HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive


    Oceanwide Center I in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2010, 8:40 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
Thumbs up SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors | ON HOLD

A Trio Of SOM Towers At 50 First Street As Proposed

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments







via: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments
Quote:
The project site, comprising seven parcels, and portions of Elim Alley and Jessie Street, is approximately 56,860 square feet in size. All lots are within Block 3708 and include 50 First Street, 62 First Street, 76‐78 First Street, 88 First Street, 512 Mission Street, 516 Mission Street, and 526 Mission Street; the three parcels with addresses on Mission Street are currently vacant.

The three proposed towers would accommodate a mix of office (approximately 1.25 million square feet), residential (about 182 dwelling units), retail (approximately 43,000 square feet), and hotel (about 266 rooms) use, along with a 15,000‐square‐foot entertainment venue (performance theater), five levels of below grade parking (about 310 spaces), off‐street loading spaces, and publicly accessible open space.

Tower One would front on First Street and would span the portion of Jessie Street that runs through the project site. The 64‐story building would be 850 feet tall to the roof (915 feet tall to the top of the parapet and solar/wind energy collection features), and would include an 83‐foot tall base that would also have frontage on Stevenson Street, where the proposed performance theater would be located. The building would contain approximately 43,000 square feet of retail and the 15,000 sf performance theater on levels one through three. Mechanical space would occupy the topmost story. The remaining 60 stories would provide approximately 1.25 million square feet of office space. The tower would span the easternmost portion of Jessie Street, which would be closed to vehicular traffic and converted into a 20‐foot‐tall public pedestrian passageway (Jessie Street Galleria) flanked by retail space and lobbies serving the office use. The First Street frontage, moving from north to south, would include the theater entrance, office lobby, entrance to the Jessie Street Galleria, second office lobby and a retail store. The Stevenson Street frontage would include retail space and a garage/loading dock driveway separated by an open pedestrian entry to the interior passageway linking Stevenson Street, Mission Street and First Street via the proposed Jessie Street Galleria. An approximately 5,100‐square‐foot publicly accessible roof terrace would be developed atop the 83‐foot tall theater, fronting on Stevenson Street.

Tower Two would front Mission Street and Ecker Place. The 56-story building (605 feet to the roof, 640 feet to the top of the parapet) would include residential and hotel uses above the ground-floor entrances and two levels of hotel service space. Approximately 266 hotel rooms would be located on floors four through 22 and approximately 160 residential units would occupy levels 23 through 55. A mechanical level would occupy floor 56. The ground floor would include a hotel entrance, a residential lobby on Ecker Place, and a retail space at the corner of Mission and Ecker. The hotel lobby would be on the second floor, and hotel function space would occupy level 3. Publicly accessible open space would occupy the set back area between Tower Two and the Mission Street and Ecker Place property lines.

Tower Three would be located at the northwest corner of Mission and First Streets. This 15-story, 174-foot tall building (184 feet tall to the top of the parapet), would include retail space and a residential lobby on the ground floor and 22 residential units on the upper levels. Tower Three would be separated from the rest of the proposed project by a “T” shaped parcel (84 First Street) that is not under the control of the project sponsor and not included in the project site.

The project as proposed would either require approval of the proposed Transit Center District Plan and accompanying rezoning with respect to increased height limits or a site-specific amendment of the Planning Code and General Plan height maps by way of the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Next step, the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization

Last edited by Urbannizer; Jul 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM.
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2010, 9:29 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,769
This has some great potential, but is the demand there yet?
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2010, 11:16 PM
Dale Dale is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 4,799
Whuh ? Huh ? Didn't see this coming.
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:03 AM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,195
Looks neato.
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:42 AM
brantw's Avatar
brantw brantw is offline
Get me out of here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 300
WhooooHoooo!!!
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:49 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 690
This proposal has potential. Boxy at the ground level, turning curvy as they shoot skyward. They may not be as visually arresting as Piano's bamboo shoots, but the mass may wind up having just as much impact on the skyline. Tower 1 takes full advantage of the proposed 850' height limit, but Tower 2 falls a little shy of its 700'. And Tower 3 is much shorter than 550', but I guess that's to be expected as long as the adjacent properties refuse to sell.


image courtesy of SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...rict_plan.html)
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:53 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,720
Has this just popped out of nowhere? Where is this in relation to the transbay towers? I haven't been keeping up with news on SF so excuse my ignorance

edit

Assuming that map above answers the Transbay question...which would be the 1000ft parcel yes?
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 1:32 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_Phil View Post
Assuming that map above answers the Transbay question...which would be the 1000ft parcel yes?
The 1000ft parcel is the Transbay. This project is at the opposite corner just northwest, where the 850' and 700' are circled.

Here it is on google. http://maps.google.com/maps?client=s...ed=0CBQQ8gEwAA
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 1:28 AM
Obey's Avatar
Obey Obey is offline
BROOKLYN
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 688
I just visited San Francisco. Where exactly is this?
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 1:36 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 7,399
Quote:
The project as proposed would either require approval of the proposed Transit Center District Plan and accompanying rezoning with respect to increased height limits or a site-specific amendment of the Planning Code and General Plan height maps by way of the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Next step, the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
These are the most important statements in the entire write-up. Let the chopping begin! (sadly)
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 8,000 people just like you...
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 3:37 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Yes, the 1000-ft. zone is the Transbay Tower parcel. These heights are not impossible, but regardless of eventual height the EIR is going to take forever.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 4:55 PM
CyberEric CyberEric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Would these likely come after the Transbay tower or before? I know that is a difficult question, but I figured someone might have an idea.
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 7, 2010, 9:32 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
How is SF's office market right now?
The last I saw, SF's office vacancy rate was about 18%, the same as the national average. It would be difficult for this project and Transbay to come online at the same time. I'm curious to see if both hold off for a while, or if they race to see which one can finish first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberEric View Post
Would these likely come after the Transbay tower or before? I know that is a difficult question, but I figured someone might have an idea.
Both projects have yet to go through the EIR process, but both are also at heights encouraged by the planning department - which may help navigate the notoriously difficult SF politics. At this point, if either project significantly stepped up to the plate, it could win this race. I think it would be cool to get a new tallest with 50 First, to be topped by Transbay shortly thereafter.

Also in the mix, though not in contention for tallest, is the ~750-footer at 181 Fremont.
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2010, 3:00 PM
brickhugger brickhugger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
The last I saw, SF's office vacancy rate was about 18%, the same as the national average. It would be difficult for this project and Transbay to come online at the same time. I'm curious to see if both hold off for a while, or if they race to see which one can finish first.


Both projects have yet to go through the EIR process, but both are also at heights encouraged by the planning department - which may help navigate the notoriously difficult SF politics. At this point, if either project significantly stepped up to the plate, it could win this race. I think it would be cool to get a new tallest with 50 First, to be topped by Transbay shortly thereafter.

Also in the mix, though not in contention for tallest, is the ~750-footer at 181 Fremont.
--These projects will take three years to complete at a minimum, at which point the market should be dramatically improved.
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 5:50 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 2,720
Thanks for clearing things up San Frangelino and Fflint.

The design on this does look strangely reminiscent to the transbay tower also. Like a shorter slightly heavier twin.
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 1:14 AM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,585
I'm crossing my fingers. Although I don't live in the city, I do live in the Bay Area so this would definitely be a great addition to our beautiful city
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 1:58 AM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,523
im really liking the shape
__________________
New York City,The City That Never Sleeps,The Capitol Of The World,The Big Apple,The Empire City,The Melting Pot,The Metropolis,Gotham

Buildings Over 200 Meters 62 Completed 20 Under Construction 50 Proposed 0 On Hold
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 3:02 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Despite the reduced height, I'm more excited about this proposal than what we saw from Piano. Granted, a lot of that has to do with the minimal visuals we saw for the previous proposal. But I like the prospects of this and Pelli's tower playing off each other a little bit. Plus, SOM deserves a prominent tower in the plan after their brilliant proposal for the Transbay Tower itself.

When and if these two projects plus 350 Mission and of course the terminal get off the ground, the transformation of the neighborhood will be remarkable.


Quote:
The project as proposed would either require approval of the proposed Transit Center District Plan and accompanying rezoning with respect to increased height limits or a site-specific amendment of the Planning Code and General Plan height maps by way of the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.
If the Transbay Plan is anywhere near on schedule, then I would hope it will be approved in time for this project's timeline. The Transbay EIR is supposed to be finalized next Spring. I have no idea how long approval of that will take, but I think it might still be easier to wait for that as it should make approval of this much more straightforward. Either way, this needs to wait for the office market to get stronger, so I wouldn't think they're in any kind of rush.
__________________
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
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 5:41 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
The towers look like they'll nicely complement Pelli's design, although I'm a bit surprised by how few units there are.

How is SF's office market right now?
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 8:23 PM
SanFran SanFran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2
Oh man i love the design it needs to work baby
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Never Built & Visionary Projects > Cancelled Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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