SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed - Page 230

fflint · #**4581** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 1:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

I don't often get to Market & Sanchez, but from looking at google street view, I can tell it is the kind of San Francisco intersection that frustrates me. There is so much potential for residential towers on this corner its absurd not to take advantage. This corner can support 10-15 floor buildings easily. A 25-floor slim tower could even nudge its way in and due to the wide streets. Logic would suggest that the city is best off expanding all the way up Market St, making it more similar to Broadway St in NYC, since public transit is already in place.

Logic dictates a twenty-five story skyscraper looming over the Castro, Duboce Triangle and Mission Dolores? You've got to be kidding. I get the sense you are promoting height universally without regard to place--a tall-for-tall's-sake approach so familiar to places like Houston.

I live a block from Sanchez and Market. The neighbornood is seeing substantial densification as new developments allowed under the Market-Octavia plan come to fruition. I (and most I know in the area) support the upzoning and new projects. However, I would never support plopping a 25-story skyscraper in such a historic, fine-grained, human-scaled area. Those are the qualities we have in this neighborhood, and SF's nabes generally, that make these 47 square miles so desirable to so many (along with similarly-scaled historic areas in Brooklyn, Boston, DC, etc.). Because there are so very few such places on this continent, and because we're never going to make any more of them, it would be a massive and irreversible blunder to just plunk skyscrapers down where they don't belong in service to some one-size-fits-all ideology.

Personally, I'd like to see SOMA go completely skyscraper. The scale down there is completely out of whack, so just go for it. I'd like to see skyscrapers along the T-Third corridor near the Central Waterfront, as well, to better utilize the new light rail line. Much of that corridor is fallow and only Dogpatch proper is worth preserving.

fimiak · #**4582** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 2:16 AM**

I said Logically the city should keep expanding up Market St. I suggested 10-15 for this particular intersection. The city is still going to have to build up in the next few decades and Market St. is a good place for it.

easy as pie · #**4583** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 2:45 AM**

25 stories, no, but 10-12 stories, definitely, even though it would never happen at this point. about the only thing that's good about that chase site is that whenever the bank's lease expires there, it's gone, and i'm guessing the architecture will be better in 10 years and people will be more amenable to higher densities in the hood, and then, maybe, we could get up to those 10-12 stories.

jbm · #**4584** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 3:30 AM**

on an entirely separate note, it looked like the crane went up for the hampton inn on mission x 5th in the last couple of days. couldn't tell exactly where the crane was, but i don't know what else it could be for in that area.

viewguysf · #**4585** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 6:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

The city has to grow. If mass transit cannot accomodate the present population then there is a serious problem because the city predicts another 150,000 residents in the next 30 years. San Francisco needs to accept that it is becoming a much larger city with this present and future boom. Constructing on this intersection a few 10-15 floor buildings is hardly earth shattering development. I think NIMBY's like you are hurting rather than helping the city.

Watch what you call people when you are ignorant of the facts, development history, and the City in which you live. I have been very pro-development for years and have been attacked by many NIMBYs. Fflint is correct in what he states; if you don't care for a diverse city with distinct neighborhoods sporting various qualities, perhaps this really isn't the place for you.

fimiak · #**4586** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 2:51 PM**

I called you a NIMBY because you are are saying, "not in my backyard". Adding a few low-rise residential towers at Market and Sanchez is hardly going to ruin the neighborhood. This is an intersection that is two streets away from the best mass transit source in the city. I also don't see how making more apartments for people is making a neighborhood less diverse. I believe in intense growth for SF in select areas and I am not going to back down from my belief. The Market Street corridor is one of the best untapped areas in the city.

hruski · #**4587** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 4:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Watch what you call people when you are ignorant of the facts, development history, and the City in which you live. I have been very pro-development for years and have been attacked by many NIMBYs. Fflint is correct in what he states; if you don't care for a diverse city with distinct neighborhoods sporting various qualities, perhaps this really isn't the place for you.

I don't really care to get involved in this debate, because I don't have a strong view about what to do with Market/Sanchez and similar intersections, but I would like to make the point that ultra-dense cities like Manhattan still have distcint neighborhoods. The Village is very different from Murray Hill, which is very different from the Upper East Side, which is very different from Hell's Kitchen.

Density != Uniformity.

NOPA · #**4588** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 4:46 PM**

To jump in, SF can certainly handle a much higher population. It has a lower density than Queens, NY and it makes complete sense from an efficiency standpoint to really utilize the existing public transportation.

I also understand that in historic neighborhoods we want to keep that character. However, taking Market and Sanchez lot as an example, I don't see why an 8-10 story building would be out of character; put some set backs on the upper levels and the top 3 or 4 levels wouldn't be that noticable from the street view.

Also, there is so much surface parking lot in this city. Its all over really, and even just adding 6 story buildings would bring a ton of density. The real problem is the over-complicated process to actually get anything built.

philiprsf · #**4589** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 5:00 PM**

interesting that most people on this forum are always invoking New York. Personally I would hate SF to be like NY - I'd much prefer a model from Europe. Madrid and Lisbon (two of my favorite European cities) are dense without much high-rise. Of course Madrid has one of the densest subway networks in the world, which helps a lot, but it's also incredibly walkable. I'm happy with high-rises in Rincon Hill and other not-traditionally-residential areas, but medium-sized infill projects (especially on those horrible city-killing surface parking lots) would seem most suited to most of SF (at least the SF I would like to see). I know this is a skyscraper forum, but we seem to also talk a lot about mid-rises too. Guess we'll never exhaust the topic of what is most appropriate for SF.

cv94117 · #**4590** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 5:01 PM**

But again, we need a real transit system to make density work. Muni can't handle even the current demand, never mind adding thousands more commuters per hour along Market Street.

northbay · #**4591** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 5:41 PM**

Nimbys are usually opposed to all development in their backyards, not specifically skyscrapers. Fflint isn't really a nimby since he supports appropriate development for its location. It would be like me being a nimby because I wouldnt support a skyscraper here in small town Cotati. It would be clearly out of scale and character.

fflint · #**4592** Posted **Apr 24, 2013, 10:20 PM**

Name-calling is neither warranted nor illuminating. San Francisco forumers have a long tradition of being cordial with one another, regardless of any specific disagreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak

I called you a NIMBY because you are are saying, "not in my backyard". Adding a few low-rise residential towers at Market and Sanchez is hardly going to ruin the neighborhood. This is an intersection that is two streets away from the best mass transit source in the city. I also don't see how making more apartments for people is making a neighborhood less diverse. I believe in intense growth for SF in select areas and I am not going to back down from my belief. The Market Street corridor is one of the best untapped areas in the city.

minesweeper · #**4593** Posted **Apr 25, 2013, 4:53 AM**

A couple updates from Market Street:

Demolition has started for Market Street Place. The St. Francis Theatre will probably be history by the end of the week.
Scaffolding was going up for the renovation of 1019 Market.
The first chunks visible from Market Street were coming down for the old Trinity Place building. It seems like that building should be gone within a few weeks.

philiprsf · #**4594** Posted **Apr 25, 2013, 5:10 AM**

Great news about 1019 Market... I've always loved that building... Nice if it could be bracketed by new similar-height buildings... Looks kind of forlorn next to those old low-risers...

rricci · #**4595** Posted **Apr 25, 2013, 11:26 AM**

Newcomer to your forum, and an out-of-towner to boot. But I have a personal interest in the Kaiser proposal for Lower Potrero Hill. I'm guessing this is being discussed on this forum. Would someone point me in the direction of the discussion so that I can follow along please? Thanks. P,S. I love San Francisco, but then who wouldn't.

viewguysf · #**4596** Posted **Apr 25, 2013, 3:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rricci

Newcomer to your forum, and an out-of-towner to boot. But I have a personal interest in the Kaiser proposal for Lower Potrero Hill. I'm guessing this is being discussed on this forum. Would someone point me in the direction of the discussion so that I can follow along please? Thanks. P,S. I love San Francisco, but then who wouldn't.

To my knowledge, we haven't discussed it extensively or for quite a while. It has been mentioned in the Mission Bay thread as part of the expanded area, but that's about it.

cwilly · #**4597** Posted **Apr 25, 2013, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i walked up broadway from the exploratorium yesterday and noticed a public notice indicating that cahill has pulled a permit for street closures for the broadway/sansome social housing project, with construction apparently to begin this month.

a quick search indicates that:
This project, located at 255 Broadway Street, has a mat slab and 2 concrete podiums with 1 floor of metal stud framing and 7 floors of wood framing. When complete, the building will contain 75 residential units comprised of studios, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. The basement and level 1 will contain some common area, retail space, and offices. There will be roof decks at levels 6 and 7 and an exterior courtyard at level 1. Total area is approximately 88,000 SF.

decent, if ugly, infill (two retail spaces on either corner = yes), walking around that area, there are a sinister number of surface parking lots that really make the place seem depressing.

I've been a long time observer of this forum, and figure it is time to start doing some posting of my own.

I drove by the site at 255 Broadway this morning, and excavation has commenced with several large tractors moving dirt on the site.

fimiak · #**4598** Posted **Apr 25, 2013, 4:59 PM**

The windows and the columns above them make for an alternating effect that I think looks good. The architect made something unique out of value engineering. Definitely an improvement.

fimiak · #**4599** Posted **Apr 26, 2013, 11:56 PM**

55 Ninth (has no thread) from today. About 2/3rds of the way up.

timbad · #**4600** Posted **Apr 28, 2013, 10:48 PM**

some progress on the new skin for 3rd and Folsom: