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

[timbad]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

More stunning news. I see on Socket Site that the old CAAA building is slated to be demolished to make way for a development by the Emerald Fund, from Van Ness to Polk St. fronting Hayes! The new building will be 12 stories, 120 feet tall. The old AAA building was not a looker at all before it was clad in (I think) the 1960s...

I actually don't think it looked that bad once upon a time, but I'm glad to see it go now - I've always thought that 100 Van Ness was the building *least* in need of a makeover between City Hall down through the Market/Van Ness intersection.

[timbad]

although nothing is happening with the demo of the low building on the corner of Third and Folsom yet, they are working on the Folsom-side entrance and sidewalk of the re-clad portion. looking west into the sun (sorry):



and looking the other way:



and, this may be old news by now, but I only just noticed: down the street, the gas station at Fourth and Folsom has been removed (I knew it had been closed a while back) to make way for the new Central Subway Moscone stop (I wish they were putting the stop right at the corner instead of hidden behind the new corner building, for visibility's sake).

[Jerry of San Fran]

timbad's post - Central Subway Moscone Stop - thanks for the update photos - I had been by the gas station many times but had no idea the site was to be a MUNI underground station!

I think the subway is a gross waste of money for what it will give us. Maybe one day it will make sense.

[BushMan]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

timbad's post - Central Subway Moscone Stop - thanks for the update photos - I had been by the gas station many times but had no idea the site was to be a MUNI underground station!

I think the subway is a gross waste of money for what it will give us. Maybe one day it will make sense.

Couldn't agree more about the subway. Unbelievably expensive (now over 1.5 BILLION for just over a mile and a half line, I believe?) and meanwhile Muni as it currently exists is absolutely pathetic.

Just yesterday I was foolish enough to attempt taking the 30 or 45 from the Stockton Tunnel to the Marina area. These are obviously two major lines, either one would have been OK but I waited around twenty minutes and nothing. Then both a 30 and a 45 came in rapid succession, both so stuffed to the gills that they didn't even bother stopping. Waited another 10 minutes or so and finally gave up in disgust. Anyone who rides Muni at all knows this is typical.

So sad, that subway could be rendered obsolete RIGHT NOW by simply running more 30 and 45 busses. Unfortunately it's not about actually improving service efficiently it's all about money and politics.

[fimiak]

The Central Subway is incredibly necessary and I do not think $1.5 billion is too much to expect for 4 new subway stops in one of the most dense parts of the country with unionized labor. The city is growing and is planning for 2019-2020s with a pop of 900k+, so more buses is certainly not a long term solution. Its only unfortunate that the line does not continue to the wharf. Tourism is still the #1 industry in SF, even if locals rarely go to the wharf themselves.

[fflint]

^I expect the Central Subway will indeed be extended to the wharf, and sooner rather than later. There has been some talk among planners about then running the line west out to the Marina.

[BushMan]

Originally Posted by fimiak

The Central Subway is incredibly necessary and I do not think $1.5 billion is too much to expect for 4 new subway stops in one of the most dense parts of the country with unionized labor. The city is growing and is planning for 2019-2020s with a pop of 900k+, so more buses is certainly not a long term solution. Its only unfortunate that the line does not continue to the wharf. Tourism is still the #1 industry in SF, even if locals rarely go to the wharf themselves.

Look, I love a good subway as much as anyone but Muni has way bigger fundamental problems that this won't improve in the least. For example, how will this improve the cattle-car otherwise known as the 38 Geary? If Muni can't handle it's current system adequately what makes you think it will do any better with this? You say more busses is "not a long-term solution"- how about doing it as a short-term solution until this magical subway gets built? Or would that be a far too simple, logical and cost-effective solution?

I agree with you about one thing- It's absolutely criminal that this thing isn't going all the way through North Beach and to the Wharf, that's just one more reason why it's such a joke. Obviously I think the project is ill-advised based on any reasonable cost/benefit analysis but if you're gonna do it it would at least be nice to have it cover more than a distance that is actually fairly easily walkable and won't force tourists to get off at Chinatown and then still have to get on the 30 to get near the Wharf!

[northbay]

Don't want to get too off-topic here but clearly both transit expansion and greater frequency are needed. Must one come at the expense of the other? If there's a (political) will, there's a way.

[timbad]

noticed this evening that the Century at 15th/Sanchez and Market was finally all uncovered:





and a bonus shot of the Whole Foods at 38 Dolores all lit up and alive:

[simms3_redux]

RE: The Century.

Ummm, I like?!? I was NOT expecting that based on the renderings. The facade that faces Market is nice and the back half of the facade on Sanchez is nice. The "front" piece on Sanchez is a little...bleh.

[Jerry of San Fran]

timbad - The Century

Thanks for the update. I will be across the street at Pesce (my first time dining there) and will look at the unveiled building.

Orange seems to be in vogue. The building is very masculine, attractive, but nothing new to my eye. I'm so glad to see that corner finally properly developed. It was an eyesore for too long.

[fflint]

The Century is looking great! Yeah, the 15th St. facade isn't as nice as the Market St. one, but overall this is an attractive result.

[tech12]

Socketsite is reporting that Google is thinking about developing a bunch of office space in mission bay (at the old salesforce site) or leasing a bunch of it in the transbay tower:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...ig_move_into_san_francsico.html#comments

[simms3_redux]

^^^I think Google will do the Mission Bay campus. My reasons?

1) Google is already a real estate owner and developer in the Valley

2) Google likes to control every aspect of everything it is involved in, and they like to think they can "do anything" over there at the company, even real estate

3) A large, attractive urban campus in a new, mixed-use neighborhood is still a big appeal and can make a statement depending on architecture, size, features, etc

4) TB Tower could actually be too small for them (if they are thinking 1-2 million SF)

5) Google is not an office tower tenant - it's a constricting environment for a firm that seems to be bent on promoting an image of stepping outside of the box and pushing out boundaries

6) Signage/naming rights - are people really going to call the "Transbay Tower" the "Google" Tower? Is Google really going to put a multi-colored sign at the top and will the City even permit that?



Questions:

1) Does this mean that Google is leaving Hills Plaza, either way?

2) What's their RFP?

3) What's their timing? Phased move-in or immediate need?


I would love Google to anchor TB Tower because given their credit/safety and name, of course the developers would love that, but also they would ensure the tower gets built. All that's sure right now is the foundation, not the tower itself.

[mt_climber13]

Not only would Google's move into the Transbay Tower ensure he tower itself would be built, but also every planned tower around it, as a ripple effect. That would be huge news.

There are many more benefits to Google moving into the tower:

Direct access to high speed rail to Southern California (Google's move could actually put more investor and government confidence into high speed rail because of this)

Direct access to CalTrain

Closer to BART than Mission Bay

Closer to MUNI and Central Subway

Closer to other tech startups in Soma. Nobody cool, fresh, and innovative wants to lease space in Mission Bay. That's where the sterile pharmaceutical companies are plopped. They all want to be in Soma.

[simms3_redux]

Me

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Not only would Google's move into the Transbay Tower ensure he tower itself would be built, but also every planned tower around it, as a ripple effect. That would be huge news. Fortunately every planned tower around TB is already UC, well except for 1st and Mission.

There are many more benefits to Google moving into the tower:

Direct access to high speed rail to Southern California (Google's move could actually put more investor and government confidence into high speed rail because of this)Yea but it doesn't necessarily translate into public funding for HSR or for the city to bring CalTrain into the TB Terminal

Direct access to CalTrainYea not during Google's first term, aka ~10 years, which basically means this is not true, plus why would they need CalTrain anymore if they're in the City? They'll put their city employees in their new digs, and thus those employees will likely be car or Muni users.

Closer to BART than Mission Bay

Closer to MUNI and Central Subway

Closer to other tech startups in Soma. Nobody cool, fresh, and innovative wants to lease space in Mission Bay. That's where the sterile pharmaceutical companies are plopped. They all want to be in Soma.This defeats your first argument. If Google went to Mission Bay, then others would presumably follow. Mission Bay is also arguably just as close to most of SoMa as the South Financial District, which itself borders the very "stodgy" North Financial District where the suits work.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Fortunately every planned tower around TB is already UC, well except for 1st and Mission.

No

Re:Caltrain
Having direct access to Mountain View world headquarters via train (well I'm not sure how far their campus is from the station in mt. View but still) would be a big deal if you axe me.

Re: Mission Bay
Googles move to Soma would ensure development of the proposed projects nearby, which would not necessarily be occupied by startups, as the proposals are for class A space, and tech wants class B structures typically of concrete and heavy timber construction. Google is still a pretty corporate business and would attract other corporate businesses as well as it would create a lot of confidence for the newly developing area. I think Facebook and Yahoo would be next.

I do think the Mission Bay looks more Google, but if they are moving to a city, why keep their suburban office park mentality? Also, do they want to go through the ringer of SF development or locate to a tower that is already approved and under construction?

Locating to the tower would skyrocket property values near BART like Oakland and Berkeley.

[fimiak]

I would love Google to move into TBT but Mission Bay makes way more sense to me, so projects can literally be separated out by building, with the entire zone becoming a sort of campus. Mission Bay is very close to the Caltrain, although the TBT will be a lot closer to the extension opening date by the time its actually occupied (Google could move into TBT late 2017, Caltrain earliest would be 2019).


After working in office towers in NYC, I think they are too restrictive for a company like Google...however...Google does not necessarily want this space for its engineers, so it could just be Google's sales, support, and marketing that moves. I think the decision depends on who Google wants to move into SF.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Mission Bay is also arguably just as close to most of SoMa as the South Financial District, which itself borders the very "stodgy" North Financial District where the suits work.

I disagree. The South Financial district is completely in SOMA, whereas Mission Bay is only partly in it, and the salesforce site google is looking at is definitely not in SOMA. Also, the south Financial district/SOMA is already a hot area for tech companies. That's not to say Mission Bay would be a bad area for them to locate, but I think for Google, transbay (or elsewhere in the south financial district) would be better, with the exception of possibly not having enough office space for them.

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Fortunately every planned tower around TB is already UC, well except for 1st and Mission.

This isn't true. There are some approved towers which haven't started yet, and plenty of towers that are still in the proposal stage, in addition to the lots that are zoned for skyscrapers (including two 750' sites) but have no proposals for them yet.

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

6) Signage/naming rights - are people really going to call the "Transbay Tower" the "Google" Tower? Is Google really going to put a multi-colored sign at the top and will the City even permit that?

I researched this a while back when I wondered why our skyline has almost no corporate signage despite it being pretty common for other cities (especially Los Angeles).

The one notable exception is One California, with its US Bank logo (formerly Airtouch and Mutual Benefit Life), which is grandfathered in. At some point in the 1970s, the planning code was changed to prohibit signage above 100 feet on downtown office towers. That rule explains why 555 Mission has the "Deloitte" logo at a somewhat awkward height near its base.

So, there will be no Google logo at the top of the Transbay Tower (although they could probably light the crown with the Google colors). I'd like to believe Google will take the Transbay Tower, but culturally Mission Bay feels more Google-ly.