[mthd]

anyone read the article on the 'high rise boom' yet?

it's interesting, if a bit short on new points. if your newsstand lags ... it's not the issue with the martini on the cover, it's the issue with the rendering on the cover.

http://www.sanfran.com/images/covers/07_02.jpg

http://www.sanfran.com/

[BTinSF]

^^^Is there a larger version of that cover pic anywhere online? It looks like the coolest rendering yet of the new highrises.

[SFView]

Just playing around I came up with this...
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayscheme0107e.jpg
Needless to say, I made some assumptions, that do not match the magazine cover, or may not be entirely accurate. You may let me know if I should change anything to improve the correctness of the future model for San Francisco's Downtown core without adding much more detail to buildings than is shown.

[mthd]

^^ that's not bad at all. ;)

the image on the cover (and inside) sf mag is rendered from a model with far, far, far more detail, scope, and accuracy than the google earth base model, but the 'future' towers are just as speculative as yours, with the exception of buildings already approved...

[SFView]

Thanks! Google Earth is clearly not a professional grade architectural rendering tool, but it does serve its purpose sufficiently. Windows Live Local has texture mapping on 3D buildings, but no rendering tool yet.

I checked one magazine stand and they still have the January issue on display. When is the February issue of San Francisco Magazine due to hit the stands?

Here is another view from one of our favorite locations - Treasure Island. Sorry, no Bay Bridge yet.
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayscheme0107d.jpg

[San Frangelino]

Brilliant job sf view, that second rendering gives an idea of how beautifully dramatic the skyline could become.

I would be curious to see a good rendering from some of San Francisco's most famous postacard views. Like from Alcatraz, Alamo Square, Twin Peaks, or that view with the Golden Gate Bridge in the foreground. I hope in the future we'll get a picture to how much change in the city's aesthetic the skyscrapers have.

[mthd]

I checked one magazine stand and they still have the January issue on display. When is the February issue of San Francisco Magazine due to hit the stands?

hmmm - i'm not sure. i have a stack of copies that were sent to me by the magazine. i think it's in distribution and on some shelves, since i've heard a few comments from other people who have seen it in person.

[SFView]

Interesting that you would have a "stack of copies"...

Without spending too much more time, especially since things could still change, here we go - little yellow house icons, and all...
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayschemeAlcatraz.jpg

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

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

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

[San Frangelino]

Oh wow...wasnt trying to insinuate that you produce them SFview but its appreciated none the less. Thanks mate!!:cheers:

It seems the the twin peaks view would be the most awkward looking if things were built as speculated.

[Reminiscence]

Nice work SFView, those images are stunning. :)

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/8630/transbayplanls9.jpg

Anyone by chance know what the original height of 345 California (California Center) was supposed to be before they downgraded it?

[rs913]

What's the tallest building in these images? Is it part of the Renzo Piano complex or something else?

[BTinSF]

^^^No. It would be the main TransBay building across the street. The Piano building(s) are on the northwest corner of Mission & 1st whereas the tallest contemplated structure (and the tallest in these renderings) is on the south side of Mission between 1st & Fremont (directly in front of the new Transbay Terminal building).

[mthd]

Anyone by chance know what the original height of 345 California (California Center) was supposed to be before they downgraded it?

i believe it was at least 100 feet taller, although i don't know exactly. it would be interesting to find out...

the hotel floors were also designed as condo to meet planning requirements of the time ( a la 388 market and 333 bush) but by the time it was under construction, they were allowed to change it to a hotel use - the mandarin oriental, of course.

[SFView]

I also thought that 345 California was to be 100 feet taller, but I can't remember for sure.

I actually had the idea to do postcard images of San Francisco even before it was suggested here. I think it is a natural idea, so I jumped at it. Many 3D buildings disappear from view as I would pull further away from downtown. This is probably due to limited computer or video memory. Could this be why the Twin Peaks view seems awkward?

The Transbay Terminal Tower is drawn at a assumed height of 1250 feet plus a 100 foot crown for a 101 story building. This sets the height difference from the tallest Piano Towers at 150 feet. Two other Transbay towers are assumed at more than 90 stories at an estimated height of 1100 feet each. Hopefully, we will have better information about these 90 plus story towers soon. All five towers taller than 1000 feet are within the planned unlimited FAR and height zone surrounding the terminal.

Thanks again.

[Reminiscence]

100 feet seems about right for the amount they took off, had they left it alone, it would have looked more like what One Rincon will look like, from sea level that is.


I'm not sure if anyone noticed, but I tweaked SFView's skyline just a bit to reflect that 1500' tower idea I had long ago. Now that we have all these proposals that we didnt have before, it doesnt seem so out of place.

[viewguysf]

The biggest "crime" of all is that Transamerica was not allowed to build the Pyramid to its originally intended height of 1,150 feet! It would have been awesome but small minds took over.

[SFView]

It wasn't just "small minds."

Let's get into 1971 character here:
- Hey man, another big ugly tower built by the establishment blocking views and sunlight ain't no groovy thing, man. I mean like hey man - just look at the big black Bank of America Building. This Manhattanization in San Francisco thing's gotta stop before we loose what's so cool and groovy about San Francisco! It's gotta groove man, or like hey - we loose forever! -

San Francisco was destine to become one of the world's leading skyscraper cities since the 1960's. Huge opposition in San Francisco prevented that from happening, resulting in several attempts to lower the height limits in San Francisco to as little as six stories across the entire city! The limit was successfully lowered to 550 feet, but a yearly square footage cap resulted in almost no significant high-rise from 1986 until the early 2000's. San Francisco was the center of free speech and activism especially around the late 60's and early 70's. High-rises were a natural target.

The Nob Hill neighborhood did not want another huge view blocking ugly tower in their way. The best comprise was to shorten the Pyramid to help appease the opposition. Shortening the tower actually does not make much a difference in saving views, but at least it helped in getting something built. Ironically, the Transamerica Pyramid has become part of the treasured view from everywhere seen, including Nob Hill.

Luckily, things are much groovier in 2007!

[BTinSF]

It wasn't just "small minds."

The limit was successfully lowered to 550 feet, but a yearly square footage cap resulted in almost no significant high-rise from 1986 until the early 2000's. San Francisco was the center of free speech and activism especially around the late 60's and early 70's. High-rises were a natural target.



A few quibbles. I wish I could find a pasteable copy of the "Downtown Plan" but I'm pretty darned sure it had a 700+ ft height limit in an area around the TransBay Terminal. Second, after the burst of highrise construction in the early 80's that produced such as the CitiCorp Building, there wasn't a lot of demand for more office space until the "dot-com" bubble came along a decade later. Still, projects like the "W" Hotel, Four Seasons, St. Regis, The Paramount, 560 Mission, 101 Second and 55 Second did get built in the late 90's.

[SFView]

Yes, it was 700 feet in 1972, but reduced to 550 feet in 1985. You are also more accurate regarding the return of high-rises completed in San Francisco beginning in 1999. The taller buildings of the group you listed were completed in the early 2000's. I was merely generalizing.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/26/MNGETJ2Q0P1.DTL

[coyotetrickster]

A few quibbles. I wish I could find a pasteable copy of the "Downtown Plan" but I'm pretty darned sure it had a 700+ ft height limit in an area around the TransBay Terminal. Second, after the burst of highrise construction in the early 80's that produced such as the CitiCorp Building, there wasn't a lot of demand for more office space until the "dot-com" bubble came along a decade later. Still, projects like the "W" Hotel, Four Seasons, St. Regis, The Paramount, 560 Mission, 101 Second and 55 Second did get built in the late 90's.


BT, the taller of those towers (4Seass, W, St. Regis, Paramount) were built in the YB redevelopment zone. They are actually exempt from several city planning restrictions as the SF Redevelopment Authority is chartered as a state entity and trumps local planning. That's why Daly, Welch, et al are fighting the Mid Market area designation as 'blighted.' With the city declaring the area blighted, the SF Redevelopment Authority can override zoning restrictions on things like height, etc.

[BTinSF]

^^^ Yes, I understand and agree, but still my point was just that all highrise development wasn't halted between 1986 and 2000. I partly retired in 1993 and spent a lot of my "spare" time watching buildings go up in South of Market in the late 90's. Much of it I could see from the Yerba Buena Park (which I love by the way).

[SFView]

Yes, the late 20th century lull in construction in San Francisco was also due largely to economic factors.

[San Frangelino]

BT, the taller of those towers (4Seass, W, St. Regis, Paramount) were built in the YB redevelopment zone. They are actually exempt from several city planning restrictions as the SF Redevelopment Authority is chartered as a state entity and trumps local planning. That's why Daly, Welch, et al are fighting the Mid Market area designation as 'blighted.' With the city declaring the area blighted, the SF Redevelopment Authority can override zoning restrictions on things like height, etc.

Wow...I hadn't realized this at all. Is there any idea on the likelyhood of the city marking Mid Market as "blighted" and when we would get word about this?

[viewguysf]

Right on SFView about your characterization of the times when the Pyramid was built. I first visited here as a kid during the summer of '67 when there were very few highrises. Upon moving here in 1972, I saw the Pyramid completed. You're right that, ironically, the shape of the Transamerica Pyramid did not block views per se and that it has become a beloved icon. As much as I agree with you and understand those times, it still gets me that we couldn't have had that cool building 297 feet higher.

Peace and love brother! :<)

[mthd]

Wow...I hadn't realized this at all. Is there any idea on the likelyhood of the city marking Mid Market as "blighted" and when we would get word about this?

you can find all the info here http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5580

things have changed a lot since the free-wheeling days of the RDA though, in general the RDA is much more closely in step with the prior zoning. most project areas these days are overlays which only affect a few aspects of land use; in the case of mid market it's things like unit density, gross floor area, parking ratios, etc. there are a few provisions allowing additional height in the mid market area, but it's VERY minor (an add'l 20 feet in 120-130 height limits, etc.)

[BTinSF]

Wow...I hadn't realized this at all. Is there any idea on the likelyhood of the city marking Mid Market as "blighted" and when we would get word about this?

This year, maybe:

Survey Area Established: December 4, 1995
Anticipated Establishment of Project Area: 2007

“The Future of Mid-Market”
A Summary of the Proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan

The Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan (Plan) proposes the creation of a new Mid-Market Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) located in downtown
San Francisco along Market Street and Mission Street between 5th Street and 10th Street .

The proposed Plan is the culmination of 10 years of community planning in conjunction with the Mid-Market community including the Mid-Market Project Area Committee, an advisory body to the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) made up community residents, property owners, businesses and community organizations.

The Plan can be summarized as an incremental 30-year urban infill and rehabilitation program that would authorize the Agency to participate in and/or assist with certain projects and programs that, taken together, aim to create a more vibrant and balanced mixed-use district over time.

Agency efforts would place a special emphasis on building upon the existing fabric and assets of the district including:
Increasing the ratio of residential development to other land uses;
Expanding upon existing arts, cultural and entertainment activities;
Aiding existing businesses;
Attracting new complementary commercial development; and
Rehabilitating existing commercial and residential space in historic buildings.
In addition, the Plan aims to retain existing and historic affordable housing ratios as well as community-serving office space. To support the Project Area’s anticipated growth in residential population, businesses, and employees, and to serve city-wide and regional needs, the Plan anticipates additional facilities to house civic, social and cultural services and activities and public improvements including public open space, streetscapes and transit facilities.

Key Highlights

The Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan has been specifically crafted to effect significant and positive change while simultaneously building upon the existing fabric and assets of the Project Area. Important highlights include:
Implementation planning, including design guidelines and a streetscape plan
Use of the Planning Code to regulate development in recognition of historic development patterns
Authorization of the Mid-Market Special Use District (SUD) – a set of specific Planning Code amendments aimed at achieving the goals and objectives of the Plan
Shared administration of development controls with the Planning Department
Encouraging owner participation in redevelopment
A limited eminent domain policy that focuses on alleviating the Project Area’s most blighting conditions
A mandate to assist the preservation of 1,221 affordable housing units and to set aside at least 50% of tax-increment funding for rental housing affordable to families earning no more than 60% of area median income
A mandate to set aside 20% of tax-increment funding for the development and renovation of facilities for non-profit community serving and arts, culture and entertainment organizations
Next Steps

Redevelopment Plan adoption is anticipated in 2007. The proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan and SUD are currently pending before the Board of Supervisors.

Source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5580

[BTinSF]

you can find all the info here http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5580

there are a few provisions allowing additional height in the mid market area, but it's VERY minor (an add'l 20 feet in 120-130 height limits, etc.)

That's true, although as we all know, the Trinity Plaza project would be a very large and impressive one that would dramatically impact the area--and would have a higher limit of 180 ft. Still, when it comes to higher heights, the planners intend that for just up Market St. at Van Ness which is covered by the Market/Octavia Plan. See http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=40328 and especially the "Land Use" pdf document which talks about raising the height limits near the Market Van Ness intersection to 400 ft (from 160).

Trinity Plaza (Design by Architectonica)

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/08/04/ba_plaza.jpg

Rendering: Market Street side
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/news_images/2006/marketnight.jpg

Mission St. side
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/news_images/2006/mission.jpg

East elevation
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/news_images/2006/plazaeast.jpg

Planning Commission Approves Trinity Plaza -- Again
by Paul Hogarth‚ Jan. 26‚ 2007

It’s déjà vu all over again. Yesterday, the Planning Commission once again voted 6-1 to approve the Trinity Plaza project – which will create 1900 units of rental housing at 8th and Market. This is the second time that the Planning Commission has approved this project – a product of intense negotiations between Supervisor Chris Daly, property owner Angelo Sangiacomo, and the Trinity Plaza Tenants Association. If it wasn’t for two Supervisors on the Land Use Committee, there would have been no need to send it back to Planning at all. What yesterday’s vote proved is that the project enjoys a broad consensus of support in the community, and should be seen to fruition.

The Trinity Plaza project will preserve 360 units of rent-controlled housing (possibly the first time that a landlord has ever agreed to put newly constructed units under rent control), in addition to the 285 affordable units required by law. It is the largest rental housing project that San Francisco has witnessed in 50 years – in a part of the City that desperately needs re-vitalization. Amazingly, the project will not expend any public funds – such as intervention by the Redevelopment Agency.

In August, the Planning Commission voted to approve this project. Once the Planning Department approves a project, it goes into effect unless the Board of Supervisors act within 90 days. On Election Day (right before the 90-day deadline), Supervisors Sophie Maxwell and Jake McGoldrick held a Land Use Committee meeting where the developer was not invited, and began asking questions about the project’s affordability.

Besides the questionable implications of holding a Board meeting on Election Day, Maxwell and McGoldrick’s actions came close to jeopardizing the entire project – as Sangiacamo threatened to walk away from the whole deal. Also, common protocol at City Hall is that if a project is in one Supervisor’s district, the other Supervisors will generally defer to his or her judgment. Trinity Plaza is in Chris Daly’s district -- who helped negotiate this project.

Now the question on everyone’s mind is if the same shenanigans will happen all over again. Board President Aaron Peskin has chosen to keep both Maxwell and McGoldrick on the Land Use Committee, allowing for the possibility for further shenanigans. It also means that 1900 units of rental housing might never be built.

“Will the Board again allow two Supervisors from preventing the full Board from approving this project?” asked Randy Shaw, executive director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and editor-in-chief of Beyond Chron. “Will they continue to delay hundreds of tenants from obtaining improved living conditions at the same rent?”

If the Planning Commission’s actions say anything, it is unfair to give two Supervisors the power to scuttle a historic housing project in a district that they don’t even represent. “We just want to move on with our lives,” said Ken Werner, president of the Trinity Plaza Tenants Association. “It’s time that the project was approved and finalized.”
Source: http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Planning_Commission_Approves_Trinity_Plaza_Again_4131.html

See also: http://www.examiner.com/a-530240~Amendment_propels_Trinity_Plaza_project.html?setEdition=Atlanta

[BigKidD]

Does the Trinity Plaza apartment project replace any preexisting buildings located at 8th and Market? I do not currently remember what exactly that area looks like.

[BTinSF]

^^^Yes, this:

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/news_images/trinityplaza.jpg

[BigKidD]

Thanks BTinSF.

[Reminiscence]

I've always thought that project resembles lego blocks stacked on top of each other. To be honest I'm not that captivated on its design, but if its to replace whats currently there, then more power to them.

[BTinSF]

^^^The important point about Trinity Plaza is that it is BIG--1900 residential rental units. Aside from the help that provides to the city's housing shortage, having probably over 2000 new people living on mid-Market St. has the potential to change the neighborhood dramatically. Right now on that block and the several around it, you don't encounter much foot traffic--but you do encounter plenty of panhandlers and homeless folks. Bringing that many new residents to the area means more foot traffic made up of people walking to work, shopping, getting a bite to eat, going to a movie--maybe enough to overwhelm the sensation of cold, near-deserted sidewalks with people sleeping in the doorways you get there in the evening and weekends now. And those new residents will pressure the city for better policing and more cleanup. It'll mean hundreds of new voters who will support further efforts to improve the area even if Chris Daly doesn't want to do it. That's important.

[Reminiscence]

Well, the design is fair. As for the housing issue you discussed, then yes I do agree with you on that. That part of town isnt exactly an area I'd like to be in, for various reasons. This project does bring a lot of units, which is a blessing for SF all the time pretty much.

[BTinSF]

^^^I think there's a good chance you'd want to live there if the mid-Market vision that's being contemplated ever gets implemented. Besides housing, it also wants to make the area a home for arts organizations (the Art Institute and the Orpheum Theater are already there with the Asian Art Museum and Main Library only a block away) and restored retail:

The 14 blocks from Fifth to Tenth streets along Market and Mission streets are now mostly low-rise offices, downscale hotels and residential buildings that have coexisted with the area's illegal drug trade and porn businesses for decades. The agency envisions many of these buildings coming down to become a partial answer to the city's housing crunch.

The agency's Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan calls for 2.89 million square feet of new housing, or 3,200 new dwellings, by 2020. The plan also envisions 1.2 million square feet of new offices, nearly 400,000 square feet of retail and almost 400,000 square feet for hotels. Potential employment in the area would grow from the present 10,500 jobs to nearly 16,000 by 2020.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2002/12/23/story5.html?t=printable

It already has the city's best transit options and is an easy walk to most government buildings, the opera, symphony, ballet and new Conservatory of Music.

[viewguysf]

Arquitectonica is the design firm for the Trinity Plaza project, so it should be very nice. The same firm is involved with The Infinity, down behind Hills Plaza.

[Frisco_Zig]

It'll mean hundreds of new voters who will support further efforts to improve the area even if Chris Daly doesn't want to do it. That's important.


And in fairness to Daly he is the one who brokered the deal with the developer and was thwarted by McGoldrick. I am unsure of the current status of this.

[BTinSF]

^^^The "current status" is in the article I posted above dated Jan. 26:

Yesterday, the Planning Commission once again voted 6-1 to approve the Trinity Plaza project – which will create 1900 units of rental housing at 8th and Market. This is the second time that the Planning Commission has approved this project – a product of intense negotiations between Supervisor Chris Daly, property owner Angelo Sangiacomo, and the Trinity Plaza Tenants Association. If it wasn’t for two Supervisors on the Land Use Committee, there would have been no need to send it back to Planning at all. What yesterday’s vote proved is that the project enjoys a broad consensus of support in the community, and should be seen to fruition.

and from the other article I linked:

After expressing frustration over how the proposed 1,900-unit Trinity Plaza development came to fruition, the Planning Commission on Thursday approved for the second time a zoning amendment that puts the project back before the Board of Supervisors for a vote.

[SFView]

I am hoping someone can soon post in this thread the San Francisco Magazine article that sparked it. Highest quality images related to the article would also be very nice. I am still waiting to get a copy of the magazine.

[BTinSF]

^^^So far, at least, the images and full text of the article are NOT on-line at their web site. I don't think they are going to be giving those out for free.

[SFView]

You're right, I forgot. We should probably wait at least until March when the February issue is no longer for sale. Then we could see whatever San Francisco Magazine decides is worthwhile to present in their archive section of their web site. In the meantime, they can sell as many magazines as they can, without having to worry about us.

[San Frangelino]

Here is the best my partner could scan!!. The article looks to cover more than just The Transbay/Rincon area. It states that we are seeing the biggest boom sine 1906! I havent gotten to look thru it yet, that will wait till before bed time.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/376044218_9483db22ec_b.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Nice job! That certainly brings out a lot of detail I didnt see before. Thier models might be a little off, but its still very nice. Wish I had access to a copy :(

[coyotetrickster]

Nice job! That certainly brings out a lot of detail I didnt see before. Thier models might be a little off, but its still very nice. Wish I had access to a copy :(


May I recommend any one of many fine independent booksellers who would love your custom:-)

[BTinSF]

^^^I think he, like myself, being not physically in San Francisco right now, would not have much luck at the "independent book sellers" within our reach. I don't think San Francisco Magazine is widely distributed nationally. If I thought the Green Valley, AZ Wal-Mart, Walgreens or Safeway (about the only places to buy magazines within 20 miles) would have it, I'd already have grabbed a copy. :shrug:

[Reminiscence]

May I recommend any one of many fine independent booksellers who would love your custom:-)

Oh, believe me, I'd be first in line. I dont know if they offer them here in Chicago though, hmm ...

[SFView]

Big thanks for putting up the cover! Now we can compare. Understandably, the cover shows the 80 story 1000 foot version of the Transbay Tower, and the 850 foot tall building to the south. I have already explained my version's primary differences. There may be some errors in details in both my and San Francisco Magazine's versions, but with both we can now have a much better general picture of what may be for San Francisco's future so far.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayscheme0107e.jpg

[coyotetrickster]

Oh, believe me, I'd be first in line. I dont know if they offer them here in Chicago though, hmm ...

Well, I know BT is ensconced in Tuscon, hiding from the winter (almost nil at the moment) rains. Sorry for the assumption about others wanting a fix of cgi and SF Magazine. All I have to say is some of those towers better have fun roof treatments. I am so over flat. It's last year's mauve.

[SFView]

I just noticed on the magazine cover, it appears as if they have expanded the 201 Folsom project to add 2 towers across the street to the north (right - in the image). The four towers look similar in design. Wasn't there going to be an open space park here as part of the Transbay Plan? Those shapes still look very 'Heller Manus'.

[Reminiscence]

^^^

To the right? I thought those were part of the Transbay Redevelopment Plan, two of those 400 or 500 foot towers planned. What I see different is the building, or buildings behind Infinity, or to the west of them. Isnt 201 Folsom diagonally accross (Northwest) from Infinity, I'm a little confused myself now.

[San Frangelino]

In this issue, there is a nearly naked Aron Peskin in a thong running on the beach near Aquatic Park.....EEEK!!!

You may want to beware if you purchase it!

[BTinSF]

^^^I think you can see the towers you're talking about and the park better in this rendering from http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=38

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Redevelopment%20Plan_large.JPG

[SFView]

The original 201 Folsom towers are within the green box. The two new identified towers are in the red box below. The magazine rendering shows two large towers togther, and two smaller towers together on each of two separate blocks
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayscheme201Folsom.jpg

The earlier rendering below only shows two towers at 201 Folsom - shown to the west (right - in this image). The two towers on the left are the original Heller Manus designs for what is now known as The Infinity. This rendering is looking south while the magazine cover looks northwest.
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0126_07x.jpg

Did the artist of the magazine cover rendering also get confused, or do we have two new towers?

[BTinSF]

Once again--look at this:

http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/uploadedImages/Project/Redevelopment%20Plan_large.JPG

YES--there are two towers here (actually, there are more than just those two) we haven't talked about (the ones in your red box) because there are no concrete proposals or designs for them. So far, they are just theoretical proposals in the TransBay plan--which you can read more discussion of here: http://www.transbaycenter.org/TransBay/content.aspx?id=38 . Everything about them from the height to the purpose (housing vs office) is subject to change. They are put on these renderings mainly, I think, to show where it is expected that buildings will eventually go and where such things as parks will go--and, as I said, you can see the small park on Folsom in the rendering.

I think the artist who did the magazine cover was using this or another rendering from the TransBay Redevelopment Plan as his guide for that part of town.

By the way, did you ever see the early models and/or rendering for the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Area and mentally compare them to what finally got built? There's not much comparison (my favorite change was what is now the Paramount was long supposed to be a round, glass office tower). My point is just about how tentative this sort of rendering is.

[SFView]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the two towers you are writing about are existing buildings to the east of the new park, towards the Bay.

I agree that the Transbay plan has much potential for change as it slowly becomes reality. Yerba Buena, now Moscone Center, is a good example. The taller Transbay towers may continue to change as well, even after the competition is awarded. the New WTC towers in New York are also an example.

The park is already a well developed part of the final Transbay Streetscape & Openspace Plan:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sfra/Projects/Final%20TCAC%20Mtg%2004-20-06%20handout.pdf

[mthd]

looks to me like the northern pair of cruciform towers should not really be there - this is a 40/165 foot limit in the transbay plan.

there should be one pair of cruciform towers - 201 folsom - plus the pair of towers at the infinity. i don't know if there's a real project yet, but the single 300 foot box in the front of the errant pair of towers is part of the transbay plan. of 45 lansing, 340 fremont, and 375/399 fremont, i believe only one building is shown on the cover rendering.

most of the generic boxes look to come from the planning department's more recent version of the transbay plan in which additional heights are contemplated in various locations.

[SFView]

Here is an slight update:

The San Francisco Magazine cover:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/376044218_9483db22ec_b.jpg

A similar view with previously explained differences, and newly mentioned 177 Fremont tower at 800 feet tall added - immediately to the left of tallest Transbay Tower:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayschemeSFMagView2.jpg

...And 177 Fremont added to the view from Treasure Island:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/transbayschemeTI.jpg

[SFView]

(edit)

[San Frangelino]

Wonderful! I love the "smoother" versions of this rendering. Thanks for taking the time to produce it.

This is what I would hope the final proposed height would end up looking like. A taller "Signature Tower" and a "taller-than-850ft-tower" at Howard Street. I really hope the Howard St TJPA Tower is over 1000 ft as well. Something along the lines of Shard Tower in London in height. Wether it will be or not...well I think it's best to be a little pessimistic.

[mthd]

Wonderful! I love the "smoother" versions of this rendering. Thanks for taking the time to produce it.

This is what I would hope the final proposed height would end up looking like. A taller "Signature Tower" and a "taller-than-850ft-tower" at Howard Street. I really hope the Howard St TJPA Tower is over 1000 ft as well. Something along the lines of Shard Tower in London in height. Wether it will be or not...well I think it's best to be a little pessimistic.

in reality, i think it's HIGHLY unlikely that these proposed sites will see buildings as tall as what sfView has shown in his model. if i was a betting man, i would suggest the transbay tower will be no more than 1,050 feet tall, the piano project will be no more than 900 feet tall, and none of the other opportunity sites will see buildings more than 800 feet tall. 50 stories will be the new 30 stories, and if we are lucky we'll see a lot of 600-700 foot buildings. given market forces, the cost of construction, the size of available sites, bulk controls (implicit or otherwise) i'd bet on there being no more than one 1,000+ foot tall building in san francisco over the next 20 years.

i also think it's VERY likely, although unfortunate, that none of these buildings will exceed 900 feet or so.

[San Frangelino]

^Hey..if it turns out that way, there would be nothing wrong with it. The tallest buildings aren't a necessary component for great cities. But with that said and knowing well that plans get downscaled; I think I will keep my hopes up for the most ambitious vision.

[J Church]

in reality, i think it's HIGHLY unlikely that these proposed sites will see buildings as tall as what sfView has shown in his model. if i was a betting man, i would suggest the transbay tower will be no more than 1,050 feet tall, the piano project will be no more than 900 feet tall, and none of the other opportunity sites will see buildings more than 800 feet tall. 50 stories will be the new 30 stories, and if we are lucky we'll see a lot of 600-700 foot buildings. given market forces, the cost of construction, the size of available sites, bulk controls (implicit or otherwise) i'd bet on there being no more than one 1,000+ foot tall building in san francisco over the next 20 years.

i also think it's VERY likely, although unfortunate, that none of these buildings will exceed 900 feet or so.

Agreed. There will always be some give and take. Which is one reason it's important to shoot for the moon early on. The Pyramid wouldn't have ended up the city's tallest if it hadn't been proposed to be hundreds of feet taller than everything else.

I'll be happy if the signature tower is a thousand-footer. That would give the skyline the peak it needs.

P.S. Amend that: the signature tower should be a foot taller than Library Tower ;)

[briankendall]

I disagree with the idea that it is highly unlikely that the heights of these buildings will not come to fruition. I agree with the notion that the developers are probably going to shoot for the upper limit with the possibility they might be scaled down. I also agree that if the buildings are scaled down it would be for economic reasons on the developers part not being forced downward because of NIMBYism.

There are too many trends in support of it though (smart growth, New Urbanism, transit-oriented) too many realities like CA population nearing 40 million, too much demand...for many of the past 20 years CA's growth rate has been higher than India or Bangladesh, the economy is good, Silicon Valley is gearing up again and coming back, too many politicians on board Aaron, Chris, Gavin etc, and lots and lots of policitally correct appeal in making them "green buildings" i.e. Mark Solit talking about 'green buildings' about the Renzo project in the Chronicle today, its in a redevelopment area, its tied to making the Transbay Terminal possible.

The powers that be have woven together a brilliant and pretty convincing arguments for it all. I believe the arguments are powerful enough to keep the Sue Hestors at bay. I think many developers will be convinced by what I believe will be continued long term demand for both housing, Class A office space and hotels as all continuing strongly for the next 10 years. Even if the economy tanked the Planning Department is still interested in changing the zoning around SOMA. They want to prep for the future. They see the future and know what they have to do. So lets say a developer designs a building but for economic reasons it doesn't get built... the lot there is still entitled to build that building...for years and years to come. So if it doesn't get built it mosty probably will at some point in the future.

These things are cyclical and now is the time before the window shut. They want to take advantage of this window before it shuts both politically and economically for another 20 years. I believe that there are a lot of developers out there that will not want to miss this chance. I also think many developers have been surprised by the success of current projects, for example, the One Rincon Hill group were all surprised at how quickly the tower sold. They never expected it to be that strong. They didn't expect the amount of demand from overseas. It will all come down to economic demand and if it makes sense and I am betting that it will.

[Codex Borgia]

Any subscribers to www.sanfran.com (http://www.sanfran.com) that would like to copy and paste this article on line or share their user id and password for all of us interested forumers outside the SF Bay area? You can also share your user id and password as a benevolent disseminator of information via http://bugmenot.com (http://bugmenot.com/)
:D ·

[fflint]

Will any of the 1,000-foot-plus proposals be built? We do not know.

I've been an avid skyscraper fan watching San Francisco build since the early 1980s, when I was just a kid. I'd buy the Chron and cut out newspaper clippings, some of which I still have (somewhere) of proposals, plans, construction and finished towers.

Even during the 1980s skyscraper boom, the very notion of a 641' tower on Rincon Hill next to the bridge would have been outlandish--but it's now happening.

So the idea that San Francisco cannot or will not manage one or more 1,000 footers in an already established skyscraper district? That seems to presume too much.

[SFView]

No one knows for certain what the final heights can or will be until the final EIR's are completed about two or three years from now. There is also the changing economy, final building designs and various reviews and approvals to consider. At least we can see and discuss what the key stakeholders may be hoping for while the scene continues to change. Fflint is correct in suggesting that the situation for building tall buildings in San Francisco is different than it has been in the past. Let us hope that things continue to be in the favor of much taller towers successfully becoming reality in San Francisco, and most everything related will be able to support it.

[rs913]

For all of you in the Bay Area, the article is worth picking up the magazine from your local newsstand...it's full of good photographs and diagrams.

Why they had to include the cringeworthy shot of Aaron Peskin in a Speedo is beyond me, though.

[mthd]

if anyone has read the march issue, you can get a taste of things to come from the only two letters to the editor they chose to publish about the february cover story... both are tremendously negative and, of course, totally uninformed. it's sad.

[craeg]

if anyone has read the march issue, you can get a taste of things to come from the only two letters to the editor they chose to publish about the february cover story... both are tremendously negative and, of course, totally uninformed. it's sad.

It is disappointing that they chose to only print two negative responses to Feb's issue - but I found both of the letters pretty weak overall.
One speaks of the people who would die in a hypothetical earthquake collapse and how they would be "getting what they deserve" - and the other is just the same BS warmed over. Ego, we are perfect the way we are. blah b;lah blah. This is the best they've got?

[mthd]

One speaks of the people who would die in a hypothetical earthquake collapse and how they would be "getting what they deserve" ...

the great irony, of course, is that the safest people in a big earthquake will be the ones living in brand new buildings, especially tall state of the art buildings with sophisticated structural systems and life safety systems.

the people who will die will be the people living in quaint victorians (from fires) or unreinforced masonry multi-unit buildings (from collapse.)