SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed [Archive] - Page 8

BTinSF

May 11, 2007, 2:50 AM

Today, I found what I think is very good news. The Ritz Carlton may turn out better than I thought.

First of all, the facade of the addition is not bland stucco as I thought but a textured stone (or synthetic stone) as suggested by the renderings:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000041.jpg?t=1178851300

But even better, notice those metal plates being affixed along the rooflines and certain lower floors:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000042.jpg?t=1178851374

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000036.jpg?t=1178851492

Here is the rendering once again:

http://www.ritzcarltonrealestate.com/common/rcr/images/landing/san-francisco/rend1lg.jpg

I think it's very likely that the metal plates are attachments for projecting cornices which is what we were calling a "roof overhangs". So, when its finished, the building WILL look pretty much like the renderings.

Also, the great arched entranceway is emerging:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000048.jpg?t=1178851810

And the brickwork:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000047.jpg?t=1178851978

BTinSF

May 11, 2007, 3:02 AM

Here's some other random projects:

The scaffolding is coming off Symphony Towers:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000029.jpg?t=1178852158

The Argenta as seen from Civic Center Plaza:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000034.jpg?t=1178852234

New Federal Building and SOMA Grand from Civic Center Plaza:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000033.jpg?t=1178852317

A little project nobody's mentioned (that I recall): the Rincon Park restaurants on the Embarcadero. If you like to walk along the waterfront as I do, they'll provide a place to grab some lunch:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000086.jpg?t=1178852364

SpeedoPro

May 11, 2007, 3:05 AM

omg sf is the most beautiful city i have been to. i will visit sf again this november:banana: how do i get to bakers beach?

Reminiscence

May 11, 2007, 5:38 AM

Great job BT, nice zoom on the Ritz-Carlton! I failed to see the fine details on the façade of the building before these.

BTinSF

May 11, 2007, 6:44 AM

But you knew how to spell facade. ;)

Reminiscence

May 11, 2007, 6:55 AM

You bet, old school French style, heh. :)

FourOneFive

May 11, 2007, 3:47 PM

New renderings of the 407' Cathedral Hill Tower.

From SocketSite:

http://www.socketsite.com/Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower%20Rendering.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower%20Rendering%20South.jpg

mthd

May 11, 2007, 4:49 PM

and the article from the business times :

In the late 1960s, Alvin Dworman was a force on Cathedral Hill, a neighborhood-changing developer who built Cathedral Hill Tower, Cathedral Hill Plaza and assembled the site for the area's defining landmark, the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption, built in 1971.

Now 40 years later Dworman's Adco Group is again looking to put a defining stamp on the neighborhood. The developer is proposing a $230 million, 407-foot elliptical condominium tower at the hill's apex, a ghostly white glass structure that would be visible from much of the city.

Adco has hired Skidmore Owings & Merrill to design the 38-story building, which SOM design partner Craig Hartman described as a light and luminous "bell tower marking the presence of the cathedral." The new tower would be built at 1481 Post St., adjacent to Cathedral Hill Plaza, a 169-unit rental property.

The project would also include 6,000 square feet of retail and a 5,000-square-foot cultural space, which the developer envisions as a cultural and educational space modeled after the 92nd Street Y in New York.

"We've come full circle back to where we started," said Linda Corso, general manager of Cathedral Hill Plaza.

A new direction

The project comes at a time when Cathedral Hill activists are organizing to oppose a massive new California Pacific Medical Center hospital proposed for the eastern edge of the neighborhood. Adco faces a challenge in convincing neighbors -- already feeling under siege -- that the development's subtle design and public amenities will offset added density or blocked views.

SOM senior designer Leo Chow argued that the project is a chance for Adco to correct some of the design mistakes made when the neighborhood was developed. At the time, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency pushed a plan that moved automobile traffic through the area at the expense of pedestrians.

The 1481 Post St. plan calls for the building itself to be spun around, so its main axis points not straight out but to the entrance of St. Mary's. Hartman says the elliptical tower "is making a deferential gesture to the cathedral." This will break up the "imposing urban wall" to create space for a large public Japanese garden along the south side of Post Street. With 36 stories of housing, the first two stories will be a glass-clad transparent base of retail and community uses.

Chow said the tower is consistent with the city's long-standing policy of trying to define the hills with tall buildings.

"The idea of building an iconic tower on top of the hill seems appropriate," said Chow. "It's a very sleek, simple form you can identify from different parts of the city."

Corso said the developer started looking at the site two years ago and brought on SOM last summer. On March 9, Adco filed an application for environmental evaluation with the Planning Department. The developer has just started reaching out to neighborhood groups like the Cathedral Hill Neighborhood Association and the Japantown Task Force, according to Corso, who said 60 residents attended an initial meeting April 19th.

The building would be 407 feet tall. Current zoning allows 240 feet, which Chow calls a "an unfortunate, squat, blocky thing."

The development site is now occupied by two tennis courts, a swimming pool, and both above-ground and surface parking. Under the new plan, the parking would be moved underground and the swimming pools incorporated into the new development.

Dworman is a former close associate of the Pritzker family, the billionaire hoteliers and philanthropists based in Chicago, but fell out with the family in 2001 after a bank they owned jointly failed.

Based in New York with offices in San Francisco, Adco owns 1.3 million square feet of commercial space in San Francisco. It has developed the Normandy Apartments on Ellis Street, Museum Parc at 300 Third St., and owns SF Mart, 875 Stevenson St., and Convention Plaza.

And Dworman and Adco are no strangers to neighborhood battles. In 2000, the developer opened Bacara Resort and Spa outside of Santa Barbara, a ultra deluxe project that took 17 years of legal battles to entitle and build.

ACSF

May 11, 2007, 4:55 PM

A little project nobody's mentioned (that I recall): the Rincon Park restaurants on the Embarcadero. If you like to walk along the waterfront as I do, they'll provide a place to grab some lunch:

Well, it's not really going to be a place to drop in for a quick cheap lunch! They're spending something outrageous like $10 million on interior decorations for these two small restaurants. Expect it to be some of the most expensive food in The City, so plan on spending at least a few hundred for dinner. I hope the buildings look nice, so far I haven't even seen a rendering.

tyler82

May 11, 2007, 4:58 PM

New renderings of the 407' Cathedral Hill Tower.

From SocketSite:

http://www.socketsite.com/Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower%20Rendering.jpg

Very nice!! Almost Mac like

sfgiants

May 12, 2007, 4:09 AM

when construction first started
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/100_1953.jpg

Now when constructionis almost done
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/P1000047.jpg

tyler82

May 13, 2007, 4:09 AM

Now when constructionis almost done
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a210/PIMPIN13510/P1000047.jpg

There is something about old architecture coupled with new, updated windows that is very sexy to me.

sfgiants

May 13, 2007, 5:09 PM

this building i a cool building.
im glad i got to go to work with my dad on saturdays.
almost everytime i would go back the build would be taller. i remember one saturday i left and their was only 16 storys and 4 weeks later and their was 26 storys.

BTinSF

May 14, 2007, 5:55 AM

Well, it's not really going to be a place to drop in for a quick cheap lunch! They're spending something outrageous like $10 million on interior decorations for these two small restaurants. Expect it to be some of the most expensive food in The City, so plan on spending at least a few hundred for dinner. I hope the buildings look nice, so far I haven't even seen a rendering.

Here's what the BizTimes said last year:

each restaurant has a peak capacity of about 200 diners, with the average dinner table expected to turn two-and-a-half times. Then there's the lunch business, where special menus for the business crowd indoors will be supplemented by sales through outdoor food kiosks Kuleto is planning. Entrees are in the $20-35 range, at least at dinner, and Levine said the average check could easily be around $80.
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/09/04/story2.html

That hardly makes it among "the most expensive food in the city" and I'm hoping what's available through the kiosks is even reasonable (comparable to what you can get a few blocks down at the Ferry Building). I'm not much of a lunch eater myself and when I do eat down there to eat I usually either go to the Java House for a burger or one of the international places across the street from the Ferry Bldg plaza, but the lack of any sources of take-out near Folsom has made that part of the waterfront less loiter-friendly than down near Market and I'd like to see that remedied.

The architecture is nothing spectacular:

http://www.sfport.com/site/uploadedimages/port/about_us/divisions/planning_development/projects/Rendering.JPG

http://www.sfport.com/site/uploadedimages/port/about_us/divisions/planning_development/projects/Rincon_Plan.jpg

ACSF

May 14, 2007, 9:26 PM

roadwarrior

May 14, 2007, 10:21 PM

Thanks for posting the pics and more info about the restaurants. It will be interesting to see how the food and interiors are, especially since the $18 million miniumum to build two tiny buildings is insane. And they are pretty boring too, at least from the outside!

Kuleto wants to charge high enough food prices to generate at least $20 million in the first 12 months, that is pretty aggressive. But I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it is pulled off...I'm guessing the two restaurants will be comparable to Boulevard & Aqua in terms of price/quality...Not sure where the customers will park though.

A couple points -

First, regarding the "blandness" of the buildings. I've heard that the seafood restaurant will contain giant aquariums to add to the ambiance of the restaurants and we can be assured that both will contain awesome views of the bay and the bridge (which were once available to patrons at Palomino and Crunch gym).

Next, regarding the parking situation. Don't forget that the current tenants across the street (Palomino, Gordon Biersch) offer free validated parking in their garage. I wouldn't be surprised if these restaurants offered this as well, but also one-upped them by providing valet parking that utilizes this garage. If you walk by the construction site on the embarcadero, you'll notice that there is a large area of "shoulder" which would easily accomodate people dropping off and picking up their cars for valet.

tyler82

May 15, 2007, 12:15 AM

viewguysf

May 15, 2007, 3:34 AM

kenratboy

May 15, 2007, 5:02 AM

Re: blandness of the buildings

Why should architecture in this area be outrageous? I think that the restaurants will fit in perfectly, as they are not flashy so as to deduct from the natural beauty of the area with the parks and the bay, bay bridge, etc. They are simplistic, modern, clean, and simple. I like them. They could be a lot worse! Hopefully they will detract from that horrible fisher price bow and arrow set nearby, though

Yup, thats exactly what I was going to post!

Those buildings look like the San Francisco I love. Simple, clean, honest architecture, not fancy, weird crap. I love the pre-war architecture, the Art Deco look.

As for the $18MM - the buildings probably only cost a few million, I bet almost all the money is being spent on the infrastructure (utilities, land prep, and all that stuff) as well as the fact they are building in SF, and they never make that easy!

murrax

May 15, 2007, 7:25 AM

Yup, thats exactly what I was going to post!

Those buildings look like the San Francisco I love. Simple, clean, honest architecture, not fancy, weird crap. I love the pre-war architecture, the Art Deco look.

As for the $18MM - the buildings probably only cost a few million, I bet almost all the money is being spent on the infrastructure (utilities, land prep, and all that stuff) as well as the fact they are building in SF, and they never make that easy!

Can't they just leave this area alone , every square inch of open space in S.F seems to be a target for greedy developers or commerce, this is a beautiful waterfront location with open views , aren't there enough resturents in the area and the city without having to sacrifice San Francisco's natural beauty for two bland buildings and high priced face stuffing and mor traffic.

tyler82

May 15, 2007, 7:27 PM

Can't they just leave this area alone , every square inch of open space in S.F seems to be a target for greedy developers or commerce, this is a beautiful waterfront location with open views , aren't there enough resturents in the area and the city without having to sacrifice San Francisco's natural beauty for two bland buildings and high priced face stuffing and mor traffic.

I might agree with you if this area actually were a "beautiful waterfront location," but right now it's just a dirt path with some beach weed grass and a tacky plastic bow and arrow sticking up. Really, what are they destroying by building here? You will still be able to walk along the waterfront just the same.

LWR

May 15, 2007, 9:19 PM

I might agree with you if this area actually were a "beautiful waterfront location," but right now it's just a dirt path with some beach weed grass and a tacky plastic bow and arrow sticking up...

:banana: I've always disliked that bow and arrow. :cheers:

murrax

May 16, 2007, 5:13 AM

Sorry about getting away from the highrise for a moment, after the earthquake the city got the embarcadero back with it's great vistas. It was then realised that building a double deck skyway there was a horrendous vision, from what I am aware long term plans for the Embarcadero waterfont involves alot of development, they seem bent on making the same mistakes all over again.
It is an exciting time in the city for the current highrise projects

kenratboy

May 16, 2007, 5:31 AM

Can't they just leave this area alone , every square inch of open space in S.F seems to be a target for greedy developers or commerce, this is a beautiful waterfront location with open views , aren't there enough resturents in the area and the city without having to sacrifice San Francisco's natural beauty for two bland buildings and high priced face stuffing and mor traffic.

Well, there still will be a lot of open area around there - actually, I was there a few months ago, and it almost seemed TOO open, it would be nice to have some small restaurants and shops (but NOT tourist traps!!!) right there, similar to what the Ferry Build provides. Just because there is stuff a block or two away doesn't mean additions to this area are bad.

Also, the reality is in the city, you know this property had to go thru 1001 approvals and boards, and its not like the 'greedy' developer 'got his way', I'm sure the city was calling the shots in terms of their vision of the area.

fflint

May 16, 2007, 8:38 AM

fflint

May 16, 2007, 9:13 AM

Anyway, here's a couple aerials I found recently showing many current projects under construction (although they're obviously a little old):

http://freelargephotos.com/001142_l.jpg
http://freelargephotos.com/001142_l.jpg

http://freelargephotos.com/001141_l.jpg
http://freelargephotos.com/001141_l.jpg

roadwarrior

May 16, 2007, 2:44 PM

San Francisco has a higher ratio of open space to developed land than any other city in America except New York. The whole "greedy developers are taking away all our open space" line--we're talking about building a grand total of two ground-hugging single-story buildings along the newly-reclaimed waterfront--is laughable and counterfactual.

Yes, but that is including "untouchable" areas such as Golden Gate Park and other spots in the city. If you look at newly developing areas around Rincon Hill, this neighborhood is desperately in need of additional park areas.

rocketman_95046

May 16, 2007, 5:12 PM

Yes, but that is including "untouchable" areas such as Golden Gate Park and other spots in the city. If you look at newly developing areas around Rincon Hill, this neighborhood is desperately in need of additional park areas.

Already done,,, the approved rincon hill & transbay plans include new parks allong with the "greedy developments" ;)

The_Analyst

May 16, 2007, 7:31 PM

Already done,,, the approved rincon hill & transbay plans include new parks allong with the "greedy developments" ;)

Not sure that this very small plot of land with a couple restaurants along a waterfront is that bad of a problem. I walk through the area all the time and this doesn't seem that intrusive or out of place.

That aerial photo reminds me, though: what we really need to talk about is what to do with Piers 30-32. Since it looks like the proposed Cruise Ship terminal is bound for Pier 27 (which is a more ideal location for tourists) what can be done with 30-32? To leave it as a barren asphault occasional outdoor party spot a few times a year seems like a waste to me. Could it not be improved into some kind of better public recreational facility?

fflint

May 16, 2007, 9:01 PM

Yes, but that is including "untouchable" areas such as Golden Gate Park and other spots in the city. If you look at newly developing areas around Rincon Hill, this neighborhood is desperately in need of additional park areas.
Anyone who makes the conscious choice to reside in downtown San Francisco--including the new Rincon Hill neighborhood--cannot expect to find acres and acres of grass nearby. That said, if such a resident wishes for some open space and does not find the miles and miles of open bayfront promenades suitable for his needs, he can walk to Justin Herman Plaza, South Park, Yerba Buena Gardens, or Union Square. If those open spaces aren't good enough, he can hop on Muni and in short order enjoy nearly perfect solitude over miles and miles of open green space or miles and miles of mostly vacant beaches.

Personally, I think we're more in danger of having too much under-used and unused open space in this city than too little. And no, I'm not just talking about the giant greens on the west side. In most areas, on most days, residents clearly do not "desperately need" to spend a single minute on damp grass under gray skies in the howling wind. Most existing neighborhood parks are well-spaced and well-established--but nearly unused. I challenge the notion that this city should be pockmarked with dead zones because somehow those dead zones are necessary. They clearly aren't. Isn't the waterfront enough open space for downtown?

Reminiscence

May 17, 2007, 2:03 AM

I think fflint has it right. Areas such as those mentioned are within a reasonably close proximity to the areas under development now. Parks are a good thing of course, but too much of a good thing is not. For as much as I know, I have no problem at all with the proposed waterfront development.

kenratboy

May 17, 2007, 5:56 AM

fflint

May 17, 2007, 9:24 AM

In all fairness, Union Square is totally open and a great use of the space. Better than it has ever been in my 34 years in the area, at least.

mthd

May 17, 2007, 5:43 PM

In all fairness, Union Square isn't exactly 'open space' in the sense of a park. I even read some article on SF Gate (their MASSIVE piece of SF redevelopment) that said how the space really isn't used as well as it could and was not all that inviting/intimate (which is fine when you consider the area).

in all fairness ( ;) ) as a resident of san francisco who lives and works within walking distance of union square, who shops in the district regularly, union square is open space, and it is very well used.

could it be better? sure. it's not perfect. nothing is. but it really is a good open space for the city in every way that really counts.

BTinSF

May 17, 2007, 5:53 PM

As for the $18MM - the buildings probably only cost a few million, I bet almost all the money is being spent on the infrastructure (utilities, land prep, and all that stuff) as well as the fact they are building in SF, and they never make that easy!

Just to remind everyone, the buildings themselves are being put up by The Gap as a condition of being allowed to build their HQ building across the street several years ago. The interior buildout is the only cost to Pat Koleto.

Murrax--This was part of the plan for this part of the Embarcadero right from the start. It isn't a "messing with" the Embarcadero in any way. That's why this lot stayed bare dirt until they started building the restaurants while much of the other waterfront land was landscaped.

As for future development on the Embarcadero, on the Bay side of the roadway it's all low rise (mostly rehabilitation of existing piers) and will not impede views. In fact, it is intended to make some of the piers more accessible to and certainly more used by the public such as the new recreational facilities on piers 27-31 (I think it is). On the land side of the roadway, there are a few lots suitable for hotel or residential projects. But this is all port land and in order to do its job of maintaining the entire waterfront, the Port needs more sources of steady income such as it will get from leasing the rehabbed piers and land-side building lots.

BTinSF

May 17, 2007, 6:06 PM

BTinSF

May 17, 2007, 6:12 PM

That aerial photo reminds me, though: what we really need to talk about is what to do with Piers 30-32. Since it looks like the proposed Cruise Ship terminal is bound for Pier 27 (which is a more ideal location for tourists) what can be done with 30-32? To leave it as a barren asphault occasional outdoor party spot a few times a year seems like a waste to me. Could it not be improved into some kind of better public recreational facility?

Recall that a large part of the reason the plans for the cruise terminal appear to be changing is that it would be too costly to rehab piers 30-32 for a modern use. If it's too costly to do it for a profitable venture, it's almost certainly too costly to do it for a public purpose or a non-profit purpose. My guess is this pier will eventually either be torn down or, like a few other piers have done, catch on fire and self-destruct (producing a lot of noxious smoke).

BTinSF

May 17, 2007, 6:15 PM

In all fairness, Union Square is totally open and a great use of the space. Better than it has ever been in my 34 years in the area, at least.

I concur completely. I think the new square is wonderful--I just hope the city both maintains it and polices it to keep the rowdies and the homeless from driving the rest of us out. As long as that happens, it's as near a perfect design for its purpose as we are ever likely to see in this town. I just don't understand the criticism.

murrax

May 17, 2007, 7:04 PM

As long as its not turned in to another Fishermans Wharf, and over run by crowds of tourists, thats why I never venture into the Wharf area, I enjoy walks along the Emarcadero it's scenic and no big crowds (yet). Approval boards and committees , are easily influenced by developers and blinded additional by tax revenue , knowing two leading city developers one previous appointed city hall position, sliding permits under the radar ,giving some tacky results

tyler82

May 17, 2007, 7:27 PM

I think that we should preserve the excellent natural space we have now, such as Presidio, Lake Merced, Fort Funston, and instead build upward in underserved, underused areas of the city, such as what is happening now in the SOMA. Those of us without back yards enjoy being able to go out to these places. It's really sad that the post war suburban boom took away so much open space in the sake of building horizontal instead of vertical. It is smarter and eco-friendly to build high than to build out, and I think that a majority of San Franciscans realize that.

viewguysf

May 18, 2007, 2:59 AM

Recall that a large part of the reason the plans for the cruise terminal appear to be changing is that it would be too costly to rehab piers 30-32 for a modern use. If it's too costly to do it for a profitable venture, it's almost certainly too costly to do it for a public purpose or a non-profit purpose. My guess is this pier will eventually either be torn down or, like a few other piers have done, catch on fire and self-destruct (producing a lot of noxious smoke).

In addition, look at the recent visit of the Queen Mary 2. It barely made it under the Golden Gate Bridge at low tide; how could a ship like that get under the Bay Bridge to dock at a terminal there?

Reminiscence

May 18, 2007, 6:58 AM

I think that such a ship can in fact make it under the Bay Bridge to dock there. If I remember right, the maximum vertical clearance for both The Bay Bridge and The Golden Gate is 220' above mean sea level? However, if such is the case, I dont think that maximum occurs right next to the SF Approach. In either case, the current proposal works much better, in my opinion.

fflint

May 18, 2007, 9:33 PM

Found on flickr:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/222/503395525_5ee3334300_b.jpg
By Telstar Logistics: http://flickr.com/photos/telstar/503395525/

pseudolus

May 19, 2007, 1:52 AM

2006.1106E: 222 SECOND STREET (Assessor’s Block 3735, Lot 63): The project site is on the southwest corner of Second Street and Howard Street, on the block bounded by Second, Howard, Hawthorne, and Folsom Streets, in the Financial District. The proposed project is a 25-story, 350-foot-tall office tower containing 430,700 square feet of office space, retail space and enclosed public space at the ground floor, and two levels of sub-grade parking containing 50 parking spaces, and outdoor open space at grade level. The site is within the C-3-O(SD) Downtown Office (Special Development) District and the 350-S and 150-S height and bulk districts. (JONES)

Newspaper Notice for San Francisco Planning Department for May 18 and 19, 2007.

http://sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25756

fflint

May 20, 2007, 10:50 AM

Here's an interesting bit of infill on Turk Street: anybody know what it is,
and how tall it will be?

Found on flickr:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/505488318_ffe188cc60_o.jpg
By Evil Julia: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/505488318_ffe188cc60_o.jpg

fflint

May 20, 2007, 11:02 AM

And then we've got One Rincon on the left and the Intercontinental Hotel
rising on the right:

From flickr:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/505487372_6ca7acec47_o.jpg
From Evil Julia: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/505487372_6ca7acec47_o.jpg

fflint

May 20, 2007, 11:05 AM

SpeedoPro

May 20, 2007, 12:41 PM

^^^ is that hotel nikko at the bttm of the pic? i'm trying to decide whether i should stay at the grand hyatt or nikko for this november. is nikko rated well??

roadwarrior

May 20, 2007, 2:54 PM

^^^ is that hotel nikko at the bttm of the pic? i'm trying to decide whether i should stay at the grand hyatt or nikko for this november. is nikko rated well??

Hotel Nikko is a good hotel...that is a premium brand. Of course, both Nikko and the Grand Hyatt are nearby Union Square. The Grand Hyatt is literally across the street from Union Square. If I were an out of towner, I'd probably pick different, more hip hotels, such as the St. Regis or W, or if I was looking for a boutique hotel, I'd go for the Hotel Vitale, which is right on the embarcadero (waterfront). However, both of your choices are nice hotels in good locations.

Also, regarding Baker Beach, it is located between the Golden Gate Bridge/Presidio area and Seacliff (huge mansions, where Robin Williams lives). I'd ask your hotel concierge for specific directions to get there and which bus line to use, if you don't have your own transportation. I actually sometimes rent mountain bikes and you can actually bike out there, by going through Fishermans Wharf, Marina Green and then the Presidio area...a very beautiful ride. The one thing though is that you'd have to get lucky to have beach weather. It does happen from time to time, but more often than not, the beaches are more places to go for walks while bundled up in your sweater, as opposed to sunbathing.

tyler82

May 20, 2007, 5:39 PM

This one captures a few of the new towers under construction, but I find it especially interesting for showing how the Ritz-Carlton residences will look:

From flickr:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/505487056_09620433ed_o.jpg
By Evil Julia: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/505487056_09620433ed_o.jpg

Know of any plans to update the facade on that horrible looking building across the street from the Ritz? It looks like of like the Ritz did before its update.

Manarii

May 21, 2007, 12:49 AM

Im trying to imagine which building you are talking about. I can't remember a particulary horrible building across from the restored Ritz. That whole intersection seems to be restored to its almost original luster with the restored Ritz/DeYoung building, the Monadnock building, the Palace Hotel, the Hearst building, the Call building and that other gorgeous buildinig across the street that you see while driving up Kearny St.

pseudolus

May 21, 2007, 6:15 AM

http://www.mistersf.com/images/700mkt02.jpg

This maybe?

http://www.mistersf.com/images/700mkt02.jpg

tyler82

May 21, 2007, 5:32 PM

http://www.mistersf.com/images/700mkt02.jpg

This maybe?

http://www.mistersf.com/images/700mkt02.jpg

Why god, why why did they do that do that beaufitul building?? :slob:

I was actually referring to the building in the picture i linked two, across Market street it's about the same height as the new ritz and it's got those horrible stripe things from the 70s.

Complex01

May 21, 2007, 7:02 PM

Wow, there are some really great projects going on here. I hope they all get built. Would like to see some new tall ones in the SF. Very nice...

:yes:

fflint

May 21, 2007, 10:37 PM

http://www.mistersf.com/images/700mkt02.jpg

This maybe?

http://www.mistersf.com/images/700mkt02.jpg
It is as ugly as hell, no doubt about it--but that isn't a 'remuddling', it is an addition to the older tower on land once occupied by a low-rise:

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7303/25mutualsavingsbankji1.jpg
sfmuseum.org

The full-height addition came, according to emporis, circa 1964. The original was built in 1902 and survived the '06 earthquake.

Manarii

May 22, 2007, 4:32 AM

So true, that building I think is called the Mutual Building? It is still there in all its glory (albeit for that addition to the side, that is the building I was referring to while driving up 3rd St. just before Market, you see that building on approach. It's a beautiful building except for that side addition. Still it's still there.

http://www.alamedainfo.com/San_Francisco_PC_40.jpg
http://www.alamedainfo.com/San_Francisco_PC_40.jpg

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/SF%20Earthquake/SC95215-t.jpg
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/SF%20Earthquake/SC95215-t.jpg

I think the building that Tyler "may" be referring to is the Hearst Building. If he is looking at that panorama picture on the previous page, you can see it and it does have a shape similar to the previous building now restored Ritz residences (the old DeYoung/Chronicle building). I think it does have the same shape and may look similar from afar, but I think you should walk down there and take a look at that building up close as it is one beautiful building.

http://www.fecalface.com/blogs/trippe/11-30-06/IMG_0759.jpg
http://www.fecalface.com/blogs/trippe/11-30-06/IMG_0759.jpg

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/jmhearst/lowerfront.jpg

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/jmhearst/jmhearst.html

tyler82

May 22, 2007, 6:37 PM

I think the building that Tyler "may" be referring to is the Hearst Building. If he is looking at that panorama picture on the previous page, you can see it and it does have a shape similar to the previous building now restored Ritz residences (the old DeYoung/Chronicle building). I think it does have the same shape and may look similar from afar, but I think you should walk down there and take a look at that building up close as it is one beautiful building.

No not the hearst building, the taller one next door to that, it's like a pinky yellowy color. Ugly!

viewguysf

May 23, 2007, 2:53 AM

No not the hearst building, the taller one next door to that, it's like a pinky yellowy color. Ugly!

Do you mean the Central Tower, on the southwest corner of Third and Market, across the street from the Hearst Building? That's actually a very historic structure with a tortured past; it's the former Call Building. I'm sure that someone would be willing to post before and after pics. It's dome was removed, more floors were added on top and all of its ornamentation was stripped off.

viewguysf

May 23, 2007, 2:59 AM

It is as ugly as hell, no doubt about it--but that isn't a 'remuddling', it is an addition to the older tower on land once occupied by a low-rise:

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7303/25mutualsavingsbankji1.jpg
sfmuseum.org

The full-height addition came, according to emporis, circa 1964. The original was built in 1902 and survived the '06 earthquake.

It's my understanding that when the addition was made the original building was totally gutted, including the elevator shafts and all. Out went the banking hall, elevator lobbies, etc. The addition supposedly contains the new elevators and mechanical systems. This poor structure was raped, but at least the exterior survived on Market and Geary streets.

I don't think that the addition is as bad as it could have been if it had been built in the 50's or 60's. At least it's somewhat sympathetic to the original design. There has even been talk about demolishing the addition to put a new one in its place. Heritage has been somewhat wary about that.

BTinSF

May 23, 2007, 3:27 AM

The Call Building was a gem, but it burned in 1906 and I'm pretty sure it's present ugliness is due to that:

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/7/h/V/sf42.gif

As for THIS building:

http://www.mistersf.com/images/700mkt02.jpg

I'm pretty sure I posted an article (I think from the BizTimes) somewhere here that the small building just west of it on Market had been sold and the lot was to be used in an enlargement/restoration project on this building. But I can't find the article and maybe I'm hallucinating. If I knew the address, it might be easier to search for it.

viewguysf

May 23, 2007, 3:31 AM

The Call Building was a gem, but it burned in 1906 and I'm pretty sure it's present ugliness is due to that:

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/7/h/V/sf42.gif

Before the fire:

http://americahurrah.com/images/CallBldg2.jpg

No, that's not the case. The Call Building was beautifully restored after the fire and survived in all its glory until the 1930's. The owners wanted more floor space, so off came the dome and on went the vertical addition. If you look at the building today you can see where this transition was made.

Manarii

May 24, 2007, 5:17 AM

No not the hearst building, the taller one next door to that, it's like a pinky yellowy color. Ugly!

I really have no idea which building you are talking about. I dont recall a pinky yellow color building. Not the old Le Meridien Hotel on 3rd? Maybe a pic will resurface one day.

BigKidD

May 24, 2007, 7:25 AM

Seeing the discussion on these buildings, how about the Chronicle, Mutual Bank, and Call buidings in their earlier phases:
http://www.alamedainfo.com/San_Francisco_PC_78.jpg
http://www.alamedainfo.com/postcards_of_san_francisco_2.htm
And the modified Call Building that I do not mind,
http://www.inetours.com/images/06/Lotta_Call_6544.jpg
http://www.inetours.com/Pages/SFNbrhds/1906_earthquake.html

BTinSF

May 24, 2007, 7:50 AM

^^^You know what? I don't mind either of them--the modified Call Building or the modified Mutual Bank--myself. I would have preferred that the Call have been left alone and that the Mutual addition per absolutely faithful to the Victoriana of the original, but since that was not to be I don't think they are so bad. I've always thought the Call looks kind of deco and, if the modification was indeed in 1930, that makes sense (I'd prefer a different paint scheme, though). The Mutual addition, if it was not to be period (which would have probably been much more expensive), is kind of interesting. Better something clearly modern than a very bad attempt at Victoriana.

My guess is that in 30 years people will hate the Ritz Carlton addition being done now every bit as much as some of you hate the Call and yet it has revealed all that fabulous brick.

Manarii

May 24, 2007, 8:17 AM

So is the Call Building what has been decided as the pinky yellow building?

The Call Building is a very nice building, and I agree, very Deco. It was the 30s.. I think when we realize what is once was, is when we get nostaligic and wish they had left it alone. You all know that corner was once considered the newspaper corner with the Chronicle/De Young (soon Ritz) building, the Examiner/Hearst Building and the Call Building. Fascinating history.

I have a question. Does anybody know if anything has happened to that empy lot which has stood bare for at least two decades at the corner of Pine and Kearny? It was directly across the Pine Street side of the Bank of America building at 555 California. Nothing was ever put there whenever whatever was once there. I have no idea what once stood there as it was empty from at least 1982 till at least 4 years ago. To understand what I am talking about: the four corners of Pine and Kearny. 1. Bank of America Building. 2. Taco Bell and where Oh La La was (in that old old building) 3. that horrendous 1960s structure with few windows and 4. The bare lot where Pine goes up steeply from Kearny to Grant (there are the backs of some buildings on Grant St on the upper part of that lot.

Ross Bogen

May 24, 2007, 4:43 PM

Great compendium of projects - I'm amazed at how much has been collected!(and also how much is still going up, or on the boards, in this market - I guess that's why construction costs are still going up)

FYI, the architects for California Pacific Medical Center are my former employers, SmithGroup - on their own now, without SOM as JV partner. They probably haven't gotten around to doing new renderings, and obviously would not want any of the previous ones done with SOM circulated further. A useful contact there, if you're interested, might be Matt Richter, who was the principal leading the medical planning and coordinating the design team under the JV.

CityKid

May 24, 2007, 4:57 PM

From my cube, I'm watching the crane for the Ritz come down.

sfgiants

May 24, 2007, 11:59 PM

does anyone got any new pics 690 market. i want to see what it looks like i would have my dad take some pics but hes not working their anymore. the iron workers are suppose to got back june 26 so if my dad does end up going their i will get some new pics of the out side and the inside of the building.

BTinSF

May 25, 2007, 5:58 PM

^^^It's still a work in progress. I took some pictures about 2 weeks ago and posted them here--nothing has much changed. They still have a lot of scaffolding and drapery up so you can't see parts of the building and I think there's a lot of cornice yet to be put up. Right now I think they are still restoring the brick and stone work in places where it had been damaged by the older renovation.

Patience!

BTinSF

May 25, 2007, 6:04 PM

I'm amazed at how much has been collected!(and also how much is still going up, or on the boards, in this market - I guess that's why construction costs are still going up)

My impression (from reading a lot of the financial press where I take an interest in things like basic metals and construction materials companies) is that costs are going up because there is a global competition--involving especially China--for steel and cement and most materials involved in these projects. If you recall, it was thought the I-580 repair might take months just because of the difficulty finding a steel fabricator who could take the project on immediately. From what I read the price of structural steel is skyrocketing. Also, in the Bay Area at least, there has been a shortage of concrete for several years--and recently a shortage even of construction cranes.

BTinSF

May 26, 2007, 7:11 PM

\Does anybody know if anything has happened to that empy lot which has stood bare for at least two decades at the corner of Pine and Kearny? It was directly across the Pine Street side of the Bank of America building at 555 California. Nothing was ever put there whenever whatever was once there. I have no idea what once stood there as it was empty from at least 1982 till at least 4 years ago. To understand what I am talking about: the four corners of Pine and Kearny. 1. Bank of America Building. 2. Taco Bell and where Oh La La was (in that old old building) 3. that horrendous 1960s structure with few windows and 4. The bare lot where Pine goes up steeply from Kearny to Grant (there are the backs of some buildings on Grant St on the upper part of that lot.

See Post #833 @ http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=114324&page=34 . I think you are talking about 500 Pine.

BTinSF

May 26, 2007, 11:26 PM

Manarii, this is the proposal for 500 Pine. If you read the link above, you'll see the lot and entitled plans are on the market as a package with the mining Exchange property, also entitled and designed. 500 Pine is a low building because it cannot shade St. Mary's Square and the design actually enlarges the park via a roof garden.

http://www.500pine.com/photo_gallery/photos/el201.jpg

http://www.500pine.com/photo_gallery/photos/kearny_south04.jpg

http://www.500pine.com/photo_gallery/photos/southside.jpg

http://www.500pine.com/photo_gallery/photos/west04.jpg

http://www.500pine.com/photo_gallery/photos/parkview.jpg

BTinSF

May 29, 2007, 4:10 AM

viewguysf

May 29, 2007, 4:26 AM

BigKidD

May 29, 2007, 6:40 AM

I think it's time we do a collective rethink about the Ritz Carlton Residences project: 690 Market St. I walked by there again today and was really impressed by the quality of the restoration being done on the old brick facade. Just repairing and polishing the gorgeous brick work may take as long as it took to build the vertical addition, but we will have a gem when they are done. I just frankly can't ever recall seeing another building with this level of detailing on a brick facade (most buildings, if they have this amount of work put into a masonry facade, are made of stone). It's awesome.
It's quite impressive. I was in the city Friday and examined the exterior of this amazing building. I cannot wait until the restoration of the exterior is complete. Who ever thought it was a good idea to cover the original exterior?:
http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/cedarchives/images/bangs1.jpg
http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/cedarchives/profiles/bangs.htm

The_Analyst

May 29, 2007, 8:09 PM

Who ever thought it was a good idea to cover the original exterior?

You know, I think it was the era, not one individual. It seems like by the 1950's all of society was ready for major changes (understandable given 2 world wars and a great depression). Not just architecture but a lot of personal items too. Almost everything natural seemed to go out of style (hardwood floors? yuck! Let's put down plastic--how cool.) Unfortunately the backlash against practically anything historic led to a lot of damage. I hope what we've learned by now is that historic details/architecture, etc. have a place and once they are demolished they are lost forever. I imagine someday people will look at the Ferry Building or City Hall and say, "What an ugly old fashioned relic." (Probably not in our lifetime, though!) I would hope that even when tastes change that our descendents will have the good sense to keep the old stuff around even when they don't fit the times. That's the major difference from the 50's-60's to today and, let's hope, in the future.

BigKidD

May 29, 2007, 11:32 PM

You know, I think it was the era, not one individual. It seems like by the 1950's all of society was ready for major changes (understandable given 2 world wars and a great depression). Not just architecture but a lot of personal items too. Almost everything natural seemed to go out of style (hardwood floors? yuck! Let's put down plastic--how cool.) Unfortunately the backlash against practically anything historic led to a lot of damage. I hope what we've learned by now is that historic details/architecture, etc. have a place and once they are demolished they are lost forever. I imagine someday people will look at the Ferry Building or City Hall and say, "What an ugly old fashioned relic." (Probably not in our lifetime, though!) I would hope that even when tastes change that our descendents will have the good sense to keep the old stuff around even when they don't fit the times. That's the major difference from the 50's-60's to today and, let's hope, in the future.
I concur. Architecture from the 19th century to the early 20th century tends to be my favorite time period of architectural styles. Thus, when these impressive building are covered up with aluminium siding or demolished it's a little disheartening. Although there are many impressive modern buildings today, yet many horrid ones too.

botoxic

May 30, 2007, 1:05 AM

(patbreana)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/519323638_6965689077_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/227/519323638_6965689077_o.jpg

(Zohar Manor-Abel)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/250/519382797_17c0f92fc9_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/250/519382797_17c0f92fc9_b.jpg

(r12a)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/254/518826077_0bbbd0a46c_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/254/518826077_0bbbd0a46c_b.jpg

BTinSF

May 30, 2007, 2:14 AM

I took some shots today with as much detail of the brick work as I could:

In this photo, note the areas on the right and left that have been cleaned and restored and the area in the center that has not
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000229.jpg?t=1180490944

This is a closeup of some of the unrestored brick
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000228.jpg?t=1180491015

Here are some restored areas
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000227.jpg?t=1180491075

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000231.jpg?t=1180491164

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000237.jpg?t=1180491132

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000236.jpg?t=1180491192

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000234.jpg?t=1180491239

BTinSF

May 30, 2007, 2:22 AM

Here's a project that doesn't get much attention, but I find interesting if only because Daniel Libeskind is the architect: The Contemporary Jewish Museum

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000240.jpg?t=1180491600

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000239.jpg?t=1180491629

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000243.jpg?t=1180491683

sfgiants

May 30, 2007, 3:24 AM

does anyone want to see some inside pictures of the Ritz Carlton Residences?

LWR

May 30, 2007, 4:30 AM

:previous: Thanks for asking... and BTW,

Thank you BTinSF for your photos. You've done yourself proud.

condodweller

May 30, 2007, 3:34 PM

You know, I think it was the era, not one individual. It seems like by the 1950's all of society was ready for major changes (understandable given 2 world wars and a great depression).

Indeed. Here's some newscopy (http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/search?/X%22de+young+building%22&SORT=D/X%22de+young+building%22&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBKEY=%22de%20young%20building%22/1%2C10%2C10%2CB/frameset&FF=X%22de+young+building%22&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBKEY=%22de%20young%20building%22&1%2C1%2C) from the time when the original exterior was being covered -- describing the building as a "relic." If you click the "next" link above the picture, you get to see the results of the transformation (now undone). It just makes you wonder what modern structures that look great now will we call "relics" in the future?

viewguysf

May 31, 2007, 2:38 AM

Indeed. Here's some newscopy (http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/search?/X%22de+young+building%22&SORT=D/X%22de+young+building%22&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBKEY=%22de%20young%20building%22/1%2C10%2C10%2CB/frameset&FF=X%22de+young+building%22&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBKEY=%22de%20young%20building%22&1%2C1%2C) from the time when the original exterior was being covered -- describing the building as a "relic." If you click the "next" link above the picture, you get to see the results of the transformation (now undone). It just makes you wonder what modern structures that look great now will we call "relics" in the future?

Great series of pics--thanks!

Two floors were added to the old building in the 1907 renovation, after the clock tower was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire. By late '62 and early '63, Home Savings was spending $1.6 million to trash the place! This was at exactly the same time that the fabulous Fox Theatre was being demolished further up Market Street to make way for Fox Plaza.

Adding further devastation to the neighborhood in the '60's, two of the outstanding buildings at the intersection of Market, Post and Montgomery were demolished and replaced with skyscrapers. You can see them in the background of some of the De Young pics. Today, some architectural historians claim that intersection was one of the grandest in America with its impressive buildings and that the Fox was one of the country's top ten architectural losses.

All of this puts your dialog with BT into perspective. It was a time when so many "relics" bit the dust both here and elsewhere. In our time, it's refreshing to see a project like this restore something beautiful that had disappeared. :awesome:

viewguysf

Jun 1, 2007, 3:47 AM

Thank you BTinSF for your photos. You've done yourself proud.

Yes, well done! A belated thank you BTinSF from me also for your very interesting pics here and in other threads on that day. They say much more than our words alone are capable of expressing. :worship:

condodweller

Jun 1, 2007, 4:05 AM

I think it's time we do a collective rethink about the Ritz Carlton Residences project: 690 Market St. I walked by there again today and was really impressed by the quality of the restoration being done on the old brick facade. Just repairing and polishing the gorgeous brick work may take as long as it took to build the vertical addition, but we will have a gem when they are done. I just frankly can't ever recall seeing another building with this level of detailing on a brick facade (most buildings, if they have this amount of work put into a masonry facade, are made of stone). It's awesome.

I am grudgingly coming to the same conclusion. I generally dislike facadism, but this really has been more of a restoration (many brick facades wind up being painted to match the new portion). As a purist, my usual take is "restore it completely or just tear it down and build something truly interesting", but this building is OK. I think that the new tower is boring, and that they could have had more setback in order to accentuate the old building, but I can live with it...

BTinSF

Jun 1, 2007, 7:20 AM

^^^I think we need to wait even on the new part. Like I tried to show a while back, there appear to be attachment points for ornamental cornices that will make it more interesting and there is texture to the facade that doesn't show up very well in photos or from a distance.

BigKidD

Jun 1, 2007, 8:19 AM

Great series of pics--thanks!

Two floors were added to the old building in the 1907 renovation, after the clock tower was destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire. By late '62 and early '63, Home Savings was spending $1.6 million to trash the place! This was at exactly the same time that the fabulous Fox Theatre was being demolished further up Market Street to make way for Fox Plaza.

Adding further devastation to the neighborhood in the '60's, two of the outstanding buildings at the intersection of Market, Post and Montgomery were demolished and replaced with skyscrapers. You can see them in the background of some of the De Young pics. Today, some architectural historians claim that intersection was one of the grandest in America with its impressive buildings and that the Fox was one of the country's top ten architectural losses.

All of this puts your dialog with BT into perspective. It was a time when so many "relics" bit the dust both here and elsewhere. In our time, it's refreshing to see a project like this restore something beautiful that had disappeared. :awesome:
Part of one of the buildings is at least still there (also the Chronicle Building is in view down Market),
http://www.businessimagegroup.com/sfimages/images/History/400/sf_market_post_mont.pos_400.jpg
http://www.businessimagegroup.com/sfimages/history/Downtown-Market.html

viewguysf

Jun 1, 2007, 4:01 PM

Part of one of the buildings is at least still there (also the Chronicle Building is in view down Market),
http://www.businessimagegroup.com/sfimages/images/History/400/sf_market_post_mont.pos_400.jpg
http://www.businessimagegroup.com/sfimages/history/Downtown-Market.html

Thanks for the pic BigKidD--it certainly shows what a grand intersection this was. I obviously love skyscrapers or I wouldn't be here in the first place, but I'm also a preservationist. I think that we are able to have the best of both worlds when beauty from the past is retained and restored and tall buildings are built on the many other available sites. Chicago is a good example of what makes a city so interesting. San Francisco has lost many gems to often mediocre or worse highrises (yes, we have saved some good things too).

San Frangelino

Jun 1, 2007, 5:28 PM

From http://www.socketsite.com/ and http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/highlights/2007/06/04/story4.html

Highrise Housing (And More) For Candlestick Point

“Top Vision [Development] has hired architect C.P. Wang of the renowned C.Y. Lee & Partners -- the firm that designed Taipei 101, the world's tallest fully inhabited skyscraper -- to design the final phase of St. Francis Bay, which will include a 16-story, 465-unit tower nestled into Bayview Hill, the grassy knoll separating the development from Monster Park.”

"Top Vision Development has sold out the first phase of its 769-unit St. Francis Bay, a total of 128 units. Meanwhile, construction on phase two is nearly complete, and thus far about 110 of the 176 units have been sold . . . Grading has begun on the site [for the final phase] and construction will start this year."

"In addition to St. Francis Bay, three other developers have pending projects in the area. Signature Properties has started work on 125 units at Candlestick Cove, a project which will eventually total 499 units. Developer George Yerby plans to demolish two office buildings and replace them with 500 units. And Universal Paragon Corp., which owns three office buildings, has plans to construct 1,100 units in seven highrise buildings."

http://www.socketsite.com/Top%20Vision%20Candlestick%20Tower.jpg

condodweller

Jun 2, 2007, 7:49 AM

“Top Vision [Development] has hired architect C.P. Wang of the renowned C.Y. Lee & Partners -- the firm that designed Taipei 101, the world's tallest fully inhabited skyscraper -- to design the final phase of St. Francis Bay, which will include a 16-story, 465-unit tower nestled into Bayview Hill, the grassy knoll separating the development from Monster Park.”

I just don't get it -- who the heck would want to live out there? I think the area would be put to better use as an office park, like Oyster Point.

San Frangelino

Jun 2, 2007, 3:34 PM

(double post)

San Frangelino

Jun 2, 2007, 3:38 PM

Full Article from http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/06/04/story4.html?b=1180929600^1470813

Highrise housing gets OK for Candlestick Point
San Francisco Business Times - June 1, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

Top Vision Development is preparing to break ground later this year on the latest -- and by-far most ambitious -- condominium development on Candlestick Point, the isolated waterfront land between Highway 101 and Monster Park in the city's southeast corner.

Top Vision has hired architect C.P. Wang of the renowned C.Y. Lee & Partners -- the firm that designed Taipei 101, the world's tallest fully inhabited skyscraper -- to design the final phase of St. Francis Bay, which will include a 16-story, 465-unit tower nestled into Bayview Hill, the grassy knoll separating the development from Monster Park.

The project, recently approved by the Planning Commission, is a key part of a major new neighborhood being planned for Executive Park, a lackluster office enclave that has struggled to attract tenants and developers over the past 25 years. Under the proposed amendment to the general plan, the 330,000 square feet of office space along Highway 101 would be razed and replaced with housing. The land could support 2,800 units of housing and 5,000 residents, according to plans being developed by both city planners and the four developers who control the land.

Some of it is already being built. Top Vision Development has sold out the first phase of its 769-unit St. Francis Bay, a total of 128 units. Meanwhile, construction on phase two is nearly complete, and thus far about 110 of the 176 units have been sold, according to Chris Foley, a principal with Polaris Group, which is marketing the project.

The Planning Commission approved the final installment of St. Francis Bay in April, and Top Vision is working on obtaining building permits, said Top Vision's attorney, Brett Gladstone. Grading has begun on the site and construction will start this year.

"I think it will be a pleasant highrise community for people who want easy commute times to both downtown and Silicon Valley," said Gladstone. "And it will attract people who like water views."

In addition to St. Francis Bay, three other developers have pending projects in the area. Signature Properties has started work on 125 units at Candlestick Cove, a project which will eventually total 499 units. Developer George Yerby plans to demolish two office buildings and replace them with 500 units. And Universal Paragon Corp., which owns three office buildings, has plans to construct 1,100 units in seven highrise buildings.

While the Top Vision development and part of the Signature project have been entitled, the other projects cannot be approved until the city adopts a larger general plan amendment allowing higher density and heights, Gladstone said. The plan it would replace, passed in 1984, called for a 1.6 million square foot of office development, but only 320,000 square feet were built there.

Gladstone said he envisions the neighborhood as a more affordable and family-oriented alternative to Mission Bay and Rincon Hill. The Top Vision project is selling for an average of $525 a square foot, with two-bedroom condos going for about $500,000, about half the price of Rincon Hill and Mission Bay. The land abuts a 20-acre public park and trail system, which the major Candlestick developers have agreed to pay to maintain. The units are also larger than those in other parts of the city, with 81 percent with two bedrooms and 20 percent with three or more bedrooms.

"We've got a lot of first-time home buyers and a lot of people who have been saving up and trying to get in a home for a long time," said Foley.

The neighborhood faces challenges. Public transportation is limited, and Top Vision now provides a shuttle to BART, Muni and Caltrain. Paul Zeger, president of Pacific Marketing, said the challenge of phase three -- and other highrises at Candlestick Point -- will be keeping costs down. While the first two phases were wood frame over podium, which is much cheaper to build, the C.P. Wang-designed project uses glass, concrete and steel.

"These are destination locations you really have to drive to," said Zeger. "So to attract people they either need killer views or really desirable prices."

Zeger compared the location with Myers Development's Peninsula Mandalay in South San Francisco, which attracted a lot of older empty-nesters.

"As long as they can maintain values, they'll be a success."

Gladstone said Planning Director Dean Macris pushed for thinner towers that step up Bayview Hill, and emphasized that the St. Francis Bay project would be a "gateway" structure signaling the entrance to San Francisco for those coming in from the airport.

"It was important to Dean and to my client to create a tower that provides notice of the gateway into the city," Gladstone said.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Executive Park Plans

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1195/525381590_d9603b1aee_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1097/525381560_d356e49961_o.jpg