HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's 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.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive

    

Roosevelt University Dormitory in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 12:07 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
SAN FRANCISCO | Trinity Place | 240 FT / 73 M | 24 FLOORS

This project finally received approvals from the Board of Supervisors after endless delays and debates, first at the Planning Commission and then on appeal, at the Board. But now it's a go--assuming the developer, Angelo Sangiacomo, can get financing. In another thread, word came that things are moving:

Quote:
Originally Posted by o0OoJAMIE-IN-SFo0Oo View Post
As for Trinity, we just got drawings last week. I believe Cannon signed on to build it. Project should be kicking off in the next few weeks.
So I figured it's time to give this monster from Arquitectonica, that I hope will change mid-Market St. forever, a thread of its own.



It will have 1900 units and will replace this somewhat ugly structure:



The available renderings:


Last edited by BTinSF; Apr 18, 2007 at 1:09 AM.
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 12:14 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Exhale solutions.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,889
Wow, that looks phat and fat. Aquitectonica definitely has a style... this just seems a little bit more Beijingy than San Francisco. Still cool though.
__________________
Nothing useless can be truly beautiful. -W.Morris | Nothing Need be Ugly
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 12:38 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,670
Definetly a big improvement over whats there now. If the news about iminent construction is true, then this thread may not be in this forum for long, lets hope thats the case because we've been waiting for a long time for this one. This is one I'll watch going up for sure.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 12:49 AM
alleystreetindustry's Avatar
alleystreetindustry alleystreetindustry is offline
roma volo
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: city of atlanta, city of charleston
Posts: 542
i wish we had that in atlanta. super sui generis.
__________________
god, gold, and glory may have founded america...
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 2:25 AM
PBuchman PBuchman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 55
Here are a couple of additional renderings, that give some context to the project:

     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 3:03 AM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Interstellar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,670
Wow, to me it looks even bigger in those renderings. Perhaps its because I'm comparing it to its future neighbors. Thanks for sharing those renderings.
__________________
Architecture should speak of its time and place, but yearn for timelessness.
-Frank Gehry
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 3:04 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
^^^So it appears the taller parts are toward Mission St. (to 24 stories--I'm using the figures given in the "Compilations" thread here and also from counting the floors in the second rendering I posted above). I wasn't clear on that before. But at 13-16 stories along Market St., it seems to make a nice streetwall (better than I previously understood).

Someone was talking about the views of SOMA Grand on its thread, but it seems like this will pretty much block those.
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 4:17 AM
FourOneFive FourOneFive is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,912
Yes, the market street buildings will only be 12-13 stories (~120'), and the buildings on mission will step up to 24 stories or 240'. all of the western views from the soma grand will be completely walled off once this project is completed considering the mass and height of the trinity buildings lining mission street.
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 4:40 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 5:42 AM
rajaxsonbayboi's Avatar
rajaxsonbayboi rajaxsonbayboi is offline
Pizza Pizza
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: bay area
Posts: 85
How many square feet does this cover?
__________________
l'architecture est le breuvage magique ce des feuls ma vie.
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 6:22 AM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 159
looks much better in the first renderings than the "additional"
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 8:31 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?
My recollection is that what Chris Daly "negotiated" was 12% affordable. McGoldrick wanted 15% but didn't get it. Still, I believe the "affordable" units will all be on site and furthermore the existing tenants will be allowed to rent units in the new buildings at their existing rents (plus, I'm sure, whatever increases they could have gotten under the rent control ordinance).

What "low income part of town" are you referring to? I've been looking for a cheap part of San Francisco for 25 years.
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 8:36 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus View Post
looks much better in the first renderings than the "additional"
This is going to be "mass market" rental housing. Think a downtown version of Park Merced. But that's what San Francisco really needs: rental housing that a reasonable number of "regular folks" can afford. You can't do that in glassy towers with Bay views. It probably can only be done in big, chunky, hulking buildings with no views worth mentioning. But we need it none the less and mid-Market is a good place for it because that area needs people living there in large numbers and walking around to put life in those panhandler-infested, deserted-at-night sidewalks.
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 9:08 AM
StevenW's Avatar
StevenW StevenW is offline
Baltimore's Rep in SC.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Born in Baltimore, Live in Newberry, SC.
Posts: 1,621
I like it. Very nice.
__________________
"My mind is on Baltimore, my heart is in San Francisco and my soul is in South Carolina."
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 9:35 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,080
Does kind of look like the Pink Palace though. (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A967948260 if you don't get the reference).
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 5:21 PM
o0OoJAMIE-IN-SFo0Oo o0OoJAMIE-IN-SFo0Oo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
What "low income part of town" are you referring to? I've been looking for a cheap part of San Francisco for 25 years.
Soooooooooooo very true! I moved here from the DC area and not only did my rent double, but my space is half.
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 5:28 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
The only thing shameful

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?
The only thing shameful is the hoops that had to be jumped through to appease everyone on this project. Lots to read

I am not sure I get why affordable housing in "low income" areas is shameful at all.
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 5:31 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
truth is

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
My recollection is that what Chris Daly "negotiated" was 12% affordable. McGoldrick wanted 15% but didn't get it. Still, I believe the "affordable" units will all be on site and furthermore the existing tenants will be allowed to rent units in the new buildings at their existing rents (plus, I'm sure, whatever increases they could have gotten under the rent control ordinance).

What "low income part of town" are you referring to? I've been looking for a cheap part of San Francisco for 25 years.
The truth is if Sangiacomo didn't own this land for many years there is no way this thing could pencil out

And we all wonder why few rentals or anything other than high end condos and "affordable" housing get built in SF
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 5:32 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
And

Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
This is going to be "mass market" rental housing. Think a downtown version of Park Merced. But that's what San Francisco really needs: rental housing that a reasonable number of "regular folks" can afford. You can't do that in glassy towers with Bay views. It probably can only be done in big, chunky, hulking buildings with no views worth mentioning. But we need it none the less and mid-Market is a good place for it because that area needs people living there in large numbers and walking around to put life in those panhandler-infested, deserted-at-night sidewalks.

Again only possible because of unusual circumstances. BOS really don't care about "mass market" housing
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 5:51 PM
trvlr70 trvlr70 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 2,111
I don't hate it!
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

     

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