SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Skyscraper & Highrise Construction (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=103)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center (50 First St) | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=185537)

fflint Oct 14, 2010 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pawelsf (Post 5015332)
the fact remains that mission corridor certainly has many older short building left for scale purposes. older short buildings juxtaposed next to taller modern towers are certainly not lacking there.

And there's also no lack of building owners at First and Mission who don't want to sell their properties to the developers of 50 First.

Quote:

there's that older yellow brick building and st. regis; there is the shorter and older salt house bldg and 555 mission; the shorter and older 121 second st and taller 101 second street etc. so i guess the question is how much is enough before one becomes no better than sue hestor or supervisor daly?:rolleyes:
That would only be a salient question if the owners refused to sell because of aesthetic reasons. Since that is not the case, your question--and your line of argumentation--is entirely out in left field.

CyberEric Oct 16, 2010 6:53 PM

I happened to stumble onto 50 first St and the Transbay terminal yesterday, and I was really struck by the sense that they need to build these towers there, those parcels just look so naked surrounded by the other skyscrapers.

I hope these happen sooner rather than later.

Infernal_Elf Oct 24, 2010 2:53 PM

they look beautiful really worthy enough to share San Fransisco with the Trans America pyramid

San Frangelino Nov 10, 2010 3:28 PM

Found this document at The SF Planning website:

It contains a few more details about the project.

http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/S...ocumentid=8287

QuarterMileSidewalk Feb 15, 2011 7:02 AM

New favorite project!

tommaso Jun 12, 2011 9:15 AM

After the Transbay development, this is probably the most significant development in S.F. It's a shame there's been no activity here on this page. What's the latest news regarding 50 First Street?

botoxic Jun 16, 2011 6:51 AM

The news here isn't great:

Quote:

Foreclosure hits Transbay site
$90M debt casts shadow on towers
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen
Date: Friday, June 10, 2011, 3:00am PDT
Related: Commercial Real Estate

Embattled San Francisco real estate investor David Choo is fighting to hold onto a prime development site across from the Transbay Terminal after lenders Morgan Stanley and Lincoln Property Co. initiated foreclosure on the property.

A notice of default was recorded May 23 on the San Francisco property, which includes five parcels on the northwest corner of Mission and First streets. Choo owes $90.8 million on the property, according to public documents. The unpaid principal balance on the property, $56.8 million, became due on May 12, 2009; interest has been accruing since March 2008.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...sbay-site.html

CyberEric Jun 16, 2011 5:20 PM

Ugh, that's not good at all. I was really excited about this project, probably as much as any in SF right now. I hope something works out.

peanut gallery Jun 16, 2011 6:08 PM

I'm confused about a couple things. I thought Choo defaulted long ago and eventually sold these properties to Marcus Heights LLC, the current proposal's sponsor. Maybe I just assumed they changed hands because at one time he was trying to sell them. Also, it's a 7-parcel site, so I take it two of them are not in this situation?

1977 May 14, 2012 3:48 PM

I was at a meeting downtown last week and saw a small aerial rendering of this project - It looked pretty amazing. They were tall, elegant, and clad in white glass. I think it would play very well off of the proposed Transbay Tower and I really love the idea of white towers against the blue sky and water.

Urbana May 14, 2012 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1977 (Post 5700387)
I was at a meeting downtown last week and saw a small aerial rendering of this project - It looked pretty amazing. They were tall, elegant, and clad in white glass. I think it would play very well off of the proposed Transbay Tower and I really love the idea of white towers against the blue sky and water.

any way we could see?

1977 May 14, 2012 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbana (Post 5700625)
any way we could see?

I wish! I wasn't able to get a picture, and haven't been able to find anything online.

tech12 May 14, 2012 7:48 PM

Sounds like good news. So I guess it sounds like this tower is still a real possibility, despite the forclosure news a while back at the proposed site, and the lack of any other news afterwards? I was getting worried. SF's skyline will be in for some giant changes If SF gets this and the Transbay tower, not to mention the 700 footer on Fremont and the other Rincon hill towers.

I hope someone puts some new renderings up some time soon.

1977 May 14, 2012 7:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 5700698)
Sounds like good news. So I guess it sounds like this tower is still a real possibility, despite the forclosure news a while back at the proposed site, and the lack of any other news afterwards?

Yeah, it seemed like there was still movement, but who knows...I never get my hopes up until I see steel/concrete rising.

yaletown_fella May 15, 2012 1:27 AM

Wow, can't wait!
I'm not from the Bay area, I only spent a week at the Intercontinental but I feel homesick looking at those pics.

Juanses Mar 20, 2013 7:48 AM

California is so lame I just can't take it anymore ... lol Nothing gets built. The government doesn't create a climate to build. stagnant economies

northbay Mar 20, 2013 3:50 PM

San Francisco is in the midst of a huge building boom, and is one of the hottest commercial real estate markets in the country.

Do you even live here?

Please take your trolling elsewhere.

easy as pie Mar 20, 2013 4:15 PM

haha, if by "stagnant economies" you mean "global economic superpower."

anyway, although it's universally known that sf is jammed with a large number of anti-development radicals, this site is not subject to their fretting, nor to their various forms of obstructionism, and if the project isn't moving forward, it's because of decisions taken on the developers' side - financing, exposure, market development, tenants, etc.

dimondpark Mar 25, 2013 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juanses (Post 6059215)
California is so lame I just can't take it anymore ... lol Nothing gets built. The government doesn't create a climate to build. stagnant economies

The Bay Area's economy is growing faster than any large Metro area except Houston.

#boom

tech12 May 24, 2013 2:54 PM

The plans have been tweaked (no more mini third tower, no more hotel and entertainment space), and resubmitted to planning:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...g_up.html#more

http://www.socketsite.com/50%20first...one%202103.gif

http://www.socketsite.com/50%20first...eet%20Site.jpg

Quote:

As currently envisioned, the existing office/retail buildings at 50 First, 62 First, and 76-78 First Street would be raised to make room for a 850-foot tall, 59-story tower fronting First as well as a 605-foot tall, 56-story tower fronting Mission.

And as was previously proposed, the 850-foot Fifty First Street tower would contain 1,220,000 square feet of office space over ground-floor retail with a two-level subterranean parking garage with up to 187 off-street parking spaces.

Plans for the 605-foot Tower Two fronting Mission now call for 500 residential units over ground floor retail and a five level subterranean parking garage with up to 136 parking spaces. Earlier plans for the tower included hotel and entertainment components as well.

Plans for a third tower on the corner of First and Mission have been dropped and the existing building at 88 First Street would be rehabilitated as part of the 50 First project.

Noting that because of its height, "the proposed [850-foot] Tower One would stand out as a major landmark on the skyline," and as such "the design should exceed conventional standards and should be a stellar piece of contemporary architecture comparable to the best tall buildings worldwide," the Planning Department has offered a few suggestions for the tower's design, the images of which above are simply placeholders at this point:

"Consider design options that sculpt the building to create a unique feature on the skyline. The top of Tower One should feature a dynamic and interesting top that presents an interesting profile. To the extent that shadow considerations, based on further analysis, might prevent major additional decorative rooftop elements from rising above a height of 850 feet, the Department expects a reduction of sufficient occupied space at the top of the building below 850 feet to allow for a satisfying sculpted building top within the 850-foot height envelope."

As part of the project, Jessie Street would be rerouted and the portion of Tower One that spans the existing Jessie Street route would be converted into a three-story public galleria (Jessie Street Galleria); Elim Alley would be converted to a two-story galleria with lobby and retail uses (Elim Alley Galleria); and a public plaza would be built at the base of Tower Two.
I'm kind of glad the old building at the corner of Mission and first will be kept, rather than replacing it with a short 184' tower. That tiny old 3 story building won't be all alone anymore. The juxtaposition of old low/midrises right next to modern skyscrapers is gonna be really cool if these towers get built, so the more old buildings that get kept on that block, the better, IMO.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.