HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3621  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 3:49 AM
jbm jbm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 128
i walk down that stretch of market at least 2-3 times a week and totally agree with your thoughts on locations in need of renovation, in particular the billiards hall and hibernia bank. my wife has always maintained that hibernia bank would make a great club. the last few weeks it has looked like they are doing some work, at least around the outside along the base, possibly shoring the foundation. there is another totally empty lot i think, on the south side of market, in front of the federal building, towards the middle of the block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3622  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 4:47 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1977 View Post
901 Market (at Fifth) was just sold to Hudson Pacific Properties and now 3 groups are vying for 935-965 Market aka the failed City Place retail development (below) by Urban Reality. It feels like mid-Market may have finally reached its tipping point. Fingers crossed!
It's good news that there are parties interested in developing the property. Hopefully the new plans for the place won't trigger another multi-year re-entitlement slog.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3623  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:03 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
It's good news that there are parties interested in developing the property. Hopefully the new plans for the place won't trigger another multi-year re-entitlement slog.
Indeed.

And here is another article about some of the current movement along Market:

http://news.theregistrysf.com/harves...market-street/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3624  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:16 AM
catwoman catwoman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: So. California
Posts: 9
Wink Awesome!

I so LOVE this building! Thanks for posting the pics, Peanut Gallery...I got some 'sploring to do in a few weeks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
The old Pacific Telephone Building (140 new Montgomery) has its first new tenant signed: Yelp! From SFGate:



This is one of my favorite buildings in the city and I am so glad it will come to life again.

Edit: Adding some photos of the building I took:









Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3625  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 6:24 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
some random shots of things in various stages of progress between Mission Bay and Market...

first, 178 Townsend is starting to wrap up. I'm not sure I like it as much as I did the rendering - seems like too much green glass, but maybe it'll grow on me. and I do like that the alley is a little livelier than it was. too bad they couldn't have done more, but I think there's a decent amount of car in-and-out.





sort of around the corner is 750 Second St, behind Momo's across from the ballpark. I'm liking it. from the south:



from the north:



333 Harrison doesn't look too different from the recent photo posted of it:



looking down (north-northwest along) Fremont from Harrison, there was equipment (inactive on Saturday) which seemed to have been doing a little prepping recently...



... and the two buildings that remained after all the others were cleared a couple of years ago had (new) demolition permit notices on them, so they may not be long for this world (the ones in the shadow of doom on the right). edit: maybe making room for 333 Fremont:



and the one I am excited about... as has been mentioned recently, equipment is starting to scratch the surface of the Foundry III site. will be nice to see another parking lot bite the dust, especially since those buildings look so slick. looking sort of east, from across Howard, with Foundry I in the background:



looking back the other way from the southeast corner:



and from the southwest corner (with II and IV in the background):


Last edited by timbad; May 16, 2012 at 6:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3626  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 4:55 PM
sahran sahran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 15
Good news for the Waterfront, 8 Washington EIR approved last night (8-3 decision)! Looks like it's a go with construction starting later this year

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ton_watch.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3627  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:14 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
Nice shots timbad. I'm especially excited to see that movement on Fremont street, at the site for the Californian and that other smaller tower down the block.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sahran View Post
Good news for the Waterfront, 8 Washington EIR approved last night (8-3 decision)! Looks like it's a go with construction starting later this year

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ton_watch.html
Yes! Take that, NIMBYs!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3628  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 5:27 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Thanks timbad! And I agree with tech12...it's great to see some life up on Rincon Hill. Keep 'em coming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3629  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 6:19 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
sort of around the corner is 750 Second St, behind Momo's across from the ballpark. I'm liking it. from the south:
Thanks for all the great pictures, timbad.

I agree on 750 2nd St. I thought that big, blank wall would be an eyesore, but it actually doesn't look that bad behind Momo's. I'm just worried that someone will try to put up an ugly billboard in that empty space.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3630  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 9:04 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
i wonder if 555 washington might come back to this board?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3631  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 9:22 PM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
Yes! Take that, NIMBYs!
not too familiar with this project or what went on with it, but looking at the project and its location i just find it insane that NIMBYs would be opposed to that project. Why would they prefer just having a surface parking lot over that project? No rational human being should ever think that way. It's insane.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3632  
Old Posted May 16, 2012, 9:53 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by migol24 View Post
not too familiar with this project or what went on with it, but looking at the project and its location i just find it insane that NIMBYs would be opposed to that project. Why would they prefer just having a surface parking lot over that project? No rational human being should ever think that way. It's insane.
It is insane, which is why it's so great that they didn't have their way. If I remember right, aside from increased traffic, they were actually concerned about the building being too tall....despite the fact that it's surrounded on three sides by much taller buildings. Others were concerned that we're adding more high-end housing instead of low income housing, which I can agree with; I think we need more cheap housing too...but not at the expense of this project or all other high end housing. And if we're going to be building high end housing too, like any normal city with high land values would, than 8 Washington is as good a spot as any to build it. There's no reason why that particular spot NEEDS to be low income housing over all else, especially given that it's in a very expensive and busy part of the city. And others want the area to become a park...even though there's already a park right next door.

The worst part is that the main opposition is from a group (the Telegraph Hill Dwellers) that doesn't even represent the area where this building is. And I suspect that at least some of the opposition was from people who just didn't want their tennis club to close.

edit: dear god, looks like the NIMBYs have now started an online petition to try and stop the project:

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/0...eader_comments

I dunno what kind of weight that would carry, if any, when/if they get all the signatures they're going for (10,000), but it's annoying that they won't just give it a rest. If people like them had their way, there would not be a single building in SF over 3 stories.

edit #2: that petition is older than i thought. And It's taken them a few weeks just to get 1,100 signatures, so I doubt they'll reach 10,000 any time soon.

Last edited by tech12; May 17, 2012 at 2:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3633  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 3:56 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Quote:
If people like them had their way, there would not be a single building in SF over 3 stories.
Honestly, if they had their way, a 3 story building wouldn't even make the cut.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3634  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 7:56 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
great photos!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3635  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 2:31 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 527
They want a smaller project with higher payments into affordable housing fund. In other words, they want it to be economically infeasible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3636  
Old Posted May 17, 2012, 7:37 PM
migol24 migol24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Francisco, Austin
Posts: 1,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
They want a smaller project with higher payments into affordable housing fund. In other words, they want it to be economically infeasible.
which all the more makes them even more insane, despite the fact that they might mean well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3637  
Old Posted May 21, 2012, 12:31 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Here are a couple of photos I took of the PT&T building on June 27, 2004.

[IMG]
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
[IMG]
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Building Roof & Mechanical Penthouse by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3638  
Old Posted May 21, 2012, 12:58 AM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 13,094
PT&T is the shit.
__________________
Check out the latest developments in Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Rundown III
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3639  
Old Posted May 21, 2012, 7:02 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Magnificent! And, a trend setter- that building had to have been the tallest in SOMA for many decades.

Here is a great photo I found that shows the building up against a rare site in SF- snow on the east bay hills:

Photo credit: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...torical-Photos
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3640  
Old Posted May 21, 2012, 5:55 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Wow, that's a lot of snow for the east bay hills. Great pic.

In other news...

Rincon Hill tower II is "weeks away" from groundbreaking!

From Socketsite:

Quote:
Construction is anticipated to start approximately June 1, 2012 and be completed in an estimated 26 months. The building design, unit size and unit mix can be summarized as a 50 story version of Phase I as displayed at the scale model located in the sales office.
For the floor plans and unit layouts, Phase II will combine the two adjacent small one bedroom units at the center of the building curve above floor 25 into one two bedroom unit. The number of two bedroom units will increase and the number of one bedroom units will correspondingly be reduced. Approximately 60% of Phase II unit plans are the same as Phase I.
Significant improvements in the Phase II building will include a 3,600 square foot exercise facility and a top floor 4,000 square foot penthouse "Sky Lounge." (As comparison, current Phase I amenities include a 750 square foot exercise room and an 1,100 square foot Party Room). All amenities, including the existing swimming pool and spa deck facilities, will be available to occupants of both towers.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2..._few_week.html

Quote:
The target date for pulling the Site Permit and to begin shoring is now June 11, 2012.
At full buildout:


Source: www.socketsite.com
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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