SAN FRANCISCO | 200 Mission Campus (incl 50 Main and 77 Beale) | 992 FT | 89 FL

[tech12]

I really hope 50 Main isn't approved as designed. It looks like shit. Complete garbage. Wow, a 1,066 foot tall block, I'm sure people will love it.

[Zapatan]

Originally Posted by tech12

I really hope 50 Main isn't approved as designed. It looks like shit. Complete garbage. Wow, a 1,066 foot tall block, I'm sure people will love it.

Some of the other renderings make it look pretty nice, the sideways cutaway probably isn't the best thing to go by.

[homebucket]

I'll withhold further definitive judgement until there are some more detailed renderings of the curtainwall and other details, but I do think the new descriptions of "fluted V-shaped bay windows" will at the least create a more interesting and dynamic texture and depth to the facade (think 555 California but with added balconies) than what I previously imagined, which was just a simple, plain, smooth glass curtainwall.

Also, someone brought up a good point in the SFYIMBY comment section. Given how small the footprint for that site is, there isn't much opportunity for design variety in terms of the actual shape and structure without giving up some residential units, which would defeat the purpose of the density bonus. So while it's probably going to remain a tall box, hopefully they can add some design elements to make it attractive while still maximizing the residential space.

[kingkirbythe....]

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=250875



San Francisco to Hines: Proposed tower at PG&E site is too tall

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...-too-tall.html

San Francisco planners have rebuffed plans by Hines to build the city's second-tallest tower at the PG&E headquarters block, saying the proposal doesn't meet the vision for the city's skyline.

...

The project as proposed "conflicts with the city’s goal of establishing a balanced skyline as seen from key public viewpoints within the city and region," city planners said in an April 15 letter.

...

At issue is the 2012 Transit Center District Plan, which established the 1,070-foot Salesforce Tower — co-developed by Hines and Boston Properties and delivered in 2018 — as the apex of the city's skyline. The plan calls for building heights to step down from the apex and limits the number of tall buildings in the downtown core. The PG&E block should rise no taller than 400 feet, according to the plan.

WTF?

Planners did not say how tall they think the new Hines tower should be but said they “expect a significant shift in profile between the Salesforce Tower and the proposed tower at 50 Main.”

[homebucket]

Not surprising. SF has been doing this for decades. They really need to get rid of that outdated plan of a manicured skyline.

[Steely Dan]

400 ft.!?!?!?!!?!?!?

A 666' reduction!

fucking evil, man.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

400 ft.!?!?!?!!?!?!?

A 666' reduction!

fucking evil, man.

That's a beast of a height cut.

[futuresooner]

Jfc, "vision for the skyline"...

San Francisco is literally so stupid sometimes.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by futuresooner

Jfc, "vision for the skyline"...

San Francisco is literally so stupid sometimes.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. That proposal is too tall given its location but I agree that a 600-foot cut is extreme. It could probably end up being around 800 feet to balance with 181 Fremont and 555 California (former Bank of America) in the skyline. Did the planners come up with a plan in advance for south of Market street as it began to be redeveloped -- I looks like a hodge podge of non-descript development to me and could have helped resolve their housing issue if they had planned properly.

[deanstirrat]

Is there any way to voice my opinion on this? This is the worst news to wake up to. I had no idea. Who are they to decide the vision for the skyline. I am red hot.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. That proposal is too tall given its location but I agree that a 600-foot cut is extreme. It could probably end up being around 800 feet to balance with 181 Fremont and 555 California (former Bank of America) in the skyline. Did the planners come up with a plan in advance for south of Market street as it began to be redeveloped -- I looks like a hodge podge of non-descript development to me and could have helped resolve their housing issue if they had planned properly.

The current skyline does follow their "vision" but I don't think it accounts for the housing crisis, or future proofing for further growth in the upcoming decades. There is definitely a way to keep sculpting the skyline while building taller.

I also don't think non-descript is the best term to describe the new development too. Sure, there are some generic residential towers but a decent amount of the new projects are pretty distinctive.

Generic:


Distinctive:




Salesforce Park, San Francisco by Sergio Ruiz, on Flickr

[MAC123]

600 ft height cut, and their reason is it doesn't fit in an vision for the shape of the skyline. The SHAPE of the skyline. Amazing. Truly fucking amazing.

[Zapatan]

What absolute idiots. I could see lowering the height to 8-900 feet or something respectable but modest, but 400 feet?

I wonder if a renegotiation could be on the table, like a reduction of ~200 feet vs that of an entire skyscraper height.

There's not really much space available in downtown SF, unbelievable they want such a restriction when dozens of taller buildings already exist in the immediate area.

[theskysthelimit]

Truly disappointing . A project that is 100% housing with a substantial BMR component should be green lighted at this height. They have to go high to make this project pencil out. Maybe the threat of California State proposal to fine these cities for not meeting their housing goals will change their mind. If they are forced to stay at 400 ft, I could see a development of all market rate housing with either an offsite BMR development or the developer paying a fee.

[Hudson11]

just another reason for the rest of the country to look at San Francisco and see plain as day how poorly run the city is.

[obemearg]

Very disappointing, though I'd like to remain hopeful that the final height won't be as short as the 400ft that the original transbay redevelopment plan specified for the parcel.

From the article:

"Planning staff said it generally supports the number of units proposed but recommended that the project team "explore" a design that incorporates more width at the base of the tower to bring the project into compliance with the plan.

The company initially pitched an 818-foot, 761-unit tower in September but later upped the unit count and height. It said it would use the state's bonus density law to achieve its plan."

Hopefully there's some wiggle room within "Compliance".

Here's the plan for reference if anyone is unfamiliar:

[whitty]

If this yields a worse project with less housing, or less outdoor space, then planning should be rebutted hard. There’s no need to sacrifice those real world human needs for the wildly superficial need of a “perfect skyline”.

Truly peak SF right here.

[slock]

Here's a copy of the actual letter for reference. Go to the "Record Info" drop down and select attachments. Then sort by date for the 4/15/22 document:

https://aca-prod.accela.com/ccsf/Cap...gencyCode=CCSF

[Zapatan]

Hopefully there's some wiggle room within "Compliance".

Yea, I was wondering the same thing / how set in stone this is. I'd be fine with the original 800+ foot tower. In fact it'd work a little better proportionally on the skyline.

[homebucket]

Hines has revised 50 Main to 992 ft now while still retaining the same number of originally proposed units (808), and included Oceanwide and 550 Howard (Parcel F) in the renderings to show the possible shape of the skyline.

Fingers crossed the Planning Department will accept these revisions.







https://sfyimby.com/2022/06/reduced-...francisco.html