HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction

    

Trinity Place Building [B] in the SkyscraperPage Database

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 7:23 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
You guys wouldn't consider BayView Hunter's Point, parts of Western Addition, Outer Mission, Ingleside low income areas? Wow, you guys really need to get out more :-)

It seems that whenver I read about these new great properties going up, , the developers are talking about building the required portion of affordable units in projects in Hunter's Point etc. where there is still land available cheaply (cheaper, that is) than having it incorporated into their own buildings. It's sheer snobbery , and I think that the laws should be changed to force the affordable units inside the properties they are building, after all, most of SF citizens make the "average" amount of income and make this city the great city that it is by actually giving it life (as opposed to sitting our fat asses on large amounts of unused money), so why should we have to be pushed aside into the crime ridden or otherwise residential and boring areas of the city just because we don't make a bijillion dollars.

Granted I can't list a specific example, but I know that it has happened in the past

Trinity looks amazing and I can't wait until it is built, it's going to be such a great addition for people who can't pay $3,000/ mo. for a one bedroom. I think more of this should be going up in SOMA, Rincon Hill, and other places so that those of us with soul and vitality (the non- billionaires) can actually give life to these upcoming areas.

Last edited by tyler82; Apr 18, 2007 at 7:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 7:47 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
You guys wouldn't consider BayView Hunter's Point, parts of Western Addition, Outer Mission, Ingleside low income areas? Wow, you guys really need to get out more :-)
I just suggest you go look at what it would take to buy a house in any of those areas--as compared to the national average home price in the mid $200K range. This reminds me of a medical conference I once went to and listened while a moderator told some of the out-of-town attendees how to get to Alamo Square to see the "painted ladies". Then he warned them this was a "bad neighborhood'. How bad can a neighborhood be where houses cost 7 figures?

Quote:
It seems that whenver I read about these new great properties going up, , the developers are talking about building the required portion of affordable units in projects in Hunter's Point etc. where there is still land available cheaply (cheaper, that is) than having it incorporated into their own buildings. It's sheer snobbery , and I think that the laws should be changed to force the affordable units inside the properties they are building, after all, most of SF citizens make the "average" amount of income and make this city the great city that it is by actually giving it life (as opposed to sitting our fat asses on large amounts of unused money), so why should we have to be pushed aside into the crime ridden areas of the city just because we don't make a bijillion dollars.
I disagree. With rental housing you can make a better case--and Trinity will be rental and the "affordable" units will be on site. But with condos there was an article a few months back that I posted about the problems encountered by moderate income people living in on-site "affordable" units. For one thing, they still have to pay HOA assessments like anyone else and often they can't afford either the beginning assessments or the inevitable increases. And if their richer neighbors decide to do a special assessment for some new amenity, they are often in trouble--can't afford it, can't pay it. At best it causes hard feeling and strife with the neighbors. At worst, their property gets liened for non-payment of the assessments and eventually they have to sell.

I think in the long run, it's better when people are living in a building with people of similar means where they can anticipate the other residents will have the same concerns about spending money and assessment issues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 7:56 PM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
I just suggest you go look at what it would take to buy a house in any of those areas--as compared to the national average home price in the mid $200K range. This reminds me of a medical conference I once went to and listened while a moderator told some of the out-of-town attendees how to get to Alamo Square to see the "painted ladies". Then he warned them this was a "bad neighborhood'. How bad can a neighborhood be where houses cost 7 figures?



Ahem, I did NOT say that house prices are low in these areas, I am saying they are low INCOME. You actually think that the people living in these areas are making $100k + to be able to afford their homes? They are given subsidies, rent checks, and other freebies so that they can stay in these areas (which I feel doesn't help their situations).

And yes, Alamo square is a bad area if you consider a bad area one that has a lot more crime than other parts of the city. You can't just conclude that the entire city of San Francisco is immune from social problems and "bad areas" because houses here cost $800,000+ a pop. Most other parts of the country where houses cost $200,000 and $300,000 are a lot more safe than here, so does that make SF neighbhoods inherently better areas because the cost of living is higher?

NEWayz back on topic... are there any guestimates as to what these units (affordable ones) will cost? Are there going to be rentables only or are they all going to be for sale?

Last edited by tyler82; Apr 18, 2007 at 8:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 8:12 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Low income

Quote:
You guys wouldn't consider BayView Hunter's Point, parts of Western Addition, Outer Mission, Ingleside low income areas? Wow, you guys really need to get out more

It seems that whenver I read about these new great properties going up, , the developers are talking about building the required portion of affordable units in projects in Hunter's Point etc. where there is still land available cheaply (cheaper, that is) than having it incorporated into their own buildings. It's sheer snobbery , and I think that the laws should be changed to force the affordable units inside the properties they are building, after all, most of SF citizens make the "average" amount of income and make this city the great city that it is by actually giving it life (as opposed to sitting our fat asses on large amounts of unused money), so why should we have to be pushed aside into the crime ridden or otherwise residential and boring areas of the city just because we don't make a bijillion dollars.
Low income except houses there start at 500K but anyhow. Most of the neighborhoods you mention are lower middle/working class (even the Bayview). My uncle lives in Ingelside, my family is mostly from the Outer Mission. Your post if almost offensive but likely you are just not that familiar with the city

Forcing the affordable housing into the high rise building means they simply won't pencil out. This is simple economics not snobbery as you say


affordable housing requerments prividing a solution that is a drop in the bucket of a massive housing in SF. The current system makes things worse not better

Last edited by Frisco_Zig; Apr 18, 2007 at 8:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 8:14 PM
Frisco_Zig's Avatar
Frisco_Zig Frisco_Zig is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Again

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Trinity looks amazing and I can't wait until it is built, it's going to be such a great addition for people who can't pay $3,000/ mo. for a one bedroom. I think more of this should be going up in SOMA, Rincon Hill, and other places so that those of us with soul and vitality (the non- billionaires) can actually give life to these upcoming areas.
Please don't hold your breath that anything like Trinity will be built by the private sector again. This was an unusual set of circumunstances. I am very annoyed that Randy Shaw and the BOS are patting themselves on the back as if they are doing anything for the real working class of SF

Last edited by Frisco_Zig; Apr 18, 2007 at 8:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2007, 11:28 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
Ahem, I did NOT say that house prices are low in these areas, I am saying they are low INCOME. You actually think that the people living in these areas are making $100k + to be able to afford their homes? They are given subsidies, rent checks, and other freebies so that they can stay in these areas (which I feel doesn't help their situations).
Yeah, in many cases I do. Not counting "public housing" residents, the people who have lived there for decades may be fairly low income, but the people who have bought property anywhere in San Francisco in recent decades have got to be in pretty solid shape by national norms, anyway. I just read that a Muni driver makes about $27/hr. That works out to $56,000 a year. So a pair of Muni drivers who were married would make well in excess of $100K. These are the kinds of people buying in San Francisco's least expensive areas: 2 income couples where each partner has a solid middle class job and together they usually do earn over $100K. Don't forget that SF is a city of renters. Most people who live here--the single people working in retail or other service jobs--can't afford to buy anywhere in the city and many of them are spending over half their income on rent--in many cases that's true even if they have a roomate.

Quote:
And yes, Alamo square is a bad area if you consider a bad area one that has a lot more crime than other parts of the city. You can't just conclude that the entire city of San Francisco is immune from social problems and "bad areas" because houses here cost $800,000+ a pop. Most other parts of the country where houses cost $200,000 and $300,000 are a lot more safe than here, so does that make SF neighbhoods inherently better areas because the cost of living is higher?

NEWayz back on topic... are there any guestimates as to what these units (affordable ones) will cost? Are there going to be rentables only or are they all going to be for sale?
The eventual effect of the prices of these houses is going to be to drive the "low income" folks completely out of the city, whether they rent or own, because rents ultimately depend on the value of property. It has taken decades and it's an ongoing process, but it's happening even in the poorest neighborhoods (which by national income standards are no longer poor). The creation of "affordable" housing, wherever they put it, is an effort to turn back the tide and all it can really do is provide a place of refuge for a few thousand lucky people.

Actually, Trinity Plaza represents the REAL solution to the problem. Build lots and lots of market rate rental units as cheaply as possible. If it were possible to saturate the market, rents would come down as they temporarily did in 2001 when the supply/demand situation shifted as so many "dot-com" people left town. If a building like Trinity Plaza, with 1900 units, commonly had 10% or more of them vacant, my guess is they'd lower the rent to try to fill them. And that would be happening all over town--it's called "competition" but it can't happen when the vacancy rate is always critically low.

My understanding is that Trinity Plaza will be entirely rental and, as I said, although new construction is normally exempt from rent control, those units occupied by existing Trinity tenants will "grandfathered" into the rent control system:

Quote:
The agreement, which Daly helped broker, will require landlord Angelo Sangiacomo to put 360 of the 1,700 rental apartments he intends to build at Market and Eighth streets under the city's rent control regulations.
Rent control in San Francisco normally doesn't cover buildings constructed after 1979 but Sangiacomo agreed to the provision to gain political support for his project at City Hall.

The deal also provides for about 160 apartments to be offered at rates affordable to anyone earning just 60 percent of median income. The development includes a total of five buildings rising 12 to 24 stories to be constructed in phases on about 4 1/2 acres of prime downtown real estate.
Residents currently living at Trinity Plaza could end up with larger apartments on higher floors once the new buildings are erected, according to the terms of the deal, with moving expenses to be paid by Sangiacomo.
60% of the median income is $38,300 for a single person, $43,750 for 2 people, $49,250 for 3, $54,700 for 4, $59,100 for 5 and so on ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_page.asp?id=38605 ). Furthermore, "Federal affordability guidelines consider housing to be "affordable" if households spend no more than 30% of their gross monthly income on all housing costs, including utilities."

Doing the math, I figure a unit suitable for a single person (?studio, ?one bedroom) would have to rent for $957/month including utilities. The calculation is: $38,300/12 x .3 = monthly "affordable" rent. You can do it yourself for larger families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 10:59 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Talking Construction schedule

I'm brand new to this forum, but I noticed in today's edition of Beyond Chron that a Trinity Properties employee mentioned that construction will beging following next winter and the completion should be 24 months afterwards. This would put the project completion date to around April 2010.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2007, 12:42 AM
gttx's Avatar
gttx gttx is offline
Urban Explorer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,043
How is this building any better than the one already there?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2007, 1:22 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
^Yeah, right. Like you cannot see any improvement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2007, 3:12 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by gttx View Post
How is this building any better than the one already there?

It provides approximately 1540 more units (1900 vs 360 in the existing structure) to address San Francisco's perpetual housing shortage and those units will be relatively affordable. About 228 of them will meet governmental guidelines for "affordability" but even the rest will be about as affordable as it is currently possible to build in downtown San Francisco because the developer has owned the land for decades, the project is about as dense as anything in SF will ever be, and aesthetics are obviously taking a back seat to housing people.

Finally, it houses all those people in precisely the best place to put them--on San Francisco's most concentrated transit corridor and in an area that needs more people living to bring it back to life.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2007, 3:34 AM
BigKidD's Avatar
BigKidD BigKidD is offline
designer&stuff
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: KCMO (Plaza)
Posts: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by gttx View Post
How is this building any better than the one already there?
A heck of a lot better. I don't care much about the visuals as long as it provides more housing for the city and transforms Mid-Market.
__________________
“Most planning of the past fifteen years has been based upon three destructive fallacies: the cataclysmic insists upon tearing everything down in order to design from an absolutely clean slate; the automotive would plan for the free passage of the automobile at the expense of all other values; the suburban dislikes the city anyway and would just as soon destroy its density and strew it across the countryside.” Vince Scully
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2007, 7:29 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior View Post
I'm brand new to this forum, but I noticed in today's edition of Beyond Chron that a Trinity Properties employee mentioned that construction will beging following next winter and the completion should be 24 months afterwards. This would put the project completion date to around April 2010.
Might as well post the interesting and relevent parts of that BeyondChron article:

Quote:
a strict timetable was established as follows: upon final approval of the project, Mr. Sangiacomo will have 15 months to commence construction, and 42 months after that the first tower must be certified for occupancy. Last night, Mr. Schmidt informed those in attendance that application for site permits have already been submitted, and to speed up the process plans will be submitted to various City departments at the same time rather than in staggered succession, which is normal procedure. Mr. Schmidt also went into detail about the process and gave a timeline of the start of construction (of building A) after this coming winter with a completion 24 months later.

One tenant asked whether or not the original building will be demolished after the first tower is finished, and Mr. Schmidt stated that it would probably remain intact, at least until the Market Street building is started, which would not be immediately after Building A is completed. . . .
of the 1900 new units to be constructed, 800 will be one-bedroom apartments.
My take on this is that construction of the total project--all three buildings--will take a number of years, but the developer and the city both want to see the first building--along Mission St. and the tallest of the three, I believe--finished quite quickly (spring of 2010 as Roadwarrior says). That's because it will house the existing tenants and everyone wants to put an end to the tenuousness of their situation as soon as possible.

Once that's done--Building A built and the tenants rehoused--the other 2 buildings can proceed at a more measured pace. Given Mr. Sangiacomo's age, it seems to me there's a serious possibility he won't be around to see the whole thing completed, but I have to assume that possibility has been taken into consideration by everyone involved (including him).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2007, 9:54 PM
SleepyInSanFrancisco SleepyInSanFrancisco is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1
591 "affordable"

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler82 View Post
How many of these units are going to be "affordable" or is the developer doing what many others (shamelessly) do and put them on another low income part of town?
"The terms of the approved proposal calls for 1,900 units of which 360 will be deed restricted rent-controlled (and offered to the current Trinity Plaza residents) and an additional 231 will be designated below market rate (BMR).

At the same time, a condo map will be approved for the project (“after the developer pointed out the 40% increase in construction costs”) but will not extend to the 360 rent-controlled units."

From Trinity Plaza One Big Step Closer To Reality (And Condos?) on SocketSite.

Last edited by SleepyInSanFrancisco; Apr 21, 2007 at 9:58 PM. Reason: attribution
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Apr 24, 2007, 4:07 AM
tyler82's Avatar
tyler82 tyler82 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO
Posts: 561
Any vacancies currently at the Moonstar???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 7:21 PM
johnd johnd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4
One Ugly Building

In regards the new towers: I am pleased the current renters at Trinity Plaza will have new rent controlled units to live in as part of phase one of the new project; however when completed, the three-tower complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood. In effect, this porject is our generation's version of the Fox Tower Plaza, but in tripicate! Sure the old building needed to come down, but in an effort to please eveyone, little focus was spent on the grim open space, the real impact on transportation around Civic Center, the visual impact on neighboring buildings, etc.

In sum, it is very difficult to make 24-stories of punched concrete facades very interesting in a neighborhood that includes the new library, Asian Art Museum and the beautifully restored City Hall. Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 7:42 PM
gttx's Avatar
gttx gttx is offline
Urban Explorer
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigKidD View Post
A heck of a lot better. I don't care much about the visuals as long as it provides more housing for the city and transforms Mid-Market.
I guess I was simply referring to the aesthetics of the building - it will definitely be better in all other respects!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 7:43 PM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,994
This building is awesome... I hope it gets built!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 9:22 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnd View Post
In regards the new towers: I am pleased the current renters at Trinity Plaza will have new rent controlled units to live in as part of phase one of the new project; however when completed, the three-tower complex will be one ugly addition to the neighborhood. In effect, this porject is our generation's version of the Fox Tower Plaza, but in tripicate! Sure the old building needed to come down, but in an effort to please eveyone, little focus was spent on the grim open space, the real impact on transportation around Civic Center, the visual impact on neighboring buildings, etc.

In sum, it is very difficult to make 24-stories of punched concrete facades very interesting in a neighborhood that includes the new library, Asian Art Museum and the beautifully restored City Hall. Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.
Well, if you consider "interesting" to be classic Parisian style design, then the Trinity Towers will fail miserably. However, I don't think that this is the ugly type of building that you see at Fox Plaza. You are going to two extremes in this area. Sure, this is a bit box-like, but I think that the concrete blocks in disparate shapes, on top of each other, along with the window hole will provide for a very intriguing modern look. This would not be unlike what we see with the new Federal Building. I personally love that design. I also think that as we see this neighborhood fill in, we will see a better mix of the classic, elegant, and the modern, daring buildings.

Now, I'm not going to argue that this building is "world-class", like you would see in Dubai or Singapore, but given all of the hurdles the developer has been forced to go through by our beloved city-councilmembers, I'm extremely pleased with this design and feel that it will go a long way towards revitalizing this neighborhood both in development and in attracting a larger population base.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:32 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
I think Arquitectonica's design, based on the renderings, is fantastic--modern, sophisticated, well-massed.

As for the "real impact on transportation" in the area that this project will have--it will increase ridership on the densest public transit corridor west of Chicago, as it should. They don't call it "transit-oriented development" for nothing. And if anybody thinks the Civic Center subway BART and Muni stations are somehow overcrowded, then they're not familiar with either. Civic Center is the least utilized of the downtown subway stations.


http://static.flickr.com/54/150075930_2dfe827cc8_o.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/52/150075932_fdafecd0c8_o.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/54/150075934_8f6609467a_o.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:57 PM
craeg's Avatar
craeg craeg is offline
Proud upstanding member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnd View Post
Yet despite the beauty of these and many other structures nearby, one will sadly be drawn to this gargantuan aesthetic blunder of a building, much like one is unfortunately drawn to a wart or other large deformity on an otherwise beautiful face.
San Francisco's architecture has plenty of (venereal) warts...
I am consistently surprised by the attitude of some people towards new development in SF. In specific reference to trinity plaza, I have heard a few people complain that the design is awful compared to the beaux arts civic center buildings. I have to ask why the only worthwhile architecture is architecture that is a facsimile of what existed from a previous era?
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 > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:36 PM.

     

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