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

[Jerry of San Fran]

BTinSF - I was curious that I have not seen much about Polk Street in the posts here - glad to have your response.

I like the church on Polk Street, but am somewhat uneasy with the architecture in relation to the neighborhood. Mayby 38 years of seeing Polk Street a certain way makes it difficult for me to assimilate.

I too noticed the victorian next to the proposed highrise on Polk Street as well. It may be possible that the people who live in the area have seen how rough Polk Street became and are not adverse to the changes taking place now. It appears to be an upcoming younger group populating the area, almost like a new Union Street. They do not have a fixed memory of the area like this old timer!

[BTinSF]

For some reason, I found myself wondering what happened with the SF City College Chinatown building tonight so I Googled a little and discovered this piece I had overlooked when it was published a month ago:

Place: S.F. City College Chinatown proposal
John King
Tuesday, July 8, 2008

First it was a 16-story green blob. Now it's a 14-story box in tailored blinds. And the dispute over the design of City College of San Francisco's Chinatown campus is down to punched windows in the wall of an entirely different building.



That aesthetic wrinkle will be the topic on Thursday when the college's board of trustees is scheduled to vote on a final design, not of the tower - that has the green light - but a four-story building down the block on Washington Street.

The favored design by the project's architectural team has a modern look, with large windows on the exposed walls of the lower structure. It's also in keeping with the 14-story building, which has evolved into a handsome if chubby transition from the Financial District high-rises to the lower buildings of North Beach.

The catch? Next door to the proposed four-story building is the two-story Columbo Building from 1913. It marks the start of the Jackson Square Historic District, with its brick survivors of the 19th century.

Preservation-minded watchdogs want the new structure to emulate that older area's look. And that means touches such as methodical rows of deep-set windows.

As hair-splitting as all this sounds, it's the essence of the push-and-pull over new buildings throughout the Bay Area: What's the right tone to set?

A site like this is especially tricky. Yes, Jackson Square's aura is undeniable. But the south side of this block of Washington consists of two 300-foot towers: the concrete slab of the Hilton Hotel and a glitzy granite shaft from the 1980s.

While everyone agrees on the need to respect the look of the historic district, the architects suggest (politely) that too literal an interpretation of design codes could get in the way of the lower building's role in helping students get the best possible education.

For instance, the large stretches of glass on the wall above the Columbo Building will allow natural light into corridors and classrooms: "Day-lit rooms are better, more pleasant environments that enhance learning," said Jennifer Devlin, a principal at EHDD, the firm designing the college buildings in association with Barcelon + Jang.

Also, "the building has a larger urban context and responsibility than Jackson Square," Devlin said. "It needs to identify itself as part of the college and part of the public community."

Last week, there were meetings among city planners, college architects and representatives of the Friends of the Columbo Building. By the time the Board of Trustees votes on Thursday, with luck, there will be a version that doesn't raise anyone's hackles too much.

Given EHDD's track record for smart additions to the landscape - think of the Monterey Bay Aquarium - I give them the benefit of the doubt. We've definitely moved in the right direction from the amoeba-like original concept, a look-at-me building if ever there was one.

Oh yes - there also are two active lawsuits filed by foes who would prefer not to see any tower built at all. Ah, San Francisco.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

Boy, did Aaron Peskin and the neighbors ever wreck this one. Remember this?


Source: http://www.sfisonline.com/cgi-bin/ob...QST0U3.DTL&o=0

Anybody know how the vote turned out and when we might see some dirt moving? They are already 6 months behind the sched on the City College web site which says construction to begin "early 2008".

[peanut gallery]

Yuck! I tried the architect's website to see if there was a more flattering view, but couldn't find one. I sure hope it looks better from other angles. It figures that King likes it better since it's shorter. And "blob" is hardly the word to describe the previous proposal.

[Reminiscence]

Oh goodness, watching the new proposal was like watching a car wreck in slow motion. I think I'd rather side with the NIMBYs on this one, this new building would just be another eyesore.

[northbay]

we coulda had three "infinitys" (argenta, city college)

now we just have infinity

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I also noted on Pine St. that the apparent location of the Saitowitz building is all boarded up and derelict looking so I would hope they actually proceed soon, though as dramatic as that rendering looks I can't believe they could put it next to a Victorian in SF without all kinds of neighborhood screeching.

There is also the Holiday Inn Gateway across Pine Street (I wish neighborhood organizations had been around when that was built), so you might argue that the Saitowitz project provides a scale transition. Neighborhood organizations get a chance to intervene when a developer wants to build a project that doesn't conform to zoning (after all, zoning for them is not a maximum, but instead a minimum they can build on a site). If this project does not seek exemptions from zoning, and does not involve the removal of a historic structure, neighborhood organizations won't be able to do much. And I am not as sure as you they will dislike this project. The biggest gripe from neighborhood organizations is that well connected individuals or entities are given exemptions from the Muniicipal code. What's next? Exmptions from the Traffic code for those who can secure them?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

Unreal. Hypocrisy can be such a blind spot for people.

Oh, it's not blind PG--it's intentional!

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

...I took a walk down Polk St. last evening from CA St. to Eddy. I was astounded at both some of the new construction (mostly on the east side of the street including the Church of Christ building you are referring to)...One facadist reuse on the other end of the same block with the church particularly caught my eye but the church too is a stunner.

That's actually the historic First Congregational Church that sold its building at Post and Mason to the Academy of Art University. It's a very progressive church--Barack Obama's denomination--that is very much into working with urban problems.

[BTinSF]

Since no one else has yet posted it and I think it's important:

Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, It's Not Just For Policy Wonks Anymore



A year ago and a decade in the making, the draft Eastern Neighborhoods Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was first published. As we wrote at the time:

The plan aims to support long-term Planning Department goals such as greater density and housing affordability, and particularly attempts to better define zoning uses, especially for Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR). The plan sets out three specific plan options. According to the report "...Implementation of any one of the proposed project options would result in more housing options and a broader range of housing prices and rents, compared to conditions under the No-Project scenario."
Today, the Planning Commission is finally poised to approve said neighborhood plan (1:30 p.m. at Room 400, San Francisco City Hall). And assuming our Board of Supervisors follows suit, say hello to over a hundred new projects and thousands of new homes.

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

[c1tyguy]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Since no one else has yet posted it and I think it's important:


Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

Always curious to hear others opinions, what do you think of this Eastern Neighborhoods plan, BT?

[BTinSF]

I haven't studied it carefully enough to have much of an opinion--and I wasn't able to load it to look at it this morning because the web site seems gridlocked--but one opinion I do have is that there ought to be more housing--midrise at least--along the entire length of Third St. The notion of zoning housing out of anywhere along the new Muni Metro line (I'm speaking of the "Central Waterfront" portion now) is crazy in a very "San Francisco" way IMHO.

[Gordo]

The plan (like most things in SF) should have more "bulk" in general. More housing? Yes, but also more everything. I am certainly okay with some parts of the 3rd St line being non-housing uses - if they allow bulk in other ways. For example, if they want a parcel to remain as "light industrial", it should allow allow for a much taller building than is there now. A large grouping of jobs is just as transit-oriented as a large grouping of residences. Mixing of uses is great, but 3rd St is one stretch that I think we could really add to the City's job base too.

[c1tyguy]

An interesting quote from a SFGate article on the Eastern Neighborhood Plan:

"In some areas, in exchange for being allowed to build beyond current height limitations, developers will be required to pay additional fees or sell more affordable housing."

Sounds like a good compromise to me! Don't usually see this kind of bargaining around here.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Gordo

3rd St is one stretch that I think we could really add to the City's job base too.

I think they should put the light industry and the jobs off Third St itself. I also think that trying to keep light industrial jobs in SF is probably a losing proposition in the long run and I wonder how many people doing light industrial work can afford to live in SF any more anyway.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by c1tyguy

An interesting quote from a SFGate article on the Eastern Neighborhood Plan:

"In some areas, in exchange for being allowed to build beyond current height limitations, developers will be required to pay additional fees or sell more affordable housing."

Sounds like a good compromise to me! Don't usually see this kind of bargaining around here.

There has been such bargaining but it hasn't been official policy--more ad hoc and often at the whim of one or another supervisor. I actually do think it's a good thing to make it official policy and to encourage it. But, in the end, with every decision appealable to the Supes, everything is ultimately at their discretion.

[peanut gallery]

An article in today's Chronicle mentions sales rates at Infinity and One Rincon Hill, and contract rates at Millennium:

S.F. condominium sales strong in recent months
James Temple, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, August 8, 2008

(08-07) 20:12 PDT -- Sales of new condominiums have solidified during the last several months in San Francisco, with many high-profile projects steadily filling up, according to a report released Thursday. Not all developments are faring equally well, however.

On average, sales teams are placing about four units per month into contract, meaning buyers have submitted nonrefundable deposits, according to the Mark Co.'s August San Francisco Market Overview. That's back to the historic average, though only around half the rate during the recent real estate boom, said Alan Mark, president of the San Francisco real estate marketing and research firm.

"There is a steady pace of sales and an increase in traffic across the board," he said. "You definitely see people out there buying."

Another recent report lent weight to his view. Sales of new homes in San Francisco - which almost exclusively means condos since little else is built here - rose 18.7 percent from June 2007 to June 2008, according to research firm DataQuick Information Systems. The median price, however, fell 32.5 percent during that time to $399,000.

That points to another of the Mark Co.'s findings. The developers doing the best in this market tend to be those who are the most realistic about pricing and offer the greatest concessions, Mark said.

In the bragging rights contest between the Infinity and One Rincon Hill, two huge residential projects that both began selling in June 2006 and have come to be seen as barometers of the sector's strength, the former has now pulled ahead in terms of sales.

More than 225 condos have closed escrow in the 365-unit first phase, the cloverleaf-shaped glass tower at Folsom and Spear streets, said Carl Shannon, managing director for developer Tishman Speyer. More than half of the remaining condos are in contract.

"We're blessed to have a good project in a good location, but the thing that's most important is we're in San Francisco," Shannon said. "The foundation of the San Francisco economy, the technology business, is still good and you have good job growth in Northern California."

The sales team is closing about 50 units per month on average, a record in the city, according to Mark, who markets the building.

Buyers at One Rincon Hill, the 64-story building that soars above the western approach to the Bay Bridge, have completed the sale of 192 units in its 376-unit first phase, said Garrett Chan, vice president of sales with Pacific Marketing Associates Inc., which markets that building.

Nearly all the rest are in contract, and they've been closing at a rate of around 40 units per month, project spokesman Spencer Moore said.

The Millennium Tower, another closely watched skyscraper at First and Mission streets, didn't reach the market until more than a year after its South of Market neighbors. The team at the 419-unit building isn't closing sales yet, but since November more than 80 condos have gone into contract, a rate of about nine per month. Activity during the past four weeks has been particularly strong, said Richard Baumert, managing director with Millennium Partners.

"Since the Fourth of July, all those interested and enthusiastic buyers have moved off the sidelines and are moving into the contract process," he said.

Not all residential developments are doing nearly as well. The Mark report found that the slowest-selling projects, at a rate of one unit or less per month, were: Innovative Realty Services' 767 Bryant, Rodan LLC's Sutter Heights at 1521 Sutter St., and Signature Properties' Candlestick Cove at 101 Executive Park Blvd.

Much of the difference has to do with a given project's ZIP code, some of which have been harder hit by the subprime and foreclosures crises, Signature President Mike Ghielmetti said.

"The southern parts of the city, and we are straddling Visitacion Valley and Bayview, have seen more pronounced effects from these issues," he said.

The Heights at Candlestick, a 360-unit development set to include the Third Street corridor's first full-service grocery store, was temporarily on hold as of July, according to the report. Developer James Noteware didn't respond to an inquiry from The Chronicle, but industry sources said the delay was related to a general contractor issue, not market conditions.

At the current rate of sales, 15 of the 35 condo projects now selling in San Francisco would be filled by the end of the year. Five more would be complete by the end of the first quarter, leaving 15 open projects and very little scheduled to come onto the market in 2009.

One indicator of home sales rose in June, a rare bit of good news for the troubled market.

Note: I posted here instead of the Real Estate tidbits thread because it involves three major new projects we've been following here in the Projects & Construction section.

[peanut gallery]

That last bolded paragraph is intriguing. With current inventory selling well and very little new inventory coming online next year, I would think developers of projects like The Californian, 45 Lansing and ORH (phase II) would be motivated to get moving. I also hope it means that Tishman will move rather quickly on Infinity's sister development next door (once they have finished up Infinity of course). I'd love to see that parking lot bite the dust.

[Reminiscence]

From Socketsite.com:

In The Pipeline For First And Folsom: 550-feet And 600 Units

From JK Dineen at the San Francisco Business Times:

"The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is seeking a developer to tackle a prime 600-unit residential project at First and Folsom streets, the first step in a planned 2,600-unit highrise Transbay District the city is counting on to help pay for a new Transbay rail and bus terminal.

On Sept. 8, the agency will issue a request for proposals for Block 8, one of a dozen state-owned lots freed up when the elevated Embarcadero Freeway was knocked down after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. While nine of the 12 parcels are set to be eventually redeveloped with housing -- two will be parks and one a 700,000-square-foot office tower -- Block 8 is the boldest. It calls for a 550-foot tower reaching above two mid-rise affordable apartment buildings and a row of townhouses that will open onto Folsom Street, a thoroughfare that will eventually be reconfigured as a retail mecca with wide sidewalks, greenery and outdoor seating."

"It's a tough deal for a whole bunch of reasons," said Tony Crossley, a broker with Colliers International who has brokered a number of land deals in the area. "Construction costs are very high, condo prices and the rate of absorption are off and then you roll in the increased affordability (probably around 25 percent) and you really have to do some hard math."

Wait a second, condo prices are off?

[AndrewK]

its kinda sad that in all the years since the embarcadero freeway came down only one building (gap) has gone up in the stretch between its connection to 80 and the embarcadero, but its nice to see that will finally be changing soon.

[peanut gallery]

I walked past this lot today and noticed that they seemed to be clearing it out. It's been a storage area for Tutor-Saliba who is working on the new Bay Bridge approach. There's a lot less material than had been there and a large flatbed was hauling off another load. That and the notice in the Business Journal above are signs that the new western approach is getting close to completion.