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

[minesweeper]

Originally Posted by cwilly

I'm not sure at this point if the site just south of 333 Fremont is called 375 or 399, but I went by this morning and heavy excavation is in full swing.

UDR, the developer, is calling it 399 Fremont. It's great to see that one finally get going.

Speaking of 333 Fremont, they've launched a website with a bunch of different floor plans, but no prices yet: http://www.333fremont.com/

[Jerry of San Fran]

JBM - thanks for the update. I have only been in the bar once in 42 years & had not realized that the name had changed! :>) It has had a very unattractive front as long as I can remember, so any remodel will be an improvement. The new highrises are having a ripple effect in the area.

[Jerry of San Fran]

I love the yellow cover that has appeared in the foundation. fimiak, a good photo opt from your NEMA perch.

[simms3_redux]

The latest buildings to Rise:

350 Mission (now above street level and working on lobby area)
45 Lansing (now ~floor 3 and about to shoot up like ORH North)
222 Second (one step ahead of 1400 Mission whereby the first pour is done and some rebar is going in)

1400 Mission (about to do first pour and ready to rise)
1415 Mission (excavating...about to make a pour?)
1321 Mission (excavating)

And let's not forget about the Hampton Inn on Mission (15 floors) that is rising right now.

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by Jerry of San Fran

Construction question: why do all the foundations have these square holes/indentations in them? Thanks

[Jerry of San Fran]

pseudolus - "square holes in the foundation"- a friend in construction tells me that the low area is for the sump pump.

[jbm]

a few random shots from my trip to whole foods today:

100 Van Ness from a couple blocks south and west - I think the glass is up to floor 6 or 7.



8 Octavia - first time I've seen glass up.



Dolores and Market, don't know the address.

[WCArch]

Awesome to see all this new development in SF. Some of the buildings going up are pretty cool. I find it interesting how the two Rincon Hill towers are affecting the skyline. I thought the one made it look unbalanced but the two together actually look pretty good, at least from Oakland. Also, I saw some interesting renderings on the new Air Traffic Control Tower at San Francisco International. Heres the site:

http://westcoastarch.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-air-traffic-control-tower-at-sfo.html?view=classic

West Coast Architecture is a really neat site too. Brand new but gonna be a hit, covers a lot of stuff on the West Coast.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by WCArch

Awesome to see all this new development in SF. Some of the buildings going up are pretty cool. I find it interesting how the two Rincon Hill towers are affecting the skyline. I thought the one made it look unbalanced but the two together actually look pretty good, at least from Oakland. Also, I saw some interesting renderings on the new Air Traffic Control Tower at San Francisco International. Heres the site:

http://westcoastarch.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-air-traffic-control-tower-at-sfo.html?view=classic

West Coast Architecture is a really neat site too. Brand new but gonna be a hit, covers a lot of stuff on the West Coast.

Thanks, checked out the blog and it is very informative and has lots of renderings! Congrats on getting into SLO.

[WCArch]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Thanks, checked out the blog and it is very informative and has lots of renderings! Congrats on getting into SLO.

Thanks! I hope to post frequently! and I appreciate it very much! cant wait for SLO!

[timbad]

another shot of the 100 Van Ness re-clad:

[aerogt3]

Originally Posted by BushMan

^^^^^

#6 and #7 sound great, everything else is utter bullshit IMO.

1-5 will do absolutely nothing to "solve" anything, as usual they will simply enable many people who have no business living in SF to stay here because the all-powerful "City" has deemed they are sacred cows.

Of course everyone else will pay more as a result but who cares as long as the mayor and BOS can pat themselves on the back over how "compassionate" they are.

EXACTLY.

Why is there nothing to address lack of density in that plan? Most of SF is zoned for 4 sq ft of living space for each sq. ft of land area. Perhaps increasing that could increase supply?

Rent control is a complete joke. Keeping a small group of people who shouldn't be in the city there at absurdly low prices, at the expense of a huge swatch of middle class people who's prices are drastically inflated. A simple look at price distribution of rentals for cities with and without rent control, you can EASILY see that the policy is benefit for the few at the expense of many.

EDIT: Here is some old data for San Francisco:

[tech12]

Originally Posted by aerogt3

EXACTLY.

Why is there nothing to address lack of density in that plan? Most of SF is zoned for 4 sq ft of living space for each sq. ft of land area. Perhaps increasing that could increase supply?

Rent control is a complete joke. Keeping a small group of people who shouldn't be in the city there at absurdly low prices, at the expense of a huge swatch of middle class people who's prices are drastically inflated. A simple look at price distribution of rentals for cities with and without rent control, you can EASILY see that the policy is benefit for the few at the expense of many.

EDIT: Here is some old data for San Francisco:

Rent control is not a complete joke, and it benefits SF's middle class too. 170,000 of SF's units--about half of them--are rent controlled. That's a lot of residents that you seem to think "shouldn't be in the city", including a lot of people who were born and raised here. Of course rent control does screw with the market, and there are people who could afford market rate rents who have rent control, who probably shouldn't have rent control....so maybe the rules can be modified somehow so that only those who need it get it. But rent control isn't even the main factor causing un-affordability in SF, It's the lack of housing supply that's doing that, and a lot of people with rent control can't afford the city otherwise. And they're an important part of SF: the middle class, working class, immigrants, artists etc. Like I said in a previous post, the last thing most people want is for those parts of SF's population to be priced out, and for SF to become nothing but a rich person amusement park...which is what would happen for the most part if rent control were abolished today. Prices wouldn't just immediately drop across the board. Before you see any price drop, you'd see most landlords with rent controlled buildings jump at the opportunity to finally raise their rents to the crazy market-rate levels, and there would be a ton of evictions, particularly in SF's lower and middle class areas, where people are less able to deal with much higher rents.

I think the only way abolishing rent control wouldn't have that affect is if we first build enough housing units to meet demand, or at least get close to it. The 50,000 (mostly market rate) units in the pipeline right now is a good start.

[tall/awkward]

Not to get off topic, but I agree with tech12. SF is finally starting to embrace the idea of dense/highrise housing, especially in close proximity to public transportation, as a more sustainable way of life. But what sense would it make if the people who build and maintain all our nice new housing can't afford to live in the area, and have to commute long distances to get here? And don't forget all the local retail businesses, and the lower income people who work for them. In order for this system to work, they need to be able to live nearby as well.

100 Van Ness lookin' good! Would love to see the Meier Tower join it and Nema some day...

[fflint]

Never mind

[a very long weekend]

yeah, can it with the discussion of rent control - which, at any rate, isn't going anywhere so it's pointless even to think about.

if this holds, it'd be a major breaththrough: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/..._street_development_could_be_agai_2.html

[tech12]

Sorry for starting the rent control argument again, it just gets on my nerves when people act like it's only the wealthy who "belong" in SF.

[fflint]

Never mind

[biggerhigherfaster]

Curbed is reporting plans for a 400-room hotel next to SFO. Let's see if the NIMBYs can find good reason to stop this project.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/30/a_sneak_peek_at_sfos_upcoming_400_room_luxury_hotel.php

[theskythelimit]

Originally Posted by biggerhigherfaster

Curbed is reporting plans for a 400-room hotel next to SFO. Let's see if the NIMBYs can find good reason to stop this project.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/30/a_sneak_peek_at_sfos_upcoming_400_room_luxury_hotel.php

I don't think there will be too much protest against it. There was a Hotel at SFO, Hilton, before the International Terminal was built. Plus, it on airport property with a major freeway between the proposed Hotel and Millbrae.