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

[cv94117]

as for the 55 laguna, great news! i hope those housing non profits can get their portion of the money together (last i heard, they were still 15-18 million short) and we can get all 420 units built out in tandem.
QUOTE]

Last I (think I) heard, funding for the non-profit portion of 55 Laguna (Openhouse) was all in place.

[fimiak]

Say goodbye at Market & 6th!





Say goodbye at Market & 8th!








I also highly recommend people watch the WEBCAM link in my signature to see Trinity Place being destroyed by the crane over the next two-three weeks.

[easy as pie]

i walked up broadway from the exploratorium yesterday and noticed a public notice indicating that cahill has pulled a permit for street closures for the broadway/sansome social housing project, with construction apparently to begin this month.


a quick search indicates that:
This project, located at 255 Broadway Street, has a mat slab and 2 concrete podiums with 1 floor of metal stud framing and 7 floors of wood framing. When complete, the building will contain 75 residential units comprised of studios, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. The basement and level 1 will contain some common area, retail space, and offices. There will be roof decks at levels 6 and 7 and an exterior courtyard at level 1. Total area is approximately 88,000 SF.

decent, if ugly, infill (two retail spaces on either corner = yes), walking around that area, there are a sinister number of surface parking lots that really make the place seem depressing.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

i walked up broadway from the exploratorium yesterday and noticed a public notice indicating that cahill has pulled a permit for street closures for the broadway/sansome social housing project, with construction apparently to begin this month.


a quick search indicates that:
This project, located at 255 Broadway Street, has a mat slab and 2 concrete podiums with 1 floor of metal stud framing and 7 floors of wood framing. When complete, the building will contain 75 residential units comprised of studios, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. The basement and level 1 will contain some common area, retail space, and offices. There will be roof decks at levels 6 and 7 and an exterior courtyard at level 1. Total area is approximately 88,000 SF.

decent, if ugly, infill (two retail spaces on either corner = yes), walking around that area, there are a sinister number of surface parking lots that really make the place seem depressing.

I can't wait for the telegraph Hill Dwellers to stop this because it will destroy the social fabric of the alignment of the hills, and reflect the sun in the incorrect manner for one minute at precisely 4:36pm on June 8th of every year.

[simms3_redux]

Is Telegraph Hill sort of the epicenter of SF NIMBYism?

[tech12]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

Is Telegraph Hill sort of the epicenter of SF NIMBYism?

I would say the Northeast quarter of SF (north of Downtown) in general is probably the worst for NIMBYs getting in the way in of stuff, followed by any other wealthy neighborhoods in SF. A lot of the NIMBYs in that area are very wealthy and well-connected politically, and are often successful at killing projects. And I would guess there's a greater concentration of NIMBYs in that part of SF to begin with, just because it's one of the oldest parts of the city, and is pretty much the first area that anyone will think of when it comes to historic preservation and "character" and such, so the NIMBYs there are even more stubborn just based on that. But the Telegraph Hill Dwellers association in particular has been one of the main groups behind killing some recent projects, including the condos that were approved for 8 Washington, as well as the condo tower proposed for 555 Washington, if I'm not mistaken...neither of which are in telegraph hill, it should be noted. The NIMBYs' primary concerns on those seemed to be overblown hysteria about increased traffic and wind tunnels, losing a tennis club, and a make-believe, evil "wall along the embarcadero" resulting from 8 Washington (which was a single building that wasn't even a highrise...but really that one was just about losing the tennis club).

[simms3_redux]

^^^I live in GGateway apts across from 8 Washington (still in play to my knowledge). I occasionally receive flyers about the development and how it will destroy my views (it will though), but I could care less...don't see myself living in such an expensive boring part of town for long!

Love reading about the Larry Ellison feud about the acacia tree growing in his down the hill neighbor's yard, "blocking his view", LoL. I think part of the mentality has to do with how "timeless" SF is...people seem opposed to rapid change. NYC has certainly evolved into a city where one neighborhood is in one year and old news the next, whereas in SF the mentality seems to be to "lock in" what's now and keep that way forever. I feel that at the rate the city is being built up now that it's going to be like NYC to a lesser degree relatively soon where change is accepted and embraced and talked about in positive light as a fact of life for the cty. Maybe not in Telegraph or Russian Hill or Presidio Heights, though, LOL.

[fflint]

I support the idea of keeping skyscrapers out of North Beach, the Castro, the Haight and other intact historic areas. I mean, it's not like this country is ever going to build such fine-grained urban neighborhoods again, which is why San Francisco and similarly historic, human-scaled urban districts are in such demand from coast to coast--Boston, DC, Brooklyn, etc.

That said, the Telegraph Dwellers are the most vile sort of NIMBY organization--rich, powerful, and willing to sacrifice the vitality of downtown to preserve their views. These are the NIMBY types who will talk a good game about preservation and scale and livability, but who in fact are just trying to preserve their garden views. For example, how would a roughly 40 story condo tower next to Transamerica have harmed the city? It wouldn't have. But the Dwellers got their way anyway.

[minesweeper]

Curbed has some photos of 333 Fremont.

It looks pretty lonely there by itself on Fremont Street, although the project next door at 399 Fremont is very close to having its building permit issued.

[biggerhigherfaster]

Originally Posted by fflint

I support the idea of keeping skyscrapers out of North Beach, the Castro, the Haight and other intact historic areas. I mean, it's not like this country is ever going to build such fine-grained urban neighborhoods again, which is why San Francisco and similarly historic, human-scaled urban districts are in such demand from coast to coast--Boston, DC, Brooklyn, etc.

That said, the Telegraph Dwellers are the most vile sort of NIMBY organization--rich, powerful, and willing to sacrifice the vitality of downtown to preserve their views. These are the NIMBY types who will talk a good game about preservation and scale and livability, but who in fact are just trying to preserve their garden views. For example, how would a roughly 40 story condo tower next to Transamerica have harmed the city? It wouldn't have. But the Dwellers got their way anyway.

There are still a fair number of dilapidated crappy buildings in North Beach and probably Castro/Haight; those should be either completely rehabbed/reskinned or razed and replaced, preferably with buildings of greater density and height

[easy as pie]

yeah, i totally disagree that some sites in the intact historic hoods couldn't do with a massive increase in density. three sites in particular literally get my blood boiling - the stanyan/haight cala site, the california and hyde cala site and the sanchez and market chase building, where the neighbors actually successfully defended single story retail with surface parking, knocking out dozens of units. in a normal city, all three of those sites would see 8-10 story towers with retail walls. it's sick, just sick, but changing, thankfully.

[cv94117]

Originally Posted by easy as pie

yeah, i totally disagree that some sites in the intact historic hoods couldn't do with a massive increase in density. three sites in particular literally get my blood boiling - the stanyan/haight cala site, the california and hyde cala site and the sanchez and market chase building, where the neighbors actually successfully defended single story retail with surface parking, knocking out dozens of units. in a normal city, all three of those sites would see 8-10 story towers with retail walls. it's sick, just sick, but changing, thankfully.

First of all, a pet peeve: 8-10 stories is not a "tower". It's a low-rise or at best a mid-rise.

As far as the Haight/Stanyan Cala/Whole Foods site, you get what you ask for. A developer had proposed a new development - a whole foods with several stories of apartments or condos above (I believe some affordable) and parking below. Nazis from various segments (anti-yuppie because of the whole foods, anti-car because of the parking) successfully derailed the project and the developer pulled out. Since the site was previously a Cala, Whole Foods didn't need permission to move in to the pre-existng building (since the use wasn't changing) so we ended up with the Whole Foods anyway, but without any added housing (some affordable) or density. All so that a few purists could prevent others from doing things they dissaproved of. So now it will be decades before we see more smart development at that corner. The same story with variations could be told at vacant or underused sites all over the city.

[fflint]

As far as I can recall, Market and Sanchez was initially rumored to be a possible site of the new Whole Foods (currently u/c at Market and Dolores). There was theoretical opposition, but there was never an official proposal before the City for anything but the bank that eventually got built there.

[philiprsf]

Across Sanchez St, a temporary-looking building went up recently on that vacant lot that sometimes serves as a Christmas tree lot. Anyone know what's going on at that long-vacant site?

[easy as pie]

^ i peered in through the window and it definitely looks like some sort of sales center, we'll know shortly enough, but that site is active with a largish development going up there eventually.

[fimiak]

I don't often get to Market & Sanchez, but from looking at google street view, I can tell it is the kind of San Francisco intersection that frustrates me. There is so much potential for residential towers on this corner its absurd not to take advantage. This corner can support 10-15 floor buildings easily. A 25-floor slim tower could even nudge its way in and due to the wide streets. Logic would suggest that the city is best off expanding all the way up Market St, making it more similar to Broadway St in NYC, since public transit is already in place.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by fimiak

I don't often get to Market & Sanchez, but from looking at google street view, I can tell it is the kind of San Francisco intersection that frustrates me. There is so much potential for residential towers on this corner its absurd not to take advantage. This corner can support 10-15 floor buildings easily. A 25-floor slim tower could even nudge its way in and due to the wide streets. Logic would suggest that the city is best off expanding all the way up Market St, making it more similar to Broadway St in NYC, since public transit is already in place.

I'm there regularly, and let me clue you, the existing transportation in no way begins to resemble NYC. MUNI Metro can barely handle what's there now and the F Line is super slow. Stop getting frustrated and trying to make San Francisco New York because it simply can't and never will be.

It was Trader Joe's that tried to go into where the Chase Bank branch is now, but the lot was too small to accomodate it. The empty lot across the street (where the temporary structure is now) was a Shell station. It will be built out eventually.

[simms3_redux]

901 Market (Market Street Place)

[tech12]

Nice pictures! I love those skyline shots from across the bay. Also, it looks like you were able to get down into the Transbay construction site? That's a cool angle.

[fimiak]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

I'm there regularly, and let me clue you, the existing transportation in no way begins to resemble NYC. MUNI Metro can barely handle what's there now and the F Line is super slow. Stop getting frustrated and trying to make San Francisco New York because it simply can't and never will be.

It was Trader Joe's that tried to go into where the Chase Bank branch is now, but the lot was too small to accomodate it. The empty lot across the street (where the temporary structure is now) was a Shell station. It will be built out eventually.

The city has to grow. If mass transit cannot accomodate the present population then there is a serious problem because the city predicts another 150,000 residents in the next 30 years. San Francisco needs to accept that it is becoming a much larger city with this present and future boom. Constructing on this intersection a few 10-15 floor buildings is hardly earth shattering development. I think NIMBY's like you are hurting rather than helping the city.