SAN FRANCISCO | Palace Hotel Tower | 669 FT | 60 Floors - Page 4

fflint · #61 Posted **Jun 23, 2007, 8:19 AM**

The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.

WonderlandPark · #62 Posted **Jun 23, 2007, 2:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.

Bingo-hence the arrest-for protesting

BTinSF · #63 Posted **Jun 23, 2007, 4:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.

Er, that's reassuring in this context. I was kind of shocked to think he was telling us his mom was engaged in "the world's oldest profession".

CityKid · #64 Posted **Jun 23, 2007, 11:25 PM**

I'd like to see more angles, especially considering I would watch it rise from my office. I hope it's a beauty.

SFView · #65 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 12:26 AM**

This rendering shows mostly the east facade of the tower, from the corner of New Montgomery and Jessie Streets looking west. The tower is situated at the far southwest corner of the Palace Hotel site, at Jessie and Annie Streets. The tower does seem to appear to be about 60 stories with at least 4 stories of additional height above the roof. Athough I can also provide a larger image, I will let Plinko do the honors with better quality access to the PDF provide by BTinSF.

WonderlandPark · #66 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 1:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Er, that's reassuring in this context. I was kind of shocked to think he was telling us his mom was engaged in "the world's oldest profession".

Heh, somehow I don't picture the Palace being that sort of place. So she was an activist hippie chick in SF in the late 60's, probably a more interesting than most moms on this board.

back on topic, is the vacancy rate for hotels in the city still insanely low? The intercontinental should bring some rooms online soon, but is there still demand for this kind of space?

BTinSF · #67 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 3:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

Heh, somehow I don't picture the Palace being that sort of place. So she was an activist hippie chick in SF in the late 60's, probably a more interesting than most moms on this board.

back on topic, is the vacancy rate for hotels in the city still insanely low? The intercontinental should bring some rooms online soon, but is there still demand for this kind of space?

Re your mom's bust: My best friend is a desk clerk at a hotel that shall go nameless (but is an upscale corporate sibling of the "juke box"). Said hotel also has pretentions to being above all that. But he tells me hair-raising stories of all sorts of unlikely behavior.

Anyway, my understanding (and I'll look into it further if you wish) is that SF hotel occupancy has improved considerably since 2001-2003, but it shouldn't matter because I believe the Palace Tower is to be partly or entirely condos with hotel services like the upper floors of the 4 Seasons and St. Regis, and the Ritz Carlton Residences.

BTinSF · #68 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 3:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView

Athough I can also provide a larger image, I will let Plinko do the honors with better quality access to the PDF provide by BTinSF.

If you've got a better rendering, post it because I was unable to provide Plinko with whatever it would take for him to open the pdf file where I got the version I posted. It came from the "Structures" supplement of the Business Times which didn't seem to be on the web site yesterday but I'm still hoping they'll put it up before the weekend is over. If so, I can then post it directly.

SFView · #69 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 4:31 AM**

Does it require special membership permissions to view the PDF? The next time you try a 'Ctrl + Prnt Scrn' screen capture, you may want to try zooming up the image as large as can fit your screen before doing so. If you have a widescreen monitor that can rotate to portrait view for taller-than-wide images, you can get even larger results. In the meantime, I was able to enlarge your original screen capture. It is larger, but a little more detail from the original PDF might be better.

BTinSF · #70 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 6:06 AM**

^^^I think you're talking "Windoze-speak"

I used my Mac iBook and I did enlarge it as much as the screen would hold (it's only a 14" screen), then used a bit of software for Macs called Snapz-Pro to take the picture of it. I frankly was busy doing several things at once and may not have adjusted Snapz-Pro to take the highest quality photo it could--I'm not sure what the settings were.

SFView · #71 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 6:50 PM**

Oh, you're Mac. Sorry about that. Anyway, it worked out good enough for now. Hopefully you will also be able to post the article that goes along with this rendering soon. Any mention of the status of this project?

BTinSF · #72 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 10:28 PM**

^^^As for posting the article, that's looking grim. They say on the web page that for now the supplements aren't online.

It is an article about SOM and their partner Craig Hartman, not so much about this project. It does say, though, "The addition, which will have balconies on the east and west faces, will be made of glass with fritted coating on the vertical edges and top. Hartman said the design has been inspired by the 'soft luminescence of light' in the hotel's famous Garden Court. 'When the sun strikes, the entire building will glow as a lantern . . . . It is very much like taking the Garden Court and bringing it to the skyline of the city . . . . The intention is to make a very slender, light, luminous tower.'"

SFView · #73 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 10:58 PM**

^^^I like the notion of bringing the Garden Court to the skyline, even though it doesn't really look so obvious in the rendering. It will also be interesting to see if it "glows as a lantern" in the sunlight. There are some nice effects that can be created with glass similar to glass art and sculpture. I like that some architects are applying some of these ideas to architecture, especially in San Francisco.

Thanks for passing on that summarized information. Is there anything worth posting in the other threads?

nequidnimis · #74 Posted **Jun 24, 2007, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView

^^^ It will also be interesting to see if it "glows as a lantern" in the sunlight. There are some nice effects that can be created with glass similar to glass art and sculpture.

Like this:

or:

However, it is hard to do in the case of multi-story residential architecture. The program gets in the way.

roadwarrior · #75 Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 2:07 AM**

I think it may give Millenium a run for its money. It even appears to look a lot like Millenium, but its tough to tell from this rendering.

Does anyone have an idea when they expect to start construction on this?

BTinSF · #76 Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 4:09 AM**

^^^It'll be a long time--if ever. It isn't approved yet and I think would require a rezoning on the height. Since the Palace is a historic structure, I expect a lot of controversy over any addition to it but especially one this tall. This could well be one of those buildings that just doesn't happen, but time will tell. The anti-height NIMBYs are strangely silent for the moment.

SFView · #77 Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 4:52 AM**

^^^I actually mean light as effected and viewed more from the exterior. Yes, the Millenium is one example of what I mean.

SFView · #78 Posted **Jun 25, 2007, 5:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^It'll be a long time--if ever. It isn't approved yet and I think would require a rezoning on the height. Since the Palace is a historic structure, I expect a lot of controversy over any addition to it but especially one this tall. This could well be one of those buildings that just doesn't happen, but time will tell. The anti-height NIMBYs are strangely silent for the moment.

NIMBYs can read and write on SSP, just like the rest of us. The part of the building that is being replaced, isn't historic. Hopefully, the anti-height NIMBYs are more understanding. Taller, thinner, more widely spaced towers are clearly better than tightly packed shorter towers squeezed under a 550 foot limit, as long as they are built in places that make more sense and minimize negative impact. If any new building would receive more negative opposition, it would be One Rincon Hill. Rincon Hill should begin to make more sense as other towers get built up around it soon. The area near the Palace Hotel is already built up.

nequidnimis · #79 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 5:29 PM**

This is a high-rise in a business district. Why would NIMBY's be against it?

What upsets NIMBY's is the disruption to what they perceive as an established order in their neighborhoods, and the concept of exceptions to the law written down in the Municipal code essentially up for sale.

BTinSF · #80 Posted **Jun 29, 2007, 5:49 PM**

^^^You are talking about the rational ones. In San Franciscso, there are those who just oppose almost any development. The Sue Hestor/Calvin Welch crowd don't need a valid reason to oppose something. And here they do have a valid reason of a sort. The proposed tower is taller than the height limits they love would allow and it modifies a landmark even if it doesn't change the historic part.

This is the crowd that wants to block denser, taller development at Market & Van Ness (and hence the creation of more needed housing along with a much livelier intersection of the city's two widest streets) even though the necessary rezoning would be the product of years of discussion by community members who do live in the neighborhood and their champion on the Planning Commission doesn't.