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

[spyguy]

1400 Mission

[fflint]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Here's an article that's related to the previous one I posted above from last Friday's issue of the San Francisco Business Times.

Most new San Francisco apartments can’t convert to condos

J.K. Dineen, Reporter-San Francisco Business Times

Could San Francisco’s swing from condos to apartments swing back just as quickly? Not likely: Just 10 percent of the 8,000 apartments to be completed in the next three years are candidates for conversion, according to Polaris Pacific.
Of the 35 projects in the pipeline, just seven have a chance of converting to condominiums, it found. The vast majority do not, either because they are owned by a real estate investment trust or because they are financed by a fund specifically earmarked for rental housing.

Exceptions include Crescent Heights’ 320-unit 45 Lansing St. and Principal Real Estate Investors’ tower at One Rincon Hill. Other projects that could go condo include 333 Fremont St., 973 Market St. and 72 Townsend St. There are also five condo projects under construction. These include: Marlowe, Oyster Development’s 98-unit development at 1800 Van Ness; Linea, a 115-unit development at 1998 Market St.; and Pocket Development’s 300 Ivy St.
Chris Foley, a principal with Polaris Pacific, said apartments are fetching such high rents that it doesn’t make sense to convert them.
“You are not going to see many conversions, but you will see a balancing of inventory going forward,” said Foley.

Architect Glenn Rescalvo of Handel Architects, who is designing Crescent Heights’ Mid-Market project, said there is no difference in quality between the apartments and condos.
“There is not one rental building where the infrastructure is mediocre. They are all as good as any condo building we have done,” he said. “If you are going to pay that much up front, it doesn’t make sense to cut corners.”
Other developers are collecting sites to be ready for the next condo cycle. Trumark Urban has acquired six sites around the city and plans to build for-sale units on all of them.

“The shift back to condos is almost ready to start,” said Oz Erickson of the Emerald Fund, which develops both apartments and condos. “Selected projects with very strong sponsors are doing it. I will bet you One Rincon goes condo — even though it is being built for apartments.”

I always assumed Rincon II would be condos. Thanks for posting these articles--they're much more informative and comprehensive than other sources.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by spyguy

1400 Mission

Where did you get these spyguy (no credits) and who is developing this? Does it have any connection with NEMA? From the little I saw previously, I'm assuming that answer is no.

[easy as pie]

^ those are new renderings of an old project propost in re what we see there, i'm in love. can't believe how much this hood is improving, so great...

[cwilly]

1400 Mission is not affiliated with NEMA. It is the off site BMRs for 201 Folsom.

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by tech12

Holy exaggeration batman!

If you're making $100,000 a year, you do NOT need roommates in SF, unless you need to eat caviar at every meal, heat your home by burning money, and need to fly your private jet every day. You should be able to live anywhere you want in SF on that kind of pay, comfortably, and definitely with no roommates. Hell, I make only $20,000 per year, and have my own apartment in SF (a studio), with no roommates! If I can do it, than someone making $100k can.

Right on. I have a massage guy who makes well over $100K a year (and I'll bet he doesn't report it all...) who complains about how expensive it is to live in the city because of the tech crowd - but he lives in a beautiful huge rent controlled flat with three roommates - while taking off several times a year to go to places in Asia, Africa and Europe. Some people definitely need a reality check.

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

^ those are new renderings of an old project propost in re what we see there, i'm in love. can't believe how much this hood is improving, so great...

Except you can't trust renderings in a lot of cases. These particular renderings - although for 1400 Mission - make NEMA look quite nice when in fact it is turning out pretty hideous IMO.

[simms3_redux]

^^^I think the opposite - I think the renderings make NEMA look hideous when in fact it's turning out to be a pretty non-blase cool development.

[tech12]

Socketsite has a new renderings up for 706 Mission, and the planning commission is expected to approve it this week:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...enderings_for_a_big_soma_tower_to_r.html

With the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Millennium’s proposed 550-foot tower to rise at 706 Mission Street certified two months ago, this week San Francisco’s Planning Commission will hold a special session in which the 47-story tower with up to 215 condos over a four floor Mexican Museum is expected to be approved to be built upon the site.

Amongst the items on the Commission’s agenda, reclassifying the project site (click image above to enlarge) from a 400-foot to a 520-foot Height and Bulk District and agreeing that the building’s shadows would not be adverse to the neighborhood or Union Square.

The adjacent Aronson Building would be rehabilitated and attached to the tower. Parking for the development would be below-grade within the existing Jessie Square Garage with a total of 470 parking spaces, of which 210 would be public and 260 private.

Originally Posted by cv94117

Right on. I have a massage guy who makes well over $100K a year (and I'll bet he doesn't report it all...) who complains about how expensive it is to live in the city because of the tech crowd - but he lives in a beautiful huge rent controlled flat with three roommates - while taking off several times a year to go to places in Asia, Africa and Europe. Some people definitely need a reality check.

To be fair, I don't have a car to pay for, don't have enough money to go on a vacation, don't have enough money to eat out more than a couple times per week, and can't buy shiny gadgets all the time...But I am living here on around $20k (as are tens of thousands of other SF residents), which I've seen way too many people claim is impossible. I guess some people just can't make any comprises whatsoever, no matter how small, and need to spend so much money that $100k doesn't cut it for them. I would be so happy to make $100k per year and to live here...it's mind blowing that some people act like it's not enough. Of course the situation is a bit different for families, especially the larger they are, but even then tons of families live here on less than $100k per year.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by tech12

To be fair, I don't have a car to pay for, don't have enough money to go on a vacation, don't have enough money to eat out more than a couple times per week, and can't buy shiny gadgets all the time...But I am living here on around $20k (as are tens of thousands of other SF residents), which I've seen way too many people claim is impossible. I guess some people just can't make any comprises whatsoever, no matter how small, and need to spend so much money that $100k doesn't cut it for them. I would be so happy to make $100k per year and to live here...it's mind blowing that some people act like it's not enough. Of course the situation is a bit different for families, especially the larger they are, but even then tons of families live here on less than $100k per year.

My friend I have witnessed people in this area who routinely earn >$1,000,000 in income each year complain with the most righteous furor that they are being oppressed and made poor due to Obama's tax increases, while servers living off of tips making under 50k are standing right behind them filling their water. Don't even be surprised anymore, just scoff and move on.

[fflint]

I wish 706 Mish didn't have so many parking spaces. The private spaces I get, but why build another large public garage in the most transit-rich corridor west of New York?

[tech12]

Originally Posted by fflint

I wish 706 Mish didn't have so many parking spaces. The private spaces I get, but why build another large public garage in the most transit-rich corridor west of New York?

At least it's underground, and may placate some of the NIMBYs who whine about the coming parking shortage apocalypse whenever something new gets proposed. Oh who am I kidding, those NIMBYs would then complain that the underground parking interferes with the purity and historic positioning of the soil.

Originally Posted by fimiak

My friend I have witnessed people in this area who routinely earn >$1,000,000 in income each year complain with the most righteous furor that they are being oppressed and made poor due to Obama's tax increases, while servers living off of tips making under 50k are standing right behind them filling their water. Don't even be surprised anymore, just scoff and move on.

Yeah I'm not surprised, but it never ceases to annoy/puzzle me how a lot of people completely exaggerate the cost of living here. Yeah it's expensive, but the people who make really good money and then act like it's tough to live in SF? They should give me their pay, and I'll show em how to live here nicely on it

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by fflint

I wish 706 Mish didn't have so many parking spaces. The private spaces I get, but why build another large public garage in the most transit-rich corridor west of New York?

Isn't the garage already there? From the article above:

Parking for the development would be below-grade within the existing Jessie Square Garage with a total of 470 parking spaces, of which 210 would be public and 260 private.

I had understood from previous plans that this actually removes about 250 public spaces in order to create the 210 private spots (and infrastructure to separate the private/public portions). Still sounds like that's the plan, no? I don't think there's any new garage being built.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Isn't the garage already there? From the article above:

I had understood from previous plans that this actually removes about 250 public spaces in order to create the 210 private spots (and infrastructure to separate the private/public portions). Still sounds like that's the plan, no? I don't think there's any new garage being built.

Just re-read that paragraph, and yes, I think you are right. I think I was just distracted by the high ratio of spaces-to-units and missed how they already exist.

Let me revise my earlier sentiment: I like this project, without reservation!

[NOPA]

I really like the rendering for this tower and am getting excited for it. I do wish it was a bit taller, like in the 600, 700, or even 800 ft range, but after the Socketsite article pointed out that the nearest neighboring height, the St. Regis is 480, I think there will fit well into the skyline (skylines should be like mountains, with peaks and valleys, not a flatline).

As for parking, fflint, I somewhat disagree with you. I think there shouldn't be any maximum or minimum parking limits, but rather let the market (and developer) decide how many spots there should be, making sure that the project fits within a walkable, transit, and streetscape \-friendly framework of course.

[fflint]

I'm totally cool with eliminating any regulation requiring developers build a certain number of parking spaces--since each garage space adds tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of construction, zero-parking units are cheaper for developers to construct and cheaper for buyers to purchase. The negative impact of zero-parking construction is limited only to those those who choose to live in San Francisco and who also choose to own and park a car in the city. It would be easy for most residents to avoid feeling that impact.

I oppose eliminating parking maximums, however, because unlimited parking would negatively impact everyone: transit riders, cyclists, pedestrians and even those who drive. Should the 'market' decide to build tens of thousands of new parking spaces in San Francisco--and just look to 8 Washington for a cue on how the market wants as much car parking as it can possibly get--the additional cars and attendant increase in congestion would gridlock surface traffic. The city's extensive bus, streetcar, and light rail network, which today averages only 8mph as it is, would grind to a halt, inducing abandonment of our longstanding civic investment in trains, buses, electric trolleys, etc. Meanwhile, the physical hazards to cyclists and pedestrians inherent in urban car traffic--hundreds of injuries, dozens of deaths annually right now--would also only increase. I prefer a more progressive approach that prioritizes our investment in public transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure and jealously guards those modes' viability.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by cwilly

1400 Mission is not affiliated with NEMA. It is the off site BMRs for 201 Folsom.

Whoa--I missed the BMR angle about this upcoming project. I think fflint mentioned it before, but it's sad that it will cover up most of NEMA's cool looking black south tower. I like NEMA precisely because it is so different.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Whoa--I missed the BMR angle about this upcoming project. I think fflint mentioned it before, but it's sad that it will cover up most of NEMA's cool looking black south tower. I like NEMA precisely because it is so different.

Yeah, I was bummed when I realized that--such a waste. I think the parts of NEMA with the matte black facade is pretty slick.

[1977]

Spur's ("urbanists") Flickr page has some great shots of the demo work for the new SFMOMA expansion. I had no idea this had begun. There are a lot of great pictures of other projects as well.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/urbanists/8754650925/in/photostream/lightbox/

[simms3_redux]

Taken today.