SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors | ON HOLD

[slock]

I'm not sure where Socketsite got the info that the taller was being designed by Foster + Partners and the shorter by Heller Manus. My understanding was that Foster was designing both, but Heller Manus is just the local collaborating architect and to help with the entitlement process.

The Mission Street Tower even slightly resembles Foster's Park Avenue project:

http://www.fosterandpartners.com/pro...venue/gallery/

[mt_climber13]

This building belongs in Manhattan or Chicago. Good to see something of this caliber coming to San Fran. Though the protruding tumor on the west side of the building concerns me.. I seriously hope they would get rid of it.

And looks like Heller Manus is back to their old dull ways after the success of 181 Fremont, unless that is just a placeholder rendering and they haven't finished their designs yet. A 600+ foot tower will be very visible in that location and we dont need another "Jasper."

[a very long weekend]

the massive mission street curb cut is hugely disappointing and hopefully something that planning will nix:

[boyinthecity]

i like the glamour shots of the eastern face of the building. but....
is it me? it looks like concerns about the west face might be true. ie. some kind of weird protrusion on the west side of the building.
if you look closely, you can see the support columns also extending on the western side.
gosh, please!!!! not another crappy, cheap bank of elevators…
i notice the schematic does not provide details for the elevator core.
i am guessing it is up above in the lobby above the plaza?
personally i would rather see the developer drop the cold and windy plaza idea and open a rockefeller center type of observation deck at the top.
just my two cents…

[tall/awkward]

I'm guessing you're right about the west-facing "protrusion" to be for elevators, and probably because of the open plaza. Not unlike the bank of elevators on the side of London's cheese grater building. Maybe it will end up looking okay, but it is a little bit alarming that we haven't seen much of it in renderings...

[botoxic]

Originally Posted by SFView

It looks like there could be pop-out portion of the building that has a central spine with wings that spread out on both sides at around the 600 foot level. The center spine terminates at the roof 850 foot level according to the other rendering looking north. The mystery slab doesn't show in some of the renderings by others, so we may not be the only ones that are possibly confused. It would be nice if we can have another drawing or rendering from the architect that shows the western building shape more clearly.

This is basically correct, with the pop-out portion actually being more of a U or horseshoe shape to take full advantage of the lot size. If you divide the west view of the building into quarters, the central two quarters form the trough of the U, contain office/residential space, and the skin will be glass simulating the diamond structure/glass pattern of the east side.

The north quarter, or chunky leg of the U, will contain the rows of elevators for the office portion of the building. On the west side, it appears there will at least be rows of windows to let light into the elevator lobbies on each floor. The north wall is the back of one of the elevator banks, and it is unclear if there will be an attempt to cover it with glass or a less-inspired skin. But this wall will be one of the least visible, as it will be almost entirely blocked by 525 Market across Stevenson. After the office portion of the tower ends at about the 600' level, this leg of the U gets substantially smaller and becomes residential space (all-glass skin).

The south quarter (the other chunky leg of the U) will contain the restrooms for the office space and the elevator bank for the residential portion of the building, again tapering significantly above the office levels. The street-level rendering gives the impression this will be covered with a reflective, glass-like material, but again that is speculative.

The view from the east is definitely the intended glamour shot for this structure. The west, while flawed by showing some of the inner workings of the building, could wind up being interesting in its own right. The real danger is the north and south views - the walls jutting from the elegant eastern half of the structure will be awkward and somewhat jarring no matter what, but hopefully they will be as aesthetically pleasing as possible.

[applejacks]

Are they going to tear down the Perilla building for the smaller tower?

[boyinthecity]

dear botoxic:
thanks for elaborating. it sounds as if you might be connected to the project or to city planning.
personally, i find the lack of detail on the western face quite interesting.
ie., anything with the western face is rendered from quite a distance.
when looking at the base of the tower and the property perimeter/boundary,
why not just start with a rectangular base
with the west wall extending out as far as the awkward/irregular extension???
maybe i am not seeing something, but this looks possible.
are the architects trying to disguise the bulk?
i mean, it sounds like they are trying to put about 1 million square feet of office
on only 34 floors? for example, at 101 california, it is nearly the same number of sq feet,
but on 48 floors--with 101 being quite a bulky building.

IMHO, i think the city should hold the architects to a highest standard, aesthetically.

I mean.... you know? it will be the second tallest building in town.

**Personally, it really sounds like they are trying to present a transamerica pyramid
with only one of the two elevator shafts.**

Could you imagine the city getting stuck with that? then again, maybe i am too much about symmetry.

BTW: (tried downloading the pdf on the project for more details, but it keeps showing an error.)



i

[pseudolus]

I did manage to download the PDF at https://aca.accela.com/ccsf/Cap/CapD...gencyCode=CCSF

There are 58 pages showing the renderings we've already seen, plus various floor plans and elevations from all four directions. Horseshoe is one way to describe it. Another would be two bulky squarish extensions that go up to 600 feet. These would be mostly hidden from view by the new Heller Manus building and the large office building on Market. Above that the extensions become smaller, but they extend all the way to the top.

[AndrewK]

Originally Posted by applejacks

Are they going to tear down the Perilla building for the smaller tower?

It is not part of the project site:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ate-tower.html

[boyinthecity]

thanks for letting me know the download works.
I downloaded through something other than wifi and got the pdf.

holly crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you know? there are some complete renderings of transbay with 50 first street included.

***The artists all make the simple assumption the building is symmetrical with
the east and west face being the same. (the best rendering is in the pdf associated with
525 Harrison Street)***

Only in san francisco would this get by--outrageously on the second tallest building.
If the planning department gives this a pass, there need to be changes.

At 900 feet. the upper half will be visible
to all of us in the city; only look to the view from Dolores Park and such.

i really don't see why they can't widen the footprint of the building
to more of a rectangle which would disguise the corner utilities, using the
same materials and diamond pattern.

honestly, the west side looks like a mess...making the north and south views
just as bad, uneven and cheap.

all for what? IMHO: it is to make the architects come up with
the golden number of 1 million square feet of office.

[pseudolus]

It appears that the west side of the building wraps around the low-rise red brick probably historic 16 Jessie St.

[SFView]

Sorry for the slight reduction in quality, but at least it is easier to see what the proposed buildings may basically look like here.

Source (same as above): (https://aca.accela.com/ccsf/Cap/CapD...gencyCode=CCSF)

[bobroberts]

I live in the inner sunset area and am crippled and home-bound. The best I can do is to read all the information that you lads post here, so keep up the good work.

This (I hope) will not be deleted or will get me kicked-off the Forum.

[tall/awkward]

Glad to hear you're enjoying the forums, bobroberts!

After looking the drawings over, I kind of like the controversial west side! I understand the appeal of a pure, more symmetrical form, but I'm sure the elevator extensions are needed, and they give the building a different look from that side.

And while I know the shorter tower is second fiddle, I'm wondering if we should give it its 636 feet to the tip top due?

[SFView]

Welcome to the forum, bobroberts!

Yes, I'm beginning to like the west side more and more as I study rather interesting complexity of the design. I also like how it appears that each of the triangular facets undulate at slightly alternating angles giving a prismatic effect over the larger flatter portions of the building.

I believe that much of the elevator protrusions may not be visible from most angles, being blocked by shorter neighboring towers close by. This may also be eventually further blocked by a possible 700 foot tower (roof height) right across the alley to the west at the 536 Mission Golden Gate University site.

With the super high density of towers at this location, it almost seems appropriate that Oceanside Center might have the illusion more than two towers next to each other from certain angles. A future proposal for Parcel F nearby will also add to the density of tall towers in this area. The views looking upward from the rooftop park at the Transbay Terminal are going to be awesome surrounded by so many San Francisco's new tallest buildings someday. I think I am going to feel rather small there.

[mt_climber13]

The west facing protrusions remind me of the "wings" or "arms" of the Transamerica Pyramid, which are also elevator shafts that are necessary due to the building's shape (rumor has it they were added after NIMBYs had the heights reduced, because the peak was less narrow and made the wings a requirement)

I really liked this building's narrow sides though, and these protrusions will take away from that super skinny/ tall effect for me. An exceptional building though, and definitely the most unique in the West Coast, besides the pyramid, of course. Leaps and bounds above the amorphous SOM proposals IMO.

Welcome to the club bobroberts.

*I want to add, I don't think there is landfill under this land like at Transbay, I believe it ends right at Transbay Tower site, so there shouldn't be years of digging and foundation work for this.

[simms3_redux]

I hope whatever is happening in China does not have an impact on this project. It may, in fact, have a reverse effect, making US real estate more attractive. Regardless, fingers crossed we aren't delayed for a while (or ever).

[ElDuderino]

If they put the elevators in those extensions it also allows for larger, open floor plans because there will not be a core in the center. If this building is all steel frame and built without a concrete core it should go up quickly.

[boyinthecity]

personally, i think the rear face (west) and presumed front (east) should match and provide some kind of symmetry. not sure why they can't widen the base to the west instead of creating an irregular set of extension blocks (on the west side) with incongruity of materials used in the facade--especially above the 500' elevation.

i think that the attached transbay picture was an assumption made by a graphic artist --with a building in general appearance similar to the john hancock in chicago.

yet, i wonder why a wider building (and base), with a crown that encompasses the entire perimeter (at the top), is not possible. maybe the elevator core needs to be brought into the building and shifted further east. and yes, it would eat into the office space.

hopefully, the planning department will require something more than these renderings. ie., maybe something in the order of a model so as to be viewed from each and every direction, since it will be the second tallest in the city.

source: http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...13.0159Xc2.pdf