SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[Reminiscence]

Wow, what a bizarre looking building ... I like it

[SFView]

Alright..., who let that giant roll of toilet paper go...?

I like it too. San Francisco can use some fun looking buildings.

[BTinSF]

Prediction: They'll never build anything that looks like that in San Francisco. There's no one in SF with enough of a sense of fun.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Prediction: They'll never build anything that looks like that in San Francisco. There's no one in SF with enough of a sense of fun.

I dont think I've ever said it, but I hope you're wrong. Its buildings like this that catch the eyes of people, both residents and tourists.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by SFView

Alright..., who let that giant roll of toilet paper go...?

I like it too. San Francisco can use some fun looking buildings.

I also think that it's really fun and hope that we can get with it for a change! It would certainly spark up that area.

[BTinSF]

1285 Sutter (at Van Ness)--project in limbo and property on the market according to Socketsite:



All images: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ace_the_g.html

[northbay]

Originally Posted by SFView

Alright..., who let that giant roll of toilet paper go...?

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Prediction: They'll never build anything that looks like that in San Francisco. There's no one in SF with enough of a sense of fun.

i like the white - it gives it a 'clean' look

and yes, i would like to see it built, but chances are -
wont happen

even if theres no nimbys (yea right), theyll prob run out of $

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

1285 Sutter (at Van Ness)--project in limbo and property on the market according to Socketsite:

Not that it really matters if the project is dead, but I'm surprised SocketSite isn't using the latest render:


Maybe something better will come along (ie: something more like the original design).

[BTinSF]

I thought there was a newer version but was too lazy to look for it. And I'm also not sure if a new developer might have the option of doing the older plans if he/she wanted to. Probably not since I think the changes were made to appease the Planning Dept. (and make it look almost like a twin of Symphony Towers).

I'm really surprised by the number of new condo projects now getting cancelled after long delays. Can nobody think in terms of development cycles? Sure you can't sell a condo now but in 2010 or whenever a building like this might actually be ready for sales? Perhaps they are thinking that even if condos are selling again by then, the prices will be a lot lower than when the project was conceived in 2006 or whenever so there would be no profit in it--building costs have just kept going up as sales prices have come down.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Prediction: They'll never build anything that looks like that in San Francisco. There's no one in SF with enough of a sense of fun.

You're right. I am thinking this too. Actually, I think there are people in San Francisco with a sense of fun, but there just aren’t enough of them in the right places. As we have seen with so many other projects in San Francisco, especially when there are different choices, the most interesting or daring designs almost never survive the process. I still think San Francisco is getting a little looser and better with some of the more recent projects being built, but it is doing so cautiously. I begin to wonder if something like Coit Tower could ever be built, if it were happening in today's San Francisco instead of 1933.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I thought there was a newer version but was too lazy to look for it. And I'm also not sure if a new developer might have the option of doing the older plans if he/she wanted to. Probably not since I think the changes were made to appease the Planning Dept. (and make it look almost like a twin of Symphony Towers).

It almost looks like Symphony Towers because it is by the same architect: Christiani Johhson. The changes were not made to appease the Planning Dept. or Planning Commission, but to take advantage of the departure of Planning Commissioner Dwight who had exerted a major influence on the previous design (Mayor Gavin Newsom asked for and obtained Commissioner's Dwight resignation, presumably at the request of developers who resented his insistence on good design.)

[BTinSF]

San Francisco Forever: Supes Favor Historic Preservation Commission
Yes, the Board of Supervisors did ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies— that highly-controversial mandate passed at last night's board meeting. Hidden in plain sight at the very bottom of the Chron's report on the ban, however, is another gem: The Supes also elected (unanimously, at that) to place a measure on the November ballot that will create a Historic Preservation Commission. If voted into power— and judging by the city's track record, one might safely assume that it will be— the Commission will encrypt historical buildings, landmarks, and neighborhoods at will, "saving" all from harm (and repair). Commission members will be hand-picked by Mayor Newsom; Peskin was initially set to spearhead the effort, though with his recent election as head of SF's Democratic Committee, we wonder if he'll be able to serve on both. This is serious, folks: if the Historical Preservation Commission is, in fact, voted into place, its decisions will trump those of the Planning Commission which, unlike most cities— welcome to SF!— has authority over issues of preservation, too. So yes, if Peskin (or his replacement puppet master) have their druthers, the Commission won't only wield power over a couple of Vics and crumbling theater or twelve. Affordable housing, zoning discrepancies, building heights— all could fall under its jurisdiction. Serious business here, people.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

I gotta admit that picture of Peskin made me

[Reminiscence]

So I'm guessing that now it may be even more difficult to get proposals through the powers that be? If this is so, this is probably the worst thing that could have happened.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

So I'm guessing that now it may be even more difficult to get proposals through the powers that be? If this is so, this is probably the worst thing that could have happened.

I actually don't think that will be the case. If we can get "historic preservation" handled by someone else impartial, it takes out a key place that NIMBYs have used to kill projects that they don't like in the past, by having something tagged as "historically significant" on the fly.

We'll see how it plays out, of course, but this is one case where perceived additional bureaucracy could actually be the exact opposite, I believe. If a developer can find out before even starting the planning process whether or not his building is "historically significant" (and the baggage that oftentimes goes with that), it could help immensely.

[BTinSF]

The neighborhood plans for every 'hood already identify historically and architecturally significant buildings. They are no mystery. What this will create is a hurdle that sees preservation as its mission, not development--which, for all its faults, the Planning Commission largely does.

I don't think it will impact downtown or high rises so much because few if any of them are contemplated where buildings now deemed significant stand (although new projects involving old buildings such as at 350 Bush or 706 Mission could become a lot harder to pull off). But neighborhood projects like the Pagoda Theater on Peskin's home turf (and I'm sure this project has a lot to do with the whole idea) could be stalled or blocked virtually forever. I'm also wondering what impact it could have on Mid-Market. And there are identified "significant" buildings up and down Van Ness such as the one on the corner or Eddy (the former Honda Motorcycle dealership that has sat empty for 2 decades now) that would likely remain derelict because the possibility of adaptive reuse would become much less flexible.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

The neighborhood plans for every 'hood already identify historically and architecturally significant buildings. They are no mystery. What this will create is a hurdle that sees preservation as its mission, not development--which, for all its faults, the Planning Commission largely does.

Ok, there aren't plans for every neighborhood, which is the reason that many times a delay occurs regarding historic preservation, because it can be brought up during the early planning process. Park Merced is a great example. The vast majority of the city (none of the west side of the city, most of the south, even parts of the northeast) has no "neighborhood plan" in place.

The post above indicates that this group would be appointed by the mayor. Anyone know the details on that?

[peanut gallery]

They've started fireproofing on One Kearny, so we should see glazing shortly. I know that's not a big deal from looking at the renderings, but I am curious how this will work with the classic existing building (which, by the way, is getting a facelift).

[hi123]

I am very happy to hear the old building is getting a facelift! Is it covered in scaffolding?

[peanut gallery]

Yep. And all the windows are taped on the other "modern" bookend.

[hi123]

Taped? Are they all broken or something?