[tyler82]

Found on flickr, by caffeina. One Rincon rising on the left, the Intercontinental rising on the right:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1223/536228221_0dd7698055_o.jpg

Looks like it was taken from Alamo Square. This was part of the view from my dorm room @ USF, and I can remember a few years ago this was all flat with the cranes in Oakland in the background, and this view is slowly turning dramatically different.

[fflint]

A third peak rises above SF's skyline plateau:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/542871415_fffe1c2ef3_o.jpg
Found on Flicker, by Daphne Ann
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/542871415_fffe1c2ef3_o.jpg

[Marvel 33]

Here's the link if you want to look at the renderings:


http://www.newcityskyline.com/TreasureIslandMasterPlan.html


Reawakening Treasure Island

Monday, June 18, 2007
By Kelly Matlock

San Francisco, CA, US (NCS) - How do you go about redeveloping a 393-acre manmade island that was originally constructed for the Golden Gate International Exposition and later served as a United States Naval Air Station until its decommissioning in 1997?
The San Francisco office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill has fearlessly answered that question with a master plan development proposal for San Francisco’s Treasure Island, located off Yerba Buena Island and connected to the San Francisco Bay Bridge.

Since 2005, SOM has worked to create a new vision for the island after former development proposals were opposed for various reasons after the initial planning began in 2001.

Two associate firms based in San Francisco, SMWM and CMG Landscape Architects, were also working on the project. The development team includes San Francisco’s Kenwood Investments and Wilson Meany Sullivan, along with Lennar Corporation, headquartered in Miami.

According to the architects, the plan has earned broad support from community groups, political leaders and business organizations since its unveiling at a series of meetings and presentations led by SOM.

The Treasure Island Plan involves a unique, 21st century San Francisco community that is socially and economically diverse and supported by close-knit neighborhoods, unprecedented open space, resource-conserving technology and a robust network of transportation choices. Envisioned as both a great place to live and a regional destination, the plan proposes three compact neighborhoods centered around an energizing, mixed-use hub and ferry terminal set within a richly faceted 275-acre Great Park.

The scope, scale and visibility of the project make it one of the largest development plans in San Francisco history and one of the highest profile urban redevelopments in the country.

The environmentally sustainable scheme includes green elements including runoff-filtering wetlands and green skyscrapers as well as an ecological education and art park, a shoreline park at the island’s edge, playgrounds and a 20-acre organic farm. A wind farm as well as diagonal rows of trees will help control the amount of wind hitting the island.

The new development would take up only a quarter of the island’s area and will be built in phases. In the residential phase, there will be approximately 5,900 residential units built, of which 30 percent will be affordable. The residential area will accommodate around 13,500 residents, and will be divided by high-density, low-to-midrise blocks of townhouses, flats clustered around neighborhood open spaces, and residential towers approximately 14 stories high.

A new street grid aligned with rows of wind-shielding trees offers “a richer pedestrian experience than the typical Cartesian grid,” said SOM partner Craig Hartman.

Four 40-story towers will surround a central, 60-story tower, which will be supported by a structural exoskeleton that frames an optimal amount of glass for the exterior. The tower will incorporate sustainable features, such as the use of geothermal energy, a series of glass light shelves clad in transparent photovoltaic film, and a glass sky garden on the roof. The building will be called the Sun Tower, in reference to the island’s former Tower of the Sun, a 400-foot structure that was the first major landmark of the original exhibition grounds.

All of the towers will be concentrated in the center of the island’s urban core. A new ferry terminal will be installed adjacent to a new retail, commercial and cultural district, and a parking system will encourage car-free living. The neighborhoods, which are pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, will be within a ten minute walk to the ferry terminal.

In December, the $1.2 billion development plan, of which $500 million would be private investment and $700 million would be city bonds, received preliminary approval from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. This preliminary approval opened doors for the design and development team to make a binding contract. A group of additional architects may be commissioned throughout the design process to flesh out the plan.

“The intent is to make this a new national model for what a wholly sustainable community can be about,” said Hartman.

Overall completion of the development is currently scheduled for 2022, and new residents are expected to move in by 2013.

[fflint]

Taken from One Rincon, looking at the Infinity (right), Millennium (center left) and Barclay's (lower left) projects:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1321/562180324_48c535ef1b_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1321/562180324_48c535ef1b_b.jpg
Found on flickr, posted by Telstar Logistics

[rocketman_95046]

^WOW, When looking at Millennium from that angle, it will problably look more slender than One Rincon when complete.

:slob:

[FourOneFive]

Here's the link if you want to look at the renderings:


http://www.newcityskyline.com/TreasureIslandMasterPlan.html


Reawakening Treasure Island

Monday, June 18, 2007
By Kelly Matlock

San Francisco, CA, US (NCS) - How do you go about redeveloping a 393-acre manmade island that was originally constructed for the Golden Gate International Exposition and later served as a United States Naval Air Station until its decommissioning in 1997?
The San Francisco office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill has fearlessly answered that question with a master plan development proposal for San Francisco’s Treasure Island, located off Yerba Buena Island and connected to the San Francisco Bay Bridge.

Since 2005, SOM has worked to create a new vision for the island after former development proposals were opposed for various reasons after the initial planning began in 2001.

Two associate firms based in San Francisco, SMWM and CMG Landscape Architects, were also working on the project. The development team includes San Francisco’s Kenwood Investments and Wilson Meany Sullivan, along with Lennar Corporation, headquartered in Miami.

According to the architects, the plan has earned broad support from community groups, political leaders and business organizations since its unveiling at a series of meetings and presentations led by SOM.

The Treasure Island Plan involves a unique, 21st century San Francisco community that is socially and economically diverse and supported by close-knit neighborhoods, unprecedented open space, resource-conserving technology and a robust network of transportation choices. Envisioned as both a great place to live and a regional destination, the plan proposes three compact neighborhoods centered around an energizing, mixed-use hub and ferry terminal set within a richly faceted 275-acre Great Park.

The scope, scale and visibility of the project make it one of the largest development plans in San Francisco history and one of the highest profile urban redevelopments in the country.

The environmentally sustainable scheme includes green elements including runoff-filtering wetlands and green skyscrapers as well as an ecological education and art park, a shoreline park at the island’s edge, playgrounds and a 20-acre organic farm. A wind farm as well as diagonal rows of trees will help control the amount of wind hitting the island.

The new development would take up only a quarter of the island’s area and will be built in phases. In the residential phase, there will be approximately 5,900 residential units built, of which 30 percent will be affordable. The residential area will accommodate around 13,500 residents, and will be divided by high-density, low-to-midrise blocks of townhouses, flats clustered around neighborhood open spaces, and residential towers approximately 14 stories high.

A new street grid aligned with rows of wind-shielding trees offers “a richer pedestrian experience than the typical Cartesian grid,” said SOM partner Craig Hartman.

Four 40-story towers will surround a central, 60-story tower, which will be supported by a structural exoskeleton that frames an optimal amount of glass for the exterior. The tower will incorporate sustainable features, such as the use of geothermal energy, a series of glass light shelves clad in transparent photovoltaic film, and a glass sky garden on the roof. The building will be called the Sun Tower, in reference to the island’s former Tower of the Sun, a 400-foot structure that was the first major landmark of the original exhibition grounds.

All of the towers will be concentrated in the center of the island’s urban core. A new ferry terminal will be installed adjacent to a new retail, commercial and cultural district, and a parking system will encourage car-free living. The neighborhoods, which are pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, will be within a ten minute walk to the ferry terminal.

In December, the $1.2 billion development plan, of which $500 million would be private investment and $700 million would be city bonds, received preliminary approval from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. This preliminary approval opened doors for the design and development team to make a binding contract. A group of additional architects may be commissioned throughout the design process to flesh out the plan.

“The intent is to make this a new national model for what a wholly sustainable community can be about,” said Hartman.

Overall completion of the development is currently scheduled for 2022, and new residents are expected to move in by 2013.


great article marvel 33. it's great to get some more clarification on the details of the project. its pretty amazing to think that we may eventually see 5 residential towers on treasure island!

[BTinSF]

^^^Marvel33, could you put your article in the Treasure Island thread under "general development"?

[Dale]

Taken from One Rincon, looking at the Infinity (right), Millennium (center left) and Barclay's (lower left) projects:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1321/562180324_48c535ef1b_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1321/562180324_48c535ef1b_b.jpg
Found on flickr, posted by Telstar Logistics

Are those surface lots at the bottom slated for development any time soon ?

[FourOneFive]

Are those surface lots at the bottom slated for development any time soon ?

those will be developed in the next 10-15 years. when all is said and done it should look something like this:

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

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by Dale
Are those surface lots at the bottom slated for development
YES
any time soon ?
NO

[roadwarrior]

Actually, SOME development will occur sooner than later.

In 2008, we should expect them to start to build the temporary bus terminal in preparation for the demolition of the current transbay terminal and ramps in 2009. I know its one of the lots on the north side of Folsom. I think its the lot between Main and Beale, but I'm not positive.

As noted in the past paragraph, they're planning on demolishing the current transbay terminal in 2009. While in the short term, it will just make the area look more barren, it should also reduce the homeless problem in the area.

[Dale]

Thanks, guys.

[fflint]

Found on flickr, posted by delight.1027:

One Rincon and the InterContinental rise above SoMa:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/619247418_f46ba414c3_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/619247418_f46ba414c3_o.jpg

An overview of the Financial District, with glimpses of 301 Mission and Foundry Square u/c; the Infinity and Ritz-Carlton Residences look nearly complete:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1349/620113251_c278af9b65_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1349/620113251_c278af9b65_o.jpg

[fflint]

Found on flickr, posted by pfeyh:

Behold the new San Francisco skyline:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1392/620016798_4111045fd8_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1392/620016798_4111045fd8_b.jpg

[murrax]

beautiful photos. The millenium is slender , am I missing something or was the millenium supposed to be a largely glass tower. Slender and sleek will look great

[tyler82]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1118/652896075_c453be53e0_o.jpg

[botoxic]

Pictures I took today in the mid-Market redevelopment area:

Argenta
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00035.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00033.jpg

Van Ness at Fell
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00039.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00040.jpg

The Hayes is marketing
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00041.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00042.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00043.jpg

What is this (rather large) lot next to the Center on Market between Octavia and Laguna going to be?
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00044.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00045.jpg

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00046.jpg

This view down Market will be altered with the completion of Argenta and 10th & Market:
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q149/btgibson/SF%20Buildings%20July%2007/DSC00047.jpg

[fflint]

Found on flickr, posted by ANA.q:

The new San Francisco skyline:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1155/679898674_04ca8f001a_o.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1155/679898674_04ca8f001a_o.jpg

[fflint]

What is this (rather large) lot next to the Center on Market between Octavia and Laguna going to be?
If I recall correctly, there will be retail or restaurant on the ground floor and residential above. It's part of the Market-Octavia neighborhood plan. Shouldn't be more than four or five stories, I'd guess.

[BTinSF]

beautiful photos. The millenium is slender , am I missing something or was the millenium supposed to be a largely glass tower. Slender and sleek will look great

Yes. Here's the first few floors of glass (which is a really nice color in reality):

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1215/563412146_212a197649_b.jpg
Source: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1215/...2a197649_b.jpg

[BTinSF]

Pictures I took today in the mid-Market redevelopment area:

Van Ness at Fell


We can start calling it by its actual address (77 Van Ness):

The Project (77 Van Ness) would construct an 8-story, approximately 100-foot tall building containing 50 dwelling units, approximately 19,550 square feet of office space, 1,350 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 3,400 square feet of rooftop open space for the residential units, at least 400 square feet of public open space in the lobby, and 58 parking spaces in a street-level parking garage.
Source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_page.asp?id=15905

[northbay]

^ nice comparison of 301's beautiful glass and its neighbor :yuck:

[BTinSF]

If I recall correctly, there will be retail or restaurant on the ground floor and residential above. It's part of the Market-Octavia neighborhood plan. Shouldn't be more than four or five stories, I'd guess.


Pretty good memory:

Cassidy considers entitled site for Castro condos
Joe Cassidy is looking at buying 1844 Market St., Bayrock Realty's fully entitled 113-unit condominium project next to the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center. The infill project, designed by Christiani Johnson Architects, calls for two eight-story midrises with an interior courtyard and a plunge pool with downtown views on a fifth floor terrace.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/12/newscolumn1.html?page=2

Here's a very small rendering:

http://www.cjarchs.com/images/project-images/in-progress/1844-market.jpg
Source: http://www.cjarchs.com/

[BTinSF]

^ nice comparison of 301's beautiful glass and its neighbor :yuck:

I was thinking just the other day: "Blue must be the new brown". All the 60s/70s vintage highrises in SF have brownish glass. All the new ones blue or blue-green it seems. Maybe there's a reason other than taste, but I don't know what it is.

[northbay]

^ yea. i think your right BT. that brown goes along with those avocado green carpets and other "stylish" colors they used back then. ill take the blue (which to me kinda makes the glass look a lot like water - "fresh" feeling) over the brown any day.

[fflint]

I've never seen the rendering for 1844 Market before. Interesting.

[viewguysf]

^ nice comparison of 301's beautiful glass and its neighbor :yuck:

The next neighbor to the west, at Fremont and Mission, is far worse. :slob:

[tyler82]

^ yea. i think your right BT. that brown goes along with those avocado green carpets and other "stylish" colors they used back then. ill take the blue (which to me kinda makes the glass look a lot like water - "fresh" feeling) over the brown any day.

Isn't that the Bechtel building in that photo? Instead of brown, they should have made the glass BLOOD RED :hell:

[viewguysf]

Isn't that the Bechtel building in that photo? Instead of brown, they should have made the glass BLOOD RED :hell:

The other even uglier tower is to which I referred previously was also brought to us by Bechtel. It's a totally void and vapid piece of "architecture" that's a disgrace to anyone who had anything to do with it.

[BTinSF]

Fox Plaza to replace retail with condos
San Francisco Business Times - July 6, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Douglas Zimmerman

Two years after acquiring Fox Plaza for $140 million, Archstone-Smith is pushing forward with plans to raze the corner retail element and replace it with a 250-unit flatiron-style condo building.

The planned wedge-shaped terra-cotta and glass 120-foot structure, with retail, would replace the low-slung building that houses Starbucks and a stationery shop, according to Presidio Development Partners President Mark Conroe, who was retained by Archstone-Smith to obtain city approvals for the residential development and sell off the office part. The new building would cost about $150 million based on current construction costs.

The plans come as Archstone-Smith has completed the sale of the 220,000-square-foot office component of the complex for $42 million, or just under $200 a square foot. Palo Alto-based Broadreach Capital was the buyer. The long-anticipated sale was held up because Archstone-Smith was waiting for the city to finalize a condo map for the property, essentially breaking it up into the office space, plus three other separate pieces: 446 rental apartments, a 550-car garage, and the retail/development site.

Archstone-Smith, a national apartment REIT that agreed last month to be acquired by Tishman Speyer, will hold onto the rental apartments and the parking, according to Edward Suharski of Grubb & Ellis, who represented the seller along with Daniel Cressman.

The new development and the Broadreach bet on Fox Plaza comes at a time when investors are pouring capital into the Civic Center neighborhood at an unprecedented clip. Hill Cos. recently paid $13.3 million for 10 United Nations Plaza. Miami's Crescent Heights plans to begin construction this year on a $350 million, 720-unit two-tower condo development. Australia-based Anka Property Group is out of the ground on its $140 million, 179-unit One Polk St. And Adco Group is pumping $35 million into repositioning the San Francisco Mart from a interior design exhibit space into office.

"It has taken out-of town investors and developers such as Anka, Crescent Heights and Archstone-Smith to see the possibilities," said Suharski. "Now we are starting to see local investors beginning to look for opportunities."

Momentum in the general Civic Center area should pick up even more when the California State Automobile Association sells its 750,000 square feet of space at 100-150 Van Ness. Suharski, who is also handling the sale of that property, said 80 prospective buyers have expressed interest. Rental rates in the CSAA properties, which have both Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge views, are in the mid $40s. Offers are due at the end of July.

Over the past three years rents in Fox Plaza have jumped from the mid-$20s a square foot to the upper $30s. The San Francisco Symphony just signed a lease in the building and other anchor tenants are the city's department of health and city attorney's office. Fox Plaza is 83 percent leased.

Conroe emphasized that the rental apartments would remain rental and that views from the apartments would not be blocked by the condos. He said the residential building would be marketed as a gateway to the city's performing arts district.

"It's a very visible building," he said.

Jeffrey Heller, principal of project architect HellerManus, said the building materials and glass would "speak to the energy level of the Civic Center area."

"We're going to have some fun with it," he said.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971


Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/07/09/story11.html?t=printable

Heller-Manus again!

[fflint]

THE VIEW FROM INSIDE
TOWER'S PREMIERE: Futuristic Federal Building wins fans, foes among workers with its innovative features

John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Sunday, July 8, 2007

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/07/08/ba_fedbuilding08_073_kk.jpg
The new Federal Building at Seventh and Mission in San Francisco

When Nancy Pelosi and other dignitaries gather Monday to dedicate San Francisco's Federal Building, the grand opening will be old news to people like Janis Olvarado and Anita Yeung.

They've been working in the futuristic tower with its steel mesh sheath since March. They've dealt with eccentric temperature swings and unexpected glare. They've become acquainted with a neighborhood where there are more shopping carts than shops.

By now it's starting to feel like home -- a home where every resident seems to have a different opinion about the provocative design and its environmental innovations.

"It's so futuristic, so politically correct, so green, I adore it. ... It makes me want to come to work," said Olvarado, an employee with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services.

"Everything is so gray. I just don't find it appealing," countered Yeung, who works at the same agency. She has an umbrella propped above her computer to reduce the glare from the 13-foot-tall, south-facing window next to her cubicle.

Monday's ceremony marks the official completion of the complex, which houses 1,700 federal employees in an 18-story tower and a four-story annex that frame a plaza at Seventh and Mission streets. The dedication is an invitation-only event.

Beginning Tuesday, the public will be able to go inside and -- once they pass the security checkpoint -- visit the open-air "skygarden" on the 11th floor, or the distinctive entry atrium that architect Thom Mayne has likened to the interior of a Gothic cathedral.

The ceremony will stress the architectural emphasis on employee health and green design -- such as natural ventilation that replaces air conditioning on most floors, or the tower elevators that stop only on every third floor, making employees use stairs to reach floors in-between.

The design by Mayne's firm Morphosis, which was assisted by SmithGroup, already has won praise from such distant voices as the New York Times and England's Architectural Review.

But early reviews in-house weren't as kind.

Elevators stalled and temperatures veered from one extreme to the other depending on the time of day. Another complaint: The floor-to-ceiling windows overloaded cubicles with sunlight -- even though the perforated steel panels along the south-facing wall were supposed to filter glare while allowing in natural light that cuts down on electricity use.

Since then, some design details have been tweaked.

Blinds are being installed on southern windows. Government officials concede they underestimated the amount of glare that would penetrate the mesh skin.

There also are changes along the plaza, where the mesh panels stop above a grass berm. Derelicts have scaled the berm at night, slid under the panels and dropped down into an area that will serve an about-to-open day care center. In response, tightly spaced cables will be strung horizontally between the berm and the columns that support the panels.

But for the most part, building officials say the early glitches were just that -- glitches, the inevitable bumps that accompany the completion of a large structure.

"This is a new building with complex systems. It takes awhile for us to dial in," said Warren Sitterley, the property manager for the General Services Administration. "That would have been true even if this was a perfectly conventional building."

Sitterley said it could be a year before all the quirks are resolved. It also could take that much time for people to adjust to the tower's ecological sensibility. For instance, the natural ventilation system doesn't have the precise stability that comes from typical heating or air conditioning. The building's temperature ranges from about 68 to 81 degrees.

"There's a wider range of temperatures here than you'll find in a normal building," Sitterley said. "If someone's expecting 67 degrees every moment of the summer, they're going to be disappointed."

Another catch: The complex sits between Sixth Street and United Nations Plaza, two of the diciest locations in central San Francisco. The short walk from the Civic Center subway station can be a squalid trek.

Many workers moved from offices on Hawthorne Street, a quiet edge of the Financial District close by the buoyant Second Street lunchtime scene.

Count Yeung among the homesick.

"There's culture shock, I guess," Yeung said. "I really liked that area. This one has a different ... clientele."

Yeung's misgivings don't stop with the address. She's put off by the monochromatic design ("I thought it was strange looking"). She doesn't open the window next to her cubicle because the noise from outside makes it hard to hear her telephone.

As for the skip-stop elevators, Yeung doesn't always use them. Like other employees, she sometimes takes the easy route: an elevator cab that stops at every floor to provide access for people with disabilities.

Olvarado, however, is an absolute convert.

She lives on Nob Hill, and as she watched the 345-foot-wide concrete slab rise from the relatively low valley of buildings near Civic Center, "I thought I was going to hate it, that it was going to be this huge monolith." She also describes the first month in the building as "rough," with erratic elevators and harsh glare.

But now?

"I think it's fabulous," Olvarado said. She keeps her window open, and she loves the skip-stop elevators. She walks to work ("I don't feel threatened at all") and once inside "I feel like I'm still outside. There are no impediments blocking my view."

While some workers have already made up their mind about the design, others accept that their new home is a work in progress.

"Everything that's new takes a little getting used to," said Leonardo Coard La Barrie, who works on the floor above Yeung and Olvarado. "It's a different life experience, and that requires patience."

[fflint]

How difficult could it have been for the building's designers to test the inevitable glare on the southern side of the slab? Or to figure out how to keep indoor temperatures under 81-freaking-degrees? Or to realize SF's vast army of criminal bums would work their way into all open portions of the structure? It's bad enough that the building looks like a Holiday Inn with a Lee Press-On Architectural Screen crumpled on top and over one side--but to have the actual design work so poorly for its end-users? Lame.

[BTinSF]

SF's vast army of criminal bums

:haha: How politically incorrect and how true! :tup:

[kenratboy]

Prime example of a building that ignores the people who will use it.

Its nothing but a giant piece of pr0n for hippies - they don't care if it works or not, as long as its 'green', they are happy.

There ARE green buildings that are not only very efficient, but comfortable as well.

[Reminiscence]

I just hope that this building does not tarnish some of the other green buildings still in the proposal stage. So far, it seems it has dissapointed, but I hope that people realize that just because the building is green, it does not mean it will end up like this.

[fflint]

Its nothing but a giant piece of pr0n for hippies - they don't care if it works or not, as long as its 'green', they are happy
No, hippies don't like tall buildings and they certainly don't like federal buildings. This one is porn for Thom Mayne's enormous ego.

[BigKidD]

So are modern green buildings just a rehash of buildings from the early 20th century-meaning offices near windows, lack of air conditioning, and stairs instead of an elevator at certain parts of the structure? I know this building and buildings of the past are not literally identical, but after reading that article by John King that was one of my thoughts.

[tyler82]

In reference to the "criminal bums," I'm sure it won't be such a problem once SOMA Grand opens and people start moving in, as well as the restaurant which is supposed to open downstairs. Maybe that's why they were built nearly at the same time?

I'm sick of smelling poo poo and pee pee in this area, and I am amazed at just how clean and neat this little corner has turned out (minus the "criminal bums"). I hope SOMA Grand can help make it stay that way!

[San Frangelino]

Found this great photo by Mistdog on Flickr.com showing San Francisco's emerging West skyline. I suppose the highrises between 4th street and Civic Center make up the west skyline I am thinking about. hopefully it will grow more dynamic in time as well.

http://flickr.com/photos/mistdog/490916114/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/490916114_d698f8353b_b.jpg

[fflint]

340 Fremont will be happening, has a slightly updated rendering from the one on the first page here (although it will still disappoint many) and is still slated for 440 ft. and 40 floors.

[roadwarrior]

340 Fremont will be happening, has a slightly updated rendering from the one on the first page here (although it will still disappoint many) and is still slated for 440 ft. and 40 floors.

Can you post the rendering or at least provide the link where we can find it? Any word on an expected construction date for this?

[fflint]

No, sorry, I can't. Let's just say it crossed my desk today.

[PBuchman]

:previous:

Could these be the updated renderings???

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u33/PBuchman1729/340Fremont1.jpg

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u33/PBuchman1729/340Fremont2.jpg

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u33/PBuchman1729/340Fremont3.jpg

Taken from http://www.grubb-ellis.com/services/IIG/IIG-PropDetails.aspx?PropID=657
The site also has a brochure available on the project.

[pseudolus]

"entitled development opportunity"=current owners backing out?

[roadwarrior]

I think on a stand-alone basis, it looks nice. However, is it just me or does it look strikingly similar to both The Californian and 45 Lansing? I think we may be in danger of having the Vancouver problem, of having lots of residential high rises, but that they all look identical.

[viewguysf]

I think on a stand-alone basis, it looks nice. However, is it just me or does it look strikingly similar to both The Californian and 45 Lansing? I think we may be in danger of having the Vancouver problem, of having lots of residential high rises, but that they all look identical.

I agree--it would be nice if we could intersperse residential, office, hotel, etc. buildings a little more too along with more varied architectural styles.

[BTinSF]

I'm having trouble putting fflint's "will be happening" together with the advertisement by Grubb & Ellis of an "entitled development opportunity". The latter certainly does tell me it's for sale which further tells me the current owner doesn't plan to proceed.

On the other hand, I certainly like the curved glass fascade, but with full knowledge a new developer could well massage the design further.

[Reminiscence]

I also like the curved glass, something I had not seen before in the previous renderings. However, I wish they did something to modify the roof of the structure. Something to give it a slope would be nice.

[viewguysf]

I also like the curved glass, something I had not seen before in the previous renderings. However, I wish they did something to modify the roof of the structure. Something to give it a slope would be nice.

I thought the same thing; it looks like a boxy mechanical penthouse on the south side.

[roadwarrior]

I'm having trouble putting fflint's "will be happening" together with the advertisement by Grubb & Ellis of an "entitled development opportunity". The latter certainly does tell me it's for sale which further tells me the current owner doesn't plan to proceed.

On the other hand, I certainly like the curved glass fascade, but with full knowledge a new developer could well massage the design further.

Yeah, but it doesn't mean the project is dead or postponed indefinitely. I wouldn't expect it to go up in the next 2 years anyway, given the fact that 3 other highrises right nearby will be under construction. Didn't we just have a similar thing about a year ago with 45 Lansing? It only took a little while for Turnberry to swipe it up and they're about to start construction there.

[northbay]

sick renderings!

[CityKid]

I think on a stand-alone basis, it looks nice. However, is it just me or does it look strikingly similar to both The Californian and 45 Lansing? I think we may be in danger of having the Vancouver problem, of having lots of residential high rises, but that they all look identical.

Not to say that they look bad, but they do look like cheaper versions of the St. Regis.

[BTinSF]

^^^If only the St. Regis had that much glass anywhere--even if it wasn't curved (which none of the St. Regis is). Personally, I don't understand why people like the St. Regis.

[roadwarrior]

^^^If only the St. Regis had that much glass anywhere--even if it wasn't curved (which none of the St. Regis is). Personally, I don't understand why people like the St. Regis.

Well, I personally like the modern, plush interior of the St. Regis. While the exterior is "ok", I tend to sway towards the positive, given its interior arrangements. I guess my opinion is also swayed by the fact that I've stayed at the St. Regis in Washington DC and by comparison, ours is amazing.

[BTinSF]

Once again, I want to defend the Ritz residences a little bit. It seems obvious that the architect wanted to put up something with upscale finishes but plain enough not to compete with or detract from the glorious deYoung Building. In that regard, most of the pictures seen here don't show the actual surface of the addition which appears to be something like terra cotta and textured so that, in real life and up fairly close, it looks a lot more interesting than most of the pictures I've seen suggest:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000246.jpg?t=1185323154

Note the texture:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000247.jpg?t=1185323178

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000250.jpg?t=1185323219

It actually reminds me a lot of some of the "blond" brick buildings I saw put in as a child in the 1950s and I suspect that may have been the architect's intention--something to contrast with but also coordinate with the red brick of the deYoung.

[tyler82]

Interesting how the bay windows of (most) newly constructed buildings have turned into square shapes instead of the traditional half hexagon shape...

[viewguysf]

Interesting how the bay windows of (most) newly constructed buildings have turned into square shapes instead of the traditional half hexagon shape...

Those are just corner windows, not bay or box windows that there are many examples of in the City.

Hello also BT! I join the chorus of praise for the pics you've once again provided in the threads. I have to say thought that IMO, your first pic above amply demonstrates that this looks like a highrise low income housing project perched on top of a handsome classic building. I think it's hideous--color, shape, style and all. :yuck:

[BTinSF]

^^^From a distance and in most pics it does, but my point here is that in a low-income project the material would be stucco or something. You can only really appreciate up close and personal that this is something classier. I'm not sure exactly what the material is. Given the texturing, it could be some kind of preformed concrete I suppose (not unlike the fake brick on Hills Plaza) although, as I said, it looks denser and smoother than that--almost like a terra cotta.

[tyler82]

Those are just corner windows, not bay or box windows that there are many examples of in the City.


Are those not bay windows on the east facing side of the hi rise portion?

[murrax]

I don't see the flashing overhangs on the Ritz Carlton like in the rendering , pity really as it would give a tiered effect to the addition . I liked the color and texture of it when I saw it in person . It turned out better than I feared.

[viewguysf]

Are those not bay windows on the east facing side of the hi rise portion?

You're comment was right...sorry Tyler. I was looking at the last two pics instead of the first one--guess I was just focusing on how silly the whole thing looks perched up there on top with its plain architectural style. I agree that the surface is far better than stucco, but it still looks like prefab sections put together for a cheap project with no aesthetic pleasantness. I think that the color is totally wrong for the building too. Nothing goes well between the old and new facades.

[LWR]

Does anyone have (or know where) we might get a "view" from any of the Saint's windows?

[BTinSF]

I don't see the flashing overhangs on the Ritz Carlton like in the rendering , pity really as it would give a tiered effect to the addition . I liked the color and texture of it when I saw it in person . It turned out better than I feared.

I believe you will. Note the metal plates on the facade:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000041.jpg?t=1185428902

Those correspond to where the overhangs appear on the renderings and I think are mounting points for them

[peanut gallery]

Not only that, BT, but they have started attaching the bracing (poles that stick out from those mounts you photographed) for those overhangs. We should be seeing a more complete picture very soon.

I also agree with you that the texture and color work much better in person than looking at pictures on the Internet. I'm not completely sold yet, but am feeling a bit more optimistic. Time will tell.

[sfgiants]

post more pictures of 690 market street!!!!

[peanut gallery]

The overhangs are beginning to take shape:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1142/983081292_fe4b52c1c4_b.jpg

What's that? You want a closer view? OK:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1253/983081512_1d39a2db3d_b.jpg

I took these on Tuesday. I'll try to swing by today for another look, but I don't think it will have changed much. Perhaps next week we'll get a better sense of the final look.

[tyler82]

Beautiful building.

[alleystreetindustry]

im jealous of san francisco. beautiful projects.

[snufalufugus]

S.F. skyscraper designs released

John King, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, August 6, 2007

(08-06) 16:45 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The long-awaited proposals for a new San Francisco skyscraper that would be taller than the Transamerica Pyramid are being unveiled this evening at City Hall - and images obtained by The Chronicle show three towers in the 1,200 foot range that look nothing like the Victorian homes for which the city is known.

There are three competing proposals from three teams that combine well-known architects with deep-pocket development firms. Each includes a design for a new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets as well as a high-rise that the winning team would both design and build.

The idea of allowing a super-tall tower is that the sale or lease of the land for the project will spin off money to finance the terminal, which the Transbay Joint Powers Authority -- the agency holding the competition -- hopes to start building in 2010.

But the idea is also to turn heads. According to the competition manual, "the Transit Tower is expected to be an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline" while incorporating the latest in green building and seismic safety systems.

Each competitor handed in its bid last month, but they've been kept under wraps until today. Here's what they have in common: Each one is very tall, and each one has a contemporary look.

-- English architect Richard Rogers and his firm Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners designed a tower for Forest City Enterprises with a streamlined metallic look that has marked other projects by the renowned architect.

-- Cesar Pelli -- designer of dozens of towers worldwide in recent decades -- and his firm Pelli Clarke Pelli would insert a tapering tower into the skyline next to a terminal with a rooftop open space. Hines is the developer.

-- The San Francisco office of Skidmore Owings Merrill, working for Rockefeller Group Development Corp. They propose a tower that twists as it rises, topped by a glass veil extending another 10 stories into the air.

There will be more information released at a 6 p.m. hearing of the Transbay authority's board of directors. The competition timetable calls for the directors on Sept. 20 to select which development team will get the nod.

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.


http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0701.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0702.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0703.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0704.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0705.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0706.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0707.jpg

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/07/ba_transbay0708.jpg

[sfgiants]

Does anyone got and picture of the ironworks working???????
and does anyone got any pics of them working on the side walk??????

[peanut gallery]

I should be able to swing by there tomorrow (Thursday) and take some shots. What specifically are you looking for when you say ironworks? I'm not sure what part of the building you want to see when you say that.

[DIESELPOLO]

number 3 is gorgeous.

[kazpmk]

I think number 3 is the best. I like number 1 a lot but it's not daring enough.

[sfgiants]

if anyone has any pictures of 690 market st post them on here please!!!!
cause my dad was the ironworker forman on that job.
if u dont know what a forman is its basicly the boss of the ironworkers on the job he tells the ironworkers what to do.
cause he said a lot of people come by their and take pictures of them working and he want to see the pictures.
and some of the pictures were posted on here he thought it was cool.
i remember i got to go to work with him on a saturday and their was about 20ironworkers working that saturday and during lunch we were on the 3rd floor and all of use we sitting by the big window opening and like 4 people took pictures of us.
And last week my dad and some other guys went back to the job to finish the sidewalk and he alot of people were taking pictures.
But know the ironworkers have finished everything their.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING FEEL FREE TO ASK!!!!

[peanut gallery]

You're looking for older stuff then. Unfortunately, I don't have anything older than what's already on here. But I did take more shots today.

The overhangs are coming along.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1283/1066813921_d3bd8e2f7f_b.jpg

I wish they would have continued them along the Kerney side of the building (left side in these photos). Perhaps they could have made that small notch the same depth as the overhangs and had them butt up to that? edit: I just noticed the mounts do indeed go around the corner, so as Gilda Radner would say: nevermind!
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1170/1066813985_cbbfd26cd5_b.jpg

I know a lot of you are disappointed with the addition, but the restoration of the lower part is fantastic. Sorry for the weird composition here, but I was trying to crop out the scafolding and still get some of the detail.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1258/1066814339_5e7c78d7ed_b.jpg

Here's how it looks with its neighbors along Kerney.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1338/1066814227_c7e88a2c6f_b.jpg

And since sfgiants asked, here are two shots of guys working on the sidewalk:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1246/1066814581_0e8a371c19_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1436/1067244115_4c876e9065_b.jpg

[tyler82]

I know a lot of you are disappointed with the addition, but the restoration of the lower part is fantastic. Sorry for the weird composition here, but I was trying to crop out the scafolding and still get some of the detail.


Not me! Blond brick and red brick together = hot! :hell:

I think too many ppl in these forums rely on amateur photography for their criticisms instead of seeing it up close and personal.

[sfgiants]

if anyone has any pictures of 690 market st post them on here please!!!!
cause my dad was the ironworker forman on that job.
if u dont know what a forman is its basicly the boss of the ironworkers on the job he tells the ironworkers what to do.
cause he said a lot of people come by their and take pictures of them working and he want to see the pictures.
and some of the pictures were posted on here he thought it was cool.
i remember i got to go to work with him on a saturday and their was about 20ironworkers working that saturday and during lunch we were on the 3rd floor and all of use we sitting by the big window opening and like 4 people took pictures of us.
And last week my dad and some other guys went back to the job to finish the sidewalk and he alot of people were taking pictures.
But know the ironworkers have finished everything their.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING FEEL FREE TO ASK!!!!

[FourOneFive]

i've updated the first page to include the renderings from the Transbay proposal.

[BTinSF]

Lenders still give S.F. condos a green light
San Francisco Business Times - August 17, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Najib Joe Hakim

The national credit crunch triggered by soured subprime home mortgages is forcing San Francisco housing developers to invest more equity at higher interest rates, but lenders are still willing to finance new condo construction in the supply-constrained city.

Richard Caldwell, chief lending officer and executive vice president at Pacific Western National Bank, said banks are reluctant to put in more than 75 percent of project cost, whereas a year ago, 80 percent of cost was the norm. One developer, Emerald Fund Chairman Oz Erickson, said lenders are looking to put in 70 percent loan-to-value or 65 percent loan-to-cost.

"It's definitely more difficult to get construction loans," said Erickson.

John Manning, a managing director at Highland Realty Capital, a commercial real estate finance firm, said the impact has been "pretty radical." He said construction and bridge lenders' spreads are up 50 to 75 basis points.

"The underwriting is a lot tougher and it's difficult to finance anything in Oakland," said Manning. "You're looking at 20 percent more equity."

But the shift in lending appetite is a "capital-driven change, not a real estate-driven change," Manning said. "The fundamentals of commercial real restate in the Bay Area are still good."

Caldwell said San Francisco buyers tend to be strong enough financially, and while units are starting to take longer to sell as interest rates rise, he has not seen the sort of price deterioration that would make lenders apprehensive.

"We do not currently have any material issue with construction loans in San Francisco," said Caldwell. "Overall the worst is yet to come with the subprime, but I believe there are a number of markets that are not over-supplied and have persistent demand and San Francisco is one of them and Seattle is another."

Sean Keighran, president of the Residential Builders Association, said the credit crunch will put more pressure on the buyers, especially in the high-end properties like One Rincon Hill or the Infinity, where buyers put 3 to 5 percent down, but have not closed on their properties.

"How many of those people are going to move forward with those transactions? If you can't afford Rincon Hill, there are plenty of other things you can buy."

Developer Joe Cassidy, who built the 300-unit Palms South of Market, said there is no problem obtaining construction loans, but developers have to be willing to get creative with financing in order to sell the condos. On the Palms, which has five units left to sell, Cassidy brought down interest rates and is offering an introductory 3.8 percent rate.

Erickson, who develops both market rate and affordable housing, said lower-income and first-time home buyers are most hurt by new realities of the post-subprime meltdown era. He said 100 percent financing has become nearly impossible to obtain. "It's slowed the rate of sales," he said. "You have to reanalyze your projects and extend the time you are marketing them."

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/08/20/story13.html?t=printable

[San Frangelino]

Searching the web for something else, I stumbled upon this rendering. It looks like a 22 story tower for Excectutive Park near 49ers Stadium. I think thats the tallest, allowable height for that redevelopment area.

San Francisco Bay Apartments
465 new condominium units at San Francisco Executive Park next door to San Francisco 49ers football stadium

From http://www.gladstoneassociates.com/ls-projects.html
http://www.gladstoneassociates.com/images/sfbay.jpg

[tyler82]

Searching the web for something else, I stumbled upon this rendering. It looks like a 22 story tower for Excectutive Park near 49ers Stadium. I think thats the tallest, allowable height for that redevelopment area.

San Francisco Bay Apartments
465 new condominium units at San Francisco Executive Park next door to San Francisco 49ers football stadium

From http://www.gladstoneassociates.com/ls-projects.html
http://www.gladstoneassociates.com/images/sfbay.jpg

Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.

[San Frangelino]

Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.

I wonderd the same thing.

[briankendall]

sd

[Frisco_Zig]

Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.


These are an improvement over the monolithic barrack like condo development that are already hugging this hill called "The Cove". This area already looks odd

http://candlestickpoint.com/

Brisbane is planning to redevelop on the other side of the freeway with office towers, plus there is the potential for Viz Valley redevelopment so this whole corridor will look very different in a decade. Has pretty good transit access with Caltrain. I hope they do it right

[peanut gallery]

I'm cross-posting this article that Reminisence posted in the One Rincon thread because I wanted to add some photos and thoughts that aren't related to One Rincon, but more the general development plan for the area. First the article:

Rising skyscraper is sign of things to come for Rincon Hill area
Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

San Francisco's Rincon Hill is a place caught between a fading industrial past and a radically different future.

At the top of the hill is a 641-foot condo tower called One Rincon Hill. In about six months, the first residents will move into the building; soon after that, work on a second tower will begin.

Rincon Hill and the southern part of San Francisco will never be the same. In five years, maybe 10, old San Franciscans won't recognize this part of old San Francisco.

City planners see a new neighborhood, as many as 20,000 new residents living in townhouses and condos. They see tree-lined streets, shops, new parks, a community center in a beautiful historic building.

One Rincon is just the beginning; people who don't like the look of the building better get used to it. One Rincon is just the tip of the iceberg - "a distinctive new element on the city's skyline," according to San Francisco's Rincon Hill plan.

Just now, Rincon Hill is a neighborhood in transition.

The new neighborhood even comes with a dispute over new money and an old building.

The historic Sailors' Union of the Pacific, right across the street from One Rincon, is in dispute with the city over money and plans for a community center.

But just now, the hill is a curious blend of contrasts, jumbled together.

First Street is frequently choked with traffic - Fremont Street, one block east, is usually empty.

On First, a new condo is for sale for $1.399 million. The building comes complete with a doorman, a gym and a million-dollar view.

On Fremont, a block away, a homeless man lives in a plywood shelter in a building that is about to be demolished to make way for condos. Two more men take an afternoon nap on mattresses on the sidewalk.

On Folsom Street, a block from the One Rincon tower, is Klockars Blacksmith Shop. "Anything you need, we make," is their motto. It is one of the last remnants of the city's industrial past.

There are empty lots with weeds growing. There are lots stacked with structural steel. There are posters advertising events that happened months ago next to notices advising of big plans for the months to come.

Demolition permits have been issued for three of the five old concrete buildings that line the eastern side of Fremont. One of them, at Fremont and Harrison streets, was the Apostleship of the Sea building, a Catholic charity that took care of mariners down on their luck.

Later it was a homeless shelter. "A Man's Place," the sign says.

"Keep Out" the sign says near a mosaic of the Blessed Virgin. The shelter is closed, but the homeless still sometimes sleep on the outside corridor.

On this site will rise a 40-story condo tower called the Californian on Rincon Hill.

The hill had a strong maritime feel to it. The west side of Fremont near the top of the hill had two union halls - the Seafarers International Union and the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. The doors are padlocked. Both have moved away.

Condo towers will be built in their place.

The Sailors' Union of the Pacific building at First and Harrison streets is the sole survivor. It is an Art Moderne classic, built of white stone and concrete, designed by William Gladstone Merchant and opened in 1950.

The building is a landmark in every way. It is near the site of the infamous "Battle of Rincon Hill" where strikers fought San Francisco police during the landmark 1934 waterfront strike.

Outside are two busts: one of Andrew Furuseth, the "emancipator of seaman," who helped start the union in 1885. The other is of Harry Lundeberg, who led it until his death in 1957.

The building has a soaring central hall, balconies shaped like parts of a ship; it has a 2,000 seat auditorium, space for a restaurant and bar, lots of room for amenities.

It was built in another era, when going to sea was famously tough.

There are no elevators, no facilities for the handicapped. "What did sailors need elevators for?" said Gunnar Lundeberg, president of the union and Harry Lundeberg's son.

In those days, the American merchant marine was bigger. Now the union hall is too big for the union. When the city came around to see if the Sailors' Union would be willing to share the building as a community center for a new Rincon Hill neighborhood, the union was eager to cooperate.

Funds to bring the building into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act would come from fees paid by the developers - technically a community infrastructure impact fee of $11 per square foot.

This, the city says, would generate $22 million to pay for parks, sidewalks, pathways and a community center at the SUP building.

Michael Kriozere, developer of One Rincon, even got his architects to draw up preliminary plans for a community center. Lundeberg, the union president, has them in his office.

He says the retrofit would cost $2.5 million. So far, the city has not passed on any money. Dean Macris, the city's planning director, hopes the money will come, but has no timetable.

"We went to hearings, we went to meetings, we had the plans drawn up," said Lundeberg. "And what happened? Nothing. Here we sit."

The union is impatient, but the city is biding its time.

"The Sailors' Union building is one of a dozen projects in the neighborhood," said Joshua Switzky, the planning department official responsible for Rincon Hill.

"We are looking at the options. There is no specific time trigger."

"You know what I think it is?" said Lundeberg. "I think it is a lack of will by this administration."

The city feels differently. One city official said the problem is that it is too soon to build a community center on Rincon Hill. The neighborhood is not ready for a community center, he said; there is no community yet.

The present has not caught up to the future.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BA4TRKO29.DTL

[peanut gallery]

I was fascinated by some of the history highlighted in this article and wanted to check out some of these sites before they are demolished. Or in the case of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific (which is being preserved anyway) because I've never seen it.

This is the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. It's a bit more interesting than this photo makes it seem. I couldn't get in position for a better angle due to the construction at One Rincon directly across the street. You can barely see the two busts mentioned in the article.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/1219503691_8b88300efa_b.jpg

The block along Fremont that the article mentions will be largely demolished is no great loss other than this building:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1099/1219503697_85b3e3a42e_b.jpg

I hate to see that go. But I'm pretty sure this one sits within the footprint of the Californian (see page one of this thread), which will be a 400' tower going up diagonally across the street from the second One Rincon tower. The rest of the block can't be torn down fast enough if you ask me.

Speaking of which, the notices on the buildings along here are all dated June 26 and say the permit is only valid for 30 days. Meaning they have to begin demo within that timeframe. That's coming up fast and there is no sign of impending demo. Does anyone happen to know what's up with that?

[peanut gallery]

A shot I took of Foundry Square 1, which is nearing completion. You also get a glimpse of Millennium rising behind. This was taken yesterday.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1143/1219553855_1f5930f10d_b.jpg

[tyler82]

A shot I took of Foundry Square 1, which is nearing completion. You also get a glimpse of Millennium rising behind. This was taken yesterday.



I can't stand the roofs on the foundry buildings, they just look too forced into being something natural and wave like. Otherwise, the buildings are very high quality. I just wish they didn't have those weird roofs that look even weirder when coming in on the freeway.

[tyler82]

I was fascinated by some of the history highlighted in this article and wanted to check out some of these sites before they are demolished. Or in the case of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific (which is being preserved anyway) because I've never seen it.

This is the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. It's a bit more interesting than this photo makes it seem. I couldn't get in position for a better angle due to the construction at One Rincon directly across the street. You can barely see the two busts mentioned in the article.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/1219503691_8b88300efa_b.jpg

I can see where one Rincon got it's influence , looking at the front of this building. I've never seen the front, just the side when driving up 1st to get onto the bridge. I love the porthole windows on first street. This is going to be such a colorful, fun neighborhood, regardless of what the fear mongerers say!

[BTinSF]

Activists take aim at OK'd office projects
San Francisco Business Times - August 24, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

The city is sending a strong signal to developers with approved office projects: Get to work or risk losing your entitlements.

The message, delivered at a July 26 Planning Commission hearing, has sent developers scrambling for building permits on projects that were approved more than five years ago, but have languished on the shelf as the commercial real estate market tanked after 2001.

Under city planning code, developers are supposed to begin construction within 18 months of winning entitlements, and the Planning Commission has the power to revoke approvals if work has not started within that window. But the Planning Commission has never enforced the code, and the reality of the city's notoriously cumbersome entitlement process -- not to mention boom-and-bust leasing cycles -- has meant that office projects are almost never built in the same cycle in which they are approved.

The result has been that developers have been allowed to landbank projects for five years or more, giving them an opportunity to better time the market.

But that may be changing. After questioning by land use attorney Sue Hestor and several commissioners, the Planning Department has identified 13 "expired" projects that have not met "commencement of construction requirements." These include 344,000-square-foot 350 Bush St. -- the last remaining office site in the north financial district -- as well as a 200,000-square- foot project at 524 Howard St. and a 270,000-square-foot development at 55 Ninth St.

In all, the Planning Department is looking at some 2.4 million square feet of office projects as "expired." Some of the projects under question have been long since abandoned or reinvented as residential; others, like Shorenstein Properties' 350 Bush St., are very much alive and have been aggressively seeking an anchor tenant. On 350 Bush St., which was approved in late 2001 and is now for sale, Shorenstein and partner Swig pulled a building permit on Aug. 7, two weeks after the Planning Commission hearing. Another project, 524 Howard St., also obtained a building permit July 6.

"The ones that are still viable have had the bejesus scared out of them," said architect Jeffrey Heller, who has several projects under scrutiny.

Prop. M is back
The focus on expired projects comes at a time when a spate of new proposed office buildings have developers once again worried about Prop. M, the 950,000-square-foot annual office cap established in 1985. San Francisco now has 1 million square feet of proposed new office space pending, leaving 231,000 square feet available under the cap. Another 950,000 square feet will be added to the allocation this October, as it is every year. Any space not built in previous years is added to the cap.

City Zoning Administrator Larry Badiner said the new attention on expired permits is simply a reflection of a stronger marketplace and the number of new projects coming in. In a slow market, it makes sense to "have approvals on tap" so builders can break ground quickly as demand jumps, Badiner said. During a boom, with limited allocation available, developers need to either prove they are serious about building, or move out of the way for those who are.

"If there is demand we have always reserved the right to take these allocations back," he said. "The city wants to see these projects moving ahead."

At the July 26 public hearing, attorney Jim Reuben of Reuben & Junious -- the attorney for the majority of the city's new office buildings -- called the city's economic cycles "deep and short." He said the average period of time between the granting of entitlement and the start of construction is 46 months, and one project he worked on took 64 months. During the last cycle, the only office building built during the same cycle when it was approved was 560 Mission St., he said.

"There is not enough time in a single economic cycle to acquire a piece of property and go through a very difficult, arduous, risky process and get that building built," said Reuben, according to minutes of that meeting.

A question of landbanking
But prominent anti-growth land-use attorney Hestor, who wrote Prop. M, said the residents and planning commissioners should at least have a chance to take a fresh look at long-expired projects.

"You can not keep projects alive indefinitely on an environmental review that was originally done 25 years ago," she said.

She said landbanking "destabilizes the site" and "can really kill a neighborhood." She said the issue extends to housing and retail projects as well as office, and pointed to a central block on 24th Street in Noe Valley, which has been empty since 2003 when Real Foods Co. closed a grocery store to redevelop the property.

"You can't go and squat on an allocation," she said. "They've killed blocks, and in the interim the property flips three or four times -- what is the social benefit of that?"

For developers who spent years and millions of dollars on their entitlements the questions are worrying. The entitlement of 350 Bush St. -- and a companion project at 500 Pine St. -- was one of the most complex in city history. The proposed 19-story project violated Proposition K, which prohibits new construction from casting shadows on public parks. While the building would only cast a shadow on St. Mary's Park for a few days a year, Shorenstein built support by agreeing to build a rooftop garden on top of a new five-story building at 500 Pine, a property Shorenstein had owned since the 1960s. The rooftop garden would connect to St. Mary's Park, a huge increase to the green space on the edge of Chinatown.

Shorenstein also agreed to incorporate the historic Mining Exchange landmark building, a major focus for historic preservationists.

Shorenstein's attorney, Robert Herr of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, told the Planning Commission that the project is going forward.

"I have been working diligently for three and a half years since the entitlement became final with the approval of the Board of Supervisors to move forward with that project," said Herr.

Planning Commissioner Christina Olague, who called for the hearing, said the reaction from developers has been overblown.

"We're not saying we're going after anyone or are going to start revoking permits left and right," she said. "We're asking that some of these expired projects be brought to us for discussion and review. If the EIR is 10 years old, that is really dated at this point. Maybe we need to sit down to understand better why the permit was extended without additional review of the environmental impact."

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971



Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/08/27/story3.html?t=printable

Da dirt be gonna fly!! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[BTinSF]

:previous:

Activists hope to run out the clock on development
San Francisco Business Times - August 24, 2007
If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you are a San Francisco anti-development activist, every project looks like a threat.

In either case, stand by for indiscriminate pounding.

Sure enough, development activists have picked up a new tool and are aiming it at an impending wave of downtown office projects. As we report on Page 1, they've discovered a rarely enforced proviso that the city can cancel the entitlement of any office development that doesn't get started within 18 months of receiving it.

There's a very good reason this use-it-or-lose-it stricture is typically ignored: It doesn't make economic sense, and the wiser sort of city officials have always known it.

Office development inevitably goes in fits and starts, usually mirroring the overall economy, in cycles that typically run three to five years. San Francisco's planning process is balky and its politics tendentious when it comes to development. It can easily take three years just to get planning permission -- and considerably more if the city decides to introduce any other gauntlets.

Consequently, there generally isn't time to complete construction and get a project leased before the needle of an "up" cycle turns southward, as it inevitably does. Since a succession of planning officials have been unsuccessful in speeding up their laborious bureaucracy, they have reached an accommodation with developers: you can get an entitlement in one "up" cycle, and build in the next one.

This next one has been a while in coming. Like many out-of-control parties, the dot-com boom was followed by a crippling and lengthy economic hangover. It's only now, with rents racing ahead once again and the office supply tightening rapidly, that developers are dusting off development plans, some of them dating back to the late 1990s.

And it's these already entitled projects at which development activists are swinging their hammer. All such entitlements should be revoked, they say, for not being used within 18 months of issuance. Economic ignorance is no hindrance when your goal is simply to block development projects -- good ones, bad ones, any ones.

But more is at stake than the fate of a few long-delayed projects. Development in San Francisco is already parlous enough without introducing a shot clock. Future developers will be undoubtedly deterred from investing millions of dollars in obtaining entitlements if they risk forfeiting them to an unreasonable and arbitrary time limit.

But this, of course, is exactly the goal of the anti-development cohort, whose motto is effectively, if we don't build it, they can't come -- or stay. The "they" in this equation are jobs. Jobs that generate economic opportunity for city residents. Jobs that make possible thousands of support businesses like restaurants and hotels. Jobs that ensure that San Francisco remains an economic leader and not a laggard in the 21st century. Jobs that give our city a measure of its vitality.

Planning commissioners have given a sympathetic ear so far to those who would revoke entitlements older than 18 months. It is illuminating, if not surprising, that this contingent is led by Sue Hestor, the anti-development doyenne who has opposed virtually every significant addition to the city skyline for at least two decades. In other words, what's being advocated here isn't the faithful application of city statutes; it's just the same old anti-development drum, given a new beat.

An ear is all planning commissioners should give them. That, and directions to the exit.
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/08/27/editorial1.html?t=printable

[twinpeaks]

Is there a way reverse Prop M with another ballot or something? It cripples economic growth of downtown and a lot of office building that should go in downtown with great transportation access are forced to sprawl elsewhere.

[roadwarrior]

I agree about the illogical nature of Prop M. I think that it is outdated and speaks of a time when paranoid anti-growth activists once ruled this city.

I do like the fact that the city is pushing the developers. My only concern would be that many of these developers would back out, rather than move forward. We'll have to see.

[roadwarrior]

Looks great but, are they turning this area of SF into an Orange County Gated Community? OH well, I guess if it has to happen somewhere, this is fine since the area is so trashed anyway.

Nah, most Orange County gated communities have 2-3 stories. There are a few exceptions in Irvine, but most look stunted. The vertical scale makes the difference here. I'm all for it. Until this area really cleans up, you NEED a gated community to ensure security.

[Stepping Razor]

I was fascinated by some of the history highlighted in this article and wanted to check out some of these sites before they are demolished. Or in the case of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific (which is being preserved anyway) because I've never seen it.

This is the Sailors' Union of the Pacific. It's a bit more interesting than this photo makes it seem. I couldn't get in position for a better angle due to the construction at One Rincon directly across the street. You can barely see the two busts mentioned in the article.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1012/1219503691_8b88300efa_b.jpg


I have a lot of great memories of this building in its late-90s incarnation as the Maritime Hall music venue. Definitely saw some of the best concerts in my life at that place. I was royally pissed when it had to close in 2001 due to rising rents and constant harassment by Bill Graham Production/ClearChannel.

The funny thing is that wasn't *that* long ago, and Rincon Hill then seemed like a complete ghost town. Hard to believe that less than a decade later they're talking about turning the building into the community center of a dense highrise residential district. I never would have seen that coming...

[BigKidD]

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Palo650/100_0625.jpg
Has anyone noticed the left side of the base of the de young building being a new flat surface instead of a column of stones? Is Ritz-Carlton planning to add any stone work to that flat surface section or is it going to stay that way?
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/Palo650/100_0627.jpg
Also, peanut gallery pointed out in my photo thread that one can see the exterior of the Ritz-Carlton Residences finishing touches being added on the top section of the building.

[WonderlandPark]

I really don't like the Ritz addition, but I must admit, from many angles it reads as another building entirely. It comes off looking like it is another building behind the original, which is fine by me.

[BTinSF]

I never even heard of this building before:

1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. 2002.0927E) and request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for the construction of a new building, 12 stories in height, containing approximately 136 units of affordable family housing and 201,627 gross square feet plus ground-floor space for community use and retail use, and second-floor space for housing support services, offices and building management, including requests for exceptions to Planning Code requirements for rear-yard area (Section 309(a)(1)), ground-level wind currents (Section 309(a)(2)), freight loading (Section 309(a)(5)) and building bulk (Section 309(a)(8)).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

13b. 2005.1068CKVX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 124(f), for additional square footage (to be devoted to affordable housing) above the 6.0 to 1 floor area ratio (approximately 6.06 to 1 – 201,627 gross square feet when 199,500 would be allowed) ) established for the C-3-G zoning district subject to the limitations set forth therein in conjunction with the construction of approximately 136 units of affordable family housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

13c. 2005.1068CKVX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Dwelling-unit-exposure and off-street-parking variances sought in conjunction with the construction of approximately 136 units of affordable family housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses, for dwelling units with their exposure onto an interior courtyard with dimensions insufficient to meet the standards for dwelling-unit exposure contained in Planning Code Section 140, and 24 off-street parking spaces when Planning Code Section 151 would require 34 such spaces. The request for variances will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

14a. 2005.1127CX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340 MISSION STREET (SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING) - north side between Ninth and Tenth Streets, with additional frontage on Ninth and Jessie Streets, a portion of Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in a 120-X Height and Bulk District - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. 2002.0927E) and request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for the construction of a new building, 11 stories in height, containing approximately 107 units of affordable senior housing and 93,954 gross square feet of floor area plus ground-floor space for community use, housing support services and building management and upper-floor space for housing support services, including a request for an exception to Planning Code requirements for ground-level wind currents (Section 309(a)(2)).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

14b. 2005.1127CX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)
1340 MISSION STREET (SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING) - north side between Ninth and Tenth Streets, with additional frontage on Ninth and Jessie Streets, a portion of Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in a 120-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 124(f), for additional square footage (to be devoted to affordable housing) above the 6.0 to 1 floor area ratio (approximately 7.60 to 1 – 93,954 gross square feet when 76,500 would be allowed) established for the C-3-G zoning district subject to the limitations set forth therein and, pursuant to Planning Code Section 157, for off-street parking in excess of accessory amounts (ten spaces when five would be required), in conjunction with the construction of approximately 107 units of affordable senior housing plus ancillary ground- and upper-floor uses.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Source: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_page.asp?id=37772

but it seems to be happening (I took the pics):

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000309.jpg?t=1187997947

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000310.jpg?t=1187998208

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000314.jpg?t=1187998239

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000318.jpg?t=1187998285

[BTinSF]

I think 2 floors to go but it's looking good:

From Van Ness in front of the Veteran's Building
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000297.jpg?t=1187999349

From behind some tourists in front of City Hall
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000302.jpg?t=1187999417

From Market St.
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000326.jpg?t=1187999500
I took the pics

[Stepping Razor]

Wow, between this building and the 10th/Market project, there will be some serious density at that intersection. Hopefully will do good things for that stretch of Market.

Now, if only Argenta were twice as tall, so it could completely block out my view of the hideousness that is Fox Plaza...