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

[BTinSF]

Friday, June 26, 2009
New office projects won’t pencil for many years
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

When Beacon Capital Partners abruptly halted construction on a 293,000-square-foot office tower at 535 Mission St. last October, it did more than kill a $100 million job for Turner Construction.

It signaled the end of highrise office development in downtown San Francisco for the foreseeable future.

With Class A office rents down 25 percent and the vacancy rate above 16 percent and rising, San Francisco may not see another office tower completed until 2014. And some industry players think the wait could be even longer.

Office developers tend to take the plunge when single-digit vacancy rates trigger a rent spike, or when building values rise above replacement costs. That happened briefly in 2007. It is difficult to gauge how far values of office towers have fallen since then because so few have changed hands, but most brokers and owners estimate values have dropped by at least 50 percent. Recent bids on 250 Montgomery — a well-located but unspectacular building — came in well below $200 a square foot. That is less than half the $400 a square foot Lincoln Property Co. paid for it and a third of the $600 a square foot it would cost to replace it.

A gulf of that size illustrates why investors are entirely focused on existing bargains rather than on risky development.

“If you have dry powder you are going to allocate those dollars to acquisitions rather than development,” said Greg Fogg of Jones Lang LaSalle.

A new report from Grubb & Ellis projects that the vacancy rate will hit 17.9 percent this year before peaking in 2010 at 19.4 percent. For office developers, the combination of weak demand, low rents and falling values could make for a long drought.

“My guess would be we are three to five years away from a major new office development breaking ground,” said developer Jack Myers, who opened 101 Second St. and 55 Second St. in 1999.

Mark Geisreiter, executive vice president at Grubb & Ellis, said he doesn’t see any new spec development until “well into the next cycle.”

“The fundamentals have to be there. The confidence has to be there. And for a spec building, the financing has to be there. And I don’t see the lender community, after getting pummeled in 2009, 2010, and 2011, saying ‘oh yeah we’re going to lend on a spec building.’ There is going to have to be pre-leasing,” said Geisreiter.

Only one new highrise

For advocates of downtown development, the dearth of new projects is particularly disappointing when you consider that just one new downtown office tower was completed in the three-year upswing that ended in early 2008. And that building, Tishman Speyer’s 555 Mission St., is less than 50 percent leased. Two other speculative projects in Mission Bay — the 300,000-square-foot 500 Terry Francois and the 175,000-square-foot addition at 185 Berry St. — are also empty.

Chris Roeder of Jones Lang LaSalle points out that Tishman executives were seen as “geniuses’ when they decided to go spec and quickly landed three major tenants in DLA Piper, Sequoia Capital and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Since then, however, leasing has ground to a halt.

“The problem was that the up cycle didn’t last as long as they had hoped,” said Roeder.

Besides 535 Mission St., another entitled project that never got off the ground was Lincoln Property Co.’s 350 Bush St. and 500 Pine St. Lincoln had pulled permits to break ground when the recession hit.

Good timing

One development that did time the market well was Pacific Waterfront Partners’ Piers 1 ½, 3, and 5, a 70,000-square-foot rehab project. Pacific President Simon Snellgrove said they took gamble that the waterfront location would attract tenants willing to pay top dollar. It worked, and several tenants paid $70 per square foot triple net to get into the building.

“We got into the sweet spot,” said Snellgrove.

CalSTRS, the California State Teachers Retirement System, was Pacific Waterfront’s financial partner on the Piers. Snellgrove said its unclear whether pension funds, which have been a major investor in real estate since the late 1980s, will still have the appetite for new office construction. Many pension funds have lost vast sums on real estate during the recession.

“The open question is: Will they default to lower risk, lower return and get out of the development business altogether? And, if they do, what are the sources of capital that are going to replace that?” said Snellgrove.

And then there is the cost of development in San Francisco. Myers said he recently looked at a site slated for a 425,000-square-foot tower in San Francisco. Crunching the numbers, he was struck by how city fees have skyrocketed since he completed his last building. When he tallied the fees — a school impact fee, a jobs/housing linkage fee, a transit impact fee and others — it came to $21 million. The fees were five times what they had been when Myers completed 101 Second St. in 1999.

“It was shocking,” said Myers. “I sent our team back to look at the numbers again because I thought they had made a mistake.”

The bounce back

But amid the doom and gloom, brokers point out that the San Francisco office market as historically recovered quickly. After the market peaked at 22 percent vacancy rate in 2002 during the dot-com crash, “nobody ever expected that by 2006 we would be at less than 10 percent vacancy,” said Jones Lang LaSalle Managing Director Wes Powell.

“When the economy is on its feet, the Bay Area and San Francisco move very fast and can take up a lot of space in a short period of time.”

[email protected] / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/06/29/focus4.html

[peanut gallery]

I had forgotten about Pier 70. That seems especially tough in this environment given the requirements to keep historic structures and support the ship repair business, while trying to make a profit on whatever new development goes in (not to mention that it's not as good a location as the other two properties mentioned). Plus, I'd guess there will be some clean-up required. Does the developer have to cover that too? Seems rather challenging for that one to generate much for the Port.

[nequidnimis]

The $600 sq. ft. cost to replace seems fishy. According to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisco) the 1,150,000 sq. ft. Millennium Tower cost $350M to build - which works out $304 psf. That was at the height of the real estate cycle, when construction prices were significantly higher than they are now.

[BTinSF]

I suspect the cost of residential construction (Millenium) may be a lot cheaper than office. Certainly you get more floors per foot of total height with residential (each floor is about 10 ft for residential, more like 13 for office). But for office you also need a good deal more infrastructure to support heating, cooling, power needs of equipment, elevator capacity and so on.

[nequidnimis]

Yes, but bear in mind that residential construction is delivered fully finished, with partitions, doors, lights, kitchens, bathrooms, while commercial construction is delivered as a series of empty floor plates to which tenants must make their own improvements.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Yes, but bear in mind that residential construction is delivered fully finished, with partitions, doors, lights, kitchens, bathrooms, while commercial construction is delivered as a series of empty floor plates to which tenants must make their own improvements.

The Millennium penthouses are being delivered as unfinished open space though, just like the St. Regis Museum Tower was.

[BTinSF]

Friday, July 3, 2009
Urban housing firms grab $150M in grants
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen



Bay Area developers have raked in more than $150 million in state grant money to jump start housing projects, a list of big winners that included the John Stewart Co., the Emerald Fund, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp., and a development group that includes former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Joe Montana.

After a 12-hour marathon meeting June 20th Sacramento that drew hopeful housing builders from across California, the state’s Local Assistance Loan and Grant Committee handed out money set aside for urban infill housing development under Proposition 1C, a $2.8 billion bond measure California voters approved in 2006. The money allocated on Monday represents the last round of Prop 1C grants and includes money for infill infrastructure as well as transit oriented housing construction. The state was scheduled to announce the official grant winners today.

In total San Francisco developers won seven state grants worth $96 million, according to Craig Adelman, deputy director of the Mayor’s Office of Housing. In contrast, during the last round San Francisco developers won just one grant for $5 million. Adelman credited Kyri McClellan of the mayor’s economic development staff, for coordinating the city applications.

“It was huge,” said Adelman. “We hit this very hard and very early in terms of coordinating across city agencies and with our development partners.”

The biggest Bay Area recipient was the John Stewart Co., which received the maximum $30 million to help bankroll the ambitious 750-unit mixed-income housing development called Hunters View, a project that includes the rebuilding of a 267-unit dilapidated public housing complex. The money will pay for everything from grading to utilities to a new street grid. Work will start early next year on the $300 million development, which will be built in phases.

“It’s the whole underpinning for redevelopment,” said Jack Gardner, president of the John Stewart Co. “This was the key piece of money we were relying on. We needed it to happen and it did.”

The Hunters View grant was the first state grant for San Francisco’s Hope SF program, the city’s effort to rebuild rundown public housing developments by joining with market-rate developers and increasing density.

“It was a big day for San Francisco, for Hope SF, and for the Hunters View residents in particular. A lot of the city’s housing pipeline is going to get catalytic funding.”

The Emerald Fund, which is raising money to build 308 units of rental housing in Rincon Hill, received $11 million, much of which will go toward a park the developer agreed to build. The developer did not receive another $11 million transit-oriented development Prop 1C grant it had applied for, but Emerald Fund President Oz Erickson said he is hopeful that money will come through after a 90 day evaluation period. Erickson said that they have a strong case for the public benefits 333 Harrison will provide.

“Remember this is a project that includes 62 units of deeply affordable housing for which our out of pocket costs are $21 million. And we are providing a park — our costs for the park are $9 million.”

Emerald could also receive federal stimulus money for 333 Harrison. The project was one of just a handful of private-sector stimulus requests recommended by Bay Area official to state authorities who will distribute much of California’s share.

One San Francisco developer that was not selected for a 1C grant is Avant Housing, a joint venture between AGI Capital and TMG Partners. Avant Housing officials had hoped to receive $5.7 million for a 194-unit complex at 1880 Mission St.

“It was one piece of financing that would have made the puzzle less difficult to put together, but there are a lot of pieces of this puzzle,” said Eric Tao, a executive vice president with AGI.

[email protected] / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/07/06/story4.html

[peanut gallery]

We've discussed 333 Harrison before. I know Jaime from the Rincon Hill Neighborhood blog will be happy to see the park go in.

I don't recall if anyone ever mentioned 220 Golden Gate before. As a refresher, here is the plan for this great looking building from a 2007 article in the Chronicle:



YMCA building to shelter homeless
Robert Hollis
Tuesday, July 10, 2007

The Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. and its partner AF Evans Development Inc. of Oakland have purchased the 97-year-old Shih Yu-Lang Central YMCA building at 220 Golden Gate Ave. in San Francisco to provide shelter for the homeless.

The purchase price was $12.2 million, or about $81 a square foot. Funds for the acquisition came from the Mayor's Office of Housing and financing through U.S. Bank arranged by AF Evans, according to officials involved in the deal.

With funds from the city Department of Public Health and the Mayor's Office of Housing, the Tenderloin group and Evans will renovate the historic 150,000-square-foot building, creating affordable apartments with support services for homeless men and women. The property will also include a holistic health clinic and wellness center with 25 exam rooms, funded and operated by the Department of Health. It will serve the building's residents and other extremely low-income and homeless members of the community.

The project is scheduled for completion in 2010. The Tenderloin group will manage the building.

"Adding a health and wellness center along with housing and other supportive services sets a new standard for the supportive housing model," said Don Falk, executive director of the Tenderloin Development Corp. "It's an incredible opportunity to offer chronically homeless people housing, health services and other critical social support all in one place. It greatly increases their chances of breaking out of the cycle of homelessness."

Completed in 1910, the nine-story Central YMCA is one of the largest buildings along the Tenderloin's Golden Gate corridor. It currently includes a health and fitness center, wellness programs, a neighborhood youth and young adult center, computer and technology labs, a senior center, a 103-room hotel, and offices for several neighborhood non-profit organizations. The YMCA plans to move to an interim location 1½ blocks away while construction is finished on its new home at 377 Golden Gate Ave.

The new owners plan to restore and rehabilitate the structure, updating its antiquated systems while preserving the auditorium, lobby, atrium and mezzanine. A new grand-entry staircase will be built. The project will provide approximately 174 single room occupancy apartments with private bathrooms and kitchenettes. The renovation will also include a variety of common areas, including lounges, kitchens, fitness areas, and laundry facilities.

"This could really be a national model for housing for the homeless because of the involvement of the Department of Health," Falk said. "Finding homes for (the homeless) saves the city's health care system money, and health outcomes improve when people have housing."

"We are thrilled with this partnership," said Carmela Gold, executive director of the Shih Yu-Lang Central YMCA. "It was of paramount importance to us to find a buyer for this building who was deeply committed to continuing to support this community.

"We will be reinvesting the proceeds from this sale to build a new YMCA that will serve the Tenderloin for the next 100 years. We will always remain part of this neighborhood."

[SFView]

From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/MNAP189P39.DTL

High-rises on hold: What to do with empty lots?
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer

Monday, July 6, 2009

Plans to build a high-rise at 535 Mission St. are on hold. (Michael Macor / The Chronicle)


(John Blanchard / The Chronicle)


The vacant lot at the southwest corner of 10th and Market streets in San Francisco. (Michael Macor / The Chronicle)


The vacant lot at the southwest corner of 10th and Market streets sits idle. (Michael Macor / The Chronicle)


This lot at Harrison and Fremont streets was to get 393 condominiums in a 41-story tower. (Michael Macor / The Chronicle)


The vacant lot sits idle at 535 Mission Street in San Francisco. (Michael Macor / The Chronicle)


A vacant lot on the northwest corner of Pine and Kearny streets across from the Bank of America building in San Francisco. (Michael Macor / The Chronicle)



(07-05) 19:08 PDT -- The high-rise boom has gone quiet, and a new challenge faces San Francisco: deciding what to do with land cleared for towers that may not rise for another decade - if at all.


At least a dozen large development sites in the city's South of Market district now sit empty or covered by asphalt because of the recession. If history is any guide, developers will either leave them fenced off or use them as parking lots.

But there's another alternative - one that, if successful, could influence cities across the nation.

With ingenuity and a modest investment, San Francisco could breathe life into these voids until the demand for development returns. Some could be landscaped with fast-growing trees and shrubs that offer environmental benefits. Others could display art or offer casual spots for social interaction.

There are no clear models to follow: Any initiative must be acceptable to landowners, with details worked out in advance regarding such issues as maintenance and security. Done well, though, the payoff could far exceed the cost - creating short-term showcases rather than blight that drags its neighbors down.

Big plans laid low
Parcels stranded by the boom-turned-bust can be seen across the city, but two especially vivid examples are on display at either end of San Francisco's zone of high-rise change, the terrain south of Market Street bounded by the bay, South Van Ness Avenue and Interstate 80.

One is the northeast corner of Harrison and Fremont streets on Rincon Hill, where cars spill from a Bay Bridge off-ramp. The other is the southwest corner of 10th and Market streets, a portal for drivers heading in from the city's western neighborhoods.

Each site was cleared of buildings last year, and the owners have permission to construct towers. Yet each sits in limbo, empty and grim.

At 10th and Market, where 35- and 19-story towers would contain 719 condominiums, bricks are stacked crudely along the edge of a craterlike concrete basement - all that remains of the bank operations center that occupied the corner for decades.

Even the foundations are gone at 399 Fremont St. And instead of 393 condominiums in a 41-story tower, there's a terraced excavation longer than a football field, covered by sand, rubble and straggly weeds.

These sites are conspicuous, but hardly unique: Open parcels throughout the neighborhood have building proposals in the works. Some were cleared recently, others predate the boom. None is likely to be filled anytime soon.

"We are seeing a lull" that in many cases could last several years, said John Rahaim, the city's planning director. "There's the credit crunch as well as the housing slump."

Experimentation elsewhere
The construction freeze isn't confined to San Francisco. And most cities respond the same way - giving developers extra time to break ground while, often, allowing interim use as parking lots.

On Rincon Hill, for instance, developers are required to start construction within 18 months of receiving their planning approvals. If there are delays, they can request a procession of 12-month extensions.

That's what happened last month for two Rincon sites, including 399 Fremont. The Planning Commission voted to extend the approvals, stipulating that the lots be kept free of trash and graffiti and asking owners to come back with ideas on how to make things a bit more scenic.

In other cities, you'll find more novel efforts to fill in the blanks.

-- In New York, sculpture exhibitions may adorn a large downtown site. The concept is the brainchild of owner Trinity Real Estate and the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council, though details are still being worked out.

-- In Miami, elected Commissioner Marc Sarnoff has offered developers a deal: The city will rent empty sites at $1 a year to create temporary parks. The developers would help fund the landscaping, but their entitlements would remain for the life of the lease.

-- After the recession stalled a hotel one block from Seattle's Pike Place Market, developer Urban Visions let food vendors use a portion of the parking lot to serve up barbecued pork in May.

"This is a horizontal canvas we're playing with," said Urban Visions' Greg Smith. "Someday the highest and best use of this corner is a more urban development. In the meantime, this is a way to bring energy and life without a 20-year investment."

The one initiative in San Francisco concerns Octavia Boulevard, the four-block roadway created after the Central Freeway was removed in 2003.

Six years later, the city's vision of midrise housing along the boulevard remains elusive - causing frustrated neighbors to suggest that for now, some of the lots could serve as dog parks or community gardens.

"Our starting point is, how do you make a problem into an opportunity?" said Jim Warshell of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association. "What's there is ugly, as opposed to an asset."

Alternatives to asphalt
Octavia offers a promising start: The lots are city-owned and relatively small. But the stakes are higher south of Market Street.

As long as prominent sites sit neglected in emerging districts like Rincon Hill, they're dampers on change. Imagine if, instead, the city loosened its rules to allow development rights to be extended three or five years - but only if developers in return allow interim landscapes on their land.

This doesn't mean extravagant plantings. On a half-acre lot, for instance, it would cost less than $2,000 to install an irrigation system. Cover the site with fast-growing trees like Brisbane box, and within three years there'd be a leafy bosque taking carbon from the air and sending fresh oxygen toward passers-by.

A developer seeking favorable attention could instead offer a site on a rotating basis to local artists or landscape architects.

Doug Wildmon of Friends of the Urban Forest offers another concept: Join up with a youth job-training program and run a tree farm. Chilean soapbark - well suited to serve as a street tree - could be arrayed in 7-gallon boxes at a cost of $50 per tree. With the proper care, in three years they'd be 12 feet tall - and ready to be sold at a wholesale cost of $150 each.

"You either get fast-growing trees and pulp them, or container trees that increase in size and can be planted somewhere else," Wildmon concluded.

Planning Director Rahaim said the city is open to creative short-term uses.

"The challenge is to make these parcels visually attractive while still sending a message that they're temporary," Rahaim said. At the very least, "it's incumbent on us to work with developers to clean them up, make sure they're safe and not a haven for illegal acts."

Economic tumult aside, today's urban centers are being redefined in remarkable and lasting ways. Neighborhoods are no longer defined by only one or two activities. The blocks south of Market Street offer an increasingly fine-grain blend of culture, commerce and housing.

More and more, that's what people want.

The future of healthy urban centers is the attraction of the place itself. Large empty lots - whether filled with cars or covered with weeds - detract from what can be. Conversely, imaginative use of prominent spaces could signal that San Francisco is a city of innovation, where unpredictability is part of the allure.

It deserves a try.

When plans go awry, lots empty for years
Developers talk of empty lots as short-term blanks, sure to be filled when the economy shifts. But "temporary" conditions have a way of becoming permanent, as these two parcels show.

-- If someone had planted and tended a redwood tree at the northwest corner of Pine and Kearny streets when the site was cleared in the 1970s, by now it could be a statuesque counterpoint to the Bank of America tower across the street. Instead, the fenced-off lot sits mangy and unkempt.

The site was owned for decades by powerhouse developer Walter Shorenstein, who filed a lawsuit in 1981 to block San Francisco's transit fee on new buildings. Not only did the city triumph, it then said that Shorenstein couldn't proceed with plans for a tower at this corner because it would cast a shadow on nearby St. Mary's Square.

"Now, our inclination is to do nothing," he sniffed at the time. The lot recently changed hands, but it's still forlorn, and long overdue for spiffing up.

-- Looking at the small parking lot at 524 Howard St., you wouldn't know this midblock site was approved for a 23-story tower - in 1989. That developer has come and gone since then, as have two others, with construction never quite getting started.

The current owner made noise in 2007 about hiring New York architect Richard Meier to produce a sleek new design - but that was before the economic tide went out yet again. Is there still an entitled project? The city says no, the developer's attorney says yes. One thing is certain: The parking lot won't disappear anytime soon.

- John King

Coming Tuesday
Three stalled tower sites in downtown San Francisco - and three provocative visions from some of the area's most creative designers.

E-mail John King at [email protected].

[WildCowboy]

Imagine the complaints that would arise when the builders finally try to build on the "parks". As much as I hate the empty lots, you have to be careful about what you give away.

[peanut gallery]

Mercy Housing update. I'm still waiting for the red paint to go on the big cement wedge:


Also note the tower crane for the main building is gone. The annex in back still has its crane and is progressing too:

[Kingofthehill]

Why is BART so expensive?!?!

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Why is BART so expensive?!?!

Short story? The structure of the BART tax district encourages providing too much service (both on existing lines and on extensions) to areas that don't have the critical mass of non-peak riders needed to keep costs low through volume of riders. BART peaks worse than any heavy-rail subway-grade transit system in the world because of this. To top it off, even though BART peaks so bad, fares don't change at all during peak periods.

The long story is much more complicated - too much emphasis on expansions outside of the BART tax district, poor management, out-of-control union work rules (the wages aren't that bad, the work rules are absurd).

[BTinSF]

BART is essentially a commuter rail system, not an intra-urban transit system, so, of course, it peaks during commute hours. And to make the case for them, the citizens of eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties have paid the extra 0.5% sales tax for 30+ years like the rest of us. It isn't hard to understand why they demanded service and eventually got it (20+ years after the rest of us). Perhaps there should have been a special taxing district or some other mechanism to keep BART from having to serve the folks east of the hills, but that was not the way things were set up and if you've ever done the 580 or 80 commute, you'd understand why they'd want the BART option even if only for the commute.

BART fares are comparable to CalTrain, the other commuter rail system. But I do hope the BART Board stands firm now and takes a strike if it has to.

PS--Re the work rules. When I used to commute to Concord every day, my train would stop at the yard just before we got to Concord Station and somebody would bring the driver a morning newspaper and a cup of coffee. We would sit there until that somebody arrived, even if it made me and the other passengers late for work.

[BTinSF]

Projects begin to emerge for Upper Market
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 8, 2009


The proposed development at 1960 Market St. would replace a shuttered gas station, in photo below, with 115 condominiums. (Arquitectonica / Arquitectonica)


When San Francisco's Central Freeway came down in 2003, the laid-back Upper Market area caught the eye of developers and planners as one of the city's best places to add housing and small businesses.

But the area's expected growth stalled as planners, city officials and residents spent several years debating the finer points of how the area should evolve.

Now projects are finally starting to emerge, providing a preview of what the neighborhood might look like in coming years.

Approximately 10 developments are in the city's planning pipeline, proposing - among other things - to convert former gas stations into condominiums with coffee shops, stores and high-end grocery stores on the first floor.

And while most of the new construction might be slowed by the tight credit market, developers and community groups are actively negotiating the details of new buildings and the businesses they might house.

Since 1959, the freeway had loomed over Market Street at Octavia Boulevard, creating a psychological barrier that discouraged development in the seven blocks of Market that run west to Castro Street. The 40-foot-high, concrete double decks were damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and ultimately demolished. When one section of the freeway was torn down in 1992, a once-severed row of Hayes Street shops blossomed into trendy boutiques, offering a glimpse of changes that might happen nearby.

But for now, the Upper Market area feels the way it has for years - quiet, given its central location. Storefronts include a comic-book store, dry cleaners, barbers, restaurants, a Safeway and a much higher concentration of gas stations than in many commercial corridors.

All along, city officials looked to guide the area toward becoming a more densely populated and thriving commercial strip, where residents walk and bike to shops and commute on public transportation. In that vein, officials drafted rules permitting new buildings that pack in more units and severely limit parking. Special fees were imposed on builders to pay for affordable housing, parks and other amenities.

Parking issues

Since the new rules were implemented last year, developers generally have tried to lobby the city for more parking than is allowed (one car per residential unit) and disagreements have flared over architecture and building size. But there appears to be consensus that growth - as outlined by the years of planning - could be a good thing.

"For a long time now if you came up Market Street from the Ferry Building you'd hit Octavia and you'd see some gas stations and a Safeway," said Dennis Richards, president of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association, one of several local resident organizations. "The area has had a weird sense of a suburban place. ... We think it's appropriate to develop it in a more urban way where people will be encouraged to associate with each other in a more walkable area."

Two projects planned for the short block of Market Street between Buchanan and Dolores streets presage what the future might hold.

At Buchanan, developer Brian Spiers has received city permission to replace a closed Union 76 station with 115 glassy, modern condominiums in a nine-story building whose corner entrance will be set back several feet from the street for outdoor seating.

Just kitty-corner, the Prado development firm has proposed 80 condominiums in three interconnected structures and a ground floor Whole Foods market. The project will replace the S&C Ford dealership that closed in 2006.

More units allowed

Because of new zoning, Spiers was permitted to build 30 more units into the same amount of space than was previously allowed. He paid about $10 million for the parcel and has had to change his project's design and build less parking in response to community concerns, but he said he thinks it's worth it.

"If you're going to build housing, there is no better place than a shut-down gas station with all of this transportation and shopping and existing infrastructure," Spiers said.

Peter Cohen, who lives in the area and is an advocate for affordable housing and public transit, said that the neighborhood already is thriving but could benefit from well-planned development.

"The question is how you preserve the character of the area while supporting growth," Cohen said. "That's the sweet spot we are aiming for."

E-mail Robert Selna at [email protected].

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/08/BU4V18GQPC.DTL

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

BART is essentially a commuter rail system, not an intra-urban transit system, so, of course, it peaks during commute hours.

Sure, but while you see a dramatic decrease in service levels for commuter rail systems during non-peak times, you don't for BART because the citizens view it (and were sold on it) as a "metro" or "subway" system - meaning minimum 15 or 20 minute frequencies during all hours of operation. BART would cost a lot less to ride if service to the outer stations was cut during non-peak times like you see every other commuter rail system in the world do. The peaking is only (well, not only, but more of) a problem because service isn't allowed to rise and fall with the peaks.

And to make the case for them, the citizens of eastern Alameda and Contra Costa counties have paid the extra 0.5% sales tax for 30+ years like the rest of us. It isn't hard to understand why they demanded service and eventually got it (20+ years after the rest of us). Perhaps there should have been a special taxing district or some other mechanism to keep BART from having to serve the folks east of the hills, but that was not the way things were set up and if you've ever done the 580 or 80 commute, you'd understand why they'd want the BART option even if only for the commute.

Sure, but the entire western and northern sides of San Francisco have never had service either, yet citizens of those areas continue to pay for BART. The fact that there are different municipalities in the outer eastern counties is just semantics, really. The outer stations were built with park and ride lots and the intention of people driving to them. The San Francisco stations were not. It's pretty insane that it takes longer on transit to get from the outer Sunset to downtown than it does from Pittsburg to downtown. The dramatic population increase in the outer areas since the adoption of the BART district has helped drive the extensions (because it has increased the voting influence of those counties) - even though more than half of SF's population has never had access to BART and has paid for the system the entire time (while many of those areas were tiny 40 years ago and only really started contributing decent amounts over the last 20 or so years).

BART fares are comparable to CalTrain, the other commuter rail system. But I do hope the BART Board stands firm now and takes a strike if it has to.

You do bring up another very important reason that BART is so insanely expensive that I forgot to mention - BART basically functions (in many areas) as commuter rail, yet uses proprietary technology and a unique-to-the-US train gauge, making the purchase and upkeep of equipment much more expensive than that of other commuter rail systems (including Caltrain).

[colemonkee]

I really like that Arquitectonica Upper Market project.

[WonderlandPark]

BART is essentially not a commuter rail system. 90% of people think of it like the Washington Metro, the "L" or whatnot. And they are correct. Look at real commuter rail schedules and headways. BART does not fit that model.

CalTrain runs extremely frequently for a commuter rail system, but go look at METRA in Chicago which is a "classic" commuter rail system and you will see that BART really should be classified as a heavy rail system.

[fflint]

BART is both a commuter rail system (out in suburbia) and an inner-city metro system--but it's not very good at either task.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

BART is essentially not a commuter rail system. 90% of people think of it like the Washington Metro, the "L" or whatnot.

If they do, they are wrong. BART follows a single path through San Francisco. Its system is designed to bring people from the suburbs to the Financial District and/or Union Square (and back home again). You can go all over Washington on their Metro or all over Chicago on the EL. You most certainly cannot go all over San Francisco on BART. That's why Muni exists.

BART does serve the function for city residents of providing rail transit to those places--the Mission, Glen Park--that happen to be on the line, so it does have a minor intra-city role. But that's not what it mostly does or was meant to do.