HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

    

33 Tehama in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2012, 7:06 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
We finally have a new render:









http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments

It's designed by Arquitectonica now, not SOM. Looks kind of boring and boxy in my opinion, though at least it's shiny. The design would look a little better/less stubby if it were at 550' instead of chopped down to 340', but it could be much worse too. Maybe "inoffensive" is a good way to describe it.
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2013, 6:25 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
From what I can gather, this project was approved by the Planning Commission on November 29, 2012.

However, I haven't heard anything since. And I don't see any permits filed yet, so who knows if/when this will get going.

Here's the commission packet, if anyone's interested: http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...08.0801EVX.pdf
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 7:14 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
And now we know why there's been no movement. Fritzi Realty has put the parcel and entitlements on the market, where it may fetch $48 million. And it like they're trying to entitle it up to the zoning height limit:

Quote:
The small family-owned Fritzi Realty, led by Bob Tandler, has also filed an application to increase the height to 360 feet, which is allowed under the zoning. The additional space would add four floors to the tower and could increase the number of units to 398, according to public documents.
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 7:57 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
And now we know why there's been no movement. Fritzi Realty has put the parcel and entitlements on the market, where it may fetch $48 million. And it like they're trying to entitle it up to the zoning height limit:
I can tell you I have suffered worked with Bob and Valli Tandler in less fortunate times. They are the worst in the business. Don't hold your breath on this one.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2013, 4:03 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 792
Ugliest of the new SF towers anyhow.
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2013, 12:21 AM
rriojas71 rriojas71 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 119
This is going to be a hideous monstrosity if it gets built. Talk about F-Ugly.
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2013, 8:52 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
I don't think it looks *that* bad. I guess it just sticks out a little too much. But it seems likely someone will jump on this, since it's a fully entitled project.

Here's another rendering from the press release:

     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2013, 9:46 PM
rriojas71 rriojas71 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
I don't think it looks *that* bad. I guess it just sticks out a little too much. But it seems likely someone will jump on this, since it's a fully entitled project.

Here's another rendering from the press release:

Agreed... from this rendering it doesn't look "that" bad, but to me most renderings usually look better than the finished product. Let's hope that I'm wrong on this one.
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 1:47 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
the main problem in my opinion is that it's too wide. If it was narrower it would actually look pretty nice, if not kind of boring.
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 2:40 AM
SF born and RAISED SF born and RAISED is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 22
The design is not bad, I think it would look a lot better if it was and taller building. It looks like a stump in the skyline.

Have I just never notice that there was a bridge in the design for the Transbay Terminal or is that new? I looks like a mini-Bay Bridge East-Span.
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 3:40 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by SF born and RAISED View Post
Have I just never notice that there was a bridge in the design for the Transbay Terminal or is that new? I looks like a mini-Bay Bridge East-Span.
That's the bus ramp coming into the transit center, but I haven't seen renderings showing that design before either.
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 6:54 AM
easy as pie's Avatar
easy as pie easy as pie is offline
testify
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 94109
Posts: 853
^ uh, i think we can all be pretty sure that, barring another gold strike, any sort of aesthetic dressing on that bridge will almost certainly be eliminated.

as for the design, it seems pretty standard for our skyline, better than average, actually. thanks for posting that rendering, really is the best one out there.
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2013, 10:40 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,165
The bridge design is tack-eee. And very busy. I hope they keep it simple.
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2013, 5:45 AM
franktko's Avatar
franktko franktko is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 1,081
It's totally awful! That's why they showed it as almost invisible. Those beautiful sunny parks are actually going to be under an elevated street?? eurk!
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2013, 3:26 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktko View Post
It's totally awful! That's why they showed it as almost invisible. Those beautiful sunny parks are actually going to be under an elevated street?? eurk!
Yeah, i hope that suspension bridge is not part of the actual design. I've never seen it mentioned before, or seen it in any renderings before now.

As for the parks...the overpasses have been there for decades, and will continue be there, as it's the way that many non-muni buses access the terminal (AC Transit, Greyhound, etc). There used to be parking lots and such underneath the overpasses, so I'd say parks are a great improvement. They won't be 100% shaded all day long, but it's inevitable that they'll receive lots of shade in that location. You can't have everything. There are tons of other parks in SF that are not under overpasses/surrounded by highrises, if the shade things bothers you.
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2013, 4:54 PM
easy as pie's Avatar
easy as pie easy as pie is offline
testify
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 94109
Posts: 853
just noticed this article from last month, salient parts on timeline:
Chris Foley, a partner in Polaris Pacific, which consulted on the project, said 41 Tehama "is basically the closest thing to shovel-ready out there."

"The ownership did a great job working with design team to make a elegant building," he said. "If you don't mess around you could start construction in nine months and deliver that building in 28 month into a market that has no inventory."

Likely bidders include Avant Housing, Trumark Urban, Golub & Co., Westbank, Related Cos., and Crescent Heights. Foley thinks that the project will end up in the hands of a condo developer rather than an apartment real estate investment trust. "Construction costs are going up and rents are flat — the apartment window is rapidly closing unless you want a very low yield," he said.


also, colliers is marketing it.
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2013, 5:38 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 792
I hope the reason that rental unit construction costs are going up is due to the high demand for labor for the office towers starting later this year. I am a little worried that rent is never going to be to the renter's advantage again. (overbuild damn you!)
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2013, 3:06 AM
tall/awkward tall/awkward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 86
I'm okay with it. Not blown away, and I'm already resigned to the fact that it's way shorter than it should be, but it's kind of sleek. Will that line running all across it be lit up at night?

Any chance we can get Calatrava to design the bridge to the terminal?
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2013, 5:02 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,222
Maybe I'm unsophisticated but I really do not understand the design. Given it's location its likely to remain exposed and highly visible for years to come. Hopefully it will look better once it's up. Who knows? Sometimes the ones that look the best in renderings end up disappointing and vice versa.
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2013, 9:42 PM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,440
One thing that I don't think helps it is the transparency of the glass in the renderings, so what subtle design features there are on the curtain get lost...I think in reality it will look a little darker/more opaque and the white lines and other features may pop out more.
     
     
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 6:48 PM.

     

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