Bay Area Proposals/Approvals/Construction Tidbits II

[nequidnimis]

The Sequoias itself may be far from diminutive right now, but in the photo-montage rendering, it is small next to the new tower. The new tower repeats the mistake made with the Sequoias, on a grander scale.

The problem with the scale of the Sequoias is that it doesn't relate well with that of the buildings around it. Which is why I am advocating a 240' only tower, with a unit density per RM-4 zoning, as its scale would relate to that of other tall buildings nearby, and as it would help define the streetscape that's now missing.

In life, I generally disagree with the statement that things are so bad, we can't make them worse: yes, we can!

As to the suggestion of bulldozing the neighborhood and starting over, it is precisely what was done to it 40 years ago.

Good pieces of modern architecture that complement their neighbors can make Geary Blvd. a better place.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I'm with coyote and Zig on this but could we move the debate to the thread on this building at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=131154 ?

While it would be nice to have the debate there, I am not sure how we do that without breaking its thread. Perhaps an administrator can move all the relevant posts? Otherwise, we have cross-links in both places, yours here, mine there...

[nequidnimis]

When the BRT that has been proposed for Geary Blvd. eventually goes underground underneath Cathedral Hill, it will be possible to reclaim the lanes devoted to BRT to implement an urban boulevard on the model of Octavia Blvd. Octavia Blvd. is not a vibrant shopping district, but it is pedestrian friendly.

I realize the BRT is not even aprroved yet, and it probably won't be buried anytime soon, but I still have a vision of palm trees...

[BTinSF]

^^^You said it. Octavia is not and was not intended to be a shopping street. Niether was/is that part of Geary. My guess is it never will be. I just don't see the motivation. Remember that even Bell's Market failed in this hood in spite of my frequent visits. There's plenty of shopping just a few blocks down along Webster, Fillmore and Post as well as the Nihonmachi mall. At the top of Cathedral Hill, you maybe could support a convenience store and a drycleaner and a few other small, neighborhood retailers, but nothing more.

And I say this all the more because mass transit on Geary will essentially bypass these blocks by going way under them.

The top of Cathedral Hill is a great place to live because of the views but it will never be a shopping district. Build more housing there--including the tower. What's there now is large scale so more large scale fits there better than almost anywhere else. Forget shopping beyond very small-scale stuff.

[nequidnimis]

We are in agreement regarding building a residential tower. We differ on its size and compliance with current zoning.

We haven't seen a rendering of it from Post St., and a beautiful proposed landscaped garden driveway is proposed for Post St. However, my concerns about the definition of a coherent street scene on Geary Blvd. are also relevant to Post St.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

The Sequoias itself may be far from diminutive right now, but in the photo-montage rendering, it is small next to the new tower. The new tower repeats the mistake made with the Sequoias, on a grander scale.

The problem with the scale of the Sequoias is that it doesn't relate well with that of the buildings around it. Which is why I am advocating a 240' only tower, with a unit density per RM-4 zoning, as its scale would relate to that of other tall buildings nearby, and as it would help define the streetscape that's now missing.

In life, I generally disagree with the statement that things are so bad, we can't make them worse: yes, we can!

As to the suggestion of bulldozing the neighborhood and starting over, it is precisely what was done to it 40 years ago.

Good pieces of modern architecture that complement their neighbors can make Geary Blvd. a better place.

No one is saying bulldoze the neighborhood, at least in the most recent threads. So, here is a different perspective. With better streetscape (e.g. retail or active engagement at the pedestrian experience) would the Sequioa really be as obtrusive and fortress like as it is now. And were that the case, would it's height be an issue?

Yes, it would be nice for the Geary BRT to be upgraded to the Light Rail, but that is decades from happening, why endure a sterile, stalinesque (or Pyongyangesque urban vista when someone is proposing a development with the potential to be a catalyst for some serious urban upgrade. I took a shot from Alta Park the other month (have been to forgetful to remember to upload them to flicker, but the one shot of cathedral hill shows a mini-skyline of some heft already.

How, I repeat, how can extra height ruin a dead neighborhood. I spent about 30 minutes yesterday near sunset watching shadows. There will be almost no lost of sunlight in the evening for the old folks at the Carlysle (or is it Carlton). The only other neigbors along Post are in the semi-public seniors housing until you get to the mid rise. Hell, even if they are gunning for 38 and can make it worik at 30, that's still an improvement.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^It can only be an urban phenom if they bulldoze what's there and start over. The buildings right around there are maybe the best SF examples of what Fflint called "towers in a park" and it's already pretty much built out (that's why the new tower is proposed for a tennis court) so I don't see much chance to add retail. Also, of course, people prefer not to have to walk uphill to the store, hence most SF "neighborhood shopping streets" are in valleys (think 18th & Castro, 24th St. in Noe Valley, Polk St and so on), not on hilltops.

This is the bulldoze suggestion. I realize it wasn't proposed seriously. I still think the question should be: How do we take what we have, and make it work better, as opposed to giving up on it?

[craeg]

I think proposing this development is a perfect example of making what exists work better. We have a vastly underused site in a pedestrian unfriendly environment. Other than being against height for height's sake - I dont what the problem is with this project.
As for the existing height and density limits in SF, they are woefully outdated and reflect an earlier reaction to what was probably at the time a real threat to neighborhoods from developers.
Consider how many architectural gems we would lose in SF if we were to apply the blanket 40' height limit in place for residential outside of DT. San Francisco wouldnt be the city it is today if earlier development policies were as strict as they are now.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

This is the bulldoze suggestion. I realize it wasn't proposed seriously. I still think the question should be: How do we take what we have, and make it work better, as opposed to giving up on it?

I don't see why you think it doesn't work. It works fine for what it is: a dense residential neighborhood for view worshipers. Actually, the top of Russian Hill is similar: a couple of towers, no retail to speak of. Nob Hill has a park, hotels and cathedral to give it more street life, but still no retail. Like I said, the retail in SF is mostly at the base of the hills.

So I say make a place for some more people to enjoy the views. Cram as many big glass windows up there as we can.

[nequidnimis]

The current height limit for the site is 240', not 40'. It is the height of other highrises on Cathedral Hill. As to what's wrong with this project, it's not its height per se, it is its forfeiture of a coherent urban composition, in which various buildings jointly create a greater whole, like instruments in an orchestra.

[nequidnimis]

My definition of a neighborhood that works better is not necessarily a shopping neighborhood. These are fine, but I trust most of us feel we consume already more than we really need, and do not need a new shopping neighborhood. Instead, I am arguing for a neighborhood that is pedestrian friendly, where you can walk while enjoying what you see. And no, from that pont of view, this stretch of Geary does not work fine for what it is.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

The current height limit for the site is 240', not 40'. It is the height of other highrises on Cathedral Hill. As to what's wrong with this project, it's not its height per se, it is its forfeiture of a coherent urban composition, in which various buildings jointly create a greater whole, like instruments in an orchestra.

I actually think we all (those posting) are endorsing the project and Nequi is argueing for the current 240' (FTR, outside of specially zoned areas, the city's building height is 40' built). But again, this entrance to what was to be Herrmann's master addition (mix metaphors at your own risk), is sorely in need of a streetscape that helps mitigate the fact of Geary Blvd. so.. A) unless the catholic church decides to start selling indulgences again and open's a sins r us flagship sort at the corner, this development offers the best chance to start the process to repurpose this sterile stretch of street. I mean really, in a few short blocks to move from the lively, albeit grity urban canvas of the polk gulch (or villlage, take your marketing poision) to such a barren intersection is just sad.

As BT pointed out, the prospects for successful retail, as the area is not yet anything, will depend on businesses focused on tenants. The more tenants, the chance of one or two successes and, eventually, who knows. There's a large foot print to the west of Maytag Cathedral that could handle some height. Those frickin Normady-esque townhomes (better suited for Torrence than SF, could be redeveloped (seriously). There are some rumblings the new owners of Japantown are also reconsidering some changes to put more retail down the Geary Blvd. side.

You will simply have to jump start this with density. I think this integrity of the neighborhood 'massing' is ludicrous. More height, nem won't make it worse (maybe windier, but....).

[craeg]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

The current height limit for the site is 240', not 40'. It is the height of other highrises on Cathedral Hill. As to what's wrong with this project, it's not its height per se, it is its forfeiture of a coherent urban composition, in which various buildings jointly create a greater whole, like instruments in an orchestra.

I prefer my orchestra to have many different instruments with many different sounds.... I see no compelling evidence that the current urban composition is coherent. In fact, the entire area feels very much like a work which was never finished. I don't see a compelling reason to force the developers to work with the 240' height limit of the site.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I don't see why you think it doesn't work. It works fine for what it is: a dense residential neighborhood for view worshipers.
So I say make a place for some more people to enjoy the views. Cram as many big glass windows up there as we can.

Cramming anything into a neighborhood hardly sounds like the kind of city that we all want to live in. I agree with nequidnimis that a 240' height would be more appropriate for this site. We obviously all like high rises and skyscrapers or we wouldn't be here in the first place, but too much of a good thing in the wrong spot is not an improvement. A 410' tower would be a "look at me building" that won't complement anything, including the cathedral.

As far as retail goes, it's a mute point. BT is right, retail is definitely in the valleys in this town. This new tower won't enliven street life that much either because, like it or not, most of the residents will probably drive in and out. They'll hardly be the ones to enjoy strolling in Polk Gulch.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Cramming anything into a neighborhood hardly sounds like the kind of city that we all want to live in.

Then why do many of us worship Hong Kong?

IMHO, one of the problems with SF is we all think we are city planners. Nothing gets done with 800K city planners. There is nothing wrong with this project that should keep it unbuilt.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Then why do many of us worship Hong Kong?

IMHO, one of the problems with SF is we all think we are city planners. Nothing gets done with 800K city planners. There is nothing wrong with this project that should keep it unbuilt.

Having spent too much time there on business already, I, for one, do not worship Hong Kong. I do, however, worship our little (and, yes, sometimes provincial) City and appreciate its great beauty.

None the less, your multitude of postings in many streams keep me informed and I appreciate them too. I think that we are all just hyper excited because we've seen SF really come to life again in a big way.

[Richard Mlynarik]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Then why do many of us worship Hong Kong

Beats me.

There are many other ways of being urbane and civilized (none of which SF has attained, of course) beyound or besides HK.

I have no love of Hong Kong as an urban development model.
It's a great and exciting place, but there are other ways to do things, and ways I'd prefer to see them done if I'm to live with the results.

I also have no great love of most of the extraordinarily mediocre and largely ill-considered high-rise buildings which are enthused about by the bigger is better crowd here, if for no reason than that they are effectively impossible to demolish, unlike your average piece of 3 story SF — (at least until it reaches all of 10 years old and gets into the hands of "historic preservationists"...)

Hong Kong, Vancouver, or Foster City? Those are my only choices?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Richard Mlynarik

Hong Kong, Vancouver, or Foster City? Those are my only choices?

There's Disneyland (or one of Disney's other fake towns like Seaside in Florida).

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by Richard Mlynarik

Hong Kong, Vancouver, or Foster City? Those are my only choices?

Well, those three places would get you out of SF and, hopefully, off this forum. Bitter, party of one.

[MarkSFCA]

I live on Cathedral Hill and I am for the tower. I like the height . . . if it was a mid-rise it would just look like a wall of buildings, whereas building it slim and tall would redefine the buildings next to it and compliment the cathedral across the street. Having retail such as a coffee shop, small restaurant and a corner store would be perfect and bring life and a place to congregate for the residents nearby. So many tour buses visit the cathedral every day so a place to sit and enjoy the view of the cathedral would be great.