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

[JRinSoCal]

^Any renderings of the finished product out there?

[1977]

Originally Posted by JRinSoCal

^Any renderings of the finished product out there?

http://www.spur.org/files/event-attachments/Marc_Babsin_Presentation.pdf

[timbad]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Is Caltrain going to the TBT part of the 2019/electrification project or will that have to be separately funded?

separately funded. I think electrification has most funding in place, but the extension doesn't.

here is a brief pdf on the electrification which mentions funding sources

[POLA]

Wow, that 101 polk looks great!

[simms3_redux]

Looks like both Curbed and Socketsite have come out now with new information regarding NEMA.

Curbed has more renderings, photos, and all of the floorplans now available, as well as timing. Looks like the South Tower will be ready for occupancy by October (these are the floorplans we see, and likely the pricing from the sounds of it), and the nicer looking/taller North Tower won't be ready until March of 2014, and I suspect these ~$4-5psf rents (and lower on the lowest floors) apply only to the South Tower.

Smallest studio is 469 SF, which is large for SF and exactly the size of my place. It starts at $1950/mo on the 2nd and 3rd floors ($4.15psf)...and I pay more in the Gateway apartments, would be nice if this provided some relief if I decide to stay here (sign that SF is due for new apartments when an older 70s complex has higher rents than luxurious new construction!). A 1BR starts at $2,683 for a sizable 789 SF on the 2nd floor ($3.40psf) to $4,399 for the 969 SF plan on the 12th floor.

So I'm just now learning that this entire development is 754 studios and 1 BRs...no 2BRs? Even if 2 BRs start at $5K, it's easier for 2 people to swing $2500 than for 1 person to swing $3K and up, which is likely the vast majority of units...so the whole building will be filled with essentially single-occupants making $100-$300K. This should be good for renters in Soma, Fidi, along Van Ness, and in some of those neighbs around there who are now competing with well-paid techies for cramped Craigslist apartments. It'll be interesting to see the trickle down effect, if there is one - now I'm paying attention to the newish Ava and Archstone communities in the area to see if what I couldn't afford this year comes down in price. I have a feeling that walk-ups in Pac Heights, Castro, Duboce Triangle, Hayes Valley, and Mission Dolores are still going to command a premium due to location...thoughts there?

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/06/24..._to_support_techsavvy_lifestyle.php#more

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...asing_office_to_open_on_monday.html#more

[1977]

Facade mockup for the new SFMOMA expansion via the Snohetta Twitter feed:


Source: https://twitter.com/Snohetta_/status/349190160635809792/photo/1


Source: www.sfexaminer.com

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by 1977

Facade mockup for the new SFMOMA expansion via the Snohetta Twitter feed:


Source: www.sfexaminer.com

Looks good - question: is the patio in lower/central right part of SFMOMA already?

Also, does anyone know if the owner of the W put up a fight? Talk about blocked views! They just lost a ton of value in a lot of rooms and at $90M in, they are likely a larger taxpayer than the conglomerate of Four Seasons condo owners fighting the Millennium proposal.

[Jerry of San Fran]

While I was away in Scotland last week the north tower of the Rincon condo building became visible from my apartment in the Civic Center.

I see lots of news & pictures posted while I was away!


Rincon II - June 24, 2013 by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

[timbad]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Looks good - question: is the patio in lower/central right part of SFMOMA already?

Also, does anyone know if the owner of the W put up a fight? Talk about blocked views! ...

pretty sure the answer to both questions is yes.

the patio thingy looks like the existing sculpture garden outside the little cafe.

http://www.sfmoma.org/about/press/press_exhibitions/releases/391

and:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/W-Hotel-objects-to-SFMOMA-expansion-2345842.php

[1977]

New website for 75 Howard:

http://75howard.com/landing

...which included this rendering of it and how it relates to the Transbay Tower, 181 Fremont, 50 First, and 201 Folsom off to the left.

[OneRinconHill]

That really looks quite unfortunate.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill

That really looks quite unfortunate.

Really? How is the skyline not impressive? Or are you referring strictly to 75 Howard? I like the design. Nothing earth shattering but nice infill and it sure beats a ugly parking garage right on the waterfront.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by timbad

pretty sure the answer to both questions is yes.

the patio thingy looks like the existing sculpture garden outside the little cafe.

http://www.sfmoma.org/about/press/press_exhibitions/releases/391

and:

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/W-Hotel-objects-to-SFMOMA-expansion-2345842.php

And they had to use traffic as an excuse - the addition literally covers up 25% of the W's rooms, and a good portion of those rooms are probably view rooms...this is a much more severe "value kill" potentially than a slender condo tower that is a good 200+ yards away from another condo tower. I'm all for the SFMOMA expansion, just trying to understand how the power works for property tax payers - W's owners pay on a $90M basis, which probably makes them a larger taxpayer than the conglomerate of Four Seasons owners complaining against Millennium Partners and using shadows as an excuse. Considering that W's owners are out of Hong Kong and likely some of the Four Seasons owners are int'l and not always in town, the two ownership groups seem similar to me? Who has more clout?

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

And they had to use traffic as an excuse - the addition literally covers up 25% of the W's rooms, and a good portion of those rooms are probably view rooms...this is a much more severe "value kill" potentially than a slender condo tower that is a good 200+ yards away from another condo tower. I'm all for the SFMOMA expansion, just trying to understand how the power works for property tax payers - W's owners pay on a $90M basis, which probably makes them a larger taxpayer than the conglomerate of Four Seasons owners complaining against Millennium Partners and using shadows as an excuse. Considering that W's owners are out of Hong Kong and likely some of the Four Seasons owners are int'l and not always in town, the two ownership groups seem similar to me? Who has more clout?

I have no sympathy for the W. They built a butt-ugly building that has been a sore on the skyline for years. It looks like a high-rise tilt-up. I'm thrilled to see something blocking it on at least one side.

[simms3_redux]

^^^LoL I totally agree...but just trying to understand who has more power in this city - wealthy local/int'l condo owners who may be powerful Bay Area businessmen (or absentee international owners), or commercial property owners who may pay a huge amount of taxes? Or a powerful museum where both a principal for commercial properties in the city and a wealthy/powerful condo owner in the city who runs a company elsewhere in the Bay may sit side by side on the board?

As someone still fairly new...watching these things get built or not get built based on various "issues" such as shadows, wind tunnels, traffic, etc...I'm having a difficult time following any real pattern.

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by 1977

New website for 75 Howard:

http://75howard.com/landing

...which included this rendering of it and how it relates to the Transbay Tower, 181 Fremont, 50 First, and 201 Folsom off to the left.

such an unattractive skyline, even with the new additions. hopefully transbay tower comes out less bulks and more like the hong kong tower it was copied from.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

such an unattractive skyline, even with the new additions. hopefully transbay tower comes out less bulks and more like the hong kong tower it was copied from.

Settle down, that's just one relatively unflattering angle of part of SF's skyline...a skyline most people seem to find very attractive. And I think most people would still disagree with you that it looks unattractive from that particular angle in the rendering. 75 Howard does look pretty boxy and ugly though, I hope they tweak that design.

[tall/awkward]

While I don't think much of 75 Howard (unless it really does include that Goldsworthy sculpture), I like the included renderings of all the other buildings, especially now that 50 First is up there! Pics don't do that drive onto/off of the bridge justice...

[tech12]

Originally Posted by tall/awkward

I like the included renderings of all the other buildings, especially now that 50 First is up there! Pics don't do that drive onto/off of the bridge justice...

And there are 7 more sites zoned from 300'-750' where you would be able to see the towers within the view shown in that rendering (524 Howard at 450', the 750' site next to it, transbay block 6 at 300', 399 Fremont at 450', the two sites at the temporary transbay terminal at 450' and 550', and a 300' site across the street from that). So assuming all those towers get built too, then that view will be even more filled-in and impressive than what the rendering shows. In total, I count 20 sites in the south financial district/Rincon Hill area that are zoned for 300'+ and have proposed/approved/under construction projects on them, with 5 more that are likely to have towers proposed for them as well.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

such an unattractive skyline, even with the new additions. hopefully transbay tower comes out less bulks and more like the hong kong tower it was copied from.

That rendering is pathetic--181 Fremont is on the wrong side of the Transbay Tower (which looks overly fat), 50 First is mistakenly in front of 50 Fremont, and 201 Fremont doesn't show the second tower. If an accurate scene were done, including the Rincon Hill towers, it would look much more impressive.