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

[The ATX]

The last story on NBC news tonight was a farewell to Candlestick Park. They showed a rendering of the project replacing it, and it looks like an incredible project.

[fflint]

An interesting analysis on Streetsblog of the rapid growth of car-free households in San Francisco between 2000 and 2012:

Unit type           Change

All units	      +11,139
Car-free	               +9,837
1 car	               +1,242
2 car	               -1,123
3 or more cars	       +1,183

[Jerry of San Fran]

Today 8/16/14 the crane is being assembled. The view is from the laundry room on the 14th floor of the Essex Fox Plaza.

101 Polk Street - 2014_08_16

[jbm]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

Today 8/16/14 the crane is being assembled. The view is from the laundry room on the 14th floor of the Essex Fox Plaza.

101 Polk Street - 2014_08_16

i could see a crane going up this morning from my apt. figured it was for this project. thanks for confirming.

[minesweeper]

Old news to those of us in these forums, but ABC 7 has a story and video about the Transbay Center and all the nearby construction:

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Driving into San Francisco these days, you can't help but notice the construction cranes dotting the skyline. Much of that work is part of an aggressive plan to redevelop a once derelict neighborhood south of market. What's rising in its place, are thousands of new homes, offices, and hotel rooms.

This is the San Francisco of the future. It's a view you'll only see on ABC 7 news thanks to graphic designers at Steelblue. Tall towers will rise where freeways once stood. Parking lots will become parks. The site of the old Transbay Terminal will become a transit hub for the entire bay area, on top, a three block long park.

One interesting tidbit from the piece I noticed is that Steelblue updated their video animation from last year to include the new proposals at 50 First Street and 100 Folsom:


Source: steelblue/vimeo

[simms3_redux]

They also included Jeanne Gang's new tower for Tishman, which is way out in the future.

Loving 50 First St.

[fflint]

Some awesome aerials by Kayte Dolmatch on Flickr showing various San Francisco projects u/c:

<<scroll>>

[a very long weekend]

nice photos but man, like such shitty architecture. take away the water/bridge, add a few dozen surface parking lots and that skyline could be out of cleveland or texas or something. it almost makes me sympathetic to the nimbys of yesteryear who saw the city turning into that and openly wept.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

nice photos but man, like such shitty architecture. take away the water/bridge, add a few dozen surface parking lots and that skyline could be out of cleveland or texas or something. it almost makes me sympathetic to the nimbys of yesteryear who saw the city turning into that and openly wept.

My photo that I just posted in the 222 Second thread unfortunately shows much of the same thing. We have some notable structures (both old and new), but a lot of mediocre to crappy architecture in our stunningly situated City.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178017&page=7

[mt_climber13]

But was the NIMBY backlash a cause and effect symptom, hurting SF's skyline? Many of these towers are squat, bulky, and square, because of the enforcement of height limits. If there weren't these strict regulations then towers would have been able to soar higher, be thinner, and more shapely. To pencil out a 400 ft. Office tower, square and wide is necessary. I have no doubt that if it were not for these laws, SF's skyline would be as dramatic as New York's and Chicago's.

Edit: 8 Octavia looks fantastic from the sky!

[jaypkatl]

First Glass has gone up today on 350 Mission

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

But was the NIMBY backlash a cause and effect symptom, hurting SF's skyline? Many of these towers are squat, bulky, and square, because of the enforcement of height limits. If there weren't these strict regulations then towers would have been able to soar higher, be thinner, and more shapely. To pencil out a 400 ft. Office tower, square and wide is necessary. I have no doubt that if it were not for these laws, SF's skyline would be as dramatic as New York's and Chicago's.

Edit: 8 Octavia looks fantastic from the sky!

^^^ This

[tall/awkward]

For sure nimbys and stringent height limits have hurt sf, beginning with the Bank of America and Transamerica buildings, which tend to stick out because no other buildings their height were allowed after them. I fear a similar dilemma with the Salesforce Tower. If it gets built, but the other tall buildings planned around it get backlash nixed, it will REALLY stick out like a sore thumb!

Hopefully 50 First gets built to complete the Transbay cluster, but I'm also concerned about the 750 foot zoned building on the other end of the terminal. If the 45-storey residential building right next to it goes up first, there will very likely be nimby backlash.

SF has also traditionally been very architecturally conservative, leading to a lot of banal, severely compromised buildings, but let's be thankful for the few architects who dare to design something interesting here!

[Jerry of San Fran]

I can't date the top photo but think it is at least 30 years old. The bottom photo was taken 08/21/14. Both photos are a view from the 27th floor of the Fox Plaza.

I used to see the 4 towers of the SF Bay Bridge & most of Yerba Buena Island.

skyline_before and after

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

But was the NIMBY backlash a cause and effect symptom, hurting SF's skyline? Many of these towers are squat, bulky, and square, because of the enforcement of height limits. If there weren't these strict regulations then towers would have been able to soar higher, be thinner, and more shapely. To pencil out a 400 ft. Office tower, square and wide is necessary. I have no doubt that if it were not for these laws, SF's skyline would be as dramatic as New York's and Chicago's.

Edit: 8 Octavia looks fantastic from the sky!

The NIMBYs totally own the squatness of the skyline. After so many ballot measures, the city's planning department capitulated to the worst design impulses: consensus. Buildings with any controversial design were 'penciled' out of existence. The only reason Thomas Mayne's 'pteradactyl' building got build is the GSA is exempt from city design review processes.

[JWS]

I also think we need to give ourselves some slack. Sometimes this board acts like all buildings in NYC/Chicago/Hong Kong etc are phenomenal successes. Those cities have their fair share of clunk as well, and with the fact that our skyline was so heavily built in the 1960s-1980s, I find very little of that era's buildings iconic or memorable even in the biggest cities, unless we are talking about sheer bulk and scale. While I am no architecture student, it seemed like an era of square and bulky. Most of the more memorable large skyscrapers in those cities are also art-deco 1920s era, and I quite enjoy our Pacific Telephone, Russ, Shell buildings. Just wish they were taller to actually have an impact...especially Pacific Telephone, what a gorgeous building and I am so happy it was renovated. So I think that while NIMBYs certainly had something to do with it, it may also be chalked up to the era where we went vertical.

Also, regarding the Transbay buildings not being built, the simple fact that 181 Fremont and Salesforce are going up at the same time will somewhat balance each other out. Then we will have 5 buildings that look tall (because 1 Rincon's hillside position makes it look comparable to BofA/Trans in a lot of views) guaranteed. Also, there has been little to no NIMBY opposition to Transbay so far...it seems like the most vicious battles have been in areas where new buildings may affect views or "charm" of existing, typically wealthy, neighborhoods. Over in Yerba Buena even, I think the Mexican Museum Tower may be more or less dead, but just a couple blocks over Transbay will be fine. It is a city priority, and ironically the sheer height of Salesforce may make people less concerned about heights...what is "itty bitty" 524 Howard or Block 8 really going to look like compared to that? Once the real badass tall building is up, everything else will seem like less of a big deal (in this particular neighborhood only, of course).

[mt_climber13]

[a very long weekend]

jerry sf - man, you must have seen a lot of changes over the years. would love to see more old photos.

[Jerry of San Fran]

While 350 Eight Street is a low rise apartment development it is a very larger one that covers a whole block. Harrison Street is on the left in the photo.

A Very Long Weekend - digital cameras had not been invented yet so we did not take many photographs when I moved into my apartment building 43 years ago. I don't have much more to offer from the "old" days.

2014_08_23_350 8th street

[Jerry of San Fran]

I find this deep brick foundation to be quite interesting. I suspect it was a foundation for an industrial building. Note what appears to be very wide boards next to the brick foundation. This is a view looking north with Ringgold Street running east to west.

2014_08_23_350 8th street (6)