HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

    

100 Folsom in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2017, 8:17 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Not trur--it was already granted an additional 100' above the 300' height limit. This is not the location for anything taller without looking out of place.
Agree to disagree. Other cities have no trouble putting tall buildings near or even on waterfronts. Its not like we had a beach there nor that the buildings were lined up pronerty line to property line blocking public access.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 7:41 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Agree to disagree. Other cities have no trouble putting tall buildings near or even on waterfronts. Its not like we had a beach there nor that the buildings were lined up pronerty line to property line blocking public access.
We don't want to look like other cities--that's the point. Your obsession would have us looking like Miami or Toronto near the waterfront, which were specifically mentioned when planning height limits. I agree with Observatory and would like to have seen this building much higher elsewhere. I do agree with you regarding the street trees; let's hope they survive intact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 8:11 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
We don't want to look like other cities--that's the point. Your obsession would have us looking like Miami or Toronto near the waterfront, which were specifically mentioned when planning height limits. I agree with Observatory and would like to have seen this building much higher elsewhere. I do agree with you regarding the street trees; let's hope they survive intact.
Does expressing an opinion different from yours equal "obsession" in your view?

I like the way Miami looks and I specifically mentioned I would not want to see the problem in Miami Beach (as opposed to Miami) where hotels with adjacent property lines blocks off public access to the water but that's impossible in San Francisco because of the Embarcadero roadway and promenade. The attempt by the Planning Dept. to "sculpt" the skyline does more harm than good IMHO. I'd like to see it grow organically rather than by bureaucratic dictat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2017, 9:56 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,028
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 5:27 AM
OneRinconHill OneRinconHill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 102
Isn't Infinity on the same block? Same distance to the water?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2017, 5:18 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRinconHill View Post
Isn't Infinity on the same block? Same distance to the water?
Yes . . . across the street, which is why the initial limitation on this to 300 ft was so silly. Now at least it will be roughly as tall as Infinity. But I just don't see any reason it should be an issue if it were even another couple of hundred feet taller. The only factor I can think of is that it might shaddow the Embarcadero walkway in the very late afternoon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2017, 3:58 AM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Yes . . . across the street, which is why the initial limitation on this to 300 ft was so silly. Now at least it will be roughly as tall as Infinity. But I just don't see any reason it should be an issue if it were even another couple of hundred feet taller. The only factor I can think of is that it might shaddow the Embarcadero walkway in the very late afternoon

They want it shorter because this has been in the general plan for years...



http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/Rincon_Hill.htm

... they want to keep Rincon Hill from blending into the downtown mound.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2017, 6:33 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
They want it shorter because this has been in the general plan for years...



http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/Rincon_Hill.htm

... they want to keep Rincon Hill from blending into the downtown mound.
you know, I've been thinking they must have given up on that, what with the three tallish buildings going up on Folsom right now, and Parcel F and the one across from it on Howard. that's gonna kinda fill in that dip.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2017, 8:54 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
you know, I've been thinking they must have given up on that, what with the three tallish buildings going up on Folsom right now, and Parcel F and the one across from it on Howard. that's gonna kinda fill in that dip.
They're not going to give up on taller buildings any closer to the bay, which is fine with me. It would inflame too many people here and isn't worth pursuing at the risk of hurting development elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2017, 4:49 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
They want it shorter because this has been in the general plan for years...



http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/Rincon_Hill.htm

... they want to keep Rincon Hill from blending into the downtown mound.
Given what's already going up on Folsom, that idea seems history. As of now, 400 Folsom, 3 blocks up the street, at 575 ft plus the rise of the ground level between there and the Bay, will appear the tallest buiding in the supposed "valley" in that concept. This building would be no taller if it were 200 ft taller than it will be.

Incidentally, I think I may have been the original poster of that bit of art work here but I haven't been able to find it in some time. Thanks for that. Oh, the memories . . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Sep 16, 2017, 5:32 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Incidentally, I think I may have been the original poster of that bit of art work here but I haven't been able to find it in some time. Thanks for that. Oh, the memories . . . .
I thought of that yesterday and remember your explaining the whole hill and valley concept (with tall buildings on hills) multiple times. There are many memories buried in the Forum threads!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2017, 10:56 PM
cwilly cwilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 48
Continuing to dig, including some corner bracing so you can see under the arm of the excavator.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2017, 5:16 PM
Dwils01's Avatar
Dwils01 Dwils01 is offline
Urban Fanactic
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 3,117
100 Folsom from last month.

Picture by me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 6:05 PM
tech tech is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14
Update on the digging:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2017, 8:25 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 530
tower crane is going up. Also they were pouring concrete this morning in the northeast corner, so officially under construction?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2017, 3:07 AM
edwards's Avatar
edwards edwards is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Rincon Hill
Posts: 338
12/26/17

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2017, 7:04 AM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,035
edwards

edwards - a great photo! Thanks for the alert. A lot of construction to follow.
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2018, 5:27 AM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,035
Yellow Crane on the Skyline

I noticed today that I can see the yellow crane at 100 Folsom. This view is with a telephoto lens. I now know that I will lose most if not all of the San Francisco Bay Bridge view from my apartment. I will be posting pictures when the building breaks the skyline. The Sam Francisco Bay Bridge is one of my very favorite structures in the Bay Area.


100 Folsom Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2018, 11:31 PM
observatory's Avatar
observatory observatory is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 121
^Sorry you'll lose the bridge view, but at least you can take some solace in the fact that the building soon to be blocking it is quite an impressive design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2018, 12:12 AM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,035
A Very Deep Hole

Visited the site of 100 Folsom St. today. Looks like the dig has reached the bottom, but lots of work still to be done. I could have gotten closer to the hole but was chased away from one construction site earlier today & did not want to upset the construction guys!

100 Folsom Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

100 Folsom Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

100 Folsom Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.