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

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

So building soulless corporate junk is ok if its new construction? Got it.

Where exactly did I say that?

I wouldn't mind this building too much if it were replacing a parking lot (it's still pretty boring regardless), but I definitely would prefer the old building stays instead of this thing getting built. Or at least they should preserve the old facade as part of the new design.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I don't remember ever reading about any of the proposed MB projects being referred to as a "turd," but I could be wrong. And from gleaning the MB thread the general attitude seems to be pretty receptive.

What should that thread be like? There actually is a good amount of criticism in that thread, but the project is underway, so we might as well be optimistic about new development. Yeah, most of the architecture in Mission Bay leaves a lot to be desired, and many people who are excited about Mission Bay do in fact realize that...but remember that 90% of that neighborhood is going up where there used to be an old train yard, empty lots, and abandoned warehouses...so with that in mind, it's a vast improvement in many ways, despite the large number of boring buildings going up. Should we instead be complaining, and wishing the area was still full of abandoned lots, warehouses, and piles of dumped junk? Sure, it could have been planned better, but it could have remained much worse. What we're getting is still pretty decent, especially considering what the neighborhood used to be like.

[minesweeper]

Just for the heck of it, I added up how many units are represented in that list of projects under construction collected by 1977.

I found a total of 4,310 units under various stages of construction. Here's the data:

Building,Units
1401 Market,749
1190 Mission,417
Madrone,329
1285 Sutter,107
333 Harrison,308
900 Folsom,282
260 5th St,182
750 2nd St,14
121 Golden Gate,90
2299 Market St,18
701 Golden Gate,100
1880 Mission,202
1844 Market,113
530 Folsom,120
333 Fremont,83
Mission Bay Block 3,147
Mission Bay Block 2,315
178 Townsend,94
Divisadero & Ellis,33
2235 3rd St,196
2121 3rd Street,106
200 Dolores,13
Central & McAllister,3
435 Duboce,5
Polk & Pacific,41
299 Valencia,36
1266 9th Ave,15
411 Valencia,16
Fillmore Park,32
6600 3rd St,73
Millwheel,71
Total,4310

[fflint]

Thanks for the tally--by SF standards, that's an amazing amount of units going up at one time!

[1977]

Wow, thanks minesweeper! If all goes well, it looks like we'll be adding even more units to that list over the next few months.

[viewguysf]

Check out these plans and renderings for the former AAA tower! This ugly edifice is about to be transformed into something much better than I had imagined--what a dynamic improvement for Van Ness and Civic Center!!

http://cdn.e2ma.net/userdata/1405882...nnessplans.pdf

[viewguysf]

In the meantime, SocketSite has great news for the other side of mid Van Ness--I can't wait to see a big hole there instead of that monstrosity!

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...g_approva.html

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Check out these plans and renderings for the former AAA tower! This ugly edifice is about to be transformed into something much better than I had imagined--what a dynamic improvement for Van Ness and Civic Center!!

http://cdn.e2ma.net/userdata/1405882...nnessplans.pdf

Bah- i dont like it when buldings are reclad or aesthetically renovated. Every building deserves its place in time. Why try to change history? It was built with a certain style in mind and should be respected that way. I know nobody agrees with me, but I prefer it to stay the way it is.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Viewguysf - thanks for the great link. What an attractive building it will be, even not comparing it to the old skin. I live in the Archstone Fox Plaza and watched this structure being built from the sunroof (closed many years ago for security & due to vandalism). Though I do not have a view from my apartment on the east side, I can see it from the laundry room on the 14th floor and friend's apartments.

Shocking as I never expected to see this structure altered. Amazing as I had not expected such an attractive remodel. I look forward to the dramatic changes it will bring to our neighborhood.

[peanut gallery]

Nice find, viewguy! Frankly, I never disliked the AAA building as much as most people but that is one beautiful re-cladding. And look how much better it meets the street. It at least appears so much more open and inviting. Pulling the curved glass back (without a full-on arcade) opens up much more sidewalk, which I think would be pretty welcome on such a busy thoroughfare. Of course, best of all is another ~400 units in this neighborhood. It's hard to imagine what this area will be like in several years with all the additional people suddenly living in it.

[1977]

Great find viewguysf! I really love the rooftop park/open space - great re-cladding as well.

Also, in the last 2 renderings you can see the massing for 101(?) Polk. I'm really excited about all of the changes in this neighborhood!

[minesweeper]

Very nice find. I much prefer glassy buildings to beige ones. It bears a lot of similarities to the 680 Folsom renovation.

I guess the only odd thing is that the lobby looks like that of an office building rather than a residential one.

[flight_from_kamakura]

hoohoo, great score, nice on the massing for the new acquisition on polk too. wow.

[CyberEric]

I am not blown away by the 100 Van Ness re-do, to be honest. I had no major issues with the old design, I just wanted it to be used. I tend to agree with wakamesalad on this.

I also don't like a lot of the design of the new building that will replace one of the most fun to look at buildings in SoMa, 200 6th Street. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...s_dropped.html

I am one part excited about all of the development, and one part worried about some errors that we'll look back on in 30 years and say, "What were we thinking?"

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

I am one part excited about all of the development, and one part worried about some errors that we'll look back on in 30 years and say, "What were we thinking?"

But, like all architecture, it deserves its place in time and will be a time capsule of how we, as civic, American, and world citizens, represented ourselves, ideals, and philosophies.
The late 1800s and early 1900s are viewed as eras of grandiosity, art, symmetry, poetic flow, and of generations proud of leaving a great legacy to their descendants.
Ever since WWII, and the ensuing economic boom, life has been about getting stuff done as cheaply and as obnoxiously as possible, while spitting on everybody that might get in the way. Imagine if the entire city were built with the current crop of architecture, and that of the 1970s, when it was founded and built out. Do you think it would be as important, as respected, as glorified, as international? Are postcards made of the post WW2 construction in the Sunset? Do you think tourists will come to Mission Bay to check out the buildings and parks? Are they? It saddens me that my generation will not leave much to be desired and to provoke fantasy and inspiration.

Not to say that I dislike all modern design. Skyscrapers, particularly modern ones, are some of my favorite buildings. They reimagine what it is like to dream, to create wonder, awe, symmetry. I'll take a well built skyscraper over a Victorian row house anyday. There are a few buildings in this city that I passionately dislike. The Holiday Inn/Hilton across from the Transamerica Pyramid is one of them. But does it make a cityscape more interesting to provoke feelings of intensity and passion, whether they be good or bad, than those of "meh, whatever," that we have become accustomed to in the past 30 years? I think so, so in that respect, I admire the Holiday Inn over anything in Mission Bay.

The recladding on 100 VN looks very trendy to me. Although, I must say, the current design is rather "meh, whatever."

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by minesweeper

I guess the only odd thing is that the lobby looks like that of an office building rather than a residential one.

I had the same thought too.

Originally Posted by CyberEric

I also don't like a lot of the design of the new building that will replace one of the most fun to look at buildings in SoMa, 200 6th Street. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...s_dropped.html

I am one part excited about all of the development, and one part worried about some errors that we'll look back on in 30 years and say, "What were we thinking?"

I'm with you on the Hugo replacement. It has promise, but there's something off about it to me. However, with the fire damage is it even possible to save the old building?

On your second point, I've been pondering a similar concern. I like glass and all, but are we getting too much all-glass in too short a timeframe? I keep wondering what the skyline will look like if and when the Transbay and Rincon Hill districts are built out in largely all-glass skyscrapers. We'll have one half of the downtown skyline largely built with mostly masonry materials in the '70s and '80s and the other half built mostly with glass (green and blue for the most part) in the '00s and '10s. Might that not look a little frankenskyline-ish?

[flight_from_kamakura]

if you look at the grade-level floor plans on the aaa building, the renders are a little deceptive - there are two fairly large retail surfaces there, on either side of the lobby entrance on the van ness frontage. three things i love about this re-cladding:

1) that it's happening in the context of a rental structure, by a company with deep enough pockets to ensure it happens, and that that it'll require only a few permits and a couple minor variance requests;
2) that the cladding is straight up glass, which we've far too little of in the area, but which will create a nice line from the crescent rentals through 1 polk. once fox tower is re-clad, we'll have a gleaming little addendum to mid-market;
3) the grade level treatments are very nicely done, particularly in contrast with what's there currently. with some bulb-outs (and all the new residents), this could actually be quite an active stretch, that would serve as a gateway to re-development in all directions - up van ness with the other aaa building, down toward mid-market, down vanness toward market proper, and into the hayes valley.

literally, this may not be a calatrava or b.i.g. tower, but from the planning side, there's almost nothing to complain about. it's a really nice bit of neighborhood development.

[fflint]

I think everyone missed the biggest news regarding the old AAA tower--it will be converted to residential. This is not just a slick re-cladding, it's a re-purposing. Given that fact, changing the skin makes perfect sense and I hope it looks as good in reality as it does in the renderings.

[northbay]

Yeah, wow. That is a beautiful re-cladding (at least in the renderings). Man, SF (and this area especially) is ON FIRE!

[peanut gallery]

I noted the additional 399 units, fflint, and agree that's the most significant news. With 749 units already under construction in the immediate area (1166 if you go just three blocks to Trinity) that's a lot of additional people in the neighborhood. And we know there is a lot more planned. Think of the demand this all will create for transit, including the planned Van Ness BRT.

[fflint]

Market/Van Ness and its immediate surrounds are perfect for new, high-rise housing--at the crossroads of the city, with excellent public transportation in every direction, busy but reasonably quiet at night, and absolutely no worries about destroying the urban fabric or overwhelming small-scale, fine-grained Victoriana.