SAN FRANCISCO | Post Street Tower | 407 FT / 124 M | 38 FLOORS | PRO

[tommaso]

Did this tower get scrapped or is it still on track?

[peanut gallery]

Some news from SocketSite on this one:

While SOM’s designs for a 38-story, elliptical-shaped glass tower to rise atop Cathedral Hill have been kicked to the curb, ADCO has dusted off their plans to build a tower at 1481 Post Street with new designs for a 36-story tower rising up to 416 feet across from Saint Mary's Cathedral.

More details at the link.

While I'm still disappointed that the original SOM design was scrapped, this could (heavy emphasis on that word) be better than that last thing we saw several years ago. It's a little hard to tell based on this drawing. Fingers crossed anyway.

[tech12]

Wow, I'm surprised to see this is still alive. Too bad the NIMBYs are just as rabid as ever, and already have a petition going to block this. And of course their petition is full of misinformation/lies, such as claiming the tower will create deadly traffic conditions, and be nearly twice as tall as any building on cathedral hill (it's really only 20' taller than one of its neighbors, the current tallest on cathedral hill). Why do NIMBYs always have to blatantly lie?

[peanut gallery]

Because even they know deep down inside that their real reasons for opposing things are purely selfish (views and/or the belief their property value will suffer) and no one will listen or care.

But they did provide one useful thing for the discussion: what appears to be an accurate rendering of the proposed skin. The massing here appears to match the outline above, so it could be the latest:



Apologies for the large nimby warning across it.

[rriojas71]

Nice. This would be great on Cathedral Hill if it was to happen. Maybe another decent sized tower along with this would really make it a nice cluster and further stretch the SF skyline.

[mt_climber13]

Wow, it's ugly. I hope the NIMBYs win.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Wow, it's ugly. I hope the NIMBYs win.

I think it looks ok personally, but regardless of whether it's ugly or not, I would never hope for the NIMBYs to win. All they do is hold the city back, and we need the housing. The NIMBYs would oppose this even if it were the most beautiful and innovative design on the planet, because all they really care about are their views, property values, parking, tennis courts, and other self-serving things like that. Or they're completely delusional and think that towers will create a deadly traffic apocalypse, or think that SF is a tiny european fishing village where towers are "out of character" or some such nonsense.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by tech12

I think it looks ok personally, but regardless of whether it's ugly or not, I would never hope for the NIMBYs to win. All they do is hold the city back, and we need the housing. The NIMBYs would oppose this even if it were the most beautiful and innovative design on the planet, because all they really care about are their views, property values, parking, tennis courts, and other self-serving things like that. Or they're completely delusional and think that towers will create a deadly traffic apocalypse, or think that SF is a tiny european fishing village where towers are "out of character" or some such nonsense.

It is ugly and common where once it was stunning--we don't need more undesirable buildings because they will only further fuel the NIMBY's. If a nice tower were built, I think it would do more to suppress them. The NIMBY website is so bad that it's hilarious!

[tech12]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

It is ugly and common where once it was stunning--we don't need more undesirable buildings because they will only further fuel the NIMBY's. If a nice tower were built, I think it would do more to suppress them. The NIMBY website is so bad that it's hilarious!

But to them, tall = bad. They were opposed to the nicer SOM design too, just like they're opposed to this one.

As for the NIMBY website, i think this picture posted on socketsite pretty much sums it up :

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

[shakman]

Originally Posted by tech12

But to them, tall = bad. They were opposed to the nicer SOM design too, just like they're opposed to this one.

As for the NIMBY website, i think this picture posted on socketsite pretty much sums it up :

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

Nice!!! They should have someone passed out from being overwhelmed. I like the expression of the lady on the right.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by shakman

Nice!!! They should have someone passed out from being overwhelmed. I like the expression of the lady on the right.

If that tower would force those folks out of town, I'd help pay for it. Worst dressed people ever. And old people are unattractive anyway:-/

[shakman]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

If that tower would force those folks out of town, I'd help pay for it. Worst dressed people ever. And old people are unattractive anyway:-/

Hey now... There are plenty of us "attractive old folks" who would love to have a skyscraper in our back yards.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

If that tower would force those folks out of town, I'd help pay for it. Worst dressed people ever. And old people are unattractive anyway:-/

Hey coyote, we're all getting older (some of us ahead of others)! It beats the alternative.

That looks like a stock photo taken in Iowa!

[rriojas71]

Looks like this is back on the table according to socketsite.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ming-soon.html

[Sonja Trauss]

Hi all:

This project is happening again, and the neighbors are petitioning against it again.

I have a little organization called SF Bay Area Renters' Federation. At first we were just testifying at the planning commission in favor of projects that were having a hard time, but now I am also making petitions in FAVOR of projects.

I got tired of complaining in the comments section on socket site

Here is the petition for 1333 Gought St, http://sfbarf.nationbuilder.com/1333goughst

Here is my website www.sfbarf.org

[1977]

Found this rendering - looks better from this angle, imo.

Source

[Sonja Trauss]

1481 Post Street open house

August 13th at 6:30-8:00

at St Mary's Cathedral
1111 Gough St

[peanut gallery]

JK Dineen wrote about this project last week. Here are some tidbits I found enlightening.

Some of the neighbors issues:

Many of the objections center on the impact of construction on a frail older population. The "noise of the demolition will be absolutely frightening," said Ted Weber, a 90-year-old Sequoias resident. He said the development would prevent residents from opening their windows.
-----
"The closer the tower comes to the property line, the closer they are to that section of our building," said Kathie Cheatham, 70, president of the Sequoias residents association. "It's too close for comfort if you are in a room where you can't get out."

She said they two curb cuts along Post Street would create pedestrian safety issues for seniors who walk around the neighborhood doing errands. She also said the tower would make a windy hilltop windier.
-----
Cheatham said her group would support a 260-foot alternative proposed by the architecture firm Heller Manus. The developer is also doing an environmental study of the shorter building as an alternative.

From Adco:

Eric Grossberg of the Adco Group said the objections the neighbors are raising - shadows, construction noise, wind - will be similar whether the tower is 260 feet or 400 feet.
-----
Adco said it has asked to present the project to Sequoias residents and board, but have not been invited to.

The city's view:

Planning Director John Rahaim said the design has improved, but that planning staff is still "struggling with the height."

"There is no question (Cathedral Hill) is a place for tall buildings - they are already there," he said. "The only question is whether 400 feet is appropriate. We are still looking at it and considering it."

You can basically throw away the demolition noise, wind and shadow concerns as those don't change anything for the Sequoias whether it's 400' or 260' and they've said they would support 260'. So those obviously aren't really their issues at all and we're left with proximity to their building as their remaining complaint.

I can just see Planning giving the OK to Adco's design but at the 260' height (which will look atrocious) as a compromise to both parties. But in reality that won't address the neighbors' one apparently real complaint at all: proximity. It will be chopped down to a little nub for nothing.

Note: there are several renderings of the proposed ground floor treatments at the link. Not sure how finished they actually are but it gives some indication of where they are headed.

[peanut gallery]

Sorry to raise an old thread and get everyone's hopes up, but has anyone heard info on this going before the Planning Commission anytime soon? According to this article from August, ADCO was hoping to do so in October. However, I don't see it included on any of the agendas on the Planning website in October or November so far.

That article has a couple of interesting tidbits:

Corso [my edit: Linda Corso, general manager of Cathedral Hill Plaza Apartments] said while there has been some opposition from neighbors in a nearby building, ADCO has done extensive outreach and meetings to groups in the Western Addition. “We heard from the community that they want more lighting in the area for public safety, so we are addressing that, as well as other improvements,” Corso said. “We worked with the City to incorporate more streetscape improvements, like a mid-block crossing. We worked with the Planning Department and the community and have a much better project now.” She said the developer is committed to smart-growth principles and incorporating San Francisco’s urban planning goals, which call for a greater level of high density and transit-oriented housing. Along with the streetscape improvements, the project will provide parking spaces for bicycles and car share services. Public amenities also include a cafe on Post Street and renovations to the fitness center in Cathedral Hill Plaza.

--------------

The developer will pay into the City’s affordable housing fund, which will help create as many as 52 additional affordable homes off site. Corso said there is a lot of housing for low-income residents in the area and that the developer hopes to work with the mayor and Board of Supervisors to earmark some of the in-lieu funds for rehabbing the existing affordable housing in the neighborhood. “There is a great need for affordable housing in the area to be restored and repaired,” she said.

The Cathedral Hill Plaza Apartments will also get improvements and repairs. Corso said that the developer has pledged to not pass on the costs of the improvements to tenants of the rent-controlled building at 1333 Gough if the 1481 Post project is approved.

Corso said ADCO is also putting together a package of community benefits, including funding training for long term jobs.

The developer is aiming for 1481 Post St. to be LEED Gold certified by the US Green Building Council by incorporating the latest technology to enhance water and energy conservation, public transportation access and include on-site care sharing and bike-parking programs, according to ADCO. The proposed project would comply with San Francisco Green Building Requirements for energy efficiency as applicable and for use of low-emitting flooring, according to a preliminary repost by the Planning Department.

--------------

Project construction would take about 27 months in all in overlapping phases, including: demolition, excavation, shoring, foundation work, below grade construction, base building construction, and exterior and interior finishing.

The project is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in October.

“We would love to be entitled by early 2016 and start on the work drawings,” Corso said.

Demolition of an existing parking structure and excavation would then start shortly after.

The article also has a rendering I hadn't seen before:


Source: The San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.

[WildCowboy]

This one still isn't dead, but it's been neutered. The developers have scaled back from 416 feet to 240 feet rather than continue fighting for an increased height limit on the parcel.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/artic...g-11283845.php