SAN FRANCISCO | Trinity Place | 240 FT / 73 M | 24 FLOORS

[BTinSF]

This project finally received approvals from the Board of Supervisors after endless delays and debates, first at the Planning Commission and then on appeal, at the Board. But now it's a go--assuming the developer, Angelo Sangiacomo, can get financing. In another thread, word came that things are moving:

As for Trinity, we just got drawings last week. I believe Cannon signed on to build it. Project should be kicking off in the next few weeks.

So I figured it's time to give this monster from Arquitectonica, that I hope will change mid-Market St. forever, a thread of its own.

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/04/ba_trinity.jpg

It will have 1900 units and will replace this somewhat ugly structure:

http://www.examiner.com/images/newsroom/714462AB-B2A8-46DF-DC8072A4D1CA1DFC.jpg

The available renderings:

http://static.flickr.com/54/150075930_2dfe827cc8_o.jpghttp://static.flickr.com/52/150075932_fdafecd0c8_o.jpghttp://static.flickr.com/54/150075934_8f6609467a_o.jpg

[Busy Bee]

Wow, that looks phat and fat. Aquitectonica definitely has a style... this just seems a little bit more Beijingy than San Francisco. Still cool though.

[Reminiscence]

Definetly a big improvement over whats there now. If the news about iminent construction is true, then this thread may not be in this forum for long, lets hope thats the case because we've been waiting for a long time for this one. This is one I'll watch going up for sure.

[alleystreetindustry]

i wish we had that in atlanta. super sui generis.

[PBuchman]

Here are a couple of additional renderings, that give some context to the project:
http://www.squareoneproductions.com/Home/art/projects/large/trinity2/lb1.jpg
http://www.squareoneproductions.com/Home/art/projects/large/trinity/lb1.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Wow, to me it looks even bigger in those renderings. Perhaps its because I'm comparing it to its future neighbors. Thanks for sharing those renderings. :)

[BTinSF]

^^^So it appears the taller parts are toward Mission St. (to 24 stories--I'm using the figures given in the "Compilations" thread here and also from counting the floors in the second rendering I posted above). I wasn't clear on that before. But at 13-16 stories along Market St., it seems to make a nice streetwall (better than I previously understood).

Someone was talking about the views of SOMA Grand on its thread, but it seems like this will pretty much block those.

[FourOneFive]

Yes, the market street buildings will only be 12-13 stories (~120'), and the buildings on mission will step up to 24 stories or 240'. all of the western views from the soma grand will be completely walled off once this project is completed considering the mass and height of the trinity buildings lining mission street.

[tyler82]

How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?

[rajaxsonbayboi]

How many square feet does this cover?

[pseudolus]

looks much better in the first renderings than the "additional"

[BTinSF]

How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?

My recollection is that what Chris Daly "negotiated" was 12% affordable. McGoldrick wanted 15% but didn't get it. Still, I believe the "affordable" units will all be on site and furthermore the existing tenants will be allowed to rent units in the new buildings at their existing rents (plus, I'm sure, whatever increases they could have gotten under the rent control ordinance).

What "low income part of town" are you referring to? I've been looking for a cheap part of San Francisco for 25 years.

[BTinSF]

looks much better in the first renderings than the "additional"

This is going to be "mass market" rental housing. Think a downtown version of Park Merced. But that's what San Francisco really needs: rental housing that a reasonable number of "regular folks" can afford. You can't do that in glassy towers with Bay views. It probably can only be done in big, chunky, hulking buildings with no views worth mentioning. But we need it none the less and mid-Market is a good place for it because that area needs people living there in large numbers and walking around to put life in those panhandler-infested, deserted-at-night sidewalks.

[StevenW]

I like it. Very nice. :yes:

[BTinSF]

Does kind of look like the Pink Palace though. (see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E3DD173BF933A05754C0A967948260 if you don't get the reference).

[o0OoJAMIE-IN-SFo0Oo]

What "low income part of town" are you referring to? I've been looking for a cheap part of San Francisco for 25 years.

Soooooooooooo very true! I moved here from the DC area and not only did my rent double, but my space is half.

[Frisco_Zig]

How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?

The only thing shameful is the hoops that had to be jumped through to appease everyone on this project. Lots to read

I am not sure I get why affordable housing in "low income" areas is shameful at all.

[Frisco_Zig]

My recollection is that what Chris Daly "negotiated" was 12% affordable. McGoldrick wanted 15% but didn't get it. Still, I believe the "affordable" units will all be on site and furthermore the existing tenants will be allowed to rent units in the new buildings at their existing rents (plus, I'm sure, whatever increases they could have gotten under the rent control ordinance).

What "low income part of town" are you referring to? I've been looking for a cheap part of San Francisco for 25 years.

The truth is if Sangiacomo didn't own this land for many years there is no way this thing could pencil out

And we all wonder why few rentals or anything other than high end condos and "affordable" housing get built in SF

[Frisco_Zig]

This is going to be "mass market" rental housing. Think a downtown version of Park Merced. But that's what San Francisco really needs: rental housing that a reasonable number of "regular folks" can afford. You can't do that in glassy towers with Bay views. It probably can only be done in big, chunky, hulking buildings with no views worth mentioning. But we need it none the less and mid-Market is a good place for it because that area needs people living there in large numbers and walking around to put life in those panhandler-infested, deserted-at-night sidewalks.


Again only possible because of unusual circumstances. BOS really don't care about "mass market" housing

[trvlr70]

I don't hate it!

[tyler82]

You guys wouldn't consider BayView Hunter's Point, parts of Western Addition, Outer Mission, Ingleside low income areas? Wow, you guys really need to get out more :-)

It seems that whenver I read about these new great properties going up, , the developers are talking about building the required portion of affordable units in projects in Hunter's Point etc. where there is still land available cheaply (cheaper, that is) than having it incorporated into their own buildings. It's sheer snobbery , and I think that the laws should be changed to force the affordable units inside the properties they are building, after all, most of SF citizens make the "average" amount of income and make this city the great city that it is by actually giving it life (as opposed to sitting our fat asses on large amounts of unused money), so why should we have to be pushed aside into the crime ridden or otherwise residential and boring areas of the city just because we don't make a bijillion dollars.

Granted I can't list a specific example, but I know that it has happened in the past :cool:

Trinity looks amazing and I can't wait until it is built, it's going to be such a great addition for people who can't pay $3,000/ mo. for a one bedroom. I think more of this should be going up in SOMA, Rincon Hill, and other places so that those of us with soul and vitality (the non- billionaires) can actually give life to these upcoming areas.

[BTinSF]

You guys wouldn't consider BayView Hunter's Point, parts of Western Addition, Outer Mission, Ingleside low income areas? Wow, you guys really need to get out more :-)

I just suggest you go look at what it would take to buy a house in any of those areas--as compared to the national average home price in the mid $200K range. This reminds me of a medical conference I once went to and listened while a moderator told some of the out-of-town attendees how to get to Alamo Square to see the "painted ladies". Then he warned them this was a "bad neighborhood'. How bad can a neighborhood be where houses cost 7 figures?

It seems that whenver I read about these new great properties going up, , the developers are talking about building the required portion of affordable units in projects in Hunter's Point etc. where there is still land available cheaply (cheaper, that is) than having it incorporated into their own buildings. It's sheer snobbery , and I think that the laws should be changed to force the affordable units inside the properties they are building, after all, most of SF citizens make the "average" amount of income and make this city the great city that it is by actually giving it life (as opposed to sitting our fat asses on large amounts of unused money), so why should we have to be pushed aside into the crime ridden areas of the city just because we don't make a bijillion dollars.



I disagree. With rental housing you can make a better case--and Trinity will be rental and the "affordable" units will be on site. But with condos there was an article a few months back that I posted about the problems encountered by moderate income people living in on-site "affordable" units. For one thing, they still have to pay HOA assessments like anyone else and often they can't afford either the beginning assessments or the inevitable increases. And if their richer neighbors decide to do a special assessment for some new amenity, they are often in trouble--can't afford it, can't pay it. At best it causes hard feeling and strife with the neighbors. At worst, their property gets liened for non-payment of the assessments and eventually they have to sell.

I think in the long run, it's better when people are living in a building with people of similar means where they can anticipate the other residents will have the same concerns about spending money and assessment issues.

[tyler82]

I just suggest you go look at what it would take to buy a house in any of those areas--as compared to the national average home price in the mid $200K range. This reminds me of a medical conference I once went to and listened while a moderator told some of the out-of-town attendees how to get to Alamo Square to see the "painted ladies". Then he warned them this was a "bad neighborhood'. How bad can a neighborhood be where houses cost 7 figures?






Ahem, I did NOT say that house prices are low in these areas, I am saying they are low INCOME. You actually think that the people living in these areas are making $100k + to be able to afford their homes? They are given subsidies, rent checks, and other freebies so that they can stay in these areas (which I feel doesn't help their situations).

And yes, Alamo square is a bad area if you consider a bad area one that has a lot more crime than other parts of the city. You can't just conclude that the entire city of San Francisco is immune from social problems and "bad areas" because houses here cost $800,000+ a pop. Most other parts of the country where houses cost $200,000 and $300,000 are a lot more safe than here, so does that make SF neighbhoods inherently better areas because the cost of living is higher?

NEWayz back on topic... are there any guestimates as to what these units (affordable ones) will cost? Are there going to be rentables only or are they all going to be for sale?

[Frisco_Zig]

You guys wouldn't consider BayView Hunter's Point, parts of Western Addition, Outer Mission, Ingleside low income areas? Wow, you guys really need to get out more

It seems that whenver I read about these new great properties going up, , the developers are talking about building the required portion of affordable units in projects in Hunter's Point etc. where there is still land available cheaply (cheaper, that is) than having it incorporated into their own buildings. It's sheer snobbery , and I think that the laws should be changed to force the affordable units inside the properties they are building, after all, most of SF citizens make the "average" amount of income and make this city the great city that it is by actually giving it life (as opposed to sitting our fat asses on large amounts of unused money), so why should we have to be pushed aside into the crime ridden or otherwise residential and boring areas of the city just because we don't make a bijillion dollars.


Low income except houses there start at 500K but anyhow. Most of the neighborhoods you mention are lower middle/working class (even the Bayview). My uncle lives in Ingelside, my family is mostly from the Outer Mission. Your post if almost offensive but likely you are just not that familiar with the city

Forcing the affordable housing into the high rise building means they simply won't pencil out. This is simple economics not snobbery as you say


affordable housing requerments prividing a solution that is a drop in the bucket of a massive housing in SF. The current system makes things worse not better

[Frisco_Zig]

Trinity looks amazing and I can't wait until it is built, it's going to be such a great addition for people who can't pay $3,000/ mo. for a one bedroom. I think more of this should be going up in SOMA, Rincon Hill, and other places so that those of us with soul and vitality (the non- billionaires) can actually give life to these upcoming areas.

Please don't hold your breath that anything like Trinity will be built by the private sector again. This was an unusual set of circumunstances. I am very annoyed that Randy Shaw and the BOS are patting themselves on the back as if they are doing anything for the real working class of SF

[BTinSF]

Ahem, I did NOT say that house prices are low in these areas, I am saying they are low INCOME. You actually think that the people living in these areas are making $100k + to be able to afford their homes? They are given subsidies, rent checks, and other freebies so that they can stay in these areas (which I feel doesn't help their situations).

Yeah, in many cases I do. Not counting "public housing" residents, the people who have lived there for decades may be fairly low income, but the people who have bought property anywhere in San Francisco in recent decades have got to be in pretty solid shape by national norms, anyway. I just read that a Muni driver makes about $27/hr. That works out to $56,000 a year. So a pair of Muni drivers who were married would make well in excess of $100K. These are the kinds of people buying in San Francisco's least expensive areas: 2 income couples where each partner has a solid middle class job and together they usually do earn over $100K. Don't forget that SF is a city of renters. Most people who live here--the single people working in retail or other service jobs--can't afford to buy anywhere in the city and many of them are spending over half their income on rent--in many cases that's true even if they have a roomate.

And yes, Alamo square is a bad area if you consider a bad area one that has a lot more crime than other parts of the city. You can't just conclude that the entire city of San Francisco is immune from social problems and "bad areas" because houses here cost $800,000+ a pop. Most other parts of the country where houses cost $200,000 and $300,000 are a lot more safe than here, so does that make SF neighbhoods inherently better areas because the cost of living is higher?

NEWayz back on topic... are there any guestimates as to what these units (affordable ones) will cost? Are there going to be rentables only or are they all going to be for sale?

The eventual effect of the prices of these houses is going to be to drive the "low income" folks completely out of the city, whether they rent or own, because rents ultimately depend on the value of property. It has taken decades and it's an ongoing process, but it's happening even in the poorest neighborhoods (which by national income standards are no longer poor). The creation of "affordable" housing, wherever they put it, is an effort to turn back the tide and all it can really do is provide a place of refuge for a few thousand lucky people.

Actually, Trinity Plaza represents the REAL solution to the problem. Build lots and lots of market rate rental units as cheaply as possible. If it were possible to saturate the market, rents would come down as they temporarily did in 2001 when the supply/demand situation shifted as so many "dot-com" people left town. If a building like Trinity Plaza, with 1900 units, commonly had 10% or more of them vacant, my guess is they'd lower the rent to try to fill them. And that would be happening all over town--it's called "competition" but it can't happen when the vacancy rate is always critically low.

My understanding is that Trinity Plaza will be entirely rental and, as I said, although new construction is normally exempt from rent control, those units occupied by existing Trinity tenants will "grandfathered" into the rent control system:

The agreement, which Daly helped broker, will require landlord Angelo Sangiacomo to put 360 of the 1,700 rental apartments he intends to build at Market and Eighth streets under the city's rent control regulations.
Rent control in San Francisco normally doesn't cover buildings constructed after 1979 but Sangiacomo agreed to the provision to gain political support for his project at City Hall.

The deal also provides for about 160 apartments to be offered at rates affordable to anyone earning just 60 percent of median income. The development includes a total of five buildings rising 12 to 24 stories to be constructed in phases on about 4 1/2 acres of prime downtown real estate.
Residents currently living at Trinity Plaza could end up with larger apartments on higher floors once the new buildings are erected, according to the terms of the deal, with moving expenses to be paid by Sangiacomo.

60% of the median income is $38,300 for a single person, $43,750 for 2 people, $49,250 for 3, $54,700 for 4, $59,100 for 5 and so on ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_page.asp?id=38605 ). Furthermore, "Federal affordability guidelines consider housing to be "affordable" if households spend no more than 30% of their gross monthly income on all housing costs, including utilities."

Doing the math, I figure a unit suitable for a single person (?studio, ?one bedroom) would have to rent for $957/month including utilities. The calculation is: $38,300/12 x .3 = monthly "affordable" rent. You can do it yourself for larger families.

[roadwarrior]

I'm brand new to this forum, but I noticed in today's edition of Beyond Chron that a Trinity Properties employee mentioned that construction will beging following next winter and the completion should be 24 months afterwards. This would put the project completion date to around April 2010.

[gttx]

How is this building any better than the one already there?
:yuck:

[fflint]

^Yeah, right. Like you cannot see any improvement.

[BTinSF]

How is this building any better than the one already there?
:yuck:


It provides approximately 1540 more units (1900 vs 360 in the existing structure) to address San Francisco's perpetual housing shortage and those units will be relatively affordable. About 228 of them will meet governmental guidelines for "affordability" but even the rest will be about as affordable as it is currently possible to build in downtown San Francisco because the developer has owned the land for decades, the project is about as dense as anything in SF will ever be, and aesthetics are obviously taking a back seat to housing people.

Finally, it houses all those people in precisely the best place to put them--on San Francisco's most concentrated transit corridor and in an area that needs more people living to bring it back to life.

[BigKidD]

How is this building any better than the one already there?
:yuck:
A heck of a lot better. I don't care much about the visuals as long as it provides more housing for the city and transforms Mid-Market.

[BTinSF]

I'm brand new to this forum, but I noticed in today's edition of Beyond Chron that a Trinity Properties employee mentioned that construction will beging following next winter and the completion should be 24 months afterwards. This would put the project completion date to around April 2010.

Might as well post the interesting and relevent parts of that BeyondChron article:

a strict timetable was established as follows: upon final approval of the project, Mr. Sangiacomo will have 15 months to commence construction, and 42 months after that the first tower must be certified for occupancy. Last night, Mr. Schmidt informed those in attendance that application for site permits have already been submitted, and to speed up the process plans will be submitted to various City departments at the same time rather than in staggered succession, which is normal procedure. Mr. Schmidt also went into detail about the process and gave a timeline of the start of construction (of building A) after this coming winter with a completion 24 months later.

One tenant asked whether or not the original building will be demolished after the first tower is finished, and Mr. Schmidt stated that it would probably remain intact, at least until the Market Street building is started, which would not be immediately after Building A is completed. . . .
of the 1900 new units to be constructed, 800 will be one-bedroom apartments.


My take on this is that construction of the total project--all three buildings--will take a number of years, but the developer and the city both want to see the first building--along Mission St. and the tallest of the three, I believe--finished quite quickly (spring of 2010 as Roadwarrior says). That's because it will house the existing tenants and everyone wants to put an end to the tenuousness of their situation as soon as possible.

Once that's done--Building A built and the tenants rehoused--the other 2 buildings can proceed at a more measured pace. Given Mr. Sangiacomo's age, it seems to me there's a serious possibility he won't be around to see the whole thing completed, but I have to assume that possibility has been taken into consideration by everyone involved (including him).

[SleepyInSanFrancisco]

How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?

"The terms of the approved proposal calls for 1,900 units of which 360 will be deed restricted rent-controlled (and offered to the current Trinity Plaza residents) and an additional 231 will be designated below market rate (BMR).

At the same time, a condo map will be approved for the project (“after the developer pointed out the 40% increase in construction costs”) but will not extend to the 360 rent-controlled units."

From Trinity Plaza One Big Step Closer To Reality (And Condos?) (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/03/trinity_plaza_one_big_step_closer_to_reality.html) on SocketSite.

[tyler82]

Any vacancies currently at the Moonstar??? :haha:

[johnd]

In regards the new towers: I am pleased the current renters at Trinity Plaza will have new rent controlled units to live in as part of phase one of the new project; however when completed, the three-tower complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood. In effect, this porject is our generation's version of the Fox Tower Plaza, but in tripicate! Sure the old building needed to come down, but in an effort to please eveyone, little focus was spent on the grim open space, the real impact on transportation around Civic Center, the visual impact on neighboring buildings, etc.

In sum, it is very difficult to make 24-stories of punched concrete facades very interesting in a neighborhood that includes the new library, Asian Art Museum and the beautifully restored City Hall. Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.

[gttx]

A heck of a lot better. I don't care much about the visuals as long as it provides more housing for the city and transforms Mid-Market.

I guess I was simply referring to the aesthetics of the building - it will definitely be better in all other respects!

[sbarn]

This building is awesome... I hope it gets built!! :cheers:

[roadwarrior]

In regards the new towers: I am pleased the current renters at Trinity Plaza will have new rent controlled units to live in as part of phase one of the new project; however when completed, the three-tower complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood. In effect, this porject is our generation's version of the Fox Tower Plaza, but in tripicate! Sure the old building needed to come down, but in an effort to please eveyone, little focus was spent on the grim open space, the real impact on transportation around Civic Center, the visual impact on neighboring buildings, etc.

In sum, it is very difficult to make 24-stories of punched concrete facades very interesting in a neighborhood that includes the new library, Asian Art Museum and the beautifully restored City Hall. Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.

Well, if you consider "interesting" to be classic Parisian style design, then the Trinity Towers will fail miserably. However, I don't think that this is the ugly type of building that you see at Fox Plaza. You are going to two extremes in this area. Sure, this is a bit box-like, but I think that the concrete blocks in disparate shapes, on top of each other, along with the window hole will provide for a very intriguing modern look. This would not be unlike what we see with the new Federal Building. I personally love that design. I also think that as we see this neighborhood fill in, we will see a better mix of the classic, elegant, and the modern, daring buildings.

Now, I'm not going to argue that this building is "world-class", like you would see in Dubai or Singapore, but given all of the hurdles the developer has been forced to go through by our beloved city-councilmembers, I'm extremely pleased with this design and feel that it will go a long way towards revitalizing this neighborhood both in development and in attracting a larger population base.

[fflint]

I think Arquitectonica's design, based on the renderings, is fantastic--modern, sophisticated, well-massed.

As for the "real impact on transportation" in the area that this project will have--it will increase ridership on the densest public transit corridor west of Chicago, as it should. They don't call it "transit-oriented development" for nothing. And if anybody thinks the Civic Center subway BART and Muni stations are somehow overcrowded, then they're not familiar with either. Civic Center is the least utilized of the downtown subway stations.

http://static.flickr.com/54/150075930_2dfe827cc8_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/54/150075930_2dfe827cc8_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/52/150075932_fdafecd0c8_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/52/150075932_fdafecd0c8_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/54/150075934_8f6609467a_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/54/150075934_8f6609467a_o.jpg

[craeg]

Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.
San Francisco's architecture has plenty of (venereal) warts...
I am consistently surprised by the attitude of some people towards new development in SF. In specific reference to trinity plaza, I have heard a few people complain that the design is awful compared to the beaux arts civic center buildings. I have to ask why the only worthwhile architecture is architecture that is a facsimile of what existed from a previous era?

[viewguysf]

In regards the new towers: I am pleased the current renters at Trinity Plaza will have new rent controlled units to live in as part of phase one of the new project; however when completed, the three-tower complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood. In effect, this porject is our generation's version of the Fox Tower Plaza, but in tripicate! Sure the old building needed to come down, but in an effort to please eveyone, little focus was spent on the grim open space, the real impact on transportation around Civic Center, the visual impact on neighboring buildings, etc.

In sum, it is very difficult to make 24-stories of punched concrete facades very interesting in a neighborhood that includes the new library, Asian Art Museum and the beautifully restored City Hall. Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.

Quite the contrary--this is going to be a great development for our sometimes provincial city. :happypunk: We're fortunate that it's being designed by Arquitectonica. As long as what is built is good, San Francisco could use a more exciting and eclectic look in a number of areas.

[mthd]

this is absolutely the right place for a project like this... but what we've seen of the design so far is horrible, imho. funny colors and patterns don't go very far to disguise oppressive massing. i would guess the massing is driven by a developer trying to keep costs low, but in the end cheap buildings are cheap buildings.

[tyler82]

How do you define "oppressive maassing?" Anything over three stories? In that case, there is always Pleasanton, I'm sure there is plenty of room there!
I actually find this far less oppressive massing because it is broken up to allow light through and there is a central open plaza. This is much more open than all the other skyscrapers in the vicinity, and it will be adding so many units.
For those who don't want density, don't live in a dense city, period.I don;t see why that is so hard to understand. California is full of beach towns filled with people who don't like to live in dense cities. Why some of those people come here I will never know.

[viewguysf]

this is absolutely the right place for a project like this... but what we've seen of the design so far is horrible, imho. funny colors and patterns don't go very far to disguise oppressive massing. i would guess the massing is driven by a developer trying to keep costs low, but in the end cheap buildings are cheap buildings.

These are not cheap buildings--if you want to see examples of those drive around the Sunset or other areas of town and look at the 1950's boxes that replaced nicer structures. A good example of a "cheap building" is also the old Del Webb Townehouse which currently sits on this site. The owner has even gone so far as to hire a well known architectural firm for its replacement.

[mthd]

How do you define "oppressive maassing?" Anything over three stories? In that case, there is always Pleasanton, I'm sure there is plenty of room there!
I actually find this far less oppressive massing because it is broken up to allow light through and there is a central open plaza. This is much more open than all the other skyscrapers in the vicinity, and it will be adding so many units.
For those who don't want density, don't live in a dense city, period.I don;t see why that is so hard to understand. California is full of beach towns filled with people who don't like to live in dense cities. Why some of those people come here I will never know.

i don't know where you're getting that i'm opposed to density or tall buildings - nothing could be further from the truth.

this is the right place for a dense project like this - my issue is with the massing of the 'towers'. too short, too broad, too many. but anyway, it's hard to tell exactly what the proposal is from some of the images. hopefully the site plan is more permeable than it looks from the renderings.

[tyler82]

this is the right place for a dense project like this - my issue is with the massing of the 'towers'. too short, too broad, too many. but anyway, it's hard to tell exactly what the proposal is from some of the images. hopefully the site plan is more permeable than it looks from the renderings.



How is this biulding any different than all of the structures going up in Mission Bay/ SomA? Do you have the same feelings about those? I actually think these are less massed because of the open spaces and openess in the architecture instead of a block long 8 story building with no plaza or segmentation. The fact that these are all different colors or shapes will make it not oppressive but fun, visible, and modern.
What is all comes down to is the human scale and streete visibility, and this looks much more humane than what is there right now!

[oldpainless]

Aquitectonica definitely has a style... this just seems a little bit more Beijingy than San Francisco. Still cool though.
Ha, well both cities are communist. :haha:

[BTinSF]

In regards the new towers: I am pleased the current renters at Trinity Plaza will have new rent controlled units to live in as part of phase one of the new project; however when completed, the three-tower complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood. In effect, this porject is our generation's version of the Fox Tower Plaza, but in tripicate! Sure the old building needed to come down, but in an effort to please eveyone, little focus was spent on the grim open space, the real impact on transportation around Civic Center, the visual impact on neighboring buildings, etc.

In sum, it is very difficult to make 24-stories of punched concrete facades very interesting in a neighborhood that includes the new library, Asian Art Museum and the beautifully restored City Hall. Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.

Thin elegant towers a la Rincon Hill will cost what those places cost: millions. You cannot provide housing for middle income people that way. The only way you can do it in San Francisco is with monster midrise housing like Trinity with minimal open space (because open space uses land and that drives up the price of the units) and even then it helps that the land has been owned for decades. I don't entirely agree with Flint that the Arquitectonica design is "fantastic" but I do agree that it is pretty good, all things considered and better than what almost any other architect would have done. I also think that the "visual impact on the neighboring buildings", if you focus on the ones in the adjacent street wall, is pretty good, really.

Finally, when you start talking about transportation around Civic Center, you really seem to go off the tracks. This building is on San Francisco's best-served transit corridor, bar none. If maximum housing density isn't suitable here, it isn't suitable anywhere in San Francisco. And in this case, there's a real plus to the density which is putting more middle class working citizens on the sidewalks of that part of Market St. before it get completely taken over by the homeless and the drug peddlers (many of whom take BART over from the East Bay to ply their wares in UN Plaza).

To me, Fox Plaza is guilty of two main infractions: (1) It replaced a gem which never should have been torn down and (2) The design both turns its back from the sidewalks (with its interior "mall") and badly aggravates the wind problem near its location. Otherwise, what's so bad about it? Trinity Plaza will certainly not replace anything we would want to preserve and I don't think the design will offend in respect of wind. I'm unclear on what ground-floor retail it might offer, so that could be an issue, but I just don't know.

[BTinSF]

How is this biulding any different than all of the structures going up in Mission Bay/ SomA?

I'm betting Trinity is in the economic sweet spot--tall enough to house a lot of people but not so tall as to be affected by the high cost structure of highrises. In that sense, buildings like The Infinity and One Rincon are too expensive to provide units affordable by anyone except SF's most affluent citizens whereas most of the buildings going up in Mission Bay seem to me to scarifice some density in the name of aesthetics (especially as seen by the Potrero Hill Dwellers who objected to taller buildings at UC)--that is, they could house more people more economically if they were a bit taller. Actually, though, the tallest buildings in MB like the Avalon rental buildings may also have a cost structure similar to Trinity.

[mthd]

How is this biulding any different than all of the structures going up in Mission Bay/ SomA? Do you have the same feelings about those? I actually think these are less massed because of the open spaces and openess in the architecture instead of a block long 8 story building with no plaza or segmentation. The fact that these are all different colors or shapes will make it not oppressive but fun, visible, and modern.
What is all comes down to is the human scale and streete visibility, and this looks much more humane than what is there right now!

this is really not the same animal as mission bay or any other development model in sf. throughout most of mission bay and this (not that i think mission bay is particularly great) a project might consist of a tower or two combined with mid rise or low rise buildings. this is the model from the transbay d4d as well, and it's what is being built at the infinity, one rincon, etc. trinity looks to me like a pretty much incoherent collection of 15 to 24 story slabs on mission, market, and 8th. the sexy view from the 'plaza' which really an interior court doesn't do much to disguise endless facades of square windows.

that market street facade, for example, looks to be 275 feet long and about 140 feet tall - and that's just ONE of the 'towers' in this project - the shortest of them. i would challenge you to find a residential project that massive in san francisco. it's generally not allowed, and for good reason.

i realize that these buildings are in part massed this way because they are CHEAP (and there are significant cost and approval time issues with going past 240 feet). the city needs mid-market housing desperately, but not this desperately.

hopefully the renderings don't do it justice and the real thing will be less oppressive.

[fflint]

i realize that these buildings are in part massed this way because they are CHEAP
PriceCrime!

the city needs mid-market housing desperately, but not this desperately.
I disagree. After three miserable decades, Mid-Market is still the province of projectile vomiting-"homeless", stag theatres, and wholesale abandonment by the functional classes. You may wish to stave off the good to leave room for the perfect, but I think that is an ideology-fueled folly.

[johnd]

Finally, when you start talking about transportation around Civic Center, you really seem to go off the tracks. This building is on San Francisco's best-served transit corridor, bar none. If maximum housing density isn't suitable here, it isn't suitable anywhere in San Francisco.

[johnd]

Your right the location of Trinity is perfect for using the transpiration system. But my read of the EIR makes it seem as if MUNI underground would not be overly taxed by the addition of 1900 units at Civic Center. As someone who lives a block away from Trinity and rides MUNI to work every morning, the conclusion reached in the EIR just doesn't add up.

Riding MUNI at Civic Center during the morning rush hour is currently "manageable"; however, I am not certain this will be the case once the building is completed and somewhere between 200-400 people (my figures) descend on to the platform as part of the morning ritual.

Now growth in going to take place that is a fact of life; still, I don't think the city is correctly anticipating the impact on a much stressed system. Short of three car trains, I am not sure what can be done. What’s your solution?

[johnd]

Your right the location of Trinity is perfect for using the transpiration system. But my read of the EIR makes it seem as if MUNI underground would not be overly taxed by the addition of 1900 units at Civic Center. As someone who lives a block away from Trinity and rides MUNI to work every morning, the conclusion reached in the EIR just doesn't add up.

Riding MUNI at Civic Center during the morning rush hour is currently "manageable"; however, I am not certain this will be the case once the building is completed and somewhere between 200-400 people (my figures) descend on to the platform as part of the morning ritual.

Now growth in going to take place that is a fact of life; still, I don't think the city is correctly anticipating the impact on a much stressed system. Short of three car trains, I am not sure what can be done. What’s your solution?

[fflint]

What’s your solution?
What's the problem? You claim the project shall negatively impact Muni--but that is not obviously true.

[mthd]

Your right the location of Trinity is perfect for using the transpiration system. But my read of the EIR makes it seem as if MUNI underground would not be overly taxed by the addition of 1900 units at Civic Center. As someone who lives a block away from Trinity and rides MUNI to work every morning, the conclusion reached in the EIR just doesn't add up.

Riding MUNI at Civic Center during the morning rush hour is currently "manageable"; however, I am not certain this will be the case once the building is completed and somewhere between 200-400 people (my figures) descend on to the platform as part of the morning ritual.

Now growth in going to take place that is a fact of life; still, I don't think the city is correctly anticipating the impact on a much stressed system. Short of three car trains, I am not sure what can be done. What’s your solution?

sorry, but more riders on transit is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. crowded trains are better than crowded freeways, and as a daily muni rider for the last decade (including the market street subway) i don't think that crowding between civic center and montgomery/embarcadero is anywhere near a serious problem. the 38 geary and 1 california are far more crowded.

the EIR considers the fact that of these 2500 people, not all will work, of those that work less than half will work downtown, of those some will ride the metro, some will ride bart, some will take the f-line, some will walk, some will ride bikes, some will grab the first buy they see on market street (9, 7, etc) some will walk over to mission and take the 14, etc etc etc etc. a system that handles 700,000 trips a day, with subway stations capable of handling around 50,000 trips a day each is not going to be visibly impacted by 2500 people. that's exactly why this is the right spot for a project of this size - the tremendous multiplicity of transit options.

[BTinSF]

^^^I pretty much agree with mthd but would add that one of the great hopes for housing along this stretch of Market St. is precisely that a high percentage of residents will WALK to work down Market itself and that that number of middle class consumers passing every day will revitalize some of the storefronts between 10th and 5th; take them out of the hands of
"adult megastore" operators and put them into the hands of people wanting to provide goods and services to neighborhood residents.

There is a very hopeful commentary about Civic Center by Jim Hass in the new issue of SF BizTimes entitled "New residential Neighborhood on the Rise" which I will post--probably in a new thread in the "Bay Area" section--on Sunday evening when I can copy/paste it. He points out that there is now under construction in Civic Center (projects like 77 Van Ness, the Argenta, 10th & Market, Symphony Towers, SOMA Grande and possibly The Hayes) "some 1600 units of housing with another 2300 units approved (mostly Trinity Plaza)." He also says "and additional 1500 to 2000 units are in planning." Furthermore, he says there are plans to upgrade both Van Ness and Civic Center Stations.

But, in any case, there are going to be 5000-6000 more housing units in Civic Center--possibly as many as 10,000 more people--and that will finally transform the area from "Camp Agnos" to something worthy of San Francisco's seat of government. I can't wait.

[tyler82]

I don't think that the Adult Megashows are going to be that easy to get rid of, they make a ton of money and the sex attractions bring the city mega tourist money. Besides, I don't think they're too bad. They're vibrant and they have a life of their own. It's those horrible little rip off stores which line Market that bring the crime and other problems. Those I won't be sad to see gone, replaced with legit housing and storefronts.


When does construction begin exactly on Trinity???

[BTinSF]

Interesting rendering that makes clear something I wasn't clear about: the relationship of the 3 buildings:

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2006_3_15_trinityplaza-thumb.jpg

[BTinSF]

And an old John King commentary I missed but that expresses the concerns of many of us:

Here's hoping 1,900 new units don't add up to one big monster
John King
Tuesday, August 8, 2006

Only architects as sculpturally inventive as the ones at Arquitectonica could take an overstuffed political deal like 1177 Market St. and come up with a design that has the potential to be an energetic, counterintuitive triumph.

Now the question is whether Angelo Sangiacomo and his family have the resources and will to bring the potential to life -- and whether city officials will nudge them to do so in the first place.

How large are the stakes? Consider this: Sangiacomo wants to pile 1,900 apartments onto 4 acres at Eighth and Market streets in San Francisco. That's as many housing units as were added to the entire city in all but two of the past 15 years.

It's also nearly 500 more than Sangiacomo proposed in 2003 for the land now covered by the Trinity Plaza apartment complex. Back then, the project was pilloried by housing activists opposed to the loss of Trinity Plaza's 360 rent-controlled apartments. There were candlelight vigils and threats of ballot initiatives.

At Thursday's meeting of the City Planning Commission, though, size barely entered into the discussion -- because a deal was worked out. Sangiacomo, Supervisor Chris Daly and Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic agreed that when Trinity Plaza is torn down, it would be replaced so the first phase includes 360 new units governed by rent control. The project, meanwhile, would grow from 1,410 to 1,900 units -- an increase in scale of more than one-third.

Now, people who decried the change embrace the change.

"I stand before you in complete confidence that this is going to be a great project," Ken Warner of the Trinity Plaza Tenants Association told the commission. "We're thrilled that Mr. Sangiacomo has taken such a step."

Lost in all the predictable back-patting -- and the equally predictable mau-mauing that we'll get to later -- is the fact that a chunk of the city near Civic Center is about to get 475 new units per acre. And because of voter-imposed shadow restrictions from the 1980s, the height limits are snug. The project starts at 150 feet at the corner of Eighth and Market streets and peaks at 232 feet at the site's southeast corner along Mission Street.

The simple truth is that the project is too dense. But the way Arquitectonica has dealt with the density is ingenious: the Miami firm has stacked the units atop each other like an assembly of children's rectangular blocks, no two of which are alike.

There are three buildings in the design that was approved Thursday, yet they read like a collision of shapes and colors. Some portions of the outer walls are clad in sandstone-colored masonry, others in silver painted metal panels, others in glass.

The 17-story building that lines Market Street has an 8-story-high portal punched into it that is lined with shops and leads to a public courtyard. Along Eighth Street, a 6-story-high and 5-apartment-wide piece is missing -- but topped by a 2-story-high bar of apartments laid across it north to south.

It's as if several blocks of the city had been pressed together and stripped of details, so that right-angled layer overlaps right-angled layer.

"We set out to design something that is modern and abstract but at the same time deals with the issues of breaking up the scale of a project of this magnitude," explained Bernardo Fort-Brescia, who founded Arquitectonica in 1977 with his wife, Laurinda Spear, and has experimented with cubistic modernism ever since.

And even though the result is like nothing San Francisco -- or pretty much any other city, for that matter -- has ever seen, the approach is blessed by San Francisco's increasingly open-minded planning department.

"We feel the design achieves a really great interplay among forms, among solid and voids," said Craig Nikitas, a senior planner. "It's a complement as well as a contrast to the existing setting" of this stretch of Market Street, a hodgepodge that ranges from the Orpheum Theater to undistinguished office slabs.

For most of the 4-hour hearing, though, architecture and urban design were barely on the agenda.

Instead, speakers attacked the proposal's 250 commercial parking spaces: the site now has 450, but under brand-new city ordinances the parking shouldn't be there at all. There also were vociferous protests that only 12 percent of 1177 Market's 1,540 non-rent-control apartments will be rented out at below-market levels, instead of the 15 percent required in a law about to be enacted -- though the 360 rent control units bring the number of subsidized apartments to 34 percent of the project.

It's classic San Francisco: eleventh hour posturing over largely symbolic issues.

When the project goes to the Board of Supervisors for a final vote, here's what I hope happens: somebody pays attention to the city of the future as well as the politics of the present.

In a perfect world, this proposal would go onto the architectural equivalent of a treadmill and sweat off 10 percent of its mass, so that things weren't quite so monolithic, along Eighth Street in particular. But if that's not going to happen, what's needed is quality control of the highest sort.

Although Arquitectonica's theatricality wouldn't work in a wide-open setting, this stretch of Market and Mission streets already is cluttered. Passers-by will see bits and pieces rather than the whole.

However, the layering of colors and shapes will only work if the end result truly feels like an urbanistic collage. If the project is built on the cheap, if we get flimsy stucco in a few quickly fading hues, the result will be blight on a grim, vast scale.

That's what politicians and watchdogs need to focus on now: making sure the developer and architects deliver what they promise. It may not be as fun as cutting deals, but it will help determine the livability of downtown San Francisco for generations to come.

Place appears on Tuesdays. E-mail John King, an occasional Tom Wolfe reader, at jking@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/08/DDGQVKBO1T1.DTL

[sbarn]

Does anyone know the status of this project?

Thanks!! :cheers:

[BTinSF]

^^^Hard to say exactly what's going on at this minute, but it was only approved 2 months ago and a forumer who claims to be in the know told us a construction contract was let to Cannon (who is also doing the demolition work at 45 Lansing)--for the whole project or just the first phase (the tallest building fronting Mission) he didn't say--and he expects work to begin fairly soon. This is to be a rental project and although the condo market is slowing, the rental market in SF is apparently booming so nothing to slow it there.

[northbay]

^dont they still need to acquire financing?

[BTinSF]

^^^I don't know. We don't usually find out such things until they put up a sign at the construction site saying whose funding the project.

[BTinSF]

SF Business Times says in today's issue: "Ground breaking on the first $75M, 26-story building is planned for fall."

[aluminum]

Is this project bigger than Merchandise Mart of Chicago ?

[roadwarrior]

SF Business Times says in today's issue: "Ground breaking on the first $75M, 26-story building is planned for fall."

Wow, they must've been able to get financing easier than expected. I thought the groundbreaking wasn't until Spring 2008. That's great news and I hope it spurs other areas on the mid-market to clean up. Its still sort of crappy when you go west of 5th & Market.

[BTinSF]

^^^It gets "crappier" every day. As I have mentioned, I spend my winters in sunny southern AZ these days and when I got back this year in April I was kind of shocked at all the empty, boarded up storefronts along Market from just west of 5th to 10th. It's much worse than a year ago--at least then m ost of the storefronts had operating (if marginal) businesses in them. I am hoping a lot of the empty real estate is because at least some of it will soon be demolished for the various projects (such as a shopping mall with [possible Target) we keep reading about, but meanwhile, "crappy" about covers it.

And as always, I want to thank my supervisor, Chris Daly, for the "crappiness". :hell:

[roadwarrior]

^^^It gets "crappier" every day. As I have mentioned, I spend my winters in sunny southern AZ these days and when I got back this year in April I was kind of shocked at all the empty, boarded up storefronts along Market from just west of 5th to 10th. It's much worse than a year ago--at least then m ost of the storefronts had operating (if marginal) businesses in them. I am hoping a lot of the empty real estate is because at least some of it will soon be demolished for the various projects (such as a shopping mall with [possible Target) we keep reading about, but meanwhile, "crappy" about covers it.

And as always, I want to thank my supervisor, Chris Daly, for the "crappiness". :hell:

Don't get me started on Daly

[viewguysf]

Don't get me started on Daly

At least Aaron Peskin came to his senses and threw him off of the Budget and Finance Committee. :D The guy gets crazier by the week!

[roadwarrior]

At least Aaron Peskin came to his senses and threw him off of the Budget and Finance Committee. :D The guy gets crazier by the week!

Maybe Peskin will come to his senses and kick Daly off the BOS. I would love to see that.

[Reminiscence]

Maybe Peskin will come to his senses and kick Daly off the BOS. I would love to see that.

Perhaps you're right. I wonder what possible effects that could have on other projects such as Transbay though :rolleyes:.

[northbay]

^ i know, lets how many ppl we can get kicked off the bos before the next election!! ;)

[roadwarrior]

Perhaps you're right. I wonder what possible effects that could have on other projects such as Transbay though :rolleyes:.

Why would replacing Daly harm the progress of these projects? Daly likes to state that he pushed through Rincon Hill projects and Trinity Plaza, but he really just delayed their progression, by demanding more affordable units. He and other supes almost KO'd Trinity Plaza, on more than one occasion.

Unless the replacement for Daly is even more of a fascist (unlikely), we'd probably see LESS roadblocks to future developments in the future.

[Reminiscence]

Why would replacing Daly harm the progress of these projects? Daly likes to state that he pushed through Rincon Hill projects and Trinity Plaza, but he really just delayed their progression, by demanding more affordable units. He and other supes almost KO'd Trinity Plaza, on more than one occasion.

Unless the replacement for Daly is even more of a fascist (unlikely), we'd probably see LESS roadblocks to future developments in the future.

It may not be harmful to the development, it may in fact be good for them. From what I've read over the months though, Daly seems to be a proponent for Transbay and Piano's proposal, and he likes the height (which, if I'm still on Planet Earth, is a good thing). In these respects, Daly serves as a positive force. However, I'm not dissapointed that Peskin did what he did.

[roadwarrior]

It may not be harmful to the development, it may in fact be good for them. From what I've read over the months though, Daly seems to be a proponent for Transbay and Piano's proposal, and he likes the height (which, if I'm still on Planet Earth, is a good thing). In these respects, Daly serves as a positive force. However, I'm not dissapointed that Peskin did what he did.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the height being cropped down, unless of course Peskin decides to replace Daly with John King. :jester:

[BTinSF]

I've resisted jumping into this off-topic banter about Chris Daly, but I want to make a few points, both on and off-topic:

- The design of Trinity Plaza, after years of delay, much of it facilitated by Daly (and even more by McGoldrick), is approved. It isn't going to change now unless the developer requests a change (which he'd be a fool to do since that would reopen all the negotiations) in his entitlements.

- Daly doesn't really support development per say anywhere, nor does he oppose it, much as Tony Soprano didn't support or oppose trash collection. He uses it as a source of funds for his own purposes, political and other. Any developer willing to pay his price can get his support, but the value of that support is dubious as Angelo Sangiacomo found out once he had paid it--Daly then stopped opposing Trinity Plaza, but when McGoldrick popped up with more objections, Daly didn't really fight for it either. Having got what he wanted, he let others try to get what they wanted. And the welfare of his district be d*mned.

- Daly has said he does not oppose height at the TransBay Terminal per se but he will oppose whatever is proposed if his price--lots of affordable housing, plenty of lucre for his housing-whore allies--is not paid. He can't really make demands yet since there is no firm proposal yet, but we can be sure that he will if he's still on the Board or otherwise in a position to do so.

- The biggest reason I hate Daly is none of the above. I hate him because he has essentially blocked the redevelopment of Mid-Market Street by blocking it from becoming a Redevelopment Area. Citizens groups and others interested in the city's future have proposed all sorts of projects to turn the area into an arts and entertainment district, which, of course, Market St. once was, and to revive it, including building housing like Trinity Plaza but not limited to that: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/04/24/MN162462.DTL&hw=Daly+mid+Market&sn=002&sc=936 Daly has said, "No", not until his price is paid. As the Business Times quoted him, "the city's controversial Mid-Market plan continues to be stalled, and Supervisor Chris Daly, whose district includes Mid-Market, said it (the mid-Market Plan) is dead unless more affordable housing and other community benefits are added": http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/06/26/focus2.html And so this important area of the city deteriorates, looking, as I've pointed out elsewhere, worse and worse by the month.

[viewguysf]

The biggest reason I hate Daly is none of the above. I hate him because he has essentially blocked the redevelopment of Mid-Market Street by blocking it from becoming a Redevelopment Area. Citizens groups and others interested in the city's future have proposed all sorts of projects to turn the area into an arts and entertainment district, which, of course, Market St. once was, and to revive it, including building housing like Trinity Plaza but not limited to that: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/04/24/MN162462.DTL&hw=Daly+mid+Market&sn=002&sc=936 Daly has said, "No", not until his price is paid. As the Business Times quoted him, "the city's controversial Mid-Market plan continues to be stalled, and Supervisor Chris Daly, whose district includes Mid-Market, said it (the mid-Market Plan) is dead unless more affordable housing and other community benefits are added": http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2006/06/26/focus2.html And so this important area of the city deteriorates, looking, as I've pointed out elsewhere, worse and worse by the month.

You are absolutely right BT, this is his worst crime of all. I've been following Union Square and Mid-Market development for years and Chris Daly has held that seedy area back more than anyone else in recent history. It's really criminal that he did it when this totally embarrassing blight in the middle of our beautiful City finally had a realistic chance to move forward and greatly improve. Daly doesn't really want improvement there because it's his power base and the people there love and support him. In the end, Daly doesn't benefit them either.

[roadwarrior]

You are absolutely right BT, this is his worst crime of all. I've been following Union Square and Mid-Market development for years and Chris Daly has held that seedy area back more than anyone else in recent history. It's really criminal that he did it when this totally embarrassing blight in the middle of our beautiful City finally had a realistic chance to move forward and greatly improve. Daly doesn't really want improvement there because it's his power base and the people there love and support him. In the end, Daly doesn't benefit them either.

Thank god for term limits and that this project somehow got pushed through. I wouldn't mind seeing a recall election though, so that we won't have to wait another 3 1/2 years to see any progress.

[roadwarrior]

^^^It gets "crappier" every day. As I have mentioned, I spend my winters in sunny southern AZ these days and when I got back this year in April I was kind of shocked at all the empty, boarded up storefronts along Market from just west of 5th to 10th. It's much worse than a year ago--at least then m ost of the storefronts had operating (if marginal) businesses in them. I am hoping a lot of the empty real estate is because at least some of it will soon be demolished for the various projects (such as a shopping mall with [possible Target) we keep reading about, but meanwhile, "crappy" about covers it.

And as always, I want to thank my supervisor, Chris Daly, for the "crappiness". :hell:

Are you retired? Must be nice to spend your winters down in Tucson. BTW, I lived in Phoenix for 2 years myself.

[BTinSF]

^^^Yes. :)

[Sacto]

That's a pretty big structure.

[tyler82]

Why would anybody think adding a Target store to this area is the right thing to do?? Talk about taking the san francisco out of san francisco... What would happen to the prospect of neighborhood businesses in the area if a Target opened? Wherever there's a target, there is a loss of the type of places that make this city DIFFERENT. I do not want this area to be a palace of Ulta Hair Supplies, Burger King (which it currently is), PetCo, and all the other soulless, neighborhood destroying retail. Look at the neighborhood around CostCo in soma- barren, desolate, large chunks of concrete parking lots, a confusing traffic grid.

Places like Target have dehumanized America quicker and quicker for decades. Why would anybody shop at anything within a 10 block radius if they could get it for cheaper, and generically at Target?
The prospect of a Target store downtown is something I would fight, and I don't think I'm alone on this. Keep the big box retailers out of our neighborhoods.

[roadwarrior]

Why would anybody think adding a Target store to this area is the right thing to do?? Talk about taking the san francisco out of san francisco... What would happen to the prospect of neighborhood businesses in the area if a Target opened? Wherever there's a target, there is a loss of the type of places that make this city DIFFERENT. I do not want this area to be a palace of Ulta Hair Supplies, Burger King (which it currently is), PetCo, and all the other soulless, neighborhood destroying retail. Look at the neighborhood around CostCo in soma- barren, desolate, large chunks of concrete parking lots, a confusing traffic grid.

Places like Target have dehumanized America quicker and quicker for decades. Why would anybody shop at anything within a 10 block radius if they could get it for cheaper, and generically at Target?
The prospect of a Target store downtown is something I would fight, and I don't think I'm alone on this. Keep the big box retailers out of our neighborhoods.


I think this is a ridiculous statement. I doubt that Target would "Destroy" the neighborhood as is. Rather, it would serve as an anchor store, to help allow for more smaller retailers in the area. It would allow for this area to become a destination (similar to the new Westfield mall) and people can go to other places besides Target. Target does serve a very important niche which is not being served at the moment in the city. For example, I shop at Target anyway, just have to go to Serramonte to do so. While there, I might also stop at BevMo, Petco, etc. It doesn't mean that I also don't purchase from local stores as well.

The Costco analogy was a poor one as well. We all know that SOMA is improving for the better and before Costco was there, it was ALL barren and industrial. Nearby Costco, lofts have been constructed and there are other nice shopping areas which I also frequent (Trader Joes). You have to remember that this is one of the parts of SOMA that has not yet gone chic and still has a lot of work to do for redevelopment. The same can be said for the area where Target is and often times it takes a major retailer to be the "guinea pig" in the area to help spur future developments and improvements.

[BTinSF]

^^^I'm very much with you on this one roadwarrior. Bloomingdales is a "chain store". So are Saks and Nieman's. But you can't buy laundry soap and pet food there. If San Francisco is to be home to "real people" with real budgets, it needs shopping venues for daily necessities that keep prices in line with what the rest of America pays--that's places like Target (and Wal-Mart but the politics of that are just prohibitive). Mid-Market is almost the perfect place in San Francisco for such a store. It is well-served by transit from all over the city. Retail there will serve not only the rich, but all the low income people from the Tenderloin, 6th and 7th Streets and the surrounding neighborhoods. And they need precisely the kind of shopping Target would offer.

Market St. itself cannot all be high end retail from one end to the other. San Francisco long ago decided NOT to gentrify the Tenderloin and that decision means we will not see high end retailing in the adjacent blocks of Market. But we can see modern, efficient basic retailing in clean modern locations. New York has done it for decades. It's time for San Francisco to do it.

By the way, the description Tyler gives of the neighborhood around CostCo makes me think he's talking about a different city. It certainly has no relation to the CostCo in San Francisco. The neighborhood around that has only gotten better since CotCo moved in and the only parking lot--badly needed for the nighttime enetertainment in the area--is inside the CostCo store. But, again, urban sort-of-big boxes, don't need parking lots if they are well-served by transit as any store on Market St. would be.

[Gordo]

I agree with the comments from BT and roadwarrior about Target. Sure, Target would pull in customers from all over the city and possibly hurt some of the mom-and-pops from far-flung places - but this area of Market (and the surrounding neighborhood) isn't exactly chock full of mom-and-pops that would be hurt by a Target. You can pretty much split the retail spaces in the area into these categories:

1. Boarded up storefronts
2. Restaurants - which would clearly benefit from more traffic in the area
3. Chain stores like Radio Shack - which seem to do just fine next to Targets in suburbia
4. Porn shops - I haven't really checked at Target, but I don't believe they typically have a giant porn section or viewing booths - could be wrong though ;)

I just don't really see the downside - we're not talking about putting a Target on Fillmore or Clement or in North Beach or Polk or Chestnut or Irving or any one of the other mom-and-pop neighborhood retail streets.

[roadwarrior]

Gordo,

Even if a Target were placed on one of the shopping streets you mentioned, I doubt it would take much away from business. You're talking about stores like Rabat, Marc Jacobs, Lucky Brand Jeans, etc. Most of these are high end stores and their business will not be canabilized by Target.

I'd say that places that could be affected would be more along the lines of Walgreens, but then again, there are tons of Walgreens all over the city and none seem to be canabalized by the fact that there is another location within 2 blocks.

As mentioned, this would mainly take away business from other store locations that are not currently in the city (Serramonte, Emeryville, Tanforan, etc).

[Gordo]

Oh, I agree with you, roadwarrior. I was just responding to Tyler's post about the possible effect on mom-and-pops.

I think that there are definitely stores other than Walgreens and those types that would be affected on some of the streets, though. There are large chunks of many of those streets that are not all high-end clothing flanked by Walgreens. Some of the "household item" stores on Clement and Irving, as well as hardware stores and pharmacies on any of those streets would certainly feel the pinch - but again, there is no way in hell that Target will be opening in those areas any time soon. Mid-Market is a great place for a Target.

[tyler82]

Ridiculous? Hardly.

If it happens I just hope they don't develop it a la Safeway on Market.

I think this is a ridiculous statement. I doubt that Target would "Destroy" the neighborhood as is. Rather, it would serve as an anchor store, to help allow for more smaller retailers in the area. It would allow for this area to become a destination (similar to the new Westfield mall) and people can go to other places besides Target. Target does serve a very important niche which is not being served at the moment in the city. For example, I shop at Target anyway, just have to go to Serramonte to do so. While there, I might also stop at BevMo, Petco, etc. It doesn't mean that I also don't purchase from local stores as well.

The Costco analogy was a poor one as well. We all know that SOMA is improving for the better and before Costco was there, it was ALL barren and industrial. Nearby Costco, lofts have been constructed and there are other nice shopping areas which I also frequent (Trader Joes). You have to remember that this is one of the parts of SOMA that has not yet gone chic and still has a lot of work to do for redevelopment. The same can be said for the area where Target is and often times it takes a major retailer to be the "guinea pig" in the area to help spur future developments and improvements.

[Jerry of San Fran]

I notice what appears to be a pile driver or drill on or near the Trinity Plaza site. Is the project finally moving aheard?

[tyler82]

I notice what appears to be a pile driver or drill on or near the Trinity Plaza site. Is the project finally moving aheard?

I hope so !!! "Mr. Newsom, tear down this wall!!!"
:banana: :banana: :banana:


This project is as exciting for me as Infinity and Once Rincon, because this is a much more vital area.

[BTinSF]

Cruising down Market St on a bus today, I looked between the buildings and saw what appeared to be several pieces of heavy equipment in the Trinity Plaza lot on Mission St. Tomorrow, maybe I'll be able to get over there and find out what's going on.

[Reminiscence]

Cruising down Market St on a bus today, I looked between the buildings and saw what appeared to be several pieces of heavy equipment in the Trinity Plaza lot on Mission St. Tomorrow, maybe I'll be able to get over there and find out what's going on.

I hope this means demolition/site prep will be underway soon. I'm leaving town soon so I wont be able to go see for myself :( .

[BTinSF]

OK, so somebody who knows construction tell us: What does this mean?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000306.jpg?t=1187998608

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000307.jpg?t=1187998675

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000303.jpg?t=1187998640

I took the pics and to me it looks like they are doing test pilings--trying to find how deep is the bedrock perhaps?

[craeg]

yeah, and getting soil composition. It's a good sign!

[TWAK]

is this the building with the moonstar restaurant in it? I eat there whenever I go to SF!

[BTinSF]

^^^Yes. For 26 years I've wondered if that restaurant was any good. Is it?

[peanut gallery]

As excited as I am about Transbay, I'm almost as excited about this one. Not so much for the design, which is fine by me, but for what I hope it does to this stretch of Market. There is a virtual line around 6th where Market's built environment transforms from slick to seedy. I have no problem with the Tenderloin, but I'd like to see Market, as SF's main street, built and occupied (meaning the businesses not the people) to a better level than this stretch currently meets.

As much as I dismiss developer's often overstated claims that suchandsuch building will be a catalyst for a neighborhood, I think this one can actually do that. It's good to see the first signs of this project getting started.

[viewguysf]

^^^Yes. For 26 years I've wondered if that restaurant was any good. Is it?

I don't know if anybody remembers it, but this entire property used to be Del Webb's Towne House, a fairly large hotel. It was always criticized as not fitting that site very well, especially with the disruption of the old street line and the parking lots. It also used to host many union meetings (such as my old Teamsters local) and seemed to have shady financial connections with unions and old Las Vegas, etc. When it closed and was reopened shortly thereafter as apartments, it was supposed to be temporary until the place was demolished. The apartments were terrible, simply rented with the cheap motel/hotel furniture still in place. I'll be very glad to finally see the whole thing obliterated and replaced with something dynamic and alive that greatly contributes to the neighborhood.http://cgi.ebay.com/Del-Webbs-Towne-House-San-Francisco-Calif-Ashtray_W0QQitemZ220142922582QQihZ012QQcategoryZ594QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

[TWAK]

^^^Yes. For 26 years I've wondered if that restaurant was any good. Is it?
You should try, it's an all you can eat asian buffet. Sushi, Thai, Chinese, I like the place. Pay at the door, like 15 bucks or something. Might be more or less now since I haven't gone for a couple of months.