SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by tyler82

No not the hearst building, the taller one next door to that, it's like a pinky yellowy color. Ugly!

Do you mean the Central Tower, on the southwest corner of Third and Market, across the street from the Hearst Building? That's actually a very historic structure with a tortured past; it's the former Call Building. I'm sure that someone would be willing to post before and after pics. It's dome was removed, more floors were added on top and all of its ornamentation was stripped off.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by fflint

It is as ugly as hell, no doubt about it--but that isn't a 'remuddling', it is an addition to the older tower on land once occupied by a low-rise:


sfmuseum.org

The full-height addition came, according to emporis, circa 1964. The original was built in 1902 and survived the '06 earthquake.

It's my understanding that when the addition was made the original building was totally gutted, including the elevator shafts and all. Out went the banking hall, elevator lobbies, etc. The addition supposedly contains the new elevators and mechanical systems. This poor structure was raped, but at least the exterior survived on Market and Geary streets.

I don't think that the addition is as bad as it could have been if it had been built in the 50's or 60's. At least it's somewhat sympathetic to the original design. There has even been talk about demolishing the addition to put a new one in its place. Heritage has been somewhat wary about that.

[BTinSF]

The Call Building was a gem, but it burned in 1906 and I'm pretty sure it's present ugliness is due to that:



As for THIS building:



I'm pretty sure I posted an article (I think from the BizTimes) somewhere here that the small building just west of it on Market had been sold and the lot was to be used in an enlargement/restoration project on this building. But I can't find the article and maybe I'm hallucinating. If I knew the address, it might be easier to search for it.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

The Call Building was a gem, but it burned in 1906 and I'm pretty sure it's present ugliness is due to that:



Before the fire:

No, that's not the case. The Call Building was beautifully restored after the fire and survived in all its glory until the 1930's. The owners wanted more floor space, so off came the dome and on went the vertical addition. If you look at the building today you can see where this transition was made.

[Manarii]

Originally Posted by tyler82

No not the hearst building, the taller one next door to that, it's like a pinky yellowy color. Ugly!

I really have no idea which building you are talking about. I dont recall a pinky yellow color building. Not the old Le Meridien Hotel on 3rd? Maybe a pic will resurface one day.

[BigKidD]

Seeing the discussion on these buildings, how about the Chronicle, Mutual Bank, and Call buidings in their earlier phases:

http://www.alamedainfo.com/postcards...rancisco_2.htm
And the modified Call Building that I do not mind,

http://www.inetours.com/Pages/SFNbrh...arthquake.html

[BTinSF]

^^^You know what? I don't mind either of them--the modified Call Building or the modified Mutual Bank--myself. I would have preferred that the Call have been left alone and that the Mutual addition per absolutely faithful to the Victoriana of the original, but since that was not to be I don't think they are so bad. I've always thought the Call looks kind of deco and, if the modification was indeed in 1930, that makes sense (I'd prefer a different paint scheme, though). The Mutual addition, if it was not to be period (which would have probably been much more expensive), is kind of interesting. Better something clearly modern than a very bad attempt at Victoriana.

My guess is that in 30 years people will hate the Ritz Carlton addition being done now every bit as much as some of you hate the Call and yet it has revealed all that fabulous brick.

[Manarii]

So is the Call Building what has been decided as the pinky yellow building?

The Call Building is a very nice building, and I agree, very Deco. It was the 30s.. I think when we realize what is once was, is when we get nostaligic and wish they had left it alone. You all know that corner was once considered the newspaper corner with the Chronicle/De Young (soon Ritz) building, the Examiner/Hearst Building and the Call Building. Fascinating history.


I have a question. Does anybody know if anything has happened to that empy lot which has stood bare for at least two decades at the corner of Pine and Kearny? It was directly across the Pine Street side of the Bank of America building at 555 California. Nothing was ever put there whenever whatever was once there. I have no idea what once stood there as it was empty from at least 1982 till at least 4 years ago. To understand what I am talking about: the four corners of Pine and Kearny. 1. Bank of America Building. 2. Taco Bell and where Oh La La was (in that old old building) 3. that horrendous 1960s structure with few windows and 4. The bare lot where Pine goes up steeply from Kearny to Grant (there are the backs of some buildings on Grant St on the upper part of that lot.

[Ross Bogen]

Great compendium of projects - I'm amazed at how much has been collected!(and also how much is still going up, or on the boards, in this market - I guess that's why construction costs are still going up)

FYI, the architects for California Pacific Medical Center are my former employers, SmithGroup - on their own now, without SOM as JV partner. They probably haven't gotten around to doing new renderings, and obviously would not want any of the previous ones done with SOM circulated further. A useful contact there, if you're interested, might be Matt Richter, who was the principal leading the medical planning and coordinating the design team under the JV.

[CityKid]

From my cube, I'm watching the crane for the Ritz come down.

[sfgiants]

does anyone got any new pics 690 market. i want to see what it looks like i would have my dad take some pics but hes not working their anymore. the iron workers are suppose to got back june 26 so if my dad does end up going their i will get some new pics of the out side and the inside of the building.

[BTinSF]

^^^It's still a work in progress. I took some pictures about 2 weeks ago and posted them here--nothing has much changed. They still have a lot of scaffolding and drapery up so you can't see parts of the building and I think there's a lot of cornice yet to be put up. Right now I think they are still restoring the brick and stone work in places where it had been damaged by the older renovation.

Patience!

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Ross Bogen

I'm amazed at how much has been collected!(and also how much is still going up, or on the boards, in this market - I guess that's why construction costs are still going up)

My impression (from reading a lot of the financial press where I take an interest in things like basic metals and construction materials companies) is that costs are going up because there is a global competition--involving especially China--for steel and cement and most materials involved in these projects. If you recall, it was thought the I-580 repair might take months just because of the difficulty finding a steel fabricator who could take the project on immediately. From what I read the price of structural steel is skyrocketing. Also, in the Bay Area at least, there has been a shortage of concrete for several years--and recently a shortage even of construction cranes.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Manarii

\Does anybody know if anything has happened to that empy lot which has stood bare for at least two decades at the corner of Pine and Kearny? It was directly across the Pine Street side of the Bank of America building at 555 California. Nothing was ever put there whenever whatever was once there. I have no idea what once stood there as it was empty from at least 1982 till at least 4 years ago. To understand what I am talking about: the four corners of Pine and Kearny. 1. Bank of America Building. 2. Taco Bell and where Oh La La was (in that old old building) 3. that horrendous 1960s structure with few windows and 4. The bare lot where Pine goes up steeply from Kearny to Grant (there are the backs of some buildings on Grant St on the upper part of that lot.

See Post #833 @ http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...114324&page=34 . I think you are talking about 500 Pine.

[BTinSF]

Manarii, this is the proposal for 500 Pine. If you read the link above, you'll see the lot and entitled plans are on the market as a package with the mining Exchange property, also entitled and designed. 500 Pine is a low building because it cannot shade St. Mary's Square and the design actually enlarges the park via a roof garden.

[BTinSF]

I think it's time we do a collective rethink about the Ritz Carlton Residences project: 690 Market St. I walked by there again today and was really impressed by the quality of the restoration being done on the old brick facade. Just repairing and polishing the gorgeous brick work may take as long as it took to build the vertical addition, but we will have a gem when they are done. I just frankly can't ever recall seeing another building with this level of detailing on a brick facade (most buildings, if they have this amount of work put into a masonry facade, are made of stone). It's awesome.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I think it's time we do a collective rethink about the Ritz Carlton Residences project: 690 Market St. I walked by there again today and was really impressed by the quality of the restoration being done on the old brick facade. Just repairing and polishing the gorgeous brick work may take as long as it took to build the vertical addition, but we will have a gem when they are done. I just frankly can't ever recall seeing another building with this level of detailing on a brick facade (most buildings, if they have this amount of work put into a masonry facade, are made of stone). It's awesome.

I agree--it's a stunning improvement for Market Street. The Burnham and Root facade will beautifully display a rare type of architecture for SF.

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I think it's time we do a collective rethink about the Ritz Carlton Residences project: 690 Market St. I walked by there again today and was really impressed by the quality of the restoration being done on the old brick facade. Just repairing and polishing the gorgeous brick work may take as long as it took to build the vertical addition, but we will have a gem when they are done. I just frankly can't ever recall seeing another building with this level of detailing on a brick facade (most buildings, if they have this amount of work put into a masonry facade, are made of stone). It's awesome.

It's quite impressive. I was in the city Friday and examined the exterior of this amazing building. I cannot wait until the restoration of the exterior is complete. Who ever thought it was a good idea to cover the original exterior?:

http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/cedarchi...iles/bangs.htm

[The_Analyst]

Originally Posted by BigKidD

Who ever thought it was a good idea to cover the original exterior?

You know, I think it was the era, not one individual. It seems like by the 1950's all of society was ready for major changes (understandable given 2 world wars and a great depression). Not just architecture but a lot of personal items too. Almost everything natural seemed to go out of style (hardwood floors? yuck! Let's put down plastic--how cool.) Unfortunately the backlash against practically anything historic led to a lot of damage. I hope what we've learned by now is that historic details/architecture, etc. have a place and once they are demolished they are lost forever. I imagine someday people will look at the Ferry Building or City Hall and say, "What an ugly old fashioned relic." (Probably not in our lifetime, though!) I would hope that even when tastes change that our descendents will have the good sense to keep the old stuff around even when they don't fit the times. That's the major difference from the 50's-60's to today and, let's hope, in the future.

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by The_Analyst

You know, I think it was the era, not one individual. It seems like by the 1950's all of society was ready for major changes (understandable given 2 world wars and a great depression). Not just architecture but a lot of personal items too. Almost everything natural seemed to go out of style (hardwood floors? yuck! Let's put down plastic--how cool.) Unfortunately the backlash against practically anything historic led to a lot of damage. I hope what we've learned by now is that historic details/architecture, etc. have a place and once they are demolished they are lost forever. I imagine someday people will look at the Ferry Building or City Hall and say, "What an ugly old fashioned relic." (Probably not in our lifetime, though!) I would hope that even when tastes change that our descendents will have the good sense to keep the old stuff around even when they don't fit the times. That's the major difference from the 50's-60's to today and, let's hope, in the future.

I concur. Architecture from the 19th century to the early 20th century tends to be my favorite time period of architectural styles. Thus, when these impressive building are covered up with aluminium siding or demolished it's a little disheartening. Although there are many impressive modern buildings today, yet many horrid ones too.