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

[easy as pie]

^ wrong site, you're thinking of across the street. and honestly, i love the aggressive use of FAR on this site. bring it! hope the entire soma looks like this one day

[simms3_redux]

^i thought 1400 was BMR and 1415 was market? either way, as it stands now if both are bmr, one certainly looks much better than the other, and it's not the "starchitect" firm architectonica's.

Questions:

1) If this is BMR housing, why spend the insane architectural fees on a firm like Architectonica?

2) If this is the design that's going to come out of the expensive firm known as Architectonica, why use them at all? Anyone could have come up with a similar design.

3) If this is BMR/subsidized, regardless of the direct or indirect government subsidy involvement in the project, it seems to be a waste of taxpayer dollars (and in this case I include the fees that developers have to pay for low income housing to put market housing in) to use a big name firm.


Waste if there ever was one. I don't think 1415 Mission is BMR/subsidized. I think it's market rent and the developers just made a big mistake by eliminating the "boring" Heller Manus design, which also included balconies. This looks very "institutional". You couldn't pay me to live there - the simple Heller Manus design with its balconies and clean white look was much more "attractive" to me as a potential resident than this community-collegy/stereotypically subsidized housing look.

Looking way more forward to the BMR housing across the street at 1400 Mission. The renderings I've seen for that are promising (plain jane, but attractive). This, is...

[biggerhigherfaster]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

^i thought 1400 was BMR and 1415 was market? either way, as it stands now if both are bmr, one certainly looks much better than the other, and it's not the "starchitect" firm architectonica's.

Questions:

1) If this is BMR housing, why spend the insane architectural fees on a firm like Architectonica?

2) If this is the design that's going to come out of the expensive firm known as Architectonica, why use them at all? Anyone could have come up with a similar design.

3) If this is BMR/subsidized, regardless of the direct or indirect government subsidy involvement in the project, it seems to be a waste of taxpayer dollars (and in this case I include the fees that developers have to pay for low income housing to put market housing in) to use a big name firm.


Waste if there ever was one. I don't think 1415 Mission is BMR/subsidized. I think it's market rent and the developers just made a big mistake by eliminating the "boring" Heller Manus design, which also included balconies. This looks very "institutional". You couldn't pay me to live there - the simple Heller Manus design with its balconies and clean white look was much more "attractive" to me as a potential resident than this community-collegy/stereotypically subsidized housing look.

Looking way more forward to the BMR housing across the street at 1400 Mission. The renderings I've seen for that are promising (plain jane, but attractive). This, is...

Oops! Confused it with the building across the street. Carry on then...

[sahran]

This little project in SOMA broke ground. Need many more infills

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/1...nd_in_soma.php

[fflint]

Originally Posted by sahran

This little project in SOMA broke ground. Need many more infills

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2013/1...nd_in_soma.php

That's not bad looking at all.

While I'm a fan of the newest crop of big highrise condo and apartment towers, I also think small-ish infill projects like this are a great way to build a ton of new housing with minimal negative impact (and minimal opposition). They're also more likely to actually provide local workers with housing, as opposed to the much flashier trophy towers.

I've got a friend who works in the private restaurant in the Millennium, and he thinks that condo tower is rarely more than half full--globe trotters roll in for special events, but not for long. People who buy/rent units in small projects like this one here, on the other hand, are almost certainly part of the local workforce, and will likely live in them year-round. If built in sufficient numbers, these are the kinds of projects that have the actual potential to meet local demand and possibly stabilize rents/prices.

[hruski]

Originally Posted by fflint

That's not bad looking at all.

While I'm a fan of the newest crop of big highrise condo and apartment towers, I also think small-ish infill projects like this are a great way to build a ton of new housing with minimal negative impact (and minimal opposition). They're also more likely to actually provide local workers with housing, as opposed to the much flashier trophy towers.

I've got a friend who works in the private restaurant in the Millennium, and he thinks that condo tower is rarely more than half full--globe trotters roll in for special events, but not for long. People who buy/rent units in small projects like this one here, on the other hand, are almost certainly part of the local workforce, and will likely live in them year-round. If built in sufficient numbers, these are the kinds of projects that have the actual potential to meet local demand and possibly stabilize rents/prices.

These places are certainly more likely to be filled year-round by people who work in San Francisco, but let's not kid ourselves about their affordability. I'm guessing apartments in these buildings are still going to rent for $2250+/BR.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by hruski

These places are certainly more likely to be filled year-round by people who work in San Francisco, but let's not kid ourselves about their affordability. I'm guessing apartments in these buildings are still going to rent for $2250+/BR.

Oh, I didn't say units in a building like this would be affordable. I said if we build projects like these in sufficient numbers--and I think SPUR executive director Gabe Metcalf's estimate of 5,000 units per year for several years would be sufficient--there is good potential to eventually stabilize housing prices.

[cv94117]

Speaking of SPUR, there was a poster (but I can't remember if it was from Swinerton or someone else) at the Silver SPUR luncheon today showing a new clear rendering for Phase 3 of Trinity Place. Can't find it online, but all the holes are now gone. Such a disappointment.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by cv94117

Speaking of SPUR, there was a poster (but I can't remember if it was from Swinerton or someone else) at the Silver SPUR luncheon today showing a new clear rendering for Phase 3 of Trinity Place. Can't find it online, but all the holes are now gone. Such a disappointment.

Trinity had such tremendous promise. Arquitectonica's renders were truly beautiful, but Sangiacomo is a notoriously greedy turd--so it's fugly. I'm glad it's being built because we need the housing, but aesthetically it's the biggest disappointment in town.

[Jerry of San Fran]

Today I see equipment removing the asphalt at 1400 Mission. I am surprised to see both 1400 and 1415 Mission Street moving at the same time for 2 new highrise buildings! The 1400 construction project will block my view of 1415 as it rises.


1400 and 1415 Mission Street by Apollo's Light, on Flickr

[biggerhigherfaster]

Interesting and large proposal just noted on socketsite; a 350-unit building with lots of commercial space at the northeast corner of 16th and Mission (i.e., the 16th St. BART station).

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ion_parce.html

[hruski]

Originally Posted by biggerhigherfaster

Interesting and large proposal just noted on socketsite; a 350-unit building with lots of commercial space at the northeast corner of 16th and Mission (i.e., the 16th St. BART station).

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ion_parce.html

For a relatively small project, this is a huge deal. That corner rivals parts of the Tenderloin for seediest and most dangerous places in San Francisco. A medium sized market-rate development there would have a huge impact.

[fflint]

I can't think of a better place to put 351 units and a big ground-level retail space than at that 16th Street BART entrance. It's the literal definition of transit-oriented development!

[Gordo]

Wow, that's huge news. I've always imagined how awesome it would be to have actual nice buildings around 16th and Mission (and 24th and Mission for that matter). A 351 unit building would be outstanding.

[spyguy]

To add an additional four floors and 73 units

[simms3_redux]

No construction equipment yet on Block 6/7, but walking by other projects today and 350 Mission is about to go "above ground", 535 Mission is still slow and quiet and they haven't raised the crane yet (looks like they need to one of these weekends in order to build more floors), 222 Second is frantically digging and they have quite a hole there now, and Lumina's digging has to be nearly done as they are quite deep with a remaining mound of dirt in the middle. 181 Fremont has definitely commenced excavation work as well. ORH North is definitely topped off - they are building the steel structure at the top that will hold the TMD.

I noticed they took the permit signs down from the fence around the lot for 375-399 Fremont (clues as to what that could mean?), and there are no permit signs yet for 340-350 Fremont. Can someone remind me if this has been financed yet?

I saw a ton of Vote Yes on Prop B - Open Up the Waterfront (sponsored by Cahill Contractors who would build 8 Washington), so maybe that's a good thing? These are signs along streets that commuters travel on (Folsom, 2nd St, etc).

[easy as pie]

small update from around my hood:

first and best, the scaffolding is down at blanc (sutter and larkin). the photo doesn't do justice to how refined this facade is, another genius saitowitz building:




the retail spaces are being built out at this nice bit of pine street infill (between polk and larkin):


the posh condos at clay and van ness is all topped out with fenestration looking complete, should have rolled down and scored a better shot, ah well:


the pacific st project run by grosvenor is all topped out too, big changes on that street over the past year or so:

[easy as pie]

a few more from mid market, sorry for the poor photo quality, i'm a very point-and-shoot type dude.

they're finishing up interior work on the teevee station building on golden gate adjacent to hastings. looks like social housing (recall that it's market rental). can't tell yet whether i dislike it a little or a lot, it'll depend on the ground floor space, i guess, how it works with the street (right now it's a rental office but it'll eventually be a cafe).


the ava on 9th behind the dolby building is also in the interior construction phase


the market square recladding/renovation is coming along at an insane speed, didn't know that things could move this quickly in sf:




finally, the aaa building reno continues apace

[spyguy]

Came across these renderings for 350 Bush on The CAC Group website, can't recall ever seeing them before.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Came across these renderings for 350 Bush on The CAC Group website, can't recall ever seeing them before.

This project has been on hold for years--another version of it was approved prior to the financial meltdown. It's tied into constructing a small building on the northwest corner of Pine and Kearny that would have an extension of Saint Mary's Square on its roof. I have really wanted to see this done for years, both to extend the park (getting rid of that vacant pigeon infested lot) and to preserve the historic Mining Exchange temple, thus getting rid of the second vacant lot that extends from Bush to Pine behind the Russ Building. Demand in the north/traditional Financial District has obviously not been that great. I was wondering lately if the larger building could fly if it were converted to a residential tower.