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

[fflint]

Originally Posted by BushMan

fflint, your comment that Silicon Valley housing is "completely unregulated" is simply incorrect.

There are no civic controls on the price of rental or purchase housing in any part of Silicon Valley. Period. New below-market developments are voluntary and marginal--what perncetage of Silly Valley homes are actually subsidized? Two percent? Three percent? Not even worthy of note. Silicon Valley is proof that Bay Area housing costs way too much--despite being totally sprawlburbian and unregulated--because of limited supply. The supply is limited by NIMBYs. NIMBYs are douchebag hogs, whether liberal or conservative. Just look at how it's so very expensive to buy or rent a home even in suburban areas like Morgan Hill.

[Gordo]

^Well, that's not entirely true. San Jose (and perhaps other cities, I'm not sure) does have an inclusionary housing policy:

http://www3.sjhousing.org/program/inclusionary.html

The percentages are buried in those links, but it's basically that 15% of for-sale units and 9% of rental units in any new development of more than 20 units must be offered for various below-market prices.

[fimiak]

I've mentioned this before, but if President Obama is able to pass his immigration plan that allows for highly skilled engineers to basically walk into the US and work, then the Bay Area is going to have an immediate critical housing problem that hasn't even been worked into any sort of SF local planning policies. Sure it seems premature to plan housing for future immigrants based off an unsigned bill, but its possible that this legislation would bring tens of thousands more to SF Bay area within a few short years, worsening the crunch. Many of them will be creating jobs in the process...etc etc.

This is all besides the fact that SF should expect 150-200k new residents over the next two decades.

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by IMBY

It puzzles me why Oakland, or Berkley, a short Bart trip across the Bay, doesn't take advantage of this, and allow more unrestrained development over there!

One thing I keep noticing, in these development photo's, is how easy it is to excavate underground in SF, it looks like sandy ground to dig into. Why was I thinking it was rocky, and it required dynamiting to go underground?

There's a good reason, here in Las Vegas, why the casino hotels, and downtown office buildings, have above-ground parking ramps. Underground parking in Las Vegas? Blast away, blast way!!!

oakland is sort of taking advantage of it with a significant increase in building along the bart lines, but most of oakland is either too far off (in the hills or some place) or too scary for most people to want to live there. once you get to piedmont and vast swathes of temescal and especially berkeley, you've ferocious nimbyism, with neighbors practically self-immolating to prevent densification. yet another situation where the boomers are fucking all of us over.

also, excavation for parking is far more expensive than simply putting it at grade or in a concrete structure above ground.

[fflint]

Oakland would seem a natural place to densify. Much of it is urban, the flat areas have good bones and are good for transit, walking and biking. NIMBYs don't control much of Oakland, either, although the more upscale neighborhoods like Rockridge are totally off the table.

The problem is to find areas in Oakland that can be densified properly but that aren't controlled by NIMBYS--and that are not overrun with violent crime. Because the city laid off so many hundreds of police officers in the last few years, crime rates have skyrocketed (e.g. armed robbery up 34% in the northern neighborhoods in just the past year) and that seriously depresses demand. Thus, Oakland can only leverage the spillover demand for urban housing in very specific locations, almost all of which are in or adjacent to downtown. Jack London Square and Uptown are popular and have seen a lot of new construction. West Oakland is a mix of gentrification and dysfunction, but it can definitely handle new highrise housing in all the parking lots around the station. Fruitvale is also popular, urban and not entirely yoked by radical NIMBYism--that's a really good candidate for upzoning.

[simms3_redux]

I need an education on Prop M. THIS article was an interesting one discussing the current pipeline. It referenced "the last time Prop M cap was busted" and how developers are itching for approval now before the number of proposals/deliveries becomes an issue.

So is Prop M based on applications? Or can you apply, but you must apply for a delivery year and the planning department enforces when/if projects can deliver in a certain year? Also, with upzoning due to the Central Subway, does that mean certain areas are exempt to a degree from Prop M? Thought it was uniformly applied city-wide.

From the article above, I found information on a few more projects in the works.

An 11-story 220-room hotel at 250 Fourth Street (Fourth and Clementina)
http://sfmea.sfplanning.org/2011.0038E_PMND.pdf

Tishman Speyer wants to build a 700,000 SF office complex at 598 Brannan in two connected 160 ft buildings.

The proposal is to demolish the structures on the project site on Lot 005 of Assessor’s Block 3778 and construct an eleven-story, 160-foot-tall, 655,150 gross square feet (gsf) office development separated into one nine-story building and one 11-story building connected by pedestrian bridges at the fifth and sixth levels. The project site currently contains a two-story, 45,874 square foot (sq. ft.) retail/wholesale building and parking lot which are part of the San Francisco Flower Mart complex.

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/notice/2013.0370U.pdf

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/...ets-ride-on-central-subway.html?page=all

"Harrison Gardens"

The amended project proposal would demolish all existing buildings and construct one mid-rise and one high-rise office building that together total 730,940 gsf. At the corner of Fourth and Harrison streets, the proposal includes construction of a new 16-story, 404,082 gsf office building with a proposed height of 240 feet. The high-rise office building would have floor plates of approximately 25,700 gsf. The remainder of the site would include construction of a six-story, 95-foot tall office building connected to the high-rise building at the ground floor. The mid-rise office building would have floor-to-floor heights of 15 feet and two inches. The average area of the mid-rise floor plate would be 54,476 gsf, for a total of 326,858 gsf. The
amended project proposal also includes construction of a two-level subterranean parking garage with up to 575 parking spaces and 113 bicycle spaces. Six on-street loading spaces would be designated on Perry Street to serve the proposed project.

http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/files/notice/2005.0759E.pdf


The article below talks about some of these projects and offers a few details on the 610-620 Brannan proposal:

At 610-620 Brannan St., Zappettini Properties is seeking permission to construct a 567,000-square-foot office building on the southeastern corner of the San Francisco Flower Mart. The property is partially used as a surface parking lot, although the smaller building at 620 Brannan St. is occupied by a tenant of the wholesale flower market. The parcels together represent less than 10 percent of the Flower Mart facilities, according to John Zappettini, who heads Zappettini Properties.

A few blocks south on Brannan Street, developers have submitted plans to build 1.4 million square feet in three separate projects. At 501-505 Brannan St., TMG Partners is proposing a $20 million, 200,000-square-foot office building on a surface parking lot that is owned by Bank of America. Heller Manus is the architect. Amy Neches, a partner with TMG Partners, declined to comment.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/...lding-boom-looms-over-soma.html?page=all



My breakdown of known projects that are definitely under way in that specific area alone are as follows:

2010 Deliveries
100 Van Ness - (-)370,000 SF - Can we count taking office space off the market as negative SF since CSAA relocated to Walnut Creek and the building was essentially repurposed as apartments?


2011 Deliveries
Nothing


2012 Deliveries
Nothing


2013 Deliveries
140 New Montgomery - ~295,000 SF - I think all of the space is spoken for (or <10% left to lease)


2014 Deliveries
680 Folsom - 468,783 SF - spoken for with 2 major leases
50 Hawthorne - 52,827 SF including some space that can be considered retail I think - not yet developed (corner parcel of 680 Folsom)
Foundry III - 289,684 SF - about halfway to 2/3 spoken for it seems like
535 Mission - 303,780 SF - haven't heard about ANY leasing activity yet

Total - 1,115,074 SF - 40-50% left to lease it seems (450,000-560,000 SF un-leased)


2015 Deliveries
350 Mission - 432,095 SF - spoken for
222 Second - 447,336 SF - have not heard about ANY leasing activity here yet

Total - 879,431 SF with about half spoken for and 447,336 SF remaining to be leased


2016 Deliveries
181 Fremont - 404,000 SF - Have heard rumors, but nothing official about any leasing activity
333 Brannan - 170,000 SF - was just rendered and announced

Total - 574,000 SF - nothing spoken for yet


2017 Deliveries
TransBay Tower - 1,370,000 SF - no leasing activity yet


Total for 2010-2017 = 4,233,505 SF excluding potential new proposals less 370,000 SF taken off market = 482,938 SF/YR (so meets Prop M overall with a lot of room to go, right???)

Also assuming that hospital office space doesn't count? Forgot to include Mission Bay deliveries and random smaller developments - let's call it 600,000/yr, so we're about 75% of the limit in the midst of a building boom, seems like we'll do ok right?

[edwards]

Off topic but here's a nice webcam at the Transbay Temp. Terminal: https://www.dropcam.com/demo/b32ff7beb69249da9d2ffdee872d2680

[DIESELPOLO]

Originally Posted by fflint

...The problem is to find areas in Oakland that can be densified properly but that aren't controlled by NIMBYS--and that are not overrun with violent crime...Thus, Oakland can only leverage the spillover demand for urban housing in very specific locations, almost all of which are in or adjacent to downtown. Jack London Square and Uptown are popular and have seen a lot of new construction...

Smart assessment @fflint - I agree. A conversation with my gf last night - whom is from Oakland - seemed to have tinges of NIMBY-ism, but her frame of interpreting the issue of housing affordability was a sympathetic one.

Whereas, I advocate more development because the population moving here is not presented with enough supply, her feeling is, "Why should we accommodate new residents when we ought to be concerned with housing affordability for our current residents? The people moving here are going to come regardless."

1. I don't think people will come here "regardless". It certainly feels that way now, but we are in a never-ending competition for talent, and talent (i.e., people) needs housing.
2. If the concern is about current residents, housing options for new residents should be of concern as the new will push out the old. Rent laws here in the Bay Area mitigate this, but if a landlord has the choice between a low-touch, high income, credit worthy single tenant and a higher-touch, middle income family with relatively good credit, the economics and property management implications of the former is clear for a small business property owner averse to risk.

My first time in a while trying to articulate to someone my reasoning for encouraging more development, when people assume new development creates gentrification on its own. Be kind.

PS - She also mentions there's "...no more room." I'd be preaching to the choir, but there are too many 2-story buildings and empty lots in Oakland alone to count.

[easy as pie]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

Today the garage was demolished in preparation for the new highrise.


1415 Mission St. Demolition by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Total for 2010-2017 = 4,233,505 SF excluding potential new proposals less 370,000 SF taken off market = 482,938 SF/YR (so meets Prop M overall with a lot of room to go, right???)

i don't know how stupid prop m is supposed to work of if the board of supes can exempt certain zones or projects from it, but those are some good scoops. man, brannan and harrison, wow.

also, no photos but the cathedral hill hotel demo prep is well underway.

[peanut gallery]

^Wait a minute, is that a current rendering for 1415 Mission, which means they've totally redesigned it? If so, thank goodness. That's much better looking than the previous version I've seen.

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^Wait a minute, is that a current rendering for 1415 Mission, which means they've totally redesigned it? If so, thank goodness. That's much better looking than the previous version I've seen.

Woah, I didn't realize 1415 Mission had been redesigned.

It looks like Arquitectonica has saved us from Heller Manus yet again: http://www.buildgc.com/groundup/portfolio-item/1401-1415-mission/

[peanut gallery]

Outstanding. I'm much more enthusiastic about this getting underway now. What an amazing transformation this intersection will have undergone when this and the one across the street are completed (not to mention the entire neighborhood).

[Jerry of San Fran]

1415 Mission St. at 10th St. - if that is the final design it is a dramatic change from the original plan. Lot of balconies originally, now none.

[Jerry of San Fran]

edwards - nice video of the transportation station at the link you provided.

I had occasion to walk through the South of Market Street neighborhood bordered by 9th Street, Division Street and Market Street several times this week. The area was an industrial/residential neighborhood when I moved to the city in 1969 and is still full of auto sales and service businesses, light industrial and a slew of other warehouse type buildings. I think it will be a long time before the area changes dramatically soon. It may look run-down to some but that is the nature of light industrial and does not mean the area is "run-down".

[jbm]

over the last week or two it has seemed like minor work has begun on trinity 3. i've seen some equipment and it seems like some dirt has been pushed around. its nothing significant, but it definitely feels like something is going on.

[fflint]

Here's a bigger rendering of Arquitectonica's latest:



Not their best work, but not bad and certainly better than the prior iteration.

[simms3_redux]

I think it's atrocious.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

I think it's atrocious.

I'm with simms on this one. The placeholder looked like boring filler but this one looks like Trinity Place which I also dislike. Of course it ultimately comes down to the quality of the glass/facade.

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

I think it's atrocious.

I agree. Looks like a cheaped-down version of the cheaped-down second building in Trinity Place. I hate to say it but Heller Manus' boring blob would have been better here.

[biggerhigherfaster]

For those who are hating on this updated render, keep in mind, this is supposed to be housing for low-income ppl. If you were expecting the Infinity or Lumina...your expectations are unrealistic. I think this area around "Mid-Mission" is in serious need of more residents and gentrification; this project represents a vast improvement over what was there and most of what surrounds it, particularly to the East