| |
Posted Apr 20, 2009, 4:36 PM
|
|
BANNED
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
|
|
I can't even remember--does this thing have a thread? I remember posting about it but not whether it had its own thread and I can't find one:
Quote:
Proposed Transamerica neighbor called too tall
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Transamerica Pyramid for decades has stood alone as San Francisco's architectural icon on the northern edge of downtown, but that could change if the city allows a flashy, cylindrical condominium tower to be built just yards away.
At approximately 400 feet, the modern, spiraling structure would be about half as tall as the pyramid, yet its height may be its most controversial feature.
Public outcry over the pyramid and high-rises in the 1980s prompted city officials to impose a 200-foot height limit in that section of downtown. In recent months, opponents pointed to similar height restrictions when fighting an eco-friendly office building proposed for the waterfront.
The condo tower developers say they are sensitive to the pyramid's special status. They say the top of their project will fall below the skyline, preserving the pyramid's capstone as the dominant feature of northern downtown.
"When you look at this building, it is self-evident that it is complementary to the Transamerica Pyramid," said the proposed building's architect, Jeffrey Heller. "It is far lower, and it is respectful."
Heller also said that while the structure is twice as tall as what is allowed, its square footage would conform to the current codes.
Some proponents like the idea of the new high-rise to the north of Market Street where little has been built since the mid-1980s. They believe that attracting more residents downtown makes sense.
Nonetheless, the project faces several significant challenges.
The plan calls for the demolition of a nine-story building erected in 1930 that served as the headquarters of the California Ink Co., which played a prominent role in the city's printing history. The tower also would cast shadows on two downtown parks, which in most cases is prohibited.
The city's Recreation and Park and Historic Preservation commissions will have a say in the project's fate, and it must be approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
Developer Andrew Segal believes the myriad hurdles can be overcome, and he is offering incentives to the city in exchange for approval of the plan.
For one, Segal is promising to convert a privately owned park - located on the block bounded by Montgomery, Washington, Sansome and Clay streets - into one that is city-owned. He also said he would expand the surrounding open space from about 18,000 square feet to 33,000 square feet.
Segal said responses from civic and neighborhood groups generally have been positive.
Lynn Jefferson of the North Beach Neighbors association said her group favors the condo tower and the green space.
"San Francisco is very limited on housing and with respect to the height, this is downtown," she said. "The building would be next to the Transamerica, which is twice its size."
That argument doesn't persuade stalwart defenders of the height restrictions.
Sue Hestor, a land-use attorney, recently represented a group opposed to the eco-friendly waterfront building. That proposed structure would have been 40 feet taller than the area's 84-foot height limit. The Board of Supervisors has required a more detailed analysis of the project that would set construction back by at least one year.
Hestor said giving height exceptions to individual projects is bad city planning.
"There were real reasons for these heights limits, and they came from multiple years of hearings," Hestor said. "It was not done in a vacuum. Citizens pushed for the limits for a reason."
City Planning Director John Rahaim said the city needs to be careful about indiscriminately raising height limits, but noted that it also should consider projects in context. He said that while numerous details need to be worked out, a new tower next to the Transamerica Pyramid "seems doable."
"It's unusual to have a building as tall as the Transamerica and then to have all the buildings around it limited to a quarter of its height," Rahaim said. "Usually you try to cluster tall buildings together."
Mitchell Schwarzer, an expert on San Francisco architectural history, said that if the primary concern raised about the new building is its impact on the San Francisco skyline, it should go forward. He believes that the tower would be a good addition.
"The most prominent view will come from Telegraph Hill. With respect to the aesthetics of the skyline, you really won't be able to tell," said Schwarzer, a professor of visual studies at the California College of Art.
Proposed condominium tower
A rendering shows the proposed cylindrical tower next to the Transamerica Pyramid as viewed from Columbus Avenue. (Heller Manus Architects)
Site of proposed new building (Todd Trumbull / The Chronicle)
The proposed building (shaded) would be about half the height of its neighbor, the Transamerica Pyramid. (Heller Manus Architects)
A rendering shows Redwood Park, now private, which would become a public park as an incentive from a developer who wants to build a new tower next to the Transamerica Pyramid. (ROMA Design Group)
E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...MN5817423D.DTL
|
As Curbed put it:
Quote:
Height Choppers Eye the Twisty Cylinder
The twisty cylinder condos proposed next door to the Transamerica Pyramid were getting muted opposition last time we checked in, but today's front page Chron story gives the opposed a little more voice. 'Course, for a building that's supposed to end up at 390 feet tall, compared to the pyramid's 853 feet, the fight over this one is nothing (just give it time). Yet, the hurdles are many: the building's not only almost twice as tall as allowed, it requires the take-down of a perhaps historic 1930 building that served as the home of California Ink Co. (Remember them??) And, lest we forget the shadows, the tower would cast them all over two downtown parks. So, to sum up, developer Andrew Segal's going to have to get this thing past the Rec & Park Commission, the newly created Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Commission, and finally the Board of Supes. Godspeed, twisty cylinder.
|
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/0...eader_comments
|
|
|
Prev
Always good to have another person on board to post photos 
I'll admit that I'm lazy and rarely take my camera out, but I appreciate everyone else that does it.
) and I haven't been able to find the same renderings online that I saw there. However, I did find a few at this site:
Linear Mode
