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

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

After looking at this project again yesterday, I still think that the new tower is a real dog. Those "overhangs" that are supposed to be the cornices in the original renderings are ridiculous. The tower looks like an overgrown mediocre condo development stuffed on top of a nice old building/facade. I find it to be almost hideous.

Although it definitely improves the street scape with the return of a historic brick building that was lovingly restored, even the residence lobby looks trite to me--like a place for the rich who don't have very good taste to live.

Overall, it benefits the City, but it could have been so much better. IMO, Ritz-Carlton's image has been diminished by allowing their name to be attached to this developer's misguided architectural adventure. It looks more like the influence of Marriott, Ritz-Carlton's owner.

The angle shown is obviously not the most flattering. The conceptuals were much more so. I haven't seen it in person yet, but I hope not to be disappointed. It looked to be one of the best designs around and I was a little jealous not to have something like that down here (it might even fit at that height). The overhangs aren't lovely, but the bold tones and asymmetry make it stand out amongst other current projects. Maybe once they get some greenery up on it, things will be more like promised.

[CityKid]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

POLA's pic #22 from his great "San Francisco by Pola (big)" thread shows just how unsightly the Ritz-Carlton Residences project is when viewed from above. Not only is it painfully obvious how the two sections do not fit together and how cheap looking the new structure is, but it also shows that they made no attempt to hide the mechanical penthouse and equipment on the roof. From this angle, the project rates a big F in my book.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1351/...f8cc1fdd_b.jpg

Because, you know, a project's worth is based entirely on the way its roof looks from above. Give me a break.

[markermiller]

Originally Posted by CityKid

Because, you know, a project's worth is based entirely on the way its roof looks from above. Give me a break.

I think viewguysf has mentioned MANY ways that the Ritz Carlton Residences project falls short. But actually, how buildings look from ALL directions (including from above) is more important in San Francisco than in many other cities. With the city's many hills and highrises, (and also because we're photographed SO much) we see the butt-end of buildings more.

This is why I've always been a bit baffled that so many property developers and owners in the City do such a poor job of designing and maintaining their building's butt-ends (the sides, backs and tops).

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by markermiller

I think viewguysf has mentioned MANY ways that the Ritz Carlton Residences project falls short. But actually, how buildings look from ALL directions (including from above) is more important in San Francisco than in many other cities. With the city's many hills and highrises, (and also because we're photographed SO much) we see the butt-end of buildings more.

This is why I've always been a bit baffled that so many property developers and owners in the City do such a poor job of designing and maintaining their building's butt-ends (the sides, backs and tops).

So true, this is a city that offers many perspectives of its structures.

As to the previous posting, even when coming down Market Street from Castro or Church towards downtown, it's easy to see the ugly gray boxes on top of the Ritz-Carlton Residences' plain brown box and, obviously, impossible to see the impressive lower facade at that point.

[botoxic]

He doesn't say much that hasn't already been discussed here.

S.F.'s restored de Young building stunning at street level

John King, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 27, 2007

As long as you don't look up, the restoration of San Francisco's de Young Building is the architectural feel-good story of the year.

Eleven stories of ruddy sandstone and brick command the corner of Kearny and Market streets every bit as robustly as they did in 1890, when the building that then housed The Chronicle opened as the tallest tower on the West Coast. You'd never guess that for 40 years the walls were hidden behind drab metal panels with a pseudo-modern look.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't end with a dowager's face-lift. To finance the rebirth, city officials let the developer put a tower in back. And that addition is so uninspired it almost undoes the good work below.

What's been salvaged is such a treasure that the trade-off is justified. But it's a close call.

The masonry facade is virtually all that's left of the original, designed by Chicago firm Burnham and Root for Chronicle publisher M. H. de Young. The client wanted an edifice that would outshine his rivals; Burnham and Root delivered the goods with a fortress-like temple of commerce, the walls so hefty they seem as though they were carved from a cliff.

That air of brawny grandeur remains, even though the interior was gutted long ago and the facade was scarred by a skin of metal and glass tattooed into place in 1962, when the owner at the time tried to make it more attractive to potential tenants.

But now the red bricks conceal something much different from a newspaper plant: Behind and above them sit the Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences, a 24-story stack of condominiums and time shares (sorry, "fractional ownerships") aimed at affluent people who want a downtown perch.

For the original building, Burnham and Root rolled out a design that looks more like their hometown than San Francisco. An enormous, intricately carved entry arch in the style of H.H. Richardson emerges from a sandstone base so thick the windowsills framing the residential entry are 30 inches deep. Above the base, paired stacks of windows march up to eighth-floor arches.

There's such depth, such force, that you can sense what a spell the building cast on opening day, when nothing nearby was even half as tall. This is how the heart of a city should be: powerful and poised, tactile and proud.

The addition, by contrast, is wrapped in thin panels of lightweight concrete, with a tan color to differentiate them from the brickwork below. The tower is set back a bit from Market - enough for a nifty residents-only terrace - and not at all along Kearny.

The only accents to the upper facade come from flat bands of metal at various setbacks. There also were to be sunshades and recessed windows that would add a bit of depth, but they disappeared from the design as preservation costs soared.

According to architect Charles Bloszies, the look of the addition comes in part from necessity - a heavier facade wouldn't work with the structural columns - but also from a desire to make the new tower keep a low profile.

"We want the new building to look like a building in the background," said Bloszies, who was assisted on the preservation work by another local firm, Page & Turnbull. "The idea was to do a quiet addition that was respectful to the original design, but also distinct."

That's about the best that can be said for the new piece: It's a pale shadow of the past. The real justification is economic. Developer Jim Hunter was allowed extra height and bulk in return for a seismic upgrade and full restoration of the original building's skin.

It's a dangerous sort of compromise, as we too plainly see. On the other hand, the top is so forgettable it blurs into the background. The real show is at sidewalk level - where the project is an absolute winner.

Most of the credit goes to Burnham and Root, but give credit as well to Bloszies and Page & Turnbull. This isn't just a case of uncovering an old beauty and dusting her off. The team seized a once-in-a-career opportunity to make things right on a historic corner of San Francisco across from Lotta's Fountain, where Union Square meets the Financial District.

Indeed, the caring attention to detail makes it easy to miss the extent to which the "historic" skin is vintage 2007.

Some of the repair work is obvious, such as new bricks patching ruptures where the supports for the metal skin had been hammered into place. But the shallow bay that extends up from the original arched entry was sheared off in 1962, so what we see is molded lightweight concrete.

As for the rusticated stonework along Market, only the upper portion is original; the sandstone from the sidewalk to a height of 12 feet was installed last year, cut from boulders found at the long-closed original quarry in Southern California.

In a perfect world, the addition would be a fitting sequel to the original - one more part of a collage that already included two extra floors on Market and a 16-story wing on Kearny from 1905 designed in part by local luminary Willis Polk.

Instead, we have an ordinary finale to an extraordinary tale. Enjoy what's been uncovered anyway. It's a long-lost treasure, and it looks almost as good as new.


The stunningly restored de Young building is topped off with a ordinary-looking new tower. Chronicle photo by Kurt Rogers

De Young building over the decades

1887 - Chronicle publisher Michael de Young hires the Chicago firm Burnham and Root to design a new home for the newspaper at Kearny and Market streets.

1890 - On June 22, The Chronicle devotes seven pages of the paper to a thorough examination of "the safest, strongest and in every way one of the finest office buildings in the world." Special detail is lavished on the four-story clock tower rising from the center of the building, "the only bronze one in the United States."

1905 - A raucous parade celebrating the re-election of Mayor Eugene Schmitz stops outside the paper, which had opposed him. Skyrockets are launched. The tower goes up in flames. De Young responds by adding two floors to the original building and a 16-story annex on Kearny Street. No clock tower, though.

1906 - The Chronicle building rides out the earthquake - until the interior of the top floor catches fire and the typesetting equipment stored there plunges to the ground. Much of the building follows. The annex, though, survives and opens the next spring.

1924 - Chronicle moves to its current home at Fifth and Mission streets, and its former headquarters becomes a conventional for-rent office building.

1962 - The stretch of Market Street has faded, and so has the building. To spiff things up and catch the eye of potential tenants, owner Home Mutual Savings & Loan shaves back the masonry details to create a canvas for a modern facade of aluminum, glass and porcelain panels.

2004 - New owner Jim Hunter receives city approvals to strip off the modern cladding and restore the facade to its original appearance. The plan includes a vertical addition and a conversion to residential use. Construction begins in 2005.

2007 - In November, residents move into the Ritz-Carlton Club and Residences. A marketing brochure touts their new home as "a historic skyscraper reincarnated."

[StevenW]

Very nice.

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

After quite a few drinks on new year's eve, I decided to take a few dark and blurry pics of our SoMa projects on the way home. I hope they help give an idea of what SF looks like from a dirty cell phone camera at 4am...

[Reminiscence]

^^^

Too much to drink?

[botoxic]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2363/...466d48e5_b.jpg

[mdsayh1]

Great photo! I used to live in SF until 3 weeks ago and I also worked at Gap on Spear and Harrison. I was wondering how those building were coming along.

[botoxic]

High-rises are a sign of the times in changing San Francisco
Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 2, 2008

The new year marks the beginning of something big in San Francisco. One Rincon Hill, the tallest residential tower west of the Mississippi, opens this year. So does a luxury hotel at the once-bleak corner of Fifth and Howard streets. A condo development at Seventh and Mission, only a block from Skid Row, is described in the newspaper as trendy.

Wine bars and fine restaurants crop up in Dogpatch, a district no one had ever heard of a few years ago. They are building new neighborhoods at Mission Bay and talking about them on Treasure Island.

San Francisco is changing so rapidly some say the San Franciscans of 2007 won't recognize the place in five years.

It's part of a trend that began after the city picked itself up after the dot-com bust of a few years ago. There are plans for more condos, bigger high-rises, so many fine restaurants that more San Franciscans will recognize the name of a celebrity chef than the quarterback of the 49ers.

"Some people say change is bad," said Meagan Levitan, a real estate broker who is also on the Recreation and Park Commission. "I want my old city, but at the same time, change is exciting."

But change is also sobering - some experts worry that a new San Francisco of high-rises and fine living will be a city of the very rich and very poor, a boutique city and not a real one.

"It will be economically less diverse and to some extent less racially and ethnically diverse," said Richard DeLeon, emeritus professor of political science at San Francisco State University. DeLeon literally wrote the book on San Francisco's politics with his "Left Coast City," a study of the rise of the city's cutting-edge leftist progressive movements.

DeLeon notes the sharp decline in San Francisco's African American population, which has dropped from 16 percent of the residents to 6 percent in 30 years.

He said the city may also lose much of its Latino population, driven out by high home prices. It could become a city with fewer children and fewer families - a city without a middle class.

If present trends continue, DeLeon thinks San Francisco might become a city that is white and Asian, with marked declines in the number of black and Latino residents.

The changes are driven by economics and politics, he said. "The issue is who gets to live in San Francisco and who can afford to live in San Francisco.

"Who is going to sweep the streets and serve the lattes, and where are they going to live?"

What the future will look like is an old debate in San Francisco, which featured a citizens revolt against freeways in the 1960s, and worries about tall buildings and arguments about "Manhattanization" in the '70s.

But the high-rises came anyway in the pro-business '80s, and now a new wave of buildings and development has accelerated the trends.

"Living in the city, you can feel all that," said Corey Cook, assistant professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.

When San Francisco lost its industrial base a generation ago, it became a headquarters city, a city of office workers and managers. When the economy shifted again, Cook said, San Francisco began to pursue trends - stem cell research, biotechnology, green technology.

"We keep looking for the next big thing, riding at the peak of the big booms," he said. It is almost as if the city were riding the economy like a surfer.

The downside to this, Cook thinks, is in shifting demographics. He sees San Francisco attracting 25-year-olds, "fresh out of MIT, who want to come to San Francisco because it is the coolest place in the world."

It could become a city of the young - and you can see that trend now in the clubs, in the hip restaurants. Ten years later, this scenario goes, these San Franciscans want to raise families, but the housing stock now going up is one- and two-bedroom condos, and the older houses, their prices driven up by scarcity, are unaffordable. Even now, even in a mortgage crisis, single-family homes in desirable neighborhoods like Noe Valley sell for well over $1 million.

So, Cook said, these San Franciscans move to the suburbs. It's an old story in cities: It happenedin North Beach, the Sunset, the Richmond and other places.

But in the new scenario, after years go by and their family is grown, these ex-San Franciscans move back - a movement planners call "new urbanism."

But now there are places for them like One Rincon Hill, the Millennium Towers and Soma Grand, which advertises itself as "a boutique condominium development."

The new, older San Franciscans who live in them support the opera, the theater, the symphony. All three were booming in 2007, a year in which the San Francisco Opera even showed a profit.

In this scenario, not long in the future, what has developed is a city of the young and the old. "If this happens," Corey said, "you definitely have a different kind of a city."

Housing and change run together. Where the city needs affordable housing, it is getting condos, though some of the building fees the condo projects generate are earmarked for affordable housing. One Rincon, which cost $290 million to build, generated $20 million toward low-cost housing.

DeLeon thinks the next frontier is Bayview-Hunters Point (where, he said, African Americans are cashing in by selling their homes and moving out of San Francisco), the Mission, the areas around UCSF, and Candlestick Point around a proposed football stadium complex.

The rising tide does not lift all boats; there are also pockets of extreme poverty.

Jim Ross is a political consultant, with offices at 20th and Shotwell streets in the Inner Mission. At one time, the neighborhood was where low-cost housing and an industrial area met. It was always a bit rough around the corners, but a few years ago the area slid over the edge.

"If you came to this area not long ago, you'd be looking for hookers and heroin," Ross said. "Now there's high-end condos on every corner. There's latte, and a fancy wine bar at 16th street and South Van Ness Avenue."

The housing in the neighborhood, he said, is one- and two-bedroom condos with parking over retail shops.

"It's not the kind of housing to raise a family in," he said. "If you had kids, would you want to live in a two-bedroom condo?"

The solution, some say, is political, and that could change, too. San Francisco has a moderate mayor in Gavin Newsom, but the Board of Supervisors has a so-called progressive majority that leans left. But the progressives have allowed much of the new high-rise and condo development. On the one hand, the tall buildings have a small footprint; they do not sprawl all over the streets. On the other, they have changed the city skyline.

The shape of the board could change with elections in November, when a number of seats are up for grabs.

For one thing, said political consultant David Latterman, San Francisco might have three Asian Americans on the Board of Supervisors instead of one. For another, he thinks it likely that a Latino will replace Supervisor Tom Ammiano in District Nine, which represents the Mission and Bernal Heights.

USF's Cook thinks the new board could have a decisive influence. "The city has a monopoly on land use," he said. "The city is actually in a position to make real decisions on how it looks."

Latterman is not so sure. "A lot depends on the business cycles, not the political cycles," he said. "A lot depends on jobs, on how good the Muni is, and how well BART works moving people in and out. The forces are economic and not political.

"It's bigger than a few tin-pot supervisors," he said. "It's like a river. The supervisors can dip their hands into the river, but they can't control the current."

Latterman is not so sure a new board will make that much of a difference. "Where's the voice for real change?" he asks. "Who's going to step up and go beyond their identity base and represent the whole city?"

No matter who lives here, it is clear that the new San Francisco will have a different look.

"I think the waterfront will get more and more beautiful," said Anne Halsted, vice chair of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, who has been active in political issues for years.

She thinks the trend toward high-rises and condos will level off. "We won't allow big buildings on the waterfront," she said, and the city will be able to control the new skyline.

San Francisco won't change that much, because, she said, "San Franciscans love their city too much" to see it damaged.

"It's a great city," she said, "one of the best in the world."

San Francisco does have one unique quality: It's always changing, but it opposes change. "We think we are progressive and open-minded," said Levitan, who was born and raised in the city, "but we say, 'Don't change a thing.' "

[krudmonk]

I drove by the Ritz Carlton building the other day and I still don't buy the complaints.

[roadwarrior]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Too many elitests in the city who expect every single building constructed to be "world class".

Take Soma Grand for example. Its not a "world class" building, but it is fairly attractive. It gets blasted on this forum, on socketsite, etc. I was recently viewing the San Diego forum and saw some similar looking buildings that everyone called quite striking. I guess its is all relative.

[BTinSF]

Friday, January 4, 2008
S.F. condos looking solid in 'dog-eat-dog' year
But some buyers expected to walk away from deposits
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

If 2007 was the year of the crane and the sales center, 2008 will bring punch lists and reality checks.

More than 2,500 new condominiums across the city will be move-in ready this year. On Rincon Hill some 700 new homeowners will take occupancy in Tishman Speyer's Infinity and Michael Kriozere's One Rincon Hill. In Mission Bay, Intracorp's green Arterra will take root, and the first phase of Nat Bosa's Radiance should open. On the other side of Market Street will be the Hayes, Symphony Towers and the Argenta.

Since most of these projects opened sales offices a year to 18 months ago, at the peak of the condo boom, industry observers will be watching closely for defectors. What percentage of buyers will walk away from the 3 percent deposit put down when the unit went into contract? With the days of 5 percent down payments gone, how many entry-level buyers will be unable or unwilling to cough up the 20 percent equity needed to close deals? And with the housing market depressed in many parts of the country, some San Francisco condo buyers may be counting on handsome returns from the sale of a current property -- profits that now may be unrealistic.

One project that observers will be watching more closely than the rest is One Rincon Hill. With a its signature "One Gincon cocktails" served at a series of parties, and buyers lined up until 2 a.m. to reserve units, the frenzy around One Rincon represented perhaps the peak of the condo boom. But because the project was perceived as a bargain, priced slightly below what was seen as market rate, the project may have drawn a higher percentage of investors than other developments. Some 90 percent of the units are in contract.

Gregg Lynn, a broker at Sotheby's, said all six of the buyers he represents at One Rincon are preparing to close, but some buyers will walk away.

"It won't be 90 percent closing -- the credit environments have changed so much," he said. "It's going to be a stretch for some people, which will free up some inventory."

Alan Mark of the Mark Co., one of the city's leading new homes sales and marketing firms, said most San Francisco buyers put down at least 10 percent. When the credit crunch hit last summer, Mark looked at all the units under contract in buildings he is selling, including the Hayes, the Arterra, and the Infinity.

"We didn't have a lot of 5 percenters," said Mark.

Developer Joe Cassidy, who built the Palms and has started construction on a 113-unit project at 1844 Market St. in the Castro district, expects the condo market to drag into 2009. He characterized the suburban markets as a "blood bath," with highrise and midrise projects in San Francisco somewhat insulated from the national meltdown.

"It's going to be dog-eat-dog for a year," he said.

With roughly an 18-month construction schedule for most mid-sized projects, June will be a good time to break ground on new condos in the city, Cassidy said.

"It's got to be good quality and a good location with good financing and good marketing," he said, adding: "There is no confidence right now."

Cassidy said he sees prices dropping another 1 percent to 2 percent, with a total decrease of 6 percent to 7 percent from the peak seen a year ago. Cassidy said the slight downturn won't be enough to prompt fire sales, but is a good reminder that real estate is a cyclical business and there is risk in housing development as well as reward.

"It's a dangerous game to be a builder and a developer," he said.

New sales offices opening up in 2008 will include the 113-unit Blu at 631 Folsom St., the 179-unit Argenta at 1 Polk St., the 319-unit Radiance West in Mission Bay. In addition, the marketing for phase two of One Rincon and the Infinity will start up. And Millennium Tower on Mission Street, the city's most high-end project with $2,150-per-square-foot penthouses, opened its sales office Nov. 8 and will be the most coveted deluxe offering of 2008.

Mark of the Mark Co. said he sees continued softness in the condo-rich South of Market enclave, but modest increases in other areas. While the city has a dozen projects for sales, many of them are 40 percent to 60 percent sold out.

"There are a lot of projects, but not a lot of units," said Mark. "If absorption stays as it has been, by June most of these projects should have closed. There won't be a lot of sales offices to go to, and the ones that are open will be skewed toward the higher end."

Lynn of Sotheby's said demand for single-family homes in family-friendly neighborhoods like Noe Valley will continue to be high.

"I have a dozen families like that, just waiting for the right houses," he said. "There isn't much inventory and there hasn't been."

Things that mattered in 2007:

Crunched: The credit crunch and real estate downturn has slowed down construction schedules as several anticipated projects have not broken ground, including Crescent Heights condos at 10th and Market streets, and Turnberry's Rincon Hill project. Also, Fifield is selling its entitled Rincon Hill development, and developer Don Peebles scrapped a plan to develop 250 Brannan St., selling it as an office building instead.
Grand slam: The SoMa Grand: TMG Partners and AGI Capital Partners took a huge gamble with the 246-unit SoMa Grand. Sixth Street is still dicey and the front of the new federal building next door can look like a homeless encampment on weekends. Even so, this exciting project is attracting investors and restaurateurs to the transitional area.
ParkMerced goes green: The owners of the 3,200-unit Parkmerced unveiled a 15- to 20-year plan to build another 5,700 units and create a Muni-centered transit community with ample green space and grocery stores.
Rentals rule: Apartments are back. AvalonBay and Urban Housing Group broke ground on another apartment complex in Mission Bay as rentals become more attractive than condos for some investors.
Trinity Plaza: At long last, Angelo Sangiacomo broke ground on his legacy project: the 1,900-unit Trinity Plaza. The first phase will include about 400 units and will house all current residents.
jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4950

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

Posted by BT from his hotel room in NYC, having finally got net access once again.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

I drove by the Ritz Carlton building the other day and I still don't buy the complaints.

Perhaps if you got out of your car and looked at the building from different angles you might form a different opinion. At any rate, you're welcome to take the top back to San Jose--just leave the bottom restored Chronicle Building for us.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Too many elitests in the city who expect every single building constructed to be "world class".

Take Soma Grand for example. Its not a "world class" building, but it is fairly attractive. It gets blasted on this forum, on socketsite, etc. I was recently viewing the San Diego forum and saw some similar looking buildings that everyone called quite striking. I guess its is all relative.

SOMA Grand isn't a bad building in my opinion either--I just can't stand it when viewed from the new Federal Building plaza or even from the freeway. From those angles, it's a definite clash of the mediocre versus the innovative. From Twin Peaks, the building actually blends in quite well and I think that it looks fine from Civic Center Plaza also.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Perhaps if you got out of your car and looked at the building from different angles you might form a different opinion. At any rate, you're welcome to take the top back to San Jose--just leave the bottom restored Chronicle Building for us.

I'm going to agree with John King. The top is mediocre at best--and weird at worst--but the bottom restoration is so glorious that net/net it's a win for the city.

As for SOMA Grand, I don't think you can blame it for sitting next to the Federal Building. That extremist creation was meant to contrast, even clash, with everything around it including the historic Federal Appeals Court across the street.

[fflint]

I don't care for the crappy new tower atop the restored Chron building, but I actually like SOMA Grand given its context. My only concern is that it will age poorly like some other concrete buildings (I'm really thankful that the TAP was recently cleaned--it was really dingy for a while there).

[SFView]

From the Sierra Club Yodeler (November - December 2007) Newspaper of the San Francisco Bay Chapter
http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.or...servation6.htm

CONSERVATION NEWS

How high San Francisco? Treasure Island tower raises important questions
How high is too high?

The "Sun Tower" proposed for Treasure Island, now planned to be "somewhere between 450 and 650 feet", could dramatically change the San Francisco skyline. For comparison, the Transamerica Building is 853 feet tall, the Western Bay Bridge Towers 526, and One Rincon Hill 605, and the proposed Transbay Terminal tower could possibly exceed 1,200 feet.

The Sierra Club has not in the past taken positions about the heights of these buildings, but it is now considering the Sun Tower in the context of redevelopment plans for currently underutilized Treasure Island.

High-density housing is a cornerstone of smart and sustainable development. The Treasure Island proposal calls for a core residential area of 60 - 80 homes per acre - roughly as dense as the Marina District. Remarkably, 90% of these homes will be within a 12-minute walk of the island's transit hub; strike a blow for energy conservation. The residential buildings will include mid-rises and high-rises; the Sun Tower, named for the 400-foot Tower of the Sun that dominated the 1939 - 40 Golden Gate Exposition, will be the highest. Situated on the San Francisco side of the island near the waterfront, the tower will be conspicuous in Bay views from all directions, inviting judgments that are sure to be diverse.

In a city of severely limited acreage, constructing hundreds of homes within the space of a handful of single-family homes has some obvious benefits. Today we have the technology to reach higher into the sky. The question then becomes, would 80 stories be even better? How about 100? How do participants in the public planning process decide how far to go?

Jack Sylvan, of the Mayor's Office of Base Reuse and Real Estate Development, points out that "the Western U.S. has been much slower to embrace tall buildings than many other cities," citing the recently approved Chicago Spire: a residential condo building that will be the tallest in the US at 2,000 feet and more than twice as tall as the tallest building in San Francisco.

The most obvious benefits of high- and mid-rises are a reduction in sprawl, increase in access to public transit, walkable distances to shopping and restaurants, decreased dependence on the private automobile, and preservation of open space. The current plan for roughly 6,000 residences will leave far more open space than the original plan for only 2,000 residential units.

There could be social benefits as well. The plan is to encourage residents to interact with each other and create community. Inviting public spaces and common meeting places for transportation access have been included in the plan. Cafes and other retail will be strategically placed within residential buildings to create a more "permeable" ground floor, as an alternative to having a parking structure on the pedestrian level. The island's townhouse-style 3 - 4-story buildings will have actual stoops facing the street or sidewalk. The intention is to create many of the same neighborhood benefits that homeowners and renters seek and find in a more traditional neighborhood.

Aesthetics will also need to be considered. Will the building enhance or overwhelm the Bay Area landscape? Architect Craig Hartman of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, lead architect for the project, explains how desire for visual appeal has shaped the latest development plan. The skyline is designed to be highly symbolic, with the Sun Tower as almost a kind of campanile, marking the port of arrival at the ferry terminal much as does the Ferry Building clock tower across the channel. "It's important that we make a statement with this building. It is meant to be a graceful presence in the skyline; a marker for San Francisco's urban and environmental intentions." He sees the tower as a testament to sustainable development and a way to emphasize some of the ecological goals of the island plan. There will be several other "mini-neighborhoods" within the residential area, each represented in the skyline by a mid-rise tower.

So how do you make a high-rise seem graceful? According to Hartman, the aspect ratio, or ratio of width to height, has a lot to do with achieving that effect. Ideally, he says, the height should be at least 6 - 7 times the width. Otherwise, the building will look squat and unattractive. But at what point do you stop? When asked about the pending 2,000-foot Chicago Spire, Hartman replied, "A building of that size would just be totally inappropriate in that setting. It would take away some of the symbolic power of the city of San Francisco itself."

As currently planned, the tower could be considerably higher than the neighboring 338-foot-high Yerba Buena Island, which will probably play a part in determining an appropriate height scale for the location.

The comparison to One Rincon Hill is almost unavoidable. At 60 stories, that is by far the tallest building in the immediate area and one of the tallest residential buildings west of the Mississippi. It's difficult to miss when you look towards downtown. Newspaper reports suggest that the public response to it is pretty negative. Its stature may be softened eventually, however, when, as planned, additional similarly scaled buildings are added to the area. On Treasure Island also, there are plans to "mound" buildings of varying size to create an aesthetically pleasing skyline. Still, the Sun Tower is designed to be conspicuous, and the designers will face a challenge to create a design that the public can embrace.

In the coming months, as public consideration continues on plans for Treasure Island, the Sierra Club's San Francisco Group will be weighing the above concerns - along with questions about seismic stability, emergency evacuation, and affordability - and considering whether to take a position regarding the height of the Sun Tower. If you have thoughts to contribute to the process, contact Steven Chapman, chair of the San Francisco Group Conservation Committee, at steven -at- sfwild.net or call conservation organizer Brad Johnson at (415) 200-8975.

Amy Clemens

[peanut gallery]

Sounds like the Sierra Club is laying the foundation for coming out in full support of taller buildings in the Bay Area's core. The higher density of taller buildings definitely fits with the organizational beliefs. Not a bad idea to build the case slowly; to keep some of the reactionary-types at bay and to keep those on the fence nodding along with their viewpoint.