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

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by emanon

Touché! Thanks for the confirmation. (Though I never doubted your original post was accurate.)

Thanks, emanon. I wish other posters could be as gracious.

[Pedestrian]

Now here's an idea:

What if Sutro Tower had condos in it?
San Francisco Magazine’s cover features an alluring rendering of the city’s favorite tower
BY BROCK KEELING MAR 23, 2017, 11:17AM PDT

San Francisco Magazine just dropped their urban design issue today. Most notably, the issue’s cover features something downright spectacular or horrifying, depending on your point of view: a rendering of Sutro Tower with a condo-conversion renovation.

http://sf.curbed.com/2017/3/23/15039...d-condos-in-it

[viewguysf]

[IMG]350 Bush and Salesforce Tower by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Now here's an idea:


http://sf.curbed.com/2017/3/23/15039...d-condos-in-it

Aside from the neighborhood protests and many environmental impact issues, I wonder how they would manage to fit an appropriately size elevator, stair and utility core through the narrow part of the Sutro Tower without taking away too much condo space. They might have to put that on the outside of the main tower instead. It is a fun and amusing fantasy, anyway. The awesome views would be so obvious! Oh, and isn't this also a giant lighting rod?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by SFView

Aside from the neighborhood protests and many environmental impact issues, I wonder how they would manage to fit an appropriately size elevator, stair and utility core through the narrow part of the Sutro Tower without taking away too much condo space. They might have to put that on the outside of the main tower instead. It is a fun and amusing fantasy, anyway. The awesome views would be so obvious! Oh, and isn't this also a giant lighting rod?

not to mention unacceptable RF/MW radiation exposure levels at the top of the tower...

[SFView]

^^^I'm no expert on this, but buildings such as the John Hancock Center in Chicago seem to manage.

[ozone]

No matter what, it's a ridiculous idea. Never will happen and is very likely near impossible. The article goes on to say that the Sutro Tower is an icon for the city on par with the Transamerica Pyramid and the Golden Gate Bridge. Uh no it's not.

[timbad]

Originally Posted by slock

I have a feeling that 325 Fremont might break ground soon.

Just this week it received the last of its needed permits. It now has building, shoring, and excavation permits in hand.

We should keep an eye on the site for any signs of movement.

http://www.handelarchitects.com/proj...mont-main.html

aha, I had been wondering about this one. it's been sitting out there for so long and nothing ever seems to happen. would be great to get that little gap filled in, and this one should contribute more to the foot traffic in the area than the other Rincon Hill projects, I would think, being closer to (less uphill from) Folsom. will definitely keep eyes peeled.

also, this is one where I don't feel I get a good sense of what it will really look like from the rendering, so am curious.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ozone

No matter what, it's a ridiculous idea. Never will happen and is very likely near impossible. The article goes on to say that the Sutro Tower is an icon for the city on par with the Transamerica Pyramid and the Golden Gate Bridge. Uh no it's not.

No, it's what the subtitle of the issue says: A dream or a scheme. And since my home office window faces Twin Peaks and Sutro Tower, it certainly does dominate the city as much or more than those other "icons" albeit it probably isn't a well known. So what is an "icon"?

Anyway, out of the box thinking should be fun. Nobody having fun with this?

[SFView]

See my post #8364 above. I already said it is fun. ...And I live less than a mile from the thing.

[botoxic]

@NachoSoto on Twitter

[gillynova]

[/url]
Untitled by Daniel Hoherd, on Flickr


Saying Goodbye by Julian Guerra, on Flickr

Shout out to "JuanPaulo" for showing me this photo.

[gillynova]

[/url]5D4_8924_HDR by Ben Flasher,

[botoxic]

@stshank on Twitter

[San Frangelino]

It's starting to look like San Vancouver from the view looking north, south of the Bay Bridge

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by San Frangelino

It's starting to look like San Vancouver from the view looking north, south of the Bay Bridge

Vancouver has a lot of 30-ish story apartment buildings but the city's tallest is only 659'. San Francisco now has quite a few buildings of that height and, of course, the salesforce is 400' taller (and there will be at least a handfull of other buildings 700' or more shortly). Also, Vancouver's residential towers tend to exist in parklike landscaping rather than any sort of continuous street wall:


http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2015/11/v...tos-1919-2015/

Note especially the foreground of this shot.

This is more like Asian cities than most American ones and makes for a less than ideal walking environment.

So I wouldn't compare the two, SF and Vancouver.

[gillynova]

Looks like the glasses in the South side of Salesforce tower, facing AT&T park, is basically done sometime this week.

[Justbuildit]

^^^^
What is keeping the Bay Area from going crazy with condo tower construction like we see in Miami and Vancouver? Seems like this is a perfect area for that kind of action and we should be seeing a lot more condos going up around the bay, not just around Rincon Hill. Miami west coast. I'd like to see SF skyline extend much further southward with condo towers. I hate that we are not seeing large towers going in south of the Bay Bridge and the skyline just suddenly ends at the bridge. That sucks.

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by botoxic

@NachoSoto on Twitter

Beautiful!

[Pedestrian]

^^In all seriousness and with some regret, it's mostly NIMBYism. Everywhere you look, from the Third St. corridor to which you refer ("south of the Bay Bridge") to transit-oriented developments in the East Bay, they are not taller because community members successfully fought to keep them from being taller. Specifically on Third St., I can recall when UCSF wanted to build a dormitory tower in Mission Bay and the Potrero Hill "acitivists" convinced then State Senator John Burton to block it ( It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Super Burton laying UC low ).

The people living in San Francisco's low-rise, historical neighborhoods like the ambience of their Victorian villages and they like their views to the water and beyond (which often have real value when the time comes to sell) and they will fight bitterly to have nothing blocked even though, time and again, the courts have said that individuals have no legal right to an existing view.