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

[BTinSF]

@pg: Yeah, 535 stopped because between when they started digging and when they finished, the economy crashed and it was a "spec" building--meaning probably no tenants and perhaps no construction funding. But as you pointed out, this is a city project. Once funding is in place, it isn't likely to go away so the real question is whether it's in place. Back in January the BizTimes reported the PUC expected to hear if they were going to get any "stimulus" money for it "in about a month". Well, of course, it's now 5 months later, so I want to assume they've heard and the activity means they got enough money. But I'd feel a lot better about it if I could verify that.

You may be able to tell this building means more to me than most. It's a block from where I live--an ugly, rather derelict block (the worst in the area). The old state building, now gone, was its worst but not its only eyesore. The new PUC building would be a real plus.

[peanut gallery]

Ah, now I see the distinction you're making. I tend to think they must have the funding, but can only guess. I'm glad you live nearby so we'll get regular updates. It's slim pickens around me until they demo Transbay. And we're still a few years away from actual construction.

[BTinSF]

Friday, June 19, 2009
S.F. in talks for Moscone expansion
TMG owns key property
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

The San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau is in preliminary talks with developers about expanding the Moscone Convention Center to a property at 680 Folsom St.

The public-private partnership would include a 150,000-square-foot expansion of the Moscone Center, as well as housing, hotel or office development.

While city officials are not ready to discuss the project in detail, officials involved in the discussions say the new below-ground convention center space would connect with the 650,000-square- foot Moscone Center South underground across Third Street. The complex would replace two existing office buildings owned by developer TMG Partners and financial partner RREEF, 680 Folsom St. and 50 Hawthorne St., as well as the Moscone Parking Garage at 255 Third St. In addition to the convention center and replacement parking, the new project could feature “two or three towers” above a podium.

The potential deal is important for the health of San Francisco’s $8.5 billion hospitality industry, the city’s largest employer, which is closely tied to the convention center. In recent years, officials have worried that San Francisco has lost conventions to other cities, including Las Vegas, that could accommodate larger groups. OracleWorld, which drew 43,000 attendees last year, is so crammed for space that in recent years the city has shut down a section of Howard Street to create more exhibit space. In 2007, officials briefly mulled expanding the convention center into the adjacent Metreon, but the idea never got off the ground.

Michael Cohen, San Francisco’s economic development director, characterized the talks with TMG as “an exploration at this point.” He said the city is looking at the TMG/RREEF site as part of a “focused planning effort on finishing the Third Street corridor and the Yerba Buena area.” The other two Third Street projects the city is looking at are Millennium Partner’s 706 Mission St., which is slated for condos, and a new Mexican Museum. Additionally, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art’s plans to expand exhibit space onto land it owns behind the current museum.

“There is an opportunity for TMG to help us solve a significant issue, which is the need to expand the Moscone Center,” said Cohen. “The reality with the convention center is that demand far outstrips supply and any expansion we can accomplish by leveraging private investment is going to be welcome.”

TMG Partners declined to comment. One executive with the firm emphasized that discussions are “extremely conceptual.” Through a spokeswoman, Convention & Visitors Bureau CEO Joe D’Alessandro also declined to be interviewed for this story.

RREEF and TMG Partners bought the vacant former AT&T complex at Folsom and Third streets in 2007 and hired Craig Hartman of Skidmore Owings & Merrill to design a $200 million renovation of the existing building. The plan — which included a new glass curtain wall skin and a glass, steel and granite lobby with 30-foot ceilings — won planning commission approval right before the recession. Like other significant development projects across the city, it has since been on hold.

Cohen said it made sense to undertake a planning effort focused on the three crucial Third Street sites at a time when the capital markets are frozen and developers are waiting for the economy to bottom.

“As a general matter, we do believe there is an opportunity to do good, large-scale planning in San Francisco and create entitlements that can be realized when the economy begins to pick up,” he said.

The expansion of the convention center could be partially funded through the new San Francisco Tourism Improvement District. Under a special tax district, guests at hotels closest to the convention center pay a 1.5 percent tax, while customers at hotels further away pay 1 percent. The tax is expected to generate $10.5 million in the first year, some of which will be used to study and plan the Moscone expansion. The tax was expected to generate more money, but both average room rates and occupancy rates are down. The average room rate in April of 2009 was $154.56, down from $187.87 a year ago. Occupancy declined from 78.1 percent to 74.1 percent over the same period.

Hotel consultant Rick Swig called the possibility of an expanded Moscone at 680 Folsom St. “a phenomenal opportunity for the city.”

“The combination of the legacy Moscone and Moscone West are still too small to allow San Francisco to compete for major conventions in the future. Expansion is a requirement and a necessity.”

Out of all the possible places to expand, the Folsom and Third property makes the most sense, he said.

“The big issue here is that the Moscone Center will have to expand at some point and looking at a remote site anywhere is nowhere comparable to something contiguous to the current convention center,” said Swig.

San Francisco Marriott General Manager Dan Kelleher, who heads a CVB committee on Moscone expansion, said “there are a lot of different options flying around and not one has been nailed down specifically at this point.”

Email J.K. Dineen at [email protected] / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/06/22/story1.html?t=printable

680/690 Folsom

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/06/680690_folsom_from_renovation_to_potentially_razed.html

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

I'm glad you live nearby so we'll get regular updates.

Until October--then I hope somebody else takes over for the winter.

[peanut gallery]

^I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

On 680 Folsom, I can see where expanding Moscone is needed. But if renovating an existing building doesn't make economic sense, how does building multiple brand new towers pencil out? Also, I'm surprised they're even thinking about removing the parking garage. Even though it doesn't seem to fill up very often, I don't see how they can build enough underground parking to replace it. I would have assumed the Convention Bureau would be against it.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

On 680 Folsom, I can see where expanding Moscone is needed. But if renovating an existing building doesn't make economic sense, how does building multiple brand new towers pencil out? Also, I'm surprised they're even thinking about removing the parking garage. Even though it doesn't seem to fill up very often, I don't see how they can build enough underground parking to replace it. I would have assumed the Convention Bureau would be against it.

You know the old saying about assuming. If you don't, I'm not starting a flamewar, but.... The convention bureau could give a flying rat's 🞵🞵🞵 about parking if the price is an expanded Moscone Center. Parking is a secondary revenue stream to the convention attendees and the associated spending. The SFVCB doesn't really see income from the parking garages, anyway. Most conventioneers attending an event are staying in nearby hotels. That could be enhanced by adding a hotel tower as part of the deal (one of those building podiums. You could even put in above-ground parking decks in one of the buildings. The loss of parking by demolishing a garage is so not a deal breaker here.

Second, the cost of TMG's planned renovation of 680 is dictated primarily by the number of units it can get into the existing mid-rise shell, plus the price of market rate housing. That latter is definitely not a good thing at the moment. That property is on the periphery of the redevelopment agency's control and could be up-zoned for much higher density that what is there at present. TMG would be paid market price under the threat of eminent domain, most likely with an option to develop a new tower/towers. It could be sweetened with the offer of credit on the back end (once built and producing revenue streams) to recoup what ever loss was incurred on the price difference between what they paid for 680 and what the city paid for the property for a Moscone expansion. In the meantime, the investment partners can shelter income from the loss incurred as a result of the 'condemnation' and/or sale.

Finally, there will be a subway stop with entrances near that block. As part of the city's transit first policy, any developers of the tower(s) will probably be able to squeeze additional densities beyond those already permitted by the SFRA's control. There you have how this would 'pencil out.'

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

...The convention bureau could give a flying rat's 🞵🞵🞵 about parking if the price is an expanded Moscone Center. Parking is a secondary revenue stream to the convention attendees and the associated spending. The SFVCB doesn't really see income from the parking garages, anyway. Most conventioneers attending an event are staying in nearby hotels. That could be enhanced by adding a hotel tower as part of the deal (one of those building podiums. You could even put in above-ground parking decks in one of the buildings. The loss of parking by demolishing a garage is so not a deal breaker here.

I think that you are totally correct--parking garages are not a primary or even secondary concern of the SFCVB or Moscone Center management. I've always thought that the parking garage in question is a blatant eyesore anyway and would be happy to see it bite the dust. It's too bad that the hideous Convention Center Plaza or whatever they're calling the concrete bunker of a midrise at the corner of Harrison and Fourth isn't being included in the expansion proposal. Its demise would also significantly improve the area aesthetically.

[peanut gallery]

Yeah, i know the saying and I'm not afraid to make an 🞵🞵🞵 of myself. That's why that whole post was intended to be framed as a question. I know I don't know the rationale behind it. Thanks for the detailed answer, coyotetrickster.

[BTinSF]

Eastern Neighborhoods Plan In Action (As Proposed): 750 2nd Street



As the one-story-with-mezzanine, 25-foot high former warehouse at 750 2nd Street looks today above. As is proposed to replace the existing warehouse with an eight-story plus mezzanine, 95-foot mixed-use building under the new Eastern Neighborhoods Plan below.



The proposed building would include up to 17 residential units (28,950 gsf), above a ground‐floor commercial space, and a ground‐floor garage with approximately 16 off-street parking spaces with stackers (4,487 gsf) for residents. Additionally, the project would provide approximately 2,891 gsf of private open space in the form of decks or balconies attached to 13 of the residential units.



The project site is within the East SoMa Plan Area and under the recently adopted Eastern Neighborhood (EN) controls, project approval would proceed under Section 329, Large Project Authorization in Eastern Neighborhoods Mixed-Used Districts. The proposed project would require exceptions to certain requirements in the Mixed Use-Office (MUO) district, and to certain pre-existing zoning controls [formerly zoned M-2].
Design by Gould Evans Baum Thornley Architects. And targeting, at a minimum, LEED Silver certification.

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/...ern_neighborhoods_plan_in_action_as.html

^^^Makes me wonder how MoMo's could be around much longer. That prime corner lot would seem awfully underutilized with this next door.

[Gordo]

I've always thought that corner would be a great place for a taller building with MoMo's on top as a rooftop bar/restaurant.

[Kingofthehill]

Hey everybody, I stumbled upon one of my flickr contact's work of SF from the 60's/80's/90's...definitely worth a look:

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/daveglass/sets/72057594064354166/

Lots of great b/w's, shots of the "urban renewal" in the Filmore/Western Addition, grit, multiculturalism, blah blah, etc.

[peanut gallery]

Wow, KOTH, those are fascinating. I especially loved the series on the Carmel Fallon Building and seeing how it changed at various times over the years. Plus all the house mover shots. That pre-Marriott, pre-YB-gardens shot of Mission is really cool too. Thanks for posting that link!

Originally Posted by Gordo

I've always thought that corner would be a great place for a taller building with MoMo's on top as a rooftop bar/restaurant.

Excellent idea!

[Jerry of San Fran]

King of the Hill - nice link to Flickr.

I'm glad that the Carmel Fallon Building was not painted lavender! I hate lavender!

[AndrewK]

what i wonder is, what happened to all those houses they "moved" from the western addition?

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by AndrewK

what i wonder is, what happened to all those houses they "moved" from the western addition?

You can see a couple of them if you drive north on Webster and look to the right as you approach Geary (opposite side of the street from Safeway). I recall when those were "relocated" there. Even wondered if it would make sense to buy one--they were something of a bargain.

[BTinSF]

870 Harrison Update: Development Unanimously Approved



It’s a plugged-in tipster that notes the development of 870 Harrison Street by JS Sullivan was unanimously approved last week. Design by Leavitt Architecture, as rendered by ZŪM:



As previously summarized by us:

Twenty-six residential units (18 one-bedroom, 8 two-bedroom) over either 4,050 or 2,560 square feet of ground-floor PDR (Planning Commissions Resolution 17707 "allows for reduced PDR replacement requirements if 25 percent of the lot depth is dedicated to an at-grade rear yard") and a below grade garage with 12 residential spaces, one commercial space, one van-accessible space, two car share spaces, and eight spaces for bikes.
And there's animation to come (we’re told).

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2009/...te_development_unanimously_approved.html

Whole lotta infill seems happening in SOMA--almost like the "live-work loft" days of 1999.

[peanut gallery]

The design is pretty bland, but I like the infill happening and proposed for this area.

[BTinSF]

As someone put it on Socketsite, most buildings in most cities are ugly. This one sure won't win any beauty contests. But it's especially hard to do so for mid-block, midrise housing. For economic reasons, they have to use all the footprint they can and they have to anticipate new construction on either side (meaning cosmetics will matter someday only on the side facing the street). Given all that, to my eye it's OK--just OK.

[cityjogger]

I noticed this morning that 4th street is now open at Channel, but it's still not open all the way through to UCSF (it's still blocked just south of the new apartment building).

[BTinSF]

Friday, June 26, 2009
Real estate slump threatens projects
Falling land values imperil public-private development deals
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Plummeting land values and the deep recession have taken a toll on one of San Francisco’s central business models for urban redevelopment: public-private development deals.

With many developers predicting that highrise development of any sort won’t work economically for another five years, public agencies are struggling with a development model in which private builders pay for the right to develop valuable land and, in the process, bankroll public benefits like parks, roads and affordable housing.

Until the capital markets are willing to invest in the next generation of highrise condos, hotels or office buildings, public entities like the Port of San Francisco and the city Redevelopment Agency are stuck with prime land that has little or no current value.

The challenges came into focus last week when the Redevelopment Agency canceled the request for proposals process for one of its most promising projects, a housing complex slated for First and Folsom streets in the Transbay district, “because bids came in well below the potential value of the site in a healthier real estate market,” according to Fred Blackwell, the agency’s executive director.

Surprise to developers

The decision to suspend the RFP process on Block 8, a parcel entitled for a 550-foot condo tower and some affordable housing, was an unpleasant surprise to the two development teams that had spent a year working on their proposals. The site had originally attracted a dozen developers but by June 10 when second-round proposals were due, the field had been whittled to two contenders — AvalonBay and Golub Development of Chicago.

The lead architect on the Golub team, Solomon Cordwell Buenz Vice President Chris Pemberton, said he was “shocked” that the Redevelopment Agency pulled the plug on the process. He said his team followed the RFP process precisely and the agency should have made it clear if there was a minimum price for the land.

“To cancel it without even entering into negotiations was a shock,” said Pemberton. “We are reeling. We spent a fortune on it. If they had a minimum number in mind, we should have had it and we could have figured out in a few days work if it would pencil.”

AvalonBay Development Director Meg Spriggs said they were “disappointed about the suspension of the Block 8 RFP.” She said, “unfortunately, the reality of the real estate market we are in today is that it puts significant pressure on land valuations.”

“This has been a tough decision for everyone to hear. However, the agency does deserve credit for trying to think creatively about potential deal structures. Today’s fundamentals just didn’t allow them to hear what they were hoping to hear,” said Spriggs.

Blackwell said the financial and design details of the two Block 8 bids would remain confidential, a move both teams said they appreciate. He said the delay is “unfortunately part of the risks of investing in pre-development.”

“We actually feel very bad about it — it is never good to have to put a project on hold when you have folks who have invested significant money and time. The decision to delay is not one we take lightly,” he said.

Numerous projects may struggle

Today’s depressed land values could emerge as a sticking point in a number of projects, including the two seawall lots the Port of San Francisco is attempting to develop. For Seawall Lot 351, at Drumm and Washington streets, the port attracted just one proposal, from Pacific Waterfront Partners, despite issuing two rounds of solicitations. On an even bigger project, Seawall Lot 337, just across the Lefty O’Doul Bridge from AT&T Park, the Port Commission is in exclusive negotiations with a team of developers that includes Wilson Meany Sullivan and the San Francisco Giants. Negotiations are ongoing in both deals and terms have not been reached.

The plunge in prices could also complicate the latest attempt to redevelop Pier 70. The port plans to put out an RFP soon for the project, which could total up to 2.5 million square feet and cost nearly $2 billion, according to Jonathan Stern, head of waterfront development for the port.

“It’s a bit scary to do it in this environment,” he said, “but we think it’s the right time.”

He pointed out that one of the port’s most successful developments, the conversion of Piers 1½, 3 and 5 into high-end office space, was planned during the darkest days of the dot-com crash.

“If you move ahead when times are bad, there can be a huge payoff on the other end.”

Blackwell said agencies like the port and his own have a tough balancing act during down economy. “We are charged with moving projects forward, but we also have to be diligent in terms of what we accept in terms of land value,” said Blackwell. “Our responsibility is not only to budget but to steward resources.”

Blackwell said the agency is trying to streamline the development process and “be as responsive and flexible and diligent as possible so we don’t add an additional burden in an already tough climate.” In addition, the agency is doing more to go after state and federal stimulus money for so-called shovel-ready projects.

Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, said cities can solve the public-private challenge by demanding less money up front and instead spreading payments over a longer period of time.

“Public agencies are going to face the decision of whether to go to market now or wait,” said Metcalf. “There is a lot of benefit to moving projects forward more quickly, but you have to weigh that against if you can get a significantly better deal by waiting a little while.”

Architect Jeffrey Heller, who has been active in San Francisco development for 30 years, said large public-private developments have frequently gone through several iterations as the economy rises and falls. He pointed to Yerba Buena Center, which broke Canadian developer Olympia & York walked away from in the 1990s after spending $28 million.

“There is just no way to move these large redevelopment projects ahead any faster,” said Heller. “There is a lot of suffering along the way.”


[email protected] / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/06/29/story1.html?t=printable