SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[roadwarrior]

I don't disagree with you Frisco, having been somewhat of a community activist or at least participating in events for years. I'm not totally anti-NIMBY, especially if I perceive that a project or whatever doesn't fit well where it is proposed. I'm a left-of-center moderate to liberal guy, not an ultra-progressive on most issues. Let's build wisely and well and make more dramatic statements, not just build to have the City full of new buildings of mediocre quality and/or appearance.

As for you Tyler, your lack of historical knowledge is becoming somewhat appalling (and I don't mean to be unkind with this statement). We used to have Republicans on the Board and in power here--that was when we had ugly, inappropriate buildings AND no civil rights. Wake up for God's sake! The last Republican mayor was George Christopher; he devastated San Francisco with "urban renewal" and personally saw to it that the Fox Theatre was demolished, among other things. He also supported a very repressive SFPD. Conservative supervisors John Barbagelata, Quentin Kopp and others drove us just as crazy as Chris Daly does today, perhaps more so.

I really feel that if people really can't appreciate this City for what it is and what it has stood for, they should have the courage to move elsewhere. That doesn't mean that I don't complain about it or want it to remain unchanged, but the culture here runs long and deep through many generations. Learn more about it. Please stop complaining about hippies and others about whom you know so very little. They made their contributions, both good and bad, to the City as did the Beatniks and many others. They were also the forerunners of the Gay Liberation movement which flowered here and led to the life that many of us enjoy today. Loosen up and enjoy it more! The City is looking better and better all the time.

Viewguy, I don't disagree with you that the political activism served some good in the past and that despite their best efforts, many monstrosities appeared on our skyline. At the same time, I think that many NIMBYs use the historical precedence (often 30-40 years ago) to push their agenda and to instill fear into residents. It really doesn't serve any benefit to the public, as the excuse of ugly buildings going up in the past halts or stalls some very attractive, badly needed developments. While these activists had their time and place in the city, they are out of touch with current day dynamics and are doing a disservice to our community.

[POLA]

^You've got a good point too. Activism has changed very little in the last half centry, while urban planned has changed greatly. I sometimes get the feeling that some people here feel they missed out on the "sixties" and just want to protest something...

[BTinSF]

^^^Maybe that's it. Having not missed out on the 60's, I have very little desire to either protest or be inconvenienced by other people's protests. :sly:

[viewguysf]

^You've got a good point too. Activism has changed very little in the last half centry, while urban planned has changed greatly. I sometimes get the feeling that some people here feel they missed out on the "sixties" and just want to protest something...

Ugh...I didn't miss out on the 60's (but claim the 70's as my decade since I was running around SF in my 20's then, living the Tales of the City). The Summer of Love aside, I remember the 60's as the decade when many great buildings came down and many bad ones went up. It was also a time when I lost my President, my theater and my presidential candidate all in a row, a string of events that I hope I never see repeated.

You've all raised very good points worthy of respect. :yes:

[tyler82]

As for you Tyler, your lack of historical knowledge is becoming somewhat appalling (and I don't mean to be unkind with this statement). We used to have Republicans on the Board and in power here--that was when we had ugly, inappropriate buildings AND no civil rights. Wake up for God's sake! The last Republican mayor was George Christopher; he devastated San Francisco with "urban renewal" and personally saw to it that the Fox Theatre was demolished, among other things. He also supported a very repressive SFPD. Conservative supervisors John Barbagelata, Quentin Kopp and others drove us just as crazy as Chris Daly does today, perhaps more so.


I calls em as I seez em. Maybe I'm more of a 'clean slate' to the history of the city, and all that I am going by is what I've witnessed the past few years I've lived here. A bankrupted city, an unprecedented tax system unlike anything in the U.S. that is driving thriving businesses out of the city. A population of 800,000 that really hasn't changed in decades. A stagnant population that can be seen in the unwillingness to grow the hell up or change anything, I guess all you oldies (and I say this as not an unkind statement) could care less about my generation and our needs, just run around bankrupting everything, leaving a debt and a broken, traffic clogged city that we'll be paying off the rest of our lives. Thanks guys !!

If I were in charge (which will never happen due to my sloppy history :-p) this would be my legacy:

-24 hour BART
-24 hour Muni METRO
-Last call at 4AM or later
-Privatize MUNI!
-LRV lines down Geary, Columbus, and Lombard St.
-High Rise residences and offices bordering Mission to Brannan, from Embarcadero to 12th Street.
-Revamp the traffic ticket collection system to go to FUND street and transportation repairs and upgrades
-Require all homeless to have some sort of JOB, paid for by the city, such as cleaning or sweeping the sidewalks or performing other civic duties in exchange for room and board. Eliminate the bloated city workforce and budget.
- 10 story apartment units at every BART stop. 100 new residential units must be added every year for every 10 residential blocks (or something like that)

We have the potential to be a city of millions of people, so building more dense housing would be the responsible thing to do.

[northbay]

We have the potential to be a city of millions of people, so building more dense housing would be the responsible thing to do.

this statement i like (the rest of it?, ehhhh ;)).

not that i want sf to be millions upon millions, but i think it can sustain at least 50% to 100% more people. the more of the housing "burden" sf takes on, the less pressure on the suburbs to expand ever further out. the infrastructure for density is there, so y not?

oh yea, nimbys :whip:

[Frisco_Zig]

We have the potential to be a city of millions of people, so building more dense housing would be the responsible thing to do.

Right there I disagree with you (though I can't tell if you are serious). I would hate SF to be that dense (you are proposing radical change). Other than TOD and the downtown stuff (both of which I support) I like it as it is. We have a very European (though not Paris) density now and its very livable. So am I a NIMBY now? Everyone is at some point in th discussion


We live in a democracy and its a bitch sometimes.

I think the rest of the Bay Area is truly the environmental problem and not SF. You should consider concentrating your efforts there as I think it is more realistic. Lets add a few million people in the footprint of the urban Bay Area now and protect the delta and farm land! I think this we can really do this so this is where I want to concentrate my efforts in the future

And the privatizing Muni thing is ridiculous!

[twinpeaks]

Right there I disagree with you (though I can't tell if you are serious). I would hate SF to be that dense (you are proposing radical change). Other than TOD and the downtown stuff (both of which I support) I like it as it is. We have a very European (though not Paris) density now and its very livable. So am I a NIMBY now? Everyone is at some point in th discussion


We live in a democracy and its a bitch sometimes.

I think the rest of the Bay Area is truly the environmental problem and not SF. You should consider concentrating your efforts there as I think it is more realistic. Lets add a few million people in the footprint of the urban Bay Area now and protect the delta and farm land! I think this we can really do this so this is where I want to concentrate my efforts in the future

And the privatizing Muni thing is ridiculous!

There's a lot of places in SF where density should increase, specially around transit, Sunset, Richmond, along Geary, Third St and Mission St. It would be irresponsible for San Francisco to maintain its current density as there is a huge demand. As a homeowners, I would love it since it increases the value of my property, but that is selfish. I am sure we can maintain the uniqueness of San Francisco and still provide more new housing.

[tyler82]

And the privatizing Muni thing is ridiculous!

Why? Because MUNI would actually be required to WORK and be efficient?

[fflint]

Projects under construction, approved or proposed, gentlemen.

Stay on subject.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

Projects under construction, approved or proposed, gentlemen.

Stay on subject.

:D

[tyler82]

The Market, Octavia neighborhood plan was approved, which calls for a 400' ! tower at Van Ness and Market, in place of the Honda dealership. This should really bring this intersection back to life!
photos SFNewDevelopments

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2323/1611385514_578629b68d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/1611385162_b61d3c731d_o.jpg

There is the possibility of 400 foot towers on all four corners.

Now, the bigger picture for me is that it seems the planning department is becoming much more liberal in its height zoning, as you can see in this diagram (SFNewDevelopments):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/1609132891_64a13f6f73_o.gif

Funny that some neighborhoods like Hayes Valley are actually losing height, to 'preserve' the neighborhood, because I guess you can have a 3 story monstrosity built (I'm thnking "The Hayes) instead of a beautiful glass tower and it somehow preserves the neighborhood all the better :shrug:
I wish this city would focus more on bringing good DESIGN instead of short buildings which a lot have been proven to be simple and boring.


In other news, the CCSF board of Trustees has APPROVED the new 2 building campus and exempt city college from local city zoning laws. A 14 story, 215 foot tower will stand where the current height limit is 65' (fuck of HILTON!). Plans are to open the new facility in 2010.
photo SFGATE

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/10/02/dd_e1_place.jpg


What do these two stories have in common? They are great signs that the city and community is becoming much more liberal in allowing much taller heights in certain downtown neighborhoods in order to "preserve" the smaller neighborhoods, something that I think it is a great sign of things to come!

[Frisco_Zig]

From what I can tell there is a lot of downzoning along with some mild upzoning with the only real change at Vanness

I might be wrong but the Market Octavia Plan appears to be watered down quite a bit from the initial conception. Certainly this seems hardly worth 8 years. Also this approval was of the general plan amendments but our BOS have yet to approve actual zoning

Its just rumor but from socketsite but to that point someone posted:

"Rumor has it that Supe Mirkarimi is looking at trying to raise developmental fees and affordability. He is also trying to create a Citizen Advisory Board to review all individual projects! This is after 8 years of planning and community input. Note that most of the heights have been reduced in the plan area and that developers are being required to pay $10 per sq ft. of additional developmental fees for new projects within this plan area. This is on top of the 15% affordable housing quotient and all other fees. Apparently this still isn't enough and the Supes are looking at raising it higher. Some of these projects may never get built."

I have a feeling this is far from a done deal

Also with the Chinatown CCSF deal the board of trustees basically voted to ignore the local zoning because they can. I am not sure anything can be gleaned about the City from that. This would not be possible in a private project

[tyler82]

From what I can tell there is a lot of downzoning along with some mild upzoning with the only real change at Vanness

I might be wrong but the Market Octavia Plan appears to be watered down quite a bit from the initial conception. Certainly this seems hardly worth 8 years. Also this approval was of the general plan amendments but our BOS have yet to approve actual zoning

Its just rumor but from socketsite but to that point someone posted:

"Rumor has it that Supe Mirkarimi is looking at trying to raise developmental fees and affordability. He is also trying to create a Citizen Advisory Board to review all individual projects! This is after 8 years of planning and community input. Note that most of the heights have been reduced in the plan area and that developers are being required to pay $10 per sq ft. of additional developmental fees for new projects within this plan area. This is on top of the 15% affordable housing quotient and all other fees. Apparently this still isn't enough and the Supes are looking at raising it higher. Some of these projects may never get built."

I have a feeling this is far from a done deal

Also with the Chinatown CCSF deal the board of trustees basically voted to ignore the local zoning because they can. I am not sure anything can be gleaned about the City from that. This would not be possible in a private project


Thanks for the information!!

Seems like all that has really happened in the past 10 years is that the freeway was torn down. I haven't seen any new development at all in this area. Sad.
Why does it take 8 years to get something done? And how much are these city officials being paid? Do these morons not have a regular 9-5 schedule like the rest of us? Imagine what would happen if I told my clients "I'll get back to you in 8 years on this project" No wonder we are in such debt.

Somebody please pass me the doobie

[BTinSF]

Seems like all that has really happened in the past 10 years is that the freeway was torn down. I haven't seen any new development at all in this area.

Then you simply haven't been looking. Hayes St. is a different world from what it was. It now looks and feels quite upscale (like Chestnut or Fillmore in Lower PacHeights)--as opposed to being dreary--with many new and seemingly successful businesses. And the Octavia Blvd has completely opened the neighborhood up--it's like a big, long park. Then there is The Hayes which is quite a large project but not the most significant impact on the area. And there have been several infill buildings built along Gough plus a couple more on Market near Octavia that have been approved and should be built soon--renderings have previously been posted.

[tyler82]

Then you simply haven't been looking. Hayes St. is a different world from what it was. It now looks and feels quite upscale (like Chestnut or Fillmore in Lower PacHeights)--as opposed to being dreary--with many new and seemingly successful businesses.

Yes and this is nothing new. I moved here in 2001, and, to me, it's nothing new. A lot of it was there before the freeway was torn down.

And the Octavia Blvd has completely opened the neighborhood up--it's like a big, long park.

You call that a development?? HAHAHAHA!! How many times have I seen anybody using this "park," how about zero- why don't they just call it a mini freeway or racetrack?

Then there is The Hayes which is quite a large project but not the most significant impact on the area.

Totally ruined that intersection of the neighborhood, what a boring, bland, suburban looking monstrosity. But, like I said, this isn't even open yet, after 10 years.

And there have been several infill buildings built along Gough plus a couple more on Market near Octavia that have been approved and should be built soon--renderings have previously been posted.

Do you really consider Ellis and Gough Hayes Valley, or the Market Octavia neighborhood? It might be that way on the blueprints, but in the real world, I no thinkee so



I do pay attention, thank you very MUCH

Vote Queen Rudy '08!

[BTinSF]

^^^Tyler, the fact that you haven't seen the changes since 2001 doesn't mean they haven't occurred. You said there haven't been changes except the freeway being torn down indicating to me that was your time frame. All the changes I mentioned, which have hugely changed the neighborhood, have happened since the freeway came down (or began coming down because it came down in two stages). None of it "was there before". "Before" there were hookers and drug dealers hanging around under the freeway on Hayes.

"The Park" is very much used. I am referring especially to the block closest to Hayes. The last day with decent weather I was there the benches were full--no place left to sit--and the play equipment was packed with kids. It's like you live in an alternative universe.

I disagree with your assessment of The Hayes but regardless of what anybody thinks of the architecture, it will bring plenty more residents to the area and that's good. The other projects to which I referred are NOT at Ellis. This building is new in a space where there used to be freeway: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=s&ie=UTF8&ll=37.792151,-122.421598&spn=0.031811,0.057163&z=14&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.775957,-122.422649&cbp=1,360,0.5,0,1.500828517994152 So is this building: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=s&ie=UTF8&ll=37.793847,-122.422028&spn=0.03493,0.05682&z=14&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.776082,-122.42281&cbp=1,682.6149107342587,0.5,0,-0.07504923383485193 I believe they are at Gough & Fell.

I believe your time frame since 2001 is just too short. Part of the freeway came down a decade earlier.

[tyler82]

^^^Tyler, the fact that you haven't seen the changes since 2001 doesn't mean they haven't occurred. You said there haven't been changes [b]except the freeway being torn down

I was speaking of housing, construction. I've lived here from before the freeway was torn down, yes I remember the hookers. But all I see is the same empty parking lots sitting in the area where the freeway used to be. Do you drive in SF? Do you know what a pain in the ass that new Octavia Blvd is, for both pedestrians and traffic?? Especially out of towners. I consider it a big mistake that they are probably going to redesign in the future anyway because of all the accidents it has been causing.

[BTinSF]

^^^Don't blame me. I voted to keep the freeway--3 times to my best recollection. As I expected, the result has been terrible for traffic (Gough is now traffic chocked where it wasn't before) but I have to admit it's been wonderful for the neighborhood. And as I keep telling you, the buildings I specified above are built on old freeway right-of-way as will be some new ones soon to be built between Market and Haight along the eastern side of Octavia Blvd.

By the way--they aren't going to redesign it--locals love it. They may modify a few things--like I also said, maybe they'll make turns onto the freeway from Market legal--but nothing major.

[tyler82]

^^^Don't blame me. I voted to keep the freeway--3 times to my best recollection. As I expected, the result has been terrible for traffic (Gough is now traffic chocked where it wasn't before) but I have to admit it's been wonderful for the neighborhood. And as I keep telling you, the buildings I specified above are built on old freeway right-of-way as will be some new ones soon to be built between Market and Haight along the eastern side of Octavia Blvd.

By the way--they aren't going to redesign it--locals love it. They may modify a few things--like I also said, maybe they'll make turns onto the freeway from Market legal--but nothing major.

I would still vote to tear the freeway down. It was a horrible presence for the neighborhood, have you lived in Hayes Valley? I used to work right at Fell and Laguna. The post- freeway plans, however, are the problem, not the missing freeway itself.

I really do like the aesthetic of the Octavia Blvd, but I think they got too ahead of themselves in trying to assimilate something Parisian into an American city, which is now obvious why it shouldn't be done again. European city planning just doesn't work here, we need something for US.

[BTinSF]

^^^For 26 years I have lived at Golden Gate & Franklin and the closest "shopping street" to me (Van Ness aside) is probably Hayes. Go there--or through there--just about every day.

There was an extensive planning process for the boulevard starting with where it should end--whether the freeway ramp should cross Market St, come to ground level a few blocks south of Market or at Market (the option chosen). Then there were various designs for the boulevard itself--all endlessly debated at public meetings in the usual San Francisco way. I think (it's been so long, memory is hazy) the design chosen was actually the product of some urban design maven who lived in the area. The intention was to separate the local traffic from the through traffic headed from the freeway to the western and northern parts of the city. It looked awfully complicated to me then and still does. But, like I said, I wanted to keep the freeway. Gough St. has been a traffic-choked mess since it came down which makes it much more annoying for me to drive to the Mission.

[tyler82]

Gough St. has been a traffic-choked mess since it came down which makes it much more annoying for me to drive to the Mission.

My shortcut is to veer off Gough at Hayes or McAllister, since that is where the traffic starts to back up, then I head down Laguna up to Market. I can even get onto the central freeway easily this way. However, Laguna can be ridiculous too, as it is only one lane. I really don't see the Gough traffic as a problem for me, because I have many other ways to get around it in a car. I always wondered why there is no bus line running down Gough and Franklin?

This design of The Hayes bores the hell out of me. I can't tell you how much I hate when architects try to mimic, poorly, design statements of long gone eras i. e. the boxy bay windows. Was the architect afraid to get a little CREATIVE?? Hopefully it will be more exciting and interesting in person. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2189/1612312398_cbaac99090_o.jpg

[peanut gallery]

A little-known condo development, One South Park (http://www.sfnewdevelopments.com/3257/1-south-park-construction-progress-grand-opening/), along Second St in SOMA is nearing completion. It's a converted warehouse originally built in 1913. I've been watching from the outside and Mark Choey from SF Developments has taken a few tours (see the link above), noting that it's a high quality building. I went by today and took some shots of the outside.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2416/1739307776_59f537e980_b.jpg

You can just make out the old train tracks (2 guages) from its previous life that still lead to the front door.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2373/1739307810_4efe7316fa_b.jpg

From the South Park side:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2006/1739068530_326f8a800b_b.jpg

[Reminiscence]

You can just make out the old train tracks (2 guages) from its previous life that still lead to the front door.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2373/1739307810_4efe7316fa_b.jpg

They should have left the track there in place. How convinient would it be to have a mini train terminal actually inside your lobby ;)

[tyler82]

I look forward to the day when SOMA is as clean as South Beach.

Should happen after Daly is shipped out.

[tyler82]

Does anybody have any info on the renovations going on at 800 Market St.? I did a property inspection there yesterday, and it was completely gutted on the inside and there were large construction walls surrounding the building.

[BTinSF]

^^^As this picture shows, they are going retail with "Up to 50,000 sq, ft of flagship space": http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=800+Market+St+SF&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=65.518178,105.46875&ie=UTF8&ll=37.789353,-122.406149&spn=0.007987,0.01369&z=16&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.785287,-122.406404&cbp=1,360,0.5,0,1.500828517994152

What were you inspecting?

[tyler82]

^^^As this picture shows, they are going retail with "Up to 50,000 sq, ft of flagship space": http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=800+Market+St+SF&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=65.518178,105.46875&ie=UTF8&ll=37.789353,-122.406149&spn=0.007987,0.01369&z=16&om=1&layer=c&cbll=37.785287,-122.406404&cbp=1,360,0.5,0,1.500828517994152

What were you inspecting?

If I told you I'd have to kill you.

Or lose my job.

[botoxic]

View from the 60th floor of One Rincon Hill:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/1765965873_bda14f47eb_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/1765965873_bda14f47eb_o.jpg
(posted by bbaunach at flickr)

[Reminiscence]

^^^

Stunning. I cant even imagine the view from twice as high on Transbay!

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I can't wait to see a view looking down on the Transamerica and BofA buildings! :banana:

[BTinSF]

The tint in the glass is more noticeable than I expected--or at least in a photograph it appears to be.

[peanut gallery]

Yeah, I could live with that view.

[peanut gallery]

By the way, thanks for posting those shots from ORH, botoxic. Great find!

[jsf8278]

View from the 60th floor of One Rincon Hill:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/1765965873_bda14f47eb_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/1765965873_bda14f47eb_o.jpg
(posted by bbaunach at flickr)

What tower is that going up that's left of center?

[rocketman_95046]

^ 555 Mission

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=117021

[San Frangelino]

Something Fun From http://www.socketsite.com/

Click:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P1U45Hvz64

Sir Norman Foster’s New York Tower Comes To San Francisco

Not content with a mere Photoshop mashup, Kim Chalmers of Screampoint heeds our call for mashups of the Chronicle's current abode and their favorite Sir Norman Foster design with a 3D animation of San Francisco with Foster’s New York tower added to the mix at Mission and 5th. And we have to admit, we’re kind of crushing on the result.

[BTinSF]

Also from Socketsite ( http://www.socketsite.com/ ) concerning The Hayes that Tyler has said he finds so ugly:

A Plugged-In Reader And Hayes (55 Page) Buyer Reports: 60% “Sold”
A plugged-in reader with a deposit at The Hayes (55 Page) takes a hard had tour and reports 60% of the 128 condos “sold” (i.e., in contract with a deposit):

I did a hard hat walkthrough at 55 Page this week, as I have a deposit down on a unit at The Hayes. The complex is 60% sold. I was very impressed. It is going to be a stunning building, and they are not scrimping on the materials or the quality (and that's not from marketing - I talked to several of the guys actually working on the building.) They have maximized light and view potential everywhere they could. I met several of the people who will be living in the building, and we all agreed we felt very much we had bought the right place at the right time. Not only will it be a really nice place to live, but I do not doubt it will be a good investment over the next 10-15 years.
At sixty percent sold, that’s around 40 net new contracts over the past seven months (and another 50 or so to go).

Regardless of the varying opinions on the appearance of the place, 60% sold in this market is an impressive figure and tells me the building does something right.

And a related comment--also from Socketsite ( http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/03/the_hayes_55_page_a_plugged_in_buyers_facts_and_opinion.html#c187190 ):

I lived in Hayes Valley (on Fell between Octavia and Laguna) for the past ten years. Wow, what a change from the sometimes disgusting place it was. It's a completely different neighborhood today. My point is: there's hope for Soma Grand's neighborhood.

[tyler82]

Also from Socketsite ( http://www.socketsite.com/ ) concerning The Hayes that Tyler has said he finds so ugly:



edit

[botoxic]

Look for the construction lights to find One Rincon Hill, Infinity's newly rising tower, and Millennium...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/1808626587_5bb16d1614_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/1808626587_5bb16d1614_b.jpg
(posted by KeithMokris at flickr)

[peanut gallery]

Wow, sweet shot. From this angle, you can see that Millennium will hold its own even with Transbay and the Heller Manus 900 footer as neighbors.They'll sit behind it looking from eastern and northern vantage points.

[atl2phx]

is trinity under construction?
http://static.flickr.com/54/150075930_2dfe827cc8_o.jpg

[northbay]

delete

wow - i can be retarded ;)

[BTinSF]

is trinity under construction?


Not yet. About 2 months ago they appeared to be doing pile driving tests in what is now a parking lot on the property but no actual demo of the building fronting Mission St (which will have to go to construct the first of the three new buildings) has begun so far as I know.

[BTinSF]

Bay Area residents filling up Ritz-Carlton condos

With the move-in date set for the end of the year, escrow is closing fast and furious on the new Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences at 690 Market St. in San Francisco. And so far, the public records are backing up what the marketing folks have been saying for months: Most of the buyers are Bay Area residents.

Out of the 10 recorded transactions that have showed up in the Business Times Biz Leads, nine of the buyers are current Bay Area residents, and one is from Salt Lake City. The towns of Alamo, San Mateo, Hillsborough, Los Gatos, Burlingame, Alamo and Redwood City are represented among the buyers.

The most expensive recorded thus far was snapped up for $3 million by a retired doctor from Napa. The buyers also include the project's general manager, Robert Van Dijk, who is shelling out $1.8 million for a unit.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/11/05/newscolumn1.html

[peanut gallery]

^^^ Some high rent districts in that list. City pads for weekends, etc. most likely (rather than moving). I wish I was a retired doctor and had that kind of coin. ;)

[BTinSF]

^^^I am (well, except for the extra $3M) and I told you I'd marry you (as long as you've got $100K for the place at the Millenium). ;) ;) ;)

[peanut gallery]

^^^ I know, that's why I added the wink. As for marriage, that would require a divorce and orientation change. Plus, I don't have $100K sitting in my bank account. There would be some financing in that Millennium deal.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

^^^I am (well, except for the extra $3M) and I told you I'd marry you (as long as you've got $100K for the place at the Millenium). ;) ;) ;)

Hopefully someone will buy a penthouse suite in the Millennium, and then do the smart thing and sublet it out to people who (like most of us) would love to live up there, if only for a month. :tup:

My buddies and I would jump at the chance to get together and drop some $$$ for a month on top of the Millennium :slob:

[botoxic]

Nice pic of Argenta:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/1815165866_5221f73220_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/1815165866_5221f73220_b.jpg
(posted by Stefan Didak @ flickr)

[GlobeTrekker]

I found this regarding the construction at 10th and Mission, if anyone was wondering (12 stories and 136 apartments).

http://www.cahill-sf.com/experience/details.php?segment=Housing&sub_segment=Affordable+Housing&project_no=758

[botoxic]

Here is a shot from Potrero Hill that I took yesterday morning:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00101.jpg

The Intercontinental is such a visual disappointment, I tried to cut it out of the shots I took. But here's one where it snuck in at the edge:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00103.jpg

Lastly, here's a great aerial posted by eoliver on flickr:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/1727906894_87bd017008_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/1727906894_87bd017008_b.jpg

[Reminiscence]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this before, but this article comes up on some interesting office space notes:

Speculation frenzy - Building offices without tenants already in hand has reached a level not seen in the Bay Area since the Reagan era

San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Friday, October 26, 2007

With building crews setting up on sites from Mission Street to Mission Bay, San Francisco is in the midst of a speculative commercial development boom unmatched since the 1980s.

Construction has started -- or is expected to start shortly -- on some 1.9 million square feet of new building.

At 555 Mission St., Turner Construction is pouring a floor a week on Tishman Speyer's 550,000-square-foot development. At 500 Terry Francois Blvd., Swinerton Builders recently topped off Lowe Enterprises' 300,000-square-foot office building. Deeper into Mission Bay, Alexandria Real Estate Equities has finished driving piles on its next Owens Street building, a 160,000-square-foot structure that could either house biotech or traditional technology.

Meanwhile, Beacon Capital Partners is pulling permits for its 535 Mission St., a 300,000-square-foot building and could begin construction in December.

And the activity is not limited to the city. Bay Area wide, some 9.7 million square feet of new office space is set to come online over the next three years, according to Mike Kamm, CEO of NAI BT Commercial.

In downtown Oakland, Shorenstein and financial partner MetLife recently said they would build a 500,000-square-foot speculative building. And in South San Francisco, construction has started on Myers Development's 697,000-square-foot Centennial campus.

An analysis by Frank Fudem of NAI BT Commercial found 1.5 million square feet will be delivered in San Francisco in 2008, although two of the developments, Wilson Meany Sullivan's Foundry Square 1 and Shorenstein's 499 Illinois St., already have tenants.

In addition, some 1.8 million of fully renovated space will be added in the city next year, including some 800,000 square feet at the SF Mart building and 400,000 square feet at TMG Partners' 680 Folsom St.

"I say bring it on," said Fudem. "When you look at the past at speculative building, they do eventually lease up and do contribute to the economy. San Francisco's economy and tax base can't grow if our ability to house job providers doesn't grow."

The construction activity has sparked a debate in commercial real estate circles over the strength of demand for new office space. Most brokerages are tracking about 2.5 million square feet of tenant demand in the city. Contrast that with the 5.6 million square feet now available in downtown San Francisco (including 700,000 of sublease space), and it appears that there are ample options for most average city tenants.

New space also tends to be more expensive, especially highrise, which costs upwards of $650 a square foot to build. Tishman Speyer and Beacon are both expecting to fetch an average of $65 a square foot for their Mission Street highrises. Since it's the first out of the ground, many brokers expect 555 Mission St. to attract a big name law firm or bank before the end of 2008, when it will be delivered.

While mid-level space at Embarcadero Center is leasing in the $60s, and higher space for $75 a square foot, asking rates in the central business district average about $50.

Studley executive vice president and co-branch manager Steve Barker said the $60 a square foot is the "minimum average rent any new building needs to get to have a fighting chance."

Add to that the cost of high-end corporate tenant improvements, and companies will pay a premium to be in new space. Much existing empty space has been recently improved and thus would be cheaper to build out.

"How are they going to lease space in the $60s, $70s, and $80s when there is so much space, with residual (tenant improvements) in the $40s and $50s?" asked Barker, who represents tenants exclusively. "Something has to be driving new buildings going up other than the age-old test of supply and demand."

Kevin Brennan, also a Studley executive VP, said there has to be a compelling reason to shell out an extra 20 percent a month in rents.

"Why would you go to a new building for higher rents? Either you're the type of tenant that really wants to be in a new, sexy building, or you can't find enough space elsewhere. Meaning you're a big tenant, need a 100,000 square feet and don't have other options."

Jones Lang LaSalle Managing Director Wes Powell said with a 9.3 percent vacancy and four years of positive absorption, "the market is healthy and the market could use these buildings."

"There are a number of large tenants having trouble finding headquarters blocks of space with built-in expansion opportunities," said Powell.

In addition to the banks and law firms who are typically drawn to the most prestigious buildings, tech firms may be increasingly looking for better city space. Thus far, 2007 has been defined by accelerated interest in San Francisco from the tech firms that have traditionally grown at suburban-style campuses in Silicon Valley.

Fox Interactive recently took 35,000 square feet for MySpace, joining Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Yahoo and Autodesk on the list of tech firms that have taken significant chunks of space this year.

"To be clear, these are not dot-com losers, these are successful, profitable, growing companies," said Powell.

While tech companies historically prefer low-rise buildings with big floorplates, well established companies like Google and Microsoft may be interested in establishing a downtown presence as they mature, according to economist Peter Linneman, professor of real estate at Wharton School of Business and editor of the Linneman Letter, an industry report.

While tech companies historically prefer low-rise buildings with big floorplates, well established companies like Google and Microsoft may be interested in establishing a downtown presence as they mature, according to economist Peter Linneman, professor of real estate at Wharton School of Business and editor of the Linneman Letter, an industry report.

"The great companies of the day tend to drift to the great addresses," said Linneman.

The question may be how much firms are willing to pay for downtown views and pedigree. A recent report by Jones Lang LaSalle found that rents in San Francisco, more than any major market, have the furthest to climb to equal dot-com highs. While Chicago and Boston are already approaching their 2000 peaks, San Francisco rents are just 57 percent of what they were at the dot-com apex.

As a top broker for building owners, Powell said tenant demand is robust.

"What I'm seeing across a large cross section of the market is that small and medium-sized tenants are growing," said Powell. "The 7,000-square-foot tenant needs 10,000. The 12,000-square-foot tenant needs 16,000. This is organic growth."

Still, speculative commercial development is risky and the seven-year deals mean that landlords are stuck with low rents for a while if they time the market wrong. Linneman said he expects a recession starting in 2009 and going into 2010.

"We think 2009 and 2010 will be a very risky time to be bringing on speculative office space. I would be wary," he said.

Buildings completed in this time, he said, "may take three or four years to lease."

Architect Jeffrey Heller of HellerManus, who worked on several of the new office buildings under construction, said the number of developers interested in doing commercial spec projects has continued to jump as the national housing woes have caused uncertainty in the condo market.

"The office market is still toasty," he said.

[FourOneFive]

Nice pic of Argenta:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/1815165866_5221f73220_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2338/1815165866_5221f73220_b.jpg
(posted by Stefan Didak @ flickr)

I love the angle of this shot. It makes it seem that the Argenta is bigger than it really is. Does anyone know if it has topped out yet? Also, does anyone know if they have started putting glass on this building?

[CityKid]

Here is a shot from Potrero Hill that I took yesterday morning:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00101.jpg

My goodness, Rincon Hill looks just like the renderings. It gives it this sort of fantasy quality to it.

[botoxic]

Here are a couple more I took today.
Corona Heights:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00107.jpg

Dolores Park:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00111.jpg

[BTinSF]

I found this regarding the construction at 10th and Mission, if anyone was wondering (12 stories and 136 apartments).

http://www.cahill-sf.com/experience/details.php?segment=Housing&sub_segment=Affordable+Housing&project_no=758

More here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=114324&page=37

and here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=114324&page=38

[peanut gallery]

Awesome shots, botoxic. I love that aerial you found too.

The Intercontinental looks a lot better from the southwest (ie: your last shot from Dolores). Overall, I can't say I absolutely hate it, but I thought it would be better. My biggest complaint is the white fins on the southeastern face. They are much more prominent than I expected. Rather than a subtle detail around the glass, they completely overwhelm it to the point that you barely notice the glass on that face at all.

[peanut gallery]

At 555 Mission St., Turner Construction is pouring a floor a week on Tishman Speyer's 550,000-square-foot development.

"Pouring"? Steel? :)


Meanwhile, Beacon Capital Partners is pulling permits for its 535 Mission St., a 300,000-square-foot building and could begin construction in December.

Can't wait!

[WildCowboy]

"Pouring"? Steel? :)

Well, the SF construction market is red hot! :cheers:

[Downtown Dave]

Images of the 125 Mason street Apartments, which I don't think I've seen mentioned here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/125MasonStreet-4355.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/125MasonStreet-4358.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/125MasonStreet-4361.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/125MasonStreet-4367.jpg

[BTinSF]

"Pouring"? Steel? :)


Absolutely. What they are pouring, of course, is the concrete slab on each floor. The steel is just the framework, then they lay down sheetmetal and do the wiring and plumbing, then pour a concrete slab. It matters because I don't think they can install the glass on a given floor until the concrete is poured.

[Reminiscence]

"Pouring"? Steel? :)

BT's got it right. That is unless they wanted the public to know just how fast the building has been rising to the point where it almost looks like they're actually "Pouring Steel". It is a funny thought though, I'll admit that. :)

[peanut gallery]

Well, there you go. Thanks for the insight!

[cubbycreatureb]

Thanks for posting the photos of 125 Mason street Apartments. Those are great! I often pass that site on my way to work and have been wondering what's going up there. Does anyone have any information on the project?

[Downtown Dave]

Only this (http://www.glide.org/PR.aspx?PressReleaseID=182), found on google. Affordable housing of some sort.

[peanut gallery]

125 Mason is the offsite affordable housing for Millennium. The Transbay Blog (http://transbay.wordpress.com/) has a blurb on it (and its neighbor at 149 Mason) at the bottom of this page (http://transbay.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/construction-progress-9-25-2007/).

[BTinSF]

Friday, November 9, 2007
PUC headquarters goes on block for expected $42M
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen and Ryan Tate

Owner David Metcalf is putting 1155 Market St. on the block, a 140,000-square-foot Civic Center building that serves as the Public Utility Commission headquarters.

With the PUC set to start construction in March on a new super-green headquarters on Golden Gate Avenue, the Market Street building could be a chance to capture rent increases in 2011 with 140,000 square feet of contiguous space. The building is expected to fetch $300 a square foot, or $42 million. Ed Suharski of Grubb & Ellis has the listing. The PUC will lease back the building after the sale and remain there until the new HOK-designed structure is completed.

"With more than 6 million square feet of office space leased to the federal, state and city governments, the Civic Center is one of the most stable office markets in San Francisco," said Suharski.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/11/12/newscolumn1.html

Here's the rendering I posted a while ago:

http://www.greenbuild.com/projects/images/sfpuc_rev.jpg
Source: http://www.greenbuild.com/projects/images/sfpuc_rev.jpg

[roadwarrior]

^^^^^^^^^^^Looks a bit like a mini version of the new federal building

[BTinSF]

I'm going to be really glad to see the big pink wall of the derelict building that's there now gone. I hope they demolish it before March. Somebody please let me know if that starts happening.

[botoxic]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2280/1902708420_5b7baf0ad4_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2280/1902708420_5b7baf0ad4_b.jpg
(posted by TWITA2005 @ flickr)

[BTinSF]

The State of Mayne's New Federal Office Building
By DAVID LITTLEJOHN
November 15, 2007; Page D7
San Francisco

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/ED-AG683_mayne_20071114173830.jpg

In San Francisco, architectural heritage buffs still harass politicians and builders in every possible way to preserve old buildings they profess to love and prevent new ones they expect to hate from replacing them.

No one has risen to the defense of the building that stood on the site of our latest star-architect creation, the San Francisco Federal Building (actually, the third San Francisco Federal Building) at Seventh and Mission, designed by Thom Mayne of Morphosis in Santa Monica, Calif. (Pritzker Prize 2005). All that stood here before was an unlamented Greyhound bus depot. There was some grumbling about Mr. Mayne's decision to ignore its proud neighbor to the east, a heavily rusticated and decorated granite courthouse of 1902-05 (now home to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) that has survived two major earthquakes and been lavishly restored. Mr. Mayne's plaza, at least, gives the old building room to breathe.

The new Federal Building is basically a 240-foot-tall slab with 18 floors, most of them 345 by 65 feet, set far back on a barren, bollard-protected plaza filled mostly with sand (actually decomposed granite, which is more ecologically correct). A four-story glass-walled wing that reaches out on the west half-closes the plaza, and a glass-box café stands all by itself in its southeast corner, across from the old courthouse. The unusual narrowness of the main building's floors was determined by the goal of reducing energy use and the resultant CO2 emissions. Almost all work stations are placed within reach of natural daylight from floor-to-ceiling window walls. Natural ventilation is tempted to flow through the skinny floors from north to south. The building uses almost no air conditioning, except in the first five unwindowed "security" floors. (Actually, most buildings in this cool city do without it.)

Three goals were set for Mr. Mayne and his associates by their client, the U.S. General Services Administration. First, the building had to be as clean and energy-efficient as possible, in response to the demand for "green" or "sustainable" buildings that the global-warming crisis has created. Buildings are among the greediest consumers of energy and the most prodigal spewers of greenhouse gases, and they can now be measured against a detailed list of Good Things to Do and Bad Things Not to Do. The U.S. Green Building Council awards a maximum of 89 points for things like building near bus stops, providing parking for bicycles rather than cars, conserving or restoring green space (or creating some on the roof), reusing rain water and waste water (waterless urinals and composting toilets are favored), making use of natural ventilation rather than air conditioning and daylight instead of electric lighting, using solar or geothermal power, building out of recycled materials or (better yet) recycling an old building. Any nonrecycled wood used should come from sustainable forests. Using bamboo, cork and straw wins you points, because they grow back so quickly.

The council offers four levels of approval for what it regards as an environmentally responsible building. "LEED-certified," the lowest level, requires 36 points out of 89. ("LEED" stands for "Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.") With 44 points, you're LEED silver; 53, gold; 71, platinum. Since 2000, about 1,100 buildings in the U.S. (not counting homes) have passed muster -- 50 at platinum, 289 at gold, 339 at silver. San Francisco has 18 LEED-certified buildings, eight of them gold; New York has 11, and seven of them are gold.

The most important energy-saving features in Mr. Mayne's new building are the sun-shades he has applied to the long north and south façades, designed to let in desirable daylight but keep out unwanted heat and glare. On the north, 55 building-high sets of frosted green glass fins are bolted to catwalks outside the glass wall, to provide shade from the late northern sun. On the more visible, vulnerable south side, a huge screen made of stainless-steel panels has been tossed over the building, like a sheet over the back of a chair, and allowed to roll in angular rumples over half of the plaza. Parts of this screen open and close automatically to respond to changing sunlight and temperature. Mr. Mayne professes not to care about LEED ratings -- after all, those acres of stainless steel were not dug out of the earth -- but his Federal Building seems likely to win LEED silver when it officially opens later this year.

A second goal of the GSA was to make the new Federal Building more "worker friendly," by designing it around the needs and comforts of 1,700 employees. Reversing the usual configuration of office floors, all the desks next to the glass walls are reserved for the worker-bees, each of whom can open one window just a bit. Executives are concentrated in glass-walled cabins in the core of the building, over which fresh air can circulate. Standard elevators stop only at every third floor, forcing most employees to walk up or down a flight of sheet-steel stairs to get to their destinations. This may be Nanny Mayne's way of making people exercise (one expects the candy machines to dispense carrot sticks), but it is also intended to encourage "interaction" among people passing on the stairs or lingering on landings in front of big box-framed windows on the south façade.

A third major consideration in the design was to make it "connect" to the surrounding community. Hence the café on the corner (open to all, except perhaps the homeless who still congregate here); a semi-underground child-care center with its own outdoor playground; and conference rooms in the basement that can be rented by community groups. The plaza, with its barren sandpit, bunker-benches and ubiquitous security cameras, is probably better suited to protest demonstrations than casual lunch breaks.

From the 11th floor to the 13th, a square hole has been poked through the building -- an idea lifted from a sleek 25-year-old condo by Architectonica in Miami, which did it better. This provides views over low-rise buildings to an edge of the bay at the south, and an impressive vista of San Francisco's elegant Civic Center just a few blocks away to the north. From this angle, you can see the original neo-classical Federal Building of 1936 and the dull modernist façade of Fed II of 1963, the latter of which still houses most of the city's federal courts and offices. (Fed III is used by the departments of Labor, Agriculture, Health and Human Services and Transportation; the Social Security Administration occupies the west wing.) This "Sky Garden" -- still a bit bleak when I visited -- is open to members of the public, after they pass a security check in the lobby. Of course, the gray slab that provides these views now blocks the views of people in the buildings you are looking at.

Very few people other than employees or their clients ever get to see the interiors of office buildings, private or public. But we are all obliged to look at the outsides of such buildings, especially when they are built in such a central location as San Francisco's new Federal Building. People looking south from Civic Center now have their view stopped by its greenish north face. Some 175,000 vehicles a day pass on Interstate 80 alongside the southern front, which is punctured by square holes and strangely tilted on top. As you drive in the city to or from the Bay Bridge, it rises up like a quirky, oversized drive-in movie screen.

John King, the San Francisco Chronicle's astute urban design critic, has defended this strange building from the start, partly because of its strangeness. Whether you like it or not, he has written, the building matters because of its novelty, its daring, its potential to shake San Francisco out of its smug sense of self-satisfaction. But for all of its trumpeted contributions to green building, community outreach and employee welfare, the building most people will see is ultimately the product of one architect's own self-indulgence -- mainly in the bland gray steel scrim that is thrown over the south side of the building, curling over the top like an Elvis flip, then crumpling into meaningless, decorative folds over the day-care center and café, where it is supported on needlessly large triangular props.

Only in the long, soaring main lobby, propped up by six colossal concrete columns that lean against a wall inset with glazed light boxes like open drawers, does the building inspire. Best of all, I think, is the view from the far end of the lobby, over an open pit that looks down to the basement. Here the intricate stone carving of the 1905 courthouse is framed by one huge jagged, triangular window.

Mr. Littlejohn writes for the Journal about West Coast cultural events.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119508321151693328.html

[CityKid]

My colleague drove me back from a meeting in the East Bay with the top down on a beautiful day.

Millenium pokes its way up through the skyline and 555 Mission tries.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2052/2035961107_e7430e136a_b.jpg

Yes, that's a skyscraper next to the bridge. Get over it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2370/2035961563_85b5cc78a5_b.jpg

Our current king.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2308/2035962237_7a4c405ea8_b.jpg

The construction is more apparent.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2168/2036762032_80088f4065_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2413/2035966043_e23595cb13_b.jpg

Oh how SoMa is changing.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2389/2035967873_6fc5ed77c1_b.jpg

[peanut gallery]

Wow, that last one was perfectly timed. You really lined those up nicely. Also, nice find on that foggy shot from flickr. It looks like Cloud City.

[botoxic]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2031238109_083e750300_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2031238109_083e750300_o.jpg
(posted by tangjianyu @ flickr)

[CityKid]

^^^ Amazing, botoxic.

[nequidnimis]

Yes, that's a skyscraper next to the bridge. Get over it.

Who knows, next the air rights will be sold and skyscrapers will bridge the skyway...

[FourOneFive]

Here's some info on the project proposed next to the Transamerica Pyramid. According to the Planning Department, the department is preparing a EIR for the project.

545 Sansome Street/555 Washington Street—38-Story Residential Tower with Ground Floor Retail- The proposed project would include construction of a new 363,110 gross-square-foot, 390-foot-high residential building at 545 Sansome Street (Assessor’s Block 0207, Lots 033, 035, and 036). The 18,748-square-foot subject property is located in the C-3-0 (Downtown Office) Zoning District and a 200-S Height and Bulk District. The building would contain 248 residential units, 6,700 square feet of ground-floor retail, and 230 spaces of subsurface parking on four levels.

[Dan in Chicago]

Emporis has obtained updated height information on One Rincon Hill. The South Tower will be 605 feet, and the North Tower will be 495 feet. The old figures were measured from below grade. I have seen e-mails from the SF City Planning Department to this effect; if anyone would like more details feel free to PM me.

[coyotetrickster]

Emporis has obtained updated height information on One Rincon Hill. The South Tower will be 605 feet, and the North Tower will be 495 feet. The old figures were measured from below grade. I have seen e-mails from the SF City Planning Department to this effect; if anyone would like more details feel free to PM me.

Uh, Dan, you should leave Chicago to check these things out. There is no will be. The South Tower is done, a cert of occupancy has been issued and residents on the lower floors are scheduled to start moving in about the same time the developer 'breaks ground' -- god and the credit crunch don't get his line of credit: Jan 2008

[Dan in Chicago]

Why would I make a trip to SF? :rolleyes: I'm just passing on information I received. I knew it was topped out.

[fflint]

^That information is not obviously correct.

[Dan in Chicago]

That's true. Anybody can come on here and post any height they want. If anyone here cares about the exact height, you can check the blueprints yourself, but be sure to check the ground level on the elevations because apparently it was not zero - a common source of height errors. You can also contact the Planning Department of the City and County of San Francisco, which gave Emporis the corrected data along with the explanation about the baseline error.

[fflint]

Two San Francisco forumers saw the architects' blueprints and 641' was the height listed for the structure itself. We've been over this a million times.

[Dan in Chicago]

I just received a pdf of the blueprints. I will have someone post them here if necessary. The top of the building is 641'-10", similar to what your two forumers reported, but the 0'-0" line is in the lowest basement, about 15' below Harrison Street and at least 35' below grade on the southeast side. Here is a quote from the gentleman at SF City/County Planning:

"You can see from the plan that the grade of First Street (dashed line rising from left to right), where the centerline of the south tower meets the ground (at an elevation somewhere between 52'6" and 42'), and the top of the building at elevation 641'10". If you subtract those numbers, you get a building height of approximately 593' or so. They consider elevation 0'0" as the bottom of the project, the floor of a basement level which is several floors below street grade of the south tower and also below the street grade of the north tower as well (which sits further down the hill from the south tower).

I would assume that you're interested in the height of buildings as measured from street grade, which is how we at the SF Planning Dept measure height. I'm not sure why the architects measured the height from the floor of their lowest basement, which not only has no relation to how we measure height, but also is not related to street grade in any way. I don't see why that's particularly useful. So now we all know where the oft mis-quoted 641' height comes from!"

605' might not be exactly correct, it depends where the proper baseline for the south tower is. We will have to scale the drawings to find out, but I don't see how it can be 641'.

[Reminiscence]

Did we not already settle this issue like three times already, or am I missing something here? No disrespect to anyone, but if the official height it 641', thats what it is. I dont see the point of bringing this up once again.

[BTinSF]

^^^Since you are in Chicago, this rendering may clarify what the Planning guy told you.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/06/14/ba_tower.jpg
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/06/14/BAGBEJDLGJ1.DTL&o=1

The foreground left corner is 1st & Harrison

But I would question one conclusion you are making. If the "zero" grade line is about 15' below the street grade of the existing portion of the building (1st & Harrison or even halfway down the block--and the hill--on Harrison), to my eye that would put it pretty darned close to the level of the street grade at the corner of Harrison & Fremont where the second (North) tower will be. And this is one building even though it contains 2 towers. So 641 feet from the sidewalk in front at the corner of Fremont & Harrison to the top of the tallest part of the structure could be awfully close if not flat on.

There just doesn't seem to be any "right" way to measure this in spite of what you are saying and, in fact, from almost anywhere in San Francisco the structure conveys an impression of being significantly taller than it actually is because it sits near the top of one of the city's taller natural hills.

Just count yourself lucky you don't have the issue in flat Chicago.

[viewguysf]

^^^Since you are in Chicago, this rendering may clarify what the Planning guy told you.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/06/14/ba_tower.jpg
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/06/14/BAGBEJDLGJ1.DTL&o=1

The foreground left corner is 1st & Harrison

But I would question one conclusion you are making. If the "zero" grade line is about 15' below the street grade of the existing portion of the building (1st & Harrison or even halfway down the block--and the hill--on Harrison), to my eye that would put it pretty darned close to the level of the street grade at the corner of Harrison & Fremont where the second (North) tower will be. And this is one building even though it contains 2 towers. So 641 feet from the sidewalk in front at the corner of Fremont & Harrison to the top of the tallest part of the structure could be awfully close if not flat on.

There just doesn't seem to be any "right" way to measure this in spite of what you are saying and, in fact, from almost anywhere in San Francisco the structure conveys an impression of being significantly taller than it actually is because it sits near the top of one of the city's taller natural hills.

Just count yourself lucky you don't have the issue in flat Chicago.

Actually, it sits near the top of one of San Francisco's shorter hills--Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Twin Peaks, Mt. Sutro, Mt. Davidson and a number of others are much more significant. In several cases, they are over 800' higher than the 100' Rincon Hill.

I can't see how this could be viewed as one building because it clearly isn't--it's one complex with two towers and a connecting base building. If you reference many twin or partnered towers throughout the world, you'll find them listed as separate buildings, just like they are on this website.

Why can't someone just determine the south tower's elevation above sea level and subtract the elevation at its front entrance? It seems to me as if that would be a fair measurement. They've definitely cheated on numbering the floors because the first floor should be the lobby level, not a below grade level which is not accessible directly from the outside.

At any rate, the tower does appear to be huge, especially when viewed from a distance in any direction.

[northbay]

so, according to dan, ALL of us bay area forumers missed the true height after months (years?) of wrangling, and HE can tell us what it is from chicago?!?
:whip:

yea, its 641'.

[viewguysf]

so, according to dan, ALL of us bay area forumers missed the true height after months (years?) of wrangling, and HE can tell us what it is from chicago?!?
:whip:

yea, its 641'.

Well, we've never really stopped wrangling about this building! It's a trip, huh?

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, no matter where you are!

[SFView]

See posts #596 and #600 of the One Rincon Hill construction thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919&page=30
One Rincon does not look any taller than 345 California Street in elevation.

Could it be that all these different height claims are all correct, but it just depends where one measures the height from - Level 1, Level 6, Roof, or top of structure? Without any further speculation, could someone please post the PDF's of the drawings here and in the One Rincon Hill construction tread?

[Dan in Chicago]

so, according to dan, ALL of us bay area forumers missed the true height after months (years?) of wrangling, and HE can tell us what it is from chicago?!?
:whip:

yea, its 641'.

Well yes. If you're living inside the building but I'm sitting in Cambodia with the blueprints, who's going to have better information on the height? Unless someone can say that Harrison Avenue slopes exactly 15' down along the north tower (and it sure doesn't look like it), then it is clear that someone misread the blueprints. Do you measure buildings from the basement or ground level?

I'll post the blueprints here as soon as I have time. I'm in the middle of finals now, so it'll be a few days.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

RabbleRabbleRabbleRabble!!!!

[BTinSF]

I can't see how this could be viewed as one building because it clearly isn't--it's one complex with two towers and a connecting base building.

Clear to you. Any separation among the building's parts is a seismic issue. My condo, with its 3 towers, does the same thing. The building is constructed so that the various parts (each tower and the connecting structures) can move independently in a quake--it was learned in the San Fernando quake decades ago that buildings are destroyed by having radically different parts inflexibly tied together. But it's still one building, your opinion notwithstanding.

[BTinSF]

See posts #596 and #600 of the One Rincon Hill construction thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=107919&page=30
One Rincon does not look any taller than 345 California Street in elevation.

Could it be that all these different height claims are all correct, but it just depends where one measures the height from - Level 1, Level 6, Roof, or top of structure?

Yes. But as I said, it's even more complicated because even the sidewalk right in front of Tower 1's lobby isn't flat--it slopes. If you want to measure from the sidewalk, do you measure from the uphill end or the downhill end?

Standing on Harrison St. as most observers who don't live in the building are likely to do, this building will tower well in excess of 600' above you. That's all I care about. But the rest of this is pretty funny--all the arguing as if it really made much difference.

[SFView]

Yes. But as I said, it's even more complicated because even the sidewalk right in front of Tower 1's lobby isn't flat--it slopes. If you want to measure from the sidewalk, do you measure from the uphill end or the downhill end?...

Neither. Building height measurements are usually measured from floor level elevations. If one is measuring from the entry level six, it would be the interior floor level elevation at the main entry.

[viewguysf]

Neither. Building height measurements are usually measured from floor level elevations. If one is measuring from the entry level six, it would be the interior floor level elevation at the main entry.

That is correct and I fail to see why it has been so widely ignored in this thread, short of all of us wanting the tower to be as tall as possible. Whether we like if or not, what you said above is the generally accepted standard worldwide.

[viewguysf]

Clear to you. Any separation among the building's parts is a seismic issue. My condo, with its 3 towers, does the same thing. The building is constructed so that the various parts (each tower and the connecting structures) can move independently in a quake--it was learned in the San Fernando quake decades ago that buildings are destroyed by having radically different parts inflexibly tied together. But it's still one building, your opinion notwithstanding.

Opera Plaza notwithstanding, this seems to defy logic and common sense to me. How can the two skyscraper towers of One Rincon Hill not be viewed as separate buildings? Was the World Trade Center viewed as one building? No, it was viewed as six buildings in the original complex. Both ORH and The Infinity are listed as separate buildings on this website and elsewhere and there are many other examples. Even the "City Residences" of the Millennium is being constructed separately from the tower. I totally understand and was aware of your seismic example, but that is a separate issue.

[BTinSF]

Newest towers will give S.F. skyline a touch of glass
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Monday, November 26, 2007

Architecture has its trends like any other field of design - and in San Francisco, today's changing skyline shows that the glass box is back.

Six sleek towers are under construction, and several more have been approved or proposed. Some are reflective; others offer a voyeuristic peek inside. The colors range from icy blue to smoky green.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_tower_map.jpg

The city planners who approved these translucent high-rises already are having second thoughts, emphasizing that glass towers need to remain the exception, not the rule. But architects say glass is in sync with today's world, a symbol of contemporary life as well as technological innovation.

"In this day and age, society wants to be more transparent," said Ali Moghaddasi of HOK architects, the designer of a recently approved 27-story glass tower near First and Mission streets down the block from 555 Mission St., a glass high-rise that opens next year. "Look at the Internet, where information is free and available to everyone."

Instead of the masonry-clad structures that define other eras, San Francisco's new crop includes the soon-to-open InterContinental Hotel at Fifth and Howard streets. A cross between a glacier and an old-fashioned apartment radiator, the curvy inn's hue is so vivid that it's being marketed as "32 stories of cool blue luxury in the heart of San Francisco."

"I wanted a look that would be fluid, close to water," said designer Alberto Bertoli of Patri Merker Architects. "San Francisco's urban form is kind of sad-looking, solids and concrete or stone."

Five blocks to the east, the milky blue Millennium Tower at 301 Mission St. is not so much a glowing object as a chameleon - a 60-story shaft where the glass serves as a canvas behind thin steel fins that form a diagonal streak sliding up and around the tower's four sides. Viewed straight on, the fins disappear. At an angle, they're as vivid as the mark of Zorro.

"The idea was to create a fragmented crystal with striations that keep shifting," said Glenn Rescalvo of Handel Architects, the designer. "It's more about the shape of the building than the color of the glass."

The difference in these two "blue" buildings shows the design possibilities of glass, which can be manufactured in hundreds of fine-tuned variations. At the InterContinental, the glass lets in 71 percent of daylight and has a "reflectance factor" of only 7 percent, meaning that very little light bounces off. By contrast, 301 Mission's glass repels more of the light that hits it, increasing the mirrored effect.

Aesthetics aren't the only factor that architects take into account when selecting glass.

San Francisco's City Planning Department wants glass towers to be as transparent as possible, fearing that shiny or mirrored buildings might stick out like glitzy thumbs. But ultraclear panels allow unfiltered sun into a building, driving up energy costs because of heat gain and the need for air conditioning. That runs against state mandates on the use of energy as well as the city's desire for buildings that meet high environmental standards.

Glass can be tinted to reduce the heat gain or sprayed with a metallic coating, but then the result can be too dark or too slick.

So architects do a juggling act, helped by manufacturers offering new "blends" that balance transparency and performance.

"Glass is changing rapidly because the demands on the glass companies are changing rapidly," said Jeffrey Heller of Heller Manus Architects, whose firm is on the design teams of several towers. "Sustainability is coming on like a rocket ship."

San Francisco planners face a different challenge: making sure the new skyline doesn't look like it parachuted in from Dallas.

That wasn't a concern when today's towers were on the drawing board. Then, they were a welcome contrast. Millennium Tower sits amid stone-clad towers from the 1980s. As for the InterContinental, "We were really tired of beige precast concrete panels with green-glass windows," said Craig Nikitas, a senior planner with the city. "To get something with its own integrated color seemed like a nice change."

To be sure, glass-clad buildings are nothing new in San Francisco. The Hallidie Building, built at 130 Sutter St. in 1917, wears one of the world's first glass "curtain walls," in which pre-assembled panels are hung into place on a building's structural form.

But as glass-and-steel high-rises recast the skyline after World War II, overtly modern buildings sparked a backlash. The shift culminated in 1985's Downtown Plan, which decreed that new buildings should "contribute to the visual unity of the city." Another rule: "Highly reflective materials, particularly mirrored or highly reflective glass, should not be used."

The planning director at the time: Dean Macris. The planning director today: Macris, who returned to the post in 2004.

While Macris now champions contemporary design, he and Nikitas say the 1985 edict against glossy glass still applies. But the sheer number of sheer towers is causing alarm, as is the fact that the first batch hasn't lived up to planner expectations: "I can't say we've said, 'Aha, there's the perfect solution,' " Macris admitted.

Concern reached such a point this summer that planners almost proposed changing the city's zoning codes to define exactly what percentages of reflectivity and transparency would be allowed. Instead, the department will work to strike a balance case by case, allowing fresh styles but seeking to prevent skyline-marring mistakes.

"Our job is to take the collective view," Macris said. "This city is so overwhelmingly masonry, the balance won't be tipped by the latest crop. But we could be at a point south of Market Street where we encourage the next set of guys to come in with something other than all-glass facades."

In the case of Moghaddasi's Mission Street tower, which will have a tapering shape the architect likens to "a diaphanous candlestick," Macris and Nikitas worried that the wall samples had too green a tint. So they visited a manufacturing yard in Alameda to see a sample wall panel measuring 10 by 13 feet.

"This is an art, not a science," said Macris, who decided the glass passed muster. "We're trying to do our best between all these competing objectives."

On SFGate.com: John King gives a tour of San Francisco's glassy new skyline (Video): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2007/11/26/MN00SKN52.DTL&o=0

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass6_cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glasstestxx.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_slideshow_190jpg.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow_119.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow_121.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow_102.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow_107.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow_117.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow_124.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_glass_slideshow_151.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_slideshow_173.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/26/mn_slideshow_180.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0015cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0026cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0028csa.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0030cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0033cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0034cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0048cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0038cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0041cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0041csa.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0047cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0060cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0064cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0073cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0083cs.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/11/27/ba_glassxx0171cs.jpg

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/26/MN00SKN52.DTL

Note the bit about the green tint of the glass on 535 Mission--I'm jazzed with anticipation of that.

[Downtown Dave]

Deleted.