HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


    45 Lansing in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #361  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2014, 8:12 AM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
     
     
  #362  
Old Posted Nov 3, 2014, 5:55 AM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
Not much of an update:







It's definitely cracked 30 floors. But it's still a crawler.
     
     
  #363  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2014, 10:15 PM
Smashing Alligator Smashing Alligator is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 24
12/13/2014


     
     
  #364  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2014, 10:50 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
     
     
  #365  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2015, 2:42 AM
jordanekay jordanekay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1
Looks like this is topped out as of today, can anyone confirm?
     
     
  #366  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2015, 8:41 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordanekay View Post
Looks like this is topped out as of today, can anyone confirm?
I count 39 floors. I believe the original plan was for 39 floors, so thus I think aside from the "crown"/slanted decorative top, we can assume this is topped off.

It would appear ~40 floors is the "SF limit" at this point, including 706 Mission, which is now only proposed to be 43 floors down from 51 and later down from 47 (if I recall).

Still, a clumping of 40+ story residential towers is quite tall and this area now looms as cavernous to pedestrians. Has a somewhat NYC vibe, thinking Midtown West where there is a clump of 40-60 story towers and not the same sidewalk crowds as further into Midtown.
     
     
  #367  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2015, 8:18 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...2010.1044X.pdf

Pgs 44-47

Definitely 39 floors. 77' to top of podium structure (not podium parking obviously, just where the subtle setback occurs) and 400' to SF's definition of roofline, which is the slab above the top occupied floor. Of course this is just from one elevation. As with many SF buildings, we'll never know the exact full height and this will forever just be reported as 400', however, clearly the roof adds another ~20' and depending on the elevation, for instance from the west at Essex St, another 5-10+'.

Quote:
Proposed Modifications to Project
The modified project is essentially the same as the 45 Lansing Street project described in the Rincon Hill
FEW. The project would entail construction of a 39 story, 400 foot-tall building containing up to 320
residential units. Assessor Block 3749 is subdivided by Guy Place and Lansing Street, which demarcates a
residential enclave, and by Essex Street, which provides access to a Bay Bridge on-ramp.
The proposed 432,000-square-foot building would have up to five levels of below-grade valet or
mechanized parking containing up to 265 spaces, with access only via mechanical lifts (elevators). There
would be no independently-accessible parking spaces, but there would be a drop-off area for disabled
motorists on the first level of the garage. The project would comply with the Planning Code’s Downtown
Residential District bicycle parking requirements, which require 25 spaces for the first 50 units, plus one
space for each additional four units, for a total of 93 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project would
provide 93 spaces. The building’s pedestrian entrance would be located along Lansing Street and the
garage entrance and loading dock would be located along Harrison Street.
The building, a tower-on-podium design, would have a reinforced concrete frame constructed on a mat
foundation and would require excavation to a depth of approximately 65 feet, and would occupy the
entire 15,025 square-foot lot. Along the Lansing Street frontage, the tower would be set back 20 feet at a
height of approximately 40 feet and an additional 10 feet (30 feet total) at a height of 60 feet. The
Harrison Street frontage would have a five-foot setback at a height of approximately 77 feet. The ground
floor of the building would contain the residential lobby, three studio units, each with an individual
entrance, accessible from Lansing Street, the vehicular entrance to the parking garage (accessed from
Harrison Street), mechanical and electrical space, and a freight loading dock accessed from
Harrison Street measuring 12 feet in width, 25 feet in length, and 20 feet high. The building would
include a mix of residential units comprised of about 60 percent studios and one-bedroom units, and
about 40 percent two-bedroom units, consistent with the Rincon Hill Plan housing policies. Moreover,
the project would comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
The project site is within the 65/400-R height and bulk district (400-foot height limit, limitations on bulk
above 85 feet in height). The modified project would comply with the height limit. The bulk controls
would limit the plan dimensions of the building to a maximum of 115 feet (horizontal) and 140 feet
(diagonal) and an average floor area for all tower floors (above 85 feet) of 10,000 square feet. With an
average tower floor plate area of approximately 9,600 sf or less, the modified project would comply with
the bulk controls. The modified project would also continue to comply with the R1-I-DTR District’s tower
separation requirement of 115 feet above a height of 85 feet. The modified project would provide
27,079 sf of open space, meeting the Code requirement to provide 75 sf of open space per unit, through a
combination of on-site private open space (e.g., balconies) and open space improvements to Lansing
Street.
As compared to the project addressed in the 2006 Memorandum, the modified project would have more
units (320 vs. 305) and fewer parking spaces (265 vs. 280) and one fewer level. Compared to the approved
project, the modified project would have more units (320 vs. 227) and more parking spaces (265 vs. 227)
and one fewer residential level. For the modified project there would be essentially no change to the
height or other exterior building dimensions as compared to either the 2006 Memorandum Project or the
approved project. (The elimination of one level in the modified project would be accommodated by
increasing the floor-to-ceiling heights of the remaining levels by a few inches.)
Figures 2 through 7 depict several floor plans and all four elevations of the modified project.


Edit: Pgs 115-122 clearly show an official height from a portion of x elevation of 430'5". Definitely up to another 5+' higher from various elevations given the hills. Probably a 30-50' variance just to the end of the block where this building will for all intents and purposes be somewhere between 460'-480' from nearby same block vantage points.
     
     
  #368  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2015, 12:47 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287


     
     
  #369  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2015, 11:48 PM
cmak cmak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: SF
Posts: 41
canyon of white+green blue

     
     
  #370  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2015, 2:53 AM
boyinthecity's Avatar
boyinthecity boyinthecity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: san francisco
Posts: 100
has anyone noticed the core?

Has anyone noticed the location of the core on this one?

IMHO, the east (bay) facing side of the building is okay.
But for those of us in the rest of the city, we are looking at the core
of the building on the west side. It strikes me as the uninspired "back".

Who are the folks in the planning dept that should be scrutinizing these buildings? I mean, we are going to be looking at this for decades to come.
Personally, I think there should be a higher architectural standard--than crappy slip/form construction.
     
     
  #371  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2015, 7:01 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by boyinthecity View Post
Has anyone noticed the location of the core on this one? IMHO, the east (bay) facing side of the building is okay.
But for those of us in the rest of the city, we are looking at the core
of the building on the west side. It strikes me as the uninspired "back". Who are the folks in the planning dept that should be scrutinizing these buildings? I mean, we are going to be looking at this for decades to come.
Personally, I think there should be a higher architectural standard--than crappy slip/form construction.
I agree. I've never liked this building from the planning stages in comparison with the others on the hill. "Jasper" is cheap looking and will only give those opposed to the building boom some partially justifyable ammunition. It joins a long list of mediocre (or worse) buildings of all types in San Francisco.

Last edited by viewguysf; Mar 2, 2015 at 5:19 AM.
     
     
  #372  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2015, 1:32 AM
boyinthecity's Avatar
boyinthecity boyinthecity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: san francisco
Posts: 100
you're totally correct. the city deserves better--architecture.
     
     
  #373  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2015, 7:44 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Jasper is getting its crown while the bottom is becoming more exposed.

[IMG]IMG_4736 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_4762 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_4763 by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
     
     
  #374  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2015, 7:40 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,454
3/15/15

since last week, the crown looks more complete and the facade is all the way to the top. I suspect this crane will be coming down within a couple weeks.


IMG_7830 by simms3sf, on Flickr


IMG_7837 by simms3sf, on Flickr
     
     
  #375  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2015, 11:22 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
from yesterday for comparison:

     
     
  #376  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2015, 7:34 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Jasper. What a dopey name. Sadly, it's fitting.

It looks mediocre from its best sides:




And downright awful from its worst:


At least it meets the street nicely in front (not sure how the Harrison side looks):

__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
     
     
  #377  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2015, 7:49 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
This is by far the cheapest-looking tower out of the new crop of SF skyscrapers. Its prominent site makes it all the worse. Dreadful.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
     
     
  #378  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2015, 3:23 AM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 965
I know this is a crazy unpopular sentiment, but I think it will look better when finished. The top 5%, including the angled top, helps offset the ugly middle 90%. There is also the likelihood that this will not always be so prominent from the West. The podium will have some green walls.
__________________
San Francisco Projects List ∞ The city that knows how ∞ 2017 ∞ 884,363 ∞ ~2030 ∞ 1,000,000
San Francisco Projects ThreadOakland Projects ThreadOceanwide Center - 275M/901'
     
     
  #379  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2015, 3:52 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
I know this is a crazy unpopular sentiment, but I think it will look better when finished. The top 5%, including the angled top, helps offset the ugly middle 90%. There is also the likelihood that this will not always be so prominent from the West. The podium will have some green walls.
angled top?

edit: aha, it's much less noticeable than with 375 Fremont or Lumina, but I see what you are talking about. I hadnt looked at the rendering in a while.

Last edited by timbad; Apr 17, 2015 at 4:49 AM.
     
     
  #380  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2015, 7:46 PM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 451
Have they released any floorplans for this yet? Im just trying to figure out why they had to add all those vertical white bands on the west side.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.