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

[EastBayHardCore]

That federal building looks really odd. From the renderings and drawings I think it will look impressive, but I can't help but wonder how it will look in real life. I mean imagine the sun hitting that thing, wouldn't it just fry everyone below it? :p

[FourOneFive]

Originally Posted by Fabb

What an unusual design.
I like it a lot. Except the blind wall on the side.
Are there more renderings of this building ? (Or facts).

If you go to the architect's website, http://www.morphosis.net/morph.html, there are plenty of facts/ renderings about the new building.

Here's an article from the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council from July of 2003:

Construction Begins on S.F. Federal Building

by Doug Perry

Public works projects continue to fuel the construction industry. Construction has begun in earnest on the new federal building located on the city block between Market, Mission, 7th and 8th Streets to the south of San Francisco's Civic Center. While the U.S. General Services Administration had held a 'groundbreaking' last July, site preparation, shoring and demolition proceeded slowly. The GSA will use Hunt, as the construction manager.

Originally the general contractor was to be a joint venture with the Dick Corporation of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, Nibbi Brothers of San Francisco and The Morganti Group. Nibbi has since dropped out. Union signatory contractors already selected include Bay Area Reinforcing, Berkel & Company, piledriving; Marelich Mechanical Co., Peak Engineering, Performance Contracting, Permasteelisa Cladding, Rosendin Electric, Transbay Fire Protection, fire sprinklers; Webcor Concrete and Western Roofing.

The new 18-story federal building will enclose roughly 600,000 sq. ft. of office space, looking over a large open plaza to the south facing Mission Street. The building cafeteria will occupy a separate low-rise structure on the northwest corner of 7th and Mission that will also be open to the public. The energy efficient, modern structure will provide an interesting counterpoint to the recently restored classic architecture of the courts building on the other side of 7th, now housing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There had been some criticism by City Planning of the 'avant garde' design by architect Tom Mayne. The architect is SmithGroup Morphosis.

The building will be faced with a stainless steel screen to reduce heat gain, which will reduce the energy needed for both heating and cooling. Waved concrete ceilings will enhance the flow of air through the interior using the breezes coming off the ocean and San Francisco Bay. According to the Dick Corporation, office personnel above the fifth floor will be able to open their windows and let in fresh air. The GSA has estimated that the project will cost between $135 and $150 million.

Representatives from the new Joint Venture, the Dick Corporation and Morganti, outlined the status of the new project at a meeting with the Business Agents of The San Francisco Building Trades Council on Tuesday, June 17th. James Kreidler the Project Manager said that, while building permits were unnecessary because the project was being built on federal property, the GSA generally conforms to local planning guidelines. He promised that the building would be constructed using union signatories and union labor.

Tom DeMarco, the project manager, said that roughly half of the 1,100 piles for the foundation had been driven. He estimated substantial project completion by November of 2005. He reviewed the company policies regarding use of controlled substances, job safety and handling of toxins. Union business agents responded by pointing out the established procedures for dealing with these issues as covered in their union contracts.

There was some discussion of the method of selection for sub-contractors, to assure that they would be union. Contractors already selected include Bay Area Reinforcing, Hirshfeld Steel, Marelich Mechanical, Peak Engineering, Performance Contracting Inc., Permasteelisa, Cladding Technology, Rosendin Electric, Inc., Smith Emery, Vertrans Elevator, Webcor for concrete, and Western Roofing.

The General Supervisor, Ollie Whaley, said that crafts already on site included workers from the Carpenters, Laborers, Operating Engineers, Piledrivers and Electricians.

The new building will provide office space for the U.S. Social Security Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health & Human Services and the Dept. of Agriculture.

http://www.sfbctc.org/72103-federal.htm

[craeg]

Agreed - its a very visually interesting building that would never have been allowed in SF if it had to go through our NIMBY review panels.
Cant wait to see it when its up. Maybe people wont be immediately struck dead by something that doesnt contain bay windows and clapboard siding.

[Fabb]

They shouldn't complain because it's an energy efficient, modern structure... as if people really cared.
The important thing is that it looks good, right ?

[FourOneFive]

In all honesty, as interesting as it is, I'm not a big fan of the new Federal building. It's simply too wide (similar to Fox Plaza or the Embarcadero Centers). I would have prefered a taller, more slender tower, rather than a wide, wall inducing tower.

[lakegz]

^most federal buildings in large cities are the wide, wall types of towers.

[FourOneFive]

Some news on 201 Folsom and 300 Spear:

S.F. supes OK huge Rincon high-rises
4 buildings double area housing units
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ

http://www.sfgate.com/article.cgi?fi...AGKF4JGL71.DTL

Developers who want to build four residential high-rises in the Rincon Hill area, more than doubling the housing units in the neighborhood and changing the city's skyline, won initial approval Tuesday from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

After listening to several hours of comments by the public and city planners, the board voted 10-1 to lift height and density zoning restrictions, thus paving the way for the project, which could go up in three to five years.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano opposed the changes.

"To the developer, I say: 'You have won the battle, but you are going to lose the war,' " said an animated Ammiano. He also faulted the city Planning Department for an "orchestrated, fairy-tale, Disneyland presentation."

The board will take a second and final vote next Tuesday.

Support for the complex was led by Supervisor Chris Daly, who represents District 6, where the towers would be built. In recent weeks, Daly was successful in requesting new benchmarks from the developers to increase the number of affordable units by about 50 percent.

Together, the developers of 201 Folsom St. and 300 Spear St. would offer up to 332 units for low-income households, Daly said. Current city requirements call for 235 such units.

However, the bulk of them would be provided off-site, which critics say defeats the purpose of trying to integrate low-income families into the mix.

Still, Daly said, "This is the highest community benefits offer I've seen up to this point."

Daly has become such a supporter of the project that he spent Monday night bartending at a pro-Rincon Hill development party at the Gordon Biersch Brewery.

Developed by Union Property Capital and Tishman Speyer Properties, the projects consist of 35- and 40-story towers to be set on parking structures, themselves six to eight stories tall. Combined, they are expected to house up to 1,640 units.

The towers are the largest yet proposed for Rincon Hill, a former industrial district near the Bay Bridge where about 1,400 apartments and condominiums have been developed since 1985.

The tallest building in the area rises 27 stories.

The height now being allowed worries critics who want to preserve views and are concerned about the impact on projects elsewhere in the city.

"We don't know what value we're going to deliver to the developer," Ammiano said.

According to the developers, the Rincon Hill towers would provide $11.2 million in new property tax revenue for the city annually, about $3.1 million in fees to the public schools and more than 250 permanent jobs.

The construction of the buildings also is expected to employ about 3,200 workers.

In addition to the residential portion, the projects would offer "neighborhood-serving retail" along Folsom Street.

At first, four supervisors argued that the issue was too important to be voted on by the full board without the input of the Land Use Committee, which hadn't gotten a chance to consider it before it got pulled back to the full board.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who chairs the Land Use Committee, said that it hadn't been looked at because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and that the issue had been yanked and forced to a vote as a result of "incredible political pressure."

Jim Chappell, president of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, spoke in support of the zoning changes, as did others wearing stickers reading, "Don't delay, housing today!"

The projects will bring needed housing, good union construction jobs and new taxes, he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it looks like the projects are going to be approved next week. As I said in the California thread, San Francisco is about to get 2 400 foot towers, 2 350 foot towers, and 1600 housing units in one fell swoop.

BTW I included new/ updated renderings of 201 Folsom/ 300 Spear as well as renderings of the Transbay project.

[FourOneFive]

201 Folsom and 300 Spear were finally approved today. No more votes, and no more hearings!!! The projects can finally move foward!

[EastBayHardCore]

Does the land that the TBT sits on need to be rezoned at all? If so are any meetings or things of that nature coming up? How much public input will be taken, will the NIMBY's have their chance to voice their opinion against the possibility of an 850ft tower in SOMA?

[Procurator]

How is Transbay coming along?

[EastBayHardCore]

I think its just getting started. Last week they tore down the old overpasses and stuff for the busses, so thats a start. I guess next they have to build the temporary terminal on the adjacent lots but I really wanna konw if they have come to a conclusion on the tower height yet Also the design for the terminal looks really sick, i hope they stick with it.

[FourOneFive]

The final EIR for the Transbay Redevelopment site hasn't been approved by the Board of Supervisors yet. From what I've heard, it should come to the Board sometime this summer. Shortly thereafter, the parcels could then be sold off to developers.

[FourOneFive]

Plan that threatens Transbay gets OK

James Temple

San Francisco planners gave the go-ahead to a revived 48-story condominium proposal that could potentially block part of the $2.7 billion Transbay Terminal project.

The Planning Department decided this week that aging approvals for the 80 Natoma St. project are still valid.

"We've determined they still apply and, as a matter of fact, we signed off on the site permit within the last week," said Lawrence Badiner, acting director of the planning department.

San Francisco-based Myers Development Co. is developing the project, a 431-unit residential highrise planned for four adjoining parcels on Natoma and Minna streets.

The Planning Department approved a 509-unit residential tower planned by a different developer there in the late 1990s. The site has changed hands several times since then, with Myers "taking control" late last year.

CEO Jack Myers said he was pleased but not surprised by the Planning Department's approval.

"Entitlement was never the challenge, capitalization was," Myers said.

That challenge has also been solved: Myers said the property is now in the process of being transferred to Myers Natoma Venture LLC, a joint venture comprised of Myers Development Co., Prudential Real Estate Investment and CIM Investments, a Los Angeles-based investment manager for the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the California State Teachers' Retirement System. IStar Financial is providing the debt financing.

Myers expects to break ground on the tower in March.

The project sparked controversy when it started moving forward late last year, as its location is earmarked for the replacement Transbay Terminal under the latest plan of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

If built, 80 Natoma would necessitate significant changes to the plan for the $2.7 billion transit hub, Mike Grisso, senior planner with the redevelopment agency, said at the time.

Myers, for his part, said the building would fit neatly into the Redevelopment Agency's plan for the greater Transbay area, which prioritizes new housing and includes several other highrise towers.

He added that he is a "staunch supporter of the Tranbay Terminal redevelopment objectives."

Badiner said there were several changes to the design of the project, but "they're essentially refinements that normally happen with a design development."

He said the project permit will now go before the Department of Building Inspection. It will not require any additional sign-off from the Planning Commission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it looks like the 475 foot Century tower will begin construction next month!

[EastBayHardCore]

Excellent, How likely is it that they will stick to that rendering that we have seen floating around for that past few months? That roof is so awesome, I'd love to see more slanted roofs like that in the city. Also I would be really upset if they decided to switch up the design to something less sexy than thee ones we have been shown by the (former?) developer. I mean look at those absolutley HUMONGOUS windows! There must be some amazing units planned for that high rise!

[FourOneFive]

From what I've heard, the overall design is the same. Only minor changes have been made.

I'm honestly excited. Typically, you'd only see a building with this particular design in cities like Chicago and New York.

[EastBayHardCore]

I know! This will be an awesome addition to the slowly developing SOMA side of the skyline. God, can you imagine SF actually having all these highrise condos so close to transit options, a la the TBT. SOMA's population is literally going to explode in the upcoming years.

[jddar]

When Caltrains is extended to the Trans-Bay Terminal, how will that be aligned? Will the extension be underground? Will the current depot continue being used or will that property be redeveloped?

[EastBayHardCore]

It will be underground from the King/4th St Station and run into the new Terminal which will be underground. The alignment looks like it will run East on King and make a left on 2nd St. then right mid-block between Mission and Howard into the Terminal. The current terminal will be totally re-done. They are working on setting up a temporary terminal in the mean time.

[milehi]

^ That tower a few posts up is one sweet looking scraper. I wish it was going up in Denver.

[craeg]

http://www.arquitectonica.com/missionbay.html

I was not aware that arquitectonica was doing some design for mission bay. They are also doing the design for the trinity project.