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

[peanut gallery]

Count me among those interested in the smaller stuff too. There are several around SOMA I've been meaning to look into, shoot and post about here. One of these days...

The Transbay Blog has a rundown of some additional projects toward the bottom of this page. They cover two projects in the Tenderloin, including the offsite affordable housing for Millennium. The other is senior housing that looks really interesting: 990 Polk. I hadn't heard about that one before.

[BTinSF]

^^^As a frequent rider of the 38 Geary who usually gets off at the stop between Polk and Van Ness, I've been watching them build this for a while. Actually, I celebrated when they started it because the lot had formerly been a laundromat and they tried to demolish the laundromat without the proper permits so the city stopped them halfway through--that left the derelict outer walls intact and the place became a combination eyesore and homeless squat. It sat that way for years until the new building began to go up and I'm hoping this project alters the karma of that intersection where also sits one of the city's largest homeless shelters (I bet people who live at Daniel Burnham Court are hoping even more). Of course my former employer, a methadone clinic, has gone from its long-time space directly in front of the bus stop (Pacific Med Center bought up their building for part of its new campus on Van Ness) and took some of its less-rehabilitated clients who once hung out on the corner of Geary & Van Ness with it so the area really is looking up.

[northbay]

i like hearing about the small stuff too. i dont make it down to sf as often as id like, and since i rarely hear about them, i forget to pass by when i am in town.

reminds me that small housing for more "normal" people, is being built too. thanks bt for the update.

[BTinSF]

I don't think most of us check the "General Developments" section too often (hint), but you gotta love this view of the skyline from the roof of the Arterra posted in the Mission Bay thread by mchoey:


Source: http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/e...100_2946-1.jpg

And there's more if you go look.

[BTinSF]

John King: Place: City College, Hilton tussle over proposed tower
John King
Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Architecturally, the parking lot at the northeast corner of Kearny and Washington streets is as challenging as any spot in San Francisco.

Chinatown's across Kearny to the west and so is Portsmouth Square, the center of town in Gold Rush days. To the east is the Colombo Building, a two-story landmark from 1912, followed by the stately brickwork of the Jackson Square district. Look south and Financial District towers line up one after the next.

It's a tough spot to put a building, especially a structure that would be the daytime home of 6,500 students - and especially when a 27-story neighbor doesn't want anything blocking its views.

That's the tussle between City College of San Francisco, which wants to erect a Chinatown home for itself, and the owners of the Hilton Hotel on the south side of Washington Street. The outcome will show whether good architecture can survive neighborhood politics.

It's by no means a sure thing.

What all sides agree is that City College needs better Chinatown facilities than the space it now leases in 12 locations; the institution offers language education and vocational training to immigrants, as well as more conventional courses.

With this in mind, City College last fall rolled out a vision of eye-popping ambition: a sculptural 16-story tower to be clad in green glass with a shape somewhere between a clover and an amoeba. It would include 42 classrooms and laboratory space; there'd also be culinary facilities, a library and a student terrace atop the tower's podium.

As quickly as the plans were unveiled, opponents went on the attack. One opponent in particular: the Hilton Hotel. After all, when your marketing boasts of "stunning panoramic views" and water-view rooms with parking start at $419, the last thing you want is a 244-foot structure just north of your 310-foot structure.

That's not how hotel representatives frame the issue. They make valid points: the City College site is zoned for 65 feet. A tower would add a sliver of shadow to Portsmouth Square on winter mornings.

The problem with the message is the messenger. Built in the 1970s to house a Holiday Inn, this gray bunker is the most unsociable chunk of concrete in San Francisco. It's grim on the skyline and worse on the ground, greeting Kearny Street and Portsmouth Square with a moat-like porte-cochere, the harsh tower standing aloof from the sullied street.

Don't take my word for it. Longtime Chronicle architecture critic Allan Temko described it as a "bulbous slab" that "exhibits just about every mistake that can be committed in urban design" - a rare example of our pugnacious Pulitzer Prize-winner being guilty of understatement.

But that history doesn't make the owners shy away from a fight, hiring lobbyists and midwifing the birth of the nobly named Education Coalition for Responsible Development. The "coalition" also hired Heller Manus Architects to draw up a scheme that puts the college into a 10-story structure with a seven-story satellite popping up from a college-owned lot behind the Colombo Building.

There's also protest from nearby residents wary of a tower this tall being allowed north of Washington Street. City officials don't like the cavalier way the college has reminded everyone that, as a state institution, it can ignore local zoning.

Now, after months during which each side claimed moral high ground while slinging mud at its opponent, various parties are meeting behind the scenes. City College is playing with a two-site scheme of its own, hoping to come up with a package that would make its supporters happy and mollify most critics.

Going from one tower to two buildings is OK: Portsmouth Square doesn't need an abstract green sculpture on its already mangled eastern edge. But the real work lies ahead - because when development battles are resolved by cutting deals, design quality takes second place to the need for everyone to claim victory.

The bright spot in all this is that City College has a top-rate architectural firm: EHDD, best known for its Monterey Bay Aquarium, is designing the campus in association with another local firm, Barcelon + Jang. EHDD excels at thoughtful buildings that are good neighbors as well as good places to be, and what's starting to evolve has real promise.

The best scheme has a 14-story tower at the Kearny-Washington corner, with the upper 11 floors pulled back to allow a student terrace and also fit with the existing march of buildings along the north side of Washington. Behind the Colombo, a four-story annex would include an auditorium, culinary facilities and a nifty cafe space on Columbus.

This approach would still block part of the Hilton's view, and it would still climb 199 feet. But the tower would offer a transition from the Hilton to the senior apartment mid-rise on the north end of the block. And a four-story annex (no more) is an appropriately sized neighbor to the Colombo. If EHDD is then allowed to craft the exteriors with care, City College could stitch together what's now a mess of a block.

Again, it's a tough site; the hotel's concrete hulk damaged Portsmouth Square beyond repair. But if a "compromise" means the hotel gets its way - squashing the tower and packing in square footage behind the Colombo while ignoring students' needs for a campus that nurtures learning - things will be even worse.

The future students of City College deserve respect. So does one of the most historic blocks of San Francisco. Well-designed buildings are essential - even if a few hotel rooms lose their panoramic views in the process.

Place appears on Tuesdays. E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../DDMRSFO5T.DTL

[Reminiscence]

I have mixed feeling about this tower. I appreciate the desire to build a tower here for the purposes outlined above, but as for the building itself, it could be better than that. I wont say much at this point, because of the limited rendering provided, but it certainly has potential. When you compare it to that monstrosity across the street, it could only be beneficial to neighborhood.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../DDMRSFO5T.DTL

The Hilton is the most offensive building I have ever seen, inside and out, worse than the John Burton Federal building. I never really understood just how monstrous and how much it really destroyed the entire neighborhood until I visited a friend who was staying there. The "legs" of the building jut out onto the sidewalk, forcing you to walk around them instead of through them. I wish the NIMBYs would focus their attention to start a campaign to tear down the Hilton (which is, really, the Holiday Inn), that way, I could actually get behind and fight with them!

Let's see, we have a public institution of higher learning proposed and a transit center both in limbo because some people don't like tall buildings. This is a democracy, everybody doesn't need to be happy, just the majority with the best arguments.

[peanut gallery]

Looks like it could be a nice cousin to The Infinity for the north side of downtown, only shorter. Here's a compromise I'd like to see: City College agrees to two shorter buildings instead of one tower; Hilton agrees to completely redesign and re-clad the exterior of their building. Everyone's happy! (Except Hilton who will have to pay millions to update their bunker...er...I mean, hotel.)

[BTinSF]

^^^I've got an even better idea. Tell Hilton to butt out and let City College build the building they want. The very concept of blocking a needed educational institution--or forcing changes on it--so Hilton can make more money makes my blood boil. It's just wrong and I can't believe in San Francisco it gets 5 seconds of anybody's time.

On the other hand, there may be other reasons to dislike the design, but the involvement of Hilton makes them all suspect. To me, the best solution is to build the 16-story tower BECAUSE Hilton dislikes it.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I've got an even better idea. Tell Hilton to butt out and let City College build the building they want. The very concept of blocking a needed educational institution--or forcing changes on it--so Hilton can make more money makes my blood boil. It's just wrong and I can't believe in San Francisco it gets 5 seconds of anybody's time.

On the other hand, there may be other reasons to dislike the design, but the involvement of Hilton makes them all suspect. To me, the best solution is to build the 16-story tower BECAUSE Hilton dislikes it.

I like your philosophy. When are you going to run for office ??

[sf94102]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

On the other hand, there may be other reasons to dislike the design, but the involvement of Hilton makes them all suspect. To me, the best solution is to build the 16-story tower BECAUSE Hilton dislikes it.

Preach it BTinSF !!!!

[mthd]

[oops] mispost! sorry!

[_J_]

That's right BT! Capitalism (and its brutalist edifice) can take one for the team.

In fact, I wish they would do a taller single tower. Always thought TransAmerica needed about half a dozen buildings tapering off into north beach to soften its geometrical blow. Won't hold my breath on that one though.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I've got an even better idea. Tell Hilton to butt out and let City College build the building they want. The very concept of blocking a needed educational institution--or forcing changes on it--so Hilton can make more money makes my blood boil. It's just wrong and I can't believe in San Francisco it gets 5 seconds of anybody's time.

On the other hand, there may be other reasons to dislike the design, but the involvement of Hilton makes them all suspect. To me, the best solution is to build the 16-story tower BECAUSE Hilton dislikes it.

Right on. I agree with you, and with the rest as well. As I said before, I'm not sure about the design of the building yet because I cant really make it out from just that one picture, but I very much side with education on this one. I've never had the chance to witness the Hilton in person, but from that article, it looks like a dark, dirty, and abandoned concrete box. I find it hard to believe some people are actually siding with Hilton on this one. They should destroy the Hilton and put this in its place .

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

I've never had the chance to witness the Hilton in person, but from that article, it looks like a dark, dirty, and abandoned concrete box. I find it hard to believe some people are actually siding with Hilton on this one. They should destroy the Hilton and put this in its place .

Have you been to the Disneyland Hotel? Yah, this is its brother up north.

I think CC has done a pretty good job lately of its remodeling and architecture of its new facilities. The new one in the Mission District is quite impressive, and they're building some really cool looking stuff up at their main campus. But, "Miss Hilton needs a view," and hopefully we're not dumb enough to fall for it this time.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by _J_

That's right BT! Capitalism (and its brutalist edifice) can take one for the team.

Just to be clear, I've got nothing against capitalism. I don't blame Paris's tribe (the Hiltons) for trying. I just don't think anybody should be buying what they are selling.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Just to be clear, I've got nothing against capitalism. I don't blame Paris's tribe (the Hiltons) for trying. I just don't think anybody should be buying what they are selling.

It really has very little to do with Paris' tribe. The hotel has had the same local owners (Justice Investors) since the day it was built; it was actually leased to Holiday Inns, Inc. and now it's a franchised Hilton managed by the Dow Hotel Company of Seattle. Part of the deal for building the hotel was that it would house the Chinese Culture Center on the third floor, connected by a bridge to Portsmouth Square.

[BTinSF]

^^^I was trying to inject a little humor. Any mention of Paris Hilton seems to make people snicker. But, yeah, hotel companies these days don't want to own them, just manage them. I've owned shares in several (owners, not managers) and was a limited partner in the partnership that owned the St. Francis (which was franchised as a Weston) for years. But I appreciate the details on the Hilton. I did not know them.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^I was trying to inject a little humor. Any mention of Paris Hilton seems to make people snicker. But, yeah, hotel companies these days don't want to own them, just manage them. I've owned shares in several (owners, not managers) and was a limited partner in the partnership that owned the St. Francis (which was franchised as a Weston) for years. But I appreciate the details on the Hilton. I did not know them.

The interesting thing is to look into the owners of the Hilton/Holiday Inn Financial District for it is they who don't want CCSF's tower across the street. They are still mostly an intact group all these years after having built the structure.

The St. Francis was never franchised as a Westin. It was owned by them starting in 1955 (then called Western Hotels, later Western International Hotels) until after Westin was purchased by Starwood. Starwood eventually sold the property, retaining the management which has continued under the Westin flag as a corporately managed property. An interesting side not is that Western sold the Sir Francis Drake hotel to assist with funding construction of the St. Francis tower which opened in 1972.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

The interesting thing is to look into the owners of the Hilton/Holiday Inn Financial District for it is they who don't want CCSF's tower across the street. They are still mostly an intact group all these years after having built the structure.

The St. Francis was never franchised as a Westin. It was owned by them starting in 1955 (then called Western Hotels, later Western International Hotels) until after Westin was purchased by Starwood. Starwood eventually sold the property, retaining the management which has continued under the Westin flag as a corporately managed property. An interesting side not is that Western sold the Sir Francis Drake hotel to assist with funding construction of the St. Francis tower which opened in 1972.

Sorry, but for about 20+ years from the late 70's until 2003, the St. Francis was owned by an entity called the Westin Hotels Limited Partnership of which I was a limited partner. For most of that time, the partnership also owned the Westin Chicago on Michigan Ave. but sold that a few years before the St. Francis. Westin was the general partner and was paid to continue to provide management. I called that arrangement "franchising" but call it whatever you want--Westin had only a very small minority ownership interest as general partner and contracted manager.

If you enjoy reading financial trivia, see http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....040&highlight= to see how it all ended.

You are correct that when the partnership was terminated and the property sold, Westin retained the management contract but that is always subject to the wishes of the owner. Use of the Westin name and management under contract by an owner other that Westin (Starwood) is, again, what I meant by "franchising" and is an increasingly common arrangement in the hotel industry. Marriot actually split itself into 2 companies--Host Marriott to own its hotels and Marriott International to manage them under contract.