The September 30 th deadline for lead developer Hines to pay a $5 million dollars nonrefundable line of credit has come to pass with no payment.

So, as being reported, if nothing changes by Thursday's TransBay Joint Powers Authority, they may have no choice to toss Hines proposal and put it out to bid again.

What a cluster, IMO. There is a possibility this building may never be built or certainly a modest highrise no where near the 1,070 ft.

That doesn't sound good. But didn't Hines say just a week or two ago that everything was going fine?

It is my conjecture that this tower will not be built, nowhere near this height. If the BOS approves upzoning, there will be lawsuits galore (just think of the reaction over little ol' 8 Washington) and a ballot measure will surely be put in place.
The BOS does not have power over neighborhood activists. 8 Washington and 555 Washington should be valuable lessons. Perhaps Hines has recognized the blockade in sight and has decided to back out quietly.

It will just be nice to have a new tallest landmark in SF. I'm sick of looking at Transamerica. It's nice but pretty dated.

I do not think it was an issue for the height. It was lowered to 1070 ft from 1200 ft due to the " shadow" issue. Even former Supervisor Daley, King of the Liberals, was on board to have this building built. Now, with a pro business Mayor and Board, there is no opposition. S. Hestor and her group are natural opponents and would object to anything over an inch. But this area is prime for development and is connected to the development of the TransBay Terminal.

What is stoping this proposal is Money and that is it. If Tishman Speyer can build prospective office buildings, so can others, IMO.

:haha::haha::haha:

No offense, but that is such a naive statement.
I lived in SF for 11 years. I dealt with the zany politics there to the breaking point.

I think that the fact that a few people were able to gather tens of thousands of signatures to stop a project that was only proposed to be about 15 stories (8 Washington) scared the developer of this project and they are looking elsewhere. This is not the market to be entangled in long term expensive lawsuits. The lawsuits could go on for ten years, maybe more, before anything is built. It could go all the way to the California Supreme Court as well (as a claim of government overreach denying the voice of the people) because, in effect, the planning commission is asking the BOS to amend a law passed by the citizens of SF in the 1980s.

If hines cant commit with the payment i guess they would be out , and best case scenario SOM snatches the site and build the tower BUT just the tower and pelli builds the terminal! But new studies would have to be made for the new tower and that would delay the opening of the new tower to late 2017-18 instead of late 2015-16

No offense taken. Born and raised and currently live in SF myself and I also have sen the republic of San Francisco's zany politics. but also remember, the majority of the Board upheld the increase in height for the Washington project. I would consider that an improvement from the past board of supervisors a few years ago.

The Washington project is a little different than the TransBay site. The Washington project was more a waterfront issue and the SF tennis club loosing their prized courts. Not too hard to get a few peole behind a " stop The Waterfront from being destroyed" platform.

The TransBay site is in the CBD area and highrises surround the proposed site. True, anyone or any group and file a lawsuit to stop the project but they will be messing with the whole TransBay Terminal project. The TransBay Tower funds were to be directed toward building the TransBay Terminal. Who is going to build the Terminal without the Tower proceeds? Is the City going to give up on the Tower and make the TransBay Terminal a "private" venture? These are all questions that are out there and I am sure the Joint Powers Authority is scratching their heads.

We will know more about what the future will hold at their next meeting. My guess is they give Hines an extent ion with the understanding they move forward with the project by a specific date.

If Hines pulls out, it will likely have absolutely nothing to do with 8 Washington, and everything to do with lack of funding. You think Hines had no idea previously that there are some quite rabid NIMBYs in SF? There's no way you can be involved with development here and not know that (particularly when your proposed tower is 1,000+ feet), which means Hines would have to be pretty dumb if they were shocked and scared away by the problems 8 Washington has faced, particularly after they have already spent years and millions of dollars on this proposal. Yeah great idea, run away and waste all that money and opportunity, because some building in a different neighborhood got stalled for reasons that do not even apply in SOMA.

And you are aware that dozens of buildings FAR taller than 8 washington have been built in SF over the past decade, with a few more under construction at this very moment, right? NIMBY opposition to highrises is there, but it's quite a bit less strong than it was in the heyday of the "anti-manhattanization" movement, and is not as strong as you claim, at least not against new highrises in SOMA/most of downtown, which do not impact the views, parking arrangements, or tennis club fun time of the type of wealthy people who got 8 Washington stalled (and who basically lied to thousands of people around the city in order to get their support). If NIMBYs were planning to rally together to kill the transbay tower, I think that we definitely would have heard a lot about it by now, seeing as this thing has been planned for over half a decade now, with less than a year now before it's "supposed" to break ground. Yet what kind of NIMBY opposition have we actually heard so far? The occasional person predictably comparing it to a giant dick? John King predictably whining about too much glass and height? Sue Hestor predictably whining about it (though not nearly as much as you might expect for such a tall/prominent tower) because it's not a 2 story faux-victorian cottage? That's all I can think of, and I'm not too worried about it. What I'm worried about is Hines securing the necessary funding to build it...or if the current proposal were to die and come back as something shorter (cheaper) and unremarkable.

Did you work in real estate development, urban planning or construction during your time in San Francisco? What informs your opinions about development in this city in which you no longer reside?

The Planning and Recreation and Park Commission concluded that the proposed TransBay Tower will not greatly affect the surrounding Parks and plazas with a shadow the building will create.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ys-3941437.php

I'm glad to hear that. The shadow law sucks, particularly when it's enforced in the middle of downtown.

The SF Chronicle has reported that the Planning Commision met Thursday and gave final approval for the 1,070 ft Transbay Tower. Hines is still The developer for the project and it was mentioned in the article that they failed to pay the $5 million Line of credit by the Sept. 30th deadline.

What is a little positive is the last quote. " No one is circling a date on the calendar, but the talks can't go on in perpetuity."
Which tells me they want to see this thing get built in a timely manner.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...Ks-3962665.php

Great news! Finally got around to it. For what it's worth, Socketsite says the following in regards to Hines and the tower:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ise_by_pl.html

Sounds like the fact that Hines hasn't paid up yet really isn't a big deal.

Just wondering, has anyone stopped to think that the reason for the hesitancy might be that there is insufficient reason to believe there is a demand for a high-rise of that size? These buildings are built to make money, you know.

I'm sure plenty of people have though of that. SF currently has a low office vacancy rate (particularly SOMA, where the tower will be built), and over 1 million square feet have already been leased so far this year. So yes, it seems that there is demand for more office space in SF.

^Not likely, based on current rents/vacancy rates and the prestige/rent premium gained from having the tallest in such an iconic city.

Now, you might have a point if it was considered possible for other structures of similar height to be built in SF any time soon. However, that almost guaranteed monopoly is one of the things that makes this project pencil out.

Exactly, I would be much more worried if I owned one of its shorter neighbors. This will fill up easily, if not from external growth than from stealing clients from neighbors.

Great news all around!:cheers:

Hines is on record stating that they have received strong interest in the proposed Tower. What this Tower needs is an anchor corporation that will take a substantial amount of space. Possible naming rights?

If it's economically viable in this form, it will be built; if not, it won't be.