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

[iamfishhead]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Very convenient to Best Buy and, more importantly, the Tonayense Taco Truck because all impoverished students in SF should be living on burritos and theirs are among the best.

You should run for office. "We must make sure our students have access to education and delicious, delicious burritos."

[timbad]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

Many businesses have come & gone in this building. The Giraffe bar used to be on the corner of Polk & Hemlock. On the Sutter side there was an antique store. Soon most of us will have forgotten what was on the corner!

Demolition - Sutter, Hemlock & Polk Streets by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

...

I needed a reminder what was going in there

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by timbad

I needed a reminder what was going in there

Not that the Hemlock building was glorious in any way, but the rendering for the new build looks... ugh.

It's becoming tiring to feel like we're constantly sacrificing either quality or capacity—but in reality, getting neither the high capacity or higher quality buildings.

We need far better design standards in San Francisco.

[Pedestrian]

^^Because an average construction cost in SF of $330/sq ft isn't high enough. We could require better quality materials, more design reviews and let the neighbors vote on how proposals look to them (as many times as they want) and get it up to maybe $500.

My idea is to have zoning--height, type of use--and let developers take it from there, competing for buyers/tenants with, among other things, building quality. If a proposal meets the zoning restrictions, no further "review" required--let the building begin.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Because an average construction cost in SF of $330/sq ft isn't high enough. We could require better quality materials, more design reviews and let the neighbors vote on how proposals look to them (as many times as they want) and get it up to maybe $500.

My idea is to have zoning--height, type of use--and let developers take it from there, competing for buyers/tenants with, among other things, building quality. If a proposal meets the zoning restrictions, no further "review" required--let the building begin.

That's really the best way to get eclectic design, otherwise (and I know from experience) developers work to what they think will pass. Review boards are garbage. They point out the obvious and give opinions that become standards for approval.

[mt_climber13]

I think these bland boxy buildings look pretty good when they are 100-200 feet. It’s the squat, fat, boxy Mini mall look that is .. blah. For example that tall building behind Hemlock (RIP) looks nice to me but if it were only 5 stories it would be very boring.

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Because an average construction cost in SF of $330/sq ft isn't high enough. We could require better quality materials, more design reviews and let the neighbors vote on how proposals look to them (as many times as they want) and get it up to maybe $500.

My idea is to have zoning--height, type of use--and let developers take it from there, competing for buyers/tenants with, among other things, building quality. If a proposal meets the zoning restrictions, no further "review" required--let the building begin.

Right, and the free market approach does a great job putting aesthetics, quality or safety over profit and ego.

I have no doubt that your idea would lead to a mess on the scale of what London is suffering from, with their totally unchained, wild looking highrise boom; worse yet, China and their 'loose' building requirements.

The approval process is unnecessarily slow (nearly everyone agrees), but before we suggest gutting practical regulations or standards, we should work to streamline that process reasonably and prob mitigate the onslaught of absurd appeals by the public.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

Right, and the free market approach does a great job putting aesthetics, quality or safety over profit and ego.

I have no doubt that your idea would lead to a mess on the scale of what London is suffering from, with their totally unchained, wild looking highrise boom; worse yet, China and their 'loose' building requirements.

The approval process is unnecessarily slow (nearly everyone agrees), but before we suggest gutting practical regulations or standards, we should work to streamline that process reasonably and prob mitigate the onslaught of absurd appeals by the public.

I think it does. I think you get a more interesting variety of projects with a more diverse appearance rather than all buildings looking almost the same as in so much new construction in San Francisco, built to satisfy the tastes of a few people in the Planning Dept. And I think the marketplace would prod developers to compete on aesthetics and quality. Some may go for schlock--and they will have trouble selling or renting in their projects.

I think London's buildings are, on the whole, far more interesting that San Francisco's. But I also think it doesn't much matter what you or I as individuals think. In a city of a million people, there are a million opinions about what is attractive or desirable.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

Right, and the free market approach does a great job putting aesthetics, quality or safety over profit and ego.

I have no doubt that your idea would lead to a mess on the scale of what London is suffering from, with their totally unchained, wild looking highrise boom; worse yet, China and their 'loose' building requirements.

The approval process is unnecessarily slow (nearly everyone agrees), but before we suggest gutting practical regulations or standards, we should work to streamline that process reasonably and prob mitigate the onslaught of absurd appeals by the public.

You'll never have a completely free market approach in SF.
Construction standards will never be lowered, but as you said the regulatory process can be streamlined and also public appeals and review boards.

[Pedestrian]

Big Plans for a Polk Gulch Infill Project Revealed
May 8, 2019

Plans for a 12-story infill building to rise up to 125 feet in height on the site of the Polk Gulch funeral home at 1123 Sutter Street (Halsted N. Gray-Carew & English) have been drafted.

While the columned façade of the funeral home would be preserved, the space behind would be converted into 5,600 square feet of retail space, with an adjacent 3,200-square-foot space for a child care center and residential units above, as massed by BAR Architects for the development team, Martin Building, below.

In addition, the adjacent parking garage on the corner of (1101) Sutter and Larkin, which has been deemed a potential historic resource, would be gutted, its ground floor converted into 5,000 square feet of office space (and the new building’s lobby), with apartments and a new amenity and deck space addition above.

The overall development would yield a total of 197 new apartments (a mix of 41 studios, 75 one-bedrooms and 81 twos) as envisioned, with basement parking for 90 cars, along with the retail, office and child care spaces outlined above . . . .

https://socketsite.com/archives/2019...-revealed.html

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I think it does. I think you get a more interesting variety of projects with a more diverse appearance rather than all buildings looking almost the same as in so much new construction in San Francisco, built to satisfy the tastes of a few people in the Planning Dept. And I think the marketplace would prod developers to compete on aesthetics and quality. Some may go for schlock--and they will have trouble selling or renting in their projects.

I think London's buildings are, on the whole, far more interesting that San Francisco's. But I also think it doesn't much matter what you or I as individuals think. In a city of a million people, there are a million opinions about what is attractive or desirable.

I understand where your head is but I don't think anyone wants the entire city to look the same all over.

My original point was that these value-engineered projects might not be aesthetically 'interesting' but a higher standard for qualifiable materials would help them age better, fit contextually, and likely be more visually appealing AND retain their value—both the now and decades from now.

A perfect example of quality materials aiding in the success of a project is Kennerly's Bill Sorro or even DBA's 500 Turk. Whether you think they're visually appealing or not, they're a great precedent for how much nicer (even below market rate) projects would turn out if the city encouraged better finishes. i.e. No matter how many opinions there are about what's 'attractive or desirable' there's a massive difference between terracotta and stucco.

[Pedestrian]

Semi-Massive Redevelopment of CPMC Campus Closer to Reality
May 10, 2019

With an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the formally proposed semi-massive redevelopment of CPMC’s nearly 5-acre California Hospital Campus at 3700 California Street about to be drafted, the project team has refined their plans and projected timing for the project.

The refined plans now include 273 units of high-end housing, up from 258 as previously envisioned, spread across 31 new buildings rising up to seven stories in height on the southern border of Presidio Heights.

At the same time, the number of off-street parking spaces, which Planning had recommended be reduced, has been increased from 393 to 416, including 2 spaces for each of the 12 single-family homes.

Next week, the refined plans will be informally presented to San Francisco’s Planning Commission. The public hearing for the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report, which will soon be released, is slated to be held on July 11. And assuming the Impact Report is certified, the project could be approved this coming January, 2020.

. . . TMG Partners appears to be positioning for a ground breaking around 2021, phasing the project on a block-by-block (but potentially overlapping) basis, and potentially finishing construction around 2024, “dictated by market conditions” . . . .

(From)


(To)

https://socketsite.com/archives/2019...comment-346985

[Jerry of San Fran]

Surprised as to how nice this nearly completed building looks.

Market & Church Streets

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

Surprised as to how nice this nearly completed building looks.

Market & Church Streets

Very nice!

I was getting nervous this one would perma-stall. I feel like it's been in a relatively similar state for the last year.

[JWS]

Surprised nobody else has mentioned this since it popped up on Socketsite a few days ago.

570 Market Street proposal for new 29 story hotel. 300 feet tall, 241 room hotel, 4,100 sq feet of retail and a 16th floor rooftop bar.



Full details and more renderings:
https://socketsite.com/archives/2019...ight-here.html

Plain Jane building to be sure, but welcome density.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by JWS

Plain Jane building to be sure, but welcome density.

It’s more like Ugly Betty...hideous from top to bottom, disrespectful of its neighbors, and not meeting the street well at all. I, for one, don’t welcome that kind of density because we could do so much better for that site, an important one that fronts on both Market and Sutter.

[homebucket]

Whoever designed that should have their architecture license revoked.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Agree with you guys. It is disrespectful of it's neighbors. Cheap & tawdry. I guess the architect thinks that the alternating colored panels is an acceptable device to blend in with the buildings on each side - it does not! The block deserves better.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

It’s more like Ugly Betty...hideous from top to bottom, disrespectful of its neighbors, and not meeting the street well at all. I, for one, don’t welcome that kind of density because we could do so much better for that site, an important one that fronts on both Market and Sutter.

I actually think the podium, the part that meets the street and relates to neighbors, is the best part of it. Not great, of course, but acceptable. It's the tower I hate. New York is building a 42 story jail--I'll have to go check it out because I suspect it's more attractive.

[BobbyMucho]

Trash indeed. Definitely not the last iteration of this we'll see in coming years.