HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals

    

Palace Hotel Residential Tower in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • Comparison Diagram   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2006, 10:18 PM
J Church J Church is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 12,882
SAN FRANCISCO | Palace Hotel Tower | 400 FT / 122 M | 40 FLOORS

The story in today's San Francisco Business Times is unfortunately available online only to subscribers. But may as well post the basics.

This would be a "slender, glass" (surprise!) condo tower by SOM in an alley behind the historic Palace Hotel at Market and New Montgomery streets in
the heart of downtown San Francisco, more or less where the Financial District, Union Square, Yerba Buena and SOMA/"Financial District South" districts
intersect (the tower would be south of Market Street). It would replace a fairly recent but lowrise and nondescript addition to the hotel, and would rise
above the Palace's trademark garden court. Still, the addition has the initial support of San Francisco Heritage, whose director described it as "tall and
elegant ... very much a statement of its time" (are you sure you're a historic preservationist?). Flinty has posted a Live Local aerial of the site in a
Califorum thread:



The site is to the left of the barrel-shaped atrium (the garden court).

The tower would feature 269 units, 111 of them "two bedroom-plus" and three of them 8,000 sq. ft. penthouses on the 58th, 59th and 60th floors. It
would be the tallest residential tower in San Francisco, surpassing the under-construction Millennium Tower at 301 Mission (645') and south tower of
One Rincon Hill (641'), and the fourth-tallest tower in the city, at least until the Transbay towers are built. Applications were filed in late September.
Renderings to follow, hopefully.
__________________
San Francisco Cityscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 4:52 AM
AK47KC AK47KC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 95616, 94030, HK
Posts: 246
I guess this the highest condos on the West Coast, assuming the 60 story tower proposed in LA is not taller. This tower will be the first 200+ m skyscraper of San Francisco of the 21st Century, yay.
__________________
建筑物 Construction >300 m.
香港 HK: 環球貿易廣場 ICC, 如心廣場 Nina Tower I , 港島東中心 One Island East
纽约市 NYC: 自由塔 Freedom Tower, 美洲银行中心 Bank of America Tower, 纽约时报中心 NY Times Tower
芝加哥 Chicago: Trump Tower, Waterview Tower

Last edited by AK47KC; Nov 18, 2006 at 8:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 5:22 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,672
Huh, I guess this is for real then. I had my doubts and at one point thought I might be seeing things when I saw " 669' (204m) " as the height. Seems like a waste putting it in an alley, but whatever, I'm in no position to complain about something like this

Cant wait to see those renderings!
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 6:59 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,119
Would be tallest residential tower west of the Mississippi. I don't think there are any condos with a realistic chance of being built in Vegas that would top this.

LA continues to LAg. The Gehry project looks to be in a bit of trouble, down here in SoCal, might only get 1 really tall one out of this boom cycle. Can you guys spare a tower?
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 7:25 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,672
We here in SF have a lot of catching up to do, its been a dry decade, heh. I get the feeling that this wave of highrise boom is just SF clearing its throat. I dont know it it counts as evidence but I, myself, had never heard of this Palace Hotel Tower until today. And if stuff like this can just come out of the air all of a sudden, then maybe there more to come, that is if ol' Sue Hestor does'nt get in the way. We may be able to spare a tower or two once we're done
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 7:58 AM
J Church J Church is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 12,882
L.A. City House would be 750'.
__________________
San Francisco Cityscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 8:01 AM
toddguy toddguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 342
Nice to see San Francisco getting some new highrises. One of my all time favorite cities!

The Palace Hotel was THE hotel in S.F. a century ago. I would love to see it have such a nice high rise addition.

some pics of the original building('borrowed' from the net)

Exterior view:



Interior view of the glass-covered carriage courtyard:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 8:23 AM
AK47KC AK47KC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 95616, 94030, HK
Posts: 246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence
We here in SF have a lot of catching up to do, its been a dry decade, heh. I get the feeling that this wave of highrise boom is just SF clearing its throat. I dont know it it counts as evidence but I, myself, had never heard of this Palace Hotel Tower until today. And if stuff like this can just come out of the air all of a sudden, then maybe there more to come, that is if ol' Sue Hestor does'nt get in the way. We may be able to spare a tower or two once we're done
You hit the point, San Francisco needs a lot more towers that are taller than 200 m; if approved, this tower will be the first step.
__________________
建筑物 Construction >300 m.
香港 HK: 環球貿易廣場 ICC, 如心廣場 Nina Tower I , 港島東中心 One Island East
纽约市 NYC: 自由塔 Freedom Tower, 美洲银行中心 Bank of America Tower, 纽约时报中心 NY Times Tower
芝加哥 Chicago: Trump Tower, Waterview Tower
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 5:13 PM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Church
L.A. City House would be 750'.
LA has been all talk and little action for years now. There are so many proposals that have been put out there in the last 5 years and almost none of the tall ones look promising. LA is getting 20-30 story towers, and the 55 st Ritz Carlton, but that is realistically all that is coming. City House is one of the more far-fetched projects, like the Zen tower-nothing ever became of that one.

I will be up in SF for Thanksgiving and can't wait to see all the action up there, reminds me of the early 80's boom up there.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 8:09 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47KC
You hit the point, San Francisco needs a lot more towers that are taller than 200 m; if approved, this tower will be the first step.
It also looks like they made it clear they dont mind demolishing relatively new buildings to make way for them as well, which is encouraging news, as there are some buildings in SF I'm sure we all would'nt mind seeing dissapear. I would say SF has probably reached around a 500+' average for building height.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2006, 8:11 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonderlandPark
LA has been all talk and little action for years now. There are so many proposals that have been put out there in the last 5 years and almost none of the tall ones look promising. LA is getting 20-30 story towers, and the 55 st Ritz Carlton, but that is realistically all that is coming. City House is one of the more far-fetched projects, like the Zen tower-nothing ever became of that one.

I will be up in SF for Thanksgiving and can't wait to see all the action up there, reminds me of the early 80's boom up there.

It would seem like an 80's boom revived, but this time, the buildings may end up looking way better and more stylish
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 2:17 AM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,912
is this project for real? currently this parcel is zoned for 300'. for this project to move foward, an environmental impact report will have to be approved from both the planning commission and board of supervisors. in addition, it'll need a height variance from the board of supervisors. unless the project sponsor is promising some sort of community benefit (like affordable housing), i doubt this project will receive the necessary approvals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 2:45 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,119
Someone in the SF regional thread said this was part of the Yerba Buena redevelopment and would have minimal problems with the zoning.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 3:54 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,672
Well, if that is to be the case, then they should strech this one a bit taller. If its as beatiful as they say it will be, then it could do wonders to SF's future skyline.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 4:13 AM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,912
this parcel is not apart of the yerba buena redevelopment area. standard zoning would still apply.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 4:18 AM
WonderlandPark's Avatar
WonderlandPark WonderlandPark is offline
Pacific Wonderland
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bi-Situational, Portland & L.A.
Posts: 4,119
I stand corrected, someone asked if it was part of YB, there was no answer to the question.
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away"

travel, architecture & photos of the textured world at http://www.pixelmap.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 4:26 AM
J Church J Church is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 12,882
Tony, you just described the exact process the Intercontinental went through.
__________________
San Francisco Cityscape
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 5:21 AM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Church
Tony, you just described the exact process the Intercontinental went through.
true, but this building is double the height of the intercontinental and an (major) addition to a historic structure (whereas the intercontinental is being built on a parking lot). plus, the developers threw some money at the filipinos to make the SOMA community groups shut up.

i'm not saying that this project won't happen. i'm just curious to see what kind of resistance it may get when it reaches the board of supervisors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 8:02 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Church
The story in today's San Francisco Business Times is unfortunately available online only to subscribers. But may as well post the basics.
And there is one available:

Quote:
Palace uprising: 60-story condo tower
Luxury property would be built above landmark hotel
San Francisco Business Times - November 17, 2006
by J.K. Dineen

The Sheraton Palace Hotel's owner plans to build a slender, glass, 60-story condo highrise atop the landmark hotel, creating San Francisco's tallest residential building, according to documents filed with the city.

The proposed 269-unit skyscraper would emerge out of the back left corner of the Palace's 92,000-square-foot lot, at Jessie and Annie alleys, replacing a 1989 addition to the hotel that would be demolished.

The addition would soar 669 feet. One Rincon Hill, now under construction, will be 641 feet, and the Millennium tower at First and Mission streets, is slated to rise 645 feet.

Skidmore Owens Merrill is the design architect on the project, with preservation architects Page & Turnbull handling the historic aspects.

The Kyoya Corp., which owns the hotel, is controlled by Blackacre Capital Management, the real estate investment division of Cerberus Capital Management, a large privately held hedge fund run by financier Steve Feinberg. James Reuben, attorney for the owners, declined comment on the project.

The revised plans, submitted to the city Planning Department on Sept. 28 by Reuben & Junius partner Joel Yodowitz, would be twice the size of the Palace Hotel's last proposal, submitted in 2005. That application called for a 24-story tower with a total of 377,000 square feet in additional space.

The new addition would include a net gain of 727,109 square feet and bring the total of the Palace Hotel and condo development to 1.2 million square feet. The plan is for 41 one-bedroom units, 63 two-bedroom units, 111 two-bedroom "plus" units, and 51 three bedroom units. There would be three 8,000-square-foot penthouses on floors 58, 59, and 60. The eighth floor roof of the current Palace would be redesigned with a pool, spa and yoga space.

The Palace Hotel, city Landmark No. 18, was completed in 1909 and was the post-fire successor to William Ralston's 1873 hotel of the same name, which was the center of activity for the city's 19th century social elite. The building's most famous feature is the skylit garden court, which the architecture guide Splendid Survivors calls "an example of Parisian opulence equal to almost any contemporary space in Paris."

While the development will certainly come under close scrutiny from historical preservationists, Charles Chase, executive director of San Francisco Heritage, said he has seen the renderings of the proposed development and has "nothing but enthusiasm" for the design. Chase said the corner of the building that would be demolished for the tower was not significant.

"What is being proposed is a modern addition that doesn't affect the historic resource, which is the hotel itself," said Chase.

Still, past proposals for additions at the Palace have been shot down largely because any tower would likely cast a shadow on the garden court. Chase said he has requested a more detailed shadow study of how the new structure would impact the garden court.

"We are looking at and evaluating the effect of the shadowing," he said.

But Chase said several recent projects, including the Paramount luxury apartment complex at 680 Mission St. and 33 New Montgomery St., already cast shadows on the garden court.

Chase called the SOM design "highly transparent" and "light and thin."

"It's not a heavy bulky building, it's tall and elegant," he said. "It's very much a statement of its time, which we think is going to reinvigorate and extend the life of the historic resource."

Under the proposal, the hotel would hold onto all of its 518 rooms. This could become a significant point as the approval process progresses because Hotel Workers Union Local 2 has opposed efforts to convert hotel rooms to condos.

In 2005, the Fairmont San Francisco Hotel floated a plan to convert some of its hotel rooms to timeshare condos, an idea that prompted Supervisor Aaron Peskin to broker an 18-month moratorium on condo conversions at hotels.

J.K. Dineen covers real estate for the San Francisco Business Times.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2006, 8:07 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminisence
Huh, I guess this is for real then. I had my doubts and at one point thought I might be seeing things when I saw " 669' (204m) " as the height. Seems like a waste putting it in an alley, but whatever, I'm in no position to complain about something like this

Cant wait to see those renderings!
Land availability being what it is downtown, there have been other "alley" projects. The approx. 50-story "Century" that was briefly under construction before the Board of Supervisors grabbed it by eminent domain because it was thought to be incompatible with the TransBay project was also in an alley between Mission and Howard Streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Highrise & Supertall Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:09 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.