HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10801  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 8:32 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinpeaks View Post
I'm with you. So much public space is dedicated for car storage and traffic, it's waste of valuable resources. I'm a gen-X, but fully support public transport and use it as much as possible around the city and via BART to Oakland. I own two cars, but mainly use it for commute and trips outside the City.
Let me know how you get around in another 4 decades or so (how you communicate with me at that point will be up to your ingenuity).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10802  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 8:53 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
A WHOLE NEW SOUTH BEACH
By Laura Waxmann – Staff Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Apr 29, 2021 Updated Apr 29, 2021, 7:19pm PDT

In less than a decade, a roughly half-mile, barren stretch of the San Francisco waterfront described as a “dead zone” in the city’s South Beach neighborhood will be unrecognizable.

That, at least, is the hope of the Port of San Francisco and two teams working independently but on parallel trajectories to redevelop two sets of dilapidated piers.

The vision is to transform that stretch of waterfront — flanked by the Bay Bridge and Oracle Park — into an urban dining, shopping and recreational destination while also strengthening the port’s aging infrastructure.



Roughly 13 acres across Piers 30 and 32 — home to a city-operated Covid-19 testing site for the last year — are earmarked for a full rebuild into a floating swimming pool framed by two new office structures. Across Embarcadero Street from the piers, 850 multifamily units would rise on an underutilized parking lot where a homeless navigation center operates.

Strada Investment Group and financial partner Trammell Crow Co. are leading the $1.2 billion proposal.



Further south — next to South Beach Harbor and Oracle Park— Piers 38 and 40 are slated for redevelopment into office space, recreational and commercial boating facilities and an Asian-inspired food market. That $383 million project comes from Pacific Waterfront Partners LLC.

The Port selected both teams last summer after competitive bidding processes . . . .

The public floating swimming pool, the project’s signature, was inspired by examples in Europe.

“There are great examples in northern Europe, and there’s also one on the Seine in Paris,” he said. “San Francisco doesn’t have anything like this. So we thought that would be a great way to attract a whole bunch of new people from around the region to this part of the waterfront and really activate the site.”

The details are still being worked out, but Blout envisions the pool or pools would come in the form of a steel or concrete barge that floats in a tub in the bay. That would allow them to better control the water quality.

“We are playing around with whether we can use Bay water in the same way that the Exploratorium uses bay water to cool the Exploratorium,” said Blout. “They have this heat exchange process where they take the bay water into the building through a series of pipes and cool the building. What we’re thinking is we could potentially use that technology where we heat the office buildings and then use the water to warm the pool, maybe also combined with some solar panels.”

A third try at Piers 38-40
Pacific Waterfront Partners’ third attempt to redevelop Piers 38 and 40 could be the charm. The development firm was selected following two unsuccessful flirtations with the site . . . .

Snellgrove said that equity and affordability are principles guiding his firm’s proposal for Piers 38 and 40, which combined span about 252,600 square feet.

Rather than paying minimum rent, eight restaurants envisioned to operate on a 30,000-square-foot existing parking lot-turned-plaza covered by a large canopy on Pier 40 will pay percentage rents based on their sales— meaning that as the businesses do well, the revenue will be shared with the Port and PWP. The restaurants will not be subject to common area maintenance charges as is typical for businesses operating in Port facilities. In return, the restaurants must agree to cap their price points . . . .

The Pavilion-style food market is inspired by Asian outdoor night markets, such as the Stanley Market in Hong Kong. The Cornerstone Institute is partnering with PWP on the project . . . .

The plaza will also be programmed for events, and the current proposal features two bayside pools that would be free to the public. One may be swapped out for a volleyball court, depending on community feedback. Take a look at the current state of the piers and the vision for them in the gallery below . . . .

Strada’s proposal calls for roughly 700 market-rate and affordable inclusionary units in one building and an affordable building with 150 units. Because restrictions at the piers limit the project’s office space, Blout said the city will use the state density bonus program to boost density, generating “enough development envelope” to pay for the public infrastructure improvements. Two corners of the proposed housing development would exceed local height limits . . . .

Amato believes that Strada’s proposal would suffice in activating the neighborhood with more restaurants, shopping and other amenities — and questioned the demand for both projects at South Beach stretch of the waterfront . . . .

As for the Port, it says both are doable: “The projects are complementary and will offer a wide mix of new open space, access to the waterfront and other amenities for the public. The projects are advancing on different timelines and are not expected to have significant overlap in construction. Additionally, much of the construction is expected to be over water mitigating some construction inconveniences.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...mmell-pwp.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10803  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 9:02 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
TRANSBAY BLOCK 4 (at temporary TransBay Terminal)

Location: Block 4 is located on Howard Street between Beale and Main Streets

Size: 1.04 acres

Developers: F4 Transbay Partners LLC, including Hines, Goldman Sachs and Urban Pacific, along with Mercy Housing of California

How they were selected: F4 Transbay Partners LLC obtained an option in early 2016 to acquire Block 4 from the Transbay Joint Powers Authority as part of its acquisition of Transbay Parcel F at the western end of the Salesforce Transit Center, since the authority owned both sites at the time. In April 2016, OCII approved that agreement.

How much they will pay: “The purchase price is not yet determined as OCII and the development team continue to negotiate a development agreement,” Ben Brandin, acting Transbay project manager, wrote in an email.

Plan: OCII is in negotiations with the developers to build two residential buildings, one a mixed-income tower and one a 100% affordable mid-rise building. There would be a total of approximately 669 housing units, according to Brandin. Townhomes are proposed, too. The 47-story mixed-income residential tower would include a “substantial” number of designated affordable units. The affordable midrise would be a 16-story, 160-foot tall residential building with 192 apartments, plus community rooms, laundry rooms and other indoor amenities, roof terraces, and community-serving commercial spaces, said William Ho, associate director of real estate development at Mercy Housing, in an emailed statement.

Status: It is in active predevelopment, with negotiations on development agreements and designs underway.

When construction could start: 2023-2025

What you need to know: There are overarching affordable housing requirements for the Transbay district that Block 4 is a key part of meeting, said Daniel Esdorn, managing director at Hines. The option to acquire Block 4 and Parcel F offered a way for the F4 Transbay Partners team to work with the city through the challenges of Parcel F, where there are strict zoning constraints, while still producing enough affordable housing in the Transbay district to allow the city to meet requirements, he said. The plan for Block 4 also includes “an ambitious slate of community benefits” that could include things like community-serving retail and taking on elements of the streetscape improvement plans, Esdorn added . . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...nsit-site.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10804  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 3:52 PM
crazy amy b crazy amy b is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
So in your 8th post you are calling someone who's been participating here for a decade or so a liar which means, in case you are so ignorant as not to know, an intentional teller of untruths. You are rude, nasty and don't know what you are talking about. None of your posts that I've seen contributed anything to the discussion here about building so one needs to ask why you crawled out from under your rock onto this site?.
None of that changes the fact that you are a LIAR. All you can do is deflect like a typical elitist CON.

Also you are very bad at math if you say you've been here a decade when your account was created in 2016. No wonder you can't read a mode share chart.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10805  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 6:01 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy amy b View Post
None of that changes the fact that you are a LIAR. All you can do is deflect like a typical elitist CON.

Also you are very bad at math if you say you've been here a decade when your account was created in 2016. No wonder you can't read a mode share chart.
Reported--and there's much you don't know (not just about the substance of these threads).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10806  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 6:17 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
Application Filed For Balboa Reservoir, West Of Twin Peaks, San Francisco
BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON MAY 3, 2021

A recent Phase planning application has been filed verifying the composition of phase one in a 17-acre residential project on land controlled by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission at Balboa Reservoir around 11 Frida Khala Way, San Francisco. Phase one will replace surface parking with an expected 628 new residential units divided between six horizontal and vertical blocks, ranging from townhouses to condos and market-rate to affordable housing. Balboa Reservoir is a joint venture between BRIDGE Housing and AvalonBay Communities.

BRIDGE Housing, AvalonBay Communities, Mission Housing Development Corporation, Pacific Union Development Company, and Habitat for Humanity will be involved with the development process. Master planning is a collaboration between Van Meter Williams Pollack and PYATOK Architects, while GLS Landscape Architects is responsible for the open space design. A developer of the townhouses has not yet been determined.

The development will be built on portions of the original Balboa Reservoir site, on which there are no existing buildings. Phase one will include the construction of 676,000 square feet between blocks C, D, E, F, TH1, and TH2, relevant transit infrastructure, and the two-acre Reservoir Park.

Blocks C and D will rise between five and seven floors to add 250 market-rate apartments between 171,000 and 110,000 square feet, respectively. Block E and will stand five stories tall, with just twenty units across 23,000 square feet, while the six-to-seven story Block F will produce 171 apartments across 179,000 square feet. Each block has an average unit size of around 850 square feet ranging from studios to three-bedroom residences.

Block TH1 will see 40 townhouse units across 77,000 square feet of built area, and TH2 will see 60 townhouse units made from 116,000 square feet. The townhomes average 1,680 square feet per unit.

Residential buildings from phase one will surround Reservoir Park . . . . Full buildout of Balboa Reservoir hopes to add 1,100 apartments across eleven blocks and 1.28 million square feet of residential buildings, four acres of public space, a child care center, and 339,900 square feet for parking. As many as fifty percent of all units will be affordable housing for persons earning half two 120 percent of the Area Median Income. The developer subsidizes 33%, and around 17% are pending public subsidies.

The tenants and the public alike will gain access to new public open spaces and vehicular parking. There are four other proposed landscaping opportunities to complement Reservoir Park. Gateway Landscape is a 0.1-acre gateway landscape dog facility by Lee Avenue and South Street. Brighton Paseo will be a 0.25-acre pedestrian + slow bike path connecting Reservoir Park with Ocean Avenue . . . .

Construction is expected to start in mid-2022, with the full buildout as early as 2026.










https://sfyimby.com/2021/05/applicat...francisco.html

I very much like this. The renderings make it look almost old-world European. I hope it turns out that way.

And thanks again to SFYimby.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10807  
Old Posted May 3, 2021, 7:33 PM
crazy amy b crazy amy b is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Reported--and there's much you don't know (not just about the substance of these threads).
Same to you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10808  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 4:50 AM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Let me know how you get around in another 4 decades or so (how you communicate with me at that point will be up to your ingenuity).
Why so defensive? No one is stopping you from riding a car or taxi. Again, too much of our public space are dedicated for private car parking and driving. My parents do not have a car and they get around the city where they need to go, it's just slow via Muni. I'm advocating for more dedicated transit lanes so they can get around faster and easier. And this city is not just for old people, we need more dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian streets to make it safe to travel for everyone. 4 decades from now, I'm looking forward to teleportation using the internet, but seriously, when I'm old, would love to live in a "pedestrian is priority" area where I can walk around to get all my basic needs and feel safe doing so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10809  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 4:55 AM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 108
Pedestrian - Thanks for the development updates
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10810  
Old Posted May 4, 2021, 11:41 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
me too. when this first was proposed I remember thinking it was not ambitious (dense) enough, but this looks OK to my eye now, given its surroundings. and I really like the connections through to/from Ocean Ave (esp the pedestrian one from the park) and the fact that there is one even to the existing neighborhood to the west. will be so nice to have this filled in. now if CCSF could just get its act together about the other half...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10811  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 12:13 AM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
and the fact that there is one even to the existing neighborhood to the west
The Westwood Park Association was very much against this, for fear that this would increase competition for parking. I don't often speak at public meetings, but I got quite irate when they opposed it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10812  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 5:00 AM
tall/awkward tall/awkward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 144
Hi Pedestrian, are there more renderings of Transbay Block 4 in that article?

I clicked on the link, but want me to subscribe and I already subscribe to too many things...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10813  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 5:35 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by tall/awkward View Post
Hi Pedestrian, are there more renderings of Transbay Block 4 in that article?

I clicked on the link, but want me to subscribe and I already subscribe to too many things...
Unfortunately, no. The article also covers the other 3 parts of the site but nothing nearly as interesting planned for them. I haven’t checked the developers’ sites—“ Developers: F4 Transbay Partners LLC, including Hines, Goldman Sachs and Urban Pacific”—you might do that. Also the one image is from Steelblue. Maybe they have more.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10814  
Old Posted May 5, 2021, 8:02 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
New Rendering Revealed For 401 South Van Ness Avenue, Mission District, San Francisco
BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON MAY 5, 2021

Developers have filed a Large Project Authorization request for an eight-story group housing project at 401 South Van Ness Avenue in the Mission District, San Francisco . . . . The corner-lot proposal will become a mixed-use building with 153 bedroom suites, commercial retail, and residential amenities. The Kansas-based Elsey Partners is responsible for the development.

The 99-foot tall proposal yields 63,960 square feet, with 44,190 square feet for residential use and 3,660 square feet for retail. The rooftop includes a 750 square foot amenity terrace with seating and an open kitchen area, while another 856 square feet of the rooftop will be covered with solar panels.

Residential space will be included within the two basement levels and floors two through eight. Each floor will consist of a shared living area open to the dorm-like studios between the second and eighth levels. The basement and sub-basement include several bathrooms, a dining hall with a kitchen, an exercise studio, a courtyard, a gym, and a lounge.

. . . Parking is included for 60 bicycles and no vehicles. Twenty-nine units will be rented as affordable, ranging for residents earning 55%, 80%, or 110% of the Area Median Income.

In the planning document, Elsey Partners describe the intent behind 401 South Van Ness, writing that “the proposed group housing project is a modern-day version of the affordable SRO (single-room occupancy) hotels that were populated by San Francisco’s working classroom, transient laborers, and immigrants during the last century. The same dynamics that attracted the working class to SRO hotels 100 years ago are at play with the current development.” The description goes on to highlight the relative affordability and access to transit . . . .

Construction is expected to cost $25.4 million over an estimated duration of 18 months. The project is two blocks away from the 16th Street Mission BART Station.









(The site now)
https://sfyimby.com/2021/05/new-rend...francisco.html

It's interesting to do the math on this: $25.4 million/202 "beds" = $125,742.57 per "bed" (some of the 153 rooms have 2 beds) or about $166,000 per room (no bathroom or kitchen).

It seems to me that this is what SF would have to build in large quantities to actually house our homeless population. But given the problems some of them have, I'd strongly consider ensuite bathrooms and at least a microwave for meal prep. Otherwise you'd have to have a staff present all the time to make sure the communal bathrooms and kitchens remained sanitary. Either way, it would add to the cost. In the end, can we afford it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10815  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:21 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 951
The problem with this entire scheme is that this is ultimately still paid for by taxpayers, raising the cost of living for everyone, simply to house 202 people for $25m. Instead of spending all money and effort on the plight of the bottom 5%, they should go back to trying to build new homes for wealthy residents and newcomers so that older homes can go to the middle class at a more affordable rate.

Common sense is not wanted when every electoral contest becomes a battle of who is more progressive.
__________________
San Francisco Projects List ∞ The city that knows how ∞ 2017 ∞ 884,363 ∞ ~2030 ∞ 1,000,000
San Francisco Projects ThreadOakland Projects ThreadOceanwide Center - 275M/901'

Last edited by fimiak; Yesterday at 5:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10816  
Old Posted Yesterday, 5:50 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 635
401 South Van Ness is not subsidized housing for homeless people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10817  
Old Posted Yesterday, 6:00 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 17,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus View Post
401 South Van Ness is not subsidized housing for homeless people.
No, it's not. As the article says, it's market rate with 29 of the 153 units "affordable".

But as I said (and the point of what I said) it seems like it's approximately what the city would have to build if it set out to build new housing for all of the people currently living on its streets and so its economics give us some idea of how much that would cost. It's really the most stripped down basic form of housing I can imagine--almost like a people warehouse--and therefore the lowest cost form of new-built housing I can imagine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.