HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2121  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 6:31 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by nequidnimis View Post
Are these 27 units the BMR units?
Given it was built as a market rate condo project, I'd be surprised if the BMR units are on-site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2122  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 7:39 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
The Embarcadero Exploratorium's Most Excellent Draft EIR



"A draft environmental review for [the redevelopment of Piers 15-17 into a new home for the Exploratorium] failed to find any major problems, and a final report could be complete by the end of June....Even the notoriously strict agencies that govern what can be built along a waterfront are unofficially endorsing the project, which could be done as early as 2012 if it is approved by port officials and the Board of Supervisors."
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments

Quote:
Exploratorium tiptoeing toward Embarcadero


Outdoor rendering by EHDD Architecture, via the Chron

The Exploratorium's move to the Embarcadero is moving slowly but surely forward — the key here being that while hurdles remain, none of them are seen as particularly significant. Environmental issues, reported last month to include nesting gulls and seals' ears, are surmountable, and while non-marine-related museums are not explicitly allowed on the waterfront under state law, it's apparently no biggie. "The notoriously strict agencies that govern what can be built along a waterfront are unofficially endorsing the project," which, by the way, would triple the museum's space and bring annual visitors from 600,000 to 800,000. The full environmental review's almost done, and if everything goes as planned, the new Exploratorium could hit the Embarcadero by 2012. Conspicuously missing: the chorus of opposers?
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2123  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 7:49 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Rincon Hill Aching for Extensions on Construction

Remember The Californian on Rincon Hill? The 393-unit luxury condo tower at 375-399 Fremont St. went into fail mode in October 2007 — the SF Business Times reported that the parcel had been put on the block by developer Fifield (but the deal fell through and they'd since spoken to several more builders). And then silence.



Well, these projects only have an 18-month window to get their asses in gear and get rebar up, even if their building entitlements technically aren't automatically revoked. Revoking takes some active doing by the Planning Commission, and now the commission's apparently getting ready for some house cleaning. Last Thursday, they voted to put into process some hearings of revocation that would either keep struggling projects on life support, or kill their entitlements once and for all. Fifield, we hear, is not happy. Their entitlement expires later this year, and so does the one for its neighbor at 340 Fremont. At least they still have a chance — Turnberry Tower at 45 Lansing expired earlier this month already. Ouch.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2124  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 9:02 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Commentary: S.F.'s next tower hidden from view
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Sunday, March 29, 2009

Two years ago, the competition to win the rights to build San Francisco's tallest tower drew powerful developers, celebrity architects and fervent public interest in the proposed designs.

Now there's another competition just two blocks away, the grand prize a site with room for a 60-story tower at a major entrance to the Financial District. But only three teams bothered to respond - and the way the rules are currently written, the public won't be allowed to glimpse any of the proposals until the city selects a winner.



Blame the sluggish response on real estate jitters and the recession. But keeping the rival bids under wraps is a move that runs counter to San Francisco's tradition of public access, and it should be reversed before the site's fate is decided this summer.

The block in question fills the northeast corner of First and Folsom streets, and today it's not much to look at: asphalt and rubble alongside a ramp that on a typical weekday deposits 25,000 or so cars into the city from the Bay Bridge.

But as the downtown map has shifted, this long-remote block has emerged as a hinge between the Financial District and the young Rincon Hill neighborhood. It also sits due south of the Transbay Terminal, site of the 2007 competition, where government agencies intend to build a grand transit hub alongside a tower taller than the Transamerica Pyramid.

To help fund the terminal, the First and Folsom block is being offered to developers by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. With it comes generous zoning that would allow a 605-foot residential tower along First Street, flanked by lower structures.

To put this in perspective, it's 36 feet lower than One Rincon, the skyscraping head-turner that opened last year next to the Bay Bridge.

ublic not given glance

Redevelopment is no stranger to competitions: Like other public agencies, it has awarded parcels this way for decades. What's different this time is that the sale of public land doesn't include a scenario where the public can glimpse the competing visions.

Instead, a staff report this month shrugs that "the details of the proposals, including the concept designs ... will remain confidential until a recommendation of a development team is forwarded to the (redevelopment) Commission for exclusive negotiations."

Asked about the procedural veil, planners stress that the block is part of a 40-acre redevelopment district rezoned in 2005 after two years of public review.

"We have a prescriptive redevelopment plan that is very specific" in terms of what can go where, said Transbay project manager Mike Grisso. "We're just talking about the architectural finishes."

But architecture isn't wallpaper. Done well, it's an art that can add a dimension of excitement and urbanity beyond the cautionary limits of planning and urban design.

You see this on Montgomery Street, where George Kelham's stone-clad Russ Building from 1928 soars with a romance missing from similarly scaled towers of the 1960s. More recently, the clunky gray Paramount high-rise at Third and Mission streets is no match for the suave St. Regis across the street.

As for the block that's up for grabs, the three teams are anything but interchangeable.

The lead architect for Avant Housing is Richard Meier & Partners. The 1984 recipient of the coveted Pritzker Architecture Prize, Meier is best-known for the Getty Center in Los Angeles, the embodiment of the New Yorker's clean, almost clinical style (the firm also did San Jose City Hall).

By contrast, AvalonBay Communities is paired with Arquitectonica, a flamboyant chameleon based in Miami. Here, the firm has a hand in Infinity - two clover-shaped green-glass towers near the waterfront - and a new apartment complex in Mission Bay where jagged stripes of red concrete pop out from the Berry Street facade.

The final is a Chicago developer, Golub Real Estate Corporation, with Solomon Cordwell Buenz as the lead architectural firm. Though it has a San Francisco office, SCB is a veteran of Chicago's high-rise scene, mainstream and crisp. Its work includes One Rincon, a tower that shows the visceral reaction towers can stir, even when they fit within zoning.

ossible presentation

By the end of last week, redevelopment officials were suggesting they may change course and arrange for a public presentation of the proposals after the schematic designs are presented in May.

Let's hope so.

Architecture isn't the sole criteria for choosing who builds tomorrow's city. But it is the most public art form we have - and when high-rise design is more eclectic than ever, this is no time to pull down the shades.

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...BAHC16NIED.DTL

Without the Chron, who'll kick the city's butt?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2125  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2009, 9:13 PM
ACSF ACSF is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF
Posts: 16
skyline pic

Thought that people might enjoy a recent view of the skyline. Hope you enjoy.


Last edited by ACSF; Mar 30, 2009 at 9:16 PM. Reason: photo troubles
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2126  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 3:17 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
The Argenta looks as stubby in this photo as it does to me in person. I'll never understand why they didn't make it taller--like its neighbors Fox Plaza and 100 Van Ness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2127  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 5:49 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Turnberry Tower at 45 Lansing expired earlier this month already.
Oh no. That can't be good.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2128  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 5:54 AM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
The Argenta looks as stubby in this photo as it does to me in person. I'll never understand why they didn't make it taller--like its neighbors Fox Plaza and 100 Van Ness.
Given it's a battleship grey stucco box, you sure you regret they didn't go taller?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2129  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 6:00 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
The Argenta looks as stubby in this photo as it does to me in person. I'll never understand why they didn't make it taller--like its neighbors Fox Plaza and 100 Van Ness.
Because it, and they, are cheap.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2130  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 6:05 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Didn't they try to go taller? I seem to remember them originally proposing something taller and being shot down, though I could be wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2131  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 6:26 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by nequidnimis View Post
Given it's a battleship grey stucco box, you sure you regret they didn't go taller?
Well, that and that they didn't build it according to the original renderings--mostly glass.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2132  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 3:55 PM
RandalR RandalR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
Oh no. That can't be good.
Turnberry doesn't have the money to build any new towers right now, anyway - they have big debt problems and the new Fontainebleau in Las Vegas is taking all of their attention.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2133  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2009, 7:01 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
San Francisco General Hospital: Latest Renderings And Overview



It’s a plugged-in tipster that forwards the latest renderings for the San Francisco General Hospital addition and directs our attention to the Webcor overview:

The 448,000 sq ft steel moment frame structure will have two levels below grade and eight levels above grade including a mechanical penthouse. Ties to the existing hospital will be made by means of a tunnel at the B1 level and a bridge at the 2nd floor. The building will be constructed on base isolators to withstand a major seismic event.

The project will be built in 4 phases. Phase I consists of site utilities relocation and replacement. Phase II consists of service building modifications and equipment additions. Phase III consists of excavations, foundations and structure frame. Phase IV consists of the new Acute Building Enclosure and build out. The new hospital is seeking a minimum of LEED Silver certification and is expected to open in 2015.


Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments

More renderings from http://www.webcor.com/current.html?proj_id=250



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2134  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2009, 7:43 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
High-rise plans teeter with economy in S.F.
James Temple, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 2, 2009

Builders and planning groups fear that lenders are drawing conclusions from the financial meltdown that will stunt the growth of high-rise housing, even after the economy recovers.

During an industry panel discussion on Wednesday, Michael Covarrubias, chief executive officer of San Francisco development firm TMG Partners, said that he doubted he would witness another residential skyscraper built in San Francisco.

"And you'll never see two towers again," he said, referring to projects that included twin high-rises, such as The Infinity and One Rincon Hill condominiums in the SoMa neighborhood. "It's the death knell for residential development."


If his prediction is true, it would undermine assumptions in long-range planning throughout the city. Notably, the Transbay project includes - and depends on land-sale revenue from - as many as seven new skyscrapers, filled with an undetermined mix of residential and office space.

Dean Macris, a senior adviser on the plan for Mayor Gavin Newsom's office, questioned Covarrubias' assessment.

"We're in a situation where we really can't predict, once we're out of this economic climate, what kind of building types will be finance-able," he said. "I don't see any reason for us to revise our thinking."

Covarrubias made his comments during a real estate discussion at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts sponsored by the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition. In an interview, he explained that most of the residential towers erected in the city during the boom were financed by multimillion dollar loans in which banks took on 80 percent of the risk.

With those institutions foreclosing in rising numbers and swallowing steep losses, few will accept such lopsided ratios again, he said.
That will boost the equity financing developers must raise from pension funds and endowments, money that comes at a higher cost.

"I don't think you'll make the numbers work again for a very long time," said Covarrubias, whose company co-developed the Soma Grand condo tower on Mission Street.

Michael Cohen, director of the mayor's office of economic development and another panelist, said he was skeptical that housing high-rises will come to a permanent halt, but acknowledged that such projects won't move ahead soon.

It's not just skyscrapers that are at risk, but mid-sized condominium projects as well, said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association. Once developers begin construction on condos, they and their financers are on the hook for the entire structure, he said. In contrast, builders can tilt up single-family homes one at a time, drawing down their loan in increments as the market dictates.

Those realities could repel and attract, respectively, lenders in a newly conservative mood, even though the latter development pattern has come under growing scrutiny. Suburban sprawl makes inefficient use of limited land and necessitates greater reliance on greenhouse gas-emitting automobiles, environmental and planning groups argue. In recent years, many builders and lenders have begun to embrace the urban infill alternative.

"My greatest fear is that the fallout from the financial collapse will be that sprawl development becomes even more attractive," Metcalf said.

E-mail James Temple at jtemple@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...BUQ816QS2H.DTL

I'm crossing my fingers that Covarrubias is just spouting sour grapes since his SOMA Grand is undoubtedly the most senseless project of the boom years--a building marketed as luxury in SF's most scruffy downtown neighborhood (worse, IMHO, than the Tenderloin since it's deserted nights and weekends and there's little shopping or dining nearby)--with blocked views to boot. In retrospect, how they ever sold anything there is a mystery.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2135  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 12:18 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Think you can handle some GOOD news (whether or not, like me, you find it hard to believe these days)? See http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...26#post4175126
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2136  
Old Posted Apr 3, 2009, 3:48 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2137  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2009, 4:08 AM
Hoodrat Hoodrat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: >TACOMA<
Posts: 893
^^
That's just sick...I hope it gets built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2138  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2009, 2:33 AM
sofresh808 sofresh808 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 352
^^ I dig it, hope the curved design wins out too. Definitely fits its context well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2139  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2009, 3:05 PM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
International
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oslo
Posts: 4,052
Hello everybody,

I'm going to be in town all day Friday, Saturday and Sunday. If any of the forumers wouldn't mind showing me around a few neighborhoods, that'd be most appreciated. I especially want to see the Mission, Nob Hill, North Beach, as well as Mission Beach (I love contemporary architecture).

Here's my thread from the last time I was in town:http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=161392

Please don't leave me hanging
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2140  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2009, 1:38 AM
LWR's Avatar
LWR LWR is offline
Waiting for what's next..
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF: on top of a hill behind UCSF
Posts: 170
Thumbs up Good eye, great work...

I'm going to be knee-deep in work, or I would gladly drive you around-and-about.

Having said that (not a cop-out), I'm going to be looking forward to your photos.

I have to agree with BTinSF when he exclaimed that your portrait work is way above the usual. You are indeed an artist.

I'm hoping that someone who is available will volunteer to act as your guide while visiting.
__________________
Show me a 12 foot fence and I'll show you a 14 foot ladder.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:14 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.