daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > Highrises > Proposed Highrises



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 26th, 2013, 11:57 PM   #1
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53453

SAN FRANCISCO | 1481 Post | 126m | 416ft | 36 fl | Pro

New Catherdral Hill Tower Proposed Where Others Failed



Quote:
Developer ADCO is proposing a new 36-story residential tower at 1481 Post Street in the Cathedral Hill neighborhood. The 262-unit condominium development "will offer unparalleled views of the surrounding community and exceptional amenities right in the center of the City." As good as that all sounds, this is the same site that ADCO was planning to build a 38-story tower of a much catchier design, but was discouraged by the Japantown Task Force and local residents until the developer pulled the design. Complicating the matter is the fact that the planned tower is 410 feet, but the site is currently zoned for only 240 feet.
__________________
We are floating in space...

Last edited by desertpunk; July 31st, 2014 at 11:47 PM.
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 28th, 2013, 09:44 PM   #2
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,696
Likes (Received): 28311

nice one. Would this be more succesful now it's much higher than the 240 feet mentioned?
Eric Offereins está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2014, 09:17 PM   #3
desertpunk
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
 
desertpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ELP ~ ABQ
Posts: 55,648
Likes (Received): 53453

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Offereins View Post
nice one. Would this be more succesful now it's much higher than the 240 feet mentioned?
It may be snagged in the approval process. Other developments in the area may make it easier to win in the end...
__________________
We are floating in space...
desertpunk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 05:01 AM   #4
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Offereins View Post
nice one. Would this be more succesful now it's much higher than the 240 feet mentioned?
This is a VERY difficult location. It is pretty much at the top of what's called Cathedral Hill (named because the city's Roman Catholic St. Mary's Cathedral is there) in an area with few other high rises. The one seen next to it in the photo is about the only other one and was built in the 1960s before San Francisco went NIMBY-crazy. Proposals in the area since then have all met a firestorm of resistance.

I'm very doubtful we'll ever see a tower built there.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 07:56 PM   #5
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
This is a VERY difficult location. It is pretty much at the top of what's called Cathedral Hill (named because the city's Roman Catholic St. Mary's Cathedral is there) in an area with few other high rises. The one seen next to it in the photo is about the only other one and was built in the 1960s before San Francisco went NIMBY-crazy. Proposals in the area since then have all met a firestorm of resistance.

I'm very doubtful we'll ever see a tower built there.
I agree it's not likely to get built thanks to the NIMBYs. There is more than one highrise up there too, in fact there's more than a dozen of them on top of cathedral hill, within a radius of a few blocks of this proposal, with the tallest ones right next door (as you can see: https://maps.google.com/?ll=37.78527...86.55,,0,-1.02), plus more in neighboring pacific heights, the Fillmore and Japantown, along Van Ness, and of course in nearby nob hill, downtown/the tenderloin/civic center, etc...which makes it that much more stupid when NIMBYs claim a highrise is out of place for the location.

Last edited by techniques1200s; January 24th, 2014 at 11:45 PM.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 09:52 PM   #6
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

I know the modest "towerettes" to which you refer but I hardly call them "high rises"--my view looks pretty much at them). Maybe they fit SSC's definition though. But this proposal would be considerably taller.
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 24th, 2014, 11:01 PM   #7
techniques1200s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 905
Likes (Received): 486

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee View Post
I know the modest "towerettes" to which you refer but I hardly call them "high rises"--my view looks pretty much at them). Maybe they fit SSC's definition though. But this proposal would be considerably taller.
I'm going by the Emporis definition of "highrise", which would be 35+ meters, which I think is closer to what most Americans would consider a highrise (and a "skyscraper" is even taller of course). There's no single definition of what constitutes a "highrise", and what definition is used seems to be relative...in many parts of Asia fro example, where there are tons of skyscrapers and supertalls gong up, the cutoff for what's considered a "highrise" seems to often be taller than in the US, even to the point that some people would consider those buildings on Cathedral Hill to be "lowrise" buildings.
techniques1200s no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2014, 08:01 PM   #8
Cal_Escapee
In Search of Sanity
 
Cal_Escapee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Francisco/Tucson
Posts: 3,695
Likes (Received): 10272

Quote:
Condo Tower Pushing To Set New Heights For Cathedral Hill
July 31, 2014

Having been redesigned in an attempt to win over Planning, the Board of Supervisors and neighborhood opposition (including the SOS Cathedral Hill gang and owners of the 270-foot-tall Sequoias building next door), The ADCO Group is pushing forward with plans to construct a controversial 36-story tower with 262 condos atop Cathedral Hill.

As proposed, the 1481 Post Street tower would rise to a height of 416-feet and become the highest point on Cathedral Hill . . . .

The Cathedral Hill site, however, is currently only zoned for development up to 240-feet in height and San Francisco’s Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will need to approve an up-zoning in order for the project to proceed as proposed (but first the project must survive environmental review in September) . . . .

The project also includes the construction of a 2,200 square foot café along Post Street; a 10-foot-wide public walkway that would provide a mid-block pedestrian passage between Post and Geary; and a subsurface parking garage with 262 parking spaces for residents in the new tower and 176 replacement spaces for residents of 1333 Gough Street whose existing garage, tennis courts and pool building would be demolished for the project.



(View from Alamo Square)

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...w-heights.html
__________________
The SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP is real.

desertpunk, Vakai liked this post
Cal_Escapee no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
1481 post, cathedral hill, san francisco

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu