HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #881  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 7:19 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
Searching the web for something else, I stumbled upon this rendering. It looks like a 22 story tower for Excectutive Park near 49ers Stadium. I think thats the tallest, allowable height for that redevelopment area.

San Francisco Bay Apartments
465 new condominium units at San Francisco Executive Park next door to San Francisco 49ers football stadium

From http://www.gladstoneassociates.com/ls-projects.html
Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #882  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 8:26 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 656
Quote:
Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.
I wonderd the same thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #883  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2007, 2:51 AM
briankendall briankendall is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 72
sd

Last edited by briankendall; Aug 23, 2007 at 3:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #884  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 12:30 AM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
these are new

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.

These are an improvement over the monolithic barrack like condo development that are already hugging this hill called "The Cove". This area already looks odd

http://candlestickpoint.com/

Brisbane is planning to redevelop on the other side of the freeway with office towers, plus there is the potential for Viz Valley redevelopment so this whole corridor will look very different in a decade. Has pretty good transit access with Caltrain. I hope they do it right
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #885  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 6:33 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,233
I'm cross-posting this article that Reminisence posted in the One Rincon thread because I wanted to add some photos and thoughts that aren't related to One Rincon, but more the general development plan for the area. First the article:

Rising skyscraper is sign of things to come for Rincon Hill area
Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

San Francisco's Rincon Hill is a place caught between a fading industrial past and a radically different future.

At the top of the hill is a 641-foot condo tower called One Rincon Hill. In about six months, the first residents will move into the building; soon after that, work on a second tower will begin.

Rincon Hill and the southern part of San Francisco will never be the same. In five years, maybe 10, old San Franciscans won't recognize this part of old San Francisco.

City planners see a new neighborhood, as many as 20,000 new residents living in townhouses and condos. They see tree-lined streets, shops, new parks, a community center in a beautiful historic building.

One Rincon is just the beginning; people who don't like the look of the building better get used to it. One Rincon is just the tip of the iceberg - "a distinctive new element on the city's skyline," according to San Francisco's Rincon Hill plan.

Just now, Rincon Hill is a neighborhood in transition.

The new neighborhood even comes with a dispute over new money and an old building.

The historic Sailors' Union of the Pacific, right across the street from One Rincon, is in dispute with the city over money and plans for a community center.

But just now, the hill is a curious blend of contrasts, jumbled together.

First Street is frequently choked with traffic - Fremont Street, one block east, is usually empty.

On First, a new condo is for sale for $1.399 million. The building comes complete with a doorman, a gym and a million-dollar view.

On Fremont, a block away, a homeless man lives in a plywood shelter in a building that is about to be demolished to make way for condos. Two more men take an afternoon nap on mattresses on the sidewalk.

On Folsom Street, a block from the One Rincon tower, is Klockars Blacksmith Shop. "Anything you need, we make," is their motto. It is one of the last remnants of the city's industrial past.

There are empty lots with weeds growing. There are lots stacked with structural steel. There are posters advertising events that happened months ago next to notices advising of big plans for the months to come.

Demolition permits have been issued for three of the five old concrete buildings that line the eastern side of Fremont. One of them, at Fremont and Harrison streets, was the Apostleship of the Sea building, a Catholic charity that took care of mariners down on their luck.

Later it was a homeless shelter. "A Man's Place," the sign says.

"Keep Out" the sign says near a mosaic of the Blessed Virgin. The shelter is closed, but the homeless still sometimes sleep on the outside corridor.

On this site will rise a 40-story condo tower called the Californian on Rincon Hill.

The hill had a strong maritime feel to it. The west side of Fremont near the top of the hill had two union halls - the Seafarers International Union and the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. The doors are padlocked. Both have moved away.

Condo towers will be built in their place.

The Sailors' Union of the Pacific building at First and Harrison streets is the sole survivor. It is an Art Moderne classic, built of white stone and concrete, designed by William Gladstone Merchant and opened in 1950.

The building is a landmark in every way. It is near the site of the infamous "Battle of Rincon Hill" where strikers fought San Francisco police during the landmark 1934 waterfront strike.

Outside are two busts: one of Andrew Furuseth, the "emancipator of seaman," who helped start the union in 1885. The other is of Harry Lundeberg, who led it until his death in 1957.

The building has a soaring central hall, balconies shaped like parts of a ship; it has a 2,000 seat auditorium, space for a restaurant and bar, lots of room for amenities.

It was built in another era, when going to sea was famously tough.

There are no elevators, no facilities for the handicapped. "What did sailors need elevators for?" said Gunnar Lundeberg, president of the union and Harry Lundeberg's son.

In those days, the American merchant marine was bigger. Now the union hall is too big for the union. When the city came around to see if the Sailors' Union would be willing to share the building as a community center for a new Rincon Hill neighborhood, the union was eager to cooperate.

Funds to bring the building into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act would come from fees paid by the developers - technically a community infrastructure impact fee of $11 per square foot.

This, the city says, would generate $22 million to pay for parks, sidewalks, pathways and a community center at the SUP building.

Michael Kriozere, developer of One Rincon, even got his architects to draw up preliminary plans for a community center. Lundeberg, the union president, has them in his office.

He says the retrofit would cost $2.5 million. So far, the city has not passed on any money. Dean Macris, the city's planning director, hopes the money will come, but has no timetable.

"We went to hearings, we went to meetings, we had the plans drawn up," said Lundeberg. "And what happened? Nothing. Here we sit."

The union is impatient, but the city is biding its time.

"The Sailors' Union building is one of a dozen projects in the neighborhood," said Joshua Switzky, the planning department official responsible for Rincon Hill.

"We are looking at the options. There is no specific time trigger."

"You know what I think it is?" said Lundeberg. "I think it is a lack of will by this administration."

The city feels differently. One city official said the problem is that it is too soon to build a community center on Rincon Hill. The neighborhood is not ready for a community center, he said; there is no community yet.

The present has not caught up to the future.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BA4TRKO29.DTL
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #886  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 6:52 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,233
I was fascinated by some of the history highlighted in this article and wanted to check out some of these sites before they are demolished. Or in the case of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific (which is being preserved anyway) because I've never seen it.

This is the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. It's a bit more interesting than this photo makes it seem. I couldn't get in position for a better angle due to the construction at One Rincon directly across the street. You can barely see the two busts mentioned in the article.


The block along Fremont that the article mentions will be largely demolished is no great loss other than this building:


I hate to see that go. But I'm pretty sure this one sits within the footprint of the Californian (see page one of this thread), which will be a 400' tower going up diagonally across the street from the second One Rincon tower. The rest of the block can't be torn down fast enough if you ask me.

Speaking of which, the notices on the buildings along here are all dated June 26 and say the permit is only valid for 30 days. Meaning they have to begin demo within that timeframe. That's coming up fast and there is no sign of impending demo. Does anyone happen to know what's up with that?
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park

Last edited by peanut gallery; Aug 24, 2007 at 6:53 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #887  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 7:01 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,233
A shot I took of Foundry Square 1, which is nearing completion. You also get a glimpse of Millennium rising behind. This was taken yesterday.

__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #888  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 3:30 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
A shot I took of Foundry Square 1, which is nearing completion. You also get a glimpse of Millennium rising behind. This was taken yesterday.
I can't stand the roofs on the foundry buildings, they just look too forced into being something natural and wave like. Otherwise, the buildings are very high quality. I just wish they didn't have those weird roofs that look even weirder when coming in on the freeway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #889  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 3:34 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
I was fascinated by some of the history highlighted in this article and wanted to check out some of these sites before they are demolished. Or in the case of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific (which is being preserved anyway) because I've never seen it.

This is the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. It's a bit more interesting than this photo makes it seem. I couldn't get in position for a better angle due to the construction at One Rincon directly across the street. You can barely see the two busts mentioned in the article.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/...88300efa_b.jpg
I can see where one Rincon got it's influence , looking at the front of this building. I've never seen the front, just the side when driving up 1st to get onto the bridge. I love the porthole windows on first street. This is going to be such a colorful, fun neighborhood, regardless of what the fear mongerers say!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #890  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 7:32 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Activists take aim at OK'd office projects

Quote:
Activists take aim at OK'd office projects
San Francisco Business Times - August 24, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

The city is sending a strong signal to developers with approved office projects: Get to work or risk losing your entitlements.

The message, delivered at a July 26 Planning Commission hearing, has sent developers scrambling for building permits on projects that were approved more than five years ago, but have languished on the shelf as the commercial real estate market tanked after 2001.


Under city planning code, developers are supposed to begin construction within 18 months of winning entitlements, and the Planning Commission has the power to revoke approvals if work has not started within that window. But the Planning Commission has never enforced the code, and the reality of the city's notoriously cumbersome entitlement process -- not to mention boom-and-bust leasing cycles -- has meant that office projects are almost never built in the same cycle in which they are approved.

The result has been that developers have been allowed to landbank projects for five years or more, giving them an opportunity to better time the market.

But that may be changing. After questioning by land use attorney Sue Hestor and several commissioners, the Planning Department has identified 13 "expired" projects that have not met "commencement of construction requirements." These include 344,000-square-foot 350 Bush St. -- the last remaining office site in the north financial district -- as well as a 200,000-square- foot project at 524 Howard St. and a 270,000-square-foot development at 55 Ninth St.

In all, the Planning Department is looking at some 2.4 million square feet of office projects as "expired."
Some of the projects under question have been long since abandoned or reinvented as residential; others, like Shorenstein Properties' 350 Bush St., are very much alive and have been aggressively seeking an anchor tenant. On 350 Bush St., which was approved in late 2001 and is now for sale, Shorenstein and partner Swig pulled a building permit on Aug. 7, two weeks after the Planning Commission hearing. Another project, 524 Howard St., also obtained a building permit July 6.

"The ones that are still viable have had the bejesus scared out of them," said architect Jeffrey Heller, who has several projects under scrutiny.

Prop. M is back
The focus on expired projects comes at a time when a spate of new proposed office buildings have developers once again worried about Prop. M, the 950,000-square-foot annual office cap established in 1985. San Francisco now has 1 million square feet of proposed new office space pending, leaving 231,000 square feet available under the cap. Another 950,000 square feet will be added to the allocation this October, as it is every year. Any space not built in previous years is added to the cap.

City Zoning Administrator Larry Badiner said the new attention on expired permits is simply a reflection of a stronger marketplace and the number of new projects coming in. In a slow market, it makes sense to "have approvals on tap" so builders can break ground quickly as demand jumps, Badiner said. During a boom, with limited allocation available, developers need to either prove they are serious about building, or move out of the way for those who are.

"If there is demand we have always reserved the right to take these allocations back," he said. "The city wants to see these projects moving ahead."

At the July 26 public hearing, attorney Jim Reuben of Reuben & Junious -- the attorney for the majority of the city's new office buildings -- called the city's economic cycles "deep and short." He said the average period of time between the granting of entitlement and the start of construction is 46 months, and one project he worked on took 64 months. During the last cycle, the only office building built during the same cycle when it was approved was 560 Mission St., he said.

"There is not enough time in a single economic cycle to acquire a piece of property and go through a very difficult, arduous, risky process and get that building built," said Reuben, according to minutes of that meeting.

A question of landbanking
But prominent anti-growth land-use attorney Hestor, who wrote Prop. M, said the residents and planning commissioners should at least have a chance to take a fresh look at long-expired projects.

"You can not keep projects alive indefinitely on an environmental review that was originally done 25 years ago," she said.

She said landbanking "destabilizes the site" and "can really kill a neighborhood." She said the issue extends to housing and retail projects as well as office, and pointed to a central block on 24th Street in Noe Valley, which has been empty since 2003 when Real Foods Co. closed a grocery store to redevelop the property.

"You can't go and squat on an allocation," she said. "They've killed blocks, and in the interim the property flips three or four times -- what is the social benefit of that?"

For developers who spent years and millions of dollars on their entitlements the questions are worrying. The entitlement of 350 Bush St. -- and a companion project at 500 Pine St. -- was one of the most complex in city history. The proposed 19-story project violated Proposition K, which prohibits new construction from casting shadows on public parks. While the building would only cast a shadow on St. Mary's Park for a few days a year, Shorenstein built support by agreeing to build a rooftop garden on top of a new five-story building at 500 Pine, a property Shorenstein had owned since the 1960s. The rooftop garden would connect to St. Mary's Park, a huge increase to the green space on the edge of Chinatown.

Shorenstein also agreed to incorporate the historic Mining Exchange landmark building, a major focus for historic preservationists.

Shorenstein's attorney, Robert Herr of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, told the Planning Commission that the project is going forward.

"I have been working diligently for three and a half years since the entitlement became final with the approval of the Board of Supervisors to move forward with that project," said Herr.

Planning Commissioner Christina Olague, who called for the hearing, said the reaction from developers has been overblown.

"We're not saying we're going after anyone or are going to start revoking permits left and right," she said. "We're asking that some of these expired projects be brought to us for discussion and review. If the EIR is 10 years old, that is really dated at this point. Maybe we need to sit down to understand better why the permit was extended without additional review of the environmental impact."

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable

Da dirt be gonna fly!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #891  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 7:38 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088


Quote:
Activists hope to run out the clock on development
San Francisco Business Times - August 24, 2007
If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you are a San Francisco anti-development activist, every project looks like a threat.

In either case, stand by for indiscriminate pounding.

Sure enough, development activists have picked up a new tool and are aiming it at an impending wave of downtown office projects. As we report on Page 1, they've discovered a rarely enforced proviso that the city can cancel the entitlement of any office development that doesn't get started within 18 months of receiving it.

There's a very good reason this use-it-or-lose-it stricture is typically ignored: It doesn't make economic sense, and the wiser sort of city officials have always known it.

Office development inevitably goes in fits and starts, usually mirroring the overall economy, in cycles that typically run three to five years. San Francisco's planning process is balky and its politics tendentious when it comes to development. It can easily take three years just to get planning permission -- and considerably more if the city decides to introduce any other gauntlets.

Consequently, there generally isn't time to complete construction and get a project leased before the needle of an "up" cycle turns southward, as it inevitably does. Since a succession of planning officials have been unsuccessful in speeding up their laborious bureaucracy, they have reached an accommodation with developers: you can get an entitlement in one "up" cycle, and build in the next one.

This next one has been a while in coming. Like many out-of-control parties, the dot-com boom was followed by a crippling and lengthy economic hangover. It's only now, with rents racing ahead once again and the office supply tightening rapidly, that developers are dusting off development plans, some of them dating back to the late 1990s.

And it's these already entitled projects at which development activists are swinging their hammer. All such entitlements should be revoked, they say, for not being used within 18 months of issuance. Economic ignorance is no hindrance when your goal is simply to block development projects -- good ones, bad ones, any ones.

But more is at stake than the fate of a few long-delayed projects. Development in San Francisco is already parlous enough without introducing a shot clock. Future developers will be undoubtedly deterred from investing millions of dollars in obtaining entitlements if they risk forfeiting them to an unreasonable and arbitrary time limit.

But this, of course, is exactly the goal of the anti-development cohort, whose motto is effectively, if we don't build it, they can't come -- or stay. The "they" in this equation are jobs. Jobs that generate economic opportunity for city residents. Jobs that make possible thousands of support businesses like restaurants and hotels. Jobs that ensure that San Francisco remains an economic leader and not a laggard in the 21st century. Jobs that give our city a measure of its vitality.

Planning commissioners have given a sympathetic ear so far to those who would revoke entitlements older than 18 months. It is illuminating, if not surprising, that this contingent is led by Sue Hestor, the anti-development doyenne who has opposed virtually every significant addition to the city skyline for at least two decades. In other words, what's being advocated here isn't the faithful application of city statutes; it's just the same old anti-development drum, given a new beat.

An ear is all planning commissioners should give them. That, and directions to the exit.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #892  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 8:31 PM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 235
Reverse Prop M

Is there a way reverse Prop M with another ballot or something? It cripples economic growth of downtown and a lot of office building that should go in downtown with great transportation access are forced to sprawl elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #893  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 9:20 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
I agree about the illogical nature of Prop M. I think that it is outdated and speaks of a time when paranoid anti-growth activists once ruled this city.

I do like the fact that the city is pushing the developers. My only concern would be that many of these developers would back out, rather than move forward. We'll have to see.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #894  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 9:21 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.
Nah, most Orange County gated communities have 2-3 stories. There are a few exceptions in Irvine, but most look stunted. The vertical scale makes the difference here. I'm all for it. Until this area really cleans up, you NEED a gated community to ensure security.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #895  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 9:31 PM
Stepping Razor Stepping Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Francisco, via Portland
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
I was fascinated by some of the history highlighted in this article and wanted to check out some of these sites before they are demolished. Or in the case of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific (which is being preserved anyway) because I've never seen it.

This is the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. It's a bit more interesting than this photo makes it seem. I couldn't get in position for a better angle due to the construction at One Rincon directly across the street. You can barely see the two busts mentioned in the article.
I have a lot of great memories of this building in its late-90s incarnation as the Maritime Hall music venue. Definitely saw some of the best concerts in my life at that place. I was royally pissed when it had to close in 2001 due to rising rents and constant harassment by Bill Graham Production/ClearChannel.

The funny thing is that wasn't *that* long ago, and Rincon Hill then seemed like a complete ghost town. Hard to believe that less than a decade later they're talking about turning the building into the community center of a dense highrise residential district. I never would have seen that coming...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #896  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 10:25 PM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 642

Has anyone noticed the left side of the base of the de young building being a new flat surface instead of a column of stones? Is Ritz-Carlton planning to add any stone work to that flat surface section or is it going to stay that way?

Also, peanut gallery pointed out in my photo thread that one can see the exterior of the Ritz-Carlton Residences finishing touches being added on the top section of the building.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #897  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 11:30 PM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,129
I really don't like the Ritz addition, but I must admit, from many angles it reads as another building entirely. It comes off looking like it is another building behind the original, which is fine by me.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #898  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 11:32 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
1340-1390 Mission (Northeast corner of 10th St)

I never even heard of this building before:

Quote:
1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. 2002.0927E) and request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for the construction of a new building, 12 stories in height, containing approximately 136 units of affordable family housing and 201,627 gross square feet plus ground-floor space for community use and retail use, and second-floor space for housing support services, offices and building management, including requests for exceptions to Planning Code requirements for rear-yard area (Section 309(a)(1)), ground-level wind currents (Section 309(a)(2)), freight loading (Section 309(a)(5)) and building bulk (Section 309(a)(8)).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

13b. 2005.1068CKVX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 124(f), for additional square footage (to be devoted to affordable housing) above the 6.0 to 1 floor area ratio (approximately 6.06 to 1 – 201,627 gross square feet when 199,500 would be allowed) ) established for the C-3-G zoning district subject to the limitations set forth therein in conjunction with the construction of approximately 136 units of affordable family housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

13c. 2005.1068CKVX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Dwelling-unit-exposure and off-street-parking variances sought in conjunction with the construction of approximately 136 units of affordable family housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses, for dwelling units with their exposure onto an interior courtyard with dimensions insufficient to meet the standards for dwelling-unit exposure contained in Planning Code Section 140, and 24 off-street parking spaces when Planning Code Section 151 would require 34 such spaces. The request for variances will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

14a. 2005.1127CX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340 MISSION STREET (SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING) - north side between Ninth and Tenth Streets, with additional frontage on Ninth and Jessie Streets, a portion of Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in a 120-X Height and Bulk District - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. 2002.0927E) and request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for the construction of a new building, 11 stories in height, containing approximately 107 units of affordable senior housing and 93,954 gross square feet of floor area plus ground-floor space for community use, housing support services and building management and upper-floor space for housing support services, including a request for an exception to Planning Code requirements for ground-level wind currents (Section 309(a)(2)).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

14b. 2005.1127CX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340 MISSION STREET (SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING) - north side between Ninth and Tenth Streets, with additional frontage on Ninth and Jessie Streets, a portion of Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in a 120-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 124(f), for additional square footage (to be devoted to affordable housing) above the 6.0 to 1 floor area ratio (approximately 7.60 to 1 – 93,954 gross square feet when 76,500 would be allowed) established for the C-3-G zoning district subject to the limitations set forth therein and, pursuant to Planning Code Section 157, for off-street parking in excess of accessory amounts (ten spaces when five would be required), in conjunction with the construction of approximately 107 units of affordable senior housing plus ancillary ground- and upper-floor uses.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_page.asp?id=37772

but it seems to be happening (I took the pics):







Reply With Quote
     
     
  #899  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 11:52 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
The Argenta

I think 2 floors to go but it's looking good:

From Van Ness in front of the Veteran's Building


From behind some tourists in front of City Hall


From Market St.

I took the pics
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #900  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 1:07 AM
Stepping Razor Stepping Razor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Francisco, via Portland
Posts: 30
Wow, between this building and the 10th/Market project, there will be some serious density at that intersection. Hopefully will do good things for that stretch of Market.

Now, if only Argenta were twice as tall, so it could completely block out my view of the hideousness that is Fox Plaza...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:59 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.