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

[Pedestrian]

^^Real nice!

I honestly thought the little school next door might be able to stop this building.

[JWS]

Regarding the Hayes Street cladding, I suspect it will be extremely similar (if not identical) to 100 Van Ness. The white paneling furthers my suspicion. When we toured 100 Van Ness (we settled on NEMA) it was clear that their amenities would be expanded into the neighboring building to give them a gym, etc that could compete with the other new buildings in Mid-Market and Rincon Hill.

Back then they were still treating these as separate buildings, but when we toured 100 Van Ness it was clear they were more or less going to be connecting them.

[Jerry of San Fran]

JWS - thanks for the info. The gap between 100 and 150 Van Ness is where a pool will be from what I can gather. If left open as seen from the artist drawings it will be quite a wind tunnel and very cold.

[Jerry of San Fran]

I don't get to the area of 1036 Mission St. often anymore, and was startled to see the bulky building in construction. I remember seeing a posting here but had forgotten about this project. The drawing is from Tenderloin Neighborhood Development's web page. The photo is mine taken 07/29/2017. This is an affordable housing project.

1036 Mission St. San Francisco

1036 Mission Street, San Francisco

[Jerry of San Fran]

07/30/2017 - Today was the first time seeing the new Moscone building. It is a quite a joy to behold. It has a crisp clean look with some very interesting patterns. I look forward to visiting when the whole complex is completed.

Moscone Center - New Building

[Reminiscence]

From Yerba Buena Gardens:



Source: Myself

[timbad]

passageway next to MTC building



look, they're finally working on the little PG&E plaza on Folsom after leaving it half-done for a year:



jumping around a lot. this is the hotel on Third and Townsend, above the fence now



the back of the office building on Townsend and Sixth



from the front (this evening) looks about the same as last check-in



100 Hooper



office building at Fourth and Brannan

[observatory]

Is anyone else bummed that the new Exchange buildings going up are blocking one of the greatest views of downtown on approach to the ballpark going northbound on 280?

[Pedestrian]

^^Not only am I not "bummed" but I wish a lot more views (such as from Potrero Hill) were being blocked by much taller buildings in Mission Bay. It is such a missed opportunity to really address the city's housing shortage by putting up much taller towers (with double or triple the number of units) for the housing component. And at the same time, it just reminds me too much of a suburban office park. THAT's what "bums" me.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Not only am I not "bummed" but I wish a lot more views (such as from Potrero Hill) were being blocked by much taller buildings in Mission Bay. It is such a missed opportunity to really address the city's housing shortage by putting up much taller towers (with double or triple the number of units) for the housing component. And at the same time, it just reminds me too much of a suburban office park. THAT's what "bums" me.

I'm not against The Exhange, per se, but totally understand what Observatory is saying.

Pedestrian, I don't agree with your viewpoint at all. Potrero Hill is a wonderful neighborhood and I never wanted to see really tall buildings in Mission Bay. The City is crowded enough now with an over burdened, under developed transit system. Much housing is already being built. I'm not bummed at all, except by ugly architecture, of which we have no shortage. People need to go live by those suburban office parks and their work places as much as possible. I'm not anti housing or building, but free for all tall buildings everywhere types aren't going to see it happen. I'm thankful for that.

[Pedestrian]

^^I don't want tall buildings in Noe Valley or the Haight or North Beach or the Mission or most of the Richmond/Sunset but Third St, served by rail transit, is the perfect place for them and I predict it will ventually have them. Because once the current target zones--Rincon Hill, TransBay, Hub, Mid-SOMA--are built out, as they will be, where is better? I said "most of the Richmond/Sunset" because I think eventually Geary Blvd. will have rail transit too and then it will be an excellent place for much more density which will have to be vertical.

[timbad]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

... Pedestrian, I don't agree with your viewpoint at all. ... I never wanted to see really tall buildings in Mission Bay. ...

not to mention, MB is more than twice as dense as the City as a whole, so it is no slouch in that department.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by timbad

not to mention, MB is more than twice as dense as the City as a whole, so it is no slouch in that department.

More than half the city (geographically) is single family homes which, quite frankly, are not a buiding type that any but the wealthiest new buyers can afford. There should not be, and almost certainly cannot be, any new neighborhoods of single family homes built in the city. Any new development should be much denser. So while Mission Bay is indeed denser, it's still a legitimate complaint that it isn't as dense as it (and other future development on a large scale) should be to have an impact on the demand for SF homes.

[Pedestrian]

Curbed asks: "Poll: Which San Francisco mega-project needs to happen most?"

What's your answer?

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Curbed asks: "Poll: Which San Francisco mega-project needs to happen most?"

What's your answer?

a ridiculous list that shows just how much trouble we're in

[ozone]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

a ridiculous list that shows just how much trouble we're in

Why do you say that?

[botoxic]

San Francisco Financial District Skyline by David Oppenheimer, on Flickr

[AndrewK]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

This is the perfect example why I don't believe what I see when developers put out an artist rendering of what is to be built. Today windows & panels are being installed which do not look at all like the drawing presented to the public over a year ago. I presume that the white panels are the finished product & the white is not a protective film - will have to wait & see. I was quite startled when I left my apartment building across the street today to see this.

The drawing on the left indicates either brick or stone facing. It will be interesting to see what the final product is like. Depending on what is put on the skin of the building it could be quite nice with the white panels. Stay tuned!


150 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco 2017_07_28_comparison by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

I drive by this building almost daily, and as of today the white film has been removed (at least on the Van Ness side) exposing black paneling. Still not matching with the render, but not as jarringly different.

[Jerry of San Fran]

AndrewK - Thanks for the update. I am disappointed to see gray & black window frames. I think the city has enough of black & gray combos already. Hopefully the fill between the windows will be some kind of stone with some color as pictured in the original architectural renderings. I suspect the scaffolding going up may be for the stone masons. We will know soon.

2017-08-05 150 Van Ness, San Francisco

[AndrewK]

I am a fan of 77 Van Ness (I spent a lot of time in the neighborhood when that was going up), so I hope we get something similar.