SAN FRANCISCO | 222 Second | 370 FT | 26 FLOORS

[1977]

I'm not sure if there is a thread for this project yet but here is an update from www.socketsite.com:

The project sponsor, TS 222 Second Street, L.P., proposes to construct a 26-story, approximately 350-foot-tall office tower containing approximately 430,650 square feet of office space. The project would also include [4,600 square feet of] retail space and an enclosed [8,750 square foot] publicly accessible open space at the ground floor, and two levels of sub-grade parking containing 54 parking spaces.

As proposed, the project would be a rectilinear tower of diminishing bulk from the building base to a height of approximately 350 feet. At the fifth floor, the north façade of the building would be set back 5 feet from Howard Street and the west façade would be set back approximately 20 feet from the westerly property line. At the 17th story, the east façade would be set back 24.5 feet from Second Street, and the South façade would be set back 44.5 feet from Tehama Street. In addition, the fifth floor would include a further 5-foot recess, or “reveal,” on all four facades, intended to emphasize a visual break above the first four stories of the building—at a height of about 60 feet—and thereby establish a sense of continuity with nearby historic structures.

he site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot. As part of the project, the sponsor proposes to acquire and incorporate into the project site a 1,650-square-foot (20-foot–by–82.5-foot) portion of the adjacent property, which would increase the size of the project site to 25,575 square feet, and to demolish the existing loading dock at 631 Howard Street, which occupies the portion of the adjacent parcel to be acquired. The existing building at 631 Howard Street would remain.

Two basement parking levels would be provided beneath the project site, with access provided via a two way driveway from Tehama Street for a total of 54 marked parking spaces, with capacity for approximately 80 vehicles with valet parking. The basement would also include approximately 46 bicycle parking spaces, which would exceed the 12 spaces required by the Planning Code. Three additional service van spaces would also be provided in the basement.
Construction is estimated at 21 months with occupancy as early as 2013. The project architect is Heller Manus in association with Thomas Phifer and Partners.

[peanut gallery]

TS 222 Second Street, L.P.

TS = Tishman Speyer. Very reminiscent of 555 Mission, another TS building. It's not bad and much better than a parking lot, but I don't expect to see it rising in 2011 for a 2013 occupancy.

[AndrewK]

i hope it gets built sooner rather than later, not just because it looks like a nice building and a good addition to that intersection, but also because it means we wont have to look at the back side of one hawthorne anymore.

[peanut gallery]

^Ha! So true. This would obliterate my view of that, which is a good thing!

[pawelsf]

the massing of this building makes it a carbon copy of 555 mission, not that it's a bad thing at all, as 555 mission has one of the best glass curtains in the city. i can't wait to see this one go up!

what i'd really like to see though is for that stretch of howard st between this development and the foundry buildings to be all be glassy and finally start looking like it is part of the central business district, but i hope there won't be any future developements on that nice 2-block stretch of 2nd st towards market though!

[1977]

Here are some massing studies that show how it, and the rest the of the Rincon Hill and Transbay plans, will look within the current skyline:





Images courtesy of www.socketsite.com

[Complex01]

Wow if all those towers were to go up that would be crazy kewl.

[The North One]

I can't wait till San Fran gets some real density going on.

I want it to rival chicago and new york!

Seems now it only rivals L.A. and San diego.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by The North One

I can't wait till San Fran gets some real density going on.

I want it to rival chicago and new york!

Seems now it only rivals L.A. and San diego.

Population Density (from Wikipedia)
SF: 17,323 ppsm
LA: 8,205 ppsm
SD: 4,174 ppsm

Highrises (existing and u/c, from Emporis)
LA: 511
SF: 420
SD: 151

San Francisco has a much higher population density than LA or SD--indeed, among big US cities San Francisco is second only to New York. As for highrise density, LA has more highrises but they are spread out--San Francisco's highrises are all concentrated in a single high-rise core. Which is one way to consider density--concentration.

Perhaps you have some other kind of density on your mind?

[BTinSF]

Might as well give the figure for Chicago: 12,750 ppsm (a bit more than 2/3 as dense as SF)

Then, of course there are the other ways a city can "rival" another. SF certainly "rivals" anyplace in North America except New York, which is 10 times its size, in terms of high culture (opera, symphony, ballet) and dining (fine and otherwise). It's got in the Bay Area (if not within the city limits), all the professional sports (LA still doesn't have a football team--we still have 2). It's a center and focus of several major industries: tech, biotech, organic and artisanal food production (including fine wines), finance. And the Bay Area rivals the other places mentioned in higher education with 2 top 10 national universities and a number of smaller colleges and universities.

I could go on, but I don't want to divert the thread into a city competition. The point is simply that for a relatively small city in population and geography, SF is very "dense" in what makes urban living desirable for most of us.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Might as well give the figure for Chicago: 12,750 ppsm (a bit more than 2/3 as dense as SF)

Then, of course there are the other ways a city can "rival" another. SF certainly "rivals" anyplace in North America except New York, which is 10 times its size, in terms of high culture (opera, symphony, ballet) and dining (fine and otherwise). It's got in the Bay Area (if not within the city limits), all the professional sports (LA still doesn't have a football team--we still have 2). It's a center and focus of several major industries: tech, biotech, organic and artisanal food production (including fine wines), finance. And the Bay Area rivals the other places mentioned in higher education with 2 top 10 national universities and a number of smaller colleges and universities.

I could go on, but I don't want to divert the thread into a city competition. The point is simply that for a relatively small city in population and geography, SF is very "dense" in what makes urban living desirable for most of us.

I didn't know all those things where involved in what rivals a city.

All I've really thought where density and how tall they're tallest building was.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by The North One

I didn't know all those things where involved in what rivals a city.

All I've really thought where density and how tall they're tallest building was.

its not about rivalry. theres WAAAAY more to what makes a great city than density and the tallest building. i want to repeat that. theres way more to what makes a great city than density and the tallest building, period.

[San Frangelino]

Originally Posted by fflint

As for highrise density, LA has more highrises but they are spread out--San Francisco's highrises are all concentrated in a single high-rise core. Which is one way to consider density--concentration.

If plans like the Treasure Island redevelopment, and hunters point/candlestick actuallly pan out, SF will have a few spread out high rise districts like L.A., along with it's dense core. I personally would like to see that. But this is off topic...my apologies.

[franktko]

Originally Posted by fflint

Population Density (from Wikipedia)

San Francisco has a much higher population density than LA or SD--indeed, among big US cities San Francisco is second only to New York.

I always find it funny how people in SF just love that density figure and shout it out at every opportunity If you tell them that the city is only the 14th largest in the US, behind even Austin or Indianapolis, then you'll hear that core city population is meaningless and the metro area is what is really representative of a city size (which I totally agree with). But don't tell them that this density figure is just as meaningless!

Densities for downtown cores and metro areas would be the numbers I would really be interested to see, to be able to compare different areas on the same basis...

[tech12]

Glad to see this one is about to start!

Originally Posted by franktko

I always find it funny how people in SF just love that density figure and shout it out at every opportunity If you tell them that the city is only the 14th largest in the US, behind even Austin or Indianapolis, then you'll hear that core city population is meaningless and the metro area is what is really representative of a city size (which I totally agree with). But don't tell them that this density figure is just as meaningless!

Densities for downtown cores and metro areas would be the numbers I would really be interested to see, to be able to compare different areas on the same basis...

1. city limit populations are pretty arbitrary, and that does not apply only to SF.

2. How is density meaningless? SF is more dense than any other big city aside from NYC, and is even second densest in the US on the metro level as well (after LA at #1).

3. The downtown core of SF contains the densest census tracts you'll find in America outside of NYC, and those tracts make up a contiguous chunk containing the Tenderloin, Chinatown, and part of nob hill. It's a denser chunk than anything in downtown Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, or LA, etc.

The reason plenty of people like to bring up the fact that SF is a densely populated place is because it is a densely populated place.

[fimiak]

Don't forget that SF is a rapidly growing city. Projections are for over a million people in the city in the next 35 years, which is more than 20% growth, in what is already the second most dense city in the US. This is before considering the immigration bill that may bring tens of thousands of new tech workers to the SF bay area that are not at all in current census projections. SF punches above its weight on just about every economic measurement, esp. compared to someplace like Indianapolis. Which btw SF will overtake in population by 2015, even though Indianapolis has 7x as much land area.

Detroit has 130k fewer people than Indianapolis but nobody with any sense would argue that Indianapolis is a more important city to the US economy than Detroit, even in its present state. That is because Detroit is simply the center of a complex Auto industry ranging from Michigan, to Canada down to Ohio and PA. SF is likewise a fixture of the tech industry that makes it more ultimately important than larger cities like Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis.

[franktko]

Originally Posted by tech12

1. city limit populations are pretty arbitrary, and that does not apply only to SF.

2. How is density meaningless? SF is more dense than any other big city aside from NYC, and is even second densest in the US on the metro level as well (after LA at #1).

Meaningless was the wrong word but as you say, arbitrary. SF is basically a square 7x7 miles of residential area + downtown core. The density figures are calculated using this area. LA has got forests and mountainous terrain of about the same size within its city borders + airport, etc...

I'm not saying SF is not a dense city, nor the 2nd densest. I'm just saying that this 17K/sq m figure continuously thrown out there is arbitrary and not really representative of SF in general (Metro) when comparing to other cities.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by franktko

I always find it funny how people in SF just love that density figure and shout it out at every opportunity If you tell them that the city is only the 14th largest in the US, behind even Austin or Indianapolis, then you'll hear that core city population is meaningless and the metro area is what is really representative of a city size (which I totally agree with). But don't tell them that this density figure is just as meaningless!

Densities for downtown cores and metro areas would be the numbers I would really be interested to see, to be able to compare different areas on the same basis...

1. There is no point in inserting yourself into an exchange between two other forumers from 3.5 years ago
2. I didn't "shout" a density figure--I provided it in response to a forumer who wrote "I can't wait till San Fran gets some real density going on....Seems now it only rivals L.A. and San diego." That is obviously, objectively false.
3. Who cares what you "would really be interested to see" regarding population density? This thread is about a specific highrise proposal, not about you.

[franktko]

Originally Posted by fflint

1. There is no point in inserting yourself into an exchange between two other forumers from 3.5 years ago
2. I didn't "shout" a density figure--I provided it in response to a forumer who wrote "I can't wait till San Fran gets some real density going on....Seems now it only rivals L.A. and San diego." That is obviously, objectively false.
3. Who cares what you "would really be interested to see" regarding population density? This thread is about a specific high-rise proposal, not about you.

1. Well I was glad he was putting an end to this OT business... but since it's going on, I'll go one last time, promised!
2. You're not being objective when using density figures based on 46 sq miles compared with over 300 for SD and over 400 for LA. We all agree city limits are arbitrary. And I think that forumer meant more skyscraper density and not more people per sq mile.
3. Not just me - you could benefit from that data

Again, I'm not saying SF is not dense - it is and that's a reason it's so enjoyable to walk there. I'm a big buff of density figures and if people think that figuring out the population of an city/metro area is bit flaky (where does it end), it's even more difficult with density. Having google map layers that showed density on a city block basis (for both people and built stories) would be fantastic! Then it would be a piece a cake to compare two cities just by looking at them side by side.

[northbay]

nice proposal - very similar indeed to 555 mission. we'll have to see tho what the glass will look like in person. too bad they couldnt go taller