SAN FRANCISCO | 555 Mission Street | 482 FT / 147 M | 33 FLOORS - Page 3

BTinSF · #41 Posted **Oct 24, 2006, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourOneFive

The rendering above was the one released by Monahan Pacific in 2000 when it was originally an office project. This is NOT the design of the new tower on the site.

If Beacon Capital is able to acquire the low-rise next to 535 mission, look for a much larger building that what was previously proposed by Monahan Pacific. Although the parcel is in a 550' height limit district, any previous proposal has been limited because of the lot size and FAR limitations.

To clarify further, it's back to being office as I said (although you are right about the most recent owner being Beacon):

Quote:

Citing an "overheated" residential construction environment, developer Monahan Pacific has scrapped plans to build a condominium tower at 535 Mission St. and has unloaded the prime south financial district land to Beacon Capital Partners for $30 million. While the property is approved for a residential complex, a spokesman for Beacon Capital confirmed the company plans to build an office tower on the site, the latest example of what is shaping up to be a revival of new Class A office construction in San Francisco.

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...24/story5.html

And the little building next door seems problematic, though we'll see. As I also said, it appears to be being used for the construction next door which suggests T-S owns it. If so, when they are done with it, they might sell it to Beacon. But if Beacon doesn't plan to go through the entitlement process all over again, I don't see how they can radically change the design.

craeg · #42 Posted **Oct 24, 2006, 5:37 PM**

The little building next door was just recently completely renovated. The first floor is under the process of converting the space to a restaurant. Additionally there is a street between the little building and 555's site. I'd imagine it would be tough to get that closed.
I dont think the little building is going anywhere anytime soon.

BTinSF · #43 Posted **Oct 24, 2006, 5:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by craeg

The little building next door was just recently completely renovated. The first floor is under the process of converting the space to a restaurant.

Ah, so that's why they gutted it. My bad for assuming the work was related to next door since it started about the same time they began driving test piles for 555.

AK47KC · #44 Posted **Oct 24, 2006, 5:43 PM**

They should really change the design. 535 Mission looks outdated and that flat roof is unappealing to me and probably to the SF Planning Commission, as well.

Reminiscence · #45 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 2:22 AM**

I was thinking the same thing because I know that the Planning Commision doesnt like flat roofs with machinery and such visible. They should give it a roof similar to that of the Millenium Tower.

FourOneFive · #46 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 2:42 AM**

clarification again. this is the current design of 535 mission. if beacon capital wants to "massage" the design (as tishman speyer did with 300 spear), they have to return to the planning commission. i'm assuming they will return to the planning commission with an altered design because the current one was designed for a residential use (i.e. look for the balconies to be removed).

Reminiscence · #47 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 2:51 AM**

Doesnt come as much of a surprise to me. I cant think of too many highrises that have, or will have, balconies

BTinSF · #48 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 2:58 AM**

Well that design puts it at about 35 stories--just like 555--then. Clearly, it would have to have more "square footage" at 35 stories than it did at 24. Does anyone know if we are coming anywhere close to using up the banked square footage limits for office development (senility prevents me from remembering the number of the prop that set those).

AK47KC · #49 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 3:17 AM**

^^Oh, then I meant a better design of the office tower of 535 Mission, not the residential one.

Reminiscence · #50 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 4:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourOneFive

If Beacon Capital is able to acquire the low-rise next to 535 mission, look for a much larger building that what was previously proposed by Monahan Pacific. Although the parcel is in a 550' height limit district, any previous proposal has been limited because of the lot size and FAR limitations.

Hmm, sounds intresting. How much more do you think Beacon Capital could add to whats already there?

AK47KC · #51 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 6:13 PM**

I'd say they should at least add some more height to the tower like pushing it up to 500' (152 m).

Reminiscence · #52 Posted **Oct 25, 2006, 7:53 PM**

Yeah, a splendid idea. It would be nice if they could at least make it leveled with its neighbor.

EastBayHardCore · #53 Posted **Oct 26, 2006, 4:58 AM**

^ It would be nice? Sorry but every other damn tower in SF is level (see tabletop effect). We need variety.

BTinSF · #54 Posted **Oct 26, 2006, 8:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastBayHardCore

^ It would be nice? Sorry but every other damn tower in SF is level (see tabletop effect). We need variety.

Most of us complain about this but it's clearly the result of the Planning Dept. policy of setting height limits in the downtown core where it can be expected that all developers will build to the limit, whatever it is, meaning all buildings will be about the same height. The real question is, "why do they insist on setting limits rather than judging each building's environmental effects (effect on the skyline, shaddowing, views etc) individually"?

Reminiscence · #55 Posted **Oct 26, 2006, 1:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EastBayHardCore

^ It would be nice? Sorry but every other damn tower in SF is level (see tabletop effect). We need variety.

You know, no matter what height the tower ends up being, eventually some people will always have something to say. People whine when I say make it taller and people whine when I say make it leveled. When I said make it leveled, its not because I like it, its just that I was trying to push the height closer to as much as it could be. I wasent sure what the height limit was for this parcel, so I assumed it was the same. BTinSF has it right though, each building could be different if its designed differently.

SFView · #56 Posted **Oct 27, 2006, 7:04 AM**

535 Mission is one of the smallest new buildings within the planned unlimited height and FAR zone. It is nearly centered between the Transbay trio as seen here:

Buildings of greater than 600 feet in height within the new zone will need to be spaced greater than 200 feet apart. If the new building across the street is greater than 600 feet tall (it looks about 600 feet tall in this conceptual rendering), then 535 Mission should be shorter than 600 feet. 555 Mission is just to the left of 535 Mission in the rendering. There may already be enough height and density planned for the area as is.

BTinSF · #57 Posted **Oct 27, 2006, 7:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFView

If the new building across the street is greater than 600 feet tall (it looks about 600 feet tall in this conceptual rendering), then 535 Mission should be shorter than 600 feet.

The "building across the street" is the tower Renzo Piano is designing and my understanding is it may be as much as 850 ft or so. It will actually be on the corner of First & Mission but will, I believe, include the adjacent and now-empty lot directly across from 535 (and east of Golden Gate University where they formerly had classroom trailors):

Quote:

Superstar architect Renzo Piano has tentatively agreed to design an 850-foot tower at First and Mission streets, a significant coup for city planners as they build support for a denser, taller neighborhood around the Transbay Terminal.

The building would be constructed on a development site that has been quietly assembled by David Choo, the president of commercial mortgage lender California Mortgage and Realty. In the past three months, Choo's company has paid about $50 million for three buildings on the northwest corner of Mission and First streets.

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...ml?t=printable

Looking again at the rendering posted by SFView, there appears to be a second new tower on the north side of Mission, more or less across from 555, that he may be referring to. I have trouble understanding this because I don't know of a buildable lot in that location. It is pretty much where Golden Gate University and/or the plaza next to the JPMorgan building sits.

FourOneFive · #58 Posted **Oct 27, 2006, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Looking again at the rendering posted by SFView, there appears to be a second new tower on the north side of Mission, more or less across from 555, that he may be referring to. I have trouble understanding this because I don't know of a buildable lot in that location. It is pretty much where Golden Gate University and/or the plaza next to the JPMorgan building sits.

The Sofitel Hotel was supposed to go into that site:

Based on the proposed buildout, it seems as if the Planning Department is hoping that the site could accomodate a 550' - 600' tower on that site. I believe the current height limit is 500'.

Reminiscence · #59 Posted **Oct 27, 2006, 5:05 PM**

I dont know if I see 555 or 535 Mission St. under the emphasized color in this rendering. It looks to be more to the left. But I would doubt that they are zoned for 600', 500' sounds more reasonable.

WonderlandPark · #60 Posted **Oct 27, 2006, 5:10 PM**

^^ man I am sorry that Sofitel is cancelled, I always thought that was an interesting tower, but the new Federal building sort of makes up for it.