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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #9921  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 5:14 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
That's a pretty old photo of SF that they used haha
I'm also fairly certain the rendering in that shot is at least 5 years old too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9922  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2019, 6:23 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyMucho View Post
I'm also fairly certain the rendering in that shot is at least 5 years old too.
And it still shows the proposed building at 320 ft, not 444 ft.

But it's what the BizTimes used.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9923  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2019, 8:12 AM
IMBY IMBY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran View Post
I had completely forgotten about this development. Redesigned & ready to go. Picture from Socket Site. I find it to be boring architecture. I will look down on this one from my apartment 2 blocks away. It will not do any damage to the view. Maybe in a couple of years there will be enough people to support some decent restaurants in the neighborhood, if they can afford the rent!

1270 Mission Street
I'm surprised, that a city like SF, doesn't have a much stricter Design Committee, to allow a building like this to be built!

I can understand other cities who are so desperate for any development that they'll approve just about anything so as not scare away the developer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9924  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2019, 5:22 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
I'm surprised, that a city like SF, doesn't have a much stricter Design Committee, to allow a building like this to be built!

I can understand other cities who are so desperate for any development that they'll approve just about anything so as not scare away the developer.
I'm not sure about 'stricter' but better, more considerate, and clearer guidelines would be outstanding. As with any good set of guidelines, there definitely needs to be some room for interpretation and play — but to me, it's the lack of regulation on materials or super loose concern for context.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9925  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2019, 6:04 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMBY View Post
I'm surprised, that a city like SF, doesn't have a much stricter Design Committee, to allow a building like this to be built!

I can understand other cities who are so desperate for any development that they'll approve just about anything so as not scare away the developer.
San Francisco has a process that involves layer upon layer of bureaucratic obstacles to building anything, starting with a city agency—the Planning Dept.— made up of city employees of varying talents and training, followed by a Planning Commission made up of politically connected appointees and ultimately the elected Board of Supervisors. Any project can be ordered modified or blocked altogether at any of those levels, based on so little as a single citizens complaint or nothing at all. And any project that navigates all the levels can be stopped by a lawsuit, often over failures or deficiencies in the state-mandated environmental review process which comes before all the rest.

To suggest we don’t have enough bureaucracy or that the tripwires any project ust step over or that what we need is more design kibbitzing by non-participants with mediocre tastes is pretty funny. If we took it seriously we could find ourselves unable to build any housing at all.

Not every apartment building or even most needs to be an object or architectural beauty. They just need to provide places for people to live. Most, in most cities, are quite bland. But if we had less rather than more bureaucratic control, we might get a few outstanding projects, at least by some tastes (others would doubtless hate them).

As for this project, it will give some people a place to live. Just build it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9926  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2019, 5:11 AM
timbad timbad is online now
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
1554 Market is really whizzing along. ...

there is a thread for this one...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9927  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2019, 7:41 PM
timbad timbad is online now
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK View Post
Aforementioned tile work:

Edit: photobucket sucks
from yesterday, this is the north side



and the Market side

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9928  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2019, 10:37 PM
timbad timbad is online now
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,366
the one getting a make-over on Folsom, at Hawthorne





this one just off of Powell St near Union Square has a crane base



950-974 Market



1066 Market, NW corner





looking north from Market



the FastFrame site on Market at.. Haight I think

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9929  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2019, 12:56 AM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,134
TIMBAD - Yes, the last photo is at Market & Haight. Go by often on the way to Amoeba records.

The next to last picture shows a building at the corner of Market which has a mosque on the top floor. Notice the Islamic design on the windows.
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9930  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2019, 9:56 PM
bloobityblurp bloobityblurp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 6
Inside the new Grand Hyatt at SFO

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9931  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2019, 4:31 AM
timbad timbad is online now
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
...

this one just off of Powell St near Union Square has a crane base



...
and that base may now be the crane seen in Jerry's photo from the 706 Mission thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran View Post
...
edit: actually, I'm not so sure that's right, looks a bit too far east
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9932  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2019, 11:46 AM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,134
timbad - I think the crane in question is clearly lined up on page 496 of this forum in Gillanova's photo from the Hilton hotel tower. Due to perspectives I often find it hard to tell where a crane is as there are so many on the skyline now!
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9933  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2019, 7:08 PM
alpallord alpallord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 13
I think that crane is from the MACY's rehab that is being done.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9934  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2019, 11:34 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,169
Quote:
These Central SoMa projects are now ready to roll
By Blanca Torres – Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Sep 30, 2019, 2:54pm PDT Updated 51 minutes ago

With a handful of lawsuits now out of the way, large development projects in the San Francisco Central SoMa planning area are closer to breaking ground — but some office projects have one more big hurdle to jump.

Central SoMa is a development plan that upzoned roughly 230 acres of mostly low-rise industrial buildings between Second and Sixth streets, from Howard to Townsend streets. The plan allows for office space that could accommodate 32,000 new jobs as well as about 8,800 units of housing . . . .

With the suits settled, purely residential developments such as Tishman Speyer’s 870 apartments at 655 4th St. and 200 apartments for low-income residents at 5th and Howard streets, are free to move forward.

Office projects, on the other hand, need to receive an allocation of space from the city’s office cap known as Prop. M . . . .

Some of the Central SoMa office projects already have allocations in place, such as the the TMG Partners and Alexandria Real Estate Inc.’s 870,000-square-foot 88 Bluxome, Tishman Speyer’s 917,000-square-foot 598 Brannan St. and the first, 1.4 million-square-foot phase of Kilroy Realty Corp.’s Flower Mart redevelopment.

That leaves several projects in limbo including Boston Properties 760,000-square-foot project at 4th and Harrison streets and about 800,000 square feet more at the Flower Mart . . . . the city has a pipeline of about 6 million square feet of office waiting for Prop. M allocations . . . .

On top of that, neighborhood activist group Todco plans to start collecting signatures for a ballot measure that would reduce the annual office cap allocation if the city misses its annual affordable housing targets.






https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...d6SEFnSWZCdSJ9
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9935  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2019, 11:37 PM
MN/WI MN/WI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
and that base may now be the crane seen in Jerry's photo from the 706 Mission thread:



edit: actually, I'm not so sure that's right, looks a bit too far east
Great picture. I literally do not recognize this area or many of the buildings. Is this going through a resurgence?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9936  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2019, 4:20 AM
timbad timbad is online now
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN/WI View Post
Great picture. I literally do not recognize this area or many of the buildings. Is this going through a resurgence?
I think you are referring to Jerry's pic from NW of Union Square, looking SE. it's an angle I'm not used to either, but most of the buildings in it, particularly in the foreground, are not particularly new. the newest complete ones are in the distance at far left, in Rincon Hill, built between 2008-2014ish. some of the taller buildings visible in the middle distance, around Yerba Buena, went up in the decade prior to that. of course, you can see the skeleton of 706 Mission rising there, with its own crane, as well. it is the last major piece of the build-up of that area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9937  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2019, 4:29 AM
timbad timbad is online now
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
man, so 5th and Brannan could see construction on three of its corners in the next couple years (depending how Flower Mart gets phased)? that would be pretty transformational.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9938  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2019, 6:06 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 106
Quick shots of a few projects around the Mission:

The affordable project at 2060 Folsom aka "Casa Adelante" from the entrance of In Chan Kaajal Park at 17th and Folsom. It's not super far along at this point but you can definitely feel how much it's going to fill up the intersection and add some more life to the park.



and from the Western edge of the park:



1296 Shotwell which is another BMR project in the Mission just off of Van Ness and Cesar Chavez which is slowly losing its shroud to reveal the vibe it'll bring to the crooked little street it sits on.



More shots soon of 2000 Bryant and the KQED building redesign project around the corner that just broke ground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9939  
Old Posted Oct 3, 2019, 11:47 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 968
Great update/pictures. Been wondering how some of those Mission projects have been progressing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9940  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2019, 12:32 AM
MN/WI MN/WI is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
I think you are referring to Jerry's pic from NW of Union Square, looking SE. it's an angle I'm not used to either, but most of the buildings in it, particularly in the foreground, are not particularly new. the newest complete ones are in the distance at far left, in Rincon Hill, built between 2008-2014ish. some of the taller buildings visible in the middle distance, around Yerba Buena, went up in the decade prior to that. of course, you can see the skeleton of 706 Mission rising there, with its own crane, as well. it is the last major piece of the build-up of that area.
Yes, thank you. I thought the picture transferred over
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 5:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.