As plugged-in people know, the plans for two buildings with 262 condos over two stories of commercial and 245 parking spaces to rise on Pine Street between Franklin and Van Ness have been revived and are making their way through Planning.

As the block appears today from the corner of California and Franklin (click to enlarge):

And as it would look with the two 13-story buildings that are proposed to rise:

Plans For Two Big Towers On Pine Have Been Revived And Rendered [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    That’s a weird angle to be viewing it from, over the Whole Foods. Seems set up that way to explicitly show that the buildings will not be taller than those across the street on Pine and/or the Holiday Inn on Van Ness.
    It would be nice if the Whole Foods would move into one of these new buildings. That parking lot is a nightmare.

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Also the distance to the site and the wide angle diminishes the apparent size of the building.

  3. Posted by anon

    @MoD – good point, it does that as well.
    I’m actually a big fan of a tall and uninterrupted streetwall, though 13 stories is even approaching the limit that I’d want. I really prefer something like a 6-12 story streetwall with slender towers rising above (similar to a previous proposal for the site that freaked people out over the height), but I’ll take this. Those vacant buildings and the hideous gas station on Van Ness need to go.

  4. Posted by BTinSF

    Yeah, get rid of that gas station and the one at Franklin & Turk and then where will anyone buy gas in this part of town? I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again–we all may hate the way gas stations look, but as long as most San Franciscans continue to feel they need cars, if only to drive out of the city (yes, I belong to Zipcar but they need fuel too)–we need to find a way to incorporate them into the city fabric that’s decently aesthetic. An until we do, we’ve got rid of all we an afford to get rid of.

  5. Posted by anon

    Seems that if the gas station was needed then it would stay. Markets have a way of figuring this stuff out. There are like five on Lombard, which is within a couple miles. In the burbs it’s quite common to go multiple miles between gas stations. Cars work the same here, no reason that you can’t drive two miles to get gas.

  6. Posted by Spencer

    15-20 floors maybe more appropriate for this location. may need a few more parking spots if planning to have any 3bdr condos.

  7. Posted by jlasf

    These will be located a scone’s throw from Whole Foods.
    @anon: There are only 4 gas stations on Lombard.

  8. Posted by BTinSF

    So all of San Francisco is supposed to buy gas on Lombard or the outer avenues.
    That sounds like the usual car-hating nonsense that dominates San Francisco. Cars are just modes of transportation that a lot of people need . . . and the cars need gas. If should be available in EVERY part of town. If I wanted to drive miles to get it, I would live in the suburbs (by the way, citing the suburbs as the ideal is quite a unique argument hereabouts).
    It should be possible to put gas stations on the ground floor of buildings serving other purposes or somehow to incorporate them into the city other than putting them on their own lots.

  9. Posted by anon

    @BTinSF – I don’t see any particular reason why gas stations would be needed in every neighborhood. Cars are built with 350+ ranges these days. Having to drive two miles from your house to get to a gas station is not a problem I want the city to pass legislation to fix.
    Let the market handle how many gas stations can/should be supported. Most seem to be going out of business quite eagerly, suggesting that we have far more than we should based on highest use, etc.
    I’d be fine with gas stations on the lower level of some buildings, but that’s likely extremely expensive in a seismic zone. Probably take at least another ~20 disappearing from SF before it would make any kind of business sense to make that kind of investment.
    @jlasf – Four is pretty close to “like five”.

  10. Posted by mdg

    Needs to be taller…..

  11. Posted by mdg

    Needs to be taller…..

  12. Posted by mwsf

    There is a shell station 7 blocks away at California X Steiner and another 8 blocks away at Eddy X Gough.
    There are at least 10 more in a 2-3 mile radius on Lombard, South of Market, the Mission and in Nopa.
    In other words, there are plenty of gas stations in Prime SF and every time I see them they are not very busy (with the exception of Arco on Divis.

  13. Posted by james jr

    I agree.

  14. Posted by qq

    The few gas stations will be fine until there is a natural disaster and then there will be no way to get gas and get out of town.
    Of course, in a transit first city we will be able to rely on the surplus of public transportation to help us get out of the city when the big one hits.

  15. Posted by anon

    ^More gas stations would help that how? Wouldn’t any new ones have the same problems in a natural disaster?

  16. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “…until there is a natural disaster and then there will be no way to get gas and get out of town…”
    If this is your earthquake response strategy then you should rethink. Every major road in and out of the city is expected to be out of commission after the Big One. You’ll be stuck in the mother of all gridlock.
    Expect to stay put for several days. Make sure especially that you have enough water. Have a family quake plan in place. It will be too difficult to make plans on the fly with the cellular network partially down and overloaded.

  17. Posted by Alai

    Even if it is your earthquake plan, all you have to do is avoid draining the last two gallons in your tank (which most people do anyway). That’s enough to get you well out of the city.

  18. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    BTinSF is on to something here. I think we need a Gasoline Historical Appreciation Station Protection Commission. Before anyone removes or even modifies any of our last precious gas stations, they should be required to present their reasons to the GHASP Commission in a public hearing. To ensure adequate participation, GHASP petitioners must send certified letters to all registered car owners in the City of San Francisco at least 30 days before Commission meetings. All citizen attendees should be provided a gasoline subsidy and paid parking by the petitioner.
    As irreplaceable potentially historic public resources, we only fairly request that petitioners pay for a Historical Ownership Review of Site Environment with a Systemwide Horizontal Incumbent Travel study. Only after this HORSE SHIT has been fully documented and approved can construction begin.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles