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

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by timbad

shroud finally partially off this one at 7th and Market, and looks noticeably spiffier on this side. originally they were gonna make this a hostel of sorts, but I don't think those are the current plans?

Indeed the plans are unchanged--not exactly a hostel but a different sort of hotel:

AN EXCITING NEW HOTEL OPENING ON MARKET STREET (1 February 2019)

YOTEL San Francisco is a refurbishment of a historic building on Market Street and will be opening in 1 February 2019. YOTEL is the hotel brand that gives you everything you need and nothing you don’t. Inspired by first class travel, YOTEL translates the language of luxury airline travel into smart, well-designed spaces without the hefty price tag.

https://www.yotel.com/en/hotels/yotel-san-francisco

This is what their rooms look like (in another location I believe):


https://www.yotel.com/en/hotels/yotel-san-francisco

[BobbyMucho]

Excellent rundown Timbad.

Excited to see the shroud come down from the Grant Building. The cornice looks outstanding—glad its readdition was part of the remodel.

A quick bit about the building's history for some context: http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Grant_Building

[Pedestrian]

I can't believe I'd ever agree with Jane Kim on anything but she deserves credit for being out front on this one:

SF might vote to nix minimum parking requirements this week
By Adam Brinklow
Dec 3, 2018, 8:52am PST

On Tuesday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors are set to vote on a change to the city’s planning code that would do away with decades-old requirements that new developments include a certain amount of new parking.

The legislation, introduced months ago by Supervisor Jane Kim, would, if passed, “eliminate minimum off-street parking requirements citywide.”

The city’s Land Use and Transportation Committee—of which Kim is a member—forwarded the matter to the full board with an unanimous vote last Monday.

According to the version of the rules change going before lawmakers this week:

In the 1950s, the Planning Code established minimum parking requirements for new buildings. Beginning in 1973, the City has reduced or streamlined minimum parking requirements in various San Francisco zoning districts as a strategy to reduce traffic ·congestion, encourage the use of sustainable transportation modes (walking, cycling, and transit), and reduce housing and building costs.

Eliminating minimum parking requirements in all zoning districts City-wide will further these goals . . . .

https://sf.curbed.com/2018/12/3/1812...-jane-kim-vote

I am simply opposed to government specifying how much off-street parking is allowed in new developments. Let the market decide. I think there's a market for both: Less costly units without parking and more costly ones with. My suspicion is the total number of units would be about what it is if the requirements went away completely but distributed differently with some buildings providing at least one space per residential unit and some having none at all.

[DIESELPOLO]

Originally Posted by timbad

went by it for the first time in a while this weekend, and it had progressed a bit more...

the Laguna side





Fulton side

Thanks for checking Timbad! This one feels like its been a pox on the neighborhood for some time being half-constructed. It's a shame. It's also a shame that it didn't have 1 more story. It always felt stunted to me.

[BobbyMucho]

Originally Posted by DIESELPOLO

Thanks for checking Timbad! This one feels like its been a pox on the neighborhood for some time being half-constructed. It's a shame. It's also a shame that it didn't have 1 more story. It always felt stunted to me.

You're stunned it wasn't a single story taller? I'm still shocked that the city let someone build a 5 story, full block, glass box.

Most of the city's residential areas max out at around 50ft in height, so not surprised by the final height, it's the material choices and capacity massing that gets me every time I see it.

Hopefully, it ages nicely and the street trees add some life to it.

[fimiak]

Great news! The Central SoMa Plan has officially passed. In case you didn't know, this is huge for San Francisco because it allows for much greater density in the city core. It translates to the tune of 30+ buildings and skyscrapers in just a few city blocks...how often does a neighborhood in the city get rezoned for 30+ buildings? This is a once in a decade rezoning. I said that as long as the new Mayor got this through then she was getting an easy revote and I meant it. This is a really big win that will continue the city's growth for the next decade.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...oved-2018.html

After years of fierce debate, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved an ambitious plan on Tuesday that may pave the way for unprecedented development in the city’s growing SoMa neighborhood.

The Central SoMa Plan upzones the area between Second and Sixth streets, mostly from Howard to Townsend streets. The plan increases the height limit on some high-rises to 400 feet, allowing for office buildings to accommodate up to 32,000 jobs. The plan also authorizes 8,800 housing units, 33 percent of which are to be affordable.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by fimiak

this is huge for San Francisco because it allows for much greater density in the city core. It translates to the tune of 30+ buildings and skyscrapers in just a few city blocks

Hate to join the usual "it should be taller" chorus, but in this particular location, adjacent to the southern FiDi, TransBay District, Rincon Hill and the rest, it really should be taller, allowing buildings to at least 600 ft and maybe 800.

Just look at what will be permitted in Central SOMA (yellow) as compared to what now exists nextdoor in the districts mentioned (blue):

A rendering by SOM of potential development under the Central SoMa plan

https://cdn.bisnow.net/fit?height=48...gssfhlj-VOwkrA

Central SOMA should simply be zoned as more of what was done nearby.

It's hard for me to fathom, given the shortage of both office space and housing in SF, why the planners continually allow opportunities to really make some headway in meeting demand pass them by. That's why this time I agree "it should be taller". Not out of some love of skyscrapers (though I admit to that) but because we really need more ROOM in San Francisco and we are running out of logical places to build it. Once this area is built out mostly, with a few 400 ft exceptions, to a midrise scale, it'll stay that way for a couple of decades and we'll have to find someplace else to do the growing we need to do.

[fimiak]

The plan as I understand it is that the current Caltrain tracks (near the bottom of that picture) will see some 500-700+ footers, as well as the Hub plan of course. I think the building heights of 800+ feet we all want to see will have to come after 2025 because Prop M is basically booked up until then. With the density above the city will be transformed, even if the skyline is not.

[JWS]

I am actually OK with Central SOMA height limits.

(1) Commercial - Honestly Prop M is so significant that it'll be awhile to build out major Central SOMA projects even at 5-15 stories tall. We've got two enormous towers (Oceanwide and Parcel F) still waiting to break ground, and then big projects like Flower Mart, the Tennis Club redevelopment, etc that while not particularly tall, are large projects that are bigger than a standard SF block with multiple components. Let's say we rose height limits significantly for office towers, we still wouldn't see them as (a) many developers are shooting for the 49,999 square foot and below bucket and (b) the remaining large scale projects will easily deplete the 50,000+ sq foot bucket to the point that some may have to wait.

(2) Residential - We tend to conflate height and density but they are not always the same thing...in fact are often not! Some of the densest neighborhoods in the world (Lower Manhattan, Paris, etc) are really made up of 5-9 story residential buildings...it's just that they are consistently dense. And some of the tallest residential buildings in the world are actually not all that dense as they feature enormous penthouses and are more at the risk of becoming pied-a-terres. 10-20 story residential buildings are more likely to become rentals and owner occupied condos. They were estimating from 7,000-9000 new residents under these height limits, and that's not even accounting for Mission Bay build out, proposed projects along 7th, Mission Rock (1,000+ units right there), the Transbay towers under construction, etc. I consider the Pier 70 and Treasure Island projects to be longshots honestly but that would add to the NE density as well.

(3) The Hub Plan - This is where the height is going to be. I'm grasping at the exact numbers and approximating, but you've got 250+ feet (1270 Mission, City Ballet School, and CCSF site), 350+ feet (French American tower), 400+ feet (Goodwill/1500 Mission, OneOak), 500+ feet (the city's building at 30 Van Ness) and then even 600+ feet (Honda Dealership if approved for its one tower plan, and then eventually the corner Bank of America building). Almost all, if not all, of these projects will be next cycle but that's minimum around 3,700 units for the projects with unit counts, and up to 1,000-1,500 for BofA and 30 Van Ness which don't have concrete projects. 5,000-6,000 give or take units and that's not even accounting for the infill that is under construction, proposed, or will be proposed once the big guys get rolling.

Long story short, The Hub and Central SOMA allow us to build huge amounts of housing next cycle, and super tall height limits don't mean anything if they can't build under Prop M. In terms of 600+ foot towers, I think Transbay is the bulk of what we'll get for the next 30 or so years, but the city will shift to allowing more pockets of 15-30 story towers which will still dramatically increase density. Once we get to the point where that's no longer enough, I think we'll see spot rezoning of North FiDi and underutilized lots in the existing framework. But that's going to be a lonnnnnnng way away.

[alpallord]

“One De Haro" has been blocked off and looks as if they are demoing.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...o-reality.html

[timbad]

Originally Posted by alpallord

“One De Haro" has been blocked off and looks as if they are demoing.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...o-reality.html

awesome!

(the design was refined a bit after the images in that link: )



the blue area seems a bit odd to me, but this will at least make the intersection across from Dumpling Time work better and generally contribute to sorting out circulation in that area - and the next-door project at Recology will be a huuuuge follow-up boost in that regard

[Pedestrian]

Since there's no thread for this project in the Transportation section and it's a little late to start one, I'll post this here:

Will the Central Subway be extended to the Marina District?
By Lindsey J. Smith
4 hours ago

Time and again, the Marina District has rebuffed San Francisco's efforts to bring more public transit to the tony neighborhood by the Bay. But that may be set to change, as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency explores the possibility of extending the new Central Subway line into the Marina.

As badly as more and better transit is needed in the neighborhood — busses, like the 30-Stockton, are perpetually packed — SFMTA officials and the district's supervisor Catherine Stefani approached the issue cautiously during a Dec. 5 meeting at Marina Middle School, the San Francisco Examiner reports.

“We’re here to listen and learn tonight,” Kansai Uchida, the Central Subway extension’s project manager at SFMTA, told attendees.

Nearly a decade ago, SFMTA began designing the Central Subway Project, which will extend the existing T Third Line underground from its current terminus at Fourth and King Streets through downtown and into Chinatown. The project, which has been under construction since 2011, will wrap and open for riders next year.

With the Central Subway Project close to completion, the city's transit agency has set its sights on possibly extending the line beyond the new Chinatown Station at Stockton and Washington Streets.

"Possible destinations include North Beach, Fisherman’s Wharf, the Marina District, and other neighborhoods in the northern portion of San Francisco," according to a statement on SFMTA's website . . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...397&j=85451941

This has, of course, been talked about since the project began, but now we are seeing concrete and official steps to move it forward.

[Pedestrian]

More trouble for the Mid-Market revival (and development):

Music streaming company Spotify flees Mid-Market over safety concerns
By Lindsey J. Smith
Dec 10, 2018, 7:15am PST Updated 2 hours ago

Spotify has broken its lease at 988 Market St., the Mid-Market building home to the Warfield concert venue, and moved to the Merchants Exchange Building in the Financial District due in part to concerns about employee safety at its former location, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The music-sharing giant moved into three floors of the Market Street building in 2013, drawn there in part by the so-called Twitter tax, a payroll tax break that went into effect in 2012. It was gave businesses that brought jobs to the long-blighted Mid-Market neighborhood an eight-year exclusion from paying payroll taxes, and succeeded in attracting nine tech companies — including Spotify, Zendesk, and, of course, Twitter — to the area. Companies receiving the tax break also had to create "community benefit agreements" with the city to donate money, services or employee volunteer time to organizations in the Tenderloin and Mid-Market neighborhood.

But after some troubling incidents with employee safety in the neighborhood, Spotify decided to forego the tax break and head for calmer waters. In 2017, a female employee was reportedly slapped in the face by a homeless woman outside the office, and the neighborhood's ongoing problems with drug dealing, public drug use and violent crime added to employees feeling unsafe, two former Spotify employees told the Chronicle.

The move also comes amid an apparent downsizing of Spotify's San Francisco presence . . . .

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...857&j=85451941

[alpallord]

I noticed this last weekend that a lot of Permits were issued. Doesn't necessarily mean they are moving forward, but at least the city has signed off on 1740 Market street and 1028 Market street. Along with 30 Otis, there could be some action there on Market.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Since there's no thread for this project in the Transportation section and it's a little late to start one, I'll post this here:


https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...397&j=85451941

This has, of course, been talked about since the project began, but now we are seeing concrete and official steps to move it forward.

^^^


SF Transport thread here.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^^^
SF Transport thread here.

I reposted it there but no wonder I couldn't find it--the last post there was in July.

[boyinthecity]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I reposted it there but no wonder I couldn't find it--the last post there was in July.

Sadly, where they day-lighted the TBM's across from Washington square, the property is no longer available. It really wouldn't have cost that much more to have day-lighted the tunneling TBM machines at fisherman's wharf. The entire tunneling/TBM contract only came in at around $350 million. The work of cut and cover and hacking into the tunnels is what is really expensive and time consuming. At a minimum, they should use the tail track and tunnels for a North Beach station. Personally, I think the 10 story deep Chinatown station might not get much use. Yet, the further north the tunnel and stations are constructed, IMHO, the benefit of the north/south subway will increase exponentially.

[timbad]

from last weekend...

they've gotten pretty deep at the gas station site next to Jasper



Moscone

[timbad]

Originally Posted by alpallord

“One De Haro" has been blocked off and looks as if they are demoing.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...o-reality.html

this was as of last weekend, but I walked by today and a brief glance from the east didn't look any different

[waterchicken]

390 First St, excavation progress:
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr
City walk 12-15-2018 by Daniel Alm, on Flickr