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

[SFView]

Originally Posted by cv94117

Does anyone know if the basement/garage levels will extend under the old smaller buildings that will remain on the corner?

No, they don't. The basement levels extend within the area of new construction only.

Source - page 182: http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...06.1523PRJ.pdf

[botoxic]

Interestingly, the basement levels do extend under the rear half of 78 First Street, which (along with 88 First on the corner) will be renovated as part of the project. I assume 84 First, along with the small parcel which abuts 88 First on Mission, were the holdouts that refused to sell to the developer?

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

I have a comment and a question.

Comment: I AM LIVING FOR THOSE MODELS. San Francisco is really going to walk away as having one of the most recognizable and beautiful skylines in the world. And it was starting from a pretty high baseline..

Question: In that link, did I read a projected 2021 completion date? Isn't that a little pessimistic?

Depends on the complexity of the project, but lets say this started in Q3 of 2017, it wouldn't be unrealistic for a 2021 finish. Considering interior work. Possibly topped out by early 2020.

[SFView]

^^^That is an agreeable assumption; but as we know, it's going to take even longer than that due to the extreme complexity and size of the project with two rather different towers.

I am looking forward to seeing how they will eventually build up the skin of the taller tower. There will be some very interesting geometries there, and I want to see how it will actually turn out. The facade work alone may take extra time to construct. It will help that there will be some repetition in the details, but still it obviously won't as easy as the shorter tower.

[Sky's the Limit]

Originally Posted by don116

As sad as I am about the decision to go with the Pelli design for SFT, I'm thrilled about this tower. The contrast of the bland Salesforce Tower nextdoor will make this tower look even better.

The "bland" Salesforce Tower you reference is certainly a matter of personal preference. In my opinion, Pelli Clarke Pelli has designed one of the best curtain wall systems for a supertall tower in the world for this building.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by botoxic

Interestingly, the basement levels do extend under the rear half of 78 First Street, which (along with 88 First on the corner) will be renovated as part of the project...

Yes, but there will be no existing structure to remain above at that location.

Source - page 168 URL="http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2006.1523PRJ.pdf"]http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cpcpackets/2006.1523PRJ.pdf[/URL]

[Pedestrian]

^^I thought it was the owner of the little building that's yellow in your image above who wouldn't sell but could have been the white "not part of project" building. 88 First, of course, is probably landmarked and couldn't be torn down.

Came across this for people who are really bothered by the elevator cores:

The elevator cores would be pulled to the rear of the site, allowing for large, column-free floors and a structure that is 25 percent lighter than the building would be with conventional construction methods.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/...on-5647917.php

The column-free floors, especially, are desirable to many office tenants.

Also came across this shadow simulation which explains the height limittion at that location:

Once complete, Oceanwide's towers will cast new shadows on four downtown parks: Union Square, Portsmouth Square and St. Mary’s Square in Chinatown, and Justin Herman Plaza on the Embarcadero.

Due to the 1984 Sunlight Ordinance, both the Rec and Parks Commission and Planning Commission had to decide whether the new shadows would have an adverse effect on those spaces. Both commissions ultimately decided they would not . . . .

http://hoodline.com/2016/05/planning...-first-mission

No shaddow adverse effects at permitted heights, but if higher?

[SFView]

^^^Yes, and Planning insisted Oceanwide remain basically 150 feet shorter than Saleforce to keep within their desired sculpturing of the skyline where Saleforce would visually stand out as the tallest. Otherwise the people at Oceanwide would have had their building about as tall, or even taller than Saleforce. Too bad, because I think Oceanwide might have rather looked better as the taller of the two. And as most of us already know that Saleforce was already shorterned because of the same shadow issues we are discussing here. Actually, I'm still happy with the way it is going to turn out. I also agree with Sky's the Limit that Pelli Clark Pelli are true masters of the curtainwall.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by SFView

^^^Yes, and Planning insisted Oceanwide remain basically 150 feet shorter than Saleforce to keep within their desired sculpturing of the skyline where Saleforce would visually stand out as the tallest. Otherwise the people at Oceanwide would have had their building about as tall, or even taller than Saleforce. Too bad, because I think Oceanwide might have rather looked better as the taller of the two. And as most of us already know that Saleforce was already shorterned because of the same shadow issues we are discussing here. Actually, I'm still happy with the way it is going to turn out. I also agree with Sky's the Limit that Pelli Clark Pelli are true masters of the curtainwall.

The city artificially sculpting the skyline is so silly. Not sure why they think its a good idea to chime in on that. Theyre assuming the skyline stays put rather than growing organically over time like Chicago or New York.

[chris08876]

I'm wondering how long the foundation work will take? Salesforce I believe took a while. I'd imagine a year at least before we see steel above grade.

Like SFView said, it is complex and a two tower development.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by SLO

The city artificially sculpting the skyline is so silly. Not sure why they think its a good idea to chime in on that. Theyre assuming the skyline stays put rather than growing organically over time like Chicago or New York.

After decades of extreme NIMBISM in San Francisco, I think it's more just Planning trying their best to justify reasons for the city to do what it does. Any and every issue that one can think of how proposed buildings can effect the environment needs to be studied, and documented, usually in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or others, so that anyone who wishes to challenge any decisions made by the city can be defended in an official way. As I mentioned before, once most of what we know is completed probably by the early 2020's, other areas in the city will considered for up-zoning as needed. One could say that this is the way San Francisco grows organically over time.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by SFView

After decades of extreme NIMBISM in San Francisco, I think it's more just Planning trying their best to justify reasons for the city to do what it does. Any and every issue that one can think of how proposed buildings can effect the environment needs to be studied, and documented, usually in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or others, so that anyone who wishes to challenge any decisions made by the city can be defended in an official way. As I mentioned before, once most of what we know is completed probably by the early 2020's, other areas in the city will considered for up-zoning as needed. One could say that this is the way San Francisco grows organically over time.

That makes a lot of sense. They can at least fall back on a general plan and the fact they have an official vision for the city and have studied the factors and locations.

[NYC2ATX]

I do feel like there are many examples in the past of cities master-planning development and shaping the design of buildings through zoning and the design of large-scale developments. I'm sure that, for example, when developing Rockefeller Center in New York, 30 Rock was always intended to be the centerpiece tower and therefore have the neighboring buildings being considerably shorter.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SFView

As I mentioned before, once most of what we know is completed probably by the early 2020's, other areas in the city will considered for up-zoning as needed. One could say that this is the way San Francisco grows organically over time.

I think it's likely the "Central SOMA" and "Hub" areas, which are next targetted for highrise development after the TransBay District is built out (and now that the final piece of the Yerba Buena project--706 Mission--is underway), could be expanded to include adjacent blocks not already upzoned.

Central SOMA

http://www.jll.com/san-francisco/en-us/central-soma

The Hub

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/a...nd-7244453.php

[timbad]

they've begun to chip away at the NE corner of the next (northernmost) building:



where the first building was:



closer-up on the northern building:



looking back south

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

^^Only if you remove the silly spire from Wilshire Grand.

I'm cool with that haha

I will admit I can't stand that toothpick.

Originally Posted by King Kill 'em

Our Oceanwide works perfectly for its location though.

Yeah true that.

[don116]

The Heintges website has an amazing rendering of the facade.



Heres the source:

http://heintges.com/oceanwide-center/

[mt_climber13]

And you thought the glass on 181 Fremont St. was complicated

[SFView]

^^^Yes, just as I mentioned before... There's even more repetition of like-in-kind elements than I thought before. The triangular elements are identical in many places, since the angled borders are situated more perfectly to permit this. We don't see this with 181 Fremont, where many triangular windows are more one-of-a-kind. There is a little more uniqueness at the north and south elevations at Oceanwide though, especially where the facets occur towards the top of the tower. I find the depressed cutaway facets where the facade bends outward particularly interesting.

From previous post:

[O-tacular]

Okay I forgive the backside for being sloppy.