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

[1977]

801 Brannan by David Baker:

http://www.dbarchitect.com/images/dynamic/slideshow_images/image/21117_-_801_brannan_-_view_8_-_8th+alley.slideshow_main.jpg
Source: www.dbarchitect.com

http://www.dbarchitect.com/images/dynamic/slideshow_images/image/21117_-_801_brannan_-_view_1_-_8th_and_brannan_corner_-_2.slideshow_main.jpg
Source: www.dbarchitect.com

More renderings:

http://www.dbarchitect.com/projects/slideshow/164.html#3134

[Jerry of San Fran]

1977 - a nice little handout with all the current changes in mid-market.

[1977]

1998 Market and 1800 Van Ness are breaking ground soon.

After Bosa's project, the next significant condo developments hitting San Francisco will be 1998 Market St. and 1800 Van Ness Ave. Brian Spiers and Canyon Johnson Urban Funds are ramping up to start construction on the 114-unit 1998 Market next week; Oyster Development's 98-unit 1800 Van Ness also starts this summer. Both projects will take 18 months to construct.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/06/san-franciscos-new-condo-market.html

Just to refresh:

1998 Market
http://www.socketsite.com/1960-1998%20Market%20Revised%20Design%20-%20Corner%20close.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

1800 Van Ness
http://www.socketsite.com/1800%20Van%20Ness%202.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

[mt_climber13]

1998 Market and 1800 Van Ness are breaking ground soon.



http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/06/san-franciscos-new-condo-market.html

Just to refresh:

1998 Market
http://www.socketsite.com/1960-1998%20Market%20Revised%20Design%20-%20Corner%20close.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com


I rode past here today and there is a traffic billboard up that says that intersection will be closed July 7, presumably for demolition of the car smog station.

[colemonkee]

1998 Market looks great!

[1977]

Some more info about the Moscone expansion:

A decade after its last major expansion, San Francisco’s Moscone Convention Center is planning to enlarge its space by adding 250,000 to 400,000 square feet to its current 1 million square feet. Helming the potential additions and reconfigurations is the joint team of SOM and Mark Cavagnero Associates. They beat out a slew of contenders, including AECOM, Gensler, and HOK, who designed the original center in 1981.

As part of developing a 25-year-old master plan, the firms are designing a new identity around “an iconic architectural presence for Moscone,” said SOM’s Craig Hartman. “The Yerba Buena neighborhood has become a cultural and commercial hub, so it’s important that convention center also live up to 21st century expectations of what the city should be.”

The expansion is spurred by client demand and competition posed by other cities adding to their convention capacities. “A lot of our regulars are growing and a lot of groups that would like to be in there that can’t fit,” said Joe D’Alessandro, president and CEO of the San Francisco Travel Association, a private nonprofit representing the city’s tourist industry, which is driving the expansion.

While the architects are in the preliminary stages of planning, the RFP outlines two new buildings and a major underground expansion. The new construction could include a sizeable addition to Moscone South, a six-story, 260,000 square-foot building along its Third Street frontage; Moscone East, a four-story, 240,000 square-foot building that would take place of the current Moscone Center garage on the other side of Third Street and connect underground with the existing center; and a Howard Street Connection, a 11,000 square-foot underground facility between Moscone North and South. The last major expansion was Moscone West, completed in 2003.



Source and the rest of the article:
http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6148

[Grantenfuego]

1977

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/06/san-franciscos-new-condo-market.html

1998 Market
http://www.socketsite.com/1960-1998%20Market%20Revised%20Design%20-%20Corner%20close.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com




I love this.

[Grantenfuego]

Some more info about the Moscone expansion:

A decade after its last major expansion, San Francisco’s Moscone Convention Center is planning to enlarge its space by adding 250,000 to 400,000 square feet to its current 1 million square feet.

The new construction could include a sizeable addition to Moscone South, a six-story, 260,000 square-foot building along its Third Street frontage; Moscone East, a four-story, 240,000 square-foot building

Source and the rest of the article:
http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6148

This is very necessary, once this area is surrounded by high scale density the look and capacity of Moscone, unchanged, would seem way out of date.

[1977]

Socketsite revealed new renderings of 706 Mission. Thoughts?

I posted this in the 'Highrise & Supertall Proposal' forum as well.

http://www.socketsite.com/706%20Mission%202012%20Rendering.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/706%20Mission%20Base%202012%20Rendering.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/706%20Mission%202012%20Rendering%20With%20Aronson.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/706%20Mission%202012%20Rendering%20With%20Aronson%20close.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

The 706 Mission Scoop: Design, Details And Timing For Museum Tower
Source: www.socketsite.com

As plugged-in people know, the proposed 550-foot tower to rise at 706 Mission Street would house the Mexican Museum on floors one to four with 43 floors of residential above.
The base of the building would cantilever slightly over Jessie Square at the third and fourth floors and employ a glazed aluminum curtain wall system "articulated with vision, masonry, metal, and/or spandrel panel façade elements.”
Plans for the adjacent historic Aronson Building call for new retail and restaurant space on the ground floor with museum space on the second and third floors and either residential or office space on floors four though ten.With respect to parking, the existing Jessie Square Garage would be converted from publicly to privately-owned to provide parking for the project with 260 spaces for tower residents and 210 spaces on the upper two levels remaining available to the public.
Source and more info: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/07/the_706_mission_scoop_design_details_and_timing_for_mus.html#comments

[1977]

Demolition has begun at 260 Fifth (http://www.avanthousing.com/pages/project3.html) to make way for the second phase of a 2 building apartment complex - phase 1 (http://www.avanthousing.com/pages/project2.html) is under construction.

Demolition began Friday at 260 Fifth St. The site’s previous building featured a mural of the San Francisco bay and the Golden Gate Bridge, and was proximate to a gated empty lot on Tehama St. with a rarely-used basketball hoop. Rumor has it that the building used to house a famous music and film recording studio.

Now the site is slated to be complementary to an Avant Housing (the same folks who brought us SOMA Grand) development at 900 Folsom, which will include ground-floor retail space, condominiums, and a public green space. Construction at 900 Folsom is well underway but, as these images show, the work at Avant Housing’s 260 Fifth has just begun.
Source and article: http://www.livesoma.com/2012/07/02/260-fifth-street-soma/

[Jerry of San Fran]

706 Mission Street - 1977 - looking at the rendering of 706 Mission reminds me of a visiting organist at Davies Sym. Hall when asked what the new organ sounds like he replied "It's big!". Asked again he said "It's big!" I can't say much about the proposed building except that it is big!

[mt_climber13]

This will be my last picture post indefinitely.

Something that nobody has mentioned about the PUC building is the beautiful streetscape. They really did a great job of planting drought tolerant grasses and species that also look beautiful. The sidewalks are wide and welcoming.

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0076.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0077.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0078.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0079.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0081.jpg

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0082.jpg

Light shelves on the rear (for passive cooling and heating).

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0080.jpg

A contextual shot

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0084.jpg

And a beautiful piece of art on the front that creates a water ripple effect when the wind blows:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/ARlrkqzYyok (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2nInqgL3eKo)

And a look down Polk St. toward Crescent Heights. This view is going to be dramatically different when this building is finished (and it couldn't happen soon enough.)

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h446/walamesalad/GEDC0085.jpg

[CyberEric]

I love that ripple piece on the new PUC building, that's really wonderful.

I think 706 Mission is...fine. It's not going to blow anyone away, but it's not bad.

I really like the renderings of 1998 Market! Hopefully a Starbucks doesn't go in the ground floor. :)

[minesweeper]

Another article about the current construction boom, with some interesting numbers:

San Francisco immersed in construction boom (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2012/07/san-francisco-immersed-construction-boom)
By: Joshua Sabatini, 07/06/12 1:52 AM

From the second Rincon Hill tower to the Central Subway transit project, San Francisco is undergoing a massive wave of new construction. Some 56 major developments — totaling $3.137 billion in construction costs, 500 stories and 5,188 residential units — are in various stages of the approval process, according to The City’s Department of Building Inspection.

[...]

No agency is more familiar with this construction trend than the Department of Building Inspection, which just received funding to hire up to 27 more workers on top of its current staff of 243 people who handle the towering workload of signing off on building permits and inspecting construction work.

[...]

Strawn said his department was expecting to issue slightly more than 55,000 for the fiscal year that just ended in June. While that is up about 6 percent from the 2009-2010 fiscal year, it is still down about 15 percent from the 65,000 permits issued in 2006-2007.

[NOPA]

The PUC building is lovely. I hope those plants are also urine resistant b/c the homeless will go ape on those (we all know its true).

[jbm]

went for a run around the center of the city and here are a few comments on a few projects, sorry no pics...

10th and market - the center building is just about to get above groundlevel, and the side buildings are just about as high as the shorter parts of the white behemoth behind it. hopefully they get high enough to cover it entirely.

5th and folsom - clear work underway on 3 separate lots at this intersection. on 5th it is still in demolition mode, right on the corner looks like still digging down for the foundation, but on south side of folsom (towards 6th) it looked like below ground construction might have started.

16th and south van ness - just saw this lot briefly, but it looked like there was a giant whole in the ground, which is more than i saw last time i went passed a few months ago. i think this might have been the development that was stalled due to gas/chemicals found in the ground, but looks like they are back underway. no sign of life at 15th and south van ness though. just a fence around the lot.

can't recall if its been mentioned here, but i also went to fillmore festival yesterday and noticed a sign up on turk x fillmore for new construction, said summer 2013 i believe. didn't notice any work underway though.

[Jerry of San Fran]

The service station is being removed to make way for housing on this corner of Market St. & Buchanan - 115 units. Note the serpentine rock in the big dig - I had no idea there was so much serpentine in the area - it extends for at least 2 blocks to the 1800 block of Market Street. The mint across the street is on a hill of serpentine rock. Arquitectonica is designing the structure.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7136/7533750562_ff8bfac1b4_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/7533750562/)
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/7533750562/]Market &

[viewguysf]

The gas station itself bit the dust today and is now completely gone!

[Jerry of San Fran]

The gas station itself bit the dust today and is now completely gone!

Oh, my! I got the picture just in time! In a few months people will ask themselves the question "What was there before?"

[jbm]

was out walking my dog and saw this sign at the entrance to a parking lot 1/2 block south of market, between 12th and Brady, just west of s. van ness. the sign was not there a day or two ago. wonder if a local project is about to get going, possibly 1600 Market. That's the closest I can think of.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8147/7547242812_1127943c0c.jpg

[1977]

Simeon purchased the long stalled 72 Townsend and is expected to break ground sometime next year.

Simeon has acquired 72 Townsend St. in San Francisco’s South of Market district. The property is an existing one-story historic brick-and-timber building in the South Beach neighborhood. The company plans to begin construction with Novato contractor West Bay Builders next year to add eight stories to the existing structure. The goal is to develop 74 living units to condominium standards, though the intent at present is to rent.

The existing, not quite 30,000 square-foot building, the former Hooper’s South End Grain Warehouse constructed in 1874, is leased through mid-2013, Pitto said, but there is a chance the tenant will exit early. If so, he would and could start construction immediately: “We could pull a building permit right now.” The project is fully entitled.
Source and article: http://news.theregistrysf.com/simeon-nabs-san-francisco-san-jose-sites-for-apartments/

Here is an old rendering of the original proposal which sounds like is being retained:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3218/2347229218_d272b96bc8.jpg
Source: http://www.sfnewdevelopments.com/

[1977]

was out walking my dog and saw this sign at the entrance to a parking lot 1/2 block south of market, between 12th and Brady, just west of s. van ness. the sign was not there a day or two ago. wonder if a local project is about to get going, possibly 1600 Market. That's the closest I can think of.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8147/7547242812_1127943c0c.jpg

That's not a bad guess as I know Webcor was tapped to build the original Saitowitz proposal at 1600 Market. Also, it makes sense because this building will house the required affordable units for the development at 1960-1998 Market which broke ground this week.

[1977]

55 Ninth, aka AVA at 55 Ninth, broke ground today! Kind of hard to see in the picture, but it looks like the design has been tweaked a little bit.

AvalonBay Celebrates Ground Breaking of AVA at 55 Ninth
JULY 12, 2012 by PUBLISHER in NEWS RELEASES

http://news.theregistrysf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/MRP_Highres_-IMG_9227.jpg

SAN FRANCISCO, CA. (July 10, 2012) — AvalonBay Communities, a NYSE-listed real estate investment trust (REIT), today hosted a ground breaking ceremony for its newest San Francisco apartment community, AVA at 55 Ninth. The community is AvalonBay’s seventh in the San Francisco metropolitan area and its sixty-seventh in California. It is also the State’s fourth AVA branded community, designed to attract Gen Y renters. AvalonBay’s first AVA community in San Francisco, AVA at Nob Hill, the redevelopment of an existing AvalonBay community, was opened July 2011.

An enthusiastic crowd of over sixty attended the ceremony and reception, which was held at the site of the new development in the heart of the increasingly popular Central Market neighborhood. Mayor Edwin Lee and AvalonBay executives, led by Meg Spriggs, Vice President for Development, addressed the gathering, pointing to the future community as the latest addition to one of the City’s fastest growing and newest “hot spots.”

Source and article: http://news.theregistrysf.com/avalonbay-celebrates-ground-breaking-of-ava-at-55-ninth/

[minesweeper]

Awesome! The design has indeed changed quite a bit. My Google-fu turned up these renderings (the architect is now Solomon Cordwell Buenz).

Click to enlarge:

http://i.imgur.com/H2Nb7l.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/H2Nb7.jpg)http://i.imgur.com/RAiq7l.png (http://i.imgur.com/RAiq7.png)http://i.imgur.com/l0zFxl.png (http://i.imgur.com/l0zFx.png)

The designs (ftp://69.42.25.81//ATTN_WES%20BALL_55%20NINTH%20STREET/ARCHITECTURAL/) say the max height will be 188 feet, lower than the previous design's 205 feet.

[1977]

:previous: Great find!

[northbay]

Looks great! They just keep coming!

[rriojas71]

Awesome! The design has indeed changed quite a bit. My Google-fu turned up these renderings (the architect is now Solomon Cordwell Buenz).

Click to enlarge:

http://i.imgur.com/H2Nb7l.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/H2Nb7.jpg)http://i.imgur.com/RAiq7l.png (http://i.imgur.com/RAiq7.png)http://i.imgur.com/l0zFxl.png (http://i.imgur.com/l0zFx.png)

The designs (ftp://69.42.25.81//ATTN_WES%20BALL_55%20NINTH%20STREET/ARCHITECTURAL/) say the max height will be 188 feet, lower than the previous design's 205 feet.

Great News about another project, but the design is quite mundane and doesn't help SF in our desire to rid ourselves of boxy mid-rise bulidings. I think it will add to the area, but I wish it was had a bit more aesthetic flair.
Overall I'm unimpressed. :(

[CyberEric]

Not too shabby looking. I hope they are serious about attracting Gen Yers, or in other words, I hope these are reasonably priced! ;)

[minesweeper]

I walked by 55 Ninth this morning, and it was pretty quiet. Just one lonely backhoe and a worker with a water hose.

http://i.imgur.com/OvXdAl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/OvXdA.jpg)

[viewguysf]

Here comes the second One Rincon Hill tower!! Will someone please create a thread for it?

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2012/07/construction-to-start-today-on-second.html

[timbad]

Here comes the second One Rincon Hill tower!! Will someone please create a thread for it?


wakamesalad's got you covered:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199764

:tup:

[1977]

Oscar Park presentation from 7/12/12:

http://www.sfredevelopment.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3910

This combined with the new Transbay Terminal park are going to completely change the feel of Dowtown/Rincon Hill/Transbay and provide a lot of recreation and park space for the thousands of new residents that are moving into the area. Love it.

More info at RinconHillSF (http://www.rinconhillsf.org/open-spaces/oscar-park-design-presentation-and-comment-card/).

[1977]

And from Hayeswire...

http://hayeswire.com/2012/07/1960-market-begins-to-take-shape.html

Some proof that 1960-1998 Market broke ground.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-d0yLBR35Rjg/UASwrxEMEuI/AAAAAAAAAWY/nrdzoAb30sQ/s640/photo%2520%25286%2529.JPG?imgmax=1600
Source: www.hayeswire.com

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Z3ALRB9jtrI/T6sisAc0YHI/AAAAAAAAAwg/g-fxdiYZIN0/s640/129417385600.459.14.jpeg?imgmax=1600
Source: www.hayeswire.com

[CyberEric]

^That looks pretty cool, interesting but handsome. Glad it's being built!

[spyguy]

http://www.avaat559thapartments.com/

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1246/ava55.jpg

[1977]

http://www.avaat559thapartments.com/

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1246/ava55.jpg

Great, thanks! Looks like a solid infill project, imo.

[easy as pie]

really a lot bigger than i expected, glad to see, even if the parking egress is poorly placed adjacent to the plaza entry on both this and plaza/parking entry on 1 ninth.

[minesweeper]

really a lot bigger than i expected, glad to see, even if the parking egress is poorly placed adjacent to the plaza entry on both this and plaza/parking entry on 1 ninth.

I don't think that's the parking entry on Ninth St. The grey rendering I posted above seems to show the entry is located on that back alley called Laskie St.

There's no curb-cut rendered on Ninth St. I'm not sure what that is. Maybe it's just some utility access or something?

[CyberEric]

It's something to be happy with, nice design, nice size. A good infill project for sure.

[timbad]

Oscar Park presentation from 7/12/12:

http://www.sfredevelopment.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3910

... Love it.



yes, wow! I wasn't holding out high expectations for this open space, given that most of it is under concrete overpasses, but the presentation is really impressive! so many things going on that I could see myself going out of my way to see and use and show others. I'm a little concerned, given recent episodes of vandalism around the city, that this could also fall quick and repeated victim. beyond users and neighbors keeping eyes out, maybe some more formal monitoring would be needed (unfortunately)

[1977]

I'm a little concerned, given recent episodes of vandalism around the city, that this could also fall quick and repeated victim. beyond users and neighbors keeping eyes out, maybe some more formal monitoring would be needed (unfortunately)

Unfortunately, that was my first thought as well. Truth is, it will have to be monitored or it will be vandalized.

[sahran]

Speaking of Parks in the South Beach neighborhood, now that the demolition of Pier 36 is near complete, looks like the Brannan Street Wharf project is underway with a completion date set for June 2013. Great news to our Waterfront! :tup:

http://www.baycrossings.com/dispnews.php?id=2762

[peanut gallery]

^Been waiting for that one. Great news!

Hi everyone, unfortunately I am moving away from the city for a while :( Apparently I had one of those jobs that is not included in the "boom." I will be in Sacramento and coming back once a month. Hopefully I will move back the end of this year or next year. I hope you all take lots of pictures and keep us updated.

Sorry to hear that. Good luck with everything and come back soon!

I love the redesign on 55 9th. Much better than the original, IMO. I walked by it on Tuesday and it hadn't changed since the previous photo. Definitely signs of work at Twitter and Dolby though.

[peanut gallery]

Here are some other miscellaneous projects around town.

750 Second St, which I think is looking fantastic:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8427/7602305746_fe0bff77e3_b.jpg

Even the (almost) all brick side looks much better than I expected from the renderings:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8156/7602308454_7c8b604e82_b.jpg

333 Harrison:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7602279032_aa0b403815_b.jpg

The hole for 333 Fremont is much larger than I expected:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8004/7602284466_7b306e1518_b.jpg

From a different angle:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7139/7602286552_a5209f7cf5_b.jpg

[peanut gallery]

The re-cladding of 680 Folsom looks more like a demolition at this point:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8157/7602291212_3c6111bc77_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7121/7602288882_d7ef468a7c_b.jpg

Is part of the plan to add more floors, or is this just for new environmentals?
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8283/7602270410_afe1e02acb_b.jpg

Although there is a lot of work happening inside, they haven't yet stripped off the exterior of the smaller annex to the north:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8421/7602268698_d9e72968cf_b.jpg

And in another refurbishment job, look who has a new crane attached:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7265/7602266910_5bd1f5c518_b.jpg

Much work is clearly underway:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8292/7602265388_c899efce27_b.jpg

[minesweeper]

Is part of the plan to add more floors, or is this just for new environmentals?

They are indeed planning to add two more floors (http://www.tippingmar.com/projects/project_details/37) and a horizontal extension.

Thanks for all the great pictures!

[minesweeper]

Here's the latest news:

CityPlace deal closes for mid-Market (http://www.sfgate.com/business/bottomline/article/CityPlace-deal-closes-for-mid-Market-3720908.php)
By Andrew S. Ross, Thursday, July 19, 2012

Signed, sealed and delivered. The deal bringing the CityPlace development on Mid-Market back from the dead has officially closed.

With one exception: its name has been changed to Market Street Place, reflecting how even this blighted part of San Francisco's main thoroughfare is becoming a hot city property.

[...]

Maguire said demolition of the old buildings between Fifth and Sixth Streets will begin later in the year, with Market Street Place opening to shoppers in early 2015. The project's original design will remain the same, except for a few modifications, he said, and a number of prospective "multi-floor" tenants have expressed interest.

I was just looking up permit activity today for CityPlace and noticed that it's coming back to life. Looks like they're just waiting for the final demo approvals before moving forward.

[timbad]

Here are some other miscellaneous projects around town.

750 Second St,
333 Harrison:
The hole for 333 Fremont is much larger than I expected:



pg, this strikes me quite funny - except for 680 Folsom, last night I must have followed almost your exact Tuesday route - I have almost identical photos (while there was still light) as the ones you have posted on this and other threads today. thanks very much for them!

I'll have to go through and see if there is anything left that I can put up here, haha

[1977]

pg, this strikes me quite funny - except for 680 Folsom, last night I must have followed almost your exact Tuesday route - I have almost identical photos (while there was still light) as the ones you have posted on this and other threads today. thanks very much for them!

I'll have to go through and see if there is anything left that I can put up here, haha

Ha. That's great. Post them anyway!

[tech12]

NIMBYs have succeeded in stopping 8 washington for the time being:

http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/07/8-washington-obscure-cash-drives-first-successful-voter-referendum-in-decades.php

8 Washington: Obscure Cash Drives First Successful Voter Referendum in Decades
by Chris Roberts
July 20, 2012 7:25 AM

City Hall can be overruled, and in a hurry -- but the last-minute signature drives required to qualify voter referendums are real longshots. So long that it's been "decades" since a referendum succeeded in directly overturning city legislators' actions.

Anti-developer sentiment claimed a piece of San Francisco political history Thursday, when the campaign to halt a luxury condominium complex along The Embarcadero dropped off 31,373 signatures, well more than the 19,405 needed -- and all collected in less than 30 days.

The squabble over the 134-unit, 136-foot-tall 8 Washington project has gone on for years, but progressive development foes have at least temporarily halted Simon Snellgrove's Pacific Waterfront Partners' project while the Board of Supervisors reconsiders exempting the development from height restrictions.

Plans for the project, located just north of the Ferry Building, were approved by the
Board of Supervisors last month.

The plans included a provision to increase the maximum height allowable for a building at the site from 84 feet tall to 136, drawing the ire of a coalition calling itself "No Wall on the Waterfront."

Political forces behind the effort former Board of Supervisors presidents Matt Gonzalez and Aaron Peskin (also a former Hill Dwellers chief), the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and the SF Tenants Union.

But names don't go out and collect tens of thousands of signatures -- the money to pay the 150 paid signature gatherers does.

And this money came from a no-name, at least politically: northeastern neighborhoods local Richard Stewart, a retired business executive and economist, and his wife Barbara donated "$40,000 each" to fund the effort, according to campaign head Jon Golinger.

Final campaign finance forms have not yet been filed, but reports from June show Richard Stewart made three donations in June: $1,000 on June 19, $25,000 on June 20, and $10,000 on June 25. Another $25,000 came from Barbara Stewart on June 20.

The Stewarts donated over half of the total $150,000 raised in a short time, a feat of which any downtown developer would be proud.

The Department of Elections will have 30 days to verify that at least 19,405 of the signatures are from registered San Francisco voters.

If the signatures prove valid, work on 8 Washington is halted until the next Board of Supervisors meeting, where the exception to the height limit will be revisited.

If the Board does not reverse itself, the issue goes to the voters -- in November if the signatures are validated more than 90 days before the fall ballot, in November 2013 if the deadline passes. Either way, Golinger said, the project is stalled -- so it's a "win-win."

Stewart is a Harvard Law grad, former New York State Superintendent of Insurance, and private insurance executive, who headed up insurance giant Chubb Group in the 1970s, according to his online biography. He's been a freelance economist since 1981.

Stewart does not appear to be a regular local political player. His name does not appear in local news searches. He did not donate any money to Mayor Ed Lee, a campaign finance records search showed.

Stewart could not be immediately interviewed Friday.

No information on Barbara Stewart was immediately available Thursday. A Barbara D. Stewart mentioned as the former president of Stewart Economics was listed on the firm's Web site as deceased as of 2010.

Golinger said his campaign's angel investor is merely a concerned citizen who "lives near the waterfront."

No Wall campaigners blamed Snellgrove for some campaign shenaningans: Volunteers for the effort at times were "harassed" by operatives "paid for by the developer," Golinger and others said at Thursday's rally.

There has been speculation that whoever bankrolled the anti-8 Washington campaign had a competing interest with Snellgrove. It's not clear if either of these donors have or had interests in real estate development.

I really hate these people. There's no reason whatsoever to oppose this building except for wanting to preserve a tennis club for wealthy people. Completely ridiculous. So 30,000 people supposedly don't want this (assuming all signatures are valid), yet I'm pretty sure FAR more San Franciscans do want it, or are at least indifferent....yet the NIMBYs end up getting their way. I have no doubt that at least some of the people who signed were misled by dumb claims of "huge shadows" and "insane traffic increases" and "it will destroy SF's waterfront!!1!! OMG". So stupid.

edit: the board of supervisors should ignore them, and instead increase the height limit to 600 feet.

[peanut gallery]

^Sad. First 555 Washington, now this. I guess the Telegraph Hill Dwellers have grown to the point that they can now stop all development on the north side of the FiDi. Great, it can stay an underutilized plot for surface parking and tennis club for a few dozen people. Or maybe the developer will pull a George Lucas and propose low income housing there instead.

[coyotetrickster]

NIMBYs have succeeded in stopping 8 washington for the time being:

http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/07/8-washington-obscure-cash-drives-first-successful-voter-referendum-in-decades.php



I really hate these people. There's no reason whatsoever to oppose this building except for wanting to preserve a tennis club for wealthy people. Completely ridiculous. So 30,000 people supposedly don't want this (assuming all signatures are valid), yet I'm pretty sure FAR more San Franciscans do want it, or are at least indifferent....yet the NIMBYs end up getting their way. I have no doubt that at least some of the people who signed were misled by dumb claims of "huge shadows" and "insane traffic increases" and "it will destroy SF's waterfront!!1!! OMG". So stupid.

edit: the board of supervisors should ignore them, and instead increase the height limit to 600 feet.

Not that the developer should have countered with truth squads, cause that would have really pushed up the cost per unit for development, but when I confronted a petition gather with the truth, he was screaming stop the wall, folks who were signing stop signing and I stayed for a few minutes just waiting for him to start again. I was rather effective. Should have done it more.

[peanut gallery]

They are indeed planning to add two more floors (http://www.tippingmar.com/projects/project_details/37) and a horizontal extension.

Thanks for the info! I'd forgotten that detail.


pg, this strikes me quite funny - except for 680 Folsom, last night I must have followed almost your exact Tuesday route - I have almost identical photos (while there was still light) as the ones you have posted on this and other threads today. thanks very much for them!

I'll have to go through and see if there is anything left that I can put up here, haha

Ha! Sorry about that! Like I said in the MB thread, you should post them anyway. I'm sure we have a slightly different take on them (or you can crop them differently). Next time we'll have to coordinate timing. :) In this case, it was a rare occasion where I had some free time so I could move around a little more broadly. Usually, I don't have time to check out anything outside the area I happen to be in.

[mt_climber13]

NIMBYs have succeeded in stopping 8 washington for the time being:

http://sfappeal.com/news/2012/07/8-washington-obscure-cash-drives-first-successful-voter-referendum-in-decades.php



I really hate these people. There's no reason whatsoever to oppose this building except for wanting to preserve a tennis club for wealthy people. Completely ridiculous. So 30,000 people supposedly don't want this (assuming all signatures are valid), yet I'm pretty sure FAR more San Franciscans do want it, or are at least indifferent....yet the NIMBYs end up getting their way. I have no doubt that at least some of the people who signed were misled by dumb claims of "huge shadows" and "insane traffic increases" and "it will destroy SF's waterfront!!1!! OMG". So stupid.

edit: the board of supervisors should ignore them, and instead increase the height limit to 600 feet.

Means nothing in the big scheme. You could probably find 30,000 people in San Francisco that eat dog poop for its chakra clearing purposes. Until it is voted on, then the moaning and groaning can begin. The initiative will be something about preserving the 80' height limit along the Embarcadero. Will SF as a whole approve it? I highly doubt it. But for now, just chill.

[viewguysf]

I really hate these people. There's no reason whatsoever to oppose this building except for wanting to preserve a tennis club for wealthy people. Completely ridiculous. So 30,000 people supposedly don't want this (assuming all signatures are valid), yet I'm pretty sure FAR more San Franciscans do want it, or are at least indifferent....yet the NIMBYs end up getting their way. I have no doubt that at least some of the people who signed were misled by dumb claims of "huge shadows" and "insane traffic increases" and "it will destroy SF's waterfront!!1!! OMG". So stupid.

edit: the board of supervisors should ignore them, and instead increase the height limit to 600 feet.

Former Board president Aaron Peskin and his wife don't want anything changed or built in their area (The Embarcadero, Telegraph Hill, North Beach) and have held up or defeated many projects. They even seem to prefer the piers to fall or burn down rather than do anything the least bit "controversial" with them. Peskin, Gonzalez, Chris Daly and the other ultra "progressives" are assholes, imo, who have a distorted sense of reality.

As for the 30,000, I agree that most people who sign petitions don't really know what they're signing. I wouldn't say more San Franciscans want the project because I think many of them don't care one way or the other. Height along the waterfront has always been a lightning rod issue though and the majority of people don't want it there.

[tech12]

Means nothing in the big scheme. You could probably find 30,000 people in San Francisco that eat dog poop for its chakra clearing purposes. Until it is voted on, then the moaning and groaning can begin. The initiative will be something about preserving the 80' height limit along the Embarcadero. Will SF as a whole approve it? I highly doubt it. But for now, just chill.

I would say you're being a little optimistic. And an 80 foot height limit on the embarcadero would also kill the proposal for a 284' tower at the intersection of Howard and the Embarcadero (is that actually a thing, or are you just guessing?). But then again I might be a bit pessimistic...we'll see what happens.

A large part of my annoyance is the logic fail (which is perhaps deliberate in some part) in regards to some of the reasons why this development is being opposed. The only thing this would shadow is a single block of Drum street, in the early mornings, and rather than destroy the waterfront, it would actually add to it, with residential and retail, as well as a park fronting a relatively dead block of the Embarcadero. And to call it a "wall"? If 8 washington is a wall, than what's the Embarcadero center? Mount Everest?

Ok, now i'm gonna go chill out lol.

[viewguysf]

I would say you're being a little optimistic. And an 80 foot height limit on the embarcadero would also kill the proposal for a 284' tower at the intersection of Howard and the Embarcadero (is that actually a thing, or are you just guessing?). But then again I might be a bit pessimistic...we'll see what happens.

A large part of my annoyance is the logic fail (which is perhaps deliberate in some part) in regards to some of the reasons why this development is being opposed. The only thing this would shadow is a single block of Drum street, in the early mornings, and rather than destroy the waterfront, it would actually add to it, with residential and retail, as well as a park fronting a relatively dead block of the Embarcadero. And to call it a "wall"? If 8 washington is a wall, than what's the Embarcadero center? Mount Everest?

Ok, now i'm gonna go chill out lol.

I don't think it's as much of a shadow issue along the waterfront as it is a "wall" issue. People don't want their views of the waterfront blocked by anything. As for height, I think "they" have been more concerned with it north of the Ferry Building than south of it, so your other concern may not be too much of a worry.

[coyotetrickster]

I don't think it's as much of a shadow issue along the waterfront as it is a "wall" issue. People don't want their views of the waterfront blocked by anything. As for height, I think "they" have been more concerned with it north of the Ferry Building than south of it, so your other concern may not be too much of a worry.

Viewguy is correct. This is really about the Telegraph Hill Politburo headed up by commisars Peskin and that Skeletor look alike wife.

[Jerry of San Fran]

I just got back this morning from a 10 day cruise on 3 rivers in Germany & am glad to see so much activity on the Skyscraper site while I was away. Great work from so many of you!

Attached is a view of the 55 9th St. site with a bulldozer. I will start documening the construction from my perspective.

1977, thanks for the link for the 55 Ninth Street web site. I'm greatly disappointed with the new plans for the building. The original architecture was much more exciting & I looked forward to seeing part of it from my window/balcony. I find the new plans to be boring. I can only hope that it will be modified in such a way that it is somewhat better. Sadly when something like this is built it will be there for a very long time.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7262/7628420460_e3896bd2cc.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/7628420460/)

[easy as pie]

i like the skeletor reference. from now on, i'm going to refer to peskin as skeletor in every context in which his name arises, hopefully it'll catch on.

and seriously, this developer is going to have one heck of a fight on his hands. like the ballot initiative is called something like "preserve the sf waterfront". it's nuts, like even at my weekly hockey game, a couple of the guys were on board to kill the project, all "the waterfront should be public!" i can't believe how effectively this bit of nimbyism has been managed, if i thought i could control my actions in their presence, i'd almost consider speaking to the organizers about their strategy.

luckily/hopefully, this one should be nuked by a coalition of downtown development interests.

[tech12]

According to this comment on socketsite, a lot of the signatures against 8 Washington were gathered far away from downtown SF/Telegraph hill:

"There had to be 20-30 people gathering signatures for this at Dolores Park and along Valencia the last two weekends. And the "approach" was about building low income housing in SF versus housing for the rich, not about height restrictions. I was particularly offended by the number of people out collecting signatures in this one little area of the city, and no where near the actual development."

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/07/8_washington_opponents_deliver_on_antidevelopment_threa.html#comments

[CyberEric]

I think I would have signed it...I want them to build something taller than this little building. :)

[1977]

333 Harrison has a new name and website:

www.rincongreen.com/

Also, I noticed a backhoe at the One Rincon (tower II) site, but no movement.

[spyguy]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/express-announces-timing-of-bicoastal-flagships-in-2013-163453936.html

EXPRESS Announces Timing of Bicoastal Flagships in 2013

Union Square: Located at 301 Geary Street, the Union Square location is comprised of approximately 16,000 square feet and will feature two floors, plus a mezzanine, of selling space. One of the vacating tenants delayed Express taking possession of the space. The property is owned by Handlery Hotels, Inc.
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5058/20120723200646enprnprn1.jpg

[jbm]

Here are some photos I took of SFJazz earlier this week. Its hard to see in part against the white sky, but it looks like they are starting to put up some of the exterior. Also, I believe that they've announced that opening weekend is mid-late Jan. 2013.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7116/7647331450_9a2bd40428.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8022/7647330412_944e678776.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8010/7647330978_f30f1c91b2.jpg

[CyberEric]

Very nice, thank you very much.

[CyberEric]

In SF news, I'm wondering, why is the new span of the Bay Bridge getting absolutely no mention on this forum? There's no thread for it, no mention of it here...can we not be bothered? It's one of the most important projects we have is it not?

[mt_climber13]

In SF news, I'm wondering, why is the new span of the Bay Bridge getting absolutely no mention on this forum? There's no thread for it, no mention of it here...can we not be bothered? It's one of the most important projects we have is it not?

Its an Oakland project.

[twinpeaks]

Its an Oakland project.

The new suspension bridge is actually inside the San Francisco border.

[tech12]

That's a good question. I think there used to be a Bay Bridge thread a few years ago, but the bridge been under construction for over a decade, and i guess people just kind of stopped paying so much attention to it or something.

Its an Oakland project.

No, it's a San Francisco and Oakland project. It's the "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge", and a significant section of the eastern span lies within San Francisco (on the new bridge, that's the part that includes the suspension tower).

[twinpeaks]

That's a good question. I think there used to be a Bay Bridge thread a few years ago, but the bridge been under construction for over a decade, and i guess people just kind of stopped paying so much attention to it or something.



No, it's a San Francisco and Oakland project. It's the "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge", and a significant section of the eastern span lies within San Francisco (on the new bridge, that's the part that includes the suspension tower).

Interestingly, a small western section of Alameda Island is part of San Francisco.

[tech12]

Interestingly, a small western section of Alameda Island is part of San Francisco.

Interesting, I never knew that.

[1977]

Yes! So happy to see that 375-399 Fremont was redesigned.

The proposed 400-foot tower to rise at 399 Fremont has been resigned, and while the project sponsors are seeking another year extension to break ground, according to a plugged-in source, financing has been arranged, they are in the process of pursuing construction permits, and they expect to break ground by the end of this year.
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20From%20First.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20West.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20Aerial.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

[edwards]

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20East.jpg



The new design by Solomon Cordwell Buenz adds a lot more glass and a lot less masonry, especially at the base. According to the sponsor's lawyers, they've finally been successful in arranging financing for the project and have started pursuing construction permits, expecting to begin construction by the end of 2012.


http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/07/26/399_fremont_is_back_and_better_than_ever.php#501168cb85216d319a001414

[tech12]

I didn't hate the old design, but this is much better. I like that we'll be getting more pointy things on our skyline instead of the same old flat tops that we usually get. Now we just need a redesign of that fugly tower proposal across the street at 340-350 Fremont.

[1977]

Now we just need a redesign of that fugly tower proposal across the street at 340-350 Fremont.

Agreed! IMO, that was the ugliest design (Heller Manus, of course) out of all the Rincon Hill proposals.

[mt_climber13]

The new suspension bridge is actually inside the San Francisco border.

Thanks for correcting me, the city limits of SF are kind of vague. I thought it was an Oakland project because the Warriors, based in Oakland, made a huge deal about using it as their new logo, and I remember the media writing about how this will be a icon for Oakland instrad of SF.

[v.o.r.t.e.x]

Thanks for correcting me, the city limits of SF are kind of vague. I thought it was an Oakland project because the Warriors, based in Oakland, made a huge deal about using it as their new logo, and I remember the media writing about how this will be a icon for Oakland instrad of SF.

yes, but team will move to sf soon.

[minesweeper]

Sidewalk is closed, more dirt has been pushed around, steel beams are on site, and are those plastic kiddie pools?!

http://i.imgur.com/EXGDul.jpg (http://imgur.com/EXGDu)

[1977]

A few tidbits from the past couple of days...

376 Castro:
376 Castro will yield 24 new residential units (6 one-bedrooms and 18 twos) over 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space and a 14-car underground garage (the most permitted) where a gas station now stands.

Old cladding:

http://www.socketsite.com/376%20Castro%20Rendering%202012.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

And the new cladding:

http://www.socketsite.com/376%20Castro%20Rendering%202012%20Cladding-thumb.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

More info (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/07/376_castro_rendered_recladded_and_ready_for_commission.html#more).



And some preliminary plans for the corner of Hawthorne and Folsom...

655 Folsom:

655 Folsom Street — apparently the owner of the site (now a Chinese restaurant) is interested in taking advantage of the height allowances and building a 11-15 floor tower. Current plans are for 10 to 12 residential floors (60 to 72 units) and 1 to 3 floors for commercial or office use, or other possible plans include condominium or hotel development. Don't get too excited - there are no entitlements for any project, these designs are just mockups, and right now the owner is just looking for developers and investors.

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/folsom%20street%20development-thumb.jpg
Source: sf.curbed.com

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/folsom%20street%20development%20top%20crop.jpg
Source: sf.curbed.com



minesweeper - Thanks for the photo. Speaking of dirt being pushed around...

I saw a lot digging at One Rincon II today. I'll try to snap a picture next time I'm in the area.

[Jerry of San Fran]

View from my window. And yes, minesweeper, they are kiddie pools! I saw them used on the roof of Market Square as well. A friend who was in the construction industry tells me it is not unusual for them to use kiddie pools.
The steel beams should be pounded in on the perimiter soon in preparation for the big dig.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7663106016_fcab46c097_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/7663106016/)

[sahran]

Was in the Mission today and walked by 19th and Valencia and, am happy to report, that it has definitely broken ground and there's some major dirt moving going on as well as some re bar work... Sorry if this is old news but I didn't see it on here.

Also, was wondering why hasn't 899 Valencia (20th & Valencia) broken ground? Wasn't it approved last year ? is it a financing issue?

Thanks!

[1977]

Was in the Mission today and walked by 19th and Valencia and, am happy to report, that it has definitely broken ground and there's some major dirt moving going on as well as some re bar work... Sorry if this is old news but I didn't see it on here.

Also, was wondering why hasn't 899 Valencia (20th & Valencia) broken ground? Wasn't it approved last year ? is it a financing issue?

Thanks!

Yeah, I saw that and some movement up the street at 23rd and Valencia (http://www.missionmission.org/2012/07/30/plastic-bag-street-art/) as well.

Is this still the design for the project on 19th?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MrZL_kos74Y/T86CM1lREkI/AAAAAAAAAqs/1cnMvTob55M/s1600/AlainPinel+Realtor.aspx.jpg
Source: http://urbanlifesigns.blogspot.com/

Also, found this (http://www.robcostudio.com/19val.html).

[ElDuderino]

From Cubicles to Rentals: 100 Van Ness Continues its Quest for Conversion
Tuesday, July 31, 2012, by Alex Bevk

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6814/100vanness.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/163/100vanness.png/)

On Thursday, the Planning Commission will hear 100 Van Ness Ave, a project that will convert a building from office to residential, renovating the interior to create up to 399 residential units and ground‐floor retail with 112 off‐street parking spaces, and re‐skin the exterior of the building. The existing building dates from 1973, and with no expansion proposed, exterior facades of the existing building are proposed to be removed and replaced with a contemporary glass curtain wall system designed by Solomon Cordwell Buenz (seems like they're everywhere lately). The Planning Department is telling them to make the glass a little lighter so it blends with the nearby Civic Center better, but so far everyone seems on board


http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/07/31/from_cubicles_to_rentals_100_van_ness_continues_its_quest_for_conversion.php
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[jbm]

I live a couple blocks southwest of 100 van ness and really hope this gets done. If you go into the executive summary linked to the curbed article, it also mentions that the connected building (on Hayes I think) could also be developed soon.

[fflint]

Yes! So happy to see that 375-399 Fremont was redesigned.


Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20From%20First.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20West.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20Aerial.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com
I love this tower. Love it!

[Reminiscence]

Ah, its been months I think since I last posted on here. I've been pretty busy going back and forth in the city, and I've seen all the activity first hand, though these photographs display more than I'm capable of seeing. I'm loving all the activity that's going on/has yet to proceed. I'm so glad they decided to redesign 375-399 Fremont, this building looks slick!

[ElDuderino]

Rendered 100 Van Ness Ready For Reality Check This Afternoon

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/9433/100vannessrendering.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/10/100vannessrendering.jpg/)

In addition to the plans and designs for 2712 Broadway, 706 Mission and 376 Castro, the proposed re-skinning and conversion of 100 Van Ness from an office building to 399 residential units will be voted on by the Planning Commission this afternoon. The Planning Department recommends approvals across the board.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/08/rendered_100_van_ness_ready_for_reality_check_this_afte.html
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[peanut gallery]

Anyone been near the Tenderloin today and seen this?

Crane tumbles in SF's Tenderloin area
Vivian Ho
Published 12:24 p.m., Friday, August 3, 2012

(08-03) 12:22 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A crane fell at a construction site in San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood Friday morning, damaging several cars and a traffic light and closing one block of Ellis Street for hours, police said.

The crane collapsed on Ellis between Leavenworth and Jones streets just before 7:29 a.m., said police spokesman Officer Gordon Shyy.

No one was injured, Shyy said, adding no information was available about the construction work underway or the crew operating the crane.
Source: SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Crane-tumbles-in-SF-s-Tenderloin-area-3760817.php).

I wonder if it was attached to Mercy/St. Paul's Arlington Hotel renovation (http://www.mercyhousing.org/page.aspx?pid=1002). It's only 4 stories, so it wouldn't have that large a crane, which would help explain why no one was hurt and it didn't make more news.

[1977]

Hey, what do ya know? The uber-wealthy residents of the Four Seasons tower are unhappy with the proposed Mexican Museum Tower at 706 Mission.

Read more here (http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/08/02/neighbors-unhappy-with-high-rise-condos-at-mexican-museum/?plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=ThumbsDescending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:633bd921-8e9b-4e50-a097-28bef215fa23).

[Reminiscence]

Hey, what do ya know? The uber-wealthy residents of the Four Seasons tower are unhappy with the proposed Mexican Museum Tower at 706 Mission.

Read more here (http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/08/02/neighbors-unhappy-with-high-rise-condos-at-mexican-museum/?plckItemsPerPage=10&plckSort=ThumbsDescending&plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:633bd921-8e9b-4e50-a097-28bef215fa23).
I was wondering how long it would take for these people to voice their opposition. To their credit, they did take a while this time. I had forgotten we can't inconvenience the super wealthy :(

[CyberEric]

I don't have a lot of sympathy for these assholes. They live in a building that is exactly what they are complaining about, people said the exact same thing in 2000 when it was built. Why do they get to climb the ladder and then pull it up.

[1977]

Tishman Speyer is getting a head start on the central subway rezoning.

Tishman gets ride on Central Subway

Tishman Speyer has filed an application to build a 700,000-square-foot office complex in western SoMa, the first large development seeking to piggyback on San Francisco’s rezoning along the Central Subway.
The 97,000-square-foot parcel at 598 Brannan St. is owned by the Hearst Corp., which has used it to store and maintain San Francisco Chronicle delivery trucks and newspaper racks. The parcel, on the northeast corner of Brannan and Fifth streets, is directly across the street from the San Francisco Tennis Club. The property is assessed at $10.2 million. In addition to a large L-shaped surface parking lot, the property has a 38,000-square-foot warehouse built in 1952.
The Tishman Speyer development would consist of two 11-story, 160-foot buildings. The structures would be separated by a pedestrian extension of Freelon Street to Fifth Street, allowing access to a new mid-block green space the city would like to construct, according to public planning documents.
Park access would also be provided via a new pedestrian passage connecting Brannan Street to Welsh Street, a dead-end alley on the north edge of the parcel. All parking would be underground.
Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2012/08/03/tishman-gets-ride-on-central-subway.html

[peanut gallery]

^Nice!

I took a detour by 55 Ninth tonight and there is definitely much activity. Saw a bunch of steel laying around like in Jerry's shot above (thanks for that, by the way!) but the whole end of the lot where those trucks were parked looks all dug up.

Everywhere I went today there were cranes and construction of all sizes, really. I saw the same thing in Milan a week ago. It's nice to see a lot of construction activity again. I'm sure it's a welcome sight for those in the trades.

[Reminiscence]

Not sure if its been posted elsewhere already, but this seemed like the best place for it. John King and another of his articles.

Glass towers could be awkward S.F. fit
by John King

San Francisco's skyline tends to change in vertical bursts, and in five years we could be looking at nearly a dozen new thin-skinned boxes wrapped in sheets of green and blue. Some promise to be better than others. The cumulative effect could erode the physical presence that makes this city's downtown distinct.

The issue is not that buildings clad in stone are morally superior to buildings clad in glass. It's that San Francisco's sense of place is tied to its earthy warmth, the juxtaposition of steep hills and shifting waters. Too many glass towers clumped too closely together would set a much different tone, cosmopolitan but also generic.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/Glass-towers-could-be-awkward-S-F-fit-3763524.php#ixzz22er0kxpG


Source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/Glass-towers-could-be-awkward-S-F-fit-3763524.php#page-1

[ozone]

"...clad in stone" He means concrete. "The cumulative effect could erode the physical presence that makes this city's downtown distinct." He means distinctly dull. "It's that San Francisco's sense of place is tied to its earthy warmth, the juxtaposition of steep hills and shifting waters." Airy fairy nonsense that has had nothing to do with downtown since the early 1960's. What about 555 California and One Maritime Plaza? "Too many glass towers clumped too closely together would set a much different tone, cosmopolitan but also generic." And a bunch of concrete boxes clumped closed together is not generic?

He's completely and utterly off it here. The world's second glass curtain building (Hallidie Bldg-1918) was built in San Francisco as well as one the first International Style glass curtain wall building (Crown-Zellerbach Building-1959). So one could say that glass walls are also a San Francisco tradition -at least downtown.

[northbay]

King has always been architectually conservative. I agree with you ozone that more glass will not ruin the skyline.

[1977]

Here's an overview of the buildings discussed in the article:

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/14/42/24/3286320/3/867x1000.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

Also, a little bigger and cleaner rendering of 41 Tehama:

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/14/42/36/3286934/3/628x471.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

A proposed all-glass tower at 41 Tehama Street, an alley two short blocks south of the new Transbay Transit Center, would rise 342 feet and contain 325 residential units. It is one of a dozen glass high-rises now approved or under review in San Francisco

As expected, the comment section is littered with your typical San Franciscans complaining about glass falling in quakes, the city selling its soul to corporate America, generic glass dildos ruining its once charming character, etc., etc.

[fflint]

The only two buildings in that rendering that are truly "glass boxes" are AAA and 680 Folsom--the first being an old 1960s concrete box up for a recladding, the second an old 1960s concrete box already in the recladding process. The other proposals are, at least in their rendering phase, more distinct from one another than what we see in the white refrigerator parade along Market Street between Montgomery and the Embarcadero.

John King isn't conservative, he's reactionary. It would appear he wants the city to do something about the aesthetics of what he considers too much glass. I don't see that as the city's job.

[ozone]

IMO the more glass, the better. I didn't read the article. Does John King suggest an alternative cladding? Perhaps wood-clad skyscrapers with bay windows?