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

[peanut gallery]

There are a lot of exciting elements to that 5M (ie: 5th and Mission) proposal, not the least of which is a rooftop public space on the old Chronicle Building. I wish the tallest buildings weren't relegated to phase 2, but it's probably prudent to start small and gauge demand, costs, etc.

[Gordo]

Love the plan overall, but man, that's a long construction timeline. I understand the reasons, and I get it, but to me all that it means is that a portion of that block is going to be under continual construction for 15 years (best case) or that a portion of the plan never happens (worst case) or that construction is on-again/off-again for decades (most likely).

I just don't much care for the modern large-infill zone method of creating near-permanent or at least multi-decade long construction zones to make sure that stuff isn't built too fast to keep demand high. Looking at you, Mission Bay.

[minesweeper]

Just a question, but with the dozens of projects going on in the city (and more in the next few years). Does anybody have an idea how many total new housing units will hit the market by 2020? Are there estimates as to the total city population by 2020?

The 2012 estimate by the census is 812,826; I don't see why this couldn't hit 825,000 by 2020. Thoughts? Sorry if this is off topic. And for "only" being the 14th largest city in the U.S. San Francisco punches WAY above its weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

The CA Dept. of Finance released a 50 year population estimate (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/) just a week ago. They project that SF will have a population of 852K in 2020:

2020: 852,788
2030: 877,847
2040: 891,607
2050: 907,443
2060: 926,555

Source (PDF) (http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010-2060.pdf)

[Jerry of San Fran]

minsweeper - thanks for the update. We are getting a lot of "low" income housing in the neighborhood so I think the reduction of below market rate units is alright as housing is tight right now.

[fimiak]

Population density is everything in my opinion. SF will reach New York pop. density levels if it reaches 1 million residents. I am encouraged that it will be 907k by 2050, but I think encouraging even further growth is a good policy to have for the region for the next 50 years. Who knows how many new residents the STEM degree-green card clause in the new immigration bill may bring to the bay area.

[easy as pie]

it seems hard for me to believe that in ~40 years sf's population will only have grown by 100k, but that's actually a number than assumes a pretty aggressive (for sf) development agenda. which i think is right, as we seem to have passed a tipping point into a major period of growth. basically, the demand has been so high for so long that we've major projects in the works in lake merced, hunter's point/candlestick point, the bayview, treasure island, and the mission bay/china basin build-out, not to mention planned further intensification of the entire soma and continued infill throughout the hayes valley and central market (55 laguna, come on baby!), we could be adding 2000k units/year by 2015, if the market cooperates. by 2030 (gives me vertigo even writing that number) then, sf could easily have 25k more units that it does today, with probably double that many new residents - exactly in line with the prediction.

[NOPA]

I think the best thing growth-wise for the city would be to build the Geary subway out through The Richmond and upzone the area for a substantial more amount of density. Of course none of that will likely happen.

Speaking of all the growth on upper/mid Market street. Are there any plans for the redevelopment of the Safeway at Market and Church? What is the zoning there?

[202_Cyclist]

Population density is everything in my opinion. SF will reach New York pop. density levels if it reaches 1 million residents. I am encouraged that it will be 907k by 2050, but I think encouraging even further growth is a good policy to have for the region for the next 50 years. Who knows how many new residents the STEM degree-green card clause in the new immigration bill may bring to the bay area.

I don't want to play city vs city but DC has added 32,000 people since 2010. At this rate, this would be doubling our population by 2050, adding another 600,000 residents.

[fflint]

There is no place for this crap in a San Francisco-specific thread.
I don't want to play city vs city but DC has added 32,000 people since 2010. At this rate, this would be doubling our population by 2050, adding another 600,000 residents.

[202_Cyclist]

There is no place for this crap in a San Francisco-specific thread.

I specifically said I don't want to have a city vs.city debate but when the discussion is about population growth, how can some comparative context hurt? If you only want to focus on development, then the entire discussion about residential population growth should be take to another forum.

[fflint]

I specifically said I don't want to have a city vs.city debate but when the discussion is about population growth, how can some comparative context hurt? If you only want to focus on development, then the entire discussion about residential population growth should be take to another forum.
The discussion already *has* a context--how the ongoing residential developments we are discussing in this thread will affect this city's population, which is currently at an all-time high.

Your introduction--apropos of nothing--of the recent growth rate of some city thousand of miles away which is still 25% less populous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinking_cities_in_the_United_States) than it was at its peak in 1950, is not a "context" for anything in this thread. Period.

[202_Cyclist]

The discussion already *has* a context--how the ongoing residential developments we are discussing in this thread will affect this city's population, which is currently at an all-time high.

Your introduction--apropos of nothing--of the recent growth rate of some city thousand of miles away which is still 25% less populous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinking_cities_in_the_United_States) than it was at its peak in 1950, is not a "context" for anything in this thread. Period.

A little defensive? It provides a lot of context for the discussion of growing from 812K residents to 825K in eight years.

[northbay]

Context with DC is not needed. It's like one kid saying "I grew an inch last year" then another kid (who's insecure), "Well, I grew 2 inches." SF and DC are two entirely different beasts. The comparison to DC is irrelevant to the current topic.

[202_Cyclist]

Context with DC is not needed. It's like one kid saying "I grew an inch last year" then another kid (who's insecure), "Well, I grew 2 inches." SF and DC are two entirely different beasts. The comparison to DC is irrelevant to the current topic.

It absolutely does provide context. Just this week, an article was posted noting that the Mission Rock development will have housing for 2,000 new residents. Excluding all of this, then for the next eight years, San Francisco will grow by about 1/5 of one percent per year. Sometimes it helps to establish and use benchmarks, as just about every successful business does. Again, I am not trying to have a city vs city debate, I am just trying to provide some context.

[fflint]

It provides a lot of context for the discussion of growing from 812K residents to 825K in eight years.
DC is currently a city of 632,323 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html) that grew by 5.2% between 2000 and 2010, but is--still--a city with 169,855 fewer residents people than at its 1950 peak. DC is growing, but is still 21% less populous than it once was.

SF is currently a city of 812,826 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0667000.html) that grew by 3.7% between 2000 and 2010, and is a city with 37,469 (4.6%) more residents than it has ever had.

One city must increase its population by another 21% just to get back to where it once was. The other has set new population records in both of the last two censuses. Even when just focusing on population statistics, Washington DC does not provide any obvious context for a discussion about San Francisco residential projects and the population increase they will bring. Why do you claim it does?

[202_Cyclist]

DC is currently a city of 632,323 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html) that grew by 5.2% between 2000 and 2010, but is--still--a city with 169,855 fewer residents people than at its 1950 peak. DC is growing, but is still 21% less populous than it once was.

SF is currently a city of 812,826 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0667000.html) that grew by 3.7% between 2000 and 2010, and is a city with 37,469 (4.6%) more residents than it has ever had.

One city must increase its population by another 21% just to get back to where it once was. The other has set new population records in both of the last two censuses. Even when just focusing on population statistics, Washington DC does not provide any obvious context for a discussion about San Francisco residential projects and the population increase they will bring. Why do you claim it does?

Fine, regardless of which city you choose, don't you think that San Francisco can do better than 1/5 of one percent annual population growth for the rest of the decade? If people here care about affordable housing and sustainable development, I would certainly hope they would expect SF to have better residential growth than this.

[fflint]

Fine, regardless of which city you choose, don't you think that San Francisco can do better than 1/5 of one percent annual population growth for the rest of the decade? If people here care about affordable housing and sustainable development, I would certainly hope they would expect SF to have better residential growth than this.
Are you just pulling this 0.2% annual growth rate out of your ass?

The only reliable estimate we have for post-2010 growth in San Francisco comes from the Census Bureau. Between 2010 and 2011, San Francisco grew by 0.9% (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0667000.html).

Constructing new housing in a built-out city at its all-time peak population is not merely a matter of forumers "caring" or "doing better." I don't know what could possibly be expected of regular people when discussing the sort of high-rise construction that only big banks and megamillionaires can actually bring about. And your hometown's growth rate has absolutely nothing to do with it, either.

[1977]

Brochure for 50 Hawthorne (part of the 680 Folsom development):

http://thecacgroup.com/assets/listings/pdf_brochure/135/50_hawthorne.pdf?1357688045

Also, a street-scape rendering of 680 Foslom:

http://deals.tmgpartners.com/sites/default/files/images/680folsom01.jpg
Source: http://deals.tmgpartners.com/

[202_Cyclist]

Are you just pulling this 0.2% annual growth rate out of your ass?

The only reliable estimate we have for post-2010 growth in San Francisco comes from the Census Bureau. Between 2010 and 2011, San Francisco grew by 0.9% (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0667000.html).

Constructing new housing in a built-out city at its all-time peak population is not merely a matter of forumers "caring" or "doing better." I don't know what could possibly be expected of regular people when discussing the sort of high-rise construction that only big banks and megamillionaires can actually bring about. And your hometown's growth rate has absolutely nothing to do with it, either.

On the previous page, someone said SF's population in 2012 was 812K and in the same post said that a population by 2020 of 825,000 was a reasonable estimate. This is about 1500-1600 people per year, or .2%. As I said in my original post, excluding the Mission Rock development posted the other day, this would be about 1600 new residents each year for the rest of the decade. I understand enough about statistics to know that when you start with a larger number, it is more difficult to have larger percentage increases than you would have if you started with a much smaller base.

NOPA:
"Just a question, but with the dozens of projects going on in the city (and more in the next few years). Does anybody have an idea how many total new housing units will hit the market by 2020? Are there estimates as to the total city population by 2020?

The 2012 estimate by the census is 812,826; I don't see why this couldn't hit 825,000 by 2020. Thoughts? Sorry if this is off topic. And for "only" being the 14th largest city in the U.S. San Francisco punches WAY above its weight."

[202_Cyclist]

Fflint:
"I don't know what could possibly be expected of regular people when discussing the sort of high-rise construction that only big banks and megamillionaires can actually bring about."

1) Support and campaign for local politicians who favor pro-growth policies that would expand the housing supply.
2) Grass-roots advocacy to build support for infill development and counter NIMBY opposition.
3) Advocate and campaign for transportation investments that will accommodate residential growth.

[fimiak]

The US census bureau has lowered its 2050 growth forecast to between 399 and 438 million Americans. Taking the lesser figure to be conservative, that is approximately 43% growth from 280 million Americans in 2000.

Taking San Francisco population of 776,000 in 2000, and increasing it by the national average of 43%, the population of San Francisco should be 1,109,680 in 2050.

I do not see why San Francisco cannot finally come to terms with its place as not just a top 5 US city in importance, but also a global city to be compared with the best of Europe and Asia. This means intense growth and a focus on creating a metropolitan-focused expansion.

(begin rant) The Central Subway is a good start but there needs to be a Geary corridor as well as a complete rethinking of Soma, which should look more like New York's Upper East Side with a mix of tall and short, in order to accomodate office workers that want to walk and bike to work in the new office buildings being built in the Transbay district. Mission street and Folsom need to lead to charge by allowing 10-15+ story buildings to be built. It absolutely amazes me how little business is on these two streets. Where are the flower shops? Bakeries? Normal businesses that aren't furniture stores or nocturnal nightclubs? City hall should hire me look into that issue ;) (end rant)

[fflint]

The US census bureau has lowered its 2050 growth forecast to between 399 and 438 million Americans. Taking the lesser figure to be conservative, that is approximately 43% growth from 280 million Americans in 2000.

Taking San Francisco population of 776,000 in 2000, and increasing it by the national average of 43%, the population of San Francisco should be 1,109,680 in 2050.
The Bureau isn't likely to predict any of the old, dense cities will grow at the national rate, however, and you should not expect that either. Perhaps Detroit could, with its present-day 50 square miles of empty land, match the national rate of growth. Yet cities like San Francisco do not have miles and miles of virgin land in reserve, nor can we just expand the footprint of residential districts outward, the way the nation as a whole can. Absent some radical and as-now unexpected change, SF will still be 45 square miles in 2050. That is, if rising sea levels don't actually make the land area smaller!

In any case, the point is that you're never going to get the massive population growth a la the suburbs in built-out cities with finite parcels of land upon which to build. And as the decades go on, as all the brownfield parcels are redeveloped, new construction will come almost exclusively via skyscrapers, by far the most expensive form of new housing construction. That means new housing will be luxury housing, as we see in Rincon Hill already, and that in turn means the city must be actually able to attract and retain luxury home owners at whatever rate it can. It won't likely be as easy as it would be to attract ordinary people.

[fimiak]

The Bureau isn't likely to predict any of the old, dense cities will grow at the national rate, however, and you should not expect that either. Perhaps Detroit could, with its present-day 50 square miles of empty land, match the national rate of growth. Yet cities like San Francisco do not have miles and miles of virgin land in reserve, nor can we just expand the footprint of residential districts outward, the way the nation as a whole can. Absent some radical and as-now unexpected change, SF will still be 45 square miles in 2050. That is, if rising sea levels don't actually make the land area smaller!

In any case, the point is that you're never going to get the massive population growth a la the suburbs in built-out cities with finite parcels of land upon which to build. And as the decades go on, as all the brownfield parcels are redeveloped, new construction will come almost exclusively via skyscrapers, by far the most expensive form of new housing construction. That means new housing will be luxury housing, as we see in Rincon Hill already, and that in turn means the city must be actually able to attract and retain luxury home owners at whatever rate it can. It won't likely be as easy as it would be to attract ordinary people.


Even if SF in 2050 were able to reach 1,100,000 residents, the cities population density would only be 23,400 pop. per sq. mi, less than that of New York. A lot can happen in ~37 years. There are entire neighborhoods that are still to be built esp. in Mission Bay, Transbay, Hunter's Point, Candlestick, etc. that will bring in tens of thousands. You are right, however, I do not believe that SF will grow at the nationwide rate in the next 37 years. Still though, the city can and should keep its current growth spurt going for as long as possible. A goal of 20,000 pop./sq. ft density is 950,000 people, and that many people will be accommodated by higher apartment buildings and a build out of transit options in the city.

[timbad]

in case anyone was wondering how 333 Fremont is coming along... this is looking north:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8249/8463199971_ca9b03dc50_b.jpg

[NOPA]

Awesome photo Timbad! Keep it up!

Also, more deets on the development on Harrison and 2nd via socketsite. Is there a seperate thread for this project? I sure hope they upzone this for higher density!

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/02/the_big_plans_for_this_east_soma_block_bigger_than_plan.html

[biggerhigherfaster]

sigh, apparently the 333 Fremont project is just 8 stories. It's a stylish building, but it would be great to see something closer to 30 stories in that area

[peanut gallery]

^Fear not, there will be several tall buildings in the area. Across the street will be this:
http://www.socketsite.com/340%20Fremont%202012.jpg
Source: SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/11/340_fremont_scoop_refined_design_and_far_fewer_parking.html)
Here is the SSP thread. (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=118914)

And right next door (the dirt area in the foreground of timbad's photo) will be this:
http://www.socketsite.com/399%20Fremont%20Rendering%202012%20-%20Aerial.jpg
Source: SocketSite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/07/399_fremont_scoop_redesigned_and_pursuing_construction.html)
Here is the SSP thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=118916).

And in the background of that last rendering you can see the under-construction ORH phase 2.

[biggerhigherfaster]

good stuff, peanut, but whether all those projects will get built is another matter

[peanut gallery]

That's true, nothing is guaranteed. But the first one, 340 Fremont, filed for construction permits in September and the second, 399 Fremont, supposedly has funding and could start very soon. I'm with you though, I won't get too hopeful until actual work starts on either one.

[NOPA]

I think these will get built sooner than we think considering how hot the SF market is right now.

I am also totally fine with not EVERY infill project being massive tower; the gaps/space break it up and give more views, sun, air, etc. Idealy, I'd prefer a lot of tall and medium slender towers with varing heights.

My biggest problem with our skyline is the sense that it "flatlines" around 500 ft towers. The Transbay tower should help solve this (though I would love to see an iconic 1300 footer in between the Transbay and Transamerica as the skyline peak, but one can only dream).

[tech12]

Designs for Mission Bay block 40 have been released:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/02/designs_for_a_million_mission_bay_feet_on_the_border_of.html

upon Block 40, a 995,000 square foot office complex composed of two "campuses" is proposed to rise. Each campus would feature a 5-story building connected to a 12-story, rising up to 180 feet. 680 parking spaces would be provided in two 5-story parking garages. The western facades of the buildings and open spaces facing Interstate 280 have been designed so that if Interstate 280 is razed, the area could be repurposed as public open space.

http://www.socketsite.com/Mission%20Bay%20Block%2040%20Rendering%201.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Mission%20Bay%20Block%2040%20Rendering%202.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Mission%20Bay%20Block%2040%20Rendering%204.jpg

http://www.socketsite.com/Mission%20Bay%20Block%2040.jpg

[biggerhigherfaster]

Not bad, but I hope that the other blocks of Mission Bay are used for high rise residential

[peanut gallery]

The only potential for additional highrise residential left in MB is within the Giants' Mission Rock development. Everything else is spoken for and if I'm not mistaken only Block 13W is what I would call a highrise. In fact, these two office buildings will be two of the tallest buildings in MB outside Mission Rock.

[Gordo]

Just curious - how many 5+ story parking garages will there be in Mission Bay upon buildout? I sort of understand the need for them here with the high water table and university/hospital use, but jeez, it seems like there will be about a dozen within a 20-30 square block area.

[NOPA]

Thought I would snap a few photos while at Safeway today. Not sure the names of these developments in Upper Market, but they are coming along nicely.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8469812654/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8469813004/in/photostream

[Jerry of San Fran]

NOPA - tanks for the link with updates on the apartment buildings across the street from the Safeway store. I was on the same corner today at 2:30 & saw a guy taking pictures of the construction. It might have been you!

[NOPA]

I was there a few hours later...and they are just crummy iPhone pics. Also, I'm trying to figure out how to get the photo to pop up in the thread (not just the link). Sorry I'm a newbie but trying to post more relevant comments, not just opinion.

[fimiak]

I was there a few hours later...and they are just crummy iPhone pics. Also, I'm trying to figure out how to get the photo to pop up in the thread (not just the link). Sorry I'm a newbie but trying to post more relevant comments, not just opinion.

Make an account on imgur, upload photo, and click the option for displaying a thumbnail. More pictures are always wanted and appreciated.

[timbad]

... Also, I'm trying to figure out how to get the photo to pop up in the thread (not just the link). ...

from your flickr account:

1. select the photo you want to display here
2. click the 'Share' button
3. choose 'Grab the HTML/BBCode'
4. select BBCode
5. choose size of photo (I use Large 1024)
6. copy the code that appears in the box
7. back here in your post, click on the 'insert image' icon
8. paste the code in the pop-up box, click OK. you can be done at this point, but I always also
9. delete most of the extra code, leaving just the part below (disabled example), which is all that is needed

[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8367/8469812654_87c7fdd2fd_b.jpg[ /img]

[fimiak]

If anyone wants to start proper threads on projects like 55 Ninth st, 5th and Folsom, and other buildings underway but without threads, I will provide updated pictures as soon as I can.

[peanut gallery]

At 17 floors and 205 feet, 55 Ninth can have it's own thread. I didn't realize the limit for the Highrise section was only 12 floors/115 feet (thought the minimum was taller than that).

But 5th and Folsom is too short, although I suppose a thread could be created in General Developments. I don't mind keeping those shorter miscellaneous projects here though. It's a nice one-stop-shop for updates. But if others feel differently, I certainly won't complain.

[NOPA]

Curbed has an update on 1645 Pacific; they filed for construction permits a week or two ago. Nice overview of the development.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/02/14/whats_happening_at_1645_pacific.php

[1977]

Transbay Block 9 info and rendering (http://bizj.us/nwddz/i/2):

Avant Housing and equity partner Essex Property Trust have been tapped to build a 400-foot tower on Block 9 in the Transbay District, a 563-unit project that could break ground a year from now.
Source and article: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/02/avant-essex-win-transbay-block-9-bid.html

[tall/awkward]

Cool! Sort of has that stacked block look...

[fimiak]

http://i.imgur.com/I0IT94V.jpg (http://imgur.com/I0IT94V)

Perfect for San Francisco. More 400 ft towers and we will see demand for more 600 ft, 800 ft, 1000ft projects....

[biggerhigherfaster]

what intersection is that at? Based on the rendering, there isn't much around it

[1977]

what intersection is that at? Based on the rendering, there isn't much around it

Block 9 is at First and Folsom:

http://www.socketsite.com/Transbay%20Blocks.gif
www.socketsite.com

And just to refresh....Block 6:

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5514/69363261.jpg

[fimiak]

Block 8 has 550ft I think. I hope they put as much thought into that one as they did for block 9.

[Grantenfuego]

This project is almost complete (at least the exterior). It's on Franklin Between Golden Gate and McAllister. 'Not positive about the address (I think it's 689 Franklin)

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/9682/20130214150500.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/20130214150500.jpg/)

http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3064/20130214150542.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/20130214150542.jpg/)

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1343/20130214150701.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/20130214150701.jpg/)


http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7643/20130214150946.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/20130214150946.jpg/)

'Lots of parking lots in this area. I would love to see more of them developed.

[timbad]

This project is almost complete (at least the exterior). It's on Franklin Between Golden Gate and McAllister. ...

'Lots of parking lots in this area. I would love to see more of them developed.

left over from where the Central Freeway used to be. they're working on them, one by one, stitching up the wound

http://hayesvalleysf.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Central-freeway-development-parcels-Dennis-Yang.jpeg

source: http://hayesvalleysf.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Central-freeway-development-parcels-Dennis-Yang.jpeg

[easy as pie]

that franklin st project is a retirement home of some sort, what a location.

not to be negative, but i'm pretty sure that there's no way that this will be built:
http://i.imgur.com/I0IT94V.jpg (http://imgur.com/I0IT94V)

[tech12]

Wow that building proposed for Transbay block 9 looks really good.


not to be negative, but i'm pretty sure that there's no way that this will be built:

Why do you say that?

[peanut gallery]

Because after it goes through Planning and community input everything that is interesting about it will be stripped away, not to mention the usual effects of value engineering. I can't tell you how much I hope I'm wrong. I love that rendering and would love to see it from additional angles. We need more SOM in this town. I love their work.

PS: sorry for the pessimism. I shouldn't be. It's a great time for construction fans in the city right now.

[peanut gallery]

Here's another angle, also from the SF Business Times (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/02/avant-essex-win-transbay-block-9-bid.html):

http://assets.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/TransbayBlock9.jpg

[tech12]

Because after it goes through Planning and community input everything that is interesting about it will be stripped away, not to mention the usual effects of value engineering.

I am kind of an optimist myself, but i have to disagree with this just based on the history of highrise construction/proposals in that area of the city over the past 10-15 years.

-Millennium tower, 201 Folsom, 535 Mission, 10th and Market, 340 Fremont, 375 Fremont all had had their designs improved, not community-input/value-engineered away, and they've all been approved or built.

-The Transbay tower was approved, and not community-input/value-engineered into a giant box or anything.

-181 fremont is another unique building that has lots of support from planning and the community, with no claims that I've seen yet that it will "ruin SF" or some crap.

I understand that seeing a truly unique highrise design proposed in SF can cause suspicions that it will not stay unique, because of past history of NIMBYs and planning tweaking building designs and ensuring that they end up boring/ugly/shorter, but it seems that very little of that has happened during this new round of construction in SOMA (in fact when the Transbay tower was tweaked, it was to make it MORE unique, not less). It seems to me that these days that type of meddling with building designs is much more likely to happen out in the residential neighborhoods, or wherever wealthy/powerful NIMBYs get their views blocked...and thankfully SOMA is off the wealthy/powerful NIMBY radar seeing as most of them are in Northeast SF and can't see SOMA from their windows. What they seem to mostly care about is preserving their views/tennis clubs/parking situations, or "historic neighborhood character", which doesn't really apply to most of SOMA.

The Transbay block 9 building looks good, and the height is no problem at 400 feet, so I'm going to guess that it does get built, as long as the economy holds out and all that. Of course whether the developer decides to do some value-engineering is another factor beyond the city's control, but I'm going to guess that the city itself will do nothing or very little when it comes to tweaks. I hope I'm right.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Interesting design. Unfortunately it affects my inner ear & makes me dizzy looking at the picture. It will be interesting to see it in person if the design as pictured is built. I'll bring my dramamine just in case :>}

[botoxic]

Regarding Transbay Block 9, although the article states a 400' tower (which coincidentally is the height limit proposed for that parcel), I count at least 44 stories, plus that crown. At typical residential floor heights, I suspect this building could approach 475 feet tall, which is great. It certainly looks taller than 400' based just on the rendering.

[fflint]

^The crown is usually exempt from the building height limit, up to (IIRC) an additional 100ft.

[MarshallKnight]

http://i.imgur.com/I0IT94V.jpg (http://imgur.com/I0IT94V)


Gorgeous. I'm in love with this design.

[peanut gallery]

tech12 - you bring up some excellent examples. That's part of the reason I added the ps, as there have been several excellent buildings rise in the past several years. But there are also examples of the opposite. It was just a matter of me feeling a little pissy this morning (for some masochistic reason I was reliving the insanity of the 8 Washington debacle today), and trying to help answer your question (which admittedly wasn't directed at me, so sorry for butting in). Anyway, thanks for injecting some optimism. It's a good quality, and one I appreciate on development forums.

[Illithid Dude]

Gorgeous. I'm in love with this design.

I mean seriously. One of the nicest towers I have ever seen.

[northbay]

tech12 - you bring up some excellent examples. That's part of the reason I added the ps, as there have been several excellent buildings rise in the past several years. But there are also examples of the opposite. It was just a matter of me feeling a little pissy this morning (for some masochistic reason I was reliving the insanity of the 8 Washington debacle today), and trying to help answer your question (which admittedly wasn't directed at me, so sorry for butting in). Anyway, thanks for injecting some optimism. It's a good quality, and one I appreciate on development forums.

I thought if 8 Washington also. Ugh.

One can only hope!

[timbad]

http://i.imgur.com/I0IT94V.jpg (http://imgur.com/I0IT94V)

like this and hope it gets built. one minor thing: it appears that the short boxy section on the corner has a twin on the other side of the tower. I'm not sure about that, it's difficult to see in the rendering, but if so, that would be a drawback for me. would rather there not be that symmetry, think it would be more interesting otherwise.

[timbad]

like this and hope it gets built. one minor thing: it appears that the short boxy section on the corner has a twin on the other side of the tower. I'm not sure about that, it's difficult to see in the rendering, but if so, that would be a drawback for me. would rather there not be that symmetry, think it would be more interesting otherwise.

wups, this has its own thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=204082) now

[timbad]

a bit more (http://www.sfgate.com/art/article/SFMOMA-to-add-terraces-stage-space-4282274.php#photo-4198636) on the SFMOMA expansion, with a couple new renders. highlights:

...will have two new outdoor terraces: one on the seventh, or top floor, facing east with expansive views, and a third-floor sculpture terrace flanked by what's billed as the city's largest public "living wall" of native plants. It will be 150 long by 35 feet tall. ...

...expects construction to begin as planned this summer. The museum closes after a free public day June 2, and is scheduled to reopen in early 2016

http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/20/01/03/4198638/3/628x471.jpg

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/20/01/03/4198637/3/628x471.jpg

[timbad]

(PS, anyone notice this thread just passed (probably yesterday?) a million views?)

[Jerry of San Fran]

(PS, anyone notice this thread just passed (probably yesterday?) a million views?)

timbad - nope - congradulations to all who contributed. I assume the asteroid passing by yesterday did not register on the counter!

[Jerry of San Fran]

View of the new Crescent Heights development at 10th & Market Sts. The highest building will be close to the same height of the (Archstone) Fox Plaza on the right. The crane on the left is the 2nd tallest building in the complex & is now at it's highest point. The view is in front of the Asian Art Museum.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8520/8485127832_d3833aeb7a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8485127832/)

[biggerhigherfaster]

Took some pictures this long weekend. Don't remember exactly where all these are from, though my guesses are beside/above each picture.

demo at near 1st and mission
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8250/8486796447_6358cd0079.jpg

transbay
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8523/8486797235_07ee79f2e0.jpg

foundry
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8374/8487887488_4ea53c37e2.jpg

Rincon area
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8085/8486797689_d399eb1d16.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8241/8486797893_5f9a1d5d26.jpg

Folsom, from 3rd to 5th, and also around 5th and 6th
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8528/8487888170_60019827ae.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8487889126_f8a0ed6f4f.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8391/8486799375_6d63385b87.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8110/8487889606_3835b884cb.jpg

Midmarket and Mission between 5th and 10th
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8095/8487890224_2d6b765d06.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8368/8486796181_d7a2c69919.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8532/8487890938_d7260fbfc0.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8367/8487891234_bac41b5e32.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8096/8487891474_243538b582.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8237/8487891674_a66954c78f.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8487892080_6e163a29fb.jpg

hayes valley
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8233/8487892292_e7fe38b602.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8249/8487892514_1c245b9e74.jpg

midmarket near dolores
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8098/8486802639_f0581e00d6.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8245/8486803363_0421206874.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8374/8487894098_f6024a857a.jpg

[fflint]

^I cannot see any of your photos, biggerhigherfaster.

[biggerhigherfaster]

^I cannot see any of your photos, biggerhigherfaster.

edit: fixed, took awhile but it's done

[1977]

Great update biggerhigherfaster. Thank you!

Also, is that curtain wall (bottom right corner) going up at 680 Folsom?

[biggerhigherfaster]

Great update biggerhigherfaster. Thank you!

Also, is that curtain wall (bottom right corner) going up at 680 Folsom?

if you mean the 2nd photo in the "Folsom" set, the bottom right corner is the new glass cladding, which should eventually cover the whole building.

This project has been extremely slow moving imo. I used to live near there. It's taken them over a year just to take apart the original cladding and add 2 floors; only now are they starting to reclad. Starting from scratch might have been faster...

[northbay]

Thanks for the photo update.

Great to see a compilation of all the activity all at once.

[1977]

if you mean the 2nd photo in the "Folsom" set, the bottom right corner is the new glass cladding, which should eventually cover the whole building.

This project has been extremely slow moving imo. I used to live near there. It's taken them over a year just to take apart the original cladding and add 2 floors; only now are they starting to reclad. Starting from scratch might have been faster...

Yes, that's the one.

[tech12]

Good news for beer drinkers, the city, and the Giants' seawall lot 337/Mission Rock project:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/02/san_francisco_giants_sign_anchor_brewing_to_mission_roc.html

The San Francisco Giants have signed Anchor Brewing to renovate San Francisco's Pier 48 and build "production and distribution facilities, a restaurant, museum and other public attractions” on the site, an anchor tenant for the Giants' Mission Rock Development.

While the 27-acre Mission Rock development will likely take a decade to finish, Anchor could be up and brewing on Pier 48 by the end of 2016, quadrupling current production from 180,000 to 680,000 barrels a year.

http://www.socketsite.com/Anchor%20Brewing%20Pier%2048.jpg

[tech12]

201 Folsom and 222 second are expected to start construction in March and this summer, respectively:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/02/tishman_teams_with_china_vanke_on_201_folsom_start_next.html
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/02/222_second_street_tower_ready_to_start_construction_thi.html

[Paul in S.A TX]

San Francisco looks like an awesome place hope to visit it one day. An inspiration for cities near and far. I hope it is a friendly town, the way I like them.

[easy as pie]

renderings for 101 polk, the emerald fund's next project (polk and hayes, around the corner from the 100 van ness renovation). looks like there'll be a very minimal commercial component in the form of a cafe or food space on the corner, which is disappointing, as a retail wrap would be both possible (parking egress on the laneway) and desirable, especially at night, when this is among the deadest of civic center corners, aside from the riff-raff. bah, at least we got a pretty decent design out of it. not clear on the number of units, but expect over 100.
http://i.imgur.com/rbHwN4k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cKJqDVQ.jpg

[fimiak]

I don't understand why we aren't getting a full retail base here. Do they not want the rent checks?

[easy as pie]

yeah, super short-sighted, i think. this is sure to be rental, so the 7 residential flats combining for ~5500sqf would bring in something like 10-12k/month, depending on how much things hot up but, long term, cleaving this up into 3-4 retail spaces could easily bring in 20k/month and add to the ambiance in such a way as to further invigorate the market for the next projects (the remaining 3 lots of the aaa campus). so, basically, just plain bad thinking.

that said, the project hasn't come up yet and it could still work out well. whatever happens, long term, that blank graham center wall needs to go. punch it out and put in retail, whatever, just fix it.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Easy as pie - I live across the street from 101 Polk. I like the design of the building. It will be nice to see that parking lot go - a magnet for bums at night. But, where are those people going to park who support the arts? Yes, it is a grim corner at night, dark, cold and empty of sane folks. A cafe would be a plus.

The Archstone Fox Plaza as of this week is now called the Essex Fox Plaza, L. P. as Archstone has been bought by Essex. We are told that the name Fox Plaza will change shortly. I would hate to see that happen as the building has been the Fox Plaza for 44 years.

[fflint]

Easy as pie - I live across the street from 101 Polk. I like the design of the building. It will be nice to see that parking lot go - a magnet for bums at night. But, where are those people going to park who support the arts? Yes, it is a grim corner at night, dark, cold and empty of sane folks. A cafe would be a plus.

The Archstone Fox Plaza as of this week is now called the Essex Fox Plaza, L. P. as Archstone has been bought by Essex. We are told that the name Fox Plaza will change shortly. I would hate to see that happen as the building has been the Fox Plaza for 44 years.
Are there still plans to add a flatiron residential tower at the corner?

[minesweeper]

Are there still plans to add a flatiron residential tower at the corner?

It's still entitled, but there are no immediate plans (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/02/essex-plunks-down-135m-for-san.html?page=all):

The two story commercial building is entitled for a 250 unit, 11 story apartment community. At present, Essex does not plan to develop the apartment tower but will evaluate this option in the future.

[NOPA]

Oh good to hear that they are planning a 27 mill renovation on the interior/exterior as its looking pretty tired. I'd prefer an AAA tower style makeover, but I'll take it.

[jbm]

i walked by 535 mission today and it looks like work has just restarted.

[simms3_redux]

Are there still plans to add a flatiron residential tower at the corner?

Remember this article from the NYT not too long ago?

In San Francisco - Life Without Starchitects (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/realestate/big-deal-in-san-francisco-life-without-starchitects.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Rendering from article:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/11/18/realestate/18DEAL1_SPAN/18DEAL1_SPAN-articleLarge-v4.jpg


HEY EVERYBODY - Just moved here to the city earlier this year from Atlanta and live in Jackson Square and work in the North FiDi in the RE industry. Looking forward to getting my feet wet in discussions as soon as I feel like I know enough to ask the right questions or comment on topics :)

[fflint]

^We were talking about Fox Plaza.

[easy as pie]

man, essex is on fire right now, 3 projects under development in the soma + their park merced involvement, so nuts. the $27 million in improvements to come on fox plaza bring their investment from 345k/unit to 365k/unit. there are lease agreements to consider and cash flow issues one imagines, but that they could do a lot better than 365k/unit on the entitled proposed flat iron portion. if you're essex, you don't mind sitting on site like that for a while though, it's a nice parcel to have in the bank.

[Jerry of San Fran]

I see a couple of quotes in this thread that the Fox Plaza is due a $27,000,000 upgrade. Can someone tell where this is coming from? I may have missed something.

I've lived in the Fox Plaza for 41 years & everytime we get a new owner (Cahill/Grosvenor/Cahill/Archstone/Essex) there are a lot of cosmetic changes made. We would love to see some important changes, like new glass walls in our apartment that are double paned. The noise from sirens 24/7 can be unnerving. The energy savings would be enormous. The worst inherent problem is the elevator service - too few for such a large building - I'm told that cannot be corrected.

[simms3_redux]

^We were talking about Fox Plaza.

Gotcha...lots of corner sites around there! Just read where it's entitled for 11 floors and 250 units, which is half the size of Fox Plaza (well...then Fox Plaza is also mainly studios and smaller floorplans). 250 units seems sizable for ground up development in the city barring any insane developments like Crescent Heights.

[simms3_redux]

I see a couple of quotes in this thread that the Fox Plaza is due a $27,000,000 upgrade. Can someone tell where this is coming from? I may have missed something.

I've lived in the Fox Plaza for 41 years & everytime we get a new owner (Cahill/Grosvenor/Cahill/Archstone/Essex) there are a lot of cosmetic changes made. We would love to see some important changes, like new glass walls in our apartment that are double paned. The noise from sirens 24/7 can be unnerving. The energy savings would be enormous. The worst inherent problem is the elevator service - too few for such a large building - I'm told that cannot be corrected.

http://highrisefacilities.com/essex-acquires-san-francisco-apartment-tower-fox-plaza/

I was going to post a comment on someone else's post $135MM for 444 units in the city (well and 399 garage spaces and 37,800 SF commercial) equates to well below 300/k door, and the $27MM brings it at most to 360k/door, which still seems LOW to me for units in the city...but then it's rent controlled and has people like you who have been living there for long periods of time! :) I looked at Fox Plaza and Argenta next door, decided on Gateway Apartments closer to work...but it's also rent-controlled :D Problem is my lease commenced in January 2013, not January 2009 let alone January 2069 :( The owners of Gateway have to loooovvveee me as a tenant right now.

[timbad]

I see a couple of quotes in this thread that the Fox Plaza is due a $27,000,000 upgrade. Can someone tell where this is coming from? ...

Jerry, this link was in minesweeper's post above, on 2/22:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/02/essex-plunks-down-135m-for-san.html?page=all

[Jerry of San Fran]

Jerry, this link was in minesweeper's post above, on 2/22:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/02/essex-plunks-down-135m-for-san.html?page=all

Thanks timbad - I missed the hyperlink!

[fimiak]

A few updates from 3 developments between 10th and 8th on market today. Lots of activity going on!

10th and Market - NeMa
http://i.imgur.com/QBAvXZ6.jpg (http://imgur.com/QBAvXZ6)

http://i.imgur.com/OIZwd80.jpg (http://imgur.com/OIZwd80)

http://i.imgur.com/qO2W3fL.jpg (http://imgur.com/qO2W3fL)

55 Ninth between Market and Mission

http://i.imgur.com/jzqot3f.jpg (http://imgur.com/jzqot3f)

http://i.imgur.com/9KAFmb9.jpg (http://imgur.com/9KAFmb9)

Back shot of Trinity Phase 2

http://i.imgur.com/2MCtmaE.jpg (http://imgur.com/2MCtmaE)

[minesweeper]

Thanks for the photos, fimiak.

i walked by 535 mission today and it looks like work has just restarted.

Yep, I posted some photos from last Friday in the building thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6025472&postcount=309). I also captured some destruction at 350 Mission (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6025482&postcount=171).

[easy as pie]

trumark (the danville group looking to launch 6 mid-sized condo projects over the coming 18 months) has its sight set on the pacific dental school property, hopefully with plans to build that surface lot out.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/02/trumark-shoots-for-condos-in-pacific.html

[1977]

renderings for 101 polk, the emerald fund's next project (polk and hayes, around the corner from the 100 van ness renovation). looks like there'll be a very minimal commercial component in the form of a cafe or food space on the corner, which is disappointing, as a retail wrap would be both possible (parking egress on the laneway) and desirable, especially at night, when this is among the deadest of civic center corners, aside from the riff-raff. bah, at least we got a pretty decent design out of it. not clear on the number of units, but expect over 100.
http://i.imgur.com/rbHwN4k.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/cKJqDVQ.jpg

Thanks! Some more info about 101 Polk and 100 Van Ness here (http://www.spur.org/files/event-attachments/Marc_Babsin_Presentation.pdf).

[Jerry of San Fran]

I passed the new development after brunch at Absinthe (excellent food!). There will be 63 units of housing. This is a hugh development that takes up about 1/4 of the block. The Hayes Valley is developing at last after the tear down of the freeway many years ago.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8521/8521730733_5c34e0a854_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8521730733/)
300 Ive Street @ Franklin Street - San Francisco (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8521730733/) by

[timbad]

walked down Market yesterday; an update, from west to east (minus the first few blocks at the Castro end):

north side, at Sanchez (former House of Thai?):

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8109/8524224601_036a35fcb7_b.jpg

our favorite Whole Foods, at Dolores:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8245/8524227149_e3b1a2f7fc_b.jpg

across the way, next door to the suburban Safeway that severely needs redoing:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8378/8524221529_3960df5145_b.jpg

the former longtime hole in the ground just up from Octavia:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8242/8524229273_f3561cbed5_b.jpg

and the little corner at Franklin:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8101/8524232065_235b2aa919_b.jpg