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

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by FourOneFive

Argenta (formerly known as Bovet Place and 1 Polk)

function: residential, retail
height: 200'
floors: 17
architect: Donald Macdonald Architects
completion: 2007

Renderings:
new

old:

I couldn't help going back in time to remind everyone what the "Old" and "New" renderings for Argenta originally looked like compared to the value engineered building that San Francisco has now been gifted.

[WonderlandPark]

I agree, too bad, this looks to be the worst of the recent boom. Doesn't even look as "good" as the new rendering.

[BTinSF]

I'll differ with the statement that it's the worst of the "current boom". Since it's not officially a highrise, compare it with the schlock going up in Mission Bay. It's better than much of that, but clearly not as nice as it could and should have been. In that location, it should also have been a highrise.

But, hey, glass is expensive, you know?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I'll differ with the statement that it's the worst of the "current boom". Since it's not officially a highrise, compare it with the schlock going up in Mission Bay. It's better than much of that, but clearly not as nice as it could and should have been. In that location, it should also have been a highrise.

But, hey, glass is expensive, you know?

Two-tone blue stucco??! I think not. I'm going to disagree with you on that one BT. The City missed a golden opportunity to finally upgrade the immediate Civic Center area, much like the new PUC building will do on the other side. We shouldn't compare it to the AAA box or Fox Plaza but judge it on its own merits, which aren't many. It's plebeian architecture when it was presented as being so much more, even in the "new" rendering.

[nequidnimis]

Renderings are artistic creations, and are bound to include some creative liceense, such as vivid blue skies, magical reflections, a degree of ambiguity on materials and architectural treatment. Their purpose is to assist developers secure the necessary permits and they are not contract documents. Anyone who believes renderings are accurate depictions of projects might as well accept defendant lawyers' claims to their clients' innocence. As to the Argenta being the worst of the current boom, there sure is a lot of competition for the title. Renderings may be artistic creations, but buildings are business.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Renderings are artistic creations, and are bound to include some creative liceense, such as vivid blue skies, magical reflections, a degree of ambiguity on materials and architectural treatment. Their purpose is to assist developers secure the necessary permits and they are not contract documents. Anyone who believes renderings are accurate depictions of projects might as well accept defendant lawyers' claims to their clients' innocence. As to the Argenta being the worst of the current boom, there sure is a lot of competition for the title. Renderings may be artistic creations, but buildings are business.

Which to me is when cities need to step in to enforce architectural standards. The old Le Meridien/ANA/Argent, now Westin Market Street Hotel, is a good example of that. Mayor Feinstein was very displeased at the time and vowed to not let streets be visually blocked by ugly walls of concrete again (so far, that hasn't been repeated). The SF Marriott is another example of the City selling itself extremely short; any company wanting to build the main hotel at our convention center should have been forced to utilize quality materials at the very least.

Gavin Newsom has discussed raising the City's architectural bar. He needs to put action where his talk is, especially since he is literally in the shadow of Argenta. I know that everything can't be expensive and stunning, but come on people, let's get with it. Argenta would be scorned in such a prominent location in cities with higher standards, such as Chicago.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Two-tone blue stucco??! I think not. I'm going to disagree with you on that one BT. The City missed a golden opportunity to finally upgrade the immediate Civic Center area, much like the new PUC building will do on the other side. We shouldn't compare it to the AAA box or Fox Plaza but judge it on its own merits, which aren't many. It's plebeian architecture when it was presented as being so much more, even in the "new" rendering.

I agree that the city missed an opportunity to upgrade Civic Center and I'm not praising Argenta. What I'm doing comes closer to trashing Mission Bay. IMHO, it's two-tone blue stucco vs orange and beige stucco. I prefer two-tone blue. But it's not the colors. The overall form of the building is more pleasing to my eye than some of those in MB or, say, Symphony Towers (two-tone green stucco). Still, I am NOT praising it. It's too short. It would have looked much better with blueish glass as in the rendering as well as having some of the architectural detailing that seems to be missing.

It IS plebeian architecture, but I didn't say it wasn't. I just said it wasn't the worst example of plebeian architecture in the current crop of new buildings around town.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

any company wanting to build the main hotel at our convention center should have been forced to utilize quality materials at the very least.

Hey, what you got against plastic?

[nequidnimis]

In all fairness, there are also some great looking buildings in the new crop: 535 and 555 Mission, the Infinity, Trinity Plaza...

[BTinSF]

I think I'll wait on 535 and Trinity to see the reality. I liked the rendering of the Argenta a whole lot too. Another upcomer with a good-looking rendering is the PUC Building at Polk and Golden Gate (at 12 stories, not a highrise but very, very green and nice).

[San Frangelino]

from:http://www.examiner.com/a-1454228~Fo...l_stories.html

Fourth Street’s future lined with tall stories

SAN FRANCISCO -
A wall of high-rise office towers will stretch southeast from San Francisco’s downtown along Fourth Street to the emerging Mission Bay business and biotechnology research hub under a new long-term plan by city officials.

The Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development recently directed the Planning Department to scale back modest rezoning proposals for the low-rise Fourth Street corridor between Folsom and Townsend streets. Instead, high-rises may eventually be allowed to crowd the planned Fourth Street path of the Central Subway, a multibillion dollar rail project.

The Central Subway will link the Caltrain station at Fourth and Townsend streets with the multi-modal Transbay Transit Center planned at First and Mission streets, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency documents show. Some of the route will be above-ground. Full funding has not been secured for the subway, which is planned for construction between 2010 and 2016.

Under current zoning rules, building heights along Fourth Street are limited to 65 feet, said Planning Department official Ken Rich, who is leading the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan — a sweeping rezoning effort covering 2,200 acres of the Central Waterfront, Potrero Hill, Mission and South of Market neighborhoods.

Fourth Street rezoning efforts will effectively be put into a “holding pattern” until the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan is finished and approved, which is expected later this year, Rich said.

It’s unclear how high the new Fourth Street buildings will rise, but the Planning Department is pushing a separate plan to allow a landmark tower above the new transit center to reach 1,000 feet, while most other towers in The City would be capped at 800 feet or less. The Transamerica Pyramid is roughly 850 feet.

Mayoral development adviser Michael Yarne said the new Fourth Street proposal makes economic and environmental sense.

If built, the corridor’s office buildings will fill with workers who ride trains through the new subway, said Yarne, who added that concentrating high-rise towers along a transit route will help protect the environment from car emissions.

“If we’re going to be supporting a billion-plus dollar investment in a new subway, the least we could is to plan for transit-oriented development along the line,” Yarne said.

jupton@sfexaminer.com

Examiner

[BTinSF]

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/


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

[peanut gallery]

Interesting plan. I can't think of a lot of vacant lots along that stretch, so it will be a long slow process of replacing existing buildings one-by-one. I'm trying to picture the effect a corridor of tall buildings emanating out in this direction would have on the overall skyline. As blasphemous as it might be on this site, I'm not sure I'd like it aesthetically.

[Jerry of San Fran]

I saw the Argenta almost completely revealed today (I was out of town for the week) and am very pleased with the result. When I consider what could have been placed there I shudder and am thankful!

[Reminiscence]

I'm a tad confused on this 4th Street plan, as it seems to be the first I've heard of it. If I'm not mistaken, this is to be the corridor for the Caltrain extention to Transbay, no? I imagine they are going to bulldoze at least some of the buildings that are on the route. Are they talking about replacing them with these tall towers?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Interesting plan. I can't think of a lot of vacant lots along that stretch, so it will be a long slow process of replacing existing buildings one-by-one. I'm trying to picture the effect a corridor of tall buildings emanating out in this direction would have on the overall skyline. As blasphemous as it might be on this site, I'm not sure I'd like it aesthetically.

That's what I thought at first too, but the reality isn't so dramatic I don't think. For one thing, we aren't sure how tall "tall" would be in this case. I'd be very surprised if it meant 800 ft. On the other hand, with buildings like One Hawthorne going up a block and a half away, there's certainly room to go up from 65 ft., the current limit, without creating a "great wall" of tall buildings effect.

If the change even happens, I'd look for an upzoning to somewhere in the 120-400 ft range (more likely the lower end of that) and it would then just be a westward extension of the highrise neighborhood now developing to the east rather than a wall.

[quashlo]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

If I'm not mistaken, this is to be the corridor for the Caltrain extention to Transbay, no? I imagine they are going to bulldoze at least some of the buildings that are on the route. Are they talking about replacing them with these tall towers?

The Caltrain extension will be under Second Street. The guy here is talking about the Central Subway.

It sounds like a great idea, as it's a natural extension of the Union Square-Moscone Center corridor and will connect with Mission Bay area... I've always been unimpressed with Fourth Street south of Howard, as it's somewhat of a wasteland, especially with the freeway and all the traffic directed to and from the the ramps. Hopefully this will bring more street life and activity to this stretch.

[San Frangelino]

Rember this article: http://www.spur.org/documents/070701_article_01.shtm



My only wish is that they would consider 5th street as well, which has some great under/ undeveloped plots to build on.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by San Frangelino

from:http://www.examiner.com/a-1454228~Fo...l_stories.html

When they say not fully funded, they're refering to the Caltrain extension, right? The last I heard, BT posted an article stating that the Central Subway was fully funded.

[SFView]

With the current plan to place a 300' landmark tower at 4th and King Streets, other towers north of King along 4th Street may be shorter. That is my guess until we get more reliable zoning information from Planning, etc.