HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9921  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 5:14 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
That's a pretty old photo of SF that they used haha
I'm also fairly certain the rendering in that shot is at least 5 years old too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9922  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 6:23 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyMucho View Post
I'm also fairly certain the rendering in that shot is at least 5 years old too.
And it still shows the proposed building at 320 ft, not 444 ft.

But it's what the BizTimes used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9923  
Old Posted Yesterday, 8:12 AM
IMBY IMBY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran View Post
I had completely forgotten about this development. Redesigned & ready to go. Picture from Socket Site. I find it to be boring architecture. I will look down on this one from my apartment 2 blocks away. It will not do any damage to the view. Maybe in a couple of years there will be enough people to support some decent restaurants in the neighborhood, if they can afford the rent!

1270 Mission Street
I'm surprised, that a city like SF, doesn't have a much stricter Design Committee, to allow a building like this to be built!

I can understand other cities who are so desperate for any development that they'll approve just about anything so as not scare away the developer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9924  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:22 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
I'm surprised, that a city like SF, doesn't have a much stricter Design Committee, to allow a building like this to be built!

I can understand other cities who are so desperate for any development that they'll approve just about anything so as not scare away the developer.
I'm not sure about 'stricter' but better, more considerate, and clearer guidelines would be outstanding. As with any good set of guidelines, there definitely needs to be some room for interpretation and play — but to me, it's the lack of regulation on materials or super loose concern for context.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9925  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:04 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
I'm surprised, that a city like SF, doesn't have a much stricter Design Committee, to allow a building like this to be built!

I can understand other cities who are so desperate for any development that they'll approve just about anything so as not scare away the developer.
San Francisco has a process that involves layer upon layer of bureaucratic obstacles to building anything, starting with a city agency—the Planning Dept.— made up of city employees of varying talents and training, followed by a Planning Commission made up of politically connected appointees and ultimately the elected Board of Supervisors. Any project can be ordered modified or blocked altogether at any of those levels, based on so little as a single citizens complaint or nothing at all. And any project that navigates all the levels can be stopped by a lawsuit, often over failures or deficiencies in the state-mandated environmental review process which comes before all the rest.

To suggest we don’t have enough bureaucracy or that the tripwires any project ust step over or that what we need is more design kibbitzing by non-participants with mediocre tastes is pretty funny. If we took it seriously we could find ourselves unable to build any housing at all.

Not every apartment building or even most needs to be an object or architectural beauty. They just need to provide places for people to live. Most, in most cities, are quite bland. But if we had less rather than more bureaucratic control, we might get a few outstanding projects, at least by some tastes (others would doubtless hate them).

As for this project, it will give some people a place to live. Just build it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9926  
Old Posted Today, 5:11 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
1554 Market is really whizzing along. ...

there is a thread for this one...
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:56 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.