SAN FRANCISCO | Fairmont Residential Tower | 373 FT / 113.7 M |

[BTinSF]

Source all images http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ding_as_p.html

"The proposed project includes two main components: (1) renovation of portions of the historic 1906 Fairmont Hotel, a Landmark structure (City Landmark Number 185), which is also listed on the California and National Registers of Historic Places; and (2) the construction of a new residential tower, a new mid-rise residential component and a replacement podium structure on the site of the existing 317-foot-tall, 23-story non-historic hotel tower above a five-story podium with parking and hotel support uses, that was built in 1961.
The project includes the demolition of the existing hotel tower and podium and additional excavation for and expansion of below-grade parking uses. While interior changes to portions of the historic 1906 Fairmont Hotel are proposed, the exterior facades would remain largely unchanged.
The proposed five-story podium would be 50 feet tall and the proposed five-story mid-rise residential portion (above the five-story podium) would be 55 feet tall. The mid-rise residential component including the podium would be a total of 10 stories and 105 feet in height.

The proposed tower with its flag pole would be 373 feet in height, approximately four feet shorter than the existing hotel tower with its roof ornament (377 feet).

The proposed residential tower, mid-rise residential component and podium would together contain up to 160 residential units (occupying a total of 325,086 gsf); 3,776 gsf of retail space; and an 80,500-gsf net new addition to the existing 165-space, 65,000-gsf subsurface parking garage, resulting in an approximately 145,500-gsf, 350-space parking garage consisting of 302 self-park and 48 tandem spaces."

And assuming all is approved, construction could begin as early as 2012 and be completed by the end of 2014.

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ding_as_p.html

[peanut gallery]

Ha! Just posted this in the rundown thread -- didn't think about looking for a thread over here. Anyway, Heller Manus sure has a recognizable look. Regardless, the lowrise part is a huge improvement on the existing structure.

[BTinSF]

yes, Heller Manus does have a "look" which comes in for a lot of criticism among us, but it has often occurred to me that the "look" they have is a lot like most of the Vancouver residential towers that get so much praise. I don't dislike it as much as many, but I do have to admit that alongside better work like what Arquitectonica did at the Infinity it doesn't look so good.

[mas1092]

The corner of the podium is definitely boring, but the tower is definitely an improvement

[kenratboy]

Was this the building used in a 'Dirty Harry' movie?

[northbay]

so theyre tearing down a 317 ft blah tower to erect a slightly taller 373 ft blah tower?

blah

[pawelsf]

it's quite uninspiring, like the metropolitan. the podium looks okay to me though.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by northbay

so theyre tearing down a 317 ft blah tower to erect a slightly taller 373 ft blah tower?

blah

The highrise portion needs to be much more exciting while still complimenting the main building in a contemporary way, something which the current tower never did (especially before its gold tiles were covered about 15 or so years ago). This Heller Manus tower rendering is a total bore, bordering upon an insult, IMO.

My first job after graduating with a hotel degree from a university back east was at The Fairmont, so I know it quite well.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

The highrise portion needs to be much more exciting while still complimenting the main building in a contemporary way, something which the current tower never did (especially before its gold tiles were covered about 15 or so years ago). This Heller Manus tower rendering is a total bore, bordering upon an insult, IMO.

My first job after graduating with a hotel degree from a university back east was at The Fairmont, so I know it quite well.

i agree. of all the new san francisco skyscrapers, none seem so poorly imagined as this proposal. at least 555 washington looked like the person who designed it put a lot of effort in. the intercontinental isnt so bad since it didnt ruin a masterpiece next door. with the fairmont, on the other hand, we'd be stuck with this (another) fugly monstrosity for 30+ years until someone decides to replace it with something else blah - the only thing that can get approved. not to mention the prominent location.

im honestly embarrassed this is one of the few threads we can muster for san francisco. has all skyscraper talk been reduced to speculation on when the transbay tower will start construction and replacing the fairmont rez with a HELLer manus cookie cutter piece of crap!?!

/end rant

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by northbay

i agree. of all the new san francisco skyscrapers, none seem so poorly imagined as this proposal. at least 555 washington looked like the person who designed it put a lot of effort in. the intercontinental isnt so bad since it didnt ruin a masterpiece next door. with the fairmont, on the other hand, we'd be stuck with this (another) fugly monstrosity for 30+ years until someone decides to replace it with something else blah - the only thing that can get approved. not to mention the prominent location.

im honestly embarrassed this is one of the few threads we can muster for san francisco. has all skyscraper talk been reduced to speculation on when the transbay tower will start construction and replacing the fairmont rez with a HELLer manus cookie cutter piece of crap!?! /end rant

I agree with everything that you stated--rant on whenever you feel like it! Your baby has a together father.

It seems as if some people would prostitute themselves just to get anything built, as long as it is a highrise. We should demand higher standards! Modify the plans for 555 Washington to fit the site and put it up there.

[BTinSF]

First of all, this tower is apparently a few feet shorter than what it would replace, not taller. Hence there is no one "prostituting" themselves except possibly the owners/managers of the Fairmont who apparently believe spending quite a few millions on a high end condo tower is going to make them that amount back and much more.

Given that it's just about the same height as what's there and will have the same impact on the skyline, and the condos in it will be well out of my price range we can all be sure (the view alone will be well outside my price range), I don't really care much whether it gets built or not. But also considering how ugly the existing tower is, I don't mind if it is built--at least it won't be a classic example of one of the worst eras of American architecture like what it replaces (just a very mediocre example of a somewhat better era).

The bottom line, though, is that I don't really see how the city can turn it down given that its the same size and use as what's there now and at least the podium won't have the big, ugly blank walls of the existing podium. Maybe they can push to get it prettied up a little, though, like they did the Infinity.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

First of all, this tower is apparently a few feet shorter than what it would replace, not taller. Hence there is no one "prostituting" themselves except possibly the owners/managers of the Fairmont who apparently believe spending quite a few millions on a high end condo tower is going to make them that amount back and much more.

Given that it's just about the same height as what's there and will have the same impact on the skyline, and the condos in it will be well out of my price range we can all be sure (the view alone will be well outside my price range), I don't really care much whether it gets built or not. But also considering how ugly the existing tower is, I don't mind if it is built--at least it won't be a classic example of one of the worst eras of American architecture like what it replaces (just a very mediocre example of a somewhat better era).

The bottom line, though, is that I don't really see how the city can turn it down given that its the same size and use as what's there now and at least the podium won't have the big, ugly blank walls of the existing podium. Maybe they can push to get it prettied up a little, though, like they did the Infinity.

yea, it never made sense to me to hire an architecture firm from clear across the country to modify the design so it actually looks good, when u couldve gone with them in the first place. y do people even hire hellar manus these days? infinity-ize it!

[tech12]

It may not look great, but I think it's a big improvement over what's there now.

[dr_strangelove]

The Fairmont is not even in the top 20 ugly towers in this city. I'd have to say Fontana or that eyesore on Washington and Laguna top my list for hideous residential towers.

Maybe we should start a list

[Gordo]

^The Hilton at Washington and Kearny and the Holiday Inn on Van Ness probably top my list of ugly towers, but nothing is as ugly and disgraceful to its surroundings as the Market St Safeway, except for maybe the Trinity Plaza buildings (slowly being torn down piece by piece).

On this project? Meh. Nothing great, but it looks like at least the street level will improve a bit. The current blank wall is pretty hideous.

[dr_strangelove]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^The Hilton at Washington and Kearny and the Holiday Inn on Van Ness probably top my list of ugly towers, but nothing is as ugly and disgraceful to its surroundings as the Market St Safeway, except for maybe the Trinity Plaza buildings (slowly being torn down piece by piece).

On this project? Meh. Nothing great, but it looks like at least the street level will improve a bit. The current blank wall is pretty hideous.

I agree that blank wall that is there now is the equivalent of an overweight high school bully

For anybody interested I started a new thread of the most vile San Francisco skyscrapers
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...93#post4821693

[pawelsf]

how nice it would be if fairmont gets infinity-ized by arquitectonica! and a collaboration between fairmont and arquitectonica isn't too far fetched since it wouldn't be the first time that the two would be working on a project. the upcoming fairmont makati (in the philippines) is designed by arquitectonica

[leftopolis]

Originally Posted by northbay

yea, it never made sense to me to hire an architecture firm from clear across the country to modify the design so it actually looks good, when u couldve gone with them in the first place. y do people even hire hellar manus these days? infinity-ize it!

I actually think the design is an improvement on what's there, so if building a tower of the same size, pencils out for them, that's cool.

Not to get off topic, but out of state and/or country architectural firms--need to partner with a local company. This is common practice throughout the US--due to regulations I believe. For example, a Portland firm with a project idea for San Jose, has to partner with a local firm. A Vancouver firm building in San Diego, would partner with a

[leftopolis]

Originally Posted by northbay

yea, it never made sense to me to hire an architecture firm from clear across the country to modify the design so it actually looks good, when u couldve gone with them in the first place. y do people even hire hellar manus these days? infinity-ize it!

I actually think the design is an improvement on what's there, so if building a tower of the same size, pencils out for them, that's cool.

Not to get off topic, but out of state and/or country architectural firms--need to partner with a local company. This is common practice throughout the US--due to regulations I believe. For example, a Portland firm with a project idea for San Jose, has to partner with a local firm. A Vancouver firm building in San Diego, would partner with a SD or CA firm.

[BTinSF]

Friday, May 7, 2010
Fairmont condos would test market
No Nob Hill tower built for 40 years
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

The condo boom that took off in the late 1990s transformed neighborhoods from Mission Bay to Rincon Hill before fizzling out in 2008. But up on Nob Hill, the only thing that changed was the view to the south.

With the completion of an environmental impact report, Maritz Wolff & Co. and Kingdom Hotels International have cleared a big hurdle for their proposal to add a $130 million, 160-unit condo project at the site of the original Fairmont Hotel. The new tower, which would replace a non-historic 1961 building and cut the number of hotel rooms from 591 to between 305 and 565, would be the first significant residential highrise development on Nob Hill in more than 40 years. While the project still must win multiple rounds of approvals — including a preservationist battle with fans of the kitschy and much-loved Tonga Room — it would test the appetite for new luxury condos in a neighborhood known for old-school institutions like the Union Club and Grace Cathedral . . . .

“The only projects that have legs these days are the cream projects like this one — this one will go and it will sell,” he said. “There is no better spot in the city.”

The development team hopes to win entitlements by October and open by 2015.

. . . the Fairmont condos are being driven by two factors: a changed hospitality landscape and the desire to preserve the original historic hotel . . . . the owners have already spent $80 million on preservation and continue to spend millions more — including the $2 million restoration of the terracotta exterior underway currently. In order to make the restoration possible, the owners need new revenue . . . .

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...10/story8.html