SAN FRANCISCO | Oceanwide Center | 910 & 636 FT | 61 & 54 Floors | ON HOLD

[SFView]

Originally Posted by boyinthecity

personally, i think the rear face (west) and presumed front (east) should match and provide some kind of symmetry. not sure why they can't widen the base to the west instead of creating an irregular set of extension blocks (on the west side) with incongruity of materials used in the facade--especially above the 500' elevation...

yet, i wonder why a wider building (and base), with a crown that encompasses the entire perimeter (at the top), is not possible. maybe the elevator core needs to be brought into the building and shifted further east. and yes, it would eat into the office space.

My guess:

Perhaps the architect believes that a generally rectangular office floor space free of interruption of an elevator core has a much more open and connected feeling; more what the client and tenants may prefer. It also may work out better with overall site constraints, larger floor plates, and improved office plan and circulation layouts, etc. The architect may also be taking the opportunity to create a more interesting asymmetrical design. To help offset the extra wideness of the building on one direction, the building can appear thinner in the other by breaking up the building forms. Otherwise, the building may appear too bulky compared to its neighbors, at least from some angles. As I mentioned before, the general floor plan and building shape is limited to the constraints of the site, plus zoning. The building will appear more vertical and slender in the north and south directions, in contrast to the extra wide east and west directions. Also notice how the building layout permits a very open ground floor space with the elevators more out of the way, and a more direct circulation path from street to alley.

[unanimity]

i absolutely positively adore the design. super classy and elegant with a modern flare. evocative of the WG in la but very unique. love it love it love it. will be a nice complement to salesforce.

[boyinthecity]

source: me

please don't get me wrong.
hopefully, it gets built. why? because our current skyline has been greatly influenced by the thinking of those in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's,,, then compounded by Proposition M.

IMHO, the result has been a 400' to 500' foot block of buildings which needs to be broken-up with taller, more innovative and imaginative 21st century architecture and engineering.

I do not think i need to preach to the choir. there are some magnificent, contemporary high-rises currently built, under construction or planned around the world. one needs only to browse this website. yet, i believe san francisco always gets shortchanged.

personally, i hope the city planning department forces the developer to clean-up the western facade of the building above 500'. arguably, this is the side, zone and/or angle most of of us in san francisco will view day in and day out.

lets face it.
these developers are not in the business to build monuments.
their objective is to make 50 First a profitable venture-- with this particular development being a veritable tight rope act. they entice with a large public plaza at the base and a fantastic norman foster eastern facade in the hope to compromise and get a pass on the western facade housing the utilities. indeed, this is done to maximize the number of rent-able, unobstructed square feet of office.

i now realize why starchitect phillip johnson's rather rotund 101 California has about the same number of square feet, but on 48 floors. (ie., the elevators and utilities are conventionally housed in the core)

i think that we are at a good point in time where public and bureaucratic input, comment and control is important-- to balance the needs of the developer with that of the public.

source: me

[slock]

Some good news in recent filings. In documents from June 2015, the plan was to only retain 88 First Street on the corner as a historic structure, but demolish all others to build the First Street tower. In a filing from 8/27/15, the plan seems to have changed and they will keep 78 First Street as well. It's a great little historic gem that I'm glad they're incorporating into the design.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7900...8i6656!6m1!1e1

[a very long weekend]

that property isn't part of the parcel, it's owned by another group.

[minesweeper]

78 First Street is part of the project; it's 84 First Street (between two buildings) that has different owners.

The old plans were to demolish the building to widen Elim Alley. The new plan demolishes the back 2/3rds of the building and punches a new opening in the side:

Before and After

[peanut gallery]

I'm really happy to hear that. I 'm really excited about the plans for 50 First, but have been sad we will lose 62 and 78 First. At least we'll keep one, and 78 is my favorite of this little cluster of historic buildings.

[slock]

Building permits pulled for this project on Friday 10/30:

http://dbiweb.sfgov.org/dbipts/defau...=PermitDetails

[david_h]

Some prep work has commenced...

[rocketman_95046]

By PODIDDY8 On Instagram.

Best model of what the west side will look like.
https://instagram.com/p/92KQy0EudP/

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

By PODIDDY8 On Instagram.

Best model of what the west side will look like.
https://instagram.com/p/92KQy0EudP/

It looks very interesting--I'd love to see more!

[boyinthecity]

thanks rocketman! fantastic find!
As i said before, i thought the focus of the drawings was the eastern face of the building.
when looking at the schematics, the glamour shots seem to hide the back or western face.
One word: Suspicious!!!!!!
hanging the elevators and bathrooms off the back has created an irregular mess (imho).
i do see how it can be kinda-sorta camouflaged below 400' due to the fact that it is surrounded by other buildings.
yet, for the second tallest tower in town, i think the backside above 400' should be "cleaned-up". they don't even seem to be interested in centering the crown of the tower.
Don't get me wrong, i hope the city makes them tweak the design to make the great east face match the west.
again, it is too tall for us in the city to get another "JASPER"--with elevator core on the west side..

[ElDuderino]

Meh...I think the model makes this look just fine. We all knew the elevator core was going to be in the back to allow for large, open floor plans. I am not sure what else to expect. Who said towers need to be centered? I would rather have an irregular tower with an interesting design. As long as they incorporate enough glass, and it's not a wall of concrete, it looks good to me. It's certainly not going to be another Jasper.

[peanut gallery]

^It definitely depends on the materials used on those shafts, especially the Mission facing side which will go almost as high as the crown. Same with the backside of the shorter tower. One thing is for sure, the First St. side will be the beauty shot.

[tall/awkward]

I...I almost like the west-facing side better. Almost. While the east-facing side is obviously sleeker and cleaner-looking, the west face is more interesting and has more going on. Kind of a form follows function look.

I wonder if more people would like the elevator banks if the elevators were lighted, and you could see them sliding up and down all the time. Sort of like Richard Rogers proposed for his Transbay Tower bid. May give elevator banks a more dynamic dimension.

[ElDuderino]

^^^ Or the Leadenhall Building in London which also puts all the elevators in back and looks very nice. It all comes down to quality of materials, but so far I like what I see.

[timbad]

eagerly awaiting this one to get going...

[boyinthecity]

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

Meh...I think the model makes this look just fine. We all knew the elevator core was going to be in the back to allow for large, open floor plans. I am not sure what else to expect. Who said towers need to be centered? I would rather have an irregular tower with an interesting design. As long as they incorporate enough glass, and it's not a wall of concrete, it looks good to me. It's certainly not going to be another Jasper.

I enjoy the spirited reply.
If only we could get our own 910' cheese-grater. Since it is also a Roger's building, there are similarities. Except, IMHO, there is nothing to hide with respect to the Leadenhall Building. As per the attached picture, the rear elevator banks are very well integrated into the design.

Personally, i think that we keep getting comprised, value engineered architecture added to our skyline.

And yes, per the model, the materials make the rear/west face of 50 First Street appear more appealing--maybe something on the order of the metal used on the Shaklee building would be a plus.

Again, i believe the city should scrutinize this one from all angles since it will the the second tallest and quite pronounced.

In addition, I did learn something new:

The humor.... "Form on this one Follows Footprint"

I looked again at the blueprints. Personally, you might find me flaky here but, okay...leave 50 first street. But heaven! We don't need another 600', utterly horrible and cheap 1 market plaza. Too bad the city does not make them clean-up or match the shorter tower with the taller one. And yes, I realize that will cost them money.



source: Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners

[a very long weekend]

there were some workers and moving machines on site around 6pm yesterday evening, i think it may be that the machines on site are tied to another site and merely stored here?

[peanut gallery]

^It looks that way to me. It doesn't appear that they are doing anything here, just parking. I would think the first signs of work would be fencing around 40, 50 and 62 First plus scaffolding over the sidewalk in prep for demolition.