HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

    

100 Folsom in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2018, 10:25 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 823
The curve on the West / left from this angle is really amazing and will only grow as the building grows.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 1:37 AM
SFBuildings888 SFBuildings888 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
The curve on the West / left from this angle is really amazing and will only grow as the building grows.

I know you like the look of it but it looks like a old fashioned 60s or 70s building that is antiquated. It also has a bad design overall. It is gonna be an eyesore when it is finished.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 2:28 AM
mizago mizago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBuildings888 View Post
I know you like the look of it but it looks like a old fashioned 60s or 70s building that is antiquated. It also has a bad design overall. It is gonna be an eyesore when it is finished.
Care to elaborate on "bad design overall"? I personally can't find any 60s or 70s buildings with this type facade. I predict this building will be a standout architectural landmark.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 2:36 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK View Post
Why can’t they just, like, keep going when they get to the top? Then it would be taller. Seems easy.
Because the can't just, like do any such thing. The like Planning Department, like told them the maximum height they would allow. Nothing is easy when it comes to building in San Francisco. Like nothing . . . ever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizago View Post
Care to elaborate on "bad design overall"? I personally can't find any 60s or 70s buildings with this type facade. I predict this building will be a standout architectural landmark.
Some people who play architecture critic here wouldn't know bad design if it fell on them in an earthquake. This building is intended to look like stacked blocks which means it has to have a solid (not glassy) appearance. But that's too subtle for some people. By the way, I predict you'll be right. I do acknowledge it would be more dramatic if it pushed above the 400 - 600 ft "table top" but the fact that there is unlikely to be anything between it and the bayfront blocking the view of it from the Bay somewhat makes up for that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 4:48 AM
AndrewK AndrewK is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Because the can't just, like do any such thing. The like Planning Department, like told them the maximum height they would allow. Nothing is easy when it comes to building in San Francisco. Like nothing . . . ever.
I guess I should have ended my post with /s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 9:53 PM
waterchicken waterchicken is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Marin County, California
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizago View Post
Care to elaborate on "bad design overall"? I personally can't find any 60s or 70s buildings with this type facade. I predict this building will be a standout architectural landmark.
I assume Negative Naysayer is attempting to infer the International Style; “.....rejection of all ornament and color, repetitive modular forms, and the use of flat surfaces, typically alternating with areas of glass."

Gang’s design doesn’t meet the accepted definition on an important point, flat surfaces. The twisting undulation of each successive level of 100 Folsom refutes the definition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2018, 11:00 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 130
I literally cannot comprehend thinking that THIS project is the one to single out for bad design especially compared to all the value engineered projects we get (although admittedly I've been super happy with all our towers recently, it's the mid-range infill where we can get some whack stuff). On a more pragmatic note, I also don't think we can judge anything, even the materials, on this one until its much closer to being topped out. This building is going to rely on sculptural movement and as such it doesn't make sense to claim it doesn't work until we see the whole structure.

Count me in as one who's loving this one so far!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 7:20 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 42
You've inadvertently made my point; a design that relies on a concept rather than a strong sense of proportion or materiality isn't automagically good architecture. I do agree that it's an interesting design and look forward to seeing it when it's complete.

I agree that that are some nicer projects in the works and recently completed, but SF really needs to identify some objective criteria for creating lasting architecture (both in terms of aesthetics but also material + structural). I'm so tired of hearing about bay windows and arguing about aluminum panels and glass color.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 10:28 PM
Sky's the Limit Sky's the Limit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK View Post
Why can’t they just, like, keep going when they get to the top? Then it would be taller. Seems easy.
One reason why it is not as easy as it may seem, is that all the engineering and design, particularly the foundation system and internal core, was developed specifically for a 400-foot tall structure. To just "keep going" would compromise all that.
Speaking of height, we are fortunate the SF Planning Commission allowed a 100-foot rise on a site literally a block from Bay waves. I didn't see that coming given the history of sensitivity about height at that location.
As far as the buildings' design, in my opinion it is amongst the most dynamic The City has ever seen, the genius of Jeanne Gang, frankly a building I did not expect to be built in SF, and as such a pleasant surprise, to me at least. On approach to SF on the Bay Bridge, it will be a spectacular "Welcome to San Francisco" image. (One Oceanwide Center will similarly be a dramatic presence on the skyline, another pleasant design surprise, but that's another discussion forum.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 10:42 PM
AndrewK AndrewK is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky's the Limit View Post
One reason why it is not as easy as it may seem, is that all the engineering and design, particularly the foundation system and internal core, was developed specifically for a 400-foot tall structure. To just "keep going" would compromise all that.
This is the problem with sarcasm on the internet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 10:49 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,812
For those who aren't familiar with it, Studio Gang's mega project in Chicago is a very exciting development:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...12182&page=251

https://www.vistatowerchicago.com

http://studiogang.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 10:50 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyMucho View Post
but SF really needs to identify some objective criteria for creating lasting architecture (both in terms of aesthetics but also material + structural).
I think exactly the opposite...if SF really wants great architecture, then they need to loosen their criteria, procedures, and design input from both the planning department and from neighbors. I think the bland projects stem from too strict of a process rather than too loose.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2018, 11:23 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 8,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWS View Post
I think exactly the opposite...if SF really wants great architecture, then they need to loosen their criteria, procedures, and design input from both the planning department and from neighbors. I think the bland projects stem from too strict of a process rather than too loose.
I think you're right. Required input from so many different directions naturally tends toward "lowest common denominator" mediocrity (not that I agree this project manifests that).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 7:21 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I think you're right. Required input from so many different directions naturally tends toward "lowest common denominator" mediocrity (not that I agree this project manifests that).
I also agree that is often the case in San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 7:22 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,185
The new materials are definitely not as high quality as what was proposed. But I guess that's the concession that must be made when including so much affordable housing on site.

Would a building like the beautiful Shell tower in downtown SF be able to be built today? I highly doubt it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 4:54 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWS View Post
I think exactly the opposite...if SF really wants great architecture, then they need to loosen their criteria, procedures, and design input from both the planning department and from neighbors. I think the bland projects stem from too strict of a process rather than too loose.
You have a point. Though, we don't have to search too hard to see what the result of open imaginations, few (if any) constraints and an asleep-at-the-wheel planning department looks like. London is becoming the epitome of what happens when you let architects shit out their wildest imaginations with the support of loose-cannon developers who care more about legacy than the cities themselves.

Constraints are necessary for successful design. It also doesn't have to mean having arbitrary sets of mandatory inclusions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2018, 5:47 PM
waterchicken waterchicken is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Marin County, California
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
For those who aren't familiar with it, Studio Gang's mega project in Chicago is a very exciting development:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...12182&page=251

https://www.vistatowerchicago.com

http://studiogang.com
Gang’s other "100" project in St. Louis is spectacular too.

At 385 feet it makes a strong argument that great design doesn’t need to be exceptionally tall too.

This building will transform St Louis' Central West End neighborhood significantly.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=226158

Last edited by waterchicken; Dec 5, 2018 at 8:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 1:37 AM
waterchicken waterchicken is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Marin County, California
Posts: 35
Some Podium shots:
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr

Folsom vantage:
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 2:52 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterchicken View Post
Nice angle!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2018, 8:52 AM
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 373
I can totally see a lot of people taking pictures here for their social media platforms.

... I definitely will
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 > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:13 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.