HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


    One Oak in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram

Map Location
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2018, 11:22 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
it never penciled out as designed.

they'll probably ask for more height to help it pencil now that the rest of the "hub" is being upzoned.
The longer this project (or any project) gets delayed, the more likely construction cost estimates will increase. Design costs may also increase, if they need to consider a another redesign. But you're right, it will need to pencil out right for the actual time whatever gets built, and whoever is going to build it.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...-van-ness.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2018, 8:57 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Was not “penciling out” or increased construction cost really the issue here? I mean loads of other towers seem to have gotten built since this one was first proposed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2018, 5:15 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Was not “penciling out” or increased construction cost really the issue here? I mean loads of other towers seem to have gotten built since this one was first proposed.
A highly prominent and windy location could have been contributing factors? Perhaps, the desire for higher quality design and special concerns for wind may have driven the cost up more than originally anticipated? Whatever the reasons, I’m guessing it may have something to do with the uniqueness of this location, and the extra time and cost involved in arriving at a feasible approved design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2018, 5:48 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,071
It also doesn’t work out too well if you’re being pressured to value engineer the design and the results would be undesirable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2018, 6:56 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
The costs should go down when the current building boom is over and the demand for both labor and materials slackens. The thing is, though: Will whoever owns the site and entitlement at that point be smart enough to anticipate the upturn and start the project when the economic situation looks bleak so as to be able to market it into the recovery?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2020, 7:41 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
Delayed.

Quote:
Soaring Van Ness high-rise delayed yet again
400 homes are ready to start construction, but the developer wants to wait another two years
By Adam Brinklow Jan 16, 2020, 8:58am PST



If you’ve been wondering whatever happened to that brash, 400-foot tall tower planned for the base of Van Ness Avenue, well, keep wondering.

It’s been more than two years since City Hall approved the residential high-rise at One Oak. But in that time, the building has yet to take root and start construction, even as similar buildings have sprouted on surrounding blocks.

Now it looks like developers plan to wait even longer, asking for a two-year extension on their entitlements this week, which are set to expire in the next six months.

Once upon a time, Hayes Valley-based developer BUILD Inc. hoped to begin construction on the 319-home, 40-story Snøhetta-designed building in 2018 with a completion date of 2019.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 5:13 AM
38R 38R is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: The TL
Posts: 290
donuts forever!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 9:13 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
I would like to see the city deny the approval extension. I think it's a problem that developers can tie up these parcels indefinitely with extension after extension. The limits put on the approvals mean nothing in a city that needs the housing these projects represent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 4:41 PM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I would like to see the city deny the approval extension. I think it's a problem that developers can tie up these parcels indefinitely with extension after extension. The limits put on the approvals mean nothing in a city that needs the housing these projects represent.
I concur. The market is somewhat “softening” and if approved, this would be the 3rd? Extension for this project. My fear is, the City will take it over and build a blah 10 story building for BMRs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2020, 4:45 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I would like to see the city deny the approval extension. I think it's a problem that developers can tie up these parcels indefinitely with extension after extension. The limits put on the approvals mean nothing in a city that needs the housing these projects represent.
The problem is that denying the extension wouldn’t exactly free up the parcel let alone generate increased interest to build there. It would basically just delay any possible future project by the multi-year long process of all over again.

The big issue is, as we all know, that it’s too expensive to build and win at the moment. What’s strange though is that there are a few other projects on this very intersection that haven’t even gotten approvals but still seem to be moving forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2020, 2:31 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
One Oak developer nears deal with investor, gets more time to start 40-story highrise
By Laura Waxmann – Real Estate Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Jan 16, 2020, 5:58pm PST Updated Jan 17, 2020, 9:31am PST

The developer of the 318-unit One Oak project envisioned to rise at Van Ness Avenue and Oak Street told the San Francisco Planning Commission on Thursday that it's close to a deal with a potential investor.

The update came as the commission extended the project’s entitlements — which were valid for three years and would have expired in June — for an additional two years . . . .

Build also filed an application with the Planning Department to keep operating a temporary parking lot on the site for the next five years . . . .

The commission granted the extension of the entitlements unanimously, expressing support for the project, and urged the developers to move forward with construction quickly.

“We spent a lot of time and energy on the project design and transportation management issues. I am fully supportive and I really want you to build it and go forward,” said Commissioner Myrna Melgar . . . .

Members of the public who spoke in support of the project expressed concerns that a sale of the entitlements could precede construction.

The information in the press is that they are looking to sell the entitlements — from my experience looking to sell entitlements has done nothing but raise the value of projects,” said a supporter of the project. “I do hope it gets built.”

(Build responded) “We now have an investor in contract — one condition in closing is that we extend the entitlements because we could not pull a site permit,” he said.

While the start of construction could take another two years, businesses on the site such as the All Star Cafe — a bakery known for its donuts — stand to benefit from the extension.

Have there been any negotiations [with the All Star Cafe]? As a member of the public I’m very nostalgic about it — it’s where all the city workers go. Also a lot of neighbors who are without homes get coffee there,” said Melgar. “It's one of those places where all of San Francisco congregates — the rich and poor and in between.”

(Build) told the Business Times that (it) plans to talk to All Star Cafe about going to some space, either at the project site or in kiosk on Oak Street . . . .
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...stor-gets.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2021, 9:15 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 690
Another sign of life? From SocketSite:

Quote:
Plans for Approved One Oak Tower Are Being Revised

With the entitlements for the tower having been extended, but now slated to expire next June, a revision to the approved plans has been requested by Build Inc.

And if approved, the unit count for the tower would increase from 319 to 453, with a mix of 112 studios, 157 one-bedrooms, 160 twos and 24 threes, within a “slightly modified building form.”
SocketSite
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2021, 10:51 PM
theskysthelimit theskysthelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
Another sign of life? From SocketSite:



SocketSite
Sounds like they are just trying to prolong this project. Maybe even appease people by stating they want to add more housing. Either way, IMO, they should not grant an extension beyond June and set a final date to start construction or lose entitlements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2021, 11:12 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by theskysthelimit View Post
Sounds like they are just trying to prolong this project. Maybe even appease people by stating they want to add more housing. Either way, IMO, they should not grant an extension beyond June and set a final date to start construction or lose entitlements.
Doesn't seem like they are adding MORE housing--just changing the mix from larger units with 2 or more bedrooms to smaller ones, studios and one bedrooms. To actually add housing they'd have to make the building taller (we should be so lucky).

I'm suspicious of their motives too but it doesn't seem likely any other developer would be anxious to build on that site now so I'm not too annoyed by stalling tactics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2021, 6:13 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
Another sign of life? From SocketSite:
SocketSite
More (that I missed earlier):

Quote:
Proposed 41-story S.F. luxury condo tower seeks OK to add 150 units
By Laura Waxmann – Staff Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Jul 30, 2021 Updated Aug 3, 2021, 5:48pm PDT

Early last year, the developer of a condo tower slated to rise at the intersection of Oak Street and Van Ness Avenue was granted a two-year extension on the project’s entitlements until June 2022. Now it is seeking approvals to increase the project.

One Oak, located at 1500-1540 Market St. at the cusp of Hayes Valley and the Mid-Market neighborhood, was approved in mid-2017 as a $400 million iconic project with 304 residential units and 40 stories.

An application filed with the San Francisco Planning Department on Thursday indicates that developer Build Inc. wants to add one floor and more units to the tower, bringing the unit count to 453, within a slightly modified building form. The change would require new entitlements for the project — including a public hearing — according to a spokesperson for the department.

Build’s principal and founding partner, Lou Vazquez, indicated in January 2020 that financing was an issue. He said at the time that company was involved in talks with an investor . . . .

The project application filed on Wednesday calls for 492,349 square feet of residential uses; a 3,155-square-foot commercial space; 9,181 square feet of open space and 113 parking spaces. Proposed are a mix of 112 studio; 157 one-bedroom units; 160 two-bedroom; and 24 three-bedroom units . . . .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2021, 8:04 AM
unpermitted_variance unpermitted_variance is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Oakland
Posts: 113
Via Socketsite, new modifications revealed:

Quote:
...with the entitlements for the tower slated to expire anew next June, having originally been set to expire last year but successfully extended by Build without breaking ground, a revision to the approved plans has been requested.

The proposed revision would increase the unit count for the tower from 319 to 453 units, primarily by reducing the average unit size from 1,030 to 791 square feet, within a “slightly modified building form” ...



The approved plans for the signature Oak Plaza at the base of the tower, which had been designed by Snøhetta, have been “slightly modified” as well:




And no, a building permit for the modified tower has yet to be requested nor has a demolition permit for the site.


Was a barely passable design to begin with, now it's downright bad. Public plaza slaughtered as well. At least it seems unlikely to get built...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2021, 6:41 PM
tall/awkward tall/awkward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 175
...ugh...even the windows look cheap...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2021, 7:14 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
I never cared for the idea of a "public plaza" at that location. It's bound to just become a gathering place for the homeless like UN Plaza down the street.

And while I prefer the old design, as long as they don't shorten it, I'll take it if they can actually build it. This lot needs to be developed to complete "the Hub" and it's the perfect place for as much density as the city can politically accept. The new design, putting more, smaller units, at the location is denser which is good.

It's also noteworthy that the developer is now Build, Inc., the same developer whose project at 469 Stevenson was just torpedoed by the BOS with much fanfare and recriminations. If Build can't do that one, maybe they'll do this one and quite possibly the politicians won't have the guts to provoke another firestorm by blocking it or cutting it back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2021, 7:21 PM
Jerry of San Fran's Avatar
Jerry of San Fran Jerry of San Fran is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,552
THE UNDEAD! Gawd only knows what the final product will look like. In the beginning it was a very exciting design. This important location should have better architecture. I have my doubts that a tall building will ever be built at this location.
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza 52nd year resident in 2023 - (the building everyone loves to hate :------>))
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Oct 30, 2021, 9:59 PM
hruski hruski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 165
Off-topic, but does anyone else find socketsite's editorial style aggravating? Each sentence begins with about 3 prepositional phrases, and the lede of each post tends to be buried about 3/4 of the way in.
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 > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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