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

[pseudolus]

Speaking of Saitowitz:

Well-known new urbanist James Howard Kunstler featured him in his "Eyesore of the Month" column for June:



"The new synagogue for Congregation Beth Shalom by architect Stanley Saitowitz in the Richmond district of San Francisco. Note the context of modest traditional row houses. Here we see the bone-weary Modernist convention of reducing semiotics to their starkest cartoon form, as if the cognitive ability of Americans was on the level of so many sea slugs. The semi-circular sanctuary wing is supposed to represent the Chanuka menorah (or nine-light candelabra). Get it? Folks in the neigborhood are referring to it as "God's own half-pipe." Who knows what the zinc-covered slab on the corner is supposed to convey -- perhaps the bureaucracy of the Ladies Garment Workers' Union. Thanks to Jason Tokuda of San Francisco for nominating this humdinger."

http://kunstler.com/eyesore.html

[peanut gallery]

I noticed that yesterday, too. I kind of like the synagogue, but I can see where the next door neighbor would not:

Source: SFGate.

I was surprised he used that rendering, rather than a photo of the finished product. I like the rendering better because I like that blue skin. Looks better than the finished product, IMO:

Source: SFGate.

[peanut gallery]

829 Folsom is complete and starting to sell. I think it looks good:


Source: SocketSite.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Is this the same one we were talking about a month ago or so? I thought that was mid-block. Is this another hotel for that area or is my memory failing me yet again?

As I said, "No", but as my Mom used to say, "speak of the Devil", and we now have a rendering to that one:



vs

Mission St.


Jessie St.


Views with the new building




Models/diagrams





[ing]http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/3558/3593784809_a222174ac8_o.png[/img]
Source all images: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/06/04/goodbye_porn_studio_hello_hotel_renderporn.php

[Gordo]

I can't really tell from the renderings, but are they not building any underground parking? It doesn't look like a garage entrance on either side (though that could just be how the renderings look). If true, I like the idea especially with the 5th/Mish garage right there that could be contracted with (for guest self-parking and valet), but must say that I'm pretty shocked.

[BTinSF]

To quote the BizTimes original article:

The hotel will be a three-star limited service hotel with 3,200 square feet of retail space. It will cater to Moscone conventioneers and will not have a restaurant bar, or meeting space.

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/09/story11.html

Conventioneers mostly wouldn't have cars. So I imagine it actually doesn't have a garage.

[Gordo]

Interesting. I'd say you're right, especially with that retail space likely to be on the first floor.

[peanut gallery]

Great find BT. What do you guys think of the lower floors along Mission? I appreciate the effort to make it match the nature of the rest of the block. But I don't know if it's necessary in this case. Sometimes it works to have something modern mixed in and the upper floors aren't so radical that it might have been a nice contrast along the streetwall. I'm not complaining, mind you. Just an observation.

[BTinSF]

Actually, I debated mentioning that, as far as I can tell, the finishes on the building, including most of the facade, are kind of disappointing. It looks to me like stucco with bay windows, in which case the building itself will resemble Symphony Towers--blah! The only part that seems to employ a little higher quality is that part on Mission and while I'm not set on brick (undoubtedly, FAKE brick) it's better than pastel stucco.

I didn't actually mention my feelings about this, though, because I'm just happy to see something like this built on Mission between 5th and 6th. Those 2 blocks of Mission from 7th (the 2 federal buildings) to 5th (the Old Mint and Mint Plaza are the most depressing on all of Mission St. (and I hope the hotel tells guests to turn left only when they walk out the front door ).

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I didn't actually mention my feelings about this, though, because I'm just happy to see something like this built on Mission between 5th and 6th.

Exactly how I feel, which is why I tried to qualify my statement as a non-complaint. Ewww on the stucco thought though. I didn't picture it that way in my mind when looking at it, but should know better. If that's the case, I much prefer their choice of a different facade along Mission.

[BTinSF]

Socketsite answer the parking question:

In February a reader wondered and another provided the project scoop. And yesterday the Planning Department uploaded the 942 Mission Street Hotel Project EIR for review.

The proposed project would demolish a two‐plus‐story‐over‐basement, 30‐foot‐tall building that contains about 8,000 square feet of office space and 17,000 square feet of former commercial film studio space....In its place, the project sponsor proposes to retain the existing basement and construct a 15‐story, approximately 152‐foot‐tall building.

The upper nine floors of the hotel would be set back approximately 40 feet from the Mission Street property line. These upper floors would overlook a vegetated roof at the seventh floor planted in drought‐tolerant California native grasses. Bay windows would extend up to the thirteenth level. The proportions and detailing of the fenestration in the base along Mission Street would be repeated in the windows of the upper floors.

As proposed, 72,000 square feet of hotel space with 172 rooms over 3,240 square feet of ground‐floor retail. And all without any off-street parking (nor even valet as envisoned).

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/...details_and_environmental_impact_re.html

By the way, some of the Socketsite comment answers the question that always comes up about those big blank walls facing potentially developed neighboring properties, including the one on this building:

put simply, property-line windows are problematic. there are major fire/building code issues. any building opening within a certain number of feet (5, I think) of side property lines must be fire-rated -- that is very thick, fireproof, and inoperable. (this is to prevent fire spreading from one building to the next.)that also makes them expensive and not always the most useful at the end of the day. The project sponsor is probably prevented, or at least seriously discouraged, from designing the building so that there are hotel rooms which are oriented to and rely on property-line windows for their light and air. And if they did and the adjacent buildings were subsequently developed, they'd be screwed.

And by another commenter:

5FT. off PL and you can have as many windows as you want. 3FT off PL and 25% of the wall can be windows. Inside of 3ft gets the rated windows (there are exceptions of course).

[Gordo]

I think right now it's really too hard to tell about what either section will look like from the preliminary renderings. If it is truly stucco above and fake brick below, I'll go with a vote for more fake brick

Very much agreed on anything being good for this block, especially a hotel which should hopefully bring some pressure to clean up the rest of the block (at least).

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Exactly how I feel, which is why I tried to qualify my statement as a non-complaint. Ewww on the stucco thought though. I didn't picture it that way in my mind when looking at it, but should know better. If that's the case, I much prefer their choice of a different facade along Mission.

It could be precast concrete. I'm just thinking of materials that are gray and uninteresting--like the rendering.

[BTinSF]

Friday, June 5, 2009
Golden Gate University eyes new highrise
Will 850-foot tower make the grade?
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Golden Gate University is pushing to have its main campus at 536 Mission St. rezoned for an 850-foot tower as part of San Francisco’s new Transbay neighborhood, a move that could create a fight with a neighboring property owner over which parcel will be designated for the taller skyscraper.

Bob Hite, vice president of business affairs and CFO for Golden Gate University, said the university started discussing a plan to sell its 33,000-square-foot property at Mission and First streets to a highrise developer about a year ago. The site now holds Golden Gate’s main building, and he said the university would only be interested if it could either be part of a new mixed-use development on the site or move to another location in downtown San Francisco. Golden Gate has hired land use attorney Pam Duffy of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP and has put together a task force to look at potential deals.

Buzz about Golden Gate University’s interest in finding a developer for its site increased after a May 26 Planning Department Transbay forum during which a new zoning map was unveiled, showing an 850-foot proposed height at 536 Mission St. While planner Joshua Switzky said previous versions of the map had also designated the parcel for higher than 800 feet, Hite said the new zoning was news to Golden Gate University officials.

“The first we knew of the 850-foot heights was at last week’s meeting,” said Hite. “This is a change, and we think a very good change.”

If approved, Golden Gate’s rezoning would be part of a highrise cluster around a 1,000-foot Transbay Tower that would include six skyscrapers over 600 feet and allow for another 5.8 million square feet of new office space, 1,350 housing units and 1,350 hotel rooms. Fees from the development would help raise between $700 million and $850 million to help pay for a $2 billion transit center. However, with construction costs still relatively high and housing prices and office rents in decline it is unlikely that any of these towers will be built in the next five years, according to experts.

A fight for height

The latest zoning proposal pits Golden Gate University against neighboring developer David Choo, who owns seven parcels in and around First and Mission streets. The latest Transbay plan calls for two tall towers — one 700 feet and one 850 feet — on the block that includes both Choo’s property and the Golden Gate University property. Choo has been trying to sell his parcels as a unified site that alone could accommodate the two towers, one 700 feet and one 850 feet.

Thus, if a tower is designated for the Golden Gate University property, it could reduce the Choo property to just one tower of either 700 feet or 850 feet. In 2006, Choo filed an application to build as many as five towers on his property, but over the past 18 months has been trying to sell a number of San Francisco building sites as his commercial mortgage lending business, California Mortgage & Realty, has suffered severe losses. One of his funds, CMR Mortgage Fund II, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 31.

Hite said he and Golden Gate President Dan Angel met with Planning Director John Rahaim and other planners and made a case for 536 Mission St.

“We shared with them our belief that we think our site should be designated the higher site,” he said.

HellerManus Architects principal Jeffrey Heller, who has been working with Choo on schemes for First and Mission and is designing another tower in the Transbay district, said the taller tower belongs on the Choo site because it is closer to the proposed Transbay Tower.

“The urban design plans and protocols for the Transbay planning area all say the tall buildings should be clustered around the Transbay Tower to create a hill and I believe that is an absolutely essential piece of how they finally set the heights in the area,” he said. “I think it’s important that the planning effort refocuses on this because I think it’s getting vague and watered down by a variety of claims for height.”

Students first

Golden Gate University has 5,000 students and offers graduate and undergraduate degrees in law, accounting, business administration, finance, communications and other areas

It has been in the Mission Street building since 1968. Hite emphasized that they need to stay in the greater financial district because most students walk to class from jobs at downtown accounting and law firms.

“The only way this would make sense to us is if it helped us financially and operationally,” said Hite. “We would not do it for the money if it would screw up our educational mission.”

Duffy, the land use attorney, said, “Like most property owners in the area, Golden Gate University is interested in what happens in the community around them and how it might effect them.

“They are one of the major downtown institutions and a significant employer with a significant student body,” said Duffy.

Hite said Golden Gate would be willing to move into the bottom six or seven floors of a mixed-use tower, but acknowledged that any development would be years away.

“I think we have a lot of time on our hands,” he said.

[email protected] / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/06/08/story1.html

[BTinSF]

Friday, June 5, 2009
S.F. gives OK to 250-unit condo project at Fox Plaza
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

The San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously approved a $70 million, 250-unit condo project for Fox Plaza, although developer Mark Conroe of Presidio Development Partners says it’s unlikely to be built until the economy turns around.

The wedge-shaped, terra-cotta and glass, 120-foot structure would replace the low-slung building that houses a Starbucks and a stationery shop, according to Conroe, who was retained by property owner Archstone-Smith to obtain city approvals and develop the site at 1390 Market St. at Polk Street.

A 7-0 Planning Commission vote on a highrise condo structure is rare, and Conroe said the development team was able to take a number of steps to build support in the community. The team agreed to build a 120-foot building, rather than the 200 feet the zoning allows; they did not request any parking for the project, something made possible by the rich public transit in the area and the fact that Fox Plaza has a 550-car garage; and they are working with the neighborhood to provide a community meeting room.

“Our project is the poster child for smart growth,” said Conroe. “This project will bring new housing to the most public transit-oriented site in the Bay Area. It will also provide a crucial link between the Hayes Valley renaissance and the Mid-Market revitalization.” Conroe said he didn’t want to guess when the residential development might be economically feasible.

“We are excited about moving forward with this project when the real estate and capital markets normalize,” he said.

[email protected] / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/06/08/story6.html?t=printable

[BTinSF]

Friday, June 5, 2009
Cassidy rolls the dice in San Francisco
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen and Blanca Torres

What is builder Joe Cassidy up to at 1844 Market St.?

That was the question floating through San Francisco real estate circles in recent days after the online housing site SocketSite posted a photograph of some excavation equipment on the dirt lot in recent days.

The answer is that Cassidy, who bought the property from BayRock Residential in 2007, is shoring up the site so that he can start excavation this summer. Cassidy said his construction crews just finished a big project in San Rafael and “had a lull in between jobs.”

“We’ll be ready to start excavation in another two months if everything goes right,” said Cassidy, who developed the Palms, a 300-unit project on Fourth Street. “We have to keep everybody rolling and keep their mortgages paid.”

The approved project will consist of 113 condos near Laguna St., with 13 below-market-rate units. Cassidy said he is not ready to say the housing market has bottomed, but added “there is no point in starting (construction) in good times.”

“That is the million-dollar question: Am I going to catch the rising tide?” said Cassidy.

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/06/08/newscolumn1.html?t=printable

[peanut gallery]

I tend to agree that the taller tower probably should go on the Shoo property rather than the GGU property -- not because it's a tiny bit closer to Transbay (the difference is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things); I just think it would be more dramatic to have it right on the corner. But in reality, it should be a race. The first one to get their plan in order gets the taller tower.

On Fox Plaza, the clock starts ticking. How long are the approvals in effect? I hope Presidio can make it happen.

That's promising news on 1844 Market, which is nice for a change.

[peanut gallery]

1960-1998 Market was also approved last night. From SocketSite:

The 1960-1998 Market Street Scoop: Unanimously Approved Design

A plugged-in tipster reports with respect to the proposed development at 1960-1998 Market Street which was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission last night:

The following describes the design changes that were have made to the project over the last several weeks in response to the comments that were received from the Planning Commission, SF Planning Department and the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association.

Bernardo Fort-Brescia and the team at Arquitectonica amazingly improved upon their original design while going through what almost turned into design by committee. These Architects were challenged to respond to community and incorporate changes while still maintaining the integrity of the building, which is a bold, iconic statement for such a prominent comer location.

Market Street: Additional vertical fins have been added to strengthen the vertical expression. The major horizontal mullions have been reconfigured in a staggered pattern, eliminating their alignment and further reducing the horizontal emphasis of the façade. A canopy has been introduced along Market Street to reinforce the pedestrian and retail environment.

Buchanan Street: The changes described above have been incorporated into the first bay along Buchanan Street. The second bay has been modified significantly, stepping up in height to relate to the change in street level. The vocabulary of the second bay now relates to the adjacent residential buildings by incorporating stone and a more regularized window arrangement.

Light well: A light well has been incorporated at the northwest corner of the building that corresponds to the neighbor’s exiting light well.

Rear yard setback: The northeast corner of the building has been pulled back to allow a greater separation between this building and the neighbors to the north.

Another tipster adds, "In a topsy-turvy hearing, the local neighbor associations supported the project, while the Building and Construction Trades Council was opposed to it."

Approved design:

Source: SocketSite.

Previous design:

Source: SocketSite.

[BTinSF]

I think it really is better than the earlier design. I like the step-downs.

More views of the earlier version:




Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/...itectonica_design_for_market_at_buc.html

[pseudolus]

ewww