SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed [Archive] - Page 54

JWS

Oct 31, 2013, 12:17 AM

Excellent. Next time I'm there (which is often), I'll try to snap a picture. Nothing substantial rising just yet. Really hope that the empty lot across the street would get snapped up. I also wish this was a tad taller, but anything is better than an empty street.

On another note, I've always thought Lombard could rise to at least 7-8 stories above what seems to be a height limit at 4. There are so many empty lots, gas stations (although that seem to be in use), one story buildings with parking lots (KFC/Taco Bell, IHOP) and 2-story motel chains sitting on such prime parcels. Really close to express bus lanes into financial too, which are surprisingly popular with Marina denizens. I'm guessing it will never, ever, ever happen in such a wealthy area with so many "views" at stake, but it seems like a wasted opportunity. You have two of the hottest stretches of commercial corridor (Chestnut and Union) on either side, not to mention bus routes galore, and close proximity to so many parks. Not to mention potential views. While I think anything above 4 stories is too jarring for the uniformly 4 storied Marina right now (not to mention, on landfill/liquefaction hazard) this would be a nice start.

easy as pie

Oct 31, 2013, 11:42 PM

curbed brings to our attention another scoop delivered by castro biscuit, the greystar project i mentioned months ago in another post, the massive lot at 2198 markter, next to the swedish american. change though is that no onsite bmr is proposed, which is unfortunate. despite the pixelation, we see that heller manus somehow managed to surprise with an even more awful design than usual. unbelievably bad, even by their legendary standards of poor design:

http://i.imgur.com/9x8XsG6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/LBb6I6q.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MeDYRD4.jpg

JWS

Nov 1, 2013, 1:08 AM

viewguysf

Nov 1, 2013, 2:46 AM

curbed brings to our attention another scoop delivered by castro biscuit, the greystar project i mentioned months ago in another post, the massive lot at 2198 markter, next to the swedish american. change though is that no onsite bmr is proposed, which is unfortunate. despite the pixelation, we see that heller manus somehow managed to surprise with an even more awful design than usual. unbelievably bad, even by their legendary standards of poor design:
http://i.imgur.com/LBb6I6q.jpg

I remember reading where they claimed the design would compliment the Swedish American Hall! Is this their version of that?!?

sofresh808

Nov 2, 2013, 2:05 AM

With the impossibly hip Mission, Noe Valley, Mid-Market, and Hayes Valley/Lower Haight neighborhoods expanding and encroaching from all sides, the dying Castro bar/retail scene, and the hundreds (thousands?) of new luxury units cropping up on Market Street alone, how possible is it that we see The Castro totally disappear (as we know it, anyway) in the next 10-15 years? Does The Castro still have cache as the best place to live with the younger gay generation, or have they moved on or dispersed into the other neighborhoods as the stigma of being gay in America has virtually disappeared (at least in California)?

I think $$$ is the main reason younger gays aren't moving in droves to Castro, like say the 70s. Most entry-level positions and definitely retail/service jobs hardly pay enough to afford the area, so most kids partying at badlands (or wherever they go nowadays) live in cheaper hoods or the burbs. It's still the center of the gay community of the bay area, that won't disappear in our lifetimes. Will it get somewhat straighter and more uniform in appearance, probably.

timbad

Nov 3, 2013, 4:41 AM

the large building behind Lumina (201 Folsom), ex-post office facility at 390 Main St, which was bought by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission so they could consolidate their operation, seems to be being significantly renovated. I thought I remembered that the move from Oakland was still being contested, but I guess not (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_21418360/mtcs-san-francisco-office-building-purchase-bridge-tolls)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2881/10638432205_ffaf18c423_b.jpg

timbad

Nov 3, 2013, 5:25 AM

the sidewalk at 38 Dolores is open. 4 days till opening of the Whole Foods. looking south from approx the corner at Market:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3681/10638618413_1e9fbbc6c3_b.jpg

a bit further down, still walking south:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2873/10638377154_97a1ce66f2_b.jpg

looking back north:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3800/10638348645_7373950148_b.jpg

again north, from about the corner with 14th:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3706/10638346894_a705625ac9_b.jpg

and just showing a bulb-out with narrower Dolores:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2843/10638340746_41fb00779f_b.jpg

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 3, 2013, 6:19 AM

timbad's post of Dolores/Market

Nice pics timbad - I drove by today with a friend and saw people coming out of the new Whole Foods, so maybe one department is open. I look forward to my fist trip there next week - it will be much more convenient for me than the other 2 stores.

I remember when the plans were presented that there would be plantings on the street and I did not expect much of it. The developer did a very nice job of the plantings and it will only get better in the next six months as they mature.

brady&market

Nov 3, 2013, 8:10 PM

I think 38 Dolores looks great! (building and sidewalk frontage) Now we have a Whole Foods in walking distance from home.
Do not understand wakamesalad's negative comments.

viewguysf

Nov 3, 2013, 11:17 PM

I think 38 Dolores looks great! (building and sidewalk frontage) Now we have a Whole Foods in walking distance from home.
Do not understand wakamesalad's negative comments.

His comment wasn't negative by just stating that the building's design is lacking. In truth, the design could have been better, even though it has good points and is definitely an improvement over what was there. San Francisco architecture is too often boring or lacking greatness, especially given that our city offers so many prominent building sites.

brady&market

Nov 4, 2013, 2:18 AM

His comment wasn't negative by just stating that the building's design is lacking. In truth, the design could have been better, even though it has good points and is definitely an improvement over what was there. San Francisco architecture is too often boring or lacking greatness, especially given that our city offers so many prominent building sites.
Got it, but I still think he is criticizing the best one out of all the upper market developments.

easy as pie

Nov 4, 2013, 3:34 AM

NYC2ATX

Nov 4, 2013, 9:20 AM

I think $$$ is the main reason younger gays aren't moving in droves to Castro, like say the 70s. Most entry-level positions and definitely retail/service jobs hardly pay enough to afford the area, so most kids partying at badlands (or wherever they go nowadays) live in cheaper hoods or the burbs. It's still the center of the gay community of the bay area, that won't disappear in our lifetimes. Will it get somewhat straighter and more uniform in appearance, probably.

I'm sure that money definitely plays a factor, but being 24 and of that subset myself, I noticed when I visited San Francisco for the first time last summer that almost every bar in the Castro (except Badlands I suppose...missed out on that one) was populated mostly by older gay men. A deterrent for me, as I imagine it would be for most my age, is simply the lack of other people our age.

San Francisco, as with any city, should understand that affordability is not only a priority so that it doesn't inch out those of lesser means in general, but also so that it doesn't fail to attract or retain the young (usually broke) millennials and their young ideas and intelligence. Any place that wants to thrive needs the strengths and contributions of young adults in their prime.

Otherwise they'll all eventually head to Oakland. ;)

fimiak

Nov 5, 2013, 2:43 AM

http://www.modernluxury.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story-photo-with-inset-inset/story/nov13_sanf_cvr_fb_350.jpg
I recommend this month's San Francisco magazine for its cover story on development. While I know everyone here knows each of the projects shown, it has proven invaluable when I have wanted to show other people what is coming for the city. :tup:

Link to abridged digital version.
http://www.modernluxury.com/san-francisco/story/cranespotting-castles-the-sky

I have no idea where the pictures below came from. No idea.

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

http://i.imgur.com/jFpvi9T.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/LS3auHH.jpg

WonderlandPark

Nov 5, 2013, 2:53 AM

^^ For some nagging reason, the last on that list by date to be completed is the Transbay...and I have a nagging suspicion that will be the one on that list to NOT see the light of say. TONS of competition and big HINTS of an overbuilding situation may torpedo it. I hope I am proved wrong, I live in L.A. which is the land of "never-builts." Pushing dirt around doesn't equal new supertall tower.

simms3_redux

Nov 5, 2013, 2:59 AM

^^^My experience has been different. For me I can appreciate an older scene, which is what I was expecting on my first visits to the city and when I first moved here. I have been pleasantly surprised by how young the scene actually is, but as someone who lives here I know I don't need to go to the Mix or Q Bar right in the Castro to find my scene. I think between Castro's bars/clubs (which stretch all the way down to Church St...there must be ~20, been to Hi Tops by chance?), SoMa's/Mission's/Potrero Hill's clubs, and the "mixed" scenes throughout the rest of the city, there are many more young (and attractive) guys here than the rest of America stereotypically gives credit for. I moved here from Atlanta which is supposedly known for its young and attractive scene, but I'm much more thoroughly impressed by SF and it's a million times easier to find a datable guy here than there. I think the scene is only exceeded by a few cities, and for me it's not just age and looks, but job and head on shoulder. LoL that eliminates Atlanta, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, LA, and tons of other places known for their "scenes", narrowing it down to basically NYC, Chicago, Minneapolis, DC (though douchey crowd!), and Seattle.

Anyway, in the Castro you can find hoards of young guys and hookups in Badlands, Toad Hall, the Cafe, Lookout, Hi Top, arguably Blackbird for some quality guys, and then if you want to go clubbing in SoMa or wherever there is plenty of that as well throughout the city. The population itself is concentrated in Castro, but also pretty evenly spread out throughout the city. I live in the "least gay" part of the city (financial district), and yet I have a good friend both 1 floor and 2 floors below me and in surrounding buildings. Another one of my friends wants to be roommates and live in Lower Pac Heights or Russian Hill, which are "straight" areas with plenty of gays sprinkled in. :)

I just did the math though - I could so easily be roommates and split a 2 BR in 38 Dolores, which of course I wouldn't mind doing :) They start under $4000! That's a bargain compared to what I pay to be in a cramped, dated studio now - dear Lord!!!

brady&market

Nov 5, 2013, 11:36 PM

http://100vanness.tumblr.com/

Is this from you Jerry of San Fran? ;)

mt_climber13

Nov 6, 2013, 12:06 AM

1) wakamesalad lives in a suburban area (a rural one?) and his comments reflect that;
2) be objective: this development is good in a lot of ways, but it's consistent with so many other developments in sf over the past 30 years, and it takes a crazy or very untraveled mind to say it looks good;
3) why are people (including me) talking about this and not posting photos and updates? people!

1) I actually live in the political capital of the great state of California, with only about 300,000 less residents than SF in the city proper. SF ain't a big important world class city like New York or LA so I wouldn't be so snarky. I did live in San Francisco for 11 years.

2) I was not the only one criticizing he project, plenty of other Holy San Franciscans did as well, so I'm not sure why I was singled out. So there goes your theory.

3) Did they seriously just narrow down Dolores to 1 Lane??

4) re: the SF magazine article, I didn't know that Sutro Tower and Fontana Towers were new developments, lol. Guess they ran out of material.

5) The selection of men in Sacramento is surprisingly much younger, cleaner, more athletic, masculine, and better looking than SF (2 words- UC Davis). It's a lot like Southern California in that respect, if you're into that type of guy physically. Y'all should check it out :p

fimiak

Nov 6, 2013, 12:30 AM

Don't forget to vote. http://www.sfelections.org/tools/pollsite/

YES on B and YES on C.

simms3_redux

Nov 6, 2013, 7:04 AM

Don't forget to vote. http://www.sfelections.org/tools/pollsite/

YES on B and YES on C.

I forgot to vote! No time :(

I did get into a debate with a REPUBLICAN coworker who was againt B&C and thought it ridiculous they would even attempt to raise the height limit. I totally assumed because of his party affiliation and because he and I both work for a development/real estate investor and focus on SF that we would BOTH find common ground and be Yes votes on B&C. I guess you can never judge a book by its cover. I do hope everyone voted yes on A though as well!

Results

http://sfelections.org/results/20131105/

A passed 69:31

B failed 62:38

C failed 67:33

AHHHHHHHHHH, more fuel for the rich assholes in the Four Seasons to take advantage of overly ideological and under-informed SF voters to get them to vote down THAT development and others like it. Over principal, I may move myself away from the Bay sooner than I realized. It didn't take me long to move away from Atlanta after those idiot voters voted down more transit in favor of maintaining the congested status quo (of course still complaining about the traffic). Um reason and logic people? I can't hear another person complain about SF housing prices...WE the voteres are creating the housing crisis, NOT developers. LoL.

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 6, 2013, 7:11 AM

brady&market - no, not me that did the post of 100 Van Ness Ave. Who is that pretender? :>) But I am glad to see someone else posting online.

NOPA

Nov 6, 2013, 3:46 PM

"3) Did they seriously just narrow down Dolores to 1 Lane??"

Yes but just for the One block until it hits 14th street. This isn't a really busy section so it doesn't matter to me.

mt_climber13

Nov 6, 2013, 5:12 PM

"3) Did they seriously just narrow down Dolores to 1 Lane??"

Yes but just for the One block until it hits 14th street. This isn't a really busy section so it doesn't matter to me.

Well it isn't at the moment, but now that there is a huge residential building and Whole Foods here.. what were they thinking? Look at the traffic back up at Whole Foods on Franklin and California from all the cars trying to get into the garage there, and that's a 3 lane one way street that is otherwise not very congested, except rush hours. If the garage is on 14th street then it might work out.. But then 14th is going to get crazy backed up and it has typically been a very smooth sailing street traffic wise.

tall/awkward

Nov 6, 2013, 9:32 PM

To be honest, I had no strong feelings about 8 Washington one way or the other. I'm much more interested in the Mexican Museum building, which makes way more sense to me. I'm really hoping that specific spoiled rich minority doesn't win over a high-rise near all that public transportation with a shiny new museum and restored historic building to boot. It would feel much worse to me if that is shot down.

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 6, 2013, 10:14 PM

pizzaguy

Nov 7, 2013, 11:38 AM

8 Washington - It may be very democratic, but I don't think that it is a a good idea to have building policy decided at the ballot box. I've lived through a lot of turmoil since 1969 when I moved to San Francisco and I wonder if we are getting into another era conflict?

Blood will be spilled if the Warriors arena doesn't get built.

fimiak

Nov 7, 2013, 4:13 PM

Trinity Place - I head some loud pounding today, went to my balcony to see where it is coming from and discovered that concrete is being broken at the Trinity Place recent tear down - I assume the next (and last?) phase is happening now.

Whole Foods, Dolores & Market Sts. - visited the store today - nice - looks like their other stores to me. Nice that the street car line is across the street.

8 Washington - It may be very democratic, but I don't think that it is a a good idea to have building policy decided at the ballot box. I've lived through a lot of turmoil since 1969 when I moved to San Francisco and I wonder if we are getting into another era conflict?

Trinity has 4 Phases. I think the phase that abuts Market st. is the final phase.

The vote has given me new zeal for SF development, I thought things were changing, but the fact that buildings are put to polls with almost no real knowledge provided to the public says a lot about how ridiculous the entire episode has been. Votes like what happened Tuesday are the extreme exception I hope.

Spying on Twitter.
http://i.imgur.com/5ylfv9Jl.jpg?1 (http://imgur.com/5ylfv9J)
http://i.imgur.com/ISFEC3hl.jpg (http://imgur.com/ISFEC3h)
http://i.imgur.com/vVQZcVSl.jpg?1 (http://imgur.com/vVQZcVS)
http://i.imgur.com/BuLGBOyl.jpg (http://imgur.com/BuLGBOy)
The 4S camera leaves a lot to be desired from low light shots.

slock

Nov 8, 2013, 3:07 AM

simms3_redux

Nov 8, 2013, 4:54 AM

Just so we can clear the air about units under development right now:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SFApartments_zps07c879c1.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SFApartments_zps07c879c1.jpg.html)

Not counting some notably close to possibly happening developments such as 399 Frement, and of course neighborhood activists can still overturn a few of these that haven't laid a shovel yet. Also, not counting all of the countless 10-30 unit infill developments all over the place.

Hopefully there IS some rental relief coming! Surprising lack of new condos under construction and I'm not counting on Millennium Partners' proposal to come to fruition after what just happened at 8 Washington.

I think SF's mid/high-rise multifamily development cycle is only exceeded by the giants (NYC, Toronto, Chicago) and only matched/relatively on par by Miami, Seattle, Vancouver, Calgary, and Boston. Same goes for office development except take out Miami and Vancouver as players, maybe Seattle too since it's all Amazon and the sheer amount of new office buildings isn't the same.

minesweeper

Nov 8, 2013, 7:56 AM

^ That's an impressive list.

A couple other medium-sized projects underway are 2655 Bush (84 units, 2015), 255 Broadway (75 BMR units, 2015), and 1450 Franklin (69 condos, 2015?).

coyotetrickster

Nov 8, 2013, 2:32 PM

mt_climber13

Nov 8, 2013, 3:43 PM

tech12

Nov 8, 2013, 4:13 PM

Just have builders build to the legal heights. Don't grant exemptions and fiascos like 8 Washington won't happen.

If we want taller buildings, whatever bureaucracy responsible should change the zoning. Simple. Exemptions should not be granted IMO.

But wouldn't NIMBY's just try to change the zoning back, saying it's out of character or something?

The Mexican museum tower should just have half of the units be affordable. I think the gullible NIMBY army that the wealthy NIMBY commanders like to rile up wouldn't be nearly as supportive of killing a project if it had a large affordable element to it. The idea that 8 Washington should be affordable housing instead of luxury condos was one of the main reasons a lot of people did oppose 8 Washington (not the wealthy people behind the ballot measure of course, as they just wanted to preserve views and property values, but that was a main argument of many of the people who voted no).

And who's to say that if the Mexican Museum tower gets built at 350', that NIMBYs wouldn't try and pass that same anti-development ballot measure anyways?

Dammit, I thought we were past this NIMBY bs. And the sad part is, if everyone in SF who is able to vote actually bothered to, I think it's reasonable to say that B&C might actually have passed. Only 25% of SF's voters actually voted, and of them 60% voted against B&C...and it seems like people are always more likely to vote (or comment on things, etc) when they're extra angry rather than supportive or ambivalent.

BushMan

Nov 8, 2013, 4:52 PM

Another nice little piece of infill on Sutter St. in my neighborhood in the Tendernob:

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/07/21_new_units_coming_to_sutter_street_in_the_tendernob.php

This will be a great follow-up to Blanc which is just coming on line a couple of blocks down at Sutter and Larkin. So happy to see these crappy parking lots going away!

JWS

Nov 8, 2013, 5:33 PM

Curbed is reporting that 299 Fremont and 340 Fremont have broken ground.

Pictures at the link: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/07/highrise_watch_mission_street_rising_rincon_hill_descending.php

Exciting! The one I'm most anxious to see movement on is 399 Fremont, but these two will keep me occupied!

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 9, 2013, 7:26 AM

Today the last windows were installed on the north and west sides of the building. I like the new building in my view much, though I find the south face to be too busy.

TIP: I have been using Flickr's new beta version for a few weeks now, and tonight I could not find the HTML for the picture and had to revert back to the current version. Part of the beta experience are evolving changes to the site.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7353/10754149854_3ba0153868_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/10754149854/)
AVA, 55 Ninth Street - 2013_11_08 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/10754149854/) by Apollo's Light (http://www.flickr.com/people/antinous/), on Flickr

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 9, 2013, 9:47 PM

Today the sculpture is being installed on the new AVA apartment building. It looks very much like the artist rendering I saw last year. I like it very much & look forward to seeing it completed.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2816/10765645004_ea1d0fd67c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/10765645004/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/10765827883_255cef9a6f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/10765827883/)

fflint

Nov 9, 2013, 9:59 PM

^AVA is looking good.

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 9, 2013, 10:35 PM

More stunning news. I see on Socket Site that the old CAAA building is slated to be demolished to make way for a development by the Emerald Fund, from Van Ness to Polk St. fronting Hayes! The new building will be 12 stories, 120 feet tall. The old AAA building was not a looker at all before it was clad in (I think) the 1960s to make it look modern, but it did have a very beautiful lobby. My neighborhood is like a nuclear reactor melting - so much change in so short a time.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3668/10766251776_17c6b76e71_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/10766251776/)

timbad

Nov 10, 2013, 1:45 AM

More stunning news. I see on Socket Site that the old CAAA building is slated to be demolished to make way for a development by the Emerald Fund, from Van Ness to Polk St. fronting Hayes! The new building will be 12 stories, 120 feet tall. The old AAA building was not a looker at all before it was clad in (I think) the 1960s...

I actually don't think it looked that bad once upon a time (http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAC-6560.jpg), but I'm glad to see it go now - I've always thought that 100 Van Ness was the building *least* in need of a makeover between City Hall down through the Market/Van Ness intersection.

timbad

Nov 10, 2013, 8:13 PM

although nothing is happening with the demo of the low building on the corner of Third and Folsom yet, they are working on the Folsom-side entrance and sidewalk of the re-clad portion. looking west into the sun (sorry):

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7383/10783069243_eea5966825_b.jpg

and looking the other way:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7353/10782902994_3de00ab742_b.jpg

and, this may be old news by now, but I only just noticed: down the street, the gas station at Fourth and Folsom has been removed (I knew it had been closed a while back) to make way for the new Central Subway Moscone stop (http://www.flickr.com/photos/municentralsubway/sets/72157627933898414/) (I wish they were putting the stop right at the corner instead of hidden behind the new corner building, for visibility's sake).

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7399/10783097643_c7f45628a5_b.jpg

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 11, 2013, 7:43 PM

BushMan

Nov 11, 2013, 8:23 PM

timbad's post - Central Subway Moscone Stop - thanks for the update photos - I had been by the gas station many times but had no idea the site was to be a MUNI underground station!

I think the subway is a gross waste of money for what it will give us. Maybe one day it will make sense.

Couldn't agree more about the subway. Unbelievably expensive (now over 1.5 BILLION for just over a mile and a half line, I believe?) and meanwhile Muni as it currently exists is absolutely pathetic.

Just yesterday I was foolish enough to attempt taking the 30 or 45 from the Stockton Tunnel to the Marina area. These are obviously two major lines, either one would have been OK but I waited around twenty minutes and nothing. Then both a 30 and a 45 came in rapid succession, both so stuffed to the gills that they didn't even bother stopping. Waited another 10 minutes or so and finally gave up in disgust. Anyone who rides Muni at all knows this is typical.

So sad, that subway could be rendered obsolete RIGHT NOW by simply running more 30 and 45 busses. Unfortunately it's not about actually improving service efficiently it's all about money and politics.

fimiak

Nov 11, 2013, 11:20 PM

fflint

Nov 11, 2013, 11:53 PM

^I expect the Central Subway will indeed be extended to the wharf, and sooner rather than later. There has been some talk among planners about then running the line west out to the Marina.

BushMan

Nov 12, 2013, 12:26 AM

The Central Subway is incredibly necessary and I do not think $1.5 billion is too much to expect for 4 new subway stops in one of the most dense parts of the country with unionized labor. The city is growing and is planning for 2019-2020s with a pop of 900k+, so more buses is certainly not a long term solution. Its only unfortunate that the line does not continue to the wharf. Tourism is still the #1 industry in SF, even if locals rarely go to the wharf themselves.

Look, I love a good subway as much as anyone but Muni has way bigger fundamental problems that this won't improve in the least. For example, how will this improve the cattle-car otherwise known as the 38 Geary? If Muni can't handle it's current system adequately what makes you think it will do any better with this? You say more busses is "not a long-term solution"- how about doing it as a short-term solution until this magical subway gets built? Or would that be a far too simple, logical and cost-effective solution?

I agree with you about one thing- It's absolutely criminal that this thing isn't going all the way through North Beach and to the Wharf, that's just one more reason why it's such a joke. Obviously I think the project is ill-advised based on any reasonable cost/benefit analysis but if you're gonna do it it would at least be nice to have it cover more than a distance that is actually fairly easily walkable and won't force tourists to get off at Chinatown and then still have to get on the 30 to get near the Wharf!

northbay

Nov 12, 2013, 2:11 AM

Don't want to get too off-topic here but clearly both transit expansion and greater frequency are needed. Must one come at the expense of the other? If there's a (political) will, there's a way.

timbad

Nov 12, 2013, 6:14 AM

noticed this evening that the Century at 15th/Sanchez and Market was finally all uncovered:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3704/10813709555_cecaf9383b_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5530/10813662176_a9e8ce836e_b.jpg

and a bonus shot of the Whole Foods at 38 Dolores all lit up and alive:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7426/10813647136_108344390e_b.jpg

simms3_redux

Nov 12, 2013, 6:27 AM

RE: The Century.

Ummm, I like?!? I was NOT expecting that based on the renderings. The facade that faces Market is nice and the back half of the facade on Sanchez is nice. The "front" piece on Sanchez is a little...bleh.

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 12, 2013, 6:43 PM

timbad - The Century

Thanks for the update. I will be across the street at Pesce (my first time dining there) and will look at the unveiled building.

Orange seems to be in vogue. The building is very masculine, attractive, but nothing new to my eye. I'm so glad to see that corner finally properly developed. It was an eyesore for too long.

fflint

Nov 13, 2013, 2:45 AM

The Century is looking great! Yeah, the 15th St. facade isn't as nice as the Market St. one, but overall this is an attractive result.

tech12

Nov 14, 2013, 1:12 AM

Socketsite is reporting that Google is thinking about developing a bunch of office space in mission bay (at the old salesforce site) or leasing a bunch of it in the transbay tower:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/rumors_have_google_making_a_big_move_into_san_francsico.html#comments

simms3_redux

Nov 14, 2013, 5:51 AM

^^^I think Google will do the Mission Bay campus. My reasons?

1) Google is already a real estate owner and developer in the Valley

2) Google likes to control every aspect of everything it is involved in, and they like to think they can "do anything" over there at the company, even real estate

3) A large, attractive urban campus in a new, mixed-use neighborhood is still a big appeal and can make a statement depending on architecture, size, features, etc

4) TB Tower could actually be too small for them (if they are thinking 1-2 million SF)

5) Google is not an office tower tenant - it's a constricting environment for a firm that seems to be bent on promoting an image of stepping outside of the box and pushing out boundaries

6) Signage/naming rights - are people really going to call the "Transbay Tower" the "Google" Tower? Is Google really going to put a multi-colored sign at the top and will the City even permit that?

Questions:

1) Does this mean that Google is leaving Hills Plaza, either way?

2) What's their RFP?

3) What's their timing? Phased move-in or immediate need?

I would love Google to anchor TB Tower because given their credit/safety and name, of course the developers would love that, but also they would ensure the tower gets built. All that's sure right now is the foundation, not the tower itself.

mt_climber13

Nov 14, 2013, 6:57 AM

Not only would Google's move into the Transbay Tower ensure he tower itself would be built, but also every planned tower around it, as a ripple effect. That would be huge news.

There are many more benefits to Google moving into the tower:

Direct access to high speed rail to Southern California (Google's move could actually put more investor and government confidence into high speed rail because of this)

Direct access to CalTrain

Closer to BART than Mission Bay

Closer to MUNI and Central Subway

Closer to other tech startups in Soma. Nobody cool, fresh, and innovative wants to lease space in Mission Bay. That's where the sterile pharmaceutical companies are plopped. They all want to be in Soma.

simms3_redux

Nov 14, 2013, 9:26 AM

Me

Not only would Google's move into the Transbay Tower ensure he tower itself would be built, but also every planned tower around it, as a ripple effect. That would be huge news. Fortunately every planned tower around TB is already UC, well except for 1st and Mission.

There are many more benefits to Google moving into the tower:

Direct access to high speed rail to Southern California (Google's move could actually put more investor and government confidence into high speed rail because of this)Yea but it doesn't necessarily translate into public funding for HSR or for the city to bring CalTrain into the TB Terminal

Direct access to CalTrainYea not during Google's first term, aka ~10 years, which basically means this is not true, plus why would they need CalTrain anymore if they're in the City? They'll put their city employees in their new digs, and thus those employees will likely be car or Muni users.

Closer to BART than Mission Bay

Closer to MUNI and Central Subway

Closer to other tech startups in Soma. Nobody cool, fresh, and innovative wants to lease space in Mission Bay. That's where the sterile pharmaceutical companies are plopped. They all want to be in Soma.This defeats your first argument. If Google went to Mission Bay, then others would presumably follow. Mission Bay is also arguably just as close to most of SoMa as the South Financial District, which itself borders the very "stodgy" North Financial District where the suits work.

mt_climber13

Nov 14, 2013, 5:13 PM

Fortunately every planned tower around TB is already UC, well except for 1st and Mission.

No

Re:Caltrain
Having direct access to Mountain View world headquarters via train (well I'm not sure how far their campus is from the station in mt. View but still) would be a big deal if you axe me.

Re: Mission Bay
Googles move to Soma would ensure development of the proposed projects nearby, which would not necessarily be occupied by startups, as the proposals are for class A space, and tech wants class B structures typically of concrete and heavy timber construction. Google is still a pretty corporate business and would attract other corporate businesses as well as it would create a lot of confidence for the newly developing area. I think Facebook and Yahoo would be next.

I do think the Mission Bay looks more Google, but if they are moving to a city, why keep their suburban office park mentality? Also, do they want to go through the ringer of SF development or locate to a tower that is already approved and under construction?

Locating to the tower would skyrocket property values near BART like Oakland and Berkeley.

fimiak

Nov 14, 2013, 5:24 PM

I would love Google to move into TBT but Mission Bay makes way more sense to me, so projects can literally be separated out by building, with the entire zone becoming a sort of campus. Mission Bay is very close to the Caltrain, although the TBT will be a lot closer to the extension opening date by the time its actually occupied (Google could move into TBT late 2017, Caltrain earliest would be 2019).

After working in office towers in NYC, I think they are too restrictive for a company like Google...however...Google does not necessarily want this space for its engineers, so it could just be Google's sales, support, and marketing that moves. I think the decision depends on who Google wants to move into SF.

tech12

Nov 14, 2013, 5:27 PM

Mission Bay is also arguably just as close to most of SoMa as the South Financial District, which itself borders the very "stodgy" North Financial District where the suits work.

I disagree. The South Financial district is completely in SOMA, whereas Mission Bay is only partly in it, and the salesforce site google is looking at is definitely not in SOMA. Also, the south Financial district/SOMA is already a hot area for tech companies. That's not to say Mission Bay would be a bad area for them to locate, but I think for Google, transbay (or elsewhere in the south financial district) would be better, with the exception of possibly not having enough office space for them.

Fortunately every planned tower around TB is already UC, well except for 1st and Mission.

This isn't true. There are some approved towers which haven't started yet, and plenty of towers that are still in the proposal stage, in addition to the lots that are zoned for skyscrapers (including two 750' sites) but have no proposals for them yet.

minesweeper

Nov 14, 2013, 5:47 PM

6) Signage/naming rights - are people really going to call the "Transbay Tower" the "Google" Tower? Is Google really going to put a multi-colored sign at the top and will the City even permit that?

I researched this a while back when I wondered why our skyline has almost no corporate signage despite it being pretty common for other cities (especially Los Angeles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/troy_bithell/3257131780/)).

The one notable exception is One California, with its US Bank logo (formerly Airtouch and Mutual Benefit Life), which is grandfathered in (http://www.sf-planning.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5909). At some point in the 1970s, the planning code was changed to prohibit signage above 100 feet on downtown office towers. That rule explains why 555 Mission has the "Deloitte" logo at a somewhat awkward height (http://www.flickr.com/photos/57453294@N00/7869988398/) near its base.

So, there will be no Google logo at the top of the Transbay Tower (although they could probably light the crown with the Google colors). I'd like to believe Google will take the Transbay Tower, but culturally Mission Bay feels more Google-ly.

simms3_redux

Nov 14, 2013, 5:59 PM

Where is the Salesforce site? Is it south Mission Bay, or is it closer to China Basin? Because if the latter, to me that's just as close if not closer to SoMa (aka Brannan St, Townsend, Harrison, Bryant, Showplace Square certainly, etc) than SFD.

Wakamesalad, my point about Caltrain is that depending on where the Salesforce site is in Mission Bay, it could be closer to existing Caltrain than TB Tower, which is not likely to see Caltrain for a very long time.

editApparently as I thought the Salesforce site is near China Basin and AT&T Park. Figuratively that's closer to SoMa than South Financial District, which really stops well before 680 Folsom and the old Twitter building at 795 Folsom (which are Yerba Buena area).

Fimiak - I agree, it's all about who Google wants to move to SF that could determine office tower or campus.

Tech12 - we're talking office towers only here I thought? Within 1-2 blocks of TB Tower you have:

535 Mission - UC
350 Mission - UC
181 Fremont - UC
Foundry III - T/O
222 Second - UC
140 New Montgomery rehab - complete
1st and Mission Office - proposed

Am I missing anything here? Seems to me with or without Google, the adjacent towers are under construction. Google could be the reassurance that TB Tower gets built itself since that's not a done deal, but the others are spec and still UC (535, 181, 222, Foundry III) or spoken for (350, 140 New M, heck 680 Folsom).

Resi, within 1 block, again same situation where most towers immediately around TB Tower are UC:

TB Block 6/7 - now UC
Lumina - UC
41 Tehama - approved at smaller height
524 Howard - working through approval process now and Google won't speed that up
181 Fremont (Park 181) - UC

In an unrelated news bit, we just lost a prospect for our Class B Market St building for one of the new class A towers on Mission, and this is a tech tenant. Small commitment of ~5,000 SF, but they were willing to pay $5+ more for "trophy" class A because that's what their approval committee wanted. Bad for us, good sign for SFD towers.

mt_climber13

Nov 14, 2013, 6:16 PM

Is the Legoratta Mission Bay campus fully entitled and approved? If not, how many years do you think that process would take? And then you have construction timetables. And then they might find a snail that is endangered and delay the process for another few years. In all this time I'm sure CalTrain would be connected to the Transbay Terminal. But who knows as well, the whole train portion of the terminal is pretty iffy these days.

All in all it seems like the Mission Bay campus would be more of a long term process. The tower will be ready within 3- 4 years. But then you have to consider Google needing more space than the tower allows. Ironic that the original proposal of 1200' would have been perfect. SF shoots itself in the foot again. And then what are the odds that the original proposal be built? One in a googol?

And to those that think Google wouldn't locate in an office building, they bought a 3 million sq. ft. office building in Manhattan recently. Also, they occupy 800,000 sq. ft. in an office tower in Chicago.

tech12

Nov 14, 2013, 7:02 PM

Where is the Salesforce site? Is it south Mission Bay, or is it closer to China Basin? Because if the latter, to me that's just as close if not closer to SoMa (aka Brannan St, Townsend, Harrison, Bryant, Showplace Square certainly, etc) than SFD.

Wakamesalad, my point about Caltrain is that depending on where the Salesforce site is in Mission Bay, it could be closer to existing Caltrain than TB Tower, which is not likely to see Caltrain for a very long time.

editApparently as I thought the Salesforce site is near China Basin and AT&T Park. Figuratively that's closer to SoMa than South Financial District, which really stops well before 680 Folsom and the old Twitter building at 795 Folsom (which are Yerba Buena area).

I think you might be confused about what "SOMA" is. The south financial district and Yerba Buena area are both within SOMA. The old Salesforce site in Mission Bay is not. The south of market is a big area that includes many sub-neighborhoods, and spans from the Embarcadero in the east to South Van Ness in the west, and Mission bay and the Mission district in the south to Market street in the north.

Tech12 - we're talking office towers only here I thought? Within 1-2 blocks of TB Tower you have:

Yeah I was including residential buildings. You're right that all of the office towers (aside from the 50 first street proposal) are under construction or site prep right now. Though there are a few unclaimed sites that were upzoned in the transbay plan that could end up as office towers as well.

mt_climber13

Nov 14, 2013, 7:54 PM

How may of these shadow proposals are office?

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1381197_10100128580226062_704877223_n.jpg

tech12

Nov 14, 2013, 8:00 PM

How may of these shadow proposals are office?

https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1381197_10100128580226062_704877223_n.jpg

One is office, one is nothing (no proposals yet), the others are residential.

hruski

Nov 14, 2013, 9:13 PM

One is office, one is nothing (no proposals yet), the others are residential.

Every time I see renders of the skyline of ~2020, I think to myself "Foundry Square is going to be the most underutilized real estate in the city."

Those buildings are about 20 stories too short.

fflint

Nov 14, 2013, 9:38 PM

^Agreed. I've never understood why Foundry Square was built out at office park heights.

simms3_redux

Nov 14, 2013, 9:48 PM

I think you might be confused about what "SOMA" is. The south financial district and Yerba Buena area are both within SOMA. The old Salesforce site in Mission Bay is not. The south of market is a big area that includes many sub-neighborhoods, and spans from the Embarcadero in the east to South Van Ness in the west, and Mission bay and the Mission district in the south to Market street in the north.

Nope not confused at all. SOMA does have many sub-districts, including Mid-Market where Twitter is and Showplace Square near the Design District. But South Financial District is most certainly not SoMa (it's "core CBD" along with North Financial District, where I work), and Yerba Buena is technically between SoMa and Union Square as a separate district but could conceivably be lumped in with SoMa. This is where 795 Folsom is (former Twitter building recently sold) and 680 Folsom (where Macy's.com and Riverbed Tech are moving, also recently sold), and where Akamai just took nearly 30,000 SF at 799 Market (which could conceivably fall in any of three districts, including Yerba Buena, Union Square, or SFD).

The meat of "SoMa" where most of the new construction office proposals outside of downtown and many of the headlining leases are locating is along Brannan St (think Kilroy's project at 333 Brannan, and the number of big institutions with entitlements on parcels on the same street or within 1 block is astounding). Brannan St is essentially adjacent to China Basin, which is considered part of Mission Bay. It is quite far from South Financial District and is already served by CalTrain via King St.

To get from TB Tower to Mid-Market (which to me is a totally separate submarket though many brokers still lump it in with SOMA) is easy via Muni or even BART. To get from TB Tower to the other parts of SOMA (Brannan, Townsend, Showplace Square, Rhode Island, etc) is incredibly difficult. But it's a pretty short walk from Mission Bay around the China Basin.

simms3_redux

Nov 14, 2013, 10:07 PM

And to those that think Google wouldn't locate in an office building, they bought a 3 million sq. ft. office building in Manhattan recently. Also, they occupy 800,000 sq. ft. in an office tower in Chicago.

I'm pretty familiar with the building they bought in Manhattan for reasons I don't need to clarify ;)

It's a large, brick/timber building with floorplates exponentially larger than anything on the west coast situated in the SOMA of Manhattan (in terms of tenants and "feel", not in terms of gay scene...though SOMA in SF is pretty gay ironically), aka Chelsea. It's across from Chelsea Market and surrounded by restaurants, lofts, the Standard, the Gansevoort Meatpacking, and the High Line. It's by no means a high rise and functions more like a campus. Google is also a large tenant across the street at Chelsea Market, which has large floorplates and is also an old brick/timber building (~1.1 million SF).

Not familiar with their building in Chicago, but I think the best comp for Google locating in an actual Tower is Amazon in Seattle. Like Fimiak said, it will likely depend on who they are housing in the city in addition to the countless other moving parts.

WonderlandPark

Nov 14, 2013, 11:24 PM

Looks like 181 Fremont had its groundbreaking ceremony today:

Looks like the name is Park 181 from the photo on curbed.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/14/groundbreaking_help_for_tallest_mixeduse_west_of_mississippi.php

I still have big doubts over TB, but at least this one is going up, 800+ ft!

If it beats Wilshire Grand to completion, than this will be 4th tallest in the entire state for a bit.

edwards

Nov 14, 2013, 11:55 PM

No one mentioned 41 Tehama gaining 4 additional floors?

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/5282fe35f92ea1582f0098c2/41%20tehama%205.png

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/11/13/41_tehama_looks_to_add_a_little_to_the_top.php

easy as pie

Nov 15, 2013, 1:40 AM

interior staircase that'll be very interesting to people who know sf moma's old one:
http://i.imgur.com/IxiIjj3.jpg

eta: i hate it, obviously, only hope this rendering somehow totally misrepresents it

WonderlandPark

Nov 15, 2013, 4:33 AM

^^ ouch.

if they were going this far they might as well torn down the Botta SFMOMA building and started over. To me this is like taking the Lincoln Statue out of the Lincoln Memorial and leaving the empty building. It is not the same.

timbad

Nov 15, 2013, 7:01 AM

^Agreed. I've never understood why Foundry Square was built out at office park heights.

but ya gotta admit, people enjoying the extra sunshine in the rooftop garden of TBTC for the next 30-40 years are gonna be happy it was

fflint

Nov 15, 2013, 7:10 AM

simms3_redux

Nov 15, 2013, 7:38 AM

SFMOMA remembrance:

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SFMOMA1_zps691a187d.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SFMOMA1_zps691a187d.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SFMOMA3_zpscf0220b2.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SFMOMA3_zpscf0220b2.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SFMOMA4_zps6d8a2c0e.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SFMOMA4_zps6d8a2c0e.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SFMOMA2_zpsb3353e87.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SFMOMA2_zpsb3353e87.jpg.html)

pseudolus

Nov 16, 2013, 4:27 AM

Maybe George Lucas can put the Botta steps in his Star Wars museum.

POLA

Nov 16, 2013, 7:34 AM

redacted.

fflint

Nov 16, 2013, 8:45 AM

^Nice shots!

Had a chance today to snap a crappy phone pic of Rincon Hill from a certain floor of 101 Cal:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7419/10882027676_ce186020ca_b.jpg

Bonus shot:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5504/10882027636_9d9462aa06_b.jpg

mt_climber13

Nov 16, 2013, 10:16 AM

Relieved with the color of glass for 535. Was concerned it was going to be "Infinity Green" from some of the previous drawings.

fimiak

Nov 16, 2013, 4:59 PM

Instead they went for 'rear view mirror' :hyper:

simms3_redux

Nov 16, 2013, 6:23 PM

Had a chance today to snap a crappy phone pic of Rincon Hill from a certain floor of 101 Cal:

Were you in my office ?!? I have the same view from about the same height up! Looks like you may have been on 32 or 33?

BTW SFMOMA has another Liebher Luffing crane up!

fflint

Nov 16, 2013, 10:07 PM

Were you in my office ?!? I have the same view from about the same height up! Looks like you may have been on 32 or 33?Yep, 33!

viewguysf

Nov 17, 2013, 1:52 AM

Where is the Salesforce site? Is it south Mission Bay, or is it closer to China Basin? Because if the latter, to me that's just as close if not closer to SoMa (aka Brannan St, Townsend, Harrison, Bryant, Showplace Square certainly, etc) than SFD.

It's across from UCSF's new hospital, extending south down Fourth Street. [Delayed response from Singapore with buildings of all sizes that simply blow me away.]

timbad

Nov 17, 2013, 6:58 AM

this (http://www.mcguire.com/explore_neighborhoods/community/72_townsend) is finally happening, I noticed today... here looking south down Colin P Kelly towards Townsend:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3687/10898994146_d12a51c162_b.jpg

and here the demolition inside the now-hollow shell:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3732/10899104674_83396f4896_b.jpg

I'm kinda bummed they're not undoing all that stucco-y stuff that I think was added in the 90s - I imagine there is some nice brick under there

simms3_redux

Nov 18, 2013, 7:14 AM

SFMOMA, another Liebherr Luffing crane!

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SFMOMA1_zps864382b0.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/SFMOMA1_zps864382b0.jpg.html)

I added pics of Lumina (with a visit from our friends at Bigge), 45 Lansing, 350 Mission, 535 Mission, and Transbay Tower. No construction activity at TB Block 6/7, 340 Fremont, 399 Fremont. The 222 Second site was active, however.

easy as pie

Nov 18, 2013, 7:59 AM

in re sfmoma :banger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TldlS46_hjU

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 19, 2013, 4:56 PM

Jack Tar Hotel - New CA. Pacific Hospital - I see in today's SF Chronicle a picture of the old hotel building is now being demolished to make way for the new highrise hospital at Van Ness Ave. and Geary. I will have to go by and take a look before it is gone.

jbm

Nov 20, 2013, 4:16 AM

biggerhigherfaster

Nov 20, 2013, 5:23 AM

socketsite has a story up today about goodwill putting their facility at south van ness x mission on the market in early 2014.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/goodwill_selling_prominent_mission_street_site_zoned_fo.html

SF BT followed up with a story on plumbers union possibly putting up its 12th and Market 2 acre property up for sale

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/11/local-38-could-follow-goodwill-with.html

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 20, 2013, 8:13 PM

100 Van Ness Ave. Rendering

I see the first rendering of 150 Van Ness Ave. on Socket Site. The architecture is so different for San Francisco that I am not sure if I like it or not. It is hard to fit in the Civic Center for me. Anywhere else I would not hesitate

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/11/the_designs_for_150_van_ness_avenue_and_over_400_units.html#more

jbm

Nov 21, 2013, 5:22 AM

nice story on the plumbers union property. would be even better if it included civic center hotel, which they also own, i believe.

Jerry of San Fran

Nov 22, 2013, 1:00 AM

The facade of 55th Ninth Street is finished for the most part - which I find to be the most successful one of all of the highrises in the neighborhood. (Compare to NEMA's blank grey wall). I do find the south side to be a bit too busy for my taste, but that aside AVA is a nice addition to the neighborhood.

The sculpture is now installed at AVA and I find it to be a great disappointment. It looks like the artist did not know when to stop. It is a train wreck! If half of the exploding pianos sculptures were removed I think it would be a great success. As it is now the mass weighs down on the 10th Street facade and detracts from the architect's very nicely done face on 9th Street.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3673/10986430723_7888fd0ab8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/10986430723/)

BushMan

Nov 22, 2013, 7:10 AM

^^^^^
Ha, ha, is that Ava sculpture supposed to be some sort of nod to Defenestration over on 6th Street??

simms3_redux

Nov 23, 2013, 2:41 AM

I grabbed lunch on Mission today (work at Market/California/Davis) and the amount of construction between First St and Second St around Mission is UNBELIEVABLE.

Cement mixers and all sorts of heavy machinery on-site at TB Tower with work really going. Someone mentioned it looked like they may have poured a caisson at 181 Fremont catty corner. 350 Mission is rising above the street. 535 Mission is around floor 20 now. Not too far away Lumina is officially under construction with foundation poured (still waiting on the 2-4 tower cranes that will grace that site). There are seriously more construction workers walking around on the sidewalks than everyday people.

I've been pondering in my head what that area is going to look like (let alone all of the South FiDi and the whole southern half of the skyline). I know the skyline now is already larger than all but a small handful of cities in the country, but with the height of the towers UC and the sheer amount of them, I think we're ensuring ourselves as the solid step behind NYC and Chicago. In fact, I'd argue that a built-out SF CBD in 10 years at the proposed and under construction heights, both office and residential, is only found in similar density/fashion (and dare I say heights) in NYC, Chicago, and Toronto.

Just a recap because it's so awesome!

Substantial Progress
NEMA - 37 floors - substantially complete
One Rincon Hill North - 50 floors - substantially complete

Major Progress Under Way
535 Mission - 27 floors (around floor 20 now)
45 Lansing - 45 floors - rising above street level
350 Mission - 33 floors - rising above street level

Definitely Under Way but not yet moved to Construction Boards
201 Folsom Tower 1 - 43 floors - partial foundation poured
201 Folsom Tower 2 - 37 floors - partial foundation poured
222 Second - 26 floors - excavation basically complete
181 Fremont - 54 floors - potentially a caisson was poured today
Transbay Tower - 63 floors - going hard on the site now

Real work/groundbreaking imminent
299 Folsom - 32 floors - land just sold and project just financed, excavation commencing
340 Fremont - 41 floors - project financed and ready to go, permits awarded, site "taped off"

Too much work to even think about buildings below 30 floors (with a few exceptions on the office side above since 25-30 floors of office could be 400' or higher). I'm sure I'm missing something.

peanut gallery

Nov 23, 2013, 7:53 PM

Simms' excellent post reminded me of an old one. Just for the sake of contrast, I went back almost exactly 5 years in this thread -- back to some really dark times for development in SF. Below is a post from November 14, 2008. The last of the big projects from the previous boom were wrapping up and proposals that were expected to start were dying left and right (basically everything below not already under construction was put on hold):

A few of updates from the last couple of weeks, notably 45 Lansing and 10th/Market.

In Progress/Complete
301 Mission - tower and midrise exteriors basically complete; interiors and grounds under construction

One Rincon Hill phase 1 - tower complete; townhomes and landscaping approaching completion

555 Mission - complete; finishing plaza and interior

Infinity - tower 1 and townhomes complete; tower 2 exterior complete; courtyard nearing completion

631 Folsom - facade largely complete, interior, ground level and landscaping in progress

One Hawthorne - under construction; pouring at street level; rebar up to first/second level

Trinity - under construction; last I checked they were working on level 12

Proposed/Still Alive
Transbay Tower - Hines deal approved; awaiting final approval of height zoning changes; I'm just hoping Hines doesn't back out with this economy.

350 Mission - expected to start in 2009; I'm dubious

45 Lansing - Turnberry sold 50% stake to Group 24; excavation due to begin Q1 2009; project should take 30 months to complete

10th and Market (Crescent Heights) - interior being redesigned for apartments rather than condos; timing unknown

On Hold/Dead
One Rincon Hill phase 2 - on hold

535 Mission - on hold; excavation complete; piles driven and being sealed for the wait until construction starts again

The Californian (375 Fremont) - Fifield is trying to sell their development entitlements; basically dead for now

340-350 Fremont - Peebles is trying to sell their development entitlements; basically dead for now

350 Bush - was supposed to be delivered in 2009; entitled through 2010; nothing is happening onsite; I think it's on hold/dead, but no official statement to that effect

Now, almost all of those are back in action with some notable additions (headers are from 5 years ago to highlight how things have changed). A bit of a repeat from Simms' post, but just to put it all in one place:

Proposed/Still Alive (in 2008, remember these all went on hold)
Transbay Tower, 1070' - Site prep is underway.
350 Mission, 445' - Under construction, climbing above street level.
45 Lansing, 450' - Under construction, climbing to street level.
10th and Market (now called NEMA), 352' - Under construction, exterior nearing completion.

On Hold/Dead (in 2008)
One Rincon Hill phase 2, 541' - Under construction, near topping off, if not there already.
535 Mission, 380' - Back under construction, rising steadily.
The Californian (375/399 Fremont), 400' - Dropped the name, but just filed for the shoring/excavation permits; expected to start by the end of the year. Also, I think this will be taller than 400' when built.
340-350 Fremont, 440' - Building permits in place, now awaiting demo permits to clear site; there is already equipment onsite however. Like its neighbor (375/399) directly across the street, expected to start very soon.
350 Bush - The one project from this list not showing signs of imminent construction, although there are some rumblings.

In addition, there are now these active projects which weren't anywhere close to starting yet:
181 Fremont, 802' (to spire) - Excavation underway, will be officially under construction next year.
201 Folsom (Lumina), 400' and 350' - Excavation almost complete, and already started on the foundation.
Transbay Block 6, 300' - Site prep underway.
222 Second, 350' - Excavation nearing completion. Will be officially under construction soon.
Trinity 2 - This was built and now there are signs phase 3 will start soon.

And that doesn't include a bunch of proposals at various stages of approval and financing. This is truly a remarkable time for development in the city. I dare say on par with the massive boom of the 70s/early 80s. Enjoy it, folks. Reading back through those posts form the dark times reminded me how depressing it was. There was one quote from a developer saying we would never see another residential tower built in San Francisco again. Hyperbole for sure, but that's how bleak it felt.

peanut gallery

Nov 23, 2013, 8:01 PM

Another thing to note: back then we were discussing proposals for various lots up and down Market. We all wanted to see them built, but it didn't look good. Now, almost every single one of them has been built or is underway. Another amazing contrast to the dark times.

biggerhigherfaster

Nov 23, 2013, 8:03 PM

peanut gallery

Nov 23, 2013, 9:12 PM

Yes, and to add to your list:
500 Folsom, 400-500' - working it's way through Planning.
524 Howard, 450'- working it's way through Planning.
Mission Rock, various heights, none particularly tall - Giants' big development in Mission Bay, also working it's way through planning.
75 Howard St, 351' - needs exemptions for height. Seems unlikely to me, but we'll see.
41 Tehama, 380' - awaiting approval for height increase, which it is zoned for so should happen.
Palace Hotel Tower, 400'- no clue where this one stands

Though not a high-rise, we can't forget the biggest project currently underway: the new Transbay Terminal.

minesweeper

Nov 23, 2013, 9:53 PM

4 big projects that unfortunately haven't progressed or are still in very preliminary stages:

50 first street (2 towers, zoned for about 900 ft; http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=185537)
one van ness (one of the nicest looking proposals: http://sf.curbed.com/tags/one-van-ness)
the museum tower (http://sf.curbed.com/tags/706-mission)
the seawall and warriors stadium

706 Mission is actually much further along than the others. It could theoretically break ground next year if everything goes its way. I believe it's had its EIR approved, design approved by Planning, and height increase approved by the BOS (http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/minutes/2013/m073013.pdf).

However, it's currently pending a lawsuit (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/09/four-seasons-homeowners-file-suit-to.html?page=all), so who knows how that one will end up. And opponents are threatening the nuclear option of strictly enforcing Prop K citywide.