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

[kenratboy]

the tallest building currently proposed north of market is only ±410 feet - but it is on a 200 foot tall hill. whether it makes it through approvals at that height or not, only time will tell. i'm not aware of any opportunity sites for anything really tall north of market.

I am under the impression the main reason we are seeing all the development SOMA, or even SO80 :haha: is because the area has been under-utilized for so long and it is significantly easier to acquire land and make the necessary improvements in these areas?

[mthd]

I am under the impression the main reason we are seeing all the development SOMA, or even SO80 :haha: is because the area has been under-utilized for so long and it is significantly easier to acquire land and make the necessary improvements in these areas?

sure - there are lots more underutilized parcels south of market... but the zoning has a lot to do with it too. if there were higher height limits in other parts of the city, say along van ness, or broadway, or other major arteries you would probably see a lot more high rise residential proposed for sf. of course... you'd also see a lot more mass protest, nimbyism, riots, etc. pac heights, telegraph hill, russian hill, and nob hill are pretty much off limits.

[BTinSF]

I am under the impression the main reason we are seeing all the development SOMA, or even SO80 :haha: is because the area has been under-utilized for so long and it is significantly easier to acquire land and make the necessary improvements in these areas?

In both areas mentioned there are large tracts of "brownfields" land with intense development pressure behind it. In the case of "SO80", by which I believe you mean the area most of us (and the city) call Mission Bay, that got going when the Southern Pacific Railroad split off a subsidiary it had created to hold and market its unused land (which all railroads had lots of--Burlington Northern did something similar with vast tracts of oil and gas land it owned creating "Burlington Resources"), calling it "Catellus Corportation". Catellus went through a long phase of project development and entitlement with the city and, when that was completed the land went on the market. As it turned out, the catalyst for creating a boom there was the decision by UCSF to put it's new campus there (rather than at Bay Farm in the East Bay and some other sites that had been considered) and the decision by the city and Catellus to use the UCSF presence to try to create a biotech opportunity site within the city (biotech had previously felt there was no suitable land within the city in spite of the fact that they were well represented in places like Emeryville and South SF).

In SOMA, the redesign of 80 itself and the removal of ramps to the Embarcadero freeway and some others opened up a lot of land, much of which has not yet been developed, in part because CalTrans is still using it for the ramp rebuild work. Also, there was the new interest in the Planning Department in highrise housing as a partial solution to the city's housing crunch and a decision that Rincon Hill and the adjacent parts of SOMA was where it belonged.

In spite of the PD's view that highrises belong on top of hills (to emphasize rather than obscure the geography), I do agree with mthd that it will be new and slightly shocking it they bless something tall on top of Cathedral Hill as they have done on Rincon Hill.

[BTinSF]

I believe there's a project on Bush

= "Shorenstein's 19-story 350 Bush St. office project was recently approved."
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2004/06/28/focus3.html

[WonderlandPark]

= "Shorenstein's 19-story 350 Bush St. office project was recently approved."
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2004/06/28/focus3.html

crap, I keep thinking all of these little office towers are going to undermine the viability of offices at Transbay.

[mthd]

crap, I keep thinking all of these little office towers are going to undermine the viability of offices at Transbay.

nah. transbay is so far in the future, i don't think these near-term bumps in capacity will matter much. the overall strength of the local commercial economy in the next 2-1- years will be the key factor imo. ideally we will get a true high density mixed use neighborhood at transbay anchored by a landmark mixed use tower - hopefully hotel, office, and residential in one building.

[kchalmers]

there is an animation of the 350 Bush 3D building set within 3D San Francisco:

http://www.350bushstreet.com/virtual_tour.shtml

[Reminiscence]

Wow, thats a nice building, and a good location too. Thanks for the link. :)

[CardinalStudent]

Pics from March 3rd

Argenta

http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/11535/2003128112786881147_rs.jpg

http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/10799/2003135129723301122_rs.jpg

Ritz-Carlton Residences

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/13405/2003118931946780655_rs.jpg

http://aycu20.webshots.com/image/9459/2003195714587469396_rs.jpg

[BTinSF]

^^^I should probably wait until wraps come off the renovated brick work to judge, but I'm a little disappointed in this building. From the renderings, I thought the new upper stories were going to have a light-colored pseudo-brick veneer to tie in with (while contrasting in color to) the original brick. Instead, we have this very generic-looking what? Stucco? Or is it perhaps limestone whose pattern just doesn't show up in the photos (fingers crossed for that)?

Anyway, it doesn't really look to me like a Ritz--yet.

[fflint]

In person it looks like flat cement. It's a very disappointing building so far, and so different in texture quality from the rendering that I feel like we were duped. The new structure looks like it should be the Irvine Holiday Inn, circa 1986.

[Reminiscence]

The color is a little on the bland side, and not very Ritz-like. Although I do agree that we should wait until they remove the wraps so that we can picture the true contrast of the colors. Thanks for the pictures by the way :)

[mthd]

In person it looks like flat cement. It's a very disappointing building so far, and so different in texture quality from the rendering that I feel like we were duped. The new structure looks like it should be the Irvine Holiday Inn, circa 1986.

i guess i can't claim to have been duped if i always thought it was going to be bad, but it's still very disappointing. at this major intersection the city deserves better. i don't think getting the 1960s skin off the building was worth it given what the slapped on top of it.

[WonderlandPark]

As I said before about the Ritz--el cheapo exterior--

[BTinSF]

http://www.ritzcarltonrealestate.com/common/rcr/images/landing/san-francisco/rend1lg.jpg

Here's the more lifelike of the renderings. Maybe I just wanted to believe the new surface was textured in some way and/or higher quality materials (to my eye, it had the color of blond brick). But I did. And where are the roof overhangs by the way? Even at this stage they would help alleviate the 70's Holiday Inn look.

[SFView]

Looking more closely at the rendering, it appears that a two-tone color scheme, and roof and facade overhangs were originally intended for the upper floors. It would be most unfortunate if the owner decides or decided not to include these features in the final construction. Saving money in this case, so obviously results in a cheaper looking, blander exterior. San Francisco should not add any more bland towers to its already overwhelming collection of bland towers. The top portion of this building should count as much as the lower in aesthetics, even if treated differently.

[The_Analyst]

I agree that the Ritz is disappointing as a whole. I walked past on my lunch hour a few days ago and I think the new portion was a very light tan brick, although I don't remember precisely. At street level the building will be okay and the fact that the new tower is set back from the Market Street facade tends to give the impression that they are separate buildings. Even on the Kearny Street side, the new tower is set back maybe a foot or so which at least gives some depth. For most casual observers it may be that they would see Ritz signs on the old portion and believe the new tower is a separate building. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the New York New York casino in Las Vegas, though, where they slapped on several facades to one building trying to make it look like a skyline. At least with NYNY everyone knows it is fake, here I am not so sure. At best, it reminds me of the Fairmont--a great classic building with a dull tower added on the back.

[Manarii]

At best, it reminds me of the Fairmont--a great classic building with a dull tower added on the back.
That tower was built in the 50s/60s when people just didn't know better (same with the St. Francis tower).

I think you all should wait until the project is completed. Ritz Carlton is a well known chain and is known for restoring older properties. Look what they did to the Ritz carlton on California St.

In my opinion, the most important thing to me is the re discovering and restoration of the incredible 1898 Chronicle building. I still can't tell you how many times I've walked past that building in the years I lived in SF and had no idea that that GEM was still living and breathing behind that horrid exterior. I wouldn't care if they built a Jack in the Box on top of that building just as long as old Chron building was set free!

[condodweller]

In my opinion, the most important thing to me is the re discovering and restoration of the incredible 1898 Chronicle building. I still can't tell you how many times I've walked past that building in the years I lived in SF and had no idea that that GEM was still living and breathing behind that horrid exterior. I wouldn't care if they built a Jack in the Box on top of that building just as long as old Chron building was set free!

While I agree in spirit, in reality all they did was gut the old Chron building and desecrate it with a bland addition, so that its nothing more than a facade. That is not restoration. In some ways, I'd rather see a nice old building come down than be debased in this way.

[Manarii]

While I agree in spirit, in reality all they did was gut the old Chron building and desecrate it with a bland addition, so that its nothing more than a facade. That is not restoration. In some ways, I'd rather see a nice old building come down than be debased in this way.

I guess it depends. Each situation is different. Each opinion is different.

In reality, the original Chron building WAS gutted during the 06 earthquake. Only the exterior survived. The 'restoration' to me is still great news and I can't wait to return to see it. Many buildings built in those days probably cannot/could not handle the new technology that new buildings built in the 60's / 70's had to be able to handle such as wires, cables and all the equipment needed to run businesses. When I worked at 555 California for BofA's trading division starting in 1986, our trading floor was raised 2-3 feet with ramps so that they could accomodate a couple of hundred trading positions with technology that was avail in the 70's and 80's, the floors just could not accomodate all those wires, cables, telexes, old printers of the times, heavy computers, reuters and knightridder machines and so on. As the years went by, cables became thinner, machinery/equipment became lighter and smaller, computers were able to do all that previously several machines had to do, but i could not imagine a building built in 1889 being able to not have any modification to it's interior to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Several instances of some buildings in SF have been altered, leaving a still beautiful original exterior, or some other modification to the original structure. The old Crocker Bank (now Wells Fargo) on 1 Montgomery had the top floors the building lopped off to create a roof top garden (actually it might have been a compromise to allow them to build the crocker galleria and tower). The Citicorp Center on Market is a buidling built in the 1980s but the courtyard in front retains the original banking hall structure outside. I for one am glad to see remnants of old San Francisco still present in some capacity.

Citicorp
http://nt-photo-street.sourceforge.net/PhotoMaps/SkyscrapersOfSanFrancisco/images/1127602658-800x1067-112_1219.JPG

Crocker (Wells) 1 Montgomery
http://www.iconco-inc.com/images/highri1.jpg

[condodweller]

Several instances of some buildings in SF have been altered, leaving a still beautiful original exterior, or some other modification to the original structure. The old Crocker Bank (now Wells Fargo) on 1 Montgomery had the top floors the building lopped off to create a roof top garden (actually it might have been a compromise to allow them to build the crocker galleria and tower). The Citicorp Center on Market is a buidling built in the 1980s but the courtyard in front retains the original banking hall structure outside. I for one am glad to see remnants of old San Francisco still present in some capacity.

Crocker was a good compromise inasmuch as the remainder of the building is not only beautiful, but serves its original function without having been gutted -- that bank is just as original inside as out. But Citicorp turns a building that once had integrity into nothing more than an atrium for people to have lunch in.

Plenty of old buildings are able to accommodate modern technology and equipment without being gutted -- I work in the Russ building, and there are varieties of firms, high and low tech, that are able to function. Moreover, the Chron building is meant to be residences, not office. At any rate, its just my feeling that historical buildings should be viewed as a whole, not just as decorative facades.

[tyler82]

I highly highly highly disagree wtih you on that premises. The old buidling inf ront of citicorp has such a unique, almost ancient feel, it's almost like the "Ruins" of San Francisco, which every great city has ruins. I applaud whoever was responsible for saving that building's beauty and turning it into a place where the general public can come in and be a part of, not just a select few bankers.

But Citicorp turns a building that once had integrity into nothing more than an atrium for people to have lunch in.

[condodweller]

I highly highly highly disagree wtih you on that premises. The old buidling inf ront of citicorp has such a unique, almost ancient feel, it's almost like the "Ruins" of San Francisco, which every great city has ruins. I applaud whoever was responsible for saving that building's beauty and turning it into a place where the general public can come in and be a part of, not just a select few bankers.

"Ruins" are what occur after a natural disaster or a war, and often are left in place to serve as a reminder of such horrors, or out of respect for history. Willfully emasculating a building and leaving it only half intact, to me, is just depressing. I will grant you that, at least, they didn't build right on top of it, but gutting it and making it into nothing more than a very large gazebo isn't much better. It could still have been put to a public use with the interior structure in tact.

[BigKidD]

I hope the addition to the building turns out better than what it is currently. Also, it's still certainly better than what the exterior was before,
http://www.nationaltrust.org/Magazine/_images/news/chronicle.jpg

[tyler82]

Notice that I put "Ruins" in quotations because they aren't really ruins, but riminescent of them, I also said "sort of like 'ruins'"

So, you feel that turning the Stock Exchange building into a GYM is better simply because the interior structure is still intact for public use (I had a tour and all the vaults and everything were still in there)

I much prefer the garden, open air scenario


"Ruins" are what occur after a natural disaster or a war, and often are left in place to serve as a reminder of such horrors, or out of respect for history. It could still have been put to a public use with the interior structure in tact.

[condodweller]

Notice that I put "Ruins" in quotations because they aren't really ruins, but riminescent of them, I also said "sort of like 'ruins'"

So, you feel that turning the Stock Exchange building into a GYM is better simply because the interior structure is still intact for public use (I had a tour and all the vaults and everything were still in there)

I much prefer the garden, open air scenario

I probably should have expressed myself better, but my point is that ruins aren't depressing the way that intentional destruction is (I like the Sutro Bath ruins, but I really don't want to be near buildings that have been reduced to facades). Actually, I do shudder every time I pass the stock exchange (I frequent the City Club in the Stock Exchange Tower, so I pass it often). But, yes, as much as I feel that a once proud monument to commerce should be better utilized, I am glad that the building remains thoroughly in tact. The moment that it is gutted for use as a atrium garden, or as a facade, I will be the first to advocate its complete and utter annihilation!

[tyler82]

can we just agree that it is better than a 10 story stump box sitting in its place? That's the point I'm getting at.

[Manarii]

can we just agree that it is better than a 10 story stump box sitting in its place? That's the point I'm getting at.

I 'll agree with you Tyler! I guess I can imagine what someone might feel about the Emporium facade..

San Francisco still retains so much history in its buildings and many many are still around. Some people in SF moan about how much they've lost, while others remark how much they still have. (yes, Im one of those who moan how much they've lost..)

[condodweller]

can we just agree that it is better than a 10 story stump box sitting in its place? That's the point I'm getting at.

I'll agree to the extent that the Citicorp abomination is at least better than a facade-- the "building" still stands alone. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I just have very strong feelings about the value of buildings as a whole -- I believe that the efforts architects and engineers put into creating a unique structure should not be reduced to mere ephemera just to assuage some misguided notion of historical preservation. If a worthy building goes in place of an older structure that has outlived its usefulness, it is better than false preservation. So, yes, it's better than a 10 story "stump box," but not better than a well designed building that will stand the test and scrutiny of time.

[CGII]

Wow, the tower of the Ritz Carlton is extremely dissapointing. Nonetheless, I'd still say it's a great project solely for the rehabilitation of the original facades.

[tyler82]

The entire city of San Francisco is a facade. Just look at all the houses, they are merely boxes with pretty facades placed in front, most of the time the facades are taller than the actually building is.
Facades aren't a bad thing, they bring beauty where there would be none

[condodweller]

The entire city of San Francisco is a facade. Just look at all the houses, they are merely boxes with pretty facades placed in front, most of the time the facades are taller than the actually building is.
Facades aren't a bad thing, they bring beauty where there would be none

OK, going with that analogy -- take out the box from one of those houses, and build a box that's two or three stories taller than the remaining facade. The result is ridicule of the original designer's vision, exactly like the Chronicle Building or numerous other facadist abominations that have recently gone up. For a prime example, take a look at the apartments being build right now on Polk and Bush -- it would be a downright funny sight if it wasn't so tragically absurd.

[botoxic]

Argenta
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010043.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010045.jpg

Foundry Square
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010027.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010028.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010033.jpg

The Hayes
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010052.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010053.jpg

One Hawthorne (Existing)
Does anyone know the status of the 25-story residential building that was approved for this site last year?
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010006.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010034.jpg

Fell at Van Ness (Southwest Corner)
Not sure which project this is...
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010049.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010050.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010051.jpg

[Lecom]

That 690 Market one is great. Wish more renovations/height extensions were done like that.

[BTinSF]

Fell at Van Ness (Southwest Corner)
Not sure which project this is...
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010049.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010050.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010051.jpg

One more time, as far as I know if doesn't have a name but here's the description from the Planning Dept.:

77 VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between Fell and Hickory Streets, Lot 22 in Assessor’s Block 834 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determinations of Compliance and Request for Exceptions including an exception to the rear yard requirement as permitted in Code Section 134(d), an exception to the bulk limits of Section 270 as permitted in Section 272, and an exception to ground level wind current requirements set forth in Section 148. The Project would construct an 8-story, approximately 100-foot tall building containing 50 dwelling units, approximately 19,550 square feet of office space, 1,350 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 3,400 square feet of rooftop open space for the residential units, at least 400 square feet of public open space in the lobby, and 58 parking spaces in a street-level parking garage. The Project site is currently used as a surface parking lot for approximately 60 cars. This Project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District, and is within a 120-F Height and Bulk District.

Now, that out of the way, let me thank you effusively for providing photos of these lesser projects. They will mean more to some of our neighborhoods than gorgeous galss highrises across town, much as we love the latter.

[BTinSF]

One Hawthorne (Existing)
Does anyone know the status of the 25-story residential building that was approved for this site last year?
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010006.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/S4010034.jpg



To refresh minds:

More highrise housing slated for Rincon Hill
San Francisco Business Times - February 24, 2006
by J.K. Dineen
Yet another condo tower may soon sprout from Rincon Hill's fertile ground.

Developer Ezra Mersey has submitted plans for a slender 206-unit, 25-story highrise at 1 Hawthorne St., a narrow alley that runs between Howard and Folsom streets in Rincon Hill. The site is home to a single-story parking garage and a vacant four-story office building, both of which would be razed under the proposal.

The $35 million project is slated to go before the San Francisco Planning Commission on March 23, according to city planner Adam Light, and would also require a zoning variance from the Board of Supervisors.

While Mersey has filed two sets of plans -- one for the 206-unit project and one for a 15-story, 135-unit structure -- Light said the city has pushed the developer toward the taller alternative "so that more housing could be created on this site."

The development will aim to provide primary housing for San Franciscans, rather than pieds-à-terre for out-of-towners, Light said. To this end, the development proposes 27 moderately sized studios, 68 one-bedroom apartments, and 62 two-bedroom units, with less than a one-to-one parking to unit ratio. He compared the model to 199 New Montgomery St., a 16-story development, 90 percent of which is being used as a primary residence.

"This is much higher percentage of primary residences than many in the housing community had expected for downtown highrise residential projects," he said. "We believe the same may be true for 1 Hawthorne."

The proposed project would also include 4,500 square feet of retail and a five-level below-ground parking garage, according to plans filed with the city.

Mersey, a former director in San Francisco for Tishman Speyer Properties, declined to comment on the project. He is seeking approval for two other Rincon Hill developments as well: a 400-unit tower at 340-350 Fremont St. and 305 condo skyscraper at 45 Lansing St.

The 1 Hawthorne project joins the growing ranks of ambitious Rincon Hill condo developments, the biggest of which are Tishman Speyer's 1,400-unit towers at 300 Spear St. and 201 Folsom St., as well as Millennium Partners' 700 units at 301 and 333 Mission St.

Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said the more Rincon Hill housing, the better.

"The best thing that we could hope for is that the developers overbuild and add enough supply to start driving down housing costs," said Metcalf. "Is that going to happen? I'll believe it when I see it."

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/02/27/story6.html?t=printable

And here's the latest from the Planning Commission calender of March 23, 2006:

1 HAWTHORNE PLACE (a.k.a. 645 HOWARD STREET) - southeast corner of intersection with Howard Street, Lot 047, in Assessor's Block 3735 - Request for adoption of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings related to the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for a property within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown, Office, Special) Zoning District, and currently within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is to demolish an existing four-story-over-basement office building and construct an approximately 150-foot tall, 15-story building containing approximately 135 dwelling units, approximately 4,078 square feet of ground floor retail space, and an underground garage with 78 stalls that can accommodate up to 135 parking spaces using mechanical stackers and valet service. A variant of the project, which is requested by the project sponsor at the urging of the Planning Department, would be a 250-foot tall, 25-story building containing up to 189 dwelling units, approximately 4,078 square feet of ground floor retail space, and an underground garage with 78 stalls that can accommodate up to 135 parking spaces using mechanical stackers and valet service (the same amount of parking requested in the original 150-foot project proposal.) The Planning Commission will consider both variants described above. The 250-foot project variant would require the requested change from a 150-S Height and Bulk District to a 250-S Height and Bulk District as described above, which would ultimately require the Board of Supervisors’ approval of an amendment to the Downtown Element of the General Plan and an amendment to the existing Height and Bulk District Map, with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of CEQA findings and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

15b. 2004.0852EMZXCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
1 HAWTHORNE PLACE (a.k.a. 645 HOWARD STREET) - southeast corner of intersection with Howard Street, Lot 047, in Assessor's Block 3735 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors a General Plan amendment to amend Map 5 (“Proposed Height and Bulk Districts”) of the Downtown Element of the San Francisco General Plan changing the height limit for the subject property from 150 feet to 250 feet. The subject property lies within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown, Office, Special) Zoning District, and currently within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. See item “a” above for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution

15c. 2004.0852EMZXCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
1 HAWTHORNE PLACE (a.k.a. 645 HOWARD STREET) - southeast corner of intersection with Howard Street, Lot 047, in Assessor's Block 3735 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve a Height and Bulk Zoning Map Amendment of Map 1H to change the subject property from a 150-S Height and Bulk District to a 250-S Height and Bulk District. The subject property lies within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown, Office, Special) Zoning District, and currently within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. See item “a” above for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Resolution

15d. 2004.0852EMZXCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
1 HAWTHORNE PLACE (a.k.a. 645 HOWARD STREET) - southeast corner of intersection with Howard Street, Lot 047, in Assessor's Block 3735 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code with exceptions for separation of towers, rear yard, ground level wind currents, independently-accessible parking, freight and loading, and bulk requirements. The subject property lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown, Office, Special) Zoning District, and currently within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. See item “a” above for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

15e. 2004.0852EMZXCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
1 HAWTHORNE PLACE (a.k.a. 645 HOWARD STREET) - southeast corner of intersection with Howard Street, Lot 047, in Assessor's Block 3735 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to permit non-accessory parking and increased residential density. The project lies within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown, Office, Special) Zoning District, and currently within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. See item “a” above for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

15f. 2004.0852EMZXCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
1 HAWTHORNE PLACE (a.k.a. 645 HOWARD STREET) - southeast corner of intersection with Howard Street, Lot 047, in Assessor's Block 3735 - Request for a Variance for dwelling unit exposure requirements under Section 140 of the Planning Code. The project lies within a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown, Office, Special) Zoning District, and currently within a 150-S Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission at this same hearing. See item “a” above for a project description.

[hi123]

Any updates on arterra?

[BTinSF]

Fantastic article in San Francisco Magazine, brought to our attention by SFView. It's very long, but more exciting and comprehensive than anything I've see elsewhere and I'm pasting it in just in case the link gets broken:

San Francisco 2020

The city’s most staggering physical transformation since 1906 is upon us. In the next decade-plus, plans call for a massive city-within-the-city south of Mission Street, with dozens of high-rise towers, a futuristic transit hub, tens of thousands of new residents, grand boulevards, and its own suburb. Ready or not, here it comes…

By Barbara Tannenbaum

My first inkling that the mental map I carry of San Francisco’s eastern side was sorely outdated came one afternoon when I was driving into the city from a meeting on the Peninsula. I missed the freeway turnoff to Highway 101 and sighed as I headed down the 280 spur that lets out on King Street—the forsaken edge of the city, I thought. Except for AT&T Park, a whole lotta nothing. Maybe I’ll drive up to Mariposa and Third and grab a bite to eat at the Ramp.

When you are expecting to drive past weedy lots and railroad tracks, with all the clamor and activity coming from seagulls flying over mothballed battleships, what appears near the end of 280 today is shocking. Buildings—lots of them!—frame the skyline. Mid-rise condos—lots of them!—line the neighborhood around King Street. Chain stores including Safeway, Starbucks, Quizno’s, and Borders fill the ground-level retail space. There’s a library next door to the Fourth Street Bridge; two more grocery stores on Townsend and Harrison streets; and a few blocks farther south, soon after you cross the Third Street Bridge, a UCSF campus with shuttle buses already dropping students off for class. On King Street, as well as the still-uncompleted Owens Street, a few firms specializing in biotech and scientific research, with impressive names such as the Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (the stem-cell research center), have opened for business.

In fact, stand anywhere south of Mission Street from the Embarcadero all the way to the water’s edge at Mission Bay, and you will hear the high-pitched clang of pile drivers. Look up as you walk the long blocks south of Market, and you’ll see cranes lifting steel I-beams and half-finished high-rises poking through the skyline, especially on Rincon Hill. The noise, the cranes and bulldozers, and the large signs advertising condominiums for sale announce the metamorphosis in progress. Whole new neighborhoods are being created out of a two-mile-long swath of San Francisco that once held rail yards, freeway on-ramps, and port facilities.

This is the biggest physical change San Francisco has seen since the great 1906 earthquake and fire. Moving south from the new high-rise heaven around Rincon Hill, over Highway 101 through South Beach, down to the ballpark and into the enormous, almost-instant community of Mission Bay, this emerging submetropolis near the waterfront will eventually have the density of Manhattan, with 30,000 residents and a workday population of at least 36,000. Think of it as an Upper East Side neighborhood on the West Coast.

In some ways, this new city-within-the-city makes no sense. The redevelopment zones that make it up weren’t planned cohesively; the neighborhoods are disrupted by massive freeways and off-ramps; and the new buildings—glass-encased, devoid of history, mostly tall and slender—won’t feel like the San Francisco the world fawns over. If you think the city is already going to hell in a handbasket because of the outrageous real estate market, the mallification of Market Street, and the loss of middle-class families and jobs, then you will view this as more of the same shiny blight.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the city is part of a churning commercial globe and has to make the best of it, be heartened or at least undespairing. San Francisco is creating out of long-ignored land and with heavy-handed tinkering a new downtown that employs more people, offers more services, provides more housing, and proudly extends the skyline even as it—dare we hope?—maintains its soul.

The neighborhood with the most visionary plans is around the Transbay Terminal at First and Mission. That grimy, seismically unsafe structure, built in 1939 for railroad traffic and then poorly modified to serve bus passengers, is at the heart of a $4 billion, world-class makeover. The centerpiece will be what planners are calling a Grand Central Station of the West—a downtown hub for bus, train, and subway traffic. This month a nine-member group will narrow its choices for an inspired architect and conversation-starting design for the transit center and a landmark tower on what is now the front entrance and bus turnaround.

The area around the transit center will eventually contain up to 10,000 residents in 15 to 20 more high-rises, creating a neighborhood roughly the size of North Beach but twice as dense with people. Since many of the high-rises must be “multi-use,” 190,000 square feet will be set aside for ground-floor retail space. In another city, that would be two Wal-Marts.

Where will the $4 billion come from? Conveniently, Caltrans owns those elevated bus ramps leading onto and off the Bay Bridge. They’re scheduled for demolition, and Caltrans is giving the newly exposed land to the city. The parcels will be available to developers, with more than 80 percent zoned exclusively for residential use. That’s 12 acres of cleared streetscape that will generate the funds for construction.

Why did all this get approved in one of the most growth-averse cities in the world? Let’s start with the obvious: the city’s chronically undersupplied housing market. Just a fraction of the homes for sale in San Francisco are affordable to a family making less than $100,000 a year. Addto that the fact that by 2020 another 1 million people are expected to move to the Bay Area. City planners know these numbers by heart. That’s why they changed the rules governing building heights and zoning laws to encourage developers to build residential towers.

But not just anywhere. Remember Proposition M? Back in 1986, city residents voted to encourage building high-rises south of Market Street, thus avoiding neighborhoods such as North Beach, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, and the Castro. Once former mayor Willie Brown succeeded in pushing the development plans through in 1998, the high-rise terrain included Mission Bay. “Prop. M was a line in the sand,” says Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association, or SPUR. “There was no other place left to build.”

Long the city’s light-industrial district, SoMa has been changing fast for two decades, and the pace is accelerating. Over on Third Street, the Moscone Center, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, SFMOMA, and even the W Hotel and the St. Regis Hotel and Residences—part of a 30-year-long Redevelopment Agency project—became potent examples of the rebirth of city centers as cultural draws, no longer sites of decay but attractive alternatives to the commuter-oriented suburbs. During the dot-com boom, remodeled warehouses, commercial loft spaces, and cafés with free Wi-Fi transformed SoMa beyond the museum zone. Meanwhile, the renewal edged toward the water. In South Beach, a mix of historic rehabilitation, mixed-income housing, and waterfront redevelopment created a neighborhood of 6,400 residents.

Closer to downtown, the focus in the Transbay/Rincon Hill area was initially on office space: office rents were so high, everyone wanted to build and cash in on it. After the dot-com bust and 9/11, the commercial market collapsed and the buildings never went up. But when the housing market took off, developers turned their attention to residential space.

By then, building single-family dwellings farther and farther away from cities was becoming less and less tenable to anyone worried about traffic, pollution, and sprawl. The developers’ dreams coincided with the growing acceptance of “infill,” or the New Urbanism, which advocates developing high- and mid-rise residences in city centers, with good public transportation and all the necessities for living nearby.

So, just as in South Beach, the next generation of city dwellers will live in residential towers. “The fight over high-rise development on San Francisco’s east side is over,” Richard Walker, a professor of geography at UC Berkeley and author of The Country in the City: The Greening of the San Francisco Bay Area, says flatly. “You can’t leave this land empty.”

In the city as a whole, 25,000 to 30,000 condo units are currently planned, proposed, or under way, an astounding number in a city whose population has hardly changed in 50 years. The vast majority will be located south of Market. Rincon Hill/Transbay will have 300 units per acre—twice as many as on Nob or Russian Hill. Such high-density developments are embraced by groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, and SPUR as “smart growth.”

As per the New Urbanism, these new hoods will also be job hubs. Estimates call for 36,000 new jobs, mostly in Mission Bay, in the commercial life-science labs and biotech companies and at UCSF; the office towers and all the new stores and services will need workers, too. San Francisco lost 60,000 jobs in the ’90s when the high cost of living drove corporate headquarters to places like San Ramon. This boom could replace half of them.

The end point, when the new neighborhoods have taken on the shape and texture suggested in the blueprints, is roughly 2020. Until then, there will be much not to like: too much construction and traffic, too few locally owned stores, too few kids, too many sterile, empty streets to trudge down without finding a cab.

But if we nail the epic public-transit aspect of the plan—the linchpin that makes everything else fit into place—if we demand creativity from developers and responsibly spend the multimillion dollar fees they’re paying, if we enable the quirks that make neighborhoods great, who knows? If every condo owner, worker, merchant, and restaurateur claims his or her ground with the passion of a native, the new downtown could become a shining example of 21st-century urban life.


the architecture

It’s a big bet on high-rises—actually, one high-rise.
These transformed, postindustrial neighborhoods will have the power to certify the promise of infill development. Success shouldn’t be measured by how original the buildings are. As Peter Calthorpe of Berkeley’s Cal thorpe Associates, an urban planner and architect and the influential author of The Regional City and The Next American Metropolis, says, “Cities are made out of a fabric of background buildings that are modest and straightforward and do a decent job of maintaining the activity of the street. Only certain structures should be monuments.” As of now, the city has a chance of getting both the fabric and the monument right.

The common outline will be narrow, glass-encased, 30-plus-story buildings with adjoining four-story townhouses. That’s just right, says architect Craig Hartman, a partner in the San Francisco firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill who designed the St. Regis and the innovative, energy-efficient new international terminal at SFO. “A taller, more slender tower can be less harmful than a slightly lower but broader building that casts a broad shadow,” Hartman says.

Adds Peter Cohen, a local community planner, “This new generation of urban designers is being diligent about scale, protecting views, and reducing shadows and wind tunnels so that we won’t end up with a big, clumsy city in 10 or 15 years.”

Similarly, the decisions to put high-rises on Rincon Hill and mid-rises in Mission Bay make design sense because Rincon Hill (unlike many parts of the city) is on bedrock and Mission Bay is on landfill. Mission Bay’s parking garages—which fail the New Urbanist paradigm by being aboveground—are defensible, too, because the high water table left planners no choice, and the architects have mostly done a good job of hiding them.

As for a monument, the designated showstopper is the Transbay Transit Center and adjoining tower. Already approved to be 550 feet high, the tower could rise to more than 1,000 feet, making it the tallest building on the West Coast (unless Renzo Piano’s five controversial “bamboo shoot” towers for the corner of First and Mission, two of them even taller and thinner than anything envisioned yet, are approved). In the group selecting the architect, no adventuresome names jump out—a sustainable-space expert? An architecture critic from the Boston Globe?—which makes me wonder if they’ve been chosen for their caution. I hope not. To announce that this new downtown is worth caring about, the megabuilding must be special. Everyone recognizes that the transportation paradigm needs a dramatic shift; this one building could inspire boldness and sorely needed optimism.

No matter which award-laden architect wins the Transbay Transit Center commission, we are going to see two kinds of high-rises march toward each other and stand shoulder to shoulder at Mission Street. The elegant, slender residential towers will rise high above last century’s bulkier skyscrapers.

The new hoods won’t look like the rest of the city. But homes in the Richmond look different from those in Noe Valley, which aren’t like those in the Mission or the Presidio. Great cities have a character and purpose that arise from different eras. These are the first neighborhoods of the smart-growth 21st century.


getting around

Wouldn’t a “transit-first” policy have put the transit first?
Environmental groups see green in high-density urban living because the more people in a city center, the less traffic and global-warming-causing exhaust in the region as a whole. Hence, the plan for a three-part, multibillion dollar public transportation program that would turn this part of the city into a car-free paradise.

Here is what’s supposed to happen: Commuters to Silicon Valley will sell their cars once Caltrans extends the South Bay–San Francisco rail line from Fourth and King into the new transit center. Mission Bay residents will use the light rail running along Third Street between the financial district and Bayview–Hunters Point or the subway linking Mission Bay, SoMa, the financial district, and Chinatown. The high-speed train connecting the city to Los Angeles and Sacramento will allow those who fled to the Central Valley or beyond San Jose to come back to work or shop and leave their cars at home.

It’s a remarkable plan, but it’s also as futuristic as it sounds. The Third Street light rail is here now, with full weekday service due to start in April. But Caltrans won’t bring passengers into the new downtown for almost a decade, since it won’t even break ground until 2012. If voters approve a new bond measure in two years, construction of the bullet train could begin in 2010. The Municipal Transit Agency, which runs Muni, predicts that the central subway will be complete by 2016, but I wouldn’t take any bets on that.

Meanwhile, the city and the high-rise developers aren’t about to let people spend $2 million for a luxury condo without a parking space. While city regulations decree that the towers get only one space for every two dwellings, the city is granting exceptions provided the developer separates the sale of the condo and the parking space. Most buyers are accepting the additional fee ($75,000 at the Infinity).

Still, the parking must be “non-independently acces sible.” That means you cannot jump in your car when the whim strikes. You will call a valet who will retrieve it from a space-saving mechanical stacking device. The theory is that this will prove so onerous, you’ll say, Forget it; I’ll take the bus (or walk, or take a cab). But for the first 10,000 or 20,000 new residents, the morning gridlock will start on the telephone to the garage attendant and continue out to the street.

Once there, where will anyone park? SoMa’s once-plentiful lots are disappearing under the new towers. Peter Calthorpe says, “There should be no such thing as surface parking lots in San Francisco. There are very few absolutes in the world, and that’s one of them. You don’t give up rare and valuable urban space to cars.” Nice point, unless you have to live in the gap between theory and reality.

“This is not Manhattan,” says Ellen Ullman, computer programmer turned author (Close to the Machine, The Bug), who lives in South Beach’s Clocktower. “I know. I broke my foot recently and had to hobble around on crutches. There were hardly any cabs, and those that came took forever. And if I have to go out at night, I don’t want to walk to Market Street and get a streetcar. Women at night might need a car.” So might seniors and the disabled, and all of us on a windy, rainy night.

It’s great that San Francisco has a “transit-first” policy. Let’s hope the city has the cash when it comes time to expand the system. In the meantime, city hall should direct the San Francisco Taxicab Commission to issue more medallions, thus putting more taxis on the street.


diversity

Middle class squeezed again.

With costs ranging from $450,000 for a studio to $2 million for a four-bedroom condo with luxe amenities, the new neighborhoods will largely be home to people of means: wealthy out-of-towners in a second home, young couples and singles with high-paying jobs, fly-by executives. Most people will be moving in from out of town, not traveling up from another neighborhood.

Rincon/Transbay in particular could be a neighborhood for jet-setters. Young urban professionals are buying some of the studios and one-bedroom units; after all, the price is the same as a house in Antioch, and there’s no commute. But in a city where 65 percent of the residents rent their flats or apartments, and the median household income is $57,500, how many families can or want to buy a two-bedroom condo in a district lacking schools and green space? Already, according to Foresight Analytics, an Oakland-based consulting firm, more than half of the current luxury-condo buyers in the city are empty nesters over 50, and most of the rest are investing in their second (or third) home. No surprise here. Across the country, the rich are coming back to live in city condos, middle-class families are leaving, and the poor are struggling where they stand. Demand is driven more by the strength of international stock markets than by local headlines about the need for affordable housing.

Still, the city and various agencies are demanding that affordable housing be built. Because the land will come from state-owned Caltrans parcels, Transbay’s high-rises will offer “below market” rates on at least 35 percent of the new housing, though we’ll see what that really means. (For more on the ins and outs of affordable housing, see our website, www.sanfranmag.com.) Mission Bay will have students, designated affordable units, a children’s playground, a children’s hospital, middle and elementary schools, and a library—the new downtown’s only schools and library. From that, we can deduce a pretty diverse group of people will live in its mid-rise condos. But on Rincon Hill, all the developers so far have opted to pay big bucks—or “in lieu” fees—to the mayor’s office of housing instead of building affordable housing on-site. That’s why Calvin Welch, an activist with San Francisco’s Council of Community Housing Organizations, calls the towers here “vertical gated communities.”

The condos will appeal to superrich part-time residents who drop in from Hong Kong or the East Coast: studies show that San Francisco’s newest real estate is a global bargain at $1,000 to $1,500 per square foot compared to $2,000 in New York, $2,300 in London, and $2,500 in Hong Kong. And it’s fair to worry that the luxury condo dwellers, with their pools, gyms, and concierges, will have every excuse to stay above city life. But as long as SFMOMA and other museums are a few blocks away and scores of fine restaurants eventually open nearby, the city streets below should just as easily become a magnet.


street life

Don’t expect Paris, but take a walk anyway.

The great cities of the world have an electricity. You don’t have to travel to London, Paris, or Tokyo in your mind’s eye to recognize that truth; think of your favorite parts of San Francisco. We don’t love North Beach for the food and coffee, Castro Street for the bars and movies, Clement Street or Stockton for the fresh-vegetable stands. It’s the whole mix they present: the myriad shops, pocket parks, surprising views, eye-catching signs, strollable streets, and people of different classes, cultures, interests, and ages. “One way to evaluate a city,” Peter Cohen says, “is as a social place, a place where people’s attachment to it gives it that buzz.”

Of course, it takes years for a Caffe Trieste or Castro Theatre, much less an entire neighborhood, to develop that draw. “It’s hard to make something out of nothing,” says David Baker of San Francisco’s David Baker + Partners Architects, who designed several of the buildings with affordable housing units in Mission Bay. “It will take years before Mission Bay, Rincon, and Transbay become real places. Character takes time.”

We can assume the new hoods won’t have the range of ages and classes you see in the rest of the city. Nor will they be as walker-friendly as a great neighborhood should be. Who can enjoy an evening stroll when traffic clogs the streets, commuters lean on their horns, and car exhaust perfumes the air? Take Mission Bay: King Street, which serves as both boundary and entrance, has six lanes of traffic, the 280 on-ramp, and the new light-rail Muni line running down the center. Then there’s SoMa’s daunting street grid, a legacy of its industrial past as a rail yard. Each block, at 550 feet, is longer than any other in the city. And everyone knows big residential towers can easily crowd and shadow sidewalk strollers. For instance, some of the towers that were approved before the latest guidelines went into effect don’t meet the sidewalk in an inviting way.

Even so, I’m cautiously optimistic. The brick warehouses and metalwork factories given landmark status and rehabilitated for use by restaurants, galleries, and offices should draw the dense population onto the streets here. Already it’s lovely to walk around First and Second streets and see a mixture of building ages, styles, and construction materials.

People will get out of their cars if they have someplace to go on foot. “Even public transit should be understood as a way to extend the pedestrian’s world rather than as an end in itself,” says Peter Calthorpe. “You don’t use public transit unless you can walk at the beginning of the trip and walk again at the end.” And that will be possible, unless the city fails to pressure developers or find the funds to make every possible improvement to the new downtown, from getting the transit built to putting up public art.

City planners and high-rise architects know these New Urbanist mantras. To increase neighborhood intimacy, the latest regulations require high-rises to have multiple entrances and old-fashioned stoops. The city will take away a lane of traffic on strategic streets such as Beale and Main and widen the sidewalks to make leafy, green linear parks. In the old industrial SoMa, short alleyways were punched out because it took too long for delivery trucks to drive around the block, and architects have recognized the design potential of these shortcuts, incorporating them as grassy pedestrian mews through the block-long high- and mid-rise developments adjoining Townsend and Brannan streets.

Already, alleyways such as Stillman Street and Guy Place in Rincon Hill feature beautiful touches such as wrought-iron balcony railings, artful metal sculpture, sundecks, and potted plants. These details soften a city’s edge. They are invisible to drivers but add to a walker’s sense of discovery. And they do arrive with time.


stores & retail

Give it up for your mom and pop.

People need small but essential services: hair salons and barbers, dry cleaners, florists, delis, shipping and copy shops. And in this city of immigrants and new arrivals, another set of people need small, affordable commercial spaces they can rent or lease to gain an economic toehold in the city. To create the diverse, lively neighborhoods everyone wants, the city should find ways to encourage affordable retail just as vigorously as it pursues affordable housing.

New stores and places to eat have opened in Mission Bay along Berry, King, and Townsend streets, and with the single exception of Philz Coffee, around the corner from the Mission Bay branch library, each is a chain. Safeway, Borders, Amici’s pizza, Quizno’s—not exactly the cosmopolitan finds you’ll walk out of your way for.

“It’s a chicken-and-egg sort of thing,” says David Baker. “A developer creating a new neighborhood can go to the bank with a signed lease from Borders or Starbucks; the finance people call that a ‘bankable lease.’ A local firm needs to wait until the market arrives. I predict that once the new condo owners move in, they’ll start demanding things to make their neighborhood more amenable.”

But the city needs to weigh in, too. “Look at San Francisco airport,” says Baker. “I don’t know who, but someone made certain that a large number of locally owned restaurants (Ebisu, Deli Up, Yankee Pier, Emporio Rulli) were given space in the refurbished SFO.”

Yes, the airport is publicly owned, not a private development, and yet this policy has made it one of the most inviting places to wait for a plane in the country. The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, which oversaw the changes at SFO and now oversees Mission Bay, should find a way to make this happen in the new downtown, even though its mandate is to build infrastructure, not to prod small retailers. Amy Neches, the agency’s project manager for Mission Bay, is so happy to see Philz Coffee there—“it is putting us on the map”—that I suspect she’d like to encourage more local business to move into the new hoods.


open space

Let the pocket parks flourish, because we’ll need them.

With new parks from the channel to the waterfront, Mission Bay could conceivably become a Crissy Field for the SoMa set; that’s how ambitious the plans are. Blueprints call for 49 acres for tennis, basketball, volleyball, dog runs, playgrounds, and even a kayak launch at the bay’s edge. Already near Mission Creek there’s an undulating gravel path, ornamental pear trees, and expanses of lawn on two parks with views of Twin Peaks and the East Bay hills. UCSF plans at least eight acres of landscaped public space and has unveiled the rolling oval common area behind the Ricardo Legorreta–designed community center. There are already plenty of nooks and crannies to explore. If the city can pull off the proposed 13-mile Blue Greenway from the ballpark to Candlestick Point, that will be the feather in its cap.

Unfortunately, Transbay/Rincon Hill severely lacks green space and will require serious attention. Aside from block-long South Park, a remnant of pre-1906 Rincon Hill’s mansions and wealthy residents, every inch is crammed with buildings and warehouses. The antidote cooked up by planners is the transformation (starting in 2009) of Folsom Street between the Embarcadero and Second Street into a grand boulevard. It’s hard to imagine this forlorn speedway with one of its lanes turned into a 30-foot-wide linear park, hundreds of newly planted trees, and elegant shops, restaurants, and outdoor cafés. Whether that fantasy comes true, everyone—developers, residents, and agencies—must hunt for additional ways to create open space. Expect to see the tiny parking lot on Guy Place, tucked behind First Street between Folsom and Harrison, become the neighborhood’s first pocket park. And keep your fingers crossed that Caltrans turns its staging area next door to One Rincon Hill into a pocket park as well. As anyone who’s caught a quick lunch in the Tom Galli–designed Redwood Grove Park at the base of the Transamerica Pyramid can tell you, such a small achievement reaps skyscraper-size rewards.


the spillover effect

SoMa and the Bayview will never be the same.

Every one of SoMa’s 2,333 acres will be affected by the changes taking place between Mission Street and Mission Bay. Many building owners are getting unsolicited offers to buy their property, and you can assume that wherever you see a parking lot or two-story building, there could well be a high- or mid-rise tower in the next several years. There are people working on plans to upgrade a neighborhood they call SoMa East (the area between Fifth and Seventh streets, currently skid row). There are plans under review for SoMa West (that is, west of Yerba Buena Center for the Arts) and for the area around Showplace Square, below Division Street.

A critical issue over the short term is the status of the city’s many business services. Planners call it PDR: production, distribution, and repair. Today the long blocks of SoMa are filled with big asphalt lots housing Muni buses, Sunset Scavenger trucks, and fleets of taxis. Here you’ll find the heating and electrical and ventilation services, the elevator supply and repair shops. It’s where UPS and FedEx bring their packages from the airport and move them into delivery trucks. This is where the companies that service our thriving tourist economy operate, and it’s getting increasingly hard for them to find the space they need.

“These people can’t compete with the suede shoes who can sink $200 million into a high-rise,” says Calvin Welch. “If developers move in and buy up every low-rise garage, parking lot, and factory south of Market, there are going to be serious economic consequences.” Many of the people I talked to, including Peter Cohen and Ellen Ullman, consider this the next big problem. Once the parking lots disappear, will the blue-collar companies in low-slung buildings be next?

The city realized it couldn’t afford to lose a world-renowned teaching hospital like UCSF or fumble the plans for a new ballpark for the Giants. The PDR companies do not have as high a profile. But they need a protector. If we want them to stay—and we do—city officials are going to have to make their needs a priority, too. In its South Bayshore Survey Area, which encompasses Bayview–Hunters Point, the Redevelopment Agency promotes “new commercial/light industrial enterprises,” adding to what’s there, not getting rid of it.

Gentrification of the central waterfront just beyond Mission Bay—India Basin, Bayview, and Hunters Point—seems as certain as Britney Spears in the headlines. Starting around Mariposa and 16th streets, there are still acres of working ports, trucking centers, warehouses, and, in Hunters Point, inexpensive homes and buildings. As I drove these streets, stopping to explore Islais Creek and the tidy if somewhat frayed bars and homes of Dogpatch and Butchertown, I could imagine the developers eyeing them for future projects just as soon as Mission Bay gets built out. More business will be competing for less and less affordable real estate. This will be the next chapter in San Francisco’s transformation. Stay tuned.

[CardinalStudent]

Taken on Friday, April 6th

Arterra

http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/12678/2005458976446675769_rs.jpg

One Rincon Hill

http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/13945/2005419898018276135_rs.jpg

http://aycu31.webshots.com/image/15190/2005443237420582300_rs.jpg

The Infinity

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/13609/2005416576046586923_rs.jpg

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/13165/2005494291459865680_rs.jpg

Millennium Tower

http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/14074/2005499807093194430_rs.jpg

http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/11998/2005469303233740736_rs.jpg

Foundry Square I

http://aycu11.webshots.com/image/12210/2005447879088483539_rs.jpg

http://aycu20.webshots.com/image/11819/2005491356448876463_rs.jpg

555 Mission

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/12089/2005496408562006334_rs.jpg

Ritz-Carlton Residences

http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/12135/2002158171133233862_rs.jpg

631 Folsom

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/13312/2002197191443065055_rs.jpg

InterContinental Hotel

http://aycu05.webshots.com/image/12404/2002125188323062535_rs.jpg

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/11988/2002145729335516082_rs.jpg

SF Federal Building

http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/15318/2002142183462069465_rs.jpg

SoMa Grand

http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/13615/2002131784415457783_rs.jpg

Argenta

http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/11856/2002134100462208735_rs.jpg

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/15021/2002154273988316494_rs.jpg

Symphony Towers

http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/13177/2002176729878376572_rs.jpg

800 Block of Van Ness

http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/14697/2002173516035297258_rs.jpg

Polk & Geary

http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/12215/2004062467801106290_rs.jpg

The Hayes SF

http://aycu09.webshots.com/image/13008/2004042433613059998_rs.jpg

http://aycu21.webshots.com/image/12140/2004013652908661218_rs.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Superb pictures as always, thanks for the updates. Millenium is looking greater everyday, I love it. Intercontinental doesnt look so bad, in my opinion. Sure, its wasent what we hoped for, but this is good enough for me. :)

[PBuchman]

The Millennium tower is turing out to be absolutely stunning!

[BTinSF]

^^^Once again, thanks. In spite of the "fins", I think the Millenium Tower is turning out way better than my expectations. And that old facade on the Ritz Carlton is glorious--I just wish the new bit above it was worthy of it (but I suspect they kept that as plain as possible so as to highlight the old).

Re One Rincon Hill: I count 39 floors which means 16 to go plus the water tank. That sucker is going to look TALL. Just awesome!

[Reminiscence]

In general all the projects look like they're making great progress. I actualy didnt get a chance to go downtown and snap some pictures, some stuff came up at the last minute :rant:

For those of us who dont take a liking to fins, at least Millenium wont have its fins as prominent as Intercontinental's.

[rocketman_95046]

http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/14074/2005499807093194430_rs.jpg
http://aycu39.webshots.com/image/11998/2005469303233740736_rs.jpg

^I just love how Millenium changes with different angles. the fins stand out when looking at an angle and nearly dissapear when looking strait on. and the reflective glass brings it all together perfectly. IMO

If the crown works out, this just may be SF's best new building.

[botoxic]

Here are some cool images found on flickr:

Taken March 31st:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/442971376_e8cf99b537_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/442971376_e8cf99b537_o.jpg

Taken April 9th:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/454140787_59011d069f_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/454140787_59011d069f_b.jpg

Jewish Museum
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/421560316_09b64b2fa8_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/421560316_09b64b2fa8_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/246/447142288_5d7ac1f74d_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/246/447142288_5d7ac1f74d_b.jpg

[BTinSF]

Nice to see the Jewish Museum--don't see much of it since it's not "tall".

But this is the first full skyline view I've seen with One Rincon Hill and The Infinity near their present heights and it makes clear how much they and the other towers slated for Rincon Hill are going to do for the skyline: a transformation. And then there's the Transbay towers to give it focus. Wow!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/454140787_59011d069f_b.jpg

[tyler82]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/246/447142288_5d7ac1f74d_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/246/447142288_5d7ac1f74d_b.jpg

How far does the museum have before completion? This pic of it makes it look very rough around hte edges... hopefully there is a lot more refinement to do on this until it is completely unveiled

[Manarii]

oh wow. Thank you sooo much for the Ritz Carlton Residences update. That old facade is incredible. Imagine all that behind that horrid exterior put over it during the 60s. Has the large bottom arched doorway been uncovered yet?

thanks so much again. Can't wait for more pics.

[munkyman]

I like the Symphony Towers - a nice, simply 8-9 story building of modest height. Imagine a San Francisco with modest buildings like that lining the streets. (I'm talking about hte height, not the design). Wouldn't piss off NIMBY's (although they tend to block everything, not just tall buildings), and would be a great way to put a dent in the housing shortage.

[BTinSF]

^^^Actually, Symphony Towers has two almost separate (but tied together) buildings and only the shorter one--on the side street (Turk)--is shown. The taller, directly on Van Ness, is 13 stories which is also the height of the Opera Plaza towers across the street. Most new buildings along Van Ness do seem to be coming in at 8 or 9 stories though. The building going up in the 800 block will be that, I believe, as will the one next to 25 Van Ness (the old Masonic Hall). The Van Ness Plan calls for a 40 ft. street wall and 120 ft height limits over all along much of the street (the far northern end is lower)--Symphony Towers pretty much honors that with a set-back above the fourth floor along Van Ness.

[BTinSF]

How far does the museum have before completion? This pic of it makes it look very rough around hte edges... hopefully there is a lot more refinement to do on this until it is completely unveiled

I would sure expect so. Here's the rendering:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/02/02/ba_museum.jpg

I'm left guessing what the finish will be on the tilted cube bit at the front--something's gotta make it BLUE.

But this is Daniel Libeskind--I'm not really sure what to expect.

[sfgiants]

Pic's from Ritz-Carlton Residences from last year
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/DSCN2340.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/100_3051.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/100_3047.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/P1010025.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/16thstorylookingdown.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/guysworkinon15floor.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/markandmikeyontruck.jpg

[BTinSF]

45 Lansing Street

function: residential
height: 450'
floors: 45
architect: EHDD Architecture
completion: 2009

Renderings:

http://www.reubenlaw.com/art/pj_45lansing.jpg

* Approved by the San Francisco Planning Commission on March 2, 2006. New owner, Turnberry Ltd., hopes to develop San Francisco's first ulta-luxury condo development.



BizTimes reporting today that Turnberry's architect, Swedloe & Assoc., has completed its revision of the plans which were approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2007 and Turnberry is gearing up for construction.

No new rendering yet available but the design has been "tweaked" to offer "better views of the hills and Mission Corridor" and "a smooth, seamless prism of glass on the northeast coner that extends from the base to the top of the tower".

[rocketman_95046]

BizTimes reporting today that Turnberry's architect, Swedloe & Assoc., has completed its revision of the plans which were approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2007 and Turnberry is gearing up for construction.

No new rendering yet available but the design has been "tweaked" to offer "better views of the hills and Mission Corridor" and "a smooth, seamless prism of glass on the northeast coner that extends from the base to the top of the tower".


This is good news. This building will help One Rincon Hill by keeping it from "standing out" so much.

Right now One Rincon is lightning rod because it sticks out so much.

[BTinSF]

Like many Chronicle readers, I saw this picture last year:

http://www.sfgate.com/g/pictures/2006/04/18/mn_quake_rebuild11.jpg

but I didn't realize what I was looking at until I saw this picture from CardinalStudent:

http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/12135/2002158171133233862_rs.jpg

Very few of us have ever seen that fascade before.

[Reminiscence]

Wow, that building is like a time capsule. When was that picture dated?

[BTinSF]

Wow, that building is like a time capsule. When was that picture dated?

1907

[sfgiants]

my dad was the rebar foreman of the retro fit on 690 market st

[BTinSF]

^^^"Was?"

[Manarii]

the building is almost 20 years older than when the pic was taken.

I'm curious if the average San Franciscan knows what has been uncovered in the restoration and taking off of that 60's exterior of that building. It is such a prominent location at Market/Kearny and what, Geary? I love how now with the fountain in front that has been there since the late 1800s and this building restored, it could almost be the late 1800s again (minus the cars and muni busses)

http://americahurrah.com/images/LottaFountain3.jpg

pic not showing up.. hmmm
http://americahurrah.com/SanFrancisco/1905/1905-3Lotta.html

[pseudolus]

http://americahurrah.com/images/LottaFountain3.jpg

Is that the original Palace Hotel to the right?

[BTinSF]

I love how now with the fountain in front that has been there since the late 1800s and this building restored, it could almost be the late 1800s again (minus the cars and muni busses)



Yeah, but back then your horse could probably drink out of the fountain and the intersection was a whole lot easier to cross. ;)

[SFView]

I'd still be watching where I step though - all those horses...

[sfgiants]

^^^"Was?"

ya he was the foreman but all the rebar is put in now so the ironworkers are done with that job.

[botoxic]

829 Folsom
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2004-15/IMG_0721.jpg

Foundry Square
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2004-15/IMG_0743.jpg

Ritz-Carlton Residences
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2004-15/IMG_0747.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2004-15/IMG_0748.jpg

sfgiants, your "insider" (literally) photos of the RCR were cool - thanks for posting.

[sfgiants]

i got more pics of Ritz-Carlton Residences. do u want me to post them?

[viewguysf]

i got more pics of Ritz-Carlton Residences. do u want me to post them?

Sure! Show the north side of the building which makes the western facade look like more that just a postage stamp.

[Manarii]

yes, please. i'd love to see more.

BTW, has the lower part of the building been uncovered yet? the large arched doorway..

What I'm noticing from these pics is that the upper new half looks offset from the older original building giving it an impression of being two buildings.

[sfgiants]

this is how they got rebar in the basement.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/hoistingintobasement2.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/P1010027.jpg

this guy is a ironworker he is workin in the mate of rebar. this is in the basement
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/workinginmate.jpg

this is when when the were working (6/10's) whitch means they were working 6 days a week and 10 hour days.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/iron.jpg

i dont really got any pics of when they were doing the 20th floor and up. i got to go to work with him on saturday a while back when they were working on the roof. its was really kool

I got some more pics on my computer but they were taken at 3am and i got some pics of the day they worked a 16 hour day if u guys want to see them?

[Reminiscence]

Please do, by all means. Those pictures are incredible, almost like a behind the scenes tour. :)

[kenratboy]

Asking us if we want to see more pics is like asking if we want free money!

[sfgiants]

ironworker on the truck helping unloading a truck at 3am in the morning

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/ramonontruck.jpg

their un-hooking the iron and about to rool the rebar in the ground floor
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/Jimyandmickyun-huckingiron.jpg

ironworker on truck at 3am
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/ramonontruckat3am.jpg

some ironworkers standing around at break on the 23 floor.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/slabproblem5.jpg

ironworkers stockin the ground floor with the rebar at 3am
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/jimyandmickylandingironongroundfloo.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Wow, ironworkers working at 3 am, now those guys are hard workers. I myself cannot imagine how hard that must be, but that makes me appreciate them even more. :worship:

Thanks for sharing those shots! :)

[sfgiants]

most of the time they only work from 6:00am to 2:30pm but sence you know how their is alot of traffic on market st they wouldnt be able to unload the trucks cause they would have to block the street off. because last year in may i was at work with my dad and they were using the tower crane to pick up a dumpster off the street and the got it like 2 feet of the ground and a muni bus came by and hit the dumpster so most of the iron would come early in the morning or late at night. i remember my dad worked a 16 hour day their from (6am to 10pm) and had to go to work the next day at 6 am.

[Flea]

I live in SF since 90 after leaving NYC.I love the growth and watching all the towers going up is cool since I work downtown on market street I been taking pics of them going up.

[botoxic]

I posted this picture in the Millennium thread earlier in the week, but I also thought it belonged here, because it emphasizes how several projects will help solidify Mission Street as one of the premiere streets for skyscraper viewing in SF:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/470966747_72b9502722_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/470966747_72b9502722_b.jpg

Besides those buildings under construction (Millennium above ground, 555's hole in the ground), we may see developments on 535 (current parking lot) and 350 (shorty across from Millennium) by next year. Then, of course, TransBay and Piano would be the major players. This photo also shows just how small the footprints of Piano's buildings would need to be in order to fit five around the white building that would remain on the lot...

What is the story with the shorty just to the left of 50 Fremont (the last holdout at the corner of 1st and Mission) - could we see possibly see new development here sometime soon?

[tyler82]

I forgot the name of this one on Polk/ Market but I snapped this while driving by:

http://homepage.mac.com/tyler82/polkmarket.jpg

[colemonkee]

I spent the majority of this work week in your fair city and was impressed by the amount of construction activity. My hotel room had a great view of the Residences at the Ritz construction (alas! I forgot my camera so no pics). I must say, it looks a lot better in person than in pictures. The addition at the top is a bit bland, but the colors go very well together.

And Millenium Tower and One Rincon should be quite impressive when they're done.

[CardinalStudent]

Taken Thursday 4/26

766 Harrison

So I've noticed this one for a while but I assumed it would be 2 to 3 stories tall like its surroundings... Now there's a crane on the site. Anyone know the minimum height of a building this size that would require a crane?

http://aycu29.webshots.com/image/14388/2003205604254606687_rs.jpg

829 Folsom

http://aycu28.webshots.com/image/16107/2003209532593481412_rs.jpg

Arterra

http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/14663/2003272512483418471_rs.jpg

One Rincon Hill

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/13866/2003271299116240759_rs.jpg

http://aycu06.webshots.com/image/15285/2003224469917395555_rs.jpg

http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/13422/2003217321468826755_rs.jpg

The Infinity

http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/13749/2003234042338889080_rs.jpg

http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/13375/2003205389452422302_rs.jpg

Millennium Tower

http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/13320/2003298101570914857_rs.jpg

http://aycu15.webshots.com/image/15734/2003215860947451246_rs.jpg

Foundry Square I

http://aycu13.webshots.com/image/14932/2005356437341752180_rs.jpg

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/13026/2005347494978686118_rs.jpg

555 Mission

http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/16169/2005367505959871619_rs.jpg

Ritz-Carlton Residence

http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/14086/2005318278941823378_rs.jpg

631 Folsom

http://aycu14.webshots.com/image/13293/2005361515960541718_rs.jpg

InterContinental Hotel

http://aycu13.webshots.com/image/16212/2005364239193548349_rs.jpg

http://aycu37.webshots.com/image/13796/2005314236427066511_rs.jpg

10th & Market

http://aycu08.webshots.com/image/15327/2005311113149314307_rs.jpg

http://aycu13.webshots.com/image/13292/2005349413203870132_rs.jpg

Argenta

http://aycu18.webshots.com/image/14697/2005380706380541595_rs.jpg

Symphony Towers

http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/16502/2005744859718279184_rs.jpg

800 Block Van Ness

http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/13946/2005735153048357421_rs.jpg

Polk & Geary

http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/14382/2005770331184040049_rs.jpg

77 Van Ness

http://aycu12.webshots.com/image/16091/2005727301815040923_rs.jpg

Turk & Gough

http://aycu32.webshots.com/image/13791/2005751260919830599_rs.jpg

The Hayes SF

http://aycu35.webshots.com/image/13874/2005798676923798807_rs.jpg

[fflint]

Excellent job, Cardinal Student!

[CardinalStudent]

I found info on 766 Harrison at http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/sfra_page.asp?id=36522

"The Owner is seeking approval of a proposed Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") to develop a new eight-story, 98-unit, single-room-occupancy ("SRO") residential project, along with 4,500 square feet of retail uses, five parking spaces for the residential units, a 581-square-foot side yard, and 4,370 square feet of common resident open space on a roof deck (collectively, the “Development”)."

[mthd]

this proposal got some ink in the 'new fillmore,' a neighborhood paper. it's mentinoed at the beginning of this thead as 1333 gough street.


38-Story Oval Condo Tower Unveiled
Skidmore design would add 300 units facing St. Mary’s on Cathedral Hill
A 38-STORY oval-shaped tower with 300 market rate condominiums is being planned on Geary Boulevard across from St. Mary’s Cathedral. The proposed tower is a glass-walled, slender oval, angled so that its axis points toward the front doors of the cathedral. It would sit between the Cathedral Hill Plaza apartments and the Sequoias, where the Cathedral Hill Plaza Athletic Club swimming pool and tennis courts are now located. The tower was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, the global architectural firm that designed the international terminal at the San Francisco airport and many high-rise office buildings here and around the world. The ADCO Group already owns the Cathedral Hill Plaza apartments at 1333 Gough Street, on the block bounded by Post, Gough, Geary and what used to be Octavia Street. ADCO also owns the 1200 Gough Street tower, Normandy Apartments at 1155 Ellis and other residential and commercial buildings in the city. Architect Craig Hartman said at last month’s meeting of the Cathedral Hill Neighbors Association that the goal was an elegant building that would honor the cathedral. He said it is important the building be striking because it will be visible from all over the city. The slender oval would not be a visual barrier, he said, and would not exacerbate wind problems, as a rectangular building could. The tower will be set back about 75 feet from the Sequoias. Residents of surrounding buildings pro tested the tower could ruin views for which they had paid dearly. But the sponsors noted that there are limited sites for infill projects in an urban setting, and city policy permits putting a tall building on a hill. As presented, the tower would soar over 400 feet, about 170 feet above current height limits for the site. In the new plan, the lobby of the existing apartment building would be reoriented to face Post Street, rather than Gough, as would the lobby of the new tower. Driveways to the buildings would also be from Post; the service entrance would be on Geary, with an exit on Post. The developer plans five floors of underground parking, with one space for each residential unit and 90 spaces for guests and the small commercial businesses to be included on the Geary side. That would eliminate the surface level parking structure that encircles the existing building. With parking underground, a Japanese garden would be added on Post Street between the driveways. An education center available for community use would be erected at the corner of Gough and Geary, and the owners will seek a nonprofit group to operate it. Next to the education center, facing the cathedral, would be spaces for small neighborhood businesses such as a coffee shop or dry cleaner, designed to serve the residents and bring pedestrian life to the street. One neighbor applauded the addition of businesses that would make Geary friendlier to pedestrians. The low buildings along Geary would be topped with a landscaped green roof garden accessible to those on the garden level and visible to the residences above. The existing 60-foot swimming pool now on the site would be replaced by a 75- foot underground pool and fitness facility. Membership will be limited, but there will be a spa open to the public. Th e tennis courts will not be replaced. About half of the 300 condominiums will be studios or have one bedroom. The other half will have two or more bedrooms. All will be sold at market rates, but the company is working to find a site within one mile to build 60 moderately priced units, as required by the city. The planning and permitting process is expected to take a year. Construction will take 24 months. A contractor has not been selected. In addition to questions about the height and the blockage of views, neighbors expressed concern about wind and shadows. Others raised questions about the additional traffic likely to result from 300 new units. Linda Corso, general manager of Cathedral Hill Plaza apartments and project manager for the site, said all these issues and ways to mitigate potential problems would be addressed by the environmental impact report the developer must prepare as the first step of the permitting process. One resident said the building would set a bad precedent for Japantown, a couple of blocks away. Corso said a presentation is scheduled for the May meeting of the Japantown Task Force.

[SFView]

So let's see... That site is zoned for 240 feet height. If we add "about 170 feet," we get about 410 feet for the height of this proposed 38 story tower at 1333 Gough St. This could be the time to update the various listings for this building.

[mthd]

So let's see... That site is zoned for 240 feet height. If we add "about 170 feet," we get about 410 feet for the height of this proposed 38 story tower at 1333 Gough St. This could be the time to update the various listings for this building.

if it survives the approvals process, the location of this tower on a hill would make it's top elevation the 6th highest in the city....

[Reminiscence]

Thats a nice description of the project, and although I have an image in my head, It would be nice to see official renderings as well when they become available. Overall, it sounds good. :)

[MarkSFCA]

I live in the area and have no problem with a new high-rise on this site as long as its asthetically pleasing. I also would love small retail on the ground floor facing Geary. This block of Geary is very sterile and a "corner-mom-and-pop-store" would be perfect to bring life to that block.

[mthd]

while we're in here, does anyone have info on tishman speyer's other office project at 222 2nd street, other than what was in the chronicle (32 stories, 436 feet) and on the sfgov site (that it has been submitted as leed gold to take advantage of the expediting permitting?)

[FourOneFive]

There was an image of the proposed Cathedral Hill tower in the Fillmore newspaper (too bad its in black/white). I copied the image, and uploaded it. Personally, I'm excited by the design. I think it will tie all the buildings in the area together, and serve as a new monument for the hill.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/173/481491298_2ca7e5a718_o.jpg

[mthd]

There was an image of the proposed Cathedral Hill tower in the Fillmore newspaper (too bad its in black/white). I copied the image, and uploaded it. Personally, I'm excited by the design. I think it will tie all the buildings in the area together, and serve as a new monument for the hill.

it is an exciting design - i've been at some of the community and neighbors meetings they've held and that image doesn't so it justice. it's very sleek, and very simple.

[SFView]

I agree. The design is tasteful, clean, simple and modern. It will redefine Cathedral Hill as a new focus. I like it very much!

it is an exciting design - i've been at some of the community and neighbors meetings they've held and that image doesn't so it justice. it's very sleek, and very simple.

What is the approximate color?

if it survives the approvals process, the location of this tower on a hill would make it's top elevation the 6th highest in the city....

Is there a list available based on this criteria?

[mthd]

What is the approximate color?

Is there a list available based on this criteria?

they've shown it as very (probably a little optimistically) clear glass, with continuous vertical clear or translucent glass fins at about every 4' around the ellipse.

re : heights, i was just estimating based on the city's elevation map, which you can get from the sfgov gis site...

[SFView]

they've shown it as very (probably a little optimistically) clear glass, with continuous vertical clear or translucent glass fins at about every 4' around the ellipse.

re : heights, i was just estimating based on the city's elevation map, which you can get from the sfgov gis site...

Yes, I also have that map. I just thought that you might have a little more information handy. I see the ground elevations for this site from around 200 to over 205 feet. If we set the ground floor elevation at 200 feet, we get about 610 feet above zero elevation.

If the fins are also glass, this should be a rather striking, highly visible, sparkly glass tower.

[Reminiscence]

So far so good, I love the design. It will go well with this part of town. The clearish glass description also calls my attention. In my opinion, we need more of that type of glass in highrise buildings in SF (glass like I'm finding on Trump Tower Chicago) :)

[mthd]

So far so good, I love the design. It will go well with this part of town. The clearish glass description also calls my attention. In my opinion, we need more of that type of glass in highrise buildings in SF (glass like I'm finding on Trump Tower Chicago) :)

agreed. trump is looking great. i would rather deal with a little more reflectivity in the coating (for energy performance) than really heavily colored and opaque tints (as we are seeing at a number of towers going up in sf.) glass should pick up the sky - not have it's own color.

[Reminiscence]

agreed. trump is looking great. i would rather deal with a little more reflectivity in the coating (for energy performance) than really heavily colored and opaque tints (as we are seeing at a number of towers going up in sf.) glass should pick up the sky - not have it's own color.

Well said. I'm not at all against what we're seeing right now with Millenium and One Rincon (I actually think Millenium looks stunning already), its a departure from what I'm used to seeing in SF, which is few glass curtainwalls. The glass, in my opinion, should reflect the sky's "mood". Clearish on foggy days and blue-ish on sunny days. I'd like that very much. :)

[POLA]

from socketsite.com

According to J.K. Dineen at the San Francisco Business Times, “Transamerica Pyramid owner Aegon Group has tapped Lowe Enterprises to develop a 38-story condo tower on a vacant lot [555 Washington] adjacent to the financial district landmark.”

Lowe is proposing a 248-unit building that would trigger a redesign of the Pyramid Center, a complex that includes the Transamerica Pyramid, 505 Sansome St. and Redwood Park, the half-acre cluster of soaring redwoods at the northern edge of the financial district. Under the proposed project, the gated redwood grove would be expanded and opened up to the public, while ownership of the park would be transferred to the city. In addition, Mark Twain Alley, a dead-end which cuts from Sansome Street into the park, would be converted into a pedestrian piazza, with ground-floor restaurants spilling out from the new condo tower and other buildings along the alley.

[BTinSF]

77 Van Ness 5/3/07
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7db25b3127cce83ef8c6c30d800000016100Acsmblw0ZsmLA

[BTinSF]

I found info on 766 Harrison at http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/sfra_page.asp?id=36522

"The Owner is seeking approval of a proposed Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") to develop a new eight-story, 98-unit, single-room-occupancy ("SRO") residential project, along with 4,500 square feet of retail uses, five parking spaces for the residential units, a 581-square-foot side yard, and 4,370 square feet of common resident open space on a roof deck (collectively, the “Development”)."

I actually find this pretty exciting. I'm not aware of another NEW SRO project in the city and I have long thought new SROs (or extensive renovation of old ones) is the real solution to SF's homelessness.

[botoxic]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/484648175_ce25a316a2_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/205/484648175_ce25a316a2_b.jpg

[fflint]

First, let me apologize for the size and lack of focus. Second, this photo appears to be about a month old.

Okay--now check it out: this is the San Francisco rundown, right here. From the new Bay Bridge to the Mission Bay campus, from Soma Grand and the new Fed to Millennium and One Rincon, it's all there. Amazing!

Photo by Erik Bruchez at flickr

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=458451172&size=l

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/432860596_df5b725f77_o.jpg