CFAH


Driven by neighbors’ complaints and a Planning Commission “request,” revised designs for the Arquitectonica design of 1960-1998 Market at Buchanan will be presented to the Commission on Thursday. No word on whether or not the revised design will include Planning Commissioner approved bay windows or peach accents.
Regardless, even if the revised plans are approved, “construction won’t begin until the economy begins to recover” according to the developer.
Now THAT’s The (An) Arquitectonica Design For Market At Buchanan [SocketSite]
1844 Market Watch: Movement On 113 “Fabulous” Units And Retail [SocketSite]
Buchanan and Market condo plans revised [Examiner]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by spitpalm

    Typical SF. I am sure we will be left with some bland box that doesn’t offend nor inspire. Damn this place is boring.

  2. Posted by flaneur

    Hopefully not.

  3. Posted by Joe

    Neighbors and some others who will remain nameless will not be happy with any design other than an freestanding IHOP with parking for 100 cars.
    The pre-neighbor-engineered design was one of the most hopeful designs ive seen on the medium density residential scale in the past ten years.

  4. Posted by tipster

    Man, that design reminds me of an unfortunate summer I spent as a crane operator at a minor port on the coast.
    The regular guys would stack their containers within an inch of perfect and then I’d hop down and take a look at my handiwork. Sigh. That’s when my dad sent me to college.

  5. Posted by 45yo hipster

    ^ you should buy a condo there, sounds like it’s ‘perfect’ for you 🙂

  6. Posted by sfnerd

    the developer will end up in Chapter 11 before he even starts given all these delays etc.

  7. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    I sure hope the NIMBYs don’t win this one.

  8. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “the developer will end up in Chapter 11 before he even starts given all these delays etc.”
    Ya never know, those delays might work in the developer’s favor if labor and material costs continue to decline.

  9. Posted by Anna

    “But neighbors complained about the design to the Planning Commission when it met May 16 to consider approving the project, calling the modern design of the building out of context with the area and criticizing the project’s bulkiness and its high-density nature.”
    The NIMBYs are criticizing a high-density project on Market Street?!

  10. Posted by flaneur

    The immediate neighbors had an issue with the project sponsor requiring an exemption from rear-yard requirements to build 12′ away from their windows. Other commenters have pointed out it would not have been a problem if the neighbors had a proper rear-yard.

  11. Posted by MoralOutrage

    I might get flamed, but am I the only one that sees big box buildings going up all over SF and hates it? Will Mission Bay/SOMA really look that good after 10 years? Every appt building looks the same except for the Infinity and Rincon (though that has it’s own problems). Especially along Berry Street, everything is a box – or a colorful box. Part of the joy of living in SF is the variety of architecture.
    What if someone went with a more Victorian style? It certainly suits the neighborhood and might revive the debate about tearing down ugly buildings and building something with more character.
    http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/Banqueting_House.html/cid_2811993.html

  12. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    MoralOutrage – maybe this is just a case of semantics, but the term “big box” building usually refers to a single story suburban retail outlet surrounded by a sea of parking. Think Target, Best Buy, Walmart, etc.
    This structure may be big and boxy, but it is not a “big box”.
    Aside from that, your desire to see buildings with a more classical historic look are valid (though you will hear groans from the modern architecture enthusiasts here). The only stipulation that I’d make is that the building has to look convincing. Every attempt for a historic look that I’ve seen constructed over the last 10 years betrays its modern building methods and looks very insincere and fake. Consider the tacky faux Tuscans that keep popping up in California (even SF).

  13. Posted by Joe

    I cant think of a worse idea than creating more Faux historic architecture in this town. That was then, this is now. SF has a complete inability to look forward. Why on earth can we not look forward and create new icons?? Who says that SF’s best days are behind us?
    It’s so maddening…

  14. Posted by Delancey

    @Joe
    If “looking forward” means a world of Mission Bay blandness, I’ll keep looking backwards, thank you.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles