[FourOneFive]

Well since everyone seems to be putting together threads of potential projects for their respective cities, I decided to do one for the City by the Bay, San Francisco. I collected the information for skyscrapers.com, J Church's http://www.sfcityscape.com, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner, and other sources. Enjoy!

San Francisco Now:

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/10/22/mn_skylinepano_mac.jpg

************************************************
Under Construction

Millennium Tower at 301 Mission

function: residential, hotel
height: 645'
floors: 58
architect: Gary Handel + Associates
completion: 2008
link: http://www.millenniumtowersf.com/

Renderings:
http://sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/12/21/ba_towers21d.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/12/21/ba_towers21c.jpg


One Rincon Hill I and II

function: residential
height: 641' and 541'
floors: 55 and 44
architect: Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates
completion: 2007/2008
http://www.onerinconhill.com/

Renderings:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/75/202231917_c0d18ccab1_o.jpghttp://www.pmainc.com/images/One-Rincon-Hill_01.jpg


555 Mission Street

function: office
height: 482'
floors: 34
architect: Heller-Manus Architects
completion: 2008

Rendering:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/333732014_c64a690a8e_o.jpg
updated:
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4362/577954000ll0.jpg

* Although the project has no anchor tenant, Tishman Speyer has decided to proceed with the project.


300 Spear Street I and II

function: residential
height: 450' to roof / 350' to roof
floors: 40/35
architect: Heller Manus and Arquitectonica
completion: 2007
http://www.the-infinity.com/

Renderings:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/04/18/ba_rincon_18_ph01.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/333731386_37574d5d78_o.jpg


InterContinental Hotel San Francisco

function: hotel
height: 320'
floors: 31
architect: Patri Merker Architects and Hornberger + Worstell
completion: 2007 (topped off); open for occupancy February 2008

Rendering:
http://www.squareoneproductions.com/Home/art/projects/large/8882/lb1.jpg
http://www.hornbergerworstell.com/portfolio/section1/site8/big_images/i2.jpg


690 Market Street aka the Ritz Carlton Residences
renovation

function: residential, hotel
height: 312'
floors: 24
architect: ?
completion: 2007

Rendering:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/11/28/re_ritz_4.jpg
http://www.ritzcarltonrealestate.com/common/rcr/images/landing/san-francisco/rend1lg.jpg


1146-1160 Mission Street aka the Soma Grand

function: residential
height: 235'
floors: 24
architect: AGI Capital
completion: 2007
http://www.somagrand.com/

Rendering:
http://www.sfnewdevelopments.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/sg_body_shot-200x335.jpg


631 Folsom Street

function: residential
height: 209'
floors: 21
architect: Gary Handel + Associates
completion: 2007-2008

Renderings:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/333732088_dba7547f34_o.jpghttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/333732099_a6c206a675_o.jpg


Argenta (formerly known as Bovet Place and 1 Polk)

function: residential, retail
height: 200'
floors: 17
architect: Donald Macdonald Architects
completion: 2007

Renderings:
new
http://static.flickr.com/70/202228755_ea5d794066_o.jpg
old:
http://www.donaldmacdonaldarchitects.com/bldg_images/bovet/bov_north_lg.jpg


Symphony Towers I

function: residential
height: 121'
floors: 13
architect: Babcock Design Studios
completion: 2007

Rendering:
http://www.westbaybuilders.com/popups/images/WBDev_SymphonyTowers.jpg

*********************************************************************
Approved

These are the projects that are mostly likely to be constructed in the next few years.

45 Lansing Street

function: residential
height: 450'
floors: 45
architect: EHDD Architecture
completion: 2009

Renderings:

http://www.reubenlaw.com/art/pj_45lansing.jpg

* Approved by the San Francisco Planning Commission on March 2, 2006. New owner, Turnberry Ltd., hopes to develop San Francisco's first ulta-luxury condo development.


340-350 Fremont Street

function: residential
height: 440'
floors: 40
architect: Heller Manus
completion: 2009

Renderings:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1415/1110619653_b8a2928fc2_o.jpg


The Californian at Rincon Hill (aka 375 Fremont)

function: residential
height: 400'
floors: 40
architect: Richard Keating & Associates
completion: 2009

Rendering:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/375%20Fremont.jpg

*In the process of being sold by Fifield Cos.


201 Folsom Street I and II

function: residential
height: 400/350
floors: 40/35
architect: Heller Manus Architects
completion: 2009 - 2010

Renderings:
(in the foreground)
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0126_06x.jpg
(in the background)
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0126_07x.jpg

* The 201 Folsom project, which was approved at the same time as its *twin* 300 Spear, will begin construction after 300 Spear has been completed. Developer: Tishman Speyer


535 Mission Street

function: office
height: 380'
floors: 27
architect: HOK
completion: 2009

Renderings:

http://www.greenbuild.com/projects/images/535mission_rev.jpg

* The third incarnation of this project. This project begun as a office project in the 1990s, became a residential project in 2005, and now has reverted back to a office project.


10th and Market

function: residential
height: 352'
floors: 35(?)
architect: Heller Manus Archiects
completion: 2009(?)

Renderings:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/481539773_bb0700f3b2_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/203/481539771_af7bcd0425_b.jpg


524 Howard Street

function: office
height: 310'
floors: 23
architect: Heller Manus and Robert Frank Architects
completion: on hold

Renderings:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/333731902_05497eb08a_o.jpg


Exchange Place (350 Bush Street)

function: office
height: 250'
floors: 19
architect: Heller Manus
completion: on hold

Rendering:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/162/333731845_ec78909143_o.jpg


One Hawthorne

function: residential
height: 250'
floors: 25
architect: EHDD Architecture

Renderings:

http://www.socketsite.com/One%20Hawthorne.jpg


Trinity Project (1177 Market I, II, and III)

function: residential, retail
height: 240' - 160'
floors: 24 - 12
architect: Arquitectonica
completion: 2010

Renderings:

http://static.flickr.com/54/150075930_2dfe827cc8_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/52/150075932_fdafecd0c8_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/54/150075934_8f6609467a_o.jpg


48 Tahama Street

function: office/ residential
height: 216'
floors: 20
architect: Komorous-Towey Architects
completion: ?

Renderings:
http://www.ktarch.com/images/tehamab1.jpghttp://www.ktarch.com/images/tehamab2.jpg

* Approved September 2001.


325 Fremont Street

function: residential
height: 200'
floors: 20
architect: Baum Thornley Architects
completion: ?

Renderings:

http://www.davidgangloff.com/fremont-001.jpghttp://www.davidgangloff.com/fremont-005.jpg


Signature Mission Bay

function: residential
height: ~170'
floors: 17
architect: Arquitectonica
completion: 2008

Renderings:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1427/1110821625_af37768959_o.jpg


**************************************************************

Proposed

This San Francisco Chronicle graphic gives a good idea of what's on the horizon:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/20/ba_high_rises.jpg

Transbay Transit Center Tower- SOM Proposal

function: office, hotel, residential
height: 1,200' (occupied floor); 1,375' (top of parapet)
floors: 81
architect: SOM

Renderings:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay024_skidmore.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay_bw24_skidmore.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay016_skidmore.jpg


Transbay Transit Center Tower- Pelli Clarke Pelli Proposal WINNING PROPOSAL

function: office
height: 1200'
floors: 80
architect: Pelli Clarke Pelli

Renderings:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay001_pelli.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay017_pelli.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay006_pelli.jpg


Transbay Transit Center Tower- Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners Proposal

function: office, residential, hotel
height: 1,155' (skyview roof); 1,287' (top of turbine)
floors: 80
architect: Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners

Renderings:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbaytowerrogers.jpg
http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/08/12/ba_transbay005.jpg


Renzo Piano Project (the corner of First and Mission)

function: mixed use
height: 1200', 1200', 900', 900', 600'
floors: ?
architect: Renzo Piano
completion: ?

Renderings: none

* As currently proposed, the project would consist of 5 towers. The signature aspect of the project would be twin 1200' towers.


181 Fremont

function: mixed use (office/ residential)
height: 900'
floors: 66
architect: Heller Manus
completion: ?

Rendering:

http://www.socketsite.com/181%20Fremont%20Rendering.jpg


Transbay Tower II (on Howard between Second and First at Essex)

function: mixed use
height: 850'+
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


Palace Hotel Tower Addition

function: residential
height: 680'
floors: 60
architect: SOM
completion: 2009

Renderings:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1052/1110965079_d9d6ec9019_o.jpg


Harbor Village Resort

function: residential, commercial, open space
height: 3 towers: 650'
floors: 61 each
architect: ?
completion: dead (?)

Renderings: none


Sun Tower AKA Treasure Island Signature Tower

function: residential/ hotel
height: 600'+
floors: ~60
architect: SOM
completion: ?

Renderings: (conceptual)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/333733703_0aed239878_o.jpg


Transbay Terminal Tower III (at Main and Howard)

function: residential
height: 550'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


Transbay Terminal Tower IV (at 1st and Folsom)

function: residential
height: 550'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


350 Mission Street

function: office
height: 550'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


Transbay Terminal Tower V (at Howard and Main)

function: residential
height: 450'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


1333 Gough Street aka Cathedral Hill Plaza aka Cathedral Hill Tower

function: residential
height: 407'
floors: 40
architect: SOM
completion: ?

Renderings:
http://www.socketsite.com/Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower%20Rendering.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com/Cathedral%20Hill%20Tower%20Rendering%20South.jpg


Transbay Terminal Tower VI

function: residential
height: 400'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


222 Second Street

function: office
height: 350' (to roof)
floors: 25
architect: Thomas Phifer and Partners and Heller Manus
developer: Tishman Speyer
completion: ?

Renderings: none


California Pacific Medical Center Hospital and Offices

function: hospital, offices
height: 331' (hospital), 146' (office tower)
floors: 20/ unknown
architect: ?
completion: 2012 (goal)

Renderings: none


Transbay Terminal Tower VII

function: residential
height: 300'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


Transbay Terminal Tower VIII

function: residential
height: 300'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


219 Second Street

function: residential
height: 249'
floors: 24
architect: ?
completion: ?

Renderings: none


300 Grant Street

function: residential, retail
height: >120' (?)
floors: 12
architect: MBH Architects
completion: 2008 (?)

Rendering:

http://www.mbharch.com/portfolio/mixeduse/development/grant.jpg


********************************************************

Never Built

301 Mission I and II

function: office, residential, hotel
height: ~550'
floors: ?
architect: ?
completion: n/a

Rendering:

http://www.robertbecker.com/KMDkwocb.JPG

* This was the initial design for 301 Mission Street. The approved design above is now under construction.


The Hemisphere

function: residential
height: 475'
floors: 51
architect: Heller Manus Architects
completion: n/a

Rendering:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/62/169724419_56c2e7ad78_o.jpg

* Project was cancelled. The Board of Supervisors voted on September 28, 2004 to use their powers of eminent domain to take the parcel that the Hemisphere would have occupied. The parcel is apart of the ROW for the new Transbay Terminal.


Bloomingdale's Hotel

function: hotel
height: 400'
floors: 31
architect: Hornberger + Worstell
completion: n/a

Renderings:

http://static.flickr.com/74/169726855_9e6d657b04_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/66/169726856_ab2dd97627_o.jpg

* Hotel portion was dropped after the economy soured after the events of September 11th.


535 Mission Street

function: office
height: ?
floors: 24
architect: HOK
completion: n/a

Renderings:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/76/169728854_5ab9e82d2c_o.jpg

* First project was dropped in 2002.


Sofitel Hotel

function: hotel
height: 320' (?)
floors: ~30
architect: SOM
completion: n/a

Rendering:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/333733383_ba5217bb90_o.jpg

* Project was dropped after the economy soured. The parcel in which this project would have been built is now included in Renzo Piano's proposal at 1st and Mission.


State Insurance Compensation Building Addition

function: office
height: 198'
floors: 12
architect: HOK
completion: n/a

Renderings:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/333733400_610a4a6e01_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/333733423_bdde5ee3a8_o.jpg

*There is a now a residential proposal for this site.

************************************************************************
In addition to the proposed projects above, San Francisco is also developing comprehensive plans for several neighborhoods across San Francisco. As noted above, one tower in the Transbay Plan may include a new tallest for San Francisco and the West Coast!

Rincon Hill: APPROVED

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/12/04/ba_rincon04.jpg

Transbay Terminal: APPROVED

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0126_04x.jpg

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/10/12/mn_transbaydevelop.jpg


Treasure Island: PROPOSED
designed by SOM; plans include a signature 60 story tower

http://i.pbase.com/g5/27/712527/2/67719093.1kQPEvOP.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/122/255786347_1850879533_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/90/255787142_2c15ebab70_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/112/255786349_c6ca906075_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/81/255786351_ccd93de021_o.jpg


Other Notable Projects

Westfield San Francisco Center

status: COMPLETED
function: retail, office
floors: 8 (above ground); 1 (underground)
developer: Forest City/ Westfield
completion: 2006

Renderings:

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2003/02/07/ba_mallgraph.jpg
http://www.westfield.com/sanfrancisco/development/vision/render01.jpg
http://www.westfield.com/sanfrancisco/development/vision/render03.jpg


James R. Herman International Cruise Terminal and Bryant Street Park

status: ON HOLD
function: residential, retail, open space, office, maritime (cruise terminal)
height: n/a
floors: n/a
architect: SOM
completion: Bryant Street Seawall Condo Tower: 2005; Bryant Street Pier: 2006; Cruise Terminal: 2008

Renderings:

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2000/02/16/mn_waterfront-piers30-32.jpg
http://bryantstreetpier.com/images/picture2.jpg
http://bryantstreetpier.com/images/picture4.jpg

* Facts on the new terminal:
-Terminal: 100,000 square feet
-Public Open Space: 215,000 square feet (more than 35 percent of the total site area), includes public plazas, waterfront walkways and terraces
-Retail: 180,000 square feet, including a grocery store, restaurants, a multi-screen cinema and other neighborhood-serving retail
-Office: 360,000 square feet
-Parking: 425 spaces
-Two berths: a 1,000 foot berth and an approximately 825 foot berth


de Young Museum

status: COMPLETED
function: museum, cultural
height: tower portion: 144'
floors: n/a
architect: Herzog & de Meuron
completion: 2005

Renderings:

http://www.thinker.org/dynamic/images/tours/slide_image_large_983.jpg
http://www.thinker.org/dynamic/images/tours/slide_image_large_993.jpg

* As a result of its copper skin, the museum's exterior will eventually turn from its brownish reflective hue to a green to match the surrounding park.


The California Academy of Science

status: UNDER CONSTRUCTION
function: museum, cultural, educational
height: n/a
floors: n/a
architect: Renzo Piano
completion: 2008
cost: $370 million

Renderings:

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0167_03x.jpg
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0167_06x.jpg

* It is being built across the concourse from the de Young museum (above).


Jewish Museum San Francisco

status: UNDER CONSTRUCTION
function: cultural, museum
height: n/a
floors: n/a
architect: Daniel Libeskind
completion: 2007

Renderings:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/333732933_eacd4c4188_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/333732945_110c3cd34f_o.gif


Transbay Transit Center

status: APPROVED
function: retail, transportation
height: ~80'
floors: 4 (above ground) and 1 (below ground)
architect: n/a
completion: 2011
cost: $2 billion+

Conceptual Renderings:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedimages/tjpa/night-rendering.gif
http://www.bayareamonitor.org/images/terminal.gif

* Project will link all of the major Bay Area transit providers in one location in downtown San Francisco. In addition, project will also feature an underground extension of the Caltrain commuter rail line as well as future high speed rail service to Los Angeles.

[lakegz]

thanks for the info Four.

[Procurator]

thank you

[StevenW]

The Century and the Continental Hotel are my personal favorites. ;)

I can't tell you how much I love San Francisco! :)
Thanks for posting this. :)

[EastBayHardCore]

I also really like The Century, I hope it actually gets finished though :-\

[FourOneFive]

No problem guys. I just wanted to bring a little attention to San Francisco. Unfortunately with San Francisco in terms of skyscraper construction, you typically only hear about NIMBYs, strict zoning, ugly boxes from the 60s and 70s, and the Transamerica Pyramid. Although we may not be New York, Chicago, or even Philadelphia, SF is still building skyscrapers... :D

[The Agonist]

I love the museum tower. It has an unsettling geometry to it when seen up close. Can you get some pics 415? The exterior looked close to complete the last time I saw it in September, are you sure it won't be "done" done until 2005?

[FourOneFive]

Here's an article from the October 12th edition of the San Francisco Chronicle:

Slow market hampers St. Regis high-rise

Dan Levy
Sunday, October 12, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keen observers of the urban skyline will have noticed that construction on the St. Regis tower at Third and Mission streets has taken an awfully long time.

The 42-story hotel-condominium project broke ground three years ago, but it's not scheduled to open until spring 2005.

This is what's known in the real estate business as an eternity. High- rise buildings typically take two years to complete. The 102-story Empire State Building in New York was famously built in one year during the height of the Depression.

Jeff Snyder, St. Regis project manager for Cambridge, Mass., developer Carpenter & Co., said it took an entire year just to do foundation work for four levels of underground parking. Plus, it took time to seismically upgrade the old Williams building on the corner and plan how the new concrete and glass tower will integrate with it.

But mostly, Snyder conceded, the slow-motion construction schedule is the result of the city's struggling hotel industry and the wane in demand for high- end downtown housing.

In its latest Northern California report, hospitality analysts PKF Consulting said the average daily room rate in August in San Francisco was $139, down 6 percent compared with a year ago.

The occupancy rate for August improved to 68 percent from 65 percent, although that is still short of what is considered a healthy figure of 70 to 75 percent.

"We've had to wait to let the (hotel and condo) markets work themselves out," Snyder said. "It's more important to get every detail right than to rush things along."

When finished, the project will have 248 deluxe hotel rooms and 102 condos. The Museum of the African Diaspora will be on the ground floor along with a restaurant and health club.

The architect is Skidmore Owings & Merrill.

[EastBayHardCore]

I wish they'd finish that project already. I kinda understand their thinking about waiting for the market to rebound, but why not finish it now and start making money while you can, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a year from now. Oh and by the way, have there been any recent developments in the Transbay Terminal Redevelopment Plan negotiations with the owners of The Century?

[FourOneFive]

Well, technically the developers of the St. Regis are saving money by delaying the completion of the tower. It would be more costly to have empty condos and hotel rooms than maintaining an empty shell of a building. Plus, the museum of African disapora is still raising money to begin construction of their facilities that will sit at the base of the new tower.

I haven't heard any news about the Century and it's conflicting plans with the Transbay Terminal project. I really want the project to go foward though. It'll truly be a gem in a skyline of boring boxes. Too bad it couldn't have been a little taller...

[EastBayHardCore]

What are the odds of them raising the height of a project like The Century while is it under construction, or whatever you wanna call its current state, i guess on-hold is a better word for it? But yea, do you think it could go any taller now that there are other high-rises planned for the area that will break the current limit.

[Fabb]

301 Mission Street is very elegant.
I hope that we'll hear more about this one in the near future.

[FourOneFive]

From what I've read with 301 Mission, the project sponsors should begin clearing the site and demolishing existing low rise buildings in February. Construction of SF's first 600+ft building in nearly 20 years should begin shortly thereafter.

As for the Century, the site it is proposed for is zoned for 500ft, which means it could go up to 550ft with a crown (prehaps higher with all of San Francisco funny zoning loopholes). At 475ft, I'm sure the original developers could have pushed for a taller structure, but economically, 475ft would probably have provided an adequate amount of housing units to justify the overall costs. With 555 Mission, I know the city approved a floor increase from 29 to 33 floors after the project was approved, but I don't know if that included an increase in height. (It's a shame that 555 Mission is on hold though!) Unfortunately, any dramatic changes in the height of The Century would probably require a new EIR and another vote at the Planning Commission.

[EastBayHardCore]

That's awesome news about 301 Mission! I can't wait to see that thing under construction. If SF gets that 850ft residential tower in the Transbay Terminal won't that be one of the tallest residential towers in the world? Do you think the SF should use this to push the tower's height and hopefully gain some acceptance? As of now the tower would stand as 3rd tallest completed residential tower in the world. But after the towers in Russia and Korea it would be around #5 which isn't bad for a city with such strict rules when it comes to height and such a vocal opposition to it as well. To put this into even more perspective, NYC has only 1 residential tower taller than this, and thats Trump World Tower at 861ft! GO SF!

[craeg]

I highly doubt that the "850' tower" would be strictly residential. It will likely be a mixed use office residential. As it is, the century is tied with a building in SD for tallest west coast residential. I think we have a few 550' buildings proposed though that would easily give us the tallest residential west of mississippi title.

[EastBayHardCore]

well thats good news for the west coast title then, but i was under the believf that maybe the first few stories would be retail like ground level then a few others and the rest would be residential? Maybe I didn't read closley enough but I didn't see anything about office space. I think that the Trump World Tower is under the same format, from what I can remember from my last visit the lower levels were all retail, including the lobby and the rest was all residential.

[J Church]

the transbay tower would be mostly hotel and residential.

prehaps higher with all of San Francisco funny zoning loopholes

not perhaps, tony. i know you can go to 700' in a 550 zone; for 500, i'd guess you could get to 625 or so.

[EastBayHardCore]

Would the hotel portion of the tower exclude it from being one of the tallest residential towers in the world?

[craeg]

I think so. The hotel portion of 301 mission excludes it from tallest residential west of miss.

Anyway, looks like 1160 mission was approved.

7b. 2002.0628E!KXCV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1160 MISSION STREET - northwest side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, with additional frontage on Stevenson Street, Lots 37, 38 and 56 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Review under Planning Code Section 309 and for exceptions, to construct a new building approximately 23 stories and 235 feet in height, with a gross area approximately 497,000 square feet, containing approximately 246 dwelling units and 5400 square feet of ground floor retail, and a parking garage, to replace an existing surface-level parking lot containing 168 spaces. The requested exceptions are for bulk requirements of Section 270 and for excedences of the pedestrian comfort wind speed criteria of Section 148. The site is in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 150-S and 240-S Height and Bulk Districts. The project is the subject of a concurrent hearing for a Conditional Use authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 13, 2003)



7c. 2002.0628E!KXCV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1160 Mission Street - northwest side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, with additional frontage on Stevenson Street, Lots 37, 38 and 56 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Request for authorization of Conditional Use for a public storage garage for passenger vehicles (Planning Code Section 223(m)), and for parking in excess of accessory amounts (Planning Code Section 204.5) in conjunction with construction of a new, 23-story residential building, replacing a surface-level parking lot containing 168 spaces with a residential apartment building 23 stories in height and approximately 497,000 gross square feet in size. The site is in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 150-S and 240-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with Conditions, including limiting residential parking at 1:2.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 13, 2003)



7d. 2002.0628E!KXCV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1160 Mission Street - northwest side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, with additional frontage on Stevenson Street, Lots 37, 38 and 56 in Assessor’s Block 3702 in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District, and in 150-S and 240-S Height and Bulk Districts. Dwelling Unit Exposure Variance Sought: The proposal is to construct a new 246-unit, 23-story residential building with a 504-space parking garage. Up to 180 of these dwelling units are to be side facing (without direct frontage on a street, a complying rear-yard area, or other open area with sufficient minimum dimensions to comply with Planning Code Section 140).

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 13, 2003)


From my own poking around, I found some specs on the city office building project on tenth and mission:

"The preliminary plans for the 24-story office development on the southwest corner of Tenth and Market Street will house approximately 500,000 square feet of office space that will be occupied by the City of San Francisco. There will be below grade parking of 83 stalls. A day care center is included in the plans.

The ground floor would contain

A partially enclosed public plaza
A five-floor atrium
Loading facilities
About 6,000 sq. ft. of retail
The main body of the office building is pulled back from the street about 5 stories (podium design) so it is more pleasant for pedestrians. The main entry at the corner of 10th and Market will have “indoor – outdoor space” which addresses the wind issues. . The 10th Street side will have offices such as the PUC etc so the public can access. There is a glass wall facing north with a direct site line to City Hall.
In the design the windows do not all line up so it gives the appearance of a gentle weave fabric. There will be a terrace on the top north side open to the public.

Craig Adelman gave an over view of the residential element. The first phase will be a 14-story tower approximately 150 feet containing 180 affordable units for seniors.

The second phase will be a 21-story tower and will likely be a mixed-income development with approximately 220 units. However, the funding for this second phase has not been secured at this point. Both housing towers will include ground floor commercial space and will share a large podium courtyard at the second level.

The residential towers will be linked by a glass enclosed common space. This “Town Square” space is an open, casual gathering space that will provide residents with a space that can function as an informal meeting place to a venue for town meetings that can accommodate the greater neighborhood. Along the Tenth Street side there will be large roll-up “garage” doors that allow the space to be opened to the street. Along Market Street retail uses will hopefully include a restaurant for active night time use.

They expect to be under construction within three years and hope to have all funding in place so both phases can be started at the same time. They are in the process of working with all City departments in developing this project.
"

Also there was this:
"Looking at the global picture she noted that the 1160 Mission project is sandwiched between the GSA Project and the Trinity Projects."

Do we know anything about the GSA project?

[J Church]

the GSA project is the new federal building.

i didn't realize the city project was three separate buildings. cool.

oh, and you can count on 1160 mission's appeal to the supes over that 504-space garage.

[EastBayHardCore]

Will any of these new buildings have nicely lit crowns like some of the buildings in Atlanta, LA, NYC, or Philly? I think that's what SF is really missing here. I think that the crown on the St. Regis could look really cool if that model shows exactly what it's final product will be, and adding light to that crown would be awesome. The closest things we have to lit crowns would be the dimly lit TAP (too dim IMO, needs to be much brighter) and the lights on the Embarcadero buildings, which look awesome even though its not a crown but an outline of each building. What do you guys think?

[FourOneFive]

I'm a big fan of brightly lit crowns. Charlotte's Bank of America and New York's Bear Stearns are personal faves. San Francisco does lack an appropriate amount of skyscrapers with crowns. I agree, Transamerica's crown should be lit brighter. As for the St. Regis, at 484 ft, even if its lit crown looks as good as it does in the renderings, it wouldn't have much of an impact on the skyline because it's too short. It'd get loss in the mass. Hopefully, the Transbay Tower will have a brightly lit crown as well as the 550 ft residential tower on Rincon Hill.

If it makes you feel any better, TeknoTurd, if one of those proposed 550ft residential towers in the Transbay Terminal Redevelopment Area or on Rincon Hill, go 10 to 20 feet higher to 560-570ft, San Francisco could boast as to having not only the tallest residential building West of the Mississippi, but also having the tallest residential building in the US outside of New York and Chicago. ;) :D

[EastBayHardCore]

I talked to someone at Myers Corp. who picked up the job on the Century luxury condo high-rise from Heller Manus. They said that the project is definatley NOT on hold. This was news to be because last I heard it was conflicting with the Transbay Terminal plan, did anyone else hear anything about this? I'll try to check out the site this weekend and see what I can find out, but if someone can make it down there before me (its on 80 Natoma) that'd be great. I talked to another person at Heller Manus and he said that he was pretty sure that they had cleared out a bunch of stuff and were going to start working again in February or March. This is the only news I've heard about the project in the past month or so, so I'm assuming this is true cause it is coming from reliable people associated with the two developers. Jack Myer was supposed to give me a call back to give me a rundown on the project, but I doubt that'll happen, I'll see what I can dig up though.

[craeg]

I was just by the site a few weeks ago. It looks like theyve sunk some piles - and there are construction materials on site - but its definitely a surface parking lot right now. Glad to see there will be some movement on this site.

[FourOneFive]

Well it looks like the Caltrain extension to the new Transbay Terminal will have to go under the Century project. Oh well...

[Romero]

FourOneFive:

Skyscrapers.com lists the St. Regis Tower as completed. Is this a recent update?

Tony in Woodacre

[TOBoy]

You guys should be very proud to have the Century and the St. Regis Museum Tower rising in your city, they are incredible.:eek:

[EastBayHardCore]

Romero: I dont think it's done I was there last week and there is still construction going on. I don't know what they consider complete though. The main structure is done, but its far from finished when you consider that there is no crown, and it is completley empty inside, no walls, I think the windows are in. But I dunno about anything else

[fflint]

I walked by the St. Regis two days ago-or, should I say, I walked under scaffolding and such--and I can say for certain that it is still under construction. Skyscrapers.com is wrong if they're stating otherwise.

[FourOneFive]

From last week's San Francisco Chronicle:

Tower projects get key backer
Supervisor Daly supports plan for Rincon Hill

John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Developers seeking to build four residential towers near the Bay Bridge gained a major ally Monday: the supervisor whose district includes the two blocks of Folsom Street where the towers would rise.

As originally planned, the projects known as 201 Folsom and 300 Spear streets would require the creation of roughly 235 affordable housing units based on current city requirements.

On Monday, however, developers agreed to Supervisor Chris Daly's request for new benchmarks that would increase the number of subsidized units by nearly 50 percent.

"By my math that translates to around 95 (additional) units" reserved for lower-income workers and families, Daly said late Monday afternoon.

"At this point, I am supporting the projects. ... I made what I thought was a pretty big ask, and the developers responded positively."

Daly is only one of 11 supervisors who will vote on whether to lift zoning restrictions on the two sites so that developers, Union Property Capital and Tishman Speyer Properties, can build a quartet of 35- and 40-story towers set atop a base of six- to eight-story structures.

But his support looms large because the construction projects are located within his district, which means other supervisors are likely to take cues from his stance.

The supervisor has raised other concerns about the two projects, including their scale and the fact that one includes enclosed above-ground parking for the U.S. Postal Service, which has a major facility next to the 201 Folsom site.

But with the pledge for additional subsidized housing, Daly said he believed the projects should now go forward.

Developers could not be reached for comment Monday. In the past, however, they have stressed their desire to work with city officials, residents and various interest groups to make 201 Folsom and 300 Spear as widely accepted as possible.

The two projects are the largest yet proposed for the area known as Rincon Hill, a former industrial district that San Francisco officials have earmarked for high-density housing.

Since 1985, roughly 1,400 apartments and condominiums have been built in the Rincon Hill area, with no tower higher than 27 stories.

By contrast, 300 Spear and 201 Folsom are now projected to include a combined 1,640 units.

The projects were to be reviewed Monday by the Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee.

That hearing was postponed and now is scheduled for Jan. 26.

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

So these projects will go before the Land Use Committee next Monday, and then go before the full board Tuesday, January 27th!

Keep your fingers crossed!!!

[JACKinNYC]

Some of those are quite nice, some are average like in any city. But whatever... San Francisco is a beautiful city whose natural beauty is only matched by Vancouver. Maybe Hong Kong too (I've never been).

[FourOneFive]

Here are a few more proposed projects:

One Rincon Hill:

function: residential
height: 300ft/ 300ft
floors: west tower- 35/ east tower- 30
architect: Solomon Cordwell Buenz & Associates
completion: 2007 (?)

Renderings:

http://www.pmainc.com/images/One-Rincon-Hill_03.jpg

* these towers are currently being redesigned. The Planning Department wants to rezone these sites for 550 ft and 465 ft.

375 Fremont

function: residential
height: 350ft
floors: 33
architect: Beverly Prior Architects
completion: ?

Renderings:

http://home.earthlink.net/~bolandse/forums/375_fremont.jpg

*courtesy of J Church. in all likelyhood, this tower will be eliminated under the plan being floated by the Planning Department. Unfortunately, this tower would sit too close to other towers on Rincon Hill.

[craeg]

Something that I've been wondering. Lets say you are the owner of a current property in the rincon hill rezoning area - and your property is zoned for 350'
With the height limit your property is worth X$
Then the planning commission rezones your property for say 100'
The value of your property would tank. Is there any consideration or even compensation for this?
Just wondering how this all works.

[FourOneFive]

How do I see it? If you don't have an entitlement from the Planning Department to build your residential tower before the Rincon Hill rezoning goes through this year, you're screwed. The Archdiocese of San Francisco is upset because their plans for a 300+ foot tower was reduced to 85 feet.

Why do you think 201 Folsom and 300 Spear Streets were *rushed* through the Planning Department before the Rincon Hill plans were released? I seriously doubt the Planning Department's ideal plans would have allowed 4 350-400 foot towers sitting 85 feet apart from each other. Do I necessarily care though? No. Overall, SF still has a high quality project, where the developer has made several concessions to appease community activists. And, most importantly, this project will still add 1,600 units of housing to SF's housing stock. :)

[EastBayHardCore]

Where exactly is the building that the Diocese is building and what is it going to be for? At this point can they try and get their tower re...jiggered for lack of a better term :p for the new height limit?

[lakegz]

Theres a cool building just like this one that is going up close to City Hall in LA. It has all sorts of weird metallic quirks to it, i think it looks pretty neat though.
http://sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2001/07/22/mn_fedbldg.jpg

[FourOneFive]

TeknoTurd: The Archdiocese of SF owns the property at the corner of Fremont and Harrison at 399 Fremont. The Archdiocese intends/ intended to build a 37 story, 350 ft residential tower at the site. I doubt the Planning Department will allow them to go through with their plans if the Rincon Hill rezoning plan goes through as planned. If they do, they'll be five towers sitting at the top of Rincon Hill, creating a wall that the Planning Department is trying to avoid. Ideally, the Planning Department would want to see the multiple developers along Fremont Street to consolidate all their residential projects into one 300 ft tower at the corner of Fremont and Folsom and into the mid-rises proposed for Fremont street.

lakegz: It is an interesting building. I personally can't wait to see the final project. It's interesting to point out too that the building exceeds the height limits for the area. But, since the building is being sponsored by the federal government, their needs trump city zoning. Too bad, the federal government didn't ask for a 1,000ft tower. ;) :D

[lakegz]

^a thousand foot federal building, boy would that be one inviting target.

[Fabb]

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2001/07/22/mn_fedbldg.jpg

What an unusual design.
I like it a lot. Except the blind wall on the side.
Are there more renderings of this building ? (Or facts).

[craeg]

I'm surprised about the archdiocese- I've been hearing about their plans for a while now. You'd think they would have some kind of recourse.

[EastBayHardCore]

That federal building looks really odd. From the renderings and drawings I think it will look impressive, but I can't help but wonder how it will look in real life. I mean imagine the sun hitting that thing, wouldn't it just fry everyone below it? :p

[FourOneFive]

http://sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2001/07/22/mn_fedbldg.jpg

What an unusual design.
I like it a lot. Except the blind wall on the side.
Are there more renderings of this building ? (Or facts).

If you go to the architect's website, http://www.morphosis.net/morph.html, there are plenty of facts/ renderings about the new building.

Here's an article from the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council from July of 2003:

Construction Begins on S.F. Federal Building

by Doug Perry

Public works projects continue to fuel the construction industry. Construction has begun in earnest on the new federal building located on the city block between Market, Mission, 7th and 8th Streets to the south of San Francisco's Civic Center. While the U.S. General Services Administration had held a 'groundbreaking' last July, site preparation, shoring and demolition proceeded slowly. The GSA will use Hunt, as the construction manager.

Originally the general contractor was to be a joint venture with the Dick Corporation of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, Nibbi Brothers of San Francisco and The Morganti Group. Nibbi has since dropped out. Union signatory contractors already selected include Bay Area Reinforcing, Berkel & Company, piledriving; Marelich Mechanical Co., Peak Engineering, Performance Contracting, Permasteelisa Cladding, Rosendin Electric, Transbay Fire Protection, fire sprinklers; Webcor Concrete and Western Roofing.

The new 18-story federal building will enclose roughly 600,000 sq. ft. of office space, looking over a large open plaza to the south facing Mission Street. The building cafeteria will occupy a separate low-rise structure on the northwest corner of 7th and Mission that will also be open to the public. The energy efficient, modern structure will provide an interesting counterpoint to the recently restored classic architecture of the courts building on the other side of 7th, now housing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There had been some criticism by City Planning of the 'avant garde' design by architect Tom Mayne. The architect is SmithGroup Morphosis.

The building will be faced with a stainless steel screen to reduce heat gain, which will reduce the energy needed for both heating and cooling. Waved concrete ceilings will enhance the flow of air through the interior using the breezes coming off the ocean and San Francisco Bay. According to the Dick Corporation, office personnel above the fifth floor will be able to open their windows and let in fresh air. The GSA has estimated that the project will cost between $135 and $150 million.

Representatives from the new Joint Venture, the Dick Corporation and Morganti, outlined the status of the new project at a meeting with the Business Agents of The San Francisco Building Trades Council on Tuesday, June 17th. James Kreidler the Project Manager said that, while building permits were unnecessary because the project was being built on federal property, the GSA generally conforms to local planning guidelines. He promised that the building would be constructed using union signatories and union labor.

Tom DeMarco, the project manager, said that roughly half of the 1,100 piles for the foundation had been driven. He estimated substantial project completion by November of 2005. He reviewed the company policies regarding use of controlled substances, job safety and handling of toxins. Union business agents responded by pointing out the established procedures for dealing with these issues as covered in their union contracts.

There was some discussion of the method of selection for sub-contractors, to assure that they would be union. Contractors already selected include Bay Area Reinforcing, Hirshfeld Steel, Marelich Mechanical, Peak Engineering, Performance Contracting Inc., Permasteelisa, Cladding Technology, Rosendin Electric, Inc., Smith Emery, Vertrans Elevator, Webcor for concrete, and Western Roofing.

The General Supervisor, Ollie Whaley, said that crafts already on site included workers from the Carpenters, Laborers, Operating Engineers, Piledrivers and Electricians.

The new building will provide office space for the U.S. Social Security Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health & Human Services and the Dept. of Agriculture.

http://www.sfbctc.org/72103-federal.htm

[craeg]

Agreed - its a very visually interesting building that would never have been allowed in SF if it had to go through our NIMBY review panels.
Cant wait to see it when its up. Maybe people wont be immediately struck dead by something that doesnt contain bay windows and clapboard siding.

[Fabb]

They shouldn't complain because it's an energy efficient, modern structure... as if people really cared.
The important thing is that it looks good, right ?

[FourOneFive]

In all honesty, as interesting as it is, I'm not a big fan of the new Federal building. It's simply too wide (similar to Fox Plaza or the Embarcadero Centers). I would have prefered a taller, more slender tower, rather than a wide, wall inducing tower.

[lakegz]

^most federal buildings in large cities are the wide, wall types of towers.

[FourOneFive]

Some news on 201 Folsom and 300 Spear:

S.F. supes OK huge Rincon high-rises
4 buildings double area housing units
Suzanne Herel, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ

http://www.sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/28/BAGKF4JGL71.DTL

Developers who want to build four residential high-rises in the Rincon Hill area, more than doubling the housing units in the neighborhood and changing the city's skyline, won initial approval Tuesday from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

After listening to several hours of comments by the public and city planners, the board voted 10-1 to lift height and density zoning restrictions, thus paving the way for the project, which could go up in three to five years.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano opposed the changes.

"To the developer, I say: 'You have won the battle, but you are going to lose the war,' " said an animated Ammiano. He also faulted the city Planning Department for an "orchestrated, fairy-tale, Disneyland presentation."

The board will take a second and final vote next Tuesday.

Support for the complex was led by Supervisor Chris Daly, who represents District 6, where the towers would be built. In recent weeks, Daly was successful in requesting new benchmarks from the developers to increase the number of affordable units by about 50 percent.

Together, the developers of 201 Folsom St. and 300 Spear St. would offer up to 332 units for low-income households, Daly said. Current city requirements call for 235 such units.

However, the bulk of them would be provided off-site, which critics say defeats the purpose of trying to integrate low-income families into the mix.

Still, Daly said, "This is the highest community benefits offer I've seen up to this point."

Daly has become such a supporter of the project that he spent Monday night bartending at a pro-Rincon Hill development party at the Gordon Biersch Brewery.

Developed by Union Property Capital and Tishman Speyer Properties, the projects consist of 35- and 40-story towers to be set on parking structures, themselves six to eight stories tall. Combined, they are expected to house up to 1,640 units.

The towers are the largest yet proposed for Rincon Hill, a former industrial district near the Bay Bridge where about 1,400 apartments and condominiums have been developed since 1985.

The tallest building in the area rises 27 stories.

The height now being allowed worries critics who want to preserve views and are concerned about the impact on projects elsewhere in the city.

"We don't know what value we're going to deliver to the developer," Ammiano said.

According to the developers, the Rincon Hill towers would provide $11.2 million in new property tax revenue for the city annually, about $3.1 million in fees to the public schools and more than 250 permanent jobs.

The construction of the buildings also is expected to employ about 3,200 workers.

In addition to the residential portion, the projects would offer "neighborhood-serving retail" along Folsom Street.

At first, four supervisors argued that the issue was too important to be voted on by the full board without the input of the Land Use Committee, which hadn't gotten a chance to consider it before it got pulled back to the full board.

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, who chairs the Land Use Committee, said that it hadn't been looked at because of the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays and that the issue had been yanked and forced to a vote as a result of "incredible political pressure."

Jim Chappell, president of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, spoke in support of the zoning changes, as did others wearing stickers reading, "Don't delay, housing today!"

The projects will bring needed housing, good union construction jobs and new taxes, he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it looks like the projects are going to be approved next week. :D As I said in the California thread, San Francisco is about to get 2 400 foot towers, 2 350 foot towers, and 1600 housing units in one fell swoop. :D

BTW I included new/ updated renderings of 201 Folsom/ 300 Spear as well as renderings of the Transbay project.

[FourOneFive]

201 Folsom and 300 Spear were finally approved today. No more votes, and no more hearings!!! The projects can finally move foward!

[EastBayHardCore]

Does the land that the TBT sits on need to be rezoned at all? If so are any meetings or things of that nature coming up? How much public input will be taken, will the NIMBY's have their chance to voice their opinion against the possibility of an 850ft tower in SOMA?

[Procurator]

How is Transbay coming along?

[EastBayHardCore]

I think its just getting started. Last week they tore down the old overpasses and stuff for the busses, so thats a start. I guess next they have to build the temporary terminal on the adjacent lots but I really wanna konw if they have come to a conclusion on the tower height yet :) Also the design for the terminal looks really sick, i hope they stick with it.

[FourOneFive]

The final EIR for the Transbay Redevelopment site hasn't been approved by the Board of Supervisors yet. From what I've heard, it should come to the Board sometime this summer. Shortly thereafter, the parcels could then be sold off to developers.

[FourOneFive]

Plan that threatens Transbay gets OK

James Temple

San Francisco planners gave the go-ahead to a revived 48-story condominium proposal that could potentially block part of the $2.7 billion Transbay Terminal project.

The Planning Department decided this week that aging approvals for the 80 Natoma St. project are still valid.

"We've determined they still apply and, as a matter of fact, we signed off on the site permit within the last week," said Lawrence Badiner, acting director of the planning department.

San Francisco-based Myers Development Co. is developing the project, a 431-unit residential highrise planned for four adjoining parcels on Natoma and Minna streets.

The Planning Department approved a 509-unit residential tower planned by a different developer there in the late 1990s. The site has changed hands several times since then, with Myers "taking control" late last year.

CEO Jack Myers said he was pleased but not surprised by the Planning Department's approval.

"Entitlement was never the challenge, capitalization was," Myers said.

That challenge has also been solved: Myers said the property is now in the process of being transferred to Myers Natoma Venture LLC, a joint venture comprised of Myers Development Co., Prudential Real Estate Investment and CIM Investments, a Los Angeles-based investment manager for the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the California State Teachers' Retirement System. IStar Financial is providing the debt financing.

Myers expects to break ground on the tower in March.

The project sparked controversy when it started moving forward late last year, as its location is earmarked for the replacement Transbay Terminal under the latest plan of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

If built, 80 Natoma would necessitate significant changes to the plan for the $2.7 billion transit hub, Mike Grisso, senior planner with the redevelopment agency, said at the time.

Myers, for his part, said the building would fit neatly into the Redevelopment Agency's plan for the greater Transbay area, which prioritizes new housing and includes several other highrise towers.

He added that he is a "staunch supporter of the Tranbay Terminal redevelopment objectives."

Badiner said there were several changes to the design of the project, but "they're essentially refinements that normally happen with a design development."

He said the project permit will now go before the Department of Building Inspection. It will not require any additional sign-off from the Planning Commission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, it looks like the 475 foot Century tower will begin construction next month!
:D

[EastBayHardCore]

Excellent, How likely is it that they will stick to that rendering that we have seen floating around for that past few months? That roof is so awesome, I'd love to see more slanted roofs like that in the city. Also I would be really upset if they decided to switch up the design to something less sexy than thee ones we have been shown by the (former?) developer. I mean look at those absolutley HUMONGOUS windows! There must be some amazing units planned for that high rise!

http://63.240.68.115/FirmFiles/25/images/CenturyFS1lrg.jpg

[FourOneFive]

From what I've heard, the overall design is the same. Only minor changes have been made.

I'm honestly excited. Typically, you'd only see a building with this particular design in cities like Chicago and New York. :D

[EastBayHardCore]

I know! This will be an awesome addition to the slowly developing SOMA side of the skyline. God, can you imagine SF actually having all these highrise condos so close to transit options, a la the TBT. SOMA's population is literally going to explode in the upcoming years.

[jddar]

When Caltrains is extended to the Trans-Bay Terminal, how will that be aligned? Will the extension be underground? Will the current depot continue being used or will that property be redeveloped?

[EastBayHardCore]

It will be underground from the King/4th St Station and run into the new Terminal which will be underground. The alignment looks like it will run East on King and make a left on 2nd St. then right mid-block between Mission and Howard into the Terminal. The current terminal will be totally re-done. They are working on setting up a temporary terminal in the mean time.

[milehi]

^ That tower a few posts up is one sweet looking scraper. I wish it was going up in Denver.

[craeg]

http://www.arquitectonica.com/missionbay.html

I was not aware that arquitectonica was doing some design for mission bay. They are also doing the design for the trinity project.

[J Church]

i didn't know either. that looks like it's slated for the corner of 5th & king.

[J Church]

alright, here's the complete list of 'towers' at mission bay (such as they are).

BUILT

Avalon at Mission Bay
(SE corner 4th & King)
16 Stories
HKS
http://sfcityscape.com/highrises/new_skyline/imgs/avalon_mission_bay.jpg

U/C

Mission Place I & II
(mid-block Townsend btwn. 3rd & 4th)
16 stories
SOM
http://sfcityscape.com/highrises/new_skyline/imgs/mission_bay_north.jpg

UCSF Student Housing
(3rd near 16th)
155ft/15 stories
http://sfcityscape.com/highrises/new_skyline/imgs/ucsf_mission_bay_dorms.jpg

PLANNED

5th & King Towers
17 stories
Arquitectonica
(image above)

Avalon at Mission Bay Phase II
(SW corner 4th & King)
GGLO
( http://www.gglo.com/gglo.htm - click 'on the boards' )

Robert Becker rendering of North of Channel
http://sfcityscape.com/highrises/new_skyline/imgs/mission_bay_highrises.jpg

5 of 6 towers in second image
http://sfcityscape.com/images/mission_bay_renderings.jpg

http://www.missionbayliving.com/images/newres/avalon_use.jpg

http://www.missionbayliving.com/images/newres/missionpl_use.jpg

this is about a year old; mission place is now topped out.
http://sfcityscape.com/transit/caltrain/imgs/4th_king_yards.jpg

don't see enough of these, do we.
http://sfcityscape.com/photos/SOMA/imgs/61.jpg

[rocketman_95046]

Here are some Jan. 2004 pics of Mission Place I & II.

http://www.webcor.com/auto_images/large/missionjan1074619867.jpg http://www.webcor.com/auto_images/small/mp11069348557.jpg

http://www.webcor.com/auto_images/small/mission1069348689.jpg http://www.webcor.com/auto_images/small/mp1069348648.jpg

any idea when the next two 17 story projects (Arquitectonica
and Avalon at Mission Bay Phase II) will start construction?

[craeg]

arqui's info on mission bay was listed as "on the board" instead of in "projects" - so im not sure they are even going to build anything yet. All we know now is that they did a architectural proposal.
There also was nothing on the arquitectonica site about the proposed trinity properties replacements.

[rocketman_95046]

arqui's info on mission bay was listed as "on the board" instead of in "projects" - so im not sure they are even going to build anything yet. All we know now is that they did a architectural proposal.
There also was nothing on the arquitectonica site about the proposed trinity properties replacements.

Yea, but the reason I asked is that those two sites are already approved for 17 story towers as part of the greater mission bay project. If the contractors are asking for renderings and drawings, I will assume they plan to build soon. :)

[rocketman_95046]

Well speaking of mission bay groundbreakings… This project broke ground in December 2003. Sure its small but it is nice seeing all the little pieces of Mission Bay come together.

http://sfpl.lib.ca.us/news/blip/missionbaygallery.htm
Mission Bay Senior Community
http://www.hkit.com/images/portfolio/senior/5_main.jpg http://www.hkit.com/images/portfolio/senior/5_main_f2.jpg http://www.hkit.com/images/portfolio/senior/5_main_f3.jpg

[J Church]

yeah, craeg, the entirety of mission bay is permitted. as long as catellus doesn't change plans, it's a go.

[craeg]

right on. Thats great news! We are going to get a few midrises out of this. I cant wait to check it out when its all come together.
As an aside, I really do like the way the st regis is coming together. I really love the clear glass corners! I may have to take back my earlier dislike.

[J Church]

y'know, that's funny, i was just noticing st. reg. - walking past ellis, looking down to it at the end. that crown has already changed the nature of the building.

[EastBayHardCore]

When I was in the city this weekend taking pictures of the site for the Century, I saw how nicely the crown was coming along. Will it add any extra height to the stated height of the building, because it looks to be pretty substantial, maybe 10-20ft? I really hope the plan on lighting it up like the other new SOMA towers have been doing. It really makes the buildings look a lot nicer IMO because I think SF has one of the darkest skylines for a skyline its size in the states.

[rocketman_95046]

Pictures, pictures we need pictures, who has a camera? :D

[EastBayHardCore]

I'll try and snap some photos this weekend. Make some wishlists of what you want, projects, angles, etc.

[tuy]

St. Regis Crown
New Bay Bridge progress
Rincon Hill Area, showing where the towers will be.

[EastBayHardCore]

You happen to have the intersections that the towers will be on? Because I can only pinpoint a handful of the sites.

[J Church]

rincon towers site

http://sfcityscape.com/images/rincon_postal.jpg

maybe tekno can get it a bit bigger ;)

btw, i believe that 484ft figure for st. reg is structural height - to the top of the crown.

[EastBayHardCore]

Interesting, any one driven by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lately and seen if there has been any work on the site of that new Federal building?

[craeg]

Dunno if there has, but there was a very smokey plywood fueled fire there last weekend.

[FourOneFive]

Interesting, any one driven by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lately and seen if there has been any work on the site of that new Federal building?

I drive past the site almost weekly. The building is slowly rising...

BTW does anyone else think Mission Bay needs a signature tower (prehaps 30-40 stories)? If you look around the city, the Planning Department is really emphasizing central locations with taller buildings. Transbay Terminal (a possible new tallest), Rincon Hill (a signature 550 foot tower), Van Ness/ Market Street (a 400 foot tower), even Balboa Park...

[EastBayHardCore]

The TAP is only 853ft, I really hope the TBT tower will top that, but who knows, the fact that its height will rival the TAP will make it a target of criticism I'm sure, even though most of the height rumors have been debunked because these residential towers are a lot more slender than the bulkier office buildings. I do think that if Mission Bay had a nice signature tower it could add something to that area. The Avalon towers that went up can't be more than 20 stories, but look really awesome I think. It would be really cool to line Market with more towers, not so much the residential ones though, I'd rather see more business towers go in, but seeing as SF is so hostile towards big business I think we shouldn't be holding our breath on that one. What about some more Russian and Nob Hill towers though? Van Ness is also good in my book, build up! hehe

[lakegz]

^even if the Transbay tower is 820 feet, it should have more of a presence then the TAP because of TAP's tiny upper portion. The 778 foot BOA tower overpowers TAP at certain angles.

[craeg]

You'll see a 1k plus footer in sf before you see another residential tower on russian hill. Heights on the crest of the hill were solidly capped when neighbors got wind of a 50 story tower proposal for a vacant corner parcel of land. The neighbors surrounding the parcel got together and purchased it. Its still an empty site.

[J Church]

even Balboa Park...

what?! no there's not.

and you're not going to see anything taller at mission bay b/c a) it's much farther from the existing skyline; and b) it's flat. rincon is much easier to make the case for b/c a tower there would accentuate the landscape, and b/c it's on the downtown side of the bay bridge approach.

^even if the Transbay tower is 820 feet, it should have more of a presence then the TAP because of TAP's tiny upper portion. The 778 foot BOA tower overpowers TAP at certain angles.

good point.

craeg, where'd you hear that story?

[craeg]

craeg, where'd you hear that story?

From the Russian hill neighbors website - rhn.org

955 Green, Architect, George Homsey, 1999-2000
The last remaining undeveloped property in this block is currently a massive rocky outcropping which intrudes into the street. Over the next year or so, the rock will be removed in front of this property, and in it's place, a 6 unit luxury condominium will be developed including a 23 car garage. The design by George Homsey, is Spanish Revival. It will step down from western side of the lot from a height equal to the adjoining condominium whose address is 8 Florence Place. George and Putnam Livermore purchased this property along with the adjoining property at 1020 Vallejo to prevent development of a 50 story apartment building on this site. They commissioned Homsey to design two properties, the award winning shingle style 1020 Vallejo and the Spanish style 955 Green.


I'm by that spot frequently and as far as I can tell nothing has been built on it. Its a thickly treed lot though, surrounded by large retaining walls - so maybe im just not seeing it.

[FourOneFive]

even Balboa Park...

what?! no there's not.

and you're not going to see anything taller at mission bay b/c a) it's much farther from the existing skyline; and b) it's flat. rincon is much easier to make the case for b/c a tower there would accentuate the landscape, and b/c it's on the downtown side of the bay bridge approach.


well, technically you're right. Although there won't be a *signature tower* at Balboa Park, the Planning Department still floated the idea of adding buildings around Balboa Station at 160' (prehaps to 240'), which would still be significantly taller than anything else there now. Although it wouldn't be a signature tower, it would still clearly define Balboa Park at a focal point in the city.

as for Mission Bay, I'm stilll hoping the city can throw in a 30 story residential tower some near 4th and Townsend eventually. It would sit just outside of the Catellus Mission Bay development, sit next to major rail lines (Caltrain, Muni Metro), and be just far enough away from SBC Park to prevent people from looking into the park.

and, as for a 50 story residential tower at 955 Green Street. Can't imagine it now, but it would have been interesting if it was a dignified design. Gotta love the go go 60s and 70s.

[EastBayHardCore]

OK fellas, heres some pics of the crown on the St. Regis from an angle I haven'seen too many pics of it taken from...

http://linux.cs.sonoma.edu/~monaghan/AppleStoreSF/IMG_0443.jpg

http://linux.cs.sonoma.edu/~monaghan/AppleStoreSF/IMG_0444.jpg

[EastBayHardCore]

Cool new rendering of 301 Mission from Skyscrapers.com, anyone know who the big tenents will be? Like the hotel and stuff like that.
http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/6/2003/12/236799.jpg

[FourOneFive]

no tenants have been announced yet. The developer, Millennium Partners, is still lining up the financing for the project. Demolition of the current buildings should begin soon!

[EastBayHardCore]

I haven't been by the site. What does the current building look like? Is it some crappy low rise 50's-70's box or an actually decent older structure?

[FourOneFive]

The 301 Mission EIR describes the buildings as three, low rise buildings dating from 1900s-1930s. All are currently abandoned.

[J Church]

the site is primarily a vacant lot. the one right across the street from transbay.

[dimondpark]

found this on the net while looking at John King's archived articles..I think the design is pretty cool.

An 850-foot-tall tower by architecture students Mariah Nielsen and Kwong-won Kim is envisioned for the Transbay Terminal. Photo courtesy of Mariah Nielsen
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2003/12/11/dd_place_1.jpg

San Francisco-Somehow I didn't expect the architect of an 850-foot tall tower on San Francisco's Mission Street to hail from West Marin.

The wooded calm of Inverness or Point Reyes Station isn't the logical setting to breed a skyscraper that could be the world's tallest set of tweezers -- one that splits in two around the 30th floor, from there climbing another 50 stories or so, with a slender hotel staring across a slender void at slender condominiums.

But if Mariah Nielsen grew up in West Marin, she also traveled to Asia and Europe before hunkering down to study design at the California College of the Arts. Even if the design is fanciful -- and it is -- she represents a globe-infused future that may look far different from what we've come to know.

"I love the quality of San Francisco, but coming back from Asia, there's something practical about how those cities grow that's very much opposed to the United States,'' says Nielsen, who created the tower with design partner Kwong-won Kim in an ambitious design studio this fall. "Being from West Marin I'm really against sprawl. We should be growing up instead of out."

The odds that this tower gets built are on par with the odds that Matt Gonzalez and Gavin Newsom will trade grooming tips now that the election is over. But practicality is not why I spent Monday afternoon sorting through student visions of how the blocks around San Francisco's Transbay Terminal could be redeveloped into a high-density neighborhood. The point was to see how smart young people think urban design should evolve.

That evolution is already picking up speed, knocking aside the protective limits crafted during the past 30 years. Here in San Francisco, developers are clamoring to build residential towers between the Financial District and the Bay Bridge. Seattle's mayor wants to jettison height limits approved in the mid-1980s.

Migawd, the city of London -- home to Bertie Wooster and Sherlock Holmes -- has approved a tower next to the London Bridge that would be 1,000 feet tall.

But if the designs by Nielsen and the studio's other students are any indication, the city of tomorrow won't simply have extra stories piled atop the city of today.

They imagine a world where people live in a swirl of action that blurs traditional lines between public and private, street and block. The architecture isn't just a simple question of shape or style. There's an effort to break apart traditional buildings and create an environment where sensations fold in at all levels -- like multitasking come to life.

The creativity comes in the manner of living. One example: a live-work complex by Aron Eisenhardt and Jess Springer that would look from the air like a narrow V, with the living space in glass towers on one side of an atrium and the work space in concrete slabs on the other.

"There's a definite shift, no question, one that's just beginning to emerge. It's in the air," says Craig Hartman, who taught the studio. "Fifteen years ago, architecture was all about how do you replicate what history has ordained. Now, students are thinking about how architecture serves to orchestrate events."

To which skeptics will reply: Who's in Liz Smith's column today? Kids will be kids, right?

But Hartman is no black-clad lecturer who scorns the dreary bricks and mortar of everyday life. Far from it. In fact, he's probably San Francisco's most accomplished large-scale architect.

As a partner at the international firm Skidmore Owings Merrill, Hartman's local work includes the international terminal at San Francisco International Airport, the stylish 101 Second St. office tower and the restoration of the Federal Court of Appeals at Seventh and Mission streets. Next up: a new cathedral for the Diocese of Oakland.

Yet he carved out time over the past four months to teach a seminar where students puzzled over a real-life problem -- how to redevelop the Transbay Terminal area, transforming it from a motley patchwork of office space and parking lots into something that could flourish in unexpected ways.

"I wanted to explore some things you just can't do in a normal professional environment," explains Hartman, 53. "We have deadlines, clients. . .. Architecture is as much about trying to create consensus as about raw design talent. This was an opportunity to look beyond that."

What surprised me is that the designs show so little interest in fanfare; no blobs, no swirls, no exclamation points at odd angles.

"The students sensed they were immersed in relevant issues that the city itself is grappling with," suggests Rodolphe el-Khoury, who chairs the college's architecture department and led the studio with Hartman.

The tower crafted by Nielsen and Kim was deemed the best of the eight projects done by the studio's 15 students. It contains four-story-high interior parks; as for the tweezerlike form, it would be wrapped in some sort of screen so that it would stand on the skyline more like a draped sculpture than a stack of countless windows.

The notion of a veiled tower rising up and splitting in two doesn't exactly bring Victorians to mind.

"I'd love to drive from my house into the city and see amazing towers ahead of me," confesses Nielsen. "Since I've been studying architecture I've come to realize how conservative this city is, how difficult it is to be fresh or radical."

There are good reasons for tight reins, of course: Ask the people torn from their houses in countless cities by urban renewal in the 1950s and '60s.

But there's a case to be made for freshness, too.

San Francisco's natural environment is so striking that it needs vigilant care. But in terms of architecture and urban design, there's danger in being too protective, too dutiful. If all we do is mimic the past, there's a danger that we'll suffocate the very qualities that make San Francisco distinctive as a city.

So let the search for the city of tomorrow continue -- even if we rear back at some of the results.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/11/DDGH53IO9B25.DTL

[Carol Doda]

that tower is just another box.... booo! :irked:

[EastBayHardCore]

Yea, I agree with Ms. Doda. If this is going to be the focul point of SOMA it should be either the sexiest box i've ever seen or another shape, perferably a cylinder, octagon, etc. But I think I'll take 850ft just about any way I can get it, as long as its not some ugly cement bohemoth.

[J Church]

i think we ought to buy the designer drinks, tho. or since she's a CCAC student - maybe a meal.

"I love the quality of San Francisco, but coming back from Asia, there's something practical about how those cities grow that's very much opposed to the United States,'' says Nielsen, who created the tower with design partner Kwong-won Kim in an ambitious design studio this fall. "Being from West Marin I'm really against sprawl. We should be growing up instead of out.

"I'd love to drive from my house into the city and see amazing towers ahead of me," confesses Nielsen. "Since I've been studying architecture I've come to realize how conservative this city is, how difficult it is to be fresh or radical."

[Carol Doda]

SF highrise architecture: :sleep:

Singapore highrise architecture: :)

Tokyo highrise architecture: :yes:

HK highrise architecture: :hyper:

mainland China highrise architecture: :crazy:

[FourOneFive]

I saw that article in the SF Chronicle too. Personally, I hate it. The design, while innovative, would be too much for San Francisco. If we had more 700ft-800ft skyscrapers like Chicago or New York, this building would blend into the urban environment. Unfortunately, if built in San Francisco, it would stick out like a sore ugly thumb.

[123elm]

San Francisco deserves better.

[FourOneFive]

123elm, are you talking about that design for the Transbay Tower by the architectual student or all of the proposed projects for San Francisco?

[EastBayHardCore]

Has anyone driven by Mission and Embarcadero lately? There's a pretty big crane there and some consturction going on, but I can't say I've heard anything about a project in that area. Any ideas?

[JMGarcia]

There's a pretty interesting article here with some good pics.

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature126.htm

I'm particularly fond of this one

http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0126_04x.jpg