75 Howard at 220 Feet

Earlier this week we revealed the new design for the proposed 20-story residential tower to rise at 75 Howard Street, with 133 market rate condos over 6,000 square feet of restaurant/retail space and a basement “vault” for 100 cars.

Today, a plugged-in tipster delivers the first rendering for the project with five other developments on the horizon, including the proposed 100/160 Folsom Street tower at 400-feet in height, a height which is facing a groundswell of opposition which includes the Sierra Club.

The other developments in the background above: Transbay Block 8, Transbay Block 5, the Salesforce/Transbay Tower, and 50 First.

43 thoughts on “Proposed Waterfront Tower Rendered With Five New Towers As Well”
        1. And this rendering is from an unusual perspective – basically, from sea level out on the bay. 99% of people will instead see the waterfront either from the Bay Bridge (no wall), or from walking along the seawall (in which case the Hills Bros. building, Gap building, etc. will completely block the views of 160 Folsom and its ilk).

  1. I no longer support the Sierra Club. They shouldn’t be involved in how city’s rise. The new skyline looks incredible. Bring it on!

    1. If the Sierra Club really cared about the environment, which I thought was their primary objective, they would be encouraging more development in our urban areas. They’re opposition to any development in an already developed and full of environment saving transit and walking options makes no sense.

    2. Yup. I too used to be a member but no longer. The Sierra Club should be opposing sprawl and dense, tall urban development reduces sprawl.

  2. 160 Folsom is clearly behind the Gap building, not on the waterfront! This is exactly the kind of step-up away from the water that the city code was designed for, right?

    1. Indeed…and now we can see the Saleforce Tower will likely create shadow on Rincon park (not so much for 160 folsom which art agnos is being paid by the infinity towers to yell about)

    2. most of the new stuff like 340 fremont, jasper, 299 fremont are crap, cheap, moribund slip/ form construction. personally, i think that 160 Folsom is more unique than the rest and should be a “Lot Taller”. the dimwits on the planning commission will probably only allow for 300′ which will make for a cool building that won’t be visible to anyone. instead, we get horrible, visibly pronounced buildings like One Market Plaza which we have had to live with in the past and in the foreseeable future.

        1. I agree that 160 Folsom would look even better if it were taller. Honestly, it has a very positive impact on the waterfront. However, this kind of beautiful and elegant landmark is precisely the kind of building that the Planning Commission and the city kill. The city would be better off with no PC at all. Just keep the Building Inspection Office to make sure buildings are safe.

    3. In regards to “Proposed Waterfront Tower Rendered With Five New Towers As Well”, many of us have always thought that there is water beneath the surface of San Francisco. I am glad to see that someone is finally going to dig for the water, and I wish them a lot of luck with the “Five New Towers As Well.”

  3. NO NO NO NO NO. Reject all of them, it’s like I can’t even see the sky anymore. Mr. Burns must be the architect here, the Sierra Club is trying to save us all from living in a new circle of Hell!

    1. Maybe if they work really, really hard at stopping urban development, we can name some suburbs after them!!!

      1. Antioch? No reason to go that far when just a mile away you’re in the 95% of the rest of SF that is low-rise.

    1. I think it’s possible that, from this water-level vantage point, the view of it is largely blocked by the much closer Block 5 building. In fact, if you look very closely, you can barely make out what I believe is meant to represent the very top of the spire of 181.

  4. If the developer says Lumina is waterfront living then surely 160 Folsom must be as it is a block closer to the water. They should stick to 300′ the waterfront needs to be protected. There are plenty of places that would be great for extra affordable housing. It shouldn’t be at the cost of the waterfront.

    1. I can’t believe someone could look at this rendering and actually have that reaction. The ferry building is “waterfront”; clearly, none of these buildings are.

    2. Since when do we base the planning and design of our city on the marketing language of developers?

    3. A developer’s marketing department wasn’t 100% completely honest in their advertising?


    4. The waterfront is in no manner being harmed by any of these buildings. If you’re so worried about development on the waterfront, tear down that damn view – blocking Ferry Building and the pier bulkheads and open up City to Bay.

  5. I actually did some volunteer work for the Sierra Club when I was in HS and I had to telephone people in Livermore to oppose a suburban tract development. They argued that rather than transform untouched parcels in more rural areas to housing, we should be building higher and denser in the cities which have already been altered from their natural state. Apparently they changed their mind? Their opposition is absurd.

    1. Sierra Club as a national organization (which is based in SF, to be clear) says all the right things about developing in cities to protect the countryside. Sierra Club local affiliate chapters often act directly in opposition to that…basically opposing all development.

      1. The SF Sierra Club chapter is controlled by half a dozen old cranks who live in a 1970s no growth mode and should be an embarrassment to the national organization. It is also in the pocket of Aaron Peskin and does whatever he says.

      2. Yep. There’s a reason I give generously to the national organization and not a dime to the local

  6. Huh. If it were maybe 1.5 – 2 times taller with some width lopped off it would have a more dynamic rhythm with its surroundings. In this rendering it looks kind of short and squat; coupled with The World’s Ugliest Robert A. M. Stern building next door, it has a sort of… “wall on the waterfront” effect. Taller and narrower wouldn’t do that.

    1. so true! but too many [people] at the planning commission are stuck with 80’s, sue hester, mentality.

  7. I actually like this design better than the taller one. The Gang Tower deserves to be so much taller though, looks so emasculated at that squat height.

    1. I find it interesting that because of the design you think it “deserves” to be taller, as if the design of the building is the only factor we should consider in how the city designates height and bulk.

      It seems to me that if the building looks “emasculated” at the zoned height, that is a failure of the design not a justification for more height.

      1. Yes, we should also certainly take into account the knee jerk objections of the anti urban city dwellers or provincial court

  8. ditto on all the comments on the Sierra Club….the SF Chapter is always on the wrong side of development issues…I switched my support to the Save the Redwoods League after a few years with the Sierra Club and disagreeing with them most of the time

  9. Good thing they showed all the other Transbay towers under construction. Now we can band together to protest all of them!

    1. we should tear down any building in SF over 2 floors. lets level the downtown! highrises and lots of new housing will just push out people. TIC

    1. Peter Weingarten from Gensler would certainly be the jumping ape in that case. His office is right down the street!

Leave a Reply

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