SAN FRANCISCO | 100 Folsom St. | 400+ FT / 121+ M | 40 floors - Page 6

Pedestrian · #**101** Posted **Aug 27, 2017, 8:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Not trur--it was already granted an additional 100' above the 300' height limit. This is not the location for anything taller without looking out of place.

Agree to disagree. Other cities have no trouble putting tall buildings near or even on waterfronts. Its not like we had a beach there nor that the buildings were lined up pronerty line to property line blocking public access.

viewguysf · #**102** Posted **Aug 28, 2017, 7:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Agree to disagree. Other cities have no trouble putting tall buildings near or even on waterfronts. Its not like we had a beach there nor that the buildings were lined up pronerty line to property line blocking public access.

We don't want to look like other cities--that's the point. Your obsession would have us looking like Miami or Toronto near the waterfront, which were specifically mentioned when planning height limits. I agree with Observatory and would like to have seen this building much higher elsewhere. I do agree with you regarding the street trees; let's hope they survive intact.

Pedestrian · #**103** Posted **Aug 28, 2017, 8:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by viewguysf

We don't want to look like other cities--that's the point. Your obsession would have us looking like Miami or Toronto near the waterfront, which were specifically mentioned when planning height limits. I agree with Observatory and would like to have seen this building much higher elsewhere. I do agree with you regarding the street trees; let's hope they survive intact.

Does expressing an opinion different from yours equal "obsession" in your view?

I like the way Miami looks and I specifically mentioned I would not want to see the problem in Miami Beach (as opposed to Miami) where hotels with adjacent property lines blocks off public access to the water but that's impossible in San Francisco because of the Embarcadero roadway and promenade. The attempt by the Planning Dept. to "sculpt" the skyline does more harm than good IMHO. I'd like to see it grow organically rather than by bureaucratic dictat.

timbad · #**104** Posted **Sep 10, 2017, 9:56 AM**

OneRinconHill · #**105** Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 5:27 AM**

Isn't Infinity on the same block? Same distance to the water?

Pedestrian · #**106** Posted **Sep 13, 2017, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill

Isn't Infinity on the same block? Same distance to the water?

Yes . . . across the street, which is why the initial limitation on this to 300 ft was so silly. Now at least it will be roughly as tall as Infinity. But I just don't see any reason it should be an issue if it were even another couple of hundred feet taller. The only factor I can think of is that it might shaddow the Embarcadero walkway in the very late afternoon

rocketman_95046 · #**107** Posted **Sep 16, 2017, 3:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Yes . . . across the street, which is why the initial limitation on this to 300 ft was so silly. Now at least it will be roughly as tall as Infinity. But I just don't see any reason it should be an issue if it were even another couple of hundred feet taller. The only factor I can think of is that it might shaddow the Embarcadero walkway in the very late afternoon

They want it shorter because this has been in the general plan for years...

http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/Rincon_Hill.htm

... they want to keep Rincon Hill from blending into the downtown mound.

timbad · #**108** Posted **Sep 16, 2017, 6:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

They want it shorter because this has been in the general plan for years...

http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/Rincon_Hill.htm

... they want to keep Rincon Hill from blending into the downtown mound.

you know, I've been thinking they must have given up on that, what with the three tallish buildings going up on Folsom right now, and Parcel F and the one across from it on Howard. that's gonna kinda fill in that dip.

viewguysf · #**109** Posted **Sep 16, 2017, 8:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by timbad

you know, I've been thinking they must have given up on that, what with the three tallish buildings going up on Folsom right now, and Parcel F and the one across from it on Howard. that's gonna kinda fill in that dip.

They're not going to give up on taller buildings any closer to the bay, which is fine with me. It would inflame too many people here and isn't worth pursuing at the risk of hurting development elsewhere.

Pedestrian · #**110** Posted **Sep 16, 2017, 4:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

They want it shorter because this has been in the general plan for years...

http://generalplan.sfplanning.org/Rincon_Hill.htm

... they want to keep Rincon Hill from blending into the downtown mound.

Given what's already going up on Folsom, that idea seems history. As of now, 400 Folsom, 3 blocks up the street, at 575 ft plus the rise of the ground level between there and the Bay, will appear the tallest buiding in the supposed "valley" in that concept. This building would be no taller if it were 200 ft taller than it will be.

Incidentally, I think I may have been the original poster of that bit of art work here but I haven't been able to find it in some time. Thanks for that. Oh, the memories . . . .

viewguysf · #**111** Posted **Sep 16, 2017, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Incidentally, I think I may have been the original poster of that bit of art work here but I haven't been able to find it in some time. Thanks for that. Oh, the memories . . . .

I thought of that yesterday and remember your explaining the whole hill and valley concept (with tall buildings on hills) multiple times. There are many memories buried in the Forum threads!

cwilly · #**112** Posted **Oct 4, 2017, 10:56 PM**

Continuing to dig, including some corner bracing so you can see under the arm of the excavator.

Dwils01 · #**113** Posted **Oct 9, 2017, 5:16 PM**

100 Folsom from last month.

Picture by me.

tech · #**114** Posted **Nov 1, 2017, 6:05 PM**

Update on the digging:

pseudolus · #**115** Posted **Dec 16, 2017, 8:25 PM**

tower crane is going up. Also they were pouring concrete this morning in the northeast corner, so officially under construction?

edwards · #**116** Posted **Dec 27, 2017, 3:07 AM**

12/26/17

Jerry of San Fran · #**117** Posted **Dec 27, 2017, 7:04 AM**

edwards - a great photo! Thanks for the alert. A lot of construction to follow.

Jerry of San Fran · #**118** Posted **Jan 6, 2018, 5:27 AM**

I noticed today that I can see the yellow crane at 100 Folsom. This view is with a telephoto lens. I now know that I will lose most if not all of the San Francisco Bay Bridge view from my apartment. I will be posting pictures when the building breaks the skyline. The Sam Francisco Bay Bridge is one of my very favorite structures in the Bay Area.

100 Folsom Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

observatory · #**119** Posted **Jan 6, 2018, 11:31 PM**

^Sorry you'll lose the bridge view, but at least you can take some solace in the fact that the building soon to be blocking it is quite an impressive design.

Jerry of San Fran · #**120** Posted **Jan 7, 2018, 12:12 AM**

Visited the site of 100 Folsom St. today. Looks like the dig has reached the bottom, but lots of work still to be done. I could have gotten closer to the hole but was chased away from one construction site earlier today & did not want to upset the construction guys!

100 Folsom Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr