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

[tech12]

So building soulless corporate junk is ok if its new construction? Got it.

Where exactly did I say that?

I wouldn't mind this building too much if it were replacing a parking lot (it's still pretty boring regardless), but I definitely would prefer the old building stays instead of this thing getting built. Or at least they should preserve the old facade as part of the new design.

I don't remember ever reading about any of the proposed MB projects being referred to as a "turd," but I could be wrong. And from gleaning the MB thread the general attitude seems to be pretty receptive.


What should that thread be like? There actually is a good amount of criticism in that thread, but the project is underway, so we might as well be optimistic about new development. Yeah, most of the architecture in Mission Bay leaves a lot to be desired, and many people who are excited about Mission Bay do in fact realize that...but remember that 90% of that neighborhood is going up where there used to be an old train yard, empty lots, and abandoned warehouses...so with that in mind, it's a vast improvement in many ways, despite the large number of boring buildings going up. Should we instead be complaining, and wishing the area was still full of abandoned lots, warehouses, and piles of dumped junk? Sure, it could have been planned better, but it could have remained much worse. What we're getting is still pretty decent, especially considering what the neighborhood used to be like.

[minesweeper]

Just for the heck of it, I added up how many units are represented in that list of projects under construction collected by 1977.

I found a total of 4,310 units under various stages of construction. Here's the data:


Building,Units
1401 Market,749
1190 Mission,417
Madrone,329
1285 Sutter,107
333 Harrison,308
900 Folsom,282
260 5th St,182
750 2nd St,14
121 Golden Gate,90
2299 Market St,18
701 Golden Gate,100
1880 Mission,202
1844 Market,113
530 Folsom,120
333 Fremont,83
Mission Bay Block 3,147
Mission Bay Block 2,315
178 Townsend,94
Divisadero & Ellis,33
2235 3rd St,196
2121 3rd Street,106
200 Dolores,13
Central & McAllister,3
435 Duboce,5
Polk & Pacific,41
299 Valencia,36
1266 9th Ave,15
411 Valencia,16
Fillmore Park,32
6600 3rd St,73
Millwheel,71
Total,4310

[fflint]

Thanks for the tally--by SF standards, that's an amazing amount of units going up at one time!

[1977]

Wow, thanks minesweeper! If all goes well, it looks like we'll be adding even more units to that list over the next few months.

[viewguysf]

Check out these plans and renderings for the former AAA tower! This ugly edifice is about to be transformed into something much better than I had imagined--what a dynamic improvement for Van Ness and Civic Center!!

http://cdn.e2ma.net/userdata/1405882/assets/docs/100vannessplans.pdf

[viewguysf]

In the meantime, SocketSite has great news for the other side of mid Van Ness--I can't wait to see a big hole there instead of that monstrosity!

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/04/cathedral_hill_hotel_demolition_permit_awaiting_approva.html

[mt_climber13]

Check out these plans and renderings for the former AAA tower! This ugly edifice is about to be transformed into something much better than I had imagined--what a dynamic improvement for Van Ness and Civic Center!!

http://cdn.e2ma.net/userdata/1405882/assets/docs/100vannessplans.pdf

Bah- i dont like it when buldings are reclad or aesthetically renovated. Every building deserves its place in time. Why try to change history? It was built with a certain style in mind and should be respected that way. I know nobody agrees with me, but I prefer it to stay the way it is.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Viewguysf - thanks for the great link. What an attractive building it will be, even not comparing it to the old skin. I live in the Archstone Fox Plaza and watched this structure being built from the sunroof (closed many years ago for security & due to vandalism). Though I do not have a view from my apartment on the east side, I can see it from the laundry room on the 14th floor and friend's apartments.

Shocking as I never expected to see this structure altered. Amazing as I had not expected such an attractive remodel. I look forward to the dramatic changes it will bring to our neighborhood.

[peanut gallery]

Nice find, viewguy! Frankly, I never disliked the AAA building as much as most people but that is one beautiful re-cladding. And look how much better it meets the street. It at least appears so much more open and inviting. Pulling the curved glass back (without a full-on arcade) opens up much more sidewalk, which I think would be pretty welcome on such a busy thoroughfare. Of course, best of all is another ~400 units in this neighborhood. It's hard to imagine what this area will be like in several years with all the additional people suddenly living in it.

[1977]

Great find viewguysf! I really love the rooftop park/open space - great re-cladding as well.

Also, in the last 2 renderings you can see the massing for 101(?) Polk. I'm really excited about all of the changes in this neighborhood!

[minesweeper]

Very nice find. I much prefer glassy buildings to beige ones. It bears a lot of similarities to the 680 Folsom renovation.

I guess the only odd thing is that the lobby looks like that of an office building rather than a residential one.

[flight_from_kamakura]

hoohoo, great score, nice on the massing for the new acquisition on polk too. wow.

[CyberEric]

I am not blown away by the 100 Van Ness re-do, to be honest. I had no major issues with the old design, I just wanted it to be used. I tend to agree with wakamesalad on this.

I also don't like a lot of the design of the new building that will replace one of the most fun to look at buildings in SoMa, 200 6th Street. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/04/hugo_hotel_hangs_on_as_redevelopment_agency_is_dropped.html

I am one part excited about all of the development, and one part worried about some errors that we'll look back on in 30 years and say, "What were we thinking?"

[mt_climber13]

I am one part excited about all of the development, and one part worried about some errors that we'll look back on in 30 years and say, "What were we thinking?"

But, like all architecture, it deserves its place in time and will be a time capsule of how we, as civic, American, and world citizens, represented ourselves, ideals, and philosophies.
The late 1800s and early 1900s are viewed as eras of grandiosity, art, symmetry, poetic flow, and of generations proud of leaving a great legacy to their descendants.
Ever since WWII, and the ensuing economic boom, life has been about getting stuff done as cheaply and as obnoxiously as possible, while spitting on everybody that might get in the way. Imagine if the entire city were built with the current crop of architecture, and that of the 1970s, when it was founded and built out. Do you think it would be as important, as respected, as glorified, as international? Are postcards made of the post WW2 construction in the Sunset? Do you think tourists will come to Mission Bay to check out the buildings and parks? Are they? It saddens me that my generation will not leave much to be desired and to provoke fantasy and inspiration.

Not to say that I dislike all modern design. Skyscrapers, particularly modern ones, are some of my favorite buildings. They reimagine what it is like to dream, to create wonder, awe, symmetry. I'll take a well built skyscraper over a Victorian row house anyday. There are a few buildings in this city that I passionately dislike. The Holiday Inn/Hilton across from the Transamerica Pyramid is one of them. But does it make a cityscape more interesting to provoke feelings of intensity and passion, whether they be good or bad, than those of "meh, whatever," that we have become accustomed to in the past 30 years? I think so, so in that respect, I admire the Holiday Inn over anything in Mission Bay.

The recladding on 100 VN looks very trendy to me. Although, I must say, the current design is rather "meh, whatever."

[peanut gallery]

I guess the only odd thing is that the lobby looks like that of an office building rather than a residential one.

I had the same thought too.


I also don't like a lot of the design of the new building that will replace one of the most fun to look at buildings in SoMa, 200 6th Street. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/04/hugo_hotel_hangs_on_as_redevelopment_agency_is_dropped.html

I am one part excited about all of the development, and one part worried about some errors that we'll look back on in 30 years and say, "What were we thinking?"

I'm with you on the Hugo replacement. It has promise, but there's something off about it to me. However, with the fire damage is it even possible to save the old building?

On your second point, I've been pondering a similar concern. I like glass and all, but are we getting too much all-glass in too short a timeframe? I keep wondering what the skyline will look like if and when the Transbay and Rincon Hill districts are built out in largely all-glass skyscrapers. We'll have one half of the downtown skyline largely built with mostly masonry materials in the '70s and '80s and the other half built mostly with glass (green and blue for the most part) in the '00s and '10s. Might that not look a little frankenskyline-ish?

[flight_from_kamakura]

if you look at the grade-level floor plans on the aaa building, the renders are a little deceptive - there are two fairly large retail surfaces there, on either side of the lobby entrance on the van ness frontage. three things i love about this re-cladding:

1) that it's happening in the context of a rental structure, by a company with deep enough pockets to ensure it happens, and that that it'll require only a few permits and a couple minor variance requests;
2) that the cladding is straight up glass, which we've far too little of in the area, but which will create a nice line from the crescent rentals through 1 polk. once fox tower is re-clad, we'll have a gleaming little addendum to mid-market;
3) the grade level treatments are very nicely done, particularly in contrast with what's there currently. with some bulb-outs (and all the new residents), this could actually be quite an active stretch, that would serve as a gateway to re-development in all directions - up van ness with the other aaa building, down toward mid-market, down vanness toward market proper, and into the hayes valley.

literally, this may not be a calatrava or b.i.g. tower, but from the planning side, there's almost nothing to complain about. it's a really nice bit of neighborhood development.

[fflint]

I think everyone missed the biggest news regarding the old AAA tower--it will be converted to residential. This is not just a slick re-cladding, it's a re-purposing. Given that fact, changing the skin makes perfect sense and I hope it looks as good in reality as it does in the renderings.

[northbay]

Yeah, wow. That is a beautiful re-cladding (at least in the renderings). Man, SF (and this area especially) is ON FIRE!

[peanut gallery]

I noted the additional 399 units, fflint, and agree that's the most significant news. With 749 units already under construction in the immediate area (1166 if you go just three blocks to Trinity) that's a lot of additional people in the neighborhood. And we know there is a lot more planned. Think of the demand this all will create for transit, including the planned Van Ness BRT.

[fflint]

Market/Van Ness and its immediate surrounds are perfect for new, high-rise housing--at the crossroads of the city, with excellent public transportation in every direction, busy but reasonably quiet at night, and absolutely no worries about destroying the urban fabric or overwhelming small-scale, fine-grained Victoriana.

[hruski]

Market/Van Ness and its immediate surrounds are perfect for new, high-rise housing--at the crossroads of the city, with excellent public transportation in every direction, busy but reasonably quiet at night, and absolutely no worries about destroying the urban fabric or overwhelming small-scale, fine-grained Victoriana.

this area really has a ton of potential because of its location. it could go the direction of residential high rises, or it could go in the direction of retail, like a san francisco version of times square.

[RST500]

this area really has a ton of potential because of its location. it could go the direction of residential high rises, or it could go in the direction of retail, like a san francisco version of times square.

There was a plan to do just that but it was voted down.

http://www.spur.org/goodgovernment/ballotanalysis/Nov2009/propd

[peanut gallery]

Yes, it's all very exciting. I'm hoping the increased demand for transit will encourage more funding as well.

On the Hugo Hotel project, SocketSite has a new rendering:

http://www.socketsite.com/200%206th%20Street%20Rendering%202012.jpg
Source: SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/04/designs_for_sixth_and_howard_before_redevelopment_was_r.html).

Here is the previous version we had seen before:

http://www.socketsite.com/200%206th%20Street%20Rendering.jpg
Source: SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/04/hugo_hotel_hangs_on_as_redevelopment_agency_is_dropped.html).

And some details from an older SocketSite post on the development (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/06/defending_the_design_for_200_6th_street_and_adieu_to_de.html):

As designed by Kennerly Architecture & Planning, the new building will feature a total of fifty-six units composed of seventeen three-bedroom flats, twentytwo two-bedroom flats, and seventeen one-bedroom flats.

The new building will have two distinct masses: a larger nine-story mass at the corner of 6th and Howard Streets and a smaller eight-story mass along 6th Street. Overall, the design will be contemporary in style and will feature brick veneer cladding, dark patinated metal siding and exposed structural concrete on the exterior. In addition, the project will feature painted or dark anodized aluminum windows, steel and glass entry marquis, and concrete and translucent glass balcony rails.

The main question now: how will the demise of redevelopment agencies in California affect this proposal? Who will finance it now and will that change anything about the size, scope and design of this development?

[hruski]

There was a plan to do just that but it was voted down.

http://www.spur.org/goodgovernment/ballotanalysis/Nov2009/propd

Just because it can't have signage and billboards like Times Square doesn't mean it can't be a retail mecca.

[CyberEric]

I will be truly sad if they put that in for the Hugo. I know it's abandoned now, but even as it is I find it to be a truly inspiring corner of interesting street art, goofy comedy and interesting ideas.

I don't want to be all NIMBY, I like almost all of the new highrises being proposed or built, but the lower level housing, not so much. I am just concerned about the soul of our city and a lot of this redevelopment looks like it belongs somewhere else besides SF. Just my thoughts though, I completely respect the other side and see the value of it.

[viewguysf]

I will be truly sad if they put that in for the Hugo. I know it's abandoned now, but even as it is I find it to be a truly inspiring corner of interesting street art, goofy comedy and interesting ideas.

I don't want to be all NIMBY, I like almost all of the new highrises being proposed or built, but the lower level housing, not so much. I am just concerned about the soul of our city and a lot of this redevelopment looks like it belongs somewhere else besides SF. Just my thoughts though, I completely respect the other side and see the value of it.

I certainly understand what you're saying and I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy, but the Hugo was not meant to last. It looked much better when the wacky art installation was done years ago, but it looks faded and tired to me now. Surely that old, damaged, exposed building can't last much longer either. At least the new rendering looks better than the previous one, which I instantly disliked. Anyone reading my posts knows I've complained about a lot of boring, standardized and VE'd architecture in SF, a city that deserves much better.

[viewguysf]

Here are the plans for student housing at Ninth and Mission--nice concept, dull building IMO.

http://cdn.e2ma.net/userdata/1405882/assets/docs/1321plans.pdf

[Jerry of San Fran]

Today's San Francisco Chronicle has pictures of a proposed 34 story building on the corner of what is now a parking lot and donut shop. The article is by John King. Beautiful building. I'd be surprised if it happens. You can see the story here at SF Gate: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/26/BAR01O4QT5.DTL

I'm not sure about copy rights so I did not upload a picture here.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Here are the plans for student housing at Ninth and Mission--nice concept, dull building IMO.

http://cdn.e2ma.net/userdata/1405882/assets/docs/1321plans.pdf

viewguysf - thanks for the link. This would be in my view a block away but would not block anything significant in my view.

[tech12]

Today's San Francisco Chronicle has pictures of a proposed 34 story building on the corner of what is now a parking lot and donut shop. The article is by John King. Beautiful building. I'd be surprised if it happens. You can see the story here at SF Gate: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/26/BAR01O4QT5.DTL

I'm not sure about copy rights so I did not upload a picture here.

Nice! I've always dreamed of a tower going up at that location, and that design looks pretty good. But from the renders, it looks like in addition to the parking lot, it won't be replacing that little 3 story building with the donut shop, but rather the larger 4 story building on the other side of the parking lot.

And I'm pretty sure it's ok to post images from a news article, as long as you link them. Here are the renderings:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/26/BAR01O4QT5.DTL

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/04/25/ba-vanness25_SFC0110288893.jpg

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/04/25/tr-vanness26_ph1_SFC0110288885.jpg

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/04/25/ba-vanness06_ph_SFC0110288881.jpg

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/04/25/tr-vannessxx_SFC0110349242.jpg

As for that building proposed at ninth and mission, I agree it's pretty boring. But at the same time it's pretty inoffensive, and it's some more infill (and over 10 floors at that), so I'm happy enough with how it looks.

And here are the renderings for 9th and mission:

http://i.imgur.com/8fdwF.jpg

[1977]

Wow, I love the Richard Meier building!

[peanut gallery]

Wakamesalad created a thread for One Van Ness (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=199038). It's gorgeous.

I agree, the 9th and Mission building sort of leaves you unmoved, either for good or bad. And that appears to be by design. It has a couple of interesting elements, but overall it's a wallflower.

[flight_from_kamakura]

the meier building will be a complete failure without a grade-level retail wrap, and someone should have told meier that before he designed the thing, because there's no way this gets through planning without it. work in progress, a nice start, but work in progress.

[NOPA]

That's awesome! Hey these are some photos of the new building on Central and McAllister. Small but better than before.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m33kuv0Rgg1rugzlco2_500.jpg

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m33kuv0Rgg1rugzlco1_500.jpg

[CyberEric]

I like the Meier building as well, nice looking design.

[1977]

CPMC cleared one more hurdle...

The final EIR was approved tonight by the Planning Commission.

Also:

The Planning Commission approved exemptions to several zoning laws so the structures can be built as planned. The site of the planned hospital permits a 240-foot-tall building, but the commission allowed the hospital to be 265 feet. At the St. Luke's campus, where the current maximum height allowed is 88 feet, the hospital can be rebuilt at 99 feet and an office building can be 100 feet.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/26/BAOH1O98TF.DTL#ixzz1tDVKIsVa

[viewguysf]

CPMC cleared one more hurdle...

The final EIR was approved tonight by the Planning Commission.

Also:

Great! Van Ness is going to be immensely improved by the hospital, the AAA redo and the Meier tower if it is built!

[minesweeper]

That's awesome! Hey these are some photos of the new building on Central and McAllister. Small but better than before.

Thanks for the photos! I like the natural wood appearance, but I wonder how it'll hold up to a constant beating from the sun and fog.

[1977]

Great! Van Ness is going to be immensely improved by the hospital, the AAA redo and the Meier tower if it is built!

Don't forget about 1800 Van Ness and 1285 Sutter (under construction).

Some info about 1800 Van Ness (and a few other projects) in today's SF Business Times:

At 1800 Van Ness Ave., Oyster Development has picked a lender for a $30 million, 98-unit development, according to Oyster Development President Dean Givas, who declined to identify the lender because the loan isn’t due to close for several months. And Principle Global Investors has acquired a site entitled for 299-unit phase two of the One Rincon Hill development for $29.75 million, a sale that should finally revive construction of the long-delayed second tower at the entrance to the Bay Bridge.

In 2014, Foley anticipates that there will be fewer than 200 new condos on the market in a market that typically absorbs 800 to 1,000 new units each year. The Spiers/Canyon Johnson Market Street project is slated for completion in October of 2013, 1800 Van Ness a few months into 2014, and the second Rincon phase in fall of 2014. While the real estate investment trusts will hold on to their development sites, Foley thinks some smaller apartment developers will end up selling to condo builders.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2012/04/27/condos-make-a-comeback.html

[flight_from_kamakura]

walked by 1800 van ness site the other day, it's much larger than it appears. a shame we'll get only those 98 units (at that price, 2-3 levels of underground parking, with 4 story woodframe over a concrete base). this site could easily support a concrete construction of ~10 floors without any trouble, same footprint, limited viewline interruption, etc., a signature tower there would be something else.

[viewguysf]

walked by 1800 van ness site the other day, it's much larger than it appears. a shame we'll get only those 98 units (at that price, 2-3 levels of underground parking, with 4 story woodframe over a concrete base). this site could easily support a concrete construction of ~10 floors without any trouble, same footprint, limited viewline interruption, etc., a signature tower there would be something else.

I highly doubt that tall buildings will be permitted on upper Van Ness (say, north of California), since they would block views from Nob Hill and Russian Hill. As one who remembers Van Ness without the hideous Holiday Inn Golden Gateway, I can say that it truly diminished the view, ambiance and San Francisco feeling from the neighborhoods east of it.

[Gordo]

^Plus 1800 Van Ness is set to be 8 stories, not 4:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2011/10/1800_van_ness_the_revised_designs_for_98_units.html

[peanut gallery]

I like the latest design for 1800 Van Ness. It seems the right scale, increases density a bit and looks interesting. And IMO does so without diminishing "the view, ambiance and San Francisco feeling" like the Holiday Inn does, as viewguy noted. Would you agree?

[Jerry of San Fran]

The 2nd tower for Trinity Place is now 2 stories. I walked by today & got this picture. What a contrast with St. Anthony's (not sure what the facility is for) across the street.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7105/6974514472_40dd63af04_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/6974514472/)

[flight_from_kamakura]

yeah, the design has definitely improved. so that $30 million price doesn't include land value, i guess.

walked past trinity plaza on the way yesterday, pleasantly surprised to see the progress. what a massively positive transformation that'll be on the market street frontage once it's all built out and the retail spaces occupied.

[Gordo]

I like the latest design for 1800 Van Ness. It seems the right scale, increases density a bit and looks interesting. And IMO does so without diminishing "the view, ambiance and San Francisco feeling" like the Holiday Inn does, as viewguy noted. Would you agree?

I like it too. I think an extra couple/few stories would be even better (without hurting anything else in the area), but eight isn't bad.

[fflint]

Noticed a crane and some basement-level construction at an oddly-shaped parcel between Minna and Natoma just off 6th Street. I glanced over the construction list and either I'm blind or it's not listed.

[1977]

Noticed a crane and some basement-level construction at an oddly-shaped parcel between Minna and Natoma just off 6th Street. I glanced over the construction list and either I'm blind or it's not listed.

I think it might be 474 Natoma:

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2009_11_natoma.jpg
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/11/16/rendering_reveal_orange_sherbet_homes_on_natoma.php

Also,

http://www.nibbi.com/projects/474-natoma-street/

If so, I'll add it to the list of projects under construction.

[fflint]

^That's it. Thanks.

From the website:

474 Natoma Street
59 new affordable rental units. The site is approximately 11,875 square-feet and is on a T-shaped lot. The project will consist of a 9-story building along Natoma Street and a 4-story building along Minna Street. Both buildings will sit on a shared landscaped concrete podium. The majority of the units will be 1, 2 and 3-bedroom flats with three 2-bedroom town homes on the ground floor.

[1977]

^That's it. Thanks.

From the website:

474 Natoma Street
59 new affordable rental units. The site is approximately 11,875 square-feet and is on a T-shaped lot. The project will consist of a 9-story building along Natoma Street and a 4-story building along Minna Street. Both buildings will sit on a shared landscaped concrete podium. The majority of the units will be 1, 2 and 3-bedroom flats with three 2-bedroom town homes on the ground floor.

Cool! I added it to the list (page 174).

[jbm]

While it has seemingly gotten lost in the shuffle of all the bigger developments that have broken ground/moved forward over the last few months, SF Jazz is getting closer and closer to completion. The interior structure for the auditorium seems to be largely complete, and they are now building the frame for the rest of the building. I hope that it spurs more development in that part of the civic center/hayes valley border.

[timbad]

if this is better placed in another thread, or has one of its own, someone please let me know, but yesterday I noticed that demolition of Pier 36 has finally gotten underway, which hopefully means that Brannan Street Wharf (http://38.106.4.220/index.aspx?page=262) will follow along soon.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7271/7130796049_a90561efce_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7221/7130567577_4744109ca3_b.jpg

[viewguysf]

I like the latest design for 1800 Van Ness. It seems the right scale, increases density a bit and looks interesting. And IMO does so without diminishing "the view, ambiance and San Francisco feeling" like the Holiday Inn does, as viewguy noted. Would you agree?

Yes peanut! IMO, the new design is a major improvement over the old one; I just hope it doesn't get VE'd along the way.

[viewguysf]

While it has seemingly gotten lost in the shuffle of all the bigger developments that have broken ground/moved forward over the last few months, SF Jazz is getting closer and closer to completion. The interior structure for the auditorium seems to be largely complete, and they are now building the frame for the rest of the building. I hope that it spurs more development in that part of the civic center/hayes valley border.

I just saw this again over the weekend--it's a very exciting cultural addition to our already star studded cultural area, hopefully making the neighborhood even more desirable for positive development.

[Jerry of San Fran]

From left to right:

1) The former State Fund Compensation Bldg. - Currently empty - lots of work going on there - 1 window has been removed from each floor

2) City Hall

3) Archstone Fox Plaza

4) 2 Cranes at Market & 10 th Streets marks the Crescent Heights development, 35 stories for highest structure

5) The Argenta

6) Bank of America - planned a twin building where the Crescent Heights development is happening now but sold the property when the city enacted an employee tax of some sort

7) The former California Automobile, to be redone as housing

8) The yellow construction crane marks the Mary Helen Rogers Senior Community @ 701 Golden Gate/Franklin, 12 stories. This was the site of the Central Freeway off ramp.



http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7259/6984827240_af7bf4b8da_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/6984827240/)

[peanut gallery]

While it has seemingly gotten lost in the shuffle of all the bigger developments that have broken ground/moved forward over the last few months, SF Jazz is getting closer and closer to completion. The interior structure for the auditorium seems to be largely complete, and they are now building the frame for the rest of the building. I hope that it spurs more development in that part of the civic center/hayes valley border.

Excellent! Thanks for the update on that. I drove past it a month ago or so and noticed a lot of progress, but couldn't see much because the forms were still in place around the auditorium. There's another project (senior housing, IIRC) further north along Franklin that's also coming along.

Edit: Just realized that Jerry pointed out the other housing project (Mary Helen Rogers Senior Community) in his photo. That's an interesting shot, Jerry. That view will look very different in several years when (and if) everything planned for that area is in place.

[peanut gallery]

if this is better placed in another thread, or has one of its own, someone please let me know, but yesterday I noticed that demolition of Pier 36 has finally gotten underway, which hopefully means that Brannan Street Wharf (http://38.106.4.220/index.aspx?page=262) will follow along soon.

Great news, and I hope you're right! I think this is the perfect place for that project, unless someone wants to create a separate thread for it in the General Development section. Not sure it's that big a project, but either way works for me.

[peanut gallery]

Remember UOP's plan to remodel 155 Fifth Street for their school of dentistry? SocketSite has a new rendering (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/155_fifth_street_rendered_and_reopening_wide_in_2014.html).

Here's what it currently looks like:
http://www.socketsite.com/155%205th%20Existing.jpg

Here was the first rendering that we saw in November:
http://www.socketsite.com/155%205th%20Rendering.jpg

And here's the latest:
http://www.socketsite.com/155%205th%20Rendering%202012.jpg

It's like they took 2 steps forward, then 1 step back. It meets the ground much better than the existing building, but it looked nicer back in November IMO.

[peanut gallery]

I read in the BOS meeting notes that, as expected, they did indeed continue the 8 Washington EIR approval to May 15 to coincide with the conditional use approval. That will be the ultimate go/no-go from the city. I hope they approve it.

[timbad]

Remember UOP's plan to remodel 155 Fifth Street for their school of dentistry? ...

It's like they took 2 steps forward, then 1 step back. It meets the ground much better than the existing building, but it looked nicer back in November IMO.

wholeheartedly agree, looked much better in first rendering.

[CyberEric]

I agree, that looks pretty bad now, they should go back to November.

[minesweeper]

I agree, that looks pretty bad now, they should go back to November.

Yeah, it looks exceedingly bland and reminiscent of a suburban office park. It's still slightly better than what's there now though.

[flight_from_kamakura]

caught this image in the examiner and felt sort of sick, i mean, i knew it was deep, but this deep??
http://i.imgur.com/VeDjo.jpg

so, let's review:

1) a subway so deep that it'll take barely longer to walk the points between the stations than to wend one's way down to the platform;
2) a total of two stations - union square and chinatown - with no plan anywhere near in the works to extend out to washinton square/north beach or north point;
3) 1.7 billion bucks, including several hundred million in new muni bonds, this the existing system is a total piece of shit that could use those new bonds for across-the-board upgrades.

it's just so frustrating.

[1977]

a total of two stations - union square and chinatown

Actually, there are 4 stations - The 2 you mentioned, Moscone, and Fourth and Brannan.

http://centralsubwaysf.com/sites/default/files/full_alignment.pdf

Stations aside, I am frustrated about it not reaching North Beach and the Wharf (F-Line) during the first phase of construction.

[viewguysf]

Bah- i dont like it when buldings are reclad or aesthetically renovated. Every building deserves its place in time. Why try to change history? It was built with a certain style in mind and should be respected that way. I know nobody agrees with me, but I prefer it to stay the way it is.

I agree with you in many cases wakamesalad, but not with this one since I always disliked the AAA tower and still feel that it's a poor example for its time. I have a full on view of two sides of it from my place, so I'm really excited about its repurposing and the totally new look that it will have. That tower is very prominent from the west and southwest because it is in the forefront of the view. These are older photos I took, but you get the idea.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/3261271748/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/4829208063/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/3277104971/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/3259163779/

Ugh...I haven't posted a photo in so long, I forgot how to do it. peanut, are you there?

[flight_from_kamakura]

Actually, there are 4 stations - The 2 you mentioned, Moscone, and Fourth and Brannan.

http://centralsubwaysf.com/sites/default/files/full_alignment.pdf


bah, those stations don't count.

[1977]

bah, those stations don't count.

I'll give you Fourth and Brannan but isn't Moscone a legit station?

[peanut gallery]

Here you go, viewguy:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3462/3261271748_4ca5d4ce9c_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3492/3277104971_83a703d622_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3467/3259163779_55712f61ec_b.jpg

The trick is getting the URL for the image itself, which will end with .jpg, rather than the URL for the Flickr page for that photo. Hope that makes sense.

Note: I can't post the second one because it says I don't have permission to view it. You must have that one hidden from public view.

[pseudolus]

so, let's review:

1) a subway so deep that it'll take barely longer to walk the points between the stations than to wend one's way down to the platform;
2) a total of two stations - union square and chinatown - with no plan anywhere near in the works to extend out to washinton square/north beach or north point;
3) 1.7 billion bucks, including several hundred million in new muni bonds, this the existing system is a total piece of shit that could use those new bonds for across-the-board upgrades.

it's just so frustrating.

Not to mention the very poor connection to the Market Street subway.

[mt_climber13]

I am a big fan of the central subway. It will connect the strongest economy in the world (Silicon Valley) with Moscone Center and downtown via subway and trains (the best form of transit). So its expensive- what isnt? Those that espouse liberal ideology can not then be surprised that that same ideology is used for union contracts which are exorbitant.
I also look forward to metro or Bart down Geary in 2325.

[peanut gallery]

I also look forward to metro or Bart down Geary in 2325.

That soon? Are you crazy? :)

[1977]

The old Hamm's Brewery was recently purchased by TMG Partners who will be investing 15 million in upgrades and possibly bringing back some of it's old charm. Here (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2012/05/04/tmg-looks-to-brew-ambiance-in-new-site.html) is the article if anyone is interested, but the best part is below:

TMG executives would love to find and put back in its rooftop prominence the famous 13-foot Hamm’s 3-D neon beer chalice that continuously “emptied” and “filled” with light. The sign was built in 1954 and was the largest commercial sign on the West Coast, appearing in movies like “Dirty Harry.” It was removed from the building in 1975.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2012/05/04/tmg-looks-to-brew-ambiance-in-new-site.html

The old Hamm's sign back in the day:

http://blog.sfgate.com/thebigevent/wp-content/blogs.dir/2328/files/hamms-brewery-1954/hamms_three-new.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

[Grantenfuego]

I think this line is necessary, especially with the ridiculous congestion in china town and the imminent population growth in the city.

with no plan anywhere near in the works to extend out to washinton square/north beach or north point;

it's just so frustrating.

I can definitely agree on this though. Washington square is one of the hardest areas in the central city to get to by transit, in my opinion. Especially if you live Tenderloin/ Civic Center where I do. I'm sure the short extra distance would have tipped the scale on the budget a little too much, but as a MUNI rider who sees the system as incomplete, I have trouble comprehending why a city that is supposedly on the cutting edge, a leader in environmental transit, and geographically so small is having trouble connecting it's neighborhoods.

[peanut gallery]

Moscone expansion is still on track. According to this SF Business Times article, they've hired a company to oversee the next steps of the project (design, engineering and I think EIR):

Moscone inks $500 million expansion deal
San Francisco Business Times
Date: Friday, May 4, 2012, 7:21am PDT

A division of the Sares Regis Group has been selected to oversee the expansion of the Moscone Convention Center, an estimated $500 million project intended to allow San Francisco to remain competitive in attracting and retaining large conventions.

The San Francisco Tourism Improvement District has hired SRGNC CRES LLC, a division of Sares Regis Group of Northern California, to oversee the architectural design and engineering of an expansion of the Moscone Convention Center.

This is fitting with the timeline I saw in this SF Travel Foundation presentation (http://www.ulisf.org/wpLoc/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ULI-Moscone-Expansion-Presentation.pdf):

Timeline
2012-2014
- Pre-construction activities
- MOU, Hire Architect, Environmental Review, Hire General
- Contractor and complete a constructability review
2014/2015
- Finish environmental review
- Start Construction
North and South Expansion Construction
- 2.5 -3 years
East Construction
- 3-4 years

And here's what's in store:
Ideal Changes to Moscone
- Add 100,000 to 150,000 s.f. of contiguous exhibit space
- Add additional meeting space in North and South (flexible space)
- Add more natural light in hallways and around meeting space
- Connect existing exhibit halls in North and South
- Increase functionality and flow
- Connect buildings with either a sky bridge or underground passage
- Convention expansion should correspond with additional hotel rooms

Moscone North & South Expansion
- Third Street building
- Howard Street Connection

Moscone East Expansion
- East Expansion under Third Street and in space of Moscone parking garage

[jbm]

on a different note, my office has a view of foundry III (or at least the parking lot where its going) and the last couple of days it has been entirely devoid of cars. hopefully that means construction is starting in the near future.

[1977]

on a different note, my office has a view of foundry III (or at least the parking lot where its going) and the last couple of days it has been entirely devoid of cars. hopefully that means construction is starting in the near future.

Great, thanks!

Also, similar news about 1960 Market...

I'm writing with a question about the development project in the old gas station lot at Buchanan and Market. I know plans for a huge condo building were approved a couple of years ago, but the lot has sat empty since then, with the exception of some monthly parking and the smog station, supposedly because the owner was having trouble getting financing. Recently, however, the parking has been discontinued, the smog center closed, and Cahill signs placed around the perimeter of the lot. Is construction imminent?

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/01/whats_happening_at_market_buchanan.php

And from the comment section...

Apparently, there has been some signs of life across the street at 2001 Market aka the Whole Foods project:

It also looks like the used car dealership that set up shop in the old Ford dealership building across the street is gone now as well. Do we know if this means that the Whole Foods + condo project is finally going to get underway there as well?

[peanut gallery]

on a different note, my office has a view of foundry III (or at least the parking lot where its going) and the last couple of days it has been entirely devoid of cars. hopefully that means construction is starting in the near future.

IIRC, they bought the neighboring building that used to house the nightclub and Goat Hill Pizza to expand the footprint of FSIII. The next major step should be the demolition of that building.

[fflint]

Apparently, there has been some signs of life across the street at 2001 Market aka the Whole Foods project:
Just noticed that a few minutes ago coming home--the windows are all covered up now. It won't be long...

[NOPA]

The Central subway would make a lot more sense if they increased the density near the stops. But of course that would make too much sense and god forbid the NIMBYs let improvements happen.

[viewguysf]

The Central subway would make a lot more sense if they increased the density near the stops. But of course that would make too much sense and god forbid the NIMBYs let improvements happen.

Not really in this case--Chinatown is as dense as it gets, Union Square is often packed and Moscone Center/Yerba Buena is also dense. What else would you do at this time? The air rights could eventually be developed over Caltrain, but that's not feasible now.

[Virtual Urban Vision]

caught this image in the examiner and felt sort of sick, i mean, i knew it was deep, but this deep??

Yep it's a subway, they're pretty deep. About there same as we have here in L.A. With escalators it doesn't seem so bad. ;)

[minesweeper]

on a different note, my office has a view of foundry III (or at least the parking lot where its going) and the last couple of days it has been entirely devoid of cars. hopefully that means construction is starting in the near future.

I'm guessing May 1 is when they kicked everyone out? That would suggest they're planning to start this month.

[minesweeper]

Moscone expansion is still on track.

I wonder where they're going to expand? Both 680 Folsom and 155 Fifth St were mentioned at one point as possible places to expand, but both have been bought up by other interests. It seems like the only possibility is the Moscone parking garage (which they mention) and under Howard Street. I wonder if that's enough space to meet the demand?

[peanut gallery]

Those were my assumptions. They mention connecting the north and south halls. To me, that means opening up everything under Howard, including space that is currently used for meetings/breakouts. Not sure how much square footage that is, but if they extend as far west as the current south hall goes, it might be quite a bit. That meeting space would be replaced and expanded by replacing the garage, which also would be connected underground (across Third). I was also intrigued by the mention of additional hotel rooms coming online in conjunction with the expansion. Could that mean the garage would be replaced by a new hotel with meeting (and small exhibition) space on the lower floors?

[timbad]

The Central subway would make a lot more sense if they increased the density near the stops. But of course that would make too much sense and god forbid the NIMBYs let improvements happen.

well, there is this (http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2557), so some thought is being given to how the area should transform with the new line - it'll probably take forever, but abandon ye not all hope ;)

from the above link:

This area, located generally in the vicinity of 4th St between Townsend and Market Streets, offers a unique opportunity for integration of transportation and land use. The Central Corridor Plan will propose changes to the allowed land uses and building heights, and will include a strategy for improving the pedestrian experience in this area. These changes will be based on a synthesis of community input, past and current land use efforts, and analysis of long-range regional, citywide, and neighborhood needs.

[viewguysf]

Yep it's a subway, they're pretty deep. About there same as we have here in L.A. With escalators it doesn't seem so bad. ;)

Some of the Washington and Rome Metro stations are also very deep--people here will just need to become more sophisticated with their subway usage.

[NOPA]

Not really in this case--Chinatown is as dense as it gets, Union Square is often packed and Moscone Center/Yerba Buena is also dense. What else would you do at this time? The air rights could eventually be developed over Caltrain, but that's not feasible now.

I disagree, Chinatown is dense, but it could be denser if we really wanted it to be (think tall buildings).

If this thing ever gets extended to Washington Square or even Pier 39 there could especially be more density up there (although it would never happen).

[Gordo]

^Guys, one of the fundamental problems with this whole line is that it is being built in a way that can't accommodate much future density/higher ridership.

And the issue with the deep station has to do with what making that trek gets you. In Rome or DC, you deal with a deep station because once you're there, you get access to a gigantic system that goes everywhere. With this system, you make a 10 minute trek into the depths of the earth for either a one stop trip to the north or for the trip south. Now, maybe over time there will be a greater network built to the north, or elsewhere, or more ridership going south of Moscone - BUT - see my first paragraph for the problem. If we ever get to the point where making the 10 minute deep dive is worth it to the average rider - the station will likely be well over capacity and need to be completely rebuilt...

[jbm]

I'm guessing May 1 is when they kicked everyone out? That would suggest they're planning to start this month.

This morning they started tearing up the parking lot for foundry III. Did not make too much progress yet, but there were a few pieces of machinery starting work.

[mt_climber13]

^Guys, one of the fundamental problems with this whole line is that it is being built in a way that can't accommodate much future density/higher ridership.



Please explain- are you talking about the size of the stations? The size of the platforms? Size of the rails? Size of the trains?

The line will be running down some of the densest neighborhoods in the country/ continent, so do we really need more density in those areas? I'd prefer density in other areas that could use it- Geary, Van Ness, Market/ Upper Market, along the N and L lines in the Sunset.

[spyguy]

Not sure if it was ever posted but I came across this rendering of what I assume was/is a proposal for Block 8 (Folsom and 1st).

From Chicagoarchitecture.info's blog post "Inside Solomon Cordwell Buenz" (http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2012/04/30/inside-solomon-cordwell-buenz/)

Rendering in question: http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_2315.jpg

Closeup + photoshop:
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7117/rincon.jpg

[mt_climber13]

Not sure if it was ever posted but I came across this rendering of what I assume was/is a proposal for Block 8 (Folsom and 1st).

From Chicagoarchitecture.info's blog post "Inside Solomon Cordwell Buenz" (http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2012/04/30/inside-solomon-cordwell-buenz/)

Rendering in question: http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_2315.jpg

Closeup + photoshop:
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7117/rincon.jpg

What a great find- I like what I see!

[peanut gallery]

Thanks spyguy! I love it. It sure looks taller than 550' (the limit for that block) compared to ORH in that rendering.

[viewguysf]

I disagree, Chinatown is dense, but it could be denser if we really wanted it to be (think tall buildings).

If this thing ever gets extended to Washington Square or even Pier 39 there could especially be more density up there (although it would never happen).

Chinatown is chill the way it is and I, as one of many, would be against tall buildings there, in North Beach or at the Wharf. There are many other locations in the City that need taller, denser development that would be appropriate for it.

[1977]

Not sure if it was ever posted but I came across this rendering of what I assume was/is a proposal for Block 8 (Folsom and 1st).

From Chicagoarchitecture.info's blog post "Inside Solomon Cordwell Buenz" (http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2012/04/30/inside-solomon-cordwell-buenz/)

Rendering in question: http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/IMG_2315.jpg

Closeup + photoshop:
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7117/rincon.jpg

Awesome find indeed! Looks promising. Thanks!

[CyberEric]

Please explain- are you talking about the size of the stations? The size of the platforms? Size of the rails? Size of the trains?

The line will be running down some of the densest neighborhoods in the country/ continent, so do we really need more density in those areas? I'd prefer density in other areas that could use it- Geary, Van Ness, Market/ Upper Market, along the N and L lines in the Sunset.

I agree. I don't think the Central Line is going to be perfect, but it's going to be an improvement that will over time become part of more improvements.
And here's the main thing, it's happening no matter what anyone says, so get used to it.

[Gordo]

Please explain- are you talking about the size of the stations? The size of the platforms? Size of the rails? Size of the trains?

The line will be running down some of the densest neighborhoods in the country/ continent, so do we really need more density in those areas? I'd prefer density in other areas that could use it- Geary, Van Ness, Market/ Upper Market, along the N and L lines in the Sunset.

It was discussed to death in some older threads here a few years ago - I think there was one thread specific to the project? The basic gist is the platforms are too small (length and width) and the circulation into and out of the station too restricted to ever provide enough service to replace existing street lines (30, 45, etc), let alone increased overall ridership.

There are other issues too - not enough trains systemwide and no budget to get more for the foreseeable future, astoundingly high operating costs that will likely mean cuts in Muni service elsewhere forever, lack of proper infrastructure being put into place to allow "short runs" just inside the tunnel, etc.


I agree. I don't think the Central Line is going to be perfect, but it's going to be an improvement that will over time become part of more improvements.
And here's the main thing, it's happening no matter what anyone says, so get used to it.

It's in a tunnel, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean faster, cleaner, more reliable, etc - exactly what problem do you think this line is solving? The only one that I've seen is that it might keep you from getting wet while waiting for a ride (assuming the tunnel doesn't leak ;)). This is really one of those cases where I think that building nothing would be better than building something, simply because of the dramatically increased operating costs that this line will drain from the rest of the system, which will lead to declining quality of service everywhere else.

[fflint]

Guys, this thread isn't supposed to be about the merits of new subway lines. Perhaps the dedicated Bay Area thread in the transportation subforum is a better venue for that.

[CyberEric]

It was discussed to death in some older threads here a few years ago - I think there was one thread specific to the project? The basic gist is the platforms are too small (length and width) and the circulation into and out of the station too restricted to ever provide enough service to replace existing street lines (30, 45, etc), let alone increased overall ridership.

There are other issues too - not enough trains systemwide and no budget to get more for the foreseeable future, astoundingly high operating costs that will likely mean cuts in Muni service elsewhere forever, lack of proper infrastructure being put into place to allow "short runs" just inside the tunnel, etc.




It's in a tunnel, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean faster, cleaner, more reliable, etc - exactly what problem do you think this line is solving? The only one that I've seen is that it might keep you from getting wet while waiting for a ride (assuming the tunnel doesn't leak ;)). This is really one of those cases where I think that building nothing would be better than building something, simply because of the dramatically increased operating costs that this line will drain from the rest of the system, which will lead to declining quality of service everywhere else.

I respectfully disagree with many of your points, but it doesn't matter al that much what you or I thinks; it's being built. :)
Fflint is right, we should take this to the transportation thread.

[minesweeper]

John King posted this picture of the 680 Folsom rehab yesterday:

http://i.imgur.com/iCnisl.jpg (http://twitpic.com/9iv7r5)