Yes, that side of it is ugly, but unavoidably so. The building code requires expensive fire-rated windows if they are within 5 ft of another building so any midblock structure that builds to the lot line is almost certainly going to have a big blank windowless wall on the lot line. Besides, who would want a hotel room with a window 5 ft from the big blank windowless wall of the (potential) building next door. So this building, like pretty much any building similarly situated, was designed with all the rooms having windows facing some other side that can't be blocked (including some facing what will be a light well on another side).
[QUOTE=BTinSF;4290015] I think it really is better than the earlier design. I like the step-downs.
More views of the earlier version:
I liked the earlier design better - the windows had more vertical lines. The approved version is too open to my taste. The step down works for me. I guess the folks in the neighborhood did not like the original because it was too much of a large bulk, which is now broken up to make the complex look more like several buildings.
Fox Plaza - New Tower Approved by SF Planning Commission
I see on Socket Site ( http://www.socketsite.com/) that a new 250 unit condo tower has been approved 7-0 by the San Francisco Planning Commission for the Fox Plaza site. The height will be 150', lower than the allowable height of 200'. I am on the 300' level and will be looking down on it from my apartment
I tried to download the information from the Planning Commission site but could not get past page 2, maybe I will try later.
Would that it could really be that transparent and glassy (and no wonder Jeffrey Heller--of the stucco and bay windows--hates it)
And commentary CurbedSF posted along with the photo under the fabulous headline "Transbay Towerfight!" is almost as good:
Quote:
Okay, this is complicated, but we think we can distill the situation down to this: while work on the 1,000 foot Transbay Tower is creeping along (inasmuch as it's still basically just a dirt lot), there's drama over control of the cluster of smaller towers that will eventually go up around it. Golden Gate University is the latest the spark controversy, with their surprise announcement that they want to build a 850-foot tower.
This is totally vexing to neighboring developer David Choo, who thought he had dibs on towers of that height. It rubs Jeffrey Heller (from architecture firm HellerManus) the wrong way, too: big buildings should be concentrated close together, he says, to create a hilly effect in the skyline. And Choo's lot is closer to the Transbay Tower than the University's is; so there you go. How dare those meddlesome students attempt to disrupt our skyline.
A University official downplayed the drama, saying "I think we have a lot of time on our hands" to work out a solution. Clearly, we're doomed.
pg would be correct in that that is 555, looks like he's standing in front of the empty lot next to golden gate.
ps though bt, i like your use of the optative. my friend in my greek and latin classes is trying to bring back "would that it were". im not sure how much success she'll have though haha.
well theoretically you should be using it fairly regularly, as "who" is only used for the nominative.
i try to use the subjunctive "were" in present-contrary-to-fact statements, e.g.: "if i were better at english grammar, I would use 'were' for the subjunctive more often." there are actually a few versions of the subjunctive that we use without really realizing it, as in past-contrary-to-fact, where one would say "if I had been better at english grammar, I would have used 'were' for the subjunctive more often." had known is actually subjunctive, but people say it without thinking about what it is grammatically. unfortunately a lot of times it shares the same form as the infinitive, also causing people not to realize they are using it, e.g.: "She requested that he use the subjunctive correctly." Since its not "he uses" as in the indicative, people think they are just using the infinitive "use," though obviously not since it has a subject.
Designs For The Castro’s "Hole In The Ground" (2299 Market Street)
As proposed, the Castro’s long vacant "hole in the ground" at 2299 Market Street (corner of 16th and Noe) would become a five-story mixed-use development with 18 residential units, 5,000 square feet of ground floor retail and 18 underground parking spaces.
And while the proposed Ian Birchall and Associates design has apparently been generating some neighborhood buzz by being rendered with what appears to be an Apple store in the retail space ("but those who have heard the design team's presentation said there was no indication given that a lease with the retailer had been signed"), that’s not what had us all abuzz (or perhaps bothered if you will).
No, it’s the difference between what’s currently proposed (below left) versus what appears to have once been on the boards (below right) that did that trick.
^^^ Off topic, but I love using the subjunctive in English. Now if only I could use "whom" in spoken English without feeling absolutely silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK
pg would be correct in that that is 555, looks like he's standing in front of the empty lot next to golden gate.
ps though bt, i like your use of the optative. my friend in my greek and latin classes is trying to bring back "would that it were". im not sure how much success she'll have though haha.
If everyone played William F. Buckley Jr. tapes softly in their bedrooms as they slept, it would happen:
And the SF process has done it once again. Not that the original proposal was that great, but the "winning" proposal is blaaaaaaaaand. That thing could be Omaha--
no disrespect to Omaha, I have always sort of liked the place. Just saying it could be anywhere USA where a developer builds as cheap and meaningless as possible.
At least the dead proposal tried a little bit.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"
And the SF process has done it once again. Not that the original proposal was that great, but the "winning" proposal is blaaaaaaaaand. That thing could be
Worse. It could be, er, Mission Bay.
But don't worry. Like I said, it is just not believable anything will be built there before Star Trek Academy opens.
Prev
I think it really is better than the earlier design. I like the step-downs.
Linear Mode
