SAN FRANCISCO | 631 Folsom Street | 209 FT / 64 M | 21 FLOORS - Page 4

peanut gallery · #61 Posted **Oct 8, 2007, 8:40 PM**

There's a bunch of glass sitting out front today. Looks like it was just delivered in the last few days. They've also completed much of the concrete-looking siding. I don't see any curtain wall attachments on the front of the building yet, so either that glass will be sitting around for while or it will be installed in the window holes in the siding (as seen in the rendering above).

BTinSF · #62 Posted **Oct 8, 2007, 11:29 PM**

^^^Given that I saw them (and posted photos) doing test borings for the pilings and/or soil analysis a month or so ago, I don't think "soon" will be that long in this case.

northbay · #63 Posted **Oct 9, 2007, 4:58 AM**

all photos here are by me (and a shit cellphone camera)

10.08.07

getting painted white. yes, weve had this discussion before, i know

glass!!! - yes i know u cant tell from the photo, but its there i tell u!

Downtown Dave · #64 Posted **Oct 9, 2007, 10:18 PM**

Lunchtime 10/9.

northbay · #65 Posted **Oct 9, 2007, 11:49 PM**

niiice

looks real this time instead of all fuzzy

tyler82 · #66 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 12:27 AM**

This building is the high rise version of a ranch house.

Sorry, it really does nothing for me, and I think in a decade people will look back at this design and scream WHY??

rocketman_95046 · #67 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 2:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

This building is the high rise version of a ranch house.

Sorry, it really does nothing for me, and I think in a decade people will look back at this design and scream WHY??

Well i think this design was really dictated by the size and shape of the lot, the neighboring bunker buildings, and the allowable zoning... Given those restrictions this is the best we could hope for... a good infill project.

viewguysf · #68 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 3:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

This building is the high rise version of a ranch house.

Sorry, it really does nothing for me, and I think in a decade people will look back at this design and scream WHY??

I agree with you Tyler--same old schlock, different decade. Once again, we were duped by much better renderings than what was built.

tyler82 · #69 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I agree with you Tyler--same old schlock, different decade. Once again, we were duped by much better renderings than what was built.

No, not me, I always thought it looked pretty boring and unsightly, even from the first rendering. Actually, it's turning out better than I thought, but still, just very plaaaiiiiinnnnnnn

But, my philosophy is, we need projects of such an 'average' caliber, such as this one, to make the really good projects that will soon pop up in the area even more outstanding !

BTinSF · #70 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 4:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

Well i think this design was really dictated by the size and shape of the lot, the neighboring bunker buildings, and the allowable zoning... Given those restrictions this is the best we could hope for... a good infill project.

Exactly. For a narrow infill lot, it's a pretty good try.

Also, the reason we need projects like this is because they are the closest we are going to get to market rate units that regular people can afford. The all-glass, famous architect-designed, highrise towers with views on premium lots simply cost too much for most people and there have to be lower-cost alternatives.

viewguysf · #71 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

...the reason we need projects like this is because they are the closest we are going to get to market rate units that regular people can afford. The all-glass, famous architect-designed, highrise towers with views on premium lots simply cost too much for most people and there have to be lower-cost alternatives.

Right you are BT, but try to make it as attractive as possible at the same time. It can be done with a little care and innovation.

BTinSF · #72 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 7:42 AM**

^^^Yes, and like I said, I think this is a pretty good try all in all.

northbay · #73 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 3:53 PM**

^ i think the building was designed very well considering all the constraints. every building doesnt have to be a landmark/icon (oh no, im sounding like john king

). bt is right that there still needs to be housing for "the rest of us."

tyler82 · #74 Posted **Oct 10, 2007, 10:48 PM**

I don't mind SOMA grand and this one, like I don't mind driving through the Sunset and viewing all of those funky Spanish/ Mexican knock off tract houses. Like I said, this is a high rise version of a ranch house, generic design and all, and the same philosophy really shines through, too. I'd probably much rather view this one than a ranch house anyday, anyway. I'm thinking Brady Bunch if they lived in downtown SF.

BTinSF · #75 Posted **Oct 11, 2007, 12:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyler82

I don't mind driving through the Sunset and viewing all of those funky Spanish/ Mexican knock off tract houses

Not to be too harsh about this, but you're on the verge of winning some sort of elitist condecension award. You grew up in SF didn't you? Where--in a Pacific Heights Victorian or Italian Renaissance palazzo? Because most San Francisco homeowners live in those funky Spanish/Mexican knock off tract houses and they are the closest thing we have to middle class housing. In that sense, you are right about 631 Folsom.

tyler82 · #76 Posted **Oct 11, 2007, 12:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Not to be too harsh about this, but you're on the verge of winning some sort of elitist condecension award. You grew up in SF didn't you? Where--in a Pacific Heights Victorian or Italian Renaissance palazzo? Because most San Francisco homeowners live in those funky Spanish/Mexican knock off tract houses and they are the closest thing we have to middle class housing. In that sense, you are right about 631 Folsom.

Did not grow up in the city, but yes, in the area. I grew up in a small, tiny ranch house that was overcrowded with family. So I don't know where the elitist award comes from, but I guess I can take it as a compliment of my "rising to riches" (even though I'm not rich !!)

I'm just saying that houses out in the Sunset and in the burbs are unsightly. I've lived in unsightly homes most of my life, it's the curse of being so "middle class." It's just not for me...

And I do believe it is primarily a middle class thing, because I really enjoy the vibrance and artistry of the poorest neighborhoods of the Bay Area, in SF and Oakland mostly. There's just something so unbecoming about being "stick in the middle" ..

fflint · #77 Posted **Oct 11, 2007, 3:54 PM**

There is no place in the Projects & Construction forum for namecalling and casting aspersions on the character of those who don't care for a particular architectural style or building type.

Stay on subject.

Downtown Dave · #78 Posted **Oct 13, 2007, 6:13 PM**

One really needs to consider the horrific bunkers next to this building when considering its own design:

This object was being lowered to the ground as I passed this morning (10/13):

CityKid · #79 Posted **Oct 20, 2007, 11:28 PM**

Taken by me 10/18:

peanut gallery · #80 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 5:07 PM**

Very nice! You have to post more shots from this angle once they get glass on it. Very different than my usual view from the street.