January 3, 2014
Shorenstein’s Proposed Mid-Market Development Rendered
While Shorenstein’s proposed "Mid-Market" development between Jones and Taylor would rise a slender twelve stories along Market Street, the majority of the 301-unit building would rise an effective 14 stories on the parking lot behind which slopes up Jones to Golden Gate Avenue.
Along Golden Gate Avenue, the Arquitectonica designed facade would rise 13 stories from the street with the majority of the ground floor proposed for "active use" but currently undefined:
First Published: January 3, 2014 2:00 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
What is up with Arquitectonica doing these blocky soulless buildings? Those shadow lines are not going to be that deep in real life. Trinity Place looked more exciting in a rendering and now it looks perfectly flat. It reminds me of a hospital. Nothing about this says "residential" or "San Francisco". Come on people! Arquitectonica has some awesome work in this city, but this is NOT one of those projects.
Also- this needs to be taller. The Hollywood Billiards is going to be torn down and replaced soon so it won't feel out of scale to be tall.
Posted by: seriously at January 3, 2014 2:40 PM
@seriously, LOL, was just going to comment about how Arquitectonica really seems to be churning out their own version of cookie-cutter buildings lately.
Posted by: Sierrajeff at January 3, 2014 2:50 PM
Wow, that's fugly.
Posted by: Pfffttt at January 3, 2014 2:55 PM
Could be worse. Unfortunately, the other two Arquitectonica buildings under construction (8th St., Buchanan) have landed with a disappointing thud and have none of the sizzle & potential suggested in the renderings. Both complexes look like cheap crap in the way they've been executed.
This newly proposed bldg could be exquisite with fine luminescent materials; it will otherwise be quick-money blight.
Posted by: invented at January 3, 2014 3:22 PM
Agreed, Market & Buchanan looks lothing like the renderings. But I don't know that you can fault only the execution - Arquitectonica likes to do a little soft-focus and smoothing in their renderings that'll never be reflected (no pun intended) in reality (E.g.,
Unless you can do an exterior of smoothly extruded beams (instead of panels) and you can convince residents to live with frosted glass, you'll never match that pretty picture...
Posted by: Sierrajeff at January 3, 2014 3:32 PM
ugliest design EVER
Posted by: jill at January 3, 2014 3:52 PM
Wow, thanks for the link Sierrajeff. It's kinda telling that architectonica's portfolio is ALL renderings and no completed buildings. Cartoon reality. I too am underwhelmed by Trinity Plaza (which I realize was value engineered in the second round). I was hoping for better on Buchanan, but I'm feeling pretty disappointed as it comes into focus.
Posted by: curmudgeon at January 3, 2014 3:56 PM
We are all in agreement. Arquitectonica used to be a very interesting firm, but clearly they have lost their edge. What's the point of presenting attractive renderings and then producing disappointing buildings? Trinity is flat and bland. What a let-down.
Posted by: jlasf at January 3, 2014 5:35 PM
It is an uninspired design. And far too tall for the location - the area is low rise and should remain so.
Posted by: JB10 at January 3, 2014 5:54 PM
^Um, what? On what planet is mid-Market "low rise"?
Posted by: anon at January 3, 2014 8:30 PM
We might see better design if buildings were allowed to be taller. Setbacks could occur closer to street level and developers wouldn't lose floor area.
Posted by: Joel at January 3, 2014 8:39 PM
All I ever really see when I look at that block is the ghostly image of the pre-1906 Murphy Building, staring out at me from the past.
Link is for the SFPL. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Posted by: Adam at January 3, 2014 10:59 PM
Arquitectonica seems to specialize in designs that look dated before building comes out of the ground. Do we really need more squat, boxy buildings with square windows wrapped in multi-colored panels? The renderings ARE better than the buildings . . . the very definition of damned by feint praise.
Posted by: JB at January 4, 2014 10:26 AM
We're being trolled, right? That's not really the building.
It's impossible to believe anyone would publish a design that ugly
Posted by: SFRealist at January 4, 2014 12:50 PM
Arquitectonica seems to have a fairly varied portfolio in their international projects. Why on earth are they repeating the same theme in San Francisco over and over again?
Posted by: Wai Yip Tung at January 4, 2014 3:42 PM
What's with all that extreme shading and lighting in that picture? We don't all work for the planning commission. We're not all stupid. We can see that hideous, flat, featureless finished product at Trinity Plaza. You have proven that what you propose and what you deliver are two different things.
Posted by: Emo at January 4, 2014 10:04 PM
Posted by: taco at January 5, 2014 7:09 AM
It looks very sturdy.
Posted by: sf at January 5, 2014 11:43 PM
Post war Moscow suburbs
Posted by: Unwarrantedinlaw at January 6, 2014 8:53 AM
You hit it Unwarrantedinlaw.
Or East Berlin.
Posted by: james jr at January 6, 2014 10:45 AM
Remember when Arquitectonica saved us from Jeff Heller? Now it looks like we need a reverse intervention....
Posted by: curmudgeon at January 6, 2014 10:56 AM
Why can't Market and Mission be more like 5th or Park Avenues or West Central Parkway?
What's wrong with 25, 30 or 40 stories?
Posted by: james jr at January 6, 2014 11:11 AM
James jr's comment sets a new record for socketsite preposterousness.
There are many reasons why Market and Mission will never be like 5th or Park Avenues. (I have no idea what West Central Parkway is.)
For example, they were mostly built many decades ago, and have been from the first designed for rich people. They are mostly 12 or 14 stories tall. Whole books have been written about the apartment houses of Fifth & Park.
There are other reasons:
No outdoor psychiatric and substance abuse collectives are allowed on the sidewalks of Park and Fifth avenues.
No homeless people are allowed to camp out; the doormen wouldn't have it, on pain of losing their jobs.
There are no "transitional housing" buildings, and no BMR units.
There is no rent control on Park or Fifth. (It was eliminated by means testing and rent limits decades ago.)
No marijuana dispensaries are allowed.
No other drug distribution is allowed, except deliveries from ethical pharmacists.
This suggestion ranks with Market Street as the new Avenue des Champs-Élysées, with or without Twitter.
Posted by: conifer at January 6, 2014 11:38 AM
Conifer is exactly right as to why San Francisco's Market Street will never become a world-class district. Thanks for saying it.
The new TransBay Tower will become a homeless magnet for the same reason.
Posted by: Jackson at January 6, 2014 1:07 PM
Architectonica IS the new Heller Manus.
Its true if you really like them or if you really do not like them either way.
Posted by: louis at January 6, 2014 8:29 PM
West Central Parkway = Central Park West.
Rezone Lincoln/Fulton/Stanyan for high density living (read tall buildings). When the development slows in the eastern 'hoods, attention will turn inward -- and this is one of the areas that could see an entirely renewed residential landscape.
Imagine -- The block-long McDonald's (and parking lot) flanking the entrance of a world-class park could be history.
High rises make sense here -- take advantage of the amazing park amenity.
Give the city another 20 years and watch what happens.... All in time.
Posted by: Invented at January 7, 2014 8:32 AM
All thanks are due to Invented for informing us that
West Central Parkway is another name for
Central Park West.
I am sure the people who live there will immediately use this charming alternative on their stationery.
I wish I had been able to figure that out when I wrote my long post 11:38 yesterday.
Posted by: conifer at January 7, 2014 9:23 AM