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

[peanut gallery]

^ Agreed. But in hindsight, it was probably unrealistic to ever believe that was going to happen with so much hypersensitivity to anything getting built near the waterfront. At least something is going in there.

Remember the McDonald's on Van Ness that suddenly closed and was fenced off? The plans for a 9-story, 110-foot replacement have now been filed. From Hoodline (who, BTW, have been on a lot of news before anyone else lately):

According to an application for a Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA) filed with the Planning Commission on Sept. 18th, the project would include 150 units, including two-story townhouses on the Elm Street side, as well as 4,800 square feet of ground-floor retail space on both the Van Ness and Golden Gate Avenue sides.

The units would include 87 studios, 37 one-bedrooms, and 26 two-bedrooms. A below-ground parking garage with an entrance on Golden Gate Avenue would provide 108 parking spaces, and 150 bike parking spots would be located on the ground floor, which would also include a leasing office, lobby and lounge.

The proposal specifies 6,980 square feet of private open space and 6,344 square feet of public open space in the form of terraces on floors two, five and seven.

The site is zoned for height up to 130 feet. However, discussion between the developer and the Bay Area Women’s and Children’s Center, a nonprofit involved in the Tenderloin Community School (located just north of the proposed development, at 627 Turk St.), resulted in "a terrace-like design increasing in height from Elm Street to Golden Gate Avenue." The proposed design aims to mitigate the BAWCC's concerns about shadows that could affect the school's outdoor recreation areas, and would cast 50 percent less shadow than if the building were constructed at the full 130-foot height, according to the proposal.

More info at the link. FYI: the story says it will be 100' but that is to the roof. With mechanicals, etc it will be 110'.

[boyinthecity]

re: the old pagada palace site

coincidentally, socketsite is reporting that the city is still interested in the site
for a "no brainer" subway station. except, the merchants in the hood will aggressively
try to kill it.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2015/...h-subway-site-flames.html#comment-239480

[peanut gallery]

^That would be awesome. Ideally, the city would buy the site, build-out the station underground, then sell development rights at street level with the provision for access to the station below be included in the new development.

If not, I still wonder if the city could purchase the parking lot on the corner of Columbus and Filbert and put the station there?

[timbad]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

... I still wonder if the city could purchase the parking lot on the corner of Columbus and Filbert and put the station there?

ooh, I hadn't thought of that. my more pie-in-the-sky vision has always been to close off that little half-block of Powell St between Columbus and Union, convert it into a plaza with the station entrance there. should be room left over for outdoor seating for the restaurant(s) that already line it on one side. station access wold be from both north and south, and I imagine the plaza as a real neighborhood amenity that with the added foot traffic would get used as an extension of Wash Sq. super anecdotal, but I observed one weekend afternoon and saw just two cars in 10 mins use that portion of the street.

[peanut gallery]

That would be cool. The more I think about it, the station can sit almost anywhere beneath Columbus. It just needs a little space somewhere for street access. There's no real need for above ground station space, as far as I know. There's also a small parking lot in front of the auto repair place across the street. Might be able to squeeze in an access point there as well. Or even along the edge of Washington Square for that matter (though I'm sure that would get lots of people agitated, regardless of how minimal it might be).

[timbad]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

That would be cool. The more I think about it, the station can sit almost anywhere beneath Columbus. It just needs a little space somewhere for street access. There's no real need for above ground station space, as far as I know. ....

exactly - on Market you just have holes in the (wide) sidewalks, for the most part

[fimiak]

Here is a pic of Trinity.



Here is my fantasy map for the Central Subway. I feel that creating a Van Ness loop is more beneficial to city transit, because it allows riders to get to far more spots within the core of the city, and really activates Van Ness in a way I don't think Bus Rapid Transit can.

[peanut gallery]

^Love it. If I were king, we would begin construction tomorrow. And thanks for the update on Trinity. Had no idea they were that far along.

On your fantasy map, how much have you thought about the terminus at Van Ness and Market? I assume your idea is to have the T turnaround there. I wonder how that would all fit there since you would need to build a separate platform for the T (as it runs perpendicular to the existing platform, and you already have a Muni station, then BART tracks below that. Wouldn't you need track to extend beyond the T station for storage and turnaround space? It seems you would either need to go pretty deep or move the T station up Van Ness a block or so to make it all fit. Just curious how you think that might all work.

I also like the fantasy Geary line on there. Talk about a game changer. BART is talking about a second tube, so maybe someday...

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

^Love it. If I were king, we would begin construction tomorrow. And thanks for the update on Trinity. Had no idea they were that far along.

On your fantasy map, how much have you thought about the terminus at Van Ness and Market? I assume your idea is to have the T turnaround there. I wonder how that would all fit there since you would need to build a separate platform for the T (as it runs perpendicular to the existing platform, and you already have a Muni station, then BART tracks below that. Wouldn't you need track to extend beyond the T station for storage and turnaround space? It seems you would either need to go pretty deep or move the T station up Van Ness a block or so to make it all fit. Just curious how you think that might all work.

I also like the fantasy Geary line on there. Talk about a game changer. BART is talking about a second tube, so maybe someday...

Actually in my wildest dreams, the Van Ness Line would continue down to S Van Ness and 16th Street, head East and connect loop with the T-line at 3rd/16th Street. Loops are the best, it would mean someone from Mission Bay could easily get to Van Ness & Market on a single line, backwards in a few minutes. It allows for travel either clockwise or counter-clockwise and really speeds up everything.

Van Ness Station would simply have to have another level below it. Remember, there is no BART station there, so this is a good chance to build one. This is far from unheard of, look at how many subway lines connect at the Fulton Center in NYC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_Center. Or East Side Access, which is basically a new tunnel underneath all of New York and its subways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Side_Access I believe Market and Van Ness, with its 5000+ units under construction or just completed, leading to 10,000-15,000 more people at that intersection, will be far more important in the 2020s than we can currently understand.

Potentially this Van Ness line could continue East to Alameda, Jack London, Lake Merritt, and then North Lake Merritt, terminating in Oakland.The problem of course is that it is a Muni line so I don't know how that would work, politically. I think it should be one system, and SF and OAK essentially opening far more parts of their cities to each other. In this scenario, the Geary line would start at Union Sq and continue West, down the Ocean side of SF, and stopping around Park Merced.

[a very long weekend]

behind a paywall but here's some interesting news:

The San Francisco Conservatory of Music is composing its next movement on Van Ness Avenue.

The music school has filed a preliminary application with the Planning Department to build an 11-story tower at 200 Van Ness Ave., a 140-unit building that will house about 300 students and faculty and include a publicly accessible performance space.

snip

The conservatory will build “a world-class facility in the heart of the city’s performing arts district” that will supply badly needed housing as well as a “highly innovative performance venue, teaching and rehearsal halls” and a street-level cafe with live music. “It will be a fantastic opportunity for people to come and enjoy free recitals,” Stull said.

snip

Construction is expected to begin within the next three years. The architect on the project is Mark Cavagnero, who designed the SFJazz Center on Franklin Street. Like that building, the conservatory building at 200 Van Ness will include street-level performance and rehearsal spaces that will be visible to people walking or driving by.

[kdeff]

All this talk of subways, it appears Representative Scott Wiener agrees with you:

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/09/08/scott-wiener-san-francisco-muni-subway-plan

[SFTransplant]

Hot off the presses. California's 1st, and the nation's 4th, non-stop flight to India... I posted here since I don't believe we have an SFO thread.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/business/a...-dec-2/story-e5wRyIs4fBXqQY9yGS4H9I.html

[fimiak]

Sup. Wiener said he wants Central Subway to go to Fisherman's Wharf when I told him that idea. The money just isn't there quite yet, but new underground lines have to be thought of in decades, not years.

[a very long weekend]

a) why are people calling weiner a "representative"? b) the subway thing is so far off and difficult that this discussion serves only wiener's campaign for the state senate.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

a) why are people calling weiner a "representative"? b) the subway thing is so far off and difficult that this discussion serves only wiener's campaign for the state senate.

So that means we shouldn't be forward thinking?

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

b) the subway thing is so far off and difficult that this discussion serves only wiener's campaign for the state senate.

That is very true in the short term. But if it scores him political points, future Sups will take note and make it part of their agenda as well. It's going to take long-term political support (as fimiak noted: decades, not years) and that has to start somewhere.

[viewguysf]

[IMG]Apple Store on Union Square by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Apple Store on Union Square by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Apple Store on Union Square by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]Apple Store on Union Square by viewguysf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Jerry of San Fran]

viewguysf - Your post of the update to the Apple store is timely as the 09/30/2015 San Francisco Chronicle's front page headline reads "Apple owes big, say labor, builder."

[peanut gallery]

New Boston Properties proposal for SOMA. From the SF Business Times:

Note: As usual, Business Times pictures won't display here, so click this link to view a rendering. There are more available in a slide show with the article.

The real estate investment trust filed preliminary plans for a 1.1-million-square-foot office complex that will sprawl on a full block across Fourth and Harrison Streets (across from Whole Foods). It will include a 240-foot-tall, carved-up tower that will likely become a future technology hub.

----------------

Boston Properties’ plan is not only one of the largest, but one of the most visually striking – love it, or hate it. A 65-foot podium building with a 90,000-square-foot floor plate will span the entire site. A 130-foot-tall midrise will stack on top on the eastern edge and a 240-foot tower on the western end.

----------------

Architect HOK (Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum) looked to “accentuate the ‘elegant and sculpted’ impression of the tower portion both as viewed from the neighborhood and distance along the skyline” with “sculpted buildings,” according to the plans.

“The various carvings into the tower result in a mass that resembles several individual buildings, rather than a single monolithic tower,” according to the plans.

In all, the project would include 907,300 square feet of office space, 9,900 square feet of retail and 53,6000 square feet of “flexible” space that will likely be zoned to open up more space for manufacturers or artists. It will also include about 15,600 square feet of public open space.

[fflint]

^I like that design a lot. And the parcel in question is ridiculously underutilized.