SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[Jerry of San Fran]

The San Francisco Coloring Book - When I arrived in San Francisco in 1969 the palette of color was white. Seriously white. I think there are two things that changed the color of buildings in the city (1) The hippie flower children painted houses in different colors. (2) The new owners of Victorian houses started a trend too, but with much more subtle colors. If I am not mistaken in the Victorian era white paint was expensive in the 1800s and a white house indicated wealth (3) The ethnic makeup of the city changed. They were comfortable with colors I to this day find awful. We see color in a different ways culturally. (4) And last, the tech trend of late is for gray! Depressing to me! Yes, things do change from era to era! :------>))

[craigs]

BTinSF ("pedestrian") is the biggest asshole on the forum

[timbad]

Originally Posted by fimiak

The Ferry Building has a new plaza. They opened up the plaza being built as part of the expansion project this past Monday.

the Examiner's rundown

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

The San Francisco Coloring Book - When I arrived in San Francisco in 1969 the palette of color was white. Seriously white. I think there are two things that changed the color of buildings in the city (1) The hippie flower children painted houses in different colors. (2) The new owners of Victorian houses started a trend too, but with much more subtle colors. If I am not mistaken in the Victorian era white paint was expensive in the 1800s and a white house indicated wealth (3) The ethnic makeup of the city changed. They were comfortable with colors I to this day find awful. We see color in a different ways culturally. (4) And last, the tech trend of late is for gray! Depressing to me! Yes, things do change from era to era! :------>))

Victorians were often originally painted shades of gray and accented with darker colors. Pure white was not used (or available?), though off whites and cream colors sometimes were. The Haas-Lilinthal House has been completely restored, including using its original color scheme. Take a look at the link below.

https://www.sfheritage.org/haas-lilienthal-house/

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Victorians were often originally painted shades of gray and accented with darker colors. Pure white was not used (or available?), though off whites and cream colors sometimes were.

I suspect the idea was to invoke stone or some more solid building material than the nearly universally used wood.

But from photos I've seen (I arrived in the 1970s, not 1960s), a lot of places were painted white in the '60s just to preserve them and/or cover them with some kind of paint because the former colors were peeling and much wood was bare. This was before the wave of gay men (especially) buying old houses in SF and actually restoring them.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by timbad

the Examiner's rundown

Oh! I was there yesterday and would have taken a couple snaps if I had thought at all about it. Basically, it's very well achieved. Looks like it was always there. Only real negatives are the steps up on the non-pier side (rather than level entry like you have at the pier side), and the fact that there's no shade (which only really matters on days like yesterday).

Wonderful new addition to the city. Generally, we do infrastructure right, and this one, like I said, already feels like it was always there.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I suspect the idea was to invoke stone or some more solid building material than the nearly universally used wood.

But from photos I've seen (I arrived in the 1970s, not 1960s), a lot of places were painted white in the '60s just to preserve them and/or cover them with some kind of paint because the former colors were peeling and much wood was bare. This was before the wave of gay men (especially) buying old houses in SF and actually restoring them.

Oh, by the way BTinSF: I'm not a native San Franciscan, as you erroneously posted in a political thread in Current Events. But nice try using non-political posts about local topics against other forumers. Your bullshit tactics are duly noted.

[Jerry of San Fran]

50 Jones at Market - The odd light hanging over Market Street I suspect is the required "art" by law in San Francisco. My camera zoom lens cannot get any better unfortunately. Maybe someone else can zoom by & get a better photo. I won't walk in that area with my cell phone or camera for safety reasons.

50 Jones Street

[gillynova]

Ferry building plaza









---



Bay Bridge

[timbad]

I'll throw a couple more Ferry Plaza in there (my other shots are essentially duplicates of the ones gillynova posted)...

[timbad]

Originally Posted by AndrewK

Walked up Van Ness today, ...
In work actually related to BRT, they had started to place forms for the median/platform at Mcallister and Golden Gate.

[MN/WI]

The plaza looks awesome.

[timbad]

various other things from yesterday...

Folsom St streetscape coming along slowly but surely





the affordable one at Broadway and Front St is starting to show some skin on the Bay side





but still looks like this on the other



bad lighting, but Serif has almost all its skin now



the notch on the north (Turk) side



looking east down Turk



1064 Mission St, the new supportive housing project that Pedestrian first mentioned, near Seventh. the rendering on the fence onsite shows the version with the yellowish highlights





Ninth and Howard is about at street level already



hard to tell, but placement of pavers in progress at the Moscone Muni subway station entrance



and, after sitting apparently unchanged for over a year I think, the platform at Fourth and Brannan now sports frames for the dividers that carry the advertising, so I think some recent work has happened there again finally

[homebucket]

Crossposting this image to this thread since it shows the relevant recent (in the past few years) changes to the skyline.



https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/com...cisco_skyline/

[BobbyMucho]

Quick snaps of three larger BMR projects in the Mission and the early stages of 793 S Van Ness:

793 S Van Ness (19th and Van Ness)



And a rendering for refresher (via Ian Birchall Architects)



2060 Folsom slowly nearing completion (with 1990 Folsom peaking out in the distance)



1990 Folsom inching along behind its shrowd



490 S Van Ness looks 99.9% there

[Pedestrian]

I guess this is a win for the NIMBYs. Any strong opinions on it?

S.F. supervisors take united stance against Mission development at former Lyft offices
By Laura Waxmann – Staff Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Aug 19, 2020, 7:40am PDT Updated 2 hours ago

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday upheld an appeal of an office and housing project at the former Mission District Lyft offices, effectively killing plans for the development with a unanimous vote.

The appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the project — filed by United to Save the Mission and backed by more than two dozen Mission District residents and organizations who spoke out against the project at Tuesday's hearing — alleged that the San Francisco Planning Department incorrectly approved the project at 2300 Harrison St. for a streamlined environmental review.

The developer, The Walton Cos., had proposed converting an existing parking lot into a six-story, mixed-use building connected to an existing three-story office building, resulting in a structure with 24 residential units, including six designated as affordable. The project, which was eligible for density bonus under a state law, also would have featured nearly 27,000 square feet of new office space on the upper floors, along with ground floor retail and arts activities space. Lyft left the Harrison Street offices in 2016 for its current headquarters in China Basin.

The property is zoned for urban mixed use (UMU), a designation created more than a decade ago to allow office space on upper floors. Last month, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to ban new office space on the upper floors of developments with UMU zoning in the Mission, but that ordinance is still awaiting Mayor London Breed's signature . . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...pZaEZLTndlIn0=

[timbad]

^ I guess not strong, but certainly disappointed. I don't see the drawback to the development myself. housing, including affordable, where there was none before, displacing nothing but asphalt, and the building, altho no stunner, is not hideous.

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by timbad

^ I guess not strong, but certainly disappointed. I don't see the drawback to the development myself. housing, including affordable, where there was none before, displacing nothing but asphalt, and the building, altho no stunner, is not hideous.

100%

And now this lot (and piss-stentch-ridden alley) will likely sit in its current state for the next half-decade before anyone even thinks about doing anything else with it. Not really a win in my eyes.

I wish I had a count for how many units of housing these neighborhood groups have killed, year over year.

[gunna]

Skyline-Defining Plans for Hearst Parking Center Site

Originally Posted by socketsite

Plans to raze the 11-story Hearst Parking Center complex at 45-53 Third Street, which extends all the way to Annie and currently provides “a pleasant and safe place to park” for up to 800 cars, along with a car wash and California Pizza Kitchen, are in the works.

And as envisioned, a 52-story tower designed by SOM would rise up to 600 feet in height upon the Third Street site, with 354 units of housing over a 313-room hotel, 49,990 square feet of office space, and parking for 304 cars (and 233 bikes).

https://socketsite.com/archives/2020...nter-site.html

[craigs]

That looks interesting--it appears to be cylindrical.