SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed [Archive] - Page 22

BTinSF

Mar 13, 2009, 7:27 PM

Don't stone me but this time maybe the NIMBYs have a point:

Neighborhood Meeting this Wednesday, 6pm re: 430 Main and 429 Beale Streets - Tell Them To Forget It!
March 12th, 2009 · No Comments

Case Nos. 2007.1121XV: 430 Main / 429 Beale Street - Feel Free to use these images in your own letters to Ben Fu, Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103

The community meeting hosted by the developer is Wednesday, March 18, 2009 from 6:00 pm until 8:00 pm at the South Beach Harbor Services Community Room between Pier 40 and AT&T Park.

113 residential units proposed to be shoehorned into this TOO SMALL OF A SPACE immediately south of BayCrest Towers, requiring several exemptions and variances from the Rincon Hill Plan that our community just put our efforts into passing in 2005 … NO WAY, NO HOW, NO EXCEPTIONS for 430 MAIN/429 BEALE!!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3648/3350251221_ea30181c32.jpg

They want to take away our natural sunlight and create shadows, especially for residents who live in units with their only window facing the BayCrest open space/courtyard recreational area. This is a huge negative environmental impact from an aesthetic and recreational standpoint. Will the solar panels used to get electricity to heat the pool be blocked? Probably. Will people living in units facing the courtyard have to run their heaters and lighting fixtures more often, creating more CO2 emissions? Yes. NO WAY, NO HOW, NO EXCEPTIONS!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3350242135_8000cf6455.jpg

This design is too large in order to acommodate the RIncon Hill Plan and other Planning Code Requirements. Even worse, they’re asking for an exemption from a Planning Code that requires a 45 degree angle opening to the sky from ALL directions from a building’s courtyard while COVERING UP BAYCREST TOWERS’S ONLY 45 DEGREE ANGLE OPENING TO THE SKY, TAKING AWAY OUR SUNSHINE AND SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTING BAYCREST RESIDENTS’ ENJOYMENT AND AESTHETICS OF THEIR UNITS AND COURTYARD/SWIMMING AREA. What the hell sense of fairness is that?!?!? We didn’t say it was okay to block our single 45 degree angle opening to natural sunlight.

At the community meeting on March 18th, tell them to use their brains to redesign the plans or go fish in some other neighborhood that will accept their half-baked and negative impacting development plans. They need to cut out the majority of the center of their building design in order to maintain a 45 degree opening to the sky from the BayCrest Towers courtyard/swimming area/open space. Planning Commissioners must deny this project unless it sticks to the idea of ensuring sunlight access to units and internal courtyards. They also need to plan on providing up to 32 feet of sidewalk space on each side (Main and Beale) to match the planned widened sidewalks on those streets. Finally, the Rincon Hill Plan calls for adequate open space per residence - NO EXCEPTIONS.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3351067628_ab3dcb5f2c.jpg

The bottom line is that they’re trying to shove a cow in a poodle’s travel carrier .. and they’re asking for exceptions to the Rincon Hill Plan because they cannot meet the Planning Codes that were established to prevent just this sort of half-baked, rigged design from mucking up the Rincon Hill neighborhood. Not every building should be hundreds of units and 8 stories high … if you don’t have the property area to do it, forget it! Even ruder of this developer is that they’re totally blocking off the one 45 degree opening to natural sunlight provided to the inner courtyard and courtyard-facing units at BayCrest, and that should put a bullet in this project’s plan as a non-starter for Rincon Hill neighbors.

This is the view from my studio condo’s window at 8:30 am on 3-10-2009 … is it right to take away what little sunlight my unit and our courtyard receives from the opening between the Bay Bridge and the tops of the buildings below? No.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3345296219_0cfd7771f1.jpg

Tags: Activism

Source: http://www.rinconhillsf.org/2009/03/12/1791

BTinSF

Mar 20, 2009, 2:54 PM

Friday, March 20, 2009
Developers emerge for new San Francisco housing
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

The deep freeze that has halted all stages of housing development across San Francisco for more than a year is showing signs of thawing, as residential builders push new projects in Rincon Hill, the Dogpatch and South of Market.

On Rincon Hill, the Emerald Fund is proposing to build 308 units at 333 Harrison St., a project that would include two neighborhood parks. At 430 Main St. and 429 Beale St., a narrow lot sandwiched between the Baycrest condos and a Caltrans yard, Portland-Pacific is proposing to build 113 apartments. The Martin Building Co., meanwhile, is scrambling to put together financing to go forward on two apartment complexes: 179 units at 2235 Third St. and 85 units at 178 Townsend St.

While developers are by nature optimists, the increase in entitlement activity does not seem to be a reflection of a recovering real estate market. Data shows that absorption of housing is still way down, inventory continues to rise and demand is tepid. Inventory of active residential listings on the market in San Francisco (condos, single-family homes and tenancy-in-common units) is 80 percent higher than it was in 2006 and 24 percent higher than a year ago, according to an analysis by the online real estate publication Socketsite. On the demand side, volume is off 20 percent on a year-over-year basis, Socketsite said.

Instead, the flurry of entitlement activity is an effort to get projects lined up to take advantage of the next cycle, when it does arrive. And unlike the crop of glassy deluxe condos built between 2005 through 2007 — each one touted as more luxurious than the last — the new projects tend to be more modest, mid-rise buildings with creative financing, using a combination of public and private money. Deluxe highrise condos like the second phase of One Rincon Hill and Turnberry Tower at 45 Lansing St. are unlikely to begin until prices start climbing again.

“People are working very hard to get things entitled so when the recovery comes they can start construction,” said Oz Erickson of Emerald Fund.

For 333 Harrison, Erickson said his firm has applied for grant money from Proposition 1C, a state bond measure designed to stimulate transit-oriented housing. The bond money would pay for 15 percent of the project costs — enough to fund the two parks and infrastructure for the project. If the grant comes through, 30 percent of the housing units would be far below market rate, and no city money would be needed, Erickson said.

The site Emerald Fund has under contract at 333 Harrison is owned by the California Department of Transportation and is being used as a staging area for Bay Bridge construction. If Emerald Fund gets approvals and bond money, Caltrans has agreed to donate another site as a dog-friendly park on the corner of Bryant and Beale streets. Another park would be built on the Harrison Street side of the property.

“It’s not a slam dunk at all, but it would be great for the city and great for us,” said Erickson.

Martin Building Co., on the other hand, is redesigning its two entitled projects to take advantage of a Department of Housing and Urban Development funds available for rental housing. The Martin Building Co. declined to comment. The two projects are being designed by HKS.

“We are excited — it’s residential projects at a time when nobody is doing anything on the residential side,” said Brendan Dunnigan, vice president and manager of the San Francisco office of HKS.

Meanwhile, the proposed project at 430 Main St. and 429 Beale St., is causing a neighborhood controversy and is opposed by residents in the abutting 288-unit Baycrest development, according to Jamie Whitaker, vice president of the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association and Baycrest resident. He said the Portland-Pacific project, which comes before the Planning Commission on March 26, is too close to the Baycrest. He said his building “would be looking at a big wall blocking our open space.” In a petition, he says “don’t let a selfish developer cast over 400 neighbors into darkness.”

Christopher Zupsic of Portland-Pacific said they had moved the project back three feet from the lot line out of consideration to the neighbors.

“This is a great high-density project that complies with the Rincon Hill plan approved by the city,” said Zupsic. “The neighbors were aware their views could some day be blocked, and it’s recorded in their own property deeds that the windows on that side could someday be closed in.”

The Housing Action Coalition, which advocates for transit-oriented housing development, has finally seen an influx of new projects, after canceling several of its monthly project review meetings, according to Executive Director Tim Colen.

“There was nothing new — the cupboards were bare,” said Colen. “Now we see project sponsors calling us up again. It’s evidence that people are scheming for when the credit markets unfreeze.”

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/23/story1.html

Reminiscence

Mar 20, 2009, 6:25 PM

Although these are just proposals at this point, it is actually exciting that some proposals are coming up even if they may not be all that of a big deal compared to some other proposals from a while back. It's always sad to hear that 45 Lansing and ORH II won't get under way for a while, but I suppose that was to be expected. Look forward to hearing more about these.

BTinSF

Mar 20, 2009, 6:32 PM

:previous: My post 2108 above contains a lot more about 430 Main/429 Beale. I have the feeling this one will only get built if severely modified the way BayCrest residents want.

BTinSF

Mar 20, 2009, 11:47 PM

Here's more about 333 Harrison:

A Plugged-In Reader's 12 Notes On The "PC" Approved 333 Harrison

http://www.socketsite.com/333%20Harrison%20Context.jpg

A plugged-in reader's (slightly edited) 12 notes on Emerald Fund's proposal to develop 333 Harrison Street which has been approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission:

1. The new building will be sandwiched between Bridgeview and One Rincon.
2. Some Bridgeview owners will be adversely affected. The lower level units will lose their views as the new building will be 40 feet away.
3. The building will house rental units.
4. Rents will be expensive: from $ 3,000 to $ 3,500 per month.
5. Approximately 6-stories high.
6. The units are small, mostly one bedroom units averaging 500 square ft.
7. They will have a great public park, looks like a courtyard.

http://www.socketsite.com/333%20Harrison%20Design.jpg

8. It will take approximately 2 years to complete.
9. One Rincon Hill is not at all affected.
10. The Metropolitan will not be affected.
11. Another nice perk: they will have a dog run (Park South below).
12. They have plans to convert them into a condo...perhaps within 15-20 years...that is what they told us. But, it is most likely much sooner than that time frame.

http://www.socketsite.com/333%20Harrison%20Plan.jpg

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/03/333_harrison_approved_a_pluggedin_readers_13_notes.html#comments

Reminiscence

Mar 21, 2009, 6:57 AM

viewguysf

Mar 21, 2009, 3:54 PM

Nice. I like the look of this proposal. A park like that could really become a catalyst for development in a few years. The entire lowrise development almost looks like an extension of the midrises in front of ORH, entirely suitable as they add a nice touch at the foot of a tower as omnipresent as ORH I.

I couldn't imagine living in it though, especially at those prices for what you would get. What's the point of being surrounded by massive amounts of traffic while hemmed in among highrises with no view? The air quality and noise outside will both be bad. Don't get me wrong, it will be a nice green addition to the neighborhood, but it seems to me that it will benefit those in the surrounding towers more than anyone who would actually be living there.

viewguysf

Mar 21, 2009, 3:58 PM

:previous: My post 2108 above contains a lot more about 430 Main/429 Beale. I have the feeling this one will only get built if severely modified the way BayCrest residents want.

I agree with your previous post BT--this project as currently planned will severely diminish the quality of life and investments for BayCrest owners and residents. Not all development is good development and the planning for Rincon Hill should be followed faithfully.

Reminiscence

Mar 21, 2009, 8:38 PM

I couldn't imagine living in it though, especially at those prices for what you would get. What's the point of being surrounded by massive amounts of traffic while hemmed in among highrises with no view? The air quality and noise outside will both be bad. Don't get me wrong, it will be a nice green addition to the neighborhood, but it seems to me that it will benefit those in the surrounding towers more than anyone who would actually be living there.
Oh I couldn't imagine living in it either, especially with my situation for many years to come. Your latter point is sort of what I was getting at. It serves more as a nice touch to the area rather than a good place to live in. Of course, I'm sure they have some way to remedy the noise and pollution issue.

BTinSF

Mar 27, 2009, 6:10 PM

Friday, March 27, 2009
Developer pushes new waterfront housing design
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Battling fierce and well-organized opposition, developers have spent a decade trying to build housing across from the Ferry Building on the site of the Golden Gateway Tennis & Swim Club.

It’s been like hitting a tennis ball against a wall: No matter how well the ball is hit, it always comes back just as hard.

Now with a new design from Skidmore Owings & Merrill, the property’s latest developer, San Francisco Waterfront Partners, is betting that a combination of 28,000 square feet of public green space and much needed public parking will prevail over the opposition from 1,600 passionate club members and some residents.

The latest proposal combines the club and the port-owned Seawall Lot 351, giving SFWP room to build between 140 and 170 housing units as well as a fairly large park with a restaurant and café. Tennis would be scaled back from nine to four courts and the swimming pools would be moved on top of a building occupied by both the restaurant and club facility.

The café and restaurant would be operated by Gar and Lara Truppelli, owners of San Francisco’s Beach Chalet Brewery & Restaurant, Park Chalet Garden Restaurant and a new Lake Chalet on Lake Merritt in Oakland, which is currently under construction. Berkeley-based landscape architect Peter Walker and Partners is designing the park. The condo portion of the project is half the land and the other half of the land is public benefits, according to the developer.

A new design by SOM’s Craig Hartman features two French limestone “maisonettes” that are 84 feet tall and step down to seven stories along the Embarcadero. The building design has deeply recessed windows with teak trim and french balconies.

Hartman argues that the tennis club was an acceptable use as long as it sat in the shadow of the elevated Embarcadero freeway, which was torn down 20 years ago. But with the waterfront now opened up, a private club with an opaque, green, 16-foot-high fence no longer makes sense.

“What we have today is one of the most important civic boulevards in the country, an extraordinary waterfront edge,” said Hartman. “When you think of great civic urban boulevards you don’t think of surface parking lots or private tennis clubs.”

On Feb. 23, SFWP entered into exclusive negotiations agreement with the Port of San Francisco on the project. The proposal is scheduled to go before the Port Commission in October after a study on development along the northern waterfront initiated by Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. Development along the waterfront has long been a contentious issue, often pitting the Port against various neighborhood groups.

SFWP partner Alicia Esterkamp says the waterfront is of interest to all Bay Area residents — not just club members and immediate neighbors. “We thought that it would be better to serve the public rather than private tennis club members,” she said. “I believe that we can ultimately get the majority of the community to be supportive of the project. This is a civic place and not just a little neighborhood site.”

But the new proposal is not winning friends among club members and some local residents. Friends of the Golden Gateway, which includes residents of the 1,284-unit Golden Gateway Center apartments, as well as members of the 1,600-member club, note that the basketball court and lawn — both important part of the clubs multiple summer camps and youth programs — would disappear.

Lee Radner, president of Friends of Golden Gateway, said the tennis and swim club draws hundreds of retirees from the apartment buildings across the street. The club also serves as a training venue for the Special Olympics and inner city tennis program Youth Tennis Advantage.

FOGG attorney Sue Hester said the fight should not be characterized as a choice between a “private” club versus public green space and housing.

“The YMCA is private too,” said Hester. “This is not an elite club. It is not the Bohemian Club. It is not the Olympic Club. There are no heavy dues and no screening to get into it.”

The project has become a top priority for the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, which advocates for transit oriented housing development.

“It’s one project after another those neighbors have shot down,” said Tim Colen, the nonprofit’s executive director. “Enough is enough. They don’t get to stop everything.”

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/30/story7.html

I think this proves Sue Hestor is against anything and everything new, even when nobody without a self-interest can argue that what's old is better.

Reminiscence

Mar 27, 2009, 8:17 PM

I was wondering what had happened to Sue Hestor. I guess with all the decline in proposals getting serious consideration, there's not much reason to hear from her. I think the last quote by Tim Colen pretty much sums it up. I'm excited to see SOM designed the building, and I also think Craig Hartman proves a valid point.

Jerry of San Fran

Mar 28, 2009, 10:00 PM

THE ARGENTA - POLK/MARKET
I took a tour of several apartments at the Argenta today. As the building was built for the condo market, now rental, the quality of the apartments is first class. Hall doors are in a beautiful veneer inside and out. Each unit has white stone at the door. Kitchens are very large with high quality cabinets. Bathrooms are very large with white marble counters. I saw units on the 12th and 17th floors and the views were mostly good - the view of City Hall at night must be spectacular. The smaller bedrooms had frosted glass sliding doors to seperate from the living rooms. Nice carpets for walnut floors.

The rental agent says that 27 units have been rented and they have not advertised yet!

nequidnimis

Mar 30, 2009, 5:31 AM

The rental agent says that 27 units have been rented and they have not advertised yet!
Are these 27 units the BMR units?

BTinSF

Mar 30, 2009, 6:31 AM

Are these 27 units the BMR units?

Given it was built as a market rate condo project, I'd be surprised if the BMR units are on-site.

BTinSF

Mar 30, 2009, 7:39 PM

The Embarcadero Exploratorium's Most Excellent Draft EIR

http://www.socketsite.com/Piers%2015-17%20Aerial.jpg

"A draft environmental review for [the redevelopment of Piers 15-17 into a new home for the Exploratorium] failed to find any major problems, and a final report could be complete by the end of June....Even the notoriously strict agencies that govern what can be built along a waterfront are unofficially endorsing the project, which could be done as early as 2012 if it is approved by port officials and the Board of Supervisors."
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/03/justquotes_embarcadero_exploratorium_draft_eir.html#comments

Exploratorium tiptoeing toward Embarcadero

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2009_03_exploratorium.jpg
Outdoor rendering by EHDD Architecture, via the Chron

The Exploratorium's move to the Embarcadero is moving slowly but surely forward — the key here being that while hurdles remain, none of them are seen as particularly significant. Environmental issues, reported last month to include nesting gulls and seals' ears, are surmountable, and while non-marine-related museums are not explicitly allowed on the waterfront under state law, it's apparently no biggie. "The notoriously strict agencies that govern what can be built along a waterfront are unofficially endorsing the project," which, by the way, would triple the museum's space and bring annual visitors from 600,000 to 800,000. The full environmental review's almost done, and if everything goes as planned, the new Exploratorium could hit the Embarcadero by 2012. Conspicuously missing: the chorus of opposers?
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/03/30/exploratorium_tiptoeing_toward_embarcadero.php#reader_comments

BTinSF

Mar 30, 2009, 7:49 PM

Rincon Hill Aching for Extensions on Construction

Remember The Californian on Rincon Hill? The 393-unit luxury condo tower at 375-399 Fremont St. went into fail mode in October 2007 — the SF Business Times reported that the parcel had been put on the block by developer Fifield (but the deal fell through and they'd since spoken to several more builders). And then silence.

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2009_03_entitlements.jpg

Well, these projects only have an 18-month window to get their asses in gear and get rebar up, even if their building entitlements technically aren't automatically revoked. Revoking takes some active doing by the Planning Commission, and now the commission's apparently getting ready for some house cleaning. Last Thursday, they voted to put into process some hearings of revocation that would either keep struggling projects on life support, or kill their entitlements once and for all. Fifield, we hear, is not happy. Their entitlement expires later this year, and so does the one for its neighbor at 340 Fremont. At least they still have a chance — Turnberry Tower at 45 Lansing expired earlier this month already. Ouch.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/03/30/rincon_hill_aching_for_extensions_on_construction.php#reader_comments

BTinSF

Mar 30, 2009, 9:02 PM

Commentary: S.F.'s next tower hidden from view
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Sunday, March 29, 2009

Two years ago, the competition to win the rights to build San Francisco's tallest tower drew powerful developers, celebrity architects and fervent public interest in the proposed designs.

Now there's another competition just two blocks away, the grand prize a site with room for a 60-story tower at a major entrance to the Financial District. But only three teams bothered to respond - and the way the rules are currently written, the public won't be allowed to glimpse any of the proposals until the city selects a winner.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/03/28/ba-transbay0329__SFCG1238281537.jpg

Blame the sluggish response on real estate jitters and the recession. But keeping the rival bids under wraps is a move that runs counter to San Francisco's tradition of public access, and it should be reversed before the site's fate is decided this summer.

The block in question fills the northeast corner of First and Folsom streets, and today it's not much to look at: asphalt and rubble alongside a ramp that on a typical weekday deposits 25,000 or so cars into the city from the Bay Bridge.

But as the downtown map has shifted, this long-remote block has emerged as a hinge between the Financial District and the young Rincon Hill neighborhood. It also sits due south of the Transbay Terminal, site of the 2007 competition, where government agencies intend to build a grand transit hub alongside a tower taller than the Transamerica Pyramid.

To help fund the terminal, the First and Folsom block is being offered to developers by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. With it comes generous zoning that would allow a 605-foot residential tower along First Street, flanked by lower structures.

To put this in perspective, it's 36 feet lower than One Rincon, the skyscraping head-turner that opened last year next to the Bay Bridge.

ublic not given glance

Redevelopment is no stranger to competitions: Like other public agencies, it has awarded parcels this way for decades. What's different this time is that the sale of public land doesn't include a scenario where the public can glimpse the competing visions.

Instead, a staff report this month shrugs that "the details of the proposals, including the concept designs ... will remain confidential until a recommendation of a development team is forwarded to the (redevelopment) Commission for exclusive negotiations."

Asked about the procedural veil, planners stress that the block is part of a 40-acre redevelopment district rezoned in 2005 after two years of public review.

"We have a prescriptive redevelopment plan that is very specific" in terms of what can go where, said Transbay project manager Mike Grisso. "We're just talking about the architectural finishes."

But architecture isn't wallpaper. Done well, it's an art that can add a dimension of excitement and urbanity beyond the cautionary limits of planning and urban design.

You see this on Montgomery Street, where George Kelham's stone-clad Russ Building from 1928 soars with a romance missing from similarly scaled towers of the 1960s. More recently, the clunky gray Paramount high-rise at Third and Mission streets is no match for the suave St. Regis across the street.

As for the block that's up for grabs, the three teams are anything but interchangeable.

The lead architect for Avant Housing is Richard Meier & Partners. The 1984 recipient of the coveted Pritzker Architecture Prize, Meier is best-known for the Getty Center in Los Angeles, the embodiment of the New Yorker's clean, almost clinical style (the firm also did San Jose City Hall).

By contrast, AvalonBay Communities is paired with Arquitectonica, a flamboyant chameleon based in Miami. Here, the firm has a hand in Infinity - two clover-shaped green-glass towers near the waterfront - and a new apartment complex in Mission Bay where jagged stripes of red concrete pop out from the Berry Street facade.

The final is a Chicago developer, Golub Real Estate Corporation, with Solomon Cordwell Buenz as the lead architectural firm. Though it has a San Francisco office, SCB is a veteran of Chicago's high-rise scene, mainstream and crisp. Its work includes One Rincon, a tower that shows the visceral reaction towers can stir, even when they fit within zoning.

ossible presentation

By the end of last week, redevelopment officials were suggesting they may change course and arrange for a public presentation of the proposals after the schematic designs are presented in May.

Let's hope so.

Architecture isn't the sole criteria for choosing who builds tomorrow's city. But it is the most public art form we have - and when high-rise design is more eclectic than ever, this is no time to pull down the shades.

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/29/BAHC16NIED.DTL

Without the Chron, who'll kick the city's butt?

ACSF

Mar 30, 2009, 9:13 PM

Thought that people might enjoy a recent view of the skyline. Hope you enjoy.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/3368969415_50460bf866_b.jpg

BTinSF

Mar 31, 2009, 3:17 AM

:previous: The Argenta looks as stubby in this photo as it does to me in person. I'll never understand why they didn't make it taller--like its neighbors Fox Plaza and 100 Van Ness.

Reminiscence

Mar 31, 2009, 5:49 AM

Turnberry Tower at 45 Lansing expired earlier this month already.

Oh no. That can't be good. :(

nequidnimis

Mar 31, 2009, 5:54 AM

:previous: The Argenta looks as stubby in this photo as it does to me in person. I'll never understand why they didn't make it taller--like its neighbors Fox Plaza and 100 Van Ness.

Given it's a battleship grey stucco box, you sure you regret they didn't go taller?

viewguysf

Mar 31, 2009, 6:00 AM

:previous: The Argenta looks as stubby in this photo as it does to me in person. I'll never understand why they didn't make it taller--like its neighbors Fox Plaza and 100 Van Ness.

Because it, and they, are cheap.

Gordo

Mar 31, 2009, 6:05 AM

:previous: Didn't they try to go taller? I seem to remember them originally proposing something taller and being shot down, though I could be wrong.

BTinSF

Mar 31, 2009, 6:26 AM

Given it's a battleship grey stucco box, you sure you regret they didn't go taller?

Well, that and that they didn't build it according to the original renderings--mostly glass.

RandalR

Mar 31, 2009, 3:55 PM

Oh no. That can't be good. :(

Turnberry doesn't have the money to build any new towers right now, anyway - they have big debt problems and the new Fontainebleau in Las Vegas is taking all of their attention.

BTinSF

Mar 31, 2009, 7:01 PM

San Francisco General Hospital: Latest Renderings And Overview

http://www.socketsite.com/SF%20General%20Hospital%20Rendering.jpg

It’s a plugged-in tipster that forwards the latest renderings for the San Francisco General Hospital addition and directs our attention to the Webcor overview:

The 448,000 sq ft steel moment frame structure will have two levels below grade and eight levels above grade including a mechanical penthouse. Ties to the existing hospital will be made by means of a tunnel at the B1 level and a bridge at the 2nd floor. The building will be constructed on base isolators to withstand a major seismic event.

The project will be built in 4 phases. Phase I consists of site utilities relocation and replacement. Phase II consists of service building modifications and equipment additions. Phase III consists of excavations, foundations and structure frame. Phase IV consists of the new Acute Building Enclosure and build out. The new hospital is seeking a minimum of LEED Silver certification and is expected to open in 2015.

http://www.socketsite.com/SF%20General%20Hospital%20Rendering2.jpg

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/03/san_francisco_general_hospital_design_update.html#comments

More renderings from http://www.webcor.com/current.html?proj_id=250

http://www.webcor.com/auto_images/large/sfgeneralb1238114241.jpg

http://www.webcor.com/auto_images/large/sfgenerala1238114227.jpg

BTinSF

Apr 2, 2009, 7:43 PM

High-rise plans teeter with economy in S.F.
James Temple, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 2, 2009

Builders and planning groups fear that lenders are drawing conclusions from the financial meltdown that will stunt the growth of high-rise housing, even after the economy recovers.

During an industry panel discussion on Wednesday, Michael Covarrubias, chief executive officer of San Francisco development firm TMG Partners, said that he doubted he would witness another residential skyscraper built in San Francisco.

"And you'll never see two towers again," he said, referring to projects that included twin high-rises, such as The Infinity and One Rincon Hill condominiums in the SoMa neighborhood. "It's the death knell for residential development."

If his prediction is true, it would undermine assumptions in long-range planning throughout the city. Notably, the Transbay project includes - and depends on land-sale revenue from - as many as seven new skyscrapers, filled with an undetermined mix of residential and office space.

Dean Macris, a senior adviser on the plan for Mayor Gavin Newsom's office, questioned Covarrubias' assessment.

"We're in a situation where we really can't predict, once we're out of this economic climate, what kind of building types will be finance-able," he said. "I don't see any reason for us to revise our thinking."

Covarrubias made his comments during a real estate discussion at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts sponsored by the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition. In an interview, he explained that most of the residential towers erected in the city during the boom were financed by multimillion dollar loans in which banks took on 80 percent of the risk.

With those institutions foreclosing in rising numbers and swallowing steep losses, few will accept such lopsided ratios again, he said. That will boost the equity financing developers must raise from pension funds and endowments, money that comes at a higher cost.

"I don't think you'll make the numbers work again for a very long time," said Covarrubias, whose company co-developed the Soma Grand condo tower on Mission Street.

Michael Cohen, director of the mayor's office of economic development and another panelist, said he was skeptical that housing high-rises will come to a permanent halt, but acknowledged that such projects won't move ahead soon.

It's not just skyscrapers that are at risk, but mid-sized condominium projects as well, said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. Once developers begin construction on condos, they and their financers are on the hook for the entire structure, he said. In contrast, builders can tilt up single-family homes one at a time, drawing down their loan in increments as the market dictates.

Those realities could repel and attract, respectively, lenders in a newly conservative mood, even though the latter development pattern has come under growing scrutiny. Suburban sprawl makes inefficient use of limited land and necessitates greater reliance on greenhouse gas-emitting automobiles, environmental and planning groups argue. In recent years, many builders and lenders have begun to embrace the urban infill alternative.

"My greatest fear is that the fallout from the financial collapse will be that sprawl development becomes even more attractive," Metcalf said.

E-mail James Temple at jtemple@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/02/BUQ816QS2H.DTL

I'm crossing my fingers that Covarrubias is just spouting sour grapes since his SOMA Grand is undoubtedly the most senseless project of the boom years--a building marketed as luxury in SF's most scruffy downtown neighborhood (worse, IMHO, than the Tenderloin since it's deserted nights and weekends and there's little shopping or dining nearby)--with blocked views to boot. In retrospect, how they ever sold anything there is a mystery.

BTinSF

Apr 3, 2009, 12:18 PM

Think you can handle some GOOD news (whether or not, like me, you find it hard to believe these days)? See http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4175126#post4175126

San Frangelino

Apr 3, 2009, 3:48 PM

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

http://www.socketsite.com/555%20Washington%20Residential%20Rendering.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/555%20Washington%20-%20Residential%20v%20Office.jpg

Hoodrat

Apr 4, 2009, 4:08 AM

^^
That's just sick...I hope it gets built.

sofresh808

Apr 5, 2009, 2:33 AM

^^ I dig it, hope the curved design wins out too. Definitely fits its context well.

Kingofthehill

Apr 5, 2009, 3:05 PM

Hello everybody,

I'm going to be in town all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday. If any of the forumers wouldn't mind showing me around a few neighborhoods, that'd be most appreciated. I especially want to see the Mission, Nob Hill, North Beach, as well as Mission Beach (I love contemporary architecture).

Here's my thread from the last time I was in town:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=161392

Please don't leave me hanging :jester:

LWR

Apr 6, 2009, 1:38 AM

I'm going to be knee-deep in work, or I would gladly drive you around-and-about.

Having said that (not a cop-out), I'm going to be looking forward to your photos.

I have to agree with BTinSF when he exclaimed that your portrait work is way above the usual. You are indeed an artist.

I'm hoping that someone who is available will volunteer to act as your guide while visiting.

viewguysf

Apr 8, 2009, 5:50 AM

Kingofthehill

Apr 8, 2009, 10:09 AM

Thanks LWR..

And viewguy, yes.

BTinSF

Apr 9, 2009, 6:53 AM

A Step Forward For The Plans To Expand Fox Plaza (1390 Market)

http://www.socketsite.com/Fox%20Plaza%20pre-1390%20Market.jpg

A Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration has been issued by San Francisco’s Planning department for Archstone-Smith’s proposed expansion of Fox Plaza (1390 Market Street).

The proposed project would entail demolition of an existing two-story retail and office building adjacent to the existing Fox Plaza office/residential tower and construction of a new 120-foot-tall, ll-story building containing up to 250 residential units above approximately 19,880 gross square feet of retail use on the ground floor. There would be no change to the existing Fox Plaza mixed-use tower, and no new parking would be provided (18 existing spaces would be removed): parking for the new residential units would be within the existing two-level basement garage at Fox Plaza.

http://www.socketsite.com/1390%20Market%20Design.jpg

The proposed new 120-foot-tall, ll-story building would be generally triangular in shape, with the point at the corner of Hayes and Market Streets. The new building would be connected to the existing 29-story tower by an existing approximately 50-foot-wide atrium and retail space on the ground floor. Current plans call for the building to be clad in a combination of glass and stone with pre-cast elements, with punched square windows making up most of the Market Street and Hayes Street facades, while the Hayes-Market corner would be clad in a curving glass curtain wall that would extend up to an oval-shaped form on the roof that would enclose mechanical equipment, elevator rooms, and-at the corner-the upper level of the 11th-floor residential unit.
Design by Heller Manus Architects.

And while we don't have an official update on the appetite or intentions of Archstone-Smith to move forward, we do have the following comment from a plugged-in reader:

I've heard it's a done deal on Archstone's end, but they are having some issues moving people out who are in current retail leases. From what I hear Starbucks doesen't want to move to the tower where Archstone has set aside a space for them, unless A/S pays to move the Starbucks, and a couple other little snafus like that...
Cheers.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/a_step_forward_for_the_plans_to_expand_fox_plaza_1390_m.html#comments

markermiller

Apr 9, 2009, 6:20 PM

God... would THAT be an improvement! Now if only some more triangles would rise at Market and Turk, Golden Gate, McAlister, Grove, Fell, Oak, Page, and Haight! Mid-Market has been a civic embarrassment for far too many decades.

BTinSF

Apr 10, 2009, 5:17 PM

10th and Mission: A 14-Story Building Joins the Party

The proposed building
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3357/3429240012_c368865a9c_o.png

The site
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3077/3428427511_c1420c724e_o.png

Looking up 10th St BEFORE (sans Argenta)
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3025/3428427547_30527ac6ac_o.png

Looking up 10th St. AFTER (sans Argenta)
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3661/3428427615_e9139f27a9_o.png

The intersection of 10th and Mission is quite the busy place: a recently published draft environmental impact report shows a new building proposed for 1415 Mission. The project's kitty corner from 1390 Mission, former site of King's Diner and current site of the family housing fin. And just north, a mid-rise building built by the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp should see the light of day in oh.. three years. There's also the 720-unit Crescent Heights high-rise, but we won't talk of sad things. The building in question is designed by Heller Manus and may include up to 117 units and be 14 stories tall.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/04/10/10th_and_mission_a_14story_building_joins_the_party.php#reader_comments

As a reminder, the future neighbors:

1400 Mission: http://www.citizenshousing.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=43&Itemid=61&propertyListPage=property_detail.php&propertyListVar=14&propertyListTitle=1400%20Mission

1390 Mission:
http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3120/2761437443_509ee7c7e4_o.jpg
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2008/08/14/construction_watch_civic_center_comeback_at_1390_mission_street.php

peanut gallery

Apr 10, 2009, 10:05 PM

There's not much to go on here, but that render looking up 10th St. isn't very promising. Hopefully the side fronting Mission will look better. I guess the bright side is seeing another surface lot biting the dust.

peanut gallery

Apr 10, 2009, 10:10 PM

And now for something completely awesome:

http://www.socketsite.com/1960-1998%20Market%20Rendering%20-%20Buchanan-thumb.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/1960-1998%20Market%20Rendering%20-%20Market.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/1960-1998%20Market%20Rendering-thumb.jpg
Source: SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/now_thats_thean_arquitectonica_design_for_market_at_buc.html)

This is Arquitectonica's design for 1960-1998 Market at Buchanan. We saw a preliminary, rougher version of this earlier in this thread.

Jerry of San Fran

Apr 12, 2009, 6:51 AM

BT of SF

Interesting. Depending on the quality of the material used I think I would find the building quite attractive. Standing on my balcony I can see the site, which used to be used for sale of tires and their installation.

BTinSF

Apr 12, 2009, 7:22 AM

:previous: Considering it's a non-profit developer doing "affordable" housing, I would expect the usual stucco. Still, that 10th & Mission corner is going to be very different with new midrises on 3 corners.

Gordo

Apr 12, 2009, 11:07 PM

The new rendering for Market/Buchanan is sweet.

viewguysf

Apr 13, 2009, 5:00 AM

The new rendering for Market/Buchanan is sweet.

Definitely! I hope that it gets built within a reasonable amount of time and that it looks as good as the renderings. :tup: The gas station, by the way, is still open.

BTinSF

Apr 13, 2009, 11:56 PM

And now for something completely awesome

See that and raise you one (thanks again to Socketsite):

Entitled, Envisioned And For Sale (But Not Permitted): 1600 Market

http://www.socketsite.com/1600%20Market.jpg

The corner of Market at Franklin and Page as it looks (for the most part) above, the same corner (1600 Market) as envisioned by Stanley Saitowitz and as is being marketed below.

http://www.socketsite.com/1600%20Market%20Rendering.jpg

Note no building permit in hand, but entitled for 23 condos as proposed with nine stories and ground floor retail over underground parking (nine spaces).
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/1600_market_entitled_envisioned_and_for_sale_but_not_pe.html#comments

Here's another view:

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3363/3441912425_d07eb633c2_o.png
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/04/14/glass_destiny_for_market_and_page.php?o=1

I just wish they'd get going and build some of this stuff on Market St. It would be so much nicer but it seems like when we have good times for building the planners and supervisors obstruct these projects until times turn bad and building stops. Will we have to wait another economic cycle??

BTinSF

Apr 13, 2009, 11:57 PM

Now if only some more triangles would rise at Market and Turk, Golden Gate, McAlister, Grove, Fell, Oak, Page, and Haight! Mid-Market has been a civic embarrassment for far too many decades.
See :previous: :previous:

BTinSF

Apr 14, 2009, 12:02 AM

Oh and hey p.g.:

Pitchforks Out: Market/Buchanan Building Is a "Monster"
Monday, April 13, 2009, by Andy J. Wang

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2009_04_buchananmonster.jpg

Too easy: the backlash has begun on 1960 Market, Arquitectonica's gleaming greenhouse design on Market and Buchanan. You said: "i'll be surprised if this gets built as pictured. looks awesome but i'm sure it'll get dumbed down to a milquetoast 'victorian' design." 'Scuse us while we look up "milquetoast." District 5 crusader Rob Anderson says: "The thing is higher and glaringly incompatible with everything behind it, i.e., old victorian houses and apartment buildings in edwardian/deco styles." And the urgent call to action! "This new glass sheet will drastically alter the character of our neighborhood and will obstruct views of and from the Federal Mint. ... We understand and support the city's need to create new housing. We are simply asking for a reduction in bulk/height of the proposed project to preserve liveability and enjoyment of our residences and the neighborhood." A prayer or two to the gods of height choppage couldn't hurt either.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/04/13/pitchforks_out_marketbuchanan_building_is_a_monster.php#reader_comments

The Planning Commission is hearing the appeal from Mr. Anderson and his NIMBY friends on its Negative Declaration on Thursday, April 16.

viewguysf

Apr 14, 2009, 5:58 AM

I just wish they'd get going and build some of this stuff on Market St. It would be so much nicer but it seems like when we have good times for building the planners and supervisors obstruct these projects until times turn bad and building stops. Will we have to wait another economic cycle??

Yes--and then those a__holes had better be prepared to move forward quickly to take advantage of it! I agree; Market Street needs some major injections of quality architecture, including the Octavia Boulevard corridor.

viewguysf

Apr 14, 2009, 6:02 AM

The Planning Commission is hearing the appeal from Mr. Anderson and his NIMBY friends on its Negative Declaration on Thursday, April 16.

Who is Rob Anderson? Those renderings are stunning as they are, showing a bold project that is precisely what is needed in this town.

BTinSF

Apr 14, 2009, 6:15 AM

Who is Rob Anderson?

Here's his web site: http://district5diary.blogspot.com/2009/04/planned-marketbuchanan-monstrosity.html

He's also the guy who got an injunction forcing the city to do an EIR before it could implement its bicycle plan (halting the creation of new bike lanes for several years): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121919354756955249.html

POLA

Apr 14, 2009, 6:34 AM

Rob Anderson is amazing! He's like a real live version on an internet troll! Is anyone going to go and shut him up on thursday? I kinda want to... No. Must. Not. Feed. The Troll!

fflint

Apr 14, 2009, 6:31 PM

Rob Anderson is the purest embodiment of post-war SF's corrosive and self-aggrandizing Baby Boomer obstructionists, the quintessential NIMBY naysayer in full Jesus Christ pose.

Except, of course, this particular Jesus NIMBY hero obstructionist advocates not only for extending exurban sprawl into the hinterlands by opposing all urban densification--this black hole of attention-whoredom also uses city government to thwart the cleanest alternative to driving war-feuled, climate-wrecking vehicles within city limits.

Somebody get this douchebag another marbled pied-a-terre, and a crown of thorns...

peanut gallery

Apr 14, 2009, 8:49 PM

That Saitowitz building at Franklin is beautiful, just like his design for Octavia.

I wish I could say I'm surprised that someone is opposed to the Buchanan building.

BTinSF

Apr 14, 2009, 11:29 PM

Rob Anderson is the purest embodiment of post-war SF's corrosive and self-aggrandizing Baby Boomer obstructionists

There are "Baby Boomer obstructionists" and there are obstructionists of other generations. Anderson and I are similar ages but I think he's totally wrong (at least about density and design).

It may be true that a desire to restrict change comes upon most of us in late middle age and Baby Boomers are at that point now. But it happened to the previous generation as well when, in the 1960s and 1970s, they passed SF's height restrictions and building limitations and all manner of other regrettable rules. I'll go out on a limb and predict that you too will find something about this or some other city where you happen to be living that you will resist seeing changed when you reach Anderson's age.

In my case, as I said, I'm all for high rises and density and public transportation and the full gamut of SSP wet-dream inducers EXCEPT that I'm well past the age of being able to navigate SF by leg power on 2 wheels so I have a certain sympathy for Anderson's desire to impede the tyranny of the young, fit and traffic law ignoring on their bikes. I need the continued ability to move about the city on as many powered wheels as it takes (currently 2 but eventually that will change) because I'm also losing the ability to schlep things like multi bags of groceries on Muni.

Kingofthehill

Apr 15, 2009, 12:09 AM

Hey guys, check out my photothread of SF:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167826

Thanks to everybody for the generous outpouring of support; especially WesternGulf and Stepper77. BTW, I'll be moving to SF this summer...so I guess you (we?) have a new member to the team! :jester:

Gordo

Apr 15, 2009, 12:24 AM

:previous: Always good to have another person on board to post photos :) I'll admit that I'm lazy and rarely take my camera out, but I appreciate everyone else that does it.

peanut gallery

Apr 15, 2009, 5:14 AM

I'm glad someone was able to show you around. Welcome! And I hope you enjoy living here.

Here was the view from Mt. Tam last Saturday:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3407/3444025004_657639b5a2_o.jpg

I don't have the fancy camera that some have, so the photo doesn't do the view any justice. It was a beautiful day.

peanut gallery

Apr 17, 2009, 5:40 PM

Some good news on the Market/Buchanan project. From SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/appeal_of_19601998_market_street_negative_declarationde.html):

A plugged-in tipster provides the full scoop from last night’s Planning Commission meeting with respect to the proposed development of 1960-1998 Market Street. Keep in mind that a "Negative" Declaration is actually a positive thing when it comes to development.

The appeal of the Negative Declaration was denied, the project itself is continued to May 14th, and the parking ratio variance from the Market Octavia ratio of 0.5 will probably be denied, per Planning staff recommendation.The Commission did ask for the following:

(1) an increase in the minimum distance to the building behind from the proposed 12'6, (2) a matching light-well to the existing light-well on an adjacent building (I believe it is indeed legal), (3) less height on Buchanan, and (4) for the architect to solicit additional input from the Duboce Triangle Neighbors on the design of the building.

The Duboce Triangle Neighbors claim they appreciate modern architecture and they count several design professionals amongst them. The reveals shown in the latest renderings [SocketSite] posted (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/now_thats_thean_arquitectonica_design_for_market_at_buc.html) were their idea.

The commissioners recognized the site is too tight for setbacks, so any redesign will probably be limited to refinement of the current design. And not a single person present asked for bay windows, stucco, Victorian or Spanish design. Indeed, everyone expressed support for the modern design.

Cheers!

Gordo

Apr 17, 2009, 6:00 PM

I visited a friend of mine who works at the CPMC California Campus yesterday (on California in Laurel Heights roughly between Spruce and Arguello). I waited in a small waiting room for a few minutes that had pictures up of renderings that I had not yet seen of the new Van Ness/Geary Hospital (site of current Cathedral Hill Hotel) and Medical Office Building (current site of a bunch of crap on the east side of Van Ness). I had seen some renderings before, but none with the detail that these had.

Unfortunately, my phone doesn't have a camera (stupid year and a half old Blackberry ;)) and I haven't been able to find the same renderings online that I saw there. However, I did find a few at this site:

http://cpmc.org/plans/

The pictures are small, so I didn't bother to pull them out. There are also some pdfs of the different sites that show some other details. The next time I stop by I will be taking my camera to get a good picture of the rendering there.

peanut gallery

Apr 17, 2009, 7:47 PM

Interesting find, Gordo. The Cathedral Hill campus looks really promising. Can't wait for your photos.

Jerry of San Fran

Apr 17, 2009, 9:04 PM

I took a picture of the progress of The Trinity Plaza (Mission/8th Sts.) - it is getting close to the top floors being built. This week the metal panels/windows are being installed on the west side. I like the look so far - I will have to live with it for a long time!

To my eye the SOMA Grand and Trinity Plaza complement one another.

The SOMA Grand is disappearing from my view and the view from the SOMA Grand is disappearing!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3351/3448106277_d5033a86c8_o.jpg

Downtown Dave

Apr 18, 2009, 9:16 PM

Good-bye SOMA :)

Mercy housing update. The unstrained construction is evident.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/Mercy-3663.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/Mercy-3668.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/Mercy-3671.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/Mercy-3683.jpg

and the nearby development whose name I forget (if it has one at all).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/VanNess-3690.jpg

nequidnimis

Apr 18, 2009, 10:42 PM

Here are aerial views of the proposed Cathedral Hill Hospital in context:

From the East:

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/15948696/sn/232137812/name/aerial+photo1.jpg

(Daniel Burnham Court is on the right, Cathedral Hill Tower and the Sequoias on the left)

and from the West:

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/15948696/sn/506662300/name/aerial+photo2.jpg

(Daniel Burnahm Court is on the left, Cathedral Hill Tower on the right)

Source: California Pacific Medical Center 2008 Institutional Master Plan, page 78

http://www.cpmc.org/plans/links/08IMP_CPMC.pdf

Jerry of San Fran

Apr 19, 2009, 1:27 AM

From my window in the Fox Plaza I had a great view of the Infinity Towers, but alas a new highrise is starting to block the view. I really like the color of the two towers. I walked down there to see what is going up, but could not find a sign. Appears to be a condo or apartment building. It has a skin of flesh toned concrete and partly glass and metal. Can any one tell what it is?

The picture was taken with the telephoto on my camera today, 04/18/09

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3365/3453635655_cc2f90587f_b.jpg

nequidnimis

Apr 19, 2009, 4:49 AM

That's easy (there are not a lot of cranes in town): 645 Howard is blocking your "light and air".

viewguysf

Apr 19, 2009, 6:38 AM

That's easy (there are not a lot of cranes in town): 645 Howard is blocking your "light and air".

Otherwise known as One Hawthorne that we've been watching progress in its own thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=145289

Jerry of San Fran

Apr 19, 2009, 9:52 PM

Thanks nequidmimis & viewguysf for the pointing out the link. The new building will not be as bad as I thought. I'll still have a partial view of 2 of my favorite buildings on my skyline! :>}

nequidnimis

Apr 19, 2009, 11:09 PM

Based on the renderings and construction pictures, One Hawthorne should even be a nice addition. Thanks for your first construction picture...

Busy Bee

Apr 19, 2009, 11:46 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/VanNess-3690.jpg

That building is gorgeous! Take that red Pontiac out of the picture and this shot could be a high quality new construction in Central or Southern Europe.

BTinSF

Apr 19, 2009, 11:55 PM

:previous: Forum Design does very nice work: http://www.forumdesign.com/

BTinSF

Apr 20, 2009, 4:36 PM

I can't even remember--does this thing have a thread? I remember posting about it but not whether it had its own thread and I can't find one:

Proposed Transamerica neighbor called too tall
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, April 20, 2009

The Transamerica Pyramid for decades has stood alone as San Francisco's architectural icon on the northern edge of downtown, but that could change if the city allows a flashy, cylindrical condominium tower to be built just yards away.

At approximately 400 feet, the modern, spiraling structure would be about half as tall as the pyramid, yet its height may be its most controversial feature.

Public outcry over the pyramid and high-rises in the 1980s prompted city officials to impose a 200-foot height limit in that section of downtown. In recent months, opponents pointed to similar height restrictions when fighting an eco-friendly office building proposed for the waterfront.

The condo tower developers say they are sensitive to the pyramid's special status. They say the top of their project will fall below the skyline, preserving the pyramid's capstone as the dominant feature of northern downtown.

"When you look at this building, it is self-evident that it is complementary to the Transamerica Pyramid," said the proposed building's architect, Jeffrey Heller. "It is far lower, and it is respectful."

Heller also said that while the structure is twice as tall as what is allowed, its square footage would conform to the current codes.

Some proponents like the idea of the new high-rise to the north of Market Street where little has been built since the mid-1980s. They believe that attracting more residents downtown makes sense.

Nonetheless, the project faces several significant challenges.

The plan calls for the demolition of a nine-story building erected in 1930 that served as the headquarters of the California Ink Co., which played a prominent role in the city's printing history. The tower also would cast shadows on two downtown parks, which in most cases is prohibited.

The city's Recreation and Park and Historic Preservation commissions will have a say in the project's fate, and it must be approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

Developer Andrew Segal believes the myriad hurdles can be overcome, and he is offering incentives to the city in exchange for approval of the plan.

For one, Segal is promising to convert a privately owned park - located on the block bounded by Montgomery, Washington, Sansome and Clay streets - into one that is city-owned. He also said he would expand the surrounding open space from about 18,000 square feet to 33,000 square feet.

Segal said responses from civic and neighborhood groups generally have been positive.

Lynn Jefferson of the North Beach Neighbors association said her group favors the condo tower and the green space.

"San Francisco is very limited on housing and with respect to the height, this is downtown," she said. "The building would be next to the Transamerica, which is twice its size."

That argument doesn't persuade stalwart defenders of the height restrictions.

Sue Hestor, a land-use attorney, recently represented a group opposed to the eco-friendly waterfront building. That proposed structure would have been 40 feet taller than the area's 84-foot height limit. The Board of Supervisors has required a more detailed analysis of the project that would set construction back by at least one year.

Hestor said giving height exceptions to individual projects is bad city planning.

"There were real reasons for these heights limits, and they came from multiple years of hearings," Hestor said. "It was not done in a vacuum. Citizens pushed for the limits for a reason."

City Planning Director John Rahaim said the city needs to be careful about indiscriminately raising height limits, but noted that it also should consider projects in context. He said that while numerous details need to be worked out, a new tower next to the Transamerica Pyramid "seems doable."

"It's unusual to have a building as tall as the Transamerica and then to have all the buildings around it limited to a quarter of its height," Rahaim said. "Usually you try to cluster tall buildings together."

Mitchell Schwarzer, an expert on San Francisco architectural history, said that if the primary concern raised about the new building is its impact on the San Francisco skyline, it should go forward. He believes that the tower would be a good addition.

"The most prominent view will come from Telegraph Hill. With respect to the aesthetics of the skyline, you really won't be able to tell," said Schwarzer, a professor of visual studies at the California College of Art.

Proposed condominium tower

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/04/18/mn-transamerica2_0500041177.jpg
A rendering shows the proposed cylindrical tower next to the Transamerica Pyramid as viewed from Columbus Avenue. (Heller Manus Architects)

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/04/19/ba-transamerica0_SFCG1240105686.jpg
Site of proposed new building (Todd Trumbull / The Chronicle)

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/04/19/mn-transamerica2_0500041173.jpg
The proposed building (shaded) would be about half the height of its neighbor, the Transamerica Pyramid. (Heller Manus Architects)

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/04/18/mn-transamerica2_0500041178.jpg
A rendering shows Redwood Park, now private, which would become a public park as an incentive from a developer who wants to build a new tower next to the Transamerica Pyramid. (ROMA Design Group)
E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/20/MN5817423D.DTL

As Curbed put it:

Height Choppers Eye the Twisty Cylinder

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2009_04_cylinderheight.jpg

The twisty cylinder condos proposed next door to the Transamerica Pyramid were getting muted opposition last time we checked in, but today's front page Chron story gives the opposed a little more voice. 'Course, for a building that's supposed to end up at 390 feet tall, compared to the pyramid's 853 feet, the fight over this one is nothing (just give it time). Yet, the hurdles are many: the building's not only almost twice as tall as allowed, it requires the take-down of a perhaps historic 1930 building that served as the home of California Ink Co. (Remember them??) And, lest we forget the shadows, the tower would cast them all over two downtown parks. So, to sum up, developer Andrew Segal's going to have to get this thing past the Rec & Park Commission, the newly created Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission, and finally the Board of Supes. Godspeed, twisty cylinder.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/04/20/height_choppers_eye_the_twisty_cylinder.php#reader_comments

Busy Bee

Apr 20, 2009, 5:03 PM

What a load.

viewguysf

Apr 21, 2009, 6:53 AM

That building is gorgeous! Take that red Pontiac out of the picture and this shot could be a high quality new construction in Central or Southern Europe.

I agree--it fits the site beautifully! I really appreciate that.

Jobohimself

Apr 21, 2009, 9:16 AM

Sue Hestor needs to get pushed in front of a BART locomotive.

nequidnimis

Apr 21, 2009, 3:48 PM

Sue Hestor needs to get pushed in front of a BART locomotive.

Moderator: I do not think death threats are appropriate in this forum.

Gordo

Apr 21, 2009, 4:20 PM

BTinSF

Apr 21, 2009, 8:32 PM

In this case, with this project, I really won't be crushed if the height becomes the issue that kills it. This plot has had a 200' height limit for decades. We can argue over whether it should have a height limit of 200' (my argument would of course be that that makes no sense), but if we're ever going to get to a place where the planning department automatically greenlights certain heights that fall within the limits for the area, we're also going to have to get to a point where the planning department automatically redlights heights that go above the limits for an area.

I'm afraid what will happen is that the height limit won't kill it but will simply result in a lower, much uglier and less interesting design--the usual San Francisco mediocrity. I also wouldn't blame the Planning Department for the state of affairs in building approvals. The problem is the nearly endless series of commissions that get a say and appeals that are possible. Curbed identified some of them in the article above but each of them offers a chance for the NIMBYs to cut down a buildings size and increase its blandness. There is almost no chance to increase its size or inspiration (the one case I can think of where that actually happened was with ORH).

We already have a lower, squatter, uglier design for this building (put forward in case the height limit was not waved), to be found wherever the earlier series of articles on it were posted.

BTinSF

Apr 21, 2009, 8:36 PM

Another in the series of darned nice midrises proposed for Market St. One could only hope some of them get built. If only they were in the Tenderloin where there are, apparently, no NIMBYs to care. This one is in (or near, depending on your view of the neighborhood border) the Castro so expect a fight.

It's Rendering Thaim Time For 2200-2210 Market At 15th

http://www.socketsite.com/2200%20Market%20Rendering.jpg

The proposed design for 2200-2210 Market at 15th Street via Curbed above. As the corner and Thai House Restaurant currently stand below.

http://www.socketsite.com/2200%20Market%20-%20Thai%20House.jpg

As proposed the single story restaurant and surface area parking lot will become a restaurant and retail on the ground floor with 22 residential units in four additonal stories over, and 12 parking spaces (including one for car share) beneath.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/2200_market_the_proposed_designs.html#comments

BTinSF

Apr 21, 2009, 8:38 PM

Moderator: I do not think death threats are appropriate in this forum.

Yeah, but he's talking about Sue Hestor. ;)

Oh well, you're right.

BTinSF

Apr 21, 2009, 8:52 PM

SFView

Apr 21, 2009, 9:25 PM

Sue Hestor quote from http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...BAHC16NIED.DTL:
"There were real reasons for these heights limits, and they came from multiple years of hearings," Hestor said. "It was not done in a vacuum. Citizens pushed for the limits for a reason."

Such reasons could result in 555 Washington looking like this instead.
From: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi...ngton_DEIR.pdf
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/555Washington200a.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/555Washington200b.jpg

SFView

Apr 21, 2009, 9:31 PM

I can't even remember--does this thing have a thread? I remember posting about it but not whether it had its own thread and I can't find one:

We almost forgot about this thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=130808

fflint

Apr 21, 2009, 10:36 PM

I will be able to see 2200 Market from my living room! Woohoo!

Gordo

Apr 22, 2009, 12:52 AM

I will be able to see 2200 Market from my living room! Woohoo!

You must be incredibly concerned about it affecting your access to "light" and "air" then, eh?

Reminiscence

Apr 22, 2009, 6:13 AM

I think listening to Hestor babble is "bad city planning".

I really hope this proposal passes as is, but I'm preparing to once again be disappointed.

peanut gallery

Apr 22, 2009, 7:12 PM

OOOOH! Curbed offers a view of the 15th St facade of 2200 Market and assures it'll go up soon:

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3558/3462258413_69e6ba3596_o.jpg
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/04/21/rendering_reveal_thai_corner_express_residences.php?o=1

I really like what they've done here: give the Market side a solid street wall and break-up the 15th St side so it reads as separate, smaller buildings. It also steps down from Market to 15th. I think that nicely fits into the surroundings.

BTinSF

Apr 22, 2009, 7:29 PM

Six-Story SoMa Building Should Have Sweet Freeway Views

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3500/3465690975_05df37b8d3_o.png

A couple days ago the preliminary thumbs up on 870 Harrison St came down from the Planning Department: the remaking of SoMa shall continue apace with the demolition of a two-story light industrial building (the Robyn Color photo ad digital lab) and construction of a six-story mixed-use building with 26 residential units, designed by local firm Leavitt Architecture. Everything looks good to go at the moment— let's just see what color it ends up being, k?
Source: http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3500/3465690975_05df37b8d3_o.png

BTinSF

Apr 24, 2009, 3:30 AM

More Forum Design work!

2655 Bush Street: Designs For Density On The Corner Of Divisadero

http://www.socketsite.com/2655%20Bush%20Street.jpg

Assuming a conditional use authorization to allow for the development of over one-half acre in addition to all the other requisite approvals, the vacant two-story and 48,000 square foot convalescent facility at 2655 Bush Street (corner of Divisadero) would be razed.

In its place a 108,000 square foot mixed-use building providing 83 new residential units, 4,500 square feet of ground level retail (four and one-half times the current) and below-grade parking for up to 99 cars (again, four and one-half times the current) would rise.

http://www.socketsite.com/2655%20Bush%20Rendering.gif

As proposed the new building would range from four to six stories (40 to 65 feet) in height and contain a unit mix of one studio, 19 one-bedrooms, and 63 two-bedroom units.

http://www.socketsite.com/2655%20Bush%20North%20Elevation-thumb.gif

Architecture by Forum Design, and yes, we’re working on some better renderings but at least you can click the image directly above to enlarge (a little).
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/2655_bush_street_designs_for_density_on_the_corner_of_d.html#comments

Gordo

Apr 24, 2009, 4:10 AM

:previous: It's funny - I walked by that building about a week ago and thought to myself that it would be a good place for something new :) Divisadero needs a lot of work, glad to see something potentially getting the ball rolling.

One of the comments on Socketsite also mentions the upcoming "greening" of Divis (which I wasn't aware of), with new trees being planted as well as widened sidewalks and a new median that has waiting areas for crossing pedestrians:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1143028~Divisadero_Street_overhaul_planned.html?cid=rss-San_Francisco,

tommaso

Apr 24, 2009, 7:57 AM

Sue Hestor quote from http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...BAHC16NIED.DTL:

Such reasons could result in 555 Washington looking like this instead.
From: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi...ngton_DEIR.pdf
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/555Washington200a.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/555Washington200b.jpg

Nobody and I mean nobody in any state of mind would build a hell hole of a building looking like this crap! I mean YIKES! :yuck: I thought diapers were only for babies. Now I'm gonna have to buy San Francisco a humongous diaper and put it over its head before its s**t smears all over the city. What a shame! I love San Francisco and the original design of 555 Washington shows great respect for the city and its residents. When will we learn to grow up as children and allow our men and women to build beautiful and functional buildings like adults?! I feel like every time San Francisco is ready to grow up and build structures worthy of the city's great name and history, some effers have to come in and screw it up for the rest of us including our children. Do you building killers out there really think my children are going to want to look at that 'box out of hell' looking building?!!!

I love Little Italy, TransAmerica and the Financial District! But, it's instances like these that make me want to pack up and move to Antarctica! WOW... what more did I expect, ah... actually I'm sure those chumps who don't like the original design of the building wouldn't want the park to become public and these are the same people who once the building gets built without their input or modifications ... they're gonna be praising it with all their friends at some B.S. dinner party and they'll even have the nerve to try to have a farmer's market at the park and claim the success of the project as their own idea ... what the hell! ... and these people who fought the original design will then praise the building like it's a Gothic cathedral and be the first people in S.F. to go to the top and visit every floor! You know what they are these people? Hypocrites that's what they are. I guess their backyard is not good enough for beauty and greatness and since it's only one of the densest ares in the city, it sure as hell shouldn't be a candidate for another tall structure! I mean what are these people thinking?!!! This is not communist Russia we're living in here in S.F. Let the people of our city live a little! Please. Is that too much to ask for?

I'm not a bad person and I don't hate sunlight or some people's views. Quite frankly, I would rather every person in S.F. have a beautiful view out their living room window with plenty of sunshine! But, that's impossible, so I now propose for the more educated ones out there (I'm not talking about book smarts) that we build up in an area where we can, like here next to TransAmerica, and it's a perfect location because this building will get views, many of them and sunlight! So, you see, the benefit of views and sunlight for most of the floors of the high-rise outweigh the cost to your little 3 story building, which really there's no negative cost because you should be grateful that your neighborhood is improving (and realize that there are neighborhoods like Richmond and the Sunset that are not near downtown, where you can make a reasonable claim that mid-rise or high-rise buildings should probably go through a hefty neighborhood approval: and we already know that tall buildings won't get built out there).

Back to my point now, that downtown is downtown and your backyard is essentially my backyard and everybody else's because we're talking about downtown. You know what that means?! That means that me and everybody else who don't live down the block from the TransAmerica should have just as much to say about 555 Washington and ... guess what? ... we outnumber you! ... haha! So what now? Let's move on once and for all and let downtown be downtown, and if you're not happy, go ahead and fight your pointless battles out in Western Addition, Haight Ashbury, and every other neighborhood that makes us San Franciscans looks like we just woke up @ 6 in the morning and it is still freakin' 1910!

You guys realize if those people back then were still alive and they knew that current city residents weren't making progress, they would probably shoot us! We all know that the people who rebuilt our city a little before and after 1910, those guys were being progressive innovators by building the kind of buildings they built back then. If those people from 1910 lived in our era today, they would want to build the grandest most amazingly grandiose buildings with the most forward thinking technology and mindset. Believe it or not, those people would probably end up building skyscrapers over every square inch of San Francisco soil and I'm being conservative in my estimate. I estimate that from Ocean Beach to North Beach all the way to South Beach, you would see a city full of beautiful skyscrapers with high-rises and mid-rises mixed in. This pioneering group of innovators would pride themselves on building the greatest city on Earth just as they did when rebuilt S.F. around 1910 (with what are now ancient designs and an archaic blueprint for urban planning and real estate construction).

How about we now all take a page out of our founding fathers' and mothers' book of San Francisco history and make yesterday's innovators and pioneers proud by building a city that will make our grandchildren's grandchildren proclaim to the world: Damn! What an amazing city our great grandparents built! Let's now build a city in the 22nd century that would make our ancestors proud!:cheers: