SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed - Page 47

SFView · #**921** Posted **Sep 5, 2007, 12:15 AM**

I think that making fireproof elevators a code requirement is a good idea IN ADDITION to the requirement of fire stairs. This would provide another alternative that could be helpful in an emergency more than 200 feet up when building access and egress routes can be compromised. Oxygen supply and independent power to such elevators might also be good ideas. Hopefully, depending on what finally gets adopted, these issues should not cause much, if any delay of any such high-rise projects moving forward.

tyler82 · #**922** Posted **Sep 5, 2007, 1:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

A long time ago I mentioned one important and hard-to-ignore group who might have "issues" about the upzoning of height limits was the SFFD. I got told they were just fine with it all. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now, but today came this from the Examiner:

Source: http://www.examiner.com/printa-91502...tool-print-top

OK, so, like, how would it be any different if a fire broke out in a 50 story building vs. an 80 story bldg? Both are pretty f-ing tall and deadly if anything went wrong. We've had 50 story buildings for quite some time now, and they are just bringing this up?

From your article:

The City is updating all of its fire codes to comply with state codes, which are updated every three years. The new California codes were published in July. California does not require elevators or an air supply system, but Kevin Reinerston, the supervising deputy state fire marshal, said such requirements may be part of future codes.

Does this mean we could have to wait another THREE years for anything tall to get built, since the ratification just happened in July?

HarryBarbierSRPD · #**923** Posted **Sep 5, 2007, 5:14 AM**

I'm sure nobody here saw the forgettable Robin Williams flick Bicentennial Man, however the one redeemable aspect to the film was its imaginative renderings of a futuristic San Francisco, one full of big, beautiful skyscrapers... Just imagine what our future might hold...

tyler82 · #**924** Posted **Sep 6, 2007, 2:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryBarbierSRPD

I'm sure nobody here saw the forgettable Robin Williams flick Bicentennial Man, however the one redeemable aspect to the film was its imaginative renderings of a futuristic San Francisco, one full of big, beautiful skyscrapers... Just imagine what our future might hold...

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/...ntennial25.jpg

Yuck !!! What a mess

BTinSF · #**925** Posted **Sep 6, 2007, 5:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

OK, so, like, how would it be any different if a fire broke out in a 50 story building vs. an 80 story bldg? Both are pretty f-ing tall and deadly if anything went wrong. We've had 50 story buildings for quite some time now, and they are just bringing this up?

From your article:

The City is updating all of its fire codes to comply with state codes, which are updated every three years. The new California codes were published in July. California does not require elevators or an air supply system, but Kevin Reinerston, the supervising deputy state fire marshal, said such requirements may be part of future codes.

Does this mean we could have to wait another THREE years for anything tall to get built, since the ratification just happened in July?

This is not any kind of deal-breaker. Any architect can easily deal with the specific issue by exceeding the code. But I do think firemen just shake their heads at tall buildings--the taller the more so. As we saw in the 9/11 event, it's hard for them even to get to the fire. IMHO it shouldn't stop us from building them, but it does suggest they should be over-designed and the fire code should be a starting point only.

BTinSF · #**926** Posted **Sep 6, 2007, 5:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

Yuck !!! What a mess

The movie or the skyline? I think the skyline's kind of interesting. I like crowns and spires on my skyscrapers. I hate flat tops--one reason I don't care for the BofA. These fictional buildings mostly have crowns, spires and sculptural tops.

northbay · #**927** Posted **Sep 6, 2007, 6:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

The movie or the skyline? I think the skyline's kind of interesting. I like crowns and spires on my skyscrapers. I hate flat tops--one reason I don't care for the BofA. These fictional buildings mostly have crowns, spires and sculptural tops.

^ im agreeing with tyler, its def a mess
the buildings are maybe ok, some of the not so bulky ones - but the arrangement is horrible. theres one skyscraper for every 5 blocks - no peaks and valleys or anything. the buildings look almost lonely

BTinSF · #**928** Posted **Sep 10, 2007, 11:59 PM**

"Building Green" supplement to the current SF Business Times has a rendering of "Foundry Square III" which would be the remaining lot on the southwest corner of 1st & Howard. Unlike the suggestion that has been put forward of a highrise on this lot, the design shown is consistent with the original plan and the other 3 Foundry Square buildings: a 9-story, 186,000 sq. ft building with 9000 sq. ft of street-level retail, advertised as "available mid-2009". The architect listed is Studios Architecture, the contractor is WebCor (who is currently doing Foundry Square I) and the owner/developer is Wilson Meany Sullivan.

HarryBarbierSRPD · #**929** Posted **Sep 11, 2007, 12:33 AM**

Only 10 more days until the official Transbay project winner is announced...

Reminiscence · #**930** Posted **Sep 11, 2007, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryBarbierSRPD

Only 10 more days until the official Transbay project winner is announced...

With the recent news, I'm actually scared of this date.

HarryBarbierSRPD · #**931** Posted **Sep 11, 2007, 3:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

With the recent news, I'm actually scared of this date.

Yeah, I'm hoping Pelli doesn't beat out SOM for all the wrong reasons...

tyler82 · #**932** Posted **Sep 11, 2007, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryBarbierSRPD

Yeah, I'm hoping Pelli doesn't beat out SOM for all the wrong reasons...

Well, it wouldn't be the wrong reasons, because their terminal works the best, which is what this project is all about. SOM really took a crap on themselves with that double deck bus design. Whoever thought of that should be fired and be forced to fetch Chris Daly's donuts until his recall election.

twinpeaks · #**933** Posted **Sep 11, 2007, 7:11 AM**

I think SOM terminal design is brilliant and innovative. It's thinking outside the box and created a grand space. Too bad the recommendation came down to money. Pelli's Team offered a lot more money than the other two teams. This is probably why they will win it.

peanut gallery · #**934** Posted **Sep 11, 2007, 6:11 PM**

Can you post that render, BT? I'd love to see it.

BTinSF · #**935** Posted **Sep 12, 2007, 12:11 AM**

Here's a rendering I don't think I've seen (and maybe you haven't either) of the new PUC building at 525 Golden Gate:

Source: http://www.greenbuild.com/projects/sfpuc.html

Demo on the old structure is supposed to start early in 2008, I believe, to be followed promptly by construction of the new building.

BTinSF · #**936** Posted **Sep 12, 2007, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Can you post that render, BT? I'd love to see it.

This??

Foundry Square III

Source: http://www.wmspartners.com/project_d...ry_name=Office

peanut gallery · #**937** Posted **Sep 12, 2007, 3:06 AM**

Yep, thanks. The other three each have a slightly different plaza out front and it looks like this one's unique aspect will be that it's right at sidewalk level. The other three are elevated to slightly different degrees.

Speaking of which, it's actually pretty interesting seeing the supporting structure of the plaza being built on FS I. Those trees require fairly sizable wells for the root system, but in the end there's just a small hole for the tree to grow up through. They are currently installing the bracing that will span the wide wells and support the plaza surface. It's much more involved than it appears from above when it's all done.

peanut gallery · #**938** Posted **Sep 12, 2007, 3:23 AM**

Some updated construction pix I took last week.

690 Mission. The overhangs are coming along.

I'm curious if they plan to close the gaps between each segment.

The Jewish Museum at Yerba Buena. I like where this is located. This part of the building sits along the pedestrian pathway between Mission and Market. In another location, I might think it's trying too hard to attract attention. But here, it's more of an interesting surprise as you walk through.

I'm really liking this color.

tyler82 · #**939** Posted **Sep 12, 2007, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Some updated construction pix I took last week.

690 Mission. The overhangs are coming along.

This is so eerie- it looks exactly like the rendering the Ritz gave us. That picture doesn't even look real ! Probably cause the building is so new and clean

peanut gallery · #**940** Posted **Sep 12, 2007, 8:49 PM**

Does anyone know what's slated for the recently-cleared lot in the 500 block of Harrison? It's pretty much right across from the One Rincon Hill sales office. It's not a huge lot, but I'm hopeful something interesting might go in there given the evolution going on around Rincon Hill. It looks ready to go.

Also, there is no demolition activity on the future site of The Californian. Aren't we now well past the time limit of the demo permit? If so, what does this mean for this project?