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

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by HarshLiving

Doesn't that just increase gentrification and continue to burden the communities of the mission and Bayview HP. I believe housing should be built all over, rather than concentrated to select areas.

Certainly it should be built all over, but just that area can fit at least 50,000 new units, which is approximately 10 years of time of the city's population growth. Most of the units that are already planned for these areas are affordable.

[viewguysf]

I agree with you fimiak. The Sunset and western side side of the City south of Golden Gate Park also have infill opportunities without causing displacement, but the southeastern sector is where a higher level of development will and can occur.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by fimiak

I honestly believe with the right level of density there could be 50,000 homes built in the Central Waterfront/India Basin/Hunters Point/Candlestick areas.

The traditional Telegraph Hill San Francisco doesn't really need to be touched at all. There are more access points to the areas I mentioned than the neighborhoods north of Downtown.

I agree. Easing height and other restrictions along 3rd St., Geary Blvd and in The Hub could produce all the homes San Franciscans would need for a long time.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by fimiak

I honestly believe with the right level of density there could be 50,000 homes built in the Central Waterfront/India Basin/Hunters Point/Candlestick areas.

The traditional Telegraph Hill San Francisco doesn't really need to be touched at all. There are more access points to the areas I mentioned than the neighborhoods north of Downtown.

Agree. SF has plenty of land in the old industrial districts south of Market and along the eastern docklands. Less opposition to residential high rises in these industrial areas. By adding some affordables, can keep the anti-gentrification people at bay. No need to touch the picturesque historic districts on the north, central and west sides, like Telegraph Hill, Marina, Pacific Heights, core Chinatown, North Beach etc. Leave all the old Vics alone. SF could probably accommodate well over 1 million (eventually 1.5 million?) people with development of the old industrial areas in the south and east with 10-30 story apartment/condo towers. The true skyscrapers over 500 feet (and some supertalls) could be confined to the historic downtown and SoMa-Rincon, with maybe some allowed on Nob and Russian Hills if NIMBYs can be defeated. And there is Treasure Island out there. String a gondola and build some highrises.

[pseudolus]

a few years ago, I made this heat map of the housing pipeline:

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I agree. Easing height and other restrictions along 3rd St., Geary Blvd and in The Hub could produce all the homes San Franciscans would need for a long time.

I’ve long thought that the area around Geary and Webster to the south could support some tall residential towers.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I guess everyone has me on ignore, since the link I posted above explains it all.

This photo reminds me how much I love BofA tower

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I’ve long thought that the area around Geary and Webster to the south could support some tall residential towers.

True, but you don't even need to do towers. My vision of Geary is more in line with the Bronx's Grand Concourse:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_..._Concourse.jpg

It could be like this (height/density-wise) all the way to the sea.

[homebucket]

My vision for Golden Gate Park:

[gillynova]

I'm pretty sure we're going to stick with the victorian houses lol

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by homebucket

My vision for Golden Gate Park

I'm being entirely serious and I'm not sure you are. I think 6-10 story apartment buildings with ground floor retail lining Geary Blvd and Third St. is entirely practical and more than sufficient, along with towers in the Hub, possibly at Geary/Webster and central SOMA, to meet SF's housing needs. That would leave the traditional Victorian neighborhoods and even the single family neighborhoods like the Richmond other than directly on Geary (including Fulton along the Park), undisturbed as I think most San Franciscans want them.

[viewguysf]

I think you are correct Pedestrian/BT. San Francisco will never be NYC, Vancouver, or any other city, nor should we be. Although I’ve had continuous ties with SF since first living here in 1972 (this is my third time living here), I’ve also lived in Chicago, LA, Seattle, Denver, and other cities and areas. I encourage those who want a mega or other city scene to try it because it’s an enriching life experience you most likely will enjoy and not regret.

[SFBuildings888]

I think SF already has the 3rd best central business district in America with downtown, SOMA, Civic Center and etc as a city. It is just outside those areas that I wish there were more high rise buildings built. Mainly around Golden Gate Park. That would be great.

[iamfishhead]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm being entirely serious and I'm not sure you are. I think 6-10 story apartment buildings with ground floor retail lining Geary Blvd and Third St. is entirely practical and more than sufficient, along with towers in the Hub, possibly at Geary/Webster and central SOMA, to meet SF's housing needs. That would leave the traditional Victorian neighborhoods and even the single family neighborhoods like the Richmond other than directly on Geary (including Fulton along the Park), undisturbed as I think most San Franciscans want them.

Yeah, I think most people underestimate how dense you can get without high rises. I know this is sacrilege on this forum.

Seriously though, Paris is quite dense and it is mostly 5-6 story buildings. I saw a good piece on San Francisco in particular that showed you can easily hit 100K people per square mile by allowing block after block of 8 story buildings that aren't too different than what is already permitted for areas with that height allowance.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by iamfishhead

Yeah, I think most people underestimate how dense you can get without high rises. I know this is sacrilege on this forum.

Seriously though, Paris is quite dense and it is mostly 5-6 story buildings. I saw a good piece on San Francisco in particular that showed you can easily hit 100K people per square mile by allowing block after block of 8 story buildings that aren't too different than what is already permitted for areas with that height allowance.

"Can easily hit 100K/sq. mile by allowing block after block of 8 story buildings"

Let's do the math...100K/sq. mile x 49 sq. miles = 4,900,000. BIGGER THAN L.A.!!! No need to line Golden Gate Park or Alamo Square with 40 story towers. Can get plenty of density with 4-10 storys outside of the downtown area like Pedestrian says and still preserve many of the the old neighborhoods with the victorians that the locals and tourists cherish. Paris is an excellent model, of dense 5-10 story housing and a few skyscraper districts. London too.

[Pedestrian]

Developer proposes nearly 600 homes in $400 million project near massive Parkmerced
By Fiona Kelliher – Real estate reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Mar 4, 2019, 4:40pm EST

A shopping center in Parkmerced could be razed for nearly 600 units of senior housing.

Landowner John Jweinat and Costa Brown Architecture submitted a preliminary proposal to build 576 units across three 17-story apartment buildings at 33-85 Cambon Dr. The ground floor would host about 80,000 square feet of retail.

The parcel — now home to a grocery store, a bank and other businesses — hugs the edge of the Parkmerced area where Maximus Real Estate Partners plans to build out 5,679 new apartments and condos. This separate project, though, aims to capture what they view as an underserved population in the Bay Area housing market . . . .

Details of the proposal, including how many units would be assisted-living or independent living, and its mix between affordable and market-rate units, will be worked out as the team receives feedback from the city. Jweinart and Costa Brown are in discussions with potential senior living and medical service providers, as well as contractors. Facilities will also include a 50,000-square-foot medical center onsite and potentially other amenities like a raised terrace where seniors can gather.

Depending on what's included, Jweinat estimated the development cost will hit about $400 million of private funding . . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...WXU5UjdQIn0%3D

[Busy Bee]

^^^Nice...

On the website of the same architecture firm is this development in Daly City. Not sure if it's been posted yet.

[gillynova]

^^ Thanks both for posting both of the new developments!

Busy Bee, you should post that in the Bay Area thread. I would love to see more of these projects outside of SF, SJ and Oak.

[SFBuildings888]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

"Can easily hit 100K/sq. mile by allowing block after block of 8 story buildings"

Let's do the math...100K/sq. mile x 49 sq. miles = 4,900,000. BIGGER THAN L.A.!!! No need to line Golden Gate Park or Alamo Square with 40 story towers. Can get plenty of density with 4-10 storys outside of the downtown area like Pedestrian says and still preserve many of the the old neighborhoods with the victorians that the locals and tourists cherish. Paris is an excellent model, of dense 5-10 story housing and a few skyscraper districts. London too.

I read that SF actually has 46 some square miles not 49. They just rounded up to 7x7 to make it 49. BTW, there is no way that SF can make it to 100k/sq mile. With all the hills and it being surrounded by water, it just can’t happen. I could be wrong. I think 25k to 30k per square mile is the densiest it can get.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by SFBuildings888

I read that SF actually has 46 some square miles not 49. They just rounded up to 7x7 to make it 49. BTW, there is no way that SF can make it to 100k/sq mile. With all the hills and it being surrounded by water, it just can’t happen. I could be wrong. I think 25k to 30k per square mile is the densiest it can get.

I am pretty sure they were being facetious with that number. The goal that SF should have for the time being is really just to follow the US national population target. Pew Research says the US pop. was 282 million in 2000, and should be 438 million in 2050. This is a 55% increase over half a century.

San Francisco had 777,340 population in 2000. A ~55% increase thus creates our 2050 minimum goal, 1,207,358, an increase of 430,000. With a pop. of 866,320 in 2015 SF is growing, but will not hit that goal at current growth. In 2015 we were 30% of the way to 2050, but we only achieved 21% of the overall 2050 pop. goal (~90,000 pop. growth 2000-2015). SF still has to find room for 340,000 people over the next 30-35 years.

All this is to simply maintain the relative proportion of SF pop. to US pop. Of course there is nothing limiting SF to these numbers, and it does not take into effect immigration's impact on SF in particular vs the nation-at-large, legal or not.