SAN FRANCISCO | Intercontinental Hotel | 340 FT / 104 M | 31 FLOORS - Page 2

Reminiscence · #21 Posted **Oct 19, 2006, 5:42 PM**

I dont know if I'd like too see them everywhere. I think it would be better to see them in certain areas (more areas than today of course). The Bay Area filled with skycrapers to the brim wouldnt really pose as the desireable area that we know today. But still ... way more room to build still.

Yay, I started a term on the forum ... umm, ok, I'll stop with that now

I proved nothing

AK47KC · #22 Posted **Oct 21, 2006, 3:01 AM**

It's too bad webcor hasn't updated webpage regarding the progress of this tower since July, or else there would have been some nice recent construction pictures of this project.

Old pic from July on Webcor:

Reminiscence · #23 Posted **Oct 21, 2006, 4:29 AM**

Well, unless they hit some sort of mishap, I think its safe to say that now its at least 4 times as tall as this.

AK47KC · #24 Posted **Oct 21, 2006, 4:45 AM**

Actually, no, the hotel when I last saw it in early-October was around level 5-7. Construction of the lower levels takes a long time since the first few floors are unusual, like the floors of the Millennium Tower. I don't think the crane has been raised yet also.

Reminiscence · #25 Posted **Oct 21, 2006, 4:54 AM**

Oh, I was under the impression that they had already passed the ground floor stages, I guess not. They still seem to be doing good progress.

AK47KC · #26 Posted **Oct 23, 2006, 1:56 AM**

I am thinking by now, the crane will be raised, since the elevator core was getting close to the boom of the crane the last time I saw the hotel.

BTinSF · #27 Posted **Oct 23, 2006, 3:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK47KC

^^^Me too, in fact, I wish San Francisco did turn into another Hong Kong with highrises everywhere and in both the East Bay and San Mateo County.

Hong Kongnization is constructing skyscrapers on mountains, such as the 827 ft. (252 m) Highcliff built ~200 m up a steep mountain. Manhattanization is just constructing skyscrapers on flat land, and Manhattanization would better describe this project.

It actually is SF planning policy, I believe, to put taller buildings on the higher terrain (e.g. Rincon Hill) so as to emphasize the city's hills. The feeling is that if they build tall stuff on the flatlands and lower on the hills, you get what we already have--a table-top effect--and that is viewed negatively. In that sense, then, Hong Kongization would seem to be city policy.

Reminiscence · #28 Posted **Oct 23, 2006, 3:21 AM**

Heh, that may or many not be good news for the nimbys in SF. Hills make the towers look even taller, but then again, they do actually emphasize the hills, which is always a good thing, especially in SF where we have many of them

AK47KC · #29 Posted **Oct 23, 2006, 11:09 PM**

^^^ Actually, I was thinking of like 12-20 story towers in the lowlands/flat plains spaced apart and on stepping it up on the hills, like 30-80 stories, so in other words, that is part Hong Kongnization and part Manhattanization. There would be no flat, unsightly plateau of skyscapers and besides, there is a trio of 61 story towers proposed on a hill in Hunter's Point called Harbor Village Resort or something like that.

San Frangelino · #30 Posted **Oct 24, 2006, 12:04 AM**

Quote:

It actually is SF planning policy, I believe, to put taller buildings on the higher terrain (e.g. Rincon Hill) so as to emphasize the city's hills. The feeling is that if they build tall stuff on the flatlands and lower on the hills, you get what we already have--a table-top effect--and that is viewed negatively. In that sense, then, Hong Kongization would seem to be city policy.

Now if only that could be applied to Potrero Hill....exactly east and south of the Potrero Hill Rec Center on the slopes where those sprawling housing tracts now stand.

Reminiscence · #31 Posted **Oct 24, 2006, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Actually, I was thinking of like 12-20 story towers in the lowlands/flat plains spaced apart and on stepping it up on the hills, like 30-80 stories, so in other words, that is part Hong Kongnization and part Manhattanization. There would be no flat, unsightly plateau of skyscapers and besides, there is a trio of 61 story towers proposed on a hill in Hunter's Point called Harbor Village Resort or something like that.

Actually, I slightly remember that project. I just heard of it once and then it seemed to have dissapeared from radar. Is it still on, or has it been scraped?

AK47KC · #32 Posted **Oct 24, 2006, 5:58 PM**

It has probably been scrapped, since I first saw it on www.sfcityscape.com in the highrise list and the new skyline. It is not there anymore, but here, in the SF rundown of all the projects, its still there. I think the Hunter's Point area still has a long way to go before it can turn into something like a south downtown of San Francisco. They still have to demolish the aging Hunter Point Power Plant and fix up the neighborhood in all aspects. Wait like 10-20 years for the neighborhood to improve and for development to run down the eastern shore of San Francisco, then maybe you will see towers pop up if the developers go for it.

Reminiscence · #33 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 2:25 AM**

Yeah, I knew it was too good to be true. I was wondering why they were going to build such tall towers so far away from the highrise core of SF. Once they do clean up that area though, it should be prime real estate for another highrise center.

AK47KC · #34 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 3:22 AM**

I guess we have to wait until a Muni Metro line is built into the heart of Hunter's Point and see if that will spur development of the area. I think I saw in one part of sfcityscape.com that mentioned something about a new metro line to Hunter's Point if SF was going to build a downtown south.

Reminiscence · #35 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 5:03 AM**

Great news, this means this project might be completed after all.

Target date for completion: 2050 !

AK47KC · #36 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 6:06 PM**

^Yea, that describes how fast transportation projects really go around here in SF. The T-Third Street Light Rail line would have opened a long time ago if it weren't for all the delays, now, there is still about half a year to go until they open in April 2007.

Reminiscence · #37 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 7:59 PM**

Well, we've waited years, so April 2007 should feel like tommorow.

AK47KC · #38 Posted **Oct 26, 2006, 6:49 PM**

I think MUNI said they will open the line in January 2007 for something other than seven day revenue service (April 2007). I think it was like weekend service or something, but I forgot.

Reminiscence · #39 Posted **Oct 26, 2006, 6:57 PM**

Hmm, well, we'll see what happens. I've been so busy anticipating other places like Rincon Hill and Transbay that I seem to have forgoten MUNI, heh.

AK47KC · #40 Posted **Oct 29, 2006, 1:48 AM**

I went by the site and the crane has not been raised yet. The project is moving very slowly, but they seem to have gotten past the unusual levels to the standard levels, so the project will speed up from now on.