September 12, 2012
Permits Filed For Tishman's 201 Folsom Street Towers
Tishman Speyer has officially filed for their building permits to construct two towers rising 37 and 42 stories, and two 8-story plaza buildings, with a total of 669 new residential units over underground parking and street level retail on the 201 Folsom Street site.
Having missed the September 3, 2012 deadline to start construction per the terms of Planning's approval for the massive 201 Folsom Street project, Tishman has also filed for an official extension.
The 42-story tower with 285 units will be tagged 301 Beale, the 37-story tower with 245 units will be 338 Main, and the two 8-story plaza buildings with 59 and 80 units will be 318 Main and 333 Beale respectively.
As we first reported in February, the two plaza buildings will be topped with outdoor areas for residents on the northeast (Folsom and Main) and southwest corners of the site while the two towers, the floor plans for which we delivered a sneak peek, will rise on the northwest (Folsom and Beale) and southeast corners with pathways and green between.
∙ 201 Folsom: The Revised Plans For The Two New Towers To Rise [SocketSite]
∙ The Arquitectonica Redesigned 201 Folsom Street Rendering Scoop [SocketSite]
∙ 201 Folsom Towers Floor Plan Sneak Peek [SocketSite]
First Published: September 12, 2012 12:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Posted by: ccsh at September 12, 2012 3:49 AM
Posted by: GL at September 12, 2012 9:04 AM
Gotta believe that District 6 voting will be swinging in a different direction in the future...more moderate voters being accommodated in new housing.
Posted by: District 6 at September 12, 2012 9:20 AM
Please let them change the street address numbers.... these are the exact same as the Infinity complex accross the street!
Posted by: DZnirSF at September 12, 2012 10:05 AM
Vulgar? Let's not be ridiculous. These will be a nice addition to the skyline, esp. as you approach the City on the Bay Bridge.
Posted by: rabbits at September 12, 2012 11:02 AM
Like it. Unlike most things that we've seen, this is an appropriate height and number of units for the parcel (wouldn't hurt to have another 100' and a couple hundred more units, but it's ok as is).
Posted by: anon at September 12, 2012 11:28 AM
Excuse my ignorance everyone, but does this mean, that ground breaking is imminent ? Any timetable for it?
Posted by: sahrani at September 12, 2012 11:35 AM
After the way Tishman Speyer treated the Infinity Tower One buyers, who in their right mind would ever be associated with one of their projects?
Posted by: jimyleo at September 12, 2012 12:26 PM
I really dig the Art Deco gone modern feel of these buildings. Are the towers staggered in height? Hard to tell from the rendering.
Posted by: kg at September 12, 2012 12:33 PM
From this I guess we can infer that construction could realistically start within a year. Nice!
Posted by: Turin at September 12, 2012 1:24 PM
Is there a formula that developers use to figure out how much parking to add to a project like this?
Posted by: Q at September 12, 2012 2:21 PM
These are by Arquitectonica, right? With their Infinity complex next door, this will make a forest of round glass towers. If have seen that the Infinity creates odd rooms that are hard to furnish. Does this bother possible buyers? Are they creating too much of the same product?
[Editor's Note: As linked above: 201 Folsom Towers Floor Plan Sneak Peek.]
Posted by: jlasf at September 12, 2012 4:03 PM
Thought they couldn't have 1 to 1 parking.
Posted by: Ted G at September 12, 2012 5:37 PM
Is the obsession with whether or not new buildings can provide parking something peculiar to the Socketsite community or San Francisco in general?
I can think of no other large high density North American city that is obsessed with this issue the way some San Franciscans are.
I was just reading this comment on another site and could not help but be amazed:
"The city removed a turn lane from Portola onto Fowler---the outside turn lane which allowed residents of the neighborhood clear egress into their neighborhood without having to wait for cars turning into the adjacent Tower Market shopping complex (which is the market many residents of Twin Peaks, Glen Park, Midtown Terrace, St. Francis Wood, Forest Hills and Mt. Davidson shop at). They replaced it with a turn lane reserved for bikes. The consequence? At rush hour the backup of cars waiting to turn onto Fowler sometimes stretches back into the major intersection of O'Shaughnessy and Portola...So the answer is, yes---it is creating traffic jams. And since that bike turn lane has been installed I have not seen a single bicyclist using it. Such brilliance on the part of the bike fascists who've taken over the transportation planning department in this city."
Posted by: anonfedup at September 12, 2012 5:57 PM
^Someone has never looked at the similar sites of other cities then.
New York, Vancouver, Toronto, Boston, even Seattle to some degree - these are all cities that have parking debates much more epic than anything that we see in SF. I think people just seem to notice it here more because it's in such stark contrast to LA, where the debate is never about limiting parking, but how to build more.
Posted by: anon at September 12, 2012 6:05 PM
Posted by: SocketSite at October 12, 2012 1:34 PM