HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 8:14 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,311
Quote:
Plans for SF’s 4th-tallest building win key OK as developer resolves opposition
Roland Li Jan. 9, 2020 Updated: Jan. 9, 2020 9:31 p.m.

A proposal to build San Francisco’s fourth-tallest building, the final major project in the Transbay district, received key approvals Thursday.

The Planning Commission approved the 61-story tower at 546 Howard St., a project that now requires final approval from the Board of Supervisors.

The tower, to be built on a site know as Parcel F, would include 165 condos, 189 hotel rooms and 325,000 square feet of office space leased by Salesforce. The project would also help fund 337 affordable apartments a few blocks to the east.

Chinatown activists opposed the project late last year because of a shadow it would cast on Willy “Woo Woo” Wong playground. The city’s Recreation and Park Department determined that the shadow — from 8 a.m. to 8:20 a.m., November to late January — is within limits allowed by the 2011 Transbay plan.

. . . the project’s land use attorney, said at Thursday’s hearing that an agreement had been reached with the opponents . . . . Julie Chase, a spokeswoman for Parcel F developers Hines, Urban Pacific and Goldman Sachs, said no payments were made . . . .


https://www.sfchronicle.com/business...photo-18853127
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 9:30 AM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 81
I find it highly suspicious that the Chinatown group would just walk away without any financial gain. I think there is more to that story than what is being said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 4:46 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskythelimit View Post
I find it highly suspicious that the Chinatown group would just walk away without any financial gain. I think there is more to that story than what is being said.
Obviously they are getting something. It just may not be cash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 5:37 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 888
Whatever it was, I'm just glad it got resolved (relatively) quickly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 5:42 PM
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 762
Is it just me or is that a new rendering?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:24 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
Is it just me or is that a new rendering?
I think it is.

It looks like the western side has been 'refined' a bit; with a more angularity and curtain wall.

Subtle, but I'm not sure it's better for the overall design or not...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 7:45 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 888
It's like a modern version of 595 Market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 9:10 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
Is it just me or is that a new rendering?
I don't think I've seen it before--that's why I picked it out of the 5 images in the article.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 9:24 PM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 184
Here's another cool rendering from the article linked above:



When completed, the building will offer direct private access to the park. Also, people will apparently be driving up to the entrace in their 15-year old Audis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 9:45 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
When completed, the building will offer direct private access to the park. Also, people will apparently be driving up to the entrace in their 15-year old Audis.
Here's the previous render:




https://socketsite.com/archives/2017...edesigned.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 10:28 PM
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 762
Pretty cool spotting the differences between the previous renderings and the current ones

Looks like they removed the ground level fountain, added an elevator next to the street level and rose the glass on the bridge connecting the building to the park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2020, 11:01 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Here's another cool rendering from the article linked above . . . .
When completed, the building will offer direct private access to the park. Also, people will apparently be driving up to the entrace in their 15-year old Audis.
Yeah, but we've definitely seen that one (post 189).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 1:11 AM
pseudolus pseudolus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 598
"But Livable City’s Tom Radulovich is leading the charge to correct a major defect: the new building will also include lots of car parking. And providing access to that parking, at least according to current plans, means destroying one of the few car-free spaces in the city."

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2020/01/1...eet-in-danger/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2020, 2:44 PM
MyCitySFO's Avatar
MyCitySFO MyCitySFO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Spokane-Cd'A WA/ID
Posts: 73
OK guys. question. If it is going to be built to 800 ft then that would make it the 5th tallest (4th is 181 Fremont at 802 ft i believe with that spire thing) ? right? or is going to be 806 ft? anyone know what the final height will be? Just curious.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 7:16 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus View Post
"But Livable City’s Tom Radulovich is leading the charge to correct a major defect: the new building will also include lots of car parking. And providing access to that parking, at least according to current plans, means destroying one of the few car-free spaces in the city."

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2020/01/1...eet-in-danger/
So after contributing to the implosion of BART, Tom Radulovich made a soft landing. Nice to know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 7:50 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyCitySFO View Post
OK guys. question. If it is going to be built to 800 ft then that would make it the 5th tallest (4th is 181 Fremont at 802 ft i believe with that spire thing) ? right? or is going to be 806 ft? anyone know what the final height will be? Just curious.
Quote:
The Project includes the construction of a new 61-story mixed-use building reaching a height of 749’-10” tall (799’-9”) inclusive of rooftop screening/mechanical equipment)
Yes, Parcel F will be about 2 feet shorter than 181 Fremont measured to the highest structural points respectively.

See "Project Description" near bottom of page 2 of 454:
https://commissions.sfplanning.org/c...PGPA_DRAFT.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2020, 8:18 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
Yes, Parcel F will be about 2 feet shorter than 181 Fremont measured to the highest structural points respectively.
It’s going to appear taller on the skyline though because of its bulk.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2020, 3:10 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
It’s going to appear taller on the skyline though because of its bulk.
Agreed, and as it should be as intended by Planning and Parcel F's designers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2020, 3:46 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by gillynova View Post
Pretty cool spotting the differences between the previous renderings and the current ones

Looks like they removed the ground level fountain, added an elevator next to the street level and rose the glass on the bridge connecting the building to the park.
Its a lot better, those first four floors are quite a bit different and the awning at street level has glass panels to let light through...
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2020, 7:05 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,311
More on Tom Radulovich and the Parcel F garage issue:

Quote:
. . . Radulovich’s pitch has so far gotten a chilly reception from officials. Haney, who has loudly championed bike lanes and walkable streets, would not commit to supporting Radulovich’s request.

“I’m still exploring if there are ways to move the parking garage entrance or reduce the parking overall,” he wrote in a text message. “I’m very supportive of more spaces for pedestrians, and would like to maintain and grow those spaces, while still moving forward with this important housing development.”

Cars currently can enter the Transbay section of Natoma at either end, except they can only travel a short distance before reaching a line of bollards that gird the plaza. Beyond those bollards is a small urban nirvana: food trucks sell global cuisine, people eat at patio tables or drift along the pavement, talking on their cell phones. Transbay buses glide along a bridge overhead, which resembles a futuristic movie prop.

The planned development — which still needs approvals from the Board of Supervisors — is known as Parcel F, a large construction site flanking the south edge of the plaza. That area is already so packed that the only place to put the parking garage was beneath the street — cars would enter on a lift and be parked by valet attendants.

In a city that discourages driving but embraces density near transit hubs, this seemed like the best compromise, officials with knowledge of the project said. Parcel F would add a complex mix of offices, high-end condos and the hotel, and you couldn’t serve all those people with just a white-curb loading zone. In addition to the parking garage, the plans would cut part of the curb on Howard Street so trucks or forklifts could pull into a loading dock — another feature that Radulovich opposes.

People who were lingering outside the Transbay Center on their lunch breaks Wednesday generally seemed ambivalent. Most didn’t object to the parking garage, so long as it stays underground and out of sight.

“I like that part,” said Seth Weidman, who works in a nearby startup on Second Street. “Definitely the worst thing about garages is that they take up space that could be reserved for (other) buildings.”

Heidi Duran also shrugged. “If the cars are just leaving in the morning and coming back to park in the evening, it shouldn’t affect us,” she said.

The one thing that did raise eyebrows was the concept of pushing all the freight and drop-offs over to Howard Street. What’s good for one artery could conceivably add misery to another: imagine a situation in which, say, two 55-foot articulated trucks are double-parked in the middle of a busy road.

Weidman was more concerned about what would happen to the bike lane if cars were constantly pulling up alongside it to disgorge passengers. He rides his bike to work every day.

“If I had to catch an Uber from here,” he said, pointing to the construction site, “I’d rather have it pick me up in the garage.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...g-14978618.php
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 5:02 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.