PDA

View Full Version : Bay Area Proposals/Approvals/Construction Tidbits II


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

San Frangelino
Jan 15, 2007, 5:28 AM
This Oakland Tower has returned to the http://www.ibadesign.com/ website with new renderings.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/136/357885788_2d2cc63424_o.png

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/357885779_6447368591.jpg?v=0

Now if we can just get the parking lots and single storied buildings in the background filled with like or greater-sized buildings .

BTinSF
Jan 16, 2007, 6:15 AM
Oakland's Fox Theater coming back:


Dramatic deal raises curtain on Fox Theater
San Francisco Business Times - January 12, 2007
by Ryan Tate and Najib Joe Hakim

The City of Oakland and its partners closed a deal to restore the Fox Theater, finally funding a redevelopment project that had foundered for more than a decade.

City officials, developer Phil Tagami and a slew of others late last month secured $19 million in tax credit financing for the theater, unlocking a complex labyrinth of transactions that will ultimately total $59 million. A construction contract for the bulk of the restoration was signed last week.

The deals cap a nail-biting scramble for the prized tax credits and pave the way for further development in downtown Oakland.

City officials are hoping the Fox will transform the surrounding Uptown neighborhood into a 24-hour entertainment zone filled with shops and housing, a process already under way. The potential benefits include everything from increased tax revenue to lower crime to more active cultural ferment.

"It shows the resurgence of that area, and that is bringing other investment downtown," said city Redevelopment Director Dan Vanderpriem.

The final financing for the Fox originated in two tax credits, one targeting low-income communities and the other for historic buildings. The tax credits backed money invested in the Fox by three private entities: Bank of America, National Trust Community Investment Corp. and Charter School Development Corp.

"It's a way to revitalize a community," said Michael Conn, market president for Bank of America in the East Bay. The bank has funded similar theater restorations with the Apollo in New York and the Hippodrome in Baltimore.

The transaction pulls together a web of other money sources. For example, it secures a $26 million loan from the city's redevelopment agency that was contingent on the tax-credit funding. Other money comes from Proposition 40, Proposition 12 and the federal department of Housing and Urban Development.

Perhaps the most roundabout funding source is a $6.5 million loan backed by the Oakland School for the Arts' lease of some Fox space, a lease in turn backed by a donation from Viacom, a donation itself funded by revenue from billboards that Viacom was allowed to erect on land rented from the Port of Oakland.

All told, a single copy of the final financing agreement spans half a dozen four-inch thick binders -- close to 500 pages each.

It is the sort of creative, government-related deal on which Tagami has helped build his reputation at California Commercial Inc., the development firm at which he is a partner. But Tagami is far from finished: He must now oversee completion of the complex restoration work with only $4.4 million in contingency funds.

Phase one of construction began in September, before the tax credits were secure, work that mostly involved investigating the site for surprises that could hinder the construction timeline. Only with the signing of the phase-two construction contract with Turner Construction Co. earlier this month could the core work begin.

The theater opened in 1928 and closed in 1966. Throughout the construction, historic features must be preserved, including the façade and features within the building like doorways.

In addition to the school, the theater will also hold a restaurant and a street-level lobby annex where people can gather before shows.

Work on the theater is supposed to be completed in September 2008.

The theater will ultimately be judged not just on dealmaking or construction, but also on its success in drawing paying audiences. It can hold up to 2,300 people with seats removed from the ground floor, making it suitable for livelier shows than the nearby historic Paramount Theater, which holds up to 3,040 people, but with fixed theater seats.

Another Planet Entertainment, which will manage and book the theater, sees the building as similar to San Francisco's Warfield in function and market position, said CEO Gregg Perloff.

"Whether it's a rock 'n' roll audience or a dance audience or an R&B audience, it will have the kind of music that's appropriate for the theater," Perloff said.

Another Planet also hopes to rent it out for parties, weddings and other community events.

In seven years, the private company formed by the city to own the Fox will have to buy out its tax-credit investors.

Tagami's firm will get 2 percent of costs as its fee, but the developer insists it will end up losing money on the project. So why do it?

Tagami said it is a philanthropic gesture. But seconds later, he was talking about all of the critics who said the restoration project could never happen, given the failure of past efforts, and there is little doubt he derives some pleasure from proving them wrong.

"People get mealy-mouthed," Tagami said. "At a certain point in time, you get tired of excuses -- just do it!"

rtate@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4968

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/01/15/story2.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Jan 16, 2007, 6:18 AM
And so is the Tribune Tower:

Historic Tribune Tower to get Ferry Building treatment
San Francisco Business Times - January 12, 2007
by Ryan Tate

The new owner of downtown Oakland's iconic Tribune Tower plans to cap extensive exterior restoration work with a redevelopment of the ground floor that takes a page from San Francisco's successful Ferry Building.

Eddie Kislinger, a Berkeley student entrepeneur turned entertainment lawyer turned real estate developer, has hired Ferry Building restoration architect Page and Turnbull to return the Tribune Tower's lobby to its original, 1907 glory. He's hoping the work will help lure an upscale restaurant into ground-floor space now occupied by the Oakland Tribune -- and help draw office tenants when the newspaper moves out of the building, leaving more than half of it vacant.

"If we do it right, it's going to attract the kind of tenant who feels about the building the way I do," said Kislinger, who founded then sold the Leopold record store in Berkeley and sold parking on the land that became People's Park. "I bought an historic jewel -- and I am treating that way."

Kislinger has already spent more than half a million dollars on various restoration projects at the tower, which he acquired last fall for $15.3 million

The anchor tenant, the Oakland Tribune newspaper, moved back when the building reopened, but has informed Kislinger it intends to move before its lease expires in 2010.

The Tribune had occupied close to 60,000 of the 90,000-square-foot building, on six floors. Filling that space depends on Kislinger's ability to position the building at the top of the heap of Class B space available on the market.

That's because while Class A space is only about 9 percent vacant in downtown Oakland, according to Colliers International, lesser space is 15 percent vacant.

rtate@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4968

BTinSF
Jan 16, 2007, 6:23 AM
New pro soccer stadium in San Jose??

A's owner takes shot at soccer goal
San Francisco Business Times - 1:08 PM PST Monday
by Eric Young

San Jose State University, Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff and San Jose officials are negotiating to build a multi-purpose stadium that would bring professional soccer back to the Bay Area, according to a news report.

The San Jose Mercury News reports that SJSU and the soccer team, which would be called the Earthquakes, would operate the stadium as partners. Unnamed sources told the newspaper that SJSU and the Earthquakes would keep revenue from their respective events and would split revenue from other events such as concerts.

The stadium, tentatively scheduled to open in 2009, would have about 22,000 permanent seats with the option to increase capacity to 30,000.

Wolff, along with A's President Michael Crowley and Gap Inc. scion John Fisher, bought rights from Major League Soccer to operate a team in Northern California. The 12-team MLS, which is in expansion mode, gave the group until 2009 to build a stadium and field a team.

Wolff was not available Monday. But in an interview last week, he told the San Francisco Business Times that "we're getting more comfortable that there may be a way to get (a stadium) done in the San Jose area." He declined to offer details.

San Jose had a MLS team between 1996 and 2005 when it moved to Houston after failing to secure a deal for a new stadium.

Wolff is in discussions with Fremont to build a new baseball stadium for the A's. Wolff has said he would not consider building one stadium for both baseball and soccer because the seasons overlap almost completely.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/01/15/daily7.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Jan 17, 2007, 8:19 AM
Awaiting the renderings:

A's owner dishes on proposed ``ballpark village'' in Fremont
By Barry Witt
Mercury News

Making his first public appearance before the Fremont City Council, Oakland A's owner Lew Wolff filled in a few crucial details about the ``village'' that would surround a new home for his team, suggesting the neighborhood would feel more like Boston or Baltimore than a typical California tract.

Wolff mostly delivered a broad overview of his development plan at a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night, but he did reveal two key numbers: The retail-residential development surrounding his new baseball stadium would include 2,900 new homes and up to a half-million square feet of ``specialty'' retailers, akin to San Jose's Santana Row. He also urged the city to ``move this along sooner rather than later, if everyone likes it.''

The A's owner and Los Angeles developer has yet to file a development application, but he said his goal was a quick approval process, arguing that the pull of a major league baseball team in town should motivate officials to move speedily once he does file.

That request was met with quick criticism from several speakers who told the council that the biggest development project ever proposed for the city of 210,000 residents should require a longer-than-usual review process.

``The potential impacts of a project of this magnitude are enormous, and common sense would tell you, given these potential impacts, if anything, you would slow the process down to make sure that we understand these impacts,'' said Vinton Bacon, a local Sierra Club representative.

The retail space that Wolff is weighing is comparable to the size of Santana Row, which has 555,000 square feet of commercial space, but the housing component would be significantly larger. San Jose has approved 1,600 homes at Santana Row.

Wolff said he expected his development would be a boon to Fremont's tax rolls. He also said it would bring less rush-hour traffic than a 3.5 million-square-foot business park already approved for the land, and that the planned $500 million Cisco Field would be the ``most unique and intimate'' ballpark in the country at about 32,000 seats.

Exactly how he plans to make all that work remains a big unknown, as Wolff has yet to unveil exactly what his ballpark village would look like, how he expects to handle game-day traffic, or how the public cost of serving a new community of 2,900 homes with schools, parks, libraries, and police and fire protection compares to the projected tax revenues his development would yield. Wolff said he would deliver an economic impact report to the city in the near future.

Fremont residents, who filled the 100-seat council chambers, had a mixed reaction to what they've heard so far. Several A's fans and business leaders said they fully supported any effort to bring the A's to town, while others were skeptical.

Michael Toschak, a small-business owner, said traffic concerns were overblown and that the A's would ``be of benefit to everyone.''

``We're talking about 160 hours worth of traffic,'' Toschak said, estimating about that each of the 81 home games the A's would play would mean two hours of traffic problems.

But some residents, including an influential businessman, expressed caution. Bo Magnussen, whose Lexus dealership in the Fremont Auto Mall adjoins the planned ballpark village, told the council he was worried that weekend traffic headed to the ballpark would be a problem for his customers on the most important sales days.

``We have to be very concerned about that,'' Magnussen, whose industry is the city's biggest sales tax contributor.

Wolff did not deliver any sort of schedule for delivering a plan the city could consider, other than to say he would file his development application after his real estate deal for the land, now controlled by Cisco Systems, closes. He did not say when that might happen.

The council took no action Tuesday night. City Manager Fred Diaz said he plans to return to the council in several weeks with a proposed set of guidelines to steer future discussions with the A's, similar to those adopted this month by Santa Clara, which is in stadium talks with the San Frnacisco 49ers.

Wolff publicly introduced the stadium plan for the first time in November at a news conference at Cisco's San Jose corporate headquarters, joined by Cisco chief executive John Chambers and Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig.

Wolff has an agreement with Cisco to purchase 143 acres the company controls in the Pacific Commons development west of Interstate 880 and south of Auto Mall Parkway. Cisco holds an option to buy the vacant property, where it has abandoned plans to build a corporate campus.

In prior interviews and a letter to the city in late November, Wolff suggested that the city could end up as the owner of the stadium, but he has not outlined the type of real estate transaction he expects to make that happen.

Wolff has indicated he wants to use a 40-acre piece of property owned by the city at the west end of Auto Mall Parkway as part of his parking solution, which he has said will have 9,000 spaces to serve the ballpark.

The stadium would be the smallest in baseball, with 32,000 to 35,000 seats. Cisco, which has a 30-year, $120 million naming rights sponsorship deal for the ballpark, has promised to make it the most technologically advanced stadium ever built.

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16476794.htm

plinko
Jan 17, 2007, 8:29 AM
Updated: Jan. 17, 2007, 12:00 AM ET
A's owner outlines plans for new ballparkAssociated Press

FREMONT, Calif. -- Oakland Athletics co-owner Lew Wolff invoked visions of Boston's Fenway Park and Chicago's Wrigley Field as he outlined an ambitious development plan for a new ballpark for the first time publicly Tuesday.

Nearly 300 people -- mostly supporters of the A's planned move -- turned out for the Fremont City Council meeting, where Wolff described the proposed Cisco Field as a "sculpture" to be set amid a village of townhomes, shops, restaurants and a hotel. He also envisioned a public park where baseball fans could view a game on a large screen located on back of the center-field scoreboard.

With only 32,000 seats, the stadium would be baseball's most intimate venue, Wolff said.

The A's have said the proposed $500 million ballpark, located off Interstate 880 about 30 miles south of the current stadium, would be built in partnership with Cisco Systems Inc. and could open in time for the 2011 season.

One of the major hurdles still facing the project is public transportation. The A's owner provided no immediate solution for linking the ballpark site to BART or other light rail but said he would present a final plan for traffic issues after further meetings with city officials.

Wolff also remained coy about the team's new name, only saying that "the name 'Fremont' will be in the name of our ball team."

While many attendees touted the increased tax revenue and name recognition the A's would bring to Fremont, the project saw some opposition by environmentalists and Oakland baseball fans Tuesday.

Representatives from the Sierra Club and other groups warned that the ballpark construction could threaten vernal pools, which are important breeding habitats for federal- and state-protected plants and animals in the area.

More than a dozen Oakland supporters came in their green and gold to urge team officials to consider staying.

Bobby Tselentis, 21, helped unfurl a banner outside the city council chambers that read "Keep Our A's in Oakland."

"The A's leaving Oakland means a loss of jobs and could have a chain reaction that results in the other two teams also leaving," he said.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press
Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2733437

Two things struck me here...the amount of completely wasted money the team and city are going to spend on environmental mitigation (not to mention the lost time)...and the owner actually establishing that the name 'Fremont' will be in the team's name. What a disaster this is turning out to be.

Baseball stadiums DO NOT belong in the suburbs...why is that so difficult?

pseudolus
Jan 20, 2007, 6:39 PM
From "New fire codes urged for high-rise elevators" in today's Chronicle
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/20/BAGBCNLUSN1.DTL

350 Mission St.
Use: Office
Proposed height: 850 feet
Stories: 60

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/20/ba_high_rises.jpg

San Frangelino
Jan 20, 2007, 7:37 PM
350 Mission St.
Use: Office
Proposed height: 850 feet
Stories: 60

That's right across from Millenium tower and out of left field!

Don't let it be a chronicle mistake...please not a chronlicle mistake!!

mthd
Jan 20, 2007, 8:13 PM
There was never confirmation that Accor (Sofitel's parent company) sold the parcel. From what I understand, after buying it from Golden Gate University, and then postponing hotel development plans, they have just held onto it.

accor sold the property long ago.

from the descriptions of the piano project, i believe that parcel is included, but can't be certain.

slock
Jan 20, 2007, 8:24 PM
Good eyes Frangelino, I read the article and didn't even catch it.

I Google Mapped it and remembered reading something in the Biz Times a while back. Looks like it might not be a Chronicle mistake:

From March 10, 2006 Biz Times:

Sale near Transbay

"Right now, 350 Mission St. is an unassuming four-story blue brick office building that houses Heald College's small downtown campus. You can be sure it won't stay that way forever.

A block from the Transbay Terminal, the parcel on the corner of Fremont and Mission streets has skyscraper potential. It has been acquired for a reported $25 million by the German-based GLL, a joint venture between Lend Lease Continental Holding and the European insurer Generali Group.

GLL has a deep local relationship with Fremont Properties, which listed the property and managed 350 Mission's comprehensive 1988 upgrade, including a seismic retrofit, fire/life safety upgrade, asbestos abatement, and new restrooms and stairwells. Fremont Properties and GLL also formed a partnership to build the 25-story office tower at 199 Fremont St.

Sources said the new owners of the 18,900-square-foot lot have not decided whether to build office or housing there."
---------------------------------

This is not one of the three parcels designated for upzoning to raise Transbay revenue. Cool either way.

slock
Jan 20, 2007, 8:28 PM
In response to mthd:

I had never seen confirmation so I was unsure. But an article in this week's Biz Times specifies that it is now part of the 5 tower Piano project.

It also says that no Hotel opperator has been chosen, so who knows, we might get a Sofitel, but in a roundabout way. To be honest, I'm sad to see that SOM design go.

BTinSF
Jan 20, 2007, 9:40 PM
In response to mthd:

I had never seen confirmation so I was unsure. But an article in this week's Biz Times specifies that it is now part of the 5 tower Piano project.

It also says that no Hotel opperator has been chosen, so who knows, we might get a Sofitel, but in a roundabout way. To be honest, I'm sad to see that SOM design go.

Right. The BizTimes article says that David Choo bought the land from Accor and also that the new Piano-design building will have 470 hotel rooms from an as-yet-unchosen brand.

But remember that Accor gave up plans for a Sofitel and in 2003 proposed a combo Red Roof Inn and Super 6 for that site. I gagged on that at the time along with most other San Franciscans and so I'm glad the land is no longer in Accord's hands. If they are willing to reconsider a Sofitel-branded hotel in the Choo building, well then OK. But that isn't a site for a Red Roof Inn or Super 6.

BTinSF
Jan 20, 2007, 9:43 PM
Another rather tongue-in-cheek BizTimes article talks about the "traffic jam in the sky over SoMa" caused by construction cranes. :cheers: :cheers: :yes:

Also, there's an article that says a 60-unit condo project is about to break ground at Mission and Cesar Chavez. It will have a ground floor Walgreens and 3 other businesses.

Finally, "what real estate bubble?": BizTimes says 20% of the units in Mission Bay's Arterra are in contract with 15 months of construction still to go.

Reminiscence
Jan 20, 2007, 10:13 PM
Ok, when did all this happen. A Sheraton Tower at 680' (207m), and two more office towers at 850' (259m) and 436' (133m), wow. We're looking at a possible 7 towers that will eclipse Transamerica now? I had no word on any of these new proposals, but this is great news. As for the hotel issue, I really do hope they're concidering Sofitel, that was such a great proposal to begin with. Shangri-La would work great with another tower perhaps.

San Frangelino
Jan 20, 2007, 11:51 PM
Sheraton Plaza Tower at 680

I am guessing that maybe a typo from the Chronicle, and they meant to say Sheraton "Palace" hotel. I am guessing that because of its location on the map, it's height, and that the Palace is or once was a Sheraton. Not that I wouldnt love to see another 680 footer at Market and New Montgomery, or why doesnt someone convince the Ritz-Carlton to add a hotel addition, following the Palace, Westin St. Francis, and Fairmont....oh wait they are, just not with the hotel....damn!

Has anyone heard anymore about a tower going up at the Mercantile Building on the NW corner of 3rd and Mission adjoining the Mexican Museum?

Reminiscence
Jan 21, 2007, 12:57 AM
^^^

The Palace Hotel Tower is suppose to be 669' (204m) and not 680' (207m). It could be that the tower has been upgraded slightly because I dont see it included in the list. Perhaps if its already been approved, maybe thats why it does not appear on the list? Or, perhaps when they said 669', they were not counting the structural top of the tower (much like Millenium Tower would only be 625', and not 645', if the top structure were not included).

BTinSF
Jan 21, 2007, 2:01 AM
Ok, when did all this happen. A Sheraton Tower at 680' (207m), and two more office towers at 850' (259m) and 436' (133m), wow. We're looking at a possible 7 towers that will eclipse Transamerica now? I had no word on any of these new proposals, but this is great news. As for the hotel issue, I really do hope they're concidering Sofitel, that was such a great proposal to begin with. Shangri-La would work great with another tower perhaps.

--With the exception of 350 Mission, none of this should be new to forumers. The Palace Hotel tower was extensively discussed (with pictures from JChurch)--too bad we don't have a "search" function.

--There NO consideration of the old Sofitel design. The lot where it would have gone is now part of the Choo/Piano site and the design Renzo Piano comes up with will have within it 470 hotel rooms which MIGHT be contracted to Sofitel to manage (but I think even that is unlikely).

Concerning the Palace Hotel, it is now a Starwood property. Starwood owns the Sheraton brand (along with others like Westin, "W", Meridien, St. Regis, 4 Points and Loft) and, for a while, they used that at the Palace. Then they "realigned" it with their "Luxury Collection" and dropped the "Sheraton" part of the name. Going by the Starwood web site, that is still its name: simply "Palace Hotel".

Reminiscence
Jan 21, 2007, 2:13 AM
^^^

I see, so the "Palace Hotel Tower" and this new "Sheraton Tower" are actually the same proposal. Thats too bad, I thought for a second they were apart.

I knew that Sofitel was dead a long time ago, but I've always wanted it to resurface somehow. When the topic resurfaced, I thought that maybe Sofitel was at least under concideration, but that does not seem to be the case.

I guess this only leaves 222 2nd St. and 350 Mission left, the latter of which is another fantastic proposal in itself.

coyotetrickster
Jan 21, 2007, 2:22 AM
^^^

I see, so the "Palace Hotel Tower" and this new "Sheraton Tower" are actually the same proposal. Thats too bad, I thought for a second they were apart.

I knew that Sofitel was dead a long time ago, but I've always wanted it to resurface somehow. When the topic resurfaced, I thought that maybe Sofitel was at least under concideration, but that does not seem to be the case.

I guess this only leaves 222 2nd St. and 350 Mission left, the latter of which is another fantastic proposal in itself.

222 2nd has also been discussed. It is the LEED certified tower Tishman Speyer is submitting for permitting. Also, given the Chronicle's habitual problem with fact-checking and 350 Mission being across the street from Transbay, I would bet good Euros that is one of the three towers proposed within the larger site, not a new tower.

San Frangelino
Jan 21, 2007, 2:28 AM
Also, there's an article that says a 60-unit condo project is about to break ground at Mission and Cesar Chavez.

Any idea of what corner that's going to be on? As I have said before, it's always good to hear of larger infill projects going up in the neighborhoods away from downtown.

Speaking of which does anybody have any information on this project. I had a friend who owned a house in Crocker Amazon; and just before he sold it, this was going up. Its exact location is Geneva Ave and Brookdale south of McLaren Park.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/364048919_0bc6b29f55_b.jpg

San Frangelino
Jan 21, 2007, 2:50 AM
Also, given the Chronicle's habitual problem with fact-checking and 350 Mission being across the street from Transbay, I would bet good Euros that is one of the three towers proposed within the larger site, not a new tower.

I don't know, it may just be a new tower. Parcel of 350 Mission Street is north of the Millenium Tower site and east of The Fremont Center, at the NE corner of Mission and Fremont. The designated site for three tranbay towers are the NW corner of Mission and First (C. Pellis Project), SE corner of Mission and First (Transbay Signature Tower) and Mid Block on Howard Street between 2nd and First. They are accounted for on The Chronicle Graphic as numbers 4, 5, and 6.

Also there is the Business times Article from last March that Slock posted up above about the sale and development of 350 Mission. So it seems theres a good chance it might be. We'll have to see I guess.

From March 10, 2006 Biz Times:

Sale near Transbay

"Right now, 350 Mission St. is an unassuming four-story blue brick office building that houses Heald College's small downtown campus. You can be sure it won't stay that way forever.

A block from the Transbay Terminal, the parcel on the corner of Fremont and Mission streets has skyscraper potential. It has been acquired for a reported $25 million by the German-based GLL, a joint venture between Lend Lease Continental Holding and the European insurer Generali Group.

GLL has a deep local relationship with Fremont Properties, which listed the property and managed 350 Mission's comprehensive 1988 upgrade, including a seismic retrofit, fire/life safety upgrade, asbestos abatement, and new restrooms and stairwells. Fremont Properties and GLL also formed a partnership to build the 25-story office tower at 199 Fremont St.

Sources said the new owners of the 18,900-square-foot lot have not decided whether to build office or housing there."

coyotetrickster
Jan 21, 2007, 4:43 AM
I am guessing that maybe a typo from the Chronicle, and they meant to say Sheraton "Palace" hotel. I am guessing that because of its location on the map, it's height, and that the Palace is or once was a Sheraton. Not that I wouldnt love to see another 680 footer at Market and New Montgomery, or why doesnt someone convince the Ritz-Carlton to add a hotel addition, following the Palace, Westin St. Francis, and Fairmont....oh wait they are, just not with the hotel....damn!

Has anyone heard anymore about a tower going up at the Mercantile Building on the NW corner of 3rd and Mission adjoining the Mexican Museum?

Considering where the Ritz is located, you can be pretty sure no tower will rise anywhere near or on that parcel. Nob Hill residents who'd loose views would tie up the process for decades, if not kill it outright.

SFView
Jan 21, 2007, 6:16 AM
Did anyone catch this, also from the Chronicle article?
At least five buildings would climb to more than 100 stories, with three at 101 stories, making them the nation's tallest towers outside of New York and Chicago.
Is it possible that all five buildings could be supertalls greater than 1000' with greater than 100 stories? Of these five buildings, two at 101 stories may be the 1200' Piano Towers, and the Transit Tower may be 100+ stories. The TJPA Howard Street Tower "up to 850'" could be another 100+ or 101 story building if the height is increased to 1000'+. We still have at least one yet unidentified 100+ story tower in the mix. It is unclear, if "three at 101 stories" is also a typo, if one or more of the Piano Towers has increased in height, or one or two 100+ story towers are yet to be revealed. All this, plus the 60 story, 850' 350 Mission tower could also mean a very supertall Transit Tower is more likely.

Reminiscence
Jan 21, 2007, 6:19 AM
From that same article:

"At least five buildings would climb to more than 100 stories, with three at 101 stories, making them the nation's tallest towers outside of New York and Chicago."

I know of at least 3 towers that should theoretically be more than 100 stories, perhaps 110 or more. However, I dont see where they get this "at least 5". Is there something they're not mentioning, or is this yet another typo or misunderstanding?


(Oh ... darn, SFView beat me to it. Oh well.)

Reminiscence
Jan 21, 2007, 6:52 AM
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/9771/viewfromtreasureisland4tl.jpg

Perhaps ... maybe?

SFView
Jan 21, 2007, 7:22 AM
Considering that we have gone from knowing only one new building at 850'+ to at least 7 new buildings at 850'+ considered for San Francisco in less than a year, learning of 5 buildings of 100+ stories may not be so much of a stretch. We still have another 3 or so years before any of these buildings start construction. There may likely be more surprising changes between now and then.

BTinSF
Jan 21, 2007, 7:53 AM
Any idea of what corner that's going to be on (for the Mission/Cesar Chavez condos)?

Whichever corner used to be a Kelly Moore paint store. I don't know the area well enough to know which corner that would be.

BTinSF
Jan 21, 2007, 8:16 AM
Considering where the Ritz is located, you can be pretty sure no tower will rise anywhere near or on that parcel. Nob Hill residents who'd loose views would tie up the process for decades, if not kill it outright.

Which parcel? The Palace or 3rd/Mission (Mexican Museum)?

As far as the Ritz Residences are concerned, those folks haven't even moved in yet--are all the units sold? Actually, this fight you suggest would be interesting because it would, in effect, be Marriott vs. Starwood. Marriott owns the Ritz Carlton brand and Starwood owns the Palace. What the Palace is proposing is to put up a residential tower similar to what the Ritz is now doing. Seems a little hard (and disingenuous) for Marriott to object to a competitor doing what they are doing themselves. And the prospective occupants of a Palace tower would likely be every bit as rich and powerful as those in the Ritz tower.

So far as the 3rd/Mission site goes, I think there is growing pressure to find a way to get a new Mexican Museum built, similar to (but admittedly less than) the pressure to build the TransBay Terminal. I personally love the Legoretta design:

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2001/10/27/dd_mexican.jpg

but if they can't raise the money it'll never get built and if a tower on the corner with an attached museum (like the St. Regis across the street) is what it takes, it could well happen. I haven't heard any more about it but I assume that, like the Choo/Piano effort at 1st/Mission, it's being designed. I don't think the boys who bought the existing building did it to keep providing a home for Rochester Big & Tall (although, come to think of it, something else "big and tall" would be nice).

BTinSF
Jan 21, 2007, 8:08 PM
^^^Speaking of museums, anybody got any recent pics of the Jewish Museum construction? It may not be a "big and tall" building, but it's by a superstar architect.

coyotetrickster
Jan 21, 2007, 11:03 PM
Which parcel? The Palace or 3rd/Mission (Mexican Museum)?

As far as the Ritz Residences are concerned, those folks haven't even moved in yet--are all the units sold? Actually, this fight you suggest would be interesting because it would, in effect, be Marriott vs. Starwood. Marriott owns the Ritz Carlton brand and Starwood owns the Palace. What the Palace is proposing is to put up a residential tower similar to what the Ritz is now doing. Seems a little hard (and disingenuous) for Marriott to object to a competitor doing what they are doing themselves. And the prospective occupants of a Palace tower would likely be every bit as rich and powerful as those in the Ritz tower.

So far as the 3rd/Mission site goes, I think there is growing pressure to find a way to get a new Mexican Museum built, similar to (but admittedly less than) the pressure to build the TransBay Terminal. I personally love the Legoretta design:

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2001/10/27/dd_mexican.jpg

but if they can't raise the money it'll never get built and if a tower on the corner with an attached museum (like the St. Regis across the street) is what it takes, it could well happen. I haven't heard any more about it but I assume that, like the Choo/Piano effort at 1st/Mission, it's being designed. I don't think the boys who bought the existing building did it to keep providing a home for Rochester Big & Tall (although, come to think of it, something else "big and tall" would be nice).

I'm not talking about the ritz timeshare (call it fractional ownership, but it's a time share). The Ritz-Carlton sits on Nob Hill. It would be the very, very well-heeled neighbors in places like the Brocklebank and similar high-end residents who would fight a Ritz-Carlton 'tower.' The Sheraton tower would not impact any view corridor. The first proposal was shot down because it would 'harm' the light (shadows) for the Garden Court...

BTinSF
Jan 21, 2007, 11:44 PM
^^^Heck, I'd join the fight against a tower at the actual Ritz Carlton. That's too classic a building to do that to. I thought you meant the "Residences" because some of their views might be impacted by a Palace tower.

By the way, I don't think all of the "Residences" units are time share. My recollection is the upper-floor units, mostly in the new section of the building, are regular condos (but with hotel amenities) like the ones in the Four Seasons and St. Regis but the lower-floor units, mostly in the historic part of the building, are time-share.

coyotetrickster
Jan 22, 2007, 3:31 AM
Ooops, sorry for the multiple posts. Bad Firefox... BAD!

Frisco_Zig
Jan 22, 2007, 5:04 AM
Any idea of what corner that's going to be on? As I have said before, it's always good to hear of larger infill projects going up in the neighborhoods away from downtown.

That is on the north west corner

In fact in the area there is a lot of potential. Already a few low denisty sites near by have been re-developed into 4-5 story mixed use projects between C.C. and 30th on Mission in the last few years with many more parcels (including the big one which is the Safeway) ripe for more intensive use. There is also St. Lukes which will be redone as well

The area also badly needs to have some traffic calming

As is similar with many SF neigborhoods the oldest residential apartment buildings are the tallest, then there was a 70 year lull, and again we are starting to see some taller things going up

BTinSF
Jan 22, 2007, 7:30 AM
BizTimes on the Choo/Piano project:

Hotel could be bumped by skyscraper
San Francisco Business Times - January 19, 2007
by Ryan Tate

A developer's proposal to build a 1,200-foot skyscraper at First and Mission streets would give San Francisco the third-tallest building in the United States, but it would also mean a long-awaited $80 million, 550-room hotel won't get built.

People familiar with the land and sources close to David Choo, president of California Mortgage and Realty, who is proposing the tower together with the Solit Interests Group, confirm that the developer assembled his site in part by buying land from French hotel firm Accor, which planned a Sofitel luxury hotel on the site.

Accor bought the land five years ago from Golden Gate University. The land, on Mission near Ecker Place alley, between First and Second streets, was one of three parcels plus four buildings Choo bought.

But plans for the lodge itself had been changing. In 2003, Accor divulged plans to convert the property from a four-star Sofitel to a combination Red Roof Inn and Super 6, an extended-stay component of budget brand Motel 6. At the time, the company said it still had not completed studying the plan, even as it trumpeted the advantages, and local hospitality leaders gave it a chilly reception.

Meanwhile, Choo's plan has a hotel component of its own. The developer has hired Mark Solit, who has worked with Hyatt Corp. in the past, to head his development team and is hoping to put 470 hotel rooms into the tower, along with 600 condominiums and 520,000 square feet of office space.

A person who has discussed the project with the development team said they are far from identifying a hotel brand.

Jeff Bialik, CFO of Golden Gate University, said that he is hopeful the proposed new hotel could eventually become a strong training ground for business students. It sits right next door to the university's campus, in the bustling South of Market area that continues to draw tenants from the other side of Market Street.

"The financial district is coming to us," Bialik said.

rtate@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4968

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/01/22/story14.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Jan 22, 2007, 7:33 AM
BizTimes on the Mission/Cesar Chavez condos:

Mission district condos and retail space to break ground
Until it closed in 2006, the Kelly Moore paint store at Mission and Cesar Chavez streets in the Mission district was a flashpoint for neighborhood battles over day laborers, who would congregate before dawn at the busy intersection and wait for work. Now, a year after the store moved to South Van Ness Avenue and the parking lot was fenced off, the site is about to see some new life. Seven Hills Properties, a development company founded by former AMB Property executive Luis Belmonte, is preparing to break ground on a 60-unit condominium project on the 36,000-square-foot lot. The project, designed by Christiani Johnson Architects, will include a ground-floor Walgreens and three other retail businesses.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/01/22/newscolumn1.html

BTinSF
Jan 22, 2007, 7:42 AM
:cucumber: :awesome: :D Gotta love it:

Cranes cause traffic jam in the sky over SoMa
San Francisco Business Times - January 19, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

In Mission Bay, the construction cranes are so close they could almost kiss.

The explosion of new buildings sweeping a vast swath of land south of Market has transformed Mission Bay and Rincon Hill into landscape punctuated by yellow and blue cranes. But nowhere are the cranes more intimate than two abutting sites in Mission Bay where Lowe Enterprises is constructing a speculative office building at 500 Terry Francois Blvd., while next door, Bosa Development is building Radiance at Mission Bay, a 417-unit project with a pair of 16-story towers, a nine-story midrise, and townhomes.

Lowe Enterprises Senior Vice President Andy Segal said there would be a dedicated phone line linking the two crane operators to make sure the cranes don't collide. The crane on the southern end of the Bosa site is about 80 to 90 feet away from the Lowe Enterprises crane. The Lowe Enterprise crane, which has a reach of 230 feet and can pick up 6,600 pounds, is being operated by workers from Swinerton Builders, the project's general contractor. Bosa is acting as its own contractor.

"It gives you an idea of how much activity is going on down here," said Segal.

There are at least 15 cranes operating in San Francisco -- a dozen in the greater south of Market zone. Webcor, the Bay Area's largest contractor, has eight cranes working in the city, including the Intercontinental Hotel at 888 Howard St., and residential towers like One Rincon Hill, the Millennium Tower at 301 Mission St., and the SoMa Grand at Seventh and Mission streets.

In Mission Bay, in addition to the Bosa and Radiance sites, tower cranes are poised above three other construction sites: the UCSF cancer center, the Arterra housing development and a biotech building being built by Alexandria.

Michael Battaini, co-president of Sheedy Drayage, the company that erected the two neighboring Mission Bay cranes, said they are spaced far enough apart that the jibs, or booms as they are sometimes referred to, would not actually smash into each other. But the danger is that the load lines, which pick up the materials, could collide. He said that Cal-OSHA required a "hard line" between the two crane cabs.

"If you have a load hanging down, that is where you might have some intersection," he said.

He added: "This is as busy as I have ever seen it in terms of tower cranes."

Larry Nibbi of Nibbi Brothers Construction, which is preparing to start work on the new St. Anthony's Foundation building on Golden Gate Avenue, said competition for tower cranes is fierce.

"There is about a six month lead time," he said. "If you need one next month, you're not going to get it."

Segal said the construction, while noisy and dusty, is ultimately an attraction as he sells the building and new neighborhood to prospective tenants.

"There is a real buzz down here," he said.

An tower cranes are not used on all the new blockbuster developments. David Lee, chief operating officer for Hathaway Dinwiddie, said a "crawler crane" would be used on Shorenstein Properties' new building for biotech Fibrogen at 409 Illinois St.

"To use a crawler crane, you have to have space around the site -- in downtown San Francisco, you frequently don't have that space," he said.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/01/22/story17.html?t=printable

Reminiscence
Jan 22, 2007, 11:43 AM
Traffic jams in the sky now huh, wow. All we need now is a shipwreck and we'll get traffic's deadly triple dance: Land, Sea, and Air.

If only there was a way we could get all those cranes together in one pictures, man, that'll be one for the books.

All this, and its only the start of the show :) :)

San Frangelino
Jan 22, 2007, 3:05 PM
That is on the north west corner

In fact in the area there is a lot of potential. Already a few low denisty sites near by have been re-developed into 4-5 story mixed use projects between C.C. and 30th on Mission in the last few years with many more parcels (including the big one which is the Safeway) ripe for more intensive use. There is also St. Lukes which will be redone as well

The area also badly needs to have some traffic calming

Is there an official name for that neighborhood yet? I always thought it was a cozy place to walk if not a bit dodgy and as you said Frisco_Zig "in need of traffic calming." It will be nice to see it get a bit more polished up and BART'd. I think the new 4 story building at Mission and 29th is well executed for a retro throwback. Actually looking at the "Bird's Eye" Map on MSN Local Live you can see some of those really good sites for new constructions. Hopefully they won't construct too many building in the style of our friend here at 15th and Mission.

http://www.1587living.com/
http://www.socketsite.com/1587%2015th.jpg

Has that large building on the southwest corner of Mission and Ceasar been made into anything yet? I hope it's still available or will be for improvements in the future (new color job for starters).

_J_
Jan 22, 2007, 10:34 PM
-

SFView
Jan 23, 2007, 4:58 AM
In regards to the five buildings over 100 stories, Robert Selna of the Chronicle was able to respond by email with the following correction:
The story should have said that there may be at least five buildings of more than 90 stories. They would include the three at 101 stories.

Sorry about that.

Robert

Two 101 story buildings are the tallest Piano Towers. Two other known tallest Transbay towers are included. One building remains relatively unidentified. All five buildings could still be more than 1000 feet tall. There are no further details at this time.

pseudolus
Jan 23, 2007, 6:59 AM
(cross-posted from Rundown of SF Projects thread)

Is this a change? The beginning of this thread shows a 14-story building approved for this(?) corner.

From "Newspaper Notice for San Francisco Planning Department for January 19, 2007."

"2006.0584KXCV: 1407-1435 Market Street and 17-70 10th Street, southwest corner, Lot 041 (a portion of the former Lot 039) in Assessor’s Block 3507: The proposed project is (1) the demolition of the existing office buildings and surface parking lot and (2) the construction of two buildings sharing a common base and containing approximately 719 dwelling units, approximately 19,000 square feet of commercial space, and a garage with up to 668 parking spaces. The taller north tower will be 35 stories and approximately 352 feet high, and the shorter south tower will be 19 stories and approximately 220 feet high. The project requires review under Section 309 of the Planning Code for compliance and exceptions, conditional use authorization, and variances from certain requirements of the Planning Code. The project site is within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 200-S and 320-S Height and Bulk Districts.

For further information, call Michael Li at (415) 558-6396 and ask about Case No. 2006.0584KXCV."

http://sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25756

BTinSF
Jan 23, 2007, 7:19 AM
^^^That would be this building I think:

http://citizenshousing.org/images/projectpages/10th&marknew_408x377.jpg

Project Description

Citizens Housing Corporation (CHC) and Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) worked with Bank of America to arrange a "bargain sale" of half a city block on Market Street in downtown San Francisco for housing. The bank provided the 2.2-acre site, located at Tenth and Market Streets, at one-quarter of the property's appraised value -- a charitable donation of over $10 million. CHC and TNDC plan to construct approximately 400 low- and moderate-income residential units and have formed a joint venture with a private developer for construction of a new 440,000 square foot office building for the City of San Francisco.

LOCATION
San Francisco, CA

PROJECT TYPE
Family / Senior Rental
440,000 s.f. Office Space
New Construction

PROJECT VALUE
$95,000,000
(housing component only)

TOTAL UNITS /
AFFORDABLE UNITS
400+ / 400+

COMPLETION DATE
September 2007 (est.)

ARCHITECT
SOM San Francisco
Saida + Sullivan Design Partners
with Barnhart Associates

GENERAL CONTRACTOR
Turner Construction Company

It sure does sound like the project has suddenly become taller and the city offices have become another 300 or so housing units.

BTinSF
Jan 25, 2007, 12:23 AM
Saw a classified add in today's Wall Street Journal for the old Hibernia bank Building at 1 Jones St. I've been waiting over 2 decades for somebody to do something good with this wonderful old building that has been allowed to become an eyesore. If the current owner is now actively marketing it, that could be a good thing. The add says "Offer due: 3/13/2007 3 PM PST"

Reminiscence
Jan 25, 2007, 4:45 AM
Update on the progress of the California Academy of Sciences courtesy of Webcor:

JANUARY 2007

Webcor Concrete has only the RC&A roof west remaining to pour before being completely topped out. The decking is complete over the rest of the Exhibit roof, awaiting the final concrete pour.

The glazing subcontractor is installing skylights and the entrance window-wall system. Structural steel is complete over the Rainforest dome and several aquarium tanks are being water-tested for leakage.

The MEPS trades are progressing up the RC&A L2 and L3 levels as well as completing the L1 African Hall, L3 Pavilion and B1 of the Exhibit Hall. Drywall framing has been on going in these same areas.

BTinSF
Jan 27, 2007, 1:25 AM
BizTimes:

--Avalon Bay will build a mixed use project at 1150 Ocean Ave. (currently Kragen Auto Parts) with 160 apartments above a 30,000 sq. ft grocery store. This is part of a plan to develop a "transit village" near the Balboa Park BART station. The plan calls for a total of 1780 apartments and 105,000 sq ft of commercial in the area.

--A subsidiary of Mervyn's Department Stores has purchased the old Sears retail center at Geary & Masonic with the probable intent to redevelop the site. BizTimes suggests the possibility of a "big box" and mentions Target.

San Frangelino
Jan 27, 2007, 2:24 AM
--A subsidiary of Mervyn's Department Stores has purchased the old Sears retail center at Geary & Masonic with the probable intent to redevelop the site. BizTimes suggests the possibility of a "big box" and mentions Target.

Is that the shopping center with Mervyns, and Toys R Us across from the Muni Facility. I have always wanted to see that redevloped into something with more curb appeal. Didnt a Best Buy just open in it though?

BTinSF
Jan 27, 2007, 3:29 AM
^^^Yes, that's the place. I don't know if there's a Best Buy there or not--I haven't been there in a long time. There used to be a Good Guys, I think. The space could now be a Best Buy.

coyotetrickster
Jan 27, 2007, 9:18 PM
That site is begging for something. Talk about a wasted intersection. There was a good guys but no best buys. The Toy'sRus (gone). Don't take my convenient office depot. If they put in a target, the developer better be bringing housing, the stepford laurel village housewives can be effective opponents.

rocketman_95046
Jan 29, 2007, 2:35 AM
This is a good article about the politics and attitudes regarding development in Santa Clara County

The Mercury News Interview: Build homes and the jobs will come, Sobratos say
THEY'RE WAITING FOR A PLAN TO DEVELOP COYOTE VALLEY


John A. Sobrato and son John M. Sobrato are making news again, this time with a gift of $20 million toward a new library at their alma mater, Santa Clara University. (Story is here.)

But the duo is perhaps best known as the largest property owner in the South Bay. Sobrato Development has 9.5 million square feet of developed property and 400 acres of undeveloped land.

Last week, the Sobratos sat down with Mercury News Staff Writer Katherine Conrad to talk about a range of subjects, including the status of their 17-story unoccupied Sobrato building at 488 Almaden Blvd., development in North San Jose, and the future of Coyote Valley in rural South San Jose.

Coyote Valley is the largest San Jose planning project: a proposed community with 25,000 housing units and 50,000 new jobs on 3,600 acres. A task force has drawn up a plan for a mixed-use community, something proponents say is a model of smart growth.

The city's general plan requires 5,000 jobs to be located there before the first home can be built. But critics worry that developers and others who have invested millions into the planning process will persuade city officials to drop long-established requirements. Still, there is no certainty it will be developed in the near future.

The Sobratos are willing to wait.

The following is an edited version of their conversation.

Q: Talk about your involvement with Coyote Valley, where you own 300 acres.

John A. Sobrato: We have owned land in Coyote Valley since 1978. I've gone through now ... this is the third planning exercise. It goes way, way back. Originally it was zoned residential, then switched to industrial, then a new industrial plan in '93. That plan didn't make any economic sense.

It's really unfortunate, with all the effort, all these community meetings %85 30 community meetings under Ron Gonzales' leadership. We've had a lot of environmentalists, we have developers, landowners, you name it. We came up with a plan everybody loved, basically a mixed-use plan where housing is going to be interspersed with industrial. Instead of having all the industrial in North Coyote and all the housing in South Coyote, put them all together to make it all walkable with a beautiful 60-acre lake and all.

Even Chuck (Mayor Reed) likes the idea. But Chuck believes we need to look at the general plan for the entire city. So he is not going to move forward with the plan that has been basically championed by Gonzales.

Q: So this is just politics?

John M. Sobrato: The issue is, in Chuck's position, the jobs need to come first.

John A. Sobrato: But the reality of the situation is jobs follow housing. This is true across the country. The only reason North San Jose is as successful as it is,%8A is%8A because San Jose had all the housing when Palo Alto had all the jobs. Guess what? Put all those housing units out here and all of a sudden industry came down to North San Jose.

They never figured out how this all was going to happen. But pretty much everything came to a screeching halt when Gonzales lost his credibility over this garbage scandal, and he just didn't have any more leadership authority. So that committee has just been wallowing.

We're waiting for a plan that makes sense because the infrastructure cost to make it usable is so high. It's not in a redevelopment area, so the developers have to pay for everything. We also have to put this beautiful lake in, and have retail all around the lake, next to what will be the Caltrain station.

All of this makes a lot of sense if we have the residential to help pay for the infrastructure, because the industrial can't make it work. It works out to over $20 a square foot of land for the infrastructure costs. It just won't work on an industrial-only situation. I think there are certain council people who would like to see this plan move forward. So I don't know how it's going to end up under Chuck's leadership.

I think Chuck's a great guy. We supported him.

Q: You did not support Cindy Chavez as so many developers did?

John M. Sobrato: We were not one of the developers who lined up behind Cindy because she was more pro-Coyote Valley. We generally agreed with Chuck's position. We would like to see Coyote move forward, but not at the expense of everything else Chuck was promoting. We haven't been leading the Coyote Valley effort by any means.

Q: Why not?

John M. Sobrato: Because I think there are valid arguments on both sides as to whether or not to develop Coyote in the way it needs to happen, which is residential first.

John A. Sobrato: Together. The latest plan is they would probably subsidize some company to go down to Coyote with free land or whatever to get the jobs.

Q: Would you be interested?

John A. Sobrato: Sure. The whole planning group was prepared to do that. But I think Chuck would like to see things happen on North First Street.

What do you think of the mayor's plans to raise the density of development on North First Street?

John A. Sobrato: My feeling is a certain amount of companies aren't going to want to be in 10- or 12-story buildings. We've been in this high-tech construction, John and I, for a long time. These companies want to be in four stories, that's their ideal. Maybe you can push them to six if you bridge the buildings.

Q: Why?

John A. Sobrato: Because they want to be able to stay out of an elevator. The ideal situation is to use the stair towers. People bump into each other and they have the opportunity to communicate. Plus, you don't have to have that delay while you're waiting for the elevator. So four stories really works well.

Q: Are these some of the obstacles in persuading BEA Systems to move from First Street to the Sobrato Building in downtown San Jose?

John M. Sobrato: Adobe is a classic example of a company that really enjoys being in a high-rise. I really think it's just foreign to (the other tech companies) as much as anything. And companies typically gravitate toward what they're used to.

Q: You say you've been in the right place at the right time. Is this the only time it hasn't been the right place at the right time for you?

John A. Sobrato: That's true. We started that building right at the top of the market, and by the time we finished it, it was right at the bottom of the bust. The timing was very bad on that one.

But the market has turned around. Just in the last couple of months we've had Nvidia, we've had BEA. We haven't had that kind of activity in years. Even Hitachi looked at it. So we've had .%82.%82. serious runs at the building in the last four months and that's great.

But I want to get back to Coyote and First Street. If we see a couple of big users %85 and Cisco's rumored to want another million square feet out there on First Street %85 if we see a few campuses go down (and there's not that much land out on First Street), I think Coyote is the next logical place. And I think to turn Chuck around, he's going to have to see some major activity out on First Street first. Then I think he'll consider doing something out on Coyote.

Q: Rumor is that Sobrato Development will take the 40 acres that BEA Systems owns on First Street in exchange for the Sobrato building?

%14 John M. Sobrato: That's part of this deal that's forever changing. We really can't comment until it all gets done. But I really do believe something will happen in the next month and a half, one way or another.

Contact Katherine Conrad at kconrad@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5073.

BTinSF
Jan 29, 2007, 7:30 AM
BizTimes:

--Avalon Bay will build a mixed use project at 1150 Ocean Ave. (currently Kragen Auto Parts) with 160 apartments above a 30,000 sq. ft grocery store. This is part of a plan to develop a "transit village" near the Balboa Park BART station. The plan calls for a total of 1780 apartments and 105,000 sq ft of commercial in the area.

AvalonBay snags Balboa Park site for housing, stores
San Francisco Business Times - January 26, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

Rental housing giant AvalonBay has snapped up a development site near City College of San Francisco and will build a 160-unit mixed-use project.

AvalonBay, which owns 47,445 apartments in 10 states and has a $4 billion pipeline, would transform the Kragen Auto Parts store at 1150 Ocean Ave. into a mixed-use development with housing above a 30,000-square-foot grocery store.

City planning officials call it a vital part of efforts to create a transit-oriented village near the Balboa BART station.

"It's definitely one of the central proposals in the Balboa Park plan," said Ken Rich, manager of plans and programs for the city's Planning Department.

The Balboa Park Station Area Plan calls for 1,780 new apartments and 104,680 square feet of commercial development clustered around the station and along the Ocean Avenue commercial district.

The project is a joint venture with Portland-based REIT PacTrust. The group has hired Pyatok Architects to design it.

AvalonBay Vice President Nathan Hong said the development team has made every effort to follow the area plan, which is undergoing environmental review.

"We wanted to be a part of the re-invigoration of Ocean Avenue by building a new mixed-used building that would benefit the neighborhood," said Hong.

The proposed transit-oriented project, walking distance to 10 Muni lines as well as BART, comes as lenders are increasingly turning away from the high-end condominiums that have dominated the San Francisco housing market for the past three years, and looking for opportunities to invest in rental projects.

Rents rose 8.5 percent from the fourth quarter in 2005 to 2006 to an average of $1,879 for a one-bedroom apartment, according to RealFacts report.

Stephen Wilson, who runs AvalonBay's California operations, said the company is looking at several San Francisco development sites for possible rental projects. He said AvalonBay is focusing on entitled condominium projects that have been put on hold because of the softening market.

But he said with construction costs continuing to rise, it is still tough to make rental projects pencil. Only one San Francisco condo development has been switched from condo to rental, Dave O'Keefe's 44-unit building at 188 King St.

"It's not quite as easy as it looks," said Wilson. "You need a fundamental repricing of land, which hasn't happened yet."

The Balboa station is one of the busiest in the BART system, and the city would love to see more development proposals to get more residents living within walking distance to the station, Rich said. In addition to the Kragen site, a mixed-use affordable housing development and new community park is planned for the so-called Phelan Loop, on the north side of Ocean Avenue between Phelan and Plymouth streets.

While AvalonBay would not comment on the retail portion of the project, the plan clearly calls for a grocery store on the Kragen site.

"That is the No. 1 desire of the community and the developer is designing the project exactly as the plan asks," said Rich.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/01/29/story11.html?t=printable

--A subsidiary of Mervyn's Department Stores has purchased the old Sears retail center at Geary & Masonic with the probable intent to redevelop the site. BizTimes suggests the possibility of a "big box" and mentions Target.

Mervyns unit buys Geary Boulevard mall
San Francisco Business Times - January 26, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

A subsidiary of Mervyns department store has acquired The City Center at Geary Boulevard and Masonic Avenue, paying $67 million for the busy 194,000-square-foot retail complex.

The San Francisco retail center is home to an Office Depot, a Best Buy, a Mervyns and several smaller tenants. Just one of the retail spaces, the former home of Good Guys, remains vacant.

The seller is Perra City, a Delaware-based company. The buyer was KLA Geary LLC. Charles Dunn Real Estate Services represented the buyer.

Sources familiar with the transaction said the site, at one of the busiest intersections in the city, is a potential development play. The complex, which is considered to have been poorly designed, could be redeveloped for a big-box user such as Target.

"It's one of the worst-designed retail centers in the world," said a broker who specializes in retail center sales.

Hayward-based Mervyns has 189 stores in 10 states.

The City Center, is located on the northwest corner of the Anza Vista neighborhood, near Kaiser Permanente hospital.

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/01/29/story17.html?t=printable

San Frangelino
Jan 29, 2007, 8:23 PM
Sources familiar with the transaction said the site, at one of the busiest intersections in the city, is a potential development play. The complex, which is considered to have been poorly designed, could be redeveloped for a big-box user such as Target.

In my ideal world, that site would get something akin to Time Warner Center In New York, just not nearly as tall and large, but at least with a modest tower component. Image the panoramic views from the top...so marvelous.

But then again in my ideal world there would be mixed use, high rise projects springing up along Geary from Masonic to Van Ness, an idea (at least from what I have heard) that the city has already nixed. There would certainly be a cry heard all the way too the Time Warner Center from the neighborhoods.

coyotetrickster
Jan 30, 2007, 4:28 AM
In my ideal world, that site would get something akin to Time Warner Center In New York, just not nearly as tall and large, but at least with a modest tower component. Image the panoramic views from the top...so marvelous.

But then again in my ideal world there would be mixed use, high rise projects springing up along Geary from Masonic to Van Ness, an idea (at least from what I have heard) that the city has already nixed. There would certainly be a cry heard all the way too the Time Warner Center from the neighborhoods.

There are historic, long-simmering social fissures waiting in the wings for any large scale redevelopment or developer in the Western Addition. The sentiment on most folks on this forum is Geary is a wasted asset and failed opportunity. The ill-will engendered by Justin Hermann's ham-handled Fillmore/Western Addition redevelopment is, like the baby-boom era itself, barely at retirement age. I live a block and a half from the Mervyns/Office Depot and I would love, love, love something that would re-integrate street after the road-rape of the Geary/Masonic Tunnel. That a major intersection with top notch vistas of the city is marked by a cheesy diner, an ugly muni barn and that abomination of shopping complex is sad....

But that intersection is bound by several very powerful, albeit misguided neighborhood groups. Any developer will need deep, deep pockets and jesus and allah as his pr reps.

briankendall
Jan 30, 2007, 4:59 AM
I would not consider the Mervyn's site at Masonic and Geary to be the Western Addition. Its Anza Vista which is roughly Divisidero, Geary, Fell, Masonic. That area was never part of the Fillmore/Western Redevelopment area. I can imagine more of a battle from the Laural Village folks which is very adjacent and I wonder if there would be that much of a fight? I wonder what the site there is zoned for? I too have longed for years for residential towers to go up there as an entrance to Geary west.

J Church
Jan 30, 2007, 5:17 AM
I know the lead planner on Geary. The plan area has been scaled back and may no longer include Masonic; I'm not sure. But when I talked to him about this issue awhile back he was insistent that nothing taller than 6 or 8 stories would be proposed there. I pushed him on it using all the obvious arguments--transit hub, hilltop, *some* distance from neighbors. But he basically said it wouldn't fly with the community and that was that.

So one more thing that's fun to talk about here, but unfortunately not reality-based. One thing I hope will not happen is immediate redevelopment of the mall. I worry that anything built now will be relatively low slung primarily commercial with a modest housing element and too much parking, while if we can just wait until after the BRT is put in place, I think something a bit more aggressive might make sense.

BTinSF
Jan 30, 2007, 6:32 AM
There are historic, long-simmering social fissures waiting in the wings for any large scale redevelopment or developer in the Western Addition. The sentiment on most folks on this forum is Geary is a wasted asset and failed opportunity. The ill-will engendered by Justin Hermann's ham-handled Fillmore/Western Addition redevelopment is, like the baby-boom era itself, barely at retirement age. .

Yes, but consider: some of the largest-scaled developments in that part of town are flat in the middle of the Western Addition Redevelopment Area--I'm speaking of the various highrise apartment buildings--and they are putting the finishing touches on a new one now (Fillmore Renaissance). It seems odd to me that they can build these projects on streets like Fillmore itself and Turk but not on the area's main artery, Geary. Yes, I know, it's the Redevelopment Agency not subject to planning rules thing again. But still.

BTinSF
Jan 30, 2007, 6:41 AM
One thing I hope will not happen is immediate redevelopment of the mall. I worry that anything built now will be relatively low slung primarily commercial with a modest housing element and too much parking, while if we can just wait until after the BRT is put in place, I think something a bit more aggressive might make sense.

What if they bulldozed both Trader Joe's and The Copper Penny and built a largish complex (a mini-Beacon) on the combined lot with a new TJ's on the ground floor right on the corner and underground parking? That would give them something to match on the Mervyn's corner. ;)

J Church
Jan 30, 2007, 7:03 AM
TJ's should be on the Mervyn's site. Intractable traffic issues on the north side of the street, and hundreds of open spaces to the south. Great planning, that.

munkyman
Jan 30, 2007, 8:22 AM
Op-Ed in the Chronicle regarding the recent proposals for thousand footers in SF, and the relative lack of opposition (at least up until now).

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/01/29/EDGC7N72CO1.DTL

A Skyscraper Story

LIKE GIANT origami cranes, construction booms swing across San Francisco's skyline. It's a flush time, Mayor Gavin Newsom brags, with office rents, convention dates and corporate headquarters all increasing.

But if cranes are a sweet sight to politicians, they should make the rest of us think twice. The city is facing change, a dreaded concept in a small town where trimming trees or moving a bus stop brings on a fight.

An intriguing test of the city's self-regard is coming soon. The mother of all skyscrapers, a 1,000-footer at Mission and First streets, has inspired a five-way beauty contest to begin this month. The winner, intended to be a sleek, glassy spindle, will soar 20 stories taller than the current big-boy, the former Bank of America tower. It will be one of the tallest structures on the West Coast.

The selection derby, which should run for months as the field narrows and international architects perform, will make for several chapters in the lengthy book on San Francisco development. The new edifice will stand astride a new Transbay Terminal, planned as a transit hub and home to a high-speed rail terminal. The high-rise, which will house a hotel, condos and offices, will pay for the transit work down below, the theory goes.

Its sheer size will make the tower the marquee image of San Francisco's skyline, eclipsing the Transamerica needle. On a clear day, you'll be able to see this glinting spike half way to Sacramento.

Two other high-rises, possibly 800-feet tall each, may be built nearby. Across the street from the proposed 1,000 foot building is a developer readying a 1,200 foot spire. The roof lines South of Market, once a sloping shoulder of the Financial District, will take over as the eye-grabbing centerpiece.

Getting this far with so radical a change is major. A great laying-on of hands by City Hall has produced the plan with numerous commissions and studies invested in the effort. This city, which worked so hard to cage downtown growth, is unleashing it to run wild on the choicest remaining spots.

Missing, so far, are comments at the civic water cooler. In the 1970s and '80s, there were a half-dozen high-rise control measures on the city ballot that reflected huge unease with a growing downtown in a city of small neighborhoods. The end result in 1986 was a measure that capped yearly growth at 850,000 square feet, the equal of a fair-sized office tower.

Shortly afterward, the office market tanked and has only now recovered. Yet, despite the angry history of ballot fights and debate, no one is upset these days at the monumental Transbay tower. No ballot campaign, no protests, no Committee to Save San Francisco From Itself.

How come? "We've gotten comfortable with being a city," said Gabriel Metcalf, director of San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, a local think-tank. Dean Macris, the city's veteran director of planning, agrees. "The population has changed." He thinks residents are ready for taller, more "noble" designs.

They're not wrong. People now want to live downtown, an unthinkable idea when no housing existed in the area. Young workers, childless couples and retirees are moving in. If you build it, they will come, provided there's a decent restaurant nearby.

The left, which led past downtown control fights, has joined up to win concessions. Supervisor Chris Daly has made it his business to squeeze concessions from projects going up in his district, ground zero for the growth boom. He doesn't object to size, design or location, as long as housing subsidies and community grants are extracted.

The ever-taller, ever denser downtown picks up points from other former foes. Housing is now being stuffed into downtown blocks, more than 7,000 units in the stretch running from Market Street to the Bay Bridge. This means less driving, less subdivision sprawl and fewer car-dependent office parks in the outer 'burbs, all worries that older high-rise foes had.

Should everyone rejoice? Not just yet. The towers could mark a new San Francisco with a dazzling imprint.

But there may be mistakes. A tame design could weaken a fateful choice. Pressure to seek extra financial concessions from the builder might result in a cheaper-looking final product. The city's torturous public-review process might chase off serious contenders. City and regional transit systems may sag under the weight of extra bodies trudging to work in offices high in the fog.

These are all risks. But, for now, the city's ready to take its chances. It wouldn't have dreamed of trying this project a few years ago. But now, no one is blocking the path forward. That's progress, San Francisco-style.

Marshall Kilduff is a Chronicle editorial writer. E-mail: mkilduff@sfchronicle.com

San Frangelino
Jan 30, 2007, 3:50 PM
One thing I hope will not happen is immediate redevelopment of the mall. I worry that anything built now will be relatively low slung primarily commercial with a modest housing element and too much parking, while if we can just wait until after the BRT is put in place, I think something a bit more aggressive might make sense.

Yes...we really wouldnt want to have a West Hollywood Gateway-esque project plopped on that sight. Although I enjoy having it here in Los Angeles, something far more ambitious is only suitable for that lot on Masonic and Geary.

Besides, there will be a Castro Gateway project coming along when they reveal an effort to revitalize the Safeway at Market and Church...just kidding...I hope!

fflint
Jan 31, 2007, 12:41 AM
Less razzle-dazzle, more subtlety needed for high-stakes Transbay Terminal design

John King
San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Today's a big day for San Francisco and the Bay Area, whether or not you know it.

By big I mean big -- and tall.

Five of the world's best architects -- flanked by financiers and engineers and who knows who else -- will take turns making the case that they're the ideal choice to design a tower that could change the look of San Francisco for decades to come.

As someone who believes in the transformative potential of great architecture, I'm excited that each one is here. But I also hope that, as they joust for position in the hours and months to come, this thought lodges in the back of their minds: San Francisco doesn't need an exclamation point. It needs a supple and subtle vision -- on the ground as well as the sky -- that stands as a symbol of what sustainable, elegant urbanity can be.

The architects will be wooing a jury assembled by the Transbay Joint Powers Authority, a government body created to summon a new mass-transit station to life. And, as the station and related work will cost an estimated $983 million if everything goes smoothly between now and the hoped-for 2014 opening day, the first job is to find ways to pay for it.

Which brings us to the competition and what very well could be the most high-stakes land deal in San Francisco in our lifetime.

The deal is this: The Transbay Authority, on Feb. 15, will decide which teams of designers and developers will be invited to make formal proposals on transforming the site of the current terminal on Mission Street, between First and Fremont streets. The authority will act on recommendations from a seven-member review jury, which will spend 90 minutes with each team today and then deliberate on Wednesday.

The winner is to be selected in August. That team will design a terminal that can handle buses and commuter trains while serving as the emerging Transbay District's centerpiece. The team will also design and build a tower that the competition rules specify should be "an iconic presence that will redefine the city's skyline and provide additional financing" to make the terminal a reality.

The competition emphasizes the "lead designer's ... capacity to deliver a high-rise, mixed-use development project that combines exceptional design and financial success."

In other words, the expectations are as high as the stakes. Each of the five teams pairs a top-flight developer and a top-flight architectural firm. Even though today's interviews require only the presentation of qualifications, the razzle-dazzle is sure to flow.

Sir Norman Foster and his architectural firm have produced some of the most breathtakingly original towers in the world and a series of suave and streamlined London subway stations. Sir Richard Rogers is a master of glassy structures in a high-tech vein, and his firm's airport terminal in Barajas, Spain, was awarded the 2006 Stirling Prize, England's top architectural honor.

Cesar Pelli has less of an identifiable style, but his towers can be as refined as custom suits (including 560 Mission St., one of San Francisco's most elegant recent towers). Last but not least: Santiago Calatrava, who's best known for audacious bridges but also has a residential tower in Sweden nicknamed the Turning Torso because of its torqued shape.

(An aside: Each globe-trotting name has a local partner. Foster + Partners is aligned with Heller-Manus Architects, Richard Rogers Partnership with SMWM, Pelli Clarke Pelli with WRNS Studio, and Calatrava with Chong Partners and KMD Architects.)

The one local team is the San Francisco office of Skidmore Owings and Merrill; Craig Hartman will take the lead in collaboration with Brian Lee. Neither has star power, but they do have excellent buildings to their credit. Hartman, for instance, designed the United States Embassy that will open next year in Beijing as well as San Francisco's St. Regis tower.

To see architects of this caliber do battle is startling; it's also a tribute to San Francisco. Sure, San Jose has more people and the 49ers are packing up to leave. From the global perspective, though, we're on the map as one of the nation's key cities (I'd put it behind only New York, Chicago and, yes, Los Angeles). Leave your mark here and you'll launch a million postcards.

The catch is, there's more to life than postcards.

Unlike Malmo, Sweden -- home to the Turning Torso -- San Francisco doesn't need an eye-popping icon to put itself on the map. And neither the tight Transbay site nor the increasingly crowded South of Market skyline allows for the strapping muscularity of some of the towers that Foster and Rogers have designed.

On the ground, meanwhile, we don't need a gold-plated terminal that would bankrupt Bill Gates. Better to have an alluring triumph of minimalism that dazzles the eye, functions smoothly and, wait for it, maybe even trims that $983 million price tag a bit.

That's the real challenge for the architects and teams who each will put their case before the jury.

Yes, there's no better site in San Francisco for a new tower that would shoot past the Transamerica Pyramid in height. It absolutely should be memorable. It should bristle with imagination.

But this is also a case where less is more. Rein in the ego and concentrate instead on ingenious designs that seduce without putting on a show. Think about how to define a new template of urbanity: one where vertical pizzazz, enticingly efficient mass transit and truly civil public space all are inextricably linked.

Another thing: The competition rules call for an emphasis on environmentally friendly architecture. Don't treat this as a requirement, but as a challenge. Integrate notions of sustainability and green design into every facet of the project. Live lightly on the land even as you soar high above the earth.

San Francisco and the Bay Area have the chance to benefit from some of the most ingenious and far-sighted minds in architecture. But we also have the responsibility to demand that they produce their very best -- whoever they might turn out to be.

Coriander
Jan 31, 2007, 2:17 AM
"Unlike Malmo, Sweden -- home to the Turning Torso -- San Francisco doesn't need an eye-popping icon to put itself on the map."

This might be true, but most visitors to San Francisco (from the world over) that I've known have been amazed that San Francisco has allowed such a bland skyline to be built. With a couple of exceptions, it is hideous and much of it from a bygone era. I don't know why he has to use the phrase "eye-popping icon," as I don't think anybody wants a vulgar monstrosity, but who wouldn't welcome a new icon to the skyline? Something grand that catches the eye from afar?

Further, these opportunities do not come around every day, and although San Francisco is a singular city, it is not the Paris that its residents and John Kings seem to think it is. (And even Paris makes bold moves.) San Francisco is on the map, above all, for being a city that is a step ahead--or at least strives to be--in many senses and I don't see why an iconic skyscraper downtown should be excluded from this mindset. So far, the greatest development in the city, has been a district that to me could be in San Diego, Miami, and a handful of other places, and I would hardly know the difference. Let's build something that continues to set SF apart.

BTinSF
Jan 31, 2007, 2:39 AM
So far, the greatest development in the city, has been a district that to me could be in San Diego, Miami, and a handful of other places, and I would hardly know the difference.

I hope you realize that that is precisely the argument of a lot of the NUMBYs: That SF's highrise downtown could be anywhere and that what makes the city special is its lowrise Mediterranean beauty spilling over fog-draped hills beside the the blue of the Bay. Having thus devalued downtown and highrises in general, they go on to demand we build no more of them.

No, San Francisco isn't Paris, but then it isn't the capital of a nation with roots in Roman times either. Limited both by the duration of its history and by its geography, it IS arguably the prettiest city of its physical size there is and debates about new additions to its skyline should be framed in terms of whether or not they make it prettier. I want too lean toward an "eye-popping" design, but I have to admit that I think the "Turning Torso" is rather ugly. I'd rather see something a little more conventional (read that "tapered and slender" in a Chrysler Building sort of way).

Coriander
Jan 31, 2007, 3:05 AM
"I hope you realize that that is precisely the argument of a lot of the NUMBYs: That SF's highrise downtown could be anywhere and that what makes the city special is its lowrise Mediterranean beauty spilling over fog-draped hills beside the the blue of the Bay. Having thus devalued downtown and highrises in general, they go on to demand we build no more of them."

Yes, I have heard this ad nauseam, and although I'm not sure what you're implying (as SOMA IS fairly soulless now, though better than before), I tried to address it. What you note makes the city "special" perhaps, but it does not contribute to what in my opinion is truly special about it: its dynamic and progressive character. More people and more buildings should allow the dynamic character of the city to grow. A striking icon downtown should and could arguably embody that spirit. Besides, Seattle, San Diego, Miami, etc, are all built around beautiful natural landscapes. I'm not saying more so than San Francisco, thouh some think so, but it seems the "location" of San Francisco is overplayed sometimes. I was born and raised in San Francisco, but for a beautiful cityscape, a beautiful climate, I would choose Marseille or Barcelona or any other number of "lesser" cities any day of the week. The argument that SF is in the US, is younger, etc, just doesn't sit well with me when older cities around the world are making bold moves.

"No, San Francisco isn't Paris, but then it isn't the capital of a nation with roots in Roman times either. Limited both by the duration of its history and by its geography, it IS arguably the prettiest city of its physical size there is and debates about new additions to its skyline should be framed in terms of whether or not they make it prettier."

San Francisco has been limited by more than history and geography. The sort of crap that has been built since the 60s attests to this. San Francisco isn't Paris not because of history, in my opinion, but because it does not make the same aesthetic demands that a city like Paris does. I agree we should make it prettier. Something as bold and beautiful as the Torre Agbar should go up, however big or eye-popping it ends up being..

Reminiscence
Jan 31, 2007, 3:25 AM
No offense, but I dont think we should raise anything that looks like Torre Agbar up, especially when you're talking about something potentially taller than 1250'. Its a good thing there are 5 master architects on this so there are options.

craeg
Jan 31, 2007, 3:36 AM
This was my response to somebody posting King's article in another thread here;
I sent John a letter voicing my strong disagreement with his article. San Francisco is drowning in mediocrity. This is a once in a lifetime opp. to develop what will likely be the only sites in the city to support these kind of buildings. The last thing we need is more of the same crap. The only buildings in SF which have registered anything on the national scale are buildings which have been outside of the reach of the SF public (de young and federal building)
Yes San Francisco has a gorgeous physical setting. No, that does not mean we have to dumb down our architecture. We have the possibility here of creating something which doesnt exist in SF today - and I hope the people involved in this project get that.
Can you imagine an architecture critic in Chicago championing subtle design for "the most high-stakes land deal in ... in our lifetime"
John King is a joke.

fflint
Jan 31, 2007, 3:44 AM
http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/01/30/bu_ofarrell26.jpg
Jeans will be sold at the site of a former United Airlines office.

STRICTLY COMMERCIAL
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/30/BUGCTNR1AQ16.DTL

Pricey jeans shop to open on O'Farrell

AG Adriano Goldschmeid, whose AG Jeans retail for up to $195 a pair, has signed a 10-year lease at 26 O'Farrell St., near Market Street, for its flagship store in San Francisco.

The 3,000-square-foot store will be the first premium denim store in the Union Square area, according to the Cornish & Carey Commercial brokerage. AG Jeans are also sold by retailers such as Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus, as well as in boutiques and online.

Julie Taylor and Jennifer Hibbitts of Cornish & Carey represented the building's owner, 26 O'Farrell LLC. Pam Mendelsohn of Johnson Hoke represented Adriano Goldschmeid.

The annual rent is $305,000 with yearly increases, according to Cornish & Carey.

The ground-floor space, where the store is scheduled to open in May, is under renovation. It was previously occupied by a United Airlines ticket office.

The denim manufacturer's San Francisco brand-name store is one of six locations scheduled to open in 2007, adding to 13 already in operation in the United States and South Korea, according to a report last month in Women's Wear Daily.

BTinSF
Jan 31, 2007, 6:19 AM
Yes, I have heard this ad nauseam, and although I'm not sure what you're implying (as SOMA IS fairly soulless now, though better than before), I tried to address it. What you note makes the city "special" perhaps, but it does not contribute to what in my opinion is truly special about it: its dynamic and progressive character.

I don't think you are going to find "soul" or dynamism in a building, just an attractive building; nor does having a lot of mediocre highrises diminish the city's somewhat overhyped "progressivism". Still, putting your hyperbole aside, I think we largely agree. We should go for the best looking building we can get and a little drama in it wouldn't hurt. We both probably know that what has caused mediocrity in too many buildings built downtown in the past has been the endless process of "community input" giving too many cooks the right to modify the broth into being completely bland. I have faith this building will be quite nice IF they just pick a great architect and let him follow his vision.

PS--I still think the Malmo thing is ugly and the only reason it works at all is because it sits all alone. But that's just me. I won't go to the meetings on the TransBay and demand my personal vision even though we can probably be sure that plenty of people will.

Coriander
Jan 31, 2007, 7:15 AM
"No offense, but I dont think we should raise anything that looks like Torre Agbar up...."

Just to be clear, I didn't mean it should be like Torre Agbar exactly but I brought that up because Torre Agbar was very controversial in Barcelona and now it is mostly revered by locals...and personally I think they pulled it off, that it fits perfectly, but I know some find it ugly.

From BTinSF

"I don't think you are going to find "soul" or dynamism in a building, just an attractive building; nor does having a lot of mediocre highrises diminish the city's somewhat overhyped "progressivism"."

The often hideous-looing but thriving city of Berlin makes a good case for a great city filled with mediocrity. It's more complex than that, sure, but there are lots of cities with ugly built environments and yet they're full of soul. So I agree with you there. And by the way I agree the progressivism is probably hyped but I still think SF has a special place in this country as a trendsetting city. Why not build something that speaks to this? By progressive I meant "forward-thinking," particularly as it's the cultural capital of a region that helped launch the digital boom. Even that's probably hyped, but outsiders still look at SF this way and so do locals in some way...SF wants to see itself this way and I hope that means more than building little public European-styled toilet stalls or planting another hundred canary palms.

But about finding soul in a building, I don't think it can be so easily dismissed. The Golden Gate bridge or the Eiffel tower or any other iconic structures seem to be more than attractive structures and even if one argues that they're not, people want them to be. So I think it's important for a structure to be built that conveys something of this spirit. When I pause to think that the BofA building is an iconic SF tower, I feel nausteated. just a thought.

coyotetrickster
Jan 31, 2007, 8:31 AM
"No offense, but I dont think we should raise anything that looks like Torre Agbar up...."

Just to be clear, I didn't mean it should be like Torre Agbar exactly but I brought that up because Torre Agbar was very controversial in Barcelona and now it is mostly revered by locals...and personally I think they pulled it off, that it fits perfectly, but I know some find it ugly.

From BTinSF

"I don't think you are going to find "soul" or dynamism in a building, just an attractive building; nor does having a lot of mediocre highrises diminish the city's somewhat overhyped "progressivism"."

The often hideous-looing but thriving city of Berlin makes a good case for a great city filled with mediocrity. It's more complex than that, sure, but there are lots of cities with ugly built environments and yet they're full of soul. So I agree with you there. And by the way I agree the progressivism is probably hyped but I still think SF has a special place in this country as a trendsetting city. Why not build something that speaks to this? By progressive I meant "forward-thinking," particularly as it's the cultural capital of a region that helped launch the digital boom. Even that's probably hyped, but outsiders still look at SF this way and so do locals in some way...SF wants to see itself this way and I hope that means more than building little public European-styled toilet stalls or planting another hundred canary palms.

But about finding soul in a building, I don't think it can be so easily dismissed. The Golden Gate bridge or the Eiffel tower or any other iconic structures seem to be more than attractive structures and even if one argues that they're not, people want them to be. So I think it's important for a structure to be built that conveys something of this spirit. When I pause to think that the BofA building is an iconic SF tower, I feel nausteated. just a thought.

Uh, the European-style toilets are supplied by a European company. SF didn't build them.

fflint
Jan 31, 2007, 10:29 AM
Street furniture, public toilets and tree plantings have nothing to do with being "progressive" and everything to do with the quality of the built environment in this city. If I had to choose between the smaller street-level amenities and an iconic skyscraper--between a higher quality public environment on the street and a nicer looking skyline--I'd go with the street every time.

Coriander
Jan 31, 2007, 11:30 AM
Again, I should've never used the word progressive. But the distinction you’re making doesn’t exist in reality, as the “quality of the built environment” reflects the character of the city and is determined largely by elected officials, their constituents, etc. I’m sure you know this, but then I just don’t understand how this blanket everything-and-nothing construction arises. Brazil’s Curitiba has garnered international media attention for being a “progressive” city, for example, true or not, largely because visitors and locals alike enjoy the “quality of the built environment” you mention—and this reputation is mirrored with respect to public health, politics, etc. The great Curitiba transportation system, which accounts for a lot of this reputation, gets a lot of its points for good ergonomics, design…its quality on a human-scale, in essence. Bottom line, it is a progressive city and it looks like one. Just like Montreal, Melbourne, etc. That aside, I’d agree with you but nobody is asking the city to build an iconic skyscraper or to sacrifice a higher quality public environment for a private development. It seems that SF can have its cake and eat it too.

coyotetrickster
Jan 31, 2007, 11:40 PM
Again, I should've never used the word progressive. But the distinction you’re making doesn’t exist in reality, as the “quality of the built environment” reflects the character of the city and is determined largely by elected officials, their constituents, etc. I’m sure you know this, but then I just don’t understand how this blanket everything-and-nothing construction arises. Brazil’s Curitiba has garnered international media attention for being a “progressive” city, for example, true or not, largely because visitors and locals alike enjoy the “quality of the built environment” you mention—and this reputation is mirrored with respect to public health, politics, etc. The great Curitiba transportation system, which accounts for a lot of this reputation, gets a lot of its points for good ergonomics, design…its quality on a human-scale, in essence. Bottom line, it is a progressive city and it looks like one. Just like Montreal, Melbourne, etc. That aside, I’d agree with you but nobody is asking the city to build an iconic skyscraper or to sacrifice a higher quality public environment for a private development. It seems that SF can have its cake and eat it too.

Are we still talking about the change in ownership of the unlamented retail mall at Geary and Masonic? Just checking 'cause I caught a whiff of the Urban Land Institute there:rolleyes:

Actually, SF's development process is extremely broken. UCSF has extremely deep pockets, but development of our research facilities has been severely hampered by incredibly powerful neighborhood associations. The concentration of wealth and talent in the neighborhoods around our campuses produced intense litigation and political pressures. UCSF was forced to agree to build no more than 3.55 million square feet on Parnassus due to the strength of the Parnassus Heights Neighborhood Association, of which several members who were lawyers donated pro bono service to fight UC actions. When a very squeaky lever can convince two wheels to join him/her, all bets are off in this city regarding development.

The reason for the comparative lack of outrage and "Manhattanization" handwringing over the built environment of SOMA is the lack of a built environment in SOMA. With Anza Vista, Laurel Height, Western Addition and Pacific Heights all sort of blurring at the Geary/Masonic intersection. The status quo ugly will prevail. I was there this afternoon not being helped at the Best Buy and, you know, the views from the parking lot are tremendous, you could easily build to-code townhouses, lofts, with a mid-rise component wedged in by the Wallenberg school and bring some decent retail, streetscape to the southside of the tunnel, but who has the capital and the patience to deal with viewistas who will litigate under loss of sunlight, etc.?

slock
Feb 2, 2007, 3:25 PM
In today's Examiner there's an article about projects related to the Transbay Terminal.

There's a confirmation of the 850' tower at 350 Mission across from u/c 301 Mission St.

A mention of the Palace hotel addition.

A completely new proposal of an 800' tower at 177 Fremont St.

And finally the first public disclosure, I know of, that the Transbay Tower could reach 1,200'

Paulopolis
Feb 2, 2007, 3:49 PM
In today's Examiner there's an article about projects related to the Transbay Terminal.

There's a confirmation of the 850' tower at 350 Mission across from u/c 301 Mission St.

A mention of the Palace hotel addition.

A completely new proposal of an 800' tower at 177 Fremont St.

And finally the first public disclosure, I know of, that the Transbay Tower could reach 1,200'

Nice! Can you post the article, or a link to the article?

slock
Feb 2, 2007, 4:04 PM
maybe

http://www.examiner.com/a-543215~The_City_s_skyline_is_set_to_change_drastically.html

J Church
Feb 2, 2007, 5:08 PM
Good lord.

1200'
1200'
1200'
900'
900'
850'
850'
800'

... all within a few hundred feet of one another. Am I missing anything?

J_Taylor
Feb 2, 2007, 6:21 PM
Man, SF is going to change over the next 5-10 years as far as the skyline.
It's all ready, but dag with all this it is going to be a whole new ballof wax.

I cant wait to see what it's all going to look like.
Now if we can just get HSR going...

BTinSF
Feb 2, 2007, 6:37 PM
Early estimates show that $250 million could be generated for the terminal project by allowing buildings to rise hundreds of feet higher by having developers pay extra fees to exceed existing height limits.

If only they would apply this to the entire downtown area . . . .

And, to paraphrase Henry II, would someone rid us of this meddlesome jerk:

Showing a picture of San Francisco’s skyline in 1958, resident Stewart Bloom said, "This is the San Francisco that people read about and remember and Sam Spade and Herb Caen enjoyed. Don’t lose that romance of The City for expediency and for what’s popular at the moment."

Sam Spade? Herb Cain? Now we have to preserve the city the way it was in the 1930's like a museum? Get out the mothballs.

slock
Feb 2, 2007, 6:56 PM
I hadn't considered it until J Church contextualized the list, and I have some thoughts.

I wonder if it will be difficult to sell the condos at 301 mish because it will be surrounded by 800', 850' and the Transbay Tower across the street. Very little sunlight and views. My argument, however, has always been the landmark buildings become the view, in this case Piano and Transbay. As in " I can see the Empire State Building from my room."

Secondly, the great thing about all of this development is how compact it is. We are building an enormous amount, but leaving open so many more areas for future development, the rest of South of Market, Mid-Market, etc.

Finally, I wonder if these new heights will psychologically lead to increased heights around town. With 8 towers 800' and above, does 400' seem that high anymore?

craeg
Feb 2, 2007, 7:05 PM
Two things:
1) I'd like to see how they are going to pull off a twin towers plan in San Francisco - that particular aspect is going to be a bullseye target for the local tin hats. There has already been comparisons in the local papers to 9/11
2) Isnt Sam spade a fictional character? Is this the best opposition that they've got?

J Church
Feb 2, 2007, 7:12 PM
How about Steve McQueen's fire chief in Towering Inferno? I told you architects that skyscrapers are dangerous, but you just wouldn't listen!

craeg
Feb 2, 2007, 7:20 PM
They seem to love the future version of San Francisco. Maybe I should bring some print outs of the screen caps from the series..

Reminiscence
Feb 2, 2007, 7:55 PM
Thats funny, I was just watching that movie a few hours ago. I was wondering what it would be like to one day be able to see something like that in the city. We could even throw the Peerless Building in there just to add spice.

"Architects. Now you know there's no sure way for us to fight a fire in anything over the seventh floor, but you guys just keep buildin' em as high as you can"
- Steve McQueen

With all these building going up, San Francisco may actually surpass Chicago and New York in terms of buildings over 100 floors. I wonder what that would be like.

Richard Mlynarik
Feb 2, 2007, 9:35 PM
Good lord.

1200'
1200'
1200'
900'
900'
850'
850'
800'

... all within a few hundred feet of one another. Am I missing anything?

No, you're not the one who's a few short of a six-pack.

munkyman
Feb 2, 2007, 9:59 PM
Finally, I wonder if these new heights will psychologically lead to increased heights around town. With 8 towers 800' and above, does 400' seem that high anymore?

Something tells me this battle is just beginning. When the time comes, people will literally come out of the woodwork to voice opposition. Time will tell if it will be as strong as it has been in the past, but I don't think after all is said and done that we have 8 buildings over 800'. If the city has 4 such buildings, I'd say the developers and the city succeeded in their desire for height in this tiny corner of the city.

It will be interesting to see if and when the public exacts concessions of reduced height, whether it will correlate to the developer paying reduced "mitigation" costs. After all, part of the premium of buying the land is the assurance of relaxed height limitations.

craeg
Feb 2, 2007, 10:10 PM
Keep in mind, that the increase in heights on these parcels is supposed to help fund the transbay terminal - a project which actually has a good amount of support in SF.
This isnt simply some developers showing up and declaring that they want to build 1k foot towers..
I dont doubt there will be opposition to this, but I wouldnt overlook the power of whats pushing the height limits to begin with.

Richard Mlynarik
Feb 2, 2007, 10:33 PM
Keep in mind, that the increase in heights on these parcels is supposed to help fund the transbay terminal - a project which actually has a good amount of support in SF.
This isnt simply some developers showing up and declaring that they want to build 1k foot towers..
I dont doubt there will be opposition to this, but I wouldnt overlook the power of whats pushing the height limits to begin with.

Oh, yeah, sure it is.

And for sure there's nothing that far-sighted developers and real property speculators in San Francisco like better than medium- to long-term thinking, recognizing that top class infrastructure is what they need to ensure the viability of their investments, which of course they intend to hold and realize revenue from for decades.

It's great to see these people lining up disinterestedly, sacrificing themselves and redrawing their plans to create sources of public revenue for the greater good.

And San Francisco is just SO behind the Transbay project!
That explains why the Mayor's Office and the TA head have spent the last three or four years actively working to kill it.

fflint
Feb 2, 2007, 10:56 PM
So let's see. Mylnarik sees bad intentions behind every move by every person, always, and...what? City-building should stop because human beings are selfish and manipulative?

craeg
Feb 2, 2007, 11:41 PM
mal·con·tent /ˌmælkənˈtɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mal-kuhn-tent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not satisfied or content with currently prevailing conditions or circumstances.
2. dissatisfied with the existing government, administration, system, etc.
–noun 3. a malcontent person, esp. one who is chronically discontented or dissatisfied.


I mean, its not like every single post I've ever seen on any chatboard ANYWHERE with that name has the same "I'm so much smarter than you - I know more than you - why are you so stupid" tone.....oh wait.

At any rate. I do find that there is general support among politicians for the new transbay. I know nothing of the mayors office trying to kill the project, but I do know of incompetence on the part of the TJPA for neglecting to take into account the parcel that the hemisphere was to be built on. Regardless, that situation is long passed. As far as infrastructure is concerned - take a look at geary BLVD. You think they are going to be increasing transit infrastructure before the place is built out ?

BTinSF
Feb 3, 2007, 12:31 AM
I do find that there is general support among politicians for the new transbay. I know nothing of the mayors office trying to kill the project, but I do know of incompetence on the part of the TJPA for neglecting to take into account the parcel that the hemisphere was to be built on. Regardless, that situation is long passed.

I don't really understand how wide and deep the political support really is for the project. What has gotten a lot of attention, because it's so surprising to some including me, is support from Chris Daly including his now famous statement that he had nothing against high rises per se. But I haven't heard much publically from the rest of the Left (Ammiano, McGoldrick, Peskin, Mirkarimi). Has anyone?

As far as the Mayor's Office, what they have done that I know of is fight Daly's attempt to force the mayor to personally attend TJPA meetings rather than send (or fail to send) a representative. Exactly what Daly's motivation was in putting that ballot prop on is unclear to me but I chalked it up just to the Daly vs. Newsom perpetual fight and took the Mayor's side by voting against it. Still, I would like to see more personal involvement by the Mayor.

Regarding The Hemisphere (I thought it was to be called The Century), that was just a typical SF cl*st*rf*ck. Hard to know who to blame, really.

Richard Mlynarik
Feb 3, 2007, 12:47 AM
So let's see. Mylnarik sees bad intentions behind every move by every person, always, and...what? City-building should stop because human beings are selfish and manipulative?

The idea that developers are strong-arming the Planning Department and Mayor's Office in order to contribute extra funding for a public project is the thing which would cause anybody not born yesterday person to say "...what?"

Putting words into other people's mouths is an unsanitary habit, so to preempt you -- and the inevitable accusations of anything from communism to Dalyism to NIMBYism which we see here so often -- I'll say I have few problems with "selfish and manipulative" (aka capitalist) development in cities, including our own. What I do find ironic and depressing is how penny-ante, how provincial, and how generally bush league our local capitalists are, and how badly our provincial city squanders what should be the infrastructural basis for even larger (private and public) wealth.

Now back to our regular cheerleading for anything of any quality proposed by anybody as long as it is more than 10 storeys high!

BTinSF
Feb 3, 2007, 12:57 AM
Now back to our regular cheerleading for anything of any quality proposed by anybody as long as it is more than 10 storeys high!

It would be so much easier and make so much more sense to be discriminating about high rise projects if San Francisico were not so historically full of people ready to block anything over 8 storys or any project not solely composed of "affordable housing"--and even a few projects that are.

Richard Mlynarik
Feb 3, 2007, 1:16 AM
I don't really understand how wide and deep the political support really is for the project. What has gotten a lot of attention, because it's so surprising to some including me, is support from Chris Daly including his now famous statement that he had nothing against high rises per se. But I haven't heard much publically from the rest of the Left (Ammiano, McGoldrick, Peskin, Mirkarimi). Has anyone?

A mile wide and, at best, an inch deep.

And "Left" (ooh! a dirty word) versus "WilliePuppet" (say, in the same spirit) doesn't have much to do with it.
McGoldrick, for example, has been very very very far from helpful.

As far as the Mayor's Office, what they have done that I know of is fight Daly's attempt to force the mayor to personally attend TJPA meetings rather than send (or fail to send) a representative.

The scuttlebutt is that it was about forcing the chicken to come and do his dirty work in person rather than having Michael Cohen putting in the knives at the TJPA while the mayor could maintain some sort of plausible deniability, or spend extra time with his hair care products, or whatever it is he does to fill his days.

I always thought it was a stupid and futile gesture, but then what isn't around here?

Regarding The Hemisphere (I thought it was to be called The Century), that was just a typical SF cl*st*rf*ck. Hard to know who to blame, really.

No, it's very simple: "Gavin Newsom". Things like that don't happen without a lot of political juice, and the buck stops in one very visible location given our form of local government.

Anyway, Jack turned his "$10 and other consideration" property investment into $60 million and he's moved onto other things (doesn't San Bruno Mountain look so absolutely lovely?), so everything worked out fine in the end here in the best of all possible cities.

craeg
Feb 3, 2007, 1:19 AM
And this on a site called Skyscraperpage.com
positively extraordinary!

fflint
Feb 3, 2007, 11:36 AM
Now back to our regular cheerleading for anything of any quality proposed by anybody as long as it is more than 10 storeys high!
Are you riddled with holes from where the bile burned through, or does it just seem that way in your writing?

EastBayHardCore
Feb 5, 2007, 5:37 AM
Man, you think WE are cheerleading? Maybe you should check the other regional forums here.

BTinSF
Feb 5, 2007, 6:08 AM
UCSF on the move:

UCSF raises curtain on stem cell hub
Facility on track for grant
San Francisco Business Times - February 2, 2007
by Daniel S. Levine

The University of California, San Francisco, already working on the cutting edge of stem cell research, is contemplating a fitting home for those efforts.

Preliminary designs for the UCSF's future Institute for Regeneration Medicine show a terraced structure that curves downward like a descending elevated freeway ramp, with outdoor green space on each level and a curved walkway that climbs along its side to connect the floors.

"The design we're working with is unconventional, but I think it will help promote one of the key goals, which is promoting interaction between the faculty members," said Arnold Kriegstein, director of the institute. "This is an interdepartmental program that cuts across not only departments, but even schools and the medical center. We're putting communities together -- neighborhoods of scientists that have common goals -- even though they are working in different organ systems."

Rafael Vinoly Architects developed the innovative design for the $120 million, 80,000-square-foot facility that will house the UCSF institute. The plan has not been finalized or approved by the University of California Regents. In January, the regents approved a request from UCSF to increase the budget to $6.3 million to complete preliminary plans from $1.5 million.

The additional money will allow the campus to move forward on a timetable that should position it to pursue a facility grant from the voter-established California Institute for Regenerative Medicine when it becomes available. CIRM has earmarked for facilities grants about 10 percent of the $3 billion it is charged with disbursing.

UCSF anticipates CIRM will make those funds available in the 2007-2008 fiscal year and expects it to give priority consideration to projects that will be available for occupancy no more than two years after the grant is awarded. That has spurred UCSF to move forward with the planning and design work.

The design, supported on large piers, is expected to reduce the cost of the project by eliminating the need for excavation of the site. The location along Medical Center Way south of the Health Science East tower is the only available site on UCSF's Parnassus campus for the building. It is close to the Health Sciences and Medical Sciences buildings, the central animal care facility, the central utility distribution system and easy access for construction from Medical Center Way.

The facility will house 15 to 20 principal investigators. It will enable UCSF scientists conducting human embryonic stem cell studies who have been forced to work off-campus because of federal restrictions that prohibit them from doing the work in facilities or with equipment supported by federal funds, to move and expand those studies on-campus. The current plans also call for a 200-seat auditorium to replace Toland Hall, which is slated for demolition because of seismic safety concerns.

The institute, which has 125 principal investigators throughout the campus, is based in about 30,000 square feet of renovated space. Of that, about 1,500 square feet are allocated to work on non-federally approved embryonic stem cell lines.

UCSF, which has already secured a $16 million gift from sound pioneer Ray Dolby and his wife, Dagmar, for the facility, expects to complete the building in 2010.

In an update to the regents' committee on grounds and buildings in January, UCSF officials also said they reevaluated the scope of development for a Neurologic Disease and Neuroscience Research Building and will now move ahead with plans for a 180,000-square-foot facility with an expected cost of $105 million. Initially, the campus had considered a phased project with the initial construction being for a 90,000-square-foot building on the Mission Bay campus.

The proposed facility would include laboratory and clinical research space for 78 principal investigators from the Institute of Neurodegenerative Diseases, the Keck Foundation Center for Integrative Neuroscience, and researchers from the Department of Neurology.

Bruce Spaulding, UCSF senior vice chancellor, said the university has been able to accelerate those plans in part because of strong donor interest in the project.

"Our scientists engender and attract the interest to get these buildings up at a pace that is far quicker than any of us anticipated," said Spaulding. "For us, that's exciting because we're not building buildings to get buildings, we're building buildings to make major progress in stem cell science and neurological disease, and by getting these buildings up five or ten years earlier than we hoped, maybe we're five to 10 years closer to new treatments."

dlevine@bizjournals.com / (415) 282-4949

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/05/story3.html?t=printable

And:

UCSF settles on Anshen for its Mission Bay hospital
San Francisco Business Times - February 2, 2007
by Chris Rauber

UCSF Medical Center is entering into exclusive negotiations with Anshen + Allen architects to design its proposed $1.3 billion Mission Bay hospital complex, according to a late January news story on the academic medical center's web site.

The negotiations involve design of the first phase of UCSF's planned women's, children's and cancer hospital complex on the Mission Bay campus. San Francisco-based Anshen + Allen will work on the massive project with William McDonough + Partners, another architectural firm known for its "green" designs, and two structural engineering firms, Rutherford & Chekene and ARUP, according to UCSF. The proposed center, which still requires additional approvals from the University of California regents, is targeted for completion by 2014. Construction could start by 2011.

Officials weren't immediately available for further comment.

In mid-December, UCSF narrowed an original field of nine architecture firms for the project to just two: Anshen + Allen and HOK. An advisory committee recommended Anshen + Allen to CEO Mark Laret, after hearing presentations from the two finalists on Jan. 22.

"Last September," the web story noted, "the UC regents approved the use of $34 million in hospital reserves to begin planning for the new medical center facilities at Mission Bay," including selection of an architecture firm. UCSF said it will report to the regents by March 2008 on progress of planning for the new 289-bed acute-care facility, which has an estimated cost of $1 billion to $1.3 billion. It's expected to include a 183-bed children's hospital, replacing existing inpatient pediatric services at UCSF's main Parnassus Heights campus, a 36-bed women's specialty facility, and a 70-bed cancer center, which will replace inpatient services at its Mount Zion campus.

"This is one of the largest architectural commissions in Northern California right now," an industry insider familiar with the situation said in December. "It's a big deal."

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/05/newscolumn3.html?t=printable

dimondpark
Feb 5, 2007, 4:04 PM
Good lord.

1200'
1200'
1200'
900'
900'
850'
850'
800'

... all within a few hundred feet of one another. Am I missing anything?

:slob:

coyotetrickster
Feb 6, 2007, 4:37 AM
Regarding The Hemisphere (I thought it was to be called The Century), that was just a typical SF cl*st*rf*ck. Hard to know who to blame, really.

Blame William Swig. He assembled the land, announced the project, and then not-so-promptly defaulted on the initial property purchase (to have been satisfied when the construction loan/loans came in). Meyer didn't exactly gamble in taking over the project, since he was either going to paid for the property if the TJPA exercised EDom in the taking for the terminal project, or would sell the condo tower to the highest bidder once it was full.

San Frangelino
Feb 6, 2007, 4:57 AM
Speaking Of Myers...


If you go to his firm's website http://www.myersdevelopment.com/ and look under the category's "project" then "commercial" then "Mandalay Terrace," you should find a rendering of his new 21 story office project for South San Francisco.