SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed [Archive] - Page 37

1977

May 9, 2012, 7:30 PM

I noticed some activity yesterday at the long-vacant buildings on Pine between Van Ness and Franklin. These ugly ducklings:

http://i46.tinypic.com/162p2p.png

I know that there was a proposal for a tower here long ago - perhaps some plans being dusted off? It was some guys going in and out of the building with debris being loaded into a truck. I tried to strike up a conversation, but none spoke English or Spanish - in thick Eastern European accents they kept saying, "We clean up, we clean up."

This was the original proposal:

http://www.hellermanus.com/Pine_and_Franklin.html

But here is some updated (11/18/11) info about what they're referring to as 1688 Pine Street:

Oyster Development Corp. has acquired a rare large condominium development site in San Francisco’s Lower Pacific Heights, the third housing parcel the firm has bought in less than a year.
The development firm, led by veteran San Francisco developer Dean Givas, along with equity partner Tricon Capital Group, paid $15.5 million for 1688 Pine St., a 35,000 square-foot site that could accommodate about 200 units. The seller was Canyon Capital Realty Advisors, which was managing the property for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
The site is not entitled, but previous developer AF Evans had attempted to build 283 units there before going bankrupt in 2009. In 2011 the planning department cancelled an environmental review application, which means that Oyster Development will be starting the entitlement process from scratch. AF Evans paid about $17 million in 2004 for the six parcels that make up the property.

On Pine Street, Givas said that he would seek a somewhat less dense project than AF Evans had proposed. While AF Evans had planned two towers — 250 feet and 130 feet — Givas intends to comply with the neighborhood’s 130-foot height limit. In addition, the AF Evans development had proposed knocking down all of the five buildings currently on the site. Givas said that several of the existing small buildings are part of the Van Ness automobile district the city has designated as potentially historical.

Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2011/11/18/developer-grabs-site-for-pacific.html

mt_climber13

May 9, 2012, 8:05 PM

NOPA

May 10, 2012, 12:44 AM

I think we will have to wait and see how 15th and Dolores turns out...the types of materials they use will make or break.

peanut gallery

May 10, 2012, 5:40 AM

The old Pacific Telephone Building (140 new Montgomery) has its first new tenant signed: Yelp! From SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/09/BUC11OFIV6.DTL):

Yelp signs Pacific Telephone Building lease to 2020
James Temple
Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Yelp has given San Francisco a five-star rating, committing itself to stay in its hometown through at least 2020.

The popular online review site, one of the first dot-coms to set up shop in the city after the Internet bubble burst, will announce Thursday that it has signed a roughly 100,000-square-foot lease at the Pacific Telephone Building, an Art Deco classic of the city's skyline.

...

Contributing factors included the deepening design and engineering talent pool in the city, the convenient commute to that slice of South of Market and the unique character of 140 New Montgomery St., he said.

Designed by prominent architect Timothy Pflueger in the 1920s, the Pacific Telephone Building is considered one of the finest Art Deco skyscrapers in the city, routinely praised in local architecture guides.

Yelp will relocate from its current space at 650 Mission St. in the fall of 2013. The new space will accommodate around 800 employees, room to grow from the roughly 500 San Francisco workers Yelp has today.

(continued here) (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/09/BUC11OFIV6.DTL)...

This is one of my favorite buildings in the city and I am so glad it will come to life again.

Edit: Adding some photos of the building I took:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2091/2421997367_5bcac53ea8_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2422811802_ff8bf30102_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/2419452733_d764d92525_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2419451307_3a36a63329_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/2517949942_31c39ba68d_b.jpg

fflint

May 10, 2012, 6:21 AM

I think we will have to wait and see how 15th and Dolores turns out...the types of materials they use will make or break.
I see this site from my living room and kitchen windows--I'll take pics as soon as they rise above street level.

CyberEric

May 10, 2012, 11:42 AM

Great news about the Telephone Building, I love that building!

rriojas71

May 10, 2012, 5:29 PM

Nice to see the Telephone Building getting a significant tenant. It is one of my favorite buildings in SF. I hope they do some uplighting to accentuate the crown and some of the buildings details. Great news indeed.

peanut gallery

May 10, 2012, 10:26 PM

^I've been wondering if they will start lighting it at night again. In these days of green buildings and power savings it might not be very politically correct, but maybe they can install new low-power lighting or somehow mitigate the extra power usage. I did a quick search for any shots of it lit up at night and could only come up with this small one:

http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAD-5770.jpg
Source: San Francisco Public Library (http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1030536~S0)

That just shows the top lit, but there is uplighting for the whole exterior.

jbm

May 11, 2012, 2:42 AM

Here's my second attempt at posting pics...this is SF Jazz taken this evening. that inner core of cement is what went up first and i believe it is the auditorium frame. unfortunately, due to the sun, you can't tell that it is indeed an entire story higher. the glare seems to cut off the entire top floor.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7093/7174304072_83014081b0.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8162/7174305216_82f61b1d8c.jpg

minesweeper

May 11, 2012, 5:44 AM

Bloomberg posted a video (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/92437233/) with Douglas Shorenstein and Terry Kwik of RMW Architects talking about Market Square, the new Twitter building.

The video includes some renderings I haven't seen before:

http://i.imgur.com/lrJOO.png (http://imgur.com/lrJOO)

http://i.imgur.com/hkFfO.png (http://imgur.com/hkFfO)

http://i.imgur.com/EZDIJ.png (http://imgur.com/EZDIJ)

http://i.imgur.com/wZXtV.png (http://imgur.com/wZXtV)

fflint

May 11, 2012, 6:09 AM

^Cool renderings. Market Square, according to today's Chronicle article (http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2012/05/10/mayor-ed-lee-mid-market-set-for-total-resurgence/) on Mid-Market's renaissance, will include offices, 55,000 square feet of retail space, and "a full-service grocery store, something the area is in dire need of."

The developer says “It’s not a done deal, but we have multiple (grocery companies) that are interested.”

I don't remember reading about a new downtown grocery store before--is this news or am I just forgetful?

peanut gallery

May 11, 2012, 6:53 AM

Not sure, fflint. But I had no idea recladding that annex building was part of the plan either, so I clearly didn't catch all the details.

flight_from_kamakura

May 11, 2012, 6:53 PM

i'm all for the re-cladding, but i do sort of like the current, eccentric letters that run the outside now. the conversion of stevenson street is very pleasing, however, and i wonder if the sf mart reno does plan to turn that parking entrance into some sort of people entrance, as the renderings here from shorenstein suggest. if so, hard to see this as anything but a sure-fire success. any best on how much longer it'll be until we see a development proposal for the mission-fronting lot behind the crescent heights tower site? i'm guessing before fall, if even that.

timbad

May 12, 2012, 6:55 PM

... any bets on how much longer it'll be until we see a development proposal for the mission-fronting lot behind the crescent heights tower site? i'm guessing before fall, if even that.

well, there was this (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/02/18/soma_swank_rooftop_soires_arent_just_for_the_rich.php), once upon a time...

and this SF Planning letter (http://sf-planning.org/ftp/files/LOD/2011/1400%20Mission%20&%20201%20Folsom%20Streets.pdf) from last October links the site to the required affordable housing component of 201 Folsom (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/02/13/arquitectonicas_new_look_for_201_folsom_which_was_loved_by_the_planning_commission.php), saying the Mission site needs to be completed within 5 years of construction start of the Folsom project.

here's hoping they both get going soon!

edit: there's also this (http://www.hellermanus.com/1415_Mission_Street.html) across the street

tech12

May 15, 2012, 5:04 PM

And now for something a little different...

The city plans to expand the SF Wholesale Produce market (which is apparently the largest one in Nor Cal already) from 300,000 feet to 500,000 feet:

With a vision for reinventing the San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market that's been on the boards, the city of San Francisco is preparing to back the $96 million initiative.

Under legislation that Lee and Supervisor Malia Cohen will introduce Tuesday, the nonprofit San Francisco Market Corp. will sign a new 60-year lease that calls for rent revenue from merchants to be used in a three-phase effort to redevelop and expand the market to an adjacent city-owned parcel at 901 Rankin St., currently a parking lot and storage site.

The nonprofit San Francisco Market Corp. is expected to borrow to cover up-front construction costs and pay it off with rent revenue. Once the upgrades and expansion are paid for, remaining rent revenue would go to the city's general fund, its main spending account.
As proposed, the two blocks of Jerrold Avenue that currently bisect the market will be closed and the market will expand from 300,000 to 500,000 square feet.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/the_vision_and_financing_for_sfs_wholesale_produce_mark.html

http://www.socketsite.com/San%20Francisco%20Wholesale%20Produce%20Market%20Rendering.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/San%20Francisco%20Wholesale%20Produce%20Market%20Aerial.jpg

1977

May 15, 2012, 11:49 PM

901 Market (at Fifth) was just sold to Hudson Pacific Properties and now 3 groups are vying for 935-965 Market aka the failed City Place retail development (below) by Urban Reality. It feels like mid-Market may have finally reached its tipping point. Fingers crossed!

http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/7_12/City_Place_street_view.jpg
Source: http://sf.streetsblog.org

The property is just east of a high-profile development site that Urban Realty Co. put together in 2005 and 2006. A series of vacant buildings between 935 Market St. and 965 Market St., Urban Realty spent more than three years entitling the parcels for 250,000 square feet of retail development. While some question whether five floors of value retail would work there, Martin Sawa and David Rhoades of Urban Realty never got to truly test the market: before they could reach a deal with a tenant, their financial partner Commonfund went bankrupt. The distressed portfolio of Commonfund loans was purchased at a discount by Loan Star Fund, which foreclosed on the various properties, including 901 Market St. and the development site.
Now all eyes will be on 935-965 Market St. Groups reportedly bidding on it include: the ubiquitous TMG Partners; Hines, which would re-entitle it for office; and a group lead by AvalonBay, which would seek to build a mixed-use residential/retail project there.
Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/05/hudson-pacific-to-buy-901-market.html

flight_from_kamakura

May 16, 2012, 1:00 AM

hines would be a solid team, but i hate the idea that city place would become office. much much better to have the residential/retail there, keeping eyes on the street at night. since this one is a midmarket fantasy that seems to be moving a step closer to reality, let's go into a few more:
1) demolishing the sunken plaza at power station and building a proper square on the powell side and a straight up sidewalk on the cyril magnin side;
2) a midrise tower (8-10 stories) on the billiards hall site;
3) a demolition of the low-rise portion of the fox plaza, to be replaced with a good 5-6 stories over a flush retail wall;
4) a resurrection of the hibernia bank AS A BANK; and
5) that the trinity plaza towers have great, non-formula retail.

i don't ask much.

jbm

May 16, 2012, 3:49 AM

i walk down that stretch of market at least 2-3 times a week and totally agree with your thoughts on locations in need of renovation, in particular the billiards hall and hibernia bank. my wife has always maintained that hibernia bank would make a great club. the last few weeks it has looked like they are doing some work, at least around the outside along the base, possibly shoring the foundation. there is another totally empty lot i think, on the south side of market, in front of the federal building, towards the middle of the block.

minesweeper

May 16, 2012, 4:47 AM

1977

May 16, 2012, 5:03 AM

It's good news that there are parties interested in developing the property. Hopefully the new plans for the place won't trigger another multi-year re-entitlement slog.

Indeed.

And here is another article about some of the current movement along Market:

http://news.theregistrysf.com/harvest-and-hudson-stroll-market-street/

catwoman

May 16, 2012, 5:16 AM

I so LOVE this building! Thanks for posting the pics, Peanut Gallery...I got some 'sploring to do in a few weeks!
:drummer:The old Pacific Telephone Building (140 new Montgomery) has its first new tenant signed: Yelp! From SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/09/BUC11OFIV6.DTL):

This is one of my favorite buildings in the city and I am so glad it will come to life again.

Edit: Adding some photos of the building I took:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2091/2421997367_5bcac53ea8_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/2422811802_ff8bf30102_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2136/2419452733_d764d92525_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/2419451307_3a36a63329_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/2517949942_31c39ba68d_b.jpg

timbad

May 16, 2012, 6:24 AM

some random shots of things in various stages of progress between Mission Bay and Market...

first, 178 Townsend is starting to wrap up. I'm not sure I like it as much as I did the rendering - seems like too much green glass, but maybe it'll grow on me. and I do like that the alley is a little livelier than it was. too bad they couldn't have done more, but I think there's a decent amount of car in-and-out.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5113/7201656774_c008651161_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5444/7201688070_c62486ef5c_b.jpg

sort of around the corner is 750 Second St, behind Momo's across from the ballpark. I'm liking it. from the south:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8013/7201681848_0da0f12a27_b.jpg

from the north:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7079/7201684988_c3122f8f7f_b.jpg

333 Harrison doesn't look too different from the recent photo posted of it:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/7201674810_093e22094d_b.jpg

looking down (north-northwest along) Fremont from Harrison, there was equipment (inactive on Saturday) which seemed to have been doing a little prepping recently...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8002/7201660078_66ed122d6c_b.jpg

... and the two buildings that remained after all the others were cleared a couple of years ago had (new) demolition permit notices on them, so they may not be long for this world (the ones in the shadow of doom on the right). edit: maybe making room for 333 Fremont:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7222/7201677642_09ab794903_b.jpg

and the one I am excited about... as has been mentioned recently, equipment is starting to scratch the surface of the Foundry III site. will be nice to see another parking lot bite the dust, especially since those buildings look so slick. looking sort of east, from across Howard, with Foundry I in the background:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7238/7201663458_97a21800e6_b.jpg

looking back the other way from the southeast corner:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5152/7201667220_2e511717fb_b.jpg

and from the southwest corner (with II and IV in the background):

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5343/7201671428_11aa55bef1_b.jpg

sahran

May 16, 2012, 4:55 PM

Good news for the Waterfront, 8 Washington EIR approved last night (8-3 decision)! Looks like it's a go with construction starting later this year :cheers:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/8_washington_watch.html

tech12

May 16, 2012, 5:14 PM

Nice shots timbad. I'm especially excited to see that movement on Fremont street, at the site for the Californian and that other smaller tower down the block.

Good news for the Waterfront, 8 Washington EIR approved last night (8-3 decision)! Looks like it's a go with construction starting later this year :cheers:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/8_washington_watch.html

Yes! Take that, NIMBYs!

1977

May 16, 2012, 5:27 PM

Thanks timbad! And I agree with tech12...it's great to see some life up on Rincon Hill. Keep 'em coming.

minesweeper

May 16, 2012, 6:19 PM

sort of around the corner is 750 Second St, behind Momo's across from the ballpark. I'm liking it. from the south:

Thanks for all the great pictures, timbad.

I agree on 750 2nd St. I thought that big, blank wall would be an eyesore, but it actually doesn't look that bad behind Momo's. I'm just worried that someone will try to put up an ugly billboard in that empty space.

flight_from_kamakura

May 16, 2012, 9:04 PM

i wonder if 555 washington might come back to this board?

migol24

May 16, 2012, 9:22 PM

Yes! Take that, NIMBYs!

not too familiar with this project or what went on with it, but looking at the project and its location i just find it insane that NIMBYs would be opposed to that project. Why would they prefer just having a surface parking lot over that project? No rational human being should ever think that way. It's insane.

tech12

May 16, 2012, 9:53 PM

not too familiar with this project or what went on with it, but looking at the project and its location i just find it insane that NIMBYs would be opposed to that project. Why would they prefer just having a surface parking lot over that project? No rational human being should ever think that way. It's insane.

It is insane, which is why it's so great that they didn't have their way. If I remember right, aside from increased traffic, they were actually concerned about the building being too tall....despite the fact that it's surrounded on three sides by much taller buildings. :haha: Others were concerned that we're adding more high-end housing instead of low income housing, which I can agree with; I think we need more cheap housing too...but not at the expense of this project or all other high end housing. And if we're going to be building high end housing too, like any normal city with high land values would, than 8 Washington is as good a spot as any to build it. There's no reason why that particular spot NEEDS to be low income housing over all else, especially given that it's in a very expensive and busy part of the city. And others want the area to become a park...even though there's already a park right next door.

The worst part is that the main opposition is from a group (the Telegraph Hill Dwellers) that doesn't even represent the area where this building is. And I suspect that at least some of the opposition was from people who just didn't want their tennis club to close.

edit: dear god, looks like the NIMBYs have now started an online petition to try and stop the project:

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/05/16/epic_now_with_online_petitions.php#reader_comments

I dunno what kind of weight that would carry, if any, when/if they get all the signatures they're going for (10,000), but it's annoying that they won't just give it a rest. If people like them had their way, there would not be a single building in SF over 3 stories.

edit #2: that petition is older than i thought. And It's taken them a few weeks just to get 1,100 signatures, so I doubt they'll reach 10,000 any time soon.

1977

May 17, 2012, 3:56 AM

If people like them had their way, there would not be a single building in SF over 3 stories.

Honestly, if they had their way, a 3 story building wouldn't even make the cut. :brickwall:

mt_climber13

May 17, 2012, 7:56 AM

great photos!

WildCowboy

May 17, 2012, 2:31 PM

They want a smaller project with higher payments into affordable housing fund. In other words, they want it to be economically infeasible.

migol24

May 17, 2012, 7:37 PM

They want a smaller project with higher payments into affordable housing fund. In other words, they want it to be economically infeasible.

which all the more makes them even more insane, despite the fact that they might mean well.

viewguysf

May 21, 2012, 12:31 AM

Here are a couple of photos I took of the PT&T building on June 27, 2004.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7218/7186359612_49d597924f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7186359612/)
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7186359612/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8141/7186343546_956d8ed02a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7186343546/)
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building Roof & Mechanical Penthouse (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7186343546/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

Austinlee

May 21, 2012, 12:58 AM

PT&T is the shit.

mt_climber13

May 21, 2012, 7:02 AM

Magnificent! And, a trend setter- that building had to have been the tallest in SOMA for many decades.

Here is a great photo I found that shows the building up against a rare site in SF- snow on the east bay hills:
http://inlinethumb25.webshots.com/47320/2780243780082084340S600x600Q85.jpg
Photo credit: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/27/950617/-San-Francisco-s-1st-Snowfall-in-35-Years-Fun-Historical-Photos

1977

May 21, 2012, 5:55 PM

Wow, that's a lot of snow for the east bay hills. Great pic.

In other news...

Rincon Hill tower II is "weeks away" from groundbreaking!

From Socketsite:

Construction is anticipated to start approximately June 1, 2012 and be completed in an estimated 26 months. The building design, unit size and unit mix can be summarized as a 50 story version of Phase I as displayed at the scale model located in the sales office.
For the floor plans and unit layouts, Phase II will combine the two adjacent small one bedroom units at the center of the building curve above floor 25 into one two bedroom unit. The number of two bedroom units will increase and the number of one bedroom units will correspondingly be reduced. Approximately 60% of Phase II unit plans are the same as Phase I.
Significant improvements in the Phase II building will include a 3,600 square foot exercise facility and a top floor 4,000 square foot penthouse "Sky Lounge." (As comparison, current Phase I amenities include a 750 square foot exercise room and an 1,100 square foot Party Room). All amenities, including the existing swimming pool and spa deck facilities, will be available to occupants of both towers.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/one_rincon_hill_tower_two_breaking_ground_in_a_few_week.html

The target date for pulling the Site Permit and to begin shoring is now June 11, 2012.

At full buildout:

http://www.socketsite.com/One%20Rincon%20Hill%20Two%20Towers.jpg
Source: www.socketsite.com

minesweeper

May 21, 2012, 7:16 PM

Rincon Hill tower II is "weeks away" from groundbreaking!

From Socketsite:

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/one_rincon_hill_tower_two_breaking_ground_in_a_few_week.html

Great news! It'll be nice to finally get ORH some company in the skyline.

minesweeper

May 21, 2012, 7:21 PM

Here's a project I've been watching for a while (which I haven't seen any stories about online). It was just an empty lot with the shell of an old building for several years, but construction started some time last year.

Googling indicates that the building used to be "Goss Heating & Sheet Metal". Then, it was approved for 8 condo units back around 2004/2005, and the old building was demolished (except for the facade), but then it remained an empty eyesore for a long time. Here are three shots showing the recent progress:

Google Street View, c. 2010:
http://i.imgur.com/K2Fffl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/K2Fff.jpg)

July 2011:
http://i.imgur.com/7Udqql.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/7Udqq.jpg)

May 2012:
http://i.imgur.com/Tefajl.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/Tefaj.jpg)

(click images to enlarge)

viewguysf

May 21, 2012, 9:04 PM

Great news! It'll be nice to finally get ORH some company in the skyline.

Yes, I can't wait and am super excited about this. Here's are some zoomed views of ORH from my place; the first tower obviously needs it's little brother and will look so much more complete when this project if finished!
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7244525470_a2803d98f6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7244525470/)
PICT8780 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7244525470/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/7244527000_1ac67ab09a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7244527000/)
PICT8644 - Version 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7244527000/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3265/3261281042_3cbb2b21a0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/3261281042/)
PICT7043 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/3261281042/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

viewguysf

May 21, 2012, 9:13 PM

Gordo

May 21, 2012, 9:49 PM

^It's on Arguello between Geary and Clement.

mt_climber13

May 21, 2012, 10:10 PM

^It's on Arguello between Geary and Clement.

That is near my house and I go by it all the time- construction has been painfully slow. There is also a nearby 4 story project that popped up on an empty lot on the south side of California st. between 4th and 5th aves. (vacant lot was always used as a Christmas tree lot). I can not find any information on that one either.

minesweeper

May 21, 2012, 11:18 PM

That is near my house and I go by it all the time- construction has been painfully slow. There is also a nearby 4 story project that popped up on an empty lot on the south side of California st. between 4th and 5th aves. (vacant lot was always used as a Christmas tree lot). I can not find any information on that one either.

I'm guessing that's 4201 California. From what I can tell, it was approved in 2006 (http://dbiweb.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?page=permit&PermitNumber=200607186846) for a 4-story, 6-unit mixed-use building with ground floor retail.

mt_climber13

May 22, 2012, 1:09 AM

I'm guessing that's 4201 California. From what I can tell, it was approved in 2006 (http://dbiweb.sfgov.org/dbipts/default.aspx?page=permit&PermitNumber=200607186846) for a 4-story, 6-unit mixed-use building with ground floor retail.

Ground floor retail? What a horrible area for that. The isolated location and sandwiching between Cornwall, California, and 4th ave. creates heavy car and bus traffic and is very unattractive for pedestrians. But, since I live only a block away, I wish it luck and look forward to what may come.

1977

May 22, 2012, 4:14 PM

I posted this in the Transbay thread as well...Good news.

Hines revives people mover for S.F. skyscraper plan
San Francisco Business Times
Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 7:16am PDT

Hines has restored plans for a cable-car-like system connecting parts of its proposed 60-story building in San Francisco, the Chronicle reports.
The system, which would attract people to visit a rooftop park at the site, had been scrapped because of costs.
Hines has now brought the idea back in advance of its Thursday meeting with the city's Planning Commission.

Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/morning_call/2012/05/hines-revives-people-mover-for-sf.html

More info here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/21/BAIA1OLBS0.DTL).

1977

May 22, 2012, 4:29 PM

Apparently, there will be an official announcement at 10AM about the Warriors move to SF. Here are some renderings and info about the move and the new arena:

Warriors to build new arena, move back to S.F.

The Golden State Warriors are jumping across the bay, with plans for a privately financed, $500 million waterfront arena that would allow the team to play its home games in San Francisco for the first time in more than four decades.

The NBA franchise would leave Oakland for a 17,000- to 19,000-seat arena that would be built on Piers 30-32 near the foot of the Bay Bridge, a short walk from downtown, and open in time for the 2017-18 season.

"It is going to happen - let there be no doubt," Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob said Monday.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/22/MNP41OK74T.DTL#ixzz1vcKmTn7r

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/ba-warriors22_PH_SFC0111089780.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/ed-edit22_warrio_SFC0111090014.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/sp-knapp22_PH1_SFC0111089788.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2012/05/21/ba-warriors22_PH_SFC0111090020.jpg
Source: www.sfgate.com

rocketman_95046

May 22, 2012, 6:57 PM

^ I'm just happy to see that the Transbay tower is in all of the renderings.;)

minesweeper

May 22, 2012, 7:54 PM

Those renderings look great. The arena looks much less imposing than I imagined. I'm wondering if the sketches made the arena appear smaller than it will in real life?

I really hope a new Warriors arena comes to fruition (even if in Mission Bay). It'll be a great boon to the city to have a real multipurpose arena capable of large concerts and shows.

The only way I can imagine this getting all the approvals is if the Warriors grease the wheels a bit by offering money for affordable housing, public transit, and wetlands restoration to mollify all the government agencies needed to approve the project.

mt_climber13

May 22, 2012, 8:04 PM

^ I'm just happy to see that the Transbay tower is in all of the renderings.;)

The tower in the renderings is 1200'- take about 10 stories from the top and you've got the current proposal :(

An arena on the waterfront is excellent for so many reasons:
it's within walking distance to BART, the Transbay Transit Center, MUNI metro, and easily accessible from CalTrain. No other arena in the Bay Area has this much "rapid" transit access.

Concerts and large events can now be local instead of having to plan ahead and have to deal with getting to and from Oakland and San Jose. The added revenue for the city from San Franciscans currently being spent in these other cities is an additional boon.

We lose a professional sports team, but gain a new one.

It puts to use a dilapidated pier and adds more foot traffic to a rather blighted, vacant area.

homebucket

May 23, 2012, 5:54 PM

The tower in the renderings is 1200'- take about 10 stories from the top and you've got the current proposal :(

An arena on the waterfront is excellent for so many reasons:
it's within walking distance to BART, the Transbay Transit Center, MUNI metro, and easily accessible from CalTrain. No other arena in the Bay Area has this much "rapid" transit access.

Concerts and large events can now be local instead of having to plan ahead and have to deal with getting to and from Oakland and San Jose. The added revenue for the city from San Franciscans currently being spent in these other cities is an additional boon.

We lose a professional sports team, but gain a new one.

It puts to use a dilapidated pier and adds more foot traffic to a rather blighted, vacant area.

Great news for San Francisco and the Warriors. It's a smart move on so many levels. I can't help but feel bad for Oakland though. They're losing all their sports franchises.

easy as pie

May 23, 2012, 11:02 PM

even if the mayor were to throw everything he could at it - trading whatever he could with supervisors to get it fast-tracked, just the eir alone would take 14-16 months. how do these guys expect to get it done? has the port already done work on it?

easy as pie

May 24, 2012, 12:52 AM

hruski

May 24, 2012, 1:43 AM

yessssss.... http://uptownalmanac.com/2012/05/stepped-del-taco-box-replace-giant-value

of course, the fanatical idiots who don't care about how housing costs are spiraling out of control in the city will complain about the height, but i love it almost everything about it.
http://i.imgur.com/DxbMf.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6oNrv.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/r7JnP.jpg

note that the mission cinema project is completely aside from this project -http://drafthouse.com/blog/entry/an_alamo_in_san_francisco

I'm a big fan of this project as well, but this isn't going to make any difference in the price of rentals in SF. you need to build huge high rises (I'm talking Archstone Fox Plaza size) to make any sort of impact.

easy as pie

May 24, 2012, 2:17 AM

well, yeah, but continually opposing virtually big development in hoods that haven't any mid-block mid-rise, that's the currency of the sf nimby. we need to densify everywhere, to this extent.

anyway, back to the basketball stadium, we have some pretty straightforward tidbits from the latest chron article:

Ellison's loss may prove beneficial to the Warriors because the team now has access to the Oracle co-founder's extensive engineering studies done on Piers 30-32, which were provided to the port, and to thousands of pages of public documents produced last year for the environmental impact review of the America's Cup regatta that include analyses of the piers' physical condition, animal species in the water and traffic issues. Guber and Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob say they're fully aware of the condition of the piers and will soon be putting out a bid to fix them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/22/MNM41OLT8K.DTL#ixzz1vkX3g0J3

that's the nice stuff, esp since the ac eir was fast-tracked.

we'll see how far it goes with this:

Even with City Hall's support, the Warriors' owners will need to convince the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the California State Lands Commission, which both oversee waterfront development on public land.

Winning their approval could be difficult. State law has strict "public trust" requirements for building on the waterfront that prioritizes open space, the maintenance of views of the water and maritime usage. Lewis said a basketball arena doesn't fit any of that and could easily be built farther inland.

ozone

May 24, 2012, 7:38 AM

Congrats to San Francisco for getting the Warriors back. But I really question if that will end up the actual site of their arena. It'll probably be in Mission Bay or maybe even in Hunters Point. But of course I have been known to be wrong..maybe even known for being wrong so who knows. Anyway good news everybody ..er..except Oaklanders.

1977

May 24, 2012, 4:08 PM

Big day for the Transbay neighborhood and tower:

Transit district development plan gets hearing
By: Ari Burack | 05/23/12 6:13 PM
SF Examiner Staff Writer

Plans for the neighborhood surrounding the Transbay Transit Center are before the Planning Commission.
A plan to reshape the South of Market neighborhood surrounding the planned new Transbay Terminal, laying the groundwork for new development that could include the tallest building on the West Coast, passes before the Planning Commission today.

The commission will consider approval of the final environmental impact report and zoning changes for the Transit Center District Plan, The City’s vision for shaping development in the neighborhoods around the new terminal. The $4 billion project being built at First and Mission streets includes a new bus terminal and an extension of Caltrain that could also accommodate high-speed rail.

The district plan, in development since 2007, builds on city plans dating back as far as the mid-1980s to shift development further south of the old Financial District. The plans centers on the area between Market Street, The Embarcadero, Folsom Street and Hawthorne Street.

If approved by the Planning Commission, the plan will move on to the Board of Supervisors for final approval, possibly this summer.

“It’s an exceptionally important hearing,” said Joshua Switzky of the Planning Department. “Assuming they approve it, it would set the stage for entitling some important new projects and generate hundreds of millions of dollars for public improvements and infrastructure.”

One of those projects, the planned 61-story, 1,070-foot Transit Tower office building at the terminal site, could come up for approval at the Planning Commission in the fall. Although scaled down from its original planned height of 1,200 feet, it would still dwarf The City’s current tallest building, the 48-floor Transamerica Pyramid, which stands 853 feet tall and was completed in 1972.

“It’s still the iconic tower that The City was looking for from the beginning,” said Paul Paradis, senior managing director at Hines, the developer on the project.

The towering glass and white metal building is expected to help significantly fund the terminal project, with $575 million anticipated for the downtown rail extension, and street and open space improvements.

Paradis said that as the market improves in The City improves, available office space is diminishing. Construction on the tower could begin as soon as next year, he said.

“I think that it’s going to provide a much needed space for the tenants of San Francisco,” Paradis said. “We’ve been in discussions with some larger tenants already.”

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/development/2012/05/transit-district-development-plan-gets-hearing

mt_climber13

May 24, 2012, 5:23 PM

Big day for the Transbay neighborhood and tower:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/development/2012/05/transit-district-development-plan-gets-hearing

Weve heard this before- the BOS was supposed to approve height limits and new zoning back in 2007. Until I see a crane in the sky, this is all just political hyperbole.

mt_climber13

May 24, 2012, 5:28 PM

San Frangelino

May 25, 2012, 3:39 AM

I'll do the honors. In all the years I've been on Skyscraper Page, I don't think I've ever used the banana.
:banana:

rriojas71

May 25, 2012, 3:50 PM

Weve heard this before- the BOS was supposed to approve height limits and new zoning back in 2007. Until I see a crane in the sky, this is all just political hyperbole.

I agree completely. How many times do the tower plans have to go through the planning commission? Maybe until they make sure there is not some other park where the tower casts a "temporary" shadow and they call for another reduction in height. I just don't understand why a shadow, God forbid, at a park can cause so much dread. Maybe they should remove all the trees around the parks as well so they don't create shadows because we all know what kinds of evil things lurk in the shadows. :sly:

I love SF, but it seems like they are so afraid of change and charging into the future.

1977

May 25, 2012, 4:05 PM

Approved:

UPDATE: The Transit Center District Plan was approved by the Planning Commission.

From the Planning Department:

Between now and 2035, approximately 17 percent of the projected job growth in San Francisco will occur in the area surrounding the new Transbay Transit Center. The project anticipates over 27,000 new permanent jobs will be accommodated in the District -- the most significant concentration of projected job growth in the entire city.
The new district will feature more than six million square feet of new office space, over 4,000 new housing units of which at least 1,200 units will be affordable, up to 1,000 new hotel rooms, and improved streets to enhance transit service and support walking and bicycling. The new Plan also proposes to create and fund over 11 acres of new public spaces such as parks, plazas and living streets.

viewguysf

May 25, 2012, 5:16 PM

Time for the dancing banana!

http://www.socketsite.com/2001%20Market%20Street%20Rendering%20Reality1.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/2001_market_lets_get_ready_to_rubble_and_build.html#comments

I took this on Wednesday and noticed yesterday that they've made more progress building the sidewalk barricade--demolition should commence soon! Let's hope nobody here will miss this lovely edifice. :haha:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7268625920_06c72b04b9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7268625920/)
IMG_0640 - Version 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/7268625920/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

1977

May 25, 2012, 5:46 PM

Thanks! So happy to see this moving forward. Upper Market is really moving now.

NOPA

May 25, 2012, 6:45 PM

Just a week ago I drove by and was thinking that building would be a great site for development. I guess somebody else already had the thought :)

peanut gallery

May 25, 2012, 7:22 PM

Fantastic shots, viewguy! The lighting on this one (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7081/7244527000_1ac67ab09a_b.jpg) is pure magic.

As for the Transbay plan, I wouldn't be so pessimistic. It's a long process, yes, but it is definitely moving forward. These things (plans, EIRs, approvals) take time. Longer than we'd like, but that's the way it is here. This is the first time the final EIR came before them for approval and they did it. They had to approve other discrete steps, drafts and other things before, but that's just the process. Now it goes to the Supes for their approval. Once that's done, all the new height limits around Transbay are final and projects can proceed. Personally, I'm extremely excited that we've come this far. And I have a lot of confidence in this particular BOS to get it approved.

RST500

May 25, 2012, 9:03 PM

This needs to happen!

Market Street, San Francisco, 1960's

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/151998298_97372dd469_o.jpg
link (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/151998298_97372dd469_o.jpg)

Jerry of San Fran

May 26, 2012, 12:53 PM

viewguy - thanks for the pic of the tear down at Market & Dolores Streets - I was by there this week and took a couple of pictures. The back part of the building has been partially taken down a couple of days ago. It will seem strange to see a highrise there after 40 years of shopping at Safeway.

We had an apparent suicide at the Archstone Fox Plaza on May 24th. It is believed that a woman jumped from the 14th floor on the Polk Street side. She will be the 8th person that I know of that has fallen from the building in the 40 years I've lived here.

I got back from a trip to London this week (a pipe organ tour). Some exciting architecture to be seen in a very interesting city.

1977

May 27, 2012, 5:31 AM

Is this true, or is it just poor reporting by the Chronicle?

How much hotter is the San Francisco real estate market getting? Let us count the ways.

-- Office buildings: The 33-story tower at 555 Mission St. is in escrow. Reported price: $450 million. That's about $800 per square foot - the highest figure since 2007, when Morgan Stanley bought One Market Plaza for $925 per square foot. The buyer: a German mutual fund called Union Investment.

The seller is New York's Tishman Speyer, which as we noted last month paid $41 million in cash for a parking lot at Howard and First streets on which a 10-story, 286,000-square-foot office building is going up.

Over the road at Second and Howard, another Tishman-owned development is under way: a 27-story, 452,000-square-foot high-rise, which like its neighbor is aimed at tech tenants, whose appetite for office space in San Francisco seems bottomless.

Both developments are "spec," meaning built from the ground up with no signed tenants, and both are partly funded by JPMorgan Chase Asset Management, which bought a majority stake in China Basin Landing in January for $415 million.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/26/BU2A1ONM4B.DTL#ixzz1w2tzEOjt

timbad

May 27, 2012, 5:56 AM

Is this true, or is it just poor reporting by the Chronicle?

I saw that too, and wondered. I know there was nothing going on a couple weeks ago. I'll wander over there tomorrow to check it out.

(I had kinda been hoping this one wouldn't get going in its current incarnation - I don't like the design and generally feels too bulky for its surroundings to me. and... won't it cast afternoon shadows on the new open space created after they clear the NE corner of the intersection for the train tunnel?)

1977

May 27, 2012, 6:01 AM

I saw that too, and wondered. I know there was nothing going on a couple weeks ago. I'll wander over there tomorrow to check it out.

Thanks! I didn't think this was supposed to break ground until next year. ??? I hope I'm wrong.

In addition, Palmer said that the company plans to break ground early next year on an even bigger San Francisco bet -- a 27-story, 450,000 square foot tower at 222 Second St. The 222 Second St. building will be completed in the fall of 2014, Palmer said.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2012/04/tishman-speyer-to-start-foundry-square.html

coyotetrickster

May 27, 2012, 5:24 PM

I saw that too, and wondered. I know there was nothing going on a couple weeks ago. I'll wander over there tomorrow to check it out.

(I had kinda been hoping this one wouldn't get going in its current incarnation - I don't like the design and generally feels too bulky for its surroundings to me. and... won't it cast afternoon shadows on the new open space created after they clear the NE corner of the intersection for the train tunnel?)

Timbad, the entire foundry square project was planned and approved at those heights. Construction docs and exterior materials sourced and approved -- all those pesky logistics/aesthetics out of the way. In other words, totally shovel ready... If you want to strike while the iron is hot, it helps to have the iron plugged in... Plus, on my way to practice on Thursday, I walked down Harrison and there was a massive spec available sign with the rendering for the 2nd street building.

1977

May 27, 2012, 5:28 PM

Timbad, the entire foundry square project was planned and approved at those heights. Construction docs and exterior materials sourced and approved -- all those pesky logistics/aesthetics out of the way. In other words, totally shovel ready... If you want to strike while the iron is hot, it helps to have the iron plugged in... Plus, on my way to practice on Thursday, I walked down Harrison and there was a massive spec available sign with the rendering for the 2nd street building.

I'm pretty sure timbad was referring to 222 Second.

timbad

May 27, 2012, 8:46 PM

I'm pretty sure timbad was referring to 222 Second.

yes. love Foundry Square.

viewguysf

May 28, 2012, 6:11 AM

minesweeper

May 28, 2012, 7:00 AM

Thanks! I didn't think this was supposed to break ground until next year. ??? I hope I'm wrong.

As of May 13th (How Weird Street Faire) nothing was going on, and it was still being used as a parking lot. If "under way" means breaking ground, then I think it's incorrect reporting.

timbad

May 28, 2012, 8:18 AM

I saw that too, and wondered. I know there was nothing going on a couple weeks ago. I'll wander over there tomorrow to check it out.

(I had kinda been hoping this one wouldn't get going in its current incarnation - I don't like the design and generally feels too bulky for its surroundings to me.)

as promised...

nothing going on yet (but they do have a sign with a pic of the upcoming building if you look closely):

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7095/7285255888_4c51e5961a_b.jpg

in the above photo it might not look like a tall building would be out of place, since there are other rather tall ones on its block, but Second St has a lot of older/shorter brick buildings between the site and Mission, and the idea of plopping down 27 stories of clumsy boxy glass next to them isn't working for me, feels intrusive. I hope I'm wrong once it goes up. this is looking south down Second - 222 Second would be on the right side beyond the row of brick buildings:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8012/7285260268_0016b0ce17_b.jpg

tech12

May 28, 2012, 4:37 PM

(I had kinda been hoping this one wouldn't get going in its current incarnation - I don't like the design and generally feels too bulky for its surroundings to me. and... won't it cast afternoon shadows on the new open space created after they clear the NE corner of the intersection for the train tunnel?)

Nice pictures! I think the tower will look fine in that location. Remember that the entire area between Rincon Hill and Transbay is going to eventually fill in with multiple towers, so 222 2nd street won't seem too alone for long:

http://www.socketsite.com/Transit%20Center%20District%20Plan%20Proposed%20Heights%202012.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com/Transit%20Center%20District%20Plan%20Proposed%20Heights%202012.jpg

222 2nd is in the lower left corner, above the large square zoned for 320'. As you can see, it will fit in well at that location...and really, if it were built tomorrow it still wouldn't seem very alone, as there are already multiple highrises/skyscrapers within a several block radius, including several that are taller than the 222 2nd proposal.

It's not going to be that tall either--just 350' feet, which while taller than any adjacent high-rises, shouldn't exactly dwarf them or anything. There's even a site half a block away that will be up-zoned for 750', so if anything, 222 2nd could end up getting dwarfed in the future. Plus I think it's pretty good looking tower, as far as boxes go. It kind of reminds me of 555 Mission, which is another box that I really like.

As for it casting shadows on the new open space, that's not a problem, as the shadow ordinance only applies to parks that were built before the ordinance was passed, so all new parks are exempt (which is why there are two areas about to be re-zoned for 700+ feet, just south of the Transbay terminal/park, where they will block quite a bit of sun from reaching the park). And personally, i could care less. There are/will be plenty of other parks in DT SF as well as the rest of the city, and shadows are just a natural consequence of having a high-rise filled downtown in the first place. And the sun moves too, so shadows don't stay in the same place forever ;)

edit: though now that I think about it, would 222 2nd even be tall enough to cast shadows on that proposed park? I'm not sure the sun will be low enough in the sky at the time of day where it would be possible for that to happen, just going by the tower height and looking at the positioning of the tower site vs. the park site.

1977

May 28, 2012, 4:48 PM

Thanks timbad. I figured that was the case.

sahran

May 29, 2012, 4:54 PM

hruski

May 29, 2012, 5:43 PM

More good news for Hayes Valley. 401 Grove has apparently broken ground and expected to be complete by end of 2013 or beginning 2014 :)

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/401_grove_street_gets_its_groove_on_despite_intimations.html

This is all good news and all, but I'm thoroughly bored by this design. It looks exactly the same as about 5 others that have been approved in the last year or 2. Architects seems to really be mailing it in with these 4-5 story buildings in Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, Upper Mission, etc.

easy as pie

May 29, 2012, 7:46 PM

yeah, the design is boring, but the function is impeccable - ground level retail wrap to continue the new gough retail wall, townhomes on ivy to keep the ped orientation, great parking ratio (32 over 80 units), and all this on a major arterial. love it.

Zapatan

May 29, 2012, 8:23 PM

Nice pictures! I think the tower will look fine in that location. Remember that the entire area between Rincon Hill and Transbay is going to eventually fill in with multiple towers, so 222 2nd street won't seem too alone for long:

http://www.socketsite.com/Transit%20Center%20District%20Plan%20Proposed%20Heights%202012.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com/Transit%20Center%20District%20Plan%20Proposed%20Heights%202012.jpg

222 2nd is in the lower left corner, above the large square zoned for 320'. As you can see, it will fit in well at that location...and really, if it were built tomorrow it still wouldn't seem very alone, as there are already multiple highrises/skyscrapers within a several block radius, including several that are taller than the 222 2nd proposal.

It's not going to be that tall either--just 350' feet, which while taller than any adjacent high-rises, shouldn't exactly dwarf them or anything. There's even a site half a block away that will be up-zoned for 750', so if anything, 222 2nd could end up getting dwarfed in the future. Plus I think it's pretty good looking tower, as far as boxes go. It kind of reminds me of 555 Mission, which is another box that I really like.

As for it casting shadows on the new open space, that's not a problem, as the shadow ordinance only applies to parks that were built before the ordinance was passed, so all new parks are exempt (which is why there are two areas about to be re-zoned for 700+ feet, just south of the Transbay terminal/park, where they will block quite a bit of sun from reaching the park). And personally, i could care less. There are/will be plenty of other parks in DT SF as well as the rest of the city, and shadows are just a natural consequence of having a high-rise filled downtown in the first place. And the sun moves too, so shadows don't stay in the same place forever ;)

edit: though now that I think about it, would 222 2nd even be tall enough to cast shadows on that proposed park? I'm not sure the sun will be low enough in the sky at the time of day where it would be possible for that to happen, just going by the tower height and looking at the positioning of the tower site vs. the park site.

If the height limist says 1000' does that mean the building is shortened 70 feet?

WildCowboy

May 29, 2012, 8:50 PM

If the height limist says 1000' does that mean the building is shortened 70 feet?

My understanding is that the height limit applies to solid portions of the building that would completely block the sun when assessing shadow impacts. With the top 150 feet of the current design being an open latticework, the building would measure in at a height of 920' by those standards, even though the total height remains 1070'.

peanut gallery

May 29, 2012, 10:14 PM

Plus, don't all height limits in SF have a built in allowance (some percentage I think) to go over for mechanicals, etc? I seem to recall reading that somewhere.

Zapatan

May 29, 2012, 10:27 PM

My understanding is that the height limit applies to solid portions of the building that would completely block the sun when assessing shadow impacts. With the top 150 feet of the current design being an open latticework, the building would measure in at a height of 920' by those standards, even though the total height remains 1070'.

ah gotchya

I hope the top at least looks somewhat solid, especially at night.

So does this mean 50 first street (915 feet) also has a structure on it's roof it looks like the limit is 850'

mt_climber13

May 29, 2012, 11:29 PM

For those that missed out on the spectacularly fabulous GG Bridge 75th anniversary light show:

http://vimeo.com/42969389

tech12

May 30, 2012, 12:03 AM

ah gotchya

I hope the top at least looks somewhat solid, especially at night.

So does this mean 50 first street (915 feet) also has a structure on it's roof it looks like the limit is 850'

Yeah, as others have said, the height limits in SF are to the roof only, and do not include crowns/spires/structural stuff or mechanical boxes, which are allowed to reach even higher. The Transbay tower will be 920' to the roof (in a zone with a maximum roof height limit of 1,000'), with a 150 foot crown on top, for a total of 1,070'. As for 50 1st street, it's proposed to be 835' to the roof (in a zone with a maximum roof height of 850'), and 915' in total when including the 80' crown.

viewguysf

May 30, 2012, 5:54 AM

For those that missed out on the spectacularly fabulous GG Bridge 75th anniversary light show:

http://vimeo.com/42969389

Thanks wakamesalad!! :banana: [and I never use the dancing banana!]

Zapatan

May 30, 2012, 6:01 AM

sorry if this has been mentioned recently but when are transbay and 50 1st street supposed to start construction?

1977

May 30, 2012, 5:40 PM

Hotel SOMA is still alive:

Speaking of developments in the hotel space, plans for the proposed Hotel SoMa to rise at 690 Fifth Street have been dusted off and the developers are shopping for financing.

As plugged-in people know, the David Baker designed six-story and now 64-room Hotel SoMa would replace the two-story, 23-foot-tall office building and 14 off-street parking spaces on the northwest corner of Townsend and Fifth.
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.dbarchitect.com/images/dynamic/slideshow_images/image/20211_hSOMA2.slideshow_main.jpg
Source: www.dbarchitect.com

http://www.dbarchitect.com/images/dynamic/slideshow_images/image/20211-hSOMA-pool.slideshow_main.jpg
Source: www.dbarchitect.com

1977

May 31, 2012, 6:05 AM

Another upper-Market development. This time at 2175 Market (currently a 76 Station):

http://www.vmwp.com/projects/pdfs/2175_market.pdf

http://www.2175market.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2175-Homepage_new.jpg

http://www.2175market.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/view-from-south-vision.jpg

http://www.2175market.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120201-Model-Views-Elevations-Design.jpg
More info: http://www.2175market.com/

peanut gallery

May 31, 2012, 6:38 AM

Nice find. Is mid-Market considered to go that far west? I always thought of that as between about 5th and Van Ness or so. But I'm not always up on the exact borders between various neighborhoods.

1977

May 31, 2012, 1:31 PM

Nice find. Is mid-Market considered to go that far west? I always thought of that as between about 5th and Van Ness or so. But I'm not always up on the exact borders between various neighborhoods.

No, mid-Market doesn't stretch that far west. I meant upper-Market. Fixed!

easy as pie

May 31, 2012, 3:46 PM

wow, fantastic news about 2175, just totally off the radar. from their website, here's the info on where it's at -
The project sponsor has submitted documents to the San Francisco Planning Department to initiate the design review and community plan exemption process for the project. It is anticipated that the environmental review could take between 6 and 9 months to complete. The project will then seek approvals from the San Francisco Planning Commission, though timing of a hearing will depend on staff availability and Commission calendar.