SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed - Page 78

hi123 · #**1541** Posted **May 22, 2008, 11:29 PM**

Why are they closing the union square store though? Did it do badly profit wise?

viewguysf · #**1542** Posted **May 23, 2008, 3:29 AM**

Not to be overly picky, but there's a proper thread for this discussion:

San Francisco's Retail Scene
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=93891&page=46

Jerry of San Fran · #**1543** Posted **May 23, 2008, 7:07 AM**

Fox Plaza - It is my understading that the Fox Plaza main building is split by ownership by two entities. The apartment section, floors 14-29, is part of the Archstone empire. The office section is owned by another company, floors 1-12. The Archstone company was recently sold to a group and I think they want to unload the Fox Plaza as it does not fit in their portfolio.

peanut gallery · #**1544** Posted **May 23, 2008, 3:54 PM**

Did anyone pick up on this change to 1285 Sutter? According to CurbedSF, this was approved and will include a Trader Joes.

Unfortunately, the design has changed. As you'll recall it was this:

But now looks like this:

The design on its own isn't horrible, but the most interesting feature of the old design is gone. Now it's just very normal. Very disappointing.

MarkSFCA · #**1545** Posted **May 23, 2008, 4:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Did anyone pick up on this change to 1285 Sutter? According to CurbedSF, this was approved and will include a Trader Joes.

Unfortunately, the design has changed. As you'll recall it was this:

But now looks like this:

The design on its own isn't horrible, but the most interesting feature of the old design is gone. Now it's just very normal. Very disappointing.

I agree, the first design was a lot more interesting, the new one is very normal looking. (it looks a lot like Symphoney Towers) On the plus side, I live near here so I am very excited that a Trader Joe's is coming tothe neighborhood and hopefully be a catalyst for more retail and condos in this area.

SFView · #**1546** Posted **May 23, 2008, 4:55 PM**

Like the Argenta, the new design looks more San Francisco.

peanut gallery · #**1547** Posted **May 23, 2008, 8:13 PM**

^^^Sad that that's not a compliment.

peanut gallery · #**1548** Posted **May 23, 2008, 8:18 PM**

Speaking of Argenta, I got a close-up look today. It looked to me like most of what is still covered is glass. I'll post a couple of photos and more descriptions of what I saw later. Overall, I'm encouraged that once uncovered it will look better than it does now. Still not like the rendering, but better than I've feared anyway.

Reminiscence · #**1549** Posted **May 24, 2008, 4:38 AM**

I agree. I like the old design much better. The buildings curved façade is what called my attention. The new design just looks ordinary now, which is dissapointing. At least with Trader Joe's its not a total loss.

peanut gallery · #**1550** Posted **May 24, 2008, 5:04 AM**

Here's one of the shots I took today. Dave and BT already posted enough detail shots to see what it looks like so far, but I wanted to show it with a little more of its environment since a few folks have mentioned that criterion for judging it.

I also wanted to show this to point out a couple of things. Right on the corner (the section that has the Swinerton sign on it) is a big curved glass section, like the smaller vertical section to the left. Only it doesn't appear to have balconies at the top nor the seam down the middle. Also, the covered section to the right is another section just like the one I referenced over on the left. That side of the building is much smaller, so that glass feature pretty much covers that whole face. Thus, I'm fairly confident that most of what is covered is glass, which will help this building tremendously. I can't be sure because I could only see so far up under the burqa (makes me sound like a pervert, I know). But what I could see was lots of glass.

peanut gallery · #**1551** Posted **May 24, 2008, 5:09 AM**

Almost forgot to add a couple of shots of the Mercy Housing project just down the street from Argenta. This is the northeast corner of Mission and 10th:

I like this curved feature on the front of the building:

I'm not sure about the colors, which you can see in the rendering on the sign and one of BT's posts a couple of pages back, but I do like the shape.

Jerry of San Fran · #**1552** Posted **May 24, 2008, 5:15 AM**

Peanut Gallery - the 1285 Sutter now looks almost exactly like several other boring buildings on Van Ness Ave. The trend is not good! A box of cookies.

Jerry of San Fran · #**1553** Posted **May 24, 2008, 5:19 AM**

Peanut Gallery - Nice pics of the Argenta. I saw the north face of it today and am please with what is being revealed.

northbay · #**1554** Posted **May 24, 2008, 1:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

I can't be sure because I could only see so far up under the burqa (makes me sound like a pervert, I know). But what I could see was lots of glass.

thanks for the laugh and the detective work

o yea, and whos surprised about 1285 sutter? sf is the king of value engineering

JAC6 · #**1555** Posted **May 27, 2008, 4:18 AM**

It was overcast today, but I stopped on the way to work to take a picture of the current skyline. Sorry for the extra-wide photo. I started working downtown in 1998, so since that time at least the following structures/complexes/etc. in the picture are new: AT&T Park, UCSF Mission Bay, Millennium Tower, One Rincon Hill, 555 Mission, the Infinity, the JP MorganChase Building, 199 Fremont, the W Hotel, and others I'm surely forgetting (even though I cheated with Emporius). And you can't even see the Four Seasons or the Federal Building or Foundry Square or the renovated Ferry Building in this photo.

It has been an active 10 years, such that the entire South of Market area near where I work area has completely changed, and changed for the better.

peanut gallery · #**1556** Posted **May 28, 2008, 4:18 PM**

Cool view, JAC. My favorite perspective on downtown is from the south.

BTinSF · #**1557** Posted **May 29, 2008, 6:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

I hate the Planning Department's insistence on the 40' streetwall/120' setback formula on Van Ness, of which this appears to be yet another example. Booooring!

BTinSF · #**1558** Posted **May 29, 2008, 6:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

I wanted to show it with a little more of its environment since a few folks have mentioned that criterion for judging it.

In its environment, it looks stunted to me. I'll never understand why they built it about half the height of the buildings on either side of it. Seems like just another missed opportunity to maximize the value of a piece of property (and get twice as much needed housing).

nequidnimis · #**1559** Posted **May 29, 2008, 7:01 AM**

Actually, the previous design also met the 40' streetwall/120' setback formula on Van Ness. The Planning Commission asked for a redesign because it did not have a setback on Sutter, which affected the so-called view corridor along Sutter. Also they wanted more two bedroom units than the developer originally proposed. I am sure he was actually glad to comply since these can sell for more. What's wrong with the revised design is its repetitiveness, and lack of articulation at the top.

nequidnimis · #**1560** Posted **May 29, 2008, 7:19 AM**

The Argenta and 1285 Siutter are deja vu:

(Image courtesy of ChicagoEye on flickr)