SAN FRANCISCO | 1177 Market Street (Trinity Place) | 240 FT | 24 FLOORS

[nativeguy1964]

WOW totally neato. I could stare at it all day. I have to go look. after building A, then the teardown. Then the market street building, then the rest . i imagine the entire project would be complete in like 5 years.Just in time for the economy to turn around.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Cool. I'll try to sneak a peek next time I'm down that way.

Note that I corrected the address to 1145 Market Street. Sorry, I got mixed up with the building next door.

[nativeguy1964]

I would like to see more contrast in the colors. Some darker colors on some of the blocks.

[SFView]

I wouldn't judge colors from the photographs of the model, or even some of the renderings. I took the model photos through glass that may have been tinted, plus the flash tends to wash out colors especially at close range. I tried to compensate a little using Photoshop. The model itself may also not be accurately colored. The best representations of color next to waiting for the real thing to be built, are actual material color samples seen in exterior daylight for exterior colors.

[nativeguy1964]

went buy the place on market street but didn't see this model. behind the closed curtains perhaps.

[SFView]

The model is about 20 or 30 feet pass the security desk where you will need to check in with the guard first usually for business. You cannot see it from the entry door since the lobby bends around a corner from the main entrance. At least, I have already provided you with photos.

[BTinSF]

All I can say is "GULP!!"

Change of Plans at Massive Trinity Project?
Friday, March 6, 2009, by Andy J. Wang



A reader sent this public notice in, Spidey Sense all atingle over possible "shenanigans" over at Trinity Place. Which, by the way, the notice calls Trinity Plaza. Confused, would we? Isn't Trinity Plaza the current apartment complex on Market and 8th, and Trinity Place the giant project meant to replace it? The project's own website would seem to suggest that. But we digress. Last year, developer Angelo Sangiacomo was all pretend boo hoo over "paying all cash" to build a high-rise full of $500 to $700 rental units. Now, with an apparent application to amend construction phasing and "restate and designate the below market rate requirement," maybe that pretend boo hoo is turning into some real woe is me. But unless anyone's got the inside scoop on this, we probably won't know what's really going on until the hearing in a couple of weeks.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2009/03/06...sive_trinity_project.php#reader_comments

And why weren't our resident TP forumers all over this one? Come on guys!

That "add five years to the term of the agreement" is really ominous IMHO. Which is "Building A" by the way?

[peanut gallery]

I'll see your "gulp" and raise you a "crap." Everything in that notice sounds ominous. If I were to guess, I'd say anything beyond the building currently under construction is on hold to the extent that it can't be counted on to be built. Thus, they need to revise a bunch of the requirements that are based on total number of units, like BMR (fewer and in a new location) and the location of replacement housing (probably limiting your choices).

If I'm reading their site plan correctly, Building A is the one currently under construction. It's really hard to read because the type is tiny, but I think it says B is the one on Market and C is the one on Eighth.

[nativeguy1964]

I'd use harsher language than gulp or crap since I live here. What's going on. I didn't hear anything about it. But I'm going to forward this to the folks who fought the fight over at SOMCAN and see what they say. If he's trying to get out of the deal.... he won't succeed. We have an even more progressive board of supervisors now than when the deal was made. I hink they are trying to stall - perhaps because due to the current rental market, the rents here on vacant units have dome back down from a high of 13-1400 a month back down to 995 a month, so they don't want to be stuck renting the new building at the lower rates. As for the selection of units by the tenents that's another interesteing one to me - and they may once again try to relegate us to the bottom floors.....? This is just the kind of indigestion I don't need today.

[nativeguy1964]

upon reading again here's what a I'm getting; relocation of building A and relocation of below market rate untis and modify selection process on replacement units. meaning. they want to add five years to the timeline to finish, they want to open the current building A (almost done) and designate it as building B or C or whatever and not have it be the "replacement" units and rent it at market rate instead ( not subject to rent control) then, they want to add five years to the project meaining they want to leave this peice of crap building standing with us in it for a few more years - unitl the old timers move out or die, and the rental market turns around, then they put the "replcaement unite" in one of later buildings and modify the unit selection choice, not by seniority but some other criteria the will relegate any remaining coverved tenents to the very worst locations. THATS what Im reading here.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nativeguy1964

they want to add five years to the project meaining they want to leave this peice of crap building standing with us in it for a few more years - unitl the old timers move out or die

You know, Angelo Sangiocomo himself has got to be older than almost any of those "old timers". If he drags this thing out he won't live to see it finished. That's something I've been hoping might keep it on track. I'm still hoping something like that.

[nativeguy1964]

TRue, but whatever they are up too it can't be good. So far the information is very vague. But things for the first phase need to proceed as planned. that building should be done in 12 months judging by he progress.

[BTinSF]

I doubt very much there will be any delay in completing the first building now. I think your posts above were closer to the mark--after it's completed who gets to move in and which units. One change that could make sense to Sangiocomo would be not to demolish the entire existing building and move all tenants into the new building immediately but rather demolish only the part on Market St where the next new building will go and let the people living there move into the new structure while keeping the rest of the existing structure and the people living in it where they are. That would let him rent more of the new building at market rates. But on the other hand, if market rates have come down, it seems to me that it matters less that he has to rent to the existing tenants at their existing rent. Someone here posted earlier figures suggesting that many existing tenants woudn't be doing a lot worse at today's market rate rents than where they are.

But the request for a 5 year extension of the agreement has got to mean he wants that much longer to complete the project and possibly to move the last existing tenant into it.

[nativeguy1964]

well BT if what you are saying was the case... seeing how im in the market street portion, that works for me. But I'm tring to imagine how they would demolish part of the building and leave part operating.... In anycase I sent an email to daly's office and somcan to try to get more info.

[nativeguy1964]

now, upon re-reading it say "restate and designate the below market rate requirements and locations for building A" so restate does not mean change it, it means say it again...??? and then it says "modify" the selection process for the replacement units. Well, the bmr units and the replacement units are two different things. Where they put the bmr units makes no difference to anyone here Im sure. Changing the selection process for "replacement units" however is likley to cause a big ruckus. And it sounds like they want to modify which units may be available from which to choose. Well there aren't that many additional units anyway, and the original agreement has already effectively removed the "most desriable units from play ( all the south facing one bed with veiws, and the majority of the north facing corner units, and adn the top couple of "unobstructed view units. So I can't imagine what kind of change they are looking for.

[nativeguy1964]

But nothing is gonna just get slipped through the planning commission without everyone being put on notice and having a say.

[nativeguy1964]

Who knows maybe they are going to come up with a better deal for the tenants.

[peanut gallery]

Whatever the outcome, it's apparent the current market has shifted his thinking on the scope and timeline. Given how long he fought for this project it's a little surprising, even considering how bad things have gotten economically. Of course, it could just be that he has taken it in the shorts like so many others and he's no longer in position to tie up this much capital in construction costs even if he considers it a good investment long term.

I hope it works out for you guys living there.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Whatever the outcome, it's apparent the current market has shifted his thinking on the scope and timeline. Given how long he fought for this project it's a little surprising, even considering how bad things have gotten economically. Of course, it could just be that he has taken it in the shorts like so many others and he's no longer in position to tie up this much capital in construction costs even if he considers it a good investment long term.

I hope it works out for you guys living there.

You can fight for a long time, but if you have no access to capital and your return on investment (ie, market rate rents) is back to dot-com bust levels, regardless of ego or desire for a legacy -- I mean, I guess being the father of rent control in SF isn't enough of a legacy, right -- you'll punt. He's punting. With the securitization for mortgages, residential and commercial, frozen, Sangiacomo is probably unable to rollover any debt coming due and, well, there's not a lot of lending going on for buildings these days.

[nativeguy1964]

well If he needs more time to complete the project that is understandable. Although in my opinion, to stay on the timeline would put the future units on the market ( about 3-5 years from now) just as we can expect to be firmly into a recovery and good rental market. My only real concern is what is going on the the selection of and location of the "replacement" units and what's going on with the plan to move us into building A. That is the source of worry for tenants. They want to change the method of unit selection and I can't imagine how they could come up with anything other than seniority that would be equitable. While I certainly don't benefit from the seniority process having only been here two years.. I just can't imagine how else they could do it or why it even matters.