SAN FRANCISCO | 100 Folsom St. | 400+ FT / 121+ M | 40 floors

[fimiak]

The curve on the West / left from this angle is really amazing and will only grow as the building grows.

[SFBuildings888]

Originally Posted by fimiak

The curve on the West / left from this angle is really amazing and will only grow as the building grows.

I know you like the look of it but it looks like a old fashioned 60s or 70s building that is antiquated. It also has a bad design overall. It is gonna be an eyesore when it is finished.

[mizago]

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

I know you like the look of it but it looks like a old fashioned 60s or 70s building that is antiquated. It also has a bad design overall. It is gonna be an eyesore when it is finished.

Care to elaborate on "bad design overall"? I personally can't find any 60s or 70s buildings with this type facade. I predict this building will be a standout architectural landmark.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by AndrewK

Why can’t they just, like, keep going when they get to the top? Then it would be taller. Seems easy.

Because the can't just, like do any such thing. The like Planning Department, like told them the maximum height they would allow. Nothing is easy when it comes to building in San Francisco. Like nothing . . . ever.

Originally Posted by mizago

Care to elaborate on "bad design overall"? I personally can't find any 60s or 70s buildings with this type facade. I predict this building will be a standout architectural landmark.

Some people who play architecture critic here wouldn't know bad design if it fell on them in an earthquake. This building is intended to look like stacked blocks which means it has to have a solid (not glassy) appearance. But that's too subtle for some people. By the way, I predict you'll be right. I do acknowledge it would be more dramatic if it pushed above the 400 - 600 ft "table top" but the fact that there is unlikely to be anything between it and the bayfront blocking the view of it from the Bay somewhat makes up for that.

[AndrewK]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Because the can't just, like do any such thing. The like Planning Department, like told them the maximum height they would allow. Nothing is easy when it comes to building in San Francisco. Like nothing . . . ever.

I guess I should have ended my post with /s

[waterchicken]

Originally Posted by mizago

Care to elaborate on "bad design overall"? I personally can't find any 60s or 70s buildings with this type facade. I predict this building will be a standout architectural landmark.

I assume Negative Naysayer is attempting to infer the International Style; “.....rejection of all ornament and color, repetitive modular forms, and the use of flat surfaces, typically alternating with areas of glass."

Gang’s design doesn’t meet the accepted definition on an important point, flat surfaces. The twisting undulation of each successive level of 100 Folsom refutes the definition.

[JWS]

I literally cannot comprehend thinking that THIS project is the one to single out for bad design especially compared to all the value engineered projects we get (although admittedly I've been super happy with all our towers recently, it's the mid-range infill where we can get some whack stuff). On a more pragmatic note, I also don't think we can judge anything, even the materials, on this one until its much closer to being topped out. This building is going to rely on sculptural movement and as such it doesn't make sense to claim it doesn't work until we see the whole structure.

Count me in as one who's loving this one so far!

[BobbyMucho]

You've inadvertently made my point; a design that relies on a concept rather than a strong sense of proportion or materiality isn't automagically good architecture. I do agree that it's an interesting design and look forward to seeing it when it's complete.

I agree that that are some nicer projects in the works and recently completed, but SF really needs to identify some objective criteria for creating lasting architecture (both in terms of aesthetics but also material + structural). I'm so tired of hearing about bay windows and arguing about aluminum panels and glass color.

[Sky's the Limit]

Originally Posted by AndrewK

Why can’t they just, like, keep going when they get to the top? Then it would be taller. Seems easy.

One reason why it is not as easy as it may seem, is that all the engineering and design, particularly the foundation system and internal core, was developed specifically for a 400-foot tall structure. To just "keep going" would compromise all that.
Speaking of height, we are fortunate the SF Planning Commission allowed a 100-foot rise on a site literally a block from Bay waves. I didn't see that coming given the history of sensitivity about height at that location.
As far as the buildings' design, in my opinion it is amongst the most dynamic The City has ever seen, the genius of Jeanne Gang, frankly a building I did not expect to be built in SF, and as such a pleasant surprise, to me at least. On approach to SF on the Bay Bridge, it will be a spectacular "Welcome to San Francisco" image. (One Oceanwide Center will similarly be a dramatic presence on the skyline, another pleasant design surprise, but that's another discussion forum.)

[AndrewK]

Originally Posted by Sky's the Limit

One reason why it is not as easy as it may seem, is that all the engineering and design, particularly the foundation system and internal core, was developed specifically for a 400-foot tall structure. To just "keep going" would compromise all that.

This is the problem with sarcasm on the internet.

[viewguysf]

For those who aren't familiar with it, Studio Gang's mega project in Chicago is a very exciting development:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...12182&page=251

https://www.vistatowerchicago.com

http://studiogang.com

[JWS]

Originally Posted by BobbyMucho

but SF really needs to identify some objective criteria for creating lasting architecture (both in terms of aesthetics but also material + structural).

I think exactly the opposite...if SF really wants great architecture, then they need to loosen their criteria, procedures, and design input from both the planning department and from neighbors. I think the bland projects stem from too strict of a process rather than too loose.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JWS

I think exactly the opposite...if SF really wants great architecture, then they need to loosen their criteria, procedures, and design input from both the planning department and from neighbors. I think the bland projects stem from too strict of a process rather than too loose.

I think you're right. Required input from so many different directions naturally tends toward "lowest common denominator" mediocrity (not that I agree this project manifests that).

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I think you're right. Required input from so many different directions naturally tends toward "lowest common denominator" mediocrity (not that I agree this project manifests that).

I also agree that is often the case in San Francisco.

[mt_climber13]

The new materials are definitely not as high quality as what was proposed. But I guess that's the concession that must be made when including so much affordable housing on site.

Would a building like the beautiful Shell tower in downtown SF be able to be built today? I highly doubt it.

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by JWS

I think exactly the opposite...if SF really wants great architecture, then they need to loosen their criteria, procedures, and design input from both the planning department and from neighbors. I think the bland projects stem from too strict of a process rather than too loose.

You have a point. Though, we don't have to search too hard to see what the result of open imaginations, few (if any) constraints and an asleep-at-the-wheel planning department looks like. London is becoming the epitome of what happens when you let architects shit out their wildest imaginations with the support of loose-cannon developers who care more about legacy than the cities themselves.

Constraints are necessary for successful design. It also doesn't have to mean having arbitrary sets of mandatory inclusions.

[waterchicken]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

For those who aren't familiar with it, Studio Gang's mega project in Chicago is a very exciting development:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...12182&page=251

https://www.vistatowerchicago.com

http://studiogang.com

Gang’s other "100" project in St. Louis is spectacular too.

At 385 feet it makes a strong argument that great design doesn’t need to be exceptionally tall too.

This building will transform St Louis' Central West End neighborhood significantly.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=226158

[waterchicken]

Some Podium shots:
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr

Folsom vantage:
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by waterchicken

City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr

Nice angle!

[gillynova]

I can totally see a lot of people taking pictures here for their social media platforms.

... I definitely will