HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8961  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 2:01 AM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 135
Hey all, two areas I'm wondering about.

(1) Anybody know the current status of the projects at 95 Hawthorne (32 stories if I remember correctly?), and the 14 and 13 story projects at 655 and 667 Folsom? We are so focused on all the Transbay beauties rising but that would add 500 +/- new units to the same block, start adding retail slots to the slowly developing Folsom corridor that will eventually connect to Transbay, and add residential to an increasingly vibrant area with the central subway, SFMOMA, and new Moscone either complete or under construction at the moment. I'm super excited about these three and had almost forgotten about them.

(2) Any movement on the two big NOPA sites, the one occupying the current car wash and the one next to the Independent? My wife and I were just down there the other day and Divisadero is hopping, tons of independent restaurants, bars, and stores completely full, but those sites stood out like sore thumbs just begging for housing to help anchor the corridor more. As an aside, a couple sites there (like the Horsefeather) seem to have converted old garages into retail and were really successful at doing so. I think a great thing for SF's future when our existing corridors are too full.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8962  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 6:05 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWS View Post
(1) Anybody know the current status of the projects at 95 Hawthorne (32 stories if I remember correctly?), and the 14 and 13 story projects at 655 and 667 Folsom? ...
all I know is there was no activity on those sites when I walked by there, I think last week. I have no insight beyond that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8963  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 5:54 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
all I know is there was no activity on those sites when I walked by there, I think last week. I have no insight beyond that.
http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/

All are still at the planning department. 655 has filed for a building permit, but site review is on hold, waiting for the planning department. No building permits filed yet for the other two.

Remember that, after planning department approval, building department approval is a two-step process: first the site review, then the dreaded "addenda".

These are years from construction, I'm guessing, though demolition and excavation could happen sooner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8964  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 9:15 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus View Post
http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/

All are still at the planning department. 655 has filed for a building permit, but site review is on hold, waiting for the planning department. No building permits filed yet for the other two.

Remember that, after planning department approval, building department approval is a two-step process: first the site review, then the dreaded "addenda".

These are years from construction, I'm guessing, though demolition and excavation could happen sooner.
Thanks! It's so insane how long it takes anything to get done around here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8965  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2018, 10:39 PM
fogcitybrit fogcitybrit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4
Perhaps

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewK View Post
1066 Market St has now been leveled to make way for this project. As a memory refresher, here’s what the jones/golden gate side will look like (the bulk of the building):

maybe. . . . . maybe not
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8966  
Old Posted Feb 3, 2018, 2:27 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWS View Post
Thanks! It's so insane how long it takes anything to get done around here.
Maybe not quite as long soon:

Quote:
Law will force 97.6 percent of California cities to build more
By Adam Brinklow Feb 2, 2018, 11:12am PST

In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 35, a new law that demands California cities build more housing or risk temporarily losing control of some of their permitting and entitlements processes.

Few metros meet the state’s regular Regional Housing Needs Assessments—hence the need for a law to motivate more building—but it wasn’t until Friday, when the California Department of Housing and Community Development released the first assessment of cities that would be subject to the state’s new “streamlining process,” that the full extent of the law’s scope became clear.

It’s almost a clean sweep across the board: 97.6 percent of California cities and counties fall under some provision of SB 35 or another.

Only 13 places have satisfied housing expectations to a legally sufficient degree, among them Hillsborough, Napa County, and Sonoma County. (Note that this refers to the counties at large. Individual cities, including Sonoma and Napa themselves, failed to make the list) . . . .

A second, smaller list of 148 cities lays out those cities subject to the slightly less strenuous standard that fast tracks buildings with at least 50 percent affordable housing, including Alameda, Albany, Atherton, Brisbane, Daly City, El Cerrito, Fremont, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Marin County at large, Milpitas, Napa, Oakland, Orinda, Palo Alto, Pittsburg, Pleasantville, San Jose, San Rafael, Walnut Creek, and—yes—San Francisco.

Not every proposed project will be able to take advantage of SB 35’s fast track to passage in the affected areas, but those that meet the legal requirements will enjoy “by-right approval,” . . . .
https://sf.curbed.com/2018/2/2/16965...ll-list-wiener
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8967  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 1:08 AM
dboakland dboakland is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 32
Interestingly, it looks like the majority of jurisdictions on the 10% or greater list are not the worst NIMBY offenders. My bet is that you won't see many projects come in under this Statute. It will come down to whether the developer thinks the CEQA exemptions is worth subsidizing 10% BRM units. Maybe in jurisdictions with high affordable housing linkage requirements and in conjunction with the Density Bonus program, but I can't see much use for SB 35 in communities like Fresno, Adelante or Compton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8968  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 3:07 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dboakland View Post
Interestingly, it looks like the majority of jurisdictions on the 10% or greater list are not the worst NIMBY offenders. My bet is that you won't see many projects come in under this Statute. It will come down to whether the developer thinks the CEQA exemptions is worth subsidizing 10% BRM units. Maybe in jurisdictions with high affordable housing linkage requirements and in conjunction with the Density Bonus program, but I can't see much use for SB 35 in communities like Fresno, Adelante or Compton.
I believe San Francisco's own BMR requirement exceeds 10% so all new projects in the city should fall under this unless there's something I'm missing--the program can be rather complicated with the alternatives to pay a fee or build off-site and differing requirements for rental vs owner-occupied housing and if somebody wants to clarify that would be great.

The concern in this thread, of course, is primarily with the effect of the ordinance in simplifying and speeding up approval of San Francisco projects and minimizing the ability of NIMBYs to block them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8969  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 5:18 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I believe San Francisco's own BMR requirement exceeds 10% so all new projects in the city should fall under this unless there's something I'm missing--the program can be rather complicated with the alternatives to pay a fee or build off-site and differing requirements for rental vs owner-occupied housing and if somebody wants to clarify that would be great.

The concern in this thread, of course, is primarily with the effect of the ordinance in simplifying and speeding up approval of San Francisco projects and minimizing the ability of NIMBYs to block them.
It's confusing because there are two different tiers here. There are the cities that the state will have force streamlining for any projects that contains 10% or more affordable housing. While this is the majority of CA jurisdictions, it's not the one SF is in.

SF is in the smaller, but still sizable, second cluster. This cluster contains forced streamlining for projects with 50% or more affordable housing.

In a bizarre way, I'm curious to see is if developers would now be incentivized to include more affordable housing, in order to take advantage of this law and/or state density bonuses. The first 35% of affordable housing gets you a huge density bonus (the Nordstrom parking lot tower being proposed is one example of how aggressive this may get in the future), the remaining 15% gets you streamlined and moving quickly and dodging being tied up in neighbor complaints etc.

In a weird way, we may get more affordable housing out of this. I think we'll all be watching the Nordstrom parking lot proposal closely for the density bonus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8970  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 7:42 PM
dboakland dboakland is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 32
Unfortunately, SB 35 will do nothing for San Francisco unless the proposed project is at least 50% BMR, which effectively means only projects proposed by non-profit developers with big public subsidies. That appears to be the situation for most of the cities in the Bay Area, so in terms of speeding development its mostly going to be a major fizzle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8971  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 9:28 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by dboakland View Post
Unfortunately, SB 35 will do nothing for San Francisco unless the proposed project is at least 50% BMR, which effectively means only projects proposed by non-profit developers with big public subsidies. That appears to be the situation for most of the cities in the Bay Area, so in terms of speeding development its mostly going to be a major fizzle.
Even that will be helpful. There is now at least one, and I think several, 100% BMR projects in the Mission being opposed by activists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8972  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 10:30 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by fimiak View Post
Personally I think the Warriors arena / Uber buildings construction site area is the most interesting in the city right now, and we don't have too many street level views of it yet. ...
street-level views have been added in the Chase Center thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8973  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2018, 5:32 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 690
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8974  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2018, 6:26 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 613
Here's the skyline this afternoon from the Sixth Street offramp. The Park Tower and 400 Folsom cores are quite prominent now:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8975  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2018, 6:55 AM
AndrewK AndrewK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 451
1172-78 Folsom have just been demo’d to make way for this project (next door to the soon-to-be former City Beer spot):
https://www.dbarchitect.com/project_...%20Street.html

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8976  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2018, 8:46 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
a more detailed look at the progress on the east slope of Potrero Hill





and at two of the Tennessee St developments in Dogpatch, 815 and 777

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8977  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2018, 5:28 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by dboakland View Post
Unfortunately, SB 35 will do nothing for San Francisco unless the proposed project is at least 50% BMR, which effectively means only projects proposed by non-profit developers with big public subsidies. That appears to be the situation for most of the cities in the Bay Area, so in terms of speeding development its mostly going to be a major fizzle.
This will still help. As others have noted, there are 100% affordable projects being targeted in the Mission, and the potential 7 story/300 unit old McDonald's project in the Haight that is ALREADY being targeted by neighbors is going to be 100% affordable.

But additionally, think of Central SOMA where Jane Kim is pushing for 33% affordable units on new development. There is a real possibility that developers will decide that jumping up to 50% affordable from 33% might be worth it financially if you can avoid years of costly delays waiting for extensive EIRs, holding costs, and litigation fees. When coupling that with state density bonuses for affordable housing anyway, the math may work out to build more units, denser projects, taller projects, and faster projects by bumping up affordable units. As many have noted, the reason why affordable units are such a non-starter in this town is due primarily to land costs and extensive planning reviews/neighbor challenges. This may actually make projects with extensive BMRs more financial feasible than traditional 100% market rate projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8978  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2018, 6:51 AM
ConstructDTLA's Avatar
ConstructDTLA ConstructDTLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: DTLA
Posts: 1,452
Many more to come tomorrow.

Salesforce Transit Center by Hunter, on Flickr
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8979  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2018, 7:13 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,287
Dude from LA takes the best pics of SF, bravo!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8980  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2018, 7:15 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
Damn good start, ConstructDTLA! Looking forward to the rest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:51 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.