Oh wow, what a nice surprise! I'm trying to picture the buildings in my head, but from what I see so far, it looks like a nice plan. I'm sure SOM will release something no less than stunning. It'll also be nice to see these new buildings built right next to existing small and older buildings, the contrast will be interesting. I like what I see so far, and yes, this has plenty of potential is it's not scaled back too much.
|
AMAZEBALLS! This would be fantastic! However, given that this is San Francisco, and they search for every possible reason not to allow any ne construction, I am skeptical about this actually happening. If it does, I'm betting the towers end up half as tall and completed in no sooner than 2025.
For whatever its worth, thank god Chris Daly is termed out! That idiot wouldn't approve an LEED platnum building even if it was 100% low income housing! At least that is encouraging. |
the design of the undulating towers is definitely something san francisco needs to add to the variety of building stock in the skyline. i really hope this project pushes through.
however, the thing that really annoys me seeing the plans though is survival of the two ugly, tiny buildings that gets in the way of this development. it would have been better if the developer had a big enough plot to build a tall tower to make use of such prime corner location. these boneheaded owners must be some secret quadrillionaires that can't ever be bothered with a buyout:rolleyes: |
^I disagree entirely. This type of patchwork quilting of blocks creates all those odd nooks and quirks that make cities truly interesting. If they could assemble the whole block, it would likely be a much more open and yet imposing and unfriendly site plan. I think this could end up being accidentally wonderful.
|
But the plot is a spitting distance from the city's future tallest towers!! It's not the right place to insist your little scheme. Granted, if they were in the middle of the block, I say okay fine. Besides, it's not like we don't have that scheme you insist on following here. Perhaps you haven't visited Second Street? I'm for preservation as well, but not to the point where nothing new/better-looking and more-environmentally-friendly-towers-that-will-help-bring-a-much-needed-revitalization (whew!) of my city's financial district can be built.
|
I'm not insisting anything. I'm simply saying that small streetscape buildings are important too. You may not think so, but these in particular don't belong to you do they? In the absence of the ability to clear the superblock and create some 'tower with a plaza out front', the architects have had to be extremely creative in their integration. And I think they've done it quite interestingly.
I'm not in favor of preservation for preservation's sake. And as an architect, I've certainly had my fair share of arguments won and lost on the subject. I stand by my statement that these small 'leftovers' ,if you will, can create something accidentally wonderful. 50 years from now, people will look at the block and say 'what an interesting juxtaposition'. It's organic city development at its finest. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also in the mix, though not in contention for tallest, is the ~750-footer at 181 Fremont. |
While we wait for renderings of 50 First Street, here are somewhat similar designs for Jiangxi Nanchang Greenland Central Plaza, Parcel A also by SOM. There are also just 33 feet taller at 948 feet.
Source: http://www.som.com/content.cfm/jiang...plaza_parcel_a Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
in general, i agree with plinko.
not to take this thread too off topic but here's a article in the nyt from today that touches on this subject: Quote:
|
Quote:
Besides, there’s already a building set up exactly like what you are arguing for, across the street from the site (555 Mission and Salt House building)! That Salt House building is already there to help people put things in scale. How many more of that setup do you want within a distance of one stoplight to the next? Also, please don’t make a tower+plaza combo such an undesirable thing. The new towers a stone’s throw away from the site are not dead, sterile as you demonize the combo to be. JP Morgan Chase’s plaza has a zen-like atmosphere going on, and it’s dynamic sculpture is very interesting, while the rustling little bamboo forest is very refreshing to the senses. 555 Mission’s plaza is green, hip with an interesting and colorful artpiece. I think you are stuck with the notion that tower+plaza combo being boring/sterile the way they were in 70’s/80’s/90’s ( as in the case of BoA, US Bank, Chevron, One Embarcadero etc). Fortunately, the current and future towers are more environment and pedestrian-friendly and overall much more pleasing to the eyes. Glassy towers with airy public lobbies are being designed like 125 2nd St and the future tower across Millennium to name a few. And these exciting, newer designs can be had at that very prime, prime, prime corner location if only those two small ugly buildings would go. |
Looks like a fantastic project, don't know what the point of keeping the 3 story building is if they tearing everything else down, is the 3 story building more significant than the 6 story building that is on the corner? Granted none of them seem architecturally or historically significant, but I could be wrong.
|
I made my first post a little too quickly, ( I only read the first page), it seems, several people seem to think having the little 3 storey building will be great for juxtapositioning; maybe if it were on a corner; but to have it completely surrounded by 900' , 600' , etc. seems to be odd; especially since buildings like the Crocker Bank and the building at Montgomery and Market were torn down to throw up generic 60's - 70's corporate fluff, (they could have left them or parts of them up), it's kind of a sentimental guilt trip, just because it was built 80 or 90 years ago doesn't mean it has to or should stay, it's all about massing, if you want to be a big city and play big, you have to make sacrifices, I'd rather have an impeccable trio of integrated highrises, than have them have to build around a single building not for preservation, but for the sake of preserving something. That was a really long run on sentence by the way.
|
Perhaps there is some confusion--the small buildings in question are not staying due to the efforts of planners or preservationists. Rather, it is the free market that is keeping the holdouts in place--the owners of the small buildings did not wish to sell to the developers of 50 First.
In light of that reality, Plinko and I are saying there's an upside: the juxtoposition of old and new, large and small will enrichen the entire experience. |
Don't mean to gain up on people, but I agree with preserving the older and smaller buildings. It's that mix of building styles, some older and some newer, that I always found intriguing. Aside from good planning and style, it just looks better than a whole bunch of new buildings next to each other, even though these new buildings are themselves visually striking :)
|
I like that they are keeping the smaller building to me it will look nice, now if the heights stay the same as they proposed then it will all be perfect. :tup:
San Francisco needs to wake up and accept business. |
the fact remains that mission corridor certainly has many older short building left for scale purposes. older short buildings juxtaposed next to taller modern towers are certainly not lacking there. there's that older yellow brick building and st. regis; there is the shorter and older salt house bldg and 555 mission; the shorter and older 121 second st and taller 101 second street etc. so i guess the question is how much is enough before one becomes no better than sue hestor or supervisor daly?:rolleyes:
|
^Again, you're misunderstanding preservation vs an owner not willing to sell. Two very different scenarios.
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.