SAN FRANCISCO | 301 Mission Street | 645 FT / 197 M | 60 FLOORS - Page 19

fflint · #**361** Posted **Mar 30, 2007, 9:55 PM**

Emporis, sfcityscape, and SSP all list it at 58 stories.

viewguysf · #**362** Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Took a close look today. There are now two floors of glass above the gray grillwork. With two floors, it's more obvious than in the pics that the glass behind the thick perimeter columns looks much more opaque than the rest. This is not apparent in the renderings.

I certainly don't want to be disappointed with another one of our latest prominent new buildings and was holding out hope that this one would be the cream of the crop. If indeed the Millennium Tower doesn't look like its renderings either is this cause for alarm by what we can see so far?

I generally try to have positive viewpoints and I don't want the string of architectural disappointments to continue! This is especially true since:
[/LIST]The Ritz-Carlton Residences is totally plebeian on top, particularly without the roof line overhangs shown in the original renderings. The Intercontinental is looking like some version of a joke from another city's the past with all of that white "plastic" that was not at all apparent in the renderings.[LIST]

The SOMA Grand looks just OK from most angles except from the new Federal Building plaza where it looks terrible and out of place next to such an architectural statement.

Can't we get it right in San Francisco?

viewguysf · #**363** Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 3:11 AM**

I obviously can't get the bullet points right!

pseudolus · #**364** Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 5:49 AM**

-Anyway, it made me think of the panels on the CSAA building at 150 Van Ness. Opaque panels cover the masonry, with clearer panels at the windows. I couldn't find a picture after the ca. 1960 remodel, but here's one from before:

http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/s...s/AAC-6560.jpg

Also added to the curtainwall at 301 Mission in the last few days (after the pics above were taken) are perpendicular whites fins a few inches wide. Looking at the renderings before, I assumed that this was some sort of shading effect, but no, they're actual fins and they apparently will move from right to left as the building goes higher.

P.S. I still dislike the grill work 2nd floor.

mthd · #**365** Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 8:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I certainly don't want to be disappointed with another one of our latest prominent new buildings and was holding out hope that this one would be the cream of the crop. If indeed the Millennium Tower doesn't look like its renderings either is this cause for alarm by what we can see so far?

take a look at the four seasons. same firm, same designer. totally excessive use of vertical spandrel glass. millenium will be much better because it's massing is less ridiculous, but seeing the predominance of the spandrels suggest millenium is going to look nothing like the latest rendering, which is really quite nice. it's going to look like a big gridded blue box.

i had some hope for this one too, but no more. the stripes belong in vegas. i think the cream of the current crop is going to be 555 mission. i believe KPF still knows how to do a good curtain wall.

briankendall · #**366** Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 10:49 AM**

FFlint: Emporis is notoriously behind the times. We all know that. I have tried for a year with a stream of emails to get them to change One Rincon Hill to no avail. It finally took a Chronicle article to get it changed here even though proof was presented from the SF DBI. Emporis still lists One Rincon Hill as being 54 stories. So is everything listed in Emporis, SFCityScape absolutely right and constantly updated? Absolutely not.

Why would the WWW.MILLENNIUMTOWERSF.COM website lie? What possible motivation would there be for the towers' marketing group to lie to the public? How would lying to the public further their marketing cause? It wouldn't. They are trying to sell condos thus they are extremely motivated to provide facts especially about the towers number of stories. For example, if I was a potential buyer and I called or contacted the towers marketing group and mentioned that I was interested in a 60th floor penthouse and they said "well actually we're lying there is no 60th floor?" Does that really make sense that they would do that? The towers own website says its 60 stories. I mean what more proof can any of the moderators here possibly need?

I would certainly believe the towers own website over Emporis, and other sites.

EastBayHardCore · #**367** Posted **Mar 31, 2007, 7:39 PM**

What a shame about that AAA building on Van Ness.

SFObserver · #**368** Posted **Apr 2, 2007, 6:17 PM**

Here are some shots from today emphasizing those fins.
The first two are the west side (Fremont St), the shady side in the morning.
Sorry about those Muni power lines that always seem to get in the way.

The next three are of the east side in the morning sun.
So far there are no fins on the north or south sides.

The opaque panels sure stand out in the direct sun light.

tyler82 · #**369** Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 12:38 AM**

So far I have no idea what it's going to look like. I don't see those stripes in the rendering.

BTW What's with the white??

rocketman_95046 · #**370** Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 12:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

So far I have no idea what it's going to look like. I don't see those stripes in the rendering.

BTW What's with the white??

Everyone is thinking this will look bad based on two floors???

but if we are judging based on two floors,,,personally i think it looks good. SF needs something that will stand out a bit.

as for being misled about the rendering... the architects website shows alot of "white" in more than one rendering.

http://www.handelarchitects.com

tyler82 · #**371** Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 1:24 AM**

Uhhh, no. I said I have no idea what it's going to look like. Opening the possibility of good or bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

Everyone is thinking this will look bad based on two floors???

BTinSF · #**372** Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 1:29 AM**

rocketman, those renderings explain a lot. Thanks for posting them. Now I can see what's going on.

And I think it surely is going to stand out.

Oh, and might as well post the third look at the architect's site. In some ways it's the best of all:

One thing I still don't understand: At least at the top, the building certainly doesn't look rectangular, though it does at the base and what's constructed so far is. Is it somehow going to flare out into those wing-looking structures? Anyone have an idea whether that polygonal look at the top is real or some kind of illusion of the renderings and whether, if real, the corners of the building are going to flare away from the vertical soon?

tyler82 · #**373** Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 2:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

as for being misled about the rendering... the architects website shows alot of "white" in more than one rendering.

http://www.handelarchitects.com

This image also shows the horizontal stripes on the rectangular box part as white, and in the photos other users displayed they are clearly grey.

rocketman_95046 · #**374** Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 2:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

Uhhh, no. I said I have no idea what it's going to look like. Opening the possibility of good or bad.

Yea,, sorry for singling you out. I was trying to comment on the general tone of the resent posts not really yours in particular.

mthd · #**375** Posted **Apr 3, 2007, 3:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

One thing I still don't understand: At least at the top, the building certainly doesn't look rectangular, though it does at the base and what's constructed so far is. Is it somehow going to flare out into those wing-looking structures? Anyone have an idea whether that polygonal look at the top is real or some kind of illusion of the renderings and whether, if real, the corners of the building are going to flare away from the vertical soon?

it's definitely 'rectangular' in plan all the way up to the top. there aren't any non-vertical pieces. the tops of the curtain walls are sloped in elevation.

the inner mechanical shroud appears to be the only portion which is 'diagonal' in plan.

Reminiscence · #**376** Posted **Apr 4, 2007, 4:51 AM**

April's approximate progress:

The_Analyst · #**377** Posted **Apr 4, 2007, 8:11 PM**

I drove by on Monday and was also a little disappointed with the glass vs. blue panels. Either the opaque blue panels are too blue or the glass windows are not tinted enough. Either way, in person the variance between window and panel is very pronounced. Much more so than the renderings. It may turn out to be an interesting pattern, though, so I'll wait until more floors are glassed in before I make up my mind.

ATLksuGUY · #**378** Posted **Apr 4, 2007, 10:39 PM**

Probably a dumb question. What kind of earthquake proofing regulations are required to be met to build taller buildings like this one in SF?

tyler82 · #**379** Posted **Apr 5, 2007, 4:51 AM**

I am really liking the dark borders around the glass (sorry, I don't know all the technical terms), it kind of reminds me of 560 Mission, one of my favorites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFObserver

The opaque panels sure stand out in the direct sun light.

Reminiscence · #**380** Posted **Apr 5, 2007, 5:19 AM**

^^^

So am I. I think we need to wait a little while for some more floors of glass to be installed before we can clearly say whether it resembles the rendering or not. Either way, I think its shaping up to be one slick glass tower. I'd like one of the moderately tall towers that will be built closeby (Transbay Plan) to have that clear reflective glass we're finding on Trump Tower Chicago. I like the way the glass reflects the sky, giving it a sort of mood. They'd look great with the fog.