Posted Apr 4, 2019, 9:14 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
|
|
Explanation of the choice not to go to max permissible height (200 ft):
Quote:
Mitigating scale and maintaining access to light and air at the street is an important aspect of the (Central SOMA) Plan. It defines two distinct methodologies for controlling bulk in new developments: The “Skyplane” method for buildings below 160 feet, which is a formula for measuring the “apparent” mass as perceived from street level, and “Tower” criteria for buildings above 160 feet, which defines a narrow tower atop a low podium.
Our site has a 200 feet height limit, and therefore qualifies as a Tower, but because it falls near the threshold between these control approaches, we studied both, to compare the development capacity, design potential, and the impact at the street level, keeping the spirit of the Plan in mind.
It was determined that by voluntarily limiting height to 160 feet to take advantage of the Skyplane method, the design potential was greater, the floorplates more marketable, and the massing was both more interesting from afar, and less imposing on the street, particularly toward the residences across Freelon. A Skyplane analysis was performed on the Freelon façade of a permissible 200-foot tower and compared to a 160-foot Skyplane scheme, the apparent mass from Freelon was measurably less in the 160-foot scheme. As recommended by the Key Site Guidelines, the 160 foot height scheme is proposed, with Skyplane controls resulting in better light, air and aesthetics along Freelon.
The proposed design therefore leverages Skyplane to create a lively and dynamic form, which varies from every view, and creates a variety of floorplate sizes and shapes, with many roof terraces distributed among many different levels. The plan applies Skyplane controls above an 85-foot podium. However, our design goes a step further by extending the dynamic massing down to the street level, to break down the scale of the long street-wall, while still doing its part to help define the street-room suggested in the plan. The intent is to apply varying façade treatments and textures to the different masses, to further accentuate the differentiation and expressiveness of the design.
|
https://socketsite.com/archives/2019...-approach.html
|
Linear Mode
