View Full Version : Bay Area Proposals/Approvals/Construction Tidbits II
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[
8]
9
10
11
12
Reminiscence
Apr 9, 2007, 4:07 AM
Didnt they say it might be possible to combine both sites to form one taller more massive building instead of two smaller buildings?
BTinSF
Apr 9, 2007, 4:36 AM
^^^I believe they are implying that (note, I made a mistake in saying this was 1st and Mission--it's 1st and Howard--I corrected it). On the other hand, the Foundry Square project was intended to have buildings of the same general design on all 4 corners of 1st & Howard. A radically larger building on the southwest corner would violate that although, if sympathetically designed, it could still "fit".
FourOneFive
Apr 9, 2007, 4:37 AM
Didnt they say it might be possible to combine both sites to form one taller more massive building instead of two smaller buildings?
i wonder how the new design would work. the foundry square development was to have 4 buildings of similar scale (roughly 10 stories) occupy each side of an intersection. if foundry square III is increased in size, it will dwarf the other 3 buildings. i'm not necessarily complaining; i'm just curious to see what the final development will look like.
if this image is still valid, they are shooting for 500':
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/396128773_ec3773d3b7_o.jpg
FourOneFive
Apr 9, 2007, 4:39 AM
^ haha. i repeated exactly what BTinSF just posted!
Reminiscence
Apr 9, 2007, 11:16 AM
Hmm, I do recall that they were pursuing a significant height such as 500'. I also would not have any opposition to the exploration of the idea, but as also said, I would like to see the design and maybe a few renderings here and there about how it would impact its surrounding buildings. It is fairly close to Transbay, so that may make it more likely that we'll see something around this magnitude develop in this area, I would think.
botoxic
Apr 9, 2007, 2:44 PM
HOW SAN FRANCISCO CAN KEEP ITS FAMILIES FROM MOVING OUT
Build new housing along Market St., Geary, Taraval
Tim Holt
Sunday, April 8, 2007
It is the stuff of dreams for young families in teeming neighborhoods like the Mission or the Western Addition: a land where children frolic in lush green parks, attend good neighborhood schools and skip happily home on safe streets. It is the Promised Land, somewhere west of Twin Peaks. It is also, for most of these families, a Never Never Land of million-dollar-plus homes.
Gillian Gillett and her husband, Jeff Goldberg, live with their two children, ages 1 and 5, on traffic-choked Guerrero Street. It is, in Gillett's phrase, "at the tipping point" -- affordable for young families because the heavy traffic makes it a less desirable place to live and, for the same reason, a dangerous place to raise children. Gillett sees about one family a month move from her immediate neighborhood out of the city altogether.
She can tell you about the travails of raising a family in San Francisco, about parents living on the east side rousing their kids at dawn and driving through rush-hour traffic to take them to better schools on the west side, or trying to come up with at least 10-grand per child to send them to private schools. Gillett and her husband are on the verge of doing what other families in the neighborhood have done -- flee San Francisco for a more affordable, safer, family-friendly neighborhood in another city.
If that happens, the city's public schools would lose yet another student, one of the 800 they're losing each year.
Gillett, who grew up in an apartment house in Chicago, isn't looking for a backyard and a picket fence. She and her husband, who grew up in New York, describe themselves as "urbanists." They like the idea of raising their kids in a fairly dense, vibrant urban neighborhood -- but one that's got safe streets, good schools and parks.
And there is a ray of hope. There are a few good-neighborhood activists, affordable housing advocates and city planners who are working to make this not-so-fanciful urban dream a reality. They are proposing something called "transit-oriented development" along such corridors as Market, Geary, Taraval and Judah, and along the new Third Street light rail line.
The idea harks back to the transit-oriented neighborhoods before World War II. At street corners throughout western San Francisco you'll often see two or three stories of housing above retail. Put enough of that together, stretching along several blocks, and you have yourself a medium-density, walkable environment where you don't have to get in your car to get a loaf of bread or a pair of shoelaces. And for longer trips, to downtown or the East Bay, the higher-density housing and the transit work together.
Here's the good news for Gillett's family: Those higher densities make for more affordable housing because land values drive the cost of housing. The more housing you can get on a given city parcel, the less that housing is likely to cost.
Admittedly, "density" is a nasty word in some parts of western San Francisco. But on that touchy subject there are some important differences between the city's two big west side neighborhoods, the Richmond and the Sunset. The Richmond is largely a pre-World War II neighborhood, with a lot of apartment complexes and narrow townhouses. The Sunset, especially the outer Sunset west of 19th Avenue, is essentially a post-World War II suburb.
It's in the Outer Sunset where density is a fighting word, something associated with the parking and traffic horrors of much of the rest of the city. But density is a fact of life in the Richmond, where urbanists and transit corridors abounded long before those terms even existed.
Folks in the Outer Sunset form one of the core groups for an umbrella organization known as the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, which claims a membership of nearly 50 neighborhood groups. It is a force to be reckoned with on the west side.
The coalition's dominance in that part of town is one of the main reasons the mayor is focusing plans for building more family-oriented, affordable housing on the other side of town, in the Mission, South of Market and Bayview-Hunters Point. The coalition has carried on an effective, unrelenting campaign against any form of housing density on the west side, whether it's housing along transit corridors, townhouses or in-law additions. It is a compliment to the coalition's political clout that the very mention of its name causes housing advocates and their political allies to foam at the mouth. Judy Berkowitz, the coalition's president, says her organization simply reflects the views of its member organizations.
It's not surprising, given the history of the Richmond, that its main neighborhood organization broke off from the coalition more than a decade ago. The Richmond group is led by Ron Miguel, a strong advocate of affordable housing. Miguel is pushing for more housing along Geary Boulevard as Muni's plans for a Bus Rapid Transit line along that corridor move forward -- an idea that also has the support of Board of Supervisors Chairman Aaron Peskin. Peskin, no friend of the coalition, has lately been calling for "density equity" between the east and west sides of the city.
There is no dearth of ideas for dealing with the housing crisis in San Francisco, where only 8 percent of the city's households can afford a median-priced house -- now going for $800,000 -- and where there are long waiting lists for affordable public and private rental housing. Real estate prices in the city are at the point where a family of four bringing in $110,000 a year qualifies for assistance in buying a home.
A seven-year effort by neighborhood groups near Octavia and Market streets could provide a template for boosting the stock of affordable housing. Many of the ideas included in this plan are already being tried in other parts of the city, but Octavia and Market is where they would all come together.
If approved by the mayor and the Board of Supervisors this year, the plan would add housing along the Market Street transit corridor between the Safeway at Church Street and Van Ness Avenue. It would legalize in-law additions and eliminate minimum parking requirements for new housing, allowing developers to get more housing in each parcel. The city's Redevelopment Agency is poised to add nearly 500 affordable housing units at the site of the old Central Freeway at Octavia and Market. The sweetest part of the whole deal is that the neighborhoods will get a bonus in the form of developer contributions to fund green spaces, streetscape improvements and affordable housing.
If approved, the Octavia-Market plan could help jumpstart housing development along other transit corridors throughout San Francisco, including major new additions near the south end of Third Street and on Geary at Japantown.
Adding housing along Judah and Taraval streets in the Sunset presents a greater challenge, as noted above. But even here the times may be changing: In a recent interview, the president of the Outer Sunset's neighborhood organization, Marc Duffett, made bold use of the "d" word in a rather surprising statement: "Greater density is a logical progression of urban life," he said, adding that transit corridors are a "logical" extension of that idea. He was quick to add that the integrity of existing neighborhoods in the Sunset, where longtime residents have a "strong emotional and financial investment," has to be respected.
But as he spoke you could hear in the background, ever so faintly, the sound of a door cracking open an inch or two.
Not long ago, Gillett took her 5-year-old daughter to a party at a gymnastics school near 31st Avenue and Judah, in the heart of the Outer Sunset. While she was there she noticed something rather unusual: a five-story retail-and-housing complex under construction. At the time it seemed to her like a hopeful sign, a suggestion that her family might have a future in San Francisco after all.
Duffett drove by that corner recently and noticed the same building. He remembers it as the site of a gas station. You could hear the door opening just a bit more as he said, choosing his words carefully, "You know, in theory, that's a logical place for something just like that to be built."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/08/INGFJP4MED1.DTL
botoxic
Apr 9, 2007, 2:52 PM
Area is less gloomy, more Bloomies
Marni Leff Kottle, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, April 8, 2007
With little land left in San Francisco for new buildings, a handful of developers are rolling the dice on the underused area around the city's Old Mint that for decades has been home to a collection of parking lots, pigeons and many of the city's down-and-out.
The neighborhood -- loosely referred to as the Mid-Market area and home to The Chronicle among other businesses -- has received a boost from projects like the expanded Westfield San Francisco Centre, the federal building on Mission Street and plans to turn the L-shaped alleys around the abandoned mint into a cafe-lined plaza.
Next up are high-end hotels, million-dollar condos and ultra-modern apartments.
"In a place that is as compact as San Francisco, there are very few neighborhoods that are up and coming -- there are many that have up and came and a few has-beens," said Chip Conley, founder and chief executive of Joie de Vivre Hospitality, a San Francisco boutique hotel company that has contracts to run four hotels on Seventh Street and is also providing services to a condo project called the Soma Grand. "The fact is that area still has more affordable prices."
Yet even as the developers move in and new buildings and businesses open up in the area bordered by Market, Howard, Fourth and Eighth streets, it's impossible to escape the fact that the neighborhood is what the developers like to call transitional.
Sixth Street, with its residential hotels and empty storefronts, still divides the area between the federal building and the new Bloomingdale's so that even with the changes, the neighborhood has a hard-edged, gritty feel.
"There's a juxtaposition," said Patrick McNerney, president of the Martin Building Co., whose series of refurbished apartments and condos called the Mint Collection opens this spring. "This is never going to be, nor should it be, a suburban-like environment. It's a leading-edge neighborhood."
The Mint Collection's 77 apartments and condos run along a dirty pair of alleys behind the Old Mint, which itself is a magnet for homeless people, who congregate on the steps out front. The San Francisco Museum and Historical Society is raising money to turn the mint into a museum that it expects to open in 2010 or 2011.
The new residences at the Mint Collection span two buildings and play on the neighborhood's edginess with exposed pipes running along the ceilings and stainless steel bathtubs. Market-rate rents on the apartments begin at $2,300 a month and the condos range from under $600,000 to $1.5 million. The Martin Building Co. also owns an office building and an older apartment project behind the mint.
But perhaps the most striking piece of the Martin group's project is a plan to clean up the alleys that abut its buildings. Architectural renderings paint an idyllic area with grass, trees and restaurants that may open by fall, according to McNerney.
His company is awaiting approval from the city -- which could come by the end of the month -- and the company is targeting completion by Labor Day.
"These are small steps," said McNerney, who lives in one of the Mint Collection's apartments. "But it's going to be terrific when it's finished."
The renovation of the area around the Old Mint is just one of a handful of projects that are changing the shape of the neighborhood. Others include the giant federal building on Mission Street, the 22-story Soma Grand hotel and the blue-glass shell that will become the Intercontinental Hotel at Fifth and Howard streets.
While New York developers such as Tishman Speyer and Millennium Partners are drawn to neighborhoods such as Rincon Hill, many of the projects going up in the Mid-Market area are being backed by smaller, local players.
One, Alexis Wong, who founded a San Francisco real estate company called AGI Capital, said she was drawn to the neighborhood because it offered relatively affordable land in a central location.
"With the development mix, you get true downtown living," said Wong, who's firm backed the Soma Grand. "One of the reasons we went in to begin with is that we see untapped potential."
Like Wong, Leonard E. Blakesley Jr., executive vice president at Continental Development Corp. in El Segundo (Los Angeles County), began seeking to build in the area when the space that is now occupied by the gleaming new Bloomingdale's was a boarded-up shell, vacated by the Emporium.
It took a decade, but Blakesley says his company's Intercontinental Hotel is due to open early next year.
"All these experiences -- the museums, the shopping, the Metreon, the new theaters in the Bloomingdale's project, the restaurants -- they make it much better for our hotel guests," he said. "It is excellent timing."
As developments pop up, the neighborhood's contrasts become even more pronounced.
Despite efforts to draw businesses to Sixth Street, developers acknowledge that the residential hotels aren't going anywhere. At the same time, neighborhood groups emphasize the importance of balancing the needs of the rich and not-so-rich, stressing that new businesses and projects also need to cater to the area's longtime residents.
"That is the population which is most vulnerable," said Jenny McNulty, executive director of Urban Solutions, a nonprofit group that is working to bring small businesses to Sixth Street. "There's a balance of housing stock in the neighborhood and I hope that there can be some increased spending and support for neighborhood services and businesses that benefit everybody."
Developers say there is still a lot of underused land in the Mid-Market neighborhood. They point to the low-slung buildings that sit on land that includes at least 23 parcels belonging to The Chronicle and its parent company, Hearst Corp. Spokesmen for both Hearst and The Chronicle declined to comment on these holdings, which real estate developers say they have long eyed as possible sites for condos and other projects.
The land alone, excluding the value of any buildings on it, is assessed at $28.14 million, according to county records. But the real value is much higher, according to brokers who work in the neighborhood.
The property includes the 23 parcels that cut a swath that is more or less contiguous and stretches over 4 acres starting at Fifth Street and Mission and running south and west along four separate blocks. The land is home to The Chronicle itself as well as a collection of surface parking lots and other squat buildings.
"It's a great opportunity," Tom Christian, a partner at NAI BT Commercial in San Francisco, said of the land "It's worth more as developed property. The ideal would probably be residential or a hotel. You could build 15 or 16 stories on part of the property."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/08/BUGKNP3UD71.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/08/bu_all_mint05_0203_kr.jpg
The area just south of Market Street (which runs diagonally toward the right of the photo), shown as it sprawls between Fourth Street (bottom of photo) to Eighth Street, is drawing interest from developers.
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/08/bu_all_mint05_0203_kr.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/08/bu_d6_mint05_0034_kr.jpg
Patrick McNerney sits on the rooftop deck at the Mint Collection residential development, which is opening this spring.
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/08/bu_d6_mint05_0034_kr.jpg
BTinSF
Apr 9, 2007, 4:23 PM
Developers say there is still a lot of underused land in the Mid-Market neighborhood. They point to the low-slung buildings that sit on land that includes at least 23 parcels belonging to The Chronicle and its parent company, Hearst Corp. Spokesmen for both Hearst and The Chronicle declined to comment on these holdings, which real estate developers say they have long eyed as possible sites for condos and other projects.
The land alone, excluding the value of any buildings on it, is assessed at $28.14 million, according to county records. But the real value is much higher, according to brokers who work in the neighborhood.
The property includes the 23 parcels that cut a swath that is more or less contiguous and stretches over 4 acres starting at Fifth Street and Mission and running south and west along four separate blocks. The land is home to The Chronicle itself as well as a collection of surface parking lots and other squat buildings.
"It's a great opportunity," Tom Christian, a partner at NAI BT Commercial in San Francisco, said of the land "It's worth more as developed property. The ideal would probably be residential or a hotel. You could build 15 or 16 stories on part of the property."
This is the property--west of the Intercontinental on Howard--that I argued in the Howard thread would soon come onto the radar screen for housing and other new development. I got a fair amount of flack there for arguing it and I didn't know the Chronicle owned the land. But now I'm more convinced than ever that the Intercontinental and the ripeness of time are going to change this neighboirhood dramatically.
coyotetrickster
Apr 9, 2007, 6:36 PM
This is the property--west of the Intercontinental on Howard--that I argued in the Howard thread would soon come onto the radar screen for housing and other new development. I got a fair amount of flack there for arguing it and I didn't know the Chronicle owned the land. But now I'm more convinced than ever that the Intercontinental and the ripeness of time are going to change this neighboirhood dramatically.
In this town, development is never a question of if, but when and how... We ain't building anymore land:-)
SFView
Apr 9, 2007, 8:09 PM
From San Francisco Magazine (Feb. 2007 Issue) - San Francisco 2020:
http://www.sanfran.com/archives/view_story/1533/
the spillover effect
SoMa and the Bayview will never be the same.
Every one of SoMa’s 2,333 acres will be affected by the changes taking place between Mission Street and Mission Bay. Many building owners are getting unsolicited offers to buy their property, and you can assume that wherever you see a parking lot or two-story building, there could well be a high- or mid-rise tower in the next several years. There are people working on plans to upgrade a neighborhood they call SoMa East (the area between Fifth and Seventh streets, currently skid row). There are plans under review for SoMa West (that is, west of Yerba Buena Center for the Arts) and for the area around Showplace Square, below Division Street.
coyotetrickster
Apr 11, 2007, 3:08 PM
Well, looks like Trinity Plaza is a go. Unanimous vote from the BoS last night. Wonder if Sangiacomo can find the $$$$?
rocketman_95046
Apr 11, 2007, 4:52 PM
Well, looks like Trinity Plaza is a go. Unanimous vote from the BoS last night. Wonder if Sangiacomo can find the $$$$?
^ I wouldn't be surprised if he simply flipped it to another developer, took a quick profit, and ran.
BTinSF
Apr 11, 2007, 5:00 PM
^^^Isn't the plan to do it in stages, starting, I believe, with the part along Mission? Then they could move the existing tennants into the newly constructed wing and proceed with the larger part along Market St.
I would be a little surprised if he couldn't find financing for rental units in a tight housing market like downtown SF. For sale housing might be tougher as might anything in the suburbs.
I listened to another dire prediction about the "subprime" situation last night, by the way, from Mike Farrel who runs Annaly Capital ( http://www.annaly.com/ ), maybe the best run mortgage REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). Annaly is actually doing pretty well in this mess because it holds mainly AAA-rate paper, but Farrel thinks things are going to get a lot worse (said we are in "inning 3") with credit and the ability to borrow tightening dramatically across the specrum and a flight to quality that will widen spreads between AAA debt and lesser quality paper. In that case, Sangiacomo better get his money while he can.
PS: I very much doubt he will flip it for two reasons: (1) The fight to do this has become personal for Sangiacomo; (2) With all the restrictions and concessions he's agreed to, I'm not sure anyone else would want it. Aside from the money, though, he has gotten awfully old. The other risk is he will die or suffer a serious illness before it gets done.
botoxic
Apr 12, 2007, 3:00 PM
From the sfgov website:
On April 5th after nine hearings, the Planning Commission adopted the Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan, CEQA findings and certified the Environmental Impact Report. The Plan will now be referred to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration.
We may see 400-footers replacing buildings like All-Star Donuts & Burgers, the Honda dealership, Rite-Aid, and Bank of America yet!
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2003-25/Market-Octavia.jpg
SFView
Apr 13, 2007, 3:43 AM
Various city government offices now occupy 30 Van Ness (Rite-Aid) and 1 South Van Ness (B of A). MUNI just moved into B of A within the past couple of years. I don't think the city is willing to give up any of these places for any time soon, but things could change. The same goes for other various locations occupied by the city, mostly located within the 85' and taller zones in the area. There are still plenty of other sites more ready for development.
pseudolus
Apr 13, 2007, 7:05 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/13/mn_pucgreen.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/13/mn_pucgreen_011kk.jpg
PUC aims to set example with new green tower
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Friday, April 13, 2007
New SFPUC administration office building. Courtesy of KMD... The empty State of California building on Polk and Golden...
San Francisco's Civic Center is the proposed home of a government tower that city officials say will be more energy-efficient than any large office building in the United States.
The headquarters of the city's Public Utilities Commission would include design features rarely seen in comparable buildings, such as wind turbines on the roof and a water recycling system in the basement. Solar panels would be embedded in outer walls, and a ventilation system using "thermal chimneys" on each floor would pull hot air out of the building.
The PUC wants to break ground next spring on the 12-story structure at 525 Golden Gate Ave., half a block from City Hall. And while the sustainability measures add $16 million to the $178 million price tag, agency officials say it's important that PUC headquarters use as little energy and water as possible.
"We can't ask people to change their way of doing business and not put our money where mouth is," said Susan Leal, the agency's general manager.
Agency consultants go so far as to describe the project as "the most energy-efficient office building developed in an urban setting in the United States to date."
While that claim is difficult to verify, sustainability experts agree the PUC's approach is an unusually aggressive example of "green" design -- even at a time when the global warming debate has focused attention on environmental issues.
"It sounds as though everything they're planning is a degree beyond what we're seeing elsewhere," said Andrea Traber, president of the Northern California chapter of the United States Green Building Council. In a tower being marketed to private office tenants, she said, "developers would consider a lot of this to be expensive fluff."
The "fluff" includes corkscrew-like wind turbines that would be situated on the roof and stacked vertically behind glass walls along Golden Gate Avenue.
Similarly, gridlike photovoltaic panels that "harvest" sunlight would be woven into the south-facing facade and into a 15,000-square-foot cap above the rooftop's mechanical systems.
Together, these elements will cost an estimated $3.1 million while generating 40 percent of the building's energy.
The initial goal was more ambitious.
"I wanted us to design a building completely unconnected to the electrical grid," said Anthony Irons, the PUC's deputy general manager.
That wasn't possible because room for solar panels is limited -- the roof is only so big, and nearby buildings cast shadows.
Still, the turbines and panels together should generate more than 100 percent of the tower's needs on days when there's a stiff wind and low temperatures.
The site, next to Trader Vic's restaurant, contains a state office building that closed because of damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The city purchased it for $1 and drew up plans to develop a City Hall annex, but work was stopped in 2002 because of budget concerns.
The PUC revived the project last year, seeing 525 Golden Gate as an ideal place to consolidate its 1,000 employees now working in rental space that costs the agency $9 million annually. In contrast, the estimated cost to house all employees in the new building is $3.8 million per year.
The basic design by Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz Architects and the engineering firm Arup remains the same: squat and restrained, glassy on the north but with generous amounts of Sierra white granite on the south and east sides in deference to City Hall and other Civic Center buildings.
The green tinge isn't new either -- the project was intended from the start to be a municipal showcase of sustainability.
But the delays have a bright side. The quest for energy-efficient buildings has fueled the creation of products and materials that five years ago were cost-prohibitive or nonexistent.
The initial design did not include wind turbines, for instance. The ones then on the market vibrated too much and came with windmill-like blades that kill passing birds.
Since then, Chicago manufacturer Aerotechure has devised a turbine -- one is installed outside the Randall Museum in San Francisco -- that is lightweight and generates power in slow-moving elegant swirls.
"Technology caught up with what we wanted to do all along," said Ned Kahn, a Bay Area artist who has been involved in the project from the start. "There's no vibration, they're inherently safe for birds -- but they're also beautiful."
The PUC project is just one example of how government has embraced green design, once a fringe movement.
Bay Area municipalities or counties -- including San Jose, Oakland, and Alameda and San Mateo counties -- now require that new public structures be built to standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council. At the federal level, the new General Services Administration tower near Civic Center includes operable windows and recycled concrete, though it lacks solar power and wind turbines.
The PUC's Irons was the city architect before joining the PUC. He oversaw the $316 million restoration of City Hall, from the marble in the lobby to the gold leaf on the dome.
"City Hall is the peoples' building ... it makes a statement of grandeur and importance and welcome," Irons said when asked to compare the two projects. "This building makes a different sort of statement. The world's a different place now, with different dangers and challenges. It's addressing a global issue."
The project will be funded by a combination of bonds sold against future rent savings, and the sale of surplus PUC property. Monthly water and wastewater rates will not be affected.
The building itself does not need approvals, since it fits within approved zoning. However, the PUC commission and the Board of Supervisors still must authorize the use of the bonds.
Commission members gave initial support to the approach on March 27. Irons said the agency hopes to take the project to the supervisors within the next month.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/13/PUC.TMP
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
munkyman
Apr 13, 2007, 7:17 AM
^^^ That building looks gorgeous. Hopefully they can build it, and hopefully it doesn't get waterred down through the planning process.
BTinSF
Apr 13, 2007, 8:23 AM
Various city government offices now occupy 30 Van Ness (Rite-Aid) and 1 South Van Ness (B of A). MUNI just moved into B of A within the past couple of years. I don't think the city is willing to give up any of these places for any time soon, but things could change. The same goes for other various locations occupied by the city, mostly located within the 85' and taller zones in the area. There are still plenty of other sites more ready for development.
Take note of two recent developments. One is immediately above :previous: . Another is the city's recent purchase of 1 South Van Ness and 1650 Mission. Combined, this will soon give the city 3 good-sized buildings in the Civic Center area which it will own. I don't think it would need to continue leasing space at 30 Van Ness if the owner wanted to redevelop the site.
Meanwhile, I am so delighted about the bolt of lightening from the blue known as 525 Golden Gate. For 25 years I've been looking at the ugly blank wall of the existing shambles of a building looming over Trader Vic's (and Stars before it). A decent looking and fully functioning building at that location will make a huge difference to Civic Center. Now if they could only find somebody wanting to develop the trashy, decrepit lots (occupied and unoccupied) across Golden Gate from this structure.
Reminiscence
Apr 13, 2007, 4:56 PM
525 Golden Gate is great news. I love that new building's design, and its specifications shock me. Plus, even without all that, its still way better than whats there now. :)
BTinSF
Apr 13, 2007, 5:08 PM
BizTimes for 4/13:
- Front page article on new PUC building (but nothing much new over what the Chron told us)
- Telephone Building at 140 new Montgomery is for sale and a number of high-power developers are looking at it, possibly as a condo conversion as well as modernization for offices.
- Coming soon to Yerba Buena Lane (between the Mariot and 4 Seasons): Hickey Freeman's 3rd retail store (besides th 2 in Manhattan), a wine tasting spot and a high end chocolate cafe' featuring Schoggi Swiss chocolate.
- Those 400 ft towers at Market & Van Ness are not quite a done deal after all. The Planning Dept. has that part of the plan "on hold" and is still looking into requiring a higher percentage of "affordable" units in them while the whole plan still has to be passed by the Supervisors where apparently there may be opposition to the towers.
- On March 15, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Turnberry's revised design for 45 Lansing St. (the third Rincon Hill condo tower) and Turnberry itself is said to be gearing up to start construction.
SFView
Apr 13, 2007, 5:16 PM
I believe that spaces designated for 1 South Van Ness and 1650 Mission are already filled. I know that for MUNI, it is already a tight squeeze. Planning is moving to 1650 Mission as of May 1, 2007. 525 Golden Gate is too far from related DBI and Planning offices at 1650 and 1680 Mission, MUNI offices at 1 South Van Ness, and Real Estate at 25 Van Ness for DPW Enginering offices at 30 Van Ness to be. 525 Golden Gate is probably fully designated with PUC space as well. The city was recently considering the AAA complex in and around 100 Van Ness, but if I am not mistaken, along with the city office tower at 10th and Market, that idea has been dropped.
BTinSF
Apr 16, 2007, 6:30 AM
The done deal isn't done (will it ever be?):
Market Street towers plan still faces fight
San Francisco Business Times - April 13, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
It took seven years, 51 public hearings, and a last-minute plea from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, but developers in the Market-Octavia neighborhood finally have a set of rules they can follow. At least for now.
On April 5, the Planning Commission passed the Market-Octavia Better Neighborhood plan, a piece of legislation covering 379 acres including Hayes Valley and portions of Mid-Market, Mission Dolores and Duboce Triangle. The plan could result in 4,000 more housing units over the next 20 years. It allows taller buildings and increased density near Van Ness Avenue and along Market Street, but reduces heights in areas like Hayes Valley.
Not all of the plan has been finalized. The Board of Supervisors still has to endorse it, and a key part of the plan -- which would allow for a half dozen 400-foot towers near the intersection of Market and Van Ness -- is on hold as the Planning Department looks into increasing the percentage of affordable units required on those sites.
Still, the vote was a historic moment for the San Francisco planning community, said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of SPUR. Metcalf said the plan, originally floated in 1999, was a response to the developer-driven planning of the late 1990s. "We saw the Better Neighborhoods planning process as a way to get away from project-by-project planning," said Metcalf.
For builder Brian Spiers the plan's passage gives him the confidence to go forward on his eight-story, 115-unit building at Market and Buchanan streets. The plan doesn't radically alter what Spiers can do, but it helps. But it gives him 15-foot ceilings on the ground floor retail, attractive for restaurants, and greater density for another 45 units.
Polaris Group Principal Chris Foley, who is working with developers on three Market-Octavia housing projects, said the commission's vote sends the right message.
"It tells the development community that we're actually in the business of building things," said Foley.
Whether that includes 400-foot towers remains to be seen. Planners argued that increasing heights around the desolate and dangerous intersection would calm traffic and bring thousands of new pedestrians to the sidewalks.
"If we lose tall buildings at the corner of Market and Van Ness, it would be really sad because it's got great transit, it's a very important corner in the city and a very logical place to go tall," Metcalf said. "If San Francisco wants to keep the Western neighborhoods free of new buildings, a very modest trade-off is to allow more height in places like Market and Van Ness."
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/04/16/story15.html?t=printable
SFView
Apr 16, 2007, 7:36 AM
Up to seven towers allowed including the existing AAA Tower, at roughly the same 400 foot height in one cluster? Even though this may be allowed, I think the city will want more varied heights. How about something even taller?
pseudolus
Apr 18, 2007, 6:01 AM
maybe not quite on topic but...
I was surprised how conservative this list is, especially since it was put together by architects. Then I read the comments....
Gems of the city: A list of S.F.'s top 25
John King
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Archit... San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Archit... San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Archit... San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Archit... More...
Put any group of 20 architects in a room and ask them to choose the buildings in their city that are of special significance, and I'll wager no two lists will be alike.
But when that opinionated mob is also the board of directors of the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects, its verdict is delivered with a certain gravitas.
<< Top 25 buildings: Share your opinions in Culture Blog >>
So say hello to the semiofficial list of San Francisco's top 25 buildings, divided neatly into five choices in five categories: religious, residential, commercial, historic and civic.
And let the second-guessing begin.
There are beloved landmarks such as the Palace of Fine Arts and controversial newcomers, including the steel-sheathed federal tower at Seventh and Mission streets. You've got a block of century-old homes for the wealthy across from the Presidio, and low-income apartment buildings on Sixth Street and in the Tenderloin.
There's the big-eared Transamerica Pyramid and the sublime Palace Hotel -- two very different icons from very different eras.
"Our goal was to find the gems in our city that can be enjoyed by both architects and the public," says Zigmund Rubel, president of the local chapter's board and a principal at the firm Anshen+Allen. "We also wanted a mixture of turn-of-the-century buildings and more contemporary works.
The list comes two months after the national AIA released the results of an online survey that produced what it calls "America's 150 favorite structures." Gimmicky as all get-out, but irresistible -- which is why the institute's Web site received more than 5 million hits in the next three days.
This list doesn't involve a public survey. Nor is it the result of a consultation with the San Francisco chapter's 2,300 members.
Instead, the board was prodded to take a stand by chapter Executive Director Margie O'Driscoll.
(Note: The chapter covers only San Francisco and Marin counties. That's why the rest of the Bay Area is ignored.)
"Our objective was pretty clear," O'Driscoll says. "We want to inspire people to look at buildings and think about them critically, in both a positive and negative sense."
O'Driscoll wanted a brazen batch of just five faves -- but architects are a breed that loves nothing more than to finesse details, so instead there are five discrete lists with five buildings each. The board gathered in March and started whittling away.
Many choices are irrefutable -- you can't fight City Hall, at least not Arthur Brown Jr.'s Beaux Arts masterpiece -- and other buildings deserve acclaim simply because they bring joy. For instance, the Conservatory of Flowers adds a magical whimsy to Golden Gate Park, even though the parts were assembled in 1878 from a kit shipped over from England.
Similarly, who can begrudge Bernard Maybeck's romantic Palace of Fine Arts? It's a revered survivor of the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition -- even though it happens to be fake, a 1960s concrete replica of the plaster original.
And this being San Francisco, there's a conscientious effort to be (architecturally) diverse. The Haas-Lilienthal House from 1886, the very embodiment of Victorian style, takes a bow; so does the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, a triumph of cool abstraction that opened in 2005.
We also see -- and I doubt this was the board's intent -- that San Francisco's allure lies in geography and neighborhood context as opposed to architectural innovation.
The Palace of the Legion of Honor is an exquisite 1916 knockoff of neo-classical Paris. The old Crown-Zellerbach Building at 1 Bush St. is an exquisite 1959 knockoff of the modern towers perfected by Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago and New York.
Aside from 1917's Hallidie Building with its glass curtain wall, you won't find design breakthroughs; the best buildings on the list distill what came before, as with 1 Bush St. and the Palace of the Legion of Honor.
The Federal Building and the de Young are welcome experiments by renowned outsiders. The same goes for 560 Mission St. -- a boxy blue tower from 2002 that shows how refined Cesar Pelli can be.
As for the second-guessing mentioned above, I'm thrilled to see Curran House and the Plaza Apartments on the list: Each of these young housing complexes is a humane example of high design for people with low incomes.
But where are San Francisco's jazzy office towers from the late 1920s? A skyscraper like George Kelham's Shell Building at 100 Bush St. has an intoxicating pizzazz you won't find at the Pyramid or 1 Bush.
Rubel concedes the inherent subjectivity of a list hammered out over a conference table in an hour of spirited debate.
"What we came up with is representative of San Francisco, and it's the result of consensus," Rubel says. "With more time, maybe we would have tweaked it a bit."
But why leave the tweaking to the professionals? Readers, step to the plate. Is this top 25 a set of masterpieces, or mistakes, or some of each? What's missing?
No need to stop at the county line, either; there's a whole Bay Area to explore and deplore. I'll pass along some of your responses on May 1.
TOP 25
The top 25 buildings in San Francisco, according to the board of directors of the San Francisco chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
Religious
Grace Cathedral, 1051 Taylor St., 1928, Lewis Hobart
St. Mary's Cathedral, 1111 Gough St., 1971, Pietro Belluschi, Pier Luigi Nervi and McSweeney, Ryan & Lee
Temple Emanu-el, 2 Lake St., 1926, Arthur Page Brown
Swedenborgian Church, 2107 Lyon St., 1894, Arthur Page Brown
First Unitarian Church, 1187 Franklin St., 1888, George Percy/1970, Callister Payne & Rosse
Residential
Plaza Apartments, Sixth and Howard streets, 2006, Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects and Paulett Taggart Architects
Curran House, 145 Taylor St., 2005, David Baker + Partners, Architects
3200 block of Pacific Avenue, houses from 1900 to 1913 designed by architects including Ernest Coxhead, Bernard Maybeck, Willis Polk and William Knowles
Russell House, 3778 Washington St., 1952, Erich Mendelsohn
Haas-Lilienthal House, 2007 Franklin St., 1886, Peter R. Schmidt
Commercial
San Francisco Federal Building, 90 Seventh St., 2007, Morphosis/SmithGroup
1 Bush St. (former Crown-Zellerbach Building), 1959, Skidmore Owings & Merrill and Hertzka & Knowles
Hallidie Building, 130 Sutter St., 1917, Willis Polk
Transamerica Pyramid, 600 Montgomery St., 1972, William Pereira
JPMorgan Chase Building, 560 Mission St., 2002, Cesar Pelli
Historic
Palace Hotel, 2 New Montgomery St., 1909, Trowbridge and Livingston
Circle Gallery, 140 Maiden Lane, 1948, Frank Lloyd Wright
Palace of Fine Arts, 3301 Lyon St., 1915, Bernard Maybeck
War Memorial Opera House and Veterans Building, Civic Center, 1932, Arthur Brown Jr. and G. Albert Lansburgh
Conservatory of Flowers, Golden Gate Park, 1878 (restoration architects, 2003: Architectural Resources Group)
Civic
M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, Golden Gate Park, 2005, Herzog & de Meuron and Fong & Chan Architects
City Hall, Civic Center, 1915, Bakewell & Brown
Yerba Buena Gardens: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, 1994, Fumihiko Maki; Yerba Buena Center for the Arts Theater, 1994, James Stewart Polshek; Metreon, 1999, SMWM, Gary Handel + Associates
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 151 Third St., 1995, Mario Botta, Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum
Palace of the Legion of Honor, Lincoln Park, 1916, George Applegarth
Source: American Institute of Architects
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/17/DDG1TP8JQJ1.DTL
Reminiscence
Apr 23, 2007, 4:24 PM
There has been recent talk about CPMC's grand plan for expansion / renovation, and of course, its already met with some resistance from nearby residents, classic NIMBYism at its best.
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5696/cpmcsitemaplq7.jpg
I completly support this plan, however, I do think the new parking garage facility (11 stories / 1700 new spaces ) is too much. Something around half of that, say 5 or 6 stories, would be more acceptable in my opinion.
See: http://www.phra-sf.org/CPMC.htm
craeg
Apr 23, 2007, 4:57 PM
There is an article in todays examiner about two towers planned for Post street around the corner from Whole foods - 1 250' and 1 150' I cant find the article online but it also gave a run down of other highrises planned for the area including a 30 story.
Reminiscence
Apr 23, 2007, 5:10 PM
... This the one you're talking about?
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6791/pinestreettowerjx0.jpg
Pine Street tower proposed
Apr 23, 2007 3:00 AM (7 hrs ago)
by Adam Martin, The Examiner
- SAN FRANCISCO -
The modest apartment buildings hunkering against the Pacific Heights slope just west of Van Ness may soon be dwarfed by a towering residential development slated to replace a row of one- and two-story commercial buildings.
The project, proposed by developer AF Evans, includes a seven-story building stretching from 1934 through 1690 Pine St. near Franklin Street, from which one 25-story and one 12-story tower would rise. The development would include about 14,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 282 residential units and 332 parking spaces in an underground garage, according to an initial planning report. Its tallest point, the 25-story western tower, would be 240 feet tall.
A draft environmental review of the project will take place in the coming months, with a written public comment period ending May 7.
According to the San Francisco Planning Department, buildings in the neighborhood range from one to 14 stories, but most are between two and four stories. The development would be the tallest in the area, but a number of other projects have been proposed nearby, including a 30-story residential tower at Post and Gough streets and a 20-story hospital bounded by Franklin Street, Post Street, Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard.
Planner Tammy Chan said the project has raised some concerns among residents. “People don’t want more residential. That’s what it comes down to,” she said.
How exactly the building, which would include commercial space on its ground level, would impact the neighborhood in terms of traffic, light and transit will be determined through the environmental review process that Chan will oversee.
Because the commercial space’s tenants have not been identified yet, the planning department will conduct the review as if a restaurant were to occupy the space. Of the likely candidates, a restaurant would incur the most personal trips during peak commute hours, Chan said.
While the building will tower over those in the immediate vicinity of Pacific Heights, it is not without precedent, said David Prowler, a spokesman for developer AF Evans. The 26-story Holiday Inn towers over Van Ness Avenue just a block away, and the San Francisco Towers on the other side of the 1600 block of Pine Street span the entire block.
“Frankly, I think a better design is taller, more slender buildings instead of bulky buildings that overpower Pine Street,” Prowler said. “The footprint of each of the towers is 10,000 square feet; that’s four San Francisco residential lots.” A lower building that came right up to the street, such as the opposing San Francisco Towers, would contain roughly the same amount of units, Prowler said, but would create a “canyon” effect on Pine Street.
Going up?
Proposed buildings in vicinity of Pine Street development:
» A 30-story residential tower proposed at Post Street between Gough and Octavia streets
» A 13-story residential building proposed at the southeast corner of Bush and Franklin streets
» A new California Pacific Medical Center campus proposed on Cathedral Hill, including a 20-story hospital on the block bounded by Franklin Street, Post Street, Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard
» A nine-story medical office building proposed at the northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Geary Boulevard
craeg
Apr 23, 2007, 5:13 PM
Yup, that's the one :)
fflint
Apr 23, 2007, 8:05 PM
“Frankly, I think a better design is taller, more slender buildings instead of bulky buildings that overpower Pine Street,” Prowler said. “The footprint of each of the towers is 10,000 square feet; that’s four San Francisco residential lots.” A lower building that came right up to the street, such as the opposing San Francisco Towers, would contain roughly the same amount of units, Prowler said, but would create a “canyon” effect on Pine Street.
Allow me a moment of heresy on SkyscraperPage--but for San Francisco residential areas, I think I prefer that "canyon" effect to skinny towers set back from the street. How will we ever get "eyes on the street" if everyone lives in a tower-in-a-park?
BTinSF
Apr 23, 2007, 9:46 PM
^^^Allow me a moment of extraordinary agreement, but ever since I visited Vancouver's West End (near Stanley Park) in the early 1990's, I've thought the same. I saw a lot of "towers in a park" buildings there and almost no street life.
To our Vancouver friends I say: Things may have changed since then in your town and I loved it anyway, but that's the way that part of it seemed to a visitor back then.
Back on topic, yeah, I think a vibrant street life depends on a street wall fronting directly on the sidewalks with retail/restaurants/businesses of all sorts. The "slender tower on a podium" where the podium constitutes the street wall can work, though.
fflint
Apr 23, 2007, 10:05 PM
From Ankrom Moisan Architects
http://www.amaa.com/portfolio/project/?category=housing&project=130&redir=L3BvcnRmb2xpby8/Izc=
935 Folsom – San Francisco, California
CLIENT GOAL: A condominium project in downtown San Francisco that responds to the diverse elements of the neighborhood.
DESIGN RESPONSE: 935 Folsom Street is an eight-story 69 unit condominium project in the SOMA (South of Market) neighborhood of San Francisco. The site is close to the downtown and three blocks from MoMA and Union Square. The building will be situated along Folsom Street, a retail thoroughfare. It is bounded by neighborhood alleyways on two other faces. This dramatic and dynamic difference in scale encourages the building design to go through a transition from its public facade to a more residential character along the quieter alleys. Ground floor retail is located along Folsom. Terraces overlook the quiet neighborhood streets in order to allow expanded views and greater solar access to the planted streetscape below.
http://www.amaa.com/_uploads/photo/project/130_lg1_935-Folsom_01.jpg
http://www.amaa.com/_uploads/photo/project/130_lg5_935-Folsom_05.jpg
There are more pics, and a bigger rendering, at the website.
BTinSF
Apr 23, 2007, 10:18 PM
^^^It seems like a whole lot of San Francisco, beyond Rincon Hill, is going to follow the 8-9 story residential mold. This hole in the ground at 829-831 Folsom (the next block) is also going to be a 9-story residential building:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2004-15/IMG_0721.jpg
Hearing of persons interested in or objecting to the Planning Commission by its Motion No. 16872 dated October 21, 2004, approving a conditional use authorization, Case No. 2003.0304C to: (1) Allow an 85-foot tall structure above the 40-foot base height under Planning Code Sections 263.11(b) and (e); (2) Allow dwelling units at a density greater than one unit per 200 square feet of lot area under Section 207.5; (3) Allow exceptions to the bulk limits of the 85-B Bulk District above 50 feet in height as stated in Planning Code Section 270 and pursuant to the Planning Code Section 271(a); (b) and (c); and (4) Provide off-street parking in excess of accessory amounts as defined in Planning Code Section 204.5 pursuant to Planning Code Section 157(a), (b), and (d). The site is within the RSD (Residential Service District), and is within a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District, and is subject to interim policies of the South of Market Housing/Mixed Use Overlay District per Resolution No. 16727, located at 829 Folsom Street, south side, between 4th and 5th Streets; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752. (Appellant: Hope Whitney, Farella Braun + Martel LLP, representing Yerba Buena Lofts Homeowners' Association.)
Source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/a121404.htm
Coriander
Apr 23, 2007, 11:41 PM
^^^Allow me a moment of extraordinary agreement, but ever since I visited Vancouver's West End (near Stanley Park) in the early 1990's, I've thought the same. I saw a lot of "towers in a park" buildings there and almost no street life.
To our Vancouver friends I say: Things may have changed since then in your town and I loved it anyway, but that's the way that part of it seemed to a visitor back then.
Back on topic, yeah, I think a vibrant street life depends on a street wall fronting directly on the sidewalks with retail/restaurants/businesses of all sorts. The "slender tower on a podium" where the podium constitutes the street wall can work, though.
Whatever its shortcomings, Vancouver's acceptance of vertical development resulted in a streetscape and street vibrancy that far surpassed its immediate history around that time. I would say as an outsider that to this day much of Vancouver can feel a little sterile and empty but the same can certainly be said of much of San Francisco. In spite of all the hype about San Francisco being a dense city (and I know many if not most like it just the way it is), much of San Francisco, including its "dense" districts, suffers in my opinion from fairly empty and quiet streets. After hearing visitors comment about how surprisingly sleep San Francisco is, I've taken outsiders to what locals consider lively areas (North Beach, Valencia, etc.) and been met with serious disappointment. Not that SF needs to be Las Vegas, but it could use a little more life and I hate to bring out the tired density saw but I think it could apply here. This is a central location. Let's add more people if possible.
The other thing is that I'm skeptical of following dogmatic urbanist rules, such as a streetwall being without question better than a slender tower or two set back from the street. Who knows? The context here might call for the latter.
BTinSF
Apr 24, 2007, 12:05 AM
^^^I confined my remark about Vancouver to a very specific and quite limited part of town--at a particular point in time--that I think illustrated the point I was making. It was not an effort to criticize Vancouver which, as I said, I love. Of course I realized I couldn't say anything even a bit critical of anywhere without bringing out the off-topic howls, but I thought I had to try because, really, I've never seen anywhere that better exemplified the "tower in a park" style of development--with it's plusses and minuses.
This thread isn't about Vancouver, so I'll just say the rest of that town is very different and is a different sytle of development. Still, in the area I was talking about, I saw NO ONE walking around. And that made sense because I saw almost nowhere to walk to--no retail and so on. Just a number of very nice-looking condo towers sitting amid landscaped grounds and on top of parking garages (from which an occasional car emerged). I was viewing all this from a bus going to Stanley Park by the way. I had no other reason to go there.
In San Francisco's historic residential areas, you will find neighborhood-serving retail on almost every block (usually on the corner--often a very good restaurant that draws customers from all over the city) and you will find a "neighborhood shopping street" within a few blocks at most. You will see people walking--if only because they had to park 3 or 4 blocks from home. You will also see people out front of their single family zero-lot-line homes (or flats) washing the car and/or conversing with neighbors. In the Sunset and a few other areas that more closely resemble a suburb than the rest of San Francisco, though, you will indeed find vacant sidewalks to some extent but these are not "dense" areas--they are single family homes, with yards, of post-WW II vintage.
On the other hand, so far I think there is reason for concern about Rincon Hill. Supposedly Folsom St. is to be the "neighborhood shopping" street of that area, but it seems that Folsom east of 2nd will be the last part of the area to actually be developed (partly because CalTrans is still using a number of the blocks). And so for some time, we will have the condo towers, at least some of them, with very little reason to walk around other than walking the dog.
fflint
Apr 24, 2007, 12:07 AM
The context of Pacific Heights, the urban fabric there, is low- to mid-rise, uniformly at the street. IMO it calls for more of the same.
I'm all for increasing density and vibrancy in the city's healthy inner neighborhoods, but not at the expense of San Francisco's human-scaled, street-centric urban form. The tower-in-the-park approach brings questionable value to any San Francisco locale, and certainly isn't appropriate for established SF neighborhoods. I don't see how Vancouverization would bring any increase in density, pedestrian activity or overall vibrancy that cannot be achieved some other way.
pseudolus
Apr 24, 2007, 12:45 AM
http://www.amaa.com/_uploads/photo/project/130_lg1_935-Folsom_01.jpg
and not to mention convenient access to porn...
Coriander
Apr 24, 2007, 3:05 AM
^^^I confined my remark about Vancouver to a very specific and quite limited part of town--at a particular point in time--that I think illustrated the point I was making. It was not an effort to criticize Vancouver which, as I said, I love. Of course I realized I couldn't say anything even a bit critical of anywhere without bringing out the off-topic howls, but I thought I had to try because, really, I've never seen anywhere that better exemplified the "tower in a park" style of development--with it's plusses and minuses. This thread isn't about Vancouver, so I'll just say the rest of that town is very different and is a different sytle of development. Still, in the area I was talking about, I saw NO ONE walking around. And that made sense because I saw almost nowhere to walk to--no retail and so on. Just a number of very nice-looking condo towers sitting amid landscaped grounds and on top of parking garages (from which an occasional car emerged). I was viewing all this from a bus going to Stanley Park by the way. I had no other reason to go there.
On the other hand, so far I think there is reason for concern about Rincon Hill. Supposedly Folsom St. is to be the "neighborhood shopping" street of that area, but it seems that Folsom east of 2nd will be the last part of the area to actually be developed (partly because CalTrans is still using a number of the blocks). And so for some time, we will have the condo towers, at least some of them, with very little reason to walk around other than walking the dog.
Eh, kind of an undeserved/odd response, but I'll go with it just to clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding. I hate to waste space on the forum with this but the notion that mentioning Vancouver in a thread about the Bay Area is "off-topic" seems to epitomize SF's supposed insular attitude, but I'm sure everybody here is beyond that, so I must be misunderstanding something myself. But then I don't know how else to explain why a comparative judgment, which is perfectly relevant (SF and Vancouver obviously share some developmental issues), is suddenly deemed "off-topic" or a "howl" both of which are kind of demeaning and dismissive. I did not read your comment as a slight on Vancouver and would not care if it were as I have no attachments to the city and, most importantly, wish people were a little more free to express more directly critical opinions on this forum in the first place.
I personally think San Francisco is far more charming than Vancouver and agree with fflint that we should reject developments that come "at the expense of San Francisco's human-scaled, street-centric urban form." But I'd ask fflint, is one or two towers in a low to mid-rise area coming at the expense of street-centric urban form? I personally don't think so but perhaps it is. Is it a column or two of shadows at certain hours that we fear? This is San Francisco, not Haussmann's Paris. The streetscape is already jumbled. The article mentions the hideous Holiday Inn towers on Van Ness Avenue, which is already right there. How human-scaled is that? I maintain that San Francisco could use more people on its streets and I'm not talking about its less dense outer reaches. If a tall building here and there can bring that energy, and it isn't hideous, why not?
How is practically anything that rises up out of low-rise San Francisco, even among a group of people who claim to support density, evocative of Vancouverization/ Manhattanization? It's amazing. BTinSF mentions Rincon Hill. Is it not an improvement? All I wanted to say in this response in the first place is that Vancouver has improved significantly over the years and I think there's no question that's happening or has happened in parts of San Francisco recently...Rincon Hill, imo, is rising in every respect and that's a good thing. I would rather see people out walking their dogs than nothing at all and I don't see why we shouldn't accept that it will take some time for shopping and other amenities to appear organically over time. You cannot plan and develop every last detail.
BTinSF
Apr 24, 2007, 3:55 AM
How is practically anything that rises up out of low-rise San Francisco, even among a group of people who claim to support density, evocative of Vancouverization/ Manhattanization? It's amazing. BTinSF mentions Rincon Hill. Is it not an improvement? All I wanted to say in this response in the first place is that Vancouver has improved significantly over the years and I think there's no question that's happening or has happened in parts of San Francisco recently...Rincon Hill, imo, is rising in every respect and that's a good thing. I would rather see people out walking their dogs than nothing at all and I don't see why we shouldn't accept that it will take some time for shopping and other amenities to appear organically over time. You cannot plan and develop every last detail.
I thought you were launching into a defense against what I did not intend as an attack on Vancouver. If I was wrong, I apologize. But I still think your view of San Francisco's established residential neighborhood streets as having few walkers is wrong.
Now then:
1. "Manhattanization" is not a bad word to me. I like it--the more the better. You won't see a landscaped lawn surrounding any of Manhattan's highrises (the one "sort of" exception I can recall being the original World Trade Center towers which sat, not in a lawn but in a hardscaped plaza). I'm sure not anti-highrise. Fflint will speak for himself, but I didn't read anything he said as being anti-highrise either. What I'm against is a particular type of highrise, the only SF example of which I can think is the old Crown-Zellerbach Building on Market St. (the one where Etrade sits in a smaller, round separate structure). I like that building itself, by the way, but I wish it wasn't isolated in the middle of its lot the way it is--and that's the feature I don't want to see more of.
2. Rincon Hill will be an "improvement" if its development proceeds as the Planning Department has planned it--with, in fact, some retail and neighborhood-serving amenities along Folsom. I accept that the full realization will take time, but my concern is that in San Francisco, with every building fought over tooth and claw and the political climate waxing and waning, the vision we have now for that area could be aborted or bastardized before completion at any point. Only time will tell if it will be completed and if it "works" in the sense of creating a pedestrian-friendly "neighborhood" that attracts even those of us who don't live there as Noe Valley or the Richmond do.
3. Actually, I'd prefer a little less planning in one respect. I like areas where some of the old is left and where the businesses that take root are indigenous and spontaneous. Others have mentioned in other threads that a problem with "all new" neighborhoods like Mission Bay is that, at first, all the retail tends to be chains and the developers even plan for and make prior commitments for things like super markets. I hope Rincon Hill makes room for a little more spontaneity than that--maybe some smaller lots left vacant among the towers.
4. I also like "miniparks" such as at 560 Mission or 199 Fremont, but those buildings still front directly on the sidewalk and participate in the street wall in spite of making room for a bit of landscaping and public open space. Opera Plaza, where I live, does as well.
viewguysf
Apr 24, 2007, 4:49 AM
What I'm against is a particular type of highrise, the only SF example of which I can think is the old Crown-Zellerbach Building on Market St. (the one where Etrade sits in a smaller, round separate structure). I like that building itself, by the way, but I wish it wasn't isolated in the middle of its lot the way it is--and that's the feature I don't want to see more of.
I have to disagree with you--this building is in a stunning setting that brings welcome relief to the rows of ultra boring concrete and/or cheap looking boxes that line Market and some surrounding streets. The small round structure was originally a bank and looks very cool now with its e-trade red high tech interior. I think that the whole block looks great, all the way around.
BTinSF
Apr 24, 2007, 7:18 AM
^^^My problem with it is not the way it looks which, I admit, is pleasant. It's the effect it has on the streetscape. Basically, there's not much there to attract the interest of the average passer-by not doing business inside. If all the buildings along Market were set apart from the sidewalk like this, the sidewalks of Market St. would be pretty deserted rather than busy as they are.
fflint
Apr 24, 2007, 8:45 AM
I personally think San Francisco is far more charming than Vancouver and agree with fflint that we should reject developments that come "at the expense of San Francisco's human-scaled, street-centric urban form." But I'd ask fflint, is one or two towers in a low to mid-rise area coming at the expense of street-centric urban form?
That would depend, of course, on the actual design of the towers in question.
The article mentions the hideous Holiday Inn towers on Van Ness Avenue, which is already right there. How human-scaled is that?
It isn't human-scaled at all. Adding other, similarly-scaled buildings would only compound that problem there. Fortunately, the mistake was made on a major arterial and not on a narrower neighborhood street.
There are some aspects of old San Francisco that are worth preserving, the scale and continuity of the urban fabric in the established neighborhoods among them.
I maintain that San Francisco could use more people on its streets and I'm not talking about its less dense outer reaches. If a tall building here and there can bring that energy, and it isn't hideous, why not?
Even if I agreed San Francisco "could use more people on its streets" (as if there were some sort of pedestrian shortage, or there should not be quieter parts of the city), I would disagree we should build skyscrapers "here and there" in San Francisco's established residential neighborhoods. Why? Because I think that would be unsightly, and more importantly, it is not obviously true your proposal would bring about the desired effect--which itself is of dubious value--anyway.
You seem to assume skyscrapers would necessarily provide higher densities (and thus more pedestrians) than more traditional SF developments (lower-rise, higher ground coverage, fidelity to the streetwall), but that is not obviously true. It is certainly not the case with the Pine Street proposal, as the article makes clear: "A lower building that came right up to the street, such as the opposing San Francisco Towers, would contain roughly the same amount of units, Prowler said, but would create a 'canyon' effect on Pine Street." Myself, I prefer the canyon effect. Streetwalls create more complete outdoor 'rooms', as J Church once called them, and buildings built at the street put more eyes on the street (which, as Jane Jacobs noted, enhances neighborhood safety). The tower-in-the-park dissolves the walls of the 'outdoor room,' and takes eyes off the street. Thus, given the densities would be the same either way, I see no reason to favor constructing random highrises like that proposed for Pine Street in established low-rise SF residential neighborhoods.
Not only do I question your claim there is a problem, but I challenge the effectiveness and value of your supposed solution.
BTinSF mentions Rincon Hill. Is it not an improvement?
Are the new towers in Rincon Hill being built in an established residential neighborhood? No. That area was light industry and parking lots, which is precisely why the new towers have been allowed. Rincon Hill is the right kind of place for new skyscrapers in San Francisco.
craeg
Apr 24, 2007, 5:47 PM
The stretch of block that these buildings are on has been almost entirely vacant for as long as I have lived in San francisco. In fact, literally the day before I caught this article, I walked by the site on my way to whole paycheck and thought it was really a shame that so many sites in the van ness corridor just sit empty year after year.
I'll wait to see the rendering before I pass judgement on the project, but my initial feelings are positive on the proposal.
There is not much of a neighborhood in the area, and there are buildings in the immediate vicinity which are just as tall. Street life in the area is pretty abysmal though I think thats due more to the brutal wind which howls through the area. I'm in the area quite frequently, and you never see lots of people walking on gough.
condodweller
Apr 25, 2007, 8:09 AM
The stretch of block that these buildings are on has been almost entirely vacant for as long as I have lived in San francisco. In fact, literally the day before I caught this article, I walked by the site on my way to whole paycheck and thought it was really a shame that so many sites in the van ness corridor just sit empty year after year.
I'll wait to see the rendering before I pass judgement on the project, but my initial feelings are positive on the proposal.
There is not much of a neighborhood in the area, and there are buildings in the immediate vicinity which are just as tall. Street life in the area is pretty abysmal though I think thats due more to the brutal wind which howls through the area. I'm in the area quite frequently, and you never see lots of people walking on gough.
Well, you can't have been living here too long, as the Deovlet & Sons furniture store only went vacant about a year ago after decades of business at this location. I would wager that it went vacant, and was never leased again, precisely because of the planned towers n question. In any event, I agree with Fflint and BTinSF on this -- there is no particular reason for towers on this block. There is no particular lack of pedestrian traffic, and this neighborhood is not in blight. The Holiday Inn is on Van Ness Ave -- an extremely busy thoroughfare (officially Hwy. 101) that warrants high density. Not so Pine Street. And, while the wind may howl up Gough (largely around St. Mary's cathedral, by Geary), it does not howl up Pine. This area could be better served by providing neighborhood retail amenities (sorely lacking) for the existing residences (on Gough), rather than increasing density. The renderings can be found here (http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/2004_0764_1634pineFinal%20NOPIS.pdf).
BTinSF
Apr 25, 2007, 8:30 AM
This area could be better served by providing neighborhood retail amenities (sorely lacking) for the existing residences (on Gough), rather than increasing density.
Hey, with luck "we" will be getting a Trader Joes at Sutter and Van Ness--the sooner the better.
By the way, you are right about the lack of blight. There is one long-time vacant retail space along Van Ness that I can recall, the former Honda motorcycle dealership at Eddy. The other vacancies that come to mind stemmed from the buildings being slated for demolition and redevelopment (which is happening now in the 700 and 800 blocks of Van Ness). There has been some fairly high turnover such as in the retail spaces of Daniel Burnham Court and one or two of the other newer condo buildings, but ever more people living in the Van Ness corridor is likely to help stablize the retail and other "amenities".
By the way, I suspect you are concerned about your view being obstructed by new towers on Pine and I can't blame you since I'm probably about to lose mine by development on Franklin, but I'm not opposed to towers that include a podium with retail storefronts along Pine. What I don't like is what fflint called "tower in a park" with nothing but landscaping along the sidewalk and a tower set in the middle of the lot, no retail. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind something lower and more bulky a la San Francisco Towers either, "canyon" effect and all. I just hate to see lots within a block or two of one of San Francisco's best-served transit corridors under-developed with 5 or 6-story cheaply-constructed stucco buildings like they put up at Van Ness and Ellis. The Van Ness corridor SHOULD be dense and it should be better quality construction.
PS--Looks like the gas station is staying. THAT is a real misuse of Van Ness frontage.
craeg
Apr 25, 2007, 4:55 PM
Well, you can't have been living here too long, as the Deovlet & Sons furniture store only went vacant about a year ago after decades of business at this location. I would wager that it went vacant, and was never leased again, precisely because of the planned towers n question.
Thanks for the smarm. Funny you think it closed a year ago - and there is a mister sf site from 2003 listing this exact store as a "Farewell Favorite"
http://www.mistersf.com/archive/index.html?archive131.htm
Click the name for the date.
I dont know many people who think that Van Ness isnt blighted with the high vacancy rate and number of buildings that have been sitting vacant for literally years. I suppose you feel that a block anchored by a gas station on one side and a parking lot on the other is the best possible use.
BTinSF
Apr 25, 2007, 5:33 PM
I dont know many people who think that Van Ness isnt blighted with the high vacancy rate and number of buildings that have been sitting vacant for literally years.
Craeg: A "smarmless" disagreement (I hope).
Can you specify some "buildings sitting vacant for literally years" you are referring to? I ask because what condodweller said is true--there's quite a lot of development planned along Van Ness and so a number of storefronts are vacant or have not been rented recently because the buildings they are in are scheduled for demolition. Symphony Towers just went up in one problematic location. Some lowrise storefronts in the next block (the 800 block) that were "for rent" for some time have now been torn down and an 8 or 9-story apartment building is going up (and if you track down the "for rent" space--I think it actually was referring to space in the new building). Another such building with a Trader Joe's will replace the old Galaxy Theater, hopefully soon.
Yes, there has been some turnover, partly because of inadequately capitalized or misconceived businesses, I suspect. They never did find a successful restaurant (or whatever) for the lobby of the AMC 1000. Daniel Burnham Court has a history of high turnover in its retail locations. The former Jeremiah Tower restaurant space at 690 Van Ness has turned over several times since Jeremiah bailed (I hope Naan 'n Curry stays--I love Indian food). One or two of the new buildings have been slow to rent out their space, partly because people like me who live along Van Ness have loudly argued, "No more fast food".
And I mentioned the one long-term vacancy--the Honda motorcycle space at Eddy--which is an unusual configuration and probably very hard to rent or to modify since it's an architecturally significant building.
But with all the new building which will bring new residents (and new Homeowners Associations to keep watch), I just don't see "blight".
condodweller
Apr 25, 2007, 5:43 PM
Thanks for the smarm. Funny you think it closed a year ago - and there is a mister sf site from 2003 listing this exact store as a "Farewell Favorite"
http://www.mistersf.com/archive/index.html?archive131.htm
Click the name for the date.
I dont know many people who think that Van Ness isnt blighted with the high vacancy rate and number of buildings that have been sitting vacant for literally years. I suppose you feel that a block anchored by a gas station on one side and a parking lot on the other is the best possible use.
Time flies! Although, I think Deovlet had their "going out of business" signs up for quite some time before they actually closed. No, vacant buildings are not the best use, but neither is this Van Ness Ave -- it is Pine Street. These buildings are probably vacant because the developer saw no reason to rent them out pending their tear-down (plans like this don't happen overnight -- the developers surely had options to buy the property for some time), not because there is no demand for that sort of space (same thing is happening to the row of buildings on Geary, just below Van Ness, where the California Pacific medical office building is planned -- they are not being re-rented after being vacated). This sort of development, with the addition of retail space, would be excellent for Van Ness, whereas a lower rise development, also with some retail space, would be excellent for Pine St.
craeg
Apr 25, 2007, 7:28 PM
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&msa=0&hl=en&msid=110019376444549032326.000001122a149c3f25d86
fflint
Apr 25, 2007, 8:06 PM
There is something about the Van Ness corridor that just hasn't clicked. It has all the makings of a grand metropolitan boulevard--some truly gorgeous architecture; ample room for street furniture and plantings, elegant medians and wide sidewalks; a solid (if imperfect) streetwall; a good mix of commercial activity, with dense residential neighborhoods on either side; 24-hour public transit. Is it the high auto and truck traffic that keeps Van Ness down?
craeg
Apr 25, 2007, 8:22 PM
I think so. The state of public transit on Van Ness is really pretty poor. If you look at it objectively, it shares a lot of the same problems as Lombard in the Marina. The sidewalk traffic has gone done quite a bit in the last few years as MUNI has declined. This is evident in the high turnover, and spaces which have sat vacant. The few businesses which are able to stay open on upper van ness seem to be the ones that include parking on site.
EastBayHardCore
Apr 25, 2007, 8:56 PM
I think that ugly median has something to do with it too, it really makes the other side of the street feel far away.
condodweller
Apr 25, 2007, 8:58 PM
I remember talk from the Supervisors and (then Mayor) Feinstein, back in the '80s, about making Van Ness the "Champs Elysees" of SF by cutting down traffic and making it more pedestrian and transit friendly. During the intervening 20 years, I think the only real improvement has been the installation of more street trees. Ah, SF -- The City that Knows How!
Still, I think the Ave would improve with more housing, which might attract more retail. Most of the new housing in the area has been geared towards seniors who don't get out much, but that might change with the Symphony Towers, etc...
BTinSF
Apr 26, 2007, 12:19 AM
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF-8&msa=0&hl=en&msid=110019376444549032326.000001122a149c3f25d86
In printed out your map. When I get back to town next week, I'll take a hike up Van Ness and see what you're talking about. I'm much less familiar with the part north of California and I've been gone for 6 months so I'm not sure what may have become vacant since I've been away. The Good Guys has been in trouble for some time--they can't compete with Best Buy. Niether can Circuit City. Their closing it not the fault of Van Ness, it's the fault of their inept management.
At my end of the street, parking lots at Ellis and Geary (next to Tommy's) have recently been developed. So have the opposite corner of Ellis and now it's about to be 3 of the 4 corners. Stuff near the corner of Geary is probably all in flux because of the CA Pacific development (I really hope they don't leave the Cathedral Hill Hotel vacant for an extended period).
BTinSF
Apr 26, 2007, 12:29 AM
I remember talk from the Supervisors and (then Mayor) Feinstein, back in the '80s, about making Van Ness the "Champs Elysees" of SF by cutting down traffic and making it more pedestrian and transit friendly. During the intervening 20 years, I think the only real improvement has been the installation of more street trees. Ah, SF -- The City that Knows How!
Still, I think the Ave would improve with more housing, which might attract more retail. Most of the new housing in the area has been geared towards seniors who don't get out much, but that might change with the Symphony Towers, etc...
Given that Van Ness is state Highway 101 in SF, isn't the city's ability to modify it rather limited? I've even been wondering how they can do the BRT but it doesn't seem to be stopping that.
As for the trees, FINALLY the city has conceeded that the sycamores (also called London Plane Trees) they required for decades won't grow on SF windy medians and most sidewalks and began to allow other species that have a chance.
One other improvement you're forgetting has been the corner "bubbles"--those projections of the sidewalk out one lane making the street 2 lanes less wide at the corners and thus easier to get across before the light changes.
There have been 2 senior housing projects--SF Towers and the one next to Tommy's--but several other all-comers projects (both near the corner of Ellis). Somewhat earlier, there was the condoization of the AMC 1000 building. But I think putting life-care housing near what I hope will someday be CA Pacific Medical Center makes sense.
Personally, I wish they'd can the cruddy old street lamps and put in Market St. style ones.
innov8
Apr 26, 2007, 9:48 PM
KFM winds down first phase of Bay Bridge
Thursday, April 26
With the Skyway section nearly complete, all the heavy-lifting equipment involved in the first phase of the Bay Bridge Project are being disassembled and sent down the road or railway to the next job. Among them are the Derrick Barge (DB) General and the Hakken, which left last month for Seattle, Wash., and will soon travel to a new project in Alaska.
Along with the heavy-lifters, many of the Local 3 Operating Engineers with the jointventure partnership of Kiewit, FCI and Manson (KFM) have also moved away from the waterfront to other projects, though some members are still working in the KFM yard on the Oakland side of the bridge, and some are putting finishing touches on the Skyway. Here’s a snapshot look at these members, the heavy-lifters and the astounding results of their work:
Phase-one facts
• Phase one: Involves constructing the bridge’s parallel road decks, called the Skyway
• Project cost: $1.3 billion
• Start date: 2002
• Completion date: 2007
• Unique structural features: Skyway decks are composed of the world’s largest pre-cast concrete segments – some standing three-stories high
• Skyway construction: Kiewit, FCI, Manson (KFM)
http://www.oe3.org/publications/apr_07/eng_news/main2.html
BTinSF
Apr 27, 2007, 4:54 PM
I'm a little disappointed by this, but BizTimes is reporting that Urban realty is reducing the height of its planned development on mid-Market between 5th and 6th from 10 stories to 5 and eliminating the residential compenent. No residential means an additional 60,000 sq. ft of retail for a total of 265,000 which they definitely plan to focus on the "discount" and/or lower end market. There will also be less parking: 211 spaces vs 346.
This is the spot where it has been specualted there could be a Target, but no leases have been signed. The hope is to get Planning Commission approval in 2008.
BTinSF
Apr 27, 2007, 5:01 PM
BizTimes is saying that Pulte Homes is dropping plans for a condo development at the site of the SF Tennis Club because such a development conflicts with the wishes of the Western SOMA Task Force.
The Tennis Club advocates now intend to follow up their victory by pushing the Supes to pass an ordinance saying any development on the site of a recreational facility would have to replace the facilities "in kind". I wonder if that means, for example, that the buildings planned for the site of the golf driving range in Mission bay would have to have a driving range on the roof? :haha:
Granola city indeed.
BTinSF
Apr 27, 2007, 5:11 PM
Been wondering, as I have, what's to happen to 875 Howard (across the street from the Intercontinental Hotel) once the CA Academy of Sciences moves back to its new Golden Gate Park home? It's going to become "SOMA Square" with ground floor retail and office above courtesy of TMG Partners according to BizTimes.
BTinSF
Apr 27, 2007, 5:24 PM
The Mayor signed off on the closure of the Jessie St. cut-through from 5th St to Mint St. on April 20, so now the $3.5M construction of "Mint Plaza" will begin, possibly by May 21. It will feature 3 restaurants, each with 1000 sq. ft of outdoor seating. One of the restaurants will be Chez Papa which will begin its buildout in June.
Simultaneously, sales are beginning of 52 live-work condos along the plaza.
Source: BizTimes
The_Analyst
Apr 27, 2007, 6:03 PM
Given that Van Ness is state Highway 101 in SF, isn't the city's ability to modify it rather limited?
That's what I was thinking, too. But not just jurisdictionally. Like it or not, getting from 101 Freeway to the Golden Gate Bridge presents few options than Van Ness/Lombard. Doing anything to slow or restrict traffic any more would cause significant backups and probably force more traffic onto parallel streets (which is hardly desirable).
BTinSF
Apr 27, 2007, 6:31 PM
^^^Well, actually even though I technically live on Van Ness (that's my address, but my condo faces Franklin), I almost never drive on it. I use Franklin or Gough and sometimes even Polk or Larkin. Van Ness traffic is the pits.
Reminiscence
Apr 30, 2007, 10:40 PM
May's approximate progress:
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/2729/sfdiagramlf6.gif
craeg
May 3, 2007, 6:35 PM
From socketsite:
http://www.socketsite.com/SOM%20Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/05/som_design_and_details_for_300_condominiums_on_a_hill.html
SocketSite™
San Francisco real estate tips, trends and the local scoop: "Plug In" to SocketSite™
May 3, 2007
Seven Hundred Fewer Condos In The San Francisco Pipeline
Speaking of supply and demand, over the past month at least 700 potential condominiums have been pulled from the San Francisco housing pipeline (and our Complete Inventory Index).
The dead projects range from Pulte’s abandonment of plans to raze the San Francisco Tennis Club and build ~500 condos (“Pulte’s decision was driven by ongoing discussions with the Western SoMa Task Force, a neighborhood planning group that is studying rezoning in the area…”), to Ray Tonsing’s decision not to convert 153 Kearny from office space into the approved 45 condominium lofts (think "growing tech companies paying more for downtown space").
And then there’s Urban Realty’s decision to drop 189 potential condominiums from their Mid-Market development on Market Street between fifth and sixth. Now exclusively slated for 265,000 of retail, it’s this property that has been at the center of “Target in the city” rumors for quite some time. Perhaps a plugged-in reader would be willing to share the inside scoop...
∙ SocketSite’s Complete Inventory Index (CII): Q1 2007 [SocketSite]
∙ First Game Pulte (But Many Sets To Go) [SocketSite]
∙ Pulte drops condo plan for S.F. tennis club site [Business Times]
∙ Big Mid-Market project gets housing lopped off [Business Times]
Readers' Comments (3) | Permalink | Email Story | Filed under: Commercial, Neighborhoods, New Developments
SOM Design And Details For 300 Condominiums On A Hill
The Skidmore, Owings and Merrill design for a proposed 38-story and 300 unit condominium development across from St. Mary’s Cathedral has been unveiled. The glass-walled oval tower would replace the current Cathedral Hill Plaza Athletic Club swimming pool and tennis courts (the swimming pool would be moved underground; the tennis courts, not so much) and would include five floors of below grade parking (one space per unit).
BTinSF
May 5, 2007, 12:26 AM
Have you been concerned as I have about the TransAmerica Building being lonely, sitting there as it does somewhat away from the rest of the skyline? Well, it may be about to get a companion.
BizTimes says Lowe Enterprises and TB owner Aegon are going to put up a slender, glassy 38-story tower next door and also both expand the redwood grove and donate it to the city. The story goes on to say that this will require a variance of the 200 ft. height limit (it would be almost twice that tall) but that seems likely to happen because the Planning Department has been asking them to make the tower more slender, on a smaller footprint, allowing a substantial expansion of the grove. Previously, they had come up with a squatter but conforming design. On the other hand, Aaron Peskin, in whose district the lot sits, reiterated he supports housing on the site but, when asked about the height, said, "I don't know--we'll see what the neighborhood says." That, of course, is both good and bad: He didn't take an immediate negative stand, but we aren't likely to find a "neighborhood" in SF that supports a new highrise in its midst.
Reminiscence
May 5, 2007, 10:40 PM
This is an interesting proposal. I like the idea of expanding the redwood grove and donating it to the city. It should be at least double of the current height limit, probably around 400', or a little less than half of the TAP. I'd like to see some renderings to determine what they mean by "slender" and "glassy".
BTinSF
May 6, 2007, 3:58 AM
there’s Urban Realty’s decision to drop 189 potential condominiums from their Mid-Market development on Market Street between fifth and sixth. Now exclusively slated for 265,000 of retail, it’s this property that has been at the center of “Target in the city” rumors for quite some time. Perhaps a plugged-in reader would be willing to share the inside scoop...
I posted the info from the Socketsite source (SF BizTimes) above last week: post #756. Here's the actual article:
Big Mid-Market project gets housing lopped off
San Francisco Business Times - April 27, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Urban Realty has scaled back plans to develop a key parcel next to the new Westfield San Francisco Centre, dropping 189 housing units in favor of a project that will feature only retail.
The original 10-story development will be reduced to a five-story, 90-foot structure with 265,000 square feet of retail. While the new design represents a 60,000-square-foot increase in retail, the overall project is smaller and the amount of parking proposed has been reduced from 346 spaces to 211 spaces, according to David Rhoades, a principal with Urban Realty.
"Market Street has historically been a retail corridor, and Urban Realty wants to stay with that traditional use," said Rhoades. "We believe that a value-based retail project at this important location will best serve the existing and future residents of the community and the city at large."
With Westfield and Forest City's new Bloomingdale's-anchored center buzzing with shoppers, the Urban Realty project is seen as catalyst that will spark a revival of a stretch of Market Street between Fifth and Seventh streets long resistant to change.
The Urban Realty proposal comes soon after the city Planning Commission signed off on a number of large residential projects farther west along Market Street, including the 1,900-unit Trinity Plaza and the 720-unit Crescent Heights towers at 10th and Market streets.
In contrast to the deluxe offerings in the new Westfield Centre, Urban Realty's project will focus on retail that "caters to San Francisco's full-economic spectrum," said Rhoades.
"The tenants at Urban Realty's other Market Street properties include Marshalls and Ross, and we want to expand upon that base in order to serve working San Franciscans on the city's most important retail corridor," said Rhoades.
While retail sources have speculated that the property would make a perfect fit for Target, no leases have been signed. Johnson Hoke has been hired to lease the property.
The new Mid-Market complex calls for razing three small buildings -- 935-939 Market St., 941-945 Market and 947-965 Market.
Over a two-year period in 2005 and 2006 Urban Realty quietly assembled the two-acre Market Street site, acquiring nine properties in seven off-market transactions. The developer, which is financially backed by Connecticut-based Commonfund, also owns 901 Market St., 799 Market St., and properties in Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles and Sacramento. The $35 billion Commonfund invests money for private colleges and foundations.
Urban Realty is hoping to file its draft environmental impact report this summer and go before the Planning Commission in early 2008.
jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/04/30/story4.html?t=printable
BTinSF
May 6, 2007, 4:05 AM
BizTimes says Lowe Enterprises and TB owner Aegon are going to put up a slender, glassy 38-story tower
Here's the article:
Condos to rise beside Pyramid
Aegon taps Lowe for 38-story tower
San Francisco Business Times - May 4, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Story Images
Transamerica Pyramid owner Aegon Group has tapped Lowe Enterprises to develop a 38-story condo tower on a vacant lot adjacent to the financial district landmark.
Lowe is proposing a 248-unit building that would trigger a redesign of the Pyramid Center, a complex that includes the Transamerica Pyramid, 505 Sansome St. and Redwood Park, the half-acre cluster of soaring redwoods at the northern edge of the financial district. Under the proposed project, the gated redwood grove would be expanded and opened up to the public, while ownership of the park would be transferred to the city. In addition, Mark Twain Alley, a dead-end which cuts from Sansome Street into the park, would be converted into a pedestrian piazza, with ground-floor restaurants spilling out from the new condo tower and other buildings along the alley.
Andy Segal, senior vice president for Lowe Enterprises Real Estate Group, said the project "will offer desirable residences and commercial space while also contributing to the city's long-term housing, transportation and urban park goals.
"We're trying to create a real neat urban experience on the ground, to maximize the value of the redwoods and bring Mark Twain (Alley) to life," said Segal.
The proposed 38-story height is nearly twice as tall as Aegon originally contemplated when looking at the site in 2005, and a variance would be needed to build beyond the site's 200-foot height limit. Project architect Jeffrey Heller of HellerManus Architects said the Planning Department has pushed for a taller, more slender design, which would free up space on the ground for the expansion of Redwood Park.
In designing a building next to San Francisco's most iconic highrise, Heller said the design team faces a sensitive balancing act of being "respectful" while still coming up with an interesting building. Segal said the new structure would play a "suitable supporting role to the Pyramid." The design is still in its early stages.
"One thing you sure don't want to do is mimic the Pyramid," said Heller. "The building could be glassier, but there is a strong feeling that we don't take attention away from the Transamerica."
While thousands of units are under construction South of Market, the proposed tower at 555 Washington St. represents a rare chance to increase density on the edge of the north financial district, an area which boarders historic Jackson Square, and is a short walk from Chinatown, North Beach and Telegraph Hill. Other housing being developed in the area includes two office-to-condo conversions: Atlantic Pacific Partners' 69-unit project at 733 Front St., and K2K Development's Residences at Jackson Square, a 13-unit rehab of 845 Montgomery St.
The last wave of residential development in the neighborhood took place in the late 1970s and 1980s, and included the 1,284-unit Golden Gateway Center apartments, as well as 155-unit Golden Gateway Commons, and the 102-unit 101 Lombard St.
District Three Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who represents the area, said he supports housing on the site, but has not reviewed the details of the latest proposal.
"At 38 stories, they would be talking about doubling the current height limit (200 ft)," said Peskin. "I don't know -- we'll see what the neighborhood says."
Segal said a series of open houses would be held to brief community members on the project and a web site developed to keep people informed. He stressed that it's still early in the process.
"This is many, many months away from even a public hearing," said Segal.
In addition to a vacant lot, the development would require the demolition of a one-story building on the corner of Washington and Sansome that houses a Vietnamese restaurant and a photography studio. Aegon, a Dutch insurance firm, purchased the entire block when it acquired Transamerica Corp. in 1999.
Frederick Allardyce, a Sotheby's Realtor who is president of the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association, a group active in the area, said he would be watching the development closely.
"The opportunity is trying to retain the character of the city's original waterfront while making it work for people living here now," he said.
jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/05/07/story1.html?t=printable
FourOneFive
May 11, 2007, 3:39 PM
Socketsite has put out new renderings for the 407' Cathedral Hill Tower.
From Socketsite:
http://www.socketsite.com/Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower%20Rendering.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com/Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower%20Rendering%20South.jpg
coyotetrickster
May 11, 2007, 4:00 PM
The second rendering of this tower is gorgeous (the first one was a little too-Fritz Lang's Metropolis). If the development also fixes the desolate streetscape that currently serves as the official start of Geary Blvd, I say bring it on...
nequidnimis
May 12, 2007, 11:38 PM
New user here.
I also prefer the second rendering, because it is more abstract, and because the viewpoint is further and higher. Even well designed highrises will look overwhelming at close range (my favorite exception is the Citicorp in New York, which is lifted off the street).
The first rendering however provides a more realistic view, and therein lies the rub. Geary Blvd. is a desolate streetscape not so much because the buildings (with the exception of St. Mary's Cathedral) are bland: most streetscapes are made of bland buildings. Geary Blvd. is a desolate streetsape because the buildings are too big: see the discussion about Vancouver earlier in this thread. The exsiting highrises are 240' tall, the proposed tower would be 400' tall, making in this case the alleged remedy worse than the problem.
A disclaimer: While I live in a 130' midrise on Cathedral Hill, my concern is not about my views: my unit looks in a direction opposite from the proposed tower, and my neighbors' views would be enhanced by the proposed tower hiding the Sequoias whose architectural style is dated, and by the proposed landscaping of the roofs of the lowrise portion of the existing Cathedral Hill Plaza.
Instead, my concern is with the quality of the Geary Blvd. streetscape. A 240' tower that conformed with the unit density specified by the current RM-4 zoning would not be the bulky monstrosity the developer has presented as an altenative in neighborhood meetings (according to my calculations, the footprint of the RM-4 unit density conforming tower would actually be the same as that of the proposed elliptical tower). Such a tower would create a more harmonious urban composition, in which the various pieces relate to and echo one another.
In a way, streetscapes are like basketball teams and orchestras...
BTinSF
May 13, 2007, 2:41 AM
Sorry. I like it. And in an area of large, sterile buildings, I don't see that one more will make things worse. At most, it just won't make them better. But it's an attractive building that will look nice from the vantage of the nearly everwhere but perhaps near its base. I don't see that the top of Cathedral Hill is ever going to be much of a territory for pedestrians. There's nothing to attract them and no prospects of anything, even if they put some retail in this building (which I predict would struggle).
Build it and build it tall.
coyotetrickster
May 13, 2007, 6:37 PM
Sorry. I like it. And in an area of large, sterile buildings, I don't see that one more will make things worse. At most, it just won't make them better. But it's an attractive building that will look nice from the vantage of the nearly everwhere but perhaps near its base. I don't see that the top of Cathedral Hill is ever going to be much of a territory for pedestrians. There's nothing to attract them and no prospects of anything, even if they put some retail in this building (which I predict would struggle).
Build it and build it tall.
Well, it's going to have to have some retail, since that is a condition for all new construction. It probably will struggle, but someday, that intersection may be a an urban phenom...
BTinSF
May 13, 2007, 6:42 PM
^^^It can only be an urban phenom if they bulldoze what's there and start over. The buildings right around there are maybe the best SF examples of what Fflint called "towers in a park" and it's already pretty much built out (that's why the new tower is proposed for a tennis court) so I don't see much chance to add retail. Also, of course, people prefer not to have to walk uphill to the store, hence most SF "neighborhood shopping streets" are in valleys (think 18th & Castro, 24th St. in Noe Valley, Polk St and so on), not on hilltops.
viewguysf
May 14, 2007, 12:35 AM
New user here.
I also prefer the second rendering, because it is more abstract, and because the viewpoint is further and higher. Even well designed highrises will look overwhelming at close range (my favorite exception is the Citicorp in New York, which is lifted off the street).
The first rendering however provides a more realistic view, and therein lies the rub. Geary Blvd. is a desolate streetscape not so much because the buildings (with the exception of St. Mary's Cathedral) are bland: most streetscapes are made of bland buildings. Geary Blvd. is a desolate streetsape because the buildings are too big: see the discussion about Vancouver earlier in this thread. The exsiting highrises are 240' tall, the proposed tower would be 400' tall, making in this case the alleged remedy worse than the problem.
A disclaimer: While I live in a 130' midrise on Cathedral Hill, my concern is not about my views: my unit looks in a direction opposite from the proposed tower, and my neighbors' views would be enhanced by the proposed tower hiding the Sequoias whose architectural style is dated, and by the proposed landscaping of the roofs of the lowrise portion of the existing Cathedral Hill Plaza.
Instead, my concern is with the quality of the Geary Blvd. streetscape. A 240' tower that conformed with the unit density specified by the current RM-4 zoning would not be the bulky monstrosity the developer has presented as an altenative in neighborhood meetings (according to my calculations, the footprint of the RM-4 unit density conforming tower would actually be the same as that of the proposed elliptical tower). Such a tower would create a more harmonious urban composition, in which the various pieces relate to and echo one another.
In a way, streetscapes are like basketball teams and orchestras...
Well stated nequidnimis! It's good to read a refreshing new viewpoint and opinion around here. Please keep posting and showing the same level of intelligence. While driving towards downtown from the Richmond District this afternoon, I realized that the proposed tower will not fit into the neighborhood very well because it would be too overwhelming.
BTinSF
May 14, 2007, 4:34 AM
^^^I really don't understand this viewpoint in a neighborhood composed almost entirely of "overwhelming" buildings. The Sequoias itself is far from diminutive. If you plunked this tower down in Noe Valley or the Haight or even further out on Geary, you might well say it was too overwhelming, but not where they want to put it. Furthermore, I think it is inevitable that Geary Blvd, as the Richmond's prime transit corridor, will become denser and the buildings immediately on it (not a block or two away on either side) will get taller. That's the way a city like San Francisco has to grow.
BTinSF
May 14, 2007, 4:54 AM
It sure sounds like the Interconinental neighborhood is about to blossom.
Real estate venture targets SoMa for first project
San Francisco Business Times - May 11, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Najib Joe Hakim
A CalPERS-backed development startup with deep pockets has acquired a SoMa site that could be part of a larger new residential enclave west of the Moscone Center.
Avant Housing, a joint venture between TMG Partners and AGI Capital, bought 240-260 Fifth St., a two-story concrete structure between Howard and Folsom streets now home to music promotion firm LiveNation. The price for the 41,000-square-foot structure, which will be demolished, was $8.7 million.
While the Fifth Street property could support 115 to 150 units of housing, it sits across an alley from another development site controlled by AGI Capital. That parcel, 900 Folsom St., could be entitled for 280 units and may be developed in conjunction with the Fifth Street site. The two properties are between Fifth and Sixth streets and separated by Clementina Alley.
AGI Capital Executive Vice President Eric Tao said the two projects, developed in concert, could produce a uniquely SoMa vibe different than the luxury highrises under construction elsewhere in the city. (Both are a few blocks from the SoMa Grand, a highrise condo tower near Seventh and Mission streets that TMG and AGI Capital are also developing.)
"We want to create a stoop and doorway type feel, an interactive downtown neighborhood," said Tao. "It's rare you have two projects like this, separated by an alleyway. The architecture will have a distinct, common vocabulary."
The purchase is Avant's first deal since the joint venture was formed in late 2006. Avant, which is leveraging $100 million in discretionary capital from CalPERS for $300 million of debt, is in negotiations to acquire two sites in downtown San Jose. The company is also in talks to acquire a parking lot at 236 Fifth St., just to the north of the LiveNation building.
Paul Nieto, the president of Avant, said the key will be to come up with a project that is both economically feasible and preserves SoMa's "human-scaled environment." Nieto stressed that the development would adhere to Avant's "bread and butter" mission of building workforce housing, defined as housing for those making 100 to 200 percent of median income. Units could range from $350,000 to $750,000, depending on size.
The project is close to the new Intercontinental Hotel, currently under construction. It is also an easy walk to a relatively new Whole Foods on Fourth Street, and the new, $460 million Westfield San Francisco Centre. A number of other developments are underway for the long-neglected blocks between Fifth and Sixth streets, including Mint Plaza, a European-style piazza on Jessie Street.
"The transformation that is happening in that area we find quite attractive," said Nieto. "It has a number of things that are essential to a transit-oriented neighborhood -- something we wouldn't have said five years ago."
TMG President Michael Covarrubias said the housing development would be formulated in conjunction with the Eastern Neighborhood plan, which is developing a specific plan for East SoMa. Part of the goal will be to retain the small scale intimacy of Clementina Alley.
"We'd like to make some statement architecturally as opposed to another suburban feeling," he said. "Something more urban than Mission Bay, a little edgier, but still attractive."
The building also has some significance for Bay Area music buffs. The structure was home to Bill Graham Presents before it was acquired by LiveNation. The space is packed with rock 'n' roll memorabilia.
"We would like to work that legacy into the project -- some sort of form of tribute to Bill Graham," said Nieto.
LiveNation is leasing the building back from Avant during the entitlement process.
TRI Commercial broker Anton Qiu, who represented Avant, called the deal "a great buy in terms of location and pricing."
Mike Brown and Bill Benton of Newmark Knight Frank represented LiveNation.
jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/05/14/story5.html?t=printable
Frisco_Zig
May 14, 2007, 6:26 AM
Well stated nequidnimis! It's good to read a refreshing new viewpoint and opinion around here. Please keep posting and showing the same level of intelligence. While driving towards downtown from the Richmond District this afternoon, I realized that the proposed tower will not fit into the neighborhood very well because it would be too overwhelming.
I have always felt like this stretch of Geary had a sort of unfinished, almost depressing feel. I remember being young and making this observation and my father telling me "redevelopment started but then the Vietnam War and there was no more money" Not a totally accurate statement but I think most Sfians always saw this as slightly odd record of the failed ambitions redevelopment. I say build this one and 4 more
coyotetrickster
May 14, 2007, 1:47 PM
I have always felt like this stretch of Geary had a sort of unfinished, almost depressing feel. I remember being young and making this observation and my father telling me "redevelopment started but then the Vietnam War and there was no more money" Not a totally accurate statement but I think most Sfians always saw this as slightly odd record of the failed ambitions redevelopment. I say build this one and 4 more
While walking through Cathedral Hill on my way to the gym (unlike the previous poster who drove his/her ass in from the Richmond, I actually live near the proposed tower). And I realized the developer was spot on in siting the tower perpendicular to Geary and the white, lacelike spire will be a beautiful counterpoint to our Lady of the Maytag. Plus, with the street level retail and a public garden, it could be the catalyst to finally turn the Gough/Geary intersection into a truly viable neighborhood thouroughfare. I'm with Frisco, four more towers near the cathedral. FYI, Adco is starting community meetings so any Forum members in SF who live near the development, look for them and try to attend, you know the cranky nimbys will be there.
BTinSF
May 14, 2007, 4:09 PM
^^^I'm with coyote and Zig on this but could we move the debate to the thread on this building at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=131154 ?
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 4:35 PM
duplicate posting deleted. new here...
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 4:35 PM
The Sequoias itself may be far from diminutive right now, but in the photo-montage rendering, it is small next to the new tower. The new tower repeats the mistake made with the Sequoias, on a grander scale.
The problem with the scale of the Sequoias is that it doesn't relate well with that of the buildings around it. Which is why I am advocating a 240' only tower, with a unit density per RM-4 zoning, as its scale would relate to that of other tall buildings nearby, and as it would help define the streetscape that's now missing.
In life, I generally disagree with the statement that things are so bad, we can't make them worse: yes, we can!
As to the suggestion of bulldozing the neighborhood and starting over, it is precisely what was done to it 40 years ago.
Good pieces of modern architecture that complement their neighbors can make Geary Blvd. a better place.
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 6:13 PM
^^^I'm with coyote and Zig on this but could we move the debate to the thread on this building at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=131154 ?
While it would be nice to have the debate there, I am not sure how we do that without breaking its thread. Perhaps an administrator can move all the relevant posts? Otherwise, we have cross-links in both places, yours here, mine there...
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 6:33 PM
When the BRT that has been proposed for Geary Blvd. eventually goes underground underneath Cathedral Hill, it will be possible to reclaim the lanes devoted to BRT to implement an urban boulevard on the model of Octavia Blvd. Octavia Blvd. is not a vibrant shopping district, but it is pedestrian friendly.
I realize the BRT is not even aprroved yet, and it probably won't be buried anytime soon, but I still have a vision of palm trees...
BTinSF
May 14, 2007, 6:54 PM
^^^You said it. Octavia is not and was not intended to be a shopping street. Niether was/is that part of Geary. My guess is it never will be. I just don't see the motivation. Remember that even Bell's Market failed in this hood in spite of my frequent visits. There's plenty of shopping just a few blocks down along Webster, Fillmore and Post as well as the Nihonmachi mall. At the top of Cathedral Hill, you maybe could support a convenience store and a drycleaner and a few other small, neighborhood retailers, but nothing more.
And I say this all the more because mass transit on Geary will essentially bypass these blocks by going way under them.
The top of Cathedral Hill is a great place to live because of the views but it will never be a shopping district. Build more housing there--including the tower. What's there now is large scale so more large scale fits there better than almost anywhere else. Forget shopping beyond very small-scale stuff.
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 7:07 PM
We are in agreement regarding building a residential tower. We differ on its size and compliance with current zoning.
We haven't seen a rendering of it from Post St., and a beautiful proposed landscaped garden driveway is proposed for Post St. However, my concerns about the definition of a coherent street scene on Geary Blvd. are also relevant to Post St.
coyotetrickster
May 14, 2007, 8:36 PM
The Sequoias itself may be far from diminutive right now, but in the photo-montage rendering, it is small next to the new tower. The new tower repeats the mistake made with the Sequoias, on a grander scale.
The problem with the scale of the Sequoias is that it doesn't relate well with that of the buildings around it. Which is why I am advocating a 240' only tower, with a unit density per RM-4 zoning, as its scale would relate to that of other tall buildings nearby, and as it would help define the streetscape that's now missing.
In life, I generally disagree with the statement that things are so bad, we can't make them worse: yes, we can!
As to the suggestion of bulldozing the neighborhood and starting over, it is precisely what was done to it 40 years ago.
Good pieces of modern architecture that complement their neighbors can make Geary Blvd. a better place.
No one is saying bulldoze the neighborhood, at least in the most recent threads. So, here is a different perspective. With better streetscape (e.g. retail or active engagement at the pedestrian experience) would the Sequioa really be as obtrusive and fortress like as it is now. And were that the case, would it's height be an issue?
Yes, it would be nice for the Geary BRT to be upgraded to the Light Rail, but that is decades from happening, why endure a sterile, stalinesque (or Pyongyangesque urban vista when someone is proposing a development with the potential to be a catalyst for some serious urban upgrade. I took a shot from Alta Park the other month (have been to forgetful to remember to upload them to flicker, but the one shot of cathedral hill shows a mini-skyline of some heft already.
How, I repeat, how can extra height ruin a dead neighborhood. I spent about 30 minutes yesterday near sunset watching shadows. There will be almost no lost of sunlight in the evening for the old folks at the Carlysle (or is it Carlton). The only other neigbors along Post are in the semi-public seniors housing until you get to the mid rise. Hell, even if they are gunning for 38 and can make it worik at 30, that's still an improvement.
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 9:35 PM
^^^It can only be an urban phenom if they bulldoze what's there and start over. The buildings right around there are maybe the best SF examples of what Fflint called "towers in a park" and it's already pretty much built out (that's why the new tower is proposed for a tennis court) so I don't see much chance to add retail. Also, of course, people prefer not to have to walk uphill to the store, hence most SF "neighborhood shopping streets" are in valleys (think 18th & Castro, 24th St. in Noe Valley, Polk St and so on), not on hilltops.
This is the bulldoze suggestion. I realize it wasn't proposed seriously. I still think the question should be: How do we take what we have, and make it work better, as opposed to giving up on it?
craeg
May 14, 2007, 10:33 PM
I think proposing this development is a perfect example of making what exists work better. We have a vastly underused site in a pedestrian unfriendly environment. Other than being against height for height's sake - I dont what the problem is with this project.
As for the existing height and density limits in SF, they are woefully outdated and reflect an earlier reaction to what was probably at the time a real threat to neighborhoods from developers.
Consider how many architectural gems we would lose in SF if we were to apply the blanket 40' height limit in place for residential outside of DT. San Francisco wouldnt be the city it is today if earlier development policies were as strict as they are now.
BTinSF
May 14, 2007, 11:31 PM
This is the bulldoze suggestion. I realize it wasn't proposed seriously. I still think the question should be: How do we take what we have, and make it work better, as opposed to giving up on it?
I don't see why you think it doesn't work. It works fine for what it is: a dense residential neighborhood for view worshipers. Actually, the top of Russian Hill is similar: a couple of towers, no retail to speak of. Nob Hill has a park, hotels and cathedral to give it more street life, but still no retail. Like I said, the retail in SF is mostly at the base of the hills.
So I say make a place for some more people to enjoy the views. Cram as many big glass windows up there as we can.
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 11:41 PM
The current height limit for the site is 240', not 40'. It is the height of other highrises on Cathedral Hill. As to what's wrong with this project, it's not its height per se, it is its forfeiture of a coherent urban composition, in which various buildings jointly create a greater whole, like instruments in an orchestra.
nequidnimis
May 14, 2007, 11:49 PM
My definition of a neighborhood that works better is not necessarily a shopping neighborhood. These are fine, but I trust most of us feel we consume already more than we really need, and do not need a new shopping neighborhood. Instead, I am arguing for a neighborhood that is pedestrian friendly, where you can walk while enjoying what you see. And no, from that pont of view, this stretch of Geary does not work fine for what it is.
coyotetrickster
May 14, 2007, 11:57 PM
The current height limit for the site is 240', not 40'. It is the height of other highrises on Cathedral Hill. As to what's wrong with this project, it's not its height per se, it is its forfeiture of a coherent urban composition, in which various buildings jointly create a greater whole, like instruments in an orchestra.
I actually think we all (those posting) are endorsing the project and Nequi is argueing for the current 240' (FTR, outside of specially zoned areas, the city's building height is 40' built). But again, this entrance to what was to be Herrmann's master addition (mix metaphors at your own risk), is sorely in need of a streetscape that helps mitigate the fact of Geary Blvd. so.. A) unless the catholic church decides to start selling indulgences again and open's a sins r us flagship sort at the corner, this development offers the best chance to start the process to repurpose this sterile stretch of street. I mean really, in a few short blocks to move from the lively, albeit grity urban canvas of the polk gulch (or villlage, take your marketing poision) to such a barren intersection is just sad.
As BT pointed out, the prospects for successful retail, as the area is not yet anything, will depend on businesses focused on tenants. The more tenants, the chance of one or two successes and, eventually, who knows. There's a large foot print to the west of Maytag Cathedral that could handle some height. Those frickin Normady-esque townhomes (better suited for Torrence than SF, could be redeveloped (seriously). There are some rumblings the new owners of Japantown are also reconsidering some changes to put more retail down the Geary Blvd. side.
You will simply have to jump start this with density. I think this integrity of the neighborhood 'massing' is ludicrous. More height, nem won't make it worse (maybe windier, but....).
craeg
May 15, 2007, 12:38 AM
The current height limit for the site is 240', not 40'. It is the height of other highrises on Cathedral Hill. As to what's wrong with this project, it's not its height per se, it is its forfeiture of a coherent urban composition, in which various buildings jointly create a greater whole, like instruments in an orchestra.
I prefer my orchestra to have many different instruments with many different sounds.... I see no compelling evidence that the current urban composition is coherent. In fact, the entire area feels very much like a work which was never finished. I don't see a compelling reason to force the developers to work with the 240' height limit of the site.
viewguysf
May 15, 2007, 2:45 AM
I don't see why you think it doesn't work. It works fine for what it is: a dense residential neighborhood for view worshipers.
So I say make a place for some more people to enjoy the views. Cram as many big glass windows up there as we can.
Cramming anything into a neighborhood hardly sounds like the kind of city that we all want to live in. I agree with nequidnimis that a 240' height would be more appropriate for this site. We obviously all like high rises and skyscrapers or we wouldn't be here in the first place, but too much of a good thing in the wrong spot is not an improvement. A 410' tower would be a "look at me building" that won't complement anything, including the cathedral.
As far as retail goes, it's a mute point. BT is right, retail is definitely in the valleys in this town. This new tower won't enliven street life that much either because, like it or not, most of the residents will probably drive in and out. They'll hardly be the ones to enjoy strolling in Polk Gulch.
BTinSF
May 15, 2007, 3:10 AM
Cramming anything into a neighborhood hardly sounds like the kind of city that we all want to live in.
Then why do many of us worship Hong Kong?
IMHO, one of the problems with SF is we all think we are city planners. Nothing gets done with 800K city planners. There is nothing wrong with this project that should keep it unbuilt.
viewguysf
May 15, 2007, 3:27 AM
Then why do many of us worship Hong Kong?
IMHO, one of the problems with SF is we all think we are city planners. Nothing gets done with 800K city planners. There is nothing wrong with this project that should keep it unbuilt.
Having spent too much time there on business already, I, for one, do not worship Hong Kong. I do, however, worship our little (and, yes, sometimes provincial) City and appreciate its great beauty.
None the less, your multitude of postings in many streams keep me informed and I appreciate them too. I think that we are all just hyper excited because we've seen SF really come to life again in a big way.
Richard Mlynarik
May 15, 2007, 6:54 AM
Then why do many of us worship Hong Kong
Beats me.
There are many other ways of being urbane and civilized (none of which SF has attained, of course) beyound or besides HK.
I have no love of Hong Kong as an urban development model.
It's a great and exciting place, but there are other ways to do things, and ways I'd prefer to see them done if I'm to live with the results.
I also have no great love of most of the extraordinarily mediocre and largely ill-considered high-rise buildings which are enthused about by the bigger is better crowd here, if for no reason than that they are effectively impossible to demolish, unlike your average piece of 3 story SF crap (at least until it reaches all of 10 years old and gets into the hands of "historic preservationists"...)
Hong Kong, Vancouver, or Foster City? Those are my only choices?
BTinSF
May 15, 2007, 2:35 PM
Hong Kong, Vancouver, or Foster City? Those are my only choices?
There's Disneyland (or one of Disney's other fake towns like Seaside in Florida).
coyotetrickster
May 15, 2007, 3:25 PM
Hong Kong, Vancouver, or Foster City? Those are my only choices?
Well, those three places would get you out of SF and, hopefully, off this forum. Bitter, party of one.
MarkSFCA
May 15, 2007, 3:44 PM
I live on Cathedral Hill and I am for the tower. I like the height . . . if it was a mid-rise it would just look like a wall of buildings, whereas building it slim and tall would redefine the buildings next to it and compliment the cathedral across the street. Having retail such as a coffee shop, small restaurant and a corner store would be perfect and bring life and a place to congregate for the residents nearby. So many tour buses visit the cathedral every day so a place to sit and enjoy the view of the cathedral would be great.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.