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

[fflint]

The building on fire is called MB360. It was a $227M complex under construction, according to KTVU 2, and would have had 360 rental units. Most of the building has collapsed and the SFFD is concerned more will fall into 4th Street.

[Jerry of San Fran]

FIRE - It was a shocking sight that I saw from my apartment today. You can see a picture that I took here of the fire from the Essex Fox Plaza: SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development. The property that burned was BRE Properties Mission Bay 360.

From what I saw of the fire as it burned I strongly suspect arson.

[cv94117]

From what I saw of the fire as it burned I strongly suspect arson.

Because you're a fire expert and you know what happened, right?

[LMich]

Because you're a fire expert and you know what happened, right?

That was really uncalled for.

Anyway, I'd suspect a construction accident on an active construction scene before I'd go straight to arson.

[timbad]

link to most recent Mission Bay posts: (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=128118&page=79)

[mt_climber13]

That was really uncalled for.

Anyway, I'd suspect a construction accident on an active construction scene before I'd go straight to arson.

Nothing he said was uncalled for. Jerry's arson claim is the one that was uncalled for, especially since investigators believe that welding was to blame.

[simms3_redux]

Because you're a fire expert and you know what happened, right?

Nothing he said was uncalled for. Jerry's arson claim is the one that was uncalled for, especially since investigators believe that welding was to blame.

I think you both are out of line.

First of all Jerry is an honest and decent, non-controversial poster with history on these forums.

Second of all, I would rather jump to conclusions and blame arsonists before jumping to conclusion and blaming welders who may have made an honest mistake costing hundreds of millions of dollars, which would undoubtedly result in their lives being essentially ruined over said mistake (not to mention bad business for Suffolk Construction and the thousands of workers they employ and the executives and managers with reputations at stake and the founders who built the company on hard work and sweat and no mistakes up until this point).

Third of all, it's really not far fetched at all to jump to the arson conclusion in SF. Of all cities in this country, there is a real and present danger of arson in the area from environmental whackos and anti-growth nutjobs. At no other time in the city's history has new construction and urban development been so contested and tied to class warfare and economic disparity. Lots of people in the area have strong religious level feelings about the changes occurring in the city. Combine that with a history of extremism and area political climate and you're bound to have more than a few people who would burn a building down. Santana Row was burned down and is still a mystery, FYI. For all we know this could remain an unsolved mystery and we'll never know. If it's a mystery, you can be sure that welding is not to be blamed, and that there is a high likelihood of arson.

At the end of the day, this is a sad story for a lot of people.

BRE (one of the only female-led real estate investors in the country...such a sad shame, and a local firm)

Suffolk Construction (provides jobs for thousands of middle class construction workers)...having Suffolk in the spotlight is bad for the construction industry locally as nobody will hire them for a while and everyone else is already at capacity, so construction contracts could become more expensive and construction unemployment could rise if those at Suffolk's SF office can't find work elsewhere.

Hundreds of neighbors in the area who are displaced in their new Mission Bay homes.

Mission Bay - one of the last undeveloped areas of the city facing a real setback now


Overall, this is just a really bad thing that happened! I care less about the cause and more about the clean-up and the solution to issues that various parties will face now that the damage is done. If it is arson, then I hope it draws sympathy from voters and crackdowns from the city and state on anti-development organizers who may inadvertently promote such devastating crime.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Thanks for your comments LMich, wakemesalad, sims3 redux and cv94117 - In my comment I used the word "suspected", not know. And no, I am not a fire expert and it was not my intention to suggest such, even thought I have seen many fires from my window on the 27th floor of my apartment building in the last 43 years.

I based my "suspicion" only on what I witnessed yesterday. I found it very curious that the first fire I saw was coming from the south end of the building, followed a few minutes time by a burst of flames coming from the north end of the building. I would not have thought that a fire would have spread so fast upwind. But then, my logic mmight be faulty.

[fimiak]

There was a fire caused by a welding accident on the 88th floor of 1WTC last year. It isnt unheard of.

[hruski]

How about we just don't jump to any conclusions and wait until the official word from the investigation. Jumping to conclusions and building a case in your mind against either the welders or environmental groups isn't fair and is just a waste of time.

Can we talk about skyscrapers again?

[mt_climber13]

Nobody knows the cause. And I'm not the one who claims to suspect welders, it is the investigators who are. Don't shoot the messenger.

To start an uproar and to blame anti-development types of trying to start the city on FIRE and potentially cause mass death is being over dramatic and dangerous. It is just as nutty as those people who block tech workers buses from getting to work. I have a lot of criticisms of SF but in my long experience living there I have found the people to be much more civilized and respectable than to turn to arson and violent solutions to issues they oppose.

Do arsonists strike at rush hour in the middle of the week? Arson is typically done late at night when there would be no witnesses. And this fire happening at 5pm at the end of the work day is more evidence it was probably an accident. Workers leaving, may have forgot to wrap up completely, leaving the destruction to human error. Even a cigarette butt can take down a whole building or city block. It's happened in SF many times in the past few years.

And yes, I may be a little crude sometimes, opinionated, and not polite sitting in the corner with my head down, and I'm sure many of you can't stand me. So what, I have my freedom to speak my mind, I don't care who it pleases or displeases, and I have the freedom to call those of you a little nutty who jump straight to arson.

And if it is arson, then why blame immediately people who vote against development? They have never done a single violent thing in the past to prove eir point. Arsonists are crazy mother f*ckers who need no purpose for their crime. They look at a large wood building exposed like a pothead looks at a bag of Funyons (never been an arsonist, but been stoned many times. And I love my Funyons.)

[brady&market]

Thanks for your comments LMich, wakemesalad, sims3 redux and cv94117 - In my comment I used the word "suspected", not know. And no, I am not a fire expert and it was not my intention to suggest such, even thought I have seen many fires from my window on the 27th floor of my apartment building in the last 43 years.

I based my "suspicion" only on what I witnessed yesterday. I found it very curious that the first fire I saw was coming from the south end of the building, followed a few minutes time by a burst of flames coming from the north end of the building. I would not have thought that a fire would have spread so fast upwind. But then, my logic mmight be faulty.

Thanks for all your contributions to this forum Jerry of San Fran! I appreciate seeing all your pictures. Don't let these negative keyboard warriors get you down!

[IMBY]

Arsonists are crazy mother f*ckers who need no purpose for their crime. They look at a large wood building exposed like a pothead looks at a bag of Funyons (never been an arsonist, but been stoned many times. And I love my Funyons.)

Arsonists would have no fun in Mexico, as you can't even get insurance on a building built out of wood, concrete all the way!

If I were renting an apartment in one of those adjacent 6 story buildings, and saw this fire, and realizing the potential for what could happen, I'd be out of that building like my pants were on fire! Broken lease be damned!:runaway:

I just finished reading a book on the history of San Francisco. After the fires in the mid-1800's, which destroyed parts of the city, a movement was made to only build fireproof buildings. Then along came the 1906 earthquake (the actually earthquake damage was minimal itself) where 80% of the city was ravaged by fires. Again: we must build only fireproof and earthquake buildings!

100+ years later?

[fflint]

Then along came the 1906 earthquake (the actually earthquake damage was minimal itself) where 80% of the city was ravaged by fires.
This is a falsehood. San Francisco City officials downplayed the earthquake damage in order to spur redevelopment.

[minesweeper]

Mosso (900 Folsom) is nearing the finish line. Looking north across Folsom:

http://i.imgur.com/5RaMVjv.jpg


University of the Pacific dedicated their new location at 155 Fifth Street last week. Eventbrite has leased the top two floors:

http://i.imgur.com/Pvt8rDv.jpg


That janky old building is still there in front of the renovated 680 Folsom:

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

[Jerry of San Fran]

1400 Mission is going up very fast! It will block the view of 1415 Mission's progress. In a couple of years it will be nice to see more people on the street at night in my neighborhood.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3733/13177325654_ab601ca2c8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/antinous/13177325654/)

[simms3_redux]

I got these today.

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/photo7_zps75a0b682.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/photo7_zps75a0b682.jpg.html)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/photo8_zps946b9e00.jpg (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/jsimms3/media/photo8_zps946b9e00.jpg.html)

[timbad]

digging underway at 333 Brannan (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/08/14/from_parking_lot_to_brick_office_building_on_brannan_street.php#more). here looking south along the east side of the lot, bordered by Stanfurd Alley. didnt see activity next door at 345 (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2014/02/dropbox-bags-second-building-for-soma.html), both of which are to be occupied by Dropbox

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3750/13200987364_ff97f45e20_b.jpg

rendering

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/tfsdhnm.jpg

[rocksteady]

Hello San Franciscan's, I will be relocating to SF soon from Phoenix and was wondering if any of you can recommend the best site to search for places to live. I've looked on zillow and hotpads and it's so hard to trust anyone at face value. I will be in SF on the 25th-30th and would like to check a few places out. Everything seems so insanely expensive for what I'm looking for though. Haha

Thanks in advance.

[a very long weekend]

not the right place to post a question like that - this is a development thread.

[rocksteady]

not the right place to post a question like that - this is a development thread. Obviously, I figured that maybe someone familiar with all the new developments in town could be able to point to one recently opened and worth checking out.

i'll go elsewhere to find people familiar with the city as everyone here, but more willing to help a new resident. Thanks

[theskythelimit]

Obviously, I figured that maybe someone familiar with all the new developments in town could be able to point to one recently opened and worth checking out.

i'll go elsewhere to find people familiar with the city as everyone here, but more willing to help a new resident. Thanks

Try craigslist SF.

[1977]

This sounds interesting. Thoughts?

Curators selected for Transbay Tower's $3.3M in public art

The Transbay Tower will be the tallest building west of the Mississippi when it’s completed. Wendi Norris and Dorka Keehn will have a few million dollars to help make the tower even more distinctive.
Both women have been selected to curate the public art for the Transbay Tower, concluding a months-long process in which the property developers met with a number of people with different proposals for the space.


“That’s something in our mind that’s a very dynamic installation that celebrates the structure itself,” he said. “We’re looking for something to accent the building rather than just add to the building, if that makes sense.”
Norris said the art installation will likely be near the top of the structure, if not on top of the structure. She and Keehn have winnowed down an initial list of 43 artists to a shortlist of five and will send out a request for proposals soon. They should have an artist selected by mid-summer, she said.

Article:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2014/03/17/curators-transbay-towers-public-art.html?page=all

[1977]

And Rem Koolhaas has been chosen for Block 8:

Starchitect Rem Koolhaas selected to build tower at Transbay site

Dutch superstar architect Rem Koolhaas is getting another crack at San Francisco.

The city’s Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure has selected Koolhaas’ team – led by developer Related California – to design a 550-foot residential tower for a city-owned parcel on Folsom Street, between First and Fremont streets.

Source and article: http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2014/03/17/18829/

http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/wp-content/blogs.dir/2242/files/2014/03/Folsom-Fremont.jpg

[ozone]

^^^^ Very cool!

[simms3_redux]

Thoughts: Who's going to break ground first?

1) Avant/Essex on Block 9? (architect: SOM)

400 ft before crown
563 units (420 market rate, 143 bmr)
$43.32M paid for land ($100K per market rate)

2) Related on Block 8? (architect: Rem Koolhaas)

550 ft before crown
740 units (500 market rate, 240 bmr)
$72M paid for land ($144K per market rate)


I guess the battle is on with articles mentioning "both could break ground this year" (yeah right, one at best).

[1977]

Transbay Tower tester facade:

http://www.sfhog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Transbay-Tower-2.jpg

Source and more pictures: http://www.sfhog.com/transbay-tower-teaser-spotted/

[timbad]

259 units for Dogpatch (http://news.theregistrysf.com/avant-housing-looks-new-apartment-development-dog-patch/) (Third and 23rd St)

...“We are planning to file our approvals for the development in May. Our expectation is that the project will likely be started sometime in the late third quarter of this year”, says Eric Tao, development principal with Avant Housing. ...

The site for the development covers half of a city block. It is located between 3rd Street, 23rd Street and Tennessee Street. The site’s official address is listed as 1201 Tennessee Street. The location of the project now includes an old warehouse and a gas station. These facilities will be torn down for the project.

this would sort of anchor Dogpatch's southern end

[fimiak]

Photo dump of a few projects around Mid-Market. All 3/20

http://i.imgur.com/3xrnKEPl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/lakGbCWl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/zcwZAhll.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NX0jlqpl.jpg

[Dublin-San Francisco]

What is the update/status of the Golden State Warriors arena?

[theskythelimit]

What is the update/status of the Golden State Warriors arena?

A judge just ruled the other day that a vote to ban high rise buildings on Port Property can move forward. This basically means all projects, including the warriors arena, will need to be voted on by the electorate.

The Chronicle had a story that the warriors and Giants are talking about putting the arena near AT&T park and within the Giants development. Nothing confirmed though.

IMO, the Arena on the Pier is dead on arrival. Either the Warriors talks with the Giants, including a vote by the electorate, gets approved or the Warriors are staying in Oakland.

[a very long weekend]

uh, the ballot measure will kill the giants' plans too, so it doesn't really matter if the warriors move down there. this town, like, wtf.

[theskythelimit]

uh, the ballot measure will kill the giants' plans too, so it doesn't really matter if the warriors move down there. this town, like, wtf.

All this ballot measure will do is to make sure any and all projects on Port property will be voted on. I think the Giants proposal will get the nod as it is far enough back from the Bay.

Agnos and Peskin have said they would support an Arena at the Giants site. But, words are words.

[timbad]

happy about this one, which socketsite says will get going in a few weeks (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/03/13story_rental_building_to_rise_at_101_polk_ready_to_br.html). like the look, and about a block radius around its location just has always seemed like a void to me, so it will be nice to fill it. more new neighbors for Jerry!

[a very long weekend]

from today's bloomberg interview with dykers, a/the principle at snoehetta:

And what have you done to the SFMOMA?
Generosity is a key to the design, and in the same way that the opera and Times Square provide more for people to enjoy than the planned interior uses, our idea at SFMOMA is to create an open and comfortable doorway beyond which the collection may be discovered. The ground floor will seem at once familiar and unique. The new staircase is open and light-filled, and there are views to the exterior on each floor and new terraces on many of the gallery levels. Access to fresh air and daylight will invite people to engage with San Francisco as well as with the art on display.

[pizzaguy]

What did that guy do to get banned so quick?

[simms3_redux]

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


The crane went up yesterday...

[fimiak]

Crane day at 1400 Mission!

http://i.imgur.com/5rpK6kZl.jpg

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

http://i.imgur.com/k4jjtCCl.jpg

[greystonesfo]

Great pics of the crane being constructed. You will have fun watching that building go up. Is it going to be tall enough to block your view?

[fimiak]

Nope those are pictures from the rooftop. My apt. doesn't face south. There are plenty of people who will have their views blocked though.

[LA Kurt]

This is a falsehood. San Francisco City officials downplayed the earthquake damage in order to spur redevelopment.

The 1906 earthquake damage was not minimal. It was massive. The fire was massive too look at city hall.

[tech12]

The 1906 earthquake damage was not minimal. It was massive. The fire was massive too look at city hall.

Uh, that's exactly what flint was saying, in response to someone claiming that the earthquake damage itself was minimal in comparison to the fire afterwards (the fire may have destroyed more of SF, but tons of stuff was wrecked in the quake too). And the city government did downplay the earthquake damage and death toll so as to not scare investors away.

[Jerry of San Fran]

I got back from Italy yesterday and it is great to see a lot of dialogue & pictures posted on the Skyscraper site while I was away. I spent a week in Bologna with day excursion to Parma, Ravenna and Padua.

I don't know if the book is in print, but I have one called Denial of Disaster. It is a very large format book with tons of information & pictures of San Francisco before the 1906 earthquake, of the damage after the quake and pictures of the fire. It is a very beautiful book. There were many tall buildings that survived the quake but burned. I worked in one for 15 years which survived the quake - the corner of New Montgomery & Mission Streets. The Rialto Building was dynamited in an attempt to stop the spread of the fire, but it was not brought down, it burned & was rebuilt. I went though a scary shake in the early 1970's in that building - it is about 12 stories tall.

[slock]

325 Fremont doesn't seem to have it's own thread, so I'll post here. On 3/13, the project sponsor received a neighborhood plan exemption, moving the project forward in the approval process. I don't have an image account, so hopefully someone can post the picture from page 17 of the linked PDF. It's a great new render in the context of 399 Fremont and 340 Fremont.

http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2012.1025E_CPE.pdf

[ozone]

325 Fremont doesn't seem to have it's own thread, so I'll post here. On 3/13, the project sponsor received a neighborhood plan exemption, moving the project forward in the approval process. I don't have an image account, so hopefully someone can post the picture from page 17 of the linked PDF. It's a great new render in the context of 399 Fremont and 340 Fremont.

http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2012.1025E_CPE.pdf

From what I can tell the design is still the same as reported on socketsite last summer.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/07/the_designs_for_325_fremont_on_rincon_hill.html

[mt_climber13]

I took this from the 325 Fremont planning PDF. Check out the new growing Rincon Hill skyline! Just a few months ago ORH was the only tower visible. (And many more to come that aren't rendered here)

http://i.imgur.com/nQI98t7.png

[ElDuderino]

...I don't have an image account, so hopefully someone can post the picture from page 17 of the linked PDF. It's a great new render in the context of 399 Fremont and 340 Fremont.

http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2012.1025E_CPE.pdf

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i181/msmatisek/Untitled_zps7e15f5f4.png (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/msmatisek/media/Untitled_zps7e15f5f4.png.html)

[hruski]

^ Striking!

[lz131313]

transbay tower is under construction , i attended a site tour of TT and the PM of the project said it was u/c there was alot of activity on site aswell as 181

[timbad]

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i181/msmatisek/Untitled_zps7e15f5f4.png

good lord, it is almost unrecognizable. gives a sense of how dramatically the 'feel' of that part of the city is going to change. a good thing

[minesweeper]

County and metro population estimates for 2013 (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html) were released (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb14-51.html) by the Census Bureau today.

Here are the year-over-year estimated changes (2012 to 2013):


Alameda County (+24931, +1.6%) from 1,553,960 to 1,578,891
Contra Costa County (+15948, +1.5%) from 1,078,257 to 1,094,205
Marin County (+2524, +1.0%) from 255,841 to 258,365
Napa County (+1410, +1.0%) from 138,916 to 140,326
San Francisco (+10022, +1.2%) from 827,420 to 837,442
San Mateo County (+8692, +1.2%) from 738,681 to 747,373
Santa Clara County (+26016, +1.4%) from 1,836,025 to 1,862,041
Solano County (+4453, +1.1%) from 420,335 to 424,788
Sonoma County (+4429, +0.9%) from 490,596 to 495,025


San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA Metro Area grew by 62,117 (1.4%) from 4,454,159 (2012) to 4,516,276 (2013)
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area grew by 26,747 (1.4%) from 1,892,894 (2012) to 1,919,641 (2013)


I was kinda hoping SF would tick over 840K in this estimate. The Census revised the 2012 estimate up by +1557, so they may revise the 2013 estimate upwards next year. Maybe we'll see 850K in next year's release?

[fimiak]

If SF keeps growing at this rate we will reach 1 million residents before 2030. Interesting that California's Department of Finance in 2010 said SF will have 877,000 in 2030. I will have to update my signature to these results then. I don't think anyone realizes how much internal migration the bay area has received from the rest of the US.

[mt_climber13]

Crane City:

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

Linea on Buchanan St.:

http://i.imgur.com/iTpYr4H.jpg

8 Octavia St.:

http://i.imgur.com/U1DRD1R.jpg

[ozone]

^^^^^ Thanks for all the great photo updates. Man you really got around town!

[Reminiscence]

Coming back home from SFO, I stopped by the ol Treasure Island to take a few pictures. Then I got excited after imagining what the skyline might look like after 3 or 4 years.

http://s29.postimg.org/rkfqlb4uv/IMG_3615.jpg

[simms3_redux]

In one webcam view there are 8 tower cranes up, with 2 more tower cranes for 400'+ towers UC hidden *just* out of view (350 Mission, 454', and 45 Lansing, ~400-450'), and of course even more within 2-3 blocks of this view. I'm not sure this is being replicated to the same scale in other cities...this isn't just 15-25 floor buildings going up. These cranes are exclusively for 350'+ buildings, some approaching 550'. Pretty soon in this same view there will be cranes up for several 600-1,100' towers.

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/CRANES1_zps649fcb68.jpg

http://oxblue.com/open/clarkconstruction/transbaytower

[ozone]

Looks like the 350 8th Street project is going forward. They also talk about 2201 Market Street in the Castro (site of the failed Starbucks proposal) now being developed into a 6-story condo. It just keeps coming

http://www.socketsite.com

[mt_climber13]

I'm not sure this is being replicated to the same scale in other cities.

Pretty sure New York has SF beat by about 100x.

[simms3_redux]

In a mere 20 city blocks, SF has a plethora of totally different developers building a wide range of uses within a plethora of 350-400+' towers or mega projects (Transbay Terminal and SFMOMA expansion).

NYC will always have more due to its sheer size (not quite 100x more though ;) ), but I don't think even NYC can lay claim to as many different developers putting up as many brand new office, resi and mixed-use towers in as small an area as SF. Not to mention, this area in SF is still plagued by surface lots and low-rises, so it's a totally new look and redevelopment that will transform the skyline. The two big mega projects in Manhattan are Hudson Yards and WTC Redevelopment. The towers are massive. But as a percentage of what's in the skyline already, and in terms of what's surrounding the developments, and in terms of # of developers working on these projects (not to mention WTC is basically a huge office development instead of a mix of uses), they aren't necessarily comparable, even if they are developments that will end up putting more square footage on the ground as a whole.

In some sense, the area of the continuous SF skyline is nearly doubling (especially when viewed from east or west), and it's not like the SF skyline is small - it's actually one of the largest in the country.

Miami has a fair amount of projects going up in a confined area, but fewer individual developers and less of a mix of uses (mostly resi there). Seattle has its moments, but the buildings are much shorter.

[fimiak]

In a mere 20 city blocks, SF has a plethora of totally different developers building a wide range of uses within a plethora of 350-400+' towers or mega projects (Transbay Terminal and SFMOMA expansion).

NYC will always have more due to its sheer size (not quite 100x more though ;) ), but I don't think even NYC can lay claim to as many different developers putting up as many brand new office, resi and mixed-use towers in as small an area as SF. Not to mention, this area in SF is still plagued by surface lots and low-rises, so it's a totally new look and redevelopment that will transform the skyline. The two big mega projects in Manhattan are Hudson Yards and WTC Redevelopment. The towers are massive. But as a percentage of what's in the skyline already, and in terms of what's surrounding the developments, and in terms of # of developers working on these projects (not to mention WTC is basically a huge office development instead of a mix of uses), they aren't necessarily comparable, even if they are developments that will end up putting more square footage on the ground as a whole.

In some sense, the area of the continuous SF skyline is nearly doubling (especially when viewed from east or west), and it's not like the SF skyline is small - it's actually one of the largest in the country.

Miami has a fair amount of projects going up in a confined area, but fewer individual developers and less of a mix of uses (mostly resi there). Seattle has its moments, but the buildings are much shorter.

I love SF and definitely support your opinions but NYC has us beat for construction for the next decade and that is without a sliver of a doubt. We are getting plenty of low rises, infill, 400' towers, and a few 700+ foot towers and a single 1k footer. NYC is getting about a dozen super talls, new subways, several new museums, an enormous ferris wheel, and hundreds of minor developments (most arent posted on these boards, even 400' UWS/UES buildings don't even see threads and there are a half dozen of those a year) if we are including queens and brooklyn, that are still mostly larger than SF. NYC is definitely the hottest city in the world, blowing away london, and this is as it should be.

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=27& <--they have many more projects than SSP for NYC

[simms3_redux]

^^^I agree with you. I am not in the least bit saying that SF is seeing more construction than NYC. SF isn't even seeing the same level of construction seen in Chicago (well, maybe *today*, but not typically). However, where SF has NYC beat is the concentration of construction and the skyline altering construction. NYC is just so massive, it can eat a few supertalls more subtly than SF can eat 10 new 400+ footers in one low density area adjacent to the existing skyline.

If you looked at a map of NYC/Manhattan construction, you would see more of a spread with a few decade-buildout mega developments (i.e. WTC and Hudson Yards). If you looked at a map of SF, you would see virtually all of the high-rise construction in one very confined area. Add to that the fact that most of these towers are one-off towers. This is all being financed and built by competing groups. This isn't master-planned by one development partnership (or lone developer) as you find in both Miami and New York.

Most of the major national players, from architects to contractors to developers to lenders, are simultaneously building towers that are very tall for the city in one zone (and they all worked very hard to get a piece of the SF pie). This new construction will literally double what is already one of the US's largest skylines, from several angles. THAT is not something that can be said about other cities, not even NYC. That is what I'm saying.

And it's not even all high rises. A new LRT subway is being built underneath the above ground construction. A new transit terminal is going vertical right now (a transit terminal significant enough where there are maybe 1-2 others like it UC, one in New York as part of WTC). SFMOMA is spending hundreds of millions on a starchitect designed expansion, which means 2 luffing cranes up for that.

Can anyone who has lived in SF long enough tell me if there has been a single other transformation of the city as radical as what is happening in S FiDi, SoMa, and adjacent areas? Really throughout the city, but the areas above are going from pure surface lots to a sea of towers in a matter of a couple of years.

[SFView]

...Seattle has its moments, but the buildings are much shorter.

Not if they build this:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208776

[SFView]

simms3_redux;6522126
Can anyone who has lived in SF long enough tell me if there has been a single other transformation of the city as radical as what is happening in S FiDi, SoMa, and adjacent areas? Really throughout the city, but the areas above are going from pure surface lots to a sea of towers in a matter of a couple of years.

Other than the 3 years of rebuilding after the 1906 Earthquake, the period between 1958 and 1972 (the middle two images) comes pretty close:
Source: http://www.transbaycenter.org/uploads/board-meeting/Agendas/2006/Item8_Planning%20Dept.%20Transbay%20Heights%20Final.pdf
http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m96/mrayatsfo/SFSkyline1915to1986.jpg (http://s102.photobucket.com/user/mrayatsfo/media/SFSkyline1915to1986.jpg.html)

[fimiak]

Wow that picture is even more amazing if you look at the population of SF in those years. SF population actually peaked in the early 1950s and was losing something like 5k a year for the following 30 years.

[POLA]

^A nice little reminder that skyscrapers have got nothing to do with population densities (something the majority of Europe could attest to).

[fflint]

San Francisco's population actually peaked in 2000, 2010, 2013....

As for prior booms, I've lived in the area long enough to remember the 1980s FiDi boom, which made such a widely-perceived impact on the skyline that voters passed draconian limits on new skyscrapers.

[chris08876]

8 Octavia in Hayes Valley Releases Floor Plans, Renderings

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/5339d17df92ea10d8f027025/1500w__building_01-235.jpg
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/5339d180f92ea10d8f02702f/1500w__building_2-346.jpg

8 Octavia is designed by San Francisco starchitect Stanley Saitowitz and developed by DDG and DM Development. It's topped out, which means that the 47 units over ground-floor retail will be ready for their close-up very soon. There are one and two bedroom condos and two and three bedroom penthouses, some of which are two levels. Building and unit highlights are aplenty, including landscapes by Marta Fry Landscape Associates, kitchens by SieMatic, FSC-certified wide-plank oak flooring, roof decks, and more. Pricing hasn't been set, but if the rest of new construction is any indiction, these units will fetch more than $1,000 per square foot.
===============================
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/03/31/8_octavia_in_hayes_valley_releases_floor_plans_renderings.php

[mt_climber13]

San Francisco's population actually peaked in 2000, 2010, 2013....

As for prior booms, I've lived in the area long enough to remember the 1980s FiDi boom, which made such a widely-perceived impact on the skyline that voters passed draconian limits on new skyscrapers.

So Draconian that SF is getting 3 buildings taller than the current tallest, the tallest residential building west of Chicago, the tallest mixed use building west of Chicago, the tallest office building in the west, a renovation of density and height that will put SF on the pedestal with NYC and Chi, and an 1,100 ft. Supertall in the middle of it all. All in one of the most active earthquake zones in the world.

[jaypkatl]

Historical population



Year Pop. ±%
1900 342,782 +14.6%

1910 416,912 +21.6%

1920 506,676 +21.5%

1930 634,394 +25.2%

1940 634,536 +0.0%

1950 775,357 +22.2%

1960 740,316 −4.5%

1970 715,674 −3.3%

1980 678,974 −5.1%

1990 723,959 +6.6%

2000 776,733 +7.3%

2010 805,235 +3.7%

2012 825,863 +2.6%

[tech12]

So Draconian that SF is getting 3 buildings taller than the current tallest, the tallest residential building west of Chicago, the tallest mixed use building west of Chicago, the tallest office building in the west, a renovation of density and height that will put SF on the pedestal with NYC and Chi, and an 1,100 ft. Supertall in the middle of it all. All in one of the most active earthquake zones in the world.

Height limits were revised just a few years ago, which is why all those buildings are getting built. Before that, downtown had a height limit of 550' max, with most of the height limits being even lower, and of course ridiculous height limits were passed in most of the rest of the city too. And it was all in response to the massive skyscraper boom in the 60s-80s. And much of SF's height limits remain way too low today, as I'm sure you agree, though at least we got increases in some select areas. Those are the draconian height limits fflint is talking about.

A decade ago, people would have thought it insane that a supertall would go up in SF (or even a new 700-800 footer), because it seemed the height limits would never change, and if there was an attempt to change them, it seemed the NIMBYs would surely succeed in chopping them down again, just like they did in the past.

[mt_climber13]

How was the law able to be revised then? Wouldn't voters need to pass a referendum allowing height increases?

[fimiak]

This is the common area of Market Sq/One Tenth St. Below you can see this morning before the concrete pour, later tonight I will take a shot of the finished thing!

http://i.imgur.com/VSe2Jj3.png (http://imgur.com/VSe2Jj3)

http://i.imgur.com/KQuOv3k.jpg (http://imgur.com/KQuOv3k)

[SFView]

There is little more description of those draconian limits which include Proposition M of 1986 found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Francisco

There is also the Proposition K Sunlight Ordinance of 1984:
Source: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2754
Planning Code Section 295 mandates that new structures above 40 feet in height that would cast additional shadows on properties under the jurisdiction of, or designated to be acquired by the Recreation and Parks Department can only be approved by the Planning Commission if the shadow is determined to be insignificant or not adverse to the use of the park. Also, a recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Commission is required prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

[Jerry of San Fran]

fimiak - Glad to see your post of the artist's rendering of the development on Stevenson Street Tenth Street. The original plan was for covering in the alley, but appears that will not happen. Workers have been working on the site for a very long time. It will be a nice addition to the neighborhood, though I rarely sit outside in San Francisco as it is too cold for my blood most days.

[fflint]

In 1999 SPUR wrote a piece (http://www.spur.org/publications/article/1999-07-01/proposition-m-and-downtown-growth-battle) about anti-skyscraper activism in SF generally and 1986's Proposition M specifically, providing more context for those unaware of the rather toxic backlash against skyscrapers in the 1980s.

[fimiak]

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

The conclusion of yesterday's pour, as promised. Next up, a first look at the massive underground garage going in under Trinity Phase 3.

http://i.imgur.com/Nc8afQw.jpg (http://imgur.com/Nc8afQw)

Enjoy!

[hruski]

How many floors is that garage supposed to be?

[ozone]

From Socketsite today:

http://imageshack.com/a/img819/7497/5jle.gif

An Unexpected Transbay Twist And Block Redesign
With San Francisco’s Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure having determined that "economic conditions create a strong preference for commercial development over residential and hotel development" on Transbay Block 5, a request for proposals to build a 550-foot office tower with ground floor retail on the northeast corner of Howard and Beale has been issued.

Originally slated for a residential tower to rise up to 550 feet on the eastern portion of the block at the corner of Howard and Main, as we first noted yesterday, "unforeseen circumstances" have resulted in an unexpected configuration for the site and tower to rise.

The story behind the unforeseen circumstances which involves the driveway for 201 Mission Street (which runs through the middle of the block), the little Art Deco structure and open space on the corner of Howard and Beale (which is owned by 301 Howard across the street) and, of course, a concern about a potential loss of views:

There's more from their site: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/04/unforeseen_circumstances_result_in_an_unexpected_transb.html

Basically TJPA attempted to acquire the 201 Mission Street driveway in order to develop the site according to the standard configuration but the property owner thinks that tenant views in 201 Mission Street would be blocked by the tower and so demanded a price far in excess of the market value for the driveway.

To be honest I'm a little confused as to why the city could not use it's authority to make the owners accept a fair market price. But maybe this configuration will result in a cool (better) design. Also why is an office building more desirable than a residential, hotel or a combination? Anyone have any answers?

[ozone]

Again from Socketsite:
From a low-rise Starbucks proposal to six-story condo project

This is the site of the failed (rejected) Starbucks' proposal on the southwest corner of Market and Sanchez. The new plan is for a six-story building with nine condos over a ground floor commercial space. Plans for 2201 Market Street have been submitted to planning for review.

Original Socketsite article:http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/04/the_concept_design_for_new_condos_on_market_at_sanchez.html

Now
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/829/yn5g.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/n1yn5gj)

Future (hopefully)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/854/k00j.jpg (https://imageshack.com/i/nqk00jj)

preliminary rendering

[fflint]

^Awesome proposal for 2201 Market, in an area that has seen a tremendous amount of new construction (historically speaking). I noticed last week the current owners have painted the exterior of that rather shabby--and vacant--structure, and pointed out to my partner that it should be something much bigger. Now it will be!

[Jerry of San Fran]

ozone - glad to see the proposed development for 2201 Market St. I can't help but ask the question, why is there a building being proposed that will look almost exactly like the one just built at 1998 Market St., the condo across the street from the U. S. Mint?

[cwilly]

The rebar for the first floor columns has started to poke above ground at 1450 Franklin on the corner of Franklin and Bush. Its the 13 story condo building that is replacing the old Vespa dealership.

[simms3_redux]

Is there a rendering?

[cwilly]

Is there a rendering?

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/07/take_two_for_1450_franklin_13_stories_and_69_condos_on.html

[ozone]

ozone - glad to see the proposed development for 2201 Market St. I can't help but ask the question, why is there a building being proposed that will look almost exactly like the one just built at 1998 Market St., the condo across the street from the U. S. Mint?


They are quite similar. But that's not unusual. Look around you. Most buildings are just variations on a theme. I think in many ways this is more attractive than having every building shouting "look at me, I'm different!"

Here is another rendering of the proposal 2201 Market Street
http://imageshack.com/a/img35/8062/qr1h.jpg

And here is 1998 Market Street
http://imageshack.com/a/img27/8558/g7ov.jpg

[a very long weekend]

that rendering for 'linea' really under-emphasizes the thickness of the mullions qua design element. this new proposal maintains more of a curtain wall look by comparison, though i have to admit that i chuckled a little at the similarities, hadn't noticed that. still, a huge improvement for the corner, even if i'd love to see it at like 10 stories.

[fflint]

Yeah, the renderings for Linea were really off. The proportions and materials make it clunkier and heavier than its renderings promised. It's not a horrible building, but it really does look more like a suburban office building than an urban condo complex.

[minesweeper]

Basically TJPA attempted to acquire the 201 Mission Street driveway in order to develop the site according to the standard configuration but the property owner thinks that tenant views in 201 Mission Street would be blocked by the tower and so demanded a price far in excess of the market value for the driveway.

To be honest I'm a little confused as to why the city could not use it's authority to make the owners accept a fair market price. But maybe this configuration will result in a cool (better) design. Also why is an office building more desirable than a residential, hotel or a combination? Anyone have any answers?

I'm surprised they didn't try to use eminent domain to acquire the right of way for Natoma, breaking up the 201 Mission parcel and diminishing the value of that wedge on Block 5. I'm hoping the developers that are selected can work out a way to include it in their plans, but if not we could end up with a more interesting tower due to the oddly-shaped lot.

Here's a link to the RFP (PDF): http://sfredevelopment.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=6428

The OCII must believe they can get higher bids for the site as office versus residential. Though I'm not sure why they wouldn't allow an office building with residential on top. Even with the odd layout, the RFP says the building could have 700,000 sq ft of office space. That's quite an opportunity for any office developers who want to get in on the current boom and would be the biggest new office building by square footage outside of the Transbay Tower. The 1.4 million sq ft Transbay Tower sold for $192 million, so this block could go for close to half that. By contrast, Block 8 (also zoned for 550') went for $72 million (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/03/rem_koolhaas_design_selected_for_folsom_street_tower_de.html) as residential.

Another tidbit from the Block 5 RFP is that the next scheduled RFP is in 2015 for Parcel F (near 550 Howard) which is zoned for 750'.

[minesweeper]

How many floors is that garage supposed to be?

According to Swinerton, there will be six levels (!) of underground parking:

http://www.swinerton.com/blog/swinerton-builds-tomorrow/san-francisco-s-trinity-place-kicks-off-phase-3

[a very long weekend]

And here's another blurb on it with a new, but tiny rendering:
http://blog.langan.com/2014/02/05/we-asked-our-geotechnical-expert-richard-rodgers/

http://i.imgur.com/KWWbuQx.jpg?1

i can't believe the city let this one go through as is, he's lucky that it got through before mid-market started turning around.

[mt_climber13]

It's "middle class" housing for "middle class" people. So many complain about the housing costs, and want every piece of architecture to look like a Rembrandt, but be affordable for a shoe shiner.

[viewguysf]

It's "middle class" housing for "middle class" people. So many complain about the housing costs, and want every piece of architecture to look like a Rembrandt, but be affordable for a shoe shiner.

These units will definitely not be affordable for a shoe shiner or anyone under the middle middle class. It's a sham that the City allowed the original plans to be changed, especially considering Angelo Sangiacomo gets to build a massive 1,400 car garage, and the fact that the new configuration and design pales in comparison and excitement to the old one.
http://www.e-architect.co.uk/sanfrancisco/trinity-place

[viewguysf]

Yeah, the renderings for Linea were really off. The proportions and materials make it clunkier and heavier than its renderings promised. It's not a horrible building, but it really does look more like a suburban office building than an urban condo complex.

Exactly! All in all, it's another disappointment on the San Francisco architectural scene though since it fails to really excite as the rendering did.

[simms3_redux]

A new "era" of construction is upon us.

ORH North, Foundry III, NEMA, Upper Market infill, 680 Folsom, and 535 Mission were all a taster.

Finally, we have a ton of skyscrapers under construction in the downtown area...like rising UC. 45 Lansing, 222 Second, 350 Mission, 2 towers at Lumina, 399 Fremont, and 299 Fremont. I think we'll see action at 181 Fremont and TB Tower by the end of summer (I think we could be mostly dug out with both by then). I think 222 Second will go up as quickly as 535 Mission, chiefly in 5-6 months time they will go from hole to topped off with some cladding.

By the end of summer, we could see towers 25-50+% up at 45 Lansing, 222 Second, Lumina, 350 Mission, 399 Fremont, and 299 Fremont. I think we'll have a crane up and foundation done for 340 Fremont. We could also conceivably see vertical groundbreaking for 181 Fremont, and TB Tower, and traditional groundbreaking for 500 Folsom and TB Block 9. 41 Tehama also seems imminent.

[mt_climber13]

Most consider tech good for San Francisco:
http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/04/04/most-consider-tech-industry-good-for-san-francisco-study-says/

"73 percent of respondents think tech companies are good for the city, but only 60 percent think tech workers are good for the city."

[c33f]

Trinity Place Phase 3 Site Preparation
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0943_zps0c958c99.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0943_zps0c958c99.jpg.html)

100 Van Ness Avenue Residential Conversion
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0951_zps0126f797.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0951_zps0126f797.jpg.html)

NEMA North Tower
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0958_zps5ec035db.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0958_zps5ec035db.jpg.html)

1400 Mission Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0964_zpsfbe94adf.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0964_zpsfbe94adf.jpg.html)

NEMA North & South Tower
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0967_zpse22c5b48.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0967_zpse22c5b48.jpg.html)

1415 Mission Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0973_zpsf9b2cf9a.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0973_zpsf9b2cf9a.jpg.html)

The Panoramic
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0980_zps25c383ad.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0980_zps25c383ad.jpg.html)

AVA
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0988_zps7f9d65c1.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0988_zps7f9d65c1.jpg.html)

Trinity Place Phase 3 Site Preparation between Phases 1 & 2
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0993_zps7b08ac77.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0993_zps7b08ac77.jpg.html)

The Hampton Inn
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_0999_zps500e5357.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_0999_zps500e5357.jpg.html)

SFMOMA Expansion
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1007_zps2ef0fd1a.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1007_zps2ef0fd1a.jpg.html)

222 Second Street & New Liebherr Luffing-jib Crane
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1021_zps59149b67.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1021_zps59149b67.jpg.html)

One Rincon Hill, North Tower Liebherr Luffing-jib Crane Removal + Tower Cranes for 45 Lansing Street and 399 Fremont Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1030_zps3b422c97.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1030_zps3b422c97.jpg.html)

340 Fremont Street Site Demolition + 399 Fremont Street Tower Crane
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1044_zpsd27fb905.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1044_zpsd27fb905.jpg.html)

45 Lansing Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1054_zps1e1cc883.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1054_zps1e1cc883.jpg.html)

535 Mission Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1063_zpsaa81eab2.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1063_zpsaa81eab2.jpg.html)

Transbay Block 6 + Lumina Site Tower Cranes
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1081_zpsf7a26137.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1081_zpsf7a26137.jpg.html)

325 Fremont Street Site + Lumina I & II Tower Cranes
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1086_zps76965c08.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1086_zps76965c08.jpg.html)

399 Fremont Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1089_zps9ad73ed3.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1089_zps9ad73ed3.jpg.html)

340 Fremont Street Site Demolition + 45 Lansing Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1094_zps2e866bed.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1094_zps2e866bed.jpg.html)

Transbay Block 6
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1106_zps418f0499.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1106_zps418f0499.jpg.html)

Lumina Site Construction
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1115_zps7bcc097f.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1115_zps7bcc097f.jpg.html)

Tower Crane Party
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1134_zps89197319.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1134_zps89197319.jpg.html)

181 Fremont Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1159_zpsbe623351.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1159_zpsbe623351.jpg.html)

Transbay Transit Center Pit + 535 Mission Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1161_zps977fa865.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1161_zps977fa865.jpg.html)

350 Mission Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1184_zpsb0da2f58.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1184_zpsb0da2f58.jpg.html)

Transbay Tower Site Preparation
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_1175_zps19d2b484.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_1175_zps19d2b484.jpg.html)

It was fun...

[fflint]

Cool pics, thanks for sharing them. There is so much going on we cannot even keep up!

[Jerry of San Fran]

c33f - thanks for all of the updates! I did not know the name of the 1321 Mission Street highrise - The Panoramic. The web page is quite interesting: http://www.panoramic.com/smartspace/mission-san-francisco/

[nergie]

SF crane heaven :tup:

[spyguy]

Came across this rendering (https://by-encore.squarespace.com/tall-building/) of the 5M (Fifth and Mission) project. The caption states the architect is KPF and shows Yahoo as a tenant, both consistent with news articles. Not sure how current the design is though.

http://i60.tinypic.com/5wkwow.jpg