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

[simms3_redux]

^^^I agree with you. I am not in the least bit saying that SF is seeing more construction than NYC. SF isn't even seeing the same level of construction seen in Chicago (well, maybe *today*, but not typically). However, where SF has NYC beat is the concentration of construction and the skyline altering construction. NYC is just so massive, it can eat a few supertalls more subtly than SF can eat 10 new 400+ footers in one low density area adjacent to the existing skyline.

If you looked at a map of NYC/Manhattan construction, you would see more of a spread with a few decade-buildout mega developments (i.e. WTC and Hudson Yards). If you looked at a map of SF, you would see virtually all of the high-rise construction in one very confined area. Add to that the fact that most of these towers are one-off towers. This is all being financed and built by competing groups. This isn't master-planned by one development partnership (or lone developer) as you find in both Miami and New York.

Most of the major national players, from architects to contractors to developers to lenders, are simultaneously building towers that are very tall for the city in one zone (and they all worked very hard to get a piece of the SF pie). This new construction will literally double what is already one of the US's largest skylines, from several angles. THAT is not something that can be said about other cities, not even NYC. That is what I'm saying.

And it's not even all high rises. A new LRT subway is being built underneath the above ground construction. A new transit terminal is going vertical right now (a transit terminal significant enough where there are maybe 1-2 others like it UC, one in New York as part of WTC). SFMOMA is spending hundreds of millions on a starchitect designed expansion, which means 2 luffing cranes up for that.

Can anyone who has lived in SF long enough tell me if there has been a single other transformation of the city as radical as what is happening in S FiDi, SoMa, and adjacent areas? Really throughout the city, but the areas above are going from pure surface lots to a sea of towers in a matter of a couple of years.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

...Seattle has its moments, but the buildings are much shorter.

Not if they build this:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=208776

[SFView]

simms3_redux;6522126

Can anyone who has lived in SF long enough tell me if there has been a single other transformation of the city as radical as what is happening in S FiDi, SoMa, and adjacent areas? Really throughout the city, but the areas above are going from pure surface lots to a sea of towers in a matter of a couple of years.

Other than the 3 years of rebuilding after the 1906 Earthquake, the period between 1958 and 1972 (the middle two images) comes pretty close:
Source: http://www.transbaycenter.org/uploads/bo...20Dept.%20Transbay%20Heights%20Final.pdf

[fimiak]

Wow that picture is even more amazing if you look at the population of SF in those years. SF population actually peaked in the early 1950s and was losing something like 5k a year for the following 30 years.

[POLA]

^A nice little reminder that skyscrapers have got nothing to do with population densities (something the majority of Europe could attest to).

[fflint]

San Francisco's population actually peaked in 2000, 2010, 2013....

As for prior booms, I've lived in the area long enough to remember the 1980s FiDi boom, which made such a widely-perceived impact on the skyline that voters passed draconian limits on new skyscrapers.

[chris08876]

8 Octavia in Hayes Valley Releases Floor Plans, Renderings

8 Octavia is designed by San Francisco starchitect Stanley Saitowitz and developed by DDG and DM Development. It's topped out, which means that the 47 units over ground-floor retail will be ready for their close-up very soon. There are one and two bedroom condos and two and three bedroom penthouses, some of which are two levels. Building and unit highlights are aplenty, including landscapes by Marta Fry Landscape Associates, kitchens by SieMatic, FSC-certified wide-plank oak flooring, roof decks, and more. Pricing hasn't been set, but if the rest of new construction is any indiction, these units will fetch more than $1,000 per square foot.

===============================
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/03/31...lley_releases_floor_plans_renderings.php

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by fflint

San Francisco's population actually peaked in 2000, 2010, 2013....

As for prior booms, I've lived in the area long enough to remember the 1980s FiDi boom, which made such a widely-perceived impact on the skyline that voters passed draconian limits on new skyscrapers.

So Draconian that SF is getting 3 buildings taller than the current tallest, the tallest residential building west of Chicago, the tallest mixed use building west of Chicago, the tallest office building in the west, a renovation of density and height that will put SF on the pedestal with NYC and Chi, and an 1,100 ft. Supertall in the middle of it all. All in one of the most active earthquake zones in the world.

[jaypkatl]

Historical population



Year Pop. ±%
1900 342,782 +14.6%

1910 416,912 +21.6%

1920 506,676 +21.5%

1930 634,394 +25.2%

1940 634,536 +0.0%

1950 775,357 +22.2%

1960 740,316 −4.5%

1970 715,674 −3.3%

1980 678,974 −5.1%

1990 723,959 +6.6%

2000 776,733 +7.3%

2010 805,235 +3.7%

2012 825,863 +2.6%

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

So Draconian that SF is getting 3 buildings taller than the current tallest, the tallest residential building west of Chicago, the tallest mixed use building west of Chicago, the tallest office building in the west, a renovation of density and height that will put SF on the pedestal with NYC and Chi, and an 1,100 ft. Supertall in the middle of it all. All in one of the most active earthquake zones in the world.

Height limits were revised just a few years ago, which is why all those buildings are getting built. Before that, downtown had a height limit of 550' max, with most of the height limits being even lower, and of course ridiculous height limits were passed in most of the rest of the city too. And it was all in response to the massive skyscraper boom in the 60s-80s. And much of SF's height limits remain way too low today, as I'm sure you agree, though at least we got increases in some select areas. Those are the draconian height limits fflint is talking about.

A decade ago, people would have thought it insane that a supertall would go up in SF (or even a new 700-800 footer), because it seemed the height limits would never change, and if there was an attempt to change them, it seemed the NIMBYs would surely succeed in chopping them down again, just like they did in the past.

[mt_climber13]

How was the law able to be revised then? Wouldn't voters need to pass a referendum allowing height increases?

[fimiak]

This is the common area of Market Sq/One Tenth St. Below you can see this morning before the concrete pour, later tonight I will take a shot of the finished thing!

[SFView]

There is little more description of those draconian limits which include Proposition M of 1986 found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Francisco

There is also the Proposition K Sunlight Ordinance of 1984:
Source: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2754

Planning Code Section 295 mandates that new structures above 40 feet in height that would cast additional shadows on properties under the jurisdiction of, or designated to be acquired by the Recreation and Parks Department can only be approved by the Planning Commission if the shadow is determined to be insignificant or not adverse to the use of the park. Also, a recommendation from the Recreation and Parks Commission is required prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

[Jerry of San Fran]

fimiak - Glad to see your post of the artist's rendering of the development on Stevenson Street Tenth Street. The original plan was for covering in the alley, but appears that will not happen. Workers have been working on the site for a very long time. It will be a nice addition to the neighborhood, though I rarely sit outside in San Francisco as it is too cold for my blood most days.

[fflint]

In 1999 SPUR wrote a piece about anti-skyscraper activism in SF generally and 1986's Proposition M specifically, providing more context for those unaware of the rather toxic backlash against skyscrapers in the 1980s.

[fimiak]

The conclusion of yesterday's pour, as promised. Next up, a first look at the massive underground garage going in under Trinity Phase 3.



Enjoy!

[hruski]

How many floors is that garage supposed to be?

[ozone]

From Socketsite today:



An Unexpected Transbay Twist And Block Redesign
With San Francisco’s Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure having determined that "economic conditions create a strong preference for commercial development over residential and hotel development" on Transbay Block 5, a request for proposals to build a 550-foot office tower with ground floor retail on the northeast corner of Howard and Beale has been issued.

Originally slated for a residential tower to rise up to 550 feet on the eastern portion of the block at the corner of Howard and Main, as we first noted yesterday, "unforeseen circumstances" have resulted in an unexpected configuration for the site and tower to rise.

The story behind the unforeseen circumstances which involves the driveway for 201 Mission Street (which runs through the middle of the block), the little Art Deco structure and open space on the corner of Howard and Beale (which is owned by 301 Howard across the street) and, of course, a concern about a potential loss of views:

There's more from their site: http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/...nces_result_in_an_unexpected_transb.html

Basically TJPA attempted to acquire the 201 Mission Street driveway in order to develop the site according to the standard configuration but the property owner thinks that tenant views in 201 Mission Street would be blocked by the tower and so demanded a price far in excess of the market value for the driveway.

To be honest I'm a little confused as to why the city could not use it's authority to make the owners accept a fair market price. But maybe this configuration will result in a cool (better) design. Also why is an office building more desirable than a residential, hotel or a combination? Anyone have any answers?

[ozone]

Again from Socketsite:
From a low-rise Starbucks proposal to six-story condo project

This is the site of the failed (rejected) Starbucks' proposal on the southwest corner of Market and Sanchez. The new plan is for a six-story building with nine condos over a ground floor commercial space. Plans for 2201 Market Street have been submitted to planning for review.

Original Socketsite article:http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/...for_new_condos_on_market_at_sanchez.html

Now


Future (hopefully)


preliminary rendering

[fflint]

^Awesome proposal for 2201 Market, in an area that has seen a tremendous amount of new construction (historically speaking). I noticed last week the current owners have painted the exterior of that rather shabby--and vacant--structure, and pointed out to my partner that it should be something much bigger. Now it will be!