SAN FRANCISCO | 301 Mission Street | 645 FT / 197 M | 60 FLOORS

[Reminiscence]

Very nice Tyler, thanks for sharing those images with us! If I had an office, I wouldnt mind having that model in there.

I think you're right about the height increase proposals. The fact that they've been keeping real quiet about buying up buildings makes me think they've been keeping real quiet about this. As said, that meeting on Wednesday was just to test the waters.

[tyler82]

I was discussing the insane politics of SF with this guy, as he is from the east coast. He said this is the most difficult city to do anything in, skyscraper wise, and that he doesn't understand it and it just completely bewilders him.

However, things can't stay the same forever!

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

I think you're right about the height increase proposals. The fact that they've been keeping real quiet about buying up buildings makes me think they've been keeping real quiet about this. As said, that meeting on Wednesday was just to test the waters.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I was discussing the insane politics of SF with this guy, as he is from the east coast. He said this is the most difficult city to do anything in, skyscraper wise, and that he doesn't understand it and it just completely bewilders him.

However, things can't stay the same forever!

This is a difficult city to build in, regulations and such prevent our skyscrapers from being all they can be. Transamerica was a fine example of this. For this reason, I think Millenium Tower will usher in a new era for us in San Francisco. Right now that we have most of the public on our side, its important for the designs on August 6th to leave people wanting more.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by tyler82

However, things can't stay the same forever!

Certain things should, like the Victorians.

[sfcity1]

This is my favorite new building going up. Love the skin on this and it has some really nice angles. Pretty happy with Rincoln and 300 spear too for that matter.

Can't wait to see what other designs will be cooking up in this area. I don't think that there is much nimbyism in the SOMA area myself as there is in other parts of the city. This is pretty much an area where developers have alot more freedom do build what they want. I like it that there is this large area in south of Market that is being built up with ambitious designs of modern architecture, yet other parts of the city have resisted new development and has kept its art deco buildings, victorians, numerous old hotels, and lots of other architecture that are largely well preserved in the northern and hilly parts of the city. Less need to travel elsewhere to feel like you want to be in a different city.

[roadwarrior]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Certain things should, like the Victorians.

Maybe so, but many need to be maintained better.

I wouldn't mind seeing many of the Edwardians bulldozed, however. I personally don't like the look of a lot of them. I doubt that'll ever happen though, as many NIMBYs think they're a work of art.

[BTinSF]

People around here need to learn to compromise. San Francisco's historic neighborhoods with their Victorians AND Edwardians are wonderful and nobody (except roadwarrior) seriously wants to bulldoze any of them. But there are large areas such as SOMA, Rincon Hill and, I would say, 3rd St. where there is plenty of vacant land and we should build new, dramatic and tall buildings. Building squat little 20-story buildings in the central downtown is an underuse of the land and economically wrong. Ruining what many people love about San Francisco--the historic neighborhoods--would also be wrong.

[roadwarrior]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

People around here need to learn to compromise. San Francisco's historic neighborhoods with their Victorians AND Edwardians are wonderful and nobody (except roadwarrior) seriously wants to bulldoze any of them. But there are large areas such as SOMA, Rincon Hill and, I would say, 3rd St. where there is plenty of vacant land and we should build new, dramatic and tall buildings. Building squat little 20-story buildings in the central downtown is an underuse of the land and economically wrong. Ruining what many people love about San Francisco--the historic neighborhoods--would also be wrong.

I was being facetious when discussing seeing a large swath of them bulldozed. It was mainly mentioned to illustrate my point that many of them are eyesores in my opinion. I don't think age necessarily = beauty and I'd personally rather see new, clean buildings there as opposed to the run down, old, ugly monstrosities. I'd personally like to see all of these buildings in the city cleaned up and beautified.

[WonderlandPark]

I say bulldoze 'em. We don't need no stinkin' history. I would travel from Gwinett County, Georgia to relish this view from Steiner Street.

[BTinSF]

^^^I have a hard time understanding what you are referring to. Somebody posted some photos a while back of San Francisco in the 60's and I was kind of shocked at how run-down many of the houses and neighborhoods looked. Compared to that, they are all pristine now. Since it's hard to find a house in the city for under the high 6 figures, it's also hard to imagine people owning something worth that much and letting it run down but occasionally some do I admit. Still, for century-old wooden structures, most of San Francisco's homes are remarkably well cared for. I'm much more sympathetic to replacing the many architecturally bland and cheaply constructed COMMERCIAL buildings, though, most of which seem to date from the 50's and 60's, a few from before WW II.

[tyler82]

Citigroup Center in NYC is the building that Millennium resembles in its basic shape (except shorter) to me: (Wikipedia)

[nequidnimis]

With the difference that the Citicorp meets the street in a more interesting way:



William LeMessurier, structural engineer of the Citicorp, who passed away last month, was my teacher and my first boss.

[roadwarrior]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I have a hard time understanding what you are referring to. Somebody posted some photos a while back of San Francisco in the 60's and I was kind of shocked at how run-down many of the houses and neighborhoods looked. Compared to that, they are all pristine now. Since it's hard to find a house in the city for under the high 6 figures, it's also hard to imagine people owning something worth that much and letting it run down but occasionally some do I admit. Still, for century-old wooden structures, most of San Francisco's homes are remarkably well cared for. I'm much more sympathetic to replacing the many architecturally bland and cheaply constructed COMMERCIAL buildings, though, most of which seem to date from the 50's and 60's, a few from before WW II.

Well, if you're envisioning the more upscale neighborhoods (Marina, Pac Heights, Russian Hill, etc), then you aren't seeing too many run-down Edwardians. However, I was thinking about other areas of the city, such as the Sunset, Balboa Park, areas bordering Daly City and many of the buildings you see driving south on 101 and 280. I see a lot of older, run down buildings and the residents don't seem to have the acceptable level of civic pride.

[BTinSF]

^^^Well, that's partly what's confusing me. You said "Edwardians". To quote Wikipedia about the Sunset:

"It was one of the last areas of San Francisco to be developed, and most of its homes and buildings date from the 1920s through the 1950s, with the fastest rate of construction occurring during the 1930s and 1940s (although parts of the Inner Sunset were developed beginning in the 1890s).

They weren't building "Edwardians" in the 1920s through the 1950s--or were you talking about the very small areas that date from earlier?

I'm not very familiar with Balboa Park, to be honest, but Visitation Valley and the "areas near Daly City" are, I believe also considerably newer than the Edwardian era (1901-1910)--in other words, the years just on either side of the earthquake of 1906.

So I now understand that what bothers you are not "Edwardians" but depression era houses and houses from the post-war boom, many of which were built cheaply like post-war suburbs everywhere (think Levittown). Yeah, I suppose in a perfect world it would be nice to get rid of them for something more elegant, but San Francisco land values and building costs being what they are, we would have to simultaneously rid ourselves of what remains of a middle class and, especially, our ethnic (Asian and others) middle class and I don't think it's worth it.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

With the difference that the Citicorp meets the street in a more interesting way:

CitiCorp had and has more money for such refinements than the future homeowners of 301 Mission. Corporate ego trips will always tend to have more frills. It's one problem with having lost so many of our corporate HQ's.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

With the difference that the Citicorp meets the street in a more interesting way:



William LeMessurier, structural engineer of the Citicorp, who passed away last month, was my teacher and my first boss.

This seems really obtrusive to me, not very light and airy at all. I prefer openness to concrete chunks all around me.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I believe also considerably newer than the Edwardian era (1901-1910.

I can't resist quoting the opening paragraph of The 🞵🞵🞵🞵 of August, a history of the beginning of WWI, by Barbara Tuchman:

So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal hignesses, seven queens--four dowagers and three regnant--and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history's clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.

It isn't for nothing we call the top of high-rises crowns...

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I prefer openness to concrete chunks all around me.

So do I. I guess it makes us both NIMBY's.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

So do I. I guess it makes us both NIMBY's.

I rarely get where you're coming from.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I have a hard time understanding what you are referring to. Somebody posted some photos a while back of San Francisco in the 60's and I was kind of shocked at how run-down many of the houses and neighborhoods looked. Compared to that, they are all pristine now. Since it's hard to find a house in the city for under the high 6 figures, it's also hard to imagine people owning something worth that much and letting it run down but occasionally some do I admit. Still, for century-old wooden structures, most of San Francisco's homes are remarkably well cared for. I'm much more sympathetic to replacing the many architecturally bland and cheaply constructed COMMERCIAL buildings, though, most of which seem to date from the 50's and 60's, a few from before WW II.

I agree with you BT and think that much of the City looks great now. Roadwarrior, have you ever been in a nice Edwardian? They're my favorite and I used to live in a beautiful example of one. They tend to have very livable and well laid out floor plans, especially compared to Victorians, and nice interior features such as wainscoting, ceiling beams, stained glass, bay windows, etc. Why would anyone want San Francisco to be ALL modern? It wouldn't be the same city that the world has come to know and love. If you truly want that, move to Houston or somewhere else. We need to maintain an eclectic balance here and new construction needs to look good. As one can see from these threads, we all have various opinions regarding that!