HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

    

100 Folsom in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2014, 3:22 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,131
SAN FRANCISCO | 100 Folsom St. | 400+ FT / 121+ M | 40 floors

100 Folsom St., San Francisco, CA

Architect: Jeanne Gang / Studio Gang Architects
Developer: Tishman Speyer
Use: Residential (250 condos)

"It would be clad in masonry tiles, with stacks of 45-degree-angle bays and balconies" -John King, SF Chronicle



Image © Studio Gang Architects
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2014, 3:39 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 495
Thanks for starting this thread! Article says the address is 160 Folsom...can you update thread title and post?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2014, 3:44 PM
SkyscrapersOfNewYork's Avatar
SkyscrapersOfNewYork SkyscrapersOfNewYork is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 2,518
I love this, very ghery feeling but its refreshing to see this type of Deconstructivism clad in something instead of aluminum. Very exciting project for san francisco!
__________________
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 62 Completed 20 Under Construction 50 Proposed 0 On Hold
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2014, 3:59 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
Thanks for starting this thread! Article says the address is 160 Folsom...can you update thread title and post?
John King from the Chronicle says this is 160 Folsom St. The is actually the address for the little building on the corner of Folsom and Main St. that was the Infinity sales office while it was u/c.
Socketsite says the address is 100 Folsom St., which is the address of the parking lot which this tower will be built upon, on the corner of Folsom and Spear sts.
I tend to trust Socketsite more than the Chronicle (very sad but true!).
160 Folsom St. may be address of the 8 story affordable housing project for this development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2014, 4:45 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 607
I'm all for taller buildings, but I really wonder why they're trying to build 100 feet taller than the lot is zoned for. Asking for height increases is asking for trouble in this town. The city spent the better part of a decade zoning this for 300', presumably to create a staircase effect down towards the waterfront and to limit shadows cast on the Transbay Park planned for Block 3. I just don't understand why developers keep trying to stir up the NIMBY hornet's nest.

Tishman can rightly argue that the Infinity is 400 feet tall right across the street, and the taller height will allow for more affordable units to be built, but those same arguments failed spectacularly for the 8 Washington project. Maybe they're expecting less opposition since this is farther away from Telegraph Hill/North Beach. Keeping the affordable units on site helps their case too. But, even if this somehow manages to sail under the NIMBY radar (unlikely), it still adds a year or two to the project timeline as it needs new approvals from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for the height increase.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2014, 6:47 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
John King from the Chronicle says this is 160 Folsom St. The is actually the address for the little building on the corner of Folsom and Main St. that was the Infinity sales office while it was u/c.
Socketsite says the address is 100 Folsom St., which is the address of the parking lot which this tower will be built upon, on the corner of Folsom and Spear sts.
I tend to trust Socketsite more than the Chronicle (very sad but true!).
160 Folsom St. may be address of the 8 story affordable housing project for this development.
Gotcha...thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
I'm all for taller buildings, but I really wonder why they're trying to build 100 feet taller than the lot is zoned for. Asking for height increases is asking for trouble in this town. The city spent the better part of a decade zoning this for 300', presumably to create a staircase effect down towards the waterfront and to limit shadows cast on the Transbay Park planned for Block 3. I just don't understand why developers keep trying to stir up the NIMBY hornet's nest.

Tishman can rightly argue that the Infinity is 400 feet tall right across the street, and the taller height will allow for more affordable units to be built, but those same arguments failed spectacularly for the 8 Washington project. Maybe they're expecting less opposition since this is farther away from Telegraph Hill/North Beach. Keeping the affordable units on site helps their case too. But, even if this somehow manages to sail under the NIMBY radar (unlikely), it still adds a year or two to the project timeline as it needs new approvals from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for the height increase.
Well, they're presenting two designs, so the hope is that they can win people over with the sleeker look and more money for affordable housing with the taller one, but can always fall back to the shorter one if necessary.

100 feet means a lot in terms of making this thing work, and it should be higher than 300 here...kudos to them for pushing for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2014, 7:31 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
I'm all for taller buildings, but I really wonder why they're trying to build 100 feet taller than the lot is zoned for. Asking for height increases is asking for trouble in this town. The city spent the better part of a decade zoning this for 300', presumably to create a staircase effect down towards the waterfront and to limit shadows cast on the Transbay Park planned for Block 3. I just don't understand why developers keep trying to stir up the NIMBY hornet's nest.

Tishman can rightly argue that the Infinity is 400 feet tall right across the street, and the taller height will allow for more affordable units to be built, but those same arguments failed spectacularly for the 8 Washington project. Maybe they're expecting less opposition since this is farther away from Telegraph Hill/North Beach. Keeping the affordable units on site helps their case too. But, even if this somehow manages to sail under the NIMBY radar (unlikely), it still adds a year or two to the project timeline as it needs new approvals from the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for the height increase.
a) this isn't on the waterfront and doesn't fall under jurisdiction of Prop B

b) this is as tall as Infinity next door, an nobody protested that development.

c) 300' is still twice as tall as 8 Washington.

d) can we just be optimistic and happy for a great proposal without giving away our fun and excitement to the anti- development pro- housing shortage crowd?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2014, 12:18 AM
tyleraf's Avatar
tyleraf tyleraf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 566
Nice looking building. This will look great in the Transbay area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2014, 6:28 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 1,834
John King argues for the taller version, and one new rendering

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2014, 7:03 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,671

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2014, 8:57 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
Thanks for posting the larger renderings--they better indicate the skin texture. I'm loving it.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2014, 11:00 PM
shakman's Avatar
shakman shakman is offline
Chairman
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: PRMD - People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 2,438
Wow!!! The façade is fabulous. Beauty at its best.

Last edited by shakman; Jul 13, 2014 at 11:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2014, 6:09 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,131
The state is now suing San Francisco over the waterfront height limits ballot initiative:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 16, 2014, 11:05 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
^Go State!

Keep in mind that Gang stated they haven't settled on the skin material, so what we see here is a placeholder in that regard. Still, I'm very excited about this one. I wouldn't mind seeing some adjustments to the ground floor (seems like the building is resting on an unrelated glass stand) and the roofline (which ends rather abruptly). But that's picking nits given the overall impression it makes.
__________________
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
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2014, 12:11 AM
pseudolus pseudolus is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
They could call it the Vertigo Tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2014, 6:12 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 1,834
socketsite blurb today. site plan:



Quote:
...Tishman is aiming to start construction in February 2016 and the construction period is estimated to last 30 months
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 1:34 AM
boyinthecity's Avatar
boyinthecity boyinthecity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: san francisco
Posts: 90
any news on this one??
IMHO, i think this one is the cream of the crop.
it would be so awesome if it was at least 600 feet and more pronounced on the skyline.

source: me adding height and source: http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...CUA-Memo_2.pdf

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 3:36 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by boyinthecity View Post
any news on this one??
IMHO, i think this one is the cream of the crop.
it would be so awesome if it was at least 600 feet and more pronounced on the skyline.
I doubt that we will even see a 400' tower approved, which is really unfortunate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 4:16 PM
The North One's Avatar
The North One The North One is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,764
Edit: didn't read.
__________________
Spawn of questionable parentage!

Last edited by The North One; Nov 10, 2015 at 1:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2015, 1:44 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 670
This is now Bay Tower.
From SocketSite:
Height Increase for Twisty 400-Foot Tower Officially Under Review

Quote:
A proposed amendment to San Francisco’s Transbay Redevelopment Plan which would raise the height limit for Tishman Speyer’s proposed twisty tower to rise at Folsom and Spear – from 300 to 400 feet – is officially under review and working its way through Planning.

Dubbed ‘Bay Tower,’ the proposed 399-unit development, if built to 400-feet, is slated to be financed by China Vanke, which is Tishman’s equity partner for Lumina as well.

As we first reported last year, Tishman had been aiming to start construction for the Bay Tower development in February of 2016. And according to a plugged-in tipster, the development team is planning to start work as soon as approvals are secured.

But with opposition to a height increase having since organized, the timing for the development of Transbay Block 1 (a.k.a 100/160 Folsom Street) is now up in the air, or rather grounded.

An up-zoning for the site will require the approval of San Francisco’s Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the dynamics of which are about to change.
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 > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.