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

[a very long weekend]

don't forget 1433 bush http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...polk_gulch_stories_and_a_nonformula.html

and i guess 2655 bush which is big for diviz
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...o_2655_bush_street_development_unde.html

there's a couple other projects up that way that may get started next year, though it's not clear.

it's possible that trumark will also get started late next year on their market street project http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/10/designs-modern-12-story-building-rise-market-street.html

[c33f]

March 13, 2004



November 25, 2006



December 29, 2014



Completed in this timeframe (>100 m)
ORH South 184 m / 54 F (above main entrance)
ORH North 165 m / 47 F
Infinity I 128 m / 41 F
Infinity II 113 m / 36 F

U/C as of 29 Dec. 2014 (>100 m)
399 Fremont Street 134 m / 42 F
340 Fremont Street 134 m / 40 F
45 Lansing Street 131 m / 39 F
LUMINA I ~130 m / 42 F
LUMINA II ~120 m / 37 F

Can also see Transbay Block 6 (~100 m / 32 F) and 222 Second Street (113 m / 26 F) in second picture.

399 + 340 Fremont Street


45 Lansing Street


Transbay Block 6 + LUMINA I & II


ORH North & South + 340 Fremont Street

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

That Franklin St tower - looking at this tower it doesn't look well built. Like, at all.

Well...I hope they're right! Just like simms, I was questioning the strength of the steel framing since it looks like toothpicks. Here's the explanation: http://www.sfhog.com/1450-franklin-construction-update-winter-2014/

It was reminding me of the Citicorp Tower case: http://sustainableengineeringsystems.com...ineering-ethics-the-citicorp-tower-case/

[JWS]

Originally Posted by AndrewK

I missed this development the first time around. For anyone else like me, here's what has been released in the way of rendering:

I believe this was a conceptual rendering only, however.

[fflint]

S.F. housing pipeline fills up with 50,000 units

Marlize van Romburgh
San Francisco Business Times
December 24, 2014

San Francisco has more than 50,000 new housing units in its pipeline, led by mega developments at Parkmerced, Treasure Island and the Bayview waterfront.

There are 958 projects in San Francisco's development pipeline, according to a recent report from the city's planning department. Of those, 75 percent are exclusively residential and 17 are mixed-use with a residential component. Only 8 percent of all projects in the city are exclusively commercial.

While there are a handful of megaprojects, most proposed developments are small — one to three units — the city noted.

But the three most active areas for residential development — Bayview and Hunter's Point, Treasure Island and Parckmerced— represent about 25,800 planned units. That's half of all new housing units in San Francisco's pipeline. It's important to note that those projects are still decades in the making.

Downtown San Francisco represents the next-largest chunk of the city's residential project pipeline, with well over 3,000 units in the hopper. The majority are projects of 50 to 250 units.

"The 'hot spot' for much of this development is Market Street at various sections of it," the report said. "While this may seem a response to the recent acceleration of technology companies locating in the area, many development projects here predate the last recession, during which they were idle. As financing improved, many projects came back."

The Potrero neighborhood follows, with just under 3,000 units planned. Most of those are projects of more than 250 units.

About 21 percent of the projects in the pipeline are already under construction. These represent 6,700 housing units and 5.4 million square feet of commercial space.

About 20 percent of the projects — another 4,100 housing units and 2.1 million square feet of commercial space — have received building permits and some are currently entering construction.

[shakman]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Well...I hope they're right! Just like simms, I was questioning the strength of the steel framing since it looks like toothpicks. Here's the explanation: http://www.sfhog.com/1450-franklin-construction-update-winter-2014/

It was reminding me of the Citicorp Tower case: http://sustainableengineeringsystems.com...ineering-ethics-the-citicorp-tower-case/

Could it be possible advances in the production of steel could allow structural steel to be lighter yet provide similar or even better structural integrity?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by shakman

Could it be possible advances in the production of steel could allow structural steel to be lighter yet provide similar or even better structural integrity?

If you follow the link, it states "A notable aspect of the building’s design includes application of a prefabricated internal frame system that requires bolts and collar connections for onsite assembly rather than more conventional welding. The manufacturer claims their system’s installation is faster and safer, and the finished frame is lighter and more seismically sound, when compared to competitive steel and reinforced concrete frames."

[chris08876]

Over in nearby Alameda:
==================

Development team picked for $500 million Alameda Point project

A development partnership plans to invest up to $500 million to start the remake of the first 68 acres of the former Alameda Naval Air Station into a signature neighborhood intended to help attract 8,000 new jobs to the island city.

The plans envision retaining a portion of the air station's World War II-era buildings for commercial space with an eye on increasing the number of small-scale manufacturing, retailing and artisan-based businesses that the area already supports and adding up to 800 homes.

The housing would largely finance the infrastructure. Alameda Point Partners plans more than $100 million for infrastructure that should benefit the entire 878-acre Alameda Point redevelopment area. Proposed improvements include $5 million for a waterfront park and $10 million for a ferry terminal to connect the neighborhood to San Francisco's Embarcadero terminal, plus a $5 million sport complex and new transit and utility corridors.

=========================================
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/...waterfront-housing-offices-srmernst.html
=========================================

Originally Posted by fflint

S.F. housing pipeline fills up with 50,000 units

I wonder how many of these units are slated for affordable housing? 50,000 units is quite a large amount. Just for comparison, Boston wants that many units over a 10 year period and they are nowhere near the 50,000 mark. Very impressive indeed.

[mt_climber13]

Almost half of those 50,000 units include Treasure Island, Bayview, and Park Merced, which are 20 to 30+ year projects. (And Treasure Island isn't even in the city)

Treasure Island: 8,000 units
Park Merced: 9,000 units
Bayview: 12,000 units

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

(And Treasure Island isn't even in the city)

yes it is.

It is frustrating that so many of those units won't get built for decades though. We need 50,000 new units now, not in 20-30 years.

[simms3_redux]

^^^Treasure Island is in the city limits.

Bayview and Park Merced unit counts above are total when finished, not net new units. Going off of memory, Park Merced for instance is already ~3,500-4,000 units and they are keeping all of those units, and keeping them rent-controlled, but in phases will add about 5,000 units in additional towers and mid-rises, not displacing any current residents who wish to stay.

Bayview, I believe, is similar. Hunter's Point is all new as there is hardly any residential there now. Plans to redevelop housing projects are to essentially double unit counts, so there is a "net" increase.

Overall, I think the 50,000 housing unit number is a "net" increase, or net increase goal.

[mt_climber13]

Great article on Socketsite about the disparity between job growth and housing growth in SF.

In 5 years, 7,000 housing units have been built. But in those same 5 years, 74,000 residents (many with good paying jobs) have moved in. This is what is driving housing costs through the roof.

SF will never be "affordable," at least to the regular joe, but it can take steps to make it less of a gilded urbe, which would be building 50,000 housing units in 5 years, not 35 years.

And the only way to do this is to upzone and to be aggressive at counter suing anybody who makes ridiculous lawsuits against projects that are legally entitled for frivolous, personal reasons. Put an end to the asinine "environmental review" process which derails projects for years and ends up making the city even more expensive.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Great article on Socketsite about the disparity between job growth and housing growth in SF.

In 5 years, 7,000 housing units have been built. But in those same 5 years, 74,000 residents (many with good paying jobs) have moved in.

To be clear, the Socketsite piece notes "the number of employed residents has increased by 74,000" since January first of 2010, not that 74,000 employed people moved into the city from somewhere else.

[AndrewK]

excavation is continuing at 350 Bush:

[/URL]
(this was taken quickly on my phone so its not the best)

500 Pine is moving along similarly, but I was in a rush and didnt have time to snap a pic of that site unfortunately.

[Jerry of San Fran]

A forest of steel is now on the construction site at 350 Eighth Street. I'm amazed as to how fast it is being built. (view is from my 27th floor apartment in the Essex Fox Plaza). The red building on the right bottom is at the corner of Folsom & 9th Streets.

350 Eighth Street - 01/05/2015

[Ant131531]

Honestly, from the outside looking in as a non-SF resident who reads the development of the city a lot, it almost seems like SF has to manhattanize itself if it wants to keep up with demand and from what I read, NIMBYism is high here especially since a lot of people don't want highrises and towers to block their views, but that's the only way for the city to add more units.

This will also begin ruining some of the more human scaled neighborhoods that SF is famed for and the views that they offer.

But I mean, if Paris can do it with a sea of 4-6 story apartment buildings and pack 2.2 million people in the same area, SF can do it too, but it would require the city to be completely rebuilt essentially. That obviously won't happen.

SF has about 840k people or so? Another one million wants to live in the city. That's just physically not possible at this time, thus housing prices gets pushed to the absolute threshold. The city is kind of stuck in a rut, but that's what happens when you become a very desirable, world class city.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Honestly, from the outside looking in as a non-SF resident who reads the development of the city a lot, it almost seems like SF has to manhattanize itself if it wants to keep up with demand and from what I read, NIMBYism is high here especially since a lot of people don't want highrises and towers to block their views, but that's the only way for the city to add more units.

This will also begin ruining some of the more human scaled neighborhoods that SF is famed for and the views that they offer.

But I mean, if Paris can do it with a sea of 4-6 story apartment buildings and pack 2.2 million people in the same area, SF can do it too, but it would require the city to be completely rebuilt essentially. That obviously won't happen.

SF has about 840k people or so? Another one million wants to live in the city. That's just physically not possible at this time, thus housing prices gets pushed to the absolute threshold. The city is kind of stuck in a rut, but that's what happens when you become a very desirable, world class city.

The city can easily make it to 1.1 million with only a few changed corridors like Van Ness, Geary, West SoMa, Hunters Point, Treasure Island, etc. With current building we will probably reach 900k by 2020 and 1 million by 2030. Also, the city draws in lots of people from neighboring cities and counties each day for work, so I would imagine well over 1 million are here any given day. As a former manhattan resident, SF will never be able to manhattanize, nor to become Parisian, it simply isn't possible. SF can draw on its own strengths, however, and become the best it can be in its weight class. I still believe 1200' towers are on the horizon for the 2020s.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Honestly, from the outside looking in as a non-SF resident who reads the development of the city a lot, it almost seems like SF has to manhattanize itself if it wants to keep up with demand and from what I read, NIMBYism is high here especially since a lot of people don't want highrises and towers to block their views, but that's the only way for the city to add more units.

This will also begin ruining some of the more human scaled neighborhoods that SF is famed for and the views that they offer.

But I mean, if Paris can do it with a sea of 4-6 story apartment buildings and pack 2.2 million people in the same area, SF can do it too, but it would require the city to be completely rebuilt essentially. That obviously won't happen.

SF has about 840k people or so? Another one million wants to live in the city. That's just physically not possible at this time, thus housing prices gets pushed to the absolute threshold. The city is kind of stuck in a rut, but that's what happens when you become a very desirable, world class city.

Most of the city looks like this:



Charming?

Hardly.

But it's the dirty secret that SFers don't want the outside world to know about- yes, the Victorians and cable cars and beautiful homes built upon steep hills is only a fraction of SF. Most is built as cookie cutter stucco low density housing.

I've outlined a very loose, unscientific map of what I mean- the enclosed red bordered area is comprised of this type of development:



If the entire city limits were built of the 3 and 4 story multi unit buildings that you designate as "human scale that SF is famed for," the city would easily have over 2 million people.

I say, re- built all the single story single family homes built in the western and souther parts of the city after WWII into a dense up to 8 story multi use district. That would put a huge dent in housing costs. And retain the "human scale."

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Most of the city looks like this:

Uh...not really.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

Charming?

Hardly.

Speak for yourself.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

But it's the dirty secret that SFers don't want the outside world to know about

It is? I've lived in SF my entire life and have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

- yes, the Victorians and cable cars and beautiful homes built upon steep hills is only a fraction of SF. Most is built as cookie cutter stucco low density housing.

I've outlined a very loose, unscientific map of what I mean- the enclosed red bordered area is comprised of this type of development:

So the sunset district, outer richmond, and the southern third of the city now equals "most" of SF, and are supposedly comprised only of that type of home that you apparently hate so much? The tons of apartments, Victorians, etc, don't exist anymore? And how are those homes any more "cookie-cutter" than a row of victorians anyways? Not to mention that the areas of SF with lots of that kind of "low density" housing are more densely populated than 99% of America (think 10,000-30,000 people per square mile). So really they're not doing bad in terms of density, by American standards.

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I say, re- built all the single story single family homes built in the western and souther parts of the city after WWII into a dense up to 8 story multi use district. That would put a huge dent in housing costs. And retain the "human scale."

I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of people who live in the areas you want to raze would be really happy about that. Also, "single" story? They look like two stories to me. Maybe you feel that garages are unworthy of qualifying as a "story", but in that case remember that probably half of those homes have in-law apartments in the garage/ground floor.

I live in the sunset district, in a three story apartment building (on a block full of them), in an area you believe to be 100% "single story" homes that are supposedly too ugly to admit existence of...and I find your attitude kind of insulting and ignorant.

The city can add a whole lot of people in other ways before we start advocating the destruction of entire districts. It would be nice if the sunset was originally developed denser...but it wasn't. And that's not changing anytime soon, for a multitude of reasons.

Your idea of razing entire swaths of the city is the exact kind of draconian boogeyman shit that NIMBYs have always feared, and which motivates them to block development. And I think most pro-development people would be against it too, because whether you agree or not, those homes do contribute to SF's "architectural charm" or whatever you want to call it.

Here's a more realistic idea for densification of the sunset district: raise height limits along major transit/commercial corridors, like 19th avenue, taraval, judah, irving, lincoln...maybe Noriega? But good luck even getting that to happen.

[mt_climber13]

Yes, that is most of SF. Land Area wise.

I'm not saying raze the entire area by eminent domain. I'm saying up zone the area and allow developers to buy out home owners for redevelopment. Free market. Most people will gladly sell out. Those that don't will likely be the elderly. totally fine. Let them stay for the rest of their lives, don't force anybody out. Once they pass on, the children or grandchildren would not pass up the opportunity to sell out. Within 50 years I would bet almost every homeowner in the area would sell their house for the right price.

Now use that new land to redevelop. Really, nothing would be missed. It's not like Rousseau is a sought after architectural style. It was cheap and easy to build after the development booms and suburban sprawl planning of WWII that SF was a part of.

The alternative is building massive towers on a landfilled island with the only traffic thoroughfare a 5 lane bridge that is already over capacity. Oh, wait, that's already happening..