[J Church]

The story in today's San Francisco Business Times is unfortunately available online only to subscribers. But may as well post the basics.

This would be a "slender, glass" (surprise!) condo tower by SOM in an alley behind the historic Palace Hotel at Market and New Montgomery streets in
the heart of downtown San Francisco, more or less where the Financial District, Union Square, Yerba Buena and SOMA/"Financial District South" districts
intersect (the tower would be south of Market Street). It would replace a fairly recent but lowrise and nondescript addition to the hotel, and would rise
above the Palace's trademark garden court. Still, the addition has the initial support of San Francisco Heritage, whose director described it as "tall and
elegant ... very much a statement of its time" (are you sure you're a historic preservationist?). Flinty has posted a Live Local aerial of the site in a
Califorum thread:

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/2046/palaceproposalxk4.jpg

The site is to the left of the barrel-shaped atrium (the garden court).

The tower would feature 269 units, 111 of them "two bedroom-plus" and three of them 8,000 sq. ft. penthouses on the 58th, 59th and 60th floors. It
would be the tallest residential tower in San Francisco, surpassing the under-construction Millennium Tower at 301 Mission (645') and south tower of
One Rincon Hill (641'), and the fourth-tallest tower in the city, at least until the Transbay towers are built. Applications were filed in late September.
Renderings to follow, hopefully.

[AK47KC]

I guess this the highest condos on the West Coast, assuming the 60 story tower proposed in LA is not taller. This tower will be the first 200+ m skyscraper of San Francisco of the 21st Century, yay.

[Reminiscence]

Huh, I guess this is for real then. I had my doubts and at one point thought I might be seeing things when I saw " 669' (204m) " as the height. Seems like a waste putting it in an alley, but whatever, I'm in no position to complain about something like this :)

Cant wait to see those renderings!

[WonderlandPark]

Would be tallest residential tower west of the Mississippi. I don't think there are any condos with a realistic chance of being built in Vegas that would top this.

LA continues to LAg. The Gehry project looks to be in a bit of trouble, down here in SoCal, might only get 1 really tall one out of this boom cycle. Can you guys spare a tower?

[Reminiscence]

We here in SF have a lot of catching up to do, its been a dry decade, heh. I get the feeling that this wave of highrise boom is just SF clearing its throat. I dont know it it counts as evidence but I, myself, had never heard of this Palace Hotel Tower until today. And if stuff like this can just come out of the air all of a sudden, then maybe there more to come, that is if ol' Sue Hestor does'nt get in the way. We may be able to spare a tower or two once we're done :) :)

[J Church]

L.A. City House would be 750'.

[toddguy]

Nice to see San Francisco getting some new highrises. One of my all time favorite cities!:)

The Palace Hotel was THE hotel in S.F. a century ago. I would love to see it have such a nice high rise addition.:)

some pics of the original building('borrowed' from the net)

Exterior view:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k40/toddguy/palacesfb11.jpg


Interior view of the glass-covered carriage courtyard:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k40/toddguy/palacecalbd16.jpg

[AK47KC]

We here in SF have a lot of catching up to do, its been a dry decade, heh. I get the feeling that this wave of highrise boom is just SF clearing its throat. I dont know it it counts as evidence but I, myself, had never heard of this Palace Hotel Tower until today. And if stuff like this can just come out of the air all of a sudden, then maybe there more to come, that is if ol' Sue Hestor does'nt get in the way. We may be able to spare a tower or two once we're done :) :)

You hit the point, San Francisco needs a lot more towers that are taller than 200 m; if approved, this tower will be the first step.

[WonderlandPark]

L.A. City House would be 750'.

LA has been all talk and little action for years now. There are so many proposals that have been put out there in the last 5 years and almost none of the tall ones look promising. LA is getting 20-30 story towers, and the 55 st Ritz Carlton, but that is realistically all that is coming. City House is one of the more far-fetched projects, like the Zen tower-nothing ever became of that one.

I will be up in SF for Thanksgiving and can't wait to see all the action up there, reminds me of the early 80's boom up there.

[Reminiscence]

You hit the point, San Francisco needs a lot more towers that are taller than 200 m; if approved, this tower will be the first step.

It also looks like they made it clear they dont mind demolishing relatively new buildings to make way for them as well, which is encouraging news, as there are some buildings in SF I'm sure we all would'nt mind seeing dissapear. I would say SF has probably reached around a 500+' average for building height.

[Reminiscence]

LA has been all talk and little action for years now. There are so many proposals that have been put out there in the last 5 years and almost none of the tall ones look promising. LA is getting 20-30 story towers, and the 55 st Ritz Carlton, but that is realistically all that is coming. City House is one of the more far-fetched projects, like the Zen tower-nothing ever became of that one.

I will be up in SF for Thanksgiving and can't wait to see all the action up there, reminds me of the early 80's boom up there.


It would seem like an 80's boom revived, but this time, the buildings may end up looking way better and more stylish :)

[FourOneFive]

is this project for real? currently this parcel is zoned for 300'. for this project to move foward, an environmental impact report will have to be approved from both the planning commission and board of supervisors. in addition, it'll need a height variance from the board of supervisors. unless the project sponsor is promising some sort of community benefit (like affordable housing), i doubt this project will receive the necessary approvals.

[WonderlandPark]

Someone in the SF regional thread said this was part of the Yerba Buena redevelopment and would have minimal problems with the zoning.

[Reminiscence]

Well, if that is to be the case, then they should strech this one a bit taller. If its as beatiful as they say it will be, then it could do wonders to SF's future skyline.

[FourOneFive]

this parcel is not apart of the yerba buena redevelopment area. standard zoning would still apply.

[WonderlandPark]

I stand corrected, someone asked if it was part of YB, there was no answer to the question.

[J Church]

Tony, you just described the exact process the Intercontinental went through.

[FourOneFive]

Tony, you just described the exact process the Intercontinental went through.

true, but this building is double the height of the intercontinental and an (major) addition to a historic structure (whereas the intercontinental is being built on a parking lot). plus, the developers threw some money at the filipinos to make the SOMA community groups shut up.

i'm not saying that this project won't happen. i'm just curious to see what kind of resistance it may get when it reaches the board of supervisors.

[BTinSF]

The story in today's San Francisco Business Times is unfortunately available online only to subscribers. But may as well post the basics.



And there is one available:

Palace uprising: 60-story condo tower
Luxury property would be built above landmark hotel
San Francisco Business Times - November 17, 2006
by J.K. Dineen

The Sheraton Palace Hotel's owner plans to build a slender, glass, 60-story condo highrise atop the landmark hotel, creating San Francisco's tallest residential building, according to documents filed with the city.

The proposed 269-unit skyscraper would emerge out of the back left corner of the Palace's 92,000-square-foot lot, at Jessie and Annie alleys, replacing a 1989 addition to the hotel that would be demolished.

The addition would soar 669 feet. One Rincon Hill, now under construction, will be 641 feet, and the Millennium tower at First and Mission streets, is slated to rise 645 feet.

Skidmore Owens Merrill is the design architect on the project, with preservation architects Page & Turnbull handling the historic aspects.

The Kyoya Corp., which owns the hotel, is controlled by Blackacre Capital Management, the real estate investment division of Cerberus Capital Management, a large privately held hedge fund run by financier Steve Feinberg. James Reuben, attorney for the owners, declined comment on the project.

The revised plans, submitted to the city Planning Department on Sept. 28 by Reuben & Junius partner Joel Yodowitz, would be twice the size of the Palace Hotel's last proposal, submitted in 2005. That application called for a 24-story tower with a total of 377,000 square feet in additional space.

The new addition would include a net gain of 727,109 square feet and bring the total of the Palace Hotel and condo development to 1.2 million square feet. The plan is for 41 one-bedroom units, 63 two-bedroom units, 111 two-bedroom "plus" units, and 51 three bedroom units. There would be three 8,000-square-foot penthouses on floors 58, 59, and 60. The eighth floor roof of the current Palace would be redesigned with a pool, spa and yoga space.

The Palace Hotel, city Landmark No. 18, was completed in 1909 and was the post-fire successor to William Ralston's 1873 hotel of the same name, which was the center of activity for the city's 19th century social elite. The building's most famous feature is the skylit garden court, which the architecture guide Splendid Survivors calls "an example of Parisian opulence equal to almost any contemporary space in Paris."

While the development will certainly come under close scrutiny from historical preservationists, Charles Chase, executive director of San Francisco Heritage, said he has seen the renderings of the proposed development and has "nothing but enthusiasm" for the design. Chase said the corner of the building that would be demolished for the tower was not significant.

"What is being proposed is a modern addition that doesn't affect the historic resource, which is the hotel itself," said Chase.

Still, past proposals for additions at the Palace have been shot down largely because any tower would likely cast a shadow on the garden court. Chase said he has requested a more detailed shadow study of how the new structure would impact the garden court.

"We are looking at and evaluating the effect of the shadowing," he said.

But Chase said several recent projects, including the Paramount luxury apartment complex at 680 Mission St. and 33 New Montgomery St., already cast shadows on the garden court.

Chase called the SOM design "highly transparent" and "light and thin."

"It's not a heavy bulky building, it's tall and elegant," he said. "It's very much a statement of its time, which we think is going to reinvigorate and extend the life of the historic resource."

Under the proposal, the hotel would hold onto all of its 518 rooms. This could become a significant point as the approval process progresses because Hotel Workers Union Local 2 has opposed efforts to convert hotel rooms to condos.

In 2005, the Fairmont San Francisco Hotel floated a plan to convert some of its hotel rooms to timeshare condos, an idea that prompted Supervisor Aaron Peskin to broker an 18-month moratorium on condo conversions at hotels.

J.K. Dineen covers real estate for the San Francisco Business Times.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/11/20/story1.html?t=printable

[BTinSF]

Huh, I guess this is for real then. I had my doubts and at one point thought I might be seeing things when I saw " 669' (204m) " as the height. Seems like a waste putting it in an alley, but whatever, I'm in no position to complain about something like this :)

Cant wait to see those renderings!

Land availability being what it is downtown, there have been other "alley" projects. The approx. 50-story "Century" that was briefly under construction before the Board of Supervisors grabbed it by eminent domain because it was thought to be incompatible with the TransBay project was also in an alley between Mission and Howard Streets.

[Reminiscence]

Land availability being what it is downtown, there have been other "alley" projects. The approx. 50-story "Century" that was briefly under construction before the Board of Supervisors grabbed it by eminent domain because it was thought to be incompatible with the TransBay project was also in an alley between Mission and Howard Streets.

Yeah, a lack of space is certainly a limiting factor. Perhaps with all the construction going on, maybe some of these alleys will be much improved.

[BTinSF]

The building's most famous feature is the skylit garden court, which the architecture guide Splendid Survivors calls "an example of Parisian opulence equal to almost any contemporary space in Paris."


Thought it might be worth a few pics for anybody not familiar with it (I love it so much I used to take my Mom there for lunch whenever she visited):

http://www.fivestaralliance.com/images_/hotel/00479_lobby_fsa-g.jpg

http://www.noehill.com/sf/landmarks/gardencourt/garden_court.jpg

http://www.noehill.com/sf/landmarks/gardencourt/chandaliers.jpg

[J Church]

I was wrong about the location of the garden court, by the way. I believe it's that slice of glass just peeking out to the left of the two barrel-shaped atriums.

[Reminiscence]

Its been a long time since theres been any word of Palace Tower. Have they released any renderings, or are they still in the planning / talking phase?

[BTinSF]

:previous: Read the BizTimes article again, man, with attention to this: "Charles Chase, executive director of San Francisco Heritage, said he has seen the renderings of the proposed development and has 'nothing but enthusiasm' for the design." If he's seen the renderings, they exist. But as far as I know, they haven't been published, though, if they've been submitted to the Planning Dept., I believe that would make them a matter of public record. If you must see them, go down to Planning and ask.

[Btown]

when is the earliest the renderings could be released?

[Reminiscence]

Its been over a month since the last post. We still have no new news over this proposal, or any renderings?

[mthd]

there are renderings for the palace hotel tower which were shown at a public exhibit hosted by SPUR. i don't believe they have been made available to the media otherwise...

[botoxic]

These are some pictures I took of the more recent low-rise addition to the historic hotel that would be removed to build the tower.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2001-28/S4010062.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2001-28/S4010065.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%2001-28/S4010067.jpg

[mthd]

^ the ground floor facade would actually stay though, which is historic - although the actual designation of the historic resource is fairly cleverly worded to allow future development on that corner.

[kenratboy]

Wow, I sure hope to see some renderings! Could shape up to be a very interesting project for the city.

keep us updated!

[BVictor1]

It's nice to see you guys in S.F proposing buildings taller than 300'. I've never been to your city, but would certainly like to visit. Question though...
I know that there are no renderings yet available, but seeing as the developers have filed this information with the city, have anyone been to the Department of Planning or whatever you have in S.F to collect those documents? Here in Chicago, if zoning or something needs to be changed, developers file their proposals with the Department of Planning & Development, and those documents are available to the public. They usually include renderings and landscaping plans.

Good luck with this tower. Will continue to check this thread for updates and renderings.

Also, who is Sue Hestor? Please excuse my ignorance in asking, but as I mentioned, I don't visit S.F threads often. From the tone of the comment though, she sounds like a hard ass NIMBY. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[mthd]

It's nice to see you guys in S.F proposing buildings taller than 300'. I've never been to your city, but would certainly like to visit. Question though...
I know that there are no renderings yet available, but seeing as the developers have filed this information with the city, have anyone been to the Department of Planning or whatever you have in S.F to collect those documents? Here in Chicago, if zoning or something needs to be changed, developers file their proposals with the Department of Planning & Development, and those documents are available to the public. They usually include renderings and landscaping plans.

Good luck with this tower. Will continue to check this thread for updates and renderings.

Also, who is Sue Hestor? Please excuse my ignorance in asking, but as I mentioned, I don't visit S.F threads often. From the tone of the comment though, she sounds like a hard ass NIMBY. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

quite often no documents are available to the public until the draft EIR has been published, which usually does not include renderings, but will include plans and elevations. the required visual simulations often come later, but by this time most developers would have put the word out. in the case of a project like this, it has such potential for controversy that i'm sure the developers are keeping a tight lid on things until they've lined up all the political support they need. this is, after all, a building more than twice the height limit adjacent to a historic resource.

as for sue hestor... well, the less said the better. she is a vehemently anti-growth land use attorney / activist whose battles date back to the anti-growth legislation and height limits which stifled development in the 1980s and to a lesser extent the 1990s. she has been known to speak negatively about nearly ever conceivable project and visiting planning department hearings to listen to her 'comments' on projects can be quite... entertaining. ;)

[tyler82]

I think Sue Pestor has had her day in the sun. Public opinion is now against her and all for high- rise development.
He logic is extremely innacurate and dangerous. The kind of growth that downtown is promoting is very smart, because it will give more people access to what they need and want within walking distance, and will also prmote more efficient public transportation. It will also help take this GOLIATH off our backs I like to call "rent," in a more perfect world we would have an over abundance of hi- rise residential units, taking the squeeze off the market and making housing more AFFORDABLE!
What exactly is she fighting for in this case? It most certainly can't be tenant's rights. Is it to preserve the precious views of her rich friends? Frigid B!t<h

[BTinSF]

Also, who is Sue Hestor? Please excuse my ignorance in asking, but as I mentioned, I don't visit S.F threads often. From the tone of the comment though, she sounds like a hard ass NIMBY. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A tale of Sue in her prime:

Squinting one's eyes halfway closed last Thursday evening at the Arc, a SOMA center for the disabled, one might have perceived two shadowy sumo wrestlers squatting side by side. Their rain-making bulk might have seemed enough to crush any of the people in the room, but they would mostly have appeared concerned with each other. They'd have gnashed and puffed and murmured until their eyes bulged, as though pure, telepathic social aggression could shove the opponent out of the ring.
Squinting even further, right to the point where the most acute seeing is done with the mind, however, one might have seen these sumo silhouettes reach out and tenderly touch each other's index fingers. The fingers might have intertwined, separated, then traced paths up each other's arms until both bodies were entirely dedicated to smothering, loving embrace.

Unfortunately, if one were to have sat with one's eyes wide open, as I and around 100 bystanders did at the "Neighborhood Planning and the Future of SOMA" event held at the Arc Thursday night, one would have seen anti-development attorney Sue Hestor and builder representative Joe O'Donoghue sitting seven feet from each other in classroom chairs, blustering and hostile, as part of a panel on growth issues.

"I have so many boxes of files on the South of Market planning process that I couldn't possibly bring them all here," Hestor boasted, reminding her opponents that when it comes to boxes of paper, Hestor's bulk flattens all opponents.

"What we can do is develop programs to help SRO owners to upgrade their property with low-interest loans, zero property taxes ...," said O'Donoghue, giving renewed notice that when there's a possibility of wresting cash from flawed public policy, the president of the Residential Builders Association is a champion of lucha libre.

As the most outspoken opponent of live-work lofts, tech-firm offices, and other new structures in San Francisco, Sue Hestor epitomizes evil for O'Donoghue and his allies. As the representative of the Irish-American developers who construct live-work lofts and other buildings, O'Donoghue is Great Satan for Hestor and her anti-growth ilk. But it became clear, during Thursday evening's volley of claims, counterclaims, and other self-interested nonsense, that behind the rancor is love. I don't mean romantic love, though there's deliciousness in fantasies of Joe and Sue finally hooking up. Nor do I mean agape, the Greek word for spiritual love. I'm referring to ecophilia1, nature love: a deep, unspoken appreciation for all that gives us sustenance.

Ecophilia causes the heart of the most hardened city dweller to lift upon seeing weeds poke through cement; it's an emotion that accompanies realization of the connectedness of all life.

In a similar way, Hestor, O'Donoghue, and the rest of the pandering politicians, trembling civil servants, ill-informed neighborhood kibitzers, and self-aggrandized professional agitators present at Thursday night's event seemed to revel, to be overcome with emotion as they drew sustenance from their own life-giving ecosystem.

This politico-natural world has its own taxonomy. Some beings pose as "housing activists" and "anti-displacement activists" while helping to create and continue a "housing crisis" and a "work-space crisis" that, supposedly, cause waves of evictions of indigenous residential and commercial tenants. Examples of the activist species at Thursday's forum included Supervisor Chris Daly, who moderated the event, and housing activist Debra Walker.

Other beings, notably O'Donoghue and his cronies, pose as champions of free- market solutions to our housing shortage, while richly benefiting from a shortage that is driven by politics, rather than market considerations. O'Donoghue's phylum now has its sights set on the 15-year, $75 million to $95 million redevelopment district in the slums along Sixth Street, already a rich humus of political motives and financial rewards.

Outside the warped ecosystem of San Francisco land-use politics, none of these animals could exist. If an errant meteor were to suddenly destroy the canopy of bogus economic postulating, corrupt political cronyism, and cynical political mau-mauing that protects planning politics here, these people would become instantly irrelevant; their world would be cinders, and in their hearts, they know this. So while Hestor, the no-growth lawyer, and O'Donoghue, the builders' frontman, are enemies in name, their hearts are (or certainly should be) filled at bottom with pure, ecophiliac love.

Sue Hestor has cause to feel confident. She is, right now, at the top of the political food chain.

San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has just passed legislation that creates a development ban in the city's Mission District. The ban satisfies Hestor's decades-old fight to stanch construction in San Francisco. The Mission measure is drafted along the lines of last fall's failed Proposition L ballot initiative. It places a one-year moratorium on the construction of new lofts and tourist hotels, requires that large commercial projects receive special permissions, and bans all apartment construction unless one-quarter of the units in a building are rented at a subsidized rate. The measure effectively prohibits housing not built by politically connected nonprofit builders, or by private developers with the political juice to obtain government-subsidized financing.

This development ban makes sense if one understands that the careers of Hestor, many of the people within the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (which backed the measure), and scores of activist hangers-on depend on a "housing crisis." They are professional helpers of people in danger of losing their homes; their livelihoods disappear when San Francisco has available, cheap housing. So they pass development moratoriums such as this, which keep housing expensive and unavailable, and keep the crisis that only they can fight going. And going. And going.

During the next few weeks, the city Planning Department will be working up a neighborhood plan for the South of Market area. The plan was, in fact, the topic of Thursday's meeting. For most of its history SOMA has been a nasty, crime-ridden industrial zone riddled by a spattering of tiny alleyway housing districts. Despite a recent surge in live-work loft housing development, SOMA is still mostly a foul place -- four-lane, one-way streets, dilapidated sweatshop buildings, iron-barred apartment windows, row after row of slum hotels. Current zoning, you see, reserves much of the area exclusively for light-industrial use.

Given the city's continued massive demand for new housing, the district could become home to tens of thousands of new apartments, grocery stores, parks, shopping districts. A simple stroke of the pen eliminating the industrial distinction could create a beautiful San Francisco-style neighborhood in the warmest, flattest, nearest-to-downtown region of San Francisco. But "housing activist" types, including Hestor, have made preserving this squalid industrial zone a rallying cry. The reasons for this insistence on decay are difficult to fathom when considered on purely economic or social-justice terms.

By preventing developers from buying property in this district and making it into shops or housing, the industrial-zone distinction essentially creates a low-rent subsidy for auto repair shops, furniture factories, sewing sweatshops, metalworking shops. Without this subsidy, these businesses could not pay prevailing rents in the area; they would move, and the area would become a neighborhood, complete with housing that would lower rents citywide. The current cycle of housing scarcity, where the wealthy cannibalize middle-class housing, middle-class apartment seekers cannibalize working-class housing, working-class people cannibalize SRO hotels, and SRO dwellers are forced into the streets, might be broken, or at least interrupted. The resulting lower residential rents would make it easier for people of lesser means to live here, and in turn make it possible for businesses with lower-wage employees to locate here.

Historically, however, Hestor has adamantly opposed allowing a zoning change that would accommodate a rebirth of SOMA because, she maintains, such a move would drive out small light-industrial businesses, such as auto repair shops, that now populate the neighborhood.

Opening the Sixth Street area to real economic competition, however, is not necessarily at the top of the agenda for Hestor's nemesis, Residential Builders Association President Joe O'Donoghue, either.

A building boom that focused on SOMA housing, you see, wouldn't necessarily benefit the RBA, even though the group's members have built more than half the city's new housing during the past three years in the form of live-work lofts. RBA members' status as S.F. builders of choice has depended on the exploitation of a massively profitable loophole in the building code. The lofts that resulted from that exploitation -- squat, ticky-tacky quasi-workshops -- were marketed as luxury apartments, and for a while they sold, given the absolute scarcity of any other type of apartment in the city. This bizarre state of affairs -- where RBA builders were able to sell the city's worst apartments, in the city's worst neighborhoods, for crazily inflated prices -- was aided by the efforts of housing activists who claim to despise live-works. By campaigning to keep industrial zones in SOMA, Potrero, and the Mission, the activists allowed RBA builders to rake in tens of millions of zoning-loophole profits.

Without the industrial-zoning controls, this usuriously profitable situation would have disappeared; the potential for building significant amounts of housing here would have attracted builders of national repute, forcing RBA builders to compete on business, rather than political, terms. And the steel-framed, multistoried apartment buildings that would make SOMA a great neighborhood are generally beyond the capabilities of the RBA's small-time developers.

But if the industrial zoning stays, and Joe O'Donoghue is successful in winning contracts for his RBA members to construct a small amount of housing in the Sixth Street redevelopment area of SOMA, the builders will make a housing-market mint. If development moratoriums and outdated zoning classifications prevent new housing construction, the few units that do get built in protected enclaves of San Francisco's political ecosystem will command top dollar.

Still, San Francisco's "housing activists" have made preserving the industrial-zone distinction their life's work. Subsidizing light industry preserves the city's "economic diversity," they say. It prevents "economic monoculture." It bolster's San Francisco's "economic health." "What we need to do is protect the business in the area from displacement," Hestor said during her talk Thursday.

Never has so much ill-informed economic punditry been performed by so few: To say San Francisco needs subsidized auto body and auto repair shops inside the city limits -- just when the city desperately needs to discourage car use -- is the worst sort of hogwash. And to put forward the idea that San Francisco needs subsidized furniture factories or sewing shops in order to maintain its economic vitality would guarantee any student an "F" on a college Economics 1-A exam.

But like strip-club patrons who say they've come for the chicken wings, the ecophiles of San Francisco claim they wish to aid S.F.'s business climate and quality of life, when they're actually perpetuating a system that sustains them.

Lest one doubt this is all about love, it's useful to squint one's eyes at Joe O'Donoghue's www.rbasf.com Web page (then open one's eyes all the way to make sense of the site's awkwardly small font). There, an item from the Irish Herald lauds Chris Daly, the supervisor who never met a no-growth advocate he didn't like, Sue Hestor's pocket ally. The Herald also quotes Daly speaking thus: "I like Joe. I agree with Joe about some things and disagree with him about others. But it's important to work together."

No doubt.

1 This word isn't in the dictionary. It was coined in a pinch by an SF Weekly theater capsule contributor.

Source: http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2001-07-04/news/smith_full.html

[kenratboy]

What a bitch.

[tyler82]

Oh, yeah, I forgot, the citzens lives and the politics of the city revolve around the homeless, the unemployed, and the auto repair shops.

If this sounds insane to you, well, this is the case. Your tax money is used to keep you paying the outrageous rents you are paying by promoting the squalor that exists in SF. Why did the idiot residents of SOMA vote Daly back in? He is such a nutjob crybaby spoiled pig brat.

[BTinSF]

Why did the idiot residents of SOMA vote Daly back in? He is such a nutjob crybaby spoiled pig brat.

You think it was the "idiot residents of SOMA" or the idiot residents of the Tenderloin? I'm in District 6 but in niether of those neighborhoods and I didn't vote for him, but it doesn't surprise me a lot of people did. District 6 contains an overwhelming majority of renters and his kind of politics plays much better with renters than homeowners. I consider that another reason to support all the condo-building going on in SOMA now. It could prevent another Daly from being elected in the future (Daly himself should now be termed out).

[tyler82]

You think it was the "idiot residents of SOMA" or the idiot residents of the Tenderloin? I'm in District 6 but in niether of those neighborhoods and I didn't vote for him, but it doesn't surprise me a lot of people did. District 6 contains an overwhelming majority of renters and his kind of politics plays much better with renters than homeowners. I consider that another reason to support all the condo-building going on in SOMA now. It could prevent another Daly from being elected in the future (Daly himself should now be termed out).

Why do renters think he is on their side? What has he done to reduce rents? Not allowing housing development keeps rents increased. Do the residents of his district recieve rebate checks in the mail every month, or am I missing something? SOMA has some of the highest rents in the city.

[BTinSF]

:offtopic:^^^I don't fall for his spiel but he claims to be a "tenants rights" guy and be on the side of the "little guy" and all that. People who don't follow politics closely or who think of themselves as "progressive" buy it. Don't ask me why. But there's a lot about San Francisco politics that makes little sense to me--such as how the city's Democratic machine keeps getting its chosen candidates elected and re-elected year after year, election after election, in spite of the fact that all most of them really care about is self-preservation.

Did you see today's Chron wherein it is said that Gavin has turned to his "mentor, John Burton" for advice. Now I like Gavin, but if ever there was a political hack looking out for himself, it's John Burton--he who cut the size of the UC dorm building in Mission Bay for the votes of Potrero NIMBYs.

Boy, are we off-topic. Sorry.:offtopic:

[fflint]

Burton had to go into rehab in 1984 for cocaine and alcohol addiction, in the middle of his political career. As opposed to "at the end." That's why he's described as Newsom's "mentor" in the scandal rag that has replaced the Chronicle.

Daly is a "progressive" and that's his base. His prog base may be primarily renters, but merely living in an apartment doesn't make one wish to vote for the likes of Daly. Renters make up the majority of many districts with more sane supervisors, such as mine (Dufty).

As for the Palace, has there been any news on this recently?

[mthd]

As for the Palace, has there been any news on this recently?

there is nothing public yet... but renderings were shown as part of the AIA exhibit a few months back.

[Reminiscence]

Have they perhaps completed all the studies and reports required? If they have, its possible we may see rendering in a few months or less.

[tyler82]

Any updatdes on this? This should be a very exciting proposal

[fflint]

None that I've seen.

[urban_encounter]

This is absolutely stunning....

http://www.fivestaralliance.com/images_/hotel/00479_lobby_fsa-g.jpg

http://www.noehill.com/sf/landmarks/gardencourt/garden_court.jpg

http://www.noehill.com/sf/landmarks/gardencourt/chandaliers.jpg


So then if I read J Church's brief rundown of the proposal correctly, it would leave intact this Garden Court??

[tyler82]

So then if I read J Church's brief rundown of the proposal correctly, it would leave intact this Garden Court??

Absolutely! This garden is pretty much a San Francisco historical landmark.

[Reminiscence]

I cant even imagine the magnitude of the revolt that would be were they to demolish that beautiful structure.

[viewguysf]

Absolutely! This garden is pretty much a San Francisco historical landmark.

The Garden Court IS an official San Francisco landmark--the first interior one. :)

[condodweller]

I don't think there is any need to worry about the Garden Court -- it is squarely within the old part of the hotel, as you enter on New Montgomery, not in the addition that would be replaced by the highrise.

[BTinSF]

The rendering--Courtesy SOM via SF Business Times:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/PalaceTower.jpg?t=1182563865

[WonderlandPark]

Well, there it is. Looks decent for a low quality rendering. Can't wait to see more angles.

[BTinSF]

^^^The reason it's low quality is that although it appears in the "Structures" supplement of today's Business Times, they so far haven't put it online except in the edition that is available as a PDF document--so I had to take a screen shot of that in order to get something I could post.

[WonderlandPark]

^^^The reason it's low quality is that although it appears in the "Structures" supplement of today's Business Times, they so far haven't put it online except in the edition that is available as a PDF document--so I had to take a screen shot of that in order to get something I could post.

I figured it was a screen capture, just want to see it in high res and from other angles, its VERY nice to finally see something.

Interesting tidbit: my mom was arrested in the Palace Hotel in the 60's.

[plinko]

^Do you have a link to the PDF? I can splice it out in Photoshop and post it for you guys.

[BTinSF]

^^^Sent you a PM. If you get the document it's page 71.

[San Frangelino]

Do you guys realize that with this tower, that climactic scene from the Michael Douglas film "The Game" will finally be possible. That alone is reason enough to build it I think.

[Reminiscence]

Looks good so far, I look forward to more extensive views. I guess its somewhat of a relief to finally have some idea of what this massive project looks like.

[nequidnimis]

I figured it was a screen capture, just want to see it in high res and from other angles, its VERY nice to finally see something.

Interesting tidbit: my mom was arrested in the Palace Hotel in the 60's.


Did the hotel go through rough times along with that stretch of Market St. in the 60's?

[BTinSF]

Interesting tidbit: my mom was arrested in the Palace Hotel in the 60's.

You can't drop that without expecting us to ask, "For what?" :???:

[fflint]

The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.

[WonderlandPark]

The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.

Bingo-hence the arrest-for protesting

[BTinSF]

The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.

Er, that's reassuring in this context. I was kind of shocked to think he was telling us his mom was engaged in "the world's oldest profession". ;)

[CityKid]

I'd like to see more angles, especially considering I would watch it rise from my office. I hope it's a beauty.

[SFView]

This rendering shows mostly the east facade of the tower, from the corner of New Montgomery and Jessie Streets looking west. The tower is situated at the far southwest corner of the Palace Hotel site, at Jessie and Annie Streets. The tower does seem to appear to be about 60 stories with at least 4 stories of additional height above the roof. Athough I can also provide a larger image, I will let Plinko do the honors with better quality access to the PDF provide by BTinSF.
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/PalaceTower.jpg?t=1182563865

[WonderlandPark]

Er, that's reassuring in this context. I was kind of shocked to think he was telling us his mom was engaged in "the world's oldest profession". ;)

Heh, somehow I don't picture the Palace being that sort of place. So she was an activist hippie chick in SF in the late 60's, probably a more interesting than most moms on this board.

back on topic, is the vacancy rate for hotels in the city still insanely low? The intercontinental should bring some rooms online soon, but is there still demand for this kind of space?

[BTinSF]

Heh, somehow I don't picture the Palace being that sort of place. So she was an activist hippie chick in SF in the late 60's, probably a more interesting than most moms on this board.

back on topic, is the vacancy rate for hotels in the city still insanely low? The intercontinental should bring some rooms online soon, but is there still demand for this kind of space?

Re your mom's bust: My best friend is a desk clerk at a hotel that shall go nameless (but is an upscale corporate sibling of the "juke box"). Said hotel also has pretentions to being above all that. But he tells me hair-raising stories of all sorts of unlikely behavior.

Anyway, my understanding (and I'll look into it further if you wish) is that SF hotel occupancy has improved considerably since 2001-2003, but it shouldn't matter because I believe the Palace Tower is to be partly or entirely condos with hotel services like the upper floors of the 4 Seasons and St. Regis, and the Ritz Carlton Residences.

[BTinSF]

Athough I can also provide a larger image, I will let Plinko do the honors with better quality access to the PDF provide by BTinSF.


If you've got a better rendering, post it because I was unable to provide Plinko with whatever it would take for him to open the pdf file where I got the version I posted. It came from the "Structures" supplement of the Business Times which didn't seem to be on the web site yesterday but I'm still hoping they'll put it up before the weekend is over. If so, I can then post it directly.

[SFView]

Does it require special membership permissions to view the PDF? The next time you try a 'Ctrl + Prnt Scrn' screen capture, you may want to try zooming up the image as large as can fit your screen before doing so. If you have a widescreen monitor that can rotate to portrait view for taller-than-wide images, you can get even larger results. In the meantime, I was able to enlarge your original screen capture. It is larger, but a little more detail from the original PDF might be better.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/palacehotel1.jpg

[BTinSF]

^^^I think you're talking "Windoze-speak" ;) I used my Mac iBook and I did enlarge it as much as the screen would hold (it's only a 14" screen), then used a bit of software for Macs called Snapz-Pro to take the picture of it. I frankly was busy doing several things at once and may not have adjusted Snapz-Pro to take the highest quality photo it could--I'm not sure what the settings were.

[SFView]

Oh, you're Mac. Sorry about that. Anyway, it worked out good enough for now. Hopefully you will also be able to post the article that goes along with this rendering soon. Any mention of the status of this project?

[BTinSF]

^^^As for posting the article, that's looking grim. They say on the web page that for now the supplements aren't online.

It is an article about SOM and their partner Craig Hartman, not so much about this project. It does say, though, "The addition, which will have balconies on the east and west faces, will be made of glass with fritted coating on the vertical edges and top. Hartman said the design has been inspired by the 'soft luminescence of light' in the hotel's famous Garden Court. 'When the sun strikes, the entire building will glow as a lantern . . . . It is very much like taking the Garden Court and bringing it to the skyline of the city . . . . The intention is to make a very slender, light, luminous tower.'"

[SFView]

^^^I like the notion of bringing the Garden Court to the skyline, even though it doesn't really look so obvious in the rendering. It will also be interesting to see if it "glows as a lantern" in the sunlight. There are some nice effects that can be created with glass similar to glass art and sculpture. I like that some architects are applying some of these ideas to architecture, especially in San Francisco.

Thanks for passing on that summarized information. Is there anything worth posting in the other threads?

[nequidnimis]

^^^ It will also be interesting to see if it "glows as a lantern" in the sunlight. There are some nice effects that can be created with glass similar to glass art and sculpture.

Like this:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_aj2687_b.jpg

or:

http://www.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_aj1544_b.jpg

However, it is hard to do in the case of multi-story residential architecture. The program gets in the way.

[roadwarrior]

I think it may give Millenium a run for its money. It even appears to look a lot like Millenium, but its tough to tell from this rendering.

Does anyone have an idea when they expect to start construction on this?

[BTinSF]

^^^It'll be a long time--if ever. It isn't approved yet and I think would require a rezoning on the height. Since the Palace is a historic structure, I expect a lot of controversy over any addition to it but especially one this tall. This could well be one of those buildings that just doesn't happen, but time will tell. The anti-height NIMBYs are strangely silent for the moment.

[SFView]

^^^I actually mean light as effected and viewed more from the exterior. Yes, the Millenium is one example of what I mean.

[SFView]

^^^It'll be a long time--if ever. It isn't approved yet and I think would require a rezoning on the height. Since the Palace is a historic structure, I expect a lot of controversy over any addition to it but especially one this tall. This could well be one of those buildings that just doesn't happen, but time will tell. The anti-height NIMBYs are strangely silent for the moment.

NIMBYs can read and write on SSP, just like the rest of us. The part of the building that is being replaced, isn't historic. Hopefully, the anti-height NIMBYs are more understanding. Taller, thinner, more widely spaced towers are clearly better than tightly packed shorter towers squeezed under a 550 foot limit, as long as they are built in places that make more sense and minimize negative impact. If any new building would receive more negative opposition, it would be One Rincon Hill. Rincon Hill should begin to make more sense as other towers get built up around it soon. The area near the Palace Hotel is already built up.

[nequidnimis]

This is a high-rise in a business district. Why would NIMBY's be against it?

What upsets NIMBY's is the disruption to what they perceive as an established order in their neighborhoods, and the concept of exceptions to the law written down in the Municipal code essentially up for sale.

[BTinSF]

^^^You are talking about the rational ones. In San Franciscso, there are those who just oppose almost any development. The Sue Hestor/Calvin Welch crowd don't need a valid reason to oppose something. And here they do have a valid reason of a sort. The proposed tower is taller than the height limits they love would allow and it modifies a landmark even if it doesn't change the historic part.

This is the crowd that wants to block denser, taller development at Market & Van Ness (and hence the creation of more needed housing along with a much livelier intersection of the city's two widest streets) even though the necessary rezoning would be the product of years of discussion by community members who do live in the neighborhood and their champion on the Planning Commission doesn't.

[FourOneFive]

I don't know if anyone caught this in the John King article from May 2nd, but it appears the Palace Hotel Tower addition will be reduced in height under the proposed rezoning.

Besides the obvious accents on the skyline, the proposed rezoning raises heights more "modestly" in other locations. There's space for a 400-foot tower connected to the Palace Hotel on New Montgomery Street, for instance, and a 450-foot shaft on Howard Street next to where a 700-foot tower is allowed. On Tehama Street - an alleyway - zoning would allow a 350-foot tower.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/02/BAG110F7TL.DTL

The height will be reduced from the proposed 669', 60 stories to 400', ~40 stories. I'm assuming this reduction is a result of the proposed tower potentially casting a shadow onto Union Square? It's a shame that this tower will be cut in height because I feel most of its existing, neighboring towers are already around this height...the Paramount, St. Regis, and McKesson Plaza (One Post). So much for breaking the table top effect...

[SFView]

Yes, I noticed this too, along with several other large reductions in height. Actually, the height appears to have been reduced from 725' instead of 669'.

Original height proposals:
From: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/City_Design_Group/CDG_transit_center.htm
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/HTS1200P.jpg

Revised height proposals:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/HTS1000.jpg

[peanut gallery]

I don't see where that map identifies this as a 400' parcel. It looks to me like it's still 300'. What am I missing?

[SFView]

I don't see where that map identifies this as a 400' parcel. It looks to me like it's still 300'. What am I missing?

Opps, sorry. It's not showing in the new map. John King mentioned that it is now 400'. There are other details missing from the updated scheme. It is still in a state of flux, plus keeping it somewhat sanitized helps garner approval from the public rather than opposite. You also can see similar simplification in the "1000'" renderings.

[NDPhilly]

i would really like to see some renderings of this one

[Reminiscence]

i would really like to see some renderings of this one

There are none, at least as far as I'm aware of. The only somewhat vague look that we have is in the SF Rundown thread in the City Compilations forum where it shows what it would look like from the courtyard.

[caramatt]

This is one of the best looking projects on the boards. I hope it still gets built.

[BTinSF]

i would really like to see some renderings of this one

This is all we have:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/PalaceTower.jpg?t=1182563865
Scanned from the SF Business Times

[tommaso]

What is the current plan for this site?

[tommaso]

Is this development temporarily stalled?

[viewguysf]

Is this development temporarily stalled?

tommaso, are you paying any attention to the economy, anything happening in San Francisco or reading the active SF threads here? If you were, you wouldn't be asking the same questions in every thread!

The demand here is for rental apartments and SOMA tech/biotech space.

I favor the vast majority of proposels and development in San Francisco, but I hope this one dies and never sees the light of day. In hindsight, I feel it was a mistake to have built the Fairmont and Saint Francis towers. Let our most treasured hotels exist in their glory without a tower on them!

[CyberEric]

Something strange with this guy...he's asking about all of the SF and NY proposals that haven't been talked about it years.

[viewguysf]

Something strange with this guy...he's asking about all of the SF and NY proposals that haven't been talked about it years.

Yes, he's been in Chicago too!

[FourOneFive]

Don't know the status of this project, but I found these renderings that I don't believe have been posted here:

http://stat2.architizer-cdn.com/mediadata/projects/022010/r990x990/edfa11d9.jpeg

http://stat2.architizer-cdn.com/mediadata/projectuser/012010/r600x450/bf3f1a6f.jpeg

They were posted on this site: http://www.architizer.com/en_us/projects/view/palace-condominium-tower/2803/#.UVoO-xymiSo

[botoxic]

From the top rendering, I count at least 57 floors plus the crown, which would make this tower significantly taller than 400 feet.

[fflint]

The proposal was for a 669-foot tower. I haven't heard anything more about this proposal in years.

[minesweeper]

This one looks pretty dead. I don't think anything's happened since 2006 when those renderings were created. One bit of news is that if the owners ever decide to pursue it again, they have a new height limit of 600', which was approved in May 2012 (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_transit_center_district_and_tower_plan_u.html) when a bunch of height limits were raised.

However, even if the developer announced tomorrow that they were going to build, it would probably be at least 5 years before anything happens (just look at how long the Mexican Museum Tower has taken).

[SFView]

By looking pretty dead, I hope we really mean this project is rather much more on indefinite hold.

Anyway regarding the number of floors, I believe it is still (or returned to) 60 with a basic height limit of 600'. It appears that the podium base of the tower matches floor levels to connect to the existing adjacent structures of the hotel.