HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

    

One Oak in the SkyscraperPage Database

Building Data Page   • San Francisco Skyscraper Diagram
San Francisco Projects & Construction Forum
            
View Full Map

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2017, 2:52 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,587
I have become skeptical of this project. It is apparently still being done by Build, Inc., a local outfit which, according to their web site has never before done anything of this size or complexity. It just seems to have become one of those projects that are perpetually redesigned and eventually sold from one developer to another but never built. We'll see. I really want it done because I think the so-called "Hub" is potentially the next Rincon Hill high rise housing cluster and this would be its anchor project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2017, 7:44 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 682
Parking-space spat may halt $400 million tower
Quote:
The tower proposed for the northwest corner of Market Street and Van Ness Avenue is big and bold in every respect. It would rise 40 stories. It would cost more than $400 million to build. It would bring a European-style piazza, an expansive restaurant with 30-foot glass walls and 304 luxury condos to one of the city’s busiest crossroads.

But as is often the case in San Francisco land-use fights, disputes over the biggest projects often come down to disagreements over seemingly small details.

In the case of the One Oak Street tower, which goes before the Planning Commission on Thursday for approvals, the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association is pushing the developer to trim the number of parking spaces by 60 spots, from 136 to 76. This would represent a reduction from .45 to .25 parking spaces per unit, or from nearly 1 for every 2 to 1 for 4.

Neighborhood association member Jason Henderson says that the disagreement is about more than 60 spaces. It’s about precedent and following planning rules. He argues that the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 2007, specifically calls for a 1-for-4 parking-space ratio for the four corners of Market and Van Ness. The idea is that the area is as well-served by public transit as any in the city. To exceed that requires a conditional use authorization, which the developer, Build Inc., is seeking from the Planning Commission.

In addition, Henderson is concerned that allowing more spots for cars at One Oak will set a precedent for the other two towers proposed for the intersection: 30 Van Ness and 10 South Van Ness.
Much more at http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/...r-11220951.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2017, 8:16 PM
colemonkee's Avatar
colemonkee colemonkee is offline
Ridin' into the sunset
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: L.A. - Skid row adjacent
Posts: 7,226
Wow, this is the exact opposite of what we see in LA: a neighborhood group opposing a high-rise project because is has too much parking.
__________________
"Then each time Fleetwood would be not so much overcome by remorse as bedazzled at having been shown the secret backlands of wealth, and how sooner or later it depended on some act of murder, seldom limited to once."

Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2017, 11:11 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association is pushing the developer to trim the number of parking spaces by 60 spots, from 136 to 76.
Because, of course, they want 60 more people trying to find street parking in Hayes Valley.

The logic of some of these groups too often escapes me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jun 15, 2017, 11:19 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by colemonkee View Post
Wow, this is the exact opposite of what we see in LA: a neighborhood group opposing a high-rise project because is has too much parking.
The traffic in Hayes Valley is pretty awful, largely since the Central Freeway came down and it became difficult and complex for people living in the western and northern neighborhoods (Marina, Pacific Heights, Richmond, Haight, Sunset etc) to get on I-80 and the Bay Bridge. The good people of Hayes Valley, who wanted the freeway gone ever so badly (and have, in fact, benefitted greatly from its absence), no doubt think 60 fewer parking places in this building means 60 fewer cars clogging their streets. That seems to me unlikely. Some of those who will live in this pricey tower will probably have a car and find somewhere outside the building to park it (I believe, for example, the city will rent a space on a monthly basis in the not-too-far Performing Arts Garage) Others will be frequent users of Uber (a recent report said 20% of cars clogging SF streets were Uber and Lyft vehicles) and some may be users of car-share services like CityCarShare or ZipCar (we have a couple ZipCars in my building and it won't surprise me if this building eventually does too). All will be driving in Hayes Valley just as if they were driving cars parked in the tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2017, 6:11 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
Just noting this was approved with the .45 parking ratio, as the developer proposed:

Quote:
SF planners OK Market-Van Ness condo high-rise

While members of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association objected to the amount of parking the developer proposed — .45 of a space per unit rather than the .25 per unit the neighborhood plan calls for — commissioners said that the project’s overall benefits far outweighed the negative environmental impacts of having more cars in the tower.

The vote was 6-0 on certifying the environmental report, and 5-1 on the conditional use that allows for the extra parking.
But it still needs one more approval:

Quote:
The project requires approval from the Board of Supervisors. If approved, Build hopes to break ground in a year.
Also, the latest EIR shows the building as 420 feet to the top of the parapet and 426 feet to the top of the elevator mechanical space:

Quote:
The proposed One Oak Street Project would demolish all existing structures on the project site at 1500-
1540 Market Street including 47 existing valet-operated on-site commercial parking spaces and construct
a new 304-unit, 40-story residential tower (400 feet tall, plus a 20-foot-tall parapet and a 26-foot-tall
elevator penthouse, measured from roof level) with ground-floor commercial space, one off-street
loading space, and a subsurface parking garage containing 136 spaces for residents and two service
vehicle spaces
http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...RK_updated.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2017, 6:27 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post

Also, the latest EIR shows the building as 420 feet to the top of the parapet and 426 feet to the top of the elevator mechanical space:



http://commissions.sfplanning.org/cp...RK_updated.pdf
Why would they make the parapet shorter than the mechanical box? Sounds like we're gonna end up with a another NEMA-type roof situation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2017, 7:07 AM
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: 1,005
Here is a picture from the link to the latest EIR that minesweeper posted. It appears to be relative to his quote: "Also, the latest EIR shows the building as 420 feet to the top of the parapet and 426 feet to the top of the elevator mechanical space".


One Oak - San Francisco
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2017, 4:35 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 881
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 12:42 AM
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: 1,005
1977 - a great find. Nice that it shows 1554 Market St. under construction, as well as One Oak (aka 1540 Market St.)
__________________
(Essex) Fox Plaza Resident Since 1971 (the building everyone loves to hate :>)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2017, 5:24 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,723
The diagram and floor count has long needed to be updated on this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 7:40 AM
vegeta_skyline vegeta_skyline is offline
Registered User, Maybe
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Windsor
Posts: 1,254
Like the roof treatment & the lobby
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 6:06 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 682
From Curbed SF:

Quote:
Civic Center’s One Oak high-rise moves forward

Legal challenges put the proposed 40-story One Oak high-rise, located on the north side of Market and Van Ness, in limbo for months. But after additional affordable housing units were added to the residential tower, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors backed down. The project has now been cleared for takeoff.

Previously, Board of Supervisors President London Breed wanted to nix 60 of the building’s proposed 136 parking spaces, potentially holding up the project.

Tuesday’s Board meeting could have scuttled One Oak altogether if city lawmakers demanded more than Build Inc wanted to concede on the project.

However, Breed announced on Tuesday that developer and challengers came to an agreement after Build Inc promised to fund more affordable homes (to be placed on some of the still-vacant Hayes Valley freeway parcels) to the tune of nearly $3 million.

“These parcels will potentially get 103 affordable units,” said Breed said. “These units may even get finished before One Oak.”

In exchange, One Oak gets to keep its 136 parking spaces and its EIR. According to the latest timeline on the building’s website, Build Inc hopes to break ground on One Oak in June of 2018.
more at https://sf.curbed.com/2017/9/27/1637...ing-housing-sf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 6:27 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,587
^^I understand "negotiations" but it just astounds me that a supervisor like Breed would take any chance of scuttling a project like this over 60 parking spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2018, 7:05 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 108
Any word on this one? Is it still on track to break ground this summer?

With Goodwill, 1546-1564 Market, and the Flax site in earlier stages of construction, and 22-24 Franklin and 150 Van Ness headed toward the finish line, I am really anxious about One Oak potentially not breaking ground this cycle. If it does, then with the other projects it will be the glue to hold together Mid-Market/The Hub until the next cycle.

This one has been so, so slow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2018, 7:24 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWS View Post
Any word on this one? Is it still on track to break ground this summer?

With Goodwill, 1546-1564 Market, and the Flax site in earlier stages of construction, and 22-24 Franklin and 150 Van Ness headed toward the finish line, I am really anxious about One Oak potentially not breaking ground this cycle. If it does, then with the other projects it will be the glue to hold together Mid-Market/The Hub until the next cycle.

This one has been so, so slow.
The only thing I've seen is that the official website now says "Q4 2018" for start of construction (according to the Wayback Machine, they changed it from "June 2018" around September of last year).

I wonder how they are financing the construction? Maybe that's what they're working on now that they have final approval.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2018, 7:31 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
The only thing I've seen is that the official website now says "Q4 2018" for start of construction (according to the Wayback Machine, they changed it from "June 2018" around September of last year).

I wonder how they are financing the construction? Maybe that's what they're working on now that they have final approval.
That's so frustrating. I wish this one went to a more experienced developer. This is such a necessary piece of the puzzle to reinvigorating the whole area, and frankly one of the projects with the most complexity given that it includes the Oak Street plaza and the MUNI entrance. If they keep pushing it back or struggling with getting financing or logistics down, which many other high-rise projects that were proposed AFTER this one seem to be doing just fine with, we're getting closer to the point where it's just shelved or cancelled for this market window, or maybe forever. I would hate to see this one get scrapped and some crappy 7 story building get built in a downturn. There's just so much riding on One Oak given all the features for the neighborhood beyond just the building itself, but the height is absolutely necessary, and would be a precedent for projects like the Honda dealership, the French American School tower, and the Otis/Gough 25 story building that might face more skepticism without the completed height on this side of Van Ness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2018, 10:51 PM
pseudolus pseudolus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mission Terrace, SF
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by minesweeper View Post
The only thing I've seen is that the official website now says "Q4 2018" for start of construction (according to the Wayback Machine, they changed it from "June 2018" around September of last year).

I wonder how they are financing the construction? Maybe that's what they're working on now that they have final approval.
good luck with "Q4 2018". The building department hasn't even begun *its* review.

http://dbiweb.sfgov.org/dbipts/defau...94535&Stepin=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2018, 6:54 PM
JWS JWS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 108
Heard from somebody who very much would know that they are extremely skeptical this one will get built, at least not anytime soon and certainly not this cycle. Not somebody on the project itself, but close enough to it and that's what he's hearing. Was very bummed to hear it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2018, 5:59 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWS View Post
Heard from somebody who very much would know that they are extremely skeptical this one will get built, at least not anytime soon and certainly not this cycle. Not somebody on the project itself, but close enough to it and that's what he's hearing. Was very bummed to hear it.
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.
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 9:07 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.