HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

    

350 Mission Street in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2008, 10:10 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Here's my update. I missed this thread because it's in the "skyscraper" section when, as the "update" makes clear, this is going to be a midrise and nowhere near 700 ft. In fact, I'm going to suggest that the thread be moved and its title revised. Multiplying 27 floors times the typical 13 ft per floor for office construction, it's likely to be about 350 ft with maybe another 30 - 50 ft for a crown.

Quote:
Friday, July 11, 2008
S.F. tower developer GLL goes to green extreme
Transbay action fuels new $220M highrise
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

In the latest sign that Mission Street continues to thrive despite the economic downturn, GLL Development & Management is pushing forward with a 27-story tower at 350 Mission St., a super green design that could be the first San Francisco skyscraper to use non-biodegradable materials like plastic bottles and Styrofoam in some places instead of concrete.

GLL, which also built 199 Fremont St., hopes to win planning approvals on the $200 million Mission Street building by early 2009, which would allow for construction to start in mid-to-late 2009, according to company President David Wall. The developer will start marketing the building late this month and is seriously considering building on a speculative basis.

"Right now my charter is to have it partially pre-leased, about 30 percent," said Wall. "However, it is possible that I will get approval to go spec. If the city gave me approval today, I would push very hard to go spec because I think we're in the right cycle."

The new tower would replace a five-story building Heald College occupies on the corner of Mission and Fremont streets. If the tower is built without a tenant in hand, it would be the third speculative tower rising within two blocks of the proposed Transbay Terminal and Tower along the burgeoning Mission Street corridor. Tishman Speyer is expected to complete its 550,000-square-foot 555 Mission St. at the end of this year, and Beacon Capital Partners received permits July 2 to start driving piles at 535 Mission St., which will be just under 300,000 square feet. Six months away from opening, 555 Mission is over 50 percent leased, with DLA Piper, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, and Sequoia Capital all signing significant deals.

At 27 stories, the 340,000-square-foot building proposed is shorter than the current 550-foot height limit allowed and dramatically less than the 700 feet the proposed Transbay District rezoning would allow. But with its relatively small lot -- about 19,000 square feet -- a higher building doesn't work economically, Wall said. Going beyond 27 stories would require a second elevator bank and force GLL to increase the "load factor" -- the non-leasable portion of the building dedicated to elevators, restrooms and mechanical rooms -- from 20 to about 30 percent.

"It just doesn't pencil," said Wall. "Believe me, I wish it did. Everybody wants more height. Give me a larger parcel, and I'll get more height."

The green approach

While all proposed new office buildings in the city are striving for certification from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program, GLL says it is committed to achieving a gold rating and hopes to create one of the first carbon neutral commercial buildings on the West Coast. Besides environmental provisions that are becoming increasingly common -- such as providing bike parking, harvesting rainwater, and creating HVAC systems that only heat and cool areas that are occupied -- the developer is hoping to use a new material Skidmore Owings and Merrill engineers are developing called a Sustainable Form Inclusion System. The system takes post-consumer recycled materials -- everything from plastic bottles to old recycled tires -- and uses it instead of concrete to fill voids within the superstructure and foundation. "Throwaway" materials, such as Styrofoam or plastic bottles, which would normally sit in a landfill for centuries, both decrease the weight of the building and add additional strength.

In 350 Mission St., the recycled materials used would be equal to approximately 5,400 cubic yards of concrete -- equal to 600 truckloads or enough to lay approximately 20 miles of residential sidewalk, according to Wall.

"David came to us looking for something unique and looking to create something great," said Masis Mesropian of Skidmore Owings and Merrill, who is designing the building with colleague Craig Hartman. "I think it's going to be a wonderful urban space."

A special public realm

What the building may lack in height, the developers are hoping to make up for with pioneering sustainable features as well as a dramatic public space at the street level. The design lifts the first floor of office 50 feet above grade, creating a spacious public lobby with 90 linear feet of space that will open up to the street, when weather permits, with folding glass panels. A glass and wood "grand staircase" will connect the ground floor with an additional mezzanine level facing the street, where an upscale restaurant and bar will open onto the existing plaza at 45 Fremont St.

"We are trying to blur the line between what is the public realm and what is the private realm," said Wall.

As an extension of the grand staircase, the architects have created a stepped amphitheater within the lobby allowing informal lunchtime dining and special event viewing. Digital lighting and metallic scrims will create an "ephemeral cloud-like effect," and video art installations will be projected in the lobby. A retail pavilion will be housed in a two-story translucent glass oval, lit from below and culminating in a floating cloud-like roof on which images, visible from the lobby, will be projected. The developer is also looking into lobby benches that automatically move. Bold statement

In addition to SOM, the development team includes engineers Flack + Kurtz and Cornish & Carey Commercial. Cornish & Carey's Nick Slonek, Karl Baldauf and John Cashin are handling the leasing of the building.

With the Transbay Tower slated to rise catty-corner from 350 Mission and the Millennium Tower under construction across the street at 333 Mission St., Wall said it was imperative to make as bold a statement as possible with the tower.

"It's a pretty powerful intersection surrounded by very tall buildings," said Wall. "It almost looks like it's in a bowl. Everything is converging on Fremont and Mission because of the new Transbay."

Given the size limitations of the site, the plan seems to strive to make the lobby "as gracious as possible," said senior planner David Alumbaugh.

"I do think they are working hard to connect the inside to the outside and activate the public space to make it seem as public and open as possible," he said.


jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable

To make up for the lack of height . . . . I like the sound of that. His heart's in the right place.

The site--per http://www.socketsite.com/

     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2008, 10:23 PM
Jobohimself Jobohimself is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 158
How utterly disappointing.
__________________
San Diego: The epitome of poor urban planning.
Visit the city of fleas! http://las-pulgas.myminicity.com/
http://las-pulgas.myminicity.com/ind
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2008, 6:18 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobohimself View Post
How utterly disappointing.
That's an extreme statement for a building that has the potential to be very sophisticated both sustainably and aesthetically.
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2008, 7:08 AM
Jobohimself Jobohimself is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
That's an extreme statement for a building that has the potential to be very sophisticated both sustainably and aesthetically.
Forgive me, but it will be another casualty swallowed by the aesthetically unpleasing 600-foot plateau.
__________________
San Diego: The epitome of poor urban planning.
Visit the city of fleas! http://las-pulgas.myminicity.com/
http://las-pulgas.myminicity.com/ind
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2008, 7:20 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobohimself View Post
Forgive me, but it will be another casualty swallowed by the aesthetically unpleasing 600-foot plateau.
You won't be able to see it from a distance from most angles, that's for sure. If it can't be 700', at least it's not 600' to add to the tabletop effect and it should be striking from ground level if carried out as planned.
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2008, 8:35 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
It's a shame it will not add to the peaking effect toward Transbay, but it sounds like they'll create a very nice space for tennants and visitors alike. And I look forward to that.

As far as relative height to neighbors, obviously Millennium and 50 Fremont will tower over it. On one side is the Bechtel Building at 476', on another is the Blue Shield Building at about 300'. And on just the other side of that is the PG&E Building at 492'. (All numbers according to the SSP database.) Something in the 380-400' range (as BT suggested) might be just about the perfect fit.
__________________
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
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2008, 9:06 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
There's a lesson here that somebody tried to teach us a few pages back but I, for one, didn't really learn until now: That the sort of slender towers the Planning Dept. talks about don't work for office uses as explained by the developer of this tower. Therefore, the only way 350 Mission could have been 700 ft. tall would have been as a residential, or possibly hotel/residential mixed use, building. But in this market, no one really wants to plan and start a new residential project, I'd bet.
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2008, 10:42 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
There's a lesson here that somebody tried to teach us a few pages back but I, for one, didn't really learn until now: That the sort of slender towers the Planning Dept. talks about don't work for office uses as explained by the developer of this tower. Therefore, the only way 350 Mission could have been 700 ft. tall would have been as a residential, or possibly hotel/residential mixed use, building. But in this market, no one really wants to plan and start a new residential project, I'd bet.
Yes, you're totally right, and we have been reading this in several threads. No one wants small floor plates throughout an entire office building; that's the main reason that the old Pacific Telephone building on New Montgomery is being converted to residential usage.
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 3:08 AM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 524
And the render, from Socketsite:



http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...elivers_t.html

Something odd about the way 50 Fremont is stretched out horizontally...
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 4:02 AM
quashlo quashlo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 566
Yes, the entire rendering looks exaggerated... Perhaps they were trying to make 350 look less boxy than it would otherwise.

To be honest, I would prefer that they wait until the market for residential turns up and build taller... It just looks like another typical SF project where the thing is half as tall as it should be.
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 4:22 AM
PBuchman PBuchman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 65
Despite the lack of height, I think this is an absolutely superb design that goes way above and beyond expectation.

Also noticed an immediate resemblance to Chicago's 111 South Wacker:

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=...cago-il-usa765
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 4:26 AM
c1tyguy c1tyguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 65
^ 111 South Wacker reminds me of the Intercontinental. Maybe a mixture between the two.
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 6:54 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I mentioned this on another thread, but I suppose this is the more appropriate place to ask. Could they not make this into a mixed-use building with residential on top of the office portion in order to increase the height to around where the revised plan calls for?
__________________
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
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 8:22 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^The developer does not want to do residential (nor his lenders, I'm sure), apparently, and who can blame him in this climate. As Socketsite reported today, mortgage lenders are requiring 20-25% down payments on jumbo loans, which most highrise new condos would need, in the Bay Area today and no more than 50% debt to income ratios. That will severely restrict the market for new condos: If you make less than $150K or don't have a $200K downpayment, forgeddaboutit. On the other hand, judging on the success of 555 Mission, spec office is an acceptable risk.
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 3:56 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBuchman View Post
Despite the lack of height, I think this is an absolutely superb design that goes way above and beyond expectation.
I agree completely. The skin on this rendering is beyond stunning. The glass is gorgeous by itself, but they've also given it a nice texture and paid it off brilliantly with the crown. Sure, I wish it was going to be 700' (someone needs to change that BTW and move this to the midrise section). But I'll take a great design with modest height over a terrible design and massive height any day.
__________________
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
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2008, 7:23 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
I think the building façade looks quite stunning, but I think we're not building to our full potential. I'm not sure just how valuable this spot of land is, but with so much going on in the future, it may very well become even more than what it is now. A part of me likes this building, but another part of me would prefer if they put this on hold until the market gets better. That way, maybe the residential addition will be explored more.
__________________
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
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 4:42 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
I think the building façade looks quite stunning, but I think we're not building to our full potential. I'm not sure just how valuable this spot of land is, but with so much going on in the future, it may very well become even more than what it is now. A part of me likes this building, but another part of me would prefer if they put this on hold until the market gets better. That way, maybe the residential addition will be explored more.
All of me wants to build it now because it has the potential to be very nice in fill and the quality would go a long way if they actually pull it off. It's time to reduce the height on this thread to what is really going to happen.

[I'd also suggest bringing your Foundry Square I listing to its proper height, eliminating the Piano project and the others that won't happen, etc. It's better to be realistic I think and to not be sad about it--we've been incredibly fortunate with much of what we have gotten so far. More exciting projects will come with time. I do have to admit though that I still regret not getting the SOM Transbay design.]
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 6:42 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 viewguysf View Post
All of me wants to build it now because it has the potential to be very nice in fill and the quality would go a long way if they actually pull it off. It's time to reduce the height on this thread to what is really going to happen.

[I'd also suggest bringing your Foundry Square I listing to its proper height, eliminating the Piano project and the others that won't happen, etc. It's better to be realistic I think and to not be sad about it--we've been incredibly fortunate with much of what we have gotten so far. More exciting projects will come with time. I do have to admit though that I still regret not getting the SOM Transbay design.]
Truthfully, I could go either way with this one. I'd prefer if they waited, but I wont lose sleep like I did with Transbay and SOM if they go ahead as is. As for my listings, I chose not to change them because I'm really not sure whats going around here. I first got the information from this forum and wikipedia. Last I checked it was still the same information. As for SOM, as I said above, that makes two of us.
__________________
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
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 6:48 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Could we get real here? This developer does office. His plan for the site is office. He thinks the cycle is right to start an office project now. Assuming he can get the approvals, he is going to build a 27 story office building. That's it. Period. All else is frankly BS.
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 7:27 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
No need to raise the temperature, we were merely having a discussion. I was simply voicing what I would like to have seen. Besides, with all the proposals going around and some of them dropping below the radar, who knows.
__________________
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
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:20 AM.

     

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