Something is happening at 222 Second
They have a flatbed in the lot with a sample of the glass wall which looks darker than in the illustration. Not sure if they are testing it out or showing it off to potential tenants but they look ready to start something soon.
|
I walked by this site this last weekend, and, although it didn't occur to me to go have a closer look, nothing on brief glance caught my eye as being happening yet. I'll try to get over there this coming weekend and pay attention - or maybe even one of these long light evenings - if no one else beats me to it
|
i work down the block. i think its still in use as a parking lot.
|
Quote:
|
When Tishman Speyer went back to Planning this February to modify their design, a letter form their attorney stated that the target date for groundbreaking was July 1, 2013.
p. 58, last sentence of first paragraph: http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...2013.0029X.pdf Hopefully they're still on track. |
6/16/2013
Photographic evidence of said parking lot (you can sort-of make out the flatbed on the left side of the photo):
http://i.imgur.com/ENVYEm1l.jpg |
They took away the glass it looks like though (I passed by and caught the 10 right there today). 222 Second is contingent upon Foundry III leasing...
|
looks like the parking lot has finally been closed.
|
We'll probably have activity soon
By sheer coincidence I saw a guy in the Civic Center BART station this morning holding one of those large sign boards required to be posted by the Planning Department. It was for 222 Second St. and was dated starting 8/5 and lasting for six months. It listed frontages on three streets that I assume will be closed off to street parking during onstruction.
Checking the permit database, they received their shoring and excavation permits about two weeks ago. It looks like they waited the required 15 days and are about to get the ball rolling. Turner Construction is listed on the permit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Densities for downtown cores and metro areas would be the numbers I would really be interested to see, to be able to compare different areas on the same basis... |
Glad to see this one is about to start!
Quote:
2. How is density meaningless? SF is more dense than any other big city aside from NYC, and is even second densest in the US on the metro level as well (after LA at #1). 3. The downtown core of SF contains the densest census tracts you'll find in America outside of NYC, and those tracts make up a contiguous chunk containing the Tenderloin, Chinatown, and part of nob hill. It's a denser chunk than anything in downtown Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, or LA, etc. The reason plenty of people like to bring up the fact that SF is a densely populated place is because it is a densely populated place. |
Don't forget that SF is a rapidly growing city. Projections are for over a million people in the city in the next 35 years, which is more than 20% growth, in what is already the second most dense city in the US. This is before considering the immigration bill that may bring tens of thousands of new tech workers to the SF bay area that are not at all in current census projections. SF punches above its weight on just about every economic measurement, esp. compared to someplace like Indianapolis. Which btw SF will overtake in population by 2015, even though Indianapolis has 7x as much land area.
Detroit has 130k fewer people than Indianapolis but nobody with any sense would argue that Indianapolis is a more important city to the US economy than Detroit, even in its present state. That is because Detroit is simply the center of a complex Auto industry ranging from Michigan, to Canada down to Ohio and PA. SF is likewise a fixture of the tech industry that makes it more ultimately important than larger cities like Phoenix, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis. |
Quote:
I'm not saying SF is not a dense city, nor the 2nd densest. I'm just saying that this 17K/sq m figure continuously thrown out there is arbitrary and not really representative of SF in general (Metro) when comparing to other cities. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
I'm going to intervene with larger rendering:
http://www.louieintl.com/wp-content/...-Francisco.jpg Source: www.louieintl.com |
what a huge impact this one will have, amazing.
|
Quote:
2. I didn't "shout" a density figure--I provided it in response to a forumer who wrote "I can't wait till San Fran gets some real density going on....Seems now it only rivals L.A. and San diego." That is obviously, objectively false. 3. Who cares what you "would really be interested to see" regarding population density? This thread is about a specific highrise proposal, not about you. |
Quote:
2. You're not being objective when using density figures based on 46 sq miles compared with over 300 for SD and over 400 for LA. We all agree city limits are arbitrary. And I think that forumer meant more skyscraper density and not more people per sq mile. 3. Not just me - you could benefit from that data :) Again, I'm not saying SF is not dense - it is and that's a reason it's so enjoyable to walk there. I'm a big buff of density figures and if people think that figuring out the population of an city/metro area is bit flaky (where does it end), it's even more difficult with density. Having google map layers that showed density on a city block basis (for both people and built stories) would be fantastic! Then it would be a piece a cake to compare two cities just by looking at them side by side. |
^^Troll much? I think you are sort of alone in your argument. Most of the inner Bay across 5 counties is a solid built up environment of around 10,000 ppsm, with San Jose dipping to ~5500 ppsm as a city (though I wonder if that includes all the mountains down there) and places south of SF in the 12-13,000 range, Berkeley at 11,000 and Oakland similar. I suppose you haven't heard of the area's infamous fog? Unlike LA's basin, that opens up to the ocean and allows the marine layer to burn off more easily, the Bay Area is mountainous and confined. The same reason for the density is the reason for the fog.
Ok so I heard that the city just went from ~15 100,000+ SF commitments in the market to ~21. This could be why TS wants to break ground on this, why I've heard that someone's looking at Foundry III, why a couple buildings on the market with large roll are attracting serious interest, and why Jay Paul is now scrambling to start his building (though we know he'll take Rocketspace). |
All times are GMT. The time now is 9:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.