisco's waterfront, developer Paramount Group would help pay for a new low-income housing project in the Tenderloin.

...

PJ Johnston, a spokesman for Paramount, said the developer will "be holding community meetings in the coming months" before the project gets a hearing in front of the Planning Commission likely later this year. It is still going through environmental review. Johnston declined to reveal the rest of Paramount's new plans for the site, which would include other community benefits.

The 75 Howard project, proposed as a 282-foot tall structure with 160 units and 4,700 square feet of ground-floor retail, would replace an eight-story parking garage. It will likely have a tricky time winning the support of the commission and the Board of Supervisors because it would likely seek about a 41 percent height increase than what is allowed.

The article says that it's not subject to Prop B, since it's not on Port property. But even if it's approved by all agencies, it takes less than 10,000 signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot in SF, which is pretty easy for one rich person to bankroll.

The $11 million that the 8 Washington developers offered for affordable housing was a non-starter for voters. I wonder if having a tangible affordable project will move the needle a little more this time. Still seems like a longshot to get the height increase approved.

[fimiak]

Well the pro-development groups can't be afraid to fight these fights. 75 Howard's height is worth saving out of the principle of a free market, but also because the city desperately needs housing. Put it on the ballot in a year when the mayor is on it and I think it can win. The elections from 2014 were quite successful for pro-growth, especially it being an off-year.

[fflint]

^The low-income housing project at Taylor and Eddy might be better looking than the Paramount:

http://www.tndc.org/wp-content/uploads/FeaturedEDDYTAYLOR.jpg

[SF born and RAISED]

Guess it's not 31-story, 350ft tall and closer to a 20-story, 220ft tower.
http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/75-Howard-20151.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/05/proposed-waterfront-condo-tower-cut-to-20-stories-in-size.html

[fflint]

Facing an uphill battle with neighborhood groups and a potential conflict with San Francisco’s Downtown Area Plan which calls for building heights to taper down to the shoreline of the Bay, “to avoid visual disruption along the water while preserving topography and views,” the proposed height of the residential tower to rise at 75 Howard Street has been further reduced in height from 290 to 220 feet, the maximum height for which the parcel is currently zoned.

It's a lot easier to build an of-right building, especially given the waterfront location.

[peanut gallery]

^Yep. At least it can get built now. It was never going to happen going beyond current zoning. Hope they re-do the design rather than lumping off the top 11 floors. Maybe kill the podium/shaft idea and just go with a single look right from the street. I liked it before but don't think it will look right with the new proportions.

[simms3_redux]

^^^Well and there goes a chunk of affordable housing that everyone is *demanding*. Wish these cases would be made more public - case in point:

"Public, you have this waterfront market rate condo tower that is proposed for this site and the developers are asking for an 80-100 ft height increase. Go ahead and tell us what you would have the developers do to change the design, etc.

...

Oh by the way if you allow the developers to have their height increase and build more units, we can then get this big affordable housing development built in the Tenderloin."


If only more of these developments were phrased this way. It is NOT on the onus of private sector developers backed by teachers' pensions (among others) and private sector money sources to willfully lose money by building only affordable housing. It really isn't their responsibility to house certain groups of people at all so long as when they do build housing they don't take part in any discrimination that violates state or federal statutes.

Only then can the people really decide what is more important to them - sticking their nose in a design, limiting heights and bulk, preventing new development at all, etc, or ensuring more funding goes to affordable housing by allowing more market rate housing.

I really don't think people in this city are currently aware or able to put 2 + 2 together because it's not their job to understand the way development proformas work, and I honestly believe that people think real estate developers are public sector employees who should t profit off of taxpayer expense and who should build for the poor. They think this because the ballot process has made it so that everyone dips their toes into murky water they'll never be able to understand.

Easiest to change, I don't think people realize that most affordable housing these days comes from the development of market rate housing.

[tech12]

I can't say I'm at all surprised by this, but I'm still disappointed. It seems like for every project that SF does right, there are 5 where something like this happens.

[peanut gallery]

^Yes.
^^And double yes.

[peanut gallery]

Socketsite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/07/proposed-waterfront-tower-rendered-with-five-new-towers-as-well.html) has a rendering of the new height and design:

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/75-Howard-220-Feet-Rendered.png

[tech12]

Even though it's shorter, I like the new design better. That rendering also proves just how delusional you'd have to be to think a 350' tower is any more wall-ish than the rest of the skyline.

[fflint]

Hey, that looks better than any of the other renderings! I love the massing.

[boyinthecity]

although not actually a part of this thread,
it stinks that 160 folsom is not taller
and/or
in a more prominent location like that of mediocre jasper.
for some reason, i have this feeling the moribund planning commission won't grant it
an exemption-- when the powers that be should actually add to the height and reward
more interesting architecture.

[peanut gallery]

^Agreed, it also shows how delusional it is that the "wall on the waterfront" moniker is being applied to 160 Folsom. You can barely see it from this vantage point, which is well out on the water. You won't see it at all from the actual waterfront because the Gap Building will block it. It's so frustrating that crap like that seems to work at getting things blocked.

On 75 Howard, I rather liked the old design, but this looks good too.

[ElDuderino]

^Agreed, it also shows how delusional it is that the "wall on the waterfront" moniker is being applied to 160 Folsom. You can barely see it from this vantage point, which is well out on the water. You won't see it at all from the actual waterfront because the Gap Building will block it. It's so frustrating that crap like that seems to work at getting things blocked.

On 75 Howard, I rather liked the old design, but this looks good too.

75 Howard looks just fine. I would be satisfied if this gets built as is. The 160 Folsom argument is ridiculous. It is the same distance from the waterfront and generally the same height as the Infinity. I wouldn't be surprised if the Infinity owners were the ones behind the opposition to keep their views from being intruded upon.

[AndrewK]

It kind of reminds me of a bland version of Stadium Place in Seattle:

http://www.northlotdevelopment.com/about.html

[1977]

Here's a more detailed rendering from SFHAC:

http://www.sfhac.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/75_Howard_Images.7-page-001.jpg
www.sfhac.org

[peanut gallery]

Nice find. Strange, they seem to have removed the stub end of Steuart and the triangular lot that is supposed to be a pocket park or playground. Probably just didn't bother rendering those to keep the focus on the building, but it makes it look like it sits right on the Embarcadero with a small plaza from this angle (which is obviously not the case).

[1977]

Nice find. Strange, they seem to have removed the stub end of Steuart and the triangular lot that is supposed to be a pocket park or playground. Probably just didn't bother rendering those to keep the focus on the building, but it makes it look like it sits right on the Embarcadero with a small plaza from this angle (which is obviously not the case).

Yeah, I noticed that as well.

Also, after looking at this more, it looks a little reminiscent of Linea up on Market, no?

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/8-Buchanan.jpg
www.socketsite.com

[peanut gallery]

Ha! That's exactly what came to mind for me as well. I recalled how disappointing Linea turned out compared to the renderings and hope it doesn't happen again here.

The scale and material of the panes will make or break this, as we learned from Linea. They appear to have some color or texture variation that looks nice, and are at a pleasing size compared to the rest of the building. Hope that doesn't change.

[minesweeper]

The 220-foot version of this tower was approved by the Planning Commission (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/09/planning-approves-waterfront-high-rise-sets-stage-for-an-epic-battle.html) last night, but it could still be appealed and delayed:

While reduced in height to fit within the principal zoning for the site, which allows for development up to 200-feet in height with the potential for another 20 feet depending upon the building’s design, the Commission granted an exception from the City’s Planning Code to allow for the full 220-feet, which could provide fodder for opponents of the project who had organized to “Save Rincon Park” (and their views).

The Business Times has this tidbit (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2015/09/75-howard-condos-paramount-planning-commission.html):

The opposition was mostly drowned out late Thursday night by a string of public commenters from emerging groups like San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation advocating for more housing supply regardless of price points. "We’ve torn down the Embarcadero freeway and the real wall on the waterfront. Everyone agrees it's a good thing. That parking garage is one of the only relics left," said Kyle Huey, a member of SFBARF who works near 75 Howard.

[minesweeper]

The Board of Supervisors unanimously voted (https://www.hoodline.com/2015/11/supes-vote-unanimously-to-let-75-howard-high-rise-move-forward) to allow the project to go forward by rejecting the appeal:

Barring any further legal battles, the proposed luxury condo and mixed-use high-rise at 75 Howard St. will move ahead, after a unanimous decision by the Board of Supervisors in the early morning hours of Wednesday. The board voted to reject an appeal to an environmental impact review (EIR) of the project, which was brought by many of the same opponents who fought the proposed 8 Washington condos and have been involved in other waterfront development debates.

Earlier this week, Paramount also voluntarily increased its percentage of in-lieu affordable housing fees from $9.7 million (equivalent to the required 20 percent) to $15.7 million (roughly equivalent to 33 percent).

The Planning Department voted 5-1 to approve the 75 Howard project on September 3rd; the Board of Supervisors doesn't need to give its OK to the project as a whole, because there are no height or zoning changes needed. But that doesn't mean opponents won't consider further litigation, or, as in the case of 8 Washington, try to gather signatures for a ballot referendum against the project.

[peanut gallery]

Good. I hope they don't try putting something on the ballot or try to block it with lawsuits.

[mthd]

https://www.bisnow.com/san-francisco/news/mixed-use/sf-board-of-appeals-upholds-kilroy-impact-fee-denies-condo-challenge-55202

The board also voted down 4-1 the challenge to the city planning commission's approval of a height exception for the 220-foot building planned at 75 Howard St.

one more hurdle cleared for this one.

someone should change the title to 20 stories, 220 feet to roof 240 feet to top of architecture.

https://imageserver-bisnow1.netdna-ssl.com/PYl1la3hVG6ys1njctGmwqUORv0=/710x484/publisher/56a7becd5755f_75Howard.jpeg

[colemonkee]

Thread title revised.

[Pedestrian]

Exclusive: Chicago developer to buy prime San Francisco waterfront tower site
Apr 26, 2017, 2:00pm PDT Updated Apr 26, 2017, 2:21pm PDT
Roland Li
Reporter, San Francisco Business Times

(Chicago) Developer John Buck Co. and partners are in contract to buy a prime housing site a block from San Francisco's waterfront, according to three sources.

The seller is New York-based Paramount Group, which won approval for the 133-unit condo project at 75 Howard St. in 2016. The 220-foot tower hasn't started construction and the existing parking garage on the site hasn't been demolished.

One source said the pending sales price is about $95 million, or around $714,000 per approved unit. If it closes around that price, the deal would be one of the highest prices paid per unit for a San Francisco development site . . . .

Construction permits for the 75 Howard St. project valued at $146 million were approved in September, according to city records. If the deal closes around $95 million, John Buck Co. would likely have to sell the project's condos for over $2 million each to make a profit . . . .


http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/04/26/john-buck-paramount-75-howard-sf-waterfront-sale.html?ana=e_du_prem&s=article_du&ed=2017-04-26&u=kgyD14TZJI3FvbdA37c%2FluRxObP&t=1493247993&j=78035251

[Pedestrian]

Those Chicagoans flipped it almost instantly:

Chinese investor breaks San Francisco record with $110 million land deal
May 11, 2017, 2:33pm PDT Updated May 11, 2017, 2:45pm PDT

Chinese investor SRE Group Ltd. has completed a record-breaking $110 million deal to buy waterfront land in San Francisco.

SRE said it closed on an 80 percent stake in 75 Howard St., a site approved for 120 condos. The deal values the project at over $1 million per approved unit, the highest rate ever paid in San Francisco. CoStar confirmed the price.

As the Business Times first reported, Chicago-based developer John Buck Co. has also acquired a stake in the project. SRE Group's involvement wasn't previously public.

“This transaction illustrates the continued interest from Chinese developers in high-profile development sites in San Francisco. 75 Howard is a one-of-a-kind development site on San Francisco’s waterfront and the project will be the city’s premier ultra-luxury condominium development," said Rob Hielscher, managing director at JLL, who represented the seller, in a statement.

The land price combined with estimated constructions costs would require the developers to sell each condo for over $2 million to break even on their investment . . . .
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/11/china-investor-sre-75-howard-paramount-pgre.html?ana=e_du_prem&s=article_du&ed=2017-05-11&u=kgyD14TZJI3FvbdA37c%2FluRxObP&t=1494546127&j=78151351

This reminds me of the 1980s when Japan was flying high and Japanese were buying up everything just before both countries went into recession.

[timbad]

1977 reported in the main rundown thread that this one is moving forward, with info from here (https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/07/sf-waterfront-condo-75-howard-construction-pgre.html)

[1977]

1977 reported in the main rundown thread that this one is moving forward, with info from here (https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/07/sf-waterfront-condo-75-howard-construction-pgre.html)

Thanks, timbad. I should have added this and 636 4th to their respective threads.

[Pedestrian]

Looks to have been "value engineered" from the earlier, more interesting version:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4715/40154660351_022629cc6c_b.jpg

seems to have become

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4753/40122315142_1f4106130f_b.jpg
Source both images: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/07/sf-waterfront-condo-75-howard-construction-pgre.html

[viewguysf]

Looks to have been "value engineered" from the earlier, more interesting version

As first noted in post #25, going on two years ago.

[tall/awkward]

Ill, gross!

Are we sure that's not an older rendering?

[Pedestrian]

As first noted in post #25, going on two years ago.

Post #31 (from Socketsite in July 2015) has what I posted as the earlier version saying it's the "new" design at that point. Either we've reverted to the post #25 version (which came from a Socketsite piece in May 2015) which seems to have been older or something's confused.

Frankly, I now believe and hope the BizTimes used an old rendering--I hope they did because I very much like the post #31 version better. The version from the new BizTimes looks to me like a 1960s throwback.

[1977]

Post #31 (from Socketsite in July 2015) has what I posted as the earlier version saying it's the "new" design at that point. Either we've reverted to the post #25 version (which came from a Socketsite piece in May 2015) which seems to have been older or something's confused.

Frankly, I now believe and hope the BizTimes used an old rendering--I hope they did because I very much like the post #31 version better. The version from the new BizTimes looks to me like a 1960s throwback.

Yeah, the BizTimes messed up. That is a rendering of an older and taller version.

This (https://www.som.com/projects/75_howard) is the newest version...and the version being built.

[viewguysf]

Much better and a relief...thanks guys!

[tech]

Walked by today and there's scaffolding on the outside of the parking garage. Imagine they are making preparations to demolish it.

[1977]

:previous: Yep!

From J.K. Dineen's Twitter:
Demolition started yesterday on the eight story parking garage at 75 Howard St. coming soon: condos

https://twitter.com/SFjkdineen/status/981246269229166592

[Fvn]

Swinerton appears to be the G/C

[pseudolus]

:previous: Yep!

From J.K. Dineen's Twitter:


https://twitter.com/SFjkdineen/status/981246269229166592

per propertymap.sf,planning.org, they have a demolition permit. The permits for excavation and shoring are still pending. They have a site permit, but they haven't even filed the addenda, so any actual construction seems like it would be several months away, at the earliest.

[timbad]

I just noticed we can see part of the garage in the Park Tower webcam, so we might get to see the demolition before 100 Folsom grows up and blocks the view

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/872/27488492698_478ae369c9_b.jpg

here is a hopefully final view of the garage

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/868/40643015994_7f9623d739_b.jpg

[pseudolus]

I just noticed we can see part of the garage in the Park Tower webcam, so we might get to see the demolition before 100 Folsom grows up and blocks the view

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/872/27488492698_478ae369c9_b.jpg

here is a hopefully final view of the garage

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/868/40643015994_7f9623d739_b.jpg

you can see from the webcam that demo's now underway

[timbad]

chipping away at it

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/939/40953244714_f6cfe5f716_b.jpg

[fimiak]

https://i.imgur.com/Y9qB2OJh.jpg

They were tearing it down today. I don't think this structure will exist in two weeks.

[timbad]

two weeks later...

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/825/40268561690_73db3251d6_b.jpg

[iamfishhead]

two weeks later...

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/825/40268561690_73db3251d6_b.jpg

The people at 201 Spear finally get a view ... for a very short while.

[timbad]

just dirt

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1741/42533667902_ecb2c50036_b.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1734/41864045294_fe38193de1_b.jpg

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Interesting project.....it's good to see it replace a parking alley.

[mthd]

official groundbreaking was this week:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriecoolidge/2018/07/17/new-luxury-condominium-will-be-the-last-of-its-kind-in-san-francisco/#402be7717514

still no permanent elements on site, and no excavation.

[timbad]

now we're underway!

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1831/43828872212_433dd4c755_b.jpg

[Pedestrian]

Normally I think such comments are silly and pointless here, but in this case I really do wish it would (and think it should) be taller. This is a high rise neighborhood. Not only would the design look better, it's appropriate.

[mthd]

Normally I think such comments are silly and pointless here, but in this case I really do wish it would (and think it should) be taller. This is a high rise neighborhood. Not only would the design look better, it's appropriate.

tell that to supervisor kim and the neighbors.

[Pedestrian]

tell that to supervisor kim and the neighbors.

Thankfully she is no longer my supervisor and, like all of them, probably doesn't even read (or ask her staff to read) correspondence from outside her district.

[timbad]

not too much outward change in the month since the last pic (although - ¡mira! - 100 Folsom is visible now)

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1859/29644909917_efcf7e5dcc_b.jpg

[gillynova]

https://i.imgur.com/g8K4X6Ph.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/kR0GNBoh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/mh91NEFh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/g8K4X6Ph.jpg

[waterchicken]

75 Howard, Sat 10/13
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1965/31425454828_53f074511d_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PSXESG)10-13-2018 City Walk (https://flic.kr/p/PSXESG) by Daniel Alm (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127156287@N04/), on Flickr

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1903/31425457868_39bde4c9d1_k.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/PSXFM7)10-13-2018 City Walk (https://flic.kr/p/PSXFM7) by Daniel Alm (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127156287@N04/), on Flickr

[waterchicken]

Appears support foundation is ready for the tower crane?

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4917/44513564930_dd5647f19b_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2aPvE2q)City walk 12-15-2018 (https://flic.kr/p/2aPvE2q) by Daniel Alm (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127156287@N04/), on Flickr

[waterchicken]

A better angle...:
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4833/46330243311_ef28bb9a66_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2dA3Bdt)City walk 12-15-2018 (https://flic.kr/p/2dA3Bdt) by Daniel Alm (https://www.flickr.com/photos/127156287@N04/), on Flickr

[timbad]

I thought maybe we'd see excavation by now, but still looks quiet on the surface

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4818/45806123514_4825a81f3b_b.jpg

[timbad]

we can see the base of the crane now

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7827/31787698617_3b2d763623_b.jpg

[timbad]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7862/46913588051_35e1053977_b.jpg

[hruski]

That looks to be a crane.
https://i.imgur.com/WPPm5c5.jpg

[timbad]

they were assembling the tower crane yesterday

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7899/32183625417_ec75acff98_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7810/32183625577_452782007c_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7828/32183622827_f12a67656b_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7830/32183623317_4d6bfd0bac_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7871/32183624637_50f9e3b4fa_b.jpg

[gillynova]

Nice shots timbad!

[timbad]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7872/32423975897_f02e0cc00f_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7817/32423975857_77ede39839_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7922/32423975447_586aa3471c_b.jpg

[timbad]

might as well put this one here too - the site in context

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32750684207_927986bee4_b.jpg

[Jerry of San Fran]

A glimpse through the fence at the progress.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47933043912_d7a4325029_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2g2FnZA)75 Howard Street (https://flic.kr/p/2g2FnZA) by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/]

[gillynova]

https://i.imgur.com/Yy8eLM3h.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/whB2AK9h.jpg

[timbad]

looking into the hole of this one

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48117111182_bdec457940_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48117018106_106236c677_b.jpg

[Stellar_Mass]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48406844786_2f7aae1b4d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gKxJub)75 HOWARD ST CRANE (https://flic.kr/p/2gKxJub) by Jovan Nesbit (https://www.flickr.com/photos/182859430@N04/), on Flickr

[gillynova]

^^ Nice seeing a different perspective

[timbad]

poor light, but at least an idea where things stand

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48411734737_0fe69263e2_b.jpg

[timbad]

creeping up

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48615874232_1f2ba1088a_b.jpg

[Pedestrian]

I'm especially looking forward to this building--it could be unusually attractive in a stunted sort of way.

[mthd]

a little preview of the limestone facade:

http://www.431.org/ssp/087-pier-xs.jpg http://www.431.org/ssp/1061-darkGasket-xs.jpg http://www.431.org/ssp/0972-mosckupReflectionC-xs.jpg

[pseudolus]

a little preview of the limestone facade:

maybe travertine?

[mthd]

maybe travertine?

yep, roman travertine. travertine is a type of limestone.

[timbad]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48709795938_862af730f1_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48710133391_eac8829b9c_b.jpg

[timbad]

pretty soon won't have to look through the fence for shots of this one

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772988913_209e433b59_b.jpg

[timbad]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48855395323_576fe26078_b.jpg

yesterday was one of those rare occasions when I was downtown in the morning, so here are a couple shots more from the eastern side

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48855953487_2e12bacc33_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48855757036_123926378d_b.jpg