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

[BTinSF]

This just counts as a tidbit but infill is good:

32 Condos Coming "Soon" To The Corner Of Hayes And Franklin

http://www.socketsite.com/Hayes%20and%20Franklin%20Coming%20Soon.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Hayes%20and%20Franklin%20Aerial.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Hayes%20and%20Franklin%20Design.jpg

Patrons of the arts (and Hayes Valley) take note, the surface area parking lot at the corner of Hayes and Franklin is no longer (nor is the little building next door) as they're finally preparing the site for the newest addition to the neighborhood.

The mixed-use development will consist of thirty-two (32) condos over ground floor retail with design by Sternberg Benjamin Architects and development by Village Properties/Hayes Franklin Builders Corp.

The site does indeed include the structure next to the parking lot (which is in the process of being razed); and while they're in the process of preparing the site, they haven't yet broken ground (but pilings have been delivered).
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

Again, for those 40 STORY TOWERS see just above!

[CityKid]

These photos are from an old article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/08/WBGS8DHN391.DTL) back in July 2005 regarding a new home for the Institute on Aging:

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/07/08/wb_institute_2.jpg

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/07/08/wb_institute_1.jpg

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2005/07/08/wb_instagingmap.jpg

Demolition took place quite a few months ago and i just noticed a sign notifying the public of issuance of a permit or something like that. BT, what does that mean? If this thing starts rising, i'll have to keep you guys updated.

[BTinSF]

What does what mean? The "40 story towers"?? Read the story that I posted on the previous page for that (nobody here ever looks at pages that have been "turned"). The Supes approved the Market-Octavia Plan which calls for 40-story towers at Market & Van Ness and which we have been waiting for for 8 long years. :banana:

PS: I'm pretty excited about the Institute on Aging too. Geary needs that sort of thing.

[CityKid]

^^ What is an "issuance of permit?" Also, according to the Institute on Aging website, construction is supposed to begin this month.

http://www.ioaging.org/about/new_building/

[CityKid]

^^^ RE: The Market/Octavia Plan. Exciting news! In my mind, I've always imagined high rise growth continuing through SoMA and along the Market corridor. SF is really going to look different in about 10 years.

[BTinSF]

^^ What is an "issuance of permit?" Also, according to the Institute on Aging website, construction is supposed to begin this month.

http://www.ioaging.org/about/new_building/

I'm not sure. Hopefully, it means they've issued a building permit which means construction could start soon. Separate permits are also required for demolition of any old structures remaining on the site and, I believe, foundation work including pile driving. So I'm not sure which permits are being referred to. Anyway, it does mean progress is happening.

If you have too much time on your hands, try the "search" function on the Building and Planning Department sites using the address of the project (3575 Geary). I found reference to "permits issued" last fall but it was an Excel file I couldn't open.

[c1tyguy]

Exciting news!


Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/BAE81024TC.DTL

EXCITING!!!! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[BTinSF]

Might we now soon see this?

http://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2305/2276853741_407ea62931_o.jpghttp://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2179/2276853761_eee0e3128a_o.jpghttp://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2272/2277531302_43b3dd49e9_o.jpghttp://curbednetwork.com/cache/gallery/2177/2276739347_9976be6147_o.jpg
Source all: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2008/02/19/paved_with_good_intentions_octavia_boulevard.php?o=2

[viewguysf]

I'm a fan of this too, BT. Same with the new green building proposed for The Embarcadero and the new SPUR headquarters. They are all quite small, but all quite good.

Yes PG, they are. Although I love good major structures and highrises, I think that the height of the new PUC headquarters is appropriate for that site, as was the new addition to the state building.

[BTinSF]

More on the Market-Octavia Plan (as approved):

http://www.socketsite.com/Market%20%26%20Octavia%20Rezone.jpg

For the Van Ness/Market intersection (I believe this tower would actually go where the Honda dealer now sits):

http://www.socketsite.com/10%20S%20Van%20Ness%20Massing.jpg
Source all above images: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/10/san_franciscos_market_octavia_neighborhood_plan_moves_f.html

[BTinSF]

But just as exciting for me, living where I do, is that today's Socketsite tells me that this project, delayed for a decade (mostly by Chris Daly and friends) is actually under construction at Golden Gate & Larkin:

http://www.socketsite.com/Hastings%20Parking%20Garage%20At%20GGA%20and%20Larkin.jpg
A 7-story/68-foot tall parking garage by Hastings College with 430 spaces (300 for the college, 130 for the public, and an increase of 170 over the previous surface area lot), two City CarShare Pods, secure bike storage and 9,000 square feet of ground floor retail intended to “encourage students to linger in the community."

Originally expected to be completed by the end of 2008, expect construction to continue for another 16-18 months.

As a plugged-in (and perhaps a little dazed) "torchrunner" notes, "The new Central YMCA will go in next door" on Golden Gate. (But that's not set in stone.)
Source: www.socketsite.com

http://www.uchastings.edu/site_files/building/master-plan-map_d.jpg
Source: http://www.uchastings.edu/?pid=3845

Between this building and the PUC building, Golden Gate will go from a windy wasteland to a dense urban street. Now if they'd just demolish the building across the street from the new PUC structure and build on that and the adjacent vacant lots.

[peanut gallery]

Might we now soon see this?

That's the question I had about the Market/Octavia plan. Was approval of the plan holding up those developments along Octavia and Fell? I can't remember what the delay was based on.

[BTinSF]

^^^According to Socketsite, yes it was.

[BTinSF]

Friday, April 11, 2008
Reinvention under way at Third and Folsom
TMG, REEF bring life to forbidding monolith
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/115505-300-0.jpg?rev=2

For four decades, the AT&T complex at Third and Folsom streets has been an imposing concrete fortress designed to keep the public at bay and business operations as secure and secretive as possible.

Now TMG Partners and RREEF are getting ready to bring air and light -- and the public -- into the two-building property with a $200 million renovation and expansion the developers hope will transform the property into one of the most desirable office buildings south of Market.

The redevelopment, designed by Skidmore Owings and Merrill, will replace the opaque exterior with a nearly clear glass curtain-wall skin. Two floors are being added to the 12-story structure and the floorplates will be expanded as well, pushing the edge of the building toward Folsom Street. The glass, steel and granite lobby will have 30-foot ceilings with floor-to-ceiling glass and a floating staircase.

All told, the rehab will increase the building from 400,000 square feet to 505,000 square feet, with 440,000 square feet of office and 10,000 square feet of retail at 680 Folsom St. (formerly called 666 Folsom) and 55,000 square feet of offices at the abutting 50 Hawthorne St.

The ground floor will have a restaurant and TMG is in early talks with the Museum of Performance & Design -- formerly the San Francisco Performing Arts Library & Museum -- which is interested in moving from the Veterans Building in the Civic Center.

"It's incredibly monolithic and dated -- the streetscape is really uninviting," said TMG Partners Managing Director Matt Field. "It was designed to keep the public out. We're going to take the bunker mentality down."

The building's views and size will surprise most of the city's brokers and tenants. Fully occupied by the phone company since it was completed in 1964, few people have been in the building outside of phone company employees. The building has been vacant since 2005 when the telecommunications giant -- then SBC -- started moving employees to San Ramon and San Antonio, Texas. At the same time it unloaded 680 Folsom, AT&T also sold off two other properties, 370 Third St. and the landmark 140 New Montgomery St.

"It was never toured -- people don't come into the utility buildings," said Field.

At 35,000 square feet, the building has some of the biggest floorplates in the city -- similar in size to the Bank of America building -- and will cater to large users. Field compared it to the Landmark at One Market, a TMG project similar in size to 680 Folsom that was completely leased to seven tenants. Asking rates for the building will likely be about $60 a square foot a month, slightly less than Wilson Meany Sullivan is seeking for the final Foundry Square building nearby.

While the renovation will make 680 Folsom essentially a new building, TMG and RREEF decided it was environmentally and economically better to hold onto the existing structure's steel and floors, rather than raze it and begin anew. The developer is applying for LEED gold certification, the second highest level in the the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program.

"We feel it's really important not to tear down, but to reinvent buildings," said Field.

TMG and RREEF are about to go out for a construction loan. The developers are putting in 35 percent equity, which should make it easier to get construction financing at a time when banks have tightened credit.

"It's a tough environment, but we'll get it done," he said.

Chris Roeder, a senior director at Jones Lang LaSalle, said the mid-2010 delivery date should time the market well, coming after Tishman Speyer's building at 555 Mission St. will likely be fully leased and other new construction won't be ready. Also, the fact that it's an existing building should allow TMG to have asking rates slightly cheaper than the new buildings it will compete with.

"It's coming in at the right time," he said.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/04/14/story2.html?t=printable

The new version:

http://www.socketsite.com/690%20Folsom%20Future.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

[BTinSF]

More regarding Van Ness/Market highrises: Uh, maybe not yet:

Friday, April 11, 2008
Developers: S.F. fees will kill housing
Octavia rules add millions
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

The Board of Supervisors' long-awaited April 8 approval of the Market-Octavia plan was a bittersweet victory for housing developers, a decision that potentially allows for thousands of units in new development, but imposes stiff fees that may make some of the larger developments economically unfeasible.

The new Market-Octavia zoning, which covers both sides of Market Street from Ninth and Hayes streets to Noe Street and is expected to be signed into law by Mayor Gavin Newsom, doubles height limits on five parcels on the four corners of Market Street and Van Ness Avenue, lifting allowable heights to 400 feet from 200 feet. But it also places a $25-per-square-foot fee on anything constructed on the four corners, which some property owners say make highrise housing there more an urban planner's fantasy than a realistic prospect, at least in the current housing market.

The owners of one of the key parcels the plan was shaped around, the San Francisco Honda dealership at 10 South Van Ness Ave., said the additional fees could kill any chance of attracting interest from developers.

"It's fees upon fees upon fees," said John Boas, whose family has owned the Honda dealership for decades.

Boas stressed that the Boas family has been actively engaged in the planning effort and understands why the city would like to see the Honda property become transit-oriented highrise housing. They worked with architects and the planning department to come up with possible schematics. But given that they run a profitable business with over 100 employees, Boas said his family would focus on running the dealership.

He said that his family had been told "point blank by someone pretty wise in the real estate industry" that the proposed fees would kill prospects for highrise housing there. He also pointed to a July 24th, 2007 city-commissioned report from Seifel Consulting that said raising fees would "likely dissuade new development."

"The Market-Octavia plan would seem like a positive for the property value but it seems that it actually devalues it," said Boas.

But for developers with smaller projects in the pipeline, the passage of the plan is a boon. The first housing development poised to move ahead as a result of the new plan are four projects that have been approved for fenced-in dirt lots along Octavia Boulevard, four of 11 parcels that were freed up when the elevated freeway was demolished. The largest of the projects is planned for a full block at Oak and Fell streets and is a collaboration by Build Inc. and five different architects. The sale of the four properties will net the city $13 million and development on all 11 parcels calls for 900 units of housing.

"We're ready to move forward with those developers and enter into purchase and sale agreements," said Rich Hillis, deputy director of the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development. "The vision was the new boulevard and housing along the boulevard and this puts the zoning in place to do that."

For builder Brian Spiers, who has two pending projects impacted by the plan, the new zoning will give some additional height on the ground-floor retail level while adding $4 to the current $10 per square foot fee. Spiers said the passage of Market-Octavia gives him the green light to seek approvals for a 110-unit project at Buchanan and Market streets, the design for which is being done by Bernardo Fort-Brescia of Arquitectonica, as well as a smaller project development being designed by Stanley Saitowitz.

Spiers said the additional fees "squeeze developers pretty hard" and would cost him about $1.5 million on the Buchanan and Market site. But all and all he is relieved to have the plan, which he said would "create an opportunity to build more units to catch up with the need for more housing stock."

"It's exciting for the city to finally move forward," he said. "If they are not going to put housing on a corridor like Market Street, where are they going to do it? "

Land use attorney Jim Haas, who has been a proponent of redevelopment in the Mid-Market and Civic Center areas, said the zoning will trigger a number of smaller projects along the old central freeway, but not the major sites that would create the most housing and generate revenues for the city.

"That area has to heat up a lot more before people are going to pay those kind of fees," he said.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/04/14/story3.html?t=printable

Well, if nobody else is going to do anything to prop up the value of housing, I'm glad SF is ;) . More fees means the next generation of condos will be even pricier which indirectly raises the value of existing units.

[AndrewK]

glad to see that all of this is moving forward. i previously knew about the thin lot at market and octavia being developed, but its nice to know that some of the other thin strips along octavia will be used for new projects as well. it seemed odd to me when they redid octavia that these strips had been left empty instead of used for a wider median with the sidewalks on the east side going all the way to the existing buildings, but this way we will get retail along there, which i think will nicely link the hayes vally commercial center to market (and help to improve its quality in doing so).

im also really happy to see that build inc is putting in a large project at oak between laguna & octavia, as i walk by that lot on a regular basis and think what a huge waste of space it currently is. also thankful that the sketches show it as being in the style of several smaller buildings along the street, as opposed to one large monolithic development, to better reflect the style of the neighborhood and adjacent buildings. though i noticed that there are no plans yet for the northwest corner of that block, i guess that will have to wait til later. between these two lot developments and the disabled housing on the southwest corner, oak and octavia will be quite a different (and much improved) intersection.

[BTinSF]

^^^All of this has been designed for a long time and waiting for the Board of Stupidvisors to approve the new zoning.

[peanut gallery]

I'm ecstatic about those existing Octavia proposals that now can begin. I'm actually not that concerned about the taller corner lots at Van Ness and Market. By the time a proposal comes along and gets through the approval process, the housing and loan situations will likely be very different and the fees might not be the deal-killer they're being made out to be at the moment.

[peanut gallery]

One Kearny update from today. I noticed awhile ago that this looked like it would transition from concrete to steel. But I didn't think about how that would mean this thing would suddenly rise very quickly, which it has done.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2380/2420273050_2ffd417f6b_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3242/2419454149_de5489b0a5_b.jpg

[BTinSF]

^^^That tooth gap is getting filled almost as quickly as mine recently did courtesy of a $3000 gold bridge. :yes:

[peanut gallery]

And you didn't post the "construction" pictures? :)

Has anyone heard any news about the the conversion of 140 New Montgomery to condos? I haven't heard anything since it was announced as a possibility.

Photo by me, yesterday:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2419456963_6c8aed0fbd_b.jpg

[c1tyguy]

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/17April-NabePlan.jpg

Ready yourselves for the big boom, eastern nabes: Members of the city's Planning Commission are charged today with the delightful task of poring over a 1,373-page document dubbed the Eastern Neighborhood Plan. If ratified, 2,200 acres' worth of the Central Waterfront, Bayview, Potrero Hill, the Mission, and some parts of SoMa will be entirely rezoned. Expect increased housing density, building heights, and new-and-improved building codes— enough to support a projected 20,000 new residents by 2025. If all proceeds according to Gavin's Master Plan, San Francisco will be entirely carbon neutral by then; to wit, four new parks, along with revamped transit, bicycle, and pedestrian routes have also been worked into the plan. No suspension of disbelief here, good citizens: Wont to toss about the hyperboles as we are, this one will be a shitshow, a civil war, an all out melee— Critics are already foaming at the mouth over nabe preservation and such. (Picture Daly and Mirkarimi convulsing wildly— thankfully, Peskin's out of the picture here, for the moment, at least.) A whopping 88 building projects are on hold pending the plan's approval; they could resume as early as next year. Brace.

Source: sf.curbed.com

[BTinSF]

Has anyone heard any news about the the conversion of 140 New Montgomery to condos? I haven't heard anything since it was announced as a possibility.



Yup.

Friday, March 28, 2008
Pacific Telephone Bldg.
Best office sale / San Francisco
San Francisco Business Times - by Steve Ginsberg San Francisco Business Times Contributor

With its Art Moderne architecture, the Pacific Telephone Building is among San Francisco's few historical trophy buildings. And Wilson Meany Sullivan paid a big price, $118 million, to put the 26-story building in its trophy case.

Transforming the 1925 building at 140 New Montgomery St. into a 118-unit condominium building will cost the San Francisco developer even more than the sale price.

The buy-in at $345 a square foot was high as Wilson Meany outbid numerous rivals at the peak of a bull real estate investment cycle. The wisdom of the deal won't be known for perhaps a decade.

"From our standpoint, this is just the beginning of the deal," said Wilson Meany managing partner Tom Sullivan. "It is more about the redevelopment than the actual deal."

The challenge facing the firm is high renovation costs that must be offset by selling the condos at a substantial price. Wilson Meany bought the building with Stockbridge Capital Partners, and they are now figuring out conversion costs while they go through the approval process. Although final costs have not been determined, Sullivan estimates it will likely cost well over $400 per square foot to transform the building.

Located in the burgeoning South of Market area, the Pacific Telephone building went through several rounds of bidding. Competitors included local powerhouses Myers Development and TMG Partners as well as Miami's Peebles Corp.

To gain the edge, Wilson Meany showed its conviction by making a large, nonrefundable deposit upfront. With its successful track record on other difficult conversions of historic properties, such as the Ferry Building and One Powell, Wilson Meany had the confidence to move forward despite the risks involved. Some had called the Pacific Telesis Building a career-maker or a career-breaker.

Seller AT&T had pulled its staff out of the building two years ago as part of a decade-long San Francisco downsizing after Texas-based SBC bought Pacific Telesis. SBC is now AT&T and its spokesman John Britton said the opening of the nearby St. Regis Hotel made the site more valuable and improved the timing for a sale. The company sold two other San Francisco buildings in 2007 as well, Britton said: 370 Third St. and 666 Folsom St.

"We wanted to optimize the asset and take the capital from it and reinvest it into our business," said Britton. "We monitored the economic conditions in the San Francisco market and saw it was recovering and held off for a few months before going to market. In retrospect, our timing was right on."

AT&T also considered the value of the building to the community and saw it had a better use as a residential building than offices, he said.

Many in the commercial office sector considered the building at 140 New Montgomery St. a white elephant because of its tiny floor plates of just 13,000 square feet. The building no longer works as a modern office highrise.

At the deal's outset, Wilson Meany considered converting the building to a hotel with condos on top but has since decided to do high-priced condos over an upscale ground floor restaurant. Prices for high-end condo projects in SoMa have been escalating and Wilson Meany was comfortable with doing a condo conversion.

"The top-end residential market has held up in San Francisco," Sullivan said. "The empty-nester phenomenon has continued. There are still many people who want a place in the city."

sanfrancisco@bizjournals.com
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/03/31/focus12.html?t=printable

[peanut gallery]

Thanks BT!

[peanut gallery]

Saw this super-cool model of Downtown and Mission Bay at the Radiance sales center last night:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/2422020549_4baf1c1e6c_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2129/2422021155_50ceb57cfa_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/2422833108_4a935e5183_b.jpg

It's a little out of date, but still fascinates me.

[SFView]

...It's a little out of date, but still fascinates me.

Yes, the cancelled Century is depicted in this model at the west end of the Transbay Terminal.

[peanut gallery]

You know, I stared at that for the longest time trying to figure out what that was. It finally dawned on me that it was that project. For some reason I always pictured it taller in my mind.

Models like this fascinate me. I could stare at them for hours. I wish I had one at home that I could update as projects are proposed, constructed and completed. My wife would probably have me committed at that point though. ;)

[bmfarley]

Models like this fascinate me. I could stare at them for hours. I wish I had one at home that I could update as projects are proposed, constructed and completed. My wife would probably have me committed at that point though. ;)
^^^Reminds me of model railroaders!

[Downtown Dave]

I'd enjoy a model like that, too. :)

Today, some views of some diverse projects:

Mercy Housing on Mission:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/MercyHousing-1973.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/MercyHousing-1971.jpg

77 Van Ness:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/77VanNess-1987.jpg

818 Van Ness:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/818VanNess-2009.jpg

The homeless (?) thingumbob down the street from 818:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v106/NelsonAndBronte/SanFrancisco/Random/HomelessThingy-2015.jpg

[hi123]

Great pics! Any renderings of that last project (aka homeless thingymabob)?

[Xeelee]

That's a cool model

[Downtown Dave]

Some googling reveals the homeless thingy is in fact the Arnett Watson Apartments (http://www.greencommunitiesonline.org/projects/profiles/arnett_watson_apts.pdf) (link goes to a PDF with small rendering).

[c1tyguy]

The worldwide issue of climate change has a local twist: It's altering the Bay Area's long-running debate over how and where to grow.
Some officials are suggesting that some bayside areas may need to be abandoned in light of studies that indicate San Francisco Bay could rise several feet by 2100 because of sea level changes. Conversely, other areas along the bay could be developed so that new projects shield low-lying existing communities.

At the same time, the call to reduce carbon emissions - a factor in global warming - is being used to argue for dense new development in the region's urban core, rather than on the outskirts of auto-reliant suburbs. "Global warming isn't just a problem for penguins in Antarctica and polar bears in Alaska," Will Travis, executive director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, told a gathering of local government officials this week. "We need to take a hard look at how our region is growing."

The BCDC was established in 1965 because of concerns that the bay was shrinking - nibbled away by developers and municipalities that saw shallow marshes as ideal spots for everything from high-rise buildings to sprawling dumps.

Now the situation is the reverse. Maps released by the BCDC last year show that rising sea levels of about 1 meter (3.28 feet) would submerge many of the wetlands that now ring much of the bay. Left unchecked, the water would also cover portions of the Oakland and San Francisco airports and other developed locales.

"We need to abandon our notion of restoring the bay to the way it was in the past," said Travis, who has been making similar speeches to local groups in recent months. "We need to put the conditions in place that will let us react to the future the way that we want."

Travis was one of several speakers at "Preparing for Rising Sea Levels in the Bay Area," a daylong conference in Oakland on Wednesday. The forum was a first for the region, and much of it focused on steps that can be taken to lessen the region's current energy use as part of larger efforts to slow or reverse global warming.

But the main emphasis was the overlap between local land-use and global climate conditions.

The clash is strongest along the water, where land will recede without aggressive - and expensive - intervention.

As far back as 1990, a study by the Pacific Institute said it would cost the Bay Area $940 million to adapt to a 1-meter rise in water levels, with an additional $100 million annually in maintenance. The costs were related to higher seawalls and levees and the rebuilding of roads and rail lines at higher elevations.

Institute President Peter Gleick told officials on Wednesday that the cost estimate is "hugely conservative" today. "The status quo around the margins is going to be unsustainable," said Gleick, whose institute is now updating the study. "We're in trouble long before we get to a meter."
Buying out landowners

Gleick did not say specifically that it might be cost-efficient to buy out some landowners along the bay. The BCDC's Travis did.

"There are places where it might be better to remove developments and restore wetlands. Wetlands are wonderful for flood control," Travis said. "Clearly, we can't allow our cities to go under water ... (but) we shouldn't build levees everywhere."

Travis did not give specific examples of where such retreats might be advisable; any such studies are years away.

Yet Travis also said the changing conditions might make bayside growth desirable in selected locations. Large-scale projects could serve as a sort of buffer to what already exists on landfill.

"We need a more nuanced approach" rather than simply banning bayside growth, Travis suggested. "There's a lot of low-lying development we need to protect ... we need a new type of more resilient development."
Inland development patterns also could shift because of efforts to trim greenhouse gas levels.

For decades, critics have complained suburban sprawl covers farmland and causes air pollution because of increased automobile use. They now point out that those long commutes boost the amount of vehicle miles traveled - a major factor in carbon emissions.

Also, inland housing tracts tend to be in communities where summers are hotter, boosting energy consumption per capita.

The flip side: Much of this sprawl has occurred because of growth limits imposed by cities near the bay. But according to regional planning officials, older communities are becoming more receptive to infill development.
Higher-density growth

At the forum, Ken Kirkey of the Association of Bay Area Governments described how 50 jurisdictions have applied for grants that would be used to help map higher-density growth in neighborhoods near bus and rail lines. Together, these areas contain space for 395,000 housing units - 50 percent of the region's projected housing needs through 2035.
Afterward, Kirkey said climate change alone won't cause people to change their attitudes on growth. What's new is an understanding of local land use's larger ramifications.

"There's a willingness to discuss the way we grow because of climate change," said Kirkey, ABAG's planning director. "People get the connection."
As for what comes next, "This is a region that thinks of itself as a leader," Kirkey said. "If we want to be a leader in responding to climate change, we can't just buy Priuses. We need to talk about where and how we live."

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

Source: SF Gate http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/17/MNM9107BIC.DTL&feed=rss.jking

[peanut gallery]

^^^Reminds me of model railroaders!

I love those too!

[peanut gallery]

One Kearny today, from a slightly different angle. Looks like they have the supports up to level 7:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2162/2433253878_1556dbb84d_b.jpg

And they've torn a huge hole in the brick wall to create the larger floor plates. But they've also taken out much of the floor support in this area of the old building as well. Not sure why that is.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2017/2432440329_4f2e002c64_b.jpg

[peanut gallery]

Finally can see all of the front of the Jewish Museum in YB:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/2435778046_04765ab9c3_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/2435776934_3be4666e14_b.jpg

[BTinSF]

Thanks Dave and Peanut for doing some shots of these minor projects. I didn't think anyone else would bother and I'd have to hike around after them next week. You did miss two in the same neighborhood: The Argenta and the one at Geary & Polk.

I'm looking forward to seeing them all sans burkha.

And Mission St. is going to have a different feel with SOMA Grand, Trinity Place and the Mercy Housing project all in a 3-block stretch.

[SFView]

:previous: "Burkha?" That's pretty funny. I like that :haha:!

I also thank Dave and Peanut for their continuing photographic coverage of San Francisco highrise projects. The photos are so good, I think some of us are getting a bit spoiled. Now I get slight withdrawal symtoms, if either of them are absent. :koko:

[peanut gallery]

You're welcome guys. It's my pleasure.

"Burkha" - LOL!

[BTinSF]

Another new "minor" project:

New Plans for Senior Housing at St. Anthony
21 April 2008
Courtesy Central City Extra.

http://transbay.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/121_golden_gate.jpg

St. Anthony Foundation has been an institution in the Tenderloin for decades, providing shelter, daily meals, clothes, as well as medical and social services to San Francisco’s homeless since 1950. St. Anthony (headquartered on the southern side of Golden Gate Avenue, at Jones) will move many of its services into a new five-story building across the street (at 150 Golden Gate) that is set to be completed next month. The second phase of St. Anthony’s renewal aims to completely replace the current structure at 121 Golden Gate. The plan for the redone 121 Golden Gate originally included a new dining facility and just 17 permanent units of senior housing, along with 17 medical discharge units. But the latest proposal for 121 Golden Gate, to be carried out in conjunction with Mercy Housing, is a $66 million project that could include not only a more spacious dining facility, but is also planned to feature 90 studio and one-bedroom units in a 10-story building, with no parking. The building would rise to the full ten stories on the corner, stepping down to eight stories on the side to match the height of Boyd Hotel next door. The latest incarnation of 121 Golden Gate could join 990 Polk and 55 Laguna as another major project featuring construction of new housing units for seniors, and the project could be delivered as soon as 2011.

[peanut gallery]

I took my daughter to work today and she shot this photo as we approached the city. Unfortunately, you can only see bits of the newer buildings, but not bad I'd say:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2439748801_175ef82981_b.jpg

[Reminiscence]

Not bad at all p.g.

She caught pretty much the entire skyline :)

[SFView]

I took my daughter to work today and she shot this photo as we approached the city. Unfortunately, you can only see bits of the newer buildings, but not bad I'd say:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2152/2439748801_175ef82981_b.jpg

Hey, your daughter's photo is here too! That's wonderful! She also captured the same group of buildings from One Rincon to the Transamerica Pyramid. Great job! Great photo! Congratulations! :tup:

Rather than reposting my daughter's rather large photo here, you can see it again if you go to back to page 61, Post #1222 of this thread. I think your daughter deserves the spotlight this time. My daughter turned 4 last December, and took her photo last February. May I ask how old your daughter is?

[peanut gallery]

Thanks guys!

SFView - she's almost 6. She took a bunch of photos (mostly in and around my office) to chronicle her first Take your Daughter to Work Day. I think she really enjoyed it. In fact, she wore her visitor's badge to school this morning. I remember your daughter's aerial photos. They were fantastic! Still can't believe a four year old took those.

[BTinSF]

I bet you didn't know something like this was hidden behind the otherwise uninspiring facade of Symphony Towers. I sure didn't:

http://www.socketsite.com/Symphony%20Tower%20Courtyard.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

[peanut gallery]

I think she's got her old man beat. This is mine from today. Other than the glare since she shot it out a window, I like hers better:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3256/2441860653_94e284f14d_b.jpg

And a closer look at the end of town where all the "action" is:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2164/2442690218_05445016ce_b.jpg

[HarryBarbierSRPD]

I don't know if it's just me, but I think that One Rincon is dead sexy. :slob:

I can't wait for 2012.... :tup:

[peanut gallery]

From today's Chronicle, an article about Wednesday's presentation on new height limits (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/27/BAKJ109TFV.DTL) around Transbay:

Reaching for the sky South of Market
John King, Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writers
Sunday, April 27, 2008

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/04/27/ba_transbayheights27.jpg

For years, San Francisco planners have talked about loosening downtown height limits to allow towers south of Market Street that would climb past anything in the area.

This week, they'll spell out where - and how high - they want those skyscrapers to go.

Details will be made public on Wednesday when city officials present zoning proposals for sites on blocks centered on the Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets. But officials already are indicating they see room on the skyline for several new towers that would exceed the current 550-foot height limit.

The recommendations will begin a rezoning process likely to take at least 18 months. The final result will be shaped in part by the politics of a city that has done battle over tall buildings for decades, and where many residents look at towers as view-blocking blights.

"San Francisco's sensibility isn't to embrace height for height's sake," said Dee Dee Workman, executive director of San Francisco Beautiful, a civic group active in environmental issues. "It's more about life on the ground than icons in the air."

At present, San Francisco's tallest skyscraper is the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid. Since it opened in 1972, nothing has been built above 650 feet.
The Planning Department's study of new heights - which includes a look at shadow impacts and historic preservation issues - is driven in part by the desire to raise funds for efforts to replace the existing bus terminal with a new transit station that would serve future rail commuters as well as bus passengers from throughout the region.

By raising heights, money from property tax receipts and sale of public property could be steered toward the new terminal.

The notion of extra-tall towers also is the culmination of efforts since the 1980s to shift the focus of downtown development - taking growth pressure off neighborhoods such as Chinatown and North Beach and steering it south of Market Street.

Even without a boost, the area today is booming: There's a 645-foot residential tower under construction just east of the Transbay Terminal, and an office building near completion on the west. A pricey fish restaurant opened this month in a former auto repair shop on Minna Street, an alleyway next to the terminal. Art-themed lounges have settled along once-quiet Second Street.

"We are working in the place where the 1985 plan allowed the greatest density. The policy actually worked," said Dean Macris, a development adviser to Mayor Gavin Newsom and the planning director at the time under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein.

Macris also served three years as planning director under Newsom. In 2006, he and other planning officials made headlines by floating the idea of a 1,000-foot tower at the Transbay site, with Transamerica Pyramid-scaled skyscrapers nearby.

Since then, even taller proposals have appeared on the horizon.
The most visible is on the Transbay block, where last fall the Transbay Joint Powers Authority awarded the Hines development firm the right to purchase land next to the station and erect what the authority called "an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline."

As part of its $350 million bid for the land, Hines submitted a proposal for a 1,200-foot high-rise that would be the tallest tower west of Chicago.

Without going into their specific recommendations for the area, city planners suggested last week that developers will need to tailor their wishes to the proposed zoning, rather than the other way around.

"They're trying to maximize their heights," Macris said. "Our obligation is to the skyline and the city as a whole."

Tall buildings and their perceived impacts were a constant theme during political debates in the 1970s and '80s. One example is still on the books: Proposition K, a 1984 measure that banned "any structure that will cast any shade or shadow upon any property under the jurisdiction of ... the Recreation and Park Commission."

The anti-height fervor downtown quieted in the 1990s, and there's been little controversy about the towers erected during the past decade along Mission Street.

But just as the construction of the Transamerica Pyramid stoked opposition, there's been a strong reaction to the new One Rincon condominium tower next to the Bay Bridge. Rooftop mechanical structures make it even more prominent.

"People are startled," Workman said of One Rincon. "It's such a contrast to everything else you can't help but look at it - and you see it from all over the city."

Planners have heard the responses as well. But because the Transbay area already is studded by towers, they believe that adding a handful of others as a sort of crown won't spur the same reaction.

One Rincon and the Transamerica Pyramid "introduced new high-rises into areas that didn't have high-rises," said Joshua Switzky, the project manager for the height study. "What we're talking about is adding height to what's already the core of the city. This is an incremental tweak."

-- For a 360-degree view of the skyline near the Transbay Terminal, go to sfgate.com.

History of the city's towers

1961 - Construction of the 17-story Fontana Towers next to Aquatic Park causes an uproar on nearby Russian Hill. City imposes a 40-foot height limit along the northern waterfront.

1969 - The Bank of America Building opens, at 779 feet the tallest building in San Francisco. A few months later, plans are unveiled for the even taller Transamerica Pyramid, which eventually rises 853 feet.

1972 - One year after voters defeat a ballot initiative that would restrict heights of new buildings to six stories, the city puts an urban design plan in place that lowers the maximum heights downtown to 700 feet.

1984 - Voters approve Proposition K, which prohibits towers from casting new shadows on existing city parks.

1985 - The city approves a downtown plan placing a 550-foot cap on new towers - but raising previously low heights south of Market Street.

1986 - Voters approve Proposition M. Rather than restrict heights, it clamps down on new office buildings for the next decade.

2003 - Aiming to bring more residents downtown, the Planning Department begins work on a rezoning plan for Rincon Hill that will allow nearly a dozen towers above 35 stories. The tallest building allowed in the plan, 641-foot One Rincon, is scheduled to open in 2008.

2005 - City officials approve a redevelopment district around the Transbay Terminal that allows six residential towers of 35 to 55 stories on land once covered by freeway ramps. The towers would rise from public land sold to raise money for rebuilding the terminal.

2006 - Planning Director Dean Macris suggests allowing extremely tall towers in the Transbay area, with the tallest on the terminal site. "It's a big idea, but we think the time has come for the city to think along these lines," he says.

2007 - Three teams of developers and architects submit proposals for the Transbay site. The winner, Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects and the development firm Hines, recommends a 1,200-foot tower next to a terminal that would be topped by a park.

To get involved

The San Francisco Planning Department will release its initial proposals for new zoning in the terminal area - along with recommendations involving historic preservation, street improvements and other urban design issues - in a public meeting Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. at Golden Gate University, 536 Mission St., Room 2201.

-- For more information on Transbay area planning studies, go to transitcenter.sfplanning.org.

[c1tyguy]

^ I know most of us already knew the majority of the information contained in this article.. but I think its kind of helpful in some-what solidifying the development going on in terms of whether or not its happening or has been scrapped and the like.

They didn't mention anything about Piano's towers, however :(

Maybe they will mention it at Wednesday's meeting?

[Reminiscence]

They didnt mention anything specific about Piano's towers, but perhaps they made a distant refference to them when they mentioned the "several new towers that would exceed the current 550-foot height limit". Thats my guess anyways, as we're still a little far off before we hear anything for sure.

[c1tyguy]

Duck and Cover! City to Raise Building Heights, Make Bank

Brace, NIMBYs and Acrophobics among you: San Francisco's skyline will soon rise up triumphantly from the depths of blocked views, earthquake fears, and neighborhood in-fighting; the city will announce a new urban development plan on Wednesday that focuses on skyscrapers planned for the South of Market area, near the Transbay Terminal site and First and Mission Streets. Stay low to the ground, people, as officials are likely to champion more than one scheme for skyscrapers exceeding the city's current 550-foot height limit (The 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid ruined the party for everyone— following its construction in 1972, city buildings haven't exceeded 650 feet in height.) The overall planning process is expected to take 18 months, so fire up your protest engines now.

Why the push? (Cue: Diddy's "It's All About the Benjamins") Taller buildings yield higher tax rates which can— and will— be flipped right into construction costs for the the Transbay Terminal Center. It's all over from there: at 1,200 feet, Pelli Clarke Pelli's new tower will stand as the tallest building west of Chicago. Given that the Transbay area is already riddled with skyscrapers, planners aren't expecting to see the same backlash against the tower as was felt when the Transamerica was built or, more recently, One Rincon fell under its nabe's wrath. City planners have called the Transbay plans an "incremental tweak" to "what is already there." And we all know how well San Francisco copes with tweakers, right?

· Reaching for the sky South of Market [SF Gate]

Source: http://www.socketsite.com

[SFView]

:previous:

One may also find a more direct source here:
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2008/04/28/duck_and_cover_city_to_raise_building_heights_make_bank.php
Also read the comments to this article within this link.

[JAC6]

SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/30/BA3D10EPNG.DTL):

Core of downtown S.F. would move south under new plan for giant skyscrapers near Transbay Terminal

A cluster of skyscrapers rivaling the Transamerica Pyramid would rise around the West Coast's tallest tower in an ambitious proposal that would shift the heart of San Francisco's downtown south of Market Street.

The zoning plan, unveiled tonight at a packed public meeting, would allow as many as seven new skyscrapers to surpass the current 550-foot height limits in an area surrounding the planned Transbay tower- a high-rise of roughly 1,000 feet adjacent to a new Transbay Terminal at First and Mission streets.

The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission must approve the zoning proposal, which is likely to be revised in response to public comments. A thorough environmental report is also required.

But planners argue that the taller skyscrapers are appropriate given the city's projected demand for office space and the desire for a dynamic skyline. An added bonus, they say, is that tax revenue from the new buildings would help pay for part of the multi-billion dollar transit hub intended to serve bus passengers from around the Bay Area and rail commuters from the Peninsula and further south.

"There is a renewed interest in heights given the constraints on the environment and a move toward transit-oriented development," said Dean Macris, a development adviser to Mayor Gavin Newsom and the former city planning director who oversaw much of the proposed rezoning. "But these changes are fully justified even if there was no transit center, given the growth projections for San Francisco over the next 25 years."

Macris said the proposal - which, in addition to the Transbay tower, makes room for at least six towers in the 600- to 800-foot range on selected sites along Howard and Mission streets - are a logical extension of the city's Downtown Plan. That 1985 rezoning sought to preserve historic buildings north of Market while steering growth south into what then was a moribund area.

Realistically, it would take at least 18 months for any proposed rezoning to go through the public process, meaning that it would be 2010 at the earliest before any extra-tall towers break ground.

The historic San Francisco concern over building heights isn't simply visceral. An 1984 voters approved a law that prohibits structures that cast shadows on public parks.

While studies are still being done on what shadows would occur at different times of the year in different locations, the likely loss of sunlight prompted planners to pull heights down from what some developers sought - though some new shadows are unavoidable.

The most obvious example is the proposed Transbay tower at First and Mission streets.

Last fall, the Hines development firm and Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects were selected by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority to design and build a high-rise next to the new terminal. The team's plan calls for a 1,200-foot tower, with the top 175 feet devoted to wind turbines behind a metal screen.

At that altitude, planners now say, the skyscraper's shadow at lunchtime would cover most of Justin Herman Plaza, a popular park next to Embarcadero Center. At 1,000 feet, according to planner Joshua Switzky, "it barely touches the plaza at all."

Besides rezoning, planners are looking at such issues as historic preservation. They recommend that protection be extended to several clusters of older buildings along Mission and Howard streets.

Planners also seek widened sidewalks and bus-only lanes on some blocks, to make it easier for pedestrians and transit users to move through the area.

[CUCa]

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/01/ba_transbay_skyline.jpg
(from sfgate)

Preeeeeeeeeeetty!

[c1tyguy]

^ I don't know.. Maybe its just me but it isn't THAT much of a difference.

Atleast not the significant difference I was hoping for.

[sfcity1]

Looks like it fills in the gap between 1 rincon hill and the rest of the downtown skyline, which is very good. Not overpowering in itself though.

[JAC6]

Filling in the gap between One Rincon Hill and the rest of the City is pretty important to me. It just looks so odd standing all alone over there.

[Reminiscence]

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/01/ba_transbay_skyline.jpg
(from sfgate)

Preeeeeeeeeeetty!

This graphic doesnt serve it justice in my opinion. It does fill in the gaps, but they make it look so underwhelming. Looks like The John Hancock Center, with the antennas cropped off a bit.

[AndrewK]

well if they do drop it down to about 1000 ft, it will look like that, at least from that angle (since the bofa building is a bit closer). that image of course doesnt include the piano towers, which if they are in the 800-1000 range would definitely draw the eye to that part of downtown.

[Allan]

Well, I think it's way past time for San Francisco to develop a real skyline! I hope the proposed structures get built.
I'm new to this forum. I have watched the city's skyline rise from the 435 ft Russ Building all the way to the new Rincon Centre Tower(s)-and now I am waiting for the City to fill in the huge gap between those 2 buildings.
We are more than ready for at least 1 supertall building!
Does anyone know if the Renzo Piano Towers have a chance of being built?

[Reminiscence]

Well, I think it's way past time for San Francisco to develop a real skyline! I hope the proposed structures get built.
I'm new to this forum. I have watched the city's skyline rise from the 435 ft Russ Building all the way to the new Rincon Centre Tower(s)-and now I am waiting for the City to fill in the huge gap between those 2 buildings.
We are more than ready for at least 1 supertall building!
Does anyone know if the Renzo Piano Towers have a chance of being built?

Welcome to the forum! :ack:

I havent been watching the skyline grow for anywhere near as long as you have, but I'm a fan of architecture and the recent wave of construction and proposals have me wishing to see a supertall in our city.

As for Piano's towers, not much is known except for the proposed heights and floor number of the two tallest. We're hoping the new plan for Transbay does not reduce them in height if they're not on the chopping block already.

[peanut gallery]

One of the diagrams in SFView's excellent post (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3530847&postcount=1758) in the Transbay thread shows Piano's towers at a max height of 800 feet. So, they will be knocked down by at least a third.

[Reminiscence]

One of the diagrams in SFView's excellent post (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3530847&postcount=1758) in the Transbay thread shows Piano's towers at a max height of 800 feet. So, they will be knocked down by at least a third.

That was an interesting post. However, I'd stop short of saying the towers "will" be knocked down. The truth is there is so much we have yet to know, I'd just say there is a chance it will get knocked down.

[peanut gallery]

Fair enough. This all has to go through public comment and be approved by the BOS. I just don't see that process increasing the height of anything; quite the opposite actually. But SFView also highlighted the part where heights can be stretched beyond these limits through semi-transparent crowns, spires and other features like wind turbines, so you never know. You're absolutely right, nothing is definite yet.

[Reminiscence]

I would be very interested in seeing some proposals with such aesthetics as spires and transparent crowns, particularly because as far as I know, we have very few if any in the city. I was thinking that maybe because some of these are green proposals, that they would be exempted from some of our limits.

[peanut gallery]

Another One Kearny update:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2471952269_7db1d2e598_b.jpg

It seems like they were moving right along, but have slowed somewhat recently. I'm sure grafting a modern building onto a 100+ year old building isn't easy.

Here it is with some of the neighbors:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2472777626_c571ed11a6_b.jpg

[BTinSF]

I think we've pretty much overlooked this one, probably because it's in the 'Loin:

Tenderloin long needed Salvation Army center
C.W. Nevius
Tuesday, May 6, 2008

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/06/ba_NEVIUS06_PH02.jpghttp://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/06/ba_NEVIUS06_PH07.jpghttp://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/06/ba_NEVIUS06_PH04.jpghttp://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/06/ba_NEVIUS06_PH06.jpghttp://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/06/ba_NEVIUS06_PH01.jpg

Whenever a plan for new housing or facilities comes up in San Francisco's poorest downtown neighborhood, it seems the process deteriorates into local politics, special interest groups and petty bickering.

But not this time. The Salvation Army is putting the finishing touches on a remarkable 135,380-square-foot housing and community center, which will offer a huge gymnasium, pool, workout facility, game room, rock-climbing wall and even a dance studio for the use of Tenderloin kids and residents. Next to it is Railton Place, a 110-unit affordable housing residence.

The entire facility, which will be dedicated on June 27, is at 240 Turk St. That's smack in the middle of one of the city's most troubled neighborhoods.

"We hope to be an island in a sea of shark-infested waters," said Maj. George Rocheleau, a Salvation Army officer who will be running the community center. "Don't mean to sound so dramatic, but I think the analogy is appropriate based on the reality of this at times being a very dangerous neighborhood."

Dangerous at times? No offense to the major, but that might be a little optimistic. Strolling up Turk Street in the last three weeks I've seen a guy nonchalantly puffing on a crack pipe, a near fistfight and open drug dealing.

In such an environment, the idea of creating a secure, supervised play and learning facility is too attractive to quibble about. Even influential activists like Randy Shaw - who, as the head of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, opposed some proposed developments in the area - praises the project.

"It is a very, very, very positive development," Shaw said. "Do you know how long we've been saying we need a facility like this?"

So is this the beginning of a new age of cooperation and camaraderie in the Tenderloin?

Probably not. As promising as the Salvation Army project is, there are some significant reasons why it sailed through the often-rocky process unscathed.

"It is still a slow process," said Don Falk, executive director of the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Association, a nonprofit group that works to provide affordable housing. "But I don't have any doubt that theirs was faster than others."

There are several reasons. The Salvation Army already owned the land, for one, bypassing a land-buying process that can take a year or more, Falk said. Also, the organization has a proven track record of running programs and took the time to meeting with neighborhood groups early in the planning.

Oh, and several million dollars of private money didn't hurt.

The $57 million community center and housing unit was made possible by a gift from the late McDonald's heir Joan Kroc. Kroc, who died of brain cancer in 2003, arranged to donate about $1.5 billion to the Salvation Army to build community centers across the country. The first was in her hometown, San Diego. The San Francisco Kroc center will be the second to open, followed by 29 in other states. (However, Kroc stipulated that the local chapters would have to raise the money to maintain and run the centers on their own.)

In San Francisco, it is always better to have big buckets of private money. Falk said a typical publicly financed housing project would have several different funding sources, each with its own agenda and stipulations.

"Public money is highly scrutinized," Falk said. "For example, a private developer can basically make a phone call and hire an architect. If we hire an architect in 90 days, we're doing it fast."

As for the housing component, Falk said the project benefited from the neighborhood's diversity. The 110-unit Railton Place will offer 40 permanent apartments for the chronically homeless who meet the Salvation Army criteria, meaning that they are actively working toward rehabilitating their lives. There will be another 28 units for homeless veterans and 27 for ex-foster kids who are sent out on their own at the age of 18.

Falk said concentrating so many people with such problems in a single facility would create a huge outcry in most neighborhoods.

"Here, these are just our folks," he said.

An important component of Railton Place is that most units are set up for "transitional" needs. Residents must have completed sobriety and vocational courses and are expected to move through the program and out of the housing in two years.

Sounds pretty good doesn't it?

"All things taken together," said David Seward, chief financial officer of nearby UC Hastings College of the Law, "it is clearly a great project."

So everyone is happy, right? Not entirely. Shaw says this is nice, but thinks the media and the public will continue to focus on what he thinks is a mistaken impression of the neighborhood.

"If something good happens in the Tenderloin, no one even knows about it," Shaw said. "Murders are the big thing in the Tenderloin."

So much for the new era of goodwill.

C.W. Nevius' column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. E-mail him at cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/06/BADC10H5NI.DTL

[BTinSF]

^^^Architect's rendering:

http://hcarchitecture.com/images/Salvation%20Army%20street%20elev.jpg
Source: http://hcarchitecture.com/pages/salvation%20army%20street%20elev.html

[peanut gallery]

BT - I posted the Nevius article and some shots I took in the SF Construction tidbits thread. I'm never quite sure when to put something here versus there.

[AndrewK]

that rendering makes the TL look quite nice!

[BTinSF]

Architecturally, the TL IS getting quite nice. There's just an amazing number of new 8-10 story buildings going up there, mostly being put up by non-profits, often with money from the developers affordable housing contributions. In terms of the building stock, the area is being dramatically upgraded. Unfortunately, the human denizens one finds on the street corners, not so much.

[BTinSF]

BT - I posted the Nevius article and some shots I took in the SF Construction tidbits thread. I'm never quite sure when to put something here versus there.

Me too, but I have made a personal decision that all these new midrise buildings are more significant to San Francisco, at least in total, than the term "tidbit" would warrant and so I put them here unless some authority figure demands otherwise. They are changing the character of Van Ness and the T-Loin.

[peanut gallery]

^^^Works for me. I'll post my photos here as well then:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2299/2472779228_9f2e599983_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2326/2472780762_fd26c0868c_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3077/2472782322_f1e61cb0db_b.jpg

[peanut gallery]

I tried taking a couple of skyline shots today but they didn't come out too well. But since it's a view most people don't see too often, I'll post them anyway.

Here's the whole enchilada:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2026/2475314608_1b2e5ffb71_b.jpg

The western end of the above:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/2474498137_04a14ae850_b.jpg

FiDi:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3032/2474499105_124a12f72e_b.jpg

[Reminiscence]

They didnt come out too well? They look pretty good to me!

[BTinSF]

Those shots of the Salvation Army project are really nice and I can't see why they don't belong right here (the skyline shots are nice too, of course).

[peanut gallery]

They just aren't as crisp as I wanted. Something about how I have the camera set-up and being on a boat is making me lose the sharpness to pick-up a lot of the details. I had some great angles on the GGB too, but they all came out horrible. It was such a nice, clear morning, I thought they would come out better. I'll keep trying though. I only have every day to experiment!

[northbay]

wow. nice photos pg. i love that view makes since it makes our skyline look very long
finally embarcadero center is starting to disappear into the woodwork, tho we need more highrises on the northern edge too

[SFView]

They just aren't as crisp as I wanted. Something about how I have the camera set-up and being on a boat is making me lose the sharpness to pick-up a lot of the details. I had some great angles on the GGB too, but they all came out horrible. It was such a nice, clear morning, I thought they would come out better. I'll keep trying though. I only have every day to experiment!

Those are still very nice photo captures, even if a bit out of focus.

You might already know this, but see if your camera has different shutter priority, aperture priority, full manual, or full auto settings. Either try a faster shutter speed, smaller aperture (larger F-stop number), or a balance of both; if full auto doesn't work for you. It is also harder to focus the more you zoom closer. If your camera is digital, try setting your captures at the finest resolution possible. If your camera has autofocus, give your camera some time to focus before fully pressing the shutter button. If you can change your ISO settings, set it to higher number (see http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_iso.html).
...If you find the camera is using a shutter speed that is too slow (1/60 sec. and slower) to handhold the camera steady and shake-free (thus resulting in blurred pictures), and you cannot open up the aperture anymore, and you do not have a tripod or other means to hold the camera steady, and you want to capture the action, etc. etc. -- then you might select the next higher ISO which will then allow you to select a faster shutter speed.
If you don't have your camera manual and need to see it, try a search for it on the Internet.

Shooting more photos will increase your chances of getting more lucky shots, especially in difficult situations.

It looks like you have a pretty fast shutter speed in one of your nice Salvation Army Center photos. There is a bird is frozen in flight!

Have fun, and thanks!

[peanut gallery]

Thanks everyone.

SFView - thanks for the great advice. I've upped the resolution and will try a pre-set mode for fast action and camera movement (it's tailored for shooting kids, who as you know don't always stop for you to take a shot :) ).

I can go full manual and change my ISO. If the above doesn't do the trick, I'll try that too. My wife also warned me about the zoom. Unfortunately, I can't always physically move closer to my subject, but I'll try using it minimally.

[BTinSF]

Have you tried a little Photoshopping? Sometimes it's possible to sharpen things up.

By the way, I recall from my days as a casual film photographer with a manual-only Nikon the things you all are saying, but my newest digital camera has "image stabilization". So how does that effect all this? I don't much understand when that is likely to make a significant difference and when it isn't.

[peanut gallery]

Photoshop is one of the things my wife suggested in lieu of zoom. I'll give that a try when I have a little more time. Thanks!

I almost forgot some shots I took today of the new Jewish Museum in YBG.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2418/2476922071_745082c105_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2476921197_1d8b829a98_b.jpg

It's getting close. They now have signage up and are working hard on the large open space along Mission. I'll try to get a shot of that area next time. It's going to be huge and you can see much more of the old brick building the blue cube has been grafted onto.

[SFView]

peanut,

Your wife is right about the zoom. If you try the "Smart Sharpen..." or "Sharpen" filters in Photoshop, be careful not to over sharpen. You will want your photographs to look as natural as possible, unless you intend them to be otherwise.

If you enlarge and crop in Photoshop, try enlarging by multiples of 2 to help prevent pixel bleeding or averaging across adjacent pixels. This includes both resolution and image sizes. This will help retain original sharpness. You can crop to any size you want afterwords.

Maybe you already do this, but keep your camera with you every day. There is a chance that one day you will have a bright, clean air, calm breeze, light white puffy cloud day you can take your most ideal spectacular photographs while boating on the Bay. You may not want to miss any good opportunities.

Okay, we're drifting off a bit, but I think it may be worth it for all of us to see even more spectacular photography of San Francisco skyscrapers here in this forum.

[peanut gallery]

Thanks again for the advice. Yep, I take it with me everyday for just that reason. The day I leave it at home will be the day the lighting will be perfect, or some strange thing will happen that I'll miss etc.

OK, back to the SF Rundown...

[BTinSF]

Here's another unsung project: 125 Mason from Glide Affordable Housing.

http://www.glide.org/cmsimages/125MasonStreet.jpg

The Building: The Building is an 81 unit building with 22 one-bedroom units, 34 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units and 5 four-bedroom units. Floor plans are spacious and units include bay windows, fabulous views and fine finishes. The building boasts a spacious community center, an on-site management office, and laundry facilities.
Source: http://www.glide.org/125MasonStreet.aspx

Here it is now, still in its burkha like virtually all the other midsize projects going up in SF right now. One day (hopefully soon) we are going to have a mass unveiling.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000908.jpg?t=1210374975

[peanut gallery]

I like the rendering and can't wait to see it uncovered. I was just over there the other day and didn't notice it somehow. I'll have to make a point of heading over that way in the next couple of weeks.

[sfcity1]

That jewish museum is really cool.

Can't wait for the opening of the new science acadamy in golden gate myself. Lots of cool projects going on all over.

[BTinSF]

Cellphone views of the Mercy Housing project at 10th & Mission (across from the Mission side of the 10th & Market project):

http://www.cahill-sf.com/images/upload/758_10TH_MISSION_W1.jpg
Source: http://www.cahill-sf.com/images/upload/758_10TH_MISSION_W1.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0028.jpg?t=1210547178

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0030.jpg?t=1210547208

[BTinSF]

Meanwhile, there is The Argenta. Does it have a thread?? If so, the search function did not reveal it to me.

Here's the rendering from the opening post of this thread:

http://static.flickr.com/70/202228755_ea5d794066_o.jpg

Some cellphone shots I took today:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0020-1.jpg?t=1210548733

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0031.jpg?t=1210548782

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0022-1.jpg?t=1210549003

I must say that the small area being exposed from the "building burkha" doesn't look much like the rendering to me. MUCH less glassy.

[peanut gallery]

Thanks for the updates BT. Hopefully, the Argenta rendering is showing a different elevation, but from what I can tell your last shot is pretty much the same view as the rendering.

[WonderlandPark]

Damn, another case of an awesome rendering but a booooooring end result. (based on that peek of the skin) I was hoping for something like a baby Infinity.

[viewguysf]

Damn, another case of an awesome rendering but a booooooring end result. (based on that peek of the skin) I was hoping for something like a baby Infinity.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but the Argenta had a very unique rendering at first that was then toned down to the one BT used above.

When scanning downtown from my place last week, I saw that the burkha was beginning to be removed. Binoculars and then a telescope definitely brought up one of those "tell me it isn't so" moments that BT has now confirmed. This one is practically criminal--it's completely different and mediocre. Not only is it a boring building, it's in between two ugly ones and very close to our imposing City Hall. One would think that our city would respect itself more and not allow this to happen both in that spot and yet again anywhere. Have they not learned anything since Fox Plaza replaced a building estimated to cost hundreds of millions if it were to be rebuilt today? Can developers not be held responsible for these bait and switch tactics that are becoming more common?

[Gordo]

Is it just me, or do all of the best looking projects lately appear to be in the 'Loin? I really like the look and scale of 125 Mason. Towers are cool and all, but I really wish we could just get a bunch more of this type of building built at market rate - it even has a great mix of different apartment types up to 4 bedroom units.

[BTinSF]

^^^ (Gordo): Take another look at the Mercy Housing thing on Mission. It's not in the Loin and I think it's nice. But I think your point is well taken. Several of these T-Loin projects are nicer than anything at Mission Bay IMHO.

[viewguysf]

^^^ (Gordo): Take another look at the Mercy Housing thing on Mission. It's not in the Loin and I think it's nice. But I think your point is well taken. Several of these T-Loin projects are nicer than anything at Mission Bay IMHO.

Agreed, because they add some visual excitement to their environments. Too bad that the Salvation Army and others can do it so well and Argenta can't (much like the top of the Ritz-Carlton Residences).

[Gordo]

^^^ (Gordo): Take another look at the Mercy Housing thing on Mission. It's not in the Loin and I think it's nice. But I think your point is well taken. Several of these T-Loin projects are nicer than anything at Mission Bay IMHO.

I agree - I do like the Mercy Housing thing as well. It just seems that every time I log on here OR I take a walk through the Tenderloin I see another great project going up. It just seems that every project going up there is good - nothing spectacular maybe, but all are interesting to look at and just, well - good.

[kenratboy]

Ugh, this is driving me mad. Will we see an 800, 1000, 1200-foot tower?

Just one awesome 1200' tower (100+ floors) with 500-800' fill and I would be happy.

[Reminiscence]

Ugh, this is driving me mad. Will we see an 800, 1000, 1200-foot tower?

Just one awesome 1200' tower (100+ floors) with 500-800' fill and I would be happy.

I think that would make quite a few people around here happy. Going by what other have said above, we cant really trust renderings anymore to provide us with an accurate view of how the building will look like. So, despite how awesome a skyscraper like that may look like, we wont really know until we start seeing in person. Aside from that, we'll just have to put up with SF's agonizingly slow process of construction approval.

[BTinSF]

The T-Loin burkha fashion show:

Polk Senior Housing (Polk & Geary):

http://www.citizenshousing.org/images/property_images/polk_colors_Proposed_Exterior_2_2008.jpg
The Polk Senior Housing development is a new construction project that will provide approximately 110 units of safe, quality, affordable housing with links to essential supportive services for low-income seniors. Located at a main intersection in the neighborhood, this project is served by nine different public transit routes within a three-block walking distance. Other neighborhood amenities within walking distance include grocery stores, restaurants, retail shops, St. Francis Hospital, and other health care centers.

Funding sources of this project include the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing, Federal Home Loan Bank, 4% low-income housing tax credits, and Union Bank of California. Fifty units in this property will serve seniors who have been homeless or are at risk of homelessness, a segment of the San Francisco population that is in need of permanent housing and supportive services.

This project will also provide about 3,000 square feet of community space that includes a solarium, office spaces, and a kitchenette, as well as 3,000 square feet of retail space available for a local business.

Qualifying senior residents will earn 50% or less of the area median income. On-site senior supportive services will be provided to enable the residents of the development to age healthily and happily. Citizens Housing is partnering with Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) on this development.
Source: http://www.citizenshousing.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=43&Itemid=61&propertyListPage=property_detail.php&propertyListVar=18&propertyListTitle=Polk%20Senior%20Housing

Today's reality:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0068-1.jpg?t=1210630404http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0074.jpg?t=1210630442

Arnett Watson Apartments (Eddy between Polk and Larkin)

http://www.chp-sf.org/images/bldg_eddy.jpg
Arnett Watson Apartments will be the first building CHP (Community Housing Partnership) has constructed from the ground up. Located on a lot at 650 Eddy Street, Arnett Watson Apartments will become 36 studio apartments, 33 1-bedrooms and 14 2-bedrooms. The building will feature two courtyards, community space and integrated services space. Our development partner for this project is Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation. When complete, CHP will be the owner and operator of the property. Construction is now underway, and the doors will open in December 2008.
Source: http://www.chp-sf.org/housing_current_arnettwatson.html

Today's reality:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0064.jpg?t=1210630800

818 Van Ness condos:

http://www.socketsite.com/818%20Van%20Ness.jpg
818 Van Ness Avenue is an eight (8) story mixed-use condominium project of 52 residential units above two new retail spaces (810 and 826 Van Ness). The design is by Forum Design. The building should be on the market in early 2008.
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/12/the_socketsite_scoop_on_the_52_condos_rising_at_818_van.html

The reality:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0076.jpg?t=1210631075

[BTinSF]

And then there's SOMA:

829 Folsom (69 condos, ranging from studios to 3 bedrooms):

The rendering
http://www.socketsite.com/829%20Folsom%20Rendering.gif
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2007/12/829_folsom_street_69_luxury_condos_coming_in_2008.html

The reality
http://www.socketsite.com/829%20Folsom%205-12-08.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

View from the rooftop terrace
http://www.socketsite.com/829%20Folsom%20View.jpg
Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

Could this be a case of the reality looks BETTER than the rendering?