HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2401  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2009, 4:15 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
OK, but why hasn't anyone seemed to care about any of the history of this building in all this time? It has just sat there vacant and boarded up for years. Further, if it is decided to preserve it for historical reasons, then what? Will it be turned into a museum? Used as a labor hall again? If so, where is the proposal and, more importantly, the money to pay for it?

Even though this building has almost zero architectural value, I'd love to see it preserved for historical reasons if it could be done in a way that improves on what it is today. However, it is far more likely that Hines' proposal will be blocked and it will continue to sit there being an empty ugly nothing for as long as I can envision.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2402  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2009, 4:21 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Can LEED Platinum buildings have {{gasp}} parking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
For bikes
Yes. LEED credits can be awared by including at least half of the parking spaces undergound, within a building, or under a roof or deck. An extra point can be given if 100% of the parking is under cover. Other LEED credits can be awarded for providing parking for low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles for at least 3% of the full-time estimated building occupants, or 5% of the total parking; alternative-fuel refueling stations for at least 3% of the parking; preferred parking for carpools or vanpools for 5% of the estimated full-time building occupants; and/or bike racks for at least 5% of the estimated amount of building peak users for commercial or institutional buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2403  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2009, 4:28 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post

Even though this building has almost zero architectural value, I'd love to see it preserved for historical reasons if it could be done in a way that improves on what it is today. However, it is far more likely that Hines' proposal will be blocked and it will continue to sit there being an empty ugly nothing for as long as I can envision.
Turn it into a museum of the strike (and which "preservationist" wants to pay for that?) or let Hines have it. San Francisco is full of old buildings in which interesting things happened. But interesting events don't make an interesting building if the building itself has already been extensively altered or is allowed to deteriorate or sit abandoned.

I'm calling this for what it is. A scam to block development . . . any excuse will do. Put a plaque out front like the other historical plaques along the Embarcadero. But you can't shrink wrap 1930s (or 1900s or 1840s) San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2404  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2009, 4:42 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
OK, but why hasn't anyone seemed to care about any of the history of this building in all this time? It has just sat there vacant and boarded up for years. Further, if it is decided to preserve it for historical reasons, then what? Will it be turned into a museum? Used as a labor hall again? If so, where is the proposal and, more importantly, the money to pay for it?

Even though this building has almost zero architectural value, I'd love to see it preserved for historical reasons if it could be done in a way that improves on what it is today. However, it is far more likely that Hines' proposal will be blocked and it will continue to sit there being an empty ugly nothing for as long as I can envision.
By nature, preservationists will find anything possible to support their cause. Personally, I agree that the proposed building will have much more architectural value and interest than the building that it would replace. Furthermore, with another similar height building already at the south end of the block, the proposed building should not be as out of place in height as some claim. Perhaps, some sort of museum can be placed in the new building as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2405  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2009, 6:26 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
I was walking down 3rd St last week and passed a building where I noticed a plaque commemorating the place where Jack London was born (hadn't noticed the plaque before). The building that he was born in was long gone, but the plaque was big, metal, had several sentences about the importance of the site, and caused several people who were clearly tourists to stop and read it. I can't see any reason why something exactly like this plaque couldn't be sufficient to commemorate the history of the union hall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2406  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2009, 10:11 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
http://www.saitowitz.com/portfolio.html
Natoma architects has come interesting new projects listed at their website.
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2407  
Old Posted Sep 2, 2009, 8:49 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Remember that John King article awhile back suggesting temporary developments on entitled lots that aren't going to get built anytime soon? Well, there's an actual proposal for one that the mayor's office is behind. From CurbedSF today:

Quote:


Whoa: Hayes Green Lots Getting Juiced With Temporary Retail
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
by Andy J. Wang


Perhaps fed up with the forever empty lots that sit where the Central Freeway used to stand, the Mayor's Office has dialed up architecture firm envelope Architecture+Design to put together temporary structures on Octavia fronting the Hayes Green. The mixed-use project, which encompasses retail, food, galleries, and gardens, is collectively called "proxy," and is kind of a long-term pop-up retail idea— two to three years goes the thinking. In the meantime, the urban fabric is restored "through a combination of frame, fabric, mesh, wall and volume," all eco-friendly and local and sustainable no doubt. Note also the same firm (which participated in Slow Food Nation not so long ago) has a mixed-use live/work project also on Octavia, though its readiness is also no doubt subject to the big bad economy, just as the Hayes Green lots are. So when does "The Sound of Music" screen?
More renderings at the link. The Sound of Music reference is related to one of them.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2408  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 7:00 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Hope Yet for Rincon Hill's 201 Folsom St


Super old rendering of 201 Folsom, seen here with Infinity design pre-Arquitectonica intervention, via SF New Developments

A pretty old project, 201 Folsom St, is coming out of the woodwork today to get its construction entitlement extended. The project, not unlike much of Rincon Hill in its modern heyday, consists of two residential towers, 350 and 400 feet above an 80-foot podium. It'll have a total of up to 725 units, plus commercial space below. 'Course, it was no small feat that developer Tishman Speyer was able to finish and top off its second tower at the Infinity (see: One Rincon Hill)— and as their reps themselves said, it'll be a good several years before another comparable project will come to market. At least. So it should be no surprise that the neighboring block to the west should be seeking a little bit of a break. Let's see if they'll get it, terms intact, as neighborhood peeps speak out against what they see as parking space overload and "special" zoning. So then, what to do about this empty lot?
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments

I'll take this project seriously again when I see a redesign a la Infinity. We all know they aren't going to build the thing pictured above looking like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2409  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 7:05 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Glass and Steel Land on Historic Brick in South Beach

A slightly bigger 178 Townsend was approved yesterday for the former warehousey area near AT&T Park. The building, developed by Martin Building and designed by Ian Birchall and Associates Architecture, consists of a new six-story building "inserted" within the footprint of an existing brick one, should fit right in with its surrounding (88 Townsend just down the street does exactly the same thing). One planning commissioner did express reservations with the design (largely unchanged from what you see above), saying it represents little more than a facade-ectomy of the current building. Still, it got the thumbs up, with promises to finesse — "model and modulate" — the look a bit more. Some bullet points: 62 feet, 94 units (14 below market-rate), 45 at-grade parking spaces, all-rental, LEED Gold, a day care center, and a "premier retail area" on the ground floor somewhere. The high proportion of affordable units and all-rental approach are designed to grease the tax-credit cogs. Savvy, they are.


Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0..._beach.php?o=1

I like some facadism--including this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2410  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 7:36 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
I think that would look awesome.

201 Folsom will likely be the parking lot it is for quite awhile. Don't you think we're more likely to see ORH2 or maybe even 45 Lansing before Infinity's cousin?
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2411  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 8:02 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
I think that would look awesome.

201 Folsom will likely be the parking lot it is for quite awhile. Don't you think we're more likely to see ORH2 or maybe even 45 Lansing before Infinity's cousin?
I could see 201 Folsom go rental. If that were the case, it may happen earlier than the other two.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2412  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2009, 8:09 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Good point! It's worked in Mission Bay.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2413  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 5:36 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
201 Folsom: Three More Years To Contemplate And Start Construction



Tishman Speyer has been granted a 3 year extension to start construction on two approved residential towers of “350 and 400 feet above an 80-foot podium, with up to 725 dwelling units, 750 off-street parking spaces, 38,000 square feet of commercial space, and 272 replacement off-street parking spaces for the adjacent USPS facility” at 201 Folsom.

And yes, the placeholder rendering above is rather old.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2..._start_co.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2414  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2009, 5:54 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Extra S.F. skyscrapers a mixed blessing
John King Chronicle Urban Design Critic
Sunday, September 6, 2009

If all had gone according to plan, construction cranes still would hover above San Francisco, erecting towers where no towers had gone before.

Instead, for the next few years we'll be contemplating a much different scene: a life-size reminder that skylines are like cities - they grow in fits and starts, and never according to plan.

Viewed from this perspective, San Francisco's four newest and tallest condominium towers aren't simply shafts that scrape the sky. They're cultural markers showing us how downtown is intended to grow - up and out, glassy and sleek. That's the vision of planners and politicians who in the early years of this decade loosened city zoning to allow as many as 15 residential high-rises to emerge from the long-neglected blocks between the Bay Bridge and the Financial District.

What we also see, unfortunately, is the challenge of architecture writ large - the difficulty of getting things right both on the ground and in the air, and the complexity of trying to shift a city's scale without bending it out of shape.

One rincon stands out

The most visible newcomer is 590-foot One Rincon, set atop the summit of Rincon Hill alongside the Bay Bridge. The Millennium Tower at Mission and Fremont streets is taller still at 645 feet, though less prominent, given its location on the edge of the Financial District.



By comparison, the largest completed complex is modest: the Infinity, a pair of 371- and 421-foot high-rises shaped like suave clovers in aqua-green glass, set one block inland from the Embarcadero on Folsom Street.



The Infinity offers the fullest sense of what the future might hold for the Rincon Hill and Transbay neighborhoods mapped out by planners in the early years of the decade.

The two clovers - accented by zipper-like processions of balconies - seem to levitate above eight-story bases framed by boxy steel bays. The base forms a solid wall along Folsom Street, lightened by a tall ground floor that will house a restaurant, but it pulls open on Main and Spear streets to allow pedestrians to stroll through a flowing plaza of futurist cool designed by San Francisco's Hargreaves Associates.

The plaza has two levels linked by a black-granite wall that's terraced to allow easy seating, cut by skylights that illuminate a health club below. Metal benches curve around steep vine-shrouded hillocks.

Contemporary chic

Most definitely this is not Herb Caen's San Francisco, and the air of contemporary chic is sure to put off many longtime San Franciscans. But the Infinity ties into its surroundings with a genuinely inviting urbanity, albeit global and glassy in feel.

The problem with the Infinity is that it doesn't know when to stop.

Don't blame the buildings; the development team of Union Property Capital and Tishman Speyer Properties, abetted by Heller Manus Architects, persuaded the city in 2003 to bend neighborhood zoning and allow two towers 82 feet apart. The Rincon Hill plan approved the next year requires 115 feet of separation, as well as towers that are more slender than this pair.

The real-life impact? From many angles the clovers blur into a wall. Two sinuous forms become one broad slab.

And that's exactly what shouldn't occur near the water, in a part of town low-slung until now. This is tacitly acknowledged by Bernardo Fort-Brescia, whose firm Arquitectonica updated the original Heller Manus towers, softening edges and trading glass for concrete.

"I wanted to make the sky flow around the buildings," says Fort-Brescia. "I was trying to strive for less mass."

Missing a twin tower

One Rincon has a different quandary: one tower too few.

The approved project includes the completed tower, now perched in slender isolation at the end of First Street with freeway ramps on two sides and the bridge on the third. Facing west the tower has a bowed form, the verticality emphasized by an elongated aluminum grid; the east-facing facade is flat and nearly all glass. At the Fremont and Harrison corner of the site, an empty lot awaits a 540-foot twin that will be set at a diagonal from its predecessor and, being downhill, will appear 10 stories shorter.

Each of the buildings will soar above anything else allowed in the Rincon Hill district. But here, unlike the Infinity, a developer didn't lobby to bend the rules. Just the opposite: Urban West Associates submitted a design by architecture firm Solomon Cordwell Buenz for towers of 330 and 280 feet. It was city planners who recommended the boost, taking their cue from San Francisco's long-established urban design goal of using buildings to reinforce the topography.

The extra height on Folsom Street, in essence, led to extra height at the top of Rincon Hill.

When (if?) the economy improves and the aesthetic composition is completed, One Rincon won't seem so visually disruptive or out of place. In the meantime, we're left with a rail-thin spike that has been likened to a tall air purifier - a comment snarky but apt.

Compared with One Rincon or the Infinity, Millennium Tower's path was clear. It's at a corner reserved since 1985 for a high-rise; across the street, the new Transbay Terminal is to be accompanied by a skyscraper as high as 1,000 feet.



Here bravado makes sense, and Handel Architects fashioned San Francisco's most sculptural thrust since the Transamerica Pyramid. Clad in milky blue glass, the Millennium is an upward slice with the northeast and southwest corners notched back to make the tower fold in on itself, culminating in a crystalline crown.

Another optical illusion comes from the aluminum fins that ascend the facade in two diagonal strokes. Viewed straight on they disappear, making the Millennium seem all glass; elsewhere they're as emphatic as a lightning bolt.

Deal trumps design

As skyscraper art this is all good fun - a jolt of drama in a transition zone with too many dull boxes. But the ground-level experience is hobbled by another peril facing projects this size: The deal takes precedence over design.

The complex approved in 2003 was an ambitious mix. Developer Millennium Partners intended for the lower floors to contain a hotel and the upper ones condominiums, while an 11-story annex to the east would hold offices. The different populations would meet in a sky-lit atrium on Mission with a staircase leading to an open-air plaza, both spaces open to the public.

But big deals need big loans, and what finally opened this spring is a conventional package of 491 condominiums that start on the third floor. The hotel didn't pencil out. The "offices" instead are high-ceilinged flats.

The atrium remains - but with no reason for anyone to go inside, it's a cul-de-sac rather than a crossroads.

Another change: Because the entire tower is residential, the second floor is dedicated to mechanical systems hidden behind a metal grill, horizontal and tight.

The issue here isn't that the windowless grill presses down on the ground-floor retail space, a clumsy counterpart to the tower's lithe skyline presence; design details go astray in every building. But when a structure is this large - filling a block along Mission Street - any flaw is magnified.

That's true of all three projects, and all the residential high-rises yet to come.

In districts where several buildings jostle each other on each block, missteps are fine. They become part of the urban mix; the collision of layers is part of the appeal.

But when every newcomer aspires to icon status, there's less room for error. Towers need to command the skyline, they need to enliven the street and they need to know their place.

That's not an easy balancing act, but it's the bar that planners, developers and architects should strive for.

Especially here.

San Francisco isn't like other cities, where the ravages of urban renewal and suburban flight have hollowed the landscape. Even those cities that have staged a comeback often remain terrains you navigate by car, not on foot. Towers sit atop exposed garages or behind parking lots.

But San Francisco, for all its shortcomings, remains a city to be savored step by step, moment by moment. Neighborhoods are defined by their street life. The best ones are richly textured, with visual surprises and unexpected twists. They're places where you want to be, whether you live there or not.

New buildings and districts can add another rich layer to the experience. But we need to keep our standards high. Because with buildings this large, the stakes are high as well.

One Rincon

Address: 425 First St.

The basics: 60 stories, 376 condominiums, no retail or public space. An additional 52-story tower is planned.

Architect: Solomon Cordwell Buenz

Engineer: Magnusson Klemencic Associates

Skybit: The completed tower in 2008 was selected as one of the world's 28 best new high-rises by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

Millennium tower

Address: 301 Mission St.

The basics: 60 stories, 419 condominiums, Michael Mina's RN74 wine bar and a small public atrium.

Architect: Handel Architects

Engineer: Desimone Consulting Engineers

Skybit: At 645 feet, this is the tallest residential tower west of Chicago. It is the only one of the three projects fully designed by San Francisco architects.

The infinity

Address: 338 Spear St.

The basics: 35 and 40 stories, 650 condominiums, a large public plaza. A restaurant by Boulevard's Nancy Oakes opens next year.

Architect: Arquitectonica with Heller-Manus Architects

Engineer: Magnusson Klemencic Associates

Skybit: One of Arquitectonica's early towers, the Atlantis, appears in the opening credits of "Miami Vice."

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...CMAM196MDM.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2415  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 1:05 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
ORH is taller than 590'. Isn't it just a little shorter than Millennium? And what's up with the colors in the Chronicle's photos? Millennium is pretty close but the other two are way off.

King's right about his Millennium critique. The street level experience is not great (although it would be fair to wait for retail to move in to make a final judgement of that) and the public atrium is pointless. I walk past it everyday and no one is ever in it. It leads to nowhere and there is nothing in there to draw people to itself so it goes unused.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2416  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2009, 7:24 AM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 451
pretty sure the official height of orh is 641.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2417  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2009, 7:49 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
I'm posting this photo here because I love it so much and nobody ever looks at the "Completed Buildings" section:


Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...on_update.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2418  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2009, 11:17 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
I loved seeing that on SccketSite too. It's one of the last renderings before they actually built the thing. I just realized they ended up doing the crown slightly differently. The finished crown is the same height all the way around, whereas this had it step down on the southwestern corner.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2419  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 8:46 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
The hole at the corner of Golden Gate & Polk where the SFPUC building will hopefully start going up soon is getting pretty deep--looks to me about 3 stories--and they appear to be leveling off the bottom as if it isn't going any deeper. I took these last Sunday when nobody was working (but I didn't get around to posting them until now):





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2420  
Old Posted Sep 13, 2009, 11:39 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
It seems I was right. They've dumped some gravel on that ramp of dirt going into the pit to stabilize it and they've taken away all the heavy equipment. So I guess the excavation is over.

I previously posted the reporting that the Board of Supes approved construction of the new building, but I'm guessing that means at least a few months delay while they bid out the contracts, order materials and so on. During that period, I guess we'll have just a hole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:02 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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