HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2015, 7:47 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
High on a Hill
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
No Crescent Heights for Parcel F?
Dead--and I'm glad Crescent Heights is out of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2015, 12:25 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,414
These affordability requirements don't make any sense. The city wants people making only $50,000 to be able to live right there at Transbay? It's a transit center. Isn't the whole point of transit to allow people to live further away and commute?
A huge part of what makes housing more affordable is it being on land that is less valuable. Nothing in downtown SF is affordable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2015, 12:54 AM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,141
I believe the requirements are ordered by the State as part of the deal after CalTrans sold the land to the city. Now that fewer and fewer plots of land are available in Transbay for BMR units, it is becoming much more difficult to pencil out affordability requirements on site.

A new auction should be set and the developers should stick with Transbay's original plan which was for an 800'+ office tower, therefore, no BMR requirement. Tall office towers look much better on the skyline than residential towers IMO.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2015, 3:55 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post
I believe the requirements are ordered by the State as part of the deal after CalTrans sold the land to the city. Now that fewer and fewer plots of land are available in Transbay for BMR units, it is becoming much more difficult to pencil out affordability requirements on site.

A new auction should be set and the developers should stick with Transbay's original plan which was for an 800'+ office tower, therefore, no BMR requirement. Tall office towers look much better on the skyline than residential towers IMO.
parcel F is waaay too small for a 800' office tower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2015, 9:33 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 682
Parcel F contains 29,000 square feet of net developable area. 181 Fremont, for comparison, is just over half that size, at 15,310 square feet, and even Salesforce Tower's largest floor plates will be around 24,000 square feet. As has been stated, if the eventual developer acquires the parcel next door, combined they would have nearly 40,000 square feet. In this economy, that footprint will be plenty large enough to justify building as high as code allows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2015, 10:05 PM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by botoxic View Post
Parcel F contains 29,000 square feet of net developable area. 181 Fremont, for comparison, is just over half that size, at 15,310 square feet, and even Salesforce Tower's largest floor plates will be around 24,000 square feet. As has been stated, if the eventual developer acquires the parcel next door, combined they would have nearly 40,000 square feet. In this economy, that footprint will be plenty large enough to justify building as high as code allows.
look at the shape of it, and look at the nasty set of easements running diagonally through it. (Start with page 32 http://www.transbaycenter.org/upload...x-Easement.pdf)

181 Fremont is residential on top for a reason....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2015, 6:20 PM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 682
I see what you mean - 29,000 developable sf seems almost cruelly misleading. With some design ingenuity, would the structure be allowed to cantilever over the train box easement? The possible result would be unique amongst San Francisco skyscrapers.

Either way, I would agree that a mixed-use proposal is most likely for this parcel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 24, 2016, 12:03 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,040
While we may be a little disappointed at the possible 60 foot shortening of Oceanwide Center, could Parcel F be considered for a 90 foot increase from 750 feet to 840 feet? This image is part of the attached documents regarding the 100 foot increase to 100 Folsom St. A difference between roof and building heights shown is not given, but many are clearly roof heights.

http://sfocii.org/sites/default/file...chmentE-06.pdf

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2016, 1:14 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 682
I can't recall ever seeing this more realistic depiction of the likely shape of the building to be built on Parcel F (due to the requirement that only one story may be built atop the train easement portion).


Source

Last edited by botoxic; Feb 19, 2016 at 1:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2016, 9:53 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 608
There's a new tentative agreement on selling Parcel F:

Quote:
Transbay panel has deal for land key to financing transit center

The board of the cash-strapped Transbay Joint Powers Authority struck a deal Thursday with a developer willing to pay $160 million for a key parcel of land near the transit center, money that is badly needed to finance the first phase of the $2.1 billion facility at First and Mission streets.

Development group F4 Transbay Partners plans to build a mixed-use tower with upward of 300 hotel rooms, 200 residential units and as much as 425,000 square feet of office space. In addition, the developer has agreed to pay the transit authority an additional $15 million if it can hammer out a deal to acquire a contiguous piece of privately owned land at 540 Howard St.

[...]

The deal with F4, a joint venture between Hines, Urban Pacific and the Goldman Sachs real estate fund Broad Street Real Estate Credit Partners, is to close by the summer. It is not a sure bet, however.

It it contingent on the city granting the developer an exclusive negotiation agreement to take on another piece of Transbay land — Block 4 — currently being used for the temporary bus terminal. That property, zoned for a 450-foot residential building, would give F4 land to build the 70 affordable units connected to Parcel F, as well as additional housing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2016, 3:28 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 682
Assuming floor plates the size of 181 Fremont (about the largest the site will accommodate), the numbers equate to around 30 office floors (405') and 33 hotel/residential floors (341'), pushing up to the 750' height limit. Maximum allowance for mechanical and crown could extend the building to 825' tall.

Acquisition of 540 Howard would nearly double the potential square footage and enable the possibility of a fairly massive building by San Francisco standards (~1.4 million sf).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jun 23, 2016, 6:22 AM
aahuatzi aahuatzi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 7
Parcel F

According to a business times article posted today it seems like the developers of parcel F are considering HKS Architects or Cesar Pelli to design the new tower. I kinda wish they went with other world renowned architects since Pelli Clark is already designing two of the main buildings in the Transbay District.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2016, 9:33 PM
don116 don116 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 119
https://www.cpexecutive.com/post/jv-...san-francisco/

Parcel F has been sold to Hines, Urban Pacific, and Goldman Sachs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2016, 11:46 PM
fimiak's Avatar
fimiak fimiak is offline
Build Baby Build
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by don116 View Post
https://www.cpexecutive.com/post/jv-...san-francisco/

Parcel F has been sold to Hines, Urban Pacific, and Goldman Sachs
It bothers me that they say "supertall" when a supertall is 300 Meters / 984 Feet, not 550 ft like the article suggests. But good news nonetheless.

Last edited by fimiak; Jun 29, 2016 at 1:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 10:24 PM
OneRinconHill OneRinconHill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 96
Anyone seen the official render?

https://www.instagram.com/p/BHVcmz5BnXt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 10:57 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,141


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 10:58 PM
OneRinconHill OneRinconHill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad View Post


Damn was about to post this!

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ower-site.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2016, 11:56 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 7,101
I love it! Lets get this one started as well.....
__________________
He said he'd cure your ills, but he didn't and he never will
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2016, 1:40 AM
Plokoon11 Plokoon11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,584
Wow looks really good! Like the design!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2016, 6:11 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,127
I like it too
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 12:57 PM.

     

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