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

    

50 First Street Tower 1 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 Oct 4, 2010, 8:40 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Liv LA, Luv SF
Posts: 615
Thumbs up SAN FRANCISCO | 50 First St | 910 & 605 FT | 85 & 60 FLOORS

A Trio Of SOM Towers At 50 First Street As Proposed

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments







via: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments
Quote:
The project site, comprising seven parcels, and portions of Elim Alley and Jessie Street, is approximately 56,860 square feet in size. All lots are within Block 3708 and include 50 First Street, 62 First Street, 76‐78 First Street, 88 First Street, 512 Mission Street, 516 Mission Street, and 526 Mission Street; the three parcels with addresses on Mission Street are currently vacant.

The three proposed towers would accommodate a mix of office (approximately 1.25 million square feet), residential (about 182 dwelling units), retail (approximately 43,000 square feet), and hotel (about 266 rooms) use, along with a 15,000‐square‐foot entertainment venue (performance theater), five levels of below grade parking (about 310 spaces), off‐street loading spaces, and publicly accessible open space.

Tower One would front on First Street and would span the portion of Jessie Street that runs through the project site. The 64‐story building would be 850 feet tall to the roof (915 feet tall to the top of the parapet and solar/wind energy collection features), and would include an 83‐foot tall base that would also have frontage on Stevenson Street, where the proposed performance theater would be located. The building would contain approximately 43,000 square feet of retail and the 15,000 sf performance theater on levels one through three. Mechanical space would occupy the topmost story. The remaining 60 stories would provide approximately 1.25 million square feet of office space. The tower would span the easternmost portion of Jessie Street, which would be closed to vehicular traffic and converted into a 20‐foot‐tall public pedestrian passageway (Jessie Street Galleria) flanked by retail space and lobbies serving the office use. The First Street frontage, moving from north to south, would include the theater entrance, office lobby, entrance to the Jessie Street Galleria, second office lobby and a retail store. The Stevenson Street frontage would include retail space and a garage/loading dock driveway separated by an open pedestrian entry to the interior passageway linking Stevenson Street, Mission Street and First Street via the proposed Jessie Street Galleria. An approximately 5,100‐square‐foot publicly accessible roof terrace would be developed atop the 83‐foot tall theater, fronting on Stevenson Street.

Tower Two would front Mission Street and Ecker Place. The 56-story building (605 feet to the roof, 640 feet to the top of the parapet) would include residential and hotel uses above the ground-floor entrances and two levels of hotel service space. Approximately 266 hotel rooms would be located on floors four through 22 and approximately 160 residential units would occupy levels 23 through 55. A mechanical level would occupy floor 56. The ground floor would include a hotel entrance, a residential lobby on Ecker Place, and a retail space at the corner of Mission and Ecker. The hotel lobby would be on the second floor, and hotel function space would occupy level 3. Publicly accessible open space would occupy the set back area between Tower Two and the Mission Street and Ecker Place property lines.

Tower Three would be located at the northwest corner of Mission and First Streets. This 15-story, 174-foot tall building (184 feet tall to the top of the parapet), would include retail space and a residential lobby on the ground floor and 22 residential units on the upper levels. Tower Three would be separated from the rest of the proposed project by a “T” shaped parcel (84 First Street) that is not under the control of the project sponsor and not included in the project site.

The project as proposed would either require approval of the proposed Transit Center District Plan and accompanying rezoning with respect to increased height limits or a site-specific amendment of the Planning Code and General Plan height maps by way of the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Next step, the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization

Last edited by Urbannizer; Jul 26, 2014 at 5:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2010, 9:29 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 39,289
This has some great potential, but is the demand there yet?
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 4, 2010, 11:16 PM
Dale Dale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Orlando
Posts: 3,262
Whuh ? Huh ? Didn't see this coming.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:03 AM
John Martin's Avatar
John Martin John Martin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,224
Looks neato.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:42 AM
brantw's Avatar
brantw brantw is offline
Get me out of here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 136
WhooooHoooo!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:49 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 249
This proposal has potential. Boxy at the ground level, turning curvy as they shoot skyward. They may not be as visually arresting as Piano's bamboo shoots, but the mass may wind up having just as much impact on the skyline. Tower 1 takes full advantage of the proposed 850' height limit, but Tower 2 falls a little shy of its 700'. And Tower 3 is much shorter than 550', but I guess that's to be expected as long as the adjacent properties refuse to sell.


image courtesy of SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...rict_plan.html)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 12:53 AM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,556
Has this just popped out of nowhere? Where is this in relation to the transbay towers? I haven't been keeping up with news on SF so excuse my ignorance

edit

Assuming that map above answers the Transbay question...which would be the 1000ft parcel yes?
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 1:28 AM
Obey's Avatar
Obey Obey is offline
BROOKLYN
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 688
I just visited San Francisco. Where exactly is this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 1:32 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Liv LA, Luv SF
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD_Phil View Post
Assuming that map above answers the Transbay question...which would be the 1000ft parcel yes?
The 1000ft parcel is the Transbay. This project is at the opposite corner just northwest, where the 850' and 700' are circled.

Here it is on google. http://maps.google.com/maps?client=s...ed=0CBQQ8gEwAA
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 1:36 AM
plinko's Avatar
plinko plinko is offline
them bones
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Barbara adjacent
Posts: 6,631
Quote:
The project as proposed would either require approval of the proposed Transit Center District Plan and accompanying rezoning with respect to increased height limits or a site-specific amendment of the Planning Code and General Plan height maps by way of the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Next step, the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
These are the most important statements in the entire write-up. Let the chopping begin! (sadly)
__________________
Even if you are 1 in a million, there are still 7,000 people just like you...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 3:37 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 19,948
Yes, the 1000-ft. zone is the Transbay Tower parcel. These heights are not impossible, but regardless of eventual height the EIR is going to take forever.
__________________
2014: the United States Supreme Court Imposes Corporate Sharia
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 4:55 PM
CyberEric CyberEric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Would these likely come after the Transbay tower or before? I know that is a difficult question, but I figured someone might have an idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 5, 2010, 5:50 PM
SD_Phil's Avatar
SD_Phil SD_Phil is offline
Heavy User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 2,556
Thanks for clearing things up San Frangelino and Fflint.

The design on this does look strangely reminiscent to the transbay tower also. Like a shorter slightly heavier twin.
__________________
Consumer Ethic:
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
WORK - PRODUCE - CONSUME
-------------------
Flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/preppy381
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 1:14 AM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 878
I'm crossing my fingers. Although I don't live in the city, I do live in the Bay Area so this would definitely be a great addition to our beautiful city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 1:58 AM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,410
im really liking the shape
__________________
New York City,The City That Never Sleeps,The Capitol Of The World,The Big Apple,The Empire City,The Melting Pot,The Metropolis,Gotham

Buildings Over 200 Meters 60 Completed 14 Under Construction 31 Proposed 0 On Hold
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 3:02 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 4,789
Despite the reduced height, I'm more excited about this proposal than what we saw from Piano. Granted, a lot of that has to do with the minimal visuals we saw for the previous proposal. But I like the prospects of this and Pelli's tower playing off each other a little bit. Plus, SOM deserves a prominent tower in the plan after their brilliant proposal for the Transbay Tower itself.

When and if these two projects plus 350 Mission and of course the terminal get off the ground, the transformation of the neighborhood will be remarkable.


Quote:
The project as proposed would either require approval of the proposed Transit Center District Plan and accompanying rezoning with respect to increased height limits or a site-specific amendment of the Planning Code and General Plan height maps by way of the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.
If the Transbay Plan is anywhere near on schedule, then I would hope it will be approved in time for this project's timeline. The Transbay EIR is supposed to be finalized next Spring. I have no idea how long approval of that will take, but I think it might still be easier to wait for that as it should make approval of this much more straightforward. Either way, this needs to wait for the office market to get stronger, so I wouldn't think they're in any kind of rush.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 5:35 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Another day in Paradise
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,715
FINALLY, some skyscraper talk for san francisco...

now we just need to get this built
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 5:41 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,034
The towers look like they'll nicely complement Pelli's design, although I'm a bit surprised by how few units there are.

How is SF's office market right now?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 8:23 PM
SanFran SanFran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2
Oh man i love the design it needs to work baby
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2010, 10:40 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 19,948
Some snapshots I took a couple hours ago on a really brief jaunt to the project site:

Here you see the row in question: the building on the corner of First and Stevenson, 40 First, is staying put:


Jessie Street will end in the middle of the block rather than extending to First Street--this intersection will disappear. It does appear there will be a tunnel-like walkway built on this axis through the new tower for peds, however:


This is Ellim, a really narrow alley that apparently will be completely elim-inated (haha). The buildings on either side will disappear, too:


Of these three, only little 84 First is going to remain:


Looking up First Street from Mission Street. The corner building will go, but the tiny building to the left of it on Mission will apparently stay.


Looking through the vacant lot from Mission Street:


The vacant lot from Ellim alley at Ecker Place, showing the brick backside of holdout 84 First Street:
__________________
2014: the United States Supreme Court Imposes Corporate Sharia
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 8:10 AM.

     

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