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.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by jamesjr

    Love it. Build it.

    • Posted by sassyboyfrisco

      Indeed…nice skyline AND 160 folsom fits in well at that height and design

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        160 folsom is definitely not a wall. its almost completely hidden behind the gap building

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          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).

  2. Posted by Mike

    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!

    • Posted by Jeff

      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.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      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.

  3. Posted by Frisco

    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?

    • Posted by sassyboyfrisco

      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)

    • Posted by Bananas

      Per the zoning the site was designed for a 300′ building, not 400′.

    • Posted by boysf

      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.

      • Posted by Orland

        It looks a hideous stump at even 400′. Should be 600 at a minimum.

        • Posted by Sam

          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.

    • Posted by DrElefun

      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.”

  4. Posted by ElitistPig

    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!

    • Posted by BobN

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

    • Posted by BTinSF

      Move to where you can see the sky. I hear Antioch is nice.

      • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

        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.

  5. Posted by ivan

    The only tower that is missing is 181 Fremont.

    • Posted by Orland

      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.

    • Posted by boysf

      blocked by the park tower from this angle. (ie., transbay #5)

  6. Posted by Bill Bostitch

    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.

    • Posted by shza

      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.

    • Posted by foggydunes

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

    • Posted by Fishchum

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


    • Posted by Orland

      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.

  7. Posted by R

    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.

    • Posted by R

      I’ve never done work for the Sierra Club, but agree. Their opposition is insane.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      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.

      • Posted by MSTBLD

        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.

      • Posted by SFRealist

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

  8. Posted by Don

    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.

    • Posted by boysf

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

  9. Posted by Boher

    Let’s get on with it

  10. Posted by sf

    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.

    • Posted by Bananas

      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.

      • Posted by Bleeper

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

  11. Posted by gone on

    Good bye sweet SF

  12. Posted by eflat

    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

  13. Posted by John

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

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      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

  14. Posted by Frisco

    75 Howard looks like a level of Donkey Kong.

    • Posted by woofie

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

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles