Oceanwide Center Skyline Rendering

Beijing-based Oceanwide Holdings has refined their plans for a pair of towers to rise at First and Mission, the tallest of which is designed to reach a height of 910 feet and would become the second tallest building in San Francisco behind the Salesforce Tower, which will rise to a height of 1,070 feet, and overtaking the iconic Transamerica Pyramid, the current tallest building in San Francisco which is 853 feet tall.

The proposed 61-story First Street Tower, which is being designed by Foster + Partners and would be 850-feet to its roof with a 60-foot crown, includes 1.01 million square feet of office space across 34 floors in the lower tower and 111 condos across the topmost 19 floors of the building.

Oceanwide Center Design

The First Street Tower condos would be the highest residential units in San Francisco, a title to which the 802-foot tower rising at 181 Fremont has been laying claim.

The proposed 54-story Mission Street Tower, a 605-foot residential and hotel building being designed by Heller Manus, would occupy the currently vacant site at the corner of Mission and Ecker Place and now includes a 169-room hotel on the floors 3-21 of the building, 154 residential units on the upper 33 floors, and 3,500 square feet of retail space along Ecker Place from Mission Street to Elim Alley, connecting to a six-story “urban room” at the base of the First Street tower.

In total, the proposed Oceanwide Center, formerly known as the 50 First Street project, includes 265 residential units over 1 million square feet of office space, 169 hotel rooms, 9,000 square feet of retail and parking for 412 cars and 351 bikes in an underground garage.

If the plans are approved by the end of the year, Oceanwide Center could be ready for occupancy by early 2019. And based on a rendering for a typical office floor, with ‘super-sized’ open plates averaging over 30,000 square feet each, we’ll let you guess who they’re targeting:

Oceanwide Center Office Rendering

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by seriously

    61 stories is cute

  2. Posted by Amewsed

    Ultimate perfection – housing, hotel rooms, office space, and retail. Keep the yuan coming.

  3. Posted by Louis

    The design of this project was created by NORMAN FOSTER Architects, and the local assist architect is Heller and Manus. It is a HUGE difference. Has Foster been dumped and the local team is now literally copying his work.

    Please clarify.

    Recall that Last developer here Choo did a “bait and switch” with Renzo Piano to get the height approved, then delivered the unhappy consolation prize of [SOM]. Planning did not appreciate this.

  4. Posted by Sierrajeff

    I don’t like the change in fenestration at the switch from office to residential – it’ll look like they changed window suppliers half-way through installing the curtain walls. If they have to change fenestration at all, they should do it in conjunction with the diamond bracing (even if that, god forbid, gives some offices larger windows than others).

    Other than that – love it, build it!

    • Posted by Frisco

      From most real-world perspectives, such as from the street or in the skyline, I don’t think this change will be very apparent. It’s hard to say how much the mullions will be treated as a design element, but they could well be almost invisible at scale.

    • Posted by Futurist

      I’m beginning to wonder where you get your knowledge from to form design opinions. Seriously, the fenestration change actually bothers you? FYI, it expresses a change on function and in reality it will hardly be a noticeable change at all.

      The “diamond bracing” as you call it, is really X-bracing and it’s structural.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Wow, are you off your meds? The last two days you’ve been a real curmudgeon. Two “X”s form a diamond. If you look at the elevations, the bracing forms diamonds. Hence, diamond bracing.

        And yes, I *do* think the fenestration change is awkward and odd and, being largely unnecessary, is something they could avoid.

        And at the end of the day, it’s my opinion. Why must you turn full-bore against anyone with whom you disagree?

        • Posted by Emanon

          They look like triangles to me. Oh wait, maybe they’re Ws. Now I’m seeing Ms. I guess I need to go off my meds too.

      • Posted by Notcom

        I believe the correct term here would be K-bracing…X-bracing would be where the diagonals cross at a point b/w the columns, no ??

  5. Posted by Alex

    Based on the rendering provided I wish the Salesforce Tower wasn’t scaled back. It looks pretty short when looked upon from this direction. Even though its taller it still looks shorter or about the same height as the Transamerica Pyramid

  6. Posted by John

    Are these all the pictures/rendering from the new plan? Looks like there’s just a couple new renderings rather than a release of detailed plans

  7. Posted by boysf

    I’ve seen several renderings of the taller, foster tower. it looks fine.
    yet, i wonder about the mission street tower.
    it looks like cheap crap. i have never seen any detailed renderings of it.
    maybe the zombies at the planning commission can force the developer into making
    the architectural theme consistent.
    haven’t they learned anything from city facing, elevator core, 45 lansing and prefab 340 fremont?
    world class cities deserve world class architecture when it comes to their tallest and most visible towers.

    • Posted by Orland

      “city facing, elevator core, 45 lansing”

      You mean the western elevation most noticeable from the Central/101? How would you have addressed it?

  8. Posted by Zugamenzia Farnsworth

    If it’s the same developer, for both towers, it would seem, at a glance, that it would make more sense to build one, big tower, especially if there are plazas and outdoor rooms going on already anyway. Granted, the “trophy facade” would have to be reworked, but actually, with less mass on one side, a more dynamic, asymmetrically balanced edifice could evolve. Or maybe this scheme totes token deference to the Salesforce tower, aka, the happy, shorter, more stocky, runner up.

  9. Posted by boysf

    the recurring theme here is that we have a questionable planning dept.
    no one has mentioned the funky looking shaft on the backside (western face) of 50 first street. i find the omission of details quite telling.
    dear planning department: learn from the mess of Lansing-Jasper.

  10. Posted by anon

    lol. Just in time for the next global economic crisis. Maybe this will happen in 5 or 10 years from now.

  11. Posted by Zugamenzia Farnsworth

    i get the impression they’re kind of rubber-stamping anything. my theory on why involves knee pads.

Add a Comment

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