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

[toxteth o'grady]

The Bay Area has seen over 130,000 new jobs created in 2015. If it weren't for the fact the tech industry prefers clusters of five-story buildings in an office park to a single multi-story highrise, I'd say there would be a lot more tall buildings going up. With 2016 shaping up as a recovery year nationwide, I see no reason for a slowdown in the Bay Area.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Thanks for the correction on 41 Tehama. Not sure why this one is flying under the radar. Agree on 500 and 400 Folsom and 706 Mission. 100 Folsom and 50 First seem like they're not as far along.

Some of "the rest" seem like pipedreams at this point. But it'd be encouraging to see One Oak or 1500-1580 Mission get going.

Everyone seems to think this cycle is getting long in the tooth and is about to end. That seems to me to be a very SF-centric view. On a countrywide basis it seems like things have a ways to go, as we're only now out of the depths of the last crash. The SF market is driven by venture capital. Any signs that's over?

Part of that end of cycle talk is fueled by Prop M, which has been hit and means that some of the office space that has been proposed is not likely to start until 2018 or never. The residential market has stabilized for the time being from early year highs, so it is natural that some are saying that the residential building cycle is slowing down as well. I think for me that is largely dependent on whether the market and van ness buildings are going to start as is, have their height increased (perhaps the likeliest happy news), or are simply pipe dreams. I don't expect too many large surprises for SF in the next two years...most of our focus will be on what has already been proposed and what is U/C. Oakland might have more interesting new proposals than SF to look at in 2016.

[chuckrim]

I can only hope that Jeanne Gang & Tishman's 160 Folsom get's the nod. Her 'Aqua' tower in Chicago is magnificent. Would be a huge addition to the skyline here.

Originally Posted by slock

I think construction costs have gotten too high.

^^this

[jbm]

I believe that the One Oak people are hoping to get all their permits in place by mid-year and to get work started in the second half of the year.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by fimiak

Part of that end of cycle talk is fueled by Prop M, which has been hit and means that some of the office space that has been proposed is not likely to start until 2018 or never.

They should repeal prop M. I was looking at some GDP stats for SF, and its incredible just how much the city grew and its affect on global markets. Places like SF should be allowed to grow untamed in terms of office space and even residential. It might not put a big band-aid in the housing crisis, but its something at least. More people, more jobs, better economic outlook.

I'd like to see some of the boom really spill into Oakland and the surrounding suburbs. Oakland could be the JC of the region in terms of cheaper rents and cheaper overall sq footage. Housing is really my biggest concern. Even with all of the units, I think its asinine for America to have this problem. We have people who want to move into cities, but have a hard time due to units being overpriced and not in supply. Shouldn't be that way. The fortress city, NIMBY attitude needs to be overruled. Speaking in general terms. I'd like to see SF have the pro unit attitude of Austin or Houston.

Even micro units are acceptable. I'd like to see 1000's of these built. While space is generally not important to younger folks, getting them to move to cities is important. It adds spice and new ideas to urban areas, and not to our stale suburbs.

[chuckrim]

Originally Posted by chris08876

They should repeal prop M. I was looking at some GDP stats for SF, and its incredible just how much the city grew and its affect on global markets. Places like SF should be allowed to grow untamed in terms of office space and even residential. It might not put a big band-aid in the housing crisis, but its something at least. More people, more jobs, better economic outlook.

It also creates the 'boom-bust' scenario that we have become accustomed to. It's simple supply / demand - blows my mind how city leaders do not get this.

[pseudolus]

Originally Posted by chuckrim

It also creates the 'boom-bust' scenario that we have become accustomed to. It's simple supply / demand - blows my mind how city leaders do not get this.

This is the first time in 30 years that we're bumping up against the Prop M cap. How could it be responsible for the "boom-bust" cycle?

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

This is the first time in 30 years that we're bumping up against the Prop M cap. How could it be responsible for the "boom-bust" cycle?

Not that what I am about to say is the reason for the boom / bust, but many projects are never even proposed because of developer fear of Prop M. There are developers that would invest in SF if they knew they didn't have to compete against others for Prop M space. Many of these developers go look for opportunities in other cities instead.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by chuckrim

blows my mind how city leaders do not get this.

City leaders get it, but Prop M was a public initiative. Until we have enough citizens who vote to overturn or modify it, nothing is going to happen. The same is even more true regarding our protected waterfront, where the voters have to approve individual projects.

How many of you actually live here, are registered voters, become informed, and vote in each and every election?

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

City leaders get it, but Prop M was a public initiative. Until we have enough citizens who vote to overturn or modify it, nothing is going to happen. The same is even more true regarding our protected waterfront, where the voters have to approve individual projects.

How many of you actually live here, are registered voters, become informed, and vote in each and every election?

I can proudly say that me and my SO have voted in every election since moving to SF. Mail-in ballots are awesome.

There was an idea from last year that the mayor had in recovering Prop M space that had been converted into residential over the past thirty years. This would account for something like 1-3m sq feet, which is like adding two to four years to prop M. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...sion-plan.html

[fflint]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

How many of you actually live here, are registered voters, become informed, and vote in each and every election?

I have voted in every SF election since (and including) 1992, with the exception of my college years when I voted in LA.

Originally Posted by fimiak

There was an idea from last year that the mayor had in recovering Prop M space that had been converted into residential over the past thirty years. This would account for something like 1-3m sq feet, which is like adding two to four years to prop M. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...sion-plan.html

This is an outstanding idea, and is entirely in accordance with the spirit of Prop M.

[toxteth o'grady]

Originally Posted by chris08876

They should repeal prop M. I was looking at some GDP stats for SF, and its incredible just how much the city grew and its affect on global markets. Places like SF should be allowed to grow untamed in terms of office space and even residential.

Prop M was the result of fear of untamed growth. In 1979, it was Prop O that was supposed to defend SF against Manhattanization (it failed at the polls). The aversion to growth is not confined to San Francisco; Austin has for years tried to keep newcomers out (they also failed). As it is, Houston has always been more susceptible to the boom-bust cycle than most places. For better or worse.

[fflint]

Crane over 350 Bush on a cold Winter day:


My photo

[timbad]

Originally Posted by slock

41 Tehama should be in the "under construction" list.

Based on what I've read regarding permits and financing, my guess (hope) is that the following break ground in 2016:

500 Folsom
400 Folsom
706 Mission
100 Folsom (they have financing, just waiting for height change)
50 First (both towers)

The rest probably won't start until the next cycle -- I think construction costs have gotten too high.

I think I would be pleased even if the above is all we get out of this cycle. Would round out Yerba Buena, further cement the tenuous link between Rincon Hill and Transbay and go far to transform Folsom, and fill one of the last remaining major gaps in the 'CBD' - the Gang building would be icing on the cake, an ornament for views from the bridge and Bay.

[timbad]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

...

How many of you actually live here, are registered voters, become informed, and vote in each and every election?

pretty sure I can check all those boxes since 1988 (except for the six years in there that I lived elsewhere)

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by timbad

pretty sure I can check all those boxes since 1988 (except for the six years in there that I lived elsewhere)

Tim - you, fflint, fimiak & his SO, and I all get gold stars. I wish everybody did because voting, as fimiak pointed out, is so easy here. I wish it were mandatory as a civic duty.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by chris08876

They should repeal prop M. I was looking at some GDP stats for SF, and its incredible just how much the city grew and its affect on global markets. Places like SF should be allowed to grow untamed in terms of office space and even residential. It might not put a big band-aid in the housing crisis, but its something at least. More people, more jobs, better economic outlook.

I'd like to see some of the boom really spill into Oakland and the surrounding suburbs. Oakland could be the JC of the region in terms of cheaper rents and cheaper overall sq footage. Housing is really my biggest concern. Even with all of the units, I think its asinine for America to have this problem. We have people who want to move into cities, but have a hard time due to units being overpriced and not in supply. Shouldn't be that way. The fortress city, NIMBY attitude needs to be overruled. Speaking in general terms. I'd like to see SF have the pro unit attitude of Austin or Houston.

Even micro units are acceptable. I'd like to see 1000's of these built. While space is generally not important to younger folks, getting them to move to cities is important. It adds spice and new ideas to urban areas, and not to our stale suburbs.

Austin/Houston are also much less built out then SF is so it's much easier for real estate investment groups to buy a large empty lot, then develop 300+ unit mega apartment projects.

Last thing we want is for San Francisco to become more sterile as a result of destroying it's great housing stock in favor of bland midrise/highrise apartment buildings. Let's not destroy the reason why everyone loves San Francisco in the first place.

That being said, SF should re-develop the more suburban portions of the city(The southwest side). They don't add much and are architecturally bland compared to the housing stock in the northern half of the peninsula.

[timbad]

not much different than the last time we checked in, but just a reminder that this project at 510 Townsend at about Sixth is underway



and a few looks at 1010 Potrero from a passing train

[botoxic]

Many amazing SF aerial photos taken December 29th by Louis Raphael on flickr - worth checking out the entire album, but here are a few of my favorites:

The cranes are down, and Rincon Hill is finished for the time being, minus the Folsom connection pieces:
More Aerial Fun over San Francisco by Louis Raphael, on Flickr

Mission Street splitting the skyline:
More Aerial Fun over San Francisco by Louis Raphael, on Flickr

Even Jasper cannot ruin this amazing Rincon Hill sunset:
More Aerial Fun over San Francisco by Louis Raphael, on Flickr

[chuckrim]

^^ love that perspective of the city. Inspiring how much it has changed.