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

[kenratboy]

Originally Posted by mthd

the tallest building currently proposed north of market is only ±410 feet - but it is on a 200 foot tall hill. whether it makes it through approvals at that height or not, only time will tell. i'm not aware of any opportunity sites for anything really tall north of market.

I am under the impression the main reason we are seeing all the development SOMA, or even SO80 is because the area has been under-utilized for so long and it is significantly easier to acquire land and make the necessary improvements in these areas?

[mthd]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

I am under the impression the main reason we are seeing all the development SOMA, or even SO80 is because the area has been under-utilized for so long and it is significantly easier to acquire land and make the necessary improvements in these areas?

sure - there are lots more underutilized parcels south of market... but the zoning has a lot to do with it too. if there were higher height limits in other parts of the city, say along van ness, or broadway, or other major arteries you would probably see a lot more high rise residential proposed for sf. of course... you'd also see a lot more mass protest, nimbyism, riots, etc. pac heights, telegraph hill, russian hill, and nob hill are pretty much off limits.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

I am under the impression the main reason we are seeing all the development SOMA, or even SO80 is because the area has been under-utilized for so long and it is significantly easier to acquire land and make the necessary improvements in these areas?

In both areas mentioned there are large tracts of "brownfields" land with intense development pressure behind it. In the case of "SO80", by which I believe you mean the area most of us (and the city) call Mission Bay, that got going when the Southern Pacific Railroad split off a subsidiary it had created to hold and market its unused land (which all railroads had lots of--Burlington Northern did something similar with vast tracts of oil and gas land it owned creating "Burlington Resources"), calling it "Catellus Corportation". Catellus went through a long phase of project development and entitlement with the city and, when that was completed the land went on the market. As it turned out, the catalyst for creating a boom there was the decision by UCSF to put it's new campus there (rather than at Bay Farm in the East Bay and some other sites that had been considered) and the decision by the city and Catellus to use the UCSF presence to try to create a biotech opportunity site within the city (biotech had previously felt there was no suitable land within the city in spite of the fact that they were well represented in places like Emeryville and South SF).

In SOMA, the redesign of 80 itself and the removal of ramps to the Embarcadero freeway and some others opened up a lot of land, much of which has not yet been developed, in part because CalTrans is still using it for the ramp rebuild work. Also, there was the new interest in the Planning Department in highrise housing as a partial solution to the city's housing crunch and a decision that Rincon Hill and the adjacent parts of SOMA was where it belonged.

In spite of the PD's view that highrises belong on top of hills (to emphasize rather than obscure the geography), I do agree with mthd that it will be new and slightly shocking it they bless something tall on top of Cathedral Hill as they have done on Rincon Hill.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I believe there's a project on Bush

= "Shorenstein's 19-story 350 Bush St. office project was recently approved."
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2004/06/28/focus3.html

[WonderlandPark]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

= "Shorenstein's 19-story 350 Bush St. office project was recently approved."
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2004/06/28/focus3.html

crap, I keep thinking all of these little office towers are going to undermine the viability of offices at Transbay.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

crap, I keep thinking all of these little office towers are going to undermine the viability of offices at Transbay.

nah. transbay is so far in the future, i don't think these near-term bumps in capacity will matter much. the overall strength of the local commercial economy in the next 2-1- years will be the key factor imo. ideally we will get a true high density mixed use neighborhood at transbay anchored by a landmark mixed use tower - hopefully hotel, office, and residential in one building.

[kchalmers]

there is an animation of the 350 Bush 3D building set within 3D San Francisco:

http://www.350bushstreet.com/virtual_tour.shtml

[Reminiscence]

Wow, thats a nice building, and a good location too. Thanks for the link.

[CardinalStudent]

Pics from March 3rd

Argenta





Ritz-Carlton Residences

[BTinSF]

^^^I should probably wait until wraps come off the renovated brick work to judge, but I'm a little disappointed in this building. From the renderings, I thought the new upper stories were going to have a light-colored pseudo-brick veneer to tie in with (while contrasting in color to) the original brick. Instead, we have this very generic-looking what? Stucco? Or is it perhaps limestone whose pattern just doesn't show up in the photos (fingers crossed for that)?

Anyway, it doesn't really look to me like a Ritz--yet.

[fflint]

In person it looks like flat cement. It's a very disappointing building so far, and so different in texture quality from the rendering that I feel like we were duped. The new structure looks like it should be the Irvine Holiday Inn, circa 1986.

[Reminiscence]

The color is a little on the bland side, and not very Ritz-like. Although I do agree that we should wait until they remove the wraps so that we can picture the true contrast of the colors. Thanks for the pictures by the way

[mthd]

Originally Posted by fflint

In person it looks like flat cement. It's a very disappointing building so far, and so different in texture quality from the rendering that I feel like we were duped. The new structure looks like it should be the Irvine Holiday Inn, circa 1986.

i guess i can't claim to have been duped if i always thought it was going to be bad, but it's still very disappointing. at this major intersection the city deserves better. i don't think getting the 1960s skin off the building was worth it given what the slapped on top of it.

[WonderlandPark]

As I said before about the Ritz--el cheapo exterior--

[BTinSF]

Here's the more lifelike of the renderings. Maybe I just wanted to believe the new surface was textured in some way and/or higher quality materials (to my eye, it had the color of blond brick). But I did. And where are the roof overhangs by the way? Even at this stage they would help alleviate the 70's Holiday Inn look.

[SFView]

Looking more closely at the rendering, it appears that a two-tone color scheme, and roof and facade overhangs were originally intended for the upper floors. It would be most unfortunate if the owner decides or decided not to include these features in the final construction. Saving money in this case, so obviously results in a cheaper looking, blander exterior. San Francisco should not add any more bland towers to its already overwhelming collection of bland towers. The top portion of this building should count as much as the lower in aesthetics, even if treated differently.

[The_Analyst]

I agree that the Ritz is disappointing as a whole. I walked past on my lunch hour a few days ago and I think the new portion was a very light tan brick, although I don't remember precisely. At street level the building will be okay and the fact that the new tower is set back from the Market Street facade tends to give the impression that they are separate buildings. Even on the Kearny Street side, the new tower is set back maybe a foot or so which at least gives some depth. For most casual observers it may be that they would see Ritz signs on the old portion and believe the new tower is a separate building. The whole thing kind of reminds me of the New York New York casino in Las Vegas, though, where they slapped on several facades to one building trying to make it look like a skyline. At least with NYNY everyone knows it is fake, here I am not so sure. At best, it reminds me of the Fairmont--a great classic building with a dull tower added on the back.

[Manarii]

Originally Posted by The_Analyst

At best, it reminds me of the Fairmont--a great classic building with a dull tower added on the back.

That tower was built in the 50s/60s when people just didn't know better (same with the St. Francis tower).

I think you all should wait until the project is completed. Ritz Carlton is a well known chain and is known for restoring older properties. Look what they did to the Ritz carlton on California St.

In my opinion, the most important thing to me is the re discovering and restoration of the incredible 1898 Chronicle building. I still can't tell you how many times I've walked past that building in the years I lived in SF and had no idea that that GEM was still living and breathing behind that horrid exterior. I wouldn't care if they built a Jack in the Box on top of that building just as long as old Chron building was set free!

[condodweller]

Originally Posted by Manarii

In my opinion, the most important thing to me is the re discovering and restoration of the incredible 1898 Chronicle building. I still can't tell you how many times I've walked past that building in the years I lived in SF and had no idea that that GEM was still living and breathing behind that horrid exterior. I wouldn't care if they built a Jack in the Box on top of that building just as long as old Chron building was set free!

While I agree in spirit, in reality all they did was gut the old Chron building and desecrate it with a bland addition, so that its nothing more than a facade. That is not restoration. In some ways, I'd rather see a nice old building come down than be debased in this way.

[Manarii]

Originally Posted by condodweller

While I agree in spirit, in reality all they did was gut the old Chron building and desecrate it with a bland addition, so that its nothing more than a facade. That is not restoration. In some ways, I'd rather see a nice old building come down than be debased in this way.

I guess it depends. Each situation is different. Each opinion is different.

In reality, the original Chron building WAS gutted during the 06 earthquake. Only the exterior survived. The 'restoration' to me is still great news and I can't wait to return to see it. Many buildings built in those days probably cannot/could not handle the new technology that new buildings built in the 60's / 70's had to be able to handle such as wires, cables and all the equipment needed to run businesses. When I worked at 555 California for BofA's trading division starting in 1986, our trading floor was raised 2-3 feet with ramps so that they could accomodate a couple of hundred trading positions with technology that was avail in the 70's and 80's, the floors just could not accomodate all those wires, cables, telexes, old printers of the times, heavy computers, reuters and knightridder machines and so on. As the years went by, cables became thinner, machinery/equipment became lighter and smaller, computers were able to do all that previously several machines had to do, but i could not imagine a building built in 1889 being able to not have any modification to it's interior to meet the demands of the 21st century.

Several instances of some buildings in SF have been altered, leaving a still beautiful original exterior, or some other modification to the original structure. The old Crocker Bank (now Wells Fargo) on 1 Montgomery had the top floors the building lopped off to create a roof top garden (actually it might have been a compromise to allow them to build the crocker galleria and tower). The Citicorp Center on Market is a buidling built in the 1980s but the courtyard in front retains the original banking hall structure outside. I for one am glad to see remnants of old San Francisco still present in some capacity.

Citicorp


Crocker (Wells) 1 Montgomery