SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed [Archive] - Page 67

1977

Dec 20, 2014, 1:51 AM

A few tidbits from The Registry:

San Francisco-based TMG Partners has been given full unanimous approval by the planning commission of the City of San Francisco for the development of a new office project located at 501-505 Brannan. At this point the developer has not filed for a building permit, according to an e-mail from the City of San Francisco.

“We are expected that we will be starting our project sometime in early to mid-2015. This project already falls under the current provisions of Prop M, so we don’t have to worry about that at this time,” says Matt Field, chief investment officer with TMG. He envisions a development time frame that will last 24 months from start to finish.

http://news.theregistrysf.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/501-505-Brannan-Street-Rendering-Bluxome-Facade.jpg
http://news.theregistrysf.com

The project on Brannan is located in the SoMa West sub-market in San Francisco, according to data from the San Francisco office of Colliers International. This sub-market has only one office building under construction, and this is the building at 85 Bluxome Street, which broke ground last week. The Bluxome development site is practically on the same block as the proposed TMG development.

http://wellcertified.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/img_post2.jpg
http://wellcertified.com

1977

Dec 20, 2014, 2:13 AM

Also...

Mystery Flag Coming to S.F.
A new hotel operator has signed up for the long-awaited 250 4th project, which will dump much-needed hotel rooms right near the Moscone Center. The flag is "well known" and "one everyone will be excited about," one source tells us (an NDA prevents the source from sharing the name). We hear the brand will be new to the West Coast. We also checked in on the ETA and status of the conversion of Olivet Theological University into the 12-story boutique hotel, teed up for 180 to 200 keys. The own has secured a site permit and is going after the foundation permit. Once it breaks ground (after the rainy season in March or April), it could deliver by fall 2016
Source: www.bisnow.com

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/50f64326f92ea116ee003d4c/250%204th%20st%202.jpg
sf.curbed.com

And...

Trumark Urban is starting off 2015 with a bang, breaking ground on two projects that will add 170 units to Dogpatch and Potrero. Ground will get moving on 346 Potrero and 645 Texas in February
https://www.bisnow.com/

346 Potrero
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/53cef770f92ea1288a01639f/346%20potrero%2010.jpg

645 Texas
http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/53eab042f92ea17ca6031f6b/645%20texas.jpg
sf.curbed.com

edwards

Dec 20, 2014, 6:04 AM

1450 Franklin 12/16

http://i.imgur.com/9JLqksWl.jpg (http://imgur.com/9JLqksW)

fimiak

Dec 20, 2014, 7:03 PM

346 Potrero is just awesome, the best new building of its size, and we should let developers know! I am definitely going to look for an apartment there in a few years.

Jerry of San Fran

Dec 21, 2014, 2:56 AM

Today I was surprised to see a 2nd crane being installed at Trinity Place III. There was a lot of concrete poured into the foundation the last week. I should start to see building above ground level soon.

The Essex Fox Plaza had a fire on the 17th floor Wednesday. Water damage down to the 14th floor. The firemen had trouble finding the shut-off valve for the sprinklers so damage was worse for that. A guy fell asleep while cooking.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7578/15881708049_4990be7612_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qcpUuz)Trinity Place III (https://flic.kr/p/qcpUuz) by Apollo's Light (https://www.flickr.com/people/56616639@N00/), on Flickr

fflint

Dec 21, 2014, 3:15 AM

I'm counting nine cranes in that photo--construction city!

timbad

Dec 21, 2014, 6:17 AM

A few tidbits from The Registry:

http://news.theregistrysf.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/501-505-Brannan-Street-Rendering-Bluxome-Facade.jpg
http://news.theregistrysf.com

http://wellcertified.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/img_post2.jpg
http://wellcertified.com

here is (I think) the lot for the building on Brannan (the first rendering above), taken from the 'back', Bluxome:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7473/15882592549_690b3d741f_b.jpg

here is what the new building on Bluxome itself (the second rendering above) will replace:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7583/16067998832_b5fa03c14f_b.jpg

it's toward the Fifth St end of the block between Fourth and Fifth, on the south side of the alley, across from the tennis court complex:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7580/16067989812_9ac55501f7_b.jpg

simms3_redux

Dec 21, 2014, 10:49 PM

More random little development updates:

101 Polk - 13 stories

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/SF%20Construction%20Dec%2014/101Polk_zps74719206.jpg

Emerald Fund's newest - demolition happening fast.

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/SF%20Construction%20Dec%2014/NewEmeraldFund_zps5858bbcb.jpg

1400 Mission (topped off)

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/SF%20Construction%20Dec%2014/1400Mission_zps2ee95361.jpg

1415 Mission

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/SF%20Construction%20Dec%2014/1415Mission_zps9b1b80f1.jpg

8th and Harrison - this project is just huge. It literally is an entire block. I do wish because it is an entire block that it could have been 1-2, maybe 3 floors higher, or so much higher such that only a portion of the block were developed leaving other parts to other developers. The low-rise zoning forces this sort of bland, suburban, stucco projects that go up in cities like Atlanta and Houston. Kind of sad.

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/SF%20Construction%20Dec%2014/8thandHarrison1_zps8061e94c.jpg

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/SF%20Construction%20Dec%2014/8thandHarrison2_zps0b89cd9a.jpg

mt_climber13

Dec 23, 2014, 5:07 AM

This is from Potrero Hill:

http://i.imgur.com/PjHMB3U.jpg

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

david_h

Dec 24, 2014, 7:07 PM

SFMOMA update as of the other week...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7515/15821932879_b6c49a3973_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/q78xqc)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/q78xqc) by sfbldg (https://www.flickr.com/people/129069001@N03/), on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7463/15385676784_065e2fe15b_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/przBFo) (https://flic.kr/p/przBFo) by sfbldg (https://www.flickr.com/people/129069001@N03/), on Flickr

Let's hope the exterior doesn't stain as easily as it has done during construction!

(Do we have a thread for SFMOMA? Couldn't find it.)

a very long weekend

Dec 25, 2014, 12:23 AM

i walked by today and noticed even more staining that that, but it looks fairly clear that this is a very very high quality cladding. additionally, we almost never have the sort of rain here (ie. the reason for the apparent shabbiness) in sf that we've had over the past month - this is a rarity that you could price in somewhere equivalent to a robbery. so i think it's still too early to pronounce on the snoehetta plan here. that said, walking down mission or howard, this thing is imperceptible beyond the construction impediments. i'm guessing that, at the street level, we'll see something much more interesting develop as construction winds down, but in this part of the soma, where exactly this block is the segue on two sides (from mission/howard and from third) from normal walkable sf to motordom sf, i just feel like we've already seen enough downtown/brickell miami shit (through block drives, short sidewalks with recessed sidewalks or even throughblock promenades, etc) in that area to have taught us a lesson, hopefully. which makes me hopeful that a quality team like snoehetta has thought these things through. i'm thinking we wait on this one, i guess is my point.

pseudolus

Dec 29, 2014, 9:29 PM

2016 seems to be the target date for most of the proposals we know of. What new buildings do people expect will break ground in 2015?

simms3_redux

Dec 30, 2014, 12:30 AM

Break ground/substantially start:

41 Tehama (Hines/Invesco)...380' and 36 stories
350 Bush (Lincoln Property)...270' and 19 stories
500 Pine (Lincoln Property)...4-5 stories (Kearny and Pine, starts before 350 Bush)

1545 Pine (Trumark Urban)...13 stories condos (Architectonica)
346 Potrero (Trumark Urban)...8 stories apartments
1634 Pine (Oyster Dev)...twin 13 story condos (already broken ground, but will need to excavate and rise, so we'll see that in 2015)
340 Fremont...this thing hasn't really risen yet, so while the other UC towers around there wrap up, we still get to see this one rise
Trinity Phase III...again, same thing...2 tower cranes now up, but hasn't reached ground level yet. we'll get to see that one rise

CPMC (Hospital)...~290 ft?
CPMC Medical Office Building...9 stories

Moscone Center expansion

Warriors Arena

LOTS of random infill

Pier 70 rehab/re-use (Orton Development)

Hotel / Apt development in Mission Bay...SOMA Hotel Group and CIM Group (173 ft, and 250 keys for hotel)

Hunters Point stuff
Potrero Hill subsidized/affordable housing
Bayview subsidized/affordable housing
Park Merced redevelopment
Treasure Island redevelopment?

PLUS: 181 Fremont has not started to rise yet and the tower crane is expected to go up January and the framing should rise rapidly.

PLUS: Salesforce Tower is only shored/partially excavated, and that will take a few months, but I suspect we'll see concrete and steel poking out by year end with a rapid rise in 2016/2017

PLUS: Now the Transbay Terminal is going vertical. We got a taste in 2014 towards the end of this year, but look for major physical/vertical construction in 2015.

AND: we'll know where the economy stands before 2016, when several other office/residential proposals that are *interesting* and tall are expected to break ground (50 First St, TB Blocks 5, 8, and 9, Jean Gang TS condo tower)

FINALLY: We still have 706 Mission St (Mexican Museum Tower) with Millennium Development as a sponsor hanging out there. That could conceivably break ground 2015 and happen very quickly. I'm sure they are monitoring Lumina and Trumark's projects since those are the only other substantial competitive condo projects delivering next year or UC.

I think it will still be quite an exciting year. 2016 is when things could slow down if the economy slows down, not 2015.

fflint

Dec 30, 2014, 1:13 AM

Cool aerial showing a lot of projects under construction downtown and in Mission Bay:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7476/15465239753_49b9bdb2d0_b.jpg
source (https://www.flickr.com/photos/agrinberg/15465239753/sizes/l)

AndrewK

Dec 30, 2014, 1:37 AM

Speaking of 2015 or 2016 starts, has anyone heard any specific timeline for 524 Howard?

fimiak

Dec 30, 2014, 7:32 AM

simms3_redux

Dec 30, 2014, 4:34 PM

Great list Simms, but it does exclude some 2015 developments like 101 Polk and 150 Van Ness, and also 346 Potrero although they were accounted for in the infill section. There are also some unknowns like the KRON building on Van Ness and the possible addition to Fox Plaza. An exciting year ahead!

^^^See my pics on 101 Polk; it's already more than halfway up. Same goes for 1415 Mission. Good point about 150 Van Ness, though, and I mentioned 346 Potrero :)

I doubt KRON redevelopment is 2015 and same goes for Fox Plaza addition. But there's that hotel on Fourth St adjacent to the new Central Subway station there that looks like it could be a 2015 start now (12 stories).

AndrewK

Dec 30, 2014, 6:33 PM

There are also some unknowns like the KRON building on Van Ness and the possible addition to Fox Plaza. An exciting year ahead!

I missed this development the first time around. For anyone else like me, here's what has been released in the way of rendering:

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1001-Van-Ness-Rendering.jpg

a very long weekend

Dec 30, 2014, 7:35 PM

don't forget 1433 bush http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/09/designs_for_ten_new_polk_gulch_stories_and_a_nonformula.html

and i guess 2655 bush which is big for diviz
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/06/density_on_divisadero_2655_bush_street_development_unde.html

there's a couple other projects up that way that may get started next year, though it's not clear.

it's possible that trumark will also get started late next year on their market street project http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/10/designs-modern-12-story-building-rise-market-street.html

c33f

Dec 30, 2014, 7:36 PM

March 13, 2004

http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/DSCN1084_zpsb7b6948b.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/DSCN1084_zpsb7b6948b.jpg.html)

November 25, 2006

http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/DSCN7978_zpsff34df22.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/DSCN7978_zpsff34df22.jpg.html)

December 29, 2014

http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_5924_zpsd0535df3.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_5924_zpsd0535df3.jpg.html)

Completed in this timeframe (>100 m)
ORH South 184 m / 54 F (above main entrance)
ORH North 165 m / 47 F
Infinity I 128 m / 41 F
Infinity II 113 m / 36 F

U/C as of 29 Dec. 2014 (>100 m)
399 Fremont Street 134 m / 42 F
340 Fremont Street 134 m / 40 F
45 Lansing Street 131 m / 39 F
LUMINA I ~130 m / 42 F
LUMINA II ~120 m / 37 F

Can also see Transbay Block 6 (~100 m / 32 F) and 222 Second Street (113 m / 26 F) in second picture.

399 + 340 Fremont Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_5855_zpscc47f348.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_5855_zpscc47f348.jpg.html)

45 Lansing Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_5860_zps6a0ddd00.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_5860_zps6a0ddd00.jpg.html)

Transbay Block 6 + LUMINA I & II
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_5865_zps7a51cd60.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_5865_zps7a51cd60.jpg.html)

ORH North & South + 340 Fremont Street
http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/cykwan1/IMG_5896_zps7d6a0a7e.jpg (http://s848.photobucket.com/user/cykwan1/media/IMG_5896_zps7d6a0a7e.jpg.html)

viewguysf

Dec 30, 2014, 10:26 PM

That Franklin St tower - looking at this tower it doesn't look well built. Like, at all.

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/December%202014/IMG_7473_zps56edfb04.jpg

http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad1/jsimms3/SF%20Construction/December%202014/IMG_7474_zps2ee54bc1.jpg

Well...I hope they're right! Just like simms, I was questioning the strength of the steel framing since it looks like toothpicks. Here's the explanation: http://www.sfhog.com/1450-franklin-construction-update-winter-2014/

It was reminding me of the Citicorp Tower case: http://sustainableengineeringsystems.com/2013/02/01/professional-engineering-ethics-the-citicorp-tower-case/

JWS

Jan 1, 2015, 8:47 PM

I missed this development the first time around. For anyone else like me, here's what has been released in the way of rendering:

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/1001-Van-Ness-Rendering.jpg

I believe this was a conceptual rendering only, however.

fflint

Jan 1, 2015, 11:07 PM

S.F. housing pipeline fills up with 50,000 units (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/12/san-francisco-housing-development-parkmerced.html?page=all)

Marlize van Romburgh
San Francisco Business Times
December 24, 2014

San Francisco has more than 50,000 new housing units in its pipeline, led by mega developments at Parkmerced, Treasure Island and the Bayview waterfront.

There are 958 projects in San Francisco's development pipeline, according to a recent report from the city's planning department. Of those, 75 percent are exclusively residential and 17 are mixed-use with a residential component. Only 8 percent of all projects in the city are exclusively commercial.

While there are a handful of megaprojects, most proposed developments are small — one to three units — the city noted.

But the three most active areas for residential development — Bayview and Hunter's Point, Treasure Island and Parckmerced— represent about 25,800 planned units. That's half of all new housing units in San Francisco's pipeline. It's important to note that those projects are still decades in the making.

Downtown San Francisco represents the next-largest chunk of the city's residential project pipeline, with well over 3,000 units in the hopper. The majority are projects of 50 to 250 units.

"The 'hot spot' for much of this development is Market Street at various sections of it," the report said. "While this may seem a response to the recent acceleration of technology companies locating in the area, many development projects here predate the last recession, during which they were idle. As financing improved, many projects came back."

The Potrero neighborhood follows, with just under 3,000 units planned. Most of those are projects of more than 250 units.

About 21 percent of the projects in the pipeline are already under construction. These represent 6,700 housing units and 5.4 million square feet of commercial space.

About 20 percent of the projects — another 4,100 housing units and 2.1 million square feet of commercial space — have received building permits and some are currently entering construction.

shakman

Jan 1, 2015, 11:11 PM

Well...I hope they're right! Just like simms, I was questioning the strength of the steel framing since it looks like toothpicks. Here's the explanation: http://www.sfhog.com/1450-franklin-construction-update-winter-2014/

It was reminding me of the Citicorp Tower case: http://sustainableengineeringsystems.com/2013/02/01/professional-engineering-ethics-the-citicorp-tower-case/

Could it be possible advances in the production of steel could allow structural steel to be lighter yet provide similar or even better structural integrity?

fflint

Jan 1, 2015, 11:41 PM

Could it be possible advances in the production of steel could allow structural steel to be lighter yet provide similar or even better structural integrity?
If you follow the link, it states "A notable aspect of the building’s design includes application of a prefabricated internal frame system that requires bolts and collar connections for onsite assembly rather than more conventional welding. The manufacturer claims their system’s installation is faster and safer, and the finished frame is lighter and more seismically sound, when compared to competitive steel and reinforced concrete frames."

chris08876

Jan 2, 2015, 12:42 PM

Over in nearby Alameda:
==================

Development team picked for $500 million Alameda Point project

A development partnership plans to invest up to $500 million to start the remake of the first 68 acres of the former Alameda Naval Air Station into a signature neighborhood intended to help attract 8,000 new jobs to the island city.

The plans envision retaining a portion of the air station's World War II-era buildings for commercial space with an eye on increasing the number of small-scale manufacturing, retailing and artisan-based businesses that the area already supports and adding up to 800 homes.

The housing would largely finance the infrastructure. Alameda Point Partners plans more than $100 million for infrastructure that should benefit the entire 878-acre Alameda Point redevelopment area. Proposed improvements include $5 million for a waterfront park and $10 million for a ferry terminal to connect the neighborhood to San Francisco's Embarcadero terminal, plus a $5 million sport complex and new transit and utility corridors.
=========================================
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2014/12/alameda-point-waterfront-housing-offices-srmernst.html
=========================================

S.F. housing pipeline fills up with 50,000 units (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/12/san-francisco-housing-development-parkmerced.html?page=all)

I wonder how many of these units are slated for affordable housing? 50,000 units is quite a large amount. Just for comparison, Boston wants that many units over a 10 year period and they are nowhere near the 50,000 mark. Very impressive indeed.

mt_climber13

Jan 2, 2015, 7:02 PM

Almost half of those 50,000 units include Treasure Island, Bayview, and Park Merced, which are 20 to 30+ year projects. (And Treasure Island isn't even in the city)

Treasure Island: 8,000 units
Park Merced: 9,000 units
Bayview: 12,000 units

tech12

Jan 2, 2015, 7:54 PM

(And Treasure Island isn't even in the city)

:???: yes it is.

It is frustrating that so many of those units won't get built for decades though. We need 50,000 new units now, not in 20-30 years.

simms3_redux

Jan 2, 2015, 7:58 PM

^^^Treasure Island is in the city limits.

Bayview and Park Merced unit counts above are total when finished, not net new units. Going off of memory, Park Merced for instance is already ~3,500-4,000 units and they are keeping all of those units, and keeping them rent-controlled, but in phases will add about 5,000 units in additional towers and mid-rises, not displacing any current residents who wish to stay.

Bayview, I believe, is similar. Hunter's Point is all new as there is hardly any residential there now. Plans to redevelop housing projects are to essentially double unit counts, so there is a "net" increase.

Overall, I think the 50,000 housing unit number is a "net" increase, or net increase goal.

mt_climber13

Jan 2, 2015, 8:16 PM

Great article on Socketsite about the disparity between job growth and housing growth in SF. (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/01/ten-one-san-franciscos-housing-market-nutshell.html)

In 5 years, 7,000 housing units have been built. But in those same 5 years, 74,000 residents (many with good paying jobs) have moved in. This is what is driving housing costs through the roof.

SF will never be "affordable," at least to the regular joe, but it can take steps to make it less of a gilded urbe, which would be building 50,000 housing units in 5 years, not 35 years.

And the only way to do this is to upzone and to be aggressive at counter suing anybody who makes ridiculous lawsuits against projects that are legally entitled for frivolous, personal reasons. Put an end to the asinine "environmental review" process which derails projects for years and ends up making the city even more expensive.

fflint

Jan 2, 2015, 9:43 PM

AndrewK

Jan 4, 2015, 2:17 AM

excavation is continuing at 350 Bush:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/IMG_0684.jpg[/URL]
(this was taken quickly on my phone so its not the best)

500 Pine is moving along similarly, but I was in a rush and didnt have time to snap a pic of that site unfortunately.

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 5, 2015, 10:27 PM

A forest of steel is now on the construction site at 350 Eighth Street. I'm amazed as to how fast it is being built. (view is from my 27th floor apartment in the Essex Fox Plaza). The red building on the right bottom is at the corner of Folsom & 9th Streets.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7495/16209038665_3f7557ae5e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qGkytT)350 Eighth Street - 01/05/2015 (https://flic.kr/p/qGkytT)

Ant131531

Jan 6, 2015, 1:39 AM

fimiak

Jan 6, 2015, 2:17 AM

Honestly, from the outside looking in as a non-SF resident who reads the development of the city a lot, it almost seems like SF has to manhattanize itself if it wants to keep up with demand and from what I read, NIMBYism is high here especially since a lot of people don't want highrises and towers to block their views, but that's the only way for the city to add more units.

This will also begin ruining some of the more human scaled neighborhoods that SF is famed for and the views that they offer.

But I mean, if Paris can do it with a sea of 4-6 story apartment buildings and pack 2.2 million people in the same area, SF can do it too, but it would require the city to be completely rebuilt essentially. That obviously won't happen.

SF has about 840k people or so? Another one million wants to live in the city. That's just physically not possible at this time, thus housing prices gets pushed to the absolute threshold. The city is kind of stuck in a rut, but that's what happens when you become a very desirable, world class city.

The city can easily make it to 1.1 million with only a few changed corridors like Van Ness, Geary, West SoMa, Hunters Point, Treasure Island, etc. With current building we will probably reach 900k by 2020 and 1 million by 2030. Also, the city draws in lots of people from neighboring cities and counties each day for work, so I would imagine well over 1 million are here any given day. As a former manhattan resident, SF will never be able to manhattanize, nor to become Parisian, it simply isn't possible. SF can draw on its own strengths, however, and become the best it can be in its weight class. I still believe 1200' towers are on the horizon for the 2020s.

mt_climber13

Jan 6, 2015, 3:24 AM

Honestly, from the outside looking in as a non-SF resident who reads the development of the city a lot, it almost seems like SF has to manhattanize itself if it wants to keep up with demand and from what I read, NIMBYism is high here especially since a lot of people don't want highrises and towers to block their views, but that's the only way for the city to add more units.

This will also begin ruining some of the more human scaled neighborhoods that SF is famed for and the views that they offer.

But I mean, if Paris can do it with a sea of 4-6 story apartment buildings and pack 2.2 million people in the same area, SF can do it too, but it would require the city to be completely rebuilt essentially. That obviously won't happen.

SF has about 840k people or so? Another one million wants to live in the city. That's just physically not possible at this time, thus housing prices gets pushed to the absolute threshold. The city is kind of stuck in a rut, but that's what happens when you become a very desirable, world class city.

Most of the city looks like this:

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

Charming?

Hardly.

But it's the dirty secret that SFers don't want the outside world to know about- yes, the Victorians and cable cars and beautiful homes built upon steep hills is only a fraction of SF. Most is built as cookie cutter stucco low density housing.

I've outlined a very loose, unscientific map of what I mean- the enclosed red bordered area is comprised of this type of development:

http://i.imgur.com/djav4vk.jpg

If the entire city limits were built of the 3 and 4 story multi unit buildings that you designate as "human scale that SF is famed for," the city would easily have over 2 million people.

I say, re- built all the single story single family homes built in the western and souther parts of the city after WWII into a dense up to 8 story multi use district. That would put a huge dent in housing costs. And retain the "human scale."

tech12

Jan 6, 2015, 5:01 AM

Most of the city looks like this:

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

Uh...not really.

Charming?

Hardly.

Speak for yourself.

But it's the dirty secret that SFers don't want the outside world to know about

It is? I've lived in SF my entire life and have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

- yes, the Victorians and cable cars and beautiful homes built upon steep hills is only a fraction of SF. Most is built as cookie cutter stucco low density housing.

I've outlined a very loose, unscientific map of what I mean- the enclosed red bordered area is comprised of this type of development:

http://i.imgur.com/djav4vk.jpg

So the sunset district, outer richmond, and the southern third of the city now equals "most" of SF, and are supposedly comprised only of that type of home that you apparently hate so much? The tons of apartments, Victorians, etc, don't exist anymore? And how are those homes any more "cookie-cutter" than a row of victorians anyways? Not to mention that the areas of SF with lots of that kind of "low density" housing are more densely populated than 99% of America (think 10,000-30,000 people per square mile). So really they're not doing bad in terms of density, by American standards.

I say, re- built all the single story single family homes built in the western and souther parts of the city after WWII into a dense up to 8 story multi use district. That would put a huge dent in housing costs. And retain the "human scale."

I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the areas you want to raze would be really happy about that. Also, "single" story? They look like two stories to me. Maybe you feel that garages are unworthy of qualifying as a "story", but in that case remember that probably half of those homes have in-law apartments in the garage/ground floor.

I live in the sunset district, in a three story apartment building (on a block full of them), in an area you believe to be 100% "single story" homes that are supposedly too ugly to admit existence of...and I find your attitude kind of insulting and ignorant.

The city can add a whole lot of people in other ways before we start advocating the destruction of entire districts. It would be nice if the sunset was originally developed denser...but it wasn't. And that's not changing anytime soon, for a multitude of reasons.

Your idea of razing entire swaths of the city is the exact kind of draconian boogeyman shit that NIMBYs have always feared, and which motivates them to block development. And I think most pro-development people would be against it too, because whether you agree or not, those homes do contribute to SF's "architectural charm" or whatever you want to call it.

Here's a more realistic idea for densification of the sunset district: raise height limits along major transit/commercial corridors, like 19th avenue, taraval, judah, irving, lincoln...maybe Noriega? But good luck even getting that to happen.

mt_climber13

Jan 6, 2015, 6:23 AM

Yes, that is most of SF. Land Area wise.

I'm not saying raze the entire area by eminent domain. I'm saying up zone the area and allow developers to buy out home owners for redevelopment. Free market. Most people will gladly sell out. Those that don't will likely be the elderly. totally fine. Let them stay for the rest of their lives, don't force anybody out. Once they pass on, the children or grandchildren would not pass up the opportunity to sell out. Within 50 years I would bet almost every homeowner in the area would sell their house for the right price.

Now use that new land to redevelop. Really, nothing would be missed. It's not like Rousseau is a sought after architectural style. It was cheap and easy to build after the development booms and suburban sprawl planning of WWII that SF was a part of.

The alternative is building massive towers on a landfilled island with the only traffic thoroughfare a 5 lane bridge that is already over capacity. Oh, wait, that's already happening..

biggerhigherfaster

Jan 6, 2015, 6:52 AM

Much of the Eastern part of the city -- Mission Bay down to just south of Candlestick -- is basically empty land, abandoned buildings, landfill, giant parking lots, or warehouses. There are also a lot of blighted neighborhoods. I think by land-area, this is nearly 1/4 of the city. If that 1/4 is developed at the density of SOMA right now, that's easily another 200k units of housing.

pseudolus

Jan 6, 2015, 7:44 AM

Uh...not really.

He's right. There's not a bit of difference between the Outer Sunset, Park Merced, Saint Francis Wood, Bernal Heights, Glen Park, Forest Hill, Ingleside, Sea Cliff. Who could ever tell them apart?

mt_climber13

Jan 6, 2015, 8:45 AM

It might look like the San Fernando Valley or San Mateo from the air, but this is actually what a majority of SF looks like. Very low density structures. And this is only a small part of it. Anybody can look up satellite view on Google maps, scroll around, and see for yourselves if you don't believe me.

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

http://i.imgur.com/8QEXIzC.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1NsW4be.jpg

Compare this to the outskirts of Paris:

http://i.imgur.com/B4ARMWV.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/3i87pjD.jpg

SF is by no means a Paris and has a planning and transportation style (car and garage centric) more similar to Los Angeles (this should not be a surprise, since both cities are in the same state and have similar ages, LA a little younger, but both babies compared to Paris), although many in SF would hate to admit it.

And ise of you who just tuned in, I am bringing up the Paris comparisons in response to the poster who brought this up yesterday.

simms3_redux

Jan 6, 2015, 6:16 PM

^^^Paris is no doubt one of the top 3 most world class cities, in the same league as New York and London. It's a good example in many ways for cities like SF, Sydney, or even other European/American cities to strive to learn from and take away the best and most applicable planning ideas, however, at the street, much of what you just showed of the outskirts of Paris (which by the way also include lower density areas you selectively chose not to picture) are not very warm, inviting, or friendly.

Density may be different (and really not that different), and structural development and layout may be different (obviously very different), but both many of the outskirts of Paris and the outskirts of San Francisco have serious room for improvement.

Also keep in mind, like New York, Paris is about 10x the size of San Francisco. The Sunset would not necessarily be "outskirts" of San Francisco if it were the size of Paris. Your pictures are hard to tell if they were taken from inside Paris' 40 sq mi city limits or from somewhere in the inner 1,000 sq mi that houses 10 million of metro Paris's residents. Either way, most cities in America, even some cities in the NE, would kill to have the density, layout, existing structural development, and the capacity to add more density effectively and efficiently, that San Francisco's "outskirts" currently already have. Yet as you and everyone agrees, here in SF for our standards and our desires, there is certainly plenty of room for improvement, aesthetically, and obviously the ability (not necessarily "room") for increased density.

Generally I agree with you on how to go about it, though I think there's a better way to put it. San Francisco is one of the most attractive cities overall (and even the "color" and sometimes subtle design touches of the apartment buildings and row houses in SF's "ugliest" areas are unique and fairly attractive as far as middle class urban neighborhoods go), even including the Sunset and Bayview and Visitacion Valley, where houses are occupied and generally maintained very well relative to peer neighborhoods surrounding peer cities such as Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago (SS, Westside), and others. The product of a very wealthy, generally fully gentrified city. Yes there is room for more density and improvements to aesthetics, but have you BEEN to the outskirts of Paris? Aesthetically not really an improvement over the outskirts of SF or most cities worldwide. The only thing that makes them "better" per se is possibly the increased density (and your selected pictures are not *that* much denser than SF's areas) and the rail access, which imho blows even metro NYC's out of the water. No American city will ever compete with the quality of Paris' rail infrastructure, imo.

fimiak

Jan 6, 2015, 8:28 PM

Comparing SF and Paris does not make sense and shouldn't be done. They are completely different, in age, feel, architecture, and size. Natural characteristics like the river Seine and SF's peninsula shape make for totally different moods. The short neighborhoods of west and south SF are not the same as the slums on the outskirts of Paris, Paris has something like 10 million people and refugees and immigrants from all over North Africa and Eastern Europe. There are only a few streets in SF I could call Parisian-style and those are in the North Beach-area. Nearly everything else resembles other cities far more so than Paris.

The problem with SF is that home prices have been allowed to grow for so long that developers cannot afford to buy the property needed. It's also a problem that much of the silicon valley wealth is distributed all over the peninsula, rather than concentrated in the city like it would be in Paris. Concentrated wealth brings about those Parisian institutions like int'l fashion houses and grand parks and museums and hotels.

tech12

Jan 6, 2015, 11:24 PM

Yes, that is most of SF. Land Area wise.

But not in terms of population, and the areas of the city full of those types of homes you you dislike, do not fill up everything that you circled on the map...like, not at all. It's not even close. Yet you claimed "most" of SF looked like that. That's what I meant when I said it's not most of the city, sorry if I was unclear.

I'm not saying raze the entire area by eminent domain. I'm saying up zone the area and allow developers to buy out home owners for redevelopment. Free market. Most people will gladly sell out. Those that don't will likely be the elderly. totally fine. Let them stay for the rest of their lives, don't force anybody out. Once they pass on, the children or grandchildren would not pass up the opportunity to sell out. Within 50 years I would bet almost every homeowner in the area would sell their house for the right price.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense.

Really, nothing would be missed.

This is where you're wrong though. It seems that you're projecting your own opinion on everyone else. Of course people will miss it...and others won't.

even including the Sunset and Bayview and Visitacion Valley, where houses are occupied and generally maintained very well relative to peer neighborhoods surrounding peer cities such as Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago (SS, Westside), and others. The product of a very wealthy, generally fully gentrified city.

I don't think I would call SF a fully gentrified city. You just named three neighborhoods that are currently pretty low on the gentrification scale...there are a lot of poor people in SF.

simms3_redux

Jan 7, 2015, 12:40 AM

fflint

Jan 7, 2015, 1:41 AM

The claim 2-story Doelgers cover a majority of San Francisco's landscape is not obviously true. Meanwhile, the "25 square mile" comparisons of American downtowns and adjacent neighborhoods we did some years ago revealed about 70% of San Franciscans live in the northern and eastern parts of the city. Thousands of units have come online since then, relatively few of them in the western or southern areas. Which is to say, regardless of whatever percentage of land area is covered only by Doelger rowhouses, most San Franciscans do not live in such neighborhoods. And never will.

Now, let's get back on topic.

tech12

Jan 7, 2015, 2:20 AM

^^^It's all relative. Aside from the worst of Bayview/Hunters Point and now a remaining small snippet of the TL, most of what is "bad" or "poor" in SF is in a heck of a lot better shape than what you'd find as "bad" or "poor", or in some cases, even "middle class" in other cities. I do believe you stated that you had lived in SF your whole life. I'm not claiming you haven't traveled and seen other cities and their bad parts, but I would imagine for the most part you don't really have the perspective of having lived in another city and having seen/taken in its bad parts. SF is not gentrified in the sense that every block is filled with millionaires, but overall, the city is by far one of the most absolutely gentrified in the country.

Yes, I was born here and have lived here my whole life (minus several months), but I've been to plenty of other cities, including bad areas in places such as Oakland, LA and Philadelphia. I've been to Mexico and seen poverty there too. I'm even pretty poor myself and know multiple people who have been murdered in SF! In addition to that I've done a ton of studying of US crime statistics from the past 30-40 years not to mention census statistics. So I know what's going on in other places, and I take issue with you claiming that almost none of SF's bad/poor parts are actually bad/poor. You're saying the tenderloin compares favorably to other bad neighborhoods for the most part, yet the Tenderloin is easily one of the roughest downtown neighborhoods in America with enough open drug use and sales to impress anyone, and no shortage of violent or property crime....I think you might have some rose colored glasses on.

Taking everything I've experienced and read, and heard from others into account, it's very clear to me that SF has this reputation among many people of being a lot more wealthy and a lot safer than it really is. Why would people think otherwise? Visitors and transplants who aren't immigrants mostly stay away from SF's poor/bad areas, and have little to no knowledge of them or even their existence. Besides, Oakland is supposed to be the poor and/or scary one right? SF has always been famous for it's tourists, natural beauty, gay population, hippies, big companies, nice bridges, expensive homes, etc...not for it's ghettos or it's poor people (the homeless excepted), or its crime, but you might be surprised. 100,000 SF residents live below the federal poverty line, and another 100,000 are just above it. Did you know that in 2008 SF had a higher violent crime rate than 70% of US cities with over 250k residents? And a robbery rate higher than 80% of them? It's not all yuppies and sunshine here, no matter how many of the houses in SF's poorer areas are in good condition.

Of course this all has been getting less true by the year with gentrification, as you can see by the insane rents and the large sustained drop in the murder rate since 2009. I'll probably agree with you soon enough the way things are going.

There are whole sections of other cities larger in land area than all of SF as run down as the worst 3 contiguous block you're going to find in SF (outside of TL, which itself is also a mixed bag of gentrification and poverty at this point).

There are 46.7 square miles of this in another US city? Neither are in hunters point/the bayview or the tenderloin, by the way:

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7552598,-122.3946025,3a,75y,246.76h,92.62t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sKzOVFSIMh6gI-rCY6eyxyg!2e0
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7106811,-122.4174619,3a,75y,203.45h,74.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svq4FHkokV3jH8L2eDJsFpw!2e0

mt_climber13

Jan 7, 2015, 2:59 AM

My point which appears to be lost on some was that.. yes, I know most people live in the north east quadrant of the city. I never said they didn't But most of the land mass of SF is single story and 2 story structures, single family and duplexes (with illegal in- law unit conversions). That is why these areas are the best for densification- And when that happens, then a majority of the city wouldn't have to be crammed into a small snippet of the city, but they could also be crammed into the entire 49 square miles :D

And on this note, why is the entirety of Daly City one and two stories? Imagine Daly City building towers along BART lines. Lots of possibilities, but, perhaps the weather is the big drawback. I think there is a ton of opportunity for "affordable" housing in south, west SF and Daly City.

Oh yeah, and today was finally the groundbreaking of high speed rail. Very exciting, and I hope Elon Musk's hyper loop idea is brought to life and built as well. The traffic conditions in California are a nightmare, everybody wants to be here and California is home to 1 in 8 Americans. We need more infrastructure!!

NOPA

Jan 7, 2015, 4:45 AM

Good article about development in Corona Heights. Of course NIMBYS are trying to stop all of it. I'm sorry but I don't feel sorry for the plight of the million dollar cottage owners http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Developers-with-big-plans-descend-on-S-F-s-5995457.php#photo-7350971

1977

Jan 7, 2015, 5:31 AM

The design for the new Mexican Museum was changed - Looks like it'll break ground in July with 706 Mission (http://www.handelarchitects.com/projects/location/san-francisco/a706-mission.html) by Handel Architects

“I knew it was going to happen eventually,” says Rodriguez, who hopes to attend the groundbreaking in July of the 54,000-square-foot, $43 million Mexican Museum at Jessie Square, designed by another major Mexican architect, Enrique Norten.
It will occupy the first four floors of a 43-story condo tower at 706 Mission St. being developed by Millennium Partners and designed by Glenn Rescalvo of the local Handel Architects. The project includes the renovation and integration of the 1903 Aronson Building at Third and Mission streets, a 10-story Chicago-style brick beauty whose lower four floors will also be given over to the Mexican Museum.
Source/Article (http://www.sfgate.com/art/article/New-Mexican-Museum-to-be-worth-the-wait-5994750.php#photo-7341985)

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/34/00/36/7341985/7/920x920.jpg

http://www.ten-arquitectos.com/publicaciones/507/1.1.jpg

http://www.ten-arquitectos.com/publicaciones/507/1.5.jpg
Some more info/renderings at TEN Arquitectos (http://www.ten-arquitectos.com/proyecto.php?ip=507).

Also, a nice photo essay by SFHog of a lot of the current projects in and around the Transbay Terminal - http://www.sfhog.com/photo-essay-soma-construction/

pseudolus

Jan 7, 2015, 6:19 AM

http://www.ten-arquitectos.com/publicaciones/507/1.5.jpg

That girl in the lavender high heels better show up or there'll be a lot of complaints about the real thing not living up to the renders.

hruski

Jan 7, 2015, 6:23 AM

That girl in the lavender high heels better show up or there'll be a lot of complaints about the real thing not living up to the renders.

She's taken. Check the other pictures. ;)

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 7, 2015, 7:44 AM

Today I passed by 350 Eighth Street. Note the concrete trucks lined up on 8th Street.

On new year eve I spent the evening at One Rincon. Because of Rincon II the view of fireworks is no longer available.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7527/16218434491_bed2a34c6f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qHaHwT)350 Eighth Street (https://flic.kr/p/qHaHwT)

a very long weekend

Jan 7, 2015, 10:01 PM

a somewhat surprising proposal in my hood, 1200 van ness. a shame i'll lose my local 24h fitness outlet there.

includes commercial, retail and office space in the four-level podium and residential units rising eight stories above in a more slender tower, along with 5 levels (jesus!) of underground parking.

http://i.imgur.com/a8uiLcV.png

http://news.theregistrysf.com/woods-bagot-unveils-design-for-1200-van-ness-in-san-francisco/

edit: curbed has added a couple more renderings.

http://i.imgur.com/zJUkYwz.jpg
and some detail
http://i.imgur.com/ZZ4cEit.jpg

if that rendering is accurate, it looks like it goes all the way to polk street, including the 1101 polk building, which i'm guessing will absolutely no be allowed by the neighbors or planning. weird because woods bagot is here in sf and they should know what'll pass in the area. not just that but the tower will likely need to be shifted to the center of the block and off polk, where the shadowing of 12-16 stories would just create an uproar. then again, it could be that this is just a deceptive rendering.

fimiak

Jan 7, 2015, 11:15 PM

Well it looks great...I have no idea why they are only building 4-8 floors on a street like Van Ness, but I do like the design.

Inside scoop: The Market on Market, the new grocery store in the twitter building, seems to be opening Jan 19. I do not know if this includes the smaller shops inside, like Blue Bottle and Farmgirl Flowers. http://www.visitthemarket.com/.

a very long weekend

Jan 7, 2015, 11:24 PM

proximity to the adjacent residential tower. still, i'm very doubtful that they'll end up being allowed to demolish the 1115 polk building and build over polk like that. projected start is 2017 so they have time to modify the design but, you know, this is going to freak people out and i can't really imagine a supervisor standing up for what would be by far the tallest building on middle polk. they're smart not to have rendered the polk street frontage.

edit: i'm not sure if this is right but i'm not seeing the preliminary project assessment application for 1115 polk on the property info map, so maybe it's not part of the assemblage. hm. odd given the rendering. i guess we'll know more when socketsite gets to posting it.

all told, it's pretty great. on that corridor between polk and van ness, we have towers proposed on pine, bush and now post. even if the consultants behind this one badly miscalculate on how polk fits into the franklin/van ness medical services corridor, something should still come up there.

AndrewK

Jan 8, 2015, 12:24 AM

I really don't see this project going through. I mean why demolish a very nice 4 story (in height) building to replace with another, when only a small portion of the lot will be high rise? It would make more sense to gut and revitalize the current building and raze the mid block annex on post to replace with a tower with underground parking.

Van ness definitely needs fewer big box stores, but I don't think a scorched earth policy is necessary to achieve it.

AndrewK

Jan 8, 2015, 1:28 AM

While Van Ness proper does have its fair share of underutilized lots, it is really the blocks between Van Ness and Polk, and to a lesser extent Polk and Larkin, especially closer to civic center, that have the most potential for increased heights and density.

combusean

Jan 8, 2015, 2:02 AM

I'm completely lost how razing the Sunset would somehow make housing there affordable.

Buying up houses in the Sunset where the median price for a tiny house is just shy of a million gets you very close to the $20 million/acre absurdity that's fundamental to high prices in the central areas of the City. Anything that's not a high-rise will have that much more difficult of a time absorbing the land prices into the final sale or rental price, and as long as developers can sell housing that's priced for higher incomes, they will. Never mind that construction costs vastly increase once you go beyond 4 - 5 story wood frame and into concrete and steel for taller structures.

Plus, anything built new is hardly going to be cheap--Panoramic's construction costs are something like $400,000 a miniscule unit before developer profit. Even before developer profit, those kinds of prices would be unaffordable for just two people making the median household income and be too small for housing a family.

I don't know what the solution to SF's affordability is, honestly--short of paying non-union prisoners $1/hr for construction labor and have government gobble up the supply chain for building materials and still do it efficiently. If we built the 100,000 units we should have been building long ago today all of a sudden to make a dent in pricing as has oft been quoted, that would just reduce the developer profit to build that number of units.

jd3189

Jan 8, 2015, 4:21 AM

Most of the city looks like this:

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

Charming?

Hardly.

But it's the dirty secret that SFers don't want the outside world to know about- yes, the Victorians and cable cars and beautiful homes built upon steep hills is only a fraction of SF. Most is built as cookie cutter stucco low density housing.

I've outlined a very loose, unscientific map of what I mean- the enclosed red bordered area is comprised of this type of development:

http://i.imgur.com/djav4vk.jpg

If the entire city limits were built of the 3 and 4 story multi unit buildings that you designate as "human scale that SF is famed for," the city would easily have over 2 million people.

I say, re- built all the single story single family homes built in the western and souther parts of the city after WWII into a dense up to 8 story multi use district. That would put a huge dent in housing costs. And retain the "human scale."

Sorry to bring this topic up again, but this is an interesting reality that I never gave much thought about until now. In essence, this is something that applies to many major American cities(aside from LA, for the reason that will be presented soon).

The really urban part of SF has always been concentrated around its historical center at the NE corner. That's the SF most people know about and praise. However, there's this side of the city that is not as known but is significant because it makes up the majority. Despite that fact that some dense housing may exist here, this large part of the city is simply just miles of meandering single family homes like this.

http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=A_City_of_Small_Homes:_Making_the_Mass_Surburban_City
http://foundsf.org/images/e/e4/Daly-city-and-southern-sf-from-SB-Mtn_1353.jpg

http://foundsf.org/images/b/ba/Urbano-houses_4469.jpg

http://foundsf.org/images/9/92/Sunset-houses4289.jpg

Now, this isn't bad. In fact, it's was great back after WW II when California was growing rapidly and many wanted to live the fullest extent of the American Dream, which living in a single family home in a geographically scenic, mild weathered area. These homes are essentially a testament to the past of urban sprawl. This is where it began to gain ground outside the first suburbs in Long Island, and it's the best example because it's one of the few examples of dense sprawl. Beyond that, it represents California and Western culture, at least to me. When I was a kid and saw images of suburbs like this in pictures,ads,television shows, and movies, I thought this was the epitome of where Middle America should be.

San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the country despite it and has done an infinitely better job at maintaining density this way than all the other cities in the Sunbelt. However, it can't be ignored that a limit has been reached. The model of development in the Sunset District can only be applied to the suburban areas of the Bay Area. Regardless of its beauty in comparison to other suburban areas in the country, it's a huge obstacle to the future growth of SF. Many houses will be landmarked, but development will have to continue as long as there is a demand.

pseudolus

Jan 8, 2015, 5:30 AM

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

You're all welcome to come to the meeting on Jan 21 and share your vision for highrises in the Balboa reservoir, but expect some hostility from the neighbors in Westwood and Sunnyside.

http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3989

ozone

Jan 8, 2015, 5:11 PM

ozone

Jan 8, 2015, 5:19 PM

Wait did I miss something? 706 Mission/Museum Tower got through all it's legal BS and actually breaking ground?

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 8, 2015, 7:42 PM

1 - I find the building to be quite interesting
2 - The set-back from Van Ness makes sense to me. It will mean a quieter environment for tenants & will not block views from the highrise north of it
3 - It has been the city policy to encourage highrise buildings on the Van Ness Corridor
4 - I'm glad to see the site developed as the building has been mostly empty for far too long.
5 - From what I read it will not be built all the way to Polk Street, but close

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7517/15609812954_e78c9ddd80.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pMony7)1200-Van-Ness-Rendering (https://flic.kr/p/pMony7) by Apollo's Light (https://www.flickr.com/people/56616639@N00/), on Flickr
Image is from SocketSite

jd3189

Jan 8, 2015, 8:36 PM

jd3189 while I understand what you are trying to get at, you're not exactly being accurate. No most of the city does not look like that. And no the more "charming" and/or densely packed areas are not only a fraction of the city as you seem to believe. Even in your little outline you can see that's it about half of the city. Heck I can show you parts of New York City that are just as suburban looking, if not more so. The density of San Francisco's single-family suburbs is still high compared to most American cities. I think it's healthy for a city to have neighborhoods like this. And since no city is going to tout it's less interesting features you haven't uncovered some dirty little secret. So let's put that silly bit of aside and get to your real point.

It may not be most, but much of SF is single family homes. They cover more ground than the traditional Victorian apartments and rowhomes. And I was going to mention NYC and other cities since the same realities exist in every US city, but thought it would be too much off topic. I'm not saying that SF's single family suburbs are bad. I like that they are extremely dense and offer a certain beauty that is not seen in other parts of the country. What I am saying is that after grand projects like Mission Bay are finished, where else can people live in SF? I'm not calling to destroy all of the Sunset District and build banal towers in its place. Like wakamesalad said before, this neighborhood could become more urban over time.

Essentially, my real point is that SF is mostly a lowrise city that is experiencing high demand. Despite this, it is still extremely dense. The densely packed areas do make up half the city, but that's still a continuation of the NE core. Even here, there is a high percentage of single family homes and rowhomes mixed in with apartments. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm against losing those areas since they make up SF's architectural legacy. However, it poses a huge obstacle as more people decide to move here.

San Francisco is not considered to be a "Sunbelt city" and the Sunset certainty can't claim to be! The Western Suburbs are located in the "fog belt" and so they've typically been a less desirable places to live. This along with a high level of home ownership has kept the area from re-developing into higher densities. Because of these two factors I do not foresee these neighborhoods radically changing anything soon. And there's no need right now. There's still large areas of the city that need to be re-developed first - like Hunters Point-Candlestick, Treasure Island, and closer-in neighborhoods that need more infill. Yeah we will see more, denser infill. We possibly will even see few high-rises. But I imagine, like most of the city, their location and size will be tightly controlled.

Then what is San Francisco then? The Sunbelt doesn't necessarily equate to only the Southeast. Texas, California, and the other southwestern states also fit the definition. It isn't a bad word. I'm aware of the other projects around the city, but I wonder if it will satisfy the housing demand in time. If not, SF is probably going to become the Manhattan of the West if it isn't already. Not in the definition of having tall buildings, but in the fact that only the rich will be able to afford living there. If this happens, focus will have to be on the rest of the Bay Area to create dense housing/infill and good transportation to allow better access to SF.

a very long weekend

Jan 8, 2015, 8:47 PM

jerry, check my post yesterday for a couple additional photos and comments. i'm glad the socketsite dude cleared it up (heh, i actually mailed him yesterday about it!).

everyone else - is it really necessary to post on this discussion of the density of the outer neighborhoods? this is a projects thread and you guys are way off topic. like, sunbelt? wtf are you even talking about at this point? your interjections bury real projects updates and deceive people into clicking on this thread looking for good projects info. maybe start a different thread?

also, those huge photos are super annoying for the side scroll/shrunken type to avoid sidescroll/photos disabled to read comments.

jbm

Jan 10, 2015, 9:49 PM

Havnen't snapped any pics yet, but there's a fence up around 1 Henry Adams. Appears that they are already tearing up what was a former parking lot that. I believe that housing is going in.

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 11, 2015, 12:16 AM

Havnen't snapped any pics yet, but there's a fence up around 1 Henry Adams. Appears that they are already tearing up what was a former parking lot that. I believe that housing is going in.

jbm - here is BAR link for more pictures & info. on the mixed use development. http://www.bararch.com/work/multifamily-mixed-use/project/1-henry-adams

I like it very much! It will encompass the whole block!

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7578/16062101058_eea24f1232.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qtmt3S)1 Henry Adams Street (https://flic.kr/p/qtmt3S)

timbad

Jan 11, 2015, 7:29 PM

various things from a walk yesterday...

the little infill across from the Whole Foods at Dolores and Market. I like how these turned out

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8562/16226135946_1ec8b04281_b.jpg

at the former UC Extension site (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/09/20/work_finally_starts_on_hayes_valleys_giant_housing_complex.php), this is looking west from Laguna up what would be Waller passing through the massive block, if it were a street

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7530/15629639434_b49c739ae7_b.jpg

a couple blocks over in Hayes Valley, parcel P (http://sf.curbed.com/places/parcel-p) (former Hayes Valley Farm) is beginning to wrap up. looking south on Octavia:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7477/16064660090_d534fbe1f3_b.jpg

north (from Oak):

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7512/16065912839_7217c40dcc_b.jpg

and looking west along the north edge of the parcel - what will become Hickory St, or Alley. off to the right in the distance is parcel O, which will be affordable housing someday.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7500/16066198697_3db06faf5d_b.jpg

just a reminder that parcels F, H and J are also under construction in Hayes Valley. this map is sideways, but from this good article (http://hoodline.com/2014/04/two-more-central-freeway-parcels-go-condo) that ties things together

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0onkWlq-H4Q/U1XASW_wU-I/AAAAAAAABdg/rlhV68y5dfQ/s506/Octavia%2520Parcels.jpg

jumping back to SOMA, future Dropbox on Brannan is getting its cladding:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8567/16064702890_cd35bed216_b.jpg

simms3_redux

Jan 11, 2015, 9:22 PM

^^^Beat me to it. Took pics last week and haven't had time to post yet. Will "duplicate" to some degree your pictures and post mine later tonight. Thanks for these!

viewguysf

Jan 12, 2015, 12:43 AM

1634 Pine (@ Franklin) condo demolition/construction site

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8632/15639049253_11ed6b0120_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pPYdue)Pine at Franklin condo construction (https://flic.kr/p/pPYdue) by viewguysf (https://www.flickr.com/people/31792645@N05/), on Flickr

Former Christian Science Church parking lot in foreground

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7503/16073140767_2220261194_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/quk3LF)Former parking lot at Pine & Franklin (https://flic.kr/p/quk3LF) by viewguysf (https://www.flickr.com/people/31792645@N05/), on Flickr

Two facades being retained on Pine Street (a third smaller one will apparently be reconstructed for the new garage entrance)

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7547/16071461318_ee6fe83d7b_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qubrwE)Facades being retained for 1634-1694 condo towers (https://flic.kr/p/qubrwE) by viewguysf (https://www.flickr.com/people/31792645@N05/), on Flickr

In context, with 1450 Franklin (@ Bush) condo tower under construction to the right behind San Francisco Towers

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7492/16071460678_6860c82a18_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qubrkC)In Context (https://flic.kr/p/qubrkC) by viewguysf (https://www.flickr.com/people/31792645@N05/), on Flickr

1450 Franklin @ Bush - it looks a little more substantial in the core now and has been topped off (with small tree and flag on the front right)

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8642/15639095083_51b8857170_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pPYs7p)1450 Franklin @ Bush condo construction (https://flic.kr/p/pPYs7p) by viewguysf (https://www.flickr.com/people/31792645@N05/), on Flickr

timbad

Jan 12, 2015, 3:46 AM

Havnen't snapped any pics yet, but there's a fence up around 1 Henry Adams. Appears that they are already tearing up what was a former parking lot that. I believe that housing is going in.

great scoop! I wandered over there this evening, and demolition is definitely well under way.

here is a similar angle to the one in the rendering that Jerry posted, showing what's left of the old building from the roundabout on the north side:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8650/16072397588_a0cf03f173_b.jpg

and moving around the block counter-clockwise:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7513/15640055563_b5a93412ae_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8640/16258130751_568cb68631_b.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8652/15637535574_cf9f70fe24_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7512/16234027636_1b6a2543a0_b.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7517/16259106402_56cfaeb6f4_b.jpg

I'm not completely enthralled by the rendering myself, but...

Showplace Square always seems like a hidden treasure to me - handsome old brick buildings surrounded by industrial blah (and freeways). now the blah is being gradually chipped away (there was also just that blurb about the Hooper Innovation Campus (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/01/proposed-hundred-hooper-innovation-campus-unveiled.html), for example), and I'm looking forward to watching the pleasantness of SS integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods through the bridge of the new construction. of course, this is SF, so it will go in frustrating fits and starts.

fflint

Jan 12, 2015, 4:07 AM

^Anything is better than what was there before--much of that lot was just surface parking.

Showplace Square really is a great area, urbane and unique. The scale is urban but not overwhelming, it has gorgeous brick architecture, and contains one of the few roundabouts in the city. It reminds me of places back east.

jbm

Jan 12, 2015, 4:30 AM

In what I believe is a related project, there is also a piece of heavy equipment in the parking lot of the concourse exhibition center, about a block away from 1 Henry Adams. No work has started that I can tell.

a very long weekend

Jan 12, 2015, 7:22 AM

yeah, i wondered what happened with that one, more info here:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/01/800_new_housing_units_on_brannan_up_for_approval_this_a.html

i'd hate to lose the lower cost convention space (seriously, what would replace it?) but it has to be said that the proposed project is worthwhile on its merits.

AndrewK

Jan 12, 2015, 7:51 PM

From 1/7/15

150 Van Ness is progressing in its demolition. It is mostly wrapped:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/IMG_0685.jpg (http://s32.photobucket.com/user/dj_andrewk/media/IMG_0685.jpg.html)

some of the facade has come down on the Polk-facing side:
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/IMG_0686.jpg (http://s32.photobucket.com/user/dj_andrewk/media/IMG_0686.jpg.html)

across Hayes, 101 Polk is near topping out (it looks like they have one and a half floors left):
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/IMG_0687.jpg (http://s32.photobucket.com/user/dj_andrewk/media/IMG_0687.jpg.html)

ElDuderino

Jan 12, 2015, 8:50 PM

From 1/7/15
across Hayes, 101 Polk is near topping out (it looks like they have one and a half floors left)

Looks like 3 and a half to me. I believe the final floor count for 101 Polk is 13, and from the picture it looks like they are working on the tenth floor.

a very long weekend

Jan 12, 2015, 9:38 PM

yeah, it's 13 stories, though for some reason i also thought it was 11 stories. here's a view of 101 polk from the civic center plaza
http://i.imgur.com/1pyO2I1.jpg?1

also, this is a sort of unbuild structure/ephemera post but here's video for a project i had forgotten all about. was nixed by the voters back in 2003 or 2004 i think:
http://expositionorgan.org/media/video/KRON4News_Pavillion.html

i'd love to see it happen, would be a lot more interesting than that completely unused bocce court and certainly another little attraction for tourists and visitors.

AndrewK

Jan 12, 2015, 11:55 PM

I wonder how I got 11 instead of 13 from the render. Well no complaints here on two extra floors.

a very long weekend

Jan 15, 2015, 8:49 PM

so from an article on homelessness, according to bevan dufty it looks like 1950 mission street (the abandoned continuing education high school campus thing on mission between 15th and 16th that's probably blight number one in the entire mission) is on track for a construction start this year. the socketsite run down is here with what we know so far, notice the absurd level of underground parking available for a bmr project, the city just pissing money away to provide parking on subsidized units, imagine if instead of throwing that money at automobile storage in non-market housing they instead spent the ~$1.5-2 million on another floor of dwelling units (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/09/abandoned-site-mission-slated-affordable-development.html).

"The center will be a pilot project, he said, and will probably have to be moved later in the year when construction begins on an affordable housing center targeted for the site, which used to house Phoenix Continuation High School."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-to-open-1-stop-center-for-homeless-in-Mission-6016223.php

also, per a registry article (http://news.theregistrysf.com/tishman-speyer-proposes-residential-tower-san-franciscos-soma-district/) that mentioned "Tishman Speyer is exploring an arrangement with the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. to provide the project’s off-site affordable housing requirements at 5th and Howard streets" - the project being the 4th and townsend tower slated to replace the creamery and other junky buildings and surface lot.

so i did the sleuthing on the SFPIM and discovered that an application has indeed been filed for the surface parking lot and adjacent 2 story structure (206 5th st and 915 howard st) for the following: These will be replaced by a mixed-use, mixed-income residential project including 60 affordable units (studios, 1, 2 & 3-BR) and 112 market rate units (studio, 1 & 2-BR) for a total of 121,000 sf of residential space in 8/4 stories. Additionally, there will be 9,895 gsf ground floor retail at the corner of 5th & Howard.

i hate that lot and i'm very glad that there are plans in the works. i'd assumed that it was part of the 5m project and developing in that 10 year timeline, so i'm glad to see that it's controlled by shorenstein and working on a more rapid timeline. also, i sort of like that so much bmr would be going in here to keep the neighborhood somewhat legit in the face of aggressive change/improvement.

fflint

Jan 16, 2015, 1:13 AM

75 car parking spaces for 150 housing units is not great, but certainly not the worst either. Most cities require 1:1, and most lenders insist on it even if not required.

a very long weekend

Jan 16, 2015, 5:29 AM

yeah, but this is the city building straight below market rate housing, not some private builder. that extra money could be used to build more units at this transit rich intersection, rather than to provide underground parking to subsidized housing. we only have so many sites like this available! like, i absolutely support non-market housing and city ownership, but when we're looking at how we want limited housing dollars to be spent and limited land used, personally, i don't want a single dollar going to parking lots for subsidized tenants when that money could instead go to more subsidized tenants. like think about it, it's outrageous. is there one good reason other than some sop about how subsidized tenants shouldn't be deprived of the mainstream american expectation of a place to park their automobile?

fimiak

Jan 16, 2015, 10:57 PM

Pic dump! All from today

Lumina & Neighbors

http://i.imgur.com/2tKKWDZ.jpg (http://imgur.com/2tKKWDZ)
http://i.imgur.com/KeFPUTB.jpg (http://imgur.com/KeFPUTB)
http://i.imgur.com/VAErbxG.jpg (http://imgur.com/VAErbxG)

350 Mission St

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

Transbay Terminal

http://i.imgur.com/exSe8Tg.jpg (http://imgur.com/exSe8Tg)

299 Fremont? I can't even tell.

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

Transbay Terminal

http://i.imgur.com/UzuQEUa.jpg (http://imgur.com/UzuQEUa)
http://i.imgur.com/GXyHlw6.jpg (http://imgur.com/GXyHlw6)
http://i.imgur.com/SRleZPm.jpg (http://imgur.com/SRleZPm)
http://i.imgur.com/YyCNECq.jpg (http://imgur.com/YyCNECq)
http://i.imgur.com/BvvQ8Wl.jpg (http://imgur.com/BvvQ8Wl)

222 Second

http://i.imgur.com/oLVj83n.jpg (http://imgur.com/oLVj83n)
http://i.imgur.com/Pc3M1zZ.jpg (http://imgur.com/Pc3M1zZ)

SFMOMA

http://i.imgur.com/eplj2hw.jpg (http://imgur.com/eplj2hw)

6th & Howard Defenestration coming down

http://i.imgur.com/rWRPG3G.jpg (http://imgur.com/rWRPG3G)

1415 Mission

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

1400 Mission has just two floors of facade to go. It will probably open in the summer.

northbay

Jan 16, 2015, 11:24 PM

Looking good! Thanks for the update!

KevinFromTexas

Jan 17, 2015, 10:31 PM

Transbay block 9 renderings.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/12/refined-designs-timing-400-foot-tower-transbay-block-9.html

timbad

Jan 18, 2015, 2:50 AM

in case anyone missed it on curbed, 2198 Market project (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/01/16/construction_begins_on_87_new_rentals_at_market_and_sanchez.php#more) (at Sanchez) has broken ground, finally!

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54b9559af92ea10adc001d28/2198%20market-1.jpg

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/53568362f92ea159e3025032/2198%20market%202.jpg

(larger shots at curbed)

87 units on what had sat as a cleared lot for a few years. I like the color palette; hope the materials make it stand up. I think this is the third project in recent years at this intersection, so quite a little transformation

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 18, 2015, 3:59 AM

timbad - thanks for pointing out the construction. I was by the site this week & missed the stirrings there. Though I am not excited with the grey & black tones it might be a winner in the final product. I do like the "tower" on the corner. Now that the lot is being developed, where will I buy my next Christmas tree?

in case anyone missed it on curbed, 2198 Market project (http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2015/01/16/construction_begins_on_87_new_rentals_at_market_and_sanchez.php#more) (at Sanchez) has broken ground, finally!

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/54b9559af92ea10adc001d28/2198%20market-1.jpg

http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs/53568362f92ea159e3025032/2198%20market%202.jpg

(larger shots at curbed)

87 units on what had sat as a cleared lot for a few years. I like the color palette; hope the materials make it stand up. I think this is the third project in recent years at this intersection, so quite a little transformation

timbad

Jan 18, 2015, 5:53 AM

not sure how recent a development this is, since I haven't been down that way in a few months, but this project (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2014/06/dogpatch-housing-condos-apartments-sf-agi-capital.html?page=all) of 258 condos at the corner of Third St and 23rd, and reaching back to Tennessee St, has fencing up and looks like a little demolition has taken place (behind fencing, not visible in pics).

the corner of Third and 23rd:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7521/16120183867_ef0b9ec67a_b.jpg

looking more north up Third to give a little context:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7534/15683590274_5a3091c3f0_b.jpg

looking west down 23rd:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7508/16118637910_84591b74b9_b.jpg

the 'back' of the site - looking north up Tennessee. all four buildings on the right are to be demolished

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7509/16118454228_072d461f34_b.jpg

renderings from socketsite (http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/05/dogpatch_development_scoop_the_designs_for_1201_tenness.html):

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1201-Tennessee-Rendering-1.jpg

massing, showing mid-block passage between Third (on left in this south-facing view) and Tennessee:

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1201-Tennessee-Massing-Revised.gif

at 23rd is where all signs of housing and 'neighborhood' peter out as you move south down Third (you're definitely in sometimes-no-sidewalks territory here), so this project has always seemed like a 'flag-planter' to me, sort of shoring up one of the current boundaries of Dogpatch. (hopefully in future it will be 25th St, then Cesar Chavez, that will feel like the edge). as this is also on the T streetcar line and walking distance from the Caltrain 22nd St stop, I am feeling positive about this one

1977

Jan 18, 2015, 4:20 PM

Lots of new infill beginning construction. Great to see! Thanks for the photos/updates everyone.

fflint

Jan 19, 2015, 12:30 AM

Glad to see Sanchez/Market going up--it's been underutilized my whole lifetime, first as a gas station and then the last few years as an empty lot. I live two blocks away and hadn't noticed the start of construction.

a very long weekend

Jan 19, 2015, 8:23 PM

proposed for 1394 harrison, at the corner of harrison and 10th:

http://i.imgur.com/M6xOQvV.png?1

we're talking 76 "efficiency" units over 2631 square feet of commercial and a maxed out 38 parking spaces along with bike parking and a carshare space, 55 feet tall. no timeline yet but the project ppa was submitted back in august of last year.

AndrewK

Jan 20, 2015, 12:12 AM

^^ current site is a self car wash if anyone was curious.

That rooftop balcony thing is kinda weird. looks like one of those ventilation tubes on a ship deck. or an aftermarket intake valve on a rice rocket.

timbad

Jan 20, 2015, 9:58 AM

this David Baker project (http://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/155/Dr%20%20George%20W%20%20Davis%20Senior%20Building.html) is going up... taken from Caltrain (moving, dirty windows as always):

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8674/16306022715_205d350dd8_b.jpg

The Dr. George Davis Senior Building will feature 121 one- and two-bedroom affordable rental apartments for seniors.

it sits behind 5800 Third St in Bayview, which opened a few years ago now, and can be seen in the pic

the new project is Lot 42 in this image (lot 41 will be market-rate):

http://www.dbarchitect.com/images/dynamic/slideshow_images/image/20903_21105_aerial_view.slideshow_main.jpg

AndrewK

Jan 20, 2015, 8:22 PM

Took a stroll through FiDi/SOMA yesterday evening shortly after sunset (sorry if the iphone shots are not great).

500 Pine excavation
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-1.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-2.jpg

350 Bush
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-3.jpg

222 2nd in context
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-5.jpg (from 2nd & Mission)

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-7.jpg (from 1st & Howard)

350 Mission nestled between its neighbors
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-6.jpg

Block 6 + Lumina
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-8.jpg

399 Fremont
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-9.jpg

45 Lansing
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d33/dj_andrewk/Mobile%20Uploads/image-10.jpg (I'll have to go back during the day but it doesn't look like it is quite topped out. There are ten floors of cladding to go)

jbm

Jan 21, 2015, 4:36 AM

Was jogging through southern FIDI over the weekend, looks like something may be going on with the 2 story building at the NW corner of 2nd and mission. The last of the 3 ground floor retail establishments that I can recall being open was a barber shop on the mission side. Sign in the window looks like it closed and moved elsewhere. I used to work in the neighborhood (until about a year ago), and think the corner store and the restaurant on 2nd have been closed for awhile. I wonder if it was recently sold, or is now on the market. Prime location for a much taller building if so.

timbad

Jan 21, 2015, 7:50 AM

... looks like something may be going on with the 2 story building at the NW corner of 2nd and mission. ... I wonder if it was recently sold, or is now on the market. Prime location for a much taller building if so.

I hope this is just going to be for renovation - I think the building has charm, adds to its surroundings, and is worth keeping. and is a pretty skinny lot to build tall on. we'll see

fflint

Jan 21, 2015, 8:04 AM

I hope this is just going to be for renovation - I think the building has charm, adds to its surroundings, and is worth keeping. and is a pretty skinny lot to build tall on. we'll see
Yeah, it's too small a parcel to put up anything substantial. Maybe add two or three floors above it, max.

Jerry of San Fran

Jan 21, 2015, 9:25 PM

The view of 101 Polk as of 01/21/15. It is very strange for me to see a highrise in the view after so many years living across the street. As far as I can tell the property may not have been developed since the 1906 earthquake & has been a parking lot since I moved into the Fox Plaza 44 years ago.

What is missing from the pole in the foreground? The street light. A man apparently committed suicide on the 19th of January. He landed in the bike lane. (The link for the picture shows the light fixture on the sidewalk. Don't worry as I have self censored the photo!) On the way down his body hit the light pole taking down the whole fixture. This is the 10th suicide by someone falling from the Fox Plaza that I am aware of in the 44 years of my residence.

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8565/16334238461_32734d3a80_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/qTpf24)101 Polk Street - 2015_01_21 (https://flic.kr/p/qTpf24)