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

[tech12]

Originally Posted by timbad

(I had kinda been hoping this one wouldn't get going in its current incarnation - I don't like the design and generally feels too bulky for its surroundings to me. and... won't it cast afternoon shadows on the new open space created after they clear the NE corner of the intersection for the train tunnel?)

Nice pictures! I think the tower will look fine in that location. Remember that the entire area between Rincon Hill and Transbay is going to eventually fill in with multiple towers, so 222 2nd street won't seem too alone for long:


http://www.socketsite.com/Transit%20...hts%202012.jpg

222 2nd is in the lower left corner, above the large square zoned for 320'. As you can see, it will fit in well at that location...and really, if it were built tomorrow it still wouldn't seem very alone, as there are already multiple highrises/skyscrapers within a several block radius, including several that are taller than the 222 2nd proposal.

It's not going to be that tall either--just 350' feet, which while taller than any adjacent high-rises, shouldn't exactly dwarf them or anything. There's even a site half a block away that will be up-zoned for 750', so if anything, 222 2nd could end up getting dwarfed in the future. Plus I think it's pretty good looking tower, as far as boxes go. It kind of reminds me of 555 Mission, which is another box that I really like.

As for it casting shadows on the new open space, that's not a problem, as the shadow ordinance only applies to parks that were built before the ordinance was passed, so all new parks are exempt (which is why there are two areas about to be re-zoned for 700+ feet, just south of the Transbay terminal/park, where they will block quite a bit of sun from reaching the park). And personally, i could care less. There are/will be plenty of other parks in DT SF as well as the rest of the city, and shadows are just a natural consequence of having a high-rise filled downtown in the first place. And the sun moves too, so shadows don't stay in the same place forever

edit: though now that I think about it, would 222 2nd even be tall enough to cast shadows on that proposed park? I'm not sure the sun will be low enough in the sky at the time of day where it would be possible for that to happen, just going by the tower height and looking at the positioning of the tower site vs. the park site.

[1977]

Thanks timbad. I figured that was the case.

[sahran]

More good news for Hayes Valley. 401 Grove has apparently broken ground and expected to be complete by end of 2013 or beginning 2014

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...timations.html

[hruski]

Originally Posted by sahran

More good news for Hayes Valley. 401 Grove has apparently broken ground and expected to be complete by end of 2013 or beginning 2014

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...timations.html

This is all good news and all, but I'm thoroughly bored by this design. It looks exactly the same as about 5 others that have been approved in the last year or 2. Architects seems to really be mailing it in with these 4-5 story buildings in Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, Upper Mission, etc.

[easy as pie]

yeah, the design is boring, but the function is impeccable - ground level retail wrap to continue the new gough retail wall, townhomes on ivy to keep the ped orientation, great parking ratio (32 over 80 units), and all this on a major arterial. love it.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by tech12

Nice pictures! I think the tower will look fine in that location. Remember that the entire area between Rincon Hill and Transbay is going to eventually fill in with multiple towers, so 222 2nd street won't seem too alone for long:


http://www.socketsite.com/Transit%20...hts%202012.jpg

222 2nd is in the lower left corner, above the large square zoned for 320'. As you can see, it will fit in well at that location...and really, if it were built tomorrow it still wouldn't seem very alone, as there are already multiple highrises/skyscrapers within a several block radius, including several that are taller than the 222 2nd proposal.

It's not going to be that tall either--just 350' feet, which while taller than any adjacent high-rises, shouldn't exactly dwarf them or anything. There's even a site half a block away that will be up-zoned for 750', so if anything, 222 2nd could end up getting dwarfed in the future. Plus I think it's pretty good looking tower, as far as boxes go. It kind of reminds me of 555 Mission, which is another box that I really like.

As for it casting shadows on the new open space, that's not a problem, as the shadow ordinance only applies to parks that were built before the ordinance was passed, so all new parks are exempt (which is why there are two areas about to be re-zoned for 700+ feet, just south of the Transbay terminal/park, where they will block quite a bit of sun from reaching the park). And personally, i could care less. There are/will be plenty of other parks in DT SF as well as the rest of the city, and shadows are just a natural consequence of having a high-rise filled downtown in the first place. And the sun moves too, so shadows don't stay in the same place forever

edit: though now that I think about it, would 222 2nd even be tall enough to cast shadows on that proposed park? I'm not sure the sun will be low enough in the sky at the time of day where it would be possible for that to happen, just going by the tower height and looking at the positioning of the tower site vs. the park site.

If the height limist says 1000' does that mean the building is shortened 70 feet?

[WildCowboy]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

If the height limist says 1000' does that mean the building is shortened 70 feet?

My understanding is that the height limit applies to solid portions of the building that would completely block the sun when assessing shadow impacts. With the top 150 feet of the current design being an open latticework, the building would measure in at a height of 920' by those standards, even though the total height remains 1070'.

[peanut gallery]

Plus, don't all height limits in SF have a built in allowance (some percentage I think) to go over for mechanicals, etc? I seem to recall reading that somewhere.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

My understanding is that the height limit applies to solid portions of the building that would completely block the sun when assessing shadow impacts. With the top 150 feet of the current design being an open latticework, the building would measure in at a height of 920' by those standards, even though the total height remains 1070'.

ah gotchya

I hope the top at least looks somewhat solid, especially at night.

So does this mean 50 first street (915 feet) also has a structure on it's roof it looks like the limit is 850'

[mt_climber13]

For those that missed out on the spectacularly fabulous GG Bridge 75th anniversary light show:

http://vimeo.com/42969389

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

ah gotchya

I hope the top at least looks somewhat solid, especially at night.

So does this mean 50 first street (915 feet) also has a structure on it's roof it looks like the limit is 850'

Yeah, as others have said, the height limits in SF are to the roof only, and do not include crowns/spires/structural stuff or mechanical boxes, which are allowed to reach even higher. The Transbay tower will be 920' to the roof (in a zone with a maximum roof height limit of 1,000'), with a 150 foot crown on top, for a total of 1,070'. As for 50 1st street, it's proposed to be 835' to the roof (in a zone with a maximum roof height of 850'), and 915' in total when including the 80' crown.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

For those that missed out on the spectacularly fabulous GG Bridge 75th anniversary light show:

http://vimeo.com/42969389

Thanks wakamesalad!! [and I never use the dancing banana!]

[Zapatan]

sorry if this has been mentioned recently but when are transbay and 50 1st street supposed to start construction?

[1977]

Hotel SOMA is still alive:

Speaking of developments in the hotel space, plans for the proposed Hotel SoMa to rise at 690 Fifth Street have been dusted off and the developers are shopping for financing.

As plugged-in people know, the David Baker designed six-story and now 64-room Hotel SoMa would replace the two-story, 23-foot-tall office building and 14 off-street parking spaces on the northwest corner of Townsend and Fifth.

Source: www.socketsite.com


Source: www.dbarchitect.com


Source: www.dbarchitect.com

[1977]

Another upper-Market development. This time at 2175 Market (currently a 76 Station):

http://www.vmwp.com/projects/pdfs/2175_market.pdf






More info: http://www.2175market.com/

[peanut gallery]

Nice find. Is mid-Market considered to go that far west? I always thought of that as between about 5th and Van Ness or so. But I'm not always up on the exact borders between various neighborhoods.

[1977]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Nice find. Is mid-Market considered to go that far west? I always thought of that as between about 5th and Van Ness or so. But I'm not always up on the exact borders between various neighborhoods.

No, mid-Market doesn't stretch that far west. I meant upper-Market. Fixed!

[easy as pie]

wow, fantastic news about 2175, just totally off the radar. from their website, here's the info on where it's at -
The project sponsor has submitted documents to the San Francisco Planning Department to initiate the design review and community plan exemption process for the project. It is anticipated that the environmental review could take between 6 and 9 months to complete. The project will then seek approvals from the San Francisco Planning Commission, though timing of a hearing will depend on staff availability and Commission calendar.

[mt_climber13]

Looks awesome! Once again, this forum is ahead of the real estate blogs. Good work!

[1977]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Looks awesome! Once again, this forum is ahead of the real estate blogs. Good work!

Yeah we are!