SAN FRANCISCO | 350 Mission | 455 FT | 30 FLOORS | U/C
The SF Business Times today is reporting today that developers GLL Properties want to proceed with this project as soon as possible. They perceive an increasing demand for office space--commercial realtor Grubb & Ellis is reportedly "tracking" demand for 2.5 million sq. ft.--and want to catch the wave. To do so, they have shortened the building from an original 850 ft, which would have had to wait for proposed upzoning planned in connection with the TransBay Terminal, and dyed it green for faster action at the Planning Department.
Obviously, for a tall building fan this is good news and bad news. Another SF highrise gets whacked by 300 ft. But the existence of the project at all was rather a recent surprise and it will contribute to the rebirth of Mission St. as a true highrise canyon worthy of any of the cities we all admire. When I can access a pasteable version of the full article (likely to be Sunday evening), I will post it. The rendering, found on 7/14/08 by pseudolus at http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...elivers_t.html http://www.socketsite.com/350%20Mission%20Rendering.jpg |
Shorter, but still exciting; SF deserves this new skyline!
|
I knew 850' was too good to be true, but it was good while it lasted I suppose. I just hope this decision doesnt come back to haunt them in the future. 550' is nice, but compared to what it was before, its just not the same. However, the fact that it was a new proposal makes this downgrade easier to take.
|
unless they want to wait for the upzoning (obviously they don't) this site won't even support 550' ... if the developer can get to the max current FAR through TDRs you're looking at a 20-25 story building.
it's too bad, but understandable given the current market conditions. |
I'm hoping for one of two scenarios:
That the developer decides a little patience will do him/her good and waits for the upzoning to realize the possibility of an 850' foot tower. In the heart of South Financial, directly across from the Transbay Terminal, it's a prime spot. When the terminal's built and if HSR is connected to Los Angeles, there will be few office locations in the City better than this. It would be myopic at best for the developer to move forward with 550' when they know an upzoning is in the pipeline. The second scenario I'm predicting is that the City recognizes the timeline and the project sponsor's height change because of the upzone calendar. Ideally the City could somehow create a special designation for the project to be fastracked once the upzoning study is complete. This is beneficial because the City has identified the parcels around the Terminal for density and growth, and to an extent the success of the Terminal depends on the critical mass of projects like this. Furthermore, I think a shorter height would contribute less money to the Terminal's finances as well, so it is in the City's interest to somehow make sure this parcel's full height, and full financial contributions are realized. |
Quote:
If you feel otherwise, please explain why, but I somehow believe with the amount of time and money these people have riding on this they know what they are talking about. And I can't imagine why they would dissemble about it to the BizTimes. For use in this discussion, here's the height limits of the current Downtown Plan: http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/4...0Acsmblw0ZsmLA And here is the Planning Code as it purtains to bulk requirements in "S" zones: Quote:
|
Quote:
From section 123 of the planning code : Quote:
The maximum floor area ratio can be increased through the use of TDRs but is limited as follows : Quote:
This is how projects in San Francisco have always gone since the current interpretation of FAR in the planning code, and it's why the proposed 'unlimited height / unlimited FAR' district is so revolutionary. Why do you think 560 mission street, 101 second street, and 555 mission street are all about so very far under their height limits? It's not because of a lack of creativity on the part of Pelli, SOM, and KPF, respectively - it's because of the FAR limits... and it's worth noting that those projects had significantly more site area to work with. We'll just have to wait and see what the architect they select (they've just begun interviewing potential teams, so it's not like there is a design yet) comes up with, but unless they have some other way around the FAR limits of the current zoning this is not going to be a 550 foot tall building. |
Here's the article:
Quote:
|
the article confirms that they are seeking to build a project compliant with the current planning code with 340,000 square feet of area applicable to FAR.
this means a 15-25 story building at most. the 550 foot height limit in this case is irrelevant, just as it was for the other three office projects on mission street in the last 10 years. at 25 stories it would actually be quite slender for an office building given the limitations of the site. |
mthd thank you for your details and insight.
I don't know too much about the specific planning code, but what led to the FAR being interpreted in such an obtuse manner? It seems counterproductive for everyone from architect to developer, to the City getting inadequate office space per parcel. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I guess I prefer to wait and see what they actually propose rather than speculating. If they say 550 ft., I lean toward believing they mean 550 ft. If that requires some sort of waiver or negotiation, perhaps that's what they intend. There's just more than one way to deal with such issues. One might be a mixed use project with 340,000 sq ft of office and some residential on the upper floors or a hotel like California Center. We can't know until we see a design.
But given that there's quite a bit of consensus that the few sites in that immediate area ought to be the city's tallest structures, it strikes me that no one would be happy building another 25-30 story office building there. And so I think if that's the only option, nothing will get built. |
Quote:
I think one of two things will happen here : a) they will quickly propose and build a modest office building which will not come anywhere near the height limit. b) they will get a lot of opposition from the city to a building on this site which is too short and the site will sit as is until a developer who wants to put residential or residential/hotel comes along. the site is simply too small to support a really tall office building. |
Quote:
Is there enough time for the developer to reach final green certified design, EIR, and approvals before the City goes into "Beauty Contest" mode? How much time does the developer expect to save to complete the construction, if the project can be approved at 340,000 square feet, instead of waiting about two years for the Transbay upzoning to be approved? How was One Rincon Hill upzoned from its orginal proposals? How long did it take, etc.? |
Quote:
work on the rincon hill plan started in 1999 and it was approved sometime in 2005. the qualifications for the new transbay/4th & king study were due in late january and the planning department is just now interviewing the prospective teams. who knows how long it would take for the process to get all the way through a certified district-wide EIR. this parcel isn't even IN the current EIR/EIS for transbay! it will be interesting to see how this one plays out. if the developer is true to their word, which is that they want to proceed ASAP with an office project compliant with current zoning, then we will see a 25ish story office building go up on this site in a couple years. |
I dont know.. a 25 story building on that site seems like a tremendous waste of space.
|
Quote:
perhaps the city will react so negatively to a shorter building here that the developer will have to reconsider their program. it will be interesting to see what happens. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.