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
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2007, 8:19 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2007, 2:08 PM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.
Bingo-hence the arrest-for protesting
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2007, 4:02 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
The Sheraton Palace was segregated until the mid-'60s.
Er, that's reassuring in this context. I was kind of shocked to think he was telling us his mom was engaged in "the world's oldest profession".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2007, 11:25 PM
CityKid CityKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BK,NY/SF,CA/LB,CA
Posts: 480
I'd like to see more angles, especially considering I would watch it rise from my office. I hope it's a beauty.
__________________
Everytime you drive to the grocery store, you are killing a polar bear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 12:26 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
This rendering shows mostly the east facade of the tower, from the corner of New Montgomery and Jessie Streets looking west. The tower is situated at the far southwest corner of the Palace Hotel site, at Jessie and Annie Streets. The tower does seem to appear to be about 60 stories with at least 4 stories of additional height above the roof. Athough I can also provide a larger image, I will let Plinko do the honors with better quality access to the PDF provide by BTinSF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 1:10 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
Er, that's reassuring in this context. I was kind of shocked to think he was telling us his mom was engaged in "the world's oldest profession".
Heh, somehow I don't picture the Palace being that sort of place. So she was an activist hippie chick in SF in the late 60's, probably a more interesting than most moms on this board.

back on topic, is the vacancy rate for hotels in the city still insanely low? The intercontinental should bring some rooms online soon, but is there still demand for this kind of space?
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 3:00 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark View Post
Heh, somehow I don't picture the Palace being that sort of place. So she was an activist hippie chick in SF in the late 60's, probably a more interesting than most moms on this board.

back on topic, is the vacancy rate for hotels in the city still insanely low? The intercontinental should bring some rooms online soon, but is there still demand for this kind of space?
Re your mom's bust: My best friend is a desk clerk at a hotel that shall go nameless (but is an upscale corporate sibling of the "juke box"). Said hotel also has pretentions to being above all that. But he tells me hair-raising stories of all sorts of unlikely behavior.

Anyway, my understanding (and I'll look into it further if you wish) is that SF hotel occupancy has improved considerably since 2001-2003, but it shouldn't matter because I believe the Palace Tower is to be partly or entirely condos with hotel services like the upper floors of the 4 Seasons and St. Regis, and the Ritz Carlton Residences.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 3:04 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Athough I can also provide a larger image, I will let Plinko do the honors with better quality access to the PDF provide by BTinSF.
If you've got a better rendering, post it because I was unable to provide Plinko with whatever it would take for him to open the pdf file where I got the version I posted. It came from the "Structures" supplement of the Business Times which didn't seem to be on the web site yesterday but I'm still hoping they'll put it up before the weekend is over. If so, I can then post it directly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 4:31 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Does it require special membership permissions to view the PDF? The next time you try a 'Ctrl + Prnt Scrn' screen capture, you may want to try zooming up the image as large as can fit your screen before doing so. If you have a widescreen monitor that can rotate to portrait view for taller-than-wide images, you can get even larger results. In the meantime, I was able to enlarge your original screen capture. It is larger, but a little more detail from the original PDF might be better.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 6:06 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^I think you're talking "Windoze-speak" I used my Mac iBook and I did enlarge it as much as the screen would hold (it's only a 14" screen), then used a bit of software for Macs called Snapz-Pro to take the picture of it. I frankly was busy doing several things at once and may not have adjusted Snapz-Pro to take the highest quality photo it could--I'm not sure what the settings were.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 6:50 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Oh, you're Mac. Sorry about that. Anyway, it worked out good enough for now. Hopefully you will also be able to post the article that goes along with this rendering soon. Any mention of the status of this project?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 10:28 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^As for posting the article, that's looking grim. They say on the web page that for now the supplements aren't online.

It is an article about SOM and their partner Craig Hartman, not so much about this project. It does say, though, "The addition, which will have balconies on the east and west faces, will be made of glass with fritted coating on the vertical edges and top. Hartman said the design has been inspired by the 'soft luminescence of light' in the hotel's famous Garden Court. 'When the sun strikes, the entire building will glow as a lantern . . . . It is very much like taking the Garden Court and bringing it to the skyline of the city . . . . The intention is to make a very slender, light, luminous tower.'"

Last edited by BTinSF; Jun 24, 2007 at 11:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 10:58 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
^^^I like the notion of bringing the Garden Court to the skyline, even though it doesn't really look so obvious in the rendering. It will also be interesting to see if it "glows as a lantern" in the sunlight. There are some nice effects that can be created with glass similar to glass art and sculpture. I like that some architects are applying some of these ideas to architecture, especially in San Francisco.

Thanks for passing on that summarized information. Is there anything worth posting in the other threads?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2007, 11:16 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
^^^ It will also be interesting to see if it "glows as a lantern" in the sunlight. There are some nice effects that can be created with glass similar to glass art and sculpture.
Like this:



or:



However, it is hard to do in the case of multi-story residential architecture. The program gets in the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2007, 2:07 AM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
I think it may give Millenium a run for its money. It even appears to look a lot like Millenium, but its tough to tell from this rendering.

Does anyone have an idea when they expect to start construction on this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2007, 4:09 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^It'll be a long time--if ever. It isn't approved yet and I think would require a rezoning on the height. Since the Palace is a historic structure, I expect a lot of controversy over any addition to it but especially one this tall. This could well be one of those buildings that just doesn't happen, but time will tell. The anti-height NIMBYs are strangely silent for the moment.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2007, 4:52 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
^^^I actually mean light as effected and viewed more from the exterior. Yes, the Millenium is one example of what I mean.

Last edited by SFView; Jun 25, 2007 at 6:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2007, 5:45 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^It'll be a long time--if ever. It isn't approved yet and I think would require a rezoning on the height. Since the Palace is a historic structure, I expect a lot of controversy over any addition to it but especially one this tall. This could well be one of those buildings that just doesn't happen, but time will tell. The anti-height NIMBYs are strangely silent for the moment.
NIMBYs can read and write on SSP, just like the rest of us. The part of the building that is being replaced, isn't historic. Hopefully, the anti-height NIMBYs are more understanding. Taller, thinner, more widely spaced towers are clearly better than tightly packed shorter towers squeezed under a 550 foot limit, as long as they are built in places that make more sense and minimize negative impact. If any new building would receive more negative opposition, it would be One Rincon Hill. Rincon Hill should begin to make more sense as other towers get built up around it soon. The area near the Palace Hotel is already built up.

Last edited by SFView; Jun 25, 2007 at 6:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2007, 5:29 PM
nequidnimis nequidnimis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 507
This is a high-rise in a business district. Why would NIMBY's be against it?

What upsets NIMBY's is the disruption to what they perceive as an established order in their neighborhoods, and the concept of exceptions to the law written down in the Municipal code essentially up for sale.

Last edited by nequidnimis; Jun 29, 2007 at 5:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jun 29, 2007, 5:49 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^You are talking about the rational ones. In San Franciscso, there are those who just oppose almost any development. The Sue Hestor/Calvin Welch crowd don't need a valid reason to oppose something. And here they do have a valid reason of a sort. The proposed tower is taller than the height limits they love would allow and it modifies a landmark even if it doesn't change the historic part.

This is the crowd that wants to block denser, taller development at Market & Van Ness (and hence the creation of more needed housing along with a much livelier intersection of the city's two widest streets) even though the necessary rezoning would be the product of years of discussion by community members who do live in the neighborhood and their champion on the Planning Commission doesn't.

Last edited by BTinSF; Jun 29, 2007 at 5:55 PM.
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 8:50 AM.

     

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