HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7441  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2015, 7:17 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 689
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
I didn't really notice the first time around, but with the exception of Parcel F (for which the design has not yet been revealed), this rendering basically depicts San Francisco's skyline in its entirety for the foreseeable future, including 50 First, Salesforce, 181 Fremont, Park Tower, and Transbay Blocks 8 and 9.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7442  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2015, 8:05 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
We have. Is there anything new regarding it?
Probably not if you've see it already. I must have missed it being posted here for some reason. It's rare, but it happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7443  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2015, 2:02 PM
Urbannizer's Avatar
Urbannizer Urbannizer is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SXSW
Posts: 9,037
Folsom & Hawthorne




https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7842...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Excuse me if this has been posted already.
__________________
HAIF
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7444  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2015, 10:10 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,450
Ironically the red building next to it is also going to be expanded by ~5 floors. Just announced on socketsite but I'm on my phone and too lazy to link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7445  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2015, 10:11 PM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,255
1401-1415 Mission Street - Architect: Arquitectonica

The skin on the Mission Street side is now revealed. It does not excite me. Those of you who regularly follow development you already know that the artist rendering of a building rarely looks like the finished product. The architecture here is true but the brick red color is quite different from the drawing. You can see 1401 Mission (not occupied yet) reflected in the glass.

Image from :http://www.buildgc.com/groundup/port...1-1415-mission
1401-1415 Mission Street

Image from my camera:
1415 Mission Street_front
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7446  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2015, 11:33 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,978
1450 Franklin at Bush, 67 condos

An update on the small tower with the unstable looking construction method...looking far worse than its rendering...instant justifiable NIMBY fuel imo. I don't like the glass or plain walls at all.

From the alley:

[IMG]1450 Franklin at Bush by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]1450 Franklin at Bush by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

and from Bush Street:

[IMG]1450 Franklin at Bush by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]1450 Franklin at Bush by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7447  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 12:07 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,978
Rockwell - 1634 Pine at Franklin

This development is more promising, although I still wonder about the glass.

[IMG]Rockwell, 1634 Pine at Franklin by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Rockwell, 1634 Pine at Franklin by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Rockwell, 1634 Pine at Franklin by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Rockwell, 1634 Pine at Franklin by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Rockwell, 1634 Pine at Franklin by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Rockwell, 1634 Pine at Franklin by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Rockwell, 1634 Pine at Franklin by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7448  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 1:45 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,978
1545 Pine development site (between Polk & Van Ness)

[IMG]1545 Pine development site, 1 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]1545 Pine development site, 2 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

The contentious Grubstake site to the east:

[IMG]Grubstake, next to 1545 Pine development site by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7449  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 1:58 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,978
1601 Larkin at Clay

[IMG]1601 Larkin at Clay by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]1601 Larkin at Clay by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7450  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 4:47 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 621
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
[IMG]1601 Larkin at Clay by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
I'm not quite sure, it's hard to tell, but I think I can make out a building or something behind the wires.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7451  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 5:23 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
^Ha!

Epic update, viewguy. Thanks! 1450 Franklin looks terrible so far. Just completely awful. But I have high hopes for 1545 Pine and am glad to see it getting started. If it lives up to the renderings, it should turn out great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbannizer View Post
Folsom & Hawthorne



Excuse me if this has been posted already.
No it hasn't, and thank you. Just to note, the rendering is only for the all glass building in the middle (667 Folsom), not the one with gray vertical panels to the immediate left from our angle, which is at the corner (655 Folsom). That is a separate development (to replace a building hosting a dim sum restaurant) and this is just a placeholder. I don't believe renderings for that have been published. Hopefully, they design something with much more contrast than shown here.

But I love the design for 667. That looks fantastic.
__________________
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
     
     
  #7452  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 5:30 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran View Post
The skin on the Mission Street side is now revealed. It does not excite me. Those of you who regularly follow development you already know that the artist rendering of a building rarely looks like the finished product. The architecture here is true but the brick red color is quite different from the drawing. You can see 1401 Mission (not occupied yet) reflected in the glass.

Image from :http://www.buildgc.com/groundup/port...1-1415-mission
1401-1415 Mission Street

Image from my camera:
1415 Mission Street_front
Thanks for that, Jerry. You're right, the lighter panels are a different color than what they depicted, but I personally like it. If I recall correctly, you weren't a big fan of the original rendering either so maybe this one just isn't your cup of tea. I haven't seen it in person yet either. But going by the photos, I think it looks good. Hopefully, it will grow on you a little bit.
__________________
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
     
     
  #7453  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 5:41 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
There has been a lot of buzz in the Tenderloin lately. There have been a few decent sized developments in the past several years with even more developments in the pipeline. Here's another from The SF Business Times and this one is market rate:

Quote:
A vacant auto shop in the heart of San Francisco’s Tenderloin neighborhood could give way to 51 small apartments if a preliminary proposal just pitched by Dolmen Property Group goes forward.

The low-key developer, which currently has its hands full rehabilitating the Tenderloin’s historic Hibernia Bank into offices, is in contract to purchase 135 Hyde St. property, which sits between Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue. The neighborhood has become an increasingly popular real estate play for developers who like the low-income neighborhood's proximity to public transit and the Mid-Market tech corridor.

Dolmen Property Group's proposal filed with the Planning Department details plans for an 80-foot-tall apartment building with a private roofdeck and public open space, with “studio/efficiency units” ranging from 396 square feet to 567 square feet. Those don’t qualify as so-called “micro-apartments,” which are usually between 220 and 350 square feet.

This is the latest in a small slew of market-rate housing proposals in one of San Francisco’s poorest neighborhoods. The 31-square-block, predominately low-income neighborhood will soon see its biggest rush of market rate housing development in a century, as more than 1,000 units slowly work their way toward groundbreaking.

-------------

Like most new developments in the Tenderloin – a neighborhood with small plots of land and lots of buildings with historic protections – 135 Hyde may also have complications. The developer and architect Brian Kaufman Design plan to build a separate structure on top of the 20-foot-tall auto shop building, due to its historic designation.
There is a rendering at the link (can't hot link to Business Journal images), but it is hopefully just a preliminary placeholder because it couldn't possibly be more underwhelming.
__________________
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
     
     
  #7454  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 5:53 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Sorry for the multiple posts. I forgot I wanted to add this little tidbit from the Business Times:

Quote:
Move over California Street. San Francisco's priciest office rents are now on once-gritty Mission Street.

Companies renting space in offices on Mission Street are paying the highest rents in San Francisco for the first time. Office towers in the Transbay area are renting at the biggest premium in the city, according to a report by real estate services firm JLL. In past years when JLL surveyed the most expensive streets for office towers, buildings along the North Financial District’s California Street came out on top.

---------------

Office rent on Mission Street – between the Embarcadero and 5th Street – hit $89.58 a square foot annually, 34 percent more than the average commercial street in San Francisco. That’s the highest in San Francisco, but dwarfed by some Bay Area counterparts, like Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park ($141.60 a square foot) and Hamilton Avenue in Palo Alto ($124.44.), and by the iconic Fifth Avenue in New York ($119.27).

It’s clear the price of a Mission Street address has gone up recently, and some of what's driving that is the transportation infrastructure, with the Transbay Transit Center and the Central Subway coming online in the next few years. Tech companies are ponying up to secure a piece of the burgeoning area. Salesforce (NYSE:CRM) leased half of its now-namesake tower for $83 a square foot annually last year.

Mission Street’s rise over California Street underlines the power shift in San Francisco’s office market. Mission Street is becoming a more coveted address than California Street, especially as technology companies like Salesforce, WeWork, Trulia (NYSE:TRLA) and New Relic starting to inhabit the former street’s floors.

But there’s a practical read to the data, too. Simply, Mission Street is home to new offices like Salesforce Tower, 535 Mission and 555 Mission. Meanwhile, the North Financial District and California Street has been mostly built out. New buildings begets higher rents, typically. It's also meant the highest returns for landlords selling or recapitalizing buildings.
What do you guys think? Is it access to transportation? Is it due to "hotness". Or simply a function of newer buildings?

Personally, I would guess it's mostly the newness plus access to transportation. There is a flood of commuters coming in from the Peninsula, so being closer to CalTrain must be appealing (both sides of Market have equal access to BART and ferries).
__________________
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
     
     
  #7455  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 6:32 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus View Post
I'm not quite sure, it's hard to tell, but I think I can make out a building or something behind the wires.
Yeah, no kidding. I couldn't imagine paying a lot for a place to look into that and wouldn't buy a property on a street without buried utilities. The units in back should have a GGB view, at least for now. It was noted on here before the project started that the renderings conveniently didn't show the utility poles and lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7456  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2015, 6:50 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
What do you guys think? Is it access to transportation? Is it due to "hotness". Or simply a function of newer buildings?

Personally, I would guess it's mostly the newness plus access to transportation. There is a flood of commuters coming in from the Peninsula, so being closer to CalTrain must be appealing (both sides of Market have equal access to BART and ferries).
Don't worry about multiple postings when you're providing good information (although I subscribe to the SFBT and am right there with you)!

It's a very happening, dynamic subdistrict with so much going on that makes it very appealing--just look at how we swoon over it. That, in combination with Caltrain, 280, and 101 access, plus all of the development marching south (Rincon Hill, Mission Bay, Dogpatch, Pier 70, etc., etc.), makes for an unbeatable combination.

350 Bush will somewhat enliven the North Financial District and it will always remain an awesome place in its own right. Once things settle down and blend more together, we will have a knock out downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7457  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2015, 2:06 AM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
An update on the small tower with the unstable looking construction method...looking far worse than its rendering...instant justifiable NIMBY fuel imo. I don't like the glass or plain walls at all.
I'm almost positive that the gray walls are just painted Sheetrock. The renderings show stone siding. The fact that the window frames are not flush with the walls as it is now seems like evidence to that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7458  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2015, 5:59 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK View Post
I'm almost positive that the gray walls are just painted Sheetrock. The renderings show stone siding. The fact that the window frames are not flush with the walls as it is now seems like evidence to that.
I hope you are correct!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7459  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2015, 7:40 AM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,255
1450 Franklin Street - The Spindly Looking Steel Frame

Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
I hope you are correct!
1 - The spindly looking steel frame, if I am not mistaken, is the ConX Tech construction method. There are certain advantages, like made in a factory to fit & put together like an erector set onsite. Interesting details with diagrams here: http://www.conxtech.com/conx-system/

2 - It appears to me that the outside glass insulation is being plastered. I suspect a metal skin may be applied over that.
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7460  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2015, 8:34 AM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 392
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
[IMG]1601 Larkin at Clay by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]1601 Larkin at Clay by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
What happened to the top floor of 1601 Larkin?
http://www.ibadesign.com/#!1601-larkin/c1nbj
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:00 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.