SAN FRANCISCO | 77 Beale St | 1,225 FT | ? FLOORS

[MAC123]

600 ft height cut, and their reason is it doesn't fit in an vision for the shape of the skyline. The SHAPE of the skyline. Amazing. Truly fucking amazing.

[Zapatan]

What absolute idiots. I could see lowering the height to 8-900 feet or something respectable but modest, but 400 feet?

I wonder if a renegotiation could be on the table, like a reduction of ~200 feet vs that of an entire skyscraper height.

There's not really much space available in downtown SF, unbelievable they want such a restriction when dozens of taller buildings already exist in the immediate area.

[theskysthelimit]

Truly disappointing . A project that is 100% housing with a substantial BMR component should be green lighted at this height. They have to go high to make this project pencil out. Maybe the threat of California State proposal to fine these cities for not meeting their housing goals will change their mind. If they are forced to stay at 400 ft, I could see a development of all market rate housing with either an offsite BMR development or the developer paying a fee.

[Hudson11]

just another reason for the rest of the country to look at San Francisco and see plain as day how poorly run the city is.

[obemearg]

Very disappointing, though I'd like to remain hopeful that the final height won't be as short as the 400ft that the original transbay redevelopment plan specified for the parcel.

From the article:

"Planning staff said it generally supports the number of units proposed but recommended that the project team "explore" a design that incorporates more width at the base of the tower to bring the project into compliance with the plan.

The company initially pitched an 818-foot, 761-unit tower in September but later upped the unit count and height. It said it would use the state's bonus density law to achieve its plan."

Hopefully there's some wiggle room within "Compliance".

Here's the plan for reference if anyone is unfamiliar:

[whitty]

If this yields a worse project with less housing, or less outdoor space, then planning should be rebutted hard. There’s no need to sacrifice those real world human needs for the wildly superficial need of a “perfect skyline”.

Truly peak SF right here.

[slock]

Here's a copy of the actual letter for reference. Go to the "Record Info" drop down and select attachments. Then sort by date for the 4/15/22 document:

https://aca-prod.accela.com/ccsf/Cap...gencyCode=CCSF

[Zapatan]

Hopefully there's some wiggle room within "Compliance".

Yea, I was wondering the same thing / how set in stone this is. I'd be fine with the original 800+ foot tower. In fact it'd work a little better proportionally on the skyline.

[pseudolus]

Odd to talk of a "balanced skyline" with the abrupt drop off at 1 Rincon.

[Hudson11]

I don't think this is going to satiate the local NIMBYs.

[Zapatan]

Perfect, it actually works a little better.

Originally Posted by Hudson11

I don't think this is going to satiate the local NIMBYs.

If it can get approved who gives a damn what they think? How did the taller, neighboring Salesforce Tower come to fruition if the NIMBYs are so unbeatable?

I hope Hines has none of their BS and keeps trying.

[unpermitted_variance]

Odd to talk of a "balanced skyline" with the abrupt drop off at 1 Rincon.

This is bothering me the more I look at the rendering from Dolores Park, even though it's a totally different issue. I don't see the eastern edge of the skyline changing any time soon though, the areas to the right of One Rincon are pretty built out, height limits and NIMBY concerns notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by Hudson11

I don't think this is going to satiate the local NIMBYs.

I don't think that the NIMBYs are going to be the main problem here; a downtown site like this doesn't have a lot of immediate neighbors, although you never know who will take issue. The problem isn't NIMBYism per se but rather that several aspects of the project overstep the zoning and development standards for the site (which you could argue exist to some degree due to NIMBYism). The planners' job is to apply the development standards to the site, so they have some justification for questioning this project. Nevertheless, in the labyrinth of SF and state planning bureaucracy, there may be a way for this to happen. Probably not as currently proposed still.

[tech12]

Agreed that the tower look less out of place, and the skyline looks more balanced, with this drop in height. And I'm glad the number of units stayed the same, despite the height decrease.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Odd to talk of a "balanced skyline" with the abrupt drop off at 1 Rincon.

Originally Posted by unpermitted_variance

This is bothering me the more I look at the rendering from Dolores Park, even though it's a totally different issue. I don't see the eastern edge of the skyline changing any time soon though, the areas to the right of One Rincon are pretty built out, height limits and NIMBY concerns notwithstanding.

The skyline is going to be extended in that direction if central SOMA is built out as planned. There are several 200'-400' towers planned for the area. There'll still be a drop between One Rincon and those shorter towers, but it will definitely look more "balanced". It'll also link up the main downtown highrise cluster with the highrise cluster in Mission Bay.

[homebucket]

^ Yep, there's going to be this little cluster here in Central SoMa.



https://sfyimby.com/2022/05/project-...francisco.html

[unpermitted_variance]

While I agree that the forthcoming cluster of shorter high-rises in Central SoMa will help even out the skyline to some degree, I expect there will still be a big drop-off from One Rincon, and the new towers won't really be part of the contiguous skyline as they are offset to the south. Ultimately these are frivolous concerns, of course.


And off topic. Bringing it back to the subject at hand, I also like how the new design includes several cutouts that exhibit some of the tower's angled structural beams. It also has more of a well-defined crown. This is definitely an improvement over the previous design, which may have had texture up close but would have just been a skinny box on from a distance.

[SFView]

I like the new 992 foot proposal. It works for me. I also like the latest scheme for 200 Mission. Come on Planning. Say, "YES!"

[SFView]

Thanks for the thread title update. According to https://sfyimby.com/2022/06/reduced-...francisco.html we should also update "85 FL" to "89 FL."

[Steely Dan]

^ done.

[kingkirbythe....]

Damn! SF with the classy looking proposals.

[Hudson11]

looks a lot better at this height.