PDA

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


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

Frisco_Zig
Feb 6, 2007, 5:18 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.

These projects a patently poor planning. This is encroaching on San Bruno mountian with 100% auto dependant development completely ignoring the Caltrain stop on the other side of the freeway and an underutilized bart station across town. I can't think of a worse location for South City to approval these eye sores. And asthetically they are disconcerting as well.

Frisco_Zig
Feb 6, 2007, 5:19 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.

These projects a patently poor planning. This is encroaching on San Bruno mountian with 100% auto dependant development completely ignoring the Caltrain stop on the other side of the freeway and an underutilized bart station across town. I can't think of a worse location for South City to approval these eye sores. And asthetically they are disconcerting as well.

BTinSF
Feb 6, 2007, 7:09 AM
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.

Or you could blame the City for issuing building permits and/or not ED'ing the land sooner. Swig defaulted, as I recall, because he was unfortunate enough to have been trying to get loans for his development in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble. Of course, a stronger developer might still have got financing, but it wasn't a good time.

Richard Mlynarik
Feb 6, 2007, 9:47 AM
Or you could blame the City for issuing building permits and/or not ED'ing the land sooner. Swig defaulted, as I recall, because he was unfortunate enough to have been trying to get loans for his development in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble. Of course, a stronger developer might still have got financing, but it wasn't a good time.

The City was working very hard to maximize Jack's return on investment.

The more delays and obstacles placed in the way of the public project, the better for the private citizen. And SF government is only too happy to aid the cause of the hard-working legitimate businessmen -- or at least some of them.

The key thing to remember in all this is that Myers didn't acquire any formal interest in the property until long after it was identified as required for the Transbay project. Compare 23 March 2004 date of 80 Natoma deed transfer from Prudential ("TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration paid in hand to Myers Natoma Venture, LLC") with March 2001 date of the Transbay EIS/EIR NOP and the October 2002 date of the Transbay DEIS/DEIR itself.

Anyway, Newsom and Moscovich are about to do away with the TJPA altogether: see http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/controller/reports/TJPA_0207.pdf

"Recommendations:

[...]

5. The Mayor, working with the Board of Supervisors/Transportation
Authority, should convene a meeting of stakeholders of City, and
preferably regional, transportation projects to discuss priorities
and strategies to determine if all projects currently in various
stages of planning and development can and should continue at their
current pace."

Mmmm.... must feed the Central Subway and BART-San Jose!
Bechtel and PBQD -- such hard-working legitimate businessmen -- are getting hungry!

craeg
Feb 6, 2007, 6:55 PM
So just so I am clear. Gavin Newsom wants BART to San Jose?

Richard Mlynarik
Feb 6, 2007, 7:16 PM
So just so I am clear. Gavin Newsom wants BART to San Jose?

The construction mafia wants the two least cost-effective "public transportation" projects in the country -- probably the world.

The cost of screwing SF's citizens/taxpayers/economy/environment and digging a worse-than-useless hole in the ground where it isn't needed under Fourth Street is to screw SJ's citizens/etc/... and dig a worse-than-useless hole in the ground under Santa Clara Street. Quid pro quo and all that.

It can't have escaped your notice that the Bay Area political delegation was unanimously behind the CTC throwing away -- literally, they might as well have just put a match to it -- another $348 million for BART SJX last week, can it? Ask yourself: in whose possible interest could that be?

Qui bono?

This is exactly the same thing that went down a decade ago: BART contractors got Millbrae (and what a roaring success that turned out to be!), VTA's got Tasman (ditto), and gee, what a surprise, the Mayor of SF vetos any further work on the Caltrain extension just as soon as it has served its political task of ensuring the other projects get funded as part of a "regional package". How do you think we got into the horrible mess we're in, anyway?

As for Gavin, well, he does and will do what he's paid for. No different from anybody else.

EastBayHardCore
Feb 8, 2007, 6:11 AM
Published Tuesday, February 6, 2007, by the Oakland Tribune

Residents to weigh condominium plan
Public screening at Union City open house

By Matthew Artz
Staff Writer

Union City residents will get their first chance Wednesday to check
out their prospective new neighbors: three condominium towers, one
of which could soar up to 22 stories.

Barry Swenson Builders will hold an open house to share its master
plan for redeveloping 9 acres of a former PG&E pipe yard directly
east of the BART station into the city's first high-density urban
core.

The meeting is to inform residents about the development and review
the project's history, Redevelopment Agency Manager Mark Evanoff
said.

Swenson, which would purchase nearly one-third of the city-owned
30-acre development site, has proposed building up to 1,200
condominiums, town houses and apartments atop retail stores.

The city is holding on to portions of the remaining land in hopes
that developers one day will build commercial office space when
that market rebounds.

After deals with two previous developers fell through, the City
Council in November unanimously voted to enter into exclusive
negotiations with Swenson.

The development -- which includes a condominium tower slated for
18 to 22 stories and the two others for between 10 and 14 stories,
apartment buildings and about 65,000 square feet of retail space
-- is expected to take 10 years to build.

Swenson would pay the city $30,000 for each market-rate housing unit
it builds. With 15 percent of the units set aside as permanently
affordable, Union City anticipates receiving about $25 million for
the land if the master plan is approved.

The city probably would use the money to help build a new library
or arts center. The development also would generate $32.5 million
in city fees and $5 million in property taxes, according to a city
report.

City leaders haven't estimated the cost of providing services to
future occupants of the dwellings.

The development would help meet housing quotas set by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission to release funds for the
proposed Dumbarton Rail -- a new rail line that would make Union
City's BART Station a hub for commuters traveling to Redwood City
and on to San Jose.

However, it remains unclear whether nearby residents will support
high-rise towers and thousands of new neighbors.

If Swenson builds the maximum 1,200 housing units, the development
would be nearly twice as densely populated as the 664 housing units
proposed by the city's former site developer, TMG Partners.

"I think that's going to be a hard sell," nearby resident Phil Crosby
said in November. "It's so dramatically different than anything south
of Oakland and north of San Jose."

slock
Feb 9, 2007, 1:40 PM
There are two interesting real estate tidbits in today's Biz Times.

The first is that the JER Partners, who bought the Renaissance Stanford Court Hotel this past week also bought 875 California St., the vacant corner parking lot at the apex of Powell and California Sts. No mention of any plans, but it's nice to know that something will be happening at such a prime location.

The second is specualtion that JMA Ventures, Millenium Partners and the Mexican Museum will be collaborating on a new building in Yerba Buena. It will combine the Mercantile Building on the corner of 3rd and Mission with a new development. Past articles have said JMA and Millenium want to build a residential tower. This article says the old Legoretta designed building is out, and a new structure could be designed by Enrique Norten. I've seen some of his work with TEN arquitectos and he's done some great designs. Should be interesting to watch this project unfold.

Reminiscence
Feb 9, 2007, 8:04 PM
I dont think anyone has posted any news about this one:

Brisbane landowner plans half-billion-dollar resort

San Francisco Business Times - February 2, 2007

by J.K. Dineen

Taiwanese real estate conglomerate Universal Paragon Corp. has unveiled plans for a highrise hotel and waterfront condominium resort on Brisbane's Sierra Point.

Two proposed 14-story towers, on the eastern portion of Sierra Point, would include 400 hotel rooms, 400 condominiums, and a 25,000-square-foot conference center on an 11-acre site next to the Brisbane Marina, according to an application filed with the city of Brisbane. At current construction costs, the project has a value of about $480 million

The company, which is also developing the 660-acre Brisbane Baylands, has hired famed Taiwanese architect C.P. Wang of CY Lee Associates to design the towers. C.P. Wang was one of the lead designers on the 101-story Taipei 101, which, at 1,671 feet, is the tallest building in the world.

"It's really a hotel-condo destination resort that would be right there on the marina and will have spectacular views up and down the bay," said Steve Hanson, general manager of Universal Paragon.

The site is zoned for a 700-room hotel and conference center, which means Universal Paragon will need to get a zoning amendment, according to the application filed with the city. The site includes six acres that Universal Paragon owns and five acres that would have to be acquired from the Brisbane Redevelopment Agency. But Hanson said the entire 11-acre parcel would not be needed for the development and a land swap might be possible between the agency and Universal Paragon.

Hanson said Universal Paragon is committed to creating a pedestrian-oriented oasis that will tie the Sierra Point waterfront to the city of Brisbane and bring residents and visitors to the somewhat desolate windswept small peninsula that sticks out into San Francisco Bay.

The development, which requires an environmental impact report, would also abut a new park slated for the point. Sierra Point's current development consists of a few office buildings scattered about.

"The way it has been developed, the buildings are sort of plunked down with surface parking all around," said Hanson. "It's sparsely developed with few public amenities. Nobody likes parking lots right on the waterfront."

He said the hotel would be "destination hotel" catering to travelers, particularly from the Pacific Rim.

BTinSF
Feb 10, 2007, 3:59 AM
Slock, ya missed this one--probably the most interesting tidbit in today's BizTimes ;) : The property next to the LGBT Community Center on Market St. is being sold. It is fully entitled for 2 8-story midrise residential buildings and the buyer, Joe Cassidy who built The Palms on 4th St in SOMA, may move forward (he owns another property in Oakland an isn't sure which one he wants to do first apparently).

Reminiscence
Feb 10, 2007, 4:54 AM
I stole this video link from SSC, explains pretty much whats going on with the new skyline.

http://cbs5.com/video/?id=20357@kpix.dayport.com

rocketman_95046
Feb 10, 2007, 5:40 AM
More infill for San Jose.:) And the good news is that this isnt even a vacant lot, a strait up consolidation of a sprawling office.

Hopefully this is just the start of a very ambitious (for the south bay at least) North First Street plan.

Cadence to break ground on new San Jose headquarters
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - 1:02 PM PST Thursday, February 8, 2007by Sharon Simonson
Print this Article Email this Article Reprints RSS Feeds Most Viewed Most Emailed
San Jose's Cadence Design Systems Inc. plans to break ground in the next 45 days with the long-awaited redevelopment of its North San Jose headquarters.

Cadence appears to be the first company in what is commonly called the North First Street corridor to push forward with development under a new city plan to encourage far higher development densities in the area, including the addition of 32,000 new homes and apartments.

Cadence's progress follows resolution of a lawsuit over the city plans to redevelop the 5,000 acres on its northern flank. The area houses some of the city's and country's most high-profile high-tech companies. New development in the area has been hamstrung for months as San Jose negotiated with the cities of Santa Clara and Milpitas and Santa Clara County to resolve disagreements about improvements to roadways in the neighboring jurisdictions.

Cadence intends to build a five-story, 208,000 square-foot building to replace four low-rise structures with about the same square footage, says Dave Tricaso, who manages "workplace resources" for Cadence, including real estate. As part of the deal, Cadence has in turn sold a 14-acre parcel freed up by the plan to Palo Alto apartment owner Essex Property Trust.
Bringing all of their employees under a single roof is expected to bring efficiencies to Cadence workers, saving money and sharpening the company's competitive edge, Tricaso says.

"It might not seem like a big deal but getting people together does wonderful things for them. It's a huge benefit to us," he says.

Cadence sells and leases software and hardware products for designing integrated circuits, printed circuit boards, and other electronic systems. It employs 2,100 people at its North San Jose headquarters.

Essex, a West coast apartment owner with more than 27,500 units in California and Washington, plans an 880-unit apartment complex on the site, according to city of San Jose records. The company has agreed to allow Cadence to occupy the buildings for the next two to three years while Cadence builds its new office. It says in the interim it will pursue its entitlements.

BTinSF
Feb 10, 2007, 7:29 AM
I stole this video link from SSC, explains pretty much whats going on with the new skyline.

http://cbs5.com/video/?id=20357@kpix.dayport.com

"2000 ft high buildings that you ask people to live in" :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Calvin Welch doesn't just look like he's been hitting his bong too often--I think he has. But, then, we can dream . . . .

Reminiscence
Feb 10, 2007, 7:45 AM
"2000 ft high buildings that you ask people to live in" :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Calvin Welch doesn't just look like he's been hitting his bong too often--I think he has. But, then, we can dream . . . .

Heh, I was thinking the same thing. My only guess is he was probably, just maybe, refering to Calatrava's Chicago Spire. Then again, I dont even really see that going up. I just hope people like him dont get in the way in what could be the third tallest building in the US, even if CS gets built.

BTinSF
Feb 10, 2007, 9:36 AM
I just hope people like him dont get in the way in what could be the third tallest building in the US, even if CS gets built.

Frankly, as long as these proposals are in the downtown core--and especially near the TransBay Terminal--I don't think anyone but the most determined "activists" will get riled up. I would have worried more about Rincon Hill because those buildings do block some views of the Bay Bridge from Twin Peaks and Upper Market but that now seems like a fait accompli.

But what has me worried most about SF's future development is Gavin Newsom's political future. The Chronicle speculates about his potential opponents in November here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/10/MAYOR.TMP . Frankly, all the names mentioned (except maybe Tony Hall who is a joke) strike me as being much less favorable to development than Gavin. We need to keep our fingers and toes crossed that his rehab (medically and politically) goes smoothly. And it won't hurt if Godfather John Burton puts out the word that he opposes anyone challenging his boy (and corals the other "names" like Migden et. al in support).

mthd
Feb 11, 2007, 7:18 PM
...Past articles have said JMA and Millenium want to build a residential tower. This article says the old Legoretta designed building is out, and a new structure could be designed by Enrique Norten. I've seen some of his work with TEN arquitectos and he's done some great designs. Should be interesting to watch this project unfold.

i have heard news of this project through the professional grapevine; the site is the historic building at the northwest corner of third and mission (kitty corner from st regis, across 3rd street from the paramount) and supposedly the proposal (approx 40 stories) entailed retaining the two primary facades of the existing building and putting the new tower inside it, much like the hearst building in nyc.

personally, i think that's a bad idea. it may be a good site for high rise residential based on proximity to the financial district, ybg, union square, transit, etc, but we're not so desperate for space that we need to put buildings inside buildings.

mthd
Feb 11, 2007, 7:21 PM
Frankly, as long as these proposals are in the downtown core--and especially near the TransBay Terminal--I don't think anyone but the most determined "activists" will get riled up. I would have worried more about Rincon Hill because those buildings do block some views of the Bay Bridge from Twin Peaks and Upper Market but that now seems like a fait accompli...

i think there's a very good chance that once one rincon is complete MANY more people will be 'riled up' and speak out against more towers in abject horror.

i've already heard from quite a few people along these lines... i just hope most people aren't motivated enough to do anything about it.

craeg
Feb 11, 2007, 7:55 PM
You'll never have a lack of people queueing up in SF to complain about anything - regardless of how controversial it is. I dont personally feel that there seems to be any rising tide of complaints that will affect future high rise growth. Its hard to imagine that people are going to rise up against a 642 foot building when buildings almost twice its height are being proposed a few blocks away.
As for the third and mission project, there is a long standing practice in San Francisco of gutting the inside of a building while leaving the facade intact and building a new frame from the inside up. H and M, the westfield, the ritz carlton residences. It's one of the ways the market finds to build new construction in severely restricted markets. If its the only way they can make the project work - and we get housing and a museum out of it - i hope it works out.

BTinSF
Feb 12, 2007, 2:25 AM
i have heard news of this project through the professional grapevine; the site is the historic building at the northwest corner of third and mission (kitty corner from st regis, across 3rd street from the paramount) and supposedly the proposal (approx 40 stories) entailed retaining the two primary facades of the existing building and putting the new tower inside it, much like the hearst building in nyc.

personally, i think that's a bad idea. it may be a good site for high rise residential based on proximity to the financial district, ybg, union square, transit, etc, but we're not so desperate for space that we need to put buildings inside buildings.

All you have to do is look diagonally across the street for the model: The Williams Building/St. Regis/MOAD. It'll be interesting to see how they do it architecturally, but I think it'll be more than a "building within a building". Structurally, though, it may be close to that as the Ritz Carlton Residences is. If they remove the yellow brick non-historic addition, I think they might have room on the site to do the highrise next door (or mostly next door) as at the St. Regis.

mthd
Feb 12, 2007, 4:24 AM
All you have to do is look diagonally across the street for the model: The Williams Building/St. Regis/MOAD. It'll be interesting to see how they do it architecturally, but I think it'll be more than a "building within a building". Structurally, though, it may be close to that as the Ritz Carlton Residences is. If they remove the yellow brick non-historic addition, I think they might have room on the site to do the highrise next door (or mostly next door) as at the St. Regis.

nah - this is a completely different animal. st regis created no new space anywhere within the footprint of the williams building. it was seismically strengthened, tied into the structure of the new tower, and the non-historic top floor was removed. what has been discussed is a tower rising inside the footprint of the historic building (again, a la hearst in nyc). there is no room on the site for a standalone new tower nor any chance that the existing structure could support another 30-40 stories on top of it.

at the st regis site, by comparison, there was frontage on three separate streets, only a relatively small fraction of which was occupied by the williams building. similarly, the williams building occupied less than 25% of the site area.

i'm no preservationist - i don't think buildings should be kept simply because they are old... but i think the building in question here has merit as a remaining piece of the historic architecture of mission street and shouldn't be disrespected by becoming nothing more than a sock for a condo tower.

BTinSF
Feb 12, 2007, 7:20 AM
^^^Either you didn't read or didn't understand what I said. First of all, part of the existing structure is not historic. That can come down. With the property reserved for the Mexican Museum (which already has a foundation dug and poured), the empty space between that and the non-historic corner property and the space now occupied by that non-historic part of the building, it might be possible to build a new highrise retaining all of ther historic part of the corner structure. If not, one could be designed incorporating some part of the existing structure but would, obviously, have to be structurally entirely new. The latter approach would, indeed, be a form of fascadism but could possibly retain a large part of the older structure. Or they might have to go full bore retaining only the fascade. But what makes me think they won't is that a 40-story building using the entire footprint of both the corner building and the Mexican Museum site would be a massive, hulking structure. I don't think they would approve something like that.

Bottom line--you don't know what they are going to do and I don't either, but the combined lots offer more than just the option of building a new structure within the old. Partly it depends on what the Redevelopment Agency will tolerate in terms of a highrise directly adjacent to and/or looming over their open space and the Jewish Museum--shadows and all that. Second, the foundation work was done to be compatible with the Legoretta design of the Mexican Museum which is hardly a 40-story building. If something new is going to be done on that part of the lot, either the existing foundation work will have to be removed or the design will have to be compatible with it.

Please don't be so dogmatic and dismissive of the possibilities because I think we could all be surprised at what a creative architect could do here.

BTinSF
Feb 12, 2007, 7:27 AM
i think the building in question here has merit as a remaining piece of the historic architecture of mission street and shouldn't be disrespected by becoming nothing more than a sock for a condo tower.

Speaking the "sock" approach, are you familiar with what they did to the old hotel fascade that was incorporated into The Paramout directly across the street (on the alley side)? That's more like just using the heel or toe of the sock. They saved literally nothing but the facade and even incorporated that into a new, larger fascade. Which broadens still more the range of what the Redevelopment folks might tolerate at the site in question. I really do think they want to get the Mexican Museum built and they are about out of other opetion to get that done.

mthd
Feb 12, 2007, 5:30 PM
^^^Either you didn't read or didn't understand what I said. First of all, part of the existing structure is not historic. That can come down. With the property reserved for the Mexican Museum (which already has a foundation dug and poured), the empty space between that and the non-historic corner property and the space now occupied by that non-historic part of the building, it might be possible to build a new highrise retaining all of ther historic part of the corner structure. If not, one could be designed incorporating some part of the existing structure but would, obviously, have to be structurally entirely new. The latter approach would, indeed, be a form of fascadism but could possibly retain a large part of the older structure. Or they might have to go full bore retaining only the fascade. But what makes me think they won't is that a 40-story building using the entire footprint of both the corner building and the Mexican Museum site would be a massive, hulking structure. I don't think they would approve something like that.

Bottom line--you don't know what they are going to do and I don't either, but the combined lots offer more than just the option of building a new structure within the old. Partly it depends on what the Redevelopment Agency will tolerate in terms of a highrise directly adjacent to and/or looming over their open space and the Jewish Museum--shadows and all that. Second, the foundation work was done to be compatible with the Legoretta design of the Mexican Museum which is hardly a 40-story building. If something new is going to be done on that part of the lot, either the existing foundation work will have to be removed or the design will have to be compatible with it.

Please don't be so dogmatic and dismissive of the possibilities because I think we could all be surprised at what a creative architect could do here.

the non-historic portion of that building is a small sliver along it's west face. the distance from that to the parking garage is about 20 feet! (check out the axon view at local live - it's a pretty cool moment frozen in time. in any case, i'm referring to the specific idea that they were putting a tower inside the footprint of the existing building, as i said several times, a la hearst in nyc. that's the proposal which was described to me, by part of the project team, and that's all i'm commenting about.

whether the ground space dedicated to the mexican museum (under different ownership and with a totally incompatible foundation / garage underneath ;) ) is suitable for high rise residential is, well, another question. it certainly could be an interesting project if they manage to stay out of the footprint of the historic building, but given the amount of space on the ground it's impossible to imagine that.

EastBayHardCore
Feb 14, 2007, 3:13 PM
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/389879304_ee8a58b60e_o.jpg

mthd
Feb 14, 2007, 4:59 PM
^ that box labeled ??? is one of the buildings/sites identified in the transbay design for development documents - 300' tall, corner of spear + folsom. i don't think there's a specific project yet.

it would be 200 folsom...

BTinSF
Feb 14, 2007, 6:14 PM
given the amount of space on the ground it's impossible to imagine that.

Which is why niether of us is a superstar architect. I was just reading about JP Morgan considering purchase of WTC 5 as a place for their trading floor. The problem is there's no room for a building with floor plates large enough for trading floors without impinging on what is to be part of the memorial. Said the architects: "No problem. We'll cantilever the trading floor over the open space."

Once more, an innovative design could accomplish things we can't imagine. ;)

FourOneFive
Feb 14, 2007, 6:29 PM
Which is why niether of us is a superstar architect. I was just reading about JP Morgan considering purchase of WTC 5 as a place for their trading floor. The problem is there's no room for a building with floor plates large enough for trading floors without impinging on what is to be part of the memorial. Said the architects: "No problem. We'll cantilever the trading floor over the open space."

Once more, an innovative design could accomplish things we can't imagine. ;)

just curious here, wouldn't that shade the open space and thus the memorial?

BTinSF
Feb 16, 2007, 11:48 PM
BizTimes says Cesar Pelli is designing a 10 story building with 20 condos to be squeezed into the space next to Boulevard Restaurant on the Embarcadero, replacing a 2-story structure. Hines has bought the property for $11 million and will put up the structure for $45 to $50 million. Doing the math, that comes to an average cost of $3 million per condo. Anybody wanna bet what they'll sell for?

The broker who handled the transaction says the seller "really wants to see something significant there, a landmark, and Hines has promised to do that."

BTinSF
Feb 17, 2007, 12:04 AM
More news from the BizTimes:

- SKS Development is looking at 185 Fremont for a mixed use building rather than pure office

- Plans for a 390 unit condo project along 3rd St. have been dropped after the Planning Dept. began putting up resistance based on the supposed need to protect PDR (production, distribution, repair) uses.

- There will be an "early Spring" Planning Commission vote on 1285 Sutter, the Galaxy Theater site at the corner of Van Ness. The proposal is for a mixed use project with 110 residential units and a Trader Joe's on the ground level. The building--height not given in the article--is by Christiani Johnson Architects and is described as having "a bowed glass curtain wall meant to evoke a ship's sail".

- There is passing mention of a 515 unit condo tower by Pulte Homes at the SOMA site of the San Francisco Tennis Club. Did/do we know about this?

Stepping Razor
Feb 17, 2007, 1:31 AM
- There is passing mention of a 515 unit condo tower by Pulte Homes at the SOMA site of the San Francisco Tennis Club. Did/do we know about this?

It wasn't really a tower, but a low/midrise proposal. They wanted small ground-floor commercial incubator units, on-site inclusionary, and a public passage through the middle of the superblock (they hadn't decided whether to make it a street, landscaped pedestrian passage, or pocket park). It seemed a decent proposal.

But they ran into a massive headwinds from anti-gentrification NIMBYs and the members of the tennis club, who organized themselves as Save Our San Francisco Tennis Club and hired Sue Hestor to do her thing. They convinced Fiona Ma to sponsor a successful ordinance giving special protection to recreation uses (even private ones apparently) at risk of conversion to condos. (http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061212/20061212005265.html?.v=1) I don't know if Pulte is still trying to build the thing now or not.

BTinSF
Feb 17, 2007, 3:13 AM
^^^Evidently it's still "on". BizTimes says there is a new owner of the Tennis Club, KSL Capital Partners, which has renewed the contract with Pulte to the "disappointment" of members of the Club.

BTinSF
Feb 17, 2007, 3:22 AM
- There will be an "early Spring" Planning Commission vote on 1285 Sutter, the Galaxy Theater site at the corner of Van Ness. The proposal is for a mixed use project with 110 residential units and a Trader Joe's on the ground level. The building--height not given in the article--is by Christiani Johnson Architects and is described as having "a bowed glass curtain wall meant to evoke a ship's sail".


Found this not-very-helpful rendering and description at the architect's site:

http://www.cjarchs.com/images/project-images/in-progress/1285-sutter.jpghttp://www.cjarchs.com/images/copy-blocks/1285-sutter-copy.gif

So at least we know it's to be 13 stories set back from a 40 ft base. On Van Ness, that's good--same height as Symphony Towers (which Christiani Johnson evidently did as well) and Opera Plaza = the making of a street wall.

BTinSF
Feb 17, 2007, 3:27 AM
Slock, ya missed this one--probably the most interesting tidbit in today's BizTimes ;) : The property next to the LGBT Community Center on Market St. is being sold. It is fully entitled for 2 8-story midrise residential buildings and the buyer, Joe Cassidy who built The Palms on 4th St in SOMA, may move forward (he owns another property in Oakland an isn't sure which one he wants to do first apparently).

The Christiani Johnson site also had this rendering/description of the above project at 1844 Market:

http://www.cjarchs.com/images/project-images/in-progress/1844-market.jpghttp://www.cjarchs.com/images/copy-blocks/1844-market-copy.gif

craeg
Feb 17, 2007, 4:35 AM
Found this not-very-helpful rendering and description at the architect's site:

http://www.cjarchs.com/images/project-images/in-progress/1285-sutter.jpghttp://www.cjarchs.com/images/copy-blocks/1285-sutter-copy.gif

So at least we know it's to be 13 stories set back from a 40 ft base. On Van Ness, that's good--same height as Symphony Towers (which Christiani Johnson evidently did as well) and Opera Plaza = the making of a street wall.

TRADER JOES??:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :cheers:

BTinSF
Feb 17, 2007, 5:54 AM
TRADER JOES??:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :cheers:

So sayeth BizTimes. I reread that a couple times myself because I recall arguing with JChurch about how I wasn't so sure a "supermarket" at this location was such a good idea but a TJ's puts the thing in a whole new light. I would love having a TJ's within walking distance!!

slock
Feb 17, 2007, 7:40 PM
One quick note. I took the time yesterday to watch Thursday's Planning Commission meeting on SFGTV. And I was a little suprised.

It seems that the Commission's ideology is shifting. Peskin's two appointments, Moore and Olague, were incredibly vociferous in their opposition to development.

In a discussion about the Market and Octavia plan, Moore mentioned her dislike of the towers at Market and Van Ness and her unhappiness with many elements of the plan. The most alarming and comedic was Olague's statement that she does not like the 400' heights at Market and Van Ness and wants them to be lowered. Her reasoning was almost funny, as if she was told to say anything she could to fight the towers, and her logic followed suit. In her comments she stated a fear of earthquakes, sewage, and the traffic nightmare that the these towers would cause. Meanwhile the attendees listening were silent in disbelief, while the planners who have given over six years to the plan stood with their mouths agape. She is fighting these heights, for no apparent reason, and all this after six years of presentations and over seven hearings at the commission. It seems like she will start opposing a lot more of the highrises, and unfortunately, as a commissioner, she wields significant power.

craeg
Feb 18, 2007, 2:41 AM
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=895

Recent planning commission appointee Christina Olague brings a tremendous amount of experience to her position, having spent the past several years helping to lead the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC). During her time there, Olague has worked to involve residents of San Francisco's eastern neighborhoods with the rezoning process they're undergoing by familiarizing them with the intricacies of city planning, giving them the tools and means to make their voices heard. (and projects killed)

BTinSF
Feb 18, 2007, 2:57 AM
^^^So does she take credit for the porn factory in the Armory?

By the way, that article says Matt Gonzalez appointed her so she must have been there a while. Did Peskin reappoint her or something?

BTinSF
Feb 19, 2007, 6:47 AM
BizTimes says Cesar Pelli is designing a 10 story building with 20 condos to be squeezed into the space next to Boulevard Restaurant on the Embarcadero, replacing a 2-story structure. Hines has bought the property for $11 million and will put up the structure for $45 to $50 million. Doing the math, that comes to an average cost of $3 million per condo. Anybody wanna bet what they'll sell for?

The broker who handled the transaction says the seller "really wants to see something significant there, a landmark, and Hines has promised to do that."

So here's the article:

Builder pitches 10-story waterfront tower
San Francisco Business Times - February 16, 2007
by J.K. Dineen

Hines has filed plans to build a mixed-use office and residential building at 110 Embarcadero, one of San Francisco's last remaining developable waterfront parcels.

The project, which is reportedly being designed by architect Cesar Pelli, would replace a narrow two-story building next to Boulevard Restaurant with a 10-story structure with 20 condos, 57,000 square feet of office, and 8,000 square feet of retail. The property has long been owned by the Accornero family, according to Giulio Accornero Jr., an attorney in Menlo Park. Hines has agreed to buy the property for about $11 million, or $150 per developable square foot. Based on current construction costs, the project would cost between $45 and $50 million.

Hines has applied to meet the gold standard for green buildings set by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, according to Craig Nikitas, a senior planner with the city.

Accornero said that he has long resisted developers' efforts to buy the property. His father, Giulio Accornero Sr., first leased part of the building in 1933, and actually made wine there for a year before using the space as a distribution point for wine produced in St. Helena. Wine was carted on the rail spur that ran along the Embarcadero at the time.

"He used to pump the wine from the tank cars into the tanks and bottle it there," said Accornero.

The building was later bought by a company that made naval uniforms and renamed the Admiral.

"They entertained the admirals upstairs," he said. "They had a full bar and all the cutting tables were upstairs and the fitting rooms were downstairs."

The Accornero family bought the building in 1946. Accornero said various schemes to reuse the property have fallen through over the years. Former 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo at one point leased the building for a 49ers themed football restaurant, but the project fell through after DeBartolo pled guilty in 1998 to failing to report that Louisiana's former governor extorted $400,000 from him to win a casino license. At the height of the dot-com boom, the Martin Group filed, and then scrapped, a scheme to add several stories of office space to the building.

Accornero said there has been a constant stream of developers looking to take the property off his hands. But he has long resisted -- partly for sentimental reasons. Accornero called the building the "crown jewel of the family."

"Everybody who approached us said, 'Is the building for sale?' I always said, 'Not in my lifetime,'" said Accornero. "This building is where my brother and I grew up. We maintained it. On March 3, 1973, my father was fixing the drain on the second floor when he passed away."

Finally, Accornero came to the conclusion that "it was probably time to move on." And with Hines, he feels he has the right developer.

"They found us," he said. "This is a small project for them and they really want to do a statement for San Francisco."

Colliers International broker Tony Crossley, who brokered the sale, called Accornero a "very reluctant seller."

"It's a fabulous location and he really wants to see something significant there, a landmark, and Hines has promised to do that," said Crossley.

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

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/19/story13.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Feb 19, 2007, 6:54 AM
More news from the BizTimes:

- SKS Development is looking at 185 Fremont for a mixed use building rather than pure office

- Plans for a 390 unit condo project along 3rd St. have been dropped after the Planning Dept. began putting up resistance based on the supposed need to protect PDR (production, distribution, repair) uses.

- There will be an "early Spring" Planning Commission vote on 1285 Sutter, the Galaxy Theater site at the corner of Van Ness. The proposal is for a mixed use project with 110 residential units and a Trader Joe's on the ground level. The building--height not given in the article--is by Christiani Johnson Architects and is described as having "a bowed glass curtain wall meant to evoke a ship's sail".

- There is passing mention of a 515 unit condo tower by Pulte Homes at the SOMA site of the San Francisco Tennis Club. Did/do we know about this?

The stories:

SKS eyes offices, condos for Foundry Square site
San Francisco Business Times - February 16, 2007
by J.K. Dineen and Ryan Tate

SKS Development is focusing on Foundry Square.

The firm, which developed 475 Brannan St. and 350 Rhode Island St., is reportedly taking a hard look at 185 Fremont St., a potential office development site in Foundry Square. Across the street from the Barclays building under construction at Foundry Square I, the site was pitched as a home for a 23-story, 250,000-square-foot office tower. Heller/Manus has done schematic drawings for the site. The parcel was expected to fetch $23 million, or $91 per buildable square foot, based on the current zoning. Sources said SKS is leaning toward a mixed-use building, with office and residential units.

S.F. condo project axed; planning battle loomed
Facing opposition from the Planning Department, Marty Gaehwiler has dropped his proposed 390-unit project along the new Third Street Light Rail.

The parcel houses a warehouse that employs about 25, and the city has in recent months taken a stand against residential projects that wipe out light industrial or manufacturing jobs. "The Planning Department was going to make this a poster child for protecting PDR (production, distribution, and repair), and Marty didn't want the fight," said a source who was familiar with the project. "He has owned the land for a long time and could afford to wait this out. It's too bad -- it would have been a great project." Christiani Johnson Architects was the designer on the torpedoed development.

Trader Joe's, housing make tasty combo
Nob Hill foodies can look forward to an early spring Planning Commission vote on 1285 Sutter St., a 110-unit project with a Trader Joe's store on the ground level.

The Bayrock Residential project, designed by Christiani Johnson Architects with MBH, will have a bowed glass-curtain wall meant to evoke a ship's sail, said Richard Christiani. The site, on the corner of Van Ness Avenue, was a movie theater.

In recent years, Christiani Johnson has become the go-to firm for the grocery-under-housing combo. The firm designed Petrini Place at 2001 McAllister Street (134 units above an Albertsons) and the Potrero at 450 Rhode Island St. (165 condos above a Whole Foods). In a 2003 Business Times story, Gabriel Metcalf of SPUR suggested that food stores make housing projects more palatable in development-wary neighbors. "Grocery stores are like warm, fuzzy little kitties," he said.

New owner pushes condos on SF. Tennis Club
When KSL Capital Partners bought the international private club-owner ClubCorp in December, members of the San Francisco Tennis Club were optimistic.

With new owners, club members hoped that Pulte Homes' plan to raze the SoMa club in favor of a 515-unit condo tower would be dropped. So far, it seems unlikely. "They renewed the contract," said Steven Vettel of Farella Braun + Martel, the attorney representing Pulte.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/19/newscolumn1.html?t=printable

Reminiscence
Feb 19, 2007, 12:01 PM
Did we ever actually solve the issue of even locating 185 Fremont? :(

BTinSF
Feb 19, 2007, 7:04 PM
^^^No. The existing numbers seem to go from 183 to 199. Maybe 185 would only exist if they built it. But where would they build it?

The article is also confusing in its reference to Foundry Square. Foundry Square is really just the buildings (or lots) on the 4 corners of 1st & Howard. Nothing on the east side of Fremont has anything to do with it other than being across the street from the back side of two of the buildings.

I'm going to write Mr. Dineen.

Reminiscence
Feb 19, 2007, 11:23 PM
^^^No. The existing numbers seem to go from 183 to 199. Maybe 185 would only exist if they built it. But where would they build it?

The article is also confusing in its reference to Foundry Square. Foundry Square is really just the buildings (or lots) on the 4 corners of 1st & Howard. Nothing on the east side of Fremont has anything to do with it other than being across the street from the back side of two of the buildings.

I'm going to write Mr. Dineen.

Right, I was thinking the same thing. It would have to be created if its not already there. It seems to go from 177 Fremont, to 183 Fremont, to 193 Fremont. 177-183 Fremont is for that 800' tower proposal. Perhaps when they demolish 193 Fremont and acquire whatever piece of land is next to that, they will rename the whole parcel as 185 Fremont only?

BTinSF
Feb 20, 2007, 11:08 PM
^^^Well, I got the answer from Mr. Dineen. First of all, here's what he said:

Thanks for the note. I'm a bit confused as well, honestly. According to the flyer (which I forwarded to you), it's just to the west of 199 Fremont, but
my map also shows that as 183 Fremont. I'll let you know when I learn more.


And here's the front of the flyer:

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7dc01b3127cce81ee8498675800000015100Acsmblw0ZsmLA

So it looks to me like 185 Fremont is the same site as we've been calling 177-183. It was "pitched" for the building shown but could be built higher if the TransBay plan goes through.

EastBayHardCore
Feb 20, 2007, 11:10 PM
S.F. restaurant Ozumo confirms Oakland location
East Bay Business Times - 10:08 AM PST Tuesday, February 20, 2007
by Ryan Tate

The trendy San Francisco restaurant Ozumo has confirmed previously reported plans to open a location in Oakland's Uptown district.

Ozumo, which sells cocktails and gourmet Japanese food, will open an 8,000-square-foot location anchoring the ground floor of Broadway Grand, a 420-unit condominium project from the Pleasanton developer Signature Properties.

Ozumo's area neighbors include Luka's Taproom and Uptown Bar, both of which opened within the past three years. Luka's has signed a lease to open a wine bar across the street, and near Uptown the team behind the Oakland Mexican restaurant Doña Tomas are putting in a cocktail lounge and restaurant focused on California cuisine.

"They are in there (Uptown) first with some big guns," Ozumo's owner, Jeremy James, told the San Francisco Business Times in January, when the paper first reported Ozumo was likely to go into Broadway Grand. "They want to create (room for) residents and amenities."

"We're a well established, highly thought of San Francisco restaurant. Opening a second store in Oakland would be very comforting ... It always feels good being wanted."

The Oakland Ozumo, James said, would offer an "Izakaya" menu, named after Japanese drinking houses that also serve food, not unlike tapas at bars in Spain.

The restaurant will be potentially more profitable and less risky that another venture in San Francisco would have been, James said. Managers and senior chefs from San Francisco will be a short BART ride or drive from Oakland when needed for training. At the same time, the Oakland Ozumo will have a lower minimum wage and no health care or sick leave requirements, as San Francisco does.

"In terms of a more welcome business climate, Oakland is right off that bat," James said.

Tate is a reporter for the San Francisco Business Times.

snufalufugus
Feb 20, 2007, 11:27 PM
It was "pitched" for the building shown but could be built higher if the TransBay plan goes through.


Does anyone know when voting for the approval of the TransBay plan will take place?

FourOneFive
Feb 21, 2007, 2:58 AM
^^^Well, I got the answer from Mr. Dineen. First of all, here's what he said:



And here's the front of the flyer:

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b7dc01b3127cce81ee8498675800000015100Acsmblw0ZsmLA

So it looks to me like 185 Fremont is the same site as we've been calling 177-183. It was "pitched" for the building shown but could be built higher if the TransBay plan goes through.

that tower looks absolutely craptastic. i bet its a heller manus. let's hope the height limit is lifted just so we'll get a new design.

Reminiscence
Feb 21, 2007, 4:13 AM
that tower looks absolutely craptastic. i bet its a heller manus. let's hope the height limit is lifted just so we'll get a new design.

I agree, more of these plain and featureless towers is exactly what we DONT need. We need more architetural distinction, or something more visually appealing.

fflint
Feb 21, 2007, 5:41 AM
STRICTLY COMMERCIAL
The San Francisco Chronicle
Tuesday, February 20, 2007


Ex-tennis star has a stake in Stacey's

A Southern California real estate investment partnership that includes former professional tennis player Michael Chang has purchased the four-story retail building at 581 Market St. that houses Stacey's Bookstore. The historic building was purchased by Redwood Real Estate Partners, LLC, a Santa Margarita group that includes Chang among its leading investors.

Chang, 34, won the French Open in 1989 at age 17, becoming the youngest man to win a Grand Slam singles title.

Built in 1907 and renovated in 1996, the 26,127-square-foot building is 100 percent occupied by Stacey's, the downtown bookstore that once specialized in scientific and professional texts. Stacey's, founded in 1923, now offers books for a variety of readers and is one of the largest independent booksellers in San Francisco.

Chang and his group paid in excess of $11 million for the property, more than $421 per square foot, according to Edward Suharski, senior vice president of Grubb & Ellis Co.'s San Francisco office. Suharski said the Market Street property is is one of the few all-retail buildings outside of the Union Square neighborhood.

Suharski represented the sellers, Capital and Counties USA, Inc., a San Francisco real estate investment and development firm and subsidiary of Liberty International PLC. Redwood Real Estate Partners represented itself.

The buyers are looking for a tenant, Suharski said, "to take advantage of the new retail environment" downtown.

The fate of Stacey's, which has a lease that runs until 2011, is uncertain. Stacey's is owned by Brodart Co., a Williamsport, Pa., library services firm. Suharski said the buyers could offer to buy out the bookseller's lease.

mthd
Feb 21, 2007, 6:39 AM
One quick note. I took the time yesterday to watch Thursday's Planning Commission meeting on SFGTV. And I was a little suprised.

It seems that the Commission's ideology is shifting. Peskin's two appointments, Moore and Olague, were incredibly vociferous in their opposition to development.

In a discussion about the Market and Octavia plan, Moore mentioned her dislike of the towers at Market and Van Ness and her unhappiness with many elements of the plan. The most alarming and comedic was Olague's statement that she does not like the 400' heights at Market and Van Ness and wants them to be lowered. Her reasoning was almost funny, as if she was told to say anything she could to fight the towers, and her logic followed suit. In her comments she stated a fear of earthquakes, sewage, and the traffic nightmare that the these towers would cause. Meanwhile the attendees listening were silent in disbelief, while the planners who have given over six years to the plan stood with their mouths agape. She is fighting these heights, for no apparent reason, and all this after six years of presentations and over seven hearings at the commission. It seems like she will start opposing a lot more of the highrises, and unfortunately, as a commissioner, she wields significant power.

olague has always been an obstructionist... she's just taken a little while to get her footing, so to speak. it's pathetic.

BTinSF
Feb 21, 2007, 7:24 AM
The fate of Stacey's, which has a lease that runs until 2011, is uncertain. Stacey's is owned by Brodart Co., a Williamsport, Pa., library services firm. Suharski said the buyers could offer to buy out the bookseller's lease.

I very recently read this somewhere else--and I can't remember where (I'll look). But the article I read had included a comment from Stacey's that they felt the space was too large for them these days but they wanted to stay in the city and would stay where they were until they found a more suitbakle space.

BTinSF
Feb 21, 2007, 7:27 AM
Aha!

[quote]Tennis star buys Stacey's Bookstore building
Michael Chang's opening serve in downtown S.F.
San Francisco Business Times - February 9, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Najib Joe Hakim

A real estate investment group headed by former tennis pro Michael Chang has bought the San Francisco building that houses Stacey's Bookstore, a downtown institution that has struggled over the past five years.

Chang's firm, Redwood Real Estate Partners, paid $11 million for 581 Market St., a 26,000-square-foot space previously owned by the London-based Capital & Counties, said Grubb & Ellis Senior Vice President Edward Suharski, who represented the seller.

Redwood Real Estate Partners is an investment firm set up with earnings from Chang's tennis career, which peaked when he rose to No. 2 in the world in 1996 after making the finals of the U.S. Open and Austrialian Open.

Suharski said the new owner, based in Southern California, has been looking to invest in the Bay Area commercial real estate market and wanted to begin by establishing a foothold in downtown San Francisco. While Stacey's lease doesn't expire until 2011, Chang's firm is looking for a new single tenant to occupy the space.

"Stacey's will be leaving the building, and the new owner is looking for a replacement," said Suharski.

An official for Redwood Real Estate Partners did not return several calls seeking comment.

Redwood Real Estate Partners is developing a 17-acre retail project next to the Denver International Airport with CMCB Development Co., headed by Chang's brother Carl.

Stacey's General Manager Tom Allen said the bookstore has no concrete plans to move or close before the 2011 lease expiration. But he said having the lease bought out and moving to a smaller location is not out of the question. The store has not been profitable since the dot-com crash of 2000, despite a strong following among financial district bookworms.

"It's a tough time in the book business and it's also true that this space is too big for us," said Allen. "Yet the lease is there and the company is solvent and we expect to be here until it expires."

The store, which is owned by Pennsylvania-based library supply company Brodart Co., also faces increased competition. With the opening of the Westfield San Francisco Centre, Borders now has two superstores in the Union Square neighborhood. In addition, Berkeley's Cody's Books opened a 22,000-square-foot store on Stockton Street in 2005.

Stacey's signed a 15-year lease in 1996, which Allen described as "fair." He said the store's 30 employees have nervously watched the demise of other independent bookstores such as A Clean Well-Lighted Place For Books on Van Ness Avenue.

"I wouldn't say we're fretting, but there is a hint of uncertainty in the air," he said.
Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/12/story8.html?t=printable[quote]

fflint
Feb 21, 2007, 11:33 AM
Stacey's is and has always been my favorite bookstore west of Cambridge. I've personally sunk a small fortune into their operation and I'll happily follow them to their new location.

slock
Feb 21, 2007, 4:26 PM
It's starting:

The next mad rush to the sky

Ugly canyons everywhere! With the latest San Francisco construction boom, history repeats itself


EDITORIAL For much of the history of this newspaper, the battle to keep San Francisco from turning into another Manhattan was a defining element in local politics. It had all the makings of urban drama: shifty-eyed developers looking to make a fast buck, sleazy politicians willing to bend over in any direction for campaign cash, a corporate power structure devoted to greasing the path for unlimited growth, citizen activists revolting over the block-by-block destruction of their neighborhoods ... all played out on the stage of one of the world's greatest cities.

We watched while Joe Alioto moved forward with redevelopment south of Market and office buildings downtown in the early 1970s. We joined anti-high-rise activists twice in ballot measure campaigns to slow the building boom, without success. We saw Dianne Feinstein push through in just a few short years more new office space than in all of downtown Boston, an entire new city of glass and steel towers — and we helped promote the campaign to slow down with Proposition M in 1986.

We exposed the fundamental lies behind the developers' arguments by demonstrating that intensive office development cost the city more in services than it provided in revenue, reporting on how the boom would drive up rents, choke the streets with traffic, overwhelm Muni, and create ugly canyons where there were once human-scale business districts.

Then we showed that all those new buildings weren't even creating jobs.

In the 1990s we spoke out against the economic cleansing that came with the dot-com boom.

But of late, the development battles have shifted a bit. Progressives, who were once united against downtown growth, are a bit more slippery around the latest construction boom, because this time the massive skyscrapers are set to be filled not with corporate offices but with housing. And in San Francisco today, it seems difficult for almost anyone to be against new housing.

But it's time to take a hard look at the new rush to the sky.

When the folks at the Planning Department talk about the new urban area that's being discussed for South of Market, they use words such as "slender, graceful towers." The idea: high-rises aren't that bad if they're less bulky; that way, they don't interfere with view corridors and don't block out the sun. In fact, the way some planners are talking about these new buildings is almost rapturous — tall condo complexes, they say, will stop suburban sprawl, prevent global warming, create exciting new neighborhoods and public spaces, and give new definition to the city skyline.

But let's look at what they're really talking about here.

There are, at the moment, at least 11 new buildings either proposed, under construction, or in the planning pipeline in South of Market that would bust the city's current height limits. (And those limits are hardly skimpy — in most areas they range from about ...

350 to 500 feet.) And that's just the start: the Planning Department is moving quietly to substantially raise height limits in a broad swath of San Francisco, making way for the biggest high-rise rush since the 1980s.
If the move succeeds, the skyline will develop what the Planning Department calls a new "mound" south of downtown, anchored by at least one building 1,000 feet high (almost a third taller than the Transamerica Pyramid). A single slender tower is one thing; when you put more than a dozen (and they aren't all slender) in a cluster, you get a wall — a wall that cuts the city off from the bay, shatters the natural topography of the area, and frankly, makes the city feel less like a community and more like a concrete jungle.

Just look at the picture on this page, part of a graphic presentation the city planning staff has put together. That hardly appears to be a few shapely structures. It's a huge new conglomeration of New York–style high-rises, and they don't fit in San Francisco.

And what's the point of all this? The way the developers and their allies would have us think, this is all about solving the city's housing crisis and creating vibrant new neighborhoods. But take a look at what sort of housing is being proposed here.

All the new high-rises the Planning Department is reviewing will contain what's known as market-rate housing. That translates to condos selling for prices far beyond the reach of most San Franciscans. So far, not one developer has agreed to put a single unit of affordable housing in the new towers; all of them plan to meet the city's demands for below-market units by building cheaper apartments somewhere else. The new neighborhoods are going to be nothing but very wealthy enclaves, the equivalent of vertical gated communities. Families who are being driven out of San Francisco by high housing costs won't find refuge here; the housing is designed for singles, childless couples, retired people — and world travelers who want a nice San Francisco pied-à-terre.

Is this really the kind of new neighborhood the city ought to be creating?

Then there are the economics of this madness. Providing the infrastructure for all these new residents (and we're talking more than 10,000 new residents in this one part of town alone) will be expensive — and if anyone really thinks that development fees will cover those costs, they haven't paid attention to four decades of San Francisco budgets.

Environmentalists and urban planners these days love to talk about density, about building more residential spaces in urban cores. That's the best alternative to suburban sprawl: Dense neighborhoods encourage transit use and walking. Housing near workplaces translates to less driving, less pollution, less congestion.

All of which is fine and actually makes sense. But density doesn't have to mean 80-story buildings. North Beach, for example, is a very ...

dense neighborhood, one of the densest urban areas in the United States. It's also a wonderful neighborhood, with open space, friendly streets, and a human-scale feel.
And it's a diverse neighborhood: everyone in North Beach isn't young, single, and rich. There's a mix of rental and owner-occupied housing and, despite years of brutal gentrification, still something of a demographic mix. It's a place that feels like a neighborhood. This new conglomeration of high-rises won't be.

If, indeed, San Francisco wants to add 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 new residents, they don't have to live 1,000 feet above the ground. There are ways to do density — on perhaps a slightly less massive scale — that don't impact on the views, skyline, and economics of the rest of the city.

But city officials need to ask some tough questions first. Why are we doing this? Are we rezoning South of Market to meet the needs of developers and high-profile architects, or is there a real urban plan here?

The answer seems alarmingly simple right now. Dean Macris, who led the Planning Department in those awful high-rise boom years under Feinstein, is at the helm again, and although he's supposed to be an acting director, he shows no sign of leaving. The department is in full developer-support mode — and that has to end. The Planning Commission needs to hire a new director soon, someone who understands what a neighborhood-based planning vision is about.

Meanwhile, most of this new rezoning will have to come before the supervisors, and they need to start holding hearings now. This is a transformation that will be felt for decades; it's sliding forward way too fast, with way too little oversight. And it needs to stop. *


http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=2894&catid=4&volume_id=254&issue_id=282&volume_num=41&issue_num=21

BTinSF
Feb 21, 2007, 5:22 PM
^^^Is this really the first time they've editorialized about this? Hard to believe, but then I haven't read the Guardian beyond looking for a restaurant coupon since around 1989. And now I guess I have to congratulate Bruce Brugman on his survival.

craeg
Feb 21, 2007, 5:36 PM
How incredibly droll and predictable from the bay guardian. Honestly though, is anything else expected? I see nothing in this editorial which is anything but a rehashing of Brugmann's personal tirade against highrises circa 1971. Sorry, but if you pay 50 million dollars for a lot two blocks from a 500' tall building and some of the most dense public transit west of Chicago - you arent going to build a 4 story building.
Lets not forget that we are fighting the gentrification of EMPTY LOTS!

Reminiscence
Feb 21, 2007, 10:23 PM
That article was garbage (but thanks for posting it, heh). These people never quit with thier constant rambling. I really dont know how they can already predict what these skyscrapers will even look like since we dont have any official renderings of the tallest buildings. We're not even talking about a wall 1000' high, just a few buildings, maybe 5 or so. Most of these are outdated facts and arguments, but thats what I would expect from the same people who are so stubborn. If it were up to me, the skyline would have grown long ago. Now, if what we get for a design is absolutly ugly, then I'll go against it. But so far, all indications point to something beautiful that distinguises the city, so I'm all for it. I can already imagine the Glass Tower coupled with slightly smaller towers next to it as reality coming in from the Bay Bridge, what a sight that would be to behold. :)

citizensf
Feb 21, 2007, 11:22 PM
Stacey's is and has always been my favorite bookstore west of Cambridge. I've personally sunk a small fortune into their operation and I'll happily follow them to their new location.

Hey fflint, just curious to know what your favorite Cambridge bookstore is?

It's been a while since I lived in Cambridge, but I spent a good amount of time in the Wordsworth, COOP and Harvard Bookstores in Harvard Square. I kinda liked all of them...I'd do this bookstore "crawl" and just kinda move from shop to shop on lazy afternoons when I'd have the time.

Man I miss being in a college town with dozens of bookstores in close proximity.

I hope Stacey's doesn't downsize too much.

Reminiscence
Feb 23, 2007, 1:44 AM
There is new word on this Socketsite.com that The Californian on Rincon Hill has postponed its comencement of sales until Early 2008 (Originally February 2007), and that comencement of construction is to take place in November 2007 (Originally March 2007). Aparently the size of the condos has increased while the amount of condos has decreased.

San Frangelino
Feb 23, 2007, 5:07 AM
Another one (or 4) in Oakland bite the dust!

Oakland schools property sale falls through

Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, February 22, 2007
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/22/BAG63O9AAQ4.DTL

(02-22) 11:27 PST OAKLAND -- A controversial $60 million deal to sell Oakland Unified School District property near Lake Merritt fell through today, leaving the city schools with no quick way to pay off its $100 million debt to the state.
California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell said both the state, which currently has control over the district, and the developers mutually agreed to back away from the sale given the economic downturn in real estate and the community opposition to the project.
"It's not the large infusion of money many of us had envisioned," O'Connell said. "We're no longer contemplating a purchase at this time and nothing in the immediate future."
O'Connell said there were "legitimate concerns" about the raised skyline and the aesthetics of the buildings proposed by developer TerraMark/Urban America.
Even Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums expressed concern about the design, said O'Connell.
The state took control of Oakland Unified in 2003 after district officials sought a $100 million bailout to address massive shortfalls in its budget.
The state then appointed a state administrator to oversee the daily and financial operations of the district.
O'Connell said the sale of the property would have gone a long way to paying off the debt and restoring local control.
"It means not as rosy a picture for paying back the loan that needs to be paid back," he said of the decision to end negotiations. "From that perspective it was discouraging."

munkyman
Feb 24, 2007, 7:24 PM
there is an article from feb. 23 in the sf business times titled "Skyline Makers." Has anyone seen the article? I was wondering if someone (like BTinSF) could post it. It's apparently about how daunting it is to build new highrises in SF. I couldn't read past the first paragraph because it is a subscription paper.

Thanks to the person who posts.

BTinSF
Feb 25, 2007, 6:54 PM
^^^I plan to post all the relevent BizTimes articles when they appear on the web site tonight around 11 PM. There are actually quite a few in this issue because it's their "Focus: Construction and Engineering" issue.

BTinSF
Feb 26, 2007, 1:23 AM
BizTimes on the SF invasion of Vancouver condo king:

Condo king hits town
Nat Bosa's Mission Bay plans: 6 projects, 1,700 units
San Francisco Business Times - February 23, 2007
by J.K. Dineen
Story Images

Nat Bosa is jumping into Mission Bay feet first.

From Vancouver to Calgary to San Diego to Seattle to Irvine, Bosa has always landed in new cities with a splash -- and a boatload of new condominium units. Now Bosa Development, which has built 22,000 units over the past 25 years, is setting up shop in Mission Bay and is beginning work on the first of a string of projects south of Mission Creek that will eventually total 1,700 condominiums and $1.2 billion in construction.

Bosa has already begun driving piles on the first phase of the Radiance at Mission Bay, a modest 99 units. But by late spring the second phase of the Radiance, another 317 units, will likely be under construction. That will be followed by Parcel 13 (270 units), Parcel 12 (270 units,) Parcel 2 (315 units), Parcel 11 (112 units,) and Parcel 5 (198 units) over the next three years.

Bosa, a former laborer who immigrated to Vancouver from Italy at 13, said once he was sold on the neighborhood, he went to see Mission Bay's master developer Catellus, a company he had bought large chunks of land from in San Diego in 2001.

"I bought 90 percent of the land Catellus had available," said Bosa. "We're revving up. I'm planning a very aggressive construction schedule. We're going to be doing one hell of a lot."

Mission Bay's Mr. Condo
While Alexandria Real Estate Equities has Mission Bay's biotech cluster cornered and University of California, San Francisco, is driving the new neighborhood's growth with research institutes and a new hospital, it is Bosa who will be the king of condos in the emerging neighborhood south of Mission Creek, according to Amy Neches, who heads up the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's Mission Bay development.

"Based on their contracts, Bosa is going to be the largest single residential developer in Mission Bay by far," said Neches, who called Bosa "a great visionary."

But Bosa will have plenty of competition. The Mission Bay master plan includes 6,000 housing units, 28 percent of which will be affordable. Thus far, 1,537 units have been built, nearly all north of Mission Creek, and another seven projects with 1,196 units are under construction. And not all of the new homes are selling like hotcakes. The Radiance will be competing with Park Terrace at 325 Berry St., where developer OpusWest has pre-sold between 12 and 15 percent of 106 condos, and 235 Berry St., where Signature has sold about 40 percent of 99 units.

Paul Zeger, president of Pacific Marketing Associates, the firm marketing Park Terrace, said the "pre-sales thing has died down quite a bit with the influx of inventory," and that OpusWest is waiting until the project opens in August to begin more agressive marketing. After last summer's high-profile presale near-sell-outs for One Rincon Hill, Zeger said the market for medium-sized projects has settled down to what he described as "normal": presales of 20 percent to 30 percent followed by 10 units a month until the project is sold out.

Bosa's units will be large -- an average of 1,350 square feet -- and with construction costs above $550 a square foot, they will likely sell in the $900 to $1000 a square foot range. Bosa acts as his own general contractor. Including land acquisition, he expects to spend about $1.5 billion before he is done in San Francisco. About 20 percent of the money -- some $300 million -- will be Bosa's own. His lenders include Bank of America and Scotiabank, both banks he has worked with for more than 20 years.

Zeger said Bosa's spacious luxury condos will be competing with other larger units Turnberry and Tishman Speyer are building on Rincon Hill.

Indeed, Bosa's condos will come on line when an influx of other $1.5 million to $2 million units hit the market. "That is a different market than we are used to selling in San Francisco," Zeger said.

Bosa said he's not worried.

"If we don't have competition how will anyone know how good we are?" he said.

Humble roots
Bosa, 63, is scrappy, animated, and sometimes profane. He has not lost the Italian accent of his childhood. One of 11 children, he grew up on a farm without running water or electricity. Upon arriving in Vancouver at 13, he enrolled in high school, but soon found he was not cut out for academia.

"I realized my interest in going to school was more to see the girls than to learn so I decided to go to the school of hard knocks," said Bosa.

He joined his brothers framing houses. The Bosa brothers had a reputation for speed over quality, but they would always go back and fix their mistakes.

"Man, I was a fast carpenter," says Bosa. "Not the best, but man I was fast."

After building bigger and bigger projects with his brothers, Bosa branched out on his own and started building highrises in Vancouver, Hawaii, Calgary, and elsewhere. He currently has 650 units at various stages of development in San Diego and 566 units in Irvine.

Neches called him "old-school."

"He a throwback to a time developers were personalities and not just corporate REITs," said Neches.

While Bosa thinks the market is robust enough to absorb all the new Mission Bay housing, he laments the construction costs, which he calls the highest in the nation.

"The only question is affordability," he said. "For a city like San Francisco and an area like the Bay Area, when you look at how much is under construction, it's not very much. Vancouver would blow it away. More stuff sells in Vancouver in two weekends than here in three months and Vancouver is a hell of a lot smaller city than San Francisco."

But ultimately he is unfazed by all the talk of a market slowdown.

"Someday you're going to be driving across that canal and saying, 'why the hell didn't I buy back then?'" said Bosa. "The commercial is going to hum. It's going to be an ideal small city within a city where you can live, work, go to school, play in the park, all within a five minute walk. That is the ideal city of the future. Forget about tracts of houses and commutes."

But even Bosa is hedging his bets -- if only a bit.

"The worst case scenario is we get shut out and piles won't be driven on (Radiance's second phase) for a while," he said. "Why would you keep on climbing Mount Everest if the storm is coming in and it looks terrible? You might take your tent and park yourself on the side for a couple of days."

BTinSF
Feb 26, 2007, 1:28 AM
Skyscapers ain't easy to build says BizTimes:

Skyline makers
Building S.F.'s new highrises poses daunting challenges
San Francisco Business Times - February 23, 2007
by Elizabeth Browne

San Francisco Business Times Contributor
Story Images

Tall buildings are a tall order.

As downtown San Francisco prepares to grow its skyline with a sprouting of new highrises in the Rincon Hill and SoMa neighborhoods, those designing and building the new skyscrapers are negotiating an increasingly complex set of challenges to meet project timelines, deliver structurally sound buildings, and to stay on budget.

It's a delicate balance to maintain, and one that has led to innovative designs to handle, for example, sway caused by wind and earthquakes, as well as building techniques that both speed construction and keep costs down.

Those working on San Francisco's spate of new tall buildings say that executing these projects -- some of which will rise more than 60 stories -- is further complicated by a city moratorium on performance-based building design (see related story, Page 33), rising construction costs, and limited space to handle equipment and workers in the neighborhoods where the new highrises will be concentrated.

Such challenges can delay and even halt highly structured building timelines, and in projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars to build, one day lost can translate to more than $100,000.

Taller equals tougher

When it comes to highrises, "the number of problems magnify themselves by the number of floors," said Jeffrey Heller, of Heller Manus Architects, which has been involved in the designs of Tishman Speyer's Infinity condo towers on Spear Street and its 34-story office at 555 Mission St. "The buildings are big and the forces are great," he said.

Those "forces" include the stress of lateral movement caused by wind and earthquakes. That means coming up with the right recipe of reinforced concrete and steel, and in the right configuration.

Webcor, the construction company building many of the new highrises, including Urban West Associates' One Rincon, and Millennium Partners' 60-story tower at 301 Mission, builds "mock-ups" of pieces of buildings, even entire floors, to determine the appropriate concentration of rebar, which will determine the cost and speed at which the building is built, said Chris Plue, Webcor Concrete's director of construction.

It's not unusual for one of these mock-ups to cost over $100,000. That may sound like a lot, but Plue noted that the normal cost of rebar and concrete in a 50-to-60 story building is $40 million, so the mock-ups are worth it to avoid expensive missteps down the line.

How will it feel?

Highrise architects and engineers must think about more than just structural soundness, however. There's also the matter of occupant comfort.

"If the wind is blowing very hard and the building is swaying and (the occupants) are laying in bed getting seasick, it's no good," said Ron Klemencic, principal of Magnusson Klemencic Associates, the Seattle structural engineering firm behind One Rincon, the Intercontinental Hotel and the Infinity.

or earthquakes.

Construction is everywhere
As SoMa and Rincon Hill grow more populated, the practical challenges to constructing these tall buildings are increasing. Webcor CEO Andy Ball noted that the company has in the past preferred to work at night, but now, he said, "you're waking people up at night, but offices don't want to be disturbed during the day. What are you going to do if you're pouring concrete or driving piles?"

Problematic, too, Ball said, is that circling traffic and lack of parking in those neighborhoods make it difficult to get materials to building sites -- there's nowhere to park the trucks.

A highrise construction site can employ somewhere between 200 to 600 people a day, Ball said, and just transporting those workers up and down the building is a difficult task. Webcor uses computer models to "schedule" building sequences and movement of materials and manpower. "We build buildings virtually beforehand," Ball said. "That way when we are actually out there with real people and time and money, we can save an incredible amount of time."

The strategy has paid off -- at One Rincon, Webcor's crews can build a floor every three days, which it says is a first on the West Coast.

But the biggest challenge when it comes to tall buildings, designers and builders say, is economics.

"Construction costs are rising more than any time in history," Klemencic said, noting that it's hard to project costs out over the four or five years it could take to build a highrise. "I've seen a number of projects go through design phases, costs go up, and the developer walks away," he said.

http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/72767-300-0.jpg?rev=2

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/26/focus1.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Feb 26, 2007, 1:35 AM
No code change, no 1000 footers says BizTimes:

Code clash has city and highrise builders at odds
San Francisco Business Times - February 23, 2007
by Elizabeth Browne
Spencer Brown
Andy Ball, CEO of Webcor.
View Larger

In the fault-ridden Bay Area, much of the complexity involved in building highrises has to do with earthquakes and the ways in which building codes are written to deal with their potential impact.

"When people are writing codes, they aren't thinking about a specific building, they are thinking about all buildings in general," said Ron Klemencic, principal of Magnusson Klemencic Associates, a Seattle engineering firm that's working on a number of San Francisco highrise projects.

Klemencic and his firm have been at the forefront of a movement to develop building designs that perform better in earthquakes and high winds than those that strictly follow general building codes.

"Tall buildings are unique in their responses to earthquakes and wind. When you take general code and apply it to a tall building ... you get a design that isn't functional from a design and architectural point of view."

Performance-based design

Klemencic has moved toward a performance-based approach, that is, to design buildings specifically for their particular sites and conditions, vs. following a universal building code, which is known as the prescriptive approach.

"We try to capture the philosophy of the building code, but make (the building) perform better," he said.

And he's not alone in his thinking. "Codes produce a really heavy, inefficient building," said Andy Ball, CEO of Webcor Builders. "And the codes become even worse the higher you get."

A performance-designed building, Ball said, uses materials more efficiently: "It costs more to plan it out, and the first few floors are more expensive, but by the end of the building, it's cheaper."

But not everyone is ready to race to the performance-design approach. The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection -- DBI -- last fall put a moratorium on what it calls "alternative" designs that don't conform to the building code while it comes up with guidelines to handle such projects.

"Anything using alternate analysis to take exception to the code is not being approved at the moment," said Raymond Lui, manager for the structural safety and emergency division at DBI. "Code-prescriptive projects will be approved."

Lui is the author of the draft guidelines on performance-based design, and said for such designs, there will be three steps to outline performance criteria that all buildings over 240 feet will need to meet. And, he said, "anything that is performance-based will be peer-reviewed."

So when will performance-based designs be approved in San Francisco again? "There's a push within the industry and engineering community to see this happen," Lui said, "so probably two to six months."

For the moment, the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California is working on its recommendations for Lui's draft guidelines. When he receives their suggestions, he said he'll take a month to re-write the guidelines, which then have to go through a code advisory committee, a structural subcommittee, and finally the Building Inspection Commission.

Changes afoot
DBI on Feb. 12 named a new director, Isam Hasein, replacing acting director Amy Lee, whom Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed in 2005, so other changes may be afoot in the department.

Meanwhile, any performance-based designs in the pipeline are facing delays and/or redesigns to conform to the prescriptive approach, like the condo towers planned for 10th and Market streets, according to Jeffrey Heller of Heller Manus Architects.

The difference between the two styles of design can be seen in the Millennium condo project vs. the Infinity and One Rincon, Heller said. The Millennium, he said, is slow to be built, heavy and blocky-looking, whereas the Infinity and Rincon are "light, airy and just as safe.

"It's been proven worldwide that these buildings work," Heller said, "but still the result is further procedural delay."

Future projects of more than 800 feet, like the proposed Transbay towers and Renzo Piano building at First and Mission streets, hang in the balance.

"It's not really possible to design those 1,000-foot buildings safely and confidently for seismic demands without using the performance-based approach," Klemencic said.

Said DBI's Lui: "Our goal is to make these buildings as safe as humanly possible within the confines of the code."

sanfrancisco@bizjournals.com

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/26/focus2.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Feb 26, 2007, 1:43 AM
Green?
http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/72774-300-0.jpg?rev=2

New buildings reflect nonprofits' core values
San Francisco Business Times - February 23, 2007
by Sarah Duxbury
Story Images

Call it mission creep with benefits: some Bay Area nonprofits are extending their missions by building green.

The new $430 million Academy of Sciences that opens in Golden Gate Park next year will be the city's greenest building. The museum is leading by example, showing myriad ways that an organization can go green, and then use that greenness to expand its programming. Though its scale eclipses green projects by other groups, the Academy is by no means alone.

The Old Mint, where the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society that will take residence, is also going green: As a city-owned project, it was required to.

The $86 million Old Mint will be one of the first national historical landmarks to go green. That the Mint was built in 1874 poses no small challenge to going green, though repurposing an existing building is a pretty green move.

"Because it's an historic building, any interventions we do, we don't want people to be able to see," said Dana Merker, the project's architect.

The Mint project is at the design development phase. The schematic's been approved by the museum and by the city's historical architects.

Smaller nonprofits are also interested in building green, though the up-front costs can frustrate green ambitions.

Brenda Way, founder of ODC Dance, said she wanted her new center, completed last year, to be totally green, but it would have cost 50 percent more to do so. "We couldn't afford it," Way said, adding that it would take 30 years for the cost savings of going green to pay for themselves.

Way added as many passive green features, like solar paneling and zoned heating, as she could. That piecemeal green approach is taken by numerous nonprofits, from the new Conservatory of Music to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Recognizing that many nonprofits shared ODC's dilemma, Michigan's Kresge Foundation began in 2003 to provide planning grants to nonprofits toying with a green future.

San Francisco's YMCA won a $60,000 Kresge planning grant and will host a charrette on March 8 regarding the planned green Tenderloin YMCA project.

Though just at the beginning of the design process, the YMCA will incorporate green elements from the get-go -- which can be the best cost controller of all.

"The bigger challenge is when many of these green elements are add-ons later. That's when people start really wrestling with (cost), because the add-on price is higher and the pay-back is longer," said Patrick Kociolek, the outgoing executive director at the Academy of Sciences. "The lesson from our project is think about (green) up front and costs go way down when it just becomes integrated into the design."

Green design reflects values

The Academy did not set out to become the city's greenest building. Nor is Renzo Piano known as a green architect. Rather, the Academy decided to build a structure based on its core values and later realized that it could qualify for LEED platinum certification, the highest level recognized by the U.S. Green Building Council.

The building's undulating living roof is Piano's most striking design component; it's also a major green element.

"It's a metaphor for nature and design and San Francisco. It's also what allows the building to naturally ventilate. It integrates the building into the park. It's also a better insulator than a traditional roof and will absorb 2 million gallons of water every year," Kociolek said of the roof.

The Academy has sought ways to tell the story of the building's construction and engineering through exhibits.

"We thought we could interpret that for the public, and it has evolved to providing back-of-house tours so people can see you do sustainable lighting, how you do a green life support system for an aquarium," Kociolek said.

Similarly, the YMCA in East Palo Alto, which opened last month, will offer tours of its green elements to the public, much as the Academy will do, making the building an education program. The 32,000-square-foot, $13 million project is close to LEED silver standards and 40 percent more efficient than a standard building, said David Fisch, vice president of buildings at YMCA of the Peninsula.

Saving a buck

Making a building more efficient, and thereby saving money in the future, is another benefit to green-seeking nonprofits, not just those with environmental missions.

"I think one of the reasons our clients embrace (green) it is they own their buildings and the life cycle of costs becomes something that very much affects them and they want to make the smartest decisions how they use their dollars," said Liza Pannozzo, an architect at SMWM who designed the Conservatory of Music.

The money saved on overhead can be applied to the primary mission; it can also aid fundraising in different ways.

"There's a clear advantage to nonprofits to build green because the thing they usually can't get funding for when they're going for grants is staff and overhead," said Bill Worthen, a green building consultant at Simon & Associates. "So if they build a building that's more efficient, their utility bill is less."

That means they need to raise less money overall. Sustainability, meanwhile, can appeal to donors.

"Green is something donors identify with," Worthen said. "If you say 'green,' you get more money."

Kociolek said that he has not had any donors offer to give solar panels, but the ethos of the project has undoubtedly helped fundraising in a general way.

Yet even when they go green, many nonprofits do not go LEED.

"They fundraise for every dollar, so they'd rather buy better systems and materials than have a plaque on the wall," Pannozzo said about why an organization might not apply for LEED certification. Still she thinks the Academy of Sciences has planted a green seed in the city's nonprofit community. "I think it's going to have a huge impact and inspire more (nonprofits) to go green."

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/26/focus3.html?t=printable#1

BTinSF
Feb 26, 2007, 1:47 AM
"It's time to stop arguing, and start building." :worship:

Our view

Backlash against highrises rests on shaky foundations
San Francisco Business Times - February 23, 2007

The debate over highrises in San Francisco should be considered over: The highrises, and the city, won.

Over the last decade, a persuasive case for tall buildings has convinced city officials, planners, developers, urbanists and the more enlightened type of environmentalist that highrises are right for carefully chosen locations in San Francisco's urban core.

We can't continue to go "out" -- to sprawl -- to accommodate San Francisco's need for future housing. We have to go up instead, putting people where they have good access to transit and other urban amenities.

Unfortunately, it turns out that any apparent consensus on this kind of "smart growth" was illusory. A rearguard action is now being mounted by some of the anti-development heroes of yesteryear to reopen this settled debate, to attempt to stop the "Manhattanization of San Francisco" (remember that timeworn, hackneyed phrase?) just as tall buildings begin to take shape in significant number.

To be sure, there's nothing in their bag of half-baked rants that wasn't dutifully examined long ago, that had a full and fair hearing in the court of public opinion:

That any tall building anywhere would block somebody's previous view of something. (Yes, but with the compensation of a more visually dynamic and appealing skyline for all of us.)

That tall buildings would "wall off" the city from huge sections of its waterfront. (A look at how many tall buildings are under discussion, and where they would be, shows that isn't so.)

That some of the likely occupants aren't proper San Franciscans -- they might even work in other cities and just live here! (As if people choosing to live and contribute to the city's vibrancy, regardless of where they work, is in some way a bad thing?)

That tall buildings won't help San Francisco's affordable housing shortage. (Ignore the literally hundreds of affordable units that highrise developers are required to create under city housing mandates, either within those highrises or elsewhere.)

And, of course, that highrise condos are just too darned expensive. (The workings of supply and demand remain an impenetrable mystery to anti-development activists.)

No, there's nothing here we haven't heard a few dozen times before. Still, it's never wise to underestimate the ability of anti-development types to whip wavering supervisors back into line -- even those supervisors (like, to his credit, Chris Daly) who have slowly and cautiously slid toward supporting tall buildings.

Supervisors, the Mayor and often-timid planning officials need to hold their nerve against this latest backlash against height. The price of caving in is written across San Francisco's skyline, in the buildings that emerged from height battles dating back to the 1970s.

Earlier highrise opponents weren't successful in stopping tall buildings. But they ensured that the approvals process was so politically charged that often only the blandest, least offensive tall buildings that could survive. The result is that San Francisco has plenty of tall buildings. It has few tall buildings of architectural distinction.

That's what's particularly encouraging about the coming generation of highrises. With San Francisco explicitly welcoming the tall, many of the world's best architects see the city as their canvas.

The debate whether height is right for San Francisco has come -- and gone. It's time to stop arguing, and start building.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/26/editorial1.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Feb 26, 2007, 1:51 AM
26 story Oakland tower:

Shorenstein drops housing for offices in Oakland
San Francisco Business Times - February 23, 2007
by Ryan Tate

Shorenstein Properties LLC is dropping plans to put its first-ever housing development in downtown Oakland and expects to soon build a 26-story office tower on the site instead.

The company also plans to explore putting a World Trade Showcase Center onto another site it controls about a block away.

Plans for the project, at the southwest corner of 12th and Jefferson Streets, are contingent on city council approval, since the plots of land are controlled by the city's redevelopment agency and Shorenstein needs an eight-month extension on its option to buy one of the parcels for $5 million.

Based on prevailing office construction costs in the Bay Area, the tower is likely to cost roughly $320 million to build.

Despite the company's decision against housing, city officials said they are heartened that Shorenstein is taking the risk of building on a speculative basis, with no tenant lined up.

"There is a lot of entitled residential (in downtown Oakland), and there are few office sites left," said Patrick Lane with the city's redevelopment agency. "We could use more office over time."

Class A vacancy in downtown Oakland was just 10 percent at the end of 2006, according to Colliers International. Leasing has been driven heavily by health giant Kaiser Permanente but also by companies like Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream and Ask.com.

Brandywine is in the midst of building a speculative office building of its own in downtown Oakland. Brandywine's nine-story tower is under construction at 2100 Franklin, close to Lake Merritt.

Brandywine's building is 245,000 square feet, while Shorenstein is expected to build 584,000 square feet.

In exchange for the eight-month extension on its entitlement, Shorenstein is paying $100,000 toward a city retail study and agreed to study the location of a World Trade Center Showcase on a site Shorenstein controls at the northeast corner of 11th and Clay Streets. Mayor Ron Dellums supports that project.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/02/26/story4.html?t=printable

Reminiscence
Feb 26, 2007, 4:23 AM
Great articles BT, Thanks so much for posting them :)

I must admit, the article on the new building codes has me at odds as well. Anything that threatens Transbay and Renzo's Towers is likely to make me nervous as well. I love the "backlash" article because I really agree with them. Its time these NIMBYs realize they fight for a lost cause.

innov8
Feb 28, 2007, 5:25 PM
New federal building in SoMa costs a bundle
By Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross of The San Francisco Chronicle

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

That state-of-the-eco-art federal building in San Francisco's South of Market is more than an architectural wonder -- it's also a year-and-a-half late and millions of dollars over budget.

The 18-story tower and attached four-story annex at Seventh and Mission streets, where federal employees will start moving in this week, were supposed to have been finished in the summer of 2005. But the recycled, ecologically sensitive fly ash that was mixed into the cement -- both for a lighter finish and to better reflect sunlight -- was painfully slow in curing, as well as expensive.

Officials said the slow-drying concrete set off a domino effect that resulted in a string of construction delays. Now, contractors are lining up to file claims for overruns.

Also boosting the costs were the tons of steel rebar and concrete added to help withstand a bomb blast -- a consideration that came front and center after the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Nobody will say exactly how much the overruns may total, but contractors involved in the project said privately a few months ago that construction was at least 50 percent over budget.

Officially, the project price tag remains at $144 million -- a figure that most bureaucrats are sticking to, because federal projects technically aren't allowed to run over budget.

But supervising architect Maria Ciprazo conceded that the $144 million doesn't include $21 million or so for designing and engineering, $14 million for contingencies and millions more for furnishings.

"Nobody has given numbers,'' said Ciprazo, who was reluctant to discuss the cost overruns while the claims are pending.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/28/BAGFUOCKIS1.DTL

fflint
Mar 1, 2007, 4:38 AM
I wonder if Shorenstein's scrapping of housing in favor of office in downtown Oakland had anything to do with a desire to avoid being the guinea pig for Dellums' new inclusionary housing circus?

mthd
Mar 1, 2007, 4:25 PM
Great articles BT, Thanks so much for posting them :)

I must admit, the article on the new building codes has me at odds as well. Anything that threatens Transbay and Renzo's Towers is likely to make me nervous as well. I love the "backlash" article because I really agree with them. Its time these NIMBYs realize they fight for a lost cause.

there's no question that eventually DBI will be accepting performance-based seismic designs. there's too much of a movement towards it in the engineering community at large for them to ignore it.

however... anyone who has worked with DVI (or any city agency, really) has to laugh at the '2 to 6' month timeframe. my concern is that by the time they get their act together the economy will have turned enough that many of these projects will have died.

i am also really hoping they don't require extensive peer review, but i don't see any way around it with their current staffing situation.

fflint
Mar 2, 2007, 12:21 PM
Rincon Hill from the top
Moving up in San Francisco: The Transamerica Pyramid is higher at 853 feet -- but even now, with the tower still not finished, every other building north of Los Angeles is lower

Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 2, 2007

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/02/ba_rincon00147_mk.jpg
Vincente Roman, project engineer for Bovis Lend Lease, the contractor, walks along the top of the giant crane used on One Rincon Hill in San Francisco

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/02/ba_rincon00258_mk.jpg
Jaimie Rubio uses a joystick-like control in the crane to maneuver large building materials into place for workers far below

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/02/ba_rincon00555_mk.jpg
Crane operator Jaimie Rubio inside the small control cab; he says he has trained himself to use the bathroom as little as possible

Jaimie Rubio, who is 54 years old, does the heavy lifting for One Rincon Hill, the $290 million project that will be the tallest residential building in the West when it is completed next year.

Rubio is one of two tower-crane operators working for Bovis Lend Lease, the principal contractor at One Rincon. He works in a tiny enclosed cab, smaller than an office workstation, at the top of the crane, virtually at the top of San Francisco.

His blue-and-yellow crane stands next to the One Rincon tower and above it, like a giant mechanical bird hovering over the steel and concrete construction site.

The One Rincon tower is more than 500 feet high now, counting the concrete core that was built first. When it is finished, the top of the 60-story building will be 641 feet high. It will be a landmark tower, right next to the Bay Bridge, and a monument to the men and women who built it.

Julie Ann Linsley, who runs one of the elevators -- called hoists -- says she can see the tower from her home in Oakland. "It looks cool,'' she says, "It looks exhilarating. There's a lot of energy on this job."

To get to his workplace, Rubio rides a hoist attached to the outside of the building. He gets off at the 30th floor, then climbs over some piping and crosses to a plank a dozen feet long to the open steel frame of the crane. A series of ladders leads straight up.

Then he climbs, hand over hand, up 24 rungs of a steel ladder, to a platform. There are seven more platforms, 192 rungs on the ladders in all. At the top is a shorter ladder leading to the spot where the crane's arm pivots. Here the operator must scramble up over the steel pivoting mechanism to the top, to the crane's arm and control cab. Below is nothing but air and the cold wind of late winter. The view is breathtaking.

The city is at his feet. The towers of the Bay Bridge, 526 feet above the bay surface, look like scale models. The other high-rises of San Francisco are off to the north. He can almost look the massive, dark brown Bank of America building in the eye. The Transamerica Pyramid is higher at 853 feet, but every other building north of Los Angeles is lower.

Up here, the world is bounded on the east by Mount Diablo, capped with snow, and the Farallon Islands, 27 miles out in the Pacific. From his perch, 659 feet above the top of Rincon Hill, 759 feet above sea level, Rubio can see the curvature of the Earth.

"Don't look down at the top of the tower, whatever you do,'' he tells a visitor to his aerie, nodding toward the tallest part of the building under construction, nearly a hundred feet below his perch. "It'll scare the s -- out of you.''

The top of the tower, now about 540 feet above First Street, is what he's there for. The crane's job is to move steel and concrete forms from the ground up to the top of the tower, where the work is going on. The crane operator essentially runs a winch that pulls a cable traveling on a trolley arrangement over a long arm.

The whole arm can swivel; there is hook at the end of the cable to pick up loads, a winch and a motor at the other end with a counterweight.

This crane has a capacity of 31,00o pounds at the tip of the crane arm, 35,800 pounds with the load positioned closer to the center of the crane.

The crane can be jacked up as high as is necessary -- as the building moves higher, the crane moves up with it. These cranes were invented in Germany in 1949; the technical name for them in German is turmdrehkran.

One man, guided via radio by workers stationed below, runs the whole rig.

It takes timing, skill and experience to run the crane. Every operator has to be certified by the state; the candidate has to take a course in operating the crane, then pass a written test. "You have to develop an experience with loads and how to handle them,'' Rubio says, "but it is more about experience than knowing the physics of it.'' You have to have a feel, he says, you have to know what you are doing.

It is a key job: Bay Area crane operators belong to Local 3 of the Operating Engineers, who say minium pay scale is about $38 an hour, plus overtime and benefits. Good crane operators are much sought-after, and some are paid over scale.

Rubio deflects questions about pay. "It's a living,'' he says.

He points to the men working below -- a group of iron workers setting up re-enforcing steel bars to receive a pour of concrete. The ironworkers, who climb on the steel like circus acrobats, are called "rod busters."

Rubio moves the crane slowly, swinging it so the arm moves counterclockwise, swinging concrete forms onto the top of the tower and moving them into place. He operates the crane from a high-backed leather swivel chair, using two joysticks.

"They are the ones who do all the work,'' Rubio says, nodding at the workers far below. "I just pull the joystick. I follow their orders.''

That might be true, but others say the crane operator has a big role. "Everything rotates around them,'' says Gary De Renzi, one of the business agents for Local 3. "There's no break up there.''

The operator is paid an hour of travel time -- half an hour up the ladder and half an hour down. There is no latrine high in the sky; bottles do the job.

Rubio has no one looking over his shoulder, so he wears a Giants T-shirt and moccasins instead of the steel-toe shoes common on construction jobs. A small wooden shelf is built into a corner of the tiny cab, where he keeps a newspaper to read during slow parts of the day. It is like the nest of an eagle up there.

"Comfort is the name of the game,'' he says.

The main problem is wind. "Nothing stops me but the wind,'' he says. State rules say tower cranes can't be operated in steady wind of more than 35 mph, and Rubio says he had something like that on Tuesday, with rain. One gust, he says, got up to 59.6 mph on his wind gauge. "As soon as I landed the load, I rolled it up and called down. I said, "See ya.''

There is always danger moving heavy loads with mechanical equipment. Rubio hasn't had an accident on the One Rincon job, but when he was working a tower crane building the W hotel at Third and Howard streets in 1998, he had a bad accident.

"I had 19,300 pounds on the load, and as I was moving it up, I heard this big loud pop -- POW! -- and it started to go down.''

The axle on the winch had broken, and the cable was uncontrollable. "I'm like, 'Oh, my God!' You know the expression, you see your whole life go before your eyes? Well, it's true.''

The load, the whole 19,300 pounds, roared down, hit the roof of the firehouse next door and went right through into the sleeping quarters of the firehouse. "I thought I'd wiped out a whole company of firemen." Rubio says. As it turned out, the firehouse was empty. Nobody was hurt.

But Rubio still sees that ruined firehouse -- "a mark like a cookie-cutter in the roof,'' he says, and hears the crack of the winch breaking.

"Want to see what the winch looks like?'' he asked a visitor, then leads him out of the cab, onto a steel mesh catwalk 650 feet above First and Harrison streets.

"Don't look down,'' he says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One in an occasional series on the construction of a high-rise on San Francisco's Rincon Hill. For additional photos and previous stories about One Rincon, go to sfgate.com/Rincon.

craeg
Mar 2, 2007, 4:31 PM
I'm not afraid of heights, but the view from that crane!
Oh and Dear Chron - you forgot about BOFA seattle, and Living Shangri LA in Van.

Frisco_Zig
Mar 2, 2007, 10:51 PM
Rincon Hill from the top
Moving up in San Francisco: The Transamerica Pyramid is higher at 853 feet -- but even now, with the tower still not finished, every other building north of Los Angeles is lower

Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, March 2, 2007

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/02/ba_rincon00147_mk.jpg
Vincente Roman, project engineer for Bovis Lend Lease, the contractor, walks along the top of the giant crane used on One Rincon Hill in San Francisco

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/02/ba_rincon00258_mk.jpg
Jaimie Rubio uses a joystick-like control in the crane to maneuver large building materials into place for workers far below

http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/03/02/ba_rincon00555_mk.jpg
Crane operator Jaimie Rubio inside the small control cab; he says he has trained himself to use the bathroom as little as possible

Jaimie Rubio, who is 54 years old, does the heavy lifting for One Rincon Hill, the $290 million project that will be the tallest residential building in the West when it is completed next year.

Rubio is one of two tower-crane operators working for Bovis Lend Lease, the principal contractor at One Rincon. He works in a tiny enclosed cab, smaller than an office workstation, at the top of the crane, virtually at the top of San Francisco.

His blue-and-yellow crane stands next to the One Rincon tower and above it, like a giant mechanical bird hovering over the steel and concrete construction site.

The One Rincon tower is more than 500 feet high now, counting the concrete core that was built first. When it is finished, the top of the 60-story building will be 641 feet high. It will be a landmark tower, right next to the Bay Bridge, and a monument to the men and women who built it.

Julie Ann Linsley, who runs one of the elevators -- called hoists -- says she can see the tower from her home in Oakland. "It looks cool,'' she says, "It looks exhilarating. There's a lot of energy on this job."

To get to his workplace, Rubio rides a hoist attached to the outside of the building. He gets off at the 30th floor, then climbs over some piping and crosses to a plank a dozen feet long to the open steel frame of the crane. A series of ladders leads straight up.

Then he climbs, hand over hand, up 24 rungs of a steel ladder, to a platform. There are seven more platforms, 192 rungs on the ladders in all. At the top is a shorter ladder leading to the spot where the crane's arm pivots. Here the operator must scramble up over the steel pivoting mechanism to the top, to the crane's arm and control cab. Below is nothing but air and the cold wind of late winter. The view is breathtaking.

The city is at his feet. The towers of the Bay Bridge, 526 feet above the bay surface, look like scale models. The other high-rises of San Francisco are off to the north. He can almost look the massive, dark brown Bank of America building in the eye. The Transamerica Pyramid is higher at 853 feet, but every other building north of Los Angeles is lower.

Up here, the world is bounded on the east by Mount Diablo, capped with snow, and the Farallon Islands, 27 miles out in the Pacific. From his perch, 659 feet above the top of Rincon Hill, 759 feet above sea level, Rubio can see the curvature of the Earth.

"Don't look down at the top of the tower, whatever you do,'' he tells a visitor to his aerie, nodding toward the tallest part of the building under construction, nearly a hundred feet below his perch. "It'll scare the s -- out of you.''

The top of the tower, now about 540 feet above First Street, is what he's there for. The crane's job is to move steel and concrete forms from the ground up to the top of the tower, where the work is going on. The crane operator essentially runs a winch that pulls a cable traveling on a trolley arrangement over a long arm.

The whole arm can swivel; there is hook at the end of the cable to pick up loads, a winch and a motor at the other end with a counterweight.

This crane has a capacity of 31,00o pounds at the tip of the crane arm, 35,800 pounds with the load positioned closer to the center of the crane.

The crane can be jacked up as high as is necessary -- as the building moves higher, the crane moves up with it. These cranes were invented in Germany in 1949; the technical name for them in German is turmdrehkran.

One man, guided via radio by workers stationed below, runs the whole rig.

It takes timing, skill and experience to run the crane. Every operator has to be certified by the state; the candidate has to take a course in operating the crane, then pass a written test. "You have to develop an experience with loads and how to handle them,'' Rubio says, "but it is more about experience than knowing the physics of it.'' You have to have a feel, he says, you have to know what you are doing.

It is a key job: Bay Area crane operators belong to Local 3 of the Operating Engineers, who say minium pay scale is about $38 an hour, plus overtime and benefits. Good crane operators are much sought-after, and some are paid over scale.

Rubio deflects questions about pay. "It's a living,'' he says.

He points to the men working below -- a group of iron workers setting up re-enforcing steel bars to receive a pour of concrete. The ironworkers, who climb on the steel like circus acrobats, are called "rod busters."

Rubio moves the crane slowly, swinging it so the arm moves counterclockwise, swinging concrete forms onto the top of the tower and moving them into place. He operates the crane from a high-backed leather swivel chair, using two joysticks.

"They are the ones who do all the work,'' Rubio says, nodding at the workers far below. "I just pull the joystick. I follow their orders.''

That might be true, but others say the crane operator has a big role. "Everything rotates around them,'' says Gary De Renzi, one of the business agents for Local 3. "There's no break up there.''

The operator is paid an hour of travel time -- half an hour up the ladder and half an hour down. There is no latrine high in the sky; bottles do the job.

Rubio has no one looking over his shoulder, so he wears a Giants T-shirt and moccasins instead of the steel-toe shoes common on construction jobs. A small wooden shelf is built into a corner of the tiny cab, where he keeps a newspaper to read during slow parts of the day. It is like the nest of an eagle up there.

"Comfort is the name of the game,'' he says.

The main problem is wind. "Nothing stops me but the wind,'' he says. State rules say tower cranes can't be operated in steady wind of more than 35 mph, and Rubio says he had something like that on Tuesday, with rain. One gust, he says, got up to 59.6 mph on his wind gauge. "As soon as I landed the load, I rolled it up and called down. I said, "See ya.''

There is always danger moving heavy loads with mechanical equipment. Rubio hasn't had an accident on the One Rincon job, but when he was working a tower crane building the W hotel at Third and Howard streets in 1998, he had a bad accident.

"I had 19,300 pounds on the load, and as I was moving it up, I heard this big loud pop -- POW! -- and it started to go down.''

The axle on the winch had broken, and the cable was uncontrollable. "I'm like, 'Oh, my God!' You know the expression, you see your whole life go before your eyes? Well, it's true.''

The load, the whole 19,300 pounds, roared down, hit the roof of the firehouse next door and went right through into the sleeping quarters of the firehouse. "I thought I'd wiped out a whole company of firemen." Rubio says. As it turned out, the firehouse was empty. Nobody was hurt.

But Rubio still sees that ruined firehouse -- "a mark like a cookie-cutter in the roof,'' he says, and hears the crack of the winch breaking.

"Want to see what the winch looks like?'' he asked a visitor, then leads him out of the cab, onto a steel mesh catwalk 650 feet above First and Harrison streets.

"Don't look down,'' he says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One in an occasional series on the construction of a high-rise on San Francisco's Rincon Hill. For additional photos and previous stories about One Rincon, go to sfgate.com/Rincon.


Just sitting in the South West corner of Dolores Park the other day really gave a gave me a great view and context for this tower. The thing really stands out and at the moment

BTinSF
Mar 2, 2007, 11:53 PM
New BizTimes has neat article entitled "Skyscraper Foes Raise Objections to Highrises".

Teaser quote from {{{GASP}}} Chris Daly: "I think in terms of progressive politics, most of us have moved on from the historic position of tall buildings vs. no tall buildings". :omg:

Film at 11 (er, I'll post it Sunday).

San Frangelino
Mar 4, 2007, 2:05 AM
Found these pictures looking thru a local architects updated site. Thought it was an interesting picture. It shows 420 berry st in the foreground and 888 seventh street in the background; both under construction in Showplace Square.

http://www.dbarchitect.com/

http://www.dbarchitect.com/work/housing/affordable/www-20323/20323highres/20323_berry_const2_w2048.jpg

http://www.dbarchitect.com/work/housing/affordable/www-20323/20323highres/20323_berry_const1_w2048.jpg

coyotetrickster
Mar 4, 2007, 8:09 PM
Speaking of construction in unexpected places, anyone have info on a project at Oak and Van Ness (i think it's oak). The property (a surface lot) is fenced off and there was drilling equipment parked on the lot. Is this a sleeper project?

BTinSF
Mar 5, 2007, 5:50 AM
Oaktown rises:

S.F. company buys historic downtown Oakland site
San Francisco Business Times - March 2, 2007
by Ryan Tate

San Francisco real estate firm SKS Investments has acquired a landmark office site in downtown Oakland in what appears to be the company's first foray into the market.

SKS has acquired the former Key System building at 1100 Broadway, directly across the street from Shorenstein's City Center highrise office complex. The historic building was selected by the University of California for a headquarters expansion before those plans were put on ice amid heightened public scrutiny of the university system's finances.

The previous owner was Bill Sumski's East End Oakland LLC. Sumski confirmed SKS is the building's new owner.

Sumski has entitlements from the city for a 200,000-square-foot office building with retail on the ground floor. It would be built behind the façade of the former headquarters of the Key System light rail line that once ran throughout the East Bay. The building has been vacant since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake rendered it unsafe.

The building is adjacent to the University of California's main headquarters building at 1111 Franklin, which made it ideal for the university's plan to consolidate a handful of other offices scattered throughout Oakland. Sumski had been working with the city on a plan to merge 1100 Broadway into 1111 Franklin on some floors.

In 2005, Sumski had estimated the project could cost between $50 million and $75 million.

With class A office space roughly 90 percent full in downtown Oakland, and local health care giant Kaiser leading a rash of corporate hiring and growth in the city, developers have begun ramping up efforts to develop office space.

Brandywine is under construction on a 245,000-square-foot, nine-story tower at 2100 Franklin St., which is being built on a speculative basis without an anchor tenant. City leaders believe Shorenstein will, by the end of the year, commit to starting construction on an office skyscraper by April 2008 at the southwest corner of Jefferson and 12th streets.

The Key System site has been an eyesore since its closing 18 years ago. A dot-com era plan to turn the property into a 250-room Hilton fell through.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/03/05/story7.html?t=printable

BTinSF
Mar 5, 2007, 6:38 AM
Speaking of construction in unexpected places, anyone have info on a project at Oak and Van Ness (i think it's oak). The property (a surface lot) is fenced off and there was drilling equipment parked on the lot. Is this a sleeper project?

I'm guessing you mean Fell & Van Ness:

77 VAN NESS AVENUE - west side between Fell and Hickory Streets, Lot 22 in Assessor’s Block 834 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determinations of Compliance and Request for Exceptions including an exception to the rear yard requirement as permitted in Code Section 134(d), an exception to the bulk limits of Section 270 as permitted in Section 272, and an exception to ground level wind current requirements set forth in Section 148. The Project would construct an 8-story, approximately 100-foot tall building containing 50 dwelling units, approximately 19,550 square feet of office space, 1,350 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 3,400 square feet of rooftop open space for the residential units, at least 400 square feet of public open space in the lobby, and 58 parking spaces in a street-level parking garage. The Project site is currently used as a surface parking lot for approximately 60 cars. This Project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District, and is within a 120-F Height and Bulk District.

What we have here is more of the conversion of Van Ness into "Grand Concourse West" with the construction of 6-9 story residential buildings:

http://www.pbase.com/image/20415510.jpg

coyotetrickster
Mar 5, 2007, 3:02 PM
I'm guessing you mean Fell & Van Ness:



What we have here is more of the conversion of Van Ness into "Grand Concourse West" with the construction of 6-9 story residential buildings:



Yes, I meant Fell, Oak is two blocks over, my bad... But thanks for confirming:-)

San Frangelino
Mar 6, 2007, 4:46 PM
Office towers to sprout on San Bruno Mountain
Bob Hollis, Special to The Chronicle
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/06/BUGFGOFQQU1.DTL&type=business


In another sign that the northern Peninsula life-sciences and high-tech sectors are once again entering a boom cycle, Myers Development Co. of San Francisco expects to start construction next month on a two-tower office complex in South San Francisco next to Highway 101 on the shoulder of San Bruno Mountain.
The $428 million, 670,000-square-foot Mandalay Terrace project will be among the largest commercial real estate developments in the Bay Area since before the dot-com bust in 2001, according to its developer. Since the collapse, commercial construction on the Peninsula has been at a near standstill.
Myers Development said late last month that it formed a joint venture with Stockbridge Real Estate Fund II to finance the project on 21 acres just west of the freeway. The enterprise is called Myers Peninsula Venture LLC.
The campuslike setting will feature a 21-story north tower with 338,000 square feet of office space and a 12-story south tower with 301,000 square feet of office space and 11,000 square feet of retail space. In addition, the developers plan a 2,000-space garage, a 200-seat performing arts center and child care facility with space for 100 children.
"This has been a labor of love, if not patience for us," said Jack Myers, chairman and chief executive of Myers Development. "We've been working on this since 1999, when we acquired the property.
"We've managed to go through at least two cycles of market changes since we started. This site represents the last remaining development site on San Bruno Mountain. It's been about saving the best for last," he said.
Myers expects to lease the class-A office space at $50 to $60 per square foot, considerably higher than the going rate today, which runs from the high $30s to the low $40s.
Research shows that the commercial real estate leasing market on the Peninsula "is not only recovering but surging" above levels that haven't been seen since the beginning of the decade, he said. South San Francisco's commercial vacancy rate dropped to about 7 percent in the fourth quarter, according to real estate brokers in the area.
The best evidence of this is a substantial drop in commercial vacancies and a sharp increase in rental rates, Myers said. "Good companies who have a need for great space will find those rent levels to be acceptable.
South San Francisco is hardly the Industrial City proclaimed on Sign Hill in the one-time blue-collar community.
These days the city in home to major life-sciences corporations and many high-tech businesses. Much of San Bruno Mountain, the last big piece of open space on the northern Peninsula, lies within South San Francisco's development sphere and has been the focus of environmental battles for decades.
Myers Development also built the high-rise 112-unit Peninsula Mandalay condominiums nearby. Its other projects include the 400,000-square-foot office towers at 55 Second St. and 101 Second St. in San Francisco.
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill is designing Mandalay Terrace and Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co. will build it. The project will be finished in January 2009, according to Myers. Office leasing for the project will be handled by CB Richard Ellis, with retail leasing by Cushman & Wakefield.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/412711232_ebc2bc936a_o.png

Find more renderings on Myers website
http://www.myersdevelopment.com/

fflint
Mar 6, 2007, 11:50 PM
^Interesting. I wonder if that would be taller than anything in San Jose...

rocketman_95046
Mar 7, 2007, 2:40 AM
^Interesting. I wonder if that would be taller than anything in San Jose...


If you assume 14ft per floor * 21 floors = about the max allowable in SJ.

fflint
Mar 7, 2007, 3:04 AM
Oh boy--NIMBY Supervisors will have the ultimate say on any demolition of any residential property in the city...

----

SF OKs law on demolition of residential structures

Charlie Goodyear, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 6, 2007

(03-06) 15:41 PST -- San Francisco's Board of Supervisors narrowly approved legislation today that would require property owners to obtain special approval before demolishing any residential structure in the city.

In a close 6-5 vote, the board adopted the measure proposed by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who argued it is needed to save affordable housing from being knocked and redeveloped for sale at prices out of reach of most San Franciscans.

"The majority of market-rate homes for sale in San Francisco are priced out of the reach of low and moderate-income households," Maxwell said.

The measure was opposed by property owners and developers, including the Residential Builders Association.

Voting against the ordinance were Supervisors Bevan Dufty, Sean Elsbernd, Ed Jew, Gerardo Sandoval and Michela Alioto-Pier.

The legislation is a six-month interim measure to require Planning Commission approval in the form of a conditional use permit for demolition of any residential dwelling -- but both foes and supporters said it could be extended or made permanent.

Decisions by the Planning Commission to issue a conditional use permit for a residential demolition could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

BTinSF
Mar 7, 2007, 3:13 AM
^^^I'm confused. Chris Daly proposed this in 2004, the Board passed it and the Mayor vetoed it. Can he not veto it again (with 5 votes against, a veto would stand)?

mthd
Mar 7, 2007, 4:50 AM
^Interesting. I wonder if that would be taller than anything in San Jose...

yep. the taller of jack's buildings here is 320 feet to top, tallest building in san jo is 285 i think?

still quite a few taller in oakland though...

craeg
Mar 7, 2007, 5:54 AM
This measure has to be headed for a veto If only to save the planning commission from 24 hour meetings every single day.

BTinSF
Mar 10, 2007, 12:08 AM
BizTimes says Goodwill Industries is selling its lots at the corner of Mission & S. Van Ness which the Times calls "ideal as a potential housing play" and estimates "800 units could be put there in 2 or 3 towers."

coyotetrickster
Mar 10, 2007, 6:48 PM
Always thought that corner was a good endowment investment for goodwill! The entire Van Ness/Market St. Intersection speaks volumes about this city's development schizophrenia.... What could be a major urban landmark intersection, historic (Masonic Temple at 25 and the new SF SoMusic conservatory mixing it up with amazing residential towers and wide-promenades with significant retail is, instead a squirrely homage to modesto with street cars and homeless persons shuffling shopping carts!

BTinSF
Mar 11, 2007, 6:20 AM
^^^Hey! And a Rite Aid. ;)

Full Disclosure: I'm a stockholder in Rite Aid. :yes:

FourOneFive
Mar 11, 2007, 7:00 PM
BizTimes says Goodwill Industries is selling its lots at the corner of Mission & S. Van Ness which the Times calls "ideal as a potential housing play" and estimates "800 units could be put there in 2 or 3 towers."

here's a companion article from globest.com:

Goodwill San Francisco Puts HQ Up For Sale
By Brian K. Miller

SAN FRANCISCO-Goodwill Industries of San Francisco has tapped Jones Lang LaSalle to sell its two-building, 94,000-sf headquarters here while it looks for larger, more efficient space. The 2.52-acre site at South VanNess Avenue and Mission Street is considered by many to be the largest and most prominent of all Downtown redevelopment sites.

JLL was scheduled to issue an offering memorandum today for the property. There will be no asking price. The bids could vary widely depending on whether the would-be buyers wish to acquire the site as-is or whether they would make the sale contingent upon city approval of its redevelopment plan. In addition, while the current height limit is 150 feet, a proposed rezone would increase the limit on some portions of the site to between 250 and 300 feet.

Depending on the buyers’ willingness to wait for the increased height or proceed with something smaller, and whether it wants to build for sale residential, market rate apartments, office space or some combination thereof, the offers could range from $50 million to more than $75 million, one industry source tells GlobeSt.com. A 50,000-sf redevelopment site with a much higher height limit located across the street from Goodwill’s headquarters was on the market for $45 million ($900 per sf) for some time but did not find any takers.

Goodwill Industries of San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin Counties have occupied the site since 1995. Its move there was prompted by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which destroyed its prior headquarters. One of the buildings, 1500 Mission, dates from the 1920s and totals 66,210 sf. The other, 1570-1580 Mission, was built in the 1990s and totals 27,798 sf. The 94,000-sf total breaks down to 13,888 sf of retail, 35,576 sf of offices and classrooms, 32,482 sf of warehouse and 12,051 sf of storage.

The older building has been surveyed at least seven times by various public and nonprofit historic surveys in the past and has never merited a rating as a landmark. Goodwill says it would like to retain an office or retail presence in any new development that might result from the sale. It also would like the new owner to be environmentally responsible when redeveloping the site, but says neither would be a stipulation of the sale.

If any new use concept for the site were to involve housing, the developer would have to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy. The policy requires that 15% of the total units developed (or 20% if built offsite) be affordable to people with lower incomes.

Last year, the Goodwill site was the focus of the annual Cal/Stanford Real Estate Competition sponsored by the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. Teams from the two schools spent months preparing a redevelopment plan for the site. Stanford’s winning proposal called for a 457-unit for-sale residential development on a portion of the property and a mixed-use building on the remainder that included, low-income housing, office space and street-level retail space.

“Both groups did a remarkable job; everyone was very impressed with the thoroughness and sophistication of their work,” says Ben Pollock, the JLL broker with the sales assignment for the property. “Having said that, in all probability we will see different ideas from developers. I won’t be surprised to see lots of different designs given such an unusually large site so well located in central San Francisco.”

Without saying how much new space it’s looking for, Goodwill says it would like to remain in San Francisco and in the Civic Center neighborhood if possible due to its access to public transit as well as to government and other partner offices. In lieu of that, Goodwill says it is seeking a place where it can contribute to neighborhood economic development (priority will be given to distressed neighborhoods) and be easily accessible to San Francisco residents who are experiencing significant barriers to employment.

Goodwill describes its current headquarters as obsolete and too small to accommodate the 300-plus individuals employed in this site in training, administration, and production. The company already leases additional space in a building nearby in order to accommodate its growing workforce. In addition to its expansion needs, Goodwill says it also feels strongly the need to optimize its assets and reduce any vulnerability associated with having the majority of its assets tied up in one building.

Reminiscence
Mar 11, 2007, 8:05 PM
JLL was scheduled to issue an offering memorandum today for the property. There will be no asking price. The bids could vary widely depending on whether the would-be buyers wish to acquire the site as-is or whether they would make the sale contingent upon city approval of its redevelopment plan. In addition, while the current height limit is 150 feet, a proposed rezone would increase the limit on some portions of the site to between 250 and 300 feet.

Depending on the buyers’ willingness to wait for the increased height or proceed with something smaller, and whether it wants to build for sale residential, market rate apartments, office space or some combination thereof, the offers could range from $50 million to more than $75 million, one industry source tells GlobeSt.com. A 50,000-sf redevelopment site with a much higher height limit located across the street from Goodwill’s headquarters was on the market for $45 million ($900 per sf) for some time but did not find any takers.

I'm actually pretty exited about this news, I think this site has great potential. 300 feet for a height would be pretty modest, if they're willing to wait that long that is. Although the fact that another site accross the street didnt show any interest concerns me somewhat.

coyotetrickster
Mar 11, 2007, 8:33 PM
Does anyone know if the 'redev' site no one was interested in is the SF Honda site. I was under the impression that deal was contingent on the final approval of the Octavia/Market plan (which was on target to be finalized and approved until peskin's toady on the planning commission started talking smack out of her #$s.

BTinSF
Mar 12, 2007, 12:37 AM
^^^I can't imagine what lot they would be talking about other the the Honda site--unless it could be the little gas station/car wash diagonally across the intersection and I thought that might be protected as "historical".

Also, I'm pretty sure the reason interest in this area is meager right now is because nobody is sure what sort of development and at what height will be possible until the Octavia Plan gets final approval. As usual, the city is dragging it's feet on something it should have finished with years ago.

mthd
Mar 12, 2007, 8:12 AM
^^^I can't imagine what lot they would be talking about other the the Honda site--unless it could be the little gas station/car wash diagonally across the intersection and I thought that might be protected as "historical"

probably the honda site... the reference to 'much' higher height limit suggests only four possibilities - the proposed 400' limit sites : the honda site, the northeast corner of van ness + market with the riteaid, the bank of america building at the southeast corner of market + van ness, and the northwest corner with the ridiculous donut shop building and parking lot.

the only one that is really across the street is the honda site. of the others, i am pretty sure we'll see a tall building replace the donut shop and parking lot and possibly the building with the rite-aid in it. not sure about the bofa building.

with the residential tower at 10th and market stalled by the moratorium on performance based design, i think it will be a while before anyone is brave enough to propose a 400' tall residential building here.

they should've gone for 500 feet at least, to get above the AAA building.

slock
Mar 14, 2007, 11:16 AM
One interesting, and reassuring development recently, is that companies that would have formerly expanded in suburbia, are now looking towards the city center where a lot of their workforce already lives. This piece is in today's New York Times, and is a perfect example of the sentiment that we'll start to see, and a positive outlook for future office construction.

Google Should Be Green (1 Letter)

Published: March 14, 2007
To the Editor:

Related
Google’s Buses Help Its Workers Beat the Rush (March 10, 2007)

Re “Google, Master of Online Traffic, Helps Its Workers Beat the Rush” (front page, March 10):

Here’s an idea for Google: locate your offices near where people live rather than transporting them all over the San Francisco Bay area.

Most “Googlers” are young and live in San Francisco, where they can find affordable housing and enjoy an urban lifestyle. Surely Google can afford a high-rise office in downtown San Francisco.

Given the obvious need to curtail carbon dioxide emissions, enlightened companies should set an example by locating in downtown areas, where mass transit is ready and waiting.

Establishing corporate campuses in suburban communities like Mountain View, where only a handful of the richest Googlers can afford to live, and busing in thousands of urban employees, makes little sense in an environmentally challenged era.

Dan Savage
New York, March 10, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/opinion/l14google.html

fflint
Mar 14, 2007, 11:26 AM
How odd--I think I know the guy who wrote that letter to the editor.

dimondpark
Mar 14, 2007, 5:21 PM
that 1100 B'way site is really a prime location in DT Oakland.....I used to have an office across the street at 1111 and I always wondered when someone would do something with that lot.

BTinSF
Mar 14, 2007, 5:47 PM
Establishing corporate campuses in suburban communities like Mountain View, where only a handful of the richest Googlers can afford to live,

I think he may have a too-limited view of how many people have gotten very rich off of Google. ;) The IPO created 900 millionaires and that was when the stock was at $85/share. It's now $450.

The rest of his point is well-taken, though.