HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

    

Oceanwide Center in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 24, 2013, 3:41 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
The plans have been tweaked (no more mini third tower, no more hotel and entertainment space), and resubmitted to planning:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...g_up.html#more







I'm kind of glad the old building at the corner of Mission and first will be kept, rather than replacing it with a short 184' tower. That tiny old 3 story building won't be all alone anymore. The juxtaposition of old low/midrises right next to modern skyscrapers is gonna be really cool if these towers get built, so the more old buildings that get kept on that block, the better, IMO.


oh no way

This is my favorite proposal for SF, tied with 181 Fremont.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 2:20 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,229
I'm having a hard time picturing what these towers would like like on the skyline. But supper stoked by the possibility. Is this the same site of Piano's defunct "bamboo shoots" proposal?

Last edited by ozone; May 25, 2013 at 2:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 2:55 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Is this the same site of Piano's defunct "bamboo shoots" proposal?
Yep, it's the same site. The 900' tower is at least, I don't think the site of the 600' tower was included in the Piano proposal though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 3:01 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,184
This is the site of the proposed 1200 ft. tall twin Piano towers from 2006 (now dead, obviously).
I can not wait for actual renders on this one. Planning is looking for something landmark, so I think they are gonna be really really good, to say the least. These towers, Transbay, 181 Fremont, and Millennium Tower are going to make this high rise skyline world class, finally. All of these massive refrigerator boxes will still be impressive in density but will fade to back. The SF skyline is painful to look at from most angles because of the tabletop and gapped tooth effect. In 5 years the downtown skyline is going to be very Honk Kong esque.

Regarding the "historic" building on Mission and 1st, I don't find that building worthy of preserving at all, there is nothing charming about it, especially on the inside (I've been inside when I did casting work with Beau Bonneau), it has been so chopped up and plastered over. Maybe if they really renovate it, give it some new ornaments, new awnings, it will look good. But for now I'd rather it be torn down.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 3:39 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
These towers, Transbay, 181 Fremont, and Millennium Tower are going to make this high rise skyline world class, finally.
Don't forget the site on Howard street on the other side of the transbay terminal, that's zoned for 750'. I wonder when we'll finally see a proposal for that. That highrise cluster around the Transbay terminal is going to be pretty impressive. There's already impressive highrise density on the north side of it, but that part of the skyline is gonna get significantly bigger, taller, and prettier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 6:35 AM
hruski hruski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
This is the site of the proposed 1200 ft. tall twin Piano towers from 2006 (now dead, obviously).
I can not wait for actual renders on this one. Planning is looking for something landmark, so I think they are gonna be really really good, to say the least. These towers, Transbay, 181 Fremont, and Millennium Tower are going to make this high rise skyline world class, finally. All of these massive refrigerator boxes will still be impressive in density but will fade to back. The SF skyline is painful to look at from most angles because of the tabletop and gapped tooth effect. In 5 years the downtown skyline is going to be very Honk Kong esque.

Regarding the "historic" building on Mission and 1st, I don't find that building worthy of preserving at all, there is nothing charming about it, especially on the inside (I've been inside when I did casting work with Beau Bonneau), it has been so chopped up and plastered over. Maybe if they really renovate it, give it some new ornaments, new awnings, it will look good. But for now I'd rather it be torn down.
If this is zoned for 1200FT then why is Planning recommending the max height not be above 850? Doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 6:56 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 8,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post




I'm kind of glad the old building at the corner of Mission and first will be kept, rather than replacing it with a short 184' tower. That tiny old 3 story building won't be all alone anymore. The juxtaposition of old low/midrises right next to modern skyscrapers is gonna be really cool if these towers get built, so the more old buildings that get kept on that block, the better, IMO.
Count me as one who's glad to see the old buildings staying too. They're still moderately dense and having that great architecture of old next to the newer glass curtain walls will make for quite an interesting streetscape.
__________________
Rubicon Brewing Co. 1987 - 2017
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 12:17 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by hruski View Post
If this is zoned for 1200FT then why is Planning recommending the max height not be above 850? Doesn't make sense.
It's not zoned for 1200'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 6:00 PM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
All of these massive refrigerator boxes will still be impressive in density but will fade to back. The SF skyline is painful to look at from most angles because of the tabletop and gapped tooth effect. In 5 years the downtown skyline is going to be very Honk Kong esque.
I beg to differ. With the new projects going up over the next few years, your have high rises in the 400-500 range creating a flat tabletop effect with the existing buildings and with the TB Tower and 50 First street, it will look like two candle sticks on top of the table.

As for "Hong Kong" esque, not even close. I travel to HK often and will actually be there next week. The only connection to HK is pelli's TB Tower is almost an exact copy of his IFC Tower in HK.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 6:14 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskythelimit View Post
I beg to differ. With the new projects going up over the next few years, your have high rises in the 400-500 range creating a flat tabletop effect with the existing buildings and with the TB Tower and 50 First street, it will look like two candle sticks on top of the table.
If all of these taller towers get built, then it won't really look like that though. If just Transbay gets built, then I agree that it would look awkward with the much taller tower sticking out of a bunch of shorter ones. But with a 900', 800' and 750' tower to go along with it, plus the existing Transamerica and bank of america towers on the other side of downtown, not to mention one Rincon hill, which appears to be 750' because of the hill it's on...well, I think it it'll look pretty balanced from most angles. I think the skyline could use some taller towers along market street though, around Yerba Buena gardens and civic center, but the city seems determined to keep the height limit in those areas around 400-500 feet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theskythelimit View Post
The only connection to HK is pelli's TB Tower is almost an exact copy of his IFC Tower in HK.
Not really. The only similarities are the overall shape and color of the towers. Aside from that they look different. Different cladding, different crowns, different heights, and the IFC tower has setbacks unlike the Transbay tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 10:18 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskythelimit View Post
I beg to differ. With the new projects going up over the next few years, your have high rises in the 400-500 range creating a flat tabletop effect with the existing buildings and with the TB Tower and 50 First street, it will look like two candle sticks on top of the table.

As for "Hong Kong" esque, not even close. I travel to HK often and will actually be there next week. The only connection to HK is pelli's TB Tower is almost an exact copy of his IFC Tower in HK.
I find similarities in Honk Kong with the Transbay tower and 181 Fremont, which look like the IFC and Bank of China towers.

And tech12 is correct, all the towers planned to be built within the next 5 years are clustered close and taller than the 600' height limit tabletop SF imposed (Transbay, 50 1st, 181 Fremont, Millennium, Howard and 1st). We have not seen any renders of the skyline with all of these towers proposed. I think you will change your mind that it will look like candlesticks. And One Rincon, a few blocks away, is quite tall as well, especially because of the hill compared to Soma and financial district, which sit at sea level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 10:35 PM
easy as pie's Avatar
easy as pie easy as pie is offline
testify
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 94109
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
I find similarities in Honk Kong with the Transbay tower and 181 Fremont, which look like the IFC and Bank of China towers.
yeah, i was going to mention 181 fremont's flagrant boc tower emulation when someone dared to defend heller/manus in another thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 10:44 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by easy as pie View Post
yeah, i was going to mention 181 fremont's flagrant boc tower emulation when someone dared to defend heller/manus in another thread.


Would you be speaking of me by any chance? Heller Manus has obviously designed tons of shitty buildings. But regardless of whether 181 Fremont is similar to the bank of China tower or not, it's a nice design. That's something most people seem to agree on, from responses I've read to the renderings. Meaning, maybe they don't suck quite as much as they used to, and maybe we should reserve judgement of their next design until we actually see a rendering of it. I wasn't defending all their shitty work they've done previously, but was simply giving them the benefit of the doubt based on their most recent design, which is MUCH nicer than anything else I've ever seen from them. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Last edited by tech12; May 25, 2013 at 10:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 12:04 AM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
I find similarities in Honk Kong with the Transbay tower and 181 Fremont, which look like the IFC and Bank of China towers.

And tech12 is correct, all the towers planned to be built within the next 5 years are clustered close and taller than the 600' height limit tabletop SF imposed (Transbay, 50 1st, 181 Fremont, Millennium, Howard and 1st). We have not seen any renders of the skyline with all of these towers proposed. I think you will change your mind that it will look like candlesticks. And One Rincon, a few blocks away, is quite tall as well, especially because of the hill compared to Soma and financial district, which sit at sea level.

In that sense, I agree. The Buildings you mention will replicate, to some extent, HK. I was thinking the density and dramatic makeup HK has to offer. Both do have a striking Bay/harbor.

Ricon Hill still looks all lone out there but will have a few neighbors soon. I was always surprised they got approval for Ricon as they are somewhat outside the Soma core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 1:03 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,184
I don't know if any of you were aware but there has been a diagram of this building up for some time now in SF's diagram page: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?cityID=114

(second to left, next to Transbay)




This image also shows how these new proposals will break out of the tabletop.
Thinking about how much 555 Cal sticks out like a thumb, imagine having 5 high rises of it's size or taller on the skyline and how much that will improve the overall bulk and height.

Last edited by mt_climber13; May 26, 2013 at 3:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 3:06 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
I still don't understand why SSP's diagram pretends 1 EC is taller than One Rincon.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 5:28 PM
cv94117 cv94117 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post


Would you be speaking of me by any chance? Heller Manus has obviously designed tons of shitty buildings. But regardless of whether 181 Fremont is similar to the bank of China tower or not, it's a nice design. That's something most people seem to agree on, from responses I've read to the renderings. Meaning, maybe they don't suck quite as much as they used to, and maybe we should reserve judgement of their next design until we actually see a rendering of it. I wasn't defending all their shitty work they've done previously, but was simply giving them the benefit of the doubt based on their most recent design, which is MUCH nicer than anything else I've ever seen from them. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Unfortunately, if you want to reserve judgement, you'd better wait for the finished product, not the rendering. Renderings can be very deceiving. That's why I'm skeptical of 181 Fremont knowing H/M's track record. One of the reasons developers hire H/M is because they're cheap and can rush things through planning with their connections. If the developer sticks with them through execution, you'll likely see something far inferior to the rendering - unless they're smart enough like Tishman with the Infinity towers and their new neighbors, to hire another firm to tweak the final design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 8:06 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by cv94117 View Post
That's why I'm skeptical of 181 Fremont knowing H/M's track record. One of the reasons developers hire H/M is because they're cheap and can rush things through planning with their connections. If the developer sticks with them through execution, you'll likely see something far inferior to the rendering - unless they're smart enough like Tishman with the Infinity towers and their new neighbors, to hire another firm to tweak the final design.
Crescent City did the same thing with Heller Manus' design for their NEMA project, as did the previous developer of 535 Mission. HM also designed The Hayes, a condo project at Hayes and Gough from the previous construction round, which I've never liked. With that having been said, I really like the renders for 181 Fremont and only hope the tower turns out as good or better, and the sooner the better too! It will definitely puncture the existing skyline, especially from the Bay Bridge view.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 8:13 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
I still don't understand why SSP's diagram pretends 1 EC is taller than One Rincon.
They're counting the flagpole on top of One Embarcadero, which is ridiculous and not abiding by established standards. EC One is supposedly one foot shorter than EC Four--both are definitely shorter than One Rincon Hill.

I noticed that they did the same thing for 545 California, counting the flagpoles atop the spires for a height of 720'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 8:20 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
Thinking about how much 555 Cal sticks out like a thumb, imagine having 5 high rises of it's size or taller on the skyline and how much that will improve the overall bulk and height.
To me, the main reasons 555 California is so prominent are because of its massive bulk/width, and it's dark Carnelian Granite color. In addition, it's at an approximate 44' elevation on the base of Nob Hill, causing it to appear on the skyline at about 823'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:58 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.