SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed [Archive] - Page 55

viewguysf

Nov 24, 2013, 1:55 AM

The top half of 100 Van Ness has been netted.

I like the look of NEMA from Van Ness and when viewed from the south, but I wish they would have put more crown on the west side. The one small piece is a joke since it lets the plethora of vents, etc., easily be seen from Upper Market.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3703/11019522604_bbf76db39d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019522604/)
_MG_4945 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019522604/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3682/11019581813_294cf87a30_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019581813/)
_MG_4950 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019581813/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2837/11019457556_2ef7dd386d_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019457556/)
_MG_4947 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019457556/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7318/11019362175_eba67e213a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019362175/)
_MG_4948 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019362175/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

The Cathedral Hill Hotel complex is visible...for now.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3685/11019526514_ba64e5bd6a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019526514/)
_MG_4949 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/11019526514/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

fflint

Nov 24, 2013, 3:28 AM

Nice views

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 24, 2013, 6:31 AM

Updates - great pictures and updates.

Agree with viewguy - NEMA's mechanical room could have been covered more. I see too much of the bracing of the "fins" on the east side, but that is the price one pays for living high up.

Rincon II is a twin to Rincon I but is turned 180 degrees and is quite different from my view.

Sad to say that a man in his mid 30s went over the side on the 24th floor at the Essex Fox Plaza about week ago. He lived in the building for 5 years. He had friends at the Eagle bar.

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 24, 2013, 6:42 AM

1321 Mission Street at 9th - 11 Stories Coming in 2015
I see on Socket Site that the permit has been applied for the demolition of 1321 Mission Street at 9th. It will be 11 stories with 160 units and will be the first micro apartments in San Francisco with 220 square feet. Link to Socket Site here:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/11/160_macromicrounits_slated_for_construction_on_mission.html#more

homebucket

Nov 24, 2013, 8:14 PM

Great times for the City By The Bay

14th largest city
3rd largest skyline
Just out of curiosity, how are you defining "3rd largest"? Number of completed buildings >150m? Combined height of buildings >150m?

mt_climber13

Nov 24, 2013, 8:20 PM

Just out of curiosity, how are you defining "3rd largest"? Number of completed buildings >150m? Combined height of buildings >150m?

Density. Maybe third most impressive, grandest skyline would be a better term

202_Cyclist

Nov 27, 2013, 6:32 PM

Bullet train snag could affect Transbay Terminal

Phillip Matier And Andrew Ross
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
San Francisco Chronicle

"Critics have complained that California's high-speed rail project is shaping up to be the bullet train to nowhere. Now that a judge has thrown the project's future into doubt, San Francisco is left to wonder whether it will be stuck with a $400 million train station connected to nothing.

With or without a high-speed-rail line, officials have said the underground station is going to be built at the new, $2 billion Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets. All the money is in place, and the station is due to be finished in 2017.

But with Judge Michael Kenny having pulled the emergency brake on high-speed rail Monday in Sacramento County Superior Court, the San Francisco station probably will sit empty for some time..."

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Bullet-train-snag-could-affect-Transbay-Terminal-5015444.php

mt_climber13

Nov 27, 2013, 6:57 PM

At some point California is going to have to make a major decision about it's philosophy on governance. Should a few cranky people hold up projects with benefit the cities and the state at large? Should there be EIR reform? Should those who bring up lawsuits to block and stall developments have to pay back all legal costs to the state if they are thrown out? We can't continue like this. The state is eating itself. We see this in SF all the time with public benefit projects being destroyed by a few selfish interests. It's the main reason we can't get a subway down Geary. Not to mention 8 Washington St., a rather modest and innocent project which was brought to an entire city wide vote, costing taxpayers who knows how much.

The point of a democracy is to have well read citizens make informed decisions for the benefit of society. Instead we have greedy individuals manipulating through propaganda and false claims, and instilling fear into the voters to get their selfish interests written into law.

tech12

Nov 27, 2013, 7:04 PM

Instead we have greedy individuals manipulating through propaganda and false claims, and instilling fear into the voters to get their selfish interests written into law.

So it's normal politics, basically. But it does seem that type of BS affects development in SF way more than pretty much any other big US city (with maybe the exception of Boston).

mt_climber13

Nov 27, 2013, 7:19 PM

So it's normal politics, basically. But it does seem that type of BS affects development in SF way more than pretty much any other big US city (with maybe the exception of Boston).

This may be an unpopular opinion but I don't think that democracy IS the best form of governance. Since when is 50+1 the magic number? It's so trivial and it enables herd mentality.

I think a type of forum of the best and brightest of society should be empowered to make all decisions. People usually don't know what's best for them. This can come off as elitist and snotty, but, really, I WANT the elites to be making the decisions! If I'm sick, I want the smartest doctor on the case. If I'm being sued, I want the elite lawyer. Why do we demand the most major policy decisions which affect our lives be made by those we want to have a beer with, and ridicule the intelligent and skilled for being snobs?

jddar

Nov 27, 2013, 10:23 PM

I think ... the best and brightest of society should be empowered to make all decisions. People usually don't know what's best for them...I WANT the elites to be making the decisions...

So, you want an Aristocracy? Idealistically that is appealing but I don't think that type of government has worked very well in the past. The guillotine comes to mind. I'm by no stretch of the imagination adept in political science. So, what do I know?

I'm not sure what could combat San francisco's rampant nimbyism. It has been fanatically out of control for as long as I can remember.

brady&market

Nov 27, 2013, 11:40 PM

mt_climber13

Nov 28, 2013, 2:43 AM

So many catchy names for these new SRO's

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/big_plans_for_hightech_group_housing_on_harrison_have_b.html

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/clearing_the_way_for_san_franciscos_first_microunit_bui.html

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/plans_for_an_upscale_sevenstory_sro_building_at_market.html

Great! These proposals are replacing parking lots and adandondes buildings with housing. I'd prefer taller structures with larger units, but the type of anti height political climate is forcing these types of buildings. Still progress IMO. And those that don't like it don't have to live there.

pseudolus

Dec 1, 2013, 4:43 PM

http://www.socketsite.com/1321%20mission%20Street%202013.jpg

This one makes my eyes bleed...

http://www.socketsite.com/1321%20mission%20Street%202013.jpg

simms3_redux

Dec 1, 2013, 8:28 PM

Updates Part 1, 11/30 (2 projects that don't have a home thread):

15 story Hampton Inn in Mid-Market/Union Square area:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/HamptonInn2_zpse8fc1eb8.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/HamptonInn2_zpse8fc1eb8.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/HamptonInn1_zps8e182b7b.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/HamptonInn1_zps8e182b7b.jpg.html)

A reminder of what it will look like:

http://www.socketsite.com/942%20Mission%20Street%20Model.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/942%20Mission%20Street%20Rendering.jpg

Courtesy of Socketsite: 942 Mission Street: Designs, Details (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/06/942_mission_designs_details_and_environmental_impact_re.html)

Mosso SF, the massive 2-building apartment community rising at 5th and Folsom:

Note how the building swallows up the surrounding, existing buildings.

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/Mosso1_zps644b3dab.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/Mosso1_zps644b3dab.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/Mosso2_zpse2ef0b7a.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/Mosso2_zpse2ef0b7a.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/Mosso3_zpsa5c17dae.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/Mosso3_zpsa5c17dae.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/Mosso4_zps890ac420.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/Mosso4_zps890ac420.jpg.html)

SF Yerba Buena Central Subway muni station:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/MuniStation_zps9230e60d.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/MuniStation_zps9230e60d.jpg.html)

Tons of renderings here:
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/10/28/whats_happening_at_the_soma_76_station_at_4th_and_folsom.php

viewguysf

Dec 1, 2013, 9:53 PM

simms3_redux

Dec 2, 2013, 4:13 PM

More updates that didn't get posted earlier.

Octavia and Oak? What is this project again?

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2003_zpsbe3b5c5e.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2003_zpsbe3b5c5e.jpg.html)

8 Octavia:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2004_zps2060f5a1.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2004_zps2060f5a1.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2005_zps9606b58a.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2005_zps9606b58a.jpg.html)

55 Laguna Senior LGBT Housing:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2006_zps7b9db5b6.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2006_zps7b9db5b6.jpg.html)

100 Van Ness and NEMA:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2016_zpse6024606.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2016_zpse6024606.jpg.html)

Linea:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2017_zpsc8fcee61.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2017_zpsc8fcee61.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2018_zps0aba154a.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2018_zps0aba154a.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2020_zps0a4765b6.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2020_zps0a4765b6.jpg.html)

Already forget the name of this one now that the cover isn't on (Century?):

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2021_zps8bb73331.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2021_zps8bb73331.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2024_zpsa0da9061.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2024_zpsa0da9061.jpg.html)

The Forest City project right there:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2022_zpsebcb23e1.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2022_zpsebcb23e1.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2023_zps1e33505d.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2023_zps1e33505d.jpg.html)

peanut gallery

Dec 2, 2013, 4:24 PM

Simms: thanks for all the updates, here and in each building's respective thread. Looks like you walked off most of your Thanksgiving turkey!

fimiak

Dec 4, 2013, 6:55 PM

1400 Mission (The Below Market Rate units for 201 Folsom)

http://i.imgur.com/7zdMYey.jpg (http://imgur.com/7zdMYey)

timbad

Dec 5, 2013, 7:30 AM

Octavia and Oak? What is this project again?

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2003_zpsbe3b5c5e.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SF%20Construction%20Nov%2030%202013/SFNovemberConstructionpart2003_zpsbe3b5c5e.jpg.html)

our friend Parcel P (http://sf.curbed.com/places/parcel-p)

POLA

Dec 5, 2013, 7:28 PM

The "skin" for 100 Van Ness showed up today and it's a lot darker then the renderings.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7449/11225539616_2a826de932_b.jpg

peanut gallery

Dec 5, 2013, 8:34 PM

^Good. I preferred the original darker green to the lighter version shown in later renderings (after input from Planning was incorporated).

PS: Nice catch!

philiprsf

Dec 6, 2013, 12:17 AM

minesweeper

Dec 6, 2013, 1:15 AM

I was walking by Page between Baker and Broderick today. The abandoned building there has been torn down , there were earth movers busy and a Webcor sign up. Anyone knows what's planned for this site?

It's going to be the Early Childhood Center for the French American International School (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/05/french_american_school_headed_to_the_upper_haight.php).

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 6, 2013, 3:30 AM

POLA's post - 100 Van Ness Avenue

Looking at the best images that I have of the plans there are dark panels & windows for the balconies only - hopefully this is the case and what is pictured is for that purpose only.

Six months ago I saw a window in a packing crate in the parking lot on Hayes next to 100 Van Ness. It was in a wooden crate & difficult to see from the street. I am told by someone in construction that it is usual to have a sample for on site. It is a very light tinted green? glass. Hopefully that is what will cover most of the building. We don't need another black or gray building in the neighborhood.

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 6, 2013, 7:04 PM

The first panels are being installed today on the lowest level. I think (and hope) that this is the color only for the first few floors. As seen in the architects drawing submitted to the city of San Francisco there are gray panels on the lower level only. The drawing & photograph are of the east side of 100 Van Ness.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/11240416163_b6a44c0bea_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/11240416163/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3702/11240383634_a83aa39ec6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/11240383634/)

northbay

Dec 7, 2013, 12:54 PM

Ugh. Panels always make for a great pedestrian experience. /sarcasm

peanut gallery

Dec 8, 2013, 11:15 AM

Grabbed a shot of the new control tower at SFO on my way out of town yesterday. Unfortunately, it's from a distance, on a phone, through a tinted window.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2830/11267064683_8136fb53f4_c.jpg

fflint

Dec 9, 2013, 3:17 AM

^That reminds me--Oakland has a new control tower now, too. Opened up last month I think.

1977

Dec 11, 2013, 4:46 AM

Updated rendering of Trinity Place - Phase 3:

http://www.swinertonbuildstomorrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/v03.jpg
Source: http://www.swinertonbuildstomorrow.com/2013/trinity-place-evolves-with-phase-3-kickoff/

I'm really bummed these building lost all of their signature Arquitectonica 'holes'.

Hopefully, this turns out well:
A landscaped plaza will span between the towers of Phases 2 and 3 for a 40,000-square-foot green oasis amidst the concrete bustle of the neighborhood. Modern water features and sculptural elements of mythic proportions will make a visit to this urban garden no ordinary stroll in the park.

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 11, 2013, 6:54 AM

1977's post - Updated rendering of Trinity Place - Phase 3

1977 - Thanks for the update & picture. I have become very cynical about architectural drawings delivered to the city as the project seems to almost always change from the original design. I blame the city of San Francisco for not making developers build what they applied for. The design is not as nice as we were led to believe.

I was by the site today - a very large blue crane is onsite now with a smaller digger.

The new tenants of Phase 3 had better have good window blinds facing the Trinity Place headquarters on Market Street. Several weeks ago the glass pyramid atop the building was repaired and extremely bright lights were installed inside of it. It is blinding 2 blocks away in my apartment. The lights come on for 2-1/2 hours.

IMBY

Dec 12, 2013, 3:59 AM

http://www.socketsite.com/1321%20mission%20Street%202013.jpg

This one makes my eyes bleed...

http://www.socketsite.com/1321%20mission%20Street%202013.jpg

I'm guessing! This proposal came before the design committee very late on a Friday afternoon, last item on the agenda, with blurry eyes, everyone eager to leave for the weekend?

pseudolus

Dec 12, 2013, 4:32 AM

I'm guessing! This proposal came before the design committee very late on a Friday afternoon, last item on the agenda, with blurry eyes, everyone eager to leave for the weekend?

They were so tired, the board didn't even bother to vote on the staff recommendation to add Juliet balconies.

theskythelimit

Dec 12, 2013, 3:11 PM

Updated rendering of Trinity Place - Phase 3:

http://www.swinertonbuildstomorrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/v03.jpg
Source: http://www.swinertonbuildstomorrow.com/2013/trinity-place-evolves-with-phase-3-kickoff/

I'm really bummed these building lost all of their signature Arquitectonica 'holes'.

Hopefully, this turns out well:

I am confused about this rendering. Am i correct to say that this building is facing Mission Street? If so, what is the green park across the street. Is it just for esthetics?

mt_climber13

Dec 12, 2013, 3:44 PM

I am confused about this rendering. Am i correct to say that this building is facing Mission Street? If so, what is the green park across the street. Is it just for esthetics?

Pure deception, like everything else about this project.

tech12

Dec 12, 2013, 9:01 PM

Renderings often include non-existent green space which takes the place of existing buildings that would block the view of the building in the rendering. Though they could just leave those areas blank, instead of depicting them as covered in grass. You can see the same thing done in some of the renderings for Lumina.

jbm

Dec 13, 2013, 4:31 AM

I believe that phase 3 faces 8th street.

timbad

Dec 13, 2013, 6:26 AM

curbedsf (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/12/hayes_valley_condo_development_at_400_grove_breaks_ground.php) and socketsite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/12/hayes_valley_development_on_grove_breaks_ground_opening.html) blurbed about the groundbreaking at 400 Grove at Gough, to fill in another Central Freeway parcel, across the street from Ivy (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/401_grove_street_gets_its_groove_on_despite_intimations.html) in Hayes Valley. render courtesy socketsite:

http://www.socketsite.com/400%20Gough%20Rendering-thumb.jpg

timbad

Dec 13, 2013, 6:32 AM

socketsite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/12/transbay_block_8_attracts_whos_who_of_developers_and_ar.html) notes that the new request for proposals for TB block 8 got much more enthusiastic response this time around vs 2009. proposals/designs due Feb 26

http://www.socketsite.com/Block%208%20Massing.jpg

theskythelimit

Dec 13, 2013, 3:07 PM

Pure deception, like everything else about this project.

Just a curiosity, what do you find deceptive with this project? Sangiacomo agreed to protect all the residents and included the project to be rent controlled even though it is constructed after 1979. the project in whole increases the inventory of much needed units in SF. Even Daily signed off on the project.

hruski

Dec 13, 2013, 6:30 PM

Just a curiosity, what do you find deceptive with this project? Sangiacomo agreed to protect all the residents and included the project to be rent controlled even though it is constructed after 1979. the project in whole increases the inventory of much needed units in SF. Even Daily signed off on the project.

I think the previous poster was referring to the discrepancy between the originally approved renders for this project and what's actually going to get built. These buildings have been significantly value engineered, and their most distinct features have either been eliminated or scaled down.

peanut gallery

Dec 13, 2013, 8:01 PM

^Yes, exactly. That is where any deception would lie, and I find the result extremely disappointing because I had very high hopes before.

Regarding the green space in the latest rendering, as Tech12 said that is nothing. Just removing existing buildings from the view. That whole stretch of 8th is already built out so I don't know who they would be trying to deceive anyway. It's not like some tenant is going to sign a lease after seeing that rendering, then be shocked when they move in and find out there's not a park across the street.

theskythelimit

Dec 13, 2013, 8:55 PM

I think the previous poster was referring to the discrepancy between the originally approved renders for this project and what's actually going to get built. These buildings have been significantly value engineered, and their most distinct features have either been eliminated or scaled down.

I see. I attended a Supervisor meeting back in 2006 regarding this project but never saw the original renderings. Were they significantly changed and is it possible to see the original plans? I did a little research on Google etc, but no luck.

mt_climber13

Dec 13, 2013, 9:34 PM

Original proposal:

http://www.arcspace.com/CropUp/-/media/13499/4trinity_place.jpg

http://www.arcspace.com/CropUp/-/media/13519/5trinity_place.jpg

fflint

Dec 13, 2013, 11:14 PM

There's no question the original Arquitectonica designs were vastly superior to the value-engineered schlock cheap-ass Sangiacomo is settling for, but aesthetics are only part of the equation.

It's hard to get too upset considering how desperately the city needs these thousands of new apartments. And, because the project literally abuts the Civic Center BART/Muni subway station (not to mention the streetcar and all the buses on the surface), this is the literal definition of transit-oriented development. Overall, it is still a beneficial project even if it looks really plain and boring.

theskythelimit

Dec 14, 2013, 1:42 AM

Original proposal:

http://www.arcspace.com/CropUp/-/media/13499/4trinity_place.jpg

http://www.arcspace.com/CropUp/-/media/13519/5trinity_place.jpg

Thanks for sharing. The original design is quite striking.

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 14, 2013, 3:42 AM

A lot work being done tonight, December 13th on the site of 1400 Mission. I've never seen such large tanks on a construction site before!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/11361556135_f2235838db_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/11361556135/)

1977

Dec 14, 2013, 10:45 PM

Nothing that new, but some larger/cleaner renderings of 100 Van Ness and its neighbor to the north:

100 Van Ness

http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Portals/1/projects/100van1.jpg

http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Portals/1/projects/100van2.jpg
Source: http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Projects/100VanNess/tabid/243/Default.aspx

Edit: Actually, it looks like this one might be more up to date:

http://www.socketsite.com/100%20Van%20Ness%20Rendering%202013%202.gif
Source: www.socketsite.com

Van Ness/Hayes

http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Portals/1/projects/vanness1.jpg

http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Portals/1/projects/vanness2.jpg

http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Portals/1/projects/vanness3.jpg

http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Portals/1/projects/vanness4.jpg
Source: http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Projects/VanNessHayes/tabid/239/Default.aspx

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 15, 2013, 4:24 AM

1977's post of 100 Van Ness Ave.

I had not seen some of the pictures you posted. Interesting to see some design on 100 Van Ness - I thought it would be glass only.

I have been on the roof of the Fox Plaza when it used to be open to the tenants. The wind is fierce up there. 100 Van Ness is to have a roof top garden - there will have to be some serious protection for it to be comfortable up there.

timbad

Dec 15, 2013, 4:39 AM

a few random shots of projects on Market...

8 Octavia:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/11377793704_4e15a13921_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7404/11377712975_26bbcd78a1_b.jpg

the one at 15th (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/07/22/2175_market_rises_slightly_above_street_level.php):

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3814/11377778484_9f9925962d_b.jpg

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2175%20market%202.1.png

Linea:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2830/11377749065_cbaa8b13dc_b.jpg

peanut gallery

Dec 16, 2013, 5:13 PM

http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Portals/1/projects/vanness3.jpg

This might end up looking much more classy than I originally thought. The rendering above suggests quality materials.

Given that this abuts 100 Van Ness and assuming the existing building is at least a year from demo, I wonder if 100 Van Ness will want to redesign the lower floors on the north face to take into account having windows in the future vs blank walls today. They will probably want to take advantage of that space, which they may have allocated to mechanicals or other use.

timbad - thanks for all the updates, both here and in other threads.

peanut gallery

Dec 16, 2013, 6:53 PM

Just saw this rendering of the Moscone expansion plan. It looks like the old, original exterior will be completely modified. SOM is the architect.

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/mosconeexpansion1.jpg
Source: CurbedSF (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/13/500m_moscone_center_expansion_moving_right_along.php)

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 17, 2013, 1:55 AM

I went by 100 Van Ness today and I like what I saw very much. The photograph does not show the nice tone of the glass that I saw. I think folks will be surprised at to how nice the building will look compared to the old concrete skin.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5477/11412011173_1086a4ba41_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/11412011173/)

edwards

Dec 17, 2013, 5:42 AM

A little update from today...

http://i.imgur.com/QrCIskRh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/mTWnJHdh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pFst10mh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1UbrkTIh.jpg

tech12

Dec 17, 2013, 6:28 PM

A house in twin peaks that was being remodeled collapsed last night:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Collapsed-Twin-Peaks-home-owned-by-developer-5071336.php

Like basically anything in SF, plenty of whiny neighbors opposed the remodel. And in addition to that, the developer was once the president of the city building commission, is a director of the Coalition for Responsible Growth, and also made campaign contributions to Ed Lee...so the SF Chronicle has taken all that information and basically turned the incident into a "look how untrustworthy developers and their corrupt master Mayor Ed Lee are!" hit piece. Just what we need, more high-profile ant-development propaganda for NIMBYs to rally around...is the Chronicle backing Art Agnos in his rumored future mayoral run or something?

The ever-increasing un-affordability of the city is driving even more people to NIMBYism too, it seems, as many seem to have the incorrect idea that increased development is what's causing prices to rise, or that because the current round of buildings are mostly luxury, that it means no new development will ever be affordable...ever (they seem to have a really poor understanding of supply and demand, as well as the affordable housing fund that every market-rate project contributes to). And in light of the success of the no on B&C campaign, I'm kind of worried about a lot of developments that may be taken to the ballot and killed or have heights chopped to save views and supposedly stop gentrification: Mission rock, the Mexican museum tower, treasure island, 75 Howard, the new warriors arena, the hunters point/treasure island/park merced redevelopments (which all include multiple new highrises), etc.

simms3_redux

Dec 17, 2013, 9:30 PM

This is the house that couldn't be demolished and needed to be preserved. So all can see the utter lunacy that is San Francisco Planning/Preservation.

http://www.socketsite.com/125%20Crown%20Terrace%20Before.jpg

The "evil developer's" plan was either 5,319 SF "remodel", or a smaller 4,019 SF new structure. He wanted new. Neighbors cried and thus SF denied. So neighbors would have gotten an even larger remodel due to their own illogical complaints, but lo and behold a "miracle" wiped out the house and all that can be built now is a new structure! Everybody wins but the developer who owns the lots and wants to build his new house will likely be a media target and potentially prosecuted somehow, criminally and civily.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/12/the_jengafied_home_on_crown_terrace_just_before_its_col.html#comments

simms3_redux

Dec 17, 2013, 9:37 PM

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Collapsed-Twin-Peaks-home-owned-by-developer-5071336.php

...so the SF Chronicle has taken all that information and basically turned the incident into a "look how untrustworthy developers and their corrupt master Mayor Ed Lee are!" hit piece. Just what we need, more high-profile ant-development propaganda for NIMBYs to rally around...is the Chronicle backing Art Agnos in his rumored future mayoral run or something?

What irresponsible journalism. I just read the article - there is very little about the collapse, the history of the proposal, the neighbors, the process, etc. It's almost all about Murphy's relationship to Ed Lee and his roles in Building Inspections and as a developer. They even go so far to make it sound like he illegally screwed up one of his Mission developments by not appropriately obtaining building permits...that happens all the time!

They basically stop short of any slander, just pure and honest irresponsible journalism.

theskythelimit

Dec 17, 2013, 10:40 PM

JWS

Dec 18, 2013, 7:05 PM

And in light of the success of the no on B&C campaign, I'm kind of worried about a lot of developments that may be taken to the ballot and killed or have heights chopped to save views and supposedly stop gentrification: Mission rock, the Mexican museum tower, treasure island, 75 Howard, the new warriors arena, the hunters point/treasure island/park merced redevelopments (which all include multiple new highrises), etc.

Warriors Arena will get taken to the ballot, but the city seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of it (or at least enough are for it to pass). I don't think Mission Rock is in enough of an established area for people to rally against it. The only housing around it is brand new as well. The ones in bold I've essentially kissed off as "will never happen" long ago. Mexican and Howard from NIMBYism, and the other large scale projects as just pipedreams.

brady&market

Dec 18, 2013, 9:50 PM

I was wondering what the One Tenth Street building located in Market Square was going to look like given that they did not re-skin the first two floors. Here is an image I found, Fitness SF is opening a new gym there in 2014....

http://marketsquare.fitnesssf.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/marketSquare.jpg

tech12

Dec 18, 2013, 11:30 PM

Warriors Arena will get taken to the ballot, but the city seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of it (or at least enough are for it to pass). I don't think Mission Rock is in enough of an established area for people to rally against it. The only housing around it is brand new as well. The ones in bold I've essentially kissed off as "will never happen" long ago. Mexican and Howard from NIMBYism, and the other large scale projects as just pipedreams.

The thing about the warriors arena is the inclusion of the condo "towers" across the street (more like midrises, really). I know most of SF wants the arena, but the NIMBY propaganda about how luxury residential and waterfront towers are bad, seems to be accepted by a lot of people, and it makes me kind of nervous.

Same deal with the Mission Rock development, which actually does have people on Potrero Hill who will complain about tall buildings going up over there...and these are not only tall buildings, but tall buildings on the *gasp* waterfront! And they surely will not be very affordable either. I can just see Art Agnos and the wealthy NIMBY brigade latching onto it like they did with 8 Washington, and convincing enough San Franciscans to vote it down or at least get the towers killed.

And I feel the same thing could happen in regards to treasure island, 75 howard, hunters point, the Mexican museum tower, and park merced (if the TI/HP/Park Merced projects even happen).

But hopefully the success of "no on B&C" can be attributed more to the fact that barely anyone voted (but all the angry NIMBYs did, of course), rather than to the views of the majority of SF residents. I know that according to recent polls a majority of San Franciscans do see new housing construction as an important and necessary thing, and do want the warriors arena, for example. I guess the goal then is to inform non-NIMBY people about what's going on, and get them to vote when the inevitable NIMBY ballot measures show up.

mt_climber13

Dec 19, 2013, 12:31 AM

The thing about the warriors arena is the inclusion of the condo "towers" across the street (more like midrises, really). I know most of SF wants the arena, but the NIMBY propaganda about how luxury residential and waterfront towers are bad, seems to be accepted by a lot of people, and it makes me kind of nervous.

Same deal with the Mission Rock development, which actually does have people on Potrero Hill who will complain about tall buildings going up over there...and these are not only tall buildings, but tall buildings on the *gasp* waterfront! And they surely will not be very affordable either. I can just see Art Agnos and the wealthy NIMBY brigade latching onto it like they did with 8 Washington, and convincing enough San Franciscans to vote it down or at least get the towers killed.

And I feel the same thing could happen in regards to treasure island, 75 howard, hunters point, the Mexican museum tower, and park merced (if the TI/HP/Park Merced projects even happen).

But hopefully the success of "no on B&C" can be attributed more to the fact that barely anyone voted (but all the angry NIMBYs did, of course), rather than to the views of the majority of SF residents. I know that according to recent polls a majority of San Franciscans do see new housing construction as an important and necessary thing, and do want the warriors arena, for example. I guess the goal then is to inform non-NIMBY people about what's going on, and get them to vote when the inevitable NIMBY ballot measures show up.

Then all they have to do to win is have all anti development ballot measures on lame duck or off season election days. Only the angry vote then. That's how 8 Washington worked. And don't think they won't do it again, and again.they have created a recipe which they know works well.

mt_climber13

Dec 19, 2013, 12:59 AM

Saitowitz project on 15th and South Van Ness, replacing a former parking lot. This is a great project because it can really help turn around this area.. or should I say the evil word.. gentrify! :lynchmob:

http://i.imgur.com/KM1NeyD.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/DUZcULO.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Aw3HY66.jpg

pseudolus

Dec 19, 2013, 6:15 AM

http://i.imgur.com/KM1NeyD.jpg

Such an ugly building, even by Saitowitz standards. Maybe they can leave the wrapping on?

Still, the current auto-oriented South Van Ness is a travesty, especially considering how close to BART it is, So I am all in favor, generally, of more housing and neighborhood retail along here.

jbm

Dec 22, 2013, 5:44 PM

It looks like some work may start soon on 1321 mission (micro units i think). I walked by the other day and it was finally fenced off.

simms3_redux

Dec 22, 2013, 6:14 PM

I think 2014 is going to be the biggest year for construction in the city, potentially ever. Looking forward to the ridiculousness, and I don't think most even realize the extent, even those of us in the city. It needs recapping and reminders because our city/skyline is already big enough to miss a lot of the big stuff going up.

Kinda "done" at this point

NEMA - 22/37 stories
ORH North - 50 stories
535 Mission - 27 stories
55 Ninth - 17 stories
Most of Upper Market (with exception of glass for 8 Octavia and Forest City's gas station replacement)

2014 will be the year of:
350 Mission - 33 stories (now at street level)
45 Lansing - 45 stories (now at street level)
201 Folsom - 37/43 stories (crane now up and core of mid-rise visible from street)
222 Second - 26 stories (excavation nearly done, that crane has got to be on its way)
SFMOMA expansion - going to be HUGE, suspect we'll see its size by year end)
181 Fremont - 54 stories (I suspect we'll get well out of the box by year end, at least through office portion of frame)
TB Block 6/7 - 32 stories (I suspect this will rise VERY rapidly)
340 Fremont - 40 stories (I suspect we'll get past excavation and see a crane, may turn into more of a 2015 construction)
399 Fremont - 45 stories (I think this thing is going to move VERY fast now - I've seen Metlife invest in several multifamily towers in Atlanta and once Metlife got on board, things shot up)
TB Tower - 60 stories (I think we'll get past excavation)

I also think 2014 and 2015 will be the year of the 10-20 story tower along the Market St corridor (we're already seeing several of those projects breaking ground and all the renovations along Mid-Market will only make the area more desirable). 15 story Hampton Inn is moving along at several floors now.

2014 will also be the year of Hayes Valley as all those projects get going.

I don't know that any city outside of NYC in the United States can touch this.

timbad

Dec 22, 2013, 11:19 PM

altho socketsite said this one had gotten underway (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/12/breaking_ground_on_brannan_street_and_rip_for_another_p.html), I didn't see much evidence when I walked by yesterday

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3771/11503874236_3ba24fc518_b.jpg

timbad

Dec 22, 2013, 11:25 PM

... at 333 Fremont looks like the sidewalk out front will be usable again soon. looking north

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7419/11503879123_1d18875e6a_b.jpg

now let's get a few hundred neighbors on that street so they can use it! :-)

the urban politician

Dec 22, 2013, 11:58 PM

I don't know that any city outside of NYC in the United States can touch this.

You're kidding, right? Good to hear what is happening in SF, but you seem to have forgotten that Chicago has the kind of high rise boom you just described (and even now one roughly double in volume to what you predict for SF in 2014 despite this being nowhere remotely close to Chicago's high rise construction peak) year after year...

Anyhow, I had to interject that. Carry on..

timbad

Dec 23, 2013, 12:12 AM

the BMR project on Broadway (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/06/235_broadway_from_freeway_ramp_to_parking_to_family_apa.html) where the freeway ramp used to be is quietly making good progress:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7384/11503767843_1aa2be675a_b.jpg

coyotetrickster

Dec 23, 2013, 2:38 PM

the urban politician

Dec 23, 2013, 3:36 PM

What happens in a flyover state doesn't count.

^ If it didn't happen on the coasts, it didn't happen.. ;)

biggerhigherfaster

Dec 23, 2013, 5:01 PM

You're kidding, right? Good to hear what is happening in SF, but you seem to have forgotten that Chicago has the kind of high rise boom you just described (and even now one roughly double in volume to what you predict for SF in 2014 despite this being nowhere remotely close to Chicago's high rise construction peak) year after year...

Anyhow, I had to interject that. Carry on..

Unless the Spire project and the Post Office development project are a go, not sure this is true based on visits to the Chicago skyscraper threads

In any event, SF's boom is relative to what it's had so far; the skyline is about to look 30% larger by 2017

All that said, a few cities like DC, Miami, Houston, and Austin (in addition to the usual NYC and Chicago) have a lot going on, so SF is far from alone in boosting its skyline in the 2010s

jbm

Dec 23, 2013, 6:09 PM

also 1400 mission, 1415 mission and 100 Van Ness.

the urban politician

Dec 23, 2013, 7:53 PM

Unless the Spire project and the Post Office development project are a go, not sure this is true based on visits to the Chicago skyscraper threads

^ Well, unlike many other cities Chicago doesn't have many individual threads for highrises. Most of the projects are in the compilation thread. Right now there are roughly 20 highrises under construction or in site prep, and we are looking at being in the low 20's in 2014, with at least 2 (if not 3) being class A office towers. And this is pretty much par for the course for Chicago in the post recession years (except for the office towers), certainly not exceptional.

Simms3's post lists about 10 or so potential highrise projects for SF for 2014 in what is supposed to be a record year. Now we can go tit for tat over the numbers, but I'm not really here to do that. The only reason I even bothered to respond was because of this rather ridiculous and completely uninformed statement he made at the end:

I don't know that any city outside of NYC in the United States can touch this.

fflint

Dec 23, 2013, 8:29 PM

simms3_redux

Dec 24, 2013, 10:58 AM

Yes, yes, other cities are also booming, and there are likely a few that are building more and bigger buildings than SF is and will. There's no good reason to make the claim SF is booming more than all but NYC.

That said, it does appear San Francisco's overall skyline is going to be transformed over the next couple of years to an extent that we won't likely see in the other booming US cities. In three years, Chicago and Miami will likely look much as they do today, but not San Francisco. This city's entire profile is being radically, permanently altered by several of the towers u/c and slated for construction within the next year or two.

I still beg to differ. Since when is Chicago constructing a supertall? San Francisco now has a 1,070 ft office tower (no spire) and an 802 ft mixed-use tower (will be city's 1st and 3rd tallest respectively) under construction. Not only is it transformative with what's going on relative to the skyline, it's a lot in sheer numbers (because I'd venture that while the skyline is table top, really only a few cities in US exceed it), and some of the buildings are actually significant.

And we're talking US only. Obviously the Canadian cities have quite a bit to show for themselves.

If we're talking sheer amounts, I would still contend that no city outside of NYC is adding as much office space as SF. For the first time in a really long time Prop M might be maxed out here in the city. In fact, most SF construction is office at this point, even though we still have nearly half a dozen residential towers between 40 and 55 floors under construction.

the urban politician

Dec 24, 2013, 1:56 PM

I still beg to differ. Since when is Chicago constructing a supertall? San Francisco now has a 1,070 ft office tower (no spire) and an 802 ft mixed-use tower (will be city's 1st and 3rd tallest respectively) under construction. Not only is it transformative with what's going on relative to the skyline, it's a lot in sheer numbers (because I'd venture that while the skyline is table top, really only a few cities in US exceed it), and some of the buildings are actually significant.

And we're talking US only. Obviously the Canadian cities have quite a bit to show for themselves.

If we're talking sheer amounts, I would still contend that no city outside of NYC is adding as much office space as SF. For the first time in a really long time Prop M might be maxed out here in the city. In fact, most SF construction is office at this point, even though we still have nearly half a dozen residential towers between 40 and 55 floors under construction.

^ Well, again I'm not here to go tit for tat, this is the SF thread and you guys are here to discuss SF projects, not Chicago ones. Chicago will likely have 3 large pure class A office towers (2 or which, if not 3, to exceed 700 ft) in addition to a rather large new HQ for Google's Chicago office in a former cold storage warehouse under construction in 2014, nothing to bat an eyelash at, and amounting to several million sf of new office space. You guys can calculate and compare the math if you want, I'm not really interested. I was just reponding to that earlier statement by you which was much more vague, but it looks like you kind of clarified what you meant above.

POLA

Dec 24, 2013, 8:16 PM

:rolleyes:

fimiak

Dec 27, 2013, 5:14 AM

Chicago getting new buildings isn't special because Chicago is already known to be a very large world-class American city. SF's boom is unique because SF is a tiny city by area size yet it is receiving an incredibly huge boom right now that is remodeling the city to be world-class. A city with 1/3 the pop. of Chicago and 1/5 the area is gaining just as much sq ft of new office space, which in itself is impressive. SF is growing into the world's tech powerhouse and reshaping the entire industry as a result, and that is why this boom is special. The pop. density of SF is going to be nearly double that of Chicago by the time the decade is over.

Not to mention the planned growth of the city that includes the first major US high speed rail station (along with LA), a new waterfront basketball stadium, incredible surges in bike lanes, new bus rapid transit routes, a new subway line, and several new museums. It isn't just raw square footage.

twinpeaks

Dec 27, 2013, 8:28 AM

shakman

Dec 27, 2013, 2:13 PM

Can we please stop comparing cities and get back on topic?

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 29, 2013, 12:45 AM

I walked by this development today & was amazed at how extensive it is - a major undertaking indeed. And not far away at Oak St. is another major development. A lot going on in the Hayes Valley area!

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5490/11613704923_5b80a2cb07_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/11613704923/)

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 29, 2013, 12:56 AM

I took a walk on Waller St. from Octavia St./Market St. today & got this view of Venn from the back. Across the street is an old fire station. At the end of the street is also the new housing development. It is worth a walk up the hill as there is a lot to see in this block, including a very nice Victorian.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5496/11613878264_2308e4b3e8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/11613878264/)
Waller Street/Market Street near Octavia (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/11613878264/) by Apollo's Light (http://www.flickr.com/people/antinous/), on Flickr

JWS

Jan 4, 2014, 7:21 PM

Two projects that seem to have escaped by with fairly little chatter:

The Marlow, which is eight stories and 98 units on the corner of Van Ness and Clay, has dropped their curtain and looks pretty much done. I am quite pleased with the result, much better than I expected to be honest.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/06/20/more_pricing_released_for_the_marlow_on_van_ness.php

The Amero, at the corner of Van Ness and Filbert, has risen above ground. The exterior has risen about one story, while the elevator core has risen higher. Too early to comment on the form/materials, obviously.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2010/07/filler_up_with_condos_on_van_ness_and_filbert_as_propos.html

I live around these developments, but only have an iPhone to take photos...I don't know what the standards for this board are for construction pics, since I am new here. If there is any interest, I'll try to snap one next time that I'm around. Really good to see some infill in the Marina/Cow Hollow/Russian Hill/Pac Heights areas, since these areas are near some extremely vibrant commercial corridors and would really benefit from increased walkability and density.

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 5, 2014, 12:00 AM

JWS - see the blue header bar for FAQ at the top of the page which will probably answer all of your questions. I think we all appreciate all pictures posted to the forum!

fimiak

Jan 5, 2014, 3:54 AM

I post all of my decent pics from my iphone even if they are grainy. The more the merrier. Videos are good too.

simms3_redux

Jan 5, 2014, 7:35 AM

I just happened to take a pic of the Marlow today from my iPhone...more would be appreciated if you have them :)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/marlow_zpsd6615407.jpg

timbad

Jan 5, 2014, 8:55 AM

a couple shots of 8 Octavia... from across Market:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7320/11770032354_5e6ddcb3e3_b.jpg

more at an angle:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7333/11770049524_a0f617fccd_b.jpg

it doesn't look anywhere near as striking at its 'back' end, up Octavia:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3767/11769796363_a9174ce9fd_b.jpg

jbm

Jan 5, 2014, 6:27 PM

i walked down mission earlier in the week and it looks like demolition was done over the holidays and excavation may be underway at 1321 mission.

JWS

Jan 6, 2014, 5:05 PM

I do not know whether this is on topic or not, but two hypothetical questions for those with more experience/knowledge in this area:

1) Are there any other parcels you see in the general Transbay/Rincon Hill area that would potentially be developed as towers post completion of both area plans? I can't think but notice in the steelblue flyover video that this side of Market looks much less dense than the FiDi side...that's probably the point, but do you all have your eyes on any parcels for future towers?
2) In the future, once Transbay is built up and obviously pending the demand still being there, is there any chance that Foundry Square buildings are demolished and towers built there? I can't help but look at that as an amazing future location for towers, given the Transbay proximity, proximity to other skyscrapers, and the fact that the density would be similar to the Financial side of Market. But I also don't see the appeal of those buildings, or their tenants, disappearing overnight.

Thoughts? And if this is off-topic, I get it.

hruski

Jan 6, 2014, 6:51 PM

I don't think Foundry is going to be razed and redeveloped anytime soon. I agree that the parcels are underutilized, but at least they allow more sunlight to fall on Transbay park.

JWS

Jan 6, 2014, 6:53 PM

I don't think Foundry is going to be razed and redeveloped anytime soon. I agree that the parcels are underutilized, but at least they allow more sunlight to fall on Transbay park.

Oh, definitely not soon. My hypothetical was a longer timeline. But I agree with you.

mt_climber13

Jan 6, 2014, 6:58 PM

Foundry is well planned. Yes, I said it. Towers shouldn't be everywhere. There needs to be diversity in height and airspace, which makes for a better skyline and more livable.

What an office building has to do with an *actual* foundry is beyond me..

DimSumNoodles

Jan 7, 2014, 3:34 AM

minesweeper

Jan 7, 2014, 3:35 AM

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2892/11810780233_36bc0ec346_b.jpg (http://flic.kr/p/iZFktX)
Photo by Sergio Ruiz

biggerhigherfaster

Jan 7, 2014, 3:41 AM

The reskinning of 100 Van Ness is progressing much faster than the 680 Folsom project, which is just finishing up now after 2.5 years

not sure why; 100 Van Ness seems like a much bigger building

fflint

Jan 7, 2014, 4:07 AM

Never mind

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 7, 2014, 4:12 AM

Does anyone know San Francisco's building guidelines as to whether buildings can be stacked on top of one another? It may seem outlandish and will never get approved in this city, but theoretically, is this possible? It would be interesting to see what the skyline would look like if 250+ meter buildings were built on top of Foundry Square. I'm certain I've seen buildings in New York like that. :shrug:

I doubt that it would happen today, but it has happened in the past in San Francisco. You can see an example of it on Market Street between New Montgomery and 2nd Streets on the south side. Take a look at Google Earth street view and you will see a tiny brown brick building encased by a highrise building. There were a lot of people upset that this little building was to be torn down so the developer saved it and built over it. It is currently a Boudin Cafe & Bakery. :>}