[Reminiscence]

A new thread for the fairly recent proposal of the Cathedral Hill Tower. While not part of the Financial - SOMA Central Skyline, it should make for a very nice addition to its part of the city. At 407', it will certainly be visible from many vantage points.

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1992/cathedralhilltowerrendevl2.jpg

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2100/cathedralhilltowerrendeoa7.jpg

The Skidmore, Owings and Merrill design for a proposed 38-story and 300 unit condominium development across from St. Mary’s Cathedral has been unveiled. The glass-walled oval tower would replace the current Cathedral Hill Plaza Athletic Club swimming pool and tennis courts (the swimming pool would be moved underground; the tennis courts, not so much) and would include five floors of below grade parking (one space per unit).

All 300 units in the tower are proposed to be market rate with the developers looking to fulfill their BMR quota offsite (within a mile). And the development would also include an education/community center at the corner of Gough and Geary and adjoining ground level commercial space.

In terms of a timeline, expect at least a year for planning and permitting (we’d guess quite a bit more) and then another two for actual construction.

Renderings provided by: Socketsite.com

[beanhead4529]

:haha: two threads for the same project. nice looking tower too.

[SFView]

Careful not to confuse this project with 555 Washington St. Both towers are 38 stories, and about the same height. I think the two buildings would be more than a mile apart. Maybe someone could check?

[BTinSF]

^^^Check what? 555 Washington has its own thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=130808

[NYguy]

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1992/cathedralhilltowerrendevl2.jpg

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2100/cathedralhilltowerrendeoa7.jpg


Reminds me of Foster's UES tower that fell through...

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/project/uploaded_files/590_385%20Foster%20980%20Madison.jpghttp://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1992/cathedralhilltowerrendevl2.jpg


http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/news_images/1000%20Foster%20980%20Madison.jpg
worldarchitecturenews.com

[Aleks]

idk i think it looks more like the St. Rgis tower in Mexico city

[StatenIslander237]

Reminds me of Foster's UES tower that fell through...

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/project/uploaded_files/590_385%20Foster%20980%20Madison.jpg

That's uncanny. I was going to say the exact same thing. Let's hope this equally dynamic proposal does not suffer the same fate. Not in open-minded San Francisco. :cool:

[condodweller]

The title of the thread is a bit of a misnomer, as the developers are actually billing this project as the "Post Street Tower(s)." There's already a "Cathedral Hill Tower" (1200 Gough), built by the same developer back in 1965, as seen in my avatar :)

[sfcity1]

Awesome looking tower. Hope to see it rise soon.:) :) :notacrook:

[SFView]

^^^Check what? 555 Washington has its own thread: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=130808

I should have said, "...check the distance between each of the two building sites." Sorry, if that wasn't clear, or even much important. I was in a rush at the time.

[Reminiscence]

The title of the thread is a bit of a misnomer, as the developers are actually billing this project as the "Post Street Tower(s)." There's already a "Cathedral Hill Tower" (1200 Gough), built by the same developer back in 1965, as seen in my avatar :)

That had gone through my attention after I had created the thread. However, I see that one of the administrators has taken the liberty to change it to "Post Street Tower", which seems more appropriate.

Anyone by chance know the approximate land elevation of this location? I was estimating somewhere around 200'.

[BTinSF]

I should have said, "...check the distance between each of the two building sites." Sorry, if that wasn't clear, or even much important. I was in a rush at the time.

By my Muni map it's about 1.25 miles or a bit more. But why does it matter?

[condodweller]

The name change of the thread makes my previous post obsolete!

On to substantive issues: while this is a nice looking tower, I think the drawings are a bit deceptive as to the perspective -- this will be seriously close (about 70 feet) to the existing 25 story Sequoias tower, which is presently one of the more visibly imposing buildings in the area. So it will look awkward from the West, coming East up Geary, as it will be seen as sort of sprouting from behind the Sequoia. From the South or North, both buildings will look oddly close (far more than in the drawings, which seem to place the new tower further South than it actually is). So the only unobstructed view of the new tower will be from the East (downtown), over the 14 story Cathedral Hill Plaza (which is, generally, a non-entity). To give an idea of what a small footprint this is on, it will rest on an area presently occupied by two consecutive tennis courts, lying width-wise between the Sequoias and Cathedral Hill Plaza. In all, I don't think this will be as graceful as it appears in the drawings, and will actually create a rather crowded effect.

[SFView]

The name change of the thread makes my previous post obsolete!

On to substantive issues: while this is a nice looking tower, I think the drawings are a bit deceptive as to the perspective -- this will be seriously close (about 70 feet) to the existing 25 story Sequoias tower, which is presently one of the more visibly imposing buildings in the area. So it will look awkward from the West, coming East up Geary, as it will be seen as sort of sprouting from behind the Sequoia. From the South or North, both buildings will look oddly close (far more than in the drawings, which seem to place the new tower further South than it actually is). So the only unobstructed view of the new tower will be from the East (downtown), over the 14 story Cathedral Hill Plaza (which is, generally, a non-entity). To give an idea of what a small footprint this is on, it will rest on an area presently occupied by two consecutive tennis courts, lying width-wise between the Sequoias and Cathedral Hill Plaza. In all, I don't think this will be as graceful as it appears in the drawings, and will actually create a rather crowded effect.

As you say, both the rendering and the model seem to show the base of the tower very close to the sidewalk on Geary to the south. Have you seen a site plan or other drawings of this proposal to support your claim that the renderings are inaccurate, and the latest scheme(s) has the tower actually further north? I agree it would be rather crowded, if this is true.

[condodweller]

As you say, both the rendering and the model seem to show the base of the tower very close to the sidewalk on Geary to the south. Have you seen a site plan or other drawings of this proposal to support your claim that the renderings are inaccurate, and the latest scheme(s) has the tower actually further north? I agree it would be rather crowded, if this is true.

I went to the public presentation that the developer held at St. Mary's, and looked closely at the model -- it's definitely going to be a shoehorn fit, and quite awkward with respect to the Sequoia tower. I can't figure out how to save the picture, but look up 1333 Gough on Mapquest or Google maps, and click the satellite/aerial view -- you can see how little space there is between the Sequoias and Cathedral Hill Plaza (basically, the tennis courts). The tower will not be all that close to he sidewalk, as they plan low-rise retail on Geary, and roof gardens above that.

[djvandrake]

It's a very interesting design with quite the dynamic looking crown. I hope it becomes a reality!

[SFView]

I went to the public presentation that the developer held at St. Mary's, and looked closely at the model -- it's definitely going to be a shoehorn fit, and quite awkward with respect to the Sequoia tower. I can't figure out how to save the picture, but look up 1333 Gough on Mapquest or Google maps, and click the satellite/aerial view -- you can see how little space there is between the Sequoias and Cathedral Hill Plaza (basically, the tennis courts). The tower will not be all that close to he sidewalk, as they plan low-rise retail on Geary, and roof gardens above that.

Here you go - from Google Earth:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/1333Goughmap.jpg

If I am not mistaken, the existing swimming pool is under the dark gray roof near the center of this image. North is pointing upwards. Geary is the large street running left-right near the bottom. The Sequoias Tower is at the middle-left. Cathedral Hill Plaza is at the middle-right. The large entrance plaza to the St. Mary's Cathedral is at the bottom.

How long ago was the public presentation? Hopefully the renderings show a newer scheme. Various reviews by the public and the city could push the tower location further south. Do you recall any comments from anyone from the Sequoias at the public presentation?

[condodweller]

How long ago was the public presentation? Hopefully the renderings show a newer scheme. Various reviews by the public and the city could push the tower location further south. Do you recall any comments from anyone from the Sequoias at the public presentation?

That's indeed the spot. The meeting was only a couple of weeks ago, and the renderings were the same. It's the actual model that really shows the dynamics between the two towers. Hard to tell from the satellite photo, but the Sequoias (to the left of the tennis courts) is considerably taller than the Cathedral Hill Plaza (to the right). Basically, for both the Sequoias and the new tower, from looking at the model, there's be about 25 stories of people looking right into each others' living rooms. Not sure who exactly was from the Sequoias at the presentation, but neighborhood reaction varied from anxious to angry. On the other hand, a new development, and especially some decent retail, might help enliven the area. The developer was pretty fuzzy about the nature of the retail (they mentioned a cafe and a dry cleaner, as possibilities), and even more fuzzy about the nature of the "community center" that's included in the project. I'd like to see them scratch the community center and put in some more retail space, fronting Gough.

[SFView]

(deleted)

[nequidnimis]

Architecture has come full circle: It reminds me of this, built many years ago (about the same time as the Sequoias):

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=501571

For those interested in how residents of Cathedral Hill feel about it, BTinSF and I evaluate its contribution to our neighborhood in the following local San Francisco thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=114324&page=31

[BTinSF]

Cathedral rising
Developer returns with $230M tower
San Francisco Business Times - May 11, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Najib Joe Hakim

In the late 1960s, Alvin Dworman was a force on Cathedral Hill, a neighborhood-changing developer who built Cathedral Hill Tower, Cathedral Hill Plaza and assembled the site for the area's defining landmark, the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption, built in 1971.

Now 40 years later Dworman's Adco Group is again looking to put a defining stamp on the neighborhood. The developer is proposing a $230 million, 407-foot elliptical condominium tower at the hill's apex, a ghostly white glass structure that would be visible from much of the city.

Adco has hired Skidmore Owings & Merrill to design the 38-story building, which SOM design partner Craig Hartman described as a light and luminous "bell tower marking the presence of the cathedral." The new tower would be built at 1481 Post St., adjacent to Cathedral Hill Plaza, a 169-unit rental property.

The project would also include 6,000 square feet of retail and a 5,000-square-foot cultural space, which the developer envisions as a cultural and educational space modeled after the 92nd Street Y in New York.

"We've come full circle back to where we started," said Linda Corso, general manager of Cathedral Hill Plaza.

A new direction

The project comes at a time when Cathedral Hill activists are organizing to oppose a massive new California Pacific Medical Center hospital proposed for the eastern edge of the neighborhood. Adco faces a challenge in convincing neighbors -- already feeling under siege -- that the development's subtle design and public amenities will offset added density or blocked views.

SOM senior designer Leo Chow argued that the project is a chance for Adco to correct some of the design mistakes made when the neighborhood was developed. At the time, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency pushed a plan that moved automobile traffic through the area at the expense of pedestrians.

The 1481 Post St. plan calls for the building itself to be spun around, so its main axis points not straight out but to the entrance of St. Mary's. Hartman says the elliptical tower "is making a deferential gesture to the cathedral." This will break up the "imposing urban wall" to create space for a large public Japanese garden along the south side of Post Street. With 36 stories of housing, the first two stories will be a glass-clad transparent base of retail and community uses.

Chow said the tower is consistent with the city's long-standing policy of trying to define the hills with tall buildings.

"The idea of building an iconic tower on top of the hill seems appropriate," said Chow. "It's a very sleek, simple form you can identify from different parts of the city."

Starting dialog

Corso said the developer started looking at the site two years ago and brought on SOM last summer. On March 9, Adco filed an application for environmental evaluation with the Planning Department. The developer has just started reaching out to neighborhood groups like the Cathedral Hill Neighborhood Association and the Japantown Task Force, according to Corso, who said 60 residents attended an initial meeting April 19th.

The building would be 407 feet tall. Current zoning allows 240 feet, which Chow calls a "an unfortunate, squat, blocky thing."

The development site is now occupied by two tennis courts, a swimming pool, and both above-ground and surface parking. Under the new plan, the parking would be moved underground and the swimming pools incorporated into the new development.

Dworman is a former close associate of the Pritzker family, the billionaire hoteliers and philanthropists based in Chicago, but fell out with the family in 2001 after a bank they owned jointly failed.

Based in New York with offices in San Francisco, Adco owns 1.3 million square feet of commercial space in San Francisco. It has developed the Normandy Apartments on Ellis Street, Museum Parc at 300 Third St., and owns SF Mart, 875 Stevenson St., and Convention Plaza.

And Dworman and Adco are no strangers to neighborhood battles. In 2000, the developer opened Bacara Resort and Spa outside of Santa Barbara, a ultra deluxe project that took 17 years of legal battles to entitle and build.

"We've come full circle," says Linda Corso, GM of Cathedral Hill Plaza.
http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/82143-400-0.jpg?rev=2


jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/05/14/story3.html?t=printable

[condodweller]

:previous: The picture in the Business Times article is probably the most direct picture of the model I've seen on the web, and best represents how it looked at the developer's presentation.

[SFView]

:previous: The picture in the Business Times article is probably the most direct picture of the model I've seen on the web, and best represents how it looked at the developer's presentation.

Yes, the model image shows very well what you where trying to explain about the positioning of the tower.

It is going to be interesting to see just how frosty white this building will actually look when constructed. If the color is close to what the renderings show, the tower should compliment the cathedral and surrounding buildings very well.

[viewguysf]

It is going to be interesting to see just how frosty white this building will actually look when constructed. If the color is close to what the renderings show, the tower should compliment the cathedral and surrounding buildings very well.

If it really is as frosty white all over as it appears, how will residents be able to see out of it clearly?

[nequidnimis]

Good point. Speaking of white glass buildings, it is interesting to compare the renderings for Gehry's IAC building in New York:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=519644

to the completed building:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=519566

[viewguysf]

Good point. Speaking of white glass buildings, it is interesting to compare the renderings for Gehry's IAC building in New York:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=519644

to the completed building:

http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=519566

Hmmm...they don't even look similar!

[pseudolus]

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/82143-400-0.jpg?rev=2

How tall is the tower in the lower right hand corner?

[viewguysf]

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/82143-400-0.jpg?rev=2

How tall is the tower in the lower right hand corner?

That's the Cathedral Hill Tower; it's 299' and 27 floors, completed in 1965. It was originally a rental apartment building and was converted to condos in 1979.

[pseudolus]

And there's another tower of similar height, just to the south of that, no?

Thanks

[nequidnimis]

No, directly to the south of Cathedral Hill tower is the Carillon, which is 18 stories.

I am finding the numbers on Emporis suspect: I only counted 25 stories on Cathedral Hill tower. This may be like the new Rincon Hill tower, where, due to the slope of the site, they get to count levels that are underground.

[SFView]

If it really is as frosty white all over as it appears, how will residents be able to see out of it clearly?

Whatever glass is used, will probably appear as clear or tinted from the inside looking out. If the mullions are to be glass, or the glass is slightly reflective, either or both would contribute a frosty crystal effect. This could also depend on various possible changes before the final design might get approved.

[SFView]

No, directly to the south of Cathedral Hill tower is the Carillon, which is 18 stories.

I am finding the numbers on Emporis suspect: I only counted 25 stories on Cathedral Hill tower. This may be like the new Rincon Hill tower, where, due to the slope of the site, they get to count levels that are underground.

Yes, but how does Emporis (and SSP) count building height - from ground entrance level up only?

[nequidnimis]

A resident of Cathedral Hill tower tells me she has always heard her 25 story building is 240' tall.

I am wondering where Emporis gets their numbers, and how I can go about finding out the actual height...

[condodweller]

If it really is as frosty white all over as it appears, how will residents be able to see out of it clearly?

At the developer's presentation, they were talking about using clear but non-colored, non-reflective glass. I think that would be refreshing, in light of the sea of bluish green glass that every new downtown highrise seems to be made of. However, they emphasized that this whole design proposal is very preliminary. My guess is that this building is going to change considerably as they do more studies (wind, shadow, etc...), go through approval hearings, and so forth...

[fflint]

However, they emphasized that this whole design proposal is very preliminary. My guess is that this building is going to change considerably as they do more studies (wind, shadow, etc...), go through approval hearings, and so forth...
Yep, and after the hearings and studies it will probably end up looking like this:
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05/08/mn_missionbayedit.jpg
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05/08/mn_missionbayedit.jpg

Just kidding. Well, not really. ;)

[Reminiscence]

^^^

Oh no, what a blow that would be. Yet another gravesite for a project that could have been. :goodnight:

[BTinSF]

^^^Just to remind everyone, miracles happen. The hearings process made The Infinity better and might do so for its neighbor on Folsom (if that project ever gets built). So who knows?

[Reminiscence]

^^^
Oh, I certainly dont mind the hearings process. In fact, it is because of The Infinity that I now dont feel so uneasy about them. Just as long as it does not end up like fflint's article picture.

[StevenW]

Very nice tower, indeed. Would love to own one of those condos. :yes: :)

[insanenuyawka]

If it really is as frosty white all over as it appears, how will residents be able to see out of it clearly?
How do you think people see out of the Sears,John Hankcock, or Trump International towers? Same concept I believe.

[viewguysf]

How do you think people see out of the Sears,John Hankcock, or Trump International towers? Same concept I believe.

I don't see the a similar relationship at all, especially regarding the John Hancock Center or the Sears Tower. They simply have normal glass windows and certainly don't have the shimmering look.

[roadwarrior]

I don't see the a similar relationship at all, especially regarding the John Hancock Center or the Sears Tower. They simply have normal glass windows and certainly don't have the shimmering look.

Here's a better analogy. Think of buses with advertisements all over them on the outside. You cannot see inside if you see the bus on the street. However, if you are inside the bus, you can see outside just fine. The frosted windows only have an effect from the outside. I think this is good, as they will have ultimate privacy but still maintain their spectacular views.

[mthd]

I don't see the a similar relationship at all, especially regarding the John Hancock Center or the Sears Tower. They simply have normal glass windows and certainly don't have the shimmering look.

a lot of the 'shimmering' is probably the glass fins they described. since they're perpendicular to the building, they wouldn't impede views much, but from the outside, the multiplication of glass surfaces at different angles greatly increases the chance of bright specular reflections.

[SFView]

a lot of the 'shimmering' is probably the glass fins they described. since they're perpendicular to the building, they wouldn't impede views much, but from the outside, the multiplication of glass surfaces at different angles greatly increases the chance of bright specular reflections.

That is just what I was thinking, if all the glass will be clear as described. I am wondering if the outer edge of the fins will be polished clear also, further adding to the effect.

[tyler82]

This cluster of buildings is going to look so ODD together. They will be so close together, and the shapes and orientation of the three (Sequoias, CatHill Plaza, and this one) is going to look very unbalanced from the street, because CHPlaza is so long, short, and stumpy, and the Sequoias is rectangular and wide, and then this cylindrical building in the middle of those two. This is a cool building, but too bad it can't be adjoined with at the very least semi-attractive architecture!

[mthd]

That's the Cathedral Hill Tower; it's 299' and 27 floors, completed in 1965. It was originally a rental apartment building and was converted to condos in 1979.

where does the 299' figure come from?

[viewguysf]

where does the 299' figure come from?

It came from Emporis, but as SFView pointed out above, that may or may not be accurate.

[nequidnimis]

New web site for this project:

http://www.1481poststreet.com/

[WonderlandPark]

Well, I think I have a new favorite SFO project. I really like this one, and its sweet location. It is really in how the details are executed. If it has the sort of double layer transparent look as Torre Agbar in Barcelona, than this will be one of the great landmarks of the city.

[fflint]

If I've learned anything from the current skyscraper boom, it's this: don't believe the renderings.

[WonderlandPark]

By the way, could there be a more appropriate tower for San Francisco than the Torre Agbar? Especially on this site? Maybe a redesign is in order :)

http://www.pixelmap.com/images/Arch/dma_nouvel_07.jpg

[viewguysf]

If I've learned anything from the current skyscraper boom, it's this: don't believe the renderings.

That's for sure. Unfortunately, it's been wait and see with so many projects, none more so than the Las Vegas Intercontinental. Even the latest renderings of the Millennium Tower don't look like the old ones. It's almost as if these developers are using the design-build method!

[viewguysf]

By the way, could there be a more appropriate tower for San Francisco than the Torre Agbar? Especially on this site? Maybe a redesign is in order :)

http://www.pixelmap.com/images/Arch/dma_nouvel_07.jpg


As cool as it is, I think not. I can just imagine the San Francisco spin that the rest of the country would put on it!

[SFView]

As cool as it is, I think not. I can just imagine the San Francisco spin that the rest of the country would put on it!

...And the jokes about it actually turning on during an earthquake? No, I'm sorry. No thanks!

[fflint]

That's for sure. Unfortunately, it's been wait and see with so many projects, none more so than the Las Vegas Intercontinental.
Oh, I think the Irvine Ritz-Carlton down at Kearny and Geary--it's like 1985 all over again!--is giving the InterContinental Emerald City a run for the title.

[San Frangelino]

From http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/07/the_official_cathedral_hill_tower_1481_post_street_webs.html#comments

The Official Cathedral Hill Tower (1481 Post Street) Website

A plugged-in tipster directs us to the ADCO Group’s website for the proposed Catherdral Hill Tower (1481 Post Street). Think summary, FAQs (“We hope to get our final permits sometime in 2008, so we expect that the project will be completed by 2010.”), and a complete rundown of community meetings (both past and future).

http://www.1481poststreet.com

[viewguysf]

Has anyone heard of anything happening regarding this project?

[mthd]

Has anyone heard of anything happening regarding this project?

the project is moving through the approvals process. the initial study has been published and many of the studies which will make up the draft eir have been completed. there have been numerous meetings with neighbors, policy groups, etc.

[MarkSFCA]

does anyone know if there is anything new with this project?
thanks in advance.

[Reminiscence]

From Socketsite.com:


http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3590/jtownplanningmeeting121et1.gif

From the San Francisco Planning Department (via a plugged-in tipster):

"This is a reminder to encourage you to attend this Saturday's Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan Workshop. In addition to hearing from the Planning Department's planning consultants regarding historic and cultural preservation, implementation strategies, and urban design findings, we will also see preliminary design concepts for Japan Center and a preview of the proposal for 1481 Post Street (a recent addition to the agenda). Following the presentations, we've dedicated time for community members to give their feedback in small groups regarding all the topics.

The future of Japan Center and Geary Boulevard are at stake. Improvements to land use and zoning, businesses, transportation, public space and the historic and cultural character throughout the neighborhood are under consideration."

[J_Taylor]

^^ Looks like in one of there commuity meetings there were people complaing about it being to tall.

If they are trying to creat a Japanese feel then why not build it big?

[MarkSFCA]

I heard that a representative from the developer of this building would be at the Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan Workshop meeting held this past Saturday, December 1st. Did anyone atttend it and if you did, do you have anything to report? Thanks in advance.

[rajaxsonbayboi]

hey is this supposed to be across from the big church? near japantown? if so this would look even better! =DDD

[Reminiscence]

To revive a dormant topic, this from Socketsite.com:

http://www.socketsite.com/1481%20Post%20Model.jpg

The Quote:

ADCO is proposing a 38-story, elliptical-shaped glass building with five levels of underground parking. Market-rate condominiums would be built on top of the tennis courts and next door to a residence for seniors. The street that gently slopes downward to the Japantown malls would also undergo major reconstruction, including new condominiums by owner 3D Investments.

At the current height, the 1481 Post Street project would be the tallest building in the neighborhood, an issue of concern to neighborhood residents. “The height of your building will set the tone for the rest of Post Street going west,” said Sandy Mori, president of the Japantown Task Force, referring to proposals by 3D Investments. “Right now [3D Investments’] highest building is as tall as Hotel Kabuki, which is reasonable in my personal opinion.”

[ADCO Group representative Linda Corso] indicated a willingness to modify the design of the building and reduce the height to move the project forward, perhaps due to public pressure. “We’re going to take all the input from tonight back to our design team and get back to you hopefully in a month or so,” Corso said.

The housing nonprofit that owns and operates the 26-story high-rise next door to the proposed ADCO project has hired a political consultant and sent out a mailing opposing the glass building. They received 600 responses by mail out of 7,000 pieces delivered.

And our reader's response (with which we quite agree):

"Please let this SOM building rise up; it's not going to work as a short cylinder. This is a perfectly-scaled building."

[CityKid]

Why are NIMBYs so crazy?

[nequidnimis]

Why are NIMBYs so crazy?

How would you like to wake up one morning with 400' high rises buildings on all four sides of your house?

[FourOneFive]

How would you like to wake up one morning with 400' high rises buildings on all four sides of your house?

"400' high rises buildings on all four sides of your house." Don't be overly dramatic. This is ONE 400' tower in a neighborhood of existing high-rises. This is more about (selfish) residents afraid of losing their PRIVATE views. This is the top of Cathedral Hill, and it should be crowned with a elegant tower like 1481 Post.

[nequidnimis]

"400' high rises buildings on all four sides of your house." Don't be overly dramatic. This is ONE 400' tower in a neighborhood of existing high-rises. This is more about (selfish) residents afraid of losing their PRIVATE views. This is the top of Cathedral Hill, and it should be crowned with a elegant tower like 1481 Post.

There are currently four high rises, proposed or approved, ranging from 240' to 400', east on Van Ness, north on Pine, west on Octavia, and south on O'Farrell of Saint Mary's Cathedral, so I am hardly overly dramatic...

If you look at a contour map, Cathedral Hill may be the name given to the neighborhood after its urban renewal, but it is a bit of a misnomer. Topographically, it is really a plateau, with the top of the hill at Lafayette Park.

None of these projects would adversely affect my views but I am concerned about them because they would not improve the urban fabric of my neighborhood, which has been badly damaged through an insensitive urban renewal fourty years ago and badly needs repair.

[nequidnimis]

As anyone familiar with my thinking will surmise, I am not the person posting under the name nequidnemis (different spelling), on socketsite.com

[BTinSF]

How would you like to wake up one morning with 400' high rises buildings on all four sides of your house?

If your "house" was a 26-story highrise like the building next door which seems to be the focus of most of the objections, I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on. As a matter of fact, even at its much greater height, this would be a far more attractive building than the home of the NIMBYs next door.

As for other highrises, I think Geary east of Webster is a perfect place for more housing density. It's got great (and getting even better with BRT) public transportation and it fits with the Planning Department's desire to put highrises on top of hills rather than in valleys. You can say "Cathedral Hill" isn't exactly the highest point around if you wish, but it's a place where highrises would emphasize the land contour rather than minimize it which is the objective.

[nequidnimis]

No my "house" is at the Post International http://www.mbharch.com/portfolio/housing/post/post.htm a building whose scale and design I consider a good fit for the neighborhood.

However, the side of Post street across the proposed tower counts several three story townhouses, including some Victorians near Gough, and I submit the tower silo design is not sympathetic to those. That's one thing I like about the Post International: Along Post street, where it faces a Victorian, it is contemporary but steps down to four stories.

[Capsule F]

Reminds me of the Murano in Philadelphia somewhat.

[tommaso]

What is the current plan for this site?

[hi123]

hmm look what i found on adco group's website:

http://www.adco-group.com/Images/1481Post1.jpg

"1481 Post Street
San Francisco, California

ADCO is finalizing an Environmental Impact Report and entitlements to build an elegant tower at this ADCO owned site. Located adjacent to the Cathedral Hill Apartments and opposite St. Mary's Cathedral, the planned 235 residential condominiums will offer unparalleled views of the surrounding community and exceptional amenities."

this is rather disappointing...

[peanut gallery]

sigh.

[Reminiscence]

Is this really what the original design turned into? That's a shame really because it was so visually striking. This on the other hand, while not completely ugly, does not come even close to the other design. Oh well, what can you do.

[dr_strangelove]

FYI- this project is not dead and is quite active. A high powered source confirmed this to me recently.

OH GOD I just saw the rendering of the newest proposal. Yuck! I may be against this because now it is definitely a monstrosity.

[viewguysf]

FYI- this project is not dead and is quite active. A high powered source confirmed this to me recently.

OH GOD I just saw the rendering of the newest proposal. Yuck! I may be against this because now it is definitely a monstrosity.

Yeah...why do we have to dumb down every design here? Even worse, many projects don't look as good after they're completed as the cheapened renderings that were released prior to construction.

[djvandrake]

That new rendering is a huge dissapointment. :yuck:

[nequidnimis]

I guess they were advised to add bay windows.

[tommaso]

Did this tower get scrapped or is it still on track?

[peanut gallery]

Some news from SocketSite on this one (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/06/proposed_cathedral_hill_tower_redesigned_and_powering_u.html):

While SOM’s designs for a 38-story, elliptical-shaped glass tower to rise atop Cathedral Hill have been kicked to the curb, ADCO has dusted off their plans to build a tower at 1481 Post Street with new designs for a 36-story tower rising up to 416 feet across from Saint Mary's Cathedral.

http://www.socketsite.com/1481%20Post%202013.gif


More details at the link.

While I'm still disappointed that the original SOM design was scrapped, this could (heavy emphasis on that word) be better than that last thing we saw several years ago. It's a little hard to tell based on this drawing. Fingers crossed anyway.

[tech12]

Wow, I'm surprised to see this is still alive. Too bad the NIMBYs are just as rabid as ever, and already have a petition going to block this. And of course their petition is full of misinformation/lies, such as claiming the tower will create deadly traffic conditions, and be nearly twice as tall as any building on cathedral hill (it's really only 20' taller than one of its neighbors, the current tallest on cathedral hill). Why do NIMBYs always have to blatantly lie?

[peanut gallery]

Because even they know deep down inside that their real reasons for opposing things are purely selfish (views and/or the belief their property value will suffer) and no one will listen or care.

But they did provide one useful thing for the discussion: what appears to be an accurate rendering of the proposed skin. The massing here appears to match the outline above, so it could be the latest:

http://www.socketsite.com/SOS%20Cathedral%20Hill%20Site.jpg

Apologies for the large nimby warning across it.

[rriojas71]

Nice. This would be great on Cathedral Hill if it was to happen. Maybe another decent sized tower along with this would really make it a nice cluster and further stretch the SF skyline.

[wakamesalad]

Wow, it's ugly. I hope the NIMBYs win.

[tech12]

Wow, it's ugly. I hope the NIMBYs win.

I think it looks ok personally, but regardless of whether it's ugly or not, I would never hope for the NIMBYs to win. All they do is hold the city back, and we need the housing. The NIMBYs would oppose this even if it were the most beautiful and innovative design on the planet, because all they really care about are their views, property values, parking, tennis courts, and other self-serving things like that. Or they're completely delusional and think that towers will create a deadly traffic apocalypse, or think that SF is a tiny european fishing village where towers are "out of character" or some such nonsense.

[viewguysf]

I think it looks ok personally, but regardless of whether it's ugly or not, I would never hope for the NIMBYs to win. All they do is hold the city back, and we need the housing. The NIMBYs would oppose this even if it were the most beautiful and innovative design on the planet, because all they really care about are their views, property values, parking, tennis courts, and other self-serving things like that. Or they're completely delusional and think that towers will create a deadly traffic apocalypse, or think that SF is a tiny european fishing village where towers are "out of character" or some such nonsense.

It is ugly and common where once it was stunning--we don't need more undesirable buildings because they will only further fuel the NIMBY's. If a nice tower were built, I think it would do more to suppress them. The NIMBY website is so bad that it's hilarious!

[tech12]

It is ugly and common where once it was stunning--we don't need more undesirable buildings because they will only further fuel the NIMBY's. If a nice tower were built, I think it would do more to suppress them. The NIMBY website is so bad that it's hilarious!

But to them, tall = bad. They were opposed to the nicer SOM design too, just like they're opposed to this one.

As for the NIMBY website, i think this picture posted on socketsite pretty much sums it up :haha::

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/06/exaggerations_fear_and_loathing_atop_cathedral_hill.html
http://www.socketsite.com/SOS%20Cathedral%20Hill%20Crew.jpg

[shakman]

But to them, tall = bad. They were opposed to the nicer SOM design too, just like they're opposed to this one.

As for the NIMBY website, i think this picture posted on socketsite pretty much sums it up :haha::

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/06/exaggerations_fear_and_loathing_atop_cathedral_hill.html
http://www.socketsite.com/SOS%20Cathedral%20Hill%20Crew.jpg

:lmao: Nice!!! They should have someone passed out from being overwhelmed. I like the expression of the lady on the right.

[coyotetrickster]

:lmao: Nice!!! They should have someone passed out from being overwhelmed. I like the expression of the lady on the right.
If that tower would force those folks out of town, I'd help pay for it. Worst dressed people ever. And old people are unattractive anyway:-/

[shakman]

If that tower would force those folks out of town, I'd help pay for it. Worst dressed people ever. And old people are unattractive anyway:-/

Hey now... There are plenty of us "attractive old folks" who would love to have a skyscraper in our back yards. :yes:

[viewguysf]

If that tower would force those folks out of town, I'd help pay for it. Worst dressed people ever. And old people are unattractive anyway:-/

Hey coyote, we're all getting older (some of us ahead of others)! It beats the alternative.

That looks like a stock photo taken in Iowa!