SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[CyberEric]

While I welcome most of these buildings (I think 100 Van Ness is bland), I do think that it's important that SF retains its character as beautiful but gritty, earthy, bohemian, edgy while still promoting dense growth. I have no idea how or if these glass buildings will change that.

I just moved away from SF (to London for 6 months, I will be back) and I can tell you what I miss most about SF is its density, its strong character, its gay community, its anything-goes attitude, its musical community, its food, its "we do things differently here" feel.)
How these new buildings built of glass may or may not affect that, I'm not sure, but I do hope the city does not become generic. One person might argue that glass buildings will make it just like every other city. Others might argue the architectural change equals keeping the city fresh. Either view has merit. One thing I am noticing in London as it becomes more and more of a bankers town, the more glass buildings are going up, and the more the city is losing its interesting people and character. I do not wish the same for SF.

Sorry if this sounds a little "conservative," I just think it's worth mentioning.

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

While I welcome most of these buildings (I think 100 Van Ness is bland)

100 Van Ness is a reclad. There is not much else they could do with the existing box body, and it's certainly worlds better than the current look.

[Jerry of San Fran]

[QUOTE=CyberEric;5789517]

To add to the dialogue, & not meant to be disagreeable, I do believe buildings can change the visual mood of a city, but are not responsible for the change in it's culture. The culture, I believe, is what changes the physical character of a city. I've lived in San Francisco since 1969 & have seen a great change in it's culture due to immigration & to expensive property values. For these 2 reasons the city has changed dramatically.

I was in London in May 2012 on a English pipe organ tour. We had 2 young men guiding us, organists, and they were apalled by the highrise boom in London, particulary the Shard (which I loved). I can well understand their horror seeing their old city getting a new skyline, & respect their point of view. I do not have the attachment they have to London so I am more open to the changes taking place there.

As to my neighborhood (Civic Center/South of Market), I've lived in the Fox Plaza for 41 years & am very open to the great changes going on outside of my window as the area has been something of a desert at night (except for the bums). The type of highrise development is what makes a neighborhood, & the apartment boom in my area will give us a nice mix.

The point I am making is that one has to look at a highrise for what is it & what it does. Sim City is a game, and a real highrise is what makes a real neighborhood.

[hruski]

[QUOTE=Jerry of San Fran;5790059]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

To add to the dialogue, & not meant to be disagreeable, I do believe buildings can change the visual mood of a city, but are not responsible for the change in it's culture. The culture, I believe, is what changes the physical character of a city. I've lived in San Francisco since 1969 & have seen a great change in it's culture due to immigration & to expensive property values. For these 2 reasons the city has changed dramatically.

I was in London in May 2012 on a English pipe organ tour. We had 2 young men guiding us, organists, and they were apalled by the highrise boom in London, particulary the Shard (which I loved). I can well understand their horror seeing their old city getting a new skyline, & respect their point of view. I do not have the attachment they have to London so I am more open to the changes taking place there.

As to my neighborhood (Civic Center/South of Market), I've lived in the Fox Plaza for 41 years & am very open to the great changes going on outside of my window as the area has been something of a desert at night (except for the bums). The type of highrise development is what makes a neighborhood, & the apartment boom in my area will give us a nice mix.

The point I am making is that one has to look at a highrise for what is it & what it does. Sim City is a game, and a real highrise is what makes a real neighborhood.

A highrise does not make a real neighborhood. Soma, the Financial District, Rincon Hill, and Civic Center are sterile neighborhoods without character, lasting charm, or a distinct "feel." The greatest neighborhoods in North Beach, the Mission, the Haight, the Castro, and so on, don't have any highrises.

I'm pro-development, but only because I recognize that more density leads to more housing supply and more jobs in The City, and because I simply love tall buildings as a "tourist in my own city." But as far as creating great neighborhoods, highrises are not the solution, even if they are far better than empty warehouses and pawn shops.

[sofresh808]

Originally Posted by hruski

A highrise does not make a real neighborhood. Soma, the Financial District, Rincon Hill, and Civic Center are sterile neighborhoods without character, lasting charm, or a distinct "feel." The greatest neighborhoods in North Beach, the Mission, the Haight, the Castro, and so on, don't have any highrises.

I'm pro-development, but only because I recognize that more density leads to more housing supply and more jobs in The City, and because I simply love tall buildings as a "tourist in my own city." But as far as creating great neighborhoods, highrises are not the solution, even if they are far better than empty warehouses and pawn shops.

Nob Hill and Russian Hill have highrises, character and are pretty desirable. The Fidi and Civic Center are still mostly 9-5 employment centers, so not really fair comparisons to the Haight or North Beach. Highrise superblocks do generally suck, but a mixture of highrises and low rises can create as vibrant a neighborhood as those you have mentioned.

[CyberEric]

I appreciate the dialogue guys, I think it's important to talk about our cities and to get perspective on them. Moving away from SF has allowed me to think about what I like about it, and what I hope it can retain as it grows and changes.

[ozone]

High-rises are not the only logical response to limited space, housing demand, and a desire for dense living. People claim that we need build higher because of land costs and to achieve higher densities. But that's really not true. High-rises may produce a slightly higher density but then you have to leave space between them to insure sunlight.

Paris is basically a city made up of 6-story apartment blocks- a very dense population. If the city were to adopt the Parisian model and encourage a lot more mid-rise infill it could produce roughly the same units per acre as a bunch high-rises would. And since the cost to build a six-story, mid-rise building is lower than a high-rise, in theory, that would make them more affordable. There is a surprising amount of space left in the city to do this. Even the ubiquitous 3-story storefront buildings could add 3-4 floors.

I am not against high-rises at all. I just want to be honest about it and say that I want to see them built because I appreciate their form and I understand that there's enough people who desire to live in them to make them worthwhile and not because I think they are the real answer to our housing problem.

[1977]

Here's an update about 8 Octavia. It'd be great to get this one rolling as it is one of the 'gateways' to the city.

Having been waylaid by the market for a few years, the proposed Stanley Saitowitz | Natoma Architects designed building which rises between five and eight stories and yields 49 condos over 2,085 square feet of ground floor retail and 25 parking spaces is headed before the Planning Commission this week seeking their blessing to be built.
According to a plugged-in source, the developers plan to start building this fall if approved.

Source and more info: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments


Source: www.socketsite.com


Source: www.socketsite.com


Source: www.socketsite.com


Source: www.socketsite.com

[colemonkee]

^ Now that is quite nice. Responds well to the difference in grade, and I love the idea of a little cafe or coffee shop or wine bar nestled into the bottom corner. The glass fins remind me a bit of the 25 story or so commercial highrise built in SF's financial district a few years ago (the name of which escapes me at the moment).

[ozone]

Originally Posted by colemonkee

^ Now that is quite nice. Responds well to the difference in grade, and I love the idea of a little cafe or coffee shop or wine bar nestled into the bottom corner. The glass fins remind me a bit of the 25 story or so commercial highrise built in SF's financial district a few years ago (the name of which escapes me at the moment).

I'm usually a fan of modern architecture but for some reason I'm not loving this.
I seems a little too 1960's to me.

[easy as pie]

yeah, i don't see this one approved without a better treatment of the market street side. unpainted concrete walls don't tend to be approved on show streets.

[fflint]

Isn't the Saitowitz design for 8 Octavia a contest-winner?

[rriojas71]

Originally Posted by ozone

I'm usually a fan of modern architecture but for some reason I'm not loving this.
I seems a little too 1960's to me.

I totally agree with you on this Ozone. It looks like the fins were put there to try to distract people from the fact that it looks like a Soviet block residential tower from the 60's.
I am very familiar with this intersection and I think it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's just to blocky and bulky looking for my tastes.

[1977]

Originally Posted by fflint

Isn't the Saitowitz design for 8 Octavia a contest-winner?

Yes.

[1977]

Nice improvement, imo. This should really bring life to a former dead block.

Apparently, getting everyone in the same building encourages collaboration. That's the theory behind the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's decision to co-habit with other agencies at 390 Main Street, the WWII-era tank factory that later became a USPS distribution center. With a choice location amidst new condo construction and the Transbay Terminal, the hulking grey mass may suddenly become the belle of the ball. Despite ongoing opposition from the East Bay politicians, the MTC is going ahead with plans to give the building a new look and a new life.

PDF - http://mtc.ca.gov/meetings/special/b...on_7-11-12.pdf

and more at sfcurbed.

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by rriojas71

I totally agree with you on this Ozone. It looks like the fins were put there to try to distract people from the fact that it looks like a Soviet block residential tower from the 60's.
I am very familiar with this intersection and I think it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's just to blocky and bulky looking for my tastes.

right - a lot will depend on the lighting and fenestration (colors and tones, specifically). i'd be far more enthusiastic about this one if it wrapped around market street and gave us more functional retail instead of that small plaza (lobby entrance?). it's a tough spot, but that corner should be impeccable, and it's very peccable as currently designed. also, an extra story or two on market street would really do some good, not sure what the developer would be willing to give in exchange, but i'm sure we could extract a number of improvements for something that would improve the street presence immeasurably.

[NoTroubleMikeG]

This all looks really good for the city, I love most of these towers, and none of them are appalling by any stretch, at least in my opinion. Do you guys know what happened to the Treasure Island towers that were being discussed a while back? I think the main tower of the complex was called the Sun Tower, though I'm not sure.

[rriojas71]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

right - a lot will depend on the lighting and fenestration (colors and tones, specifically). i'd be far more enthusiastic about this one if it wrapped around market street and gave us more functional retail instead of that small plaza (lobby entrance?). it's a tough spot, but that corner should be impeccable, and it's very peccable as currently designed. also, an extra story or two on market street would really do some good, not sure what the developer would be willing to give in exchange, but i'm sure we could extract a number of improvements for something that would improve the street presence immeasurably.

Good call Easy... I thought the same thing about a taller portion of the building that would face Market St. as well. I think the lighting will help the area at night, but it's the daytime aesthetics that has me worried. The renderings give me the impression that it's going to look cheap.
I am excited that something is going to be built there, but that intersection needs something more visually appealing IMHO. Like you said that corner should be impeccable. I view it as the dividing line between Central and Upper Market and it needs something that marries the transition. Good retail would help as well as a design that is less intimidating.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by hruski

A highrise does not make a real neighborhood. Soma, the Financial District, Rincon Hill, and Civic Center are sterile neighborhoods without character, lasting charm, or a distinct "feel." The greatest neighborhoods in North Beach, the Mission, the Haight, the Castro, and so on, don't have any highrises.

Not to speak for Jerry here, but I read his comment not to mean you must have highrises to make a real neighborhood, but rather within the context of discussing highrises, a well designed one is a welcome addition as it brings a lot more people to a neighborhood that has been devoid of them after work times.

[peanut gallery]

Regarding 8 Octavia:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

Responds well to the difference in grade

Really? I think it does the opposite by keeping a flat roofline despite the change in street grade.

Originally Posted by easy as pie

yeah, i don't see this one approved without a better treatment of the market street side. unpainted concrete walls don't tend to be approved on show streets.

Me too. My first reaction was that it seems to turn its back on Market. I mostly like the Octavia side though.

Originally Posted by easy as pie

right - a lot will depend on the lighting and fenestration (colors and tones, specifically). i'd be far more enthusiastic about this one if it wrapped around market street and gave us more functional retail instead of that small plaza (lobby entrance?). it's a tough spot, but that corner should be impeccable, and it's very peccable as currently designed. also, an extra story or two on market street would really do some good, not sure what the developer would be willing to give in exchange, but i'm sure we could extract a number of improvements for something that would improve the street presence immeasurably.

I'm with you on all this as well. However, I think this will fly through approvals with very little change.