From a seriously plugged-in tipster:
Per your request…the approved project elevations [for 300 Grant]. I am sure there will be much discussion about the changes! With all the back and forth on the design, and with neighbor opposition, the developers went back to the drawing board numerous times. Parking is accessed by driving into car elevators off of Harlan and then driving to your space. Interesting idea. In between stackers and a normal garage.”
We hereby call dibs on a penthouse. And we once again bow down to plugged-in readers everywhere. You’re the best.
What was wrong with the original design?
It is hard to understand why MBH went from the previous design to this one. MBH is a reputable firm (they designed the building where I live), so I trust the final result will be fine.
That should be Grant Avenue.
[Editor’s Note: That it should.]
what a complete let down in design.
the original actually had what looked like a solid design concept. interesting.. and harkening back to the ‘deco’days — while still looking modern.
now it looks like something phillip johnson might want to build.. adding gratuitous beaux arts pillars and what looks like the ‘copper’ skin onto the penthouses.
this new design is such a bland compromise. blech!! WHAT’S GOING ON WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY!!
What was wrong was the neighbors didn’t like the original design and fought it – not that they really liked this one. Arguments were based on bulk, height (and perception of height), and cohesiveness with the historic district. The original design was not going to get approved. This is the SF process for you. Using CEQA to fight design and project issues instead of environmental issues. I think that MBH did a great job with the original design and a commendable job with the new one all things considered.
Once again the city and public step in and dull down a competent design. Although the last design contained some deco elements it had enough modern touches to avoid looking fabricated. These new rendering look like a desperate attempt to fit in with its surroundings. Oh well, at least it is not as bad as the turd that was recently altered and approved at 1285 Sutter.
my my…that design is hideous. somebody in the planning dept is hitting the crack pipe hard. it has to be a case of analysis-paralysis, where so much “process” goes into getting a building approved in SF, and we end up with a total POS like this. ironic, and sad.
I really liked the other building, it had a gothic look to it but quite modern. It made a bold statement, maybe that’s what got it killed. This one will cooperate with the bland dictate of those who rule design in this City and blend right into boredom. I really can’t speak for the architects, but I bet they must be dissapointed.
They are both nice designs. We are lucky to have either one.
I believe the final design is not by MBH. It is a truly horrifying example of what happens in SF under the guise of “planning”, yet, unfortunately, not surprising. As long as it remains possible for the design illiterate to hold sway over the process, San Francisco will continue to be an urban ark for architectural giraffes and camels.
As long as it’s not finished with “Lee Press On Bricks” I like this design better than the original Deco. Bottom two-thirds are on the bland side but the top third makes me curious to know what’s inside – a mark of good architecture as far as I’m concerned.
when will this be available for sale?
Care to make a guess as to how fast this will sell out? There will be no need for trademark umbrellas, signature cocktails, or a silly brand name for the building as if it were a detergent or perfume.
This has a great location which can proudly use its address to proclaim its identity as well as location. Compared to all of the new buildings in marginal locations that list restaurants and shops that are sometimes 20 or 30 blocks away, the list would be endless of things to do near this address. It does not sit across from a bus station, homeless shelter or freeway, but does have some of the best retail, restaurant, hotel, office and shopping neighbors in city.
I would NOT be suprised to see the entire project completely sold within the first month of units being released for sale. Bad market or not, this fits with my long term plan for owning only a part time residence in San Francisco. I could care less about the exterior facade, as it will be the interior floorplans and spatial design that helps me to make a final decision.
And here lies the problem- people like anoneichlerdweller, who somehow is a master of all things San Francisco regarding our new developments and neighborhoods, yet admits ‘Bad market or not, this fits with my long term plan for owning only a part time residence in San Francisco.’ Sorry, but the city is full for your type. Stay in Palo Alto please. We have enough phony urban dwellers dressed in GAP clothing in this town.
@ sf:
I suppose you are the one to choose who can and cannot live here whether full or part time because they are not your kind of people? Give me a break. Not very SF tolerant of you.
You seem to assume a lot about anoneichlerdweller and his design taste. At the same time you throw GAP into the mix because somehow, someone local starting a business, and making it successful, becomes the enemy. Maybe you should take anoneichlerdwellers lead and try to “become master of all things” to use your words. Anoneichlerdweller is not the problem. Intolerant people are.
Who cares if someone lives here part time? Really.
well said dede.
thanks
Ummm. I would assume by the name ‘eichler dweller’ what his design tastes are. Lame. Just like most posters here. Lame.
How about less people who could care less what the building looks like they are moving into because they will not be living here permanently. Did you not catch the jist of that post, or are you just trying to score brownie points with the dull, simple minded fools that flock to you.
Funny though, you can always tell the resident tourists from REAL San Franciscans. Like spotting cephalopods in a sea of dolphins.
The first building I moved into was ugly but the inside was pretty sweet, so I agree that the inside is what counts. The dissapointment came from not having a building that made a statement to me.
However, this thread is getting into the REAL Sf residents. I’m wondering who these people are. This City is one of the most transitional Cities I’ve ever lived in. Two of my neighbors just moved out of state and new ones moved in a couple of months ago on the other side.
In a sea of dolphins? I don’t see it quite that euphoric given the homelessness, druggies, panhandling, rudeness, bitterness, activists for every cause, self-absorbness, lack of compassion (pretending to be nice is not the same thing as being nice), way over the top political correctness, the just got out of bed look and don’t need to shower, etc.,…I’ll take whatever you’re taking if you can actually see dolphins.
All of the problems you state come from transplants (homelessness, political correctness, phony people) So moving from Oregon and living here for 1 year makes you a ‘local’ does it? Hey I visited Paris last year for a month am I now a Parisian? That would look great on my resume.
I’ve been here alot longer than one year, and I never said I was from Oregon. I guess whatever it is you are taking is also making you dilusional and partially explains your rage. Also being in Paris one month and finding a way to broadcast it to the world just makes you a name-dropper wannabee, not a Parisian, but perhaps since you were gone for a month, it makes you one of the part-time SF resident you despise. Get over it moron!
I’ve been here alot longer than one year, and I never said I was from Oregon. I guess whatever it is you are taking is also making you dilusional and partially explains your rage. Also being in Paris one month and finding a way to broadcast it to the world just makes you a name-dropper wannabee, not a Parisian, but perhaps since you were gone for a month, it makes you one of the part-time SF resident you despise. Get over it moron!
First, my main residence, a restored mid century modern Eichler, is in Lucas Valley, not Palo Alto.
Second, I own a unit currently in the Marina which is currently rented out, while I work on a major project in Chicago. My point about this building is who cares about the outside? I think this location is fantastic because you can truly live here without a car. Third, I bought my property in the Marina in 1991!, and my present home in Lucas Valley in 1998. Both properties were undervalued at the time, the Marina because of the quake, and Lucas Valley was still too far out for most. I am about 5 years away from retirement and feel that 300 Grant is a great part time residence for when I still want to come be around all of the “REAL” San Franciscans.
P.S. Sure I have some Gap T-Shirts, as well as Zegna, Marc Jacobs, etc. You know this city has changed when newcomers put you down by the cost of the clothes you wear.
Back to the architecture. I want to echo the sentiments of disappointment about how this project was dumbed down to a least common denominator of inoffensive mediocrity. The original deco/modern design would have been a great addition to the block; now we’ll just have another missed opportunity.
OK SF, step up the plate. What is your background? What gives you more “right” to live in SF than anyone else and to decide who gets to live here? Should there be an SF board to which one must apply when seeking residency? What is the criteria? Who gets to sit on the board? Will the board also be charged with determining who must leave if one does not live up to standards of dress or behavior? What would your ideal city look like? Who would like there?
The city would be fantastic if there were people who cared about making it better, less homeless, cleaner and safer streets, instead of the selfish snots who only care about the value of their home, which, in the next quake, will be worth about as much as a porta potty in New Orleans. I actually feel sorry for those that own property here, your entire lives will literally be left in rubble shortly.
Please weigh in: Is this design so bad that it would be better to keep the existing partially vacant building and not build any housing?
@ sf:
I was with you at “The city would be fantastic if there were people who cared about making it better, less homeless, cleaner and safer streets,..” but then you started alienating people who could help you accomplish those things by ranting all over again…. Reach out to the people you disagree with. Maybe they’ll learn from you and you from them and together make it work.
Thanks for feeling sorry for our future misfortunes. The City IS fantastic, that’s why we live and LOVE it here.
If you think the homeless advocates and BMR pushers are for helping the homeless into affordable housing, you really are high. Just look at the armory and how it ended up being a porno studio because of all the fighting for 14 years among those that “care”. Give me a break, get your head out of the clouds, nothing but self-serving a-holes, just like Daly. THey don’t want a solution, just a forum to be vocal.
The Armory is an anecdote and not the whole picture. So is 10th and Folsom. Stay tuned to that development: all homeless, all efficiency units. And it’s going to happen.
LOL you are the one who is high. When did I ever mention the term homeless advocate and BMR pusher?? Once again, it is people like you with complete ignorance and arrogance that is bringing down this city’s charm and vitality. And view lover, when the next quake hits, I’m sure you won’t be so cocky. You’ll probably flock back to Oregon or Pennsylvania and those of us real San Franciscans will rebuilt this city to the great state it once was before all of the weaklings and creativity lacking suburbanites moved in.
What great state was that? During the 60’s when everyone lived on welfare but they were cool? I’m sure you will be off to Paris anyway, you have not built a place for yourself now, much less out of the rubble. You are actually what is wrong with this City, the elitist with nothing to show for it but attitude and clinging to the yesteryear that never was.
REAL San Franciscans are the ones who will stay here and rebuild after the quake. Fake San Franciscans are the ones who will move away to fix the dent made in their stock portfolio.
Which quake have you lived through? 89 or 1906? Does a “REAL” San Franciscan need to be over 100 years old? I can only speak for myselt, but when my power, water, phone and gas were going to be off for over two weeks, I decided to take a road trip up the coast all the way to Canada. “REAL” San Franciscans who lived in the Marina were asked to evacuate out of the neighborhood (by order of Police, Fire and City) for well over a couple of months until it was safe to return. By leaving the deep 94123, we were making it easier for repairs to be made. Some blocks did not have water or power for over 6 months. I guess I should have stayed put in my flat and walked 10 blocks for water? When the “Big One” hits, many of us will initially have to leave the city until services are restored and it is safe to return.
(Think New Orleans)
“REAL San Franciscans…” Been a while since I’ve seen somebody so angry and grumpy at the world.
Does sf need a hug?
UPDATE: Downsized Plans, And No Condos, For Downtown Site.