HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted May 24, 2018, 5:36 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
I prefer the rounded corner "streamline" look.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted May 24, 2018, 6:45 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
Will this be right next to Parcel F??
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...-proposed.html
So there would be three towers all right next to each other, two on rather small parcels? Isn't there a separation of towers ordinance?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted May 31, 2018, 6:49 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
^^^Three towers right next to each other? Yep, here it is...
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...-revealed.html


This should probably get its own thread soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted May 31, 2018, 9:33 PM
The Best Forumer's Avatar
The Best Forumer The Best Forumer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
^^^Three towers right next to each other? Yep, here it is...
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...-revealed.html


This should probably get its own thread soon.
What is this? Horrible location. Half the residences will see nothing but brick wall.
__________________
The suburbs are second-rate. Cookie-cutter houses, treeless yards, mediocre schools, and more crime than you think. Do your family a favor and move closer to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted May 31, 2018, 10:31 PM
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 The Best Forumer View Post
What is this? Horrible location. Half the residences will see nothing but brick wall.
Certainly not a ~brick~ wall. I’m guessing the units will focus upon north (over the park) and south views, including the four prominent corners.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2018, 2:11 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Certainly not a ~brick~ wall. I’m guessing the units will focus upon north (over the park) and south views, including the four prominent corners.
I agree. That's what architects get paid to deal with. With such a narrow building, it's likely they'll put things like the elevator columns on the most viewless side. In other words, possibly put the "core" not in the usual center of the tower but on that side . . . or deal with the issue in some other way so that the units all get a reasonable view.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2018, 6:44 PM
The Best Forumer's Avatar
The Best Forumer The Best Forumer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I agree. That's what architects get paid to deal with. With such a narrow building, it's likely they'll put things like the elevator columns on the most viewless side. In other words, possibly put the "core" not in the usual center of the tower but on that side . . . or deal with the issue in some other way so that the units all get a reasonable view.
Hrm... the design itself isn't bad at all.... we'll see. is this approved?
__________________
The suburbs are second-rate. Cookie-cutter houses, treeless yards, mediocre schools, and more crime than you think. Do your family a favor and move closer to the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2018, 7:29 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Forumer View Post
Hrm... the design itself isn't bad at all.... we'll see. is this approved?
not even a formal planning application yet, just a "preliminary project assessment"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2018, 11:35 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2018, 12:24 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by mt_climber13 View Post
Well the best news seems to be that if the developers signed that kind of lease they must have a high degree of confidence the tower will be built and built on schedule, completed in 5 years. Until now, it seems much more tentative than that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2018, 7:15 AM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 965
Salesforce isn't just looking into it, they seem to have leased the entirety of the office space before the EIR is even complete. I am pretty sure this will be built starting in 2019. As a requirement parcel 4 (currently the temp terminal across from Park Tower) will be affordable units.
__________________
San Francisco Projects List ∞ The city that knows how ∞ 2017 ∞ 884,363 ∞ ~2030 ∞ 1,000,000
San Francisco Projects ThreadOakland Projects ThreadOceanwide Center - 275M/901'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2019, 8:33 PM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,046
Well then...

Last major SF Transbay tower, affordable housing at risk of delays

Quote:
A Transbay district tower that would fund more than 300 affordable housing units at no cost to the city could be held up for years, a potential victim of San Francisco’s cap on the approval of new office space and the flood of big South of Market projects lining up for permits.

At 806 feet, 546 Howard St. would be the city’s fourth-tallest tower and the last major high-rise in the Transbay district, the former industrial area that now hosts the city’s tallest neighborhood.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...photo-17180260
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2019, 10:43 PM
NYC2ATX's Avatar
NYC2ATX NYC2ATX is offline
Everywhere all at once
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SI NYC
Posts: 2,448
Really?? Honestly that's a ridiculous reason to hold up something like this. An office space cap, or any kind of blanket cap in the city really, is just a ridiculous statute to have in place at all. I'm surprised there isn't a movement in favor of rolling that back, even in just the Transbay and Central SoMa areas.
__________________
BUILD IT. BUILD EVERYTHING. BUILD IT ALL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2019, 11:52 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2ATX View Post
Really?? Honestly that's a ridiculous reason to hold up something like this. An office space cap, or any kind of blanket cap in the city really, is just a ridiculous statute to have in place at all. I'm surprised there isn't a movement in favor of rolling that back, even in just the Transbay and Central SoMa areas.
Quite the contrary. San Franciscans voted it in and so far have shown minimal interest in voting it out. It's not a cap on highrises--just on office highrises--the idea being to force development of more housing in the city rather than massive amounts of office space to which workers would have to try to commute into town on already maxed-out bridges and transit.

And so far, the effects have been better than most development fans had hoped. Since each annual allocation--875,000 sq ft--rolls over if not used, the regular recessions and boom/bust development cycles the nation and SF have experienced have largely kept the cap from really hurting. In fact, it arguably has just prevented the sort of overdevelopment other cities have experienced with consequent crashes in office rents and masses of vacant space.

As of last June, there remained about 2 million sq ft available under the cap with another 875,000 added this year. Meanwhile about 1.3 million sq ft of office space has been taken out of the pool through redevelopment as housing or other non-office uses and a proposal has been brought forward to add that, and any future conversion from office to other uses, to the pool.

So with almost 3 million, and potentially over 4 million sq ft available, I doubt this project will be held up by the cap. Yes, there are lots of other projects in various stages of proposal, but as San Franciscans know from seeing even approved projects get repeatedly sold and not actually built, I don't think the 9 million sq ft mentioned in that article is really worth worrying about. And I also think the Planning Dept., if it must, will give a project as prominent as this one a certain priority. Finally, keep in mind that this is a mixed use project. Only 375,000 sq ft of it is office and affected by the cap. So while I respect both Mr. Dineen and Mr. Li, I don't take the likelihood of the cap holding this one up seriously.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2019, 11:58 PM
gillynova's Avatar
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Austin / Bay Area
Posts: 2,140
I was, and still am, excited for this project to go up
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2019, 12:37 AM
Zapatan's Avatar
Zapatan Zapatan is offline
DENNAB
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NA - Europe
Posts: 6,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
I was, and still am, excited for this project to go up
True, delays are annoying but soon enough this and Oceanwide will make a huge impact
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2019, 1:15 AM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 84
Let’s hope the 1.3 million from office to residential conversion is added to the pot to allow this and other projects to proceed without delay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2019, 6:31 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 965
There is a big article about 546 Mission / Parcel F in the Chronicle today. They are begging the city for Prop M space in competition with various Central SoMa developments.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...g-13745953.php
__________________
San Francisco Projects List ∞ The city that knows how ∞ 2017 ∞ 884,363 ∞ ~2030 ∞ 1,000,000
San Francisco Projects ThreadOakland Projects ThreadOceanwide Center - 275M/901'
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2019, 7:00 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
^^That's the same article that's linked in post 152 and started this sidebar discussion. For some reason they changed the photo though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2019, 4:06 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Couple new renderings showing the salesforce branding and its connection to the park:






Source: www.pcparch.com/parcel-f-slideshow
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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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