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

[timbad]

somewhat at random...

the shroud has come off the building on Folsom across from Mosso, at Fifth





I'd forgotten about this one on Tenth





South Park has gotten green again, but not open yet



at the Schlage Lock site, some heavy equipment has moved on site and I noticed some digging, but this is all still prep - construction of the housing is supposed to start next year





at 100 Hooper they've mostly pulverized the former concrete platform that the old storage containers sat on



rebar sprouting at the office building on Townsend near Sixth



the one on Market and 15th and Sanchez and it seems like three or four other streets at that intersection





the step-down portion of that one



the SE corner of 55 Laguna, which I surprised to see was still being worked on



sidewalk is open on Laguna, but again, still work going on



looking back south. at least some of the retail locations seemed open; I noticed services for LGBT seniors, who make up the population of part of the development



I'd been hoping to see some indication of work starting on the final building, which would be in the foreground here, but no



and I can't get enough of this view; such a nice job they did on this



the one at Hayes and Laguna



and that perplexing one at Hayes and Fulton has at least been covered up again

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Don't worry. There are plenty of corners (~90%?) that are "not quite so beautiful" that don't make it into the tourist photos.

I just returned from being away for over a month, visiting nine countries in Central and South America. 90%?!? That's a gross overstatement because we truly live in one of the world's most beautiful cities. You can go through block after block in residential areas here and marvel at the architecture.

My comment is based upon extensive travel elsewhere too. I'm not one who puts down everywhere else, but let's realize the jewel (including the Bay Area) that we have.

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by timbad

I'd been hoping to see some indication of work starting on the final building, which would be in the foreground here, but no

I've heard that the final building is slated to break ground this summer. Timing determined by the Mayor's office - something to do with scheduling of funding for city-funded affordable housing projects.

[Austinlee]

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

No new towers could be built on Russian Hill today!

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

NIMBYs didn't really organize and get height limits passed until after the skyscraper boom of the 1970s. Those buildings were all built before then. Of the five tallest ones, three are from the 1960s, and two are from the 1920s.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

General question: How did all of these highrise condo towers get built on the hill overlooking downtown and the bay at all with all the NIMBY BS?

San Francisco planning dogma says that the tallest structures should be located at the top of hills to emphasize rather than obscure the terrain (hills).

The buildings in the photo are from an earlier generation but those on Rincon Hill are the current manifestation of the policy.

[Austinlee]

Ok. I was wondering if it was a matter of them being built before a certain time period. And that seems to be the case.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Ok. I was wondering if it was a matter of them being built before a certain time period. And that seems to be the case.

Not necessarily. The reason that Russian Hill would be an unlikely site for towers today has more to do with the fact that before the towers it was a viable, historic, low-rise neighborhood whereas Rincon Hill, which I mentioned, really wasn't. NIMBYism SF-style has its most success preserving long-time residential areas, preferably with pre-1906 structures throughout. It is less successful with areas that are industrial/commercial (hence no organized residents to fight for preservation of the status quo) and that have mainly post WW II development. But it isn't usually about terrain or skyline prominence (pro or con) except as that causes significant shaddowing of public open space (banned).

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Not necessarily. The reason that Russian Hill would be an unlikely site for towers today has more to do with the fact that before the towers it was a viable, historic, low-rise neighborhood whereas Rincon Hill, which I mentioned, really wasn't. NIMBYism SF-style has its most success preserving long-time residential areas, preferably with pre-1906 structures throughout. It is less successful with areas that are industrial/commercial (hence no organized residents to fight for preservation of the status quo) and that have mainly post WW II development. But it isn't usually about terrain or skyline prominence (pro or con) except as that causes significant shaddowing of public open space (banned).

Isn't Rincon Hill downtown & part of the CBD?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Isn't Rincon Hill downtown & part of the CBD?

Not really. Until the 1990s, "downtown" San Francisco meant the retail shopping district around Union Square, the Financial District centered on Montgomery Street (sometimes called "the Wall Street of the West") and the area between these and the Embarcadero. Officially, I think the Tenderloin was considered "downtown" also by the city if not by all residents (these neighborhood limits and designations are a thing San Franciscans like to argue over almost as much as where to et the best latte/burrito/sourdough/sushi etc etc). All of these are north of Market St. In the development cycle that coincided with the "dot-com" boom, a Financial District South began to develop along Mission St. east of 3rd or so and also a new highrise residential (apartments and hotels) area around the Yerba Buena Redevelopment District (Mission to FolsomHoward/3rd to 4th). Most of us began to think of these areas as part of "downtown".

But Rincon Hill was/is several blocks further south and was, until the construction of One Rincon Hill's first and tallest tower, largely old, ignored and low rise (although a couple 9-15 floor residential buildings had begun to encroach on the hill). Basically, it was an area you passed and hardly noticed when crossing the Bay Bridge--there was no reason to go there unless you lived in one of the buildings mentioned and it made no particular impact on the skyline. The freeways loop around it in the center of this photo (I think from the 1980s--certainly pre-1989):


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rincon...0_Junction.jpg

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

Isn't Rincon Hill downtown & part of the CBD?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Not really. Until the 1990s, "downtown" San Francisco meant the retail shopping district around Union Square, the Financial District centered on Montgomery Street (sometimes called "the Wall Street of the West") and the area between these and the Embarcadero. Officially, I think the Tenderloin was considered "downtown" also by the city if not by all residents

Uh, 1990 was 27 years ago dude. Rincon hill is definitely a part of downtown nowadays.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by tech12

Yes.



Uh, 1990 was 27 years ago dude. Rincon hill is definitely a part of downtown nowadays.

Uh, stop coding "dude" and learn how the city evolved. Rincon Hill only became downtown, if you wish to think of it as that, coincident with and as a result of the highrise development there, most of which is just now winding up. It's a very recent thing.

In any case, it is NOT and never was part of the "CBD". There is no business there. The new towers are all residential and even the service/retai storefronts meant to line Folsom have yet to take shape. It's more like a highrise suburb than part of the "central business district".

PS: I'm guessing 27 years is twice your lifetime so it does seem a long time.

[mt_climber13]

Lucas Museum to LA

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Lucas Museum to LA

Ed Lee was the only San Franciscan who wanted Lucas' museum. We already rejected it the other year.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Uh, stop coding "dude" and learn how the city evolved. Rincon Hill only became downtown, if you wish to think of it as that, coincident with and as a result of the highrise development there, most of which is just now winding up. It's a very recent thing.

In any case, it is NOT and never was part of the "CBD". There is no business there. The new towers are all residential and even the service/retai storefronts meant to line Folsom have yet to take shape. It's more like a highrise suburb than part of the "central business district".

PS: I'm guessing 27 years is twice your lifetime so it does seem a long time.

The guy asked of rincon hill is a part of downtown now, not 27 years ago, dude (lol, coding? What the hell are you talking about?). You said no, which is wrong. It may not be full of office buildings, but it sure as hell is downtown.

And because you were wondering, i've been alive longer than 27 years (and spent 28 years living in SF), and know all about the history of SF's development, including rincon hill, which has been seeing new highrise construction for almost two decades at this point.

[pizzaguy]

Edit

[homebucket]

Let's get back on topic.

So anyone really care that the Lucas Museum is going to LA? I personally don't think it's much of a loss, aside from the loss of jobs from construction. I kind of like TI the way it is, an isolated tranquil foil to the urban jungle of SF. From what it sounds like, the area it's being built in in LA is going to benefit and grow much more from it than TI could have. We need to our precious, dwindling free space more wisely.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Let's get back on topic.

So anyone really care that the Lucas Museum is going to LA? I personally don't think it's much of a loss, aside from the loss of jobs from construction. I kind of like TI the way it is, an isolated tranquil foil to the urban jungle of SF. From what it sounds like, the area it's being built in in LA is going to benefit and grow much more from it than TI could have. We need to our precious, dwindling free space more wisely.

It would have been really cool on Treasure Island, just another attraction for the City.

[mt_climber13]

While they're at it, send the whole Lucas Digital Arts studio down there too. Cause f*** it!