Bay Area Proposals/Approvals/Construction Tidbits II

[craeg]

^ what happened to the 600' highrise plan?

[fflint]

^That's what I was wondering. I hope it's just another example of the Chronicle's fine reporting and not a sign the skyscraper was quietly ditched.

If the latter is the case, then I shall oppose the plan for inefficient use of inner-city San Francisco land. The City is not the proper place for hundreds of acres of fallow, useless open land. Since when do 6000 homes require 300 adjacent acres of rural nothing? That would be appropriate in Healdsburg, not San Francisco.

[San Frangelino]

All the stats seem to be the same as the plan submitted in 2005, only minus a mention of the cluster of towers on the south west corner of the island, one being 60 stories. 6,000 units of housing with 300 acres going to parkland are right. On the images I have of the project there looks to be 8 mixed residential neihborhoods each with thier own 14 story mid rise tower, so that part sticks to the proposed plan we all saw. I am thinking it's a case of what fflint just mentioned
just another example of the Chronicle's fine reporting and not a sign the skyscraper was quietly ditched.
Well I am thinking and hoping thats the case.

[EastBayHardCore]

I can't help shake the feeling that this plan is going to be bastardized. I fear we'll be stuck with a crappy low density suburban setting that on paper sounds great, but in practice is quite unremarkable.

[BTinSF]

^ what happened to the 60' highrise plan?

If it's gone I won't miss it. I never quite understood the point of one lonely highrise on that island. Now if they wanted to fill the thing with them, that would be different but they would have to do something drastic about the access (some form of rail transit or something).

[fflint]

While it is not "one lonely highrise," it is indeed a standout skyscraper, and one I would miss enough to actually oppose the remaining "jolly green giant" island plan:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7526/treasureislandgb3.jpg

[San Frangelino]

I myself think the plan could be quite unique as is. I know many don't like the idea of a tower standing off on its own, but I think for this location on the island it could work well. Sort of returning to the skyline a presence of 1939 worlds fair where in stood a lonely yet iconic tower. ( at least from what I have seen in pictures). Of course now it's on a modern and larger scale and wouldnt be completely alone with the other towers planned around it. I will admit, the other towers seem a bit too spaced out and awkward. But not so much to be off putting to me. I suppose it all depends at the end on the execution and design of the towers which is always a toss up. But I do hope to see something Grand and Iconic for the island which this plan I think could be. I will also hope a lot of thought is put into the design and we are handed something modernly unique yetclassy (very san francisco to me) and not something bastardized with many shortcomings. I say if it at street level looks like the renderings of the A-town project (http://www.a-town.com/)near angels stadium in anehiem, I wouldnt be happy at all. Even though I am being optimistic, I do understand EastBayCore fears that it will end up being a drab unremarkable plan at the end. Here's hoping

[BTinSF]

I myself think the plan could be quite unique as is. I know many don't like the idea of a tower standing off on its own, but I think for this location on the island it could work well. Sort of returning to the skyline a presence of 1939 worlds fair where in stood a lonely yet iconic tower. ( at least from what I have seen in pictures). Of course now it's on a modern and larger scale and wouldnt be completely alone with the other towers planned around it. I will admit, the other towers seem a bit too spaced out and awkward. But not so much to be off putting to me. I suppose it all depends at the end on the execution and design of the towers which is always a toss up. But I do hope to see something Grand and Iconic for the island which this plan I think could be.

It IS off-putting to me. I don't even think the design can make much difference because it'll be too far away from the City to be able to see the detailing and make much of the design. What you will see is a monolith sticking up with, yes Fflint, a few stubby dwarfs around it. And people will ask, "Why is that tall building out THERE?" And no one will really have a good answer.

I'd almost rather see the place made into a really nice entertainment area--parks, sports fields, swimming pools, whatever--with good ferry-based access to the Ferry Building, Fisherman's Wharf Area, AT&T Park and other areas.

[slock]

I disagree. I think housing is more than appropriate. We NEED housing. Every scrap of land we can get. The park in that area is understandable because of the bay fill, but housing we need. Facing the City, ferry access, it makes great sense.

I think the tower is still in the plan but was just neglected by the Chronicle. They didn't mention most of the other features either. And, the updated plan adds housing, not removes some, so I think it's still there.

If you read the plan in its entirety on the Treasure Island website, it is well thought out, and well articulated. There's a spread in this week's Economist about China building a truly sustainable development on an island parcel. This is the future of large scale development, and 6,000 housing units makes perfect economic and environmental sense for the City and the Bay Area. Let's hope these ideas are applied to Hunter's Point, Alameda and Mare Island.

[BTinSF]

I disagree. I think housing is more than appropriate. We NEED housing. Every scrap of land we can get.

We've got plenty of more appropriate places to build it. I've said elsewhere here: Turn 3rd St into a version of Wilshire Blvd (line it with highrises) and Geary into something like the Grand Concourse in the Bronx (9-story apartment buildings next to each other all the way to the ocean--along with the Geary rail line of course). When all that's fully developed we'll need to look at places like TI.

[fflint]

Third Street cannot be developed densely under current zoning. Geary cannot be developed more densely for political purposes.

We're looking to Treasure Island now.

[BTinSF]

Third Street cannot be developed densely under current zoning. Geary cannot be developed more densely for political purposes.



Since when does anyone here allow their vision to be limited by "current zoning" and politics? Admittedly, though, San Francisco has a long history of doing the expedient.

[rocketman_95046]

Since when does anyone here allow their vision to be limited by "current zoning" and politics? Admittedly, though, San Francisco has a long history of doing the expedient.

You can’t simply ignore reality and hope for some unrealistic dream either. Politics are real and must be dealt with. This is a great opportunity for more housing and it shouldn’t be passed up.

You should never let the impossible “perfect plan” get in the way of the realistic “good plan”.

[quashlo]

I think you should aim high at first...
That way, when the NIMBYs get their pudgy fingers in the mix, you still have a chance of coming out with something decent (assuming a half-way compromise between the original proposal and what everyone else wants).

That being said, while the current proposal is decent, I would have liked to see more intensive development of the island. So much unused/poorly-used land is hard to come by, so shouldn't we be maximing its potential by making it denser and adding more towers? :shrug:

[dimondpark]

I was never a fan of all that greenspace on treasure island....as if its returning to its natural setting-hello? Its manmade!

[fflint]

^I know. I love the pseudo-wetlands, as if such a thing ever existed there in nature.

[fflint]

Since when does anyone here allow their vision to be limited by "current zoning" and politics? Admittedly, though, San Francisco has a long history of doing the expedient.
Are we talking about visions now? I thought we were discussing plans.

I'd love to see your visions realized, as they make sense, but since voters recently shelved your Geary vision and the planning department just recently forestalled your 3rd Street vision, there's really not much to say about all that.

The Treasure Island plan is on the table. Hopefully it isn't degraded by anti-skyscraper NIMBYs.

[J Church]

I'm all for the pseudo-wetlands, the farms, and the towers. They go together, because you're not going to put 20,000 people in a space whose sole connections to the outside world are a two-lane road and boats.

I'm all for a taller Geary, but then I keep wondering why my lottery ship hasn't come in.

[SFView]

One might keep updated on TI, and any potential new tower development information regarding the island here:

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/treasureisland_page.asp?id=21914

A revised development plan for September 2006 is not yet published, but the Treasure Island Development Authority web site is a good place to keep looking. In the meantime, within this link, you can view the Revised Land Use and Open Space Plan published on December 2005. Here is one of many interesting images in the presentation, from Part 4 of that document:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TIDec20051a.jpg

[BTinSF]

I would have liked to see more intensive development of the island. So much unused/poorly-used land is hard to come by, so shouldn't we be maximing its potential by making it denser and adding more towers? :shrug:

How would you get all those people on and off the island (being realistic and all) to, for example, go to work or shopping or out to eat in the rest of the city?

[BTinSF]

you're not going to put 20,000 people in a space whose sole connections to the outside world are a two-lane road and boats.



Precisely.

[FourOneFive]

One might keep updated on TI, and any potential new tower development information regarding the island here:

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/treasureisland_page.asp?id=21914

A revised development plan for September 2006 is not yet published, but the Treasure Island Development Authority web site is a good place to keep looking. In the meantime, within this link, you can view the Revised Land Use and Open Space Plan published on December 2005. Here is one of many interesting images in the presentation, from Part 4 of that document:

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TIDec20051a.jpg

now that's sexy. if only there were more transit connections to treasure island. it could serve as a perfect home for san francisco's olympic village for the 2016 olympics!

[dimondpark]

Whoa! Find of the week...good job sfview

[dimondpark]

I'm all for the pseudo-wetlands, the farms, and the towers. They go together, because you're not going to put 20,000 people in a space whose sole connections to the outside world are a two-lane road and boats.

that pesky accessibility issue is a real bummer.


FourOneFive....that would be a perfect site for the Olympic Village indeed.

[BTinSF]

that pesky accessibility issue is a real bummer.




But, it's an essential feature of Treasure Island (that and the fact the place is totally made of earthquake-vulnerable fill).

I've said before I experienced the aftermath of the '89 quake there and it was scary (serious building and infrastructure damage, mud geysers everywhere)--I was working there then. But I also knew a lot of Navy families who lived there and many of them felt extremely cut off from the rest of the City. I think it's likely even civilians living there will too.

[slock]

The plan is really well thought out as is. The most stable area of the island is where the highrises and density are proposed, and the most unstable vulnerable fill is where the parks and recreation are proposed.

It's also fortunate that the density is where the shortest trip to the City via ferry will be, and just this week they added another 500 units.

They're envisioning a ferry every 10 minutes, and with the bridge, people will not feel isolated. Maybe even by that time there will be a ped/bike lane on the Western span.

http://www.pbase.com/slock/image/67719093

[slock]

I don't know why the pic doesn't show, it's a dope image.

[J_Taylor]

http://i.pbase.com/g5/27/712527/2/67719093.1kQPEvOP.jpg

[San Frangelino]

Here is the lot of T.I. images I have...VIVE LA T.I. PLAN:whip:

http://static.flickr.com/118/255785341_7966313b91_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/117/255785343_83868df668.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/95/255785346_5cfe89ea03_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/89/255785347_eba29466a5_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/107/255785349_0f26938723_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/108/255785350_9fd249f1b3_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/115/255786344_fced7f8309_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/87/255786345_a547e528fc_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/122/255786347_1850879533_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/90/255787142_2c15ebab70_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/61/255787136_de206e07af_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/112/255786349_c6ca906075_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/81/255786351_ccd93de021_o.jpg

[J Church]

That one from the Ferry Building kills.

In other news, 555 Mission has broken ground.

[San Frangelino]

Call me crazy but from the last picture I just posted of the T.I. plan, I see a flavor of Grant Park in Chicago looking towards area south of the loop. I believe the park on the T.I. plan (which I am for) and Grant park are roughly the same acerage. Inferiority complex....always my dears.

555 Mission has broken ground.

I remember being in my old apartment at 20th and Lexington in the Mission somtime in late 2000 (if memory serves me well) watching this building going up for planning approval along with 44 fourth street (of which hasnt broken ground yet). I am glad 6 years later to hear it's finally going to come along, remaining an office at that.

[fflint]

That image from the Ferry Building really does kick ass--now that actually lives up to the name Treasure Island.

Very good friends of mine lived on Treasure Island for several years. They thought it was ideal when their daughter was really young. With strong ferry service, a few local stores, and a larger on-island population I think there will be a nice balance between integration and isolation, and when I say "isolation" I mean it in a more positive sense, the way my friends experienced it.

[fflint]

You know, looking at the Ferry Building photo--it's clear to my partner that tourists are going to want to go out there. Will there be restaurants on the city-facing waterfront, and other attractions for the tourists when they arrive on the island?

[dimondpark]

wow....those pics own.

[rocketman_95046]

That one from the Ferry Building kills.

In other news, 555 Mission has broken ground.

:cheers:

wow... i would have never thought that the day would come when 4 towers of >400' are under construction at the same time in SF.

as for TI :slob:

[BTinSF]

In other news, 555 Mission has broken ground.

SF BizTimes says construction is planned to take 22 months. "We have given Turner orders to proceed and they are mobilizing forces," said the Tishman-Speyer Managing Director.

Also of interest: "The glass-curtain design will be enhanced through glass and metal fins on every mullion. The fins will reflect light and create a "prism effect" . . . . A green back-lit glass box at the top of the building will give it a halo effect . . . . The design also includes large exterior balconies on the sixth and 21st floors . . . . The colors coming off the skin will create an interesting effect".

[BTinSF]

http://static.flickr.com/112/255786349_c6ca906075_o.jpg



Reminds me of:

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/ksc/ksc003.jpg

[StevenW]

Awesome!!! :) :yes: :)

[quashlo]

Those models and renderings are making me drool already... Hopefully, this will make the jump from proposal to reality.

In regards to getting more people on/off the island, how about a dedicated lane on the bridge for AC Transit and the 108... It's quite frustrating sitting in a bus being stuck in the very same bridge traffic as the rest of the cars, so why not seal off one lane for transit, at least for commute hours? Quicker trips (and resulting higher frequencies, since buses can make more trips within a period of time) could also make the Transbay buses a more viable option for the East Bay commuter into the City.

[SFView]

Without willfully offending anyone, I almost feel as if I am joyfully throwing bread crumbs to a flock of pigeons. Anyway, here I go...

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TIrendering1.jpg

[fflint]

^Nice

I sure hope those who don't appreciate skyscrapers fail to destroy that plan.

[SFBoy]

Will thy have access to the bay bridge? Seems a lot more sensible than ferries.

[dimondpark]

lovey SFView.

[dimondpark]

Developers pull out of Alameda Point project, citing risk
San Francisco Business Times - 2:07 PM PDT Wednesdayby Jessica Saunders

The consortium of developers who wanted to build 1,700 homes on the former Alameda Naval Air Station have pulled out, saying the project is too risky for them to spend $108.5 million on for the property.

Alameda Point Community Partners sent a letter Sept. 20 to the city's reuse and redevelopment authority, saying the project is no longer economically feasible under the terms demanded by the U.S. Navy, which still owns the 700-acre property, given the downturn in the residential real estate market.

APCP is a partnership between Centex Homes, Shea Homes, Shea Properties, Industrial Realty Group and Morgan Stanley that was assembled specifically for the purpose of redeveloping Alameda Point. It has been working with the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority on a plan to develop the land for five years.

"The members of APCP have decided that further investment in this project is no longer prudent relative to the high degree of risk," APCP said in a news release Tuesday.

The developers' letter said they were "very disappointed" they were unable to continue with the project.

Debbie Potter, base reuse and community development manager for Alameda, did not immediately return a call Wednesday seeking comment.

Earlier this summer, APCP and the redevelopment authority exchanged letters in which they discussed changing the terms of their plan for Alameda Point.

The developers wanted to eliminate a proposal for the city to participate in profits from the project, due to what they contended was increased risk. The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority board said that was premature, and asked APCP to put up a $1 million "good faith" bond before proceeding.

At the time, Potter said the authority updated other interested developers on the project's status while waiting to hear whether APCP would go forward.

In addition to the cost of purchasing the property from the Navy, the agreement also called for the developers to spend an estimated $40.3 million to clean up hazardous waste on the base.

http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/09/25/daily30.html?surround=lfn

[slock]

In a sense, I'm actually glad.

I thought it was too low density and didn't take advantage of this ENORMOUS parcel of land right on the bay.

This land is a real gem and could accomodate thousands of people and be incorporated into the WTA's ferry growth plans. I say let's take some pages out of the Treasure Island playbook and build some real density.

(although I'm not sure how high the buildings can go because it's directly in OAK's flight path) Anyone know details?

[BTinSF]

Will thy have access to the bay bridge? Seems a lot more sensible than ferries.

OMG, no it doesn't. When I worked there--before all these people lived there and the Bay Area population grew by a few hundred thousand--it was essential that I leave work by 3:30 PM or face near gridlock trying to get on the bridge. That situation is among the things that made the small number of Navy people living there then feel isolated. There has to be an additional means to access. I'm all for ferries--love them in fact--but I'm not sure even that will really be sufficient to make people feel able to freely and "easily" access the rest of the City.

[coyotetrickster]

OMG, no it doesn't. When I worked there--before all these people lived there and the Bay Area population grew by a few hundred thousand--it was essential that I leave work by 3:30 PM or face near gridlock trying to get on the bridge. That situation is among the things that made the small number of Navy people living there then feel isolated. There has to be an additional means to access. I'm all for ferries--love them in fact--but I'm not sure even that will really be sufficient to make people feel able to freely and "easily" access the rest of the City.

There's nothing sensible about the "Deathrace 2000" merge from TI onto the Bay Bridge!

[sf_eddo]

Tokyo architect to design Cal's new museum - Rick DelVecchio, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, September 30, 2006

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/30/ba_calmuseum01.jpg

Toyo Ito, Tokyo's acclaimed experimental architect, got the job of designing the new home of the UC Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive in part because he impressed university officials with his vision of how to blend a major cultural building into the life of a city.

The museum, to be built in downtown Berkeley across from the west gate to the Cal campus and less than a block from the downtown BART stop, is intended to be anything but a closed-off space for academics and art and film fans.

The goal is to keep the building open late and make it the anchor of downtown nightlife.

University officials envision the building as a regional landmark and a force for integrating the campus and civic communities. They want the building itself, not to mention what goes on inside, to have the power to pull people way from their broadband hookups and giant video screens at home.

Ito, who has been described as a conceptualist who combines the physical and virtual worlds, made a persuasive case that he could pull off the challenge and was picked from among five finalists considered for the job. The selection was announced this week.

"His intellectual curiosity and energy level was enormously impressive," said Kevin Consey, the museum's director. "He's 65 years old and has the energy level of a 45-year-old, which is simultaneously great and a little bit frightening."

The building has a preliminary budget of $80 million, and university officials hope to break ground in mid-2009.

No design details have been worked out yet -- they depend on the success of a fundraising effort, which is in the early stages of seeking major donors.

But Ito's Sendai Mediatheque, a municipal library and arts center in Sendai, Japan, gives an idea of the qualities university officials want to realize in their new building. Light, simple steel columns and floor plates open the interior to a variety of uses, and a glass skin extending to the ground blends the building with the surrounding urban neighborhood.

"Seeing his sites really suddenly provoked us to a conclusion about the importance of transparency -- the importance of demythologizing art and film," said Jane Metcalfe, vice president of the museum's board of trustees.

The museum building will be on university property at Oxford and Center streets. The university's printing plant and a parking structure will be razed to clear the site.

The museum's current home on Bancroft Way is a vaulted concrete structure that opened in 1970 and needs major work to resist earthquake shaking. It will be taken over by the university and put to another use after being seismically strengthened.

The museum owns 15,000 to 17,000 works of art and an equal number of films. In the new building, which will feature three theaters for film, university officials say Ito's experience and vision will come into play in integrating the two collections in a striking way.

"Ito has significance and thoughtful experience in dealing with the intersection of art and film and, more importantly, digital media," Consey said. "We also think that figuring out a way in which you create a total experience that bridges art, film and visual media for visitors will be an interesting challenge for him and our academic staff to work on together."

Consey said one challenge is to get away from isolating film as something that's only experienced in the dark.

"We want to bring film into the galleries and have people see it as a visual gestalt," he said. "We imagine that film will continue to become cheaper and easier to make and that a generation or two from now, there may be very little to distinguish a filmmaker from an artmaker."

Ito's earthquake-engineering experience also recommended him to the university. His technique of securing buildings in fault zones with base isolators and rolling blocks is on the cutting edge of Japanese practice, Consey said.

Contact Rick DelVecchio at rdelvecchio@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/30/BAGK7LFO961.DTL

[dimondpark]

that's a great location for that museum.

[SFView]

For those of you concerned with future transportation regarding T.I. Development, the issue is analyzed and discussed in detail here with text, images and charts:

http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/uploadedfiles/treasureisland/Treasure_Island_Development_Plan/May_06_Transpo_PlanONly.pdf

By the way, dimondpark, thanks.

[SFView]

fflint ^Nice

I sure hope those who don't appreciate skyscrapers fail to destroy that plan.

Most will agree that San Francisco is in great need of more housing. There is a great opportunity to do this on Treasure Island. Taller towers, widely spaced afford better air, light, views and more sensible density. Furthermore, there is plenty of "green" to keep a former 60's activist, and many others happy. There also is a rather convincing argument that lowering the towers could likely cause the development to spread and reduce the green spaces, and increase the low-rise bulk of the plan.

[rocketman_95046]

can someone post the article on 555 mission.

thanks!

[FourOneFive]

we may not have the article (yet), but at least we get a new rendering!

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/57795-400-0.jpg

the overall design looks the same, but the crown now looks different.

[EastBayHardCore]

Looks pretty good. Mission up to about 5th is shaping up quite nicely!

[BTinSF]

can someone post the article on 555 mission.

thanks!

Sorry, can't help--I recently changed my address and now my print subscription is no longer "linked" to the web site locking me out along with the rest of you.

[ltsmotorsport]

we may not have the article (yet), but at least we get a new rendering!

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/57795-400-0.jpg

the overall design looks the same, but the crown now looks different.
Looks similar to the new 7WTC in NYC.

[BTinSF]

Ah, I'm back in business:

Tishman kicks off S.F. office tower
33-story highrise is downtown's first since dot-com downturn
San Francisco Business Times - September 29, 2006
by J.K. Dineen

Tishman Speyer has broken ground on its long-anticipated 33-story highrise at 555 Mission St., the city's first Class A office tower in more than four years, company officials told the Business Times.

The announcement, which ends months of speculation in the real estate community, will be made next week with a video podcast sent to 100 high-profile brokers on a complimentary "555 Mission St." video iPod.

The glass-curtain building between First and Second streets, designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox and Heller Manus Architects, will take 22 months to complete, according to Carl Shannon, managing director for Tishman Speyer.

Turner Construction is the contractor on the project, which will cost an estimated $300 million.

"We have given Turner orders to proceed and they are mobilizing forces," said Shannon.

The 550,000-square-foot building will be the first in the next generation of office highrises to be built downtown, a group that will eventually include Shorenstein Properties' 350 Bush St. and a trio of dazzling highrises planned around the new Transbay Terminal.

Tishman Speyer has been extremely active in the Bay Area over the last five years, acquiring 1 Bush St., 595 Market St. and 550 Terry Francois Blvd., as well as properties on the Peninsula such as Bayside Towers and 800-900 Concar Dr. The company is also building the Infinity, a luxury highrise development on Rincon Hill.

Famously publicity-averse, Tishman Speyer has kept brokers guessing about the timing of the 555 Mission project. Tishman Senior Director Allen Palmer said the company "has kept a low profile on purpose."

"We decided to start construction first and then our marketing campaign will begin," said Palmer. "We're going to be very patient and focused. Not just about size of tenant, but quality and the type of tenant."

Palmer expects the building to attract major law firms, financial services, hedge funds and consulting companies. But as of now it's a speculative building, without a single tenant in tow.

The glass-curtain design will be enhanced through glass and metal fins on every mullion. The fins will reflect light and create a "prism effect," said Shannon. A green back-lit glass box at the top of the building will give it a halo. The design also includes large exterior balconies on the sixth and 21st floors. The floor plates will be 21,000 square feet on the lower levels, 18,000 in the middle and 16,000 on top.

"The colors coming off the skin will create an interesting effect," he said. "This is something very special. I can't think of a comparison in the Bay Area."

Bill Cumbelich, a partner with the CAC Group, said the building, along with 101 Second St. and 560 Mission, will cement Mission Street's arrival as the most desirable downtown location.

"Mission Street is sort of the street of the future for the financial district," said Cumbelich. "This is where premier companies are migrating to."

While Tishman Speyer sat on the site for more than five years during the dot-com crash and its ugly aftermath, the company never lost confidence in its potential, said Shannon.

"It's a testament to what Tishman Speyer is," said Shannon. "To have a building approved in 2000 and 2001 and wait patiently for the market to come back speaks to their confidence in the Bay Area economy."

In addition to Tishman Speyer's investment in the Bay Area, the company has built, developed or acquired more than 145 investments totaling approximately 80 million square feet with a total value of $27 billion. Properties include New York's Rockefeller Center and Chrysler Center, Berlin's Sony Center, CBX Tower in Paris and Torre Norte in Saõ Paolo.

J.K. Dineen covers real estate for the San Francisco Business Times.

[BTinSF]

I consider this very good news:

UCSF speeds plan for $1.3B hospital at Mission Bay
San Francisco Business Times - September 29, 2006
by Chris Rauber

UCSF Medical Center is back on track to build a giant new hospital complex at Mission Bay, now with an enhanced budget of as much as $1.3 billion.

The University of California regents quietly approved spending $34 million on preliminary planning for a new women's, children's and cancer hospital at Mission Bay on Sept. 21, reversing course after UCSF officials said this spring they would likely have to scale back the size, scope and cost of the project by delaying some parts.

At the time, UCSF Medical Center CEO Mark Laret indicated the university would first focus on the pediatric portion of the project, and initially aim to build only a 180-bed children's hospital at Mission Bay by 2015 while continuing to seek funding for other pieces of the puzzle.

In the interim, Laret and other officials indicated, UCSF would significantly upgrade inpatient facilities at its Mt. Zion campus to comply with the state's seismic safety requirements for hospitals.

But instead, the regents gave the go-ahead to preliminary plans for a 289-bed mixed-use Mission Bay facility, at a projected cost of $1 billion to $1.3 billion, according to a Sept. 25 internal news article on UCSF's web site and an interview with Laret.

UCSF officials called the revised approach an "ambitious plan" that is now the regents' preferred alternative to the option they approved in March, which authorized a two-pronged plan including a less-expensive, and longer-term approach to adding new clinical services at Mission Bay.

Possible law change
The change appears to be driven by the possibility that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign Senate Bill 1661, which would extend the existing Jan. 1, 2013, seismic deadline for the state's hospitals by two years, assuming hospitals make a good-faith effort to meet the earlier deadline.

If the bill "is signed into law, and we're hopeful, we're on a very tight timeline on planning," Laret told the Business Times on Sept. 26. "Even if it isn't signed into law, we'll continue with the planning" and hope that other legislative remedies will be developed, he said. In the online article, officials noted that a two-year extension also "would give UCSF more time to raise funds for the Mission Bay hospital project and potentially avoid spending up to $250 million in seismic upgrades at Mount Zion."

Laret said a two-year extension might also help moderate cost inflation affecting UCSF and other California hospitals "by spreading out seismic work over a longer period of time."

The newly approved plans call for the Mission Bay hospital to include:

A new, 183-bed UCSF Children's Hospital, replacing the existing Children's Hospital on UCSF's Parnassus Heights campus.
A 36-bed women's facility.
A 70-bed cancer center to replace inpatient facilities at UCSF's Mt. Zion campus.

Property in place
The project's giant price tag does not include construction costs for parking, faculty office buildings and affiliated medical research facilities, according to UCSF officials.

"Planning for the new hospital complex at Mission Bay must begin immediately to meet the deadlines of California seismic law," the web story said, adding that fundraising for the mammoth project will also begin immediately.

At the same meeting, the regents approved purchasing a 14.5-acre parcel at Mission Bay bounded by Mariposa, 16th, Owens and Third streets, the final piece of property needed for the hospital. The deal is expected to close next year.

"We're going to go ahead with the planning full speed ahead, and see how all this plays out longer term," Laret said. "We have the land, we'll have the plans, so we're moving."

Chris Rauber covers health care for the San Francisco Business Times.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/10/02/story3.html

[BTinSF]

This is not so good:

Toll Brothers' Oakland highrise proposal at risk
San Francisco Business Times - September 29, 2006
by Ryan Tate
Apparently, nothing screams luxury living like a parking lot in downtown Oakland.

Toll Brothers, the national builder of luxury homes, has been negotiating to build its first-ever housing development in Oakland on top of a multi-story garage.

The Horsham, Penn., company has been working on a proposal since at least March for a city-owned site at 21st Street and Telegraph Avenue, across from the Paramount Theater. The site is now a parking lot, and city staffers would like to see additional spots there, possibly in addition to housing and retail.

Initial talks with Toll Brothers centered on putting at least 200 units of for-sale housing above 650 public parking spots, plus additional parking for condo owners, according to Patrick Lane, who oversees the parcel for the city's redevelopment agency. Plans called for concrete towers to rise roughly 20 stories and for the development to include some retail.

The company did not return calls and email messages seeking comment.

It is unclear whether Toll Brothers will be able to move forward with its plans. The cooling housing market has put the kibosh on plans from other regional and national builders. Olson Co. of Seal Beach has canceled plans for a condominium project in the Jack London Square area, and Dearborn, Mich.-based Pulte Homes said it is no longer pursuing mid-rise or highrise projects in Oakland after flat sales at its own Jack London project, along with ballooning concrete and steel prices.

Even if the housing market does not scare off Toll Brothers, the city may end up cutting a deal with another developer. Lane said developer Alex Hahn is putting together a proposal for the site. Hahn owns a corner lot needed to square the land and has special status with the city since the redevelopment agency seized land he once owned for another project.

Lane said Toll Brothers' initial plan for the site appears to be in doubt, though he is awaiting word from Hahn on whether Hahn was able to come up with an alternate plan with Toll Brothers.

"I think it's the housing market" that has endangered Toll Brothers' initial plans, Lane said. Shorter forms of housing may now be more attractive at the site, since they cost less to build, he added.

The area around the site remains a bit seedy, far from the core of downtown.

But the area should look better in a few years. Developer Forest City is at work on 650 apartments at Telegraph and 20th Street, the first phase of its massive Uptown housing development. Restaurateurs are swarming the area.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/10/02/story8.html

[fflint]

When reading about a South of Market fire, I noticed one of the photos shows the core of the new Intercontinental Hotel coming along nicely...so with apologies to the fire victims, check out the city's newest hotel on the rise:

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/03/ba_fire_1.jpg

[rocketman_95046]

^we really need a pic of all the SoMa cranes. This is really historical if you think about it. The next major boom like this may not happen for another 30 years!

3 cranes at 300 spear
1 " one rincon
1 " millenium tower
1 " Intercontinental Hotel
1 " Foundry square

and if all goes well, by next summer we may/should add a few of these...

1 " one rincon hill #2
1 " 555 mission
1 " 45 Lansing
1 " The Californian
1 " 631 Folsom

[dimondpark]

But the area should look better in a few years. Developer Forest City is at work on 650 apartments at Telegraph and 20th Street, the first phase of its massive Uptown housing development. Restaurateurs are swarming the area.
yeah, its really coming along quite nicely. There's a gaping hole where the old capwell's parking garage and lot used to be...


speaking of Oakland,
that B'way@7th(or 8th?) condo project is looking good-drove by it today on my way to Alameda.

[slock]

Actually rocketman, you bring up a really good point. This is historic. But I also am constantly suprised by how much faith and enthusiasm there is in this market right now. They continue to break ground on residential projects, and are now in the very early stages of a round of office projects. Developers new to the market keep coming and opening offices, and more and more properties are changing hands. Unless something major happens, this could really be the beginning of a historic wave from all the potential in Rincon Hill, Transbay, Yerba Buena, Mid-Market and Market/Octavia. There's a lot of optimism, and really unprecidented investment.

The skyline is in the early stages of a real metamorphosis.

And for your "next summer list," add 48 Tehama.

[BTinSF]

Don't forget that they've also recently put up a fence around 535 Mission and done test pilings (since the property changed hands again), and construction on that one could start unexpectedly. Since it went from office to residential and now back to office, it's hard to be sure what it might look like but here's the latest rendering I know about:

http://www.sfnewdevelopments.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/142171.jpg

[FourOneFive]

Don't forget that they've also recently put up a fence around 535 Mission and done test pilings (since the property changed hands again), and construction on that one could start unexpectedly. Since it went from office to residential and now back to office, it's hard to be sure what it might look like but here's the latest rendering I know about:

http://www.sfnewdevelopments.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/142171.jpg

i believe that is the rendering of the office proposal for that site from 1999(?). i was hoping the new developer wouldn't drag that proposal back out. it isn't very inspiring. that site is zoned for 550', but is constrained by FAR restrictions. I never understood why the project sponsor never aquired the low-rise building next to the site to increase the project's site's footprint.

btw, add the crane for 1160 mission to the list as well.

[fflint]

^That rendering leaves a sour, PoMo taste in my mouth...

[FourOneFive]

^That rendering leaves a sour, PoMo taste in my mouth...

girl, what are you doing up at 3am? :sly: i'm 3 hours ahead. i have a (albeit) poor excuse for being up this bloody early.

[coyotetrickster]

I consider this very good news:


16th. Mariposa and Owens.... Hmmmm, guess that means Burning Man will soon be hunting for a new HQ. Again.

[San Frangelino]

yeah, its really coming along quite nicely. There's a gaping hole where the old capwell's parking garage and lot used to be....

I am curious....does the Uptown project still include a tower portion? There were renderings awhile back that showed a streetscape view of the project with a 20 story tower. Is that outdated or apart of a future phase?

[BTinSF]

i believe that is the rendering of the office proposal for that site from 1999(?).


Maybe. I got it at http://www.sfnewdevelopments.com/blog/?cat=62 which sites an SF BizTimes article in April 2006 (which I remember reading). I quickly tried to check the original article but it didn't turn up when I searched for it at the BizTimes site.

[rocketman_95046]

hmmm it seems that One Rincon Hill #2 will not start until mid 2008:(


the article was posted in the highrise section but this is the link.

http://www.onerinconhill.com/newsletterfall2006.html#onerincon

[San Frangelino]

455 South Market Street, San Jose, CA

Another Rendering of the San Jose Project from:
http://www.thecorecompanies.com/communities-drawing-coregateway.html
http://www.dbarchitect.com/

http://www.thecorecompanies.com/images/communities/drawing-gateway2.jpg

market gateway tower

In the early design phase, this 240-foot residential tower with retail and gallery space presents a welcoming south gateway to San Jose 's intensifying downtown core and SoFa entertainment district. At the confluence of the city's historic South First and Market streets and the intimate urban plaza known as Parque de los Pobladores, the tower draws pedestrians from the neighboring museum, theater and City Center , the city's new urban residential community.

In other news:

The website for 451 Kansas Street also known as "The Potrero" is up and on it there are flashing pictures of a bald guy singing and organically grown fruit from "whole foods."

http://www.thepotrero.com/


Are they still calling this area the "Deisign District" :uhh:

[San Frangelino]

The Treasure Island Towers still in the Plan
Via the September 28, 2006 Examiner Article
http://www.examiner.com/a-315298~Islands__redevelopment_plan_takes_shape.html

Islands’ redevelopment plan takes shape
Printer Friendly | PDF | Email | digg
Melanie Carroll, The Examiner
Sep 28, 2006 2:00 AM (6 days ago)
Current rank: # 384 of 5,989 articles

SAN FRANCISCO - Updated proposal calls for more condos, emphasis on ferries, penalties for driving

The latest blueprints for Treasure and Yerba Buena islands include a fifth high-rise residential tower, 6,000 apartments and condominiums, three ferries and an aggressive incentive plan to get people out of their cars and onto ferries and buses.

A prior proposal, announced late last year, called for 5,500 housing units, four towers of at least 30 stories and one less ferry to shuttle residents to San Francisco.

“We need a critical mass of people living on the island” to make it work financially, said Michael Cohen, of the Mayor’s Office of Base Reuse and Development.

The redevelopment plan calls for providing at least 1,800 affordable units and a 338-acre park.

Under the $1.19 billion proposal that’s still being hammered out, all parking would come at a price, residents would have to buy public transportation passes and cars driven off the island during rush hour would pay an extra fee, Treasure Island Development Authority members learned Wednesday.

“This is a land plan that makes it easy to walk,” said Chris Meany, of Wilson Meany Sullivan, a development firm. “With the carrot and the stick, you encourage people to do the right thing.”

Meany’s group is one of the would-be developers of Treasure Island. The Miami-based Lennar Corp. has agreed to pay $497 million as its portion to develop the manmade island between Oakland and San Francisco. Developers would eventually reap revenue from selling the residential units.

Treasure Island operated as a naval base during World War II, and it is still owned by the Navy. The City hopes to buy the 450 acres from the Navy for $40.5 million, the amount that cleaning up the island will cost, city officials said.

The proposal is slated to go to the Board of Supervisors in November or December, after a series of meetings in coming weeks to finalize details.

Under the proposed “congestion pricing management” plan revealed Wednesday, a resident choosing to drive to San Francisco during a weekday morning would be forced to pay an additional, yet-to-be-determined fee.

He or she, by virtue of living on the island, would possess a pass for riding Treasure Island ferries and buses.

Cohen compared the compulsory public transport pass with what a member of a homeowner association pays in monthly dues.

Treasure Island Development Authority board member John Elberling said he wouldn’t vote for the plan, including the current transportation component.

“Being mean to future residents is not a good tactic,” Elberling said.

[San Frangelino]

The Treasure Island Towers still in the Plan
Via the September 28, 2006 Examiner Article
http://www.examiner.com/a-315298~Islands__redevelopment_plan_takes_shape.html

Islands’ redevelopment plan takes shape
Printer Friendly | PDF | Email | digg
Melanie Carroll, The Examiner
Sep 28, 2006 2:00 AM (6 days ago)
Current rank: # 384 of 5,989 articles

SAN FRANCISCO - Updated proposal calls for more condos, emphasis on ferries, penalties for driving

The latest blueprints for Treasure and Yerba Buena islands include a fifth high-rise residential tower, 6,000 apartments and condominiums, three ferries and an aggressive incentive plan to get people out of their cars and onto ferries and buses.

A prior proposal, announced late last year, called for 5,500 housing units, four towers of at least 30 stories and one less ferry to shuttle residents to San Francisco.

“We need a critical mass of people living on the island” to make it work financially, said Michael Cohen, of the Mayor’s Office of Base Reuse and Development.

The redevelopment plan calls for providing at least 1,800 affordable units and a 338-acre park.

Under the $1.19 billion proposal that’s still being hammered out, all parking would come at a price, residents would have to buy public transportation passes and cars driven off the island during rush hour would pay an extra fee, Treasure Island Development Authority members learned Wednesday.

“This is a land plan that makes it easy to walk,” said Chris Meany, of Wilson Meany Sullivan, a development firm. “With the carrot and the stick, you encourage people to do the right thing.”

Meany’s group is one of the would-be developers of Treasure Island. The Miami-based Lennar Corp. has agreed to pay $497 million as its portion to develop the manmade island between Oakland and San Francisco. Developers would eventually reap revenue from selling the residential units.

Treasure Island operated as a naval base during World War II, and it is still owned by the Navy. The City hopes to buy the 450 acres from the Navy for $40.5 million, the amount that cleaning up the island will cost, city officials said.

The proposal is slated to go to the Board of Supervisors in November or December, after a series of meetings in coming weeks to finalize details.

Under the proposed “congestion pricing management” plan revealed Wednesday, a resident choosing to drive to San Francisco during a weekday morning would be forced to pay an additional, yet-to-be-determined fee.

He or she, by virtue of living on the island, would possess a pass for riding Treasure Island ferries and buses.

Cohen compared the compulsory public transport pass with what a member of a homeowner association pays in monthly dues.

Treasure Island Development Authority board member John Elberling said he wouldn’t vote for the plan, including the current transportation component.

“Being mean to future residents is not a good tactic,” Elberling said.

[J_Taylor]

^^Kick ass
I hope it all pans out like they want it to.

[sf_eddo]

"Being mean" ?!?! DON'T LIVE THERE! You already get a break on rent as is... it's cheap to live on TI!

But I do see the point, as it kind of sucks for East Bay commuters.

[FourOneFive]

From Globe St.

Blue Shield Renews, Expands at 50 Beale St.
By Brian K. Miller

SAN FRANCISCO-Blue Shield of California has renewed its longtime leasehold at 50 Beale Street and took down an additional floor, giving it 272,000 sf on 10 floors of the 23-story, 646,000-sf Downtown office building. The building owner is Beacon Capital Partners. The deal includes exclusive naming and signage rights and the right to take down additional space during the term of the lease.

Founded in San Francisco in 1939, Blue Shield of California has been headquartered at 50 Beale Street since 1996. Approximately 900 of the non-profit health plan’s 4,500 employees are housed in the building. Blue Shield was close to moving to One Front Street about 18 months ago and actually had a lease out for signature, but the deal fell through, according to local industry sources.

Edward Grammens and Monica Finnegan of Trammel Crow Company and Liberty Greenfield representative Ken Gilbert represented Blue Shield in the transaction. John Cecconi of The CAC Group represented Beacon Capital. Simon Adams and Charles Seaman of Reed Smith LLP’s San Francisco office acted as outside legal counsel for Blue Shield while Eric Shelby and Alain R’bibo did the same for Beacon Capital. Grammens, Finnegan and Cecconi were not immediately available Monday for comment.

Blue Shield occupied floors 16-23 plus a portion of the ground floor and a portion of the basement. Local industry sources tell GlobeSt.com that Blue Shield plans to renovate its entire leasehold over the next two years on a floor-by-floor basis, using its new floor, the 14th, as a swing floor. Blue Shield may also temporarily use one additional floor to support the renovations, which could take as long as two years to complete, sources say.

Due to the renovation effort, Blue Shield has reportedly been given a substantial amount of free rent on the additional floor it has leased. In addition, Beacon Capital Partners is paying for an undisclosed portion of the renovation work. Blue Shield has retained HOK as its architect for the project.

Blue Shield’s largest neighbors in the building are the University of California at San Francisco, which leases about 90,000 sf in the building, and Bechtel, which leases about 100,000 sf. Bechtel originally developed the building as its headquarters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

it's nice to see a san francisco-based company adding more jobs and eating up more office space (although i am a little disappointed in the dimishing role of bechtel). the less available space, the lower the overall vacancy, the higher the rents, the possibility of construction of new high-rises.... :)

[San Frangelino]

Remember Jack Meyers of 80 Natoma Fame (aka subject to eminent domain tower)

Well on his company's website there are the plans and graphics for what is or was the Mandalay Terrace Project.

This again is or was the project that connects to the Peninsula Mandalay already built in South San Francisco. I remember reading in the business times that he was shifting the project from being heavily residential to being heavy on the office. This is a mix of both with a large retail component.

Just go to the website http://www.myersdevelopment.com/ and under "projects" click the "mixed use" category and you will find the renderings and info for the project. I hope this is still active, being that it looks fairly attractive and more honestly because it fullfills a personal wish to see a high rise district in South San Francisco.:slob:

Here are the stats:
Mandalay Terrace

Location: South San Francisco

Residential:
351 units total. 20-story High-rise tower consiting of 180 Market rate units; three low rise and mid rise residences constructed over reatil consisting of 171 market and below market rate units.

Office:
20-story tower with 260,000 sq ft of office space.

Retail:
302,500 sq ft of retail space.


Project Summary:
Designed by RTKL Architects, Mandalay Terrace is one of MDC's most challenings and exciting development opportunities. Designed and organized to satisfy a clear demand for a more urban lifestyle in this geographical area, Mandalay Terrace incorporates multiple uses-residential, retail, and office components. Together, they will create a "gathering place" unique to the North Peninsula.

Mandalay Terrace is currently under planning and design review.

[sf_eddo]

from http://sf.metblogs.com/archives/2006/10/joie_de_vivre_to_manage_newly.phtml

Joie de Vivre to manage newly acquired SOMA hotel
posted by Lil Mike at 7:02 PM on October 06, 2006
The Joie de Vivre Hospitality Group, already running hotels such as The Hotel Triton and 26 other "boutique" properties in the Bay Area has been retained by an as yet unnamed "private" investor to manage 308 rooms near 7th & Mission. These are currently part of The Best Western franchise just sold by Reneson Hotel Group.

Currently, these properties were aimed at mid-range budget & family travellers, and operate under the names Best Western Americania ( 143 rooms), Best Western Carriage Inn (48 Rooms), Best Western Flamingo Inn ( 38 rooms) and The Hotel Britton(79 Rooms). The hotels will likely undergo a makeover, name change and attain a hipper and no doubt pricier profile in the coming months.




In a press release Mark McDermott, a Senior VP with real estate consultant Colliers International Hotels' SF HQ involved in the sale said .



"While the seller was motivated in part by the current strength of the real estate investment market, the transaction is a win-win in the sense that the new owner will be able to take advantage of both a robust citywide hotel market and the neighborhood's growth prospects".


To read more on SF's tourist industry stats, glib press release fodder and some rampant speculation fit only for the blogosphere...continue on past the jump.



A recent report from Ernest & Young shows that San Francisco experienced the greatest growth in California's hotlel occupancy with a three percent increase. Now at about 78%, SF's occupancy is just shy of the 81% recorded during the pre 9-11 dotcom boom. SF also boasted the highest increase in revenue per available room (RevPAR) at 12.4 percent, the average room here goes for average daily rate at $167. Could that be why the 13 hotels were recently so quick to secure a new union contract and keep the SEIU's strike from hampering growth and scaring away conventions?

Enjoying SF's boom is Joie De Vivre Hospitality Group already 33 properties strong, and one of the industries most rapidly growing hotel companies, now expanding into the Southern California market as well. They took over a bland aging Holiday Inn on the 405 in LA recently and have turned it into a preminent destination hotel in West LA called The Hotel Angeleno. They are also involved in the revitalization and management of two properties in San Francisco's Japantown: The 218-room Radisson Miyako Hotel and the 125-room Best Western Miyako Inn. Both hotels (along with their adjacent malls) have been purchased by 3D Investments, and Joie de Vivre is "repositioning" the properties.

Currently SF's hotel scene is seeing bursts of "repositioning", the Park Hyatt is now a Le Meridien, considered one of Starwood's premiere bransds, of which only 5 operate in the US. The old Chinatown Holiday Inn had over $40 million dumped into it to become the "Financial District Hilton". The Pan Pacific was recently converted into a JW Marriott and near Moscone Center on 3rd St, The Argent Hotel is scheduled to be rebranded as a Westin. The city will also see the opening soon of SF's first so-called "Green" Hotel, the nine story Orchard Garden Hotel , an 86 room "environmentally friendly" property on the 400 block of Bush St.

[SFView]

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/631folsom_overall_04a1.jpg

631 Folsom St - Construction has Started
8th October 2006

Construction of 21-story, appx. 214 foot residential building with 120 dwelling units, 47 offstreet parking spaces, and 3,677 gsf of ground-floor retail use on an existing parking lot.

http://www.sfnewdevelopments.com/blog/category/all/

[quashlo]

^This is the first I've seen of this project. Looks like it will be a nice addition to that area, helping to get rid of those boring parking lots.

[BTinSF]

Lots of balconies. I like balconies--not enough SF highrises have 'em.

[northbay]

^ thats cuz theres not enough highrises period

[Smiley Person]

San Frangelino, is that Mandalay project near the South City BART or train station? otherwise it's gonna be another Emeryville.

[San Frangelino]

Mandalay Terace will be closer to the South San Fran Cal Train station, but not butting it at all. Its adjacent to the already constructed Peninsula Mandala; I believe this is the second phase of the project. Anyhoo its not close enough to the station to be of access to train travelers. It is close by to the few small towers at the Cal train station. I suppose the high rise district I would like to see would be closer to those towers near the station, but this would be nice additions near by.The Mandalay Terrace looks to be alienated from a central location, being on a hillside next to the 101. At least I think that's where it is.

[sbarn]

Without willfully offending anyone, I almost feel as if I am joyfully throwing bread crumbs to a flock of pigeons. Anyway, here I go...

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/TIrendering1.jpg

:cheers: As a Bay Area native, I'm stoked about the potential of this project to say the least...

[SFView]

...and they've added at least one more 30 plus story tower to the mix!

By the way, It's been about a half year since we had any big news from a special meeting regarding Transbay. I wonder if this is anything to get excited about? The timing (Fall/6 months) seems about right.

The TJPA Board of Directors meets on the third Thursday of each month at 9:00 am in San Francisco City Hall Room 416, 1 Carlton B. Goodlett Place.

The TJPA Board Meetings for September 21, 2006 and October 19, 2006 have been cancelled.

The TJPA Board will hold a special meeting on:

Friday, October 27, 2006
12 Noon
City Hall, Room 400
1 Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.transbaycenter.org

[San Frangelino]

I wonder if this is anything to get excited about?

I hope it's promising. 1,000 ft Transbay Towers and the TI plan are the number 1 and two projects I would like to see that have any likelyhood. A close number three would be the collective high-rise proposals in Oakland materializing. In fact I often look at the skyscraper page for Sacramento imagining those projects being plotted in Oakland. One day soon maybe a grand skyline will emerge to go along with a new eastern-span bridge.

Meanwhile in other news:

Theater eyed for housing, market

Sajid Farooq, The Examiner
Oct 11, 2006 2:00 AM (19 hrs ago)
http://www.examiner.com/a-337137~Theater_eyed_for_housing__market.html

SAN FRANCISCO - Developer working with S.F. to tear down old Galaxy in Van Ness corridor for project

The old Galaxy Theater on Van Ness Avenue has gone through its share of changes in its 22-year history.

The movie house, once a popular place to watch the latest offerings from Hollywood, turned its attention to foreign and independent films in a last-ditch effort to keep its doors open. Losing money, the theater closed its doors in December 2005 and is now being eyed by developers to undergo a transformation into a new mixed-use building with a grocery store as its centerpiece.

Bay Rock Residential is working with The City to tear down the boarded-up theater, which has become a hangout for the homeless and a canvas for aspiring graffiti artists. The developer wants to construct 107 residential condominiums on top of 15,500 square feet of retail space dedicated to a grocery store, according to Marilyn Ponte with Bay Rock Residential.

“We are still in the process, and right now we are still wrapping up our design plans,” she said. “[But], we hope to be on the Planning Commission by the end of the year.”

Bringing a supermarket to the neighborhood is a popular idea, according to Jordanna Thigpen, who lives near the site, especially with big chains such as Albertsons and Cala Foods having closed locations in The City in the past year. Dan Diez, who also lives in the neighborhood, said he was sad to see the theater close, but residents would love to see a grocery store open at the site.

“I really think we need a grocery store around Polk Street,” he said. “If it is a decent grocery store, I think that would be very good for the community.”

There are no full-service grocers that residents can go to in the Tenderloin, which abuts Van Ness Avenue, or in the Polk Street corridor, according to Thigpen. A Whole Foods market four blocks from the Galaxy Theater on California and Franklin streets is the closest supermarket. But, the store, often jokingly referred to as “Whole Paycheck,” is too expensive, according to some residents.

Ponte said she could not comment on what grocery store might fill the space, but the commercial use is reserved for a market. Bay Rock Residential presented the project to residents six months ago, according to Ponte. Diez, who is also the chairman of the Lower Polk Neighbors Association, said that because the presentation did not get into which retailer would be coming into the space and how traffic issues would be dealt with, it was hard to gauge the community’s reaction. Ponte said she plans to meet with neighbors again as her company moves forward with the project.

[Tanster]

:cheers: As a Bay Area native, I'm stoked about the potential of this project to say the least...



that one tall building looks like the one in new york being build(freedom tower)

just a little diffrent post #186

[BTinSF]

Bringing a supermarket to the neighborhood is a popular idea, according to Jordanna Thigpen, who lives near the site, especially with big chains such as Albertsons and Cala Foods having closed locations in The City in the past year. Dan Diez, who also lives in the neighborhood, said he was sad to see the theater close, but residents would love to see a grocery store open at the site.

“I really think we need a grocery store around Polk Street,” he said. “If it is a decent grocery store, I think that would be very good for the community.”

There are no full-service grocers that residents can go to in the Tenderloin, which abuts Van Ness Avenue, or in the Polk Street corridor, according to Thigpen. A Whole Foods market four blocks from the Galaxy Theater on California and Franklin streets is the closest supermarket. But, the store, often jokingly referred to as “Whole Paycheck,” is too expensive, according to some residents.



This just mystifies me. A Bell Market just 2 blocks away very recently closed for lack of business. Frankly, I don't think it had prices competetive with Safeway so unless this new store is a discounter (or another Safeway), I don't think it'll do any better. But to make sense of the above paragraphs, you have to accept that Tenderloin residents (is Sutter St. now really part of the 'Loin?) near the Galaxy location at Sutter and Van Ness feel somehow constrained from going all the way to Post and Franklin (well, actually between Franklin and Gough)where the Bell was.

[BTinSF]

:cheers: As a Bay Area native, I'm stoked about the potential of this project to say the least...

That's a beautiful rendering but I think it's largely fantasy. The clear, fog-free night sky is especially enjoyable.

[J Church]

Several differences between the closed Bell and the proposed market.

One, visibility. Bell had none. The new market should have plenty.

Two, location. Van Ness is the dividing line between Polk Gulch and Cathedral Hill, and is not just physically but psychologically accessible to both. Bell wasn't far from the Gulch, no, but across Van Ness, up the hill, and more or less out of sight? Not so much.

Three, Bell didn't know what it wanted to be. It was more expensive than Safeway but not as upscale as Whole Foods. Don't yet know what the new market would be, but both the Hyde and California Cala and Franklin and California Whole Foods could use some competition.

[craeg]

I dont get why anyone would argue against more supermarkets in SF.
As far as the bell site, I am in the area every single day - and have been for 6 or so years and It was only right before the market closed that I even knew it was there.
The most hidden supermarket in SF.

[sf_eddo]

that one tall building looks like the one in new york being build(freedom tower)


The rendering does look very similar to the Freedom Tower.

[SFView]

The Transbay Open Space Plan (Final DRAFT) - 7 Parts are available as PDF's for viewing here: http://sfgov.org/site/sfra_page.asp?id=5583#D4D - scroll to near the bottom of the page. Earlier draft versions of the streetscape plans, and the Transbay Downtown Heights Study of May 2006 are also here. We are hoping to see an update to the heights study and a description of the Transbay Terminal and Tower Design Competition sometime soon. As I mentioned above, the TJPA Board is holding a special meeting on October 27, 2006. One can only guess...http://sfgov.org/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.transbaycenter.org

Also now available from http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/treasureisland_page.asp?id=21914:
Draft Development Plan and Term Sheet for the Redevelopment of Naval Station Treasure Island - September 2006

There is an enormous amount to review. Perhaps, some of you can help find some interesting images to capture and post?

[BTinSF]

I dont get why anyone would argue against more supermarkets in SF.
As far as the bell site, I am in the area every single day - and have been for 6 or so years and It was only right before the market closed that I even knew it was there.
The most hidden supermarket in SF.

If by "anyone" you mean me, I'm not arguing against them. In a previous post I bewailed the closings of both the outer Clement Albertson's and the Cathedral Hill Bell. I shopped at both, especially the Bell (they had some items I really like that Safeway doesn't carry) and miss them both. I am saying, however, that I have serious doubts, all JChurch's arguments aside, that a market in that location will succeed any better than the Bell did unless it has something special to draw customers from a large swath of the city--and to do that it would probably need parking. Is the city going to allow underground customer parking for a market at this location (surely not above ground)?

As for the Bell Market's invisibility, that's city planning for you. You want another Upper Market Safeway? Hard to miss that one but nobody really likes it. The most recent large markets that have gone up have been very similar to the Bell--on the ground floor of large residential buildings and having very discrete signage (e.g the Fulton/Masonic Albertsons and the Mission Bay Safeway). A few months back I wanted to try the Mission Bay Safeway and had trouble finding it even though I knew it was there. I don't think the Bell was any less visible than these and what do you think the response would have been if they had asked (for all I know maybe they did) to put up bolder signs? I'd expect whatever goes in at Sutter and Van Ness to be equally "discrete". But I'll likely shop there anyway if it offers a good alternative to Safeway.

[BTinSF]

Don't yet know what the new market would be, but both the Hyde and California Cala and Franklin and California Whole Foods could use some competition.

Best competition for both pending the new store is Molly Stone's (California and Steiner): Whole Foods quality with a lot less 'tude.

[sf_eddo]

Hey BT,

I think you're underestimating this City's population. While many may cater to your needs, you have to recognize that you only live here half the year, and perhaps your counterparts are the same. The stores that are here for those who are here for the entire year and will always be local customers. In a sense, to those who see you as a consumer, you ARE a tourist in your own home.

And, despite the income that would assume I would, I would *never* shop at Whole Foods, for image and quality alone.

[BTinSF]

Hey BT,

I think you're underestimating this City's population. While many may cater to your needs, you have to recognize that you only live here half the year, and perhaps your counterparts are the same. The stores that are here for those who are here for the entire year and will always be local customers. In a sense, to those who see you as a consumer, you ARE a tourist in your own home.

And, despite the income that would assume I would, I would *never* shop at Whole Foods, for image and quality alone.

In all honestly, I have to call that very unfair. I have lived where you know I live for 24 years and I lived there 12 months of the year until 2001. My patterns of living and consumption have not changed since I started leaving town for the rainy season except that I spend less time at home in bed with colds and flu, consuming chicken soup, for not having to ride in crowded, damp Muni busses catching viri from fellow San Franciscans. I consider myself every bit as much a "local customer" as you or anybody else who shops there and I won't accept my views being marginalized because I take extended winter vacations. Furthermore, the neighborhood under discussion with these groceries is my neighborhood and I have and do shop in every grocery store in it, from the Cala on Nob Hill to the Webster St. Safeway but including both Whole Foods and Molly Stones because cooking is a longtime hobby and they sell some ingredients I need that I can't reliably get in other places.

[J Church]

Is the city going to allow underground customer parking for a market at this location

Yes.

But putting aside visibility (I'll bet Planning didn't mandate that blank wall), Van Ness and Sutter is also a much more accessible and higher-traffic location for pedestrians than Post between Franklin and Gough. As you no doubt know.

California and Steiner, where is that? The Farallons?