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

[FourOneFive]

Socketsite has the redesign for 680/690 Folsom:

Currently:



Proposed:



As I noted in the Socketsite comments section, it's a shame the developers aren't removing that nasty 2 story parking garage next to the taller building. The site is zoned for a 320' structure SO theoretically they could build a tall, slender residential or office tower. What a missed opportunity.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Jobohimself

I did indeed mean the Burton atrocity at Polk and Golden Gate. Too bad we can't stick a highrise in its massive footprint.

At about 26 stories (as I recall), I think it does meet the definition of highrise here. However, the problem is it's as wide as it is tall and ugly as sin. Plus they keep doing really bad, cheapo remodles that only make it worse (but do keep out terrorists and asbestos).

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by FourOneFive

Socketsite has the redesign for 680/690 Folsom:

My vote: Forget it. I don't see anything wrong with the Edward Durrell Stone-ish facade on the large building now and the small building is fine too for a low-scale structure. In general, I don't like slapping new skins on buildings--it often ruins them unless it's actually a restoration of the original (like Ritz Residences which was an undoing of something like what they want to do here).

[Jobohimself]

I honestly see nothing wrong with what's currently there.

[nequidnimis]

You see nothing wrong with this, yet you don't like the Philp Burton Federal Building? This building looks even more like a fortress, with its blank walls and moat at the street level.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by FourOneFive

As I noted in the Socketsite comments section, it's a shame the developers aren't removing that nasty 2 story parking garage next to the taller building. The site is zoned for a 320' structure SO theoretically they could build a tall, slender residential or office tower. What a missed opportunity.

It looks to me like they are removing the 2 story parking garage and replacing it with some sort of public space.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

You see nothing wrong with this, yet you don't like the Philp Burton Federal Building? This building looks even more like a fortress, with its blank walls and moat at the street level.

It is not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood and covering it with glass won't change much anyway. I actually wouldn't hate the Burton Building so much if it had other highrises around it--and they would mitigate the wind effects. But it likely never will because the area in 3 directions from it has a 9-story height limit. This building is in a highrise neighborhood.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

My vote: Forget it. I don't see anything wrong with the Edward Durrell Stone-ish facade on the large building now and the small building is fine too for a low-scale structure. In general, I don't like slapping new skins on buildings--it often ruins them unless it's actually a restoration of the original (like Ritz Residences which was an undoing of something like what they want to do here).

My vote: Let this be an inspiration for the new owner of the AAA highrise on Van Ness, with its similar facade.

[Echo Park]

It'd be great if every developer and landowner can cover those ugly 60s modernist towers with a classy facade of glass. It would go a long way to making the urban fabric more elegant. I can think of too many buildings in SF and downtown LA that could use such a treatment.

[Jobohimself]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

You see nothing wrong with this, yet you don't like the Philp Burton Federal Building? This building looks even more like a fortress, with its blank walls and moat at the street level.

This actually somewhat blends in with the surroundings, unlike the bulk of blinds and portly lines of Burton. I lived directly across Polk from this monstrosity, and as BTinSF so readily pointed out, the funnel effect through Polk and Turk was, well, a bitch.

[Reminiscence]

The glass façade would certainly give it a more modern look than today, but its a shame thats all they are doing with it. I was hoping more for a vertical expansion over at least part of the building.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

The glass façade would certainly give it a more modern look than today, but its a shame thats all they are doing with it. I was hoping more for a vertical expansion over at least part of the building.

My guess is that there is probably much interior remodeling work involved, including what appears to be some addition at the southeast end of the building, along with ADA, fire egress and possible seismic upgrades. The new facade work may as well be included as part of the overall remodel if the budget allows, especially since there may be a new addition that affects the exterior.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Echo Park

It'd be great if every developer and landowner can cover those ugly 60s modernist towers with a classy facade of glass. It would go a long way to making the urban fabric more elegant. I can think of too many buildings in SF and downtown LA that could use such a treatment.

Prediction: In 30 or 40 years they'll be tearing if off like they just did to the Ritz residences. I say leave the original architect's vision intact as a general principle.

Facelifts rarely work very well--in people or buildings.

[JDRCRASH]

^

[SFView]

I also wish that the Central Tower could be restored to its original domed top 1898 or post 1906 Earthquake Call Building splendor, so I agree that modernizing a building's exterior can often be a mistake.

[PBuchman]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Prediction: In 30 or 40 years they'll be tearing if off like they just did to the Ritz residences. I say leave the original architect's vision intact as a general principle.

I hope to god the day never comes when we're yearning to restore this building's brutalist, exposed concrete and brown glass facade. I think the rendering of the new glass exterior looks outstanding.

If, in 30 or 40 years the market, the planning commission, or general aesthetic concerns dictate that the building be restored back to its original form, then so be it. In the meantime, I don't see the harm in making it look more appealing for the current generation while we're here to enjoy it -- particularly since this building is not iconic, unique, or, as far as I can tell, architecturally or historically significant in its current form.

Facelifts rarely work very well--in people or buildings.

No argument with your point in regards to people.

[peanut gallery]

It's all fenced off and the posted permits say 3 months. Seems a bit quick to me, but we'll see. The rendering doesn't show it, but I have to assume they are redoing the smaller annex building along Hawthorne too. They've already ripped off the skin on the structure that connects it to the main building. Looking at it up close, this building needs help. The concrete is very stained and forelorn looking. Although the pigeons will be sad to see all those roosts go.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by PBuchman

I hope to god the day never comes when we're yearning to restore this building's brutalist, exposed concrete and brown glass facade. I think the rendering of the new glass exterior looks outstanding...

I'm not sure if they would want to return to original, since it appears to be a complete replace, rather than just a reface over the existing facades. If I am not mistaken, the current windows look smaller than the proposed.

[BTinSF]

690 Stanyan (corner of Haight, I believe)

The proposed project: A "four-story," 115,400-sq.ft. retail/residential building with a 34,400-sq.ft. ground-floor specialty grocery store (Whole Foods), 62 residential units in 81,000 sq.ft., and an additional three-level, 176-space subterranean garage (90,000 sq.ft.) with 114 grocery store parking spaces and 62 residential parking spaces. 26 studio units, 20 one-bedroom units, 15 two-bedroom units, and one three-bedroom unit.

The proposed demolition: The vacant 24-foot-high, 23,600-square-foot (sq.ft.) retail building (Cala Foods) and removal of the existing 42-space parking lot at 690 Stanyan.

The Planning Commission hearing: Tomorrow (2/28/08), 1:30 p.m., City Hall (Room 400).

The point: Show up and show your support (or not).

UPDATE: And thanks to a plugged-in tipster we add a rendering and additional insight: "The final design was a real collaboration between architect and neighbors (The Haight Ashbury Improvement Assn) and resulted in the creation of a mezzanine level cafe overlooking Golden Gate Park, something the neighbors preferred over the street level cafe the Planning Dept was pushing for."

Source (including renderings): http://www.socketsite.com/

At last--the parking lot and suburban-style grocery on this corner is going away. Now if the McDonald's on the other corner could as well. I'll leave to others the issue of whether replacing a Cala with a Whole Paycheck is a good thing.

[peanut gallery]

Yep, that's right at the corner of Haight. Since the Cala is now vacant, I have to think a Whole Foods is undeniably an improvement (although for me personally, it would be an improvement either way -- I like Whole Foods). I'll ask my friend who lives up Stanyan what he thinks.