HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

    

75 Howard Street in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2013, 8:24 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 JWS View Post
Something must be wrong with me, because I really do not hate this. I sort of like it, and the new renderings make me like it even more. It will never get built.
I'd rather sacrifice this building in favor of others. To paraphrase someone earlier, the owner and developer should demolish the parking garage, build an interesting 200' building, and be satisfied with that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2015, 5:49 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
This one is still alive, and the developers want to make it more palatable by funding the low-income housing project at Taylor and Eddy:

Quote:
To stave off political and neighborhood resistance about building a tall residential tower near San Francisco's waterfront, developer Paramount Group would help pay for a new low-income housing project in the Tenderloin.

...

PJ Johnston, a spokesman for Paramount, said the developer will "be holding community meetings in the coming months" before the project gets a hearing in front of the Planning Commission likely later this year. It is still going through environmental review. Johnston declined to reveal the rest of Paramount's new plans for the site, which would include other community benefits.

The 75 Howard project, proposed as a 282-foot tall structure with 160 units and 4,700 square feet of ground-floor retail, would replace an eight-story parking garage. It will likely have a tricky time winning the support of the commission and the Board of Supervisors because it would likely seek about a 41 percent height increase than what is allowed.
The article says that it's not subject to Prop B, since it's not on Port property. But even if it's approved by all agencies, it takes less than 10,000 signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot in SF, which is pretty easy for one rich person to bankroll.

The $11 million that the 8 Washington developers offered for affordable housing was a non-starter for voters. I wonder if having a tangible affordable project will move the needle a little more this time. Still seems like a longshot to get the height increase approved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2015, 7:30 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 773
Well the pro-development groups can't be afraid to fight these fights. 75 Howard's height is worth saving out of the principle of a free market, but also because the city desperately needs housing. Put it on the ballot in a year when the mayor is on it and I think it can win. The elections from 2014 were quite successful for pro-growth, especially it being an off-year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2015, 1:41 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
^The low-income housing project at Taylor and Eddy might be better looking than the Paramount:

__________________
"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
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted May 28, 2015, 2:28 AM
SF born and RAISED SF born and RAISED is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 22
Another height reduction

Guess it's not 31-story, 350ft tall and closer to a 20-story, 220ft tower.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...s-in-size.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted May 28, 2015, 2:54 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by socketsite
Facing an uphill battle with neighborhood groups and a potential conflict with San Francisco’s Downtown Area Plan which calls for building heights to taper down to the shoreline of the Bay, “to avoid visual disruption along the water while preserving topography and views,” the proposed height of the residential tower to rise at 75 Howard Street has been further reduced in height from 290 to 220 feet, the maximum height for which the parcel is currently zoned.
It's a lot easier to build an of-right building, especially given the waterfront location.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2015, 6:29 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
^Yep. At least it can get built now. It was never going to happen going beyond current zoning. Hope they re-do the design rather than lumping off the top 11 floors. Maybe kill the podium/shaft idea and just go with a single look right from the street. I liked it before but don't think it will look right with the new proportions.
__________________
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
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2015, 10:49 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
^^^Well and there goes a chunk of affordable housing that everyone is *demanding*. Wish these cases would be made more public - case in point:

"Public, you have this waterfront market rate condo tower that is proposed for this site and the developers are asking for an 80-100 ft height increase. Go ahead and tell us what you would have the developers do to change the design, etc.

...

Oh by the way if you allow the developers to have their height increase and build more units, we can then get this big affordable housing development built in the Tenderloin."


If only more of these developments were phrased this way. It is NOT on the onus of private sector developers backed by teachers' pensions (among others) and private sector money sources to willfully lose money by building only affordable housing. It really isn't their responsibility to house certain groups of people at all so long as when they do build housing they don't take part in any discrimination that violates state or federal statutes.

Only then can the people really decide what is more important to them - sticking their nose in a design, limiting heights and bulk, preventing new development at all, etc, or ensuring more funding goes to affordable housing by allowing more market rate housing.

I really don't think people in this city are currently aware or able to put 2 + 2 together because it's not their job to understand the way development proformas work, and I honestly believe that people think real estate developers are public sector employees who should t profit off of taxpayer expense and who should build for the poor. They think this because the ballot process has made it so that everyone dips their toes into murky water they'll never be able to understand.

Easiest to change, I don't think people realize that most affordable housing these days comes from the development of market rate housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 12:21 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,127
I can't say I'm at all surprised by this, but I'm still disappointed. It seems like for every project that SF does right, there are 5 where something like this happens.

Last edited by tech12; Jun 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 7:54 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
^Yes.
^^And double yes.
__________________
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
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 8:34 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Socketsite has a rendering of the new height and design:

__________________
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
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 9:08 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,127
Even though it's shorter, I like the new design better. That rendering also proves just how delusional you'd have to be to think a 350' tower is any more wall-ish than the rest of the skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2015, 10:27 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Hey, that looks better than any of the other renderings! I love the massing.
__________________
"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
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 1:49 AM
boyinthecity's Avatar
boyinthecity boyinthecity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: san francisco
Posts: 93
although not actually a part of this thread,
it stinks that 160 folsom is not taller
and/or
in a more prominent location like that of mediocre jasper.
for some reason, i have this feeling the moribund planning commission won't grant it
an exemption-- when the powers that be should actually add to the height and reward
more interesting architecture.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 3:30 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
^Agreed, it also shows how delusional it is that the "wall on the waterfront" moniker is being applied to 160 Folsom. You can barely see it from this vantage point, which is well out on the water. You won't see it at all from the actual waterfront because the Gap Building will block it. It's so frustrating that crap like that seems to work at getting things blocked.

On 75 Howard, I rather liked the old design, but this looks good too.
__________________
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
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 6:13 PM
ElDuderino's Avatar
ElDuderino ElDuderino is offline
Droppin' Loads
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ventura, Santa Rosa, California
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
^Agreed, it also shows how delusional it is that the "wall on the waterfront" moniker is being applied to 160 Folsom. You can barely see it from this vantage point, which is well out on the water. You won't see it at all from the actual waterfront because the Gap Building will block it. It's so frustrating that crap like that seems to work at getting things blocked.

On 75 Howard, I rather liked the old design, but this looks good too.
75 Howard looks just fine. I would be satisfied if this gets built as is. The 160 Folsom argument is ridiculous. It is the same distance from the waterfront and generally the same height as the Infinity. I wouldn't be surprised if the Infinity owners were the ones behind the opposition to keep their views from being intruded upon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2015, 6:22 PM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 330
It kind of reminds me of a bland version of Stadium Place in Seattle:

http://www.northlotdevelopment.com/about.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 5:37 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 882
Here's a more detailed rendering from SFHAC:


www.sfhac.org
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2015, 6:50 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Nice find. Strange, they seem to have removed the stub end of Steuart and the triangular lot that is supposed to be a pocket park or playground. Probably just didn't bother rendering those to keep the focus on the building, but it makes it look like it sits right on the Embarcadero with a small plaza from this angle (which is obviously not the case).
__________________
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
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2015, 3:36 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
Nice find. Strange, they seem to have removed the stub end of Steuart and the triangular lot that is supposed to be a pocket park or playground. Probably just didn't bother rendering those to keep the focus on the building, but it makes it look like it sits right on the Embarcadero with a small plaza from this angle (which is obviously not the case).
Yeah, I noticed that as well.

Also, after looking at this more, it looks a little reminiscent of Linea up on Market, no?


www.socketsite.com
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 3:20 AM.

     

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