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

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

In another line of work. Most of the unfortunate figures of history were nice people in person. I won't go into how the "H" person was nice to his dog and all. But Sue Hestor and those she represents have quite simply made San Francisco an uglier place. And for that it is hard to forgive her no matter how nice she may be to puppies and small children.

Is it really Sue Hestor and the NIMBY's who made SF an uglier place, or the builders of Fox Plaza, the Philip Burton Federal Building, the AAA Tower and One Rincon Hill - all highrises out of context?

[BTinSF]

Friday, April 24, 2009
Builders tap HUD dollars for housing
‘They give you the money’
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Several Bay Area housing developers are turning to a little-used HUD program to jump-start stalled market-rate apartment construction after traditional financing dried up.

San Francisco-based developers Menlo Capital Group, the Emerald Fund and Martin Building Group are all applying for Housing and Urban Development’s Section 220, a program that insures loans for multifamily housing projects located in areas that are designated for redevelopment or revitalization. Under the program, the federal government essentially guarantees 40-year loans by providing Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance to lenders.

The program, which only covers rental apartments and works for market-rate but not luxury housing also has a non-recourse provision, meaning that the developer does not have to put up personal property as collateral.

Thus far at least four projects are in the process of applying for Section 220 approval, including Emerald Fund’s 308-unit 333 Harrison St. and Martin Building Group’s two projects — 2235 Third St. and 178 Townsend St. — together totaling 275 apartments. The fourth applying for funds is Menlo Capital Group, which has a fully-entitled 50-unit project in Oakland.

Program was unnecessary

The program has been used rarely in the Bay Area over the past two decades because capital has been so readily available and because the program includes statutory limitations restricting the loan amount that can be insured. In the Bay Area, Section 220 covers up to $227,000 in construction costs for a two bedroom, $185,000 for a one bedroom or $165,000 for a studio. Even with construction costs down an estimated 20 percent to 30 percent over the past year, the federally insured loans would only cover about 60 percent to 70 percent of project costs for a modest wood-frame apartment complex in San Francisco.

But with banks mostly out of the construction lending business, developers have no choice but to see if they can make Section 220 work, said Oz Erickson, president of the Emerald Fund, which was the last developer to take advantage of the program with the SoMa Residences a decade ago.

“Even though people say there is lending, the fact is, nobody is lending. The building trades are getting killed,” said Erickson. “This is the program we are going after (for 333 Harrison St.) … We will just have to find another way of getting the rest of the cash.”

He added: “If you meet the federal requirements, they give you the money.”

Menlo Capital leads the way

Menlo Capital Group may be the first Section 220 project out of the gate with Victory Place in Oakland, a 54-unit project on the corner of Jefferson and 15th streets, said Managing Director Karan Suri. Menlo Capital, a San Francisco-based family-owned merchant builder that has developed mostly in Silicon Valley, is about half way through the six-month HUD application project. He said the company started looking at the program after banks showed no interest in the project.

“They are politely saying we are not in the market unless you have $40 million in deposits. Which doesn’t make sense when I’m looking for a $10 million loan. … So we have to be creative and find other ways of making our deals work.”

Suri said he would like to see the federal government increase statutory limitations so that more Bay Area developers could take advantage.

“They discriminate against the Bay Area. So no developer in the Bay Area could ever use them. I can only do it in Oakland because the costs for me to build this have come down 30 percent. And I have to put down 40 percent equity.”

Gary Alex, national director of FHA lending for Enterprise Community Investment Inc., which is the lender on Victory Place, said he has seen a 150 percent jump in developers applying for the HUD program because of the credit crunch.

“We have not seen anything like this since the early ’90s,” he said. “The pipeline is packed. You’re going to see HUD’s market share spike amazingly.”

Even two years ago, he said, banks would have been “beating down the door to lend money to top-flight owner/operator developers like Menlo. … The playing field has changed dramatically. The phone is ringing off the hook.”

HUD spokesman Larry Bush said he expects more Bay Area Section 220 applications this year than the agency has seen in years.

“Clearly there is more interest, and we expect applications to increase,” said Bush. “It is a very good product, but has not fit well for the past 15 to 20 years.”

Suri said he expects to be under construction by September with a two-year build-out period.

“Our construction industry is in shambles and a lot of people need jobs. My subcontractors need jobs,” he said. “And the stunning thing is that vacancy is actually pretty low in Oakland. I’m next to nice retail. I’m walking distance to City Center BART (and) one stop from the city. … People can hop on a train and get something that is priced 30 percent to 40 percent less.”

jkdineen@bizjournals.com / (415) 288-4971

Source: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/...27/story2.html

[nequidnimis]

Wow, non-recourse, i.e. built at Uncle Sam's expense: This will go a long way to make San Francisco rents finally affordable.

[nequidnimis]

I would have said City Center is two stops from the city, but it depends how you count them. These developers are good with numbers...

[Jobohimself]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

There is nothing funny about death threats.



In Rwanda, the Tutsis were "cockroaches", and in Germany, the Jews, "rats". Sue Hestor has every right to a long life.

So now you're taking my tongue-in-cheek joke and comparing me to Hitler? I said she should be pushed in front of one, not "I'm going to push her in front of one". I'm glad not everyone in the world gets as offended as you do about everything...because then it would be sanitized of any humor and no fun for anyone.

Kind of like what Sue Hestor has done to the San Francisco cityscape over the past 3 decades.

Anyway, I hope that generic refrigerator box gets scrapped. Not exactly world-class. I don't see how she can get off justifying six-story structures in a financial district. If she doesn't get pushed in front of a BART train, she should move to San Diego. She'd fit right in here.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

In another line of work. Most of the unfortunate figures of history were nice people in person. I won't go into how the "H" person was nice to his dog and all. But Sue Hestor and those she represents have quite simply made San Francisco an uglier place. And for that it is hard to forgive her no matter how nice she may be to puppies and small children.

I imagine she's probably very nice in person, if one gets to know her. She isn't anything like "Hister" or the "H" person either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hister

Sorry, I only mean that in a good way. I just couldn't help noticing the spelling similarity.

[SFView]

Originally Posted by Jobohimself

So now you're taking my tongue-in-cheek joke and comparing me to Hitler? I said she should be pushed in front of one, not "I'm going to push her in front of one". I'm glad not everyone in the world gets as offended as you do about everything...because then it would be sanitized of any humor and no fun for anyone...

Yes I like humor, but be careful of misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by Jobohimself

(I) Kind of like what Sue Hestor has done to the San Francisco cityscape over the past 3 decades...

How so?

Originally Posted by Jobohimself

Anyway, I hope that generic refrigerator box gets scrapped. Not exactly world-class. I don't see how she can get off justifying six-story structures in a financial district. If she doesn't get pushed in front of a BART train, she should move to San Diego. She'd fit right in here.

The "box" is really 200'. ...And actually, I think Hestor would prefer Berkeley much better.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Is it really Sue Hestor and the NIMBY's who made SF an uglier place, or the builders of Fox Plaza, the Philip Burton Federal Building, the AAA Tower and One Rincon Hill - all highrises out of context?

Well stated (and other buildings, such as the Holiday Inn Golden Gateway on Van Ness, could certainly be included). Developers in San Francisco have brought much of this on themselves with the crap that they erected.

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Well stated (and other buildings, such as the Holiday Inn Golden Gateway on Van Ness, could certainly be included). Developers in San Francisco have brought much of this on themselves with the crap that they erected.

Thanks. I'd like to state however I am a huge fan of the new Federal Building, and a big fan of the San Regis and Infinity. And I think I will be a fan of the new TransBay Tower.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

Is it really Sue Hestor and the NIMBY's who made SF an uglier place, or the builders of Fox Plaza, the Philip Burton Federal Building, the AAA Tower and One Rincon Hill - all highrises out of context?

I'm going to let the attacks on Sue Hestor dry up for now but I would comment about "out of context" buildings.

One Rincon Hill is a perfect example. Its "context" as planned by the Planning Dept is part of a cluster of 6 or more highrises contributing to the overall form of the skyline. If and when those other buildings, including the second ORH tower, get built, it won't look nearly so "out of context."

My understanding is that the group of buildings near Market & Van Ness including Fox Plaza and the AAA tower may be something similar. I believe at the time these were built, that area was also to be a highrise district and those particular buildings would have melded into a mass of highrises. But in that case, anti-development types, quite likely including Ms. Hestor, got the height limits lowered leaving those 2 buildings standing tall and alone.

Now, however, I believe the limits at least right around the intersection have once again gone up courtesy of the Market-Octavia Plan and we could one day lose FP and AAA in the mass. I do wish the Argenta had been of similar height to the other 2--it would have looked better and it would have helped hide FP. So will 10th & Market if it gets built (no thanks to Sue)

The Burton Building, being a federal project, isn't subject to city planning and the feds do what they want. I particularly hate that building but others--right here--have defended it as a nice example of mid century "international style" modernism.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

I am . . . a big fan of the San Regis . . . .

I'm not (at all).

[nequidnimis]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I'm going to let the attacks on Sue Hestor dry up for now but I would comment about "out of context" buildings.

One Rincon Hill is a perfect example. Its "context" as planned by the Planning Dept is part of a cluster of 6 or more highrises contributing to the overall form of the skyline. If and when those other buildings, including the second ORH tower, get built, it won't look nearly so "out of context."

My understanding is that the group of buildings near Market & Van Ness including Fox Plaza and the AAA tower may be something similar. I believe at the time these were built, that area was also to be a highrise district and those particular buildings would have melded into a mass of highrises. But in that case, anti-development types, quite likely including Ms. Hestor, got the height limits lowered leaving those 2 buildings standing tall and alone.

Now, however, I believe the limits at least right around the intersection have once again gone up courtesy of the Market-Octavia Plan and we could one day lose FP and AAA in the mass. I do wish the Argenta had been of similar height to the other 2--it would have looked better and it would have helped hide FP. So will 10th & Market if it gets built (no thanks to Sue)

The Burton Building, being a federal project, isn't subject to city planning and the feds do what they want. I particularly hate that building but others--right here--have defended it as a nice example of mid century "international style" modernism.

What these examples tell me is you just can't plant highrises in a neighborhood, and expect the neighborhood to become nice as a result. The above examples tend to show the very opposite happens instead (let's reserve judgement on Rincon Hill and allow time so see how it evolves as a neighborhood). And yes I understand that new highrises are nothing like the older ones, they have cute little townhomes at the base, but I am not sure this Disneyfication really addresses all the issues.

[Jobohimself]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

I'm going to let the attacks on Sue Hestor dry up for now but I would comment about "out of context" buildings.

One Rincon Hill is a perfect example. Its "context" as planned by the Planning Dept is part of a cluster of 6 or more highrises contributing to the overall form of the skyline. If and when those other buildings, including the second ORH tower, get built, it won't look nearly so "out of context."

My understanding is that the group of buildings near Market & Van Ness including Fox Plaza and the AAA tower may be something similar. I believe at the time these were built, that area was also to be a highrise district and those particular buildings would have melded into a mass of highrises. But in that case, anti-development types, quite likely including Ms. Hestor, got the height limits lowered leaving those 2 buildings standing tall and alone.

Now, however, I believe the limits at least right around the intersection have once again gone up courtesy of the Market-Octavia Plan and we could one day lose FP and AAA in the mass. I do wish the Argenta had been of similar height to the other 2--it would have looked better and it would have helped hide FP. So will 10th & Market if it gets built (no thanks to Sue)

The Burton Building, being a federal project, isn't subject to city planning and the feds do what they want. I particularly hate that building but others--right here--have defended it as a nice example of mid century "international style" modernism.

BT, I agree. The Federal Building is absolutely atrocious, and I used to have to stare out my window at the damn thing (I used to live in the Embassy Hotel on Polk and Turk). Also creates a really terrible wind funnel there on Golden Gate...

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by nequidnimis

What these examples tell me is you just can't plant highrises in a neighborhood, and expect the neighborhood to become nice as a result.

I think it has been established that you are a luke-warm fan of skyscrapers at best.

You might have a point about established low rise neighborhoods like, say, Noe Valley. But none of the neighborhoods we are talking about--Rincon Hill, Mid-Market, Civic Center--are that. They are more or less "brown fields" deteriorated urban areas of vacant lots and buildings of various heights that would benefit from the higher residential density that highrises can provide while the skyline of the city benefits from the highrises themselves.

[Jobohimself]

I think a lot of people forget that San Francisco is a city, and everyone wants to have their sunlight, and their views, and their self-serving views of what "their" city should be like without looking at the greater scheme of things. Granted, I am all for intelligent city planning (Portland, Oregon), but not counterproductivity.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by Jobohimself

I think a lot of people forget that San Francisco is a city, and everyone wants to have their sunlight, and their views, and their self-serving views of what "their" city should be like without looking at the greater scheme of things. Granted, I am all for intelligent city planning (Portland, Oregon), but not counterproductivity.

They also forget that there is a cost to sunlight and views. Not every San Franciscan can afford a nice renovated Victorian with well-tended garden and deck on a hill. And those of us who have to settle for dense multifamily housing that blocks the views of the elite shouldn't have to also feel guilty.

And as I constantly and repeatedly point out to a friend of mine who like nightlife but not highrises, the "city that never sleeps" requires a dense population. You can pretty easily find a place to eat after midnight in New York BECAUSE it's so dense and there are enough people living their lives on every schedule to support round-the-clock services.

[nequidnimis]

I am for density. An equal density, if not greater, can probably be achieved by covering block after block with mid-rise housing, like Opera Plaza (which is not a skyscraper), the Artani, 70 Van Ness Ave. (the Forum Design next to the old Masonic Building), the Mercy housing at 9th and Mission, the proposed Fox Plaza expansion, or the proposed Artquitectonica building at Market and Buchanan. An interesting experiment in density is going to be Trinity Plaza. Even though the buildings are tall, the overall expression of the project, once it is complete, will be somehwat horizontal. And mid-rise housing ties in more easily with its surroundings.

[Gordo]

How would you propose we get "block after block" covered with mid-rise housing? We've seen fights over buildings less than 85' in the Mission, along Market, along Geary, in parts of SOMA, along the Embarcadero, the list goes on. Even in places where we've spent decades designing neighborhood plans we get arguments about the height of buildings.

Folks like Rob Anderson (currently fighting the height of the building at the corner of Market/Buchanan, which falls within heights approved in the Market/Octavia plan) fight against any development, regardless of height.

I tend to view bad design as the problem, not height. There are places that I view height as just fine (of course, not everywhere). Downtown office buildings have shown us for decades that the way to make height work is to include active use on the first floor, so regardless of whether you view it as "Disneyfication" of tall buildings, we know from local experience that it works to make a vibrant neighborhood (especially when coupled with below-grade parking and limits on that parking - also elements that have been in place for decades downtown). I have more hatred of the thousands of nasty 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's three to four story apartment buildings with a two car wide garage door and 100% lot coverage with parking (typically the garage is drive through with the back yard paved over) that litter virtually every neighborhood than I do a few negative highrises from the same period. The smaller buildings have done much more damage to street life and the look of the neighborhoods than the highrises have.

(As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm fine with declining height increase variances for buildings asking for more height if it helps us also get to a point of automatically saying no to height questions on buildings that fall within height limits - such as buildings in the Market/Octavia or Van Ness plans)

[nequidnimis]

It might sound weird, but I totally agree with you. As to Rob Anderson, unlike Sue Hestor, he has blood on his hands - the unnecessary cyclist fatalities resulting from his obstruction of the city bicycle plan, so I am much more open to letting Jobo have his way with him.

[MarkSFCA]

Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan community meeting.
Saturday, April 25th 9:30 AM - 1:00 PM

Did anyone attend this meeting? I live in the area but didn't get a chance to attend. Just wondering if there was anything interesting and new discussed.

thanks,