HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

    

Palace Hotel Residential Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted May 4, 2008, 8:06 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
I don't know if anyone caught this in the John King article from May 2nd, but it appears the Palace Hotel Tower addition will be reduced in height under the proposed rezoning.

Besides the obvious accents on the skyline, the proposed rezoning raises heights more "modestly" in other locations. There's space for a 400-foot tower connected to the Palace Hotel on New Montgomery Street, for instance, and a 450-foot shaft on Howard Street next to where a 700-foot tower is allowed. On Tehama Street - an alleyway - zoning would allow a 350-foot tower.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAG110F7TL.DTL

The height will be reduced from the proposed 669', 60 stories to 400', ~40 stories. I'm assuming this reduction is a result of the proposed tower potentially casting a shadow onto Union Square? It's a shame that this tower will be cut in height because I feel most of its existing, neighboring towers are already around this height...the Paramount, St. Regis, and McKesson Plaza (One Post). So much for breaking the table top effect...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted May 5, 2008, 12:47 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Yes, I noticed this too, along with several other large reductions in height. Actually, the height appears to have been reduced from 725' instead of 669'.

Original height proposals:
From: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi...sit_center.htm


Revised height proposals:

Last edited by SFView; May 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted May 5, 2008, 5:48 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
I don't see where that map identifies this as a 400' parcel. It looks to me like it's still 300'. What am I missing?
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 3:29 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
I don't see where that map identifies this as a 400' parcel. It looks to me like it's still 300'. What am I missing?
Opps, sorry. It's not showing in the new map. John King mentioned that it is now 400'. There are other details missing from the updated scheme. It is still in a state of flux, plus keeping it somewhat sanitized helps garner approval from the public rather than opposite. You also can see similar simplification in the "1000'" renderings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2008, 4:26 PM
NDPhilly's Avatar
NDPhilly NDPhilly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: suburban philly,PA(Glen Mills)
Posts: 172
i would really like to see some renderings of this one
__________________
my mini city - http://glen-mills.myminicity.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2008, 6:54 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDPhilly View Post
i would really like to see some renderings of this one
There are none, at least as far as I'm aware of. The only somewhat vague look that we have is in the SF Rundown thread in the City Compilations forum where it shows what it would look like from the courtyard.
__________________
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
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2008, 7:10 AM
caramatt caramatt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 36
This is one of the best looking projects on the boards. I hope it still gets built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2008, 8:17 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDPhilly View Post
i would really like to see some renderings of this one
This is all we have:


Scanned from the SF Business Times
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2009, 11:48 PM
tommaso tommaso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 396
Updates...

What is the current plan for this site?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jun 12, 2011, 10:37 AM
tommaso tommaso is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 396
Is this development temporarily stalled?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2011, 1:46 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommaso View Post
Is this development temporarily stalled?
tommaso, are you paying any attention to the economy, anything happening in San Francisco or reading the active SF threads here? If you were, you wouldn't be asking the same questions in every thread!

The demand here is for rental apartments and SOMA tech/biotech space.

I favor the vast majority of proposels and development in San Francisco, but I hope this one dies and never sees the light of day. In hindsight, I feel it was a mistake to have built the Fairmont and Saint Francis towers. Let our most treasured hotels exist in their glory without a tower on them!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2011, 9:20 PM
CyberEric CyberEric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Something strange with this guy...he's asking about all of the SF and NY proposals that haven't been talked about it years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jun 14, 2011, 4:09 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberEric View Post
Something strange with this guy...he's asking about all of the SF and NY proposals that haven't been talked about it years.
Yes, he's been in Chicago too!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 10:50 PM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,911
Don't know the status of this project, but I found these renderings that I don't believe have been posted here:





They were posted on this site: http://www.architizer.com/en_us/proj.../#.UVoO-xymiSo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 11:20 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 656
From the top rendering, I count at least 57 floors plus the crown, which would make this tower significantly taller than 400 feet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2013, 11:39 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
The proposal was for a 669-foot tower. I haven't heard anything more about this proposal in years.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 5:26 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 588
This one looks pretty dead. I don't think anything's happened since 2006 when those renderings were created. One bit of news is that if the owners ever decide to pursue it again, they have a new height limit of 600', which was approved in May 2012 when a bunch of height limits were raised.

However, even if the developer announced tomorrow that they were going to build, it would probably be at least 5 years before anything happens (just look at how long the Mexican Museum Tower has taken).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2013, 8:15 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
By looking pretty dead, I hope we really mean this project is rather much more on indefinite hold.

Anyway regarding the number of floors, I believe it is still (or returned to) 60 with a basic height limit of 600'. It appears that the podium base of the tower matches floor levels to connect to the existing adjacent structures of the hotel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted May 10, 2016, 7:01 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
It appears that the Palace Hotel Tower Project is on indefinite hold:

Original image source: http://architizer.com/projects/palac...r/media/87991/


There is some mention of the Palace Hotel Tower in this Planning document for Oceanwide Center (April/May 2016) - page 233:
http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...06.1523PRJ.pdf
Quote:
The under - construction Salesforce Tower and the under- construction project at 181 Fremont Street will also shade Union Square. Other than the proposed project, remaining development sites identified in the PEIR as casting shadow on Union Square include a proposed tower adjacent to the Palace Hotel (with a height limit of 600 feet, although a proposal on file at the Planning Department seeks approval for an approximately 700-foot-tall building) and a potential 700-foot tower on the Golden Gate University site. If a tower were to proceed on the Palace Hotel site or a tower be proposed on the Golden Gate University site, such project(s) would be subject to project-specific shadow analysis.
There have been recent renovations to the existing hotel, but no mention of plans to proceed with the tower. See this article from July, 2015.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...on-photos.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 9:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.