1481 Post Street Rendering

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.

1481 Post Street Height

As proposed, the 1481 Post Street tower would rise to a height of 416-feet and become the highest point on Cathedral Hill, as rendered in a view from Alamo Square:

Proposed 1481 Post Street Tower from Alamo Square

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.

And prior to any hearing with respect to its heights, the 1481 Post Street project will have to survive a review of its potential Environmental Impacts, the public hearing for which has been scheduled for this 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).

1481 Post Street: Cafe, Garage and Walkway

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by emanon
  2. Posted by SFOrange

    This area is perfect for high-rise development as it already has at least 3 towers over 20 floors, was gutted by the Fillmore redevelopment and is a virtual windy wasteland at street level (which could improve with desity)…not sure whats “controversial” about this project (other than the typical neighbor freakout — including that from the next door towers).

    • Posted by CrockPot

      Not to mention it’s next to a high capacity freeway- like street and Geary BRT should be complete some time in 2310.

      • Posted by NJ

        Ha ha +1 Hope it’s a lot sooner

    • Posted by S

      not that I’m against density but I’m still waiting for it to improve street life in Rincon Hill :-p

      • Posted by j_blu

        Street life is improving in Rincon Hill. I can now walk to a local chocolatier / high-end coffee spot a mere two blocks away (SoCola), and look forward to the park on Guy Place. Development is slowly improving the area – think of how desolate 1st / Howard was five years ago compared to the bustle in Foundry Square today.

  3. Posted by invented

    In support of. Another 10 like this please — Planning rezone the whole Geary/Fillmore corridor and create more needed ownership opportunities.

    As for the SOM original — would much prefer that elegant structure over this safe, pleasant enough derivative thing — but glad something is moving forward.

    • Posted by j_blu

      Agreed. This is much too safe for so visible a tower.

  4. Posted by Anon

    This same slant top is being proposed again and again for new towers in San Francisco. I miss the much better original design as well.

    • Posted by boysf

      i bet this new design is a lot cheaper. yet, anything is better than the totally horrible Sequoias building next to it. That needs to be demolished. We need a planning commission that looks forward. When it is garbage like the Sequoias, we are stuck with it.

  5. Posted by Sierrajeff

    There are already tall (and arguably out of place) towers, so let’s add one 50% taller still.
    It’s already a windy wasteland, so let’s build a tall tower to make it windier still.
    Jokes (I hope!) about BRT aside, it’s not near any real mass transit.
    In short, strikes me as ridiculous to propose this here, when mid-Market trundles along at 6 or 8 stories.

    • Posted by zig

      They won’t be out of place with more. I can’t see any reason to not upzone from here to Fillmore around Geary. Maybe a chance for some middle class condos.

    • Posted by James

      SF has a tradition (policy?) of putting towers on hills, to amplify the topography, so towers on Cathedral Hill aren’t out of place, by that standard.

  6. Posted by anon

    I second Sierrajeff’s mid-Market location. I lived on the Wilshire Corridor in a 30 story tower when attending UCLA and loved the scale and design of all the towers along that street. Market is THE appropriate place for towers, especially mid Market.

    • Posted by zig

      We could use both. Geary is a logical place as well between Van Ness and Fillmore. These might have a shot to provide middle class condos

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      We agree on something! I love the Wilshire Corridor – though I think the curves of Wilshire there help – keeps it from being one long canyon.

  7. Posted by tommybabe

    Nice…build it already!

  8. Posted by Bob

    1) we’re splitting hairs over a taller tower among other towers in the immediate vicinity
    2) The SOS cathedral hill website looks like a parody site – the extreme hyperbole is hilarious “Among my friends and myself the desire to leave our once cherished and adored home city is enormous. The materialistic rape by those now in charge is truly demonic. Each condo development is like a stiletto plunged into the heart of San Francisco. They must be stopped!”

    • Posted by Sam

      Ha, old people. I can just see some guy writing that

    • Posted by Brian M

      Damn…that is worse than faux-rural suburban NIMBYs complaining about new housing near them. “It will destroy the RURAL character”. No, your 1970s split level and three car garage already did that forty years ago.

  9. Posted by tj

    The false facade / slanted glass mechanical enclosure on the NEMA tower is bad enough, combining that unfortunate design detail with the the curved front of the Rincon Hill towers makes this not only a horrible piece of design, but an unoriginal one as well. Bring back the SOM design, or a similar solution which plays off the geometries of St. Mary’s Cathedral and the Transamerica tower and thus would have a logical place on the SF skyline.

    • Posted by boysf

      heads at the planning commission should roll at the planning commission for allowing the mess called the NEMA.

  10. Posted by Darren

    I live in the CH area. I went to a meeting of these kooks after getting one of their IDIOTIC flyers in the mail, hoping to have a chance to speak some common sense. They made clear at the very beginning that opinions other than their own weren’t welcome. I did eat their food (which wasn’t good) but walked out. They were busing in seniors from the Sequoias. Nobody in that room other than one of the speakers was under 65.

    I wanted to say GET A HOBBY, people. You live in a huge tower yourself!!

  11. Posted by 1481 Post Team

    For more details on 1481 Post Street, please visit the new website:

  12. Posted by BDB

    I think this is great, the idea of towers going down Geary to Fillmore is fantastic. I would liken that scenario to Vancouver heading to the Capilano bridge.

  13. Posted by Snark17

    Instead of SOM inspiration we get this hodge-podge of mediocrity.

  14. Posted by cfb

    Yeah the old design was better, but this is pretty good looking itself. I hope it gets built. The city really needs to escape the clutches of the wealthy geriatric NIMBY overlords though. The amount of influence they have is ridiculous, given their relatively small numbers, and considering their lack of logic (all their arguments are based on their feelings and their misconceptions).

  15. Posted by Joseph A

    I very much support this , I would actually like to see the Theater at Japan Town removed , and replaced with a tower in the height range of 400+ feet , and would love to see the bulk of the Japan Town complex rebuilt with 2 additional towers in the 300 – 450 foot range added

  16. Posted by anon

    I just have one question:
    Can Aaron Peskin see it from his house?

  17. Posted by Michael

    I wish they would have built this tower on Market at 10th, instead of that hideous black behemoth, NEMA which is hideous!

  18. Posted by eflat

    It seems SOM always comes up with a great design (the original design for this building, their proposal for the Transbay Centert/Salesforce Tower) and then somehow, their designs are dropped and an inferior design is selected by the developers (I know Hines had Pelli on their team and feel it was too bad they won for many reasons).

    I think this project was “watered” down to make it easier for all the seniors living in The Seqouias to accept

  19. Posted by Ryan Knock

    watering down a design to people who won’t see a building to its 5th birthday seems like pretty bad policy for good urban design.

  20. Posted by Puhleez

    This design is too ugly to build. We as a city deserve to have fewer ugly buildings. Honestly, the architecture in this town is horrible and there is no reason to continue building on that tradition.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles