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

[condodweller]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I think that there has been a considerable amount of self justification on the last two pages. As a fan of highrises, skyscrapers and architecture in general, I think that destroying views does matter. The idea that it's a "select few" is a gross untruth. The observation deck on Twin Peaks is loosing its view of the Bay Bridge, as are Dolores Park and many other areas. THIS MATTERS!

Very well said! Vistas of the bay, the bridges, the hills, the lesser cities across the bay , are all part of what makes this city so graphic, and they are being lost from a lot of public spaces. Quite honestly, I think this city is less beautiful than it was 10 years ago, and the only reason for it is that some of the buildings that have gone up are misplaced, plain, ugly, or all three. I know this is an unpopular stance, but for god's sake we really need to stop making everything out of blue and green glass -- we're starting to look like Houston!

[condodweller]

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

Views are nice, but is that what's important in having a socially diverse, economically robust and environmentally focus city?
We need more housing by increasing density in neighborhoods and build tall buildings to support the high housing demand. Limiting housing will only drive the housing prices even higher. It is already unaffordable for middle income people. We need to support job growth in downtown by building more office space for companies to expand or relocate to SF. We can't depend on tourisim as our main business, we need a diversified economy. We have to think about the future and our environment by stopping sprawl and concentrate population and job growth in built areas.

Views from Bay Bridge and Twin Peaks will still be spectacular even with tall new buildings. We can't build a city based on an observation deck in Twins Peak loosing some of its Bay Bridge view or a tenant in Telegraph Hill complaining about a five story office building on a pier. This city should be beyond that, we have bigger, more important issues to address.

I apologize if it sounds like a rant.

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable. Considering that we have only recently slightly surpassed SF's population peak of the early 1950s (just before the big Suburban exodus), I don't really buy the oft repeated mantra "we need more housing" -- affordable housing, perhaps, but downtown highrise condos? This isn't a trickle-down thing, either --the people that are moving into the Rincon are not leaving behind empty affordable spaces in the Mission or the Tenderloin, they're selling off swank pads in Pacific Heights, or moving here from out of town (or just buying a "pied au terre" for their annual visit). The way I see it, downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space! Limiting more such structures does not in any way affect affordable housing.

To which I add that I agree that we need to bring more business into town, and as long as there is demand, we may as well build more office space. But there's a lot more to it than that -- many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay. After 100 years in SF, AAA just announced that it will sell its buildings on VanNess (now that the area is zoned for taller development), and move to Walnut Creek, taking 1200 employees with them. BofA preceded them, as well as Fireman's Fund, and other big employers. My guess is that affordable housing in the city is moot to their employees, who will now worry about affordable housing elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

End Rant.

[BigKidD]

Originally Posted by condodweller

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable. Considering that we have only recently slightly surpassed SF's population peak of the early 1950s (just before the big Suburban exodus), I don't really buy the oft repeated mantra "we need more housing" -- affordable housing, perhaps, but downtown highrise condos? This isn't a trickle-down thing, either --the people that are moving into the Rincon are not leaving behind empty affordable spaces in the Mission or the Tenderloin, they're selling off swank pads in Pacific Heights, or moving here from out of town (or just buying a "pied au terre" for their annual visit). The way I see it, downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space! Limiting more such structures does not in any way affect affordable housing.

To which I add that I agree that we need to bring more business into town, and as long as there is demand, we may as well build more office space. But there's a lot more to it than that -- many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay. After 100 years in SF, AAA just announced that it will sell its buildings on VanNess (now that the area is zoned for taller development), and move to Walnut Creek, taking 1200 employees with them. BofA preceded them, as well as Fireman's Fund, and other big employers. My guess is that affordable housing in the city is moot to their employees, who will now worry about affordable housing elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

End Rant.

Well, I think you answered the question yourself- "many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay." Also, the East Bay and Peninsula are in my opinion cheaper places to run a business and businesses that moved out of the City don't have to put up with the Progressive politics of the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor either in their new environments. Furthermore, for example, I believe Chevron moved to San Ramon in order to consolidate their work force in the Bay Area and of course save money. I would say money is the bottom line for the move of businesses, and why run a big business in SF when you can just run it fine in another part of the Bay Area?

The Giants plan for the fan parking is quite interesting. Hopefully something decent ends up on that plot of land.

[murrax]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

Thats an awesome photo. The perfect vantage point for viewing the growing skyline. Is it available in a higher resolution?

Agree what a great photo. Says alot for the Trans America building, it still catches your eyes at first glance ,until the new Pelli Clarke building rises which will catch the eye from sheer dominance rather than beauty.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by condodweller

downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space . . . . many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay.

That is happening all over America--even in New York (where they are moving to New Jersey and southern Connecticut). It makes no economic sense to have anybody from a corporate HQ except the executive suite housed in a downtown highrise--and that's true in every city. The per sq. ft cost is just too high. There are just a few kinds of folks that need or want to be downtown: The highly paid and those who provide services to them plus some industries mainly employing the young, single and highly talented (like software and graffic design) In SF, that means mostly the top tier of corporate execs, lawyers and financial firms in the highrises (the others prefer funkier space).

But there is no displacement going on. We don't lack office space because we are putting housing downtown. There's no unmet demand for office space but if there were, there are plenty of opportunities to build more (even within the 900,000 sq ft per year cap--from which housing is exempt).

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by condodweller

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable.......
...... We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

All housing types is needed to meet demand. But I agree with you, it would be best to build more housing in residential areas. There's so many places where we can increase density like along transit corridors: Geary, Mission, West Portal, Market, Third, etc. But there's always opposition: gentrification, traffic, it lower my house value(most selfish reason), not in my... How do we get the city and it's people more supportive of the idea? It's our city's social and environmental duty.

Regarding business, we need to look at New York and see what they are doing right. What city policy is driving them away...did it start with Prop M and other anti-business initiatives?

[northbay]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

There's no unmet demand for office space but if there were, there are plenty of opportunities to build more (even within the 900,000 sq ft per year cap--from which housing is exempt).

there has been a trend where big corporations move their HQs away from city centers. sf has been hit by a loss of the financial market.

ur right here. there are plenty of opportunities for office. especially if the transbay terminal is built. there should be some mix of residential and commercial so downtown doesnt die at night. thats just asking for crime.

i agree with condodweller too that more housing is needed in sf's residential areas. sf has a dire need for housing everywhere. i think some of the mid-rise construction along VAN NESS is a good example.

[SFView]

The trend to build more residential and less office high-rises is common in many major cities across the United States. As other here have pointed out, it is the nature of current economics. Most usually these residential high-rises are built near downtown office centers, often on underdeveloped sites or in areas where it makes most sense environmentally, politically, and financially. Building higher density residential along major transit corridors outside financial centers also may make sense, but may be secondary, since such development is more likely to trigger local opposition. Buildings along transit corridors also may be more limited in height and density, but such development can still occur if most of the right conditions are satisfied. As residential density increases, demand of office space may increase related to proximity or accessibility by foot or transit. Other than these areas mentioned, most residential areas that are already well established, that do not already contain higher density mid and high-rises, will more likely oppose higher density housing to be built.

Generally, the development that we are seeing in many large cities in the United States is pretty much occurring where, and to the extent it is most practical to do so currently, but the conditions for development will continue to change through time.

[BTinSF]

S.F. housing boom moves to Van Ness
2,000 units already in pipeline
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

A residential revolution is revving up along San Francisco's automobile row.

As part of Highway 101, Van Ness Avenue has always been more about cars than people. Despite several isolated housing projects in the 1980s and 1990s, its automobile showrooms and snarled traffic have been the antithesis of the ideal of a quaint, walkable San Francisco neighborhood.

But with developer-friendly zoning, decent public transit, and land prices that are cheaper than other downtown areas, the avenue has become a hot spot with builders jockeying for housing sites, according to architects, builders and brokers.

"If you look up and down Van Ness, somebody is working on a residential development on virtually every corner," said Paul Zeger of Pacific Marketing.

A half-dozen housing projects are under construction or recently finished, including 130-unit Symphony Towers at 724 Van Ness Ave., a 54-unit 818 Van Ness Ave., a 50-unit project at 77 Van Ness, and a 29-condo building at Greenwich and Van Ness. A half a block off of Van Ness, at 1 Polk St., Anka Development is nearing completion on the 179-unit Argenta. Elsewhere, AF Evans is planning 282 units on a large lot at Pine and Van Ness, and Bayrock Residential has entitlements to develop 107 units and a Trader Joe's at the old Galaxy Theater on the corner of Van Ness and Sutter.

Taken together, more than 2,000 housing units are in the pipeline along Van Ness, with another 1,000 likely to be built at the four corners of Van Ness and Market streets.

Planning pays off

From a city planning perspective, the burst of residential activity has been a long time coming. In 1989, the city passed the Van Ness corridor plan, which changed the zoning from commercial to "commercial/residential." The plan also raised height limits to 80 feet in some parts of the avenue and 130 feet elsewhere. Gabriel Metcalf, executive director of the urban think tank San Francisco Planning and Urban Research, said the 20-year-old Van Ness plan serves as the model for city's "better neighborhood" planning process.

"What we are seeing now is, through several real estate cycles, that plan continuing to be built out," said Metcalf. "Van Ness proved the value of neighborhood planning in the sense that we are not fighting about each individual project because we did the work up front."

Van Ness may also be benefitting from planning gridlock elsewhere. With the Eastern Neighborhood planning process still contentious and bogged down after eight years, and Market Octavia plan still stuck in committee debate, Van Ness is one of the few centrally located parts of town where dirt can be moved, according to Chris Foley, a principal with the Polaris Group, which does condo sales and works with developers to secure sites and entitlements.

"I think when SoMa and the Eastern neighborhoods got shut down there was less of a battle to do entitlements on Van Ness, so people migrated there," said Foley.

Another factor is price. As international developers like Tishman Speyer and Millennium Partners have scrambled to out-deluxe the last luxury tower, local entrepreneurial builders have been priced out of Mission Bay, SoMa and Rincon Hill. Smaller builders are looking for "a transaction, not for a luxury building that will cost $1,000 a square foot," according to Handel Architect's Glenn Rescalvo, who designed the Millennium Tower and the Four Seasons. "There is that whole $700-a-square-foot market that people want to tap into. I think that is where Van Ness is starting to head."

Rescalvo is working on one development on Van Ness and has a client pursuing several other sites.

"There is obviously a shift from these big buildings downtown, which take a lot of time and a lot more money," said Rescalvo. "The Van Ness Corridor from Market Street all the way to the bay is really starting to pick up some energy."

Van Ness Avenue could also benefit from the proposed "Bus Rapid Transit," which would dedicate a lane of traffic to buses and also green the street with wider landscaped median strips.

Staking a claim

As builders and brokers made millions by staking an early claim in SoMa and Mission Bay, the same is happening on Van Ness. One city brokerage, the Paragon Real Estate Group, is placing a big bet on the avenue. A fund put together by principals at Paragon, which has 130 brokers, shelled out $5 million for 1400 Van Ness, a historic former auto showroom which used to house the Good Guys electronics store. Paragon will use most of the building for its brokerage and develop a cafe on the street, according to Robert Dadurka, a principal of the Paragon Real Estate Group.

"We really wanted to be in the center of a lot of development action, and we really feel the city's next wave of development will be along Van Ness," said Dadurka.

The bullishness is also being driven by the hospital California Pacific Medical Center's plans to build at 1101 Van Ness. CPMC has also bought 1100 Van Ness for medical offices. Paragon Van Ness specialist Jay Pon expects that full-city-block development to attract doctors' offices, drive rents up and create new housing demands along with a new community.

"Twenty years from now, all the single or two-unit buildings will be gone," predicts Pon. "Van Ness will be more of a New York, cosmopolitan place to live, with groceries, transportation and health care all in one central location."

Architect Warner Schmalz of Forum Design has also carved out a niche on the avenue. Schmalz has four projects along Van Ness, including 1400 Van Ness, 77 Van Ness, and 818 Van Ness. He says 1400 Van Ness "will be exquisitely converted like the Avenue's Maybecks that house the Jaguar showroom and the AMC Theatre" at 1000 Van Ness. The design will feature a two-story glass and stone staircase rising in the lobby.

"It's a great part of the city and is really becoming a meld of high-intensity commercial and high-intensity residential," said Schmalz. "There are a lot of good bones along that street from the post-earthquake period and a lot of dreadful architecture as well. I think you're going to see a lot of new, appropriate building."

Measuring sales

The question of how well housing will sell on Van Ness remains to be seen, especially given the weak housing market. Symphony Towers, the largest Van Ness development now being sold, has 67 units in contract or closed, according to Zeger of Pacific Marketing, which is doing sales and marketing for the project. Zeger said sales are better than expected, and the studios starting below $400,000 and one bedrooms below $500,000 are attracting a lot of first-time homebuyers. The 67 units sold include the 16 below-market-rate units and reflect about seven market-rate sales a month since opening day, fairly slow sales, according to Socketsite, the real estate web site that closely tracks sales in all city condo projects.

But Zeger says half sold is not bad for a project that opened Feb. 8 and he is not worried.

"The services are there, the transportation is there, and even though you get some great views, it's still not priced like highrises downtown," said Zeger. "There is a big audience that doesn't want to pay the luxury prices downtown that is underserved."

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...ml?t=printable

I would add that Opera Plaza has only a few units for sale and prices seem to be holding up pretty well.

[SFView]

Aha, there we go! Like I said, "...when the right conditions are satisfied." It looks like Van Ness is the place for new residential development for awhile.

[northbay]

^ haha. good article. thanks bt.

Originally Posted by northbay420

sf has a dire need for housing everywhere. i think some of the mid-rise construction along VAN NESS is a good example.

(i wrote that b4 seeing the article btw)

[peanut gallery]

Sure you did...

Good call, BTW.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by condodweller

Oh, what the heck, I'll join you with an opposing rant, which actually will have nothing to do with views

Affordable housing would be more likely attained through construction of more low and mid-rises in residential areas -- the stuff being build downtown is nowhere near affordable. Considering that we have only recently slightly surpassed SF's population peak of the early 1950s (just before the big Suburban exodus), I don't really buy the oft repeated mantra "we need more housing" -- affordable housing, perhaps, but downtown highrise condos? This isn't a trickle-down thing, either --the people that are moving into the Rincon are not leaving behind empty affordable spaces in the Mission or the Tenderloin, they're selling off swank pads in Pacific Heights, or moving here from out of town (or just buying a "pied au terre" for their annual visit). The way I see it, downtown highrise dwellers are just taking up what could be perfectly good, productive office space! Limiting more such structures does not in any way affect affordable housing.

To which I add that I agree that we need to bring more business into town, and as long as there is demand, we may as well build more office space. But there's a lot more to it than that -- many major businesses have left town for the more friendly environs of the Peninsula and the East Bay. After 100 years in SF, AAA just announced that it will sell its buildings on VanNess (now that the area is zoned for taller development), and move to Walnut Creek, taking 1200 employees with them. BofA preceded them, as well as Fireman's Fund, and other big employers. My guess is that affordable housing in the city is moot to their employees, who will now worry about affordable housing elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves, in the midst of our dizzyng building frenzy, what is this city doing to drive these employers away? It might help us with planning ahead.

End Rant.

Not to quibble about the main gist of the posting re: job creation. However, for the record, BoA did not relocate. BoA was out-manoeuvered in a corporate merger by it's 'co-equal' partner, NationsBank. BoA completely underestimated former NationsBank CEO, Hugh McColl, Jr. The entire entity ended up being moved to Charlotte. The original terms for the merger proposed dual HQ.

SF will never host large back office admin operations again. Land simply cost too much to justify housing these cost-center operations in the city. Small, high IQ companies are the wave of this city's future, regardless of how loud groups like the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition or Sue Hestor and company scream. To house the folks who will be needed to support those companies, we need to realistically think about the artificial scarcity created by the 50-ft citywide height limit (i.e. the general overlay). Think about the wasted density along 19th Street, Sloat, and Sunset...

[BTinSF]

Two more small projects near the Van Ness corridor courtesy http://www.socketsite.com/ :

Pacific & Polk (former Jugshop location):

What appears to be a 6-story building with approx. 40 condos over retail


and 1299 Bush (at Larkin):

8 stories of condos

[FourOneFive]

Typical San Francisco...

Larger agendas stall city's best-laid plans
John King
Monday, February 18, 2008

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../DDDHV2JOE.DTL

If you want to see what's wrong with planning in San Francisco - and how the city suffers as a result - take a stroll down Octavia Boulevard.

A year ago, four empty lots along the way were awarded to architects and developers who won a civic competition. Neighborhood leaders helped draw up the rules. They praised the winning designs.

But today the land's still empty, and there's no telling when that might change. Those fenced-off lots are in limbo - victims of a larger process in which everyone has his own utopian demands, and nobody's shy about gumming up the works if he doesn't get what he wants.

The delay is especially frustrating because Octavia Boulevard should be a success story.

An elevated freeway once loomed there. Now that structure touches earth south of Market Street, replaced by a four-block boulevard designed to handle commute traffic in the middle and local traffic on the sides. The roadway is softened by trees and shrubs that, almost 30 months after opening day, already look great. A small neighborhood park on the north end is a wonderful segue from the boulevard to ever-more-prosperous Hayes Street.

The boulevard exists because Hayes Valley residents persuaded city voters to endorse their desire for change. And when it came time to fill the land left behind, neighbors kept their standards high.

Working with city officials, they crafted a truly progressive approach to redevelopment. Freed-up land would be used for housing, with 50 percent reserved for low-income residents. Land-sale proceeds would help pay off city costs related to the boulevard and other transportation and streetscape improvements.

But wait, as they say on late-night television, there's more.

When the first four boulevard lots went on the market in 2006, guidelines requested "excellence and innovation in urban infill and architectural design." In other words, the city said it wanted to do business with teams that would propose buildings of lasting merit.

"We weren't concerned about getting the most we could from those sites," says Rich Hillis of the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development. "As long as we received fair market value, we wanted good design."

The winners selected last February lived up to expectations.

Two of the sites - a pair of 16-foot-wide slivers between Fell and Oak streets - would be filled with scaffold-thin glass jewels designed by Envelope A+D, an Oakland firm. The parcel where the boulevard meets Market Street was awarded to a sleek design by Stanley Saitowitz with enticing retail spaces.

The most intriguing team won the largest site. A collaboration of five architectural firms and developer Build Inc. nabbed a full-block chunk where freeway ramps once connected to Oak and Fell streets.

The team's scheme is like the boulevard, refreshingly old-fashioned. It calls for 12 buildings, designed and built one at a time.

In a rational world you'd see construction crews out there by now, installing their Porta Pottis and getting ready to start. The land would be sold, the projects would be approved. Octavia Boulevard's potential would be taking three-dimensional form.

Instead, nothing's happened.

When those first four lots were put up for sale in the fall of 2006, Hillis and other bureaucrats assumed that the Planning Commission would soon approve a new long-range plan for a string of neighborhoods along Market Street from the Castro to Civic Center, Hayes Valley included. The work on the plan had started in 2000 - that's not a typo - and various drafts had kicked around since 2002.

Nope. The commission debated the so-called Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan until April. The Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee didn't hold a hearing until October. The committee's second hearing didn't occur until Feb. 11.

In between, activists who wanted changes they couldn't get from the commission held a series of meetings with Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who formally introduced the plan to the board. Mirkarimi's revisions follow the activists' cues, such as tighter restrictions on parking and doubling the developer fee beyond the one imposed by the Planning Commission.

Some concerns are neighborhood based and genuine. In other cases, it looks as if some activists want to up the ante here so that when they move to the next fight - over a larger area known in planning circles as the Eastern Neighborhoods, which includes everything from Potrero Hill to portions of the Mission and the industrial waterfront - they can tighten the screws even more: kick up the fees an extra notch or require builders to add more subsidized housing to their projects.

That's how the game is played in San Francisco, whatever political direction people are coming from: Always push for more, never feel qualms about changing the rules. And as long as Mayor Gavin Newsom slings mud with several supervisors, things aren't likely to change.

Now, neighbors and builders who don't like the activists' fiddling are raising a ruckus of their own. When the plan goes back to the committee next week, other supervisors might weigh in with revisions as well.

As for the four lots, the teams don't want to buy them because it isn't clear what the final costs will be.

I'm not saying there aren't legitimate changes that might improve the overall plan. But it's absurd that one small piece of the map - which evolved because of true community involvement - is jeopardized by the larger games.

Something eventually will get built. My fear is that the process will drag out so long the details won't matter. Whoever controls the land by then will just want to cut corners and move on.

If that happens, Octavia Boulevard won't be such a success after all. It will be yet another example of how in the endless battle over San Francisco's growth, the landscape - the one we all share - so often loses out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, if anyone's forgotten the designs for these 4 lots:



Architecture+Design (Burnham Place):


Build Inc.:


Saitowitz Architects:

[peanut gallery]

What a shame. I especially like that Saitowitz building.

Speaking of which, either the map or the Saitowitz rendering is wrong. The drawing appears to be facing south up the ramp to 101 with the building to the west. That would place it on the diagonal corner of 101/Octavia and Market from where it is placed on the map.

[FourOneFive]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

What a shame. I especially like that Saitowitz building.

Speaking of which, either the map or the Saitowitz rendering is wrong. The drawing appears to be facing south up the ramp to 101 with the building to the west. That would place it on the diagonal corner of 101/Octavia and Market from where it is placed on the map.

i think the map and image are correct. the incline of the road is actually octavia boulevard, not the entrance to the freeway (which is also an incline). if you look closely at the image, you'll see st. mary's catherdral, which is north of octavia boulevard.

[FourOneFive]

i was going through some images at the office and found a poster of all the projects for Lower Manhattan. I'd figure I would throw a (cheap, quick) version for Rincon Hill in San Francisco. I can't wait till all these towers are completed.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

What a shame. I especially like that Saitowitz building.

Speaking of which, either the map or the Saitowitz rendering is wrong. The drawing appears to be facing south up the ramp to 101 with the building to the west. That would place it on the diagonal corner of 101/Octavia and Market from where it is placed on the map.

I can see how one can get easily confused, but the rendering is actually correct looking north at the northeast corner of Octavia and Market. Octavia slopes upward from Market heading north, just as the ramp to 101 slopes up southward from the same intersection.

Anyway, does anyone know any other big city in the world that it is typically more difficult to successfully build interesting new architecture in their own city than San Francisco?

[peanut gallery]

Thanks guys. I didn't notice St. Mary's back there. Makes sense now.