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

[spyguy]

The Marlow - 1800 Van Ness
http://imageshack.us/a/img41/9479/img20130428160850.jpg

Pine and Franklin towers
http://imageshack.us/a/img713/7890/pinen.jpg

[minesweeper]

Sunday's Chronicle has an article about the current building boom (http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-s-building-boom-brings-change-to-city-4469660.php?t=08bb67576a47b02379):

Around the city, thousands of workers are busily erecting more than 140 building projects, big and small, that will yield about 4,000 new housing units. The vast majority are multiunit buildings - predominantly apartments with a smattering of condo complexes - along with some new office high-rises and office-building renovations. Then there are some massive public projects: the Transbay Transit Center complex, the long-planned Central Subway, and new hospital buildings at San Francisco General and UCSF Mission Bay.

"We're having the biggest residential construction boom that we've had in many decades," said Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of SPUR, an urban policy nonprofit.

And they have a giant graphic (http://www.sfchronicle.com/local/item/Map-See-construction-projects-underway-18805.php) of all the projects underway or nearly so.

One that I hadn't heard of before is 2655 Bush (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/04/2655_bush_street_designs_for_density_on_the_corner_of_d.html), a project of about 80 units at the corner with Divisadero. It's good to see that coming out of mothballs, since the current buildings are an eyesore.

[fflint]

The Chronicle's massive graphic:

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/21/24/36/4540332/3/1024x706.jpg

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/21/24/36/4540333/3/1024x706.jpg

[fflint]

A little more from the the Sunday Chronicle's article by Carolyn Said:

SF's Building Boom Brings Change to City

....

And this is just the beginning: Even-larger projects on the horizon will add thousands more housing units at Parkmerced, Pier 70, Mission Rock (the Giants' parking lot), Hunters Point/Candlestick and Treasure Island (though the latter two just lost significant Chinese financing). The Planning Department is feverishly adding staff to keep up. Developers have applied to construct another 40,000 housing units over coming years, although admittedly not all will get built.

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/21/23/12/4534932/3/premium_article_portrait.jpg
NeMa and AvalonBay apartment projects can be seen along Market Street. Lea Suzuki, The Chronicle

What spurred this frenzied burst of activity in a notoriously antidevelopment city?

Much of the current flurry is catch-up after a long dormancy. New construction almost ground to a halt during the economic downturn - in 2011, a scant 269 housing units were built. Many of the current projects went through the city's Byzantine approval process several years ago, then stalled when financing was difficult to obtain.

Last year, as the tech-fueled local economy rebounded and the national picture brightened, the money spigot turned back on. "Shovel ready" projects broke ground virtually overnight.

And San Francisco's housing fundamentals - surging demand along with soaring rents and home prices - are stronger than ever.

"What we see in San Francisco's skyline today is the culmination of more than two decades of smart planning that has now been kick-started by a recovering economy and a renewed sense of investor confidence in our city," said Mayor Ed Lee.

City planners say the clustering of high-occupancy developments was deliberate.

"Over many years of planning, we've aimed to direct dense growth where it makes the most sense: near transit, along Market and main corridors that can be revitalized with neighborhood eateries and retail," said John Rahaim, San Francisco planning director.
....
Some 4,000 new housing units opening soon translate into thousands of new residents. A jump in population means a surge in the need for everything from sewer lines to parks to buses to parking spaces. Developers pay a range of impact fees for Muni, schools, open space, libraries and other city services. The city then uses those funds to expand infrastructure accordingly.

But some facilities aren't elastic: streets and parking, for instance. Could the building boom cause gridlock downtown?

Planners say that having dense developments in transit-rich areas - and not providing a full parking space for every unit - will avert traffic-related problems.

"There's been a sea change with parking requirements," Baker said. "Planners realized that building a lot of parking garages doesn't make the city better, it makes it more congested."

Toward that end, "all downtown developments have very aggressive parking controls," Rich said. "It varies from 0.5 to 0.75 spaces per unit. In that part of the city, it is realistic to live without a car and many people are happy to do so. We have to work on getting transit to be more reliable and have more capacity."

Muni has long-range expansions in the works such as the Bus Rapid Transit systems on Van Ness and Geary Street, as well as the Central Subway that extends from the Fourth Street Caltrain station to Chinatown, with stops in SoMa and Union Square.
....

[TWAK]

How do you like the Treasure Island plan? I wish it would turn out a bit more like how mission bay and preserve more facilities/roads from the island.

[tech12]

How do you like the Treasure Island plan? I wish it would turn out a bit more like how mission bay and preserve more facilities/roads from the island.

I kind of feel the same way, when it comes to preserving some of the existing stuff. For example, SF always needs more housing, and there already is a decent amount of housing on treasure island, with over 2,000 residents living in it (many of whom are lower income too, a group that doesn't need to be pushed out even more from SF) but the plan calls for demolishing all of the existing housing as far as I can tell, much of which would get replaced with parkland rather than higher density housing in the same place. It seems like they could keep most of the existing housing (which is mostly on the northwestern end of the island), and still add all or most of the planned midrises and highrises, which are mostly farther south on the island in areas with little to no housing currently, and they would also be able to keep a large park as part of the plan too (just not quite as large as originally proposed, as the northern section would be where much of the existing housing is). I feel this would create a better community and less "sterile" experience than demolishing almost everything that already exists, and replacing it with another 100% master-planned area like mission bay (edit: i guess mission bay isn't 100% master planned/built from scratch, but it still is a bit much for my liking when combined with the giant lots given to single developers). Though I guess the more housing there is, the more problems there are going to be accessing it through only the two existing off ramps and the future ferry terminal. Imagine if the market street subway got extended to treasure island and ended there instead at the embarcadero, then there would be no problems with access...one can dream.

But that said, isn't the entire treasure island project as we know it (and hunters point project) not a certainty anymore, now that the financing fell through?

[fflint]

Treasure Island isn't a very compelling proposal in my view. For starters, rising sea levels make the investment in such low-lying infill a pretty bad idea. For another, the carrying capacity of the bridge--which is how most people will continue to enter and exit the island--is reached twice daily, at least, and the proposed ferry service doesn't seem likely to help those heading to/from destinations outside than SF's Financial District. Plus the design seems really lame, tower-in-the-park crap. Not a fan.

[raheelbs]

One Rincon Hill I and II looks so great it's really amazing..!

[minesweeper]

The Chronicle's massive graphic:



For such a comprehensive graphic, it looks like they missed two big projects that will probably break ground this year, 181 Fremont and 399 Fremont.

[cv94117]

For such a comprehensive graphic, it looks like they missed two big projects that will probably break ground this year, 181 Fremont and 399 Fremont.

No way 181 Fremont will break ground this year. Nowhere near ready.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Fox Channel 2 has a short story & video of the 100 Van Ness remodel. Anyone in the neighborhood can hear the jack hammers coming from the structure. Here is the link: http://www.ktvu.com/news/entertainment/creating-new-neighborhood-san-francisco/nXcy9/

[fflint]

^Good catch!

Here are some renderings:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2013/04/30/0e/07/100_Van_Ness_Rendering.jpg

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/04/30/36/0e/628x471-1.jpg


And some views soon to be enjoyed from some of the condos:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/img/photos/2013/04/30/e0/f0/IMG_2840.jpg

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/04/30/1e/90/IMG_2847.jpg

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/04/30/a4/7f/IMG_2846.jpg

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/04/30/45/b6/IMG_2839.jpg

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/615/img/photos/2013/04/30/13/d7/IMG_2836.jpg

[Jerry of San Fran]

fflint - great photos from 100 El Camino Real.

A nice view of the Fox Plaza where I live. We used to have access to the roof top but that was stopped about 12 years ago.

[fimiak]

Great pictures of the Market Street Place demolition on sf.curbed.com


Direct Link (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/05/02/st_francis_theater_others_make_way_for_market_street_place.php)

[simms3_redux]

45 Lansing (45 floors, 450 ft) doing heavy site prep now:

May 3...construction crews were hard work.

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/45lansing20130503_zpsee161ad6.jpg

[viewguysf]

NEMA is now taller than neighboring 1455 Market, where renovations already seem to have begun for Square's new headquarters. The cluster of buildings in this neighborhood is looking better and better!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8396/8712937244_1b3a2337e8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8712937244/)
IMG_5949 - Version 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8712937244/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

Nearby 100 Van Ness is almost ready to be stripped of its concrete facade panels.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8400/8708848362_7d14cac6b4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8708848362/)
100 Van Ness (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8708848362/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

[Jerry of San Fran]

viewguysf - Nice pictures of 100 Van Ness Avenue.

My attention was brought to the building today - some hefty steel beams were being put in place on the Fell Street side of the building.

Holes are being drilled into the concrete skin of the structure. Lots of noise during the day from the drilling. My neighbor, who worked in construction all of his life, thinks they will be used to remove the concrete panels from the building.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8114/8709215638_71b22cf507_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8709215638/)

[1977]

New rendering and some updated info about the new arena. I really like the "knot-hole" idea. It goes over super well down the street at AT&T Park.

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/21/34/43/4573416/8/premium_article_headline.jpg
More views, more glass and less parking are some of the changes the Golden State Warriors have included in their newly refined design for a San Francisco waterfront arena.

The revisions for the 18,000-seat arena at Piers 30-32 appear to be aimed at making the $1 billion-plus project more waterfront-friendly — and in the process help win approval from local, regional and state regulators.

“We are very happy with the idea that over 50 percent of the pier space is open and accessible at different times of the day for people who want to enjoy the waterfront,’’ said Craig Dykers, the lead arena designer for architectural firm Snøhetta, a Norwegian outfit with U.S. headquarters in New York.

Unlike many arenas that “are complicated-looking structures — strange shapes,’’ the proposed Warriors arena has a “very simple, very contemporary design that doesn’t have lot of visual chaos,’’ Dykers said.

In other words, the architects hope to minimize the arena’s impact on waterfront views — and give the public new vistas to enjoy as well.

Toward that end, Snøhetta and its project partners from the design firms AECOM and BAR are proposing to reduce the arena’s height by 10 feet, to 125 feet — roughly the size of a 12-story building.

They also plan to reduce on-site parking from 630 spaces to 500, move the arena back from the water’s edge to make room for a park that would encircle the structure, and wrap the arena with a spiraling, exterior pedestrian walkway that would allow for views of both the city skyline and the bay. It would be open to the public both during and outside game times.

Also — taking a cue from the knot-hole fences at AT&T Park that let fans watch games for free from the outfield — the arena architects have yanked out 750 seats to add a 25-foot-wide glass curtain on the walkway that would allow people to peer inside during games, albeit probably with a limited view of the floor.

The plan also calls for retail buildings along the Embarcadero and acres of terraced plazas — as well as both a 150-foot-high hotel and a slightly taller residential tower across the Embarcadero.

Article and Source: http://blog.sfgate.com/matierandross/2013/05/05/warriors-item/

*pizzaguy posted a interior rendering over in 'Genreal Development'

[viewguysf]

viewguysf - Nice pictures of 100 Van Ness Avenue.

My attention was brought to the building today - some hefty steel beams were being put in place on the Fell Street side of the building.

Holes are being drilled into the concrete skin of the structure. Lots of noise during the day from the drilling. My neighbor, who worked in construction all of his life, thinks they will be used to remove the concrete panels from the building.

Jerry, this is the crane I discussed in March--http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6050956&postcount=4428

I've really been anxious to see it go up!

[Jerry of San Fran]

viewguysf - thanks for the reminder - the crane will be a unique addition to the neighborhood soon! My friend in the Fox will be quite interested. We are seeing the result of the remodel - lots of white dust in our apartments :>}

[Jerry of San Fran]

No, it is not a minaret, but another crane sprouting in my apartment view. The new St. Anthony/Mercy housing will be 10 stories at 121 Golden Gate Avenue.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8115/8711483406_2045b7186a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8711483406/)
Saint Anthony (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8711483406/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8275/8711512500_3c95ea9900_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8711512500/)
Saint Anthony's (2) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8711512500/)

[viewguysf]

Not the best quality, but just to remind us that this project continues...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8403/8712072849_027f684586_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8712072849/)
San Francisco General Hospital Addition (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8712072849/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

[1977]

More renderings of the new Warriors Arena, a lot of which include the Transbay Tower:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/media/2.0/teamsites/warriors/images/sfarena-20130505-2-925.jpg
http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/.element/media/2.0/teamsites/warriors/images/sfarena-20130505-3-925.jpg

More below:
http://www.nba.com/warriors/sf?venue#_

[fimiak]

Photo Dump!

http://i.imgur.com/iM3NYPw.jpg (http://imgur.com/iM3NYPw)
Installing a panel...
http://i.imgur.com/W31EYb9.jpg (http://imgur.com/W31EYb9)
http://i.imgur.com/cEYSzvs.jpg (http://imgur.com/cEYSzvs)
http://i.imgur.com/xfW4BQH.jpg (http://imgur.com/xfW4BQH)
http://i.imgur.com/swOb34d.jpg (http://imgur.com/swOb34d)
http://i.imgur.com/x6JkVew.jpg (http://imgur.com/x6JkVew)
http://i.imgur.com/M590647.jpg (http://imgur.com/M590647)
http://i.imgur.com/foCYSxv.jpg (http://imgur.com/foCYSxv)
http://i.imgur.com/txgYRaw.jpg (http://imgur.com/txgYRaw)
http://i.imgur.com/D7vcxTO.jpg (http://imgur.com/D7vcxTO)
Backside of 2001 Market
http://i.imgur.com/pnJCEQK.jpg (http://imgur.com/pnJCEQK)

[timbad]

the gap in the streetwall that will be Market Place:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7415/8718934561_614d4d181b_b.jpg

as much or more as the big new projects going in in the area, what makes me hopeful about mid-Market is the renovation of some of the handsome older buildings - the Warfield, the Renoir Hotel, and one I had forgotten about, a CVS going into the Odd Fellows Building, at Seventh:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7418/8718936643_ed8a11d841_b.jpg

[simms3_redux]

Glass curtain going up NEMA finally...

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/update1_zpse8ad8dfd.jpg

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/update2_zpsd37835c8.jpg

[viewguysf]

This building received an exemption from the Market and Octavia General Plan to have 1 to 1 parking for all of its units, hence the huge hole at the beginning of the construction project. I really like the way it somewhat wraps around the LGBT Center.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/8722734576_b1dd89bd58_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8722734576/)
1844 Market Street (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8722734576/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7349/8721671513_1eb6a01573_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721671513/)
1844 Market adjoins the LGBT Center (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721671513/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

[viewguysf]

fimiak and I were somewhat on the same path today.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7352/8721613097_404dd8d5d4_b.jpg (http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7352/8721613097_404dd8d5d4_b.jpg
Designed by Arquitectonica - 1998 Market Street by viewguysf, on Flickr)

Designed by Arquitectonica - 1998 Market Street (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721613097/) by
viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7299/8722734034_cb5e31670f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8722734034/)
1998 Market (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8722734034/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7292/8721613669_c8e3fc80f0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721613669/)
1998 Market Street (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721613669/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

[viewguysf]

The Whole Foods will create a dramatic difference here in what to me is already an impressive structure.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/8721613319_591e642b7b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721613319/)
2001 Market Street at Dolores (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721613319/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

[viewguysf]

Here comes yet another one!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/05/work-starts-on-8-octavia-condo-project.html :P

[scania]

More below:
http://www.nba.com/warriors/sf?venue#_[/QUOTE]

This is amazing!!! You are very lucky to have such impressive buildings going up and to then have such an impressive sports arena that will be urban, modern, and also show off the bridge from inside the area.

[fflint]

This one's been active for a few weeks now. If it comes out like the render it's really going to be cool.Here comes yet another one!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2013/05/work-starts-on-8-octavia-condo-project.html :P

[easy as pie]

yeah, walked by yesterday but i didn't bother snapping a shot, since it's still just excavation and shoring.

[JG573]

This is amazing!!! You are very lucky to have such impressive buildings going up and to then have such an impressive sports arena that will be urban, modern, and also show off the bridge from inside the area.

I second that I looked at the renderings on the NBA website and was blown away by how beautiful of a arena it is and the placement is perfect.

[IMBY]

Is Telegraph Hill sort of the epicenter of SF NIMBYism?

Curious, what's the Nimby scene in the far west side of the city, end of Geary Street, Point Lobos?

On my most recent trip there I took the Geary bus out to the beach, and knowing most coastal cities of CA, I wasn't at all surprised not to see even one high rise parked out there, as this is not Miami!

I love traveling to cities with lots of construction activity going on, and it must be a big ego bruise to L.A. to view what's all going on in SF, in comparison.

Lots more substantial, Real McCoy type of construction, IMO!

[pizzaguy]

The Whole Foods will create a dramatic difference here in what to me is already an impressive structure.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/8721613319_774123f967_b.jpg ("[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8721613319/)


Right next to my favorite dispensary! Will be a future munchie spot of mine for sure.

[ozone]

Curious, what's the Nimby scene in the far west side of the city, end of Geary Street, Point Lobos?

On my most recent trip there I took the Geary bus out to the beach, and knowing most coastal cities of CA, I wasn't at all surprised not to see even one high rise parked out there, as this is not Miami!

I love traveling to cities with lots of construction activity going on, and it must be a big ego bruise to L.A. to view what's all going on in SF, in comparison.

Lots more substantial, Real McCoy type of construction, IMO!

As you know ocean beach is cold, windy and foggy. You are right it's nothing like Miami! But I think plenty of people would pay good money to have an unobstructed view of the Pacific, above the fog line. High-rise condos were once proposed where the Sutro Baths used to be. I still think it would be a good idea.

As for bruised egos and all. I think there's a lot of great things are going on in LA right now too. They have a different economy, culture and built environment and a lot of what's going on in LA is a kind of maturing that SF is already beyond. But IMO it's no less exciting. In reality, dramatic changes are not new for either city- it's just been awhile.

[hruski]

As you know ocean beach is cold, windy and foggy. You are right it's nothing like Miami! But I think plenty of people would pay good money to have an unobstructed view of the Pacific, above the fog line. High-rise condos were once proposed where the Sutro Baths used to be. I still think it would be a good idea.

As for bruised egos and all. I think there's a lot of great things are going on in LA right now too. They have a different economy, culture and built environment and a lot of what's going on in LA is a kind of maturing that SF is already beyond. But IMO it's no less exciting. In reality, dramatic changes are not new for either city- it's just been awhile.

Having never lived in LA and only living in SF for 3 years, I'd like to hear more about what you're alluding to.

[ozone]

Having never lived in LA and only living in SF for 3 years, I'd like to hear more about what you're alluding to.

I don't want to get off-topic so I'm just going to explain myself. And it's just my opinion. :)

Most of LA has been built since the automobile and therefore it was built to accommodate it. Whereas, San Francisco's basic development patterns preceded the automobile. For years Los Angeles practically abandoned their downtown. San Francisco never did. San Francisco has always had a viable public transportation system. LA dismantled theirs in the 50's, I believe. Now LA has basically run out of land to sub-urbanize (San Francisco basically did in the 1940's) so most of the growth from now on will be filling in "underutilized" land. They have a lot more space to fill in than does San Francisco. And they have a lot public transit infrastructure yet to build to.

[bluntcard]

San Francisco is land locked. It has to go up. LA has endless land. There isn't any real reason to build highrises. It's suburban.

[pizzaguy]

As you know ocean beach is cold, windy and foggy. You are right it's nothing like Miami! But I think plenty of people would pay good money to have an unobstructed view of the Pacific, above the fog line. High-rise condos were once proposed where the Sutro Baths used to be. I still think it would be a good idea.

Keep the high rises in downtown/SOMA. They don't belong anywhere else.

And don't ever mess with Sutro Baths.

[jbm]

a new red crane has appeared around market and van ness. looks to be just south of 100 van ness. may be connected to that project, but looks a little a little too far away from my vantage point.

update: i walked by, it is indeed for 100 van ness. first block of fell is closed to traffic.

update 2: at least two large squares of the old exterior were removed today. on the south facing (or southwest facing) side, the portions removed are from the middle column, two stories each. very noticeable from the street, at least when not fogged in.

[viewguysf]

This one's been active for a few weeks now. If it comes out like the render it's really going to be cool.

Duh...I don't know why I trust anything in the SF Biz Times without verifying it first since their architectural articles are often filled with inaccuracies, or in this case, late. I've seen the first project at Octavia and Market many times, but forgot that it's address was 8 Octavia (and not 2, 4, or 6). Was I hoping another project had started? Yes!

[fflint]

Duh...I don't know why I trust anything in the SF Biz Times without verifying it first since their architectural articles are often filled with inaccuracies, or in this case, late. I've seen the first project at Octavia and Market many times, but forgot that it's address was 8 Octavia (and not 2, 4, or 6). Was I hoping another project had started? Yes!
No worries, I just wanted to make sure nobody (else) was confused by the BizTimes!

[ozone]

According to SF Curbed 8 Washington is still very much in play. I had assumed otherwise. Why does Supe David Chiu hate this project so much?

[fflint]

8 Washington is only 'in play' in the sense that it will be on the ballot in November. As for Chiu--who knows why he does what he does. Not that he does much of anything but talk.

Personally, I don't like 8 Washington's variance for way too much parking--much of which will be rented out to the general public, and all of which will flood the Embarcadero with hundreds more cars. If they cut the parking back down to the zoned ratio I wouldn't oppose the project. Not that my opinion matters...until November, anyway!

[viewguysf]

a new red crane has appeared around market and van ness. looks to be just south of 100 van ness. may be connected to that project, but looks a little a little too far away from my vantage point.

update: i walked by, it is indeed for 100 van ness. first block of fell is closed to traffic.

update 2: at least two large squares of the old exterior were removed today. on the south facing (or southwest facing) side, the portions removed are from the middle column, two stories each. very noticeable from the street, at least when not fogged in.

I saw it today too and am thinking the facade panels removed first on the south side of the tower may be where the permanent construction crane will be attached to the building.

[fimiak]

Keep the high rises in downtown/SOMA. They don't belong anywhere else.

And don't ever mess with Sutro Baths.


Why not build over Sutro Baths? I am not suggesting a high rise should go there, just wondering why you think the baths should be saved as they are. I would like to see something in the spot, even if its just a small park.

[easy as pie]

yeah, i'm a member of the sf historical society and the last event i hit (yeah, the broke ass stuart one) basically blew me away: the great highway and ocean beach area from the cliff house south used to be a very hardcore bar/roadhouse/amusement area. i'd love to see that re-established in some form. the whole foods development is a great start, but - no offense - you'd have to be an anti-urban type not to see the potential for a huge shift there. we could potentially create a second, more adult, fisherman's wharf. obviously, the idiots in this city would never suffer a tower in the area and self-sabotage is in the dna of the current generation of voters, so whatever, but it's still a great idea.

anyway, i took a couple photos of that red crane thing at 100 van ness, and started this post thinking i'd get them up, but my cable has stopped working for some reason, so i'll probably get it up tomorrow. it really was spectacular.

[pizzaguy]

Why not build over Sutro Baths? I am not suggesting a high rise should go there, just wondering why you think the baths should be saved as they are. I would like to see something in the spot, even if its just a small park.

Because ruins are cooler than parks.

[viewguysf]

Mid morning on Sunday:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7083/8732553648_9011986fcb_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8732553648/)
IMG_5955 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8732553648/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

A temporary red crane removed two concrete panels from 100 Van Ness and is assembling a construction crane on the side of the tower to strip the remainder of the facade. A second temporary red crane to the left seems to be removing the construction crane from 1844 Market (next to the LGBT Center). Also in the photo are 2200 Market @ Sanchez on the bottom left, 2001 Market @ Dolores, 1998 Market @ Buchanan/Duboce, 1600 Market @ Franklin, both NEMA towers with their blue and white cranes (the 10th and Market Street tower is now two floors above neighboring Square headquarters), 55 Ninth (yellow crane next to south NEMA tower), and Trinity Place with the furthest right yellow crane.

[mt_climber13]

This photo shows just how massive the Market Dolores and Buchanan projects on Market St. are.
*what is the wooden structure u/c at what appears to be Market/ Sanchez?

Not sure how I feel about these huge corporate type developments. Looking at this photo they look very out of place with the more narrow buildings nearby. I don't think big box residential is good for the city. Tall, slender towers, yes, Ikea midrises, no!

Although I really do like the Buchanan project. The Market/ Dolores just looks so generic. I guess it's all about the design rather than overall bulk. Some architects make bulk look good, which is a tough job.

http://i.imgur.com/PSziXWp.jpg

[pseudolus]

This photo shows just how massive the Market Dolores and Buchanan projects on Market St. are.
*what is the wooden structure u/c at what appears to be Market/ Sanchez?


This?

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/10/leticias_has_fallen_six_stories_to_rise_at_2200_market.html

http://www.socketsite.com/2200%20Market%20Rendering.jpg

[viewguysf]

This?

Yes--that's 2200 Market Street @ Sanchez that shows from the southwest perspective at the very bottom left of my photo, versus from the northwest view in wakamesalad's. In his photo you can clearly see Beck's Motel beneath the new building. I've been thinking that the design may have been modified, but we'll have to wait and see. I hope it hasn't been value engineered for the worse.

[viewguysf]

This photo shows just how massive the Market Dolores and Buchanan projects on Market St. are. Not sure how I feel about these huge corporate type developments. Looking at this photo they look very out of place with the more narrow buildings nearby. I don't think big box residential is good for the city. Tall, slender towers, yes, Ikea midrises, no!
Although I really do like the Buchanan project. The Market/Dolores just looks so generic. I guess it's all about the design rather than overall bulk. Some architects make bulk look good, which is a tough job.

So far, I'm really liking the 1844, 1998, and 2001 Market Street projects and feel that they're adding excitement to the neighborhood while not looking out of place. Conversely, I think highrises would be out of place here; plus, you couldn't fit a Whole Foods into a slender highrise. The buildings are all staggered in height too, from Noe to Franklin, which I also think looks good so far. I have high hopes for Octavia Gateway (8 Octavia) and 2175 Market @ 15th too. 2299 Market @ Noe looks generic to me so far. 1600 Market @ Franklin is rather fun, especially considering it's comprised entirely of the 24 BMR units for 1998 Market.

A different concern is that almost all of the eight projects have parking included, with 1844 Market entitled to an unusual 1 to 1 ratio for its 113 units. That's adding a lot of cars to this stretch of Upper Market. In addition to these, Trinity Place will have garage parking for 1,450 cars (!) with NEMA a paltry 265 by comparison, and 113 spaces for 55 9th Street. Adding the additional bikes and pedestrians to the mix, MTA really needs to get on the ball with MUNI!

[viewguysf]

Here's a shot from a little later in the day, after the weather turned really nice. Unfortunately, it became very windy just after noon, and the temporary cranes stopped working. You can see that the yellow tower crane mast has advanced upward on 100 Van Ness, but it stopped there for the day, probably due to the high winds.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7318/8734377922_bae61facb3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8734377922/)
Construction Frenzy on Sunday (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8734377922/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

[philiprsf]

Your pictures are wonderful... Hope you keep posting as the buildings progress.

[timbad]

3rd and Folsom recladding progress:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/8734647806_9cb60ef770_b.jpg

[mt_climber13]

Here's a shot from a little later in the day, after the weather turned really nice. Unfortunately, it became very windy just after noon, and the temporary cranes stopped working. You can see that the yellow tower crane mast has advanced upward on 100 Van Ness, but it stopped there for the day, probably due to the high winds.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7318/8734377922_c15efda2af_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8734377922/)
Construction Frenzy on Sunday (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8734377922/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

Is it weird that I'm going to miss that building?

[viewguysf]

Is it weird that I'm going to miss that building?

No--someone had previously said that after the project was first announced. Maybe you're a '70s retro guy! I personally won't miss it at all and will be happy when its re cladding is finished; as you can see, it is very prominent in the downtown portion of my view. :yuck:

[mt_climber13]

No--someone had previously said that after the project was first announced. Maybe you're a '70s retro guy! I personally won't miss it at all and will be happy when its re cladding is finished; as you can see, it is very prominent in the downtown portion of my view. :yuck:

You're right- I would have loved to live in 70s SF. Before AIDS of course.

I found out that there was actually a sitcom from the 70s called "100 Van Ness" staring this building. I was born in the 80s so I have never heard of it before.. has anybody seen it?? What was it about?

[tech12]

I'm going to miss the old skin too. It is kind of ugly, but I still like it. The white concrete seems to fit in well in SF, plus it seems like every new highrise and highrise re-cladding is resulting in similar glass-covered buildings. I like variety, and have always kind of had a thing for more utilitarian looking towers, as long as they're not too fat and domineering on the skyline. I'm probably just a bit nostalgic too. But I also like how the new design looks.

And speaking of glass and recladding, 3rd and Folsom is looking good! I sort of miss the ugly concrete skin on that one too, but not much. It looks way better now.

[fflint]

I don't know if I'm going to like the reclad skin on 100 Van Ness--you know how it is with renderings v. reality--but I won't miss the current skin.

If you like 100 VN right now and will miss that particular style, may I suggest falling in love with 650 California? It's a real stunner:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3169/2447139662_5cb6b59c01_b.jpg
victorcuervo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/victorcuervo/) at flickr

[cv94117]

I don't know if I'm going to like the reclad skin on 100 Van Ness--you know how it is with renderings v. reality--but I won't miss the current skin.

If you like 100 VN right now and will miss that particular style, may I suggest falling in love with 650 California? It's a real stunner:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3169/2447139662_5cb6b59c01_b.jpg
victorcuervo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/victorcuervo/) at flickr

Except that 650 California is much better executed than 100 V/N. Don't know who the architects were, but I'd guess that would tell a lot. 100 V/N is more of a cheap knock-off of the style. I'd miss 650 California much more.

[horatio_the_hermit]

650 Cal was designed by SOM as a build to suit for Hartford Financial. Not quite 70's though - 1964.

[fimiak]

Interesting that 650 California has been brought up in this discussion. I recently walked by and noticed that the base is being remodeled and essentially turned into glass. The rendering outside looks sharp.

[minesweeper]

Ground has been broken on an eventual 182 homes at 800 Brotherhood Way (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/05/182-suburban-style-homes-coming-to.html):

Comstock Homes and San Francisco-based Maracor Development are banging out a slice of suburbia smack in the middle of San Francisco’s Sunset District.

More than a decade in the making, the developers have broken ground on Summit 800 on Brotherhood Way, a 182-home development nestled between the San Francisco Golf Club and Parkmerced. This summer and fall will be spent on vertical construction — dry and wet utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights. Once that is complete, construction will start on the first six to eight single family homes, which will be built in about six months. New phases will be put up as fast as the developers are able to sell the previous homes.

And a story from Bloomberg about office leasing slowing in Q1 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-14/san-francisco-leasing-slows-amid-office-boom-real-estate.html):

Leasing by San Francisco-area technology firms is slowing just as developers are poised to add 6.5 million square feet of office space to the city and Silicon Valley, the most construction in a dozen years.

Twenty-six projects are under way, from glass towers in downtown San Francisco to suburban office parks in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, California, according to brokerage CBRE Group Inc. About 3.4 million square feet (316,000 square meters) of the new development, or more than half, is speculative, meaning landlords broke ground without signing tenants, CBRE data show.

[NOPA]

I walked to work today and snapped some photos of Octavia Gateway, NEMA, and 55 Ninth (and survived the 8th-6th stretch of Market Street).

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/8738975427_715b6aabc4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8738975427/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8738975427/) by jeffmcrandall (http://www.flickr.com/people/92429106@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7286/8740091970_c553efd231_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8740091970/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8740091970/) by jeffmcrandall (http://www.flickr.com/people/92429106@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7281/8738974665_2a17a3e0ea_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8738974665/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8738974665/) by jeffmcrandall (http://www.flickr.com/people/92429106@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7281/8740091230_e8a0cf6b5a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8740091230/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8740091230/) by jeffmcrandall (http://www.flickr.com/people/92429106@N02/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7285/8740090802_3e09ea7cb4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8740090802/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8740090802/) by jeffmcrandall (http://www.flickr.com/people/92429106@N02/), on Flickr

Also, a photo of 680/690 Folsom from a few weekends ago I forgot to post (I was at the AMC Metreon, one of my favorite city views).

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8124/8711652750_cf5f031e2f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8711652750/)
Yuerba Buena (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92429106@N02/8711652750/) by jeffmcrandall (http://www.flickr.com/people/92429106@N02/), on Flickr

Finally, I am really glad to see 100 Van Ness get reclad. As mentioned 650 California is a better example of that style. I would love to see more older commercial spaces converted into residential (assuming there is a business case). I especially think the office space in historic buildings around Union Square could make fantastic condos (the same has been done in New York's downtown and SOHO and Tribeca districts).

[mt_climber13]

I'm so glad the fluorescent glass trend is over :yuck:

[hruski]

Thanks for the photos, NOPA.

I have to partially disagree with you about commercial converting to residential. The city certainly needs more housing, but I'd rather the central core of the city be filled with jobs. I don't want SF to become even more of a a bedroom community and for Silicon Valley to become "Downtown Bay Area" (where people work and spend their afternoons)

[easy as pie]

yeah, i just don't see another commercial building of any size that could be converted and i wouldn't want to see us lose commercial space in sf, despite the fact that we're approaching a full-on housing crisis; 100 van ness was sort of unique. that said, there are a few empty lots, extreme lowrise and parking garages in the fidi where a nice residential tower would do a huge amount to animate the streets after dark. you couldn't build towers, but there's also the washington street wasteland east of the transamerica pyramid, there's north jackson square and the horrid broadway corridor where quality infill could add hundreds of residents. soma is shaping up, and the transbay area will be mixed commercial/residential. you know, if the fidi could add just 1000-1200 residents, it would probably be enough to extend most kearny street resto operations by 1-2h. imagine adding 3-4k from broadway to market street, it would be a full-on residential neighborhood, which would be awesome.

[theskythelimit]

Ground has been broken on an eventual [URL="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/05/182-suburban-style-homes-coming-to.html"]182 homes at 800

I drove by this area the other day and saw them grading the area. I did not realize they plan on building single family homes. Not sure if I would like to live there as Brotherhood Lane is quite busy.

On a side note, what happened to the statue sculpted Peace, a 38-foot-tall stainless steel and black granite projectile that for years greeted visitors to the San Francisco International Airport and moved to the area now being developed?

[Jerry of San Fran]

theskythelimit - the Bufano Statue of Peace now resides at 700 Brotherhood Way. You can see it on Google Earth in the street view.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Notice that he has a safety line attached to him. The building is near it's highest floor.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/8739711281_b58c1c19b0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8739711281/)
NEMA - 10th & Market Street (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8739711281/) by Apollo's Light (http://www.flickr.com/people/antinous/), on Flickr

[tech12]

Thanks for the photos, NOPA.

I have to partially disagree with you about commercial converting to residential. The city certainly needs more housing, but I'd rather the central core of the city be filled with jobs. I don't want SF to become even more of a a bedroom community and for Silicon Valley to become "Downtown Bay Area" (where people work and spend their afternoons)

San Francisco's not a bedroom community though, and will most likely never be one. It would need to lose tons of office space and other jobs in order for that to happen...like the entire financial district and half the city's retail or something. Most SF residents work in SF too, and SF gains around 200,000 people every weekday due to commuters and other visitors. By contrast, San Jose loses 50,000 people every week day, so if you want to claim that a large Bay Area city is a bedroom community, SJ is a better candidate than SF. Unless SF gets hit by an asteroid, converts all office space to residential, or San Jose moves its airport, improves public transit, and somehow gets a crazy nonstop shanghai/dubai/manhattan-style highrise development orgy going on, then there's no way SF is losing its status as the Bay Area's primary downtown.

[fimiak]

I cannot believe somebody would call San Francisco a bedroom community when its gaining over 5,000 people per year (6,400 if you go by my signature, which are SF city planning numbers, others suggest over 1,100,000 residents by 2050) and has 30+ commercial, residential, infrastructure, and public projects in the works. The only two other regions that can compete for massive growth this decade are NYC and Texas.

[hruski]

I cannot believe somebody would call San Francisco a bedroom community when its gaining over 5,000 people per year (6,400 if you go by my signature, which are SF city planning numbers, others suggest over 1,100,000 residents by 2050) and has 30+ commercial, residential, infrastructure, and public projects in the works. The only two other regions that can compete for massive growth this decade are NYC and Texas.

What does gaining population have to do with not being a bedroom community? If 4,000 of those people are working jobs in Mountain View and Palo Alto, then SF is a bedroom community.

[tech12]

What does gaining population have to do with not being a bedroom community? If 4,000 of those people are working jobs in Mountain View and Palo Alto, then SF is a bedroom community.

Wrong. Far more SF residents work within SF than work outside of it, and far more people commute into SF than commute out of it. Your definition of "bedroom community" seems to be "a place where some residents commute outside city limits", which means that you could consider every single city and town in america to be a bedroom community.

definition of a bedroom community, from various sources:

An urban community that is primarily residential, from which most of the workforce commutes out to earn their livelihood; often a suburb of a nearby metropolis that workers travel to daily.

A residential area, typically a suburb of a major urban center, which includes a large number of commuters among the home-owning population. The name "bedroom community" refers to the fact that commuters perform most professional and personal activities in another location, maintaining their residence solely as a place to sleep.

a suburban area or town where many commuters live, often quite a distance from the place of employment; also called bedroom suburb,

Does that sound like SF to you?

[fflint]

According to the Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb13-r22.html), 265,000 commuters flood into San Francisco from surrounding counties every workday. Meanwhile, 78.1% (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk) of employed San Franciscans work in San Francisco. San Francisco is not a 'bedroom community' by any rational definition of the term.

[LMich]

Wrong.

Just to be clear, while he he completely and utterly wrong about San Francisco even beginning to approximate a bedroom community, bringing up population growth is irrelevant on its own as to whether it is or isn't, and it was kind of strange to see that brought up as evidence that the city is not a bedroom community

[fimiak]

I am overly obsessed with pop. growth to be sure, but I also see it as the driver of high rents and dozens of new office buildings. Bedroom communities are little residential towns without major employment centers.


SF is not Detroit.

[easy as pie]

ugh, apple. http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/05/16/apple-to-open-new-store-on-union-square/

i understand that it's "vision" and not a rendering, but that's really not great, considering the back side steps and plaza there up stockton. chiu and lee are right though that apple will probably bring more people into union square than levi's did/does.

as for sf as a bedroom community, it was hyperbole, yeesh. you guys don't need to load this thread up with obviousness.

[simms3_redux]

ugh, apple. http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/05/16/apple-to-open-new-store-on-union-square/

i understand that it's "vision" and not a rendering, but that's really not great, considering the back side steps and plaza there up stockton. chiu and lee are right though that apple will probably bring more people into union square than levi's did/does.

as for sf as a bedroom community, it was hyperbole, yeesh. you guys don't need to load this thread up with obviousness.

That's such a fashion oriented side of Union Square...honestly I'm surprised Apple would go in the least foot-trafficked corner near Saks and the Taj hotel and other fine retailers who only need a few purchases a day to maintain their strong sales velocity.

I could see Apple at 901 Market or fronting Market at the new Market Center Place about to go up. 4th/Market sees 17,000 pedestrians cross an hour, definitely the busiest intersection in terms of foot traffic and right above a BART/Muni stop. With Central Subway construction, getting from the Powell St station over to the NEC of Union Square along Stockton will be a real hastle.

Not to mention the hideous boring design.

[fflint]

I think Apple just wants to get the hell away from the construction on Stockton Street--like another 6 years of noise, dirt, detours, etc. I would move, too.

[simms3_redux]

^^^They are essentially moving from Stockton/Market to Stockton/Post, away from the foot traffic that the mall/Powell St station drives. Anyway, I heard the deal is basically done (hopefully not the final design though!).

[fflint]

It's true--nowadays, the closer to Market the more foot traffic there is. Historically, at least in terms of shopping, it was the opposite--the Square used to be the very heart of the action.

[greystonesfo]

Apple is totally out growing their space. They lost basement/stockroom/space to the subway construction. Apple relocated their offices and break room to the 2nd level basement to the building that Crate & Barrel is in at 55 Stockton St. Apple employes have to walk down two levels, walk to the opposite corner of the building, clock-in, walk back to street level and down the street to the store just to get to their post. Just imagine what its like to take a 10 min break.

Crate & Barrel also lost stockroom space to the subway station. PG&E took over a good chunk of it to relocate an electrical vault.

[ozone]

Re. Apple Store on Union Square. Brilliant. As far as it being away from the foot traffic? Don't worry. They'll create the foot traffic. As far as the design? I can't imagine it will be boring. Steve is gone so who knows? But I doubt it will boring. You know how many cities would be thrilled to get a 'flagship' Apple Store like this?

[WildCowboy]

It's going to be traditional Apple...clean lines, lots of metal and glass.

They do a fantastic job when they put stores into historic buildings (many of their European flagships for example), but when building from scratch it's going to be modern and simple.

[viewguysf]

It's going to be traditional Apple...clean lines, lots of metal and glass.

They do a fantastic job when they put stores into historic buildings (many of their European flagships for example), but when building from scratch it's going to be modern and simple.

From the little that we've seen, I don't like the big blank wall on Stockton Street that looks bad and destroys the great angled staircase up to the existing plaza.

[viewguysf]

The cover story from this week's San Francisco Business Times contains much that is thought provoking.

San Francisco rental construction soars
A $5 billion wave of apartment construction is now starting to wash over San Francisco. What will it change? Just about everything.


J.K. Dineen, Reporter - San Francisco Business Times

A historic $5 billion explosion of rental housing is about to dramatically reshape San Francisco’s skyline, neighborhoods and politics.
Ending last decade’s flirtation with high-end condo towers, the city is rattling and humming with the biggest burst of apartment construction witnessed since Joe Alioto was mayor in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Nearly 8,000 new apartments, mostly in mid-rise and high-rise buildings, will come on line between now and 2015 — 3,498 in 2015 alone. It’s more new rental housing than was built in the last 15 years combined, according to real estate research firm Polaris Pacific.

“I have never seen so much construction going on in my life,” said Angelo Sangiacomo of Trinity Properties, who has been building housing in San Francisco for 50 years.

Driven largely by the growth in San Francisco’s tech-fueled economy, the apartment boom will permanently change the pockets of the city where it is concentrated, including Mid-Market, Mission Bay, Potrero Hill, the Dogpatch, Rincon Hill and parts of SoMa. It’s expected to bring in thousands of new renters, mostly educated technology workers who can afford to pay up to $3,500 a month in rent for an 800-square-foot apartment. Such a large influx of affluent professionals in a short time could sharply alter voting patterns in districts long dominated by progressives, and tip the balance on hot-button local issues such as rent control and condo conversions.

The historic level of rental housing production is being celebrated by advocates of urban density and transit-oriented development. Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, calls the trend “unambiguously one of the best things that has happened in San Francisco in a long time.” Metcalf said the amount of housing, if sustained, has the potential to make San Francisco more affordable for everyone.
“It’s happening in all the right places, next to transit and jobs,” said Metcalf. “We don’t know what will happen if we build enough housing because we have never done it. We know what happens if we don’t build enough housing because we are living it.”

Leasing up quickly

So far the three apartment complexes that are finished are leasing up rapidly: the Emerald Fund’s 326-unit Rincon Green at 333 Harrison St., CityView’s 196-unit Potrero Launch at 2235 Third St. and AvalonBay’s 173-unit Avalon Ocean Avenue at 1200 Ocean Ave. All three have averaged monthly rents above $4 a square foot. AvalonBay’s project leased up fully in six months.

Rincon Green shows just how robust demand is. With studios renting for $2,186, one bedrooms for $2,846, and two-bedroom units for $3,590, Rincon Green started leasing in August. By April 1 it was 90 percent leased.

Using the usual yardstick that a renter shouldn’t pay more than 2.5 percent of annual gross income in monthly rent, tenants will need to be making $80,000 a year and up. “You are looking at some good salaries,” said Emerald Fund Leasing Manager Carl Wagner, who described the average renter as “young, female, and upwardly mobile.”

It’s the same story at Potrero Launch, said Tony Cardoza of CityView. Its 196 units are 85 percent leased at an average of $4.60 to $4.70 per square foot per month — more than 20 percent higher than they expected.
At both Potrero Launch and Rincon Green, more than 30 percent of residents work south of San Francisco. “The most surprising thing has been the number of candidates who work down on the Peninsula,” said Cardoza. “It speaks to the quality of life in San Francisco.”

A fourth complex will open in September: Avant Housing’s 194-unit Vara. Leasing started this month. The project features an on-location co-working space free to residents, as well as a woodworking studio, communal chef’s kitchen and bike repair shop, according to Avant principal Eric Tao, who said the renter pool has been surprisingly diverse. “The first $6,100-a-month penthouse was reserved by a family with three children relocating from London,” he said.

Political calculations

Skeptics say the two dozen construction cranes that now hover from Mission Bay to Upper Market are a sign of too much capital chasing too narrow a market. Rather than creating a broad range of housing that is affordable to an eclectic mix of people, the projects under construction are aimed almost entirely at young, wealthy technology workers who have embraced San Francisco as a vibrant and hip alternative to the traffic-choked suburban sprawl of Silicon Valley.

Ted Gullicksen of the San Francisco Tenants Union said, “We are so overbuilt on the high-end luxury end of housing, we just don’t need any more.”
“It’s the one area where we are exceeding goals,” he said. “We are falling way short for low- and medium-income housing. These buildings are all going up in places that could be sites for affordable housing.”
While the new housing is overwhelmingly rental, it’s unlikely that the new crop of renters will identify with the progressive rent-controlled voters who have dominated politics in neighborhoods like the Haight and the Mission, said longtime local political analyst David Latterman of the University of San Francisco. The upscale renters could tilt San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors toward more moderate, business-friendly views.
“There is a reason why the left has worked so hard to keep new housing construction out of the east side because they know that market-rate housing changes the demographics,” said Latterman. “You bring folks in of higher income and they are going to vote on economic interests, on schools, on things that make it easier for families to stay in San Francisco. They are going to be anything but progressive.”

Latterman said the changes would be gradual. “It takes a long time for people to move in, learn about the neighborhood issues and get politically active,” Latterman said. But in the long run, “every new renter who comes in to District 6 or District 10 reduces the chances of (a progressive) getting elected.”
However, Corey Cook, an associate professor of politics at University of San Francisco, said the huge amount of upscale housing could create a backlash similar to the powerful anti-development wave that emerged from the dot-com boom. “In politics, perception is what counts,” said Cook. “If the perception is that the economy is doing well, but only for a select few, and that there is a lot of housing being built, but only for a select few, it has the potential to raise concerns about rising housing prices and gentrification and the out-migration of low-income populations.”

From bust to bonanza

The current apartment boom is rooted in the dark days following the 2008 crash. Real estate investors reeling from losses on condos, office buildings and retail space identified urban apartment buildings as a safe haven for capital.
Developers including Urban Housing Group, Emerald Fund, Crescent Heights, Gerding Edlen and MacFarlane Partners scooped up San Francisco sites. Real estate investment trusts such as AvalonBay, flush with cash and already active in San Francisco apartment development, doubled down. Other REITs, such as BRE Properties, Equity Residential, UDR and Essex Property Trust piled in. Those five REITS have 17 projects under construction in the Bay Area, representing 5,084 units, or 34 percent of all housing under construction in the region, according to an International Strategy & Investment Group report.
Developers who bought up cheap development sites in 2009 or 2010 found themselves in an enviable position: They picked off land at the bottom of the cycle and bid out their jobs when the construction trades, facing 30 percent unemployment, were desperate for work.

And none did better than AvalonBay at Ocean Avenue. The REIT got a steal, paying just over $5.1 million for the site, or about $29,000 a unit. Meg Spriggs, vice president of development for AvalonBay, said, “After a seven-year process, we were lucky to hit the market when we did.” “It really is a lesson in diligence and the strength of a good underlying land deal,” she said. “Our yield exceeded all expectations — we will likely never see a yield like this in San Francisco again.” Since then, land values have jumped to $120,000 per buildable unit. And with construction costs up 5 to 8 percent year-over-year, developers are now paying $600,000 a unit to build high-end apartment towers.

Will supply exceed demand?

That combination of rapidly rising land and building costs, plus the impending flood of new units, could spell trouble for some builders.
MPF research says the broader SoMa area has 3,290 units under construction, with 1,876 units set for completion in 2013. It forecasts demand at 1,163 new apartments, a level that will “fall well short of concurrent new supply.”

San Francisco historically has been able to absorb 1,500 new units a year safely. Economists expect that this year the city will match the peak employment number reached in 2007, and jobs will continue to grow 3 percent a year through 2017. That will create about 17,000 new households in a city that is 63 percent renters. Veteran apartment developer Dan Deibel, who formerly headed Urban Housing Group, expects that there will be enough demand to absorb 7,500 to 8,000 new rental units.

“It’s going to be a little oversupplied, but not grossly oversupplied,” he said. “I am more optimistic than pessimistic about where we are in the cycle and the prospect of absorbing what’s in the pipeline.” If developers are stuck with half-vacant buildings, or are forced to lower rents to draw tenants, some could find themselves in violation of the terms of their loans. “It’s very easy in a period like this not to pay close attention to the terms because you don’t think that anything can go wrong — but this is exactly the time to be paying attention,” Deibel said. But the impending raft of new buildings has not dampened the optimism of developers like John Hyjer, Equity Residential’s vice president of investments for Northern California. The company has four projects totaling 800 units in progress in San Francisco. “Who could ask for better timing, with job creation that is occurring and all the social networking companies planting a flag in the city?” he said.

[NYC2ATX]

That's such a fashion oriented side of Union Square...honestly I'm surprised Apple would go in the least foot-trafficked corner near Saks and the Taj hotel and other fine retailers who only need a few purchases a day to maintain their strong sales velocity.


You're forgetting that Apple drives traffic to places there wasn't before. And the current store is one of Apple's earliest and among its earliest store designs. What I like most about this new San Fran store is that this specific design is entirely new from them. I was just reading that many of their recent signature store models (Scottsdale and Upper West Side, for example), are retired after they are used a few times each. I guess this is the next look coming down the pipeline. I dig it :tup:

[biggerhigherfaster]

The cover story from this week's San Francisco Business Times contains much that is thought provoking.

Will supply exceed demand?

That combination of rapidly rising land and building costs, plus the impending flood of new units, could spell trouble for some builders.
MPF research says the broader SoMa area has 3,290 units under construction, with 1,876 units set for completion in 2013. It forecasts demand at 1,163 new apartments, a level that will “fall well short of concurrent new supply.”

San Francisco historically has been able to absorb 1,500 new units a year safely. Economists expect that this year the city will match the peak employment number reached in 2007, and jobs will continue to grow 3 percent a year through 2017. That will create about 17,000 new households in a city that is 63 percent renters. Veteran apartment developer Dan Deibel, who formerly headed Urban Housing Group, expects that there will be enough demand to absorb 7,500 to 8,000 new rental units.

“It’s going to be a little oversupplied, but not grossly oversupplied,” he said. “I am more optimistic than pessimistic about where we are in the cycle and the prospect of absorbing what’s in the pipeline.” If developers are stuck with half-vacant buildings, or are forced to lower rents to draw tenants, some could find themselves in violation of the terms of their loans. “It’s very easy in a period like this not to pay close attention to the terms because you don’t think that anything can go wrong — but this is exactly the time to be paying attention,” Deibel said. But the impending raft of new buildings has not dampened the optimism of developers like John Hyjer, Equity Residential’s vice president of investments for Northern California. The company has four projects totaling 800 units in progress in San Francisco. “Who could ask for better timing, with job creation that is occurring and all the social networking companies planting a flag in the city?” he said.

Supply exceeding demand in SF? LOL

Even if there is a bit of "over-building," vacancy rates in SF will still be well below other cities. It might also mean that rents for 1 bedrooms won't go above 3500/month and ppl making 100k+ won't have to get roommates or have to live in East/South Bay

[fflint]

....Nearly 8,000 new apartments, mostly in mid-rise and high-rise buildings, will come on line between now and 2015 — 3,498 in 2015 alone. It’s more new rental housing than was built in the last 15 years combined, according to real estate research firm Polaris Pacific.
Damn, I didn't realize it was 8,000 units--that's unprecedented for just a couple years' worth of construction! I know I see it in my neighborhood--there are five large residential buildings under construction within just two blocks of my apartment.

As for the rest of the article, I really don't know how much political change to expect. The city's already changed a lot, and will continue to do so over the years, but I would really be surpised if the new tenants are not progressive about certain things--war, gay rights, bike lanes--while mostly agnostic on other issues that have been causes-celebre for the traditional "Bay Guardian" left in SF, like height limits or forming a municipal electric utility. I doubt the new tenants will be charmed by the likes of Baby Daly or Raw Smirkarimi, but then, that whole Prog movement has been declining for years now.

I'm not sure rent control is in danger quite yet, either. The addition of 8,000 new unregulated units is no small deal, but there are still some 520,000 other renters in vote-happy San Francisco who won't likely be voting to increase rents anytime soon.

It's an amazing time to live here, though, I think we can all agree on that!

[tech12]

and ppl making 100k+ won't have to get roommates or have to live in East/South Bay

Holy exaggeration batman!

If you're making $100,000 a year, you do NOT need roommates in SF, unless you need to eat caviar at every meal, heat your home by burning money, and need to fly your private jet every day. You should be able to live anywhere you want in SF on that kind of pay, comfortably, and definitely with no roommates. Hell, I make only $20,000 per year, and have my own apartment in SF (a studio), with no roommates! If I can do it, than someone making $100k can.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Saturday, May 18th, Trinity Plaza was a pile of rubble by the end of the day. An era has ended! Also the crane for Trinity Place was removed from the 2nd build.

And the crane was removed from the low rise of the NEMA at 10th and Market Streets

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7337/8754997092_4ab5e86c38_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8754997092/)
Trinity Plaza (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8754997092/) by Apollo's Light (http://www.flickr.com/people/antinous/), on Flickr

[Jerry of San Fran]

May 19, 2013 - A view of the ruble pile that was once Trinity Plaza.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5451/8753923221_cab23ba6f2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8753923221/)
Trinity Plaza - now a pile of rubble (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/8753923221/) by Apollo's Light (http://www.flickr.com/people/antinous/), on Flickr

[viewguysf]

The south side from Market Street:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2841/8755206980_9e98422935_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755206980/)
100 Van Ness from Market Street (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755206980/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

...and from Van Ness...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8401/8755205458_94217dbdcd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755205458/)
100 Van Ness (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755205458/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

Looking east on Fell:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3718/8755206210_b5f5bf4652_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755206210/)
Fell Street from NW corner of Van Ness (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755206210/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

Unique crane mount on Fell Street/south side:

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5346/8755206572_ff4bf41d0e_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755206572/)
Crane Mount on south side (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viewguysf/8755206572/) by viewguysf (http://www.flickr.com/people/viewguysf/), on Flickr

[fimiak]

Some pictures of 10th and Market, and some of the new crane at Trinity Place.

http://i.imgur.com/nL2e9IG.jpg (http://imgur.com/nL2e9IG)
http://i.imgur.com/eKUXVHB.jpg (http://imgur.com/eKUXVHB)
http://i.imgur.com/MS7BxGv.jpg (http://imgur.com/MS7BxGv)
http://i.imgur.com/UV0AaLR.jpg (http://imgur.com/UV0AaLR)
http://i.imgur.com/kLwUSKX.jpg (http://imgur.com/kLwUSKX)
http://i.imgur.com/y2WjKSW.jpg (http://imgur.com/y2WjKSW)
http://i.imgur.com/6LYv97B.jpg (http://imgur.com/6LYv97B)

[viewguysf]

Here's an article that's related to the previous one I posted above from last Friday's issue of the San Francisco Business Times.

Most new San Francisco apartments can’t convert to condos

J.K. Dineen, Reporter-San Francisco Business Times

Could San Francisco’s swing from condos to apartments swing back just as quickly? Not likely: Just 10 percent of the 8,000 apartments to be completed in the next three years are candidates for conversion, according to Polaris Pacific.
Of the 35 projects in the pipeline, just seven have a chance of converting to condominiums, it found. The vast majority do not, either because they are owned by a real estate investment trust or because they are financed by a fund specifically earmarked for rental housing.

Exceptions include Crescent Heights’ 320-unit 45 Lansing St. and Principal Real Estate Investors’ tower at One Rincon Hill. Other projects that could go condo include 333 Fremont St., 973 Market St. and 72 Townsend St. There are also five condo projects under construction. These include: Marlowe, Oyster Development’s 98-unit development at 1800 Van Ness; Linea, a 115-unit development at 1998 Market St.; and Pocket Development’s 300 Ivy St.
Chris Foley, a principal with Polaris Pacific, said apartments are fetching such high rents that it doesn’t make sense to convert them.
“You are not going to see many conversions, but you will see a balancing of inventory going forward,” said Foley.

Architect Glenn Rescalvo of Handel Architects, who is designing Crescent Heights’ Mid-Market project, said there is no difference in quality between the apartments and condos.
“There is not one rental building where the infrastructure is mediocre. They are all as good as any condo building we have done,” he said. “If you are going to pay that much up front, it doesn’t make sense to cut corners.”
Other developers are collecting sites to be ready for the next condo cycle. Trumark Urban has acquired six sites around the city and plans to build for-sale units on all of them.

“The shift back to condos is almost ready to start,” said Oz Erickson of the Emerald Fund, which develops both apartments and condos. “Selected projects with very strong sponsors are doing it. I will bet you One Rincon goes condo — even though it is being built for apartments.”