SAN FRANCISCO | Trinity Place | 240 FT / 73 M | 24 FLOORS

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

05/30/2016 - View from Howard & 9th Streets. The facing on III is almost complete. The SOMA Grand can be seen on the far right.

The Chevron gas station in the foreground has been repaired after a van burned at one of the gas pumps several months ago. The site is slated for a housing development.

Trinity Place I, II, III

Such a shame. Each building is different. Like they can't make up their minds about what to do. Of course partially the City's fault for not having the balls to enforce a coherent design.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by cv94117

Such a shame. Each building is different. Like they can't make up their minds about what to do. Of course partially the City's fault for not having the balls to enforce a coherent design.

I think they look better with some variation in practice. That otherwise would be a lot of homogeneity.

[david_h]

[Jerry of San Fran]

10/23/2016 - Here is a view of the plaza from Mission Street. A few things have happened recently:

1) The construction crane has been removed from the Phase III building
2) Soil has been put on the roof of Phase III
3) Trees delivered to the plaza bordered by Phase I, II and III
4) The steel box in the photo is apparently an elevator space

I am not a fan of the Venus sculpture. I would not want to rent an apartment with that "whirlwind" outside of my window. When the sun shines on it, it will be blinding.

url=https://flic.kr/p/N6w531][/url]Trinity Place Plaza

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

I am not a fan of the Venus sculpture. I would not want to rent an apartment with that "whirlwind" outside of my window. When the sun shines on it, it will be blinding.

I agree Jerry. That public art sculpture is extremely flashy and doesn't seem to fit the project well, not even as the buildings were originally designed.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I agree Jerry. That public art sculpture is extremely flashy and doesn't seem to fit the project well, not even as the buildings were originally designed.

Move her out to Sutro Heights where her swirls would make sense or maybe T.I.

[SFView]

What? They cut back on the architecture, but they kept the sculpture?!? The sculpture looks really looks overdressed at the wrong party, if you ask me. I think it was a waste of money keeping it. They should have used the money to improve back some of the architecture from the awful value engineering, or they could have just saved additional money by eliminating the inappropriate looking sculpture instead.

[tech12]

I think the sculpture looks pretty cool, even if it is a bit out of place.

[SFView]

I agree the sculpture actually does look cool. It sort of reminds me of hood ornaments on cars of the 30's, though it being so very much larger. I am a fan of cars as much skyscrapers, but this seems to be an odd mix, especially since the surrounding buildings look so relatively bland. I almost feel they should switch this with the concrete sculpture they have planned for Salesforce Tower.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by SFView

I agree the sculpture actually does look cool. It sort of reminds me of hood ornaments on cars of the 30's, though it being so very much larger. I am a fan of cars as much skyscrapers, but this seems to be an odd mix, especially since the surrounding buildings look so relatively bland. I almost feel they should switch this with the concrete sculpture they have planned for Salesforce Tower.

This is why I hate these discussions...because people dream up amazing things that are never going to happen!

[SFView]

Obviously, you're not taking me seriously...

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by SFView

Obviously, you're not taking me seriously...

I didn't take you seriously yet thought it was an interesting idea!

[SFView]

Yes, but it may be too silly to mention it, if it isn't at all possible.

[a very long weekend]

there was an article a couple months back, likely jk dineen in either the chron or sfbt, that mentioned how sangiacomo was originally incensed by the obligatory 1% art contribution but then really got into it. he was apparently super hands on in selecting both the artist and the design. anyway, if you know that guy's history, it's not all that surprising that he might have been indifferent about the building quality - so long as it was sufficient to meet the minimum threshold to get projected rends - and super into the idea of putting up a giant shiny statue.

and i actually really like the statue from the angles where you can't tell it has a face.

[Pedestrian]

Trinity Plaza: One of San Francisco’s largest downtown housing projects is set to open its third phase, 541 units at 1169 Market St., in 2017. A fourth phase with over 300 units will open by 2020. Mid-Market has seen the arrival of numerous tech companies, but this is the largest dose of housing.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...te-lennar.html

If they truly plan to have it open by 2020, I'd think they would have to get started this year or, at the latest, early next. Historically, they have proceeded to the next phase pretty promptly upon opening its predecessor.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SFView

What? They cut back on the architecture, but they kept the sculpture?!? The sculpture looks really looks overdressed at the wrong party, if you ask me. I think it was a waste of money keeping it. They should have used the money to improve back some of the architecture from the awful value engineering, or they could have just saved additional money by eliminating the inappropriate looking sculpture instead.

Public art is usually governed by law and Planning Code rules. I doubt they had much choice about spending the agreed amount of money on "public art". WHAT art was probably under their control but not the amount spent.

On the other hand, I personally like this piece a lot more than I like most of the art in other projects, at least as a stand alone objet d'art. We'll see how it fits the location when the location is complete.

[SFView]

^^^You're actually right about that. I used to deal with the SF Art Commission on some projects, but it's been a while. I almost forgot. There are certain amounts of money allocated for public art depending on the type of project constructed. I still wish they didn't have to value engineer the buildings though.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SFView

I still wish they didn't have to value engineer the buildings though.

I wish someone--we have at least one participant here who lives in the building I believe--would provide more frequent updates on this development as it may be the most significant and critical piece of the transformation of Mid-Market St.

What I specifically want to know is any news about the timeline for Phase 4, the critical piece that will front Market St. Others above have criticized the "value engineering" of, particularly, phases 2 and 3 which face Mission St. and 8th St., but with due respect, while I find that disappointing, I don't see it as critical. What is critical is Phase 4 and to re-emphasize the John King piece from now almost a year ago:

. . . the development team sought to water down everything that made the original scheme compelling.

The eight-story portal became a one-story passage beneath glassed-in corridors. An eye-catching void above Eighth and Market — as if a tall rectangle had been carved out below the roofline — was filled. Easier to build, no doubt, but a shift that would have completed the metamorphosis of Trinity Place into an all but walled-off compound, which may be what the owners would prefer.

Fortunately, the Planning Department refused to let the approved designs be diluted. And on Friday, Fort-Brescia met with planning staff to present a revision that, essentially, is 2006 all over again. The portal is back, as is the cantilever above the void. The storefronts along Market are more varied, and there’s room for a two-level grocery store that would connect to the concourse at the Civic Center BART Station . . . .

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/a...or-6845780.php

So when it does get built, we will still get a dramatic building it seems. And I am just crossing all extremities that that happens in this development cycle so that we don't have to live with a bare lot (or worse, a parking lot) on Market St. for 4 or 5 or 10 more years. That's why I really want news of progress.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Pedestrian, I don't have any more information on phase 4.

The exterior of the building is finished. As this is the view from my apartment I am quite happy that the mechanical equipment is for the most part well hidden. I have highlighted in yellow the mechanical rooms. They blend in with the architecture so that most people think that they are apartments when in fact they are not.

While I am disappointed that the original promise of the architecture was not executed I still like the buildings. It is a bit disturbing from my apartment view that there is so much mass. It would have been better if the buildings had more character to stand out from their neighbors.

Notice the garden on the roof of Phase III on the left.

When Phase IV commences I will start posting pictures again.

In the foreground is the former State of California Compensation Fund building which is now owned by Dolby. I love granite so I love this building. At sunset it turns a lovely pink color.

Trinity Place - March 20, 2017 by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

[Pedestrian]

Thanks.