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

[tech12]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

I'm sure this is a reason nobody wants to develop in Oakland:

http://youtu.be/MNorfx_-pwE

That happens in SF too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaWo5y89eQ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvN7Nsxasik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Un0zwgfdOQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHDkKbenIS8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEEO-FChPmY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YQPIjRSsrY

Of course no one cares or notices when it's SF (even when it's happening in downtown or fisherman's wharf), but when it's Oakland we get people like you saying dumb stuff like that.

It's almost like all cities have good and bad parts, "normal" and rowdy people, criminals and non-criminals, etc, etc. But some cities, Like Oakland are unfairly stereotyped as being completely horrible, usually by people who don't actually know jack shit about said city aside from some videos they saw on youtube, or some news articles they read, or what their uncle Bob said, or maybe that one time they drove through and a scary looking guy stared at them.

Also, what makes you think there's no development planned or going on in Oakland?

[simms3_redux]

^^^There's a bit planned for Oakland, but hardly anyone is actually moving dirt right now for basically the same reasons I mentioned above. Same high costs, lower rents/available returns. It's not like the cost structure of developing in Oakland is proportionately less than in SF to the kinds of rents a developer can charge.

As a theoretical example, the cost to build a multifamily structure in an A neighborhood of Oakland might be 90% of what it costs to build the same structure in a similar neighborhood in SF, but the rents are going to be 65-70% of what you can get in SF. The delta is even more extreme with office with rents at 50% of SF's rents and the costs still there.

People seem to be waiting for rents to come up in Oakland, but what I'm saying, perhaps naively, is that rather than wait for rents to come up, there should be a way to get costs to come down. This should be the case for all Bay Area cities...naturally the Bay Area will be expensive due to barriers, constraints, and market forces, however, there has got to be an emphasis on getting some costs down so that *some* of that top line can come down too (and thus we the people can see our bottom line come up).

[fflint]

Do we know for certain Oakland development costs are about 90% of San Francisco development costs?

Even if so, I think there are still upsides that affect the bottom line--land acquisition is cheaper in Oakland, and local NIMBYs aren't as powerful. And set aside rents, what about condos? All those units in Jack London Square and Uptown somehow got built--and both areas are thriving compared to prior decades.

[dboakland]

That's just silly. Land costs in Oakland are 2/3 the cost of San Francisco and rents are climbing twice as fast. In California it takes at least a year to get any project entitled and Oakland has been considered risky. As fflint points out there are about 400 hundred units under construction but over 3,000 in the permit process. So like I said, be patient...and for the clowns with the old sideshow video's SF has had all the driveby shoots lately.

[kdeff]

Originally Posted by tech12

I agree with them, but what the hell is this:

I guess aside from NYC, literally nowhere in America is a "real city", according to this guy. Last I checked SF has density in the farthest-out neighborhoods that surpasses the density in even the core/downtown areas of 90% of American cities, and density in the core of SF is pretty much at the top of the pile, after NYC (with central LA, Philly, Boston, and Chicago roughly in the same place or a little lower).

Actually, I think he is just referring to cities on a global scale. New York, London, Tokyo, Bejing, Paris, etc. Such cities are interconnected with the global markets in magnitudes no other cities are. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

And to his group's point, one large reason San Francisco is so far down that list - despite the Bay Area's influence throughout the globe - is because we are limited in population. More and more companies are going to Austin or Seattle because it is economically viable, even though the best talent is in the Bay Area. I do think he is correct and that we should try to densify SF, it easily has all the other necessary ingredients to become an Alpha city.

Its pretty clear what works best: super dense cities sitting on reliable and fast public transit system. Which SF isnt...yet

[fflint]

Originally Posted by kdeff

Actually, I think he is just referring to cities on a global scale. New York, London, Tokyo, Bejing, Paris, etc. Such cities are interconnected with the global markets in magnitudes no other cities are. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city

And to his group's point, one large reason San Francisco is so far down that list - despite the Bay Area's influence throughout the globe - is because we are limited in population. More and more companies are going to Austin or Seattle because it is economically viable, even though the best talent is in the Bay Area. I do think he is correct and that we should try to densify SF, it easily has all the other necessary ingredients to become an Alpha city.

Its pretty clear what works best: super dense cities sitting on reliable and fast public transit system. Which SF isnt...yet

San Francisco can do more, to be sure, in a whole bunch of areas--but the idea that only New York, London, Tokyo, Bejing, and Paris are "real cities" is just stupid.

[kdeff]

Originally Posted by fflint

San Francisco can do more, to be sure, in a whole bunch of areas--but the idea that only New York, London, Tokyo, Bejing, and Paris are "real cities" is just stupid.

Sure, "real city" was a bad term.

SF is without a doubt my favorite city in the US to live in. However it is not on the same global scale other (aforementioned) world cities. Given the guy is from NY - one such global city - I suspect this is what he meant.

SF is moving in the right direction, and I hope it does get there one day:

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by fflint

San Francisco can do more, to be sure, in a whole bunch of areas--but the idea that only New York, London, Tokyo, Bejing, and Paris are "real cities" is just stupid.

You know, that ranking reminds me of a brilliant classic they made me read in middle school, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, ironically a English author. That totally dystopian world in which people are literally designed and manufactured in test tubes in an industrial fashion to be stuck in their castes designated by Greek letters. They even introduced a plus plus suffix for themselves, that may feel quite familiar in a couple of programming languages, but wasn't in the book, if I recall correctly.

Ahem, if they want to make us speak English for the love of it, they'll have to do much better than that. Mah, that's kidding.

[Jerry of San Fran]

02-01-2015 - Workers have started taking down the bridge over Hayes Street which linked the form CSAA/AAA buildings in preparation for the new development at 150 Van Ness (12 stories). On the right is a picture of 101 Polk (13 stories) which is nearing the top floor.

150 Van Ness/101 Polk

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by dboakland

That's just silly. Land costs in Oakland are 2/3 the cost of San Francisco and rents are climbing twice as fast. In California it takes at least a year to get any project entitled and Oakland has been considered risky. As fflint points out there are about 400 hundred units under construction but over 3,000 in the permit process. So like I said, be patient...and for the clowns with the old sideshow video's SF has had all the driveby shoots lately.

No, when these the things happen in SF, it makes it more of a "real city."

[cmak]

well, 'Big Hero 6' came out on video today, so on the other side of the "real city" talk, here's a fake SF that came out ok








one of the climatic scenes involves flying around the 'Salesforce Tower', really happy the animators were able to add that in:

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

No, when these the things happen in SF, it makes it more of a "real city."

"Everyone's Favorite City"

[jcchii]

not sure it needs to look like that to be fully viable in the future, but it is ripe for denser and more affordable housing somewhere within a tram-shot of the center. and it seems like a great candidate for an large mixed-use, new signature earthquake proof tower

[a very long weekend]

another weekend, another few pages of non-development related talk. oy.

so here are a couple quick smaller project updates around van ness.

1650 broadway, infill going in down the street from 20+ story towers build 80 years ago: http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/07/10...ngs_emerge_for_luxe_at_1650_broadway.php
rendering:

as of today:


1860 van ness
http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/17...he_corner_of_van_ness_and_washington.php
elevation drawings:


as of today:


1450 franklin, about which i believe there was some discussion, in re building techniques i recall right. seems like everything is going according to plan.
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/...ranklin_13_stories_and_69_condos_on.html
with a better rendering or the very 1990s design:

today:

[fimiak]

SFMOMA




101 Polk

[cmak]

sfmoma:


Dropbox HQ on brannan st:


from Brannan st wharf:

[Jerry of San Fran]

cmak - nice update photos.

Here is a view from my apartment of what is happening in my view the last few days. The SFMOMA addition is nearing completion of the exterior. I find it too bulky to my taste, but I can live with it (Of course I have no choice as it is in my view!) :>). It reminds me of an office copier machine.

San Francisco Museum Of Modern Art Addtion2015_02_03

[mt_climber13]

Lovin' the MOMA.

I will miss that staircase though.

[fflint]

Awesome photos, everyone.

I think the new addition to MOMA looks beautiful, especially when juxtaposed with the older building.

I'm going to have to ride my bike down to Brannan St. Wharf and check out the crane parade for myself--what a moment in time for this city!

[1977]

Awesome pictures cmak/fimiak/long weekend/jerry!

Also, not sure if this belongs here, but it's a pretty broad stroke...

Some good news for the Transbay District:

After months of saber rattling, property owners in the Transbay neighborhood did not follow through on threats to sue the city over a new tax district that is a key part of the plan to develop the $2.6 billion transit center at First and Mission streets.

Story from SfGate