SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed - Page 201

viewguysf · #**4001** Posted **Aug 30, 2012, 6:25 AM**

Thank you all for getting around to so many areas with excellent coverage, including the Polk Street area earlier! I've been travelling around South of Market, Civic Center and my Market Street corridor a lot lately and it's astonishing at how much activity has skyrocketed in the last year.

LosAngelesSportsFan · #**4002** Posted **Aug 30, 2012, 6:30 AM**

Looking good SF! some great infill projects starting in your fair city to the north. I didnt realize that the Warriors arena was already starting. When is it supposed to open?

Also, can anyone fill me in on SF city parking min / max requirements?

peanut gallery · #**4003** Posted **Aug 30, 2012, 5:03 PM**

^It hasn't started yet and there's a long process of approvals to go before it can. Those tents are for the America's Cup races. SF has no minimum parking requirement and maximum caps vary by neighborhood. I believe they generally vary from .5:1 to .75:1, but someone else probably can characterize it more accurately or confirm.

peanut gallery · #**4004** Posted **Aug 30, 2012, 5:13 PM**

This is what I feared when 8 Washington opponents were able to gather enough signatures to put it on the ballot. You have to consider the group behind the polling, but I have no trouble believing that this is at least close to the mark. Personally, I feel this project is dead (not officially, but I think it's just a matter of time).

Quote:

8 Washington: Supervisor Olague Votes Herself out of Favor
SF Weekly
By Joe Eskenazi
Wednesday, Aug 29 2012

Denizens of landlocked District 5 may not be able to locate 8 Washington Street. But, wherever it is, they're against it.

A poll commissioned by the group that qualified a referendum against the proposed luxury waterfront condo tower claims city residents oppose the development by more than a 2-to-1 ratio. But in left-friendly, tenant-heavy District 5, 8 Washington is reviled at a 5-to-1 clip. "It's political dynamite citywide," says former Supervisor Aaron Peskin, a fervid 8 Washington opponent. "But it's nuclear dynamite in District 5."

Source: SF Weekly

philiprsf · #**4005** Posted **Aug 30, 2012, 8:06 PM**

If I'm not mistaken, John King did a review of the St Regis a number of years ago, and wrote that the building would have looked better if it had been taller. I remember agreeing with him on that one, as it's definitely a bit stumpy-looking as built.

tech12 · #**4006** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 2:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

This is what I feared when 8 Washington opponents were able to gather enough signatures to put it on the ballot.

The annoying thing is that tons of the signatures were gathered far, far, away from where 8 Washington is (i read that many votes were gathered in the mission district for example), and many of them were gathered through misleading explanations, with claims that the embarcadero will be destroyed with a giant wall (not true, at all), or that this project is bad because it's not affordable and is yet another step in pushing poor people out of SF (no one is gonna get pushed out of a tennis club, because no one lives there, and of course something in that prime downtown location will not be affordable), or that it would greatly increase traffic (laughable), or some such nonsense.

viewguysf · #**4007** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 2:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

The annoying thing is that tons of the signatures were gathered far, far, away from where 8 Washington is (i read that many votes were gathered in the mission district for example), and many of them were gathered through misleading explanations, with claims that the embarcadero will be destroyed with a giant wall (not true, at all), or that this project is bad because it's not affordable and is yet another step in pushing poor people out of SF (no one is gonna get pushed out of a tennis club, because no one lives there, and of course something in that prime downtown location will not be affordable), or that it would greatly increase traffic (laughable), or some such nonsense.

I've given up on 8 Washington and moved on--it's totally irrelevant to San Francisco in the scheme of things. Bring on the Transbay Tower and bigger fish!

tall/awkward · #**4008** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 6:14 AM**

I agree with viewguy; I'm looking forward to bigger fish! Even the second Rincon tower is exciting to me. Let's not forget: back in the late 80s/early 90s, buildings of 500-1000 feet were unfathomable, and now we're right on the brink of several of them!

I also agree with Philip that John King can be fair, though he's clearly not as big a big project fan as most of us...

CyberEric · #**4009** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 9:10 AM**

Indeed, forget 8 Washington, it wasn't all that exciting to me anyway.

John King is off here, but I think he has been right before and I think his commentary is important, regardless of what he thinks on this issue.

markermiller · #**4010** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 7:07 PM**

It's been a long time since I've posted here (although I still read). I've got to say I disagree with the several comments about "moving on" from 8 Washington (although I'm sure it's personally a lot healthier than what I do!) For me, it's just too important an issue, and the (typical) opposition has in this case been completely dishonorable.

Anyway, here's what I sent several Supervisors yesterday:

Supervisors Kim, Olague, Mar,

I am not a professional planner, developer, or in any way connected to the 8 Washington project. I've lived in San Francisco for 32 years and have rented the same flat off Dolores Park for the past 22.

While not a professional, as an avid student of Jane Jacobs I have always been very interested in urban development, and have followed it for many years in SF. For all the reasons carefully outlined in a Chronicle article (April 23, 2012; copied below) + much more, I urge you to not change your vote on this project. Please, please do not let the standard politics of the City's anti-development people kill this long (long!) evolving development!

Most San Franciscans barely pay any kind of attention to matters such as this... relying instead on the catchwords and cliches of ideologues such as Aaron Peskin, Sue Hester, and now Jon Gollinger. And so when citizens hear "don't build a WALL on the Embarcadero!!!, our course they'll oppose it. But it is the job of City Supervisors to study things in detail, be judicious, and not be swayed by obvious misinformation. (How many of the thousands of people manipulated into signing on to oppose this project do you think will really dislike it, once it's built? I think very, very few.)

Before voting next week, please just take a quick look again (below) at the things that recommend this project. It's important... 8 Washington probably will determine how well the City's waterfront is developed and maintained in the next generation, plus: the City needs more precious open space and housing (of all kinds) -especially downtown!

Mark Miller,
San Francisco

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openfo...#ixzz254X9MbtZ

I developed this to send along with the letter:

peanut gallery · #**4011** Posted **Aug 31, 2012, 10:10 PM**

Hear, hear! Great letter, Mark! Your third paragraph really says it all. I can't imagine your average person seeing this after it was completed and thinking: gee, I wish that was a stretch of chain link fence and a surface lot instead.

It's not going to make a big difference on a macro scale, but look at the pictures Mark posted. That is a dead section of the Embarcadero. With some public space, retail and a few more residents right on the street it will come alive. Visually, it fits in perfectly and will be a huge improvement to that part of the waterfront, IMHO. I also think developments like this incrementally add to the overall appeal of the city, making it a more desirable place to live and visit. Thus, though it's not the most important proposal in the city, it does fill a significant gap on the Embarcadero (quite well, in fact) and I think it's a really great opportunity that seems will be missed.

Oh well, I'll let it go like I let go of 555 Washington and others before it. I'll try not to beat a dead horse!

1977 · #**4012** Posted **Sep 1, 2012, 12:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markermiller

It's been a long time since I've posted here (although I still read). I've got to say I disagree with the several comments about "moving on" from 8 Washington (although I'm sure it's personally a lot healthier than what I do!) For me, it's just too important an issue, and the (typical) opposition has in this case been completely dishonorable.

Anyway, here's what I sent several Supervisors yesterday:

Supervisors Kim, Olague, Mar,

I am not a professional planner, developer, or in any way connected to the 8 Washington project. I've lived in San Francisco for 32 years and have rented the same flat off Dolores Park for the past 22.

While not a professional, as an avid student of Jane Jacobs I have always been very interested in urban development, and have followed it for many years in SF. For all the reasons carefully outlined in a Chronicle article (April 23, 2012; copied below) + much more, I urge you to not change your vote on this project. Please, please do not let the standard politics of the City's anti-development people kill this long (long!) evolving development!

Most San Franciscans barely pay any kind of attention to matters such as this... relying instead on the catchwords and cliches of ideologues such as Aaron Peskin, Sue Hester, and now Jon Gollinger. And so when citizens hear "don't build a WALL on the Embarcadero!!!, our course they'll oppose it. But it is the job of City Supervisors to study things in detail, be judicious, and not be swayed by obvious misinformation. (How many of the thousands of people manipulated into signing on to oppose this project do you think will really dislike it, once it's built? I think very, very few.)

Before voting next week, please just take a quick look again (below) at the things that recommend this project. It's important... 8 Washington probably will determine how well the City's waterfront is developed and maintained in the next generation, plus: the City needs more precious open space and housing (of all kinds) -especially downtown!

Mark Miller,
San Francisco

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openfo...#ixzz254X9MbtZ

I developed this to send along with the letter:

Thanks Mark! IMO, a logical (something SF can lack from time to time) and well written outlook on this non-issue that's become an issue. If greed is the fuel for both sides, then I'd much rather side with the developers on this one and actually get something out of it - open space, restaurants, and an overall 'polish' for that stretch of the Embarcadero.

timbad · #**4013** Posted **Sep 3, 2012, 6:19 AM**

just so we don't lose track of this one, went by 5th and Folsom today...

first, this is the future fire station across Folsom from the project. the station is to replace the one that will be eliminated with the MOMA expansion:

this is looking north across the west side of the site from Folsom:

looking toward the northeast corner from Folsom:

looking back toward the southeast corner (5th and Folsom) from Clementina:

the separate project on 5th between Clementina and Tehama is also underway, but the site just looks mostly like clutter at the moment. you can see a little of it in this shot looking south on 5th:

with these projects, the 5M Project, the UOP Dental Building, and the Mint Museum, Fifth Street between Market and Folsom (south of there is still kinda dicey) will be a completely different place than its recent past

CyberEric · #**4014** Posted **Sep 3, 2012, 9:02 AM**

I forgot about 5, that sounds likes it's going to be amazing.

Thanks for the shots here, and of 350 Mission.

timbad · #**4015** Posted **Sep 3, 2012, 6:56 PM**

also, 333 Harrison's burka is starting to come off:

here is the front:

Jerry of San Fran · #**4016** Posted **Sep 4, 2012, 3:10 AM**

Timbad - nice update - I have not been in that area for a very long time and am amazed at the changes already happening! I trust the apartments across the street from the fire station will have double paned windows to insulate from the noise of the sirens.

And I see a sex shop across the street from the fire station - I wonder if that will go as the neighborhood changes - it has been there for many years.

minesweeper · #**4017** Posted **Sep 4, 2012, 7:03 PM**

The 6/71 inbound Muni stop at Page/Franklin is going to be discontinued from Sept. 1 to Dec. 1 due to construction.

1977 · #**4018** Posted **Sep 5, 2012, 12:17 AM**

The Target sign went up at the 'new' Metreon:

Source: www.rinconhillsf.org

Quote:

On Wednesday evening (August 29, 2012), a big truck pulled up in front of the Metreon on 4th Street with some new signage. Two red semi-circles and a dot – Target’s trademark bulls-eye! The store is getting ready to tentatively open on October 14, 2012! I’m so excited!

More pics and article: http://www.rinconhillsf.org/yerba-bu...t-the-metreon/

Also, thanks for the pictures timbad!

Jerry of San Fran · #**4019** Posted **Sep 5, 2012, 7:27 AM**

Trinity Place tower II construction is now visible from my apartment. It will be about 3 stories shorter than tower I to the east. The blue mechanism on the right is for pumping concrete.

peanut gallery · #**4020** Posted **Sep 5, 2012, 4:07 PM**

Thanks for the updates, guys!

I hadn't really thought about it before, but 5M will create a little highrise cluster around the Intercontinental. In fact, that one tower is right across the street. That should be a nice improvement.

Also, it looks like I'll have to keep beating a certain almost-dead horse: The BOS vote on 8 Washington didn't change last night, still 8-3 in favor. So it looks like it's going to the ballot unless the developer gives up. If it does go through, I'm very curious to see how the measure will be worded. Some of the Sups mentioned the utterly misleading and one-sided nature of the signature gathering effort (which is frankly to be expected). That won't happen in an actual vote.