SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed - Page 273

theskythelimit · #**5441** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 3:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Pure deception, like everything else about this project.

Just a curiosity, what do you find deceptive with this project? Sangiacomo agreed to protect all the residents and included the project to be rent controlled even though it is constructed after 1979. the project in whole increases the inventory of much needed units in SF. Even Daily signed off on the project.

hruski · #**5442** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by theskythelimit

Just a curiosity, what do you find deceptive with this project? Sangiacomo agreed to protect all the residents and included the project to be rent controlled even though it is constructed after 1979. the project in whole increases the inventory of much needed units in SF. Even Daily signed off on the project.

I think the previous poster was referring to the discrepancy between the originally approved renders for this project and what's actually going to get built. These buildings have been significantly value engineered, and their most distinct features have either been eliminated or scaled down.

peanut gallery · #**5443** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 8:01 PM**

^Yes, exactly. That is where any deception would lie, and I find the result extremely disappointing because I had very high hopes before.

Regarding the green space in the latest rendering, as Tech12 said that is nothing. Just removing existing buildings from the view. That whole stretch of 8th is already built out so I don't know who they would be trying to deceive anyway. It's not like some tenant is going to sign a lease after seeing that rendering, then be shocked when they move in and find out there's not a park across the street.

theskythelimit · #**5444** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 8:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hruski

I think the previous poster was referring to the discrepancy between the originally approved renders for this project and what's actually going to get built. These buildings have been significantly value engineered, and their most distinct features have either been eliminated or scaled down.

I see. I attended a Supervisor meeting back in 2006 regarding this project but never saw the original renderings. Were they significantly changed and is it possible to see the original plans? I did a little research on Google etc, but no luck.

mt_climber13 · #**5445** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 9:34 PM**

Original proposal:

fflint · #**5446** Posted **Dec 13, 2013, 11:14 PM**

There's no question the original Arquitectonica designs were vastly superior to the value-engineered schlock cheap-ass Sangiacomo is settling for, but aesthetics are only part of the equation.

It's hard to get too upset considering how desperately the city needs these thousands of new apartments. And, because the project literally abuts the Civic Center BART/Muni subway station (not to mention the streetcar and all the buses on the surface), this is the literal definition of transit-oriented development. Overall, it is still a beneficial project even if it looks really plain and boring.

theskythelimit · #**5447** Posted **Dec 14, 2013, 1:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Original proposal:

Thanks for sharing. The original design is quite striking.

Jerry of San Fran · #**5448** Posted **Dec 14, 2013, 3:42 AM**

A lot work being done tonight, December 13th on the site of 1400 Mission. I've never seen such large tanks on a construction site before!

1977 · #**5449** Posted **Dec 14, 2013, 10:45 PM**

Nothing that new, but some larger/cleaner renderings of 100 Van Ness and its neighbor to the north:

100 Van Ness

Source: http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Projects/100VanNess/tabid/243/Default.aspx

Edit: Actually, it looks like this one might be more up to date:

Source: www.socketsite.com

Van Ness/Hayes

Source: http://www.nreadevelopment.com/Projects/VanNessHayes/tabid/239/Default.aspx

Jerry of San Fran · #**5450** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 4:24 AM**

1977's post of 100 Van Ness Ave.

I had not seen some of the pictures you posted. Interesting to see some design on 100 Van Ness - I thought it would be glass only.

I have been on the roof of the Fox Plaza when it used to be open to the tenants. The wind is fierce up there. 100 Van Ness is to have a roof top garden - there will have to be some serious protection for it to be comfortable up there.

timbad · #**5451** Posted **Dec 15, 2013, 4:39 AM**

a few random shots of projects on Market...

8 Octavia:

the one at 15th:

Linea:

peanut gallery · #**5452** Posted **Dec 16, 2013, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1977

This might end up looking much more classy than I originally thought. The rendering above suggests quality materials.

Given that this abuts 100 Van Ness and assuming the existing building is at least a year from demo, I wonder if 100 Van Ness will want to redesign the lower floors on the north face to take into account having windows in the future vs blank walls today. They will probably want to take advantage of that space, which they may have allocated to mechanicals or other use.

timbad - thanks for all the updates, both here and in other threads.

peanut gallery · #**5453** Posted **Dec 16, 2013, 6:53 PM**

Just saw this rendering of the Moscone expansion plan. It looks like the old, original exterior will be completely modified. SOM is the architect.

Source: CurbedSF

Jerry of San Fran · #**5454** Posted **Dec 17, 2013, 1:55 AM**

I went by 100 Van Ness today and I like what I saw very much. The photograph does not show the nice tone of the glass that I saw. I think folks will be surprised at to how nice the building will look compared to the old concrete skin.

edwards · #**5455** Posted **Dec 17, 2013, 5:42 AM**

A little update from today...

tech12 · #**5456** Posted **Dec 17, 2013, 6:28 PM**

A house in twin peaks that was being remodeled collapsed last night:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Collapsed-Twin-Peaks-home-owned-by-developer-5071336.php

Like basically anything in SF, plenty of whiny neighbors opposed the remodel. And in addition to that, the developer was once the president of the city building commission, is a director of the Coalition for Responsible Growth, and also made campaign contributions to Ed Lee...so the SF Chronicle has taken all that information and basically turned the incident into a "look how untrustworthy developers and their corrupt master Mayor Ed Lee are!" hit piece. Just what we need, more high-profile ant-development propaganda for NIMBYs to rally around...is the Chronicle backing Art Agnos in his rumored future mayoral run or something?

The ever-increasing un-affordability of the city is driving even more people to NIMBYism too, it seems, as many seem to have the incorrect idea that increased development is what's causing prices to rise, or that because the current round of buildings are mostly luxury, that it means no new development will ever be affordable...ever (they seem to have a really poor understanding of supply and demand, as well as the affordable housing fund that every market-rate project contributes to). And in light of the success of the no on B&C campaign, I'm kind of worried about a lot of developments that may be taken to the ballot and killed or have heights chopped to save views and supposedly stop gentrification: Mission rock, the Mexican museum tower, treasure island, 75 Howard, the new warriors arena, the hunters point/treasure island/park merced redevelopments (which all include multiple new highrises), etc.

simms3_redux · #**5457** Posted **Dec 17, 2013, 9:30 PM**

This is the house that couldn't be demolished and needed to be preserved. So all can see the utter lunacy that is San Francisco Planning/Preservation.

The "evil developer's" plan was either 5,319 SF "remodel", or a smaller 4,019 SF new structure. He wanted new. Neighbors cried and thus SF denied. So neighbors would have gotten an even larger remodel due to their own illogical complaints, but lo and behold a "miracle" wiped out the house and all that can be built now is a new structure! Everybody wins but the developer who owns the lots and wants to build his new house will likely be a media target and potentially prosecuted somehow, criminally and civily.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...errace_just_before_its_col.html#comments

simms3_redux · #**5458** Posted **Dec 17, 2013, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Collapsed-Twin-Peaks-home-owned-by-developer-5071336.php

...so the SF Chronicle has taken all that information and basically turned the incident into a "look how untrustworthy developers and their corrupt master Mayor Ed Lee are!" hit piece. Just what we need, more high-profile ant-development propaganda for NIMBYs to rally around...is the Chronicle backing Art Agnos in his rumored future mayoral run or something?

What irresponsible journalism. I just read the article - there is very little about the collapse, the history of the proposal, the neighbors, the process, etc. It's almost all about Murphy's relationship to Ed Lee and his roles in Building Inspections and as a developer. They even go so far to make it sound like he illegally screwed up one of his Mission developments by not appropriately obtaining building permits...that happens all the time!

They basically stop short of any slander, just pure and honest irresponsible journalism.

theskythelimit · #**5459** Posted **Dec 17, 2013, 10:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

This is the house that couldn't be demolished and needed to be preserved. So all can see the utter lunacy that is San Francisco Planning/Preservation.

The "evil developer's" plan was either 5,319 SF "remodel", or a smaller 4,019 SF new structure. He wanted new. Neighbors cried and thus SF denied. So neighbors would have gotten an even larger remodel due to their own illogical complaints, but lo and behold a "miracle" wiped out the house and all that can be built now is a new structure! Everybody wins but the developer who owns the lots and wants to build his new house will likely be a media target and potentially prosecuted somehow, criminally and civily.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...errace_just_before_its_col.html#comments

This is ironic and he will probably be put through the ringer when he proposes a new house.

JWS · #**5460** Posted **Dec 18, 2013, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

And in light of the success of the no on B&C campaign, I'm kind of worried about a lot of developments that may be taken to the ballot and killed or have heights chopped to save views and supposedly stop gentrification: Mission rock, the Mexican museum tower, treasure island, 75 Howard, the new warriors arena, the hunters point/treasure island/park merced redevelopments (which all include multiple new highrises), etc.

Warriors Arena will get taken to the ballot, but the city seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of it (or at least enough are for it to pass). I don't think Mission Rock is in enough of an established area for people to rally against it. The only housing around it is brand new as well. The ones in bold I've essentially kissed off as "will never happen" long ago. Mexican and Howard from NIMBYism, and the other large scale projects as just pipedreams.