SAN FRANCISCO | 10 South Van Ness Avenue | 820 FT | 67 FLOORS
 

In 2007, the City upzoned the Mid-Market area along Van Ness, including up to 400 ft for the Honda SF site owned at the time by the Boas family.

The Boas family put their 1+ acre site/Honda dealership up for sale earlier in the year and national developer Crescent Heights picked it up for $50M.

Crescent Heights plans 500-700 units on the site. While the Van Ness frontage is zoned for 400 ft, the Market St side is zoned for a mid-rise of only 120 ft, allowing for setbacks. However, all of this is complicated by the BART tunnel running underneath the site, which will introduce engineering difficulties with foundations for a taller tower.

Crescent Heights recently developed 754 units at NEMA a block away (37 and 22 stories) and is developing 320 units in a 40+ story tower in Rincon Hill (SSP: 45 Lansing).

As for timing (below from May 2014)?

source


RENDERINGS

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content...-Ness-Site.gif
source (site as it stands now)

Prior renderings for site from 2007 after area up-zoning:
http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content...ss-Massing.jpg
source

ADDITIONAL LINKS

Market and Van Ness Area Sees Flurry of Development

Crescent Heights Buys Mid-Market Site

Market Street Honda Dealership Site Revs Up for Development

San Francisco's Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plans Move Forward

"Francisco" should be capitalized

^^^Hold your horses. I tried all caps, but for some reason the hosting site wouldn't allow for that. I have created 2 new threads, and am almost done with 1 more (these take time and effort, please PM me if you have nits). I will message the mods once done to have them "sticky/link" these to the SF board and edit the titles to have all caps in keeping with other threads.

Fantastic findings simms3_redux. Lots of new developments for the area that are all 400' +. That architecture for many of these projects has been top quality. :)

I'm guessing we'll see new renderings. I happened to meet someone at Crescent Heights who said they are still in early planning/scoping phase for the project.

wait, what, those renders are legit? i think maybe that was a different project/vision that doesn't have much to do with crescent heights/anything entitled beyond the massing (which means that it was still worth posting just writing that so that people don't get excited).

still good work though, merci. man, just love how hot mid-market is right now.

also: wow, 50 million for the site, i really really hope they do another apartment project because i don't think i can handle looking at million dollar apartment listings at the corner of svn and market.

finally: i disagree that francisco ought to be capitalized ;)

The SF Business Times has new conceptual renderings of the latest proposal. It now consists of 767 units in two 400-foot towers (440' to parapet):

https://i.imgur.com/BBYJs0t.png

https://i.imgur.com/Lm93knr.png

https://i.imgur.com/qIcoD1j.png

https://i.imgur.com/eqpllre.png

Credit: Crescent Heights

Whoa. How did I miss this? Really, really interesting.

Let's hope Crescent Heights doesn't blow it like they did with Jasper (and the top of NEMA); these towers will be very prominent, especially from the west and south. There's also a really rundown SRO behind the Honda dealership on 12th that is going to remain, so that should be interesting. That back block consistently has people sitting or sleeping on the sidewalks on both sides of 12th.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...19.37%20PM.png

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...19.58%20PM.png

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...20.11%20PM.png

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...20.35%20PM.png

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...20.24%20PM.png

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1...20.46%20PM.png

https://aca.accela.com/ccsf/Cap/CapD...gencyCode=CCSF

wow! now we're talking!

Yeah--please don't give us a bait and switch!

Cool renderings.

seems it should be about time we heard something about this one moving...

New renderings and a rough timeline.

https://www.crescentheights.com/time...0_Van_Ness.jpg
*Building/image on the right. The buildings on the left are for a project in Seattle.
https://www.crescentheights.com/wp-c...0_van_ness.jpg
https://www.crescentheights.com/portfolio/10-van-ness/

"35,000 SF of proposed retail planned to open in 2019/2020"

May have to change the thread title:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...-van-ness.html

Now that's enough to make me into a NIMBY (anti-double tower kind of person). That 610 ft single is kind of s*xy and make the double tower look squat by comparison.

Oh Pedestrian, that is a no-brainer... No to the twin towers. YES to the 610 foot tower! Twin towers cast more shadows anyway... So a single tall tower is better for us sun-lovers.

And yet more designs:

http://www.socketsite.com/wp-content...g-Proposed.jpg
http://www.socketsite.com

As numerous commenters are pointing out on Socketsite, our illustrious planners must be feeling nostalgia for the tabletop that the newest downtown towers have vitually wiped out because at "The Hub" they are creating multiple 400+/- towers including the existing 100 Van Ness, One Oak, 30 Van Ness and now 10 S. Van Ness. It have to check but here's betting the tallest tower across the street in the 1500 block of Mission will be in the same range.

PS: Sorry MyCitySFO

^^^ The Socketsite comments section is a notorious crank den. People should be happy that San Francisco is getting a proper Midtownish district with all of these potentially transformative towers. Do they really expect supertalls? After all downtown's 1980's tabletop has only been recently been breached.

No, but there are proposed designs for this site that are not all the same height around 400 ft. (some higher, some lower would be better). See above (single tower design). It is a puzzlement to me why the Planning Dept and its code forces these issues seemingly without being bothered by it. They could encourage a variety of heights rather than sameness. But of course sameness is what you are going to get with unmodified or unnuanced height limits--everybody wants to build to the limit.

In the "Hub" area, where wind is seemingly a bigger concern than shaddow (no public open spaces likely to be shaddowed but the area is a wind tunnel), a taller, thinner design presenting less area to the wind might actually be better for the local environment. The two somewhat squat towers proposed are probably not going to help the wind situation (although the rounded designs may help--I hope they've tested them in a real wind tunnel).