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

[fflint]

Never mind

[Jerry of San Fran]

I see that concrete has been poured at 1400 Mission St.

[aerogt3]

Originally Posted by tech12

First off, who are you to say who has business living here or not? I'm a pretty poor person, and could potentially benefit benefit from 15,000 new affordable units, protections from evictions and protections on rent control, as could hundreds of thousands of other SF residents.

ME ME ME ME ME ME. I want my below market rate apartment. To hell with the 10 middle class people who are driven out of the city when their rents rise to help cover mine. ME ME ME ME ME.

All the "affordable housing" plans I have seen are basically shifting money around, but the average price of housing in SF is supply driven as demand is clearly very high. SF needs more construction, going higher than 4 floors.

[Jerry of San Fran]

View from the Civic Center of the new housing being built by the Catholic Church. It will house the soup kitchen known as St. Anthony's.

[simms3_redux]

From the 1 today I think I noticed a tower crane up for the Chinatown subway station. Can anyone confirm?

[tech12]

Looks like the projected cost of the Warriors arena is rising, and it's definitely not getting built by 2017 as originally planned:

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/...t_the_warriors_moving_to_sf_in_2017.html

Not surprising at all, as this seems to happen all the time, everywhere, with all kinds of projects. But I'm sure the NIMBYs will use it as an argument against the arena.

Originally Posted by aerogt3

ME ME ME ME ME ME. I want my below market rate apartment. To hell with the 10 middle class people who are driven out of the city when their rents rise to help cover mine. ME ME ME ME ME.

1. Tons of middle class people benefit from rent control, I don't know where you and others get the idea that it's only poor people (who are clearly lazy and self-entitled!) that have it.

2. Your claim that my argument is nothing more than a selfish "me me me me me" argument is hilarious, because I'm not just talking about me. I'm talking about me and literally hundreds of thousands of other SF residents. Further more, it's a hypocritical argument, because one could easily apply it to people like you, who apparently think the poor and middle class don't deserve to live in SF (but you deserve it of course!), or to many landlords that have no problem with completely price-gouging the population to the point that huge portions of it can't live here anymore...just so that they can make a ridiculous amount of money rather than a boring old large amount of money. Sounds like quite a "ME ME ME" mentality to me.

3. Rent control is NOT the reason SF is so expensive. The perpetual, decades-long lack of sufficient housing supply is the main reason, by far...and it's something i mentioned in the post of mine you quoted, and my next post in this thread...but I guess you didn't read that far, and got angry the second you saw someone who appeared to be supporting rent control in any way rather than greatly exaggerating how much it hurts the market, and then dismissing it as completely useless.

4. I already said that rent control is not perfect, and a lot of people have it that don't need it. It would be nice if this could be changed somehow. But to completely abolish it now, without first building tens of thousands of housing units to help saturate the market, would result in nothing more than tons of middle and lower class San Franciscans getting priced out of SF, as tons of landlords scramble to raise their rents to the astronomically high market-rate level.

And finally, we've already been told twice to stop having political discussions in this thread. So PM me if you want to argue about this more, though I don't really have anything else to say that I haven't said already.

[Jerry of San Fran]

The last windows will probably be installed in the next day or two so this will be the last view of the unfinished residential floors that I will have. It is hard to think that it is coming to conclusion! I look forward to seeing the building without the crane (in 2 months?). I really like the way the architect turned tower Number II 180 degrees so that we can see both sides of the design. I must say that it is an exciting day for me.

View from the Civic Center

[timbad]

Brannan St in SOMA is getting some solid infill these days as the development ripples expand out of TransBay and Rincon Hill. besides 333 and 345 Brannan just west of Second St...


source

... there is also 270 Brannan down the street to the east



with the Second St and South Park improvements also coming to the area, this part of the city seems to be getting another momentum push in its gradual evolution toward a more active and lively place

[Paul in S.A TX]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Potrero Hill NIMBYs have already made it very clear through lawsuits that they don't want density and height along the eastern waterfront, along Mission Bay and Dogpatch.

The huge One Rincon Hill complex, probably the largest residential project in the city, is 700 units. But I don't see any plans for project nearly that size in the works. But that is what is going to take to reach those goals. So with all of the NIMBYism in SF, I don't see how any of this is possible.

I would love to live in San Francisco. Its one of my favorite cities.

[pghusa]

Hi all, love your thread but I have a quick question.

Back in the early 1970s Bay area residents protested the "Manhattanization" and one of the targets was a U.S. Steel planned skyscraper. Being that its been over 40 years and building names change can anyone in the know on skyscraper origins and history tell me if it was indeed built or did U.S. Steel scrap the project? Thanks.

These are some helpful items:

News article.

A historical analysis

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by pghusa

Hi all, love your thread but I have a quick question.

Back in the early 1970s Bay area residents protested the "Manhattanization" and one of the targets was a U.S. Steel planned skyscraper. Being that its been over 40 years and building names change can anyone in the know on skyscraper origins and history tell me if it was indeed built or did U.S. Steel scrap the project? Thanks.

These are some helpful items:

News article.

A historical analysis

Based on the massing illustration and the buildings indicated (Alcoa, et al), that appears to be where One Market is built.

[theskythelimit]

Originally Posted by pghusa

Hi all, love your thread but I have a quick question.

Back in the early 1970s Bay area residents protested the "Manhattanization" and one of the targets was a U.S. Steel planned skyscraper. Being that its been over 40 years and building names change can anyone in the know on skyscraper origins and history tell me if it was indeed built or did U.S. Steel scrap the project? Thanks.

These are some helpful items:

News article.

A historical analysis

It definitely was not built and yes, US Steel did scrap the project.

[aerogt3]

Originally Posted by tech12

1. Tons of middle class people benefit from rent control, I don't know where you and others get the idea that it's only poor people (who are clearly lazy and self-entitled!) that have it.

2. Your claim that my argument is nothing more than a selfish "me me me me me" argument is hilarious, because I'm not just talking about me. I'm talking about me and literally hundreds of thousands of other SF residents. Further more, it's a hypocritical argument, because one could easily apply it to people like you, who apparently think the poor and middle class don't deserve to live in SF (but you deserve it of course!), or to many landlords that have no problem with completely price-gouging the population to the point that huge portions of it can't live here anymore...just so that they can make a ridiculous amount of money rather than a boring old large amount of money. Sounds like quite a "ME ME ME" mentality to me.

If there is a fixed supply of housing (there is), and you lower the price on some units to make them more affordable (via rent control or other means), the prices of the remaining units will increase. Those units are occupied not only by rich people. Somewhere in SF, a middle class family is struggling with rent, maybe even being pushed out of the city, because their rents are artificially high in order to keep yours artificially low.

You like to paint EVERYONE who's not under rent control as rich, but the reality is that YOU are pricing out middle class people.

The biggest problem is SF's blanket 4:1 ratio on housing space to land area, but let's not pretend rent control isn't increasing prices just because you are lucky to be one of the people who benefits from it.

[fimiak]

Rent control is not only economically foolish, but morally wrong. It creates two classes of home occupancy, which is against any democratic idea of fairness. Those that have their rent artificially lowered by a blanket law are taking advantage of the city and its most valuable resource, land. If you are earning 80k or more and have rent control then you are greatly contributing to pushing out the middle class. I'd look into Hayek's experience with rent control in Vienna in the 1920s, or even Nixon and his price controls of the 1970s. It is the prejudiced result of market interference, it creates huge inefficiency in the housing market, and it needs to be phased out. Rent control should have been always determined by renters income rather than age or location of the housing.


Rent control should be replaced with rent stabilization which will allow rates to rise to market prices at a maximum percentage of increase per year, so as to make the transition to a market rate rent system over two decades.

[Jerry of San Fran]

As I suspected would happen, NEMA is experiencing the effects of high wind in the neighborhood. It will be interesting to see how those push out windows perform in a really strong storm. Many years ago the Merchandise Mart (now Market Square) would lose a couple of plate glass windows on the corner till management got smart and installed smaller windows.


Sign on the door of the main entrance today (02/03/2014)

[Jerry of San Fran]

I see rebar is being installed in the foundation today.

[fimiak]

You beat me to it. Here's a panorama version of the site at least. Click for a big view.

[pghusa]

Originally Posted by theskythelimit

It definitely was not built and yes, US Steel did scrap the project.

Thanks wanted to be sure.

[pghusa]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

Based on the massing illustration and the buildings indicated (Alcoa, et al), that appears to be where One Market is built.

Thanks for the location information, much appreciated!

[timbad]

Originally Posted by timbad

Brannan St in SOMA is getting some solid infill these days as the development ripples expand out of TransBay and Rincon Hill. besides 333 and 345 Brannan just west of Second St...

...

ooh, and pre-leased at that