SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[SFView]

I've been working downtown for almost ten years and the City has certainly changed a lot in that time, particularly now with the many new high rises that have been built or are under construction. But also AT&T Park , UCSF Mission Bay, and the renovation of the Ferry Building among many others. The sidewalk where Market turns into Portola hearing up to Twin Peaks provides an excellent vantage point to see the skyline and it isn't one I recall seeing in this thread, at least not recently. This was taken before the Super Bowl today (2/3/08). Many of the big projects are visible, including 301 Mission, One Rincon Hill, and the Infinity.

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg30/jcrotty_bucket/skyscraper/panaroma02.jpg

Yes, this is the view I see almost everyday, depending on the weather, coming down the hill on Portola Drive on the way to work. I just never have the time to stop to take any good photos. Thanks!

[SFView]

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/02/04/ba_greenbuilding04.jpg

I like it just fine at this height. It may be a little tall next to the lovely Audiffred Building on the corner, but as peanut gallery points out, it still fits in considering the entire row of buildings on this block. I like the green vines as long, as the building doesn't turn into some sort of big Chia Pet. It should be a nice addition along the waterfront. If the building greenery is kept well trimmed, it could even turn into another mini tourist attraction someday - and imagine Christmas/Holidays...

[peanut gallery]

Chia Pet! LOL! I hadn't thought of that. I think I'll call it that from now on. :)

[viewguysf]

Yes, this is the view I see almost everyday, depending on the weather, coming down the hill on Portola Drive on the way to work. I just never have the time to stop to take any good photos. Thanks!

This is my view and you drive by my house all the time then since I live very close to that spot on the city side of the street. I've been feeling guilty with all of the great pics in the threads that many of you take!

[SFView]

This is my view and you drive by my house all the time then since I live very close to that spot on the city side of the street. I've been feeling guilty with all of the great pics in the threads that many of you take!

Are you south or north of that house that decorates rather elaborately in their windows for Halloween?

[viewguysf]

Are you south or north of that house that decorates rather elaborately in their windows for Halloween?

That house is on the corner of Market and Romaine; I'm considerably south of there with a view from Foster City to St. Mary's Cathedral.

[BTinSF]

How did this neighbor of One Hawthorne escape being reported:

77 Dow Place (an alley of 2nd between Folsom & Harrison)
http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/6Feb08_dowExt.jpg
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

[peanut gallery]

What do you mean, BT? Hasn't that been there awhile (at least a couple of years)? BTW, that's where I stand to take backside shots of Blu.

[northbay]

doesnt look like much of a beauty either

[WildCowboy]

I think 77 Dow opened in 2002.

It's called Hawthorne Place (http://hawthornepl.com/index.html).

[peanut gallery]

I walked by One Kearny today (see page 56 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=24868&page=56) of this thread for renderings and 2-month-old photos). They have made a lot of progress in the hole. The foundation is taking shape and the bottom of a tower crane has been installed. It figures something would be happening when I don't have a camera with me. I'll try to head over there again mid-next-week.

[BTinSF]

^^^I was wondering about that. Go get that camera. ;)

By the way, those of you "in residence" in the city, now that several of the projects we have been following have topped out and some others are just about complete (Intercontinental, SOMA Grand, ORH tower 1) don't forget there are a couple more due to get underway:

- ORH Tower 2

- 45 Lansing

- City building at Golden Gate & Polk (demolition supposed to start in March)

- 350 Bush (to start "as soon as possible")

- One Hawthorne (demolition either underway or about to be with construction to follow immediately)

I hope any progress on these gets noticed and photographed. ;)

[Jerry of San Fran]

"Green" building on the Embarcadero - I have never seen a success with plants on buildings. They take a lot of dedication by the building owner to work and mother nature is always working against them - rain, wind and insects.

Fox Plaza - Sources in the building tell me that the Fox Plaza's business lobby will have a remodel starting on Monday. The Ruth Asawa fountain will be ripped out, the travetine stone will be covered with another finish, new lights and the onyx (?) columns will recovered. This will be the last vestiges of the original decor in the common areas of the building. People either hate or love the fountain - I have always been fond of it.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2043/2251873159_31d5b10189_b.jpg

[BTinSF]

This article doesn't really contain anything new for most of us but it's still worth reading, I think:

Friday, February 1, 2008
Bay Area sprouts new skyscrapers after lengthy hiatus
San Francisco Business Times - by Steve Ginsberg

Spurred by the strong regional economy the past four years, a building boomlet has brought two new office buildings and a hotel to San Francisco, while Oakland will have a new Class A corporate address. All open in 2008, but a slowing economy shrouds their initial success.

There hasn't been a major new Class A office building in San Francisco since 2002, but the drought ends with the opening of 555 Mission St. south of Market Street and 500 Terry François Blvd. in Mission Bay. The city's biggest new hotel since 1987 opens later this month when the Intercontinental welcomes guests at 888 Howard St. adjacent to Moscone West.

Oakland's first new office building since 2002 is called Center 21 and adjoins 2101 Webster St. It will make an impression in the growing Lake Merritt Kaiser Center business corridor.

The burst of expansion is a bit of a gamble in that developers have invested more than $700 million in four projects that face the specter of a possible national recession. After three years of rising rents and office occupancy rates, the market started cooling last summer. All three office buildings were built on spec -- meaning without anchor tenants signed on. Unlike other new hotel highrises in San Francisco, the $200 million Intercontinental does not include condos and must rely solely on the capricious travel and convention industries to generate revenue.

After two years of spiking rents, San Francisco's Class A commercial office market peaked last summer and Tishman Speyer's 555 Mission and CBRE Strategic Investment Partners 500 Terry François could face leasing challenges.

"I expect both buildings to be successful, but they have their work cut out for them. The biggest challenge is the cost of tenant improvements," said Wes Powell, a leading tenant broker at Jones Lang LaSalle. "The Mission Street building is in a better location in the heart of the market, but is so much larger. It will likely take 12 to 15 months to get it 95 percent leased."

Tishman signed DLA Piper to a letter of intent for 85,000 square feet to be its kickoff tenant. DLA is a global law firm that is expanding in Northern California and has been at 153 Townsend St.

The Intercontinental Hotel may have the best chance at getting out of the gate quickly as San Francisco's convention bookings appear solid in 2008. Atlanta-based Intercontinental has already achieved its first three-month occupancy goals through pre-bookings, according to the hotel's spokeswoman Carmen Perez.

Hotel consultants such as Curtis Davies predict the new hotel will have a solid occupancy rate between 65 percent and 70 percent its first year with average room rates above $200 a night.

555 Mission vs. 500 Terry François

Companies looking for space in a new San Francisco building in 2008 have options in two very different settings. Tishman Speyer's 33-story tower at 555 Mission is apt to attract more traditional office users such as law firms and accountants, while its smaller rival in Mission Bay, 500 Terry François, is looking to lure "progressive" tenants and high-tech firms to its bayfront location.

New York's Tishman Speyer has had a checkered past in San Francisco. It was forced to sell its Market Center project for $79.5 million after acquiring the two Market Street towers for $189 million in 1989. The demise of the dot-coms caused the loss, but its new building is a testament to the company's belief in San Francisco's office market.

Tishman has spared few expenses in crafting a silver LEED certified building that will add a greenish-white glow on the skyline at night. Its glass cable wall, 24-foot-high lobby will be used for art exhibits and could become an important public space. The building cost $300 million and with 625,000 square feet will be the largest and tallest office building in the burgeoning South of Market office corridor. Tishman declined to comment on the project.

The building will be completed in late 2008, but competition could come in late 2009 when Lincoln Properties could complete its 350 Bush St. building, a 350,000-square-foot, 20-story project in San Francisco's central business district. No other major office buildings have been approved in the city, although architect Jeffrey Heller expects the city will see a new era of highrise development in six to eight years.

"Within the Transbay development there will be some very tall buildings in the 600- to-1,200-foot range. This will be the next big thing," said Heller, whose firm worked on 555 Mission and 350 Bush.

Lowe Enterprises developed 500 Terry François, but CBRE Investment Strategic Partners is buying the building and was expected to close in the first quarter of 2008. The new owner is changing the building's positioning, emphasizing its environmental features. CBRE has applied for LEED certification that could render at least a silver rating. Going for gold was being considered.

"There is not a lot of office space where you can say there are beautiful, unobstructed views of the bay. There are bike paths outside our door where you can ride to the Ferry Building, and there is tons of housing near us at Mission Bay," said Meade Boutwell of CBRE who is handling the leasing. "We are positioning this as a destination office building."

Rising behind 500 Terry François will be two new buildings by Alexandria Realty Trust aimed at biotech users. No lab space will be available at 500 Terry François, but Boutwell said biotech firms in need of office space could be candidates. He doesn't see Alexandria's buildings as competition, but rather a needed addition to create critical mass in Mission Bay.

"We are looking at tenants from Silicon Valley to Marin to the East Bay who are looking to access quality employees. We would think a progressive user would be attracted, but these days many companies have changed and maybe an accounting firm could end up here."

Wave of Oakland investment

Dan Cushing, senior vice president of Brandywine Realty Trust, doesn't see his Center 21 project as an isolated project on the fringe of Oakland's downtown, and that is why he is confident of its ultimate success.

"There has been a $1 billion investment in a four-block area, and we're in the center of it. We are delivering the first piece, and the wave of investment will wash over us. I can't help but think all the new residential projects and retail will help our project," Cushing said. "The developments will create a 24-7 city, and this transformation is very exciting."

Brandywine's new building contains 215,000 square feet and sits tucked in the shadow of 2101 Webster St., which is 95 percent leased. It's an $80 million project that replaces the former Bermuda building that was red-tagged following the 1989 earthquake. By creating a new lobby plaza that connects both buildings, Brandywine has tried to make the two buildings seamless, although 2101 Webster was built in 1986. With glass on three sides, the new building has many green features and Cushing hopes for a gold LEED certification. It would be among California's first gold commercial office buildings.

Leasing efforts began in late 2007. The building is ready for occupancy now, but needs an anchor tenant.

"Our focus is to find an anchor who can take between 50,000 and 150,000 square feet," Cushing said. "Firms from San Francisco and out of the Oakland market are likely candidates, and we're hoping we can find our anchor and get the building leased sooner rather than later."
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/02/04/focus3.html?t=printable

[Reminiscence]

I was heading into town yesterday to spend the beautiful day at the Golden Gate Bridge. I took advantage of the rare chance of not driving into town and took some shots from the Bay Bridge. I tried my best to make them as definitive as possible.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6285/dsc01934ao3.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6007/dsc01935gr3.jpg

[condodweller]

"(after the planned development is completed) No one is going to be able to see the city from the bay bridge."
-I'm pretty sure our skyline IS the city.

Well, actually there are the several hills behind the skyline that give San Francisco its natural beauty. I actually agree with her on that one.

[peanut gallery]

Hey Rem! Long time, no see. Nice job framing those three projects.

[_J_]

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6285/dsc01934ao3.jpg


Absolutely perfect pic of the new highrises---makes the City look downright booming! :notacrook:

[Reminiscence]

Hey Rem! Long time, no see. Nice job framing those three projects.

Thanks! With the car moving so much, I'm surprised I was able to get such a nice frame.

Yes it has been a while since I checked in :).
My brothers from Guatemala have come to visit me, so we've been all over the place really, with little time to spare.

Absolutely perfect pic of the new highrises---makes the City look downright booming! :notacrook:

Thanks again :)
It does seem to look busier than it is from this angle.

[FourOneFive]

Well, actually there are the several hills behind the skyline that give San Francisco its natural beauty. I actually agree with her on that one.

Here's some advice to you and Sue. First, focus on the rode while driving. You shouldn't be looking for hills, fog, birds, the sunset, etc; you should be focusing on the road and the cars ahead of you. Second, if you do feel the urge to look for the hills, wait a few minutes. As it stands now (even before the planned Transbay and the other Rincon towers), you can't see the hills anyway from the Bay Bridge. Once you clear downtown, you should be able to see Twin Peaks and (most of) the other hills just fine. :yes:

[SFView]

Here's some advice to you and Sue. First, focus on the rode while driving. You shouldn't be looking for hills, fog, birds, the sunset, etc; you should be focusing on the road and the cars ahead of you. Second, if you do feel the urge to look for the hills, wait a few minutes. As it stands now (even before the planned Transbay and the other Rincon towers), you can't see the hills anyway from the Bay Bridge. Once you clear downtown, you should be able to see Twin Peaks and (most of) the other hills just fine. :yes:

I agree. How many years back can we find hills that are not currently visible from the Bay Bridge visible...40-45 years or more? Furthermore, the only hills that any of the proposed Transbay and Rincon towers will block from the Bay Bridge are the almost hills of existing skyscrapers behind them.

[SFView]

Here are a couple photos taken by my 4 year old daughter on Thu., Feb. 7, 2008. She wanted to take these from her window seat that she also wanted. I didn't tell her what to take, but somehow she knew what was most important:
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_2341.jpg

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/IMG_2345.jpg

[condodweller]

Here's some advice to you and Sue. First, focus on the rode while driving. You shouldn't be looking for hills, fog, birds, the sunset, etc; you should be focusing on the road and the cars ahead of you.

Perhaps, but considering folks on this thread are marveling at photos of buildings taken from a moving car on the bridge, I'm not feeling too bad about it!:jester:

At any rate, my point is that this city's natural beauty should not be overlooked. Unlike Manhattan, we actually have something other than buildings to look at!

[FourOneFive]

Perhaps, but considering folks on this thread are marveling at photos of buildings taken from a moving car on the bridge, I'm not feeling too bad about it!:jester:

At any rate, my point is that this city's natural beauty should not be overlooked. Unlike Manhattan, we actually have something other than buildings to look at!

True, but I don't believe anyone is overlooking San Francisco's natural beauty. Unfortunately, NIMBYs like Sue Hestor try to twist the issue, and make it seem as if building high-rises will destroy the natural beauty of the city. Skyscrapers won't destroy the bay, keep the fog away, or bury the hills. In fact, taller towers on Rincon, Cathedral, Nob, Telegraph, and Russian Hills actually accentuate the natural topography of the city. The only thing that may truly be altered will be views. And these views are typically those of a select few who will complain. If someone's life is dramatically affected because they can't see the Bay Bridge from their bedroom window, then they should really open their eyes because there are much bigger things to worry about.

IMO San Francisco can have big, beautiful skyscrapers and keep its natural beauty.

[Reminiscence]

Here are a couple photos taken by my 4 year old daughter on Thu., Feb. 7, 2008. She wanted to take these from her window seat that she also wanted. I didn't tell her what to take, but somehow she knew what was most important.

Only 4 years old? Wow, I must say, she has a talent at an early age. :yes:

Very impressive, thanks for sharing!

[viewguysf]

True, but I don't believe anyone is overlooking San Francisco's natural beauty. Unfortunately, NIMBYs like Sue Hestor try to twist the issue, and make it seem as if building high-rises will destroy the natural beauty of the city. Skyscrapers won't destroy the bay, keep the fog away, or bury the hills. In fact, taller towers on Rincon, Cathedral, Nob, Telegraph, and Russian Hills actually accentuate the natural topography of the city. The only thing that may truly be altered will be views. And these views are typically those of a select few who will complain. If someone's life is dramatically affected because they can't see the Bay Bridge from their bedroom window, then they should really open their eyes because there are much bigger things to worry about.

I think that there has been a considerable amount of self justification on the last two pages. As a fan of highrises, skyscrapers and architecture in general, I think that destroying views does matter. The idea that it's a "select few" is a gross untruth. The observation deck on Twin Peaks is loosing its view of the Bay Bridge, as are Dolores Park and many other areas. THIS MATTERS! People from around the world come here to marvel at the beautiful setting of our City; a large number of them can see skyscrapers elsewhere, and many of them that can are most likely looking at far better architecture than what we have to offer with the large number of mediocre major structures that we display to the world.

I'm not against the downtown core being built up, including the true skyscrapers that are yet to come. I am against misplacement of skyscrapers that disfigure views in multiple directions and, as many here have proudly proclaimed, give the finger to the City. That having been stated, I don't even dislike One Rincon Hill for what it is, just where it is. You can get your thrills looking down City streets at it (as I have), but we need to be more careful when viewing the big picture of our unique metropolis in its entirety.

[viewguysf]

Here's some advice to you and Sue. First, focus on the rode while driving. You shouldn't be looking for hills, fog, birds, the sunset, etc; you should be focusing on the road and the cars ahead of you.

Isn't this a little hypocritical when we're doing the same thing trying to look at our new skyscrapers rising? I have often had trouble catching a good view of our new developments when driving alone (I know...not sustainable), especially with the continual road reconfigurations and the amount of traffic present.

[peanut gallery]

Those are fantastic, SFView. I would be impressed if an adult took them and she's only four years old! She even managed to keep ORH in the frame of the first one.

[SFView]

Only 4 years old? Wow, I must say, she has a talent at an early age. :yes:

Very impressive, thanks for sharing!

Those are fantastic, SFView. I would be imressed if an adult took them and she's only four years old! She even managed to keep ORH in the frame of the first one.

When she started shooting those pictures, I had no real idea just what she was aiming at, since I had the aisle seat and another family member between us. I was surprised that she got almost exactly what I would have taken, if I were in her seat. I showed her my post with her photos that everyone could see, and she said, "I took those pictures for all the people to see." Thanks from the both of us!

By the way, where did we go? See some of my posts and my own photos here:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3349482&posted=1#post3349482
...and the page before it.

[peanut gallery]

By the way, those of you "in residence" in the city, now that several of the projects we have been following have topped out and some others are just about complete (Intercontinental, SOMA Grand, ORH tower 1) don't forget there are a couple more due to get underway:

- ORH Tower 2

- 45 Lansing

- City building at Golden Gate & Polk (demolition supposed to start in March)

- 350 Bush (to start "as soon as possible")

- One Hawthorne (demolition either underway or about to be with construction to follow immediately)

I hope any progress on these gets noticed and photographed. ;)

I checked out 350 Bush today. No sign whatsoever of work starting. Of course, they could be working on the inside of the old Exchange building. But if so, you couldn't tell from outside.

Same with 45 Lansing and the second ORH.

[FourOneFive]

I think that there has been a considerable amount of self justification on the last two pages. As a fan of highrises, skyscrapers and architecture in general, I think that destroying views does matter. The idea that it's a "select few" is a gross untruth. The observation deck on Twin Peaks is loosing its view of the Bay Bridge, as are Dolores Park and many other areas. THIS MATTERS! People from around the world come here to marvel at the beautiful setting of our City; a large number of them can see skyscrapers elsewhere, and many of them that can are most likely looking at far better architecture than what we have to offer with the large number of mediocre major structures that we display to the world.

Your argument is flawed. When you are talking about "views", you are only mentioning the Bay Bridge. Views are still preserved, just not of ONE bridge. Why is the view of the Bay Bridge so central to everyone's argument as to why SF shouldn't be building skyscrapers on Rincon Hill? People act as if that's the ONLY thing people look for when they're on Twin Peaks. Last I checked, you still get beautiful, sweeping views of the Bay Area from Twin Peaks and Dolores Park. I can still see landmarks like Golden Gate Bridge, City Hall, Coit Tower, and the natural topography of the city from Twin Peaks.

As for the mediocre major structures in the city, blame the NIMBYs of the 1980s who essentially codified mediocrity into the General Plan and planning codes with junk like Prop M in 1986.

[twinpeaks]

I think that there has been a considerable amount of self justification on the last two pages. As a fan of highrises, skyscrapers and architecture in general, I think that destroying views does matter. The idea that it's a "select few" is a gross untruth. The observation deck on Twin Peaks is loosing its view of the Bay Bridge, as are Dolores Park and many other areas. THIS MATTERS! People from around the world come here to marvel at the beautiful setting of our City; a large number of them can see skyscrapers elsewhere, and many of them that can are most likely looking at far better architecture than what we have to offer with the large number of mediocre major structures that we display to the world.


Views are nice, but is that what's important in having a socially diverse, economically robust and environmentally focus city?
We need more housing by increasing density in neighborhoods and build tall buildings to support the high housing demand. Limiting housing will only drive the housing prices even higher. It is already unaffordable for middle income people. We need to support job growth in downtown by building more office space for companies to expand or relocate to SF. We can't depend on tourisim as our main business, we need a diversified economy. We have to think about the future and our environment by stopping sprawl and concentrate population and job growth in built areas.

Views from Bay Bridge and Twin Peaks will still be spectacular even with tall new buildings. We can't build a city based on an observation deck in Twins Peak loosing some of its Bay Bridge view or a tenant in Telegraph Hill complaining about a five story office building on a pier. This city should be beyond that, we have bigger, more important issues to address.

I apologize if it sounds like a rant.

[viewguysf]

I apologize if it sounds like a rant.

No apologizes needed from anyone--we're a group of people (mostly guys) interested in the same thing but with varying opinions about it! :yinyang:

[botoxic]

http://pixelmap.com/images/Nav/rincon2.jpg
(photo by WonderlandPark in the 301 Mish thread)

From this angle, the new Infinity tower does wonders to welcome One Rincon to the skyline. I can't wait for the new One Rincon to help close the gap. With any luck, 45 Lansing and 375 Cali will be joining them shortly.

[peanut gallery]

It will be a nice little cluster over there.

[peanut gallery]

I walked by One Kearny today (see page 56 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=24868&page=56) of this thread for renderings and 2-month-old photos). They have made a lot of progress in the hole. The foundation is taking shape and the bottom of a tower crane has been installed. It figures something would be happening when I don't have a camera with me. I'll try to head over there again mid-next-week.

Today, I brought my camera.

They have a pad of concrete down and is this the base of the core for the addition they have assembled here?

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7484/dsc09378gh4.jpg


The bottom of this frame is almost directly below me. They have removed all but a small pile of the dirt that used to create a ramp from the fence I'm looking through here to the bottom. It's a bit strange that there's nothing between the very busy sidewalk and a 20-foot fall straight down except a temporary, movable fence.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1393/dsc09379ti1.jpg

[Reminiscence]

http://pixelmap.com/images/Nav/rincon2.jpg
(photo by WonderlandPark in the 301 Mish thread)

Thats an awesome photo. The perfect vantage point for viewing the growing skyline. Is it available in a higher resolution?

[tech12]

We now have a rendering of the Giant's proposal for the giant parking lot at China Basin/Mission Bay, across from the stadium:

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/02/14/ba_port14ph.jpg

Giants among bidders to develop S.F. Port land

Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, February 14, 2008


A high-stakes competition for one of the last large tracts of San Francisco waterfront is heating up as developers submit proposals Thursday - and a group led by the Giants baseball team is already promoting itself as the only real choice.

At least three teams of bidders are expected to submit plans to the Port of San Francisco to remake the 16-acre stretch of land immediately south of the Giants ballpark into a popular destination with shops, parks, entertainment, arts, housing and office buildings.

The parcel currently is covered by a parking lot used by baseball fans on game days. But as a thriving neighborhood has emerged nearby, the Giants have seen the land as a way to stay atop the sports entertainment market that port officials hope will be a major revenue generator for the cash-strapped agency.

While at least two other development teams have quietly put together preliminary design and finance plans, the Giants created a colorful, glossy marketing kit and requested a meeting with The Chronicle's editorial board on Tuesday.

Team representatives told The Chronicle that their experience building the ballpark that opened in 2000 - also on port land at China Basin - made the Giants and their partners the most qualified to handle the complicated project.

"We're uniquely bought into this," said Larry Baer, chief operating officer for the Giants, noting that the team already had sunk $357 million and their reputations into creating AT&T Park across McCovey Cove from the proposed development site. "No one else has been able to pull off a project of this scale on the waterfront. ... We can develop this for the port better than others can."

The team and port officials also have made it clear that developers of the port property - called Seawall Lot 337 - will need parking to accommodate the new development as well as the baseball park's visitors.

The team has completed its own study of fan parking habits, and the port has said that survey will factor into how much parking is required in the new project.

The Giants' preliminary development proposal includes 875 homes, many of which will be in a 300-foot high-rise, 800,000 square feet of office space and a parking garage. The plan also features a 5,000-seat music hall, an entertainment district with restaurants, bowling and nightclubs, a 5-acre park and a refurbished pier available for staging trade shows and private events. Total development costs are estimated at more than $1 billion.

The Giants said their development team - including Cordish Co. of Baltimore and San Francisco-based Farallon Capital Management - would cover the costs of the project that they estimate at more than $1 billion. Farallon is an owner in the adjacent Mission Bay development, which includes a new UCSF campus.

While the Giants promote themselves as the best choice, an unknown number of proposals will be reviewed. The bids are to be vetted first by an eight-member advisory group and then the mayoral-appointed Port Commission. Construction would probably not begin for three or four years.

Port project manager Diane Oshima said Wednesday that she knew of at least two development teams, in addition to the Giants-led group, that had decided to submit proposals.

The first team is headed by Treasure Island developer and Democratic Party fundraiser Darius Anderson. It includes Boston Properties, which developed the Embarcadero Center, and Wilson, Meany, Sullivan, which led the Ferry Building rebuild.

Anderson said his proposal would take the Ferry Building's model of a food destination, with farmers' markets and restaurants, but use art as the draw instead for Seawall Lot 337.

Anderson, whose Kenwood Investments owns the aquarium at Pier 39, said his project would include 1,700 housing units and office space, but would also offer submarket rents for gallery space and would feature a monthly art walk for artists to show and sell their creations.

"In the United States, art has become a tourist attraction and San Francisco is one of the most artistic cities in the world, but the real estate market is pricing artists out," Anderson said.

The other known proposal is from Build Inc. and Urban Green Development. It features a green technology business incubator, offices and 1,600 homes, according to Build Inc.'s Lou Vasquez. It also includes artist studios, an art exhibition center, a wholesale market and parks, he said.

Vasquez said he doesn't believe the Giants have an edge.

"We're not worried about going against the Giants; we think we've got a decent shot," said Vasquez. "Whether it's us or someone else, we want to see the right thing there - it's a great site and we want to see it done right."

Port officials see the parcel as an underutilized revenue source that could help chip away at its $1.9 billion in unfunded capital costs by creating a public destination that would generate tax and rental income.

Two pieces of state legislation have paved the way for the port to develop the land. The first allows for housing and office development, which are generally prohibited on waterfront property in California. The second allows the port to capture 65 percent of property tax revenues in areas that the port designates as infrastructure financing districts. The money would otherwise go the city's general fund.

Port officials expect to be able to charge as much as $15 million a year on a planned 75-year ground lease for the parcel. And port officials already have identified several piers that would be repaired with the money.

The port controls 600 acres along the bay shoreline, but when the state handed off the land to the city in 1969, the city's piers and seawalls were decrepit. That situation has only worsened, and the estimated price tag to repair the aging network of rusted piers and other infrastructure has ballooned.

"This development could significantly help us address our capital costs and revitalize the southern waterfront of the city," said Tina Olson, the port's deputy director of finance and administration.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/14/BAQAV1NNV.DTL

[krudmonk]

So Lew Wolff gets pegged as a greedy real estate developer and so what do the Giants do now? Develop real estate! Not such an aberration anymore.

It does look nice, though. That lot is so ugly now.

[WonderlandPark]

Thats an awesome photo. The perfect vantage point for viewing the growing skyline. Is it available in a higher resolution?

I have it as a full rez file, yes. As well as others from there.

[condodweller]

I think that there has been a considerable amount of self justification on the last two pages. As a fan of highrises, skyscrapers and architecture in general, I think that destroying views does matter. The idea that it's a "select few" is a gross untruth. The observation deck on Twin Peaks is loosing its view of the Bay Bridge, as are Dolores Park and many other areas. THIS MATTERS!

Very well said! Vistas of the bay, the bridges, the hills, the lesser cities across the bay :D , are all part of what makes this city so graphic, and they are being lost from a lot of public spaces. Quite honestly, I think this city is less beautiful than it was 10 years ago, and the only reason for it is that some of the buildings that have gone up are misplaced, plain, ugly, or all three. I know this is an unpopular stance, but for god's sake we really need to stop making everything out of blue and green glass -- we're starting to look like Houston!

[condodweller]

Views are nice, but is that what's important in having a socially diverse, economically robust and environmentally focus city?
We need more housing by increasing density in neighborhoods and build tall buildings to support the high housing demand. Limiting housing will only drive the housing prices even higher. It is already unaffordable for middle income people. We need to support job growth in downtown by building more office space for companies to expand or relocate to SF. We can't depend on tourisim as our main business, we need a diversified economy. We have to think about the future and our environment by stopping sprawl and concentrate population and job growth in built areas.

Views from Bay Bridge and Twin Peaks will still be spectacular even with tall new buildings. We can't build a city based on an observation deck in Twins Peak loosing some of its Bay Bridge view or a tenant in Telegraph Hill complaining about a five story office building on a pier. This city should be beyond that, we have bigger, more important issues to address.

I apologize if it sounds like a rant.

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views :D

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable. Considering that we have only recently slightly surpassed SF's population peak of the early 1950s (just before the big Suburban exodus), I don't really buy the oft repeated mantra "we need more housing" -- affordable housing, perhaps, but downtown highrise condos? This isn't a trickle-down thing, either --the people that are moving into the Rincon are not leaving behind empty affordable spaces in the Mission or the Tenderloin, they're selling off swank pads in Pacific Heights, or moving here from out of town (or just buying a "pied au terre" for their annual visit). The way I see it, downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space! Limiting more such structures does not in any way affect affordable housing.

To which I add that I agree that we need to bring more business into town, and as long as there is demand, we may as well build more office space. But there's a lot more to it than that -- many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay. After 100 years in SF, AAA just announced that it will sell its buildings on VanNess (now that the area is zoned for taller development), and move to Walnut Creek, taking 1200 employees with them. BofA preceded them, as well as Fireman's Fund, and other big employers. My guess is that affordable housing in the city is moot to their employees, who will now worry about affordable housing elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

End Rant.

[BigKidD]

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views :D

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable. Considering that we have only recently slightly surpassed SF's population peak of the early 1950s (just before the big Suburban exodus), I don't really buy the oft repeated mantra "we need more housing" -- affordable housing, perhaps, but downtown highrise condos? This isn't a trickle-down thing, either --the people that are moving into the Rincon are not leaving behind empty affordable spaces in the Mission or the Tenderloin, they're selling off swank pads in Pacific Heights, or moving here from out of town (or just buying a "pied au terre" for their annual visit). The way I see it, downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space! Limiting more such structures does not in any way affect affordable housing.

To which I add that I agree that we need to bring more business into town, and as long as there is demand, we may as well build more office space. But there's a lot more to it than that -- many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay. After 100 years in SF, AAA just announced that it will sell its buildings on VanNess (now that the area is zoned for taller development), and move to Walnut Creek, taking 1200 employees with them. BofA preceded them, as well as Fireman's Fund, and other big employers. My guess is that affordable housing in the city is moot to their employees, who will now worry about affordable housing elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

End Rant.
Well, I think you answered the question yourself- "many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay." Also, the East Bay and Peninsula are in my opinion cheaper places to run a business and businesses that moved out of the City don't have to put up with the Progressive politics of the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor either in their new environments. Furthermore, for example, I believe Chevron moved to San Ramon in order to consolidate their work force in the Bay Area and of course save money. I would say money is the bottom line for the move of businesses, and why run a big business in SF when you can just run it fine in another part of the Bay Area?

The Giants plan for the fan parking is quite interesting. Hopefully something decent ends up on that plot of land.

[murrax]

Thats an awesome photo. The perfect vantage point for viewing the growing skyline. Is it available in a higher resolution?

Agree what a great photo. Says alot for the Trans America building, it still catches your eyes at first glance ,until the new Pelli Clarke building rises which will catch the eye from sheer dominance rather than beauty.

[BTinSF]

downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space . . . . many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay.

That is happening all over America--even in New York (where they are moving to New Jersey and southern Connecticut). It makes no economic sense to have anybody from a corporate HQ except the executive suite housed in a downtown highrise--and that's true in every city. The per sq. ft cost is just too high. There are just a few kinds of folks that need or want to be downtown: The highly paid and those who provide services to them plus some industries mainly employing the young, single and highly talented (like software and graffic design) In SF, that means mostly the top tier of corporate execs, lawyers and financial firms in the highrises (the others prefer funkier space).

But there is no displacement going on. We don't lack office space because we are putting housing downtown. There's no unmet demand for office space but if there were, there are plenty of opportunities to build more (even within the 900,000 sq ft per year cap--from which housing is exempt).

[twinpeaks]

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views :D

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable.......
...... We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.


All housing types is needed to meet demand. But I agree with you, it would be best to build more housing in residential areas. There's so many places where we can increase density like along transit corridors: Geary, Mission, West Portal, Market, Third, etc. But there's always opposition: gentrification, traffic, it lower my house value(most selfish reason), not in my... How do we get the city and it's people more supportive of the idea? It's our city's social and environmental duty.

Regarding business, we need to look at New York and see what they are doing right. What city policy is driving them away...did it start with Prop M and other anti-business initiatives?

[northbay]

There's no unmet demand for office space but if there were, there are plenty of opportunities to build more (even within the 900,000 sq ft per year cap--from which housing is exempt).

there has been a trend where big corporations move their HQs away from city centers. sf has been hit by a loss of the financial market.

ur right here. there are plenty of opportunities for office. especially if the transbay terminal is built. there should be some mix of residential and commercial so downtown doesnt die at night. thats just asking for crime.

i agree with condodweller too that more housing is needed in sf's residential areas. sf has a dire need for housing everywhere. i think some of the mid-rise construction along VAN NESS is a good example.

[SFView]

The trend to build more residential and less office high-rises is common in many major cities across the United States. As other here have pointed out, it is the nature of current economics. Most usually these residential high-rises are built near downtown office centers, often on underdeveloped sites or in areas where it makes most sense environmentally, politically, and financially. Building higher density residential along major transit corridors outside financial centers also may make sense, but may be secondary, since such development is more likely to trigger local opposition. Buildings along transit corridors also may be more limited in height and density, but such development can still occur if most of the right conditions are satisfied. As residential density increases, demand of office space may increase related to proximity or accessibility by foot or transit. Other than these areas mentioned, most residential areas that are already well established, that do not already contain higher density mid and high-rises, will more likely oppose higher density housing to be built.

Generally, the development that we are seeing in many large cities in the United States is pretty much occurring where, and to the extent it is most practical to do so currently, but the conditions for development will continue to change through time.

[BTinSF]

S.F. housing boom moves to Van Ness
2,000 units already in pipeline
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

A residential revolution is revving up along San Francisco's automobile row.

As part of Highway 101, Van Ness Avenue has always been more about cars than people. Despite several isolated housing projects in the 1980s and 1990s, its automobile showrooms and snarled traffic have been the antithesis of the ideal of a quaint, walkable San Francisco neighborhood.

But with developer-friendly zoning, decent public transit, and land prices that are cheaper than other downtown areas, the avenue has become a hot spot with builders jockeying for housing sites, according to architects, builders and brokers.

"If you look up and down Van Ness, somebody is working on a residential development on virtually every corner," said Paul Zeger of Pacific Marketing.

A half-dozen housing projects are under construction or recently finished, including 130-unit Symphony Towers at 724 Van Ness Ave., a 54-unit 818 Van Ness Ave., a 50-unit project at 77 Van Ness, and a 29-condo building at Greenwich and Van Ness. A half a block off of Van Ness, at 1 Polk St., Anka Development is nearing completion on the 179-unit Argenta. Elsewhere, AF Evans is planning 282 units on a large lot at Pine and Van Ness, and Bayrock Residential has entitlements to develop 107 units and a Trader Joe's at the old Galaxy Theater on the corner of Van Ness and Sutter.

Taken together, more than 2,000 housing units are in the pipeline along Van Ness, with another 1,000 likely to be built at the four corners of Van Ness and Market streets.

Planning pays off

From a city planning perspective, the burst of residential activity has been a long time coming. In 1989, the city passed the Van Ness corridor plan, which changed the zoning from commercial to "commercial/residential." The plan also raised height limits to 80 feet in some parts of the avenue and 130 feet elsewhere. Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the urban think tank San Francisco Planning and Urban Research, said the 20-year-old Van Ness plan serves as the model for city's "better neighborhood" planning process.

"What we are seeing now is, through several real estate cycles, that plan continuing to be built out," said Metcalf. "Van Ness proved the value of neighborhood planning in the sense that we are not fighting about each individual project because we did the work up front."

Van Ness may also be benefitting from planning gridlock elsewhere. With the Eastern Neighborhood planning process still contentious and bogged down after eight years, and Market Octavia plan still stuck in committee debate, Van Ness is one of the few centrally located parts of town where dirt can be moved, according to Chris Foley, a principal with the Polaris Group, which does condo sales and works with developers to secure sites and entitlements.

"I think when SoMa and the Eastern neighborhoods got shut down there was less of a battle to do entitlements on Van Ness, so people migrated there," said Foley.

Another factor is price. As international developers like Tishman Speyer and Millennium Partners have scrambled to out-deluxe the last luxury tower, local entrepreneurial builders have been priced out of Mission Bay, SoMa and Rincon Hill. Smaller builders are looking for "a transaction, not for a luxury building that will cost $1,000 a square foot," according to Handel Architect's Glenn Rescalvo, who designed the Millennium Tower and the Four Seasons. "There is that whole $700-a-square-foot market that people want to tap into. I think that is where Van Ness is starting to head."

Rescalvo is working on one development on Van Ness and has a client pursuing several other sites.

"There is obviously a shift from these big buildings downtown, which take a lot of time and a lot more money," said Rescalvo. "The Van Ness Corridor from Market Street all the way to the bay is really starting to pick up some energy."

Van Ness Avenue could also benefit from the proposed "Bus Rapid Transit," which would dedicate a lane of traffic to buses and also green the street with wider landscaped median strips.

Staking a claim

As builders and brokers made millions by staking an early claim in SoMa and Mission Bay, the same is happening on Van Ness. One city brokerage, the Paragon Real Estate Group, is placing a big bet on the avenue. A fund put together by principals at Paragon, which has 130 brokers, shelled out $5 million for 1400 Van Ness, a historic former auto showroom which used to house the Good Guys electronics store. Paragon will use most of the building for its brokerage and develop a cafe on the street, according to Robert Dadurka, a principal of the Paragon Real Estate Group.

"We really wanted to be in the center of a lot of development action, and we really feel the city's next wave of development will be along Van Ness," said Dadurka.

The bullishness is also being driven by the hospital California Pacific Medical Center's plans to build at 1101 Van Ness. CPMC has also bought 1100 Van Ness for medical offices. Paragon Van Ness specialist Jay Pon expects that full-city-block development to attract doctors' offices, drive rents up and create new housing demands along with a new community.

"Twenty years from now, all the single or two-unit buildings will be gone," predicts Pon. "Van Ness will be more of a New York, cosmopolitan place to live, with groceries, transportation and health care all in one central location."

Architect Warner Schmalz of Forum Design has also carved out a niche on the avenue. Schmalz has four projects along Van Ness, including 1400 Van Ness, 77 Van Ness, and 818 Van Ness. He says 1400 Van Ness "will be exquisitely converted like the Avenue's Maybecks that house the Jaguar showroom and the AMC Theatre" at 1000 Van Ness. The design will feature a two-story glass and stone staircase rising in the lobby.

"It's a great part of the city and is really becoming a meld of high-intensity commercial and high-intensity residential," said Schmalz. "There are a lot of good bones along that street from the post-earthquake period and a lot of dreadful architecture as well. I think you're going to see a lot of new, appropriate building."

Measuring sales

The question of how well housing will sell on Van Ness remains to be seen, especially given the weak housing market. Symphony Towers, the largest Van Ness development now being sold, has 67 units in contract or closed, according to Zeger of Pacific Marketing, which is doing sales and marketing for the project. Zeger said sales are better than expected, and the studios starting below $400,000 and one bedrooms below $500,000 are attracting a lot of first-time homebuyers. The 67 units sold include the 16 below-market-rate units and reflect about seven market-rate sales a month since opening day, fairly slow sales, according to Socketsite, the real estate web site that closely tracks sales in all city condo projects.

But Zeger says half sold is not bad for a project that opened Feb. 8 and he is not worried.

"The services are there, the transportation is there, and even though you get some great views, it's still not priced like highrises downtown," said Zeger. "There is a big audience that doesn't want to pay the luxury prices downtown that is underserved."
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/02/18/story3.html?t=printable

I would add that Opera Plaza has only a few units for sale and prices seem to be holding up pretty well.

[SFView]

:previous: Aha, there we go! Like I said, "...when the right conditions are satisfied." It looks like Van Ness is the place for new residential development for awhile.

[northbay]

^ haha. good article. thanks bt.

sf has a dire need for housing everywhere. i think some of the mid-rise construction along VAN NESS is a good example.

(i wrote that b4 seeing the article btw)

[peanut gallery]

Sure you did...;)

Good call, BTW.

[coyotetrickster]

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views :D

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable. Considering that we have only recently slightly surpassed SF's population peak of the early 1950s (just before the big Suburban exodus), I don't really buy the oft repeated mantra "we need more housing" -- affordable housing, perhaps, but downtown highrise condos? This isn't a trickle-down thing, either --the people that are moving into the Rincon are not leaving behind empty affordable spaces in the Mission or the Tenderloin, they're selling off swank pads in Pacific Heights, or moving here from out of town (or just buying a "pied au terre" for their annual visit). The way I see it, downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space! Limiting more such structures does not in any way affect affordable housing.

To which I add that I agree that we need to bring more business into town, and as long as there is demand, we may as well build more office space. But there's a lot more to it than that -- many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay. After 100 years in SF, AAA just announced that it will sell its buildings on VanNess (now that the area is zoned for taller development), and move to Walnut Creek, taking 1200 employees with them. BofA preceded them, as well as Fireman's Fund, and other big employers. My guess is that affordable housing in the city is moot to their employees, who will now worry about affordable housing elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

End Rant.

Not to quibble about the main gist of the posting re: job creation. However, for the record, BoA did not relocate. BoA was out-manoeuvered in a corporate merger by it's 'co-equal' partner, NationsBank. BoA completely underestimated former NationsBank CEO, Hugh McColl, Jr. The entire entity ended up being moved to Charlotte. The original terms for the merger proposed dual HQ.

SF will never host large back office admin operations again. Land simply cost too much to justify housing these cost-center operations in the city. Small, high IQ companies are the wave of this city's future, regardless of how loud groups like the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition or Sue Hestor and company scream. To house the folks who will be needed to support those companies, we need to realistically think about the artificial scarcity created by the 50-ft citywide height limit (i.e. the general overlay). Think about the wasted density along 19th Street, Sloat, and Sunset...

[BTinSF]

Two more small projects near the Van Ness corridor courtesy http://www.socketsite.com/ :

Pacific & Polk (former Jugshop location):

What appears to be a 6-story building with approx. 40 condos over retail
http://www.socketsite.com/Pacific%20Terrace%20Drawings.jpg

and 1299 Bush (at Larkin):

8 stories of condos
http://www.socketsite.com/1299%20Bush%20Rendering.jpg

[FourOneFive]

Typical San Francisco...

Larger agendas stall city's best-laid plans
John King
Monday, February 18, 2008

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/18/DDDHV2JOE.DTL

If you want to see what's wrong with planning in San Francisco - and how the city suffers as a result - take a stroll down Octavia Boulevard.

A year ago, four empty lots along the way were awarded to architects and developers who won a civic competition. Neighborhood leaders helped draw up the rules. They praised the winning designs.

But today the land's still empty, and there's no telling when that might change. Those fenced-off lots are in limbo - victims of a larger process in which everyone has his own utopian demands, and nobody's shy about gumming up the works if he doesn't get what he wants.

The delay is especially frustrating because Octavia Boulevard should be a success story.

An elevated freeway once loomed there. Now that structure touches earth south of Market Street, replaced by a four-block boulevard designed to handle commute traffic in the middle and local traffic on the sides. The roadway is softened by trees and shrubs that, almost 30 months after opening day, already look great. A small neighborhood park on the north end is a wonderful segue from the boulevard to ever-more-prosperous Hayes Street.

The boulevard exists because Hayes Valley residents persuaded city voters to endorse their desire for change. And when it came time to fill the land left behind, neighbors kept their standards high.

Working with city officials, they crafted a truly progressive approach to redevelopment. Freed-up land would be used for housing, with 50 percent reserved for low-income residents. Land-sale proceeds would help pay off city costs related to the boulevard and other transportation and streetscape improvements.

But wait, as they say on late-night television, there's more.

When the first four boulevard lots went on the market in 2006, guidelines requested "excellence and innovation in urban infill and architectural design." In other words, the city said it wanted to do business with teams that would propose buildings of lasting merit.

"We weren't concerned about getting the most we could from those sites," says Rich Hillis of the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development. "As long as we received fair market value, we wanted good design."

The winners selected last February lived up to expectations.

Two of the sites - a pair of 16-foot-wide slivers between Fell and Oak streets - would be filled with scaffold-thin glass jewels designed by Envelope A+D, an Oakland firm. The parcel where the boulevard meets Market Street was awarded to a sleek design by Stanley Saitowitz with enticing retail spaces.

The most intriguing team won the largest site. A collaboration of five architectural firms and developer Build Inc. nabbed a full-block chunk where freeway ramps once connected to Oak and Fell streets.

The team's scheme is like the boulevard, refreshingly old-fashioned. It calls for 12 buildings, designed and built one at a time.

In a rational world you'd see construction crews out there by now, installing their Porta Pottis and getting ready to start. The land would be sold, the projects would be approved. Octavia Boulevard's potential would be taking three-dimensional form.

Instead, nothing's happened.

When those first four lots were put up for sale in the fall of 2006, Hillis and other bureaucrats assumed that the Planning Commission would soon approve a new long-range plan for a string of neighborhoods along Market Street from the Castro to Civic Center, Hayes Valley included. The work on the plan had started in 2000 - that's not a typo - and various drafts had kicked around since 2002.

Nope. The commission debated the so-called Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan until April. The Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee didn't hold a hearing until October. The committee's second hearing didn't occur until Feb. 11.

In between, activists who wanted changes they couldn't get from the commission held a series of meetings with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who formally introduced the plan to the board. Mirkarimi's revisions follow the activists' cues, such as tighter restrictions on parking and doubling the developer fee beyond the one imposed by the Planning Commission.

Some concerns are neighborhood based and genuine. In other cases, it looks as if some activists want to up the ante here so that when they move to the next fight - over a larger area known in planning circles as the Eastern Neighborhoods, which includes everything from Potrero Hill to portions of the Mission and the industrial waterfront - they can tighten the screws even more: kick up the fees an extra notch or require builders to add more subsidized housing to their projects.

That's how the game is played in San Francisco, whatever political direction people are coming from: Always push for more, never feel qualms about changing the rules. And as long as Mayor Gavin Newsom slings mud with several supervisors, things aren't likely to change.

Now, neighbors and builders who don't like the activists' fiddling are raising a ruckus of their own. When the plan goes back to the committee next week, other supervisors might weigh in with revisions as well.

As for the four lots, the teams don't want to buy them because it isn't clear what the final costs will be.

I'm not saying there aren't legitimate changes that might improve the overall plan. But it's absurd that one small piece of the map - which evolved because of true community involvement - is jeopardized by the larger games.

Something eventually will get built. My fear is that the process will drag out so long the details won't matter. Whoever controls the land by then will just want to cut corners and move on.

If that happens, Octavia Boulevard won't be such a success after all. It will be yet another example of how in the endless battle over San Francisco's growth, the landscape - the one we all share - so often loses out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, if anyone's forgotten the designs for these 4 lots:

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/22/ba_b04_5star.jpg

Architecture+Design (Burnham Place):
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/22/ba_octavia_envelopea.jpg

Build Inc.:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/22/ba_octavia22_02_octa.jpg

Saitowitz Architects:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/22/ba_ocatvia_gateway_saitowitz.jpg

[peanut gallery]

What a shame. I especially like that Saitowitz building.

Speaking of which, either the map or the Saitowitz rendering is wrong. The drawing appears to be facing south up the ramp to 101 with the building to the west. That would place it on the diagonal corner of 101/Octavia and Market from where it is placed on the map.

[FourOneFive]

What a shame. I especially like that Saitowitz building.

Speaking of which, either the map or the Saitowitz rendering is wrong. The drawing appears to be facing south up the ramp to 101 with the building to the west. That would place it on the diagonal corner of 101/Octavia and Market from where it is placed on the map.

i think the map and image are correct. the incline of the road is actually octavia boulevard, not the entrance to the freeway (which is also an incline). if you look closely at the image, you'll see st. mary's catherdral, which is north of octavia boulevard.

[FourOneFive]

i was going through some images at the office and found a poster of all the projects for Lower Manhattan. I'd figure I would throw a (cheap, quick) version for Rincon Hill in San Francisco. I can't wait till all these towers are completed.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2061/2276589178_03d02a74f9_b.jpg

[SFView]

What a shame. I especially like that Saitowitz building.

Speaking of which, either the map or the Saitowitz rendering is wrong. The drawing appears to be facing south up the ramp to 101 with the building to the west. That would place it on the diagonal corner of 101/Octavia and Market from where it is placed on the map.

I can see how one can get easily confused, but the rendering is actually correct looking north at the northeast corner of Octavia and Market. Octavia slopes upward from Market heading north, just as the ramp to 101 slopes up southward from the same intersection.

Anyway, does anyone know any other big city in the world that it is typically more difficult to successfully build interesting new architecture in their own city than San Francisco?

[peanut gallery]

Thanks guys. I didn't notice St. Mary's back there. Makes sense now.

[SFView]

Thanks guys. I didn't notice St. Mary's back there. Makes sense now.

For some reason I missed FourOneFive's post saying almost the same, but that's okay. You're welcome. It must have been that nice Rincon Hill 'poster' that FourOneFive made that threw me off.

[BTinSF]

More new infill:

1645 Pacific
http://www.socketsite.com/1645%20Pacific%20Sketch.jpg

to replace this:

http://www.socketsite.com/1645%20Pacific%20now.jpg
Source for both images: http://www.socketsite.com/

[Downtown Dave]

I noticed this sign on the overgrown lot on Broadway between Battery and Sansome:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/BroadwaySansome-8271.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Not much detail to offer in my picture, but here's how the Jewish Museum is coming along. If only that wall was not there ... oh well.

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9115/dsc02032rj2.jpg

[peanut gallery]

Nice shot, Rem. That's not an easy one to shoot because of the lighting (shadow from the Marriott) and the dark blue color. You captured it well.

[Reminiscence]

Nice shot, Rem. That's not an easy one to shoot because of the lighting (shadow from the Marriott) and the dark blue color. You captured it well.

Thanks a lot. In addition to what you mentioned, theres not much space to stand back and get the whole project in one shot. As a result, it came up really close. Looks nice in person though :)

[BTinSF]

More infill:

1650 Broadway (between Van Ness and Franklin: now a parking lot)
http://www.socketsite.com/1650%20Broadway.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

It sure seems like 8 or 9 floors is the new 3 or 4 which is as it should be: Double the density, double the fun!

[Jobohimself]

Slightly off-topic, but I really wish they would redevelop the Tenderloin district. I lived in the TL for over 2 years and let me tell you, it is not a pleasant neighborhood.

[mdsayh1]

Could someone post a few pics of how Infinity is looking these days? That second tower must be getting up there by now?

[northbay]

Could someone post a few pics of how Infinity is looking these days? That second tower must be getting up there by now?

y dont u try looking at the thread on infinity? :cool: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=67546

downtown dave gives us updates like almost everyday it seems! :D

[BTinSF]

Slightly off-topic, but I really wish they would redevelop the Tenderloin district. I lived in the TL for over 2 years and let me tell you, it is not a pleasant neighborhood.

They are continuously redeveloping the Tenderloin. Most of what is going up are "affordable" or other subsidized projects, many for families, but there are plenty of them. The Tenderloin has a 9-story height limit so that's what most of them are. Currently there are projects at Polk & Geary, on Eddy between Polk and Larkin, on Mason between Eddy and Ellis, on Turk and a new one just announced on Golden Gate (I believe--can't recall exactly but it's in this thread).

When did you live there and where? There's some variability between the "hard core" Tenderloin (say, south of Geary) and what some call "Baja Nob Hill"--north of Geary. It's all intensely urban, but upslope from Geary it's a liveable urban neighborhood IMHO. On and south of Geary, you do have to dodge the hookers and druggies when out for a walk.

[Jobohimself]

I lived in student housing on the third floor of the Embassy Hotel on Polk and Turk. I worked graveyards at one of the busiest Starbucks in the nation; on 201 Powell street... let me tell you, those 12 AM walks past the Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist were pretty sketchy.

It's just a shame that the area is so run down since there is so much potential there.

[POLA]

Most of what is going up are "affordable" or other subsidized projects...

I wouldn't call that redeveloping that area in a good way. The TL has already reached what I would call a max capacity for "affordable" housing and anymore is not helping out the area.

[Jobohimself]

Correct. The low(er)-cost housing does little to gentrify the area.

[Echo Park]

I don't know if its because I'm acquainted with worse hoods, especially down here in LA but the tenderloin doesn't seem bad to me at all. Especially with all the activity around Geary and O'Farrell. I thought this hood already had its share of gentrification ever since the dot com boom. The TL is one of my fav hoods if not my favorite hood in SF.

[northbay]

Correct. The low(er)-cost housing does little to gentrify the area.

since when is gentrification good? (not that i like the tenderloin as is but it shouldnt be "gentrified")

[BTinSF]

I wouldn't call that redeveloping that area in a good way. The TL has already reached what I would call a max capacity for "affordable" housing and anymore is not helping out the area.

I think you are confusing "affordable" housing with "public housing". Most of the people going into these units are working families (or single moms) with kids making around $30-40K which doesn't allow you to rent a market rate apartment big enough for kids in SF. But it does help the Tenderloin to put hardworking families there in new, modern buildings that are not government owned or managed but owned by various non-profits who manage them well and keep them nice.

I agree with you that the 'loin has enough substance abuse services, free clinics, soup kitchens and so on. But working families?? I think the more the better.

Without such buildings, by the way, there'd be no place in SF for the people who provide services we all depend on. And the city long ago decreed that the heights in the T-loin could not go higher than 9 stories for the express purpose of stopping the replacement of lower-cost housing with highrise hotels for tourists and such. They also decreed that the SRO (single room occupancy hotels--renting by the month) could not be converted to tourist hotels renting by the night. So the Tenderloin is what it is and the only likely change is replacing the older, trashy buildings with new modern ones full of families. I'll take it.

[BTinSF]

I lived in student housing on the third floor of the Embassy Hotel on Polk and Turk. I worked graveyards at one of the busiest Starbucks in the nation; on 201 Powell street... let me tell you, those 12 AM walks past the Fifth Church of Christ, Scientist were pretty sketchy.

It's just a shame that the area is so run down since there is so much potential there.

Actually, I live at Turk & Van Ness, a block away and I don't think the neighborhood is bad at all. As a matter of fact, I love being a block from the Opera, and City Hall, 2 blocks from the symphony, the Main Library or the Asian Art Museum, 3 blocks from BART and on about 4 Muni bus lines (47, 49, 5 and 31). Admittedly, if you walk down Turk late at night, it's a little dubious but not actually at the corner where you lived. I assume you went to the Culinary Academy?

[Jobohimself]

since when is gentrification good? (not that i like the tenderloin as is but it shouldnt be "gentrified")

I am sure that you would say and think differently living in the TL. It definitely should be gentrified. They are doing some good things with sleazy parts of Market, and they should do the same for places like Jones street/100 block of Turk, IMO the worst, dirtiest, most impoverished part of The City.

[Jobohimself]

You are right, BTinSF (although in retrospect, I don't like to say so). The good thing about going to CCA, though, was the fact that I got to live and work in the best city on the West Coast for over 2 years...San Francisco is responsible for my newfound love of architecture and photography, Vietnamese food (Turtle Towers) and the neverending streams of attractive Asian women. :yes:

[BTinSF]

San Francisco is responsible for my newfound love of architecture and photography, Vietnamese food (Turtle Towers) and the neverending streams of attractive Asian women. :yes:

Then you should love those new "affordable" buildings--an awful lot of the families going into them are Vietnamese (or other Asians, but especially Vietnamese) and they have a lot of cute kids who will eventually become attractive girls and women. ;)

[SFView]

While we're on this subject, and for those who like to read...

From: Sage Journals Online
http://uar.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/4/483
Gentrification and Grassroots Resistance in San Francisco's Tenderloin
Tony Robinson
University of Colorado at Denver

Since World War II, San Francisco has been transformed by the high-rise postindustrial restructuring of central cities and by corresponding gentrification pressures. In one low-income inner-city district, the Tenderloin, residents organized and fought successful battles against the gentrifying growth regime through the 1980s. Moving beyond being a reactionary antigrowth movement, Tenderloin activists have advanced a proactive, neighborhood-sensitive regime, with a social-production capacity of its own, represented by the neighborhood's nonprofit housing movement. Their example teaches about the neighborhood-responsive progressive forces that characterize San Francisco and about the potential of grassroots mobilization as a response to international economic restructuring.

From: http://www.hoteltravelcheck.com/sfo/tenderloin-san-francisco.html
"San Francisco's Tenderloin: The Last Frontier"
This area is perhaps the last frontier in SF's ever-expanding gentrification trend, and you can still stumble on unpolished gems in the form of incredible cooking, unpredictable bar scenes, independently owned stores and great live music.

The streets aren't the cleanest, and you will be approached frequently by strangers, so just stay alert and don't let it get to you. You have to hunt a little harder for your treasures in the 'Loin, but in a city increasingly headed toward high-end everything, it's a small price to pay.

Tenderloin
The Tenderloin is a historic place full of preserved hotels from the early 20th century, some of which have been renovated into boutique tourist hotels and others into supportive housing. Squalid conditions, homelessness, crime, drug sales, prostitution, liquor stores (over 60), and strip clubs give the area a seedy reputation. However, these conditions have also kept rents in this area more affordable to low-income and working-class families in a city that is among the priciest in the country. The Tenderloin has one of the city's highest concentrations of children.

With some of San Francisco's most prestigious real estate only a few blocks to the north, and the Financial District's high towers, a major retail area, and hotels just to the east, the Tenderloin often surprises tourists to the city. As with other lower-income neighborhoods such as the Mission and SOMA districts, many artists and writers make the Tenderloin their home.

While the streets close to Market Street are among San Francisco's most undesirable neighborhoods, a gradual but distinct rise in income levels occurs as one travels north, ascending to the Nob Hill sector. Relative to other areas, the Tenderloin is the only largely working-class neighborhood within the downtown area.
The Dot Com boom in the late 1990s brought a great deal of redevelopment and resident inhabitation to the SOMA district in particular, but some revitalization funds put into the Tenderloin made a prominent impact — evident today by a much broader section of new ethnic restaurants and bars, as well as a more long-term young working class.

From the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/02/BAG58GG9EN1.DTL
SAN FRANCISCO
Tenderloin turning into new Latino neighborhood
Rent is cheap, but few social services for Spanish speakers
Tyche Hendricks, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, January 2, 2006

The changing face of San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood can be seen at St. Boniface Catholic Church, where 500 families typically flock to the Spanish-language Mass each Sunday morning.

While the parish in past years has had a majority of Vietnamese families, their numbers are being eclipsed by Latino parishioners, many of them new arrivals from Mexico and Central America, according to Sister Elisa Ruiz, a Franciscan nun who works at the church. The Latino presence in the parish is a reflection of the growing number of Latinos in the neighborhood, which is estimated at between 16 percent and 20 percent of Tenderloin residents, or close to 5,000 people, a jump of 80 percent from 1990 to 2000, according to census data.

On the nights leading up to Christmas, hundreds of Latin American immigrants tromped through the rain-slick Tenderloin streets enacting a traditional Mexican posada. The parishioners carried statues depicting Mary and Joseph on the road to Bethlehem and ritually knocked on doors, singing "In the name of God, I ask you for shelter. My wife is so tired, can we get a place to pass the night?"

After being repeatedly turned away and told "there's no room at the inn," the procession arrived at the Golden Gate Avenue church, where all were welcomed with hot drinks, tamales and a piñata for the children.

"They sing so loudly," Sister Ruiz said. "They really identify themselves with José and María, the idea of being immigrants in a land that's not your own."

"She was the mother of God, and she didn't have a place," just as many of these immigrants struggle to find shelter and a sense of belonging.

For more than a century, the gritty neighborhood has been a gateway for newly arrived immigrants in San Francisco. At the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, the Tenderloin's German immigrants built St. Boniface. Over the course of the 20th century, the neighborhood was an entry point for Greeks, Indians, Koreans, Filipinos and Italians.

In the 1960s, the area's studio apartments and residential hotels also became home to thousands of older single men, who had retired from jobs on the city's waterfront and were displaced when Third Street's skid row was bulldozed for redevelopment. And the Tenderloin has long been known as a crash pad for the homeless and for people with mental illness and drug abuse problems.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Southeast Asian refugees, especially from Vietnam, began moving into the neighborhood, with help from refugee resettlement agencies.

The newest arrivals, many of them Mayan Indians from the southern Mexican state of Yucatan, would previously have gravitated toward the Mission District, with its multitude of Latino markets and Spanish-speaking community organizations. But many have been priced out, as rents in the Mission have risen. In the Tenderloin, "you pay less than in the Mission, but you get less space, and the space is in worse condition," said Brad Paul, a senior program officer with the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, who advocated for many years to improve Tenderloin housing conditions.

In a neighborhood where 95 percent of the housing units are one-bedroom apartments or smaller, it's not uncommon for families to cram into studio apartments or residential hotel rooms.

Yucatecan immigrant Antonio Tuz and his wife are raising their three small children in a single room at a hotel on Jones Street. Bedbugs infest the building, the bathrooms down the hall are dirty and don't always work, the power often goes out, spoiling the food in their small refrigerator, and last week the couple's 7-year-old son got stuck in the elevator when it broke down.

"The manager just says, 'If you don't like it, then move,' " Tuz said.

But the rent is $600 a month, Tuz can walk to his job at a bar at a downtown hotel, and, he added, he feels safer there -- despite the winos outside his door -- than he did when he lived in the Mission District with its Latino gangs. Numerous nonprofit groups have developed affordable housing in clean and safe buildings in the Tenderloin, but many of the newest immigrants have entered the United States illegally and are not eligible for subsidized housing.

"When you get refugee status, you're entitled to certain benefits. When you're undocumented, you're not entitled to anything," said Yvette Robinson, director of tenant services at the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, which has had few Latino applicants for housing but many Latino children joining its after-school program in recent years.

Groups like the Southeast Asian Community Center provide legal aid, help with housing, citizenship information and small business development to Tenderloin residents who speak Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodian and Lao.

But the neighborhood's new Spanish-speaking residents find few social service agencies equipped with the language skills and cultural familiarity to help them adjust to their new environment.

"I can't think of many groups specifically geared toward Hispanics," said Don Stannard-Friel, a sociologist at Notre Dame de Namur University in Belmont who has studied the Tenderloin for four decades. "Once the families get here, where do they go? This is the poorest of the poor."

Last year, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and the Central City SRO Collaborative began an effort, called La Voz Latina de la Ciudad Central (The Latino Voice of the Central City), to help Latino immigrant families speak up for better housing and a safer environment for their children.

The newest arrivals have many of the same concerns as previous immigrants.

"There's no place for kids to play in the Tenderloin," said organizer Alysabeth Alexander, who spends her days going door-to-door in run-down buildings and phoning city inspectors about bathrooms in disrepair and broken elevators. "They play in the hallways, and they come upon discarded needles and used condoms. It's awful."

For Latinos, as for many other immigrants, the Tenderloin is a stopover en route to a more stable community with better housing options.

"Once they get a better job, they move out," said the Rev. Jorge Hernandez, the new pastor at St. Boniface Church, who has seen a number of his Mexican parishioners move to Richmond and other cities in the East Bay, though they continue commuting to hotel and restaurant jobs in San Francisco.

It's hard to build a sense of community in such a transitory place, said Hernandez, who has also seen Vietnamese families leave the neighborhood. But the parish is an important first stop for many.

"If you come to this country and don't know anybody, the church is a good place to make contact," he said. "In this community, if you don't have a place to stay, people will reach out and at least give you a piece of their couch."

For others, like Jose Luis Navarrete, 44, the Mexican-born popover baker at Neiman Marcus, the Bay Area's sky-high housing costs mean the tiny Taylor Street studio apartment where he has lived for 15 years may be home for many more.

"There have been stabbings in the building and drug-related shootings," he said. "But my rent is $386. In spite of the dangers, that's why I'm still here."

E-mail Tyche Hendricks at thendricks@sfchronicle.com.

[Echo Park]

The tenderloin has such a colorful history. I'd hate to see it get whitewashed by a wave of gentrification and redevelopment.

[Jobohimself]

Was "whitewash" a play on words?

Anyway, I don't want to see it completely modernized; a little grit is nice. But much of the TL is in dire need of development. Responsible gentrification is entirely possible, it's beginning to happen in the Mission district.

[BTinSF]

555 Washington (next to the TransAmerica):

Not a render but a footprint (and a very interesting one) of a proposed 38-story residential tower with 250+ units:

http://www.socketsite.com/555%20Washington%20Landscape.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

[SFView]

555 Washington (next to the TransAmerica):

Not a render but a footprint (and a very interesting one) of a proposed 38-story residential tower with 250+ units:

http://www.socketsite.com/555%20Washington%20Landscape.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

...Very interesting indeed. If I am not mistaken, I looks like starts out octogonal at the base, and twists and morphs into circle as the floors climb to the top. Thanks, BTinSF!

[POLA]

I think you are confusing "affordable" housing with "public housing".

Are most of these affordable units rentals or for sale?

[FourOneFive]

555 Washington (next to the TransAmerica):

Not a render but a footprint (and a very interesting one) of a proposed 38-story residential tower with 250+ units:

http://www.socketsite.com/555%20Washington%20Landscape.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

i wouldn't get too excited here. this tower IS being designed by heller manus. lol let's hope there's another firm involved in the project. where's arquitectonica when you need them?

[Reminiscence]

I'm not too excited that Heller Manus is designing, but I am excited about the shape the building might be in. At least it doesnt look like another box. Something in the polygon realm sounds nice, as it is laid out in the plan anyways. Cant wait to see 3D renderings.

[Reminiscence]

This also from Socketsite.com:

It was nine months ago that the news broke about Meany Sullivan’s purchase of the 26-story Pacific Telephone Building at 140 New Montgomery with plans of converting it from an office building to “a five-star hotel and condominium tower, with a spa, restaurant and bar.” And according to a plugged-in tipster that lives nearby (and in the picture), the project's environmental review notice is making its rounds.

The proposed project is a seismic retrofit and a conversion of the approximately 377,000-square-foot, historic Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. Building from office to residential use. The proposed project would contain approximately 135 residential units on the 2nd floor to the 26th floor of the building for a total of about 368,000 square feet of residential space, and an approximately 8,500 square foot restaurant on the ground floor. The height of the building would remain unchanged. An existing below-grade parking garage, accessible from Natoma Street, would be used to accommodate up to 70 valet-parked cars. The proposed project would also include construction of a single-storey horizontal addition to the building on an existing parking lot on the south side of the building to support the residential use.

Also noted by our tipster: "There's no mention...if this is a watered down version of the 5-star-luxury hotel residence that was mentioned last year, but it's good to hear that the building will hopefully eventually move away from being derelict!"

This may be old news for some, but the concept of a 5-star hotel is always nice. A "plugged-in" tipster mentions "Waldorf Astoria-San Francisco".

[BTinSF]

i wouldn't get too excited here. this tower IS being designed by heller manus. lol let's hope there's another firm involved in the project. where's arquitectonica when you need them?

Does H-M by themselves do spiral pinwheel forms??

[coyotetrickster]

Are most of these affordable units rentals or for sale?

There are two types of affordable housing offered in any residential project. If the building is a condo, then the units are offered as Below Market Rate (BMR). You have to register with the city and are subject to various lotteries or similar attempts at random luck as fair and open public policy. If the building is being operated as a multi-unit rental (i.e. apartments), then interested tenants have to submit financials, etc. and, again, operate through the city via the developer or property manager. This is not vouchered (like Section 8 housing vouchers). And, as BT said, this is not public housing.

[BTinSF]

Are most of these affordable units rentals or for sale?

I'd guess the majority are rentals. Certainly that's true of most of the large buildings going up in the Tenderloin, but 15-20% of new condo units must also be "affordable". Since that can be on-site or off-site, the developers of the poshest buildings are building affordable for-sale units at other sites to meet the requirement.

You might find this interesting: http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_index.asp?id=38653 . If you dig through, you'll find the incomes that qualify and the rents they would pay.

As you can see, in rare cases even people with pretty high incomes (and large families) can qualify--and pay rents in excess of $2000 a month (but try to find a 5-bedroom rental for that at market rate). I can remember when Willie Brown lamented that SF needed to build housing for doctors because too many of them couldn't afford to live in the city (sad but true).

[Jobohimself]

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but does anyone know the fate of the old (bulky/ugly) Federal Building?

[BTinSF]

Which one? The 30's Beaux Arts Federal Building, which I would hardly call "ugly", may ultimately be converted into condos. The 60's Burton Federal Building, about which I would call "ugly" an inadequate adjective (I've always thought it the most obscene building in town), will continue in its role as a Federal Building. The Feds were renting office space around town and it's the agencies occupying that rental space that have moved into the new Federal Building.

[Jobohimself]

I did indeed mean the Burton atrocity at Polk and Golden Gate. Too bad we can't stick a highrise in its massive footprint.

[CityKid]

This is a lesser known project that has fallen off the radar. Behold 1301 Clement street (14th Ave & Clement) taken by me on 2/22:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2288079286_38f48e2fc5_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2219/2288079450_53948875e6_b.jpg

A rendering at the construction site:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2066/2288079976_f2ea2bf105_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2288080892_5322b6f183_b.jpg


It's a strange bugger, isn't it?

[Jobohimself]

Looks like a big refuse bin!

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

:previous:
I like it!

We so often overlook projects in the Richmond and Sunset...

[Reminiscence]

Ahhh yeah, the water tank, as I used to call it :)

I actually passed by this on Clement on my way to Ocean Beach today (I dont know why I took Clement, I usually take Geary). It looked nice, although I didnt have my camera ready at the time I drove by.