HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 3:00 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 690
Thumbs up SAN FRANCISCO | 655 4th St | 420 FT | 39 Floors | 2 Towers



Address: 655 4th Street
Cross Street: Townsend
Architect: Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG)
Developer: Tishman Speyer
Height: 420 feet (each tower)
Stories: 39 (each tower)
Residential Units: 907 market rate (184 studios, 353 1-br, 309 2-br, 46 3-br, 15 lofts)
Retail Space: 27,000 sf
Garage: 450 cars, 316 bikes

The site currently:


Quote:
Tishman Speyer has formally filed their application to move forward with the development of two modern towers stretching across seven Central SoMa parcels (including those currently occupied by The Creamery, HD Buttercup, The Iron Cactus, United Barbell, TwentyThree and Waterfall) and rising up to 420 feet in height on the northeast corner of 4th and Townsend.

Each [of the two structures] would be made up of a podium and two tower segments, one 50’ taller in height than the other. Unlike a typical building, where each floor is the same square footage, these buildings would have large ground floors and each subsequent floor would be slightly smaller than the floor below it until approximately half way up the building when all floors become uniform in size. This design creates a cantilevered affect allowing for private terraces on the lower portions of each building.

Further, cantilevered floors are placed in such a way as to allow for the two tower segments to operate as separate structures until the eighth floor where they connect as one building. The two towers would be placed on the site as essentially mirror images of each other. This design will give the impression of four distinct buildings.

Access to the development’s four residential lobbies would be provided through an inner publicly-accessible courtyard and plaza which would be ringed with retail as well.


Much more detailed information about the building dimensions and setbacks at SocketSite.

Last edited by botoxic; Jan 2, 2018 at 6:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 3:28 AM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 705
You can get the images (and more) without the socketsite watermark at http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/

It really bugs me that they put their watermark on images they didn't create or own
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2018, 9:00 PM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Really hope they keep this design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 7:27 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Pair of Swoopy Central SoMa Towers Slated for Approval
June 7, 2019

. . . Tishman’s refined plans for two swoopy towers to rise up to 425 feet in height on the northeast corner of 4th and Townsend, stretching across seven Central SoMa parcels, including those currently occupied by The Creamery, Iron Cactus, Waterfall and HD Buttercup, could be approved in two weeks time.

As designed by Adamson Associates along with the Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG), the proposed 655 4th Street project, which might appear as four separate towers but is actually two, would yield a total of 960 condos, with a boutique 38-room hotel, 24,500 square feet of commercial space, an underground garage for 276 cars, secured storage for 540 bikes and 18,500 square feet of ground floor retail space wrapped around a central courtyard / privately-owned public open space (POPOS).

Tishman is planning to satisfy the Inclusionary Housing Requirements for the development by paying an in-lieu fee rather than offering any of the units at below market rates (BMR). And once again, assuming the plans are approved and the project is financed, the actual ground breaking will depend upon the City’s challenged Central SoMa Plan being upheld.



https://socketsite.com/archives/2019...-approval.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 6:31 PM
gillynova's Avatar
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Austin / Bay Area
Posts: 2,140
Good news! Extending the skyline more south and it gives more hotel options for events at both Oracle Park and Chase Center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2019, 1:47 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Approved.

Quote:
Tishman Speyer's 960-unit mixed-use project in Central SoMa earns approval

A massive, mixed-use project with 960 residential units south of Market earned approval from the city’s planning commission on Thursday. The approval marks another milestone in the wide-ranging plan to turn the city's large-scale "Central SoMa" project into a hub of new housing and office space amid the San Francisco’s development boom.

Developer Tishman Speyer proposed the project at the end of 2017 with internationally renowned architects from Bjarke Ingels Group designing the two towers at 655 4th St.

The two 400-foot-tall towers will include 24,509 square feet for a 38-room hotel on top of the over 1 million square feet for the 960 units, which include studies, lofts and 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom apartments. The project also calls for more than 20,000 square feet of office space, 18,000 square feet of retail on the ground floor and additional space for retail and Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS) in the form of landscape plazas and mid-block alleys. The curved design of the towers will also create 132 private balconies and rooftop gardens for residents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2019, 3:34 AM
Skyy's Avatar
Skyy Skyy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 145
This is great. That central SOMA area is an absolute no-brainer for more density
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2019, 11:15 PM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,585
Here comes the further extension of the skyline. The new SoMA zoning is gonna expand on an already modern and impressive skyline.
__________________
God bless America
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2019, 11:47 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
These Central SoMa projects are now ready to roll
By Blanca Torres – Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Sep 30, 2019, 2:54pm PDT Updated 51 minutes ago

With a handful of lawsuits now out of the way, large development projects in the San Francisco Central SoMa planning area are closer to breaking ground — but some office projects have one more big hurdle to jump.

With the suits settled, purely residential developments such as Tishman Speyer’s 870 apartments at 655 4th St. and 200 apartments for low-income residents at 5th and Howard streets are free to move forward . . . .
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...d6SEFnSWZCdSJ9
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 3:26 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by unpermitted_variance View Post
Full article: https://sfyimby.com/2022/08/new-plan...francisco.html

New Plans For 655 4th Street Skyscrapers In SoMa, San Francisco
BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON AUGUST 24, 2022

New plans have been filed for two 39-story towers at 655 4th Street in SoMa, San Francisco. The plans, drafted by architecture firm SCB, represent a significant shift from the previously-approved design by Bjarke Ingels Group for four swooping towers. Tishman Speyer is the project developer.

The two 400-foot tall towers will yield a combined 1.144 million square feet, with 1.135 million square feet for housing, 9,450 square feet for retail, and 7,740 square feet for a Privately Owned Public Open Space or POPOS. Parking will be included for 283 cars and 427 bicycles.





The new proposal will provide more dwellings, with 1,148 apartments. Unit sizes will vary with 287 studios, 415 one-bedrooms, 409 two-bedrooms, and 46 three-bedrooms. A total of 138 private balconies will be spread across the two towers.

Solomon Cordwell Buenz is responsible for the design. Renderings show the basic massing for two towers rising from 11-story podiums, divided by an open-air balcony. The project will include new trees along 4th Street and Townsend and an open-air landscaped plaza at the very corner, functioning as the project’s POPOS. Retail shops will encircle the plaza.



The architecture firm will have to contend with the Central SoMa Plan. Among the design requirements, the preliminary project application document dictates that “the Project architecture should substantially differentiate the expression of the two towers, including but not limits to height, bulk, modulation, and architectural expression… They should each add a distinct character to the skyline.”



Compare to the former Bjarke Ingels Group-designed proposal:



Undeniably a step down, but I'll wait for more detailed renders to fully judge. I'm no fan of Bjarke and his studio so I'm not mourning the loss of the old design too much, even if it was better than this massing. Mostly just hoping at least one Central SoMa tower proposal actually gets built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
^ Yeah I think this new "design" is just showing basic massing, so I don't think we can fully cast any judgements until the true design is released. Hoping to see some more traction on these past highrise proposals in Central SoMa. I wonder if the recent news about Newsom investigating SF's housing approval process is playing a factor of this proposal being revived and may bring other developers out of the woodworks as well.
Merging posts with this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 3:27 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Very nice!

So much for all of the morons who think that everyone is fleeing SF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 3:37 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
The updated specs:

- two 39-story, 429 ft towers
- 1,148 units
- 9,450 sq ft retail
- 7,740 sq ft POPOS
- Underground parking for 283 cars and 427 bicycles
- Notable public transportation: diagonal to San Francisco Caltrain station, one block from 4th & King Muni Metro station, one block from 4th & Brannan Muni Metro station
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 3:49 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
So it’s these two boxes and not the sloping towers?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 4:00 PM
kingkirbythe....'s Avatar
kingkirbythe.... kingkirbythe.... is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,595
What a disappointment.
__________________
UnitedStateser
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 4:19 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMKeynes View Post
So it’s these two boxes and not the sloping towers?
Yes and no. As stated in the article above, the new design deviates from the previous design by Bjarke Ingels Group (four swooping towers), and the new renderings only show the basic massing. The actual design is TBD.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 4:25 PM
JMKeynes JMKeynes is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: SW3
Posts: 4,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Yes and no. As stated in the article above, the new design deviates from the previous design by Bjarke Ingels Group (four swooping towers), and the new renderings only show the basic massing. The actual design is TBD.
Thanks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 5:00 PM
whitty whitty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 61
We’ll wait for real designs, but man that BIG design was cool. Sad to see it go, but far happier to see this project alive. All the tenants on that corner are now gone, so it’s going to turn into a blight quickly. Like others said it’s quite possible the best intersection of public transit in the city currently, and so totally deserves this level of density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 5:14 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitty View Post
We’ll wait for real designs, but man that BIG design was cool. Sad to see it go, but far happier to see this project alive. All the tenants on that corner are now gone, so it’s going to turn into a blight quickly. Like others said it’s quite possible the best intersection of public transit in the city currently, and so totally deserves this level of density.
Yeah, it seems like people are missing the fact that what is pictured is not the actual design. It's a very preliminary massing concept. Overall, I agree with your larger point that adding more housing is the primary goal here, especially in the context of the public transportation services in this area. If the massing concept is what is actually built, it wouldn't be pretty, but it wouldn't be the end of the world either.

See the 395 3rd Street massing concepts vs actual renderings to see how big of a difference an actual design can make.





Source: SF YIMBY
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2022, 11:19 PM
unpermitted_variance unpermitted_variance is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Oakland
Posts: 113
Part of the SFYIMBY article that stands out to me is this:

Quote:
The architecture firm will have to contend with the Central SoMa Plan. Among the design requirements, the preliminary project application document dictates that “the Project architecture should substantially differentiate the expression of the two towers, including but not limits to height, bulk, modulation, and architectural expression… They should each add a distinct character to the skyline.”

This implies that even the current proposed massing won't be accurate to whatever may ultimately get approved, as the towers are required to appear substantially different. Personally I think a pair of twin towers would be cool, as it's something interesting that's missing from the SF skyline but can be found in many other cities. Even if the towers are boring on their own, they can become a landmark just by being duplicates of each other standing out in an area where they already stand out for their height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2022, 4:55 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by unpermitted_variance View Post
Personally I think a pair of twin towers would be cool, as it's something interesting that's missing from the SF skyline but can be found in many other cities. Even if the towers are boring on their own, they can become a landmark just by being duplicates of each other standing out in an area where they already stand out for their height.
Twin towers (although 429 ft isn't super tower-y, although in this location it probably stands out more than it would otherwise) might be cool, and although SF technically doesn't have any true twin towers, there are quite a few almost twin towers, where two towers are nearly identical aside from slight variation in height and orientation. As you can see, there's already quite a bit of partial duplication going on.

Some examples:

One Rincon Hill


Market Center


Embarcadero Center (this one could actually be considered two sets of twin towers)


One Market Plaza


LUMINA


The Infinity
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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.