SkyscraperPage Forum - SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

Viewing Page 99 of 168

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)

- - SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136300)

Thanks for the update p.g. Its nice to see some heavy machinery and loose rubble around. Hopefully we'll see some serious activity happening within the next 45 days.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Quote:

Behind the scenes, Transbay district evolving
John King, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, January 5, 2009

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...1231042214.jpg

Except for construction crews upending asphalt on a block destined to serve as a temporary bus terminal, San Francisco's much-ballyhooed Transbay district shows little sign of change.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...0499613930.jpg

The calm isn't the result of economic ills, say the bureaucrats and architects focused on an area that 20 years ago was defined mainly by freeway ramps. There's ample work going on - but it's the sort that takes place in offices and hearing rooms, involving computers rather than cranes.

"Everyone wants to make this happen," said John Rahaim, the city's planning director. "We're full speed ahead."

The low-profile planning is a contrast to the sporadic drama of the past two years.

In 2007, government officials grabbed headlines with a competition for the rights to build a skyline-popping tower in San Francisco as part of an effort to fund a major transit hub at First and Mission streets. The Planning Department followed last year with a proposal for new zoning that would allow several towers to approach or exceed the height of the 853-foot Transamerica Pyramid, the city's tallest building.

Now, three agencies are in the middle of initiatives for the area - and at least one development team is pursuing plans for a tower well under what planners have indicated they'll allow.

The most obvious sign of what's to come is on the block bounded by Howard, Beale, Folsom and Main streets. A longtime parking lot is fenced off to everyone but construction workers, while the block's two small one-story buildings await demolition.

The block this year will sprout a temporary terminal for buses bringing commuters to the Financial District from other counties. It's scheduled to open in August, followed by the demolition of the existing terminal.

If the schedule holds, the spring of 2010 would see a groundbreaking for the new Transbay Terminal. The $1.2 billion project includes the temporary terminal and bus ramps to the Bay Bridge and is part of a larger effort to bring commuter trains and high-speed rail within one block of Market Street.

"All told, upwards of 150 consultants are working on this right now," said Fred Clarke of Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects, the Connecticut firm designing the terminal.

The firm also was selected with developer Hines to erect an office tower on the Transbay block along Mission Street - a skyscraper that likely would climb at least 1,000 feet.

Besides turning heads, the tower will help fund the terminal. Hines has agreed to pay $235 million to the Transbay Joint Powers Authority.

"We haven't fully engaged in the work on the tower" given the moribund economy, Clarke conceded. Still, "We'll be starting the entitlement process in '09."

Those entitlements will be affected by the Planning Department's district plan for the area bounded roughly by Mission, Third, Folsom and Main streets.

Besides the zoning issues, planners will map out how the Transbay district - projected to be the densest part of the city - would work in terms of pedestrian ambience and traffic circulation. There also will be an economic component in terms of the fees that would be charged developers.

According to Planning Director Rahaim, the department hopes to release a draft of the plan in February. That would allow the formal public process to begin; it also would mark the start of environmental studies that are required before a plan is adopted.

"This is a plan for the long term," Rahaim said, downplaying the recession's impact.

Redevelopment bids soon

In the meantime, a fresh test of the area's appeal to developers will come Jan. 22, when the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency takes bids from developers vying for an acre-plus site at First and Folsom streets.

This is one of several blocks freed up by the demolition of the ramps that led from the Bay Bridge to the Embarcadero Freeway, which was razed in 1990. A 2005 redevelopment plan maps out the blocks as a residential district akin to what's taking shape on Rincon Hill, with thin towers rising from townhouse-scaled bases.

The First and Folsom site is zoned to allow a 450-foot tower as well as approximately 150 affordable apartments.

Whatever occurs with the redevelopment land, at least one private developer is pursuing plans for a Transbay tower.

The site is 350 Mission St., now occupied by a low office building. But it stands across from the Transbay Terminal, on a block where planners have proposed heights of 700 feet.

Instead, developer GLL Properties seeks to build an office tower of just 27 stories, roughly 350 feet. The lower height is dictated by the relatively compact site: Go any higher and the extra elevator banks would chew up too much rentable space.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...0499614445.jpg

Unusual design

The design aims to make 350 Mission stand out in other ways. The glass skin would taper in and out both vertically and horizontally, aiming for a jewel-like faceted texture. At the ground, the lower 50 feet along Fremont and Mission streets would open to the sidewalk during the day - serving as a de facto public space.

"This can't be, because of its size, a landmark building on the skyline. It can be a landmark at street level," said architect Craig Hartman of Skidmore Owings & Merrill, the tower designer.

Like the Transbay tower, 350 Mission can't proceed until the larger environmental studies are complete. After that, the economy will call the shots.

"This is an entire district of the city that is transforming - not just in its density, but in its character," Hartman said. "We need to make it as different as possible from living in the suburbs."

E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...BA7A151GAM.DTL

I like the approach SOM has taken on 350 Mission. If it can't be a skyline changer, make it a street-level changer. Plus it would be a great looking building even at a shorter height, much like 535 would have been.

About its height, I thought there were FAR restrictions that limited the height but King says it was due to elevator/floor space issues. Is that because the new zoning also adjusts FAR?

The blue-green pipes and orange cones indicate where the center island for the temporary terminal will be located:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3125/...c2f26067_b.jpg

Still waiting for the two remaining buildings to be torn down.

Great stuff guys, thanks for posting. I like 350 Mission also, at least by what the rendering shows it to be. After all, height isn't everything.

Its also good to see increasing activity at the temporary site, although I'm still wondering how they'll do with the freeway connector to the old terminal.

Quote:

Wall Street Ripple: Transbay Evolving Ever So Slowly
If there's anyone in denial over the impact of the current credit crunch and fiscal crisis on office space and new building (or lack thereof), it appears to be the hundreds of planners and designers involved in developing the Transbay Terminal and its many shadowy towers. "Everyone wants to make this happen," says the city's planning director. "We're full speed ahead." Indeed, ground has been broken for the temporary bus terminal, set to open in August, followed by the demolition of the existing terminal. But the big boy himself, all $1.2 billion of him, is scheduled to begin going down in the spring of 2010. Now we don't mean to rain on the parade but, um, market allowing? Even evergreen optimist John King minces words, describing the Terminal's groundbreaking conditionally. But oh, avert your eyes from that ugly financial collapse because look, we're making shiny towers like diamonds! And don't be surprised when the deadlines for interested developers eyeing small Transbay plots are continually extended... Just sayin'.

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2008-10-transbaytower.JPG

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

Working on the temporary terminal site (1/9/09):

http://www.steelbluellc.com/photos/temp_terminal.jpg

^ Nice view you have there in 201 Mission.

Jaime at the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Blog wrote up his notes from last night's TJPA community meeting. This part is particularly interesting:

Quote:

The folks at Pelli Clarke Pelli suggest building the train box of the transit center from the bottom up (as opposed to the current plans for building it from the top down, putting in the walls, so-to-speak (Bob had the technical language, but I didn’t write it down), and taking care of excavations for the trains later on). This suggested change would save about $100 million from the total project costs (all phases combined) and would reduce the risks associated with building the train box from the top down. However, it means a shift in need for $350 million for Phase I instead of Phase II to build the train box sooner rather than later. The Transbay JPA along with other related groups (Caltrain, High Speed Rail Authority, public policy groups like SPUR) are all aggressively seeking economic stimulus funds to get their respective (and interrelated) projects rolling faster, and hope to stir up the $350 million to pursue this change in construction of the train box.

The one possible negative for the Rincon Hill neighborhood of this possible change in plans is that the Transbay Temporary Terminal would need to exist for an additional 12 months (tentatively), until 2015 (instead of 2014), if the $350 million is raised and they build the train box of the Transit Center from the bottom up.

I'm not excited about waiting an extra year for the new terminal to be complete, but $100M is a lot of scratch.

Also, one of the two remaining buildings at the temporary terminal site is gone and the other is half way there. All but a little pavement in the southeast corner is gone too. Also, there are crews pulling cores around the old terminal again this week, in some of the same places (or very nearby) they have before. Don't know what that means exactly, but it definitely shows that things are still moving forward. These days, I'll take any little sign of progress I can.

I've read in several places about the plan that could save $100 million, but still can't figure out exactly how or why it would save that much. Does anyone have any clue? It sounds like they're saying that the plan now is to not build the train box until after the tower is built, but it would be cheaper to build the train box before the tower is built...am I reading that right? How in the world would they excavate something like the train box after the tower is built? It's not like the train box is going to be incredibly deep under the tower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 4026044)

very simply stated,,, actual CEs may want to correct me...

They build the structural components of the foundation, walls, and roof of the train box without removing the soil... they do this by pouring slurry, and then concrete into pre-drilled holes much like making caissons and slurry walls.

then when they are ready they remove the soil and "clean things up" by tunneling in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 (Post 4026083)

Ok, that makes sense. Now, next question - how does that option cost $100 million more, and if it does, why would it have ever been considered? :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 4026319)

Ok, that makes sense. Now, next question - how does that option cost $100 million more, and if it does, why would it have ever been considered? :)

It would be considered because the cost is pushed back to "Phase II" (essentially the construction of the tunnel for CalTrain and HSR) from phase I. It costs more ultimately but less in the first phase (the above-ground terminal structure, bus ramps and so on).

Looks like they got three proposals for Block 8...competition is good!

Developers bid to build 550-foot Transbay District tower

Quote:

Developers bid to build 550-foot Transbay District tower
San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen

Three development teams are bidding to build a 550-foot residential tower at First and Folsom streets in the Transbay District, despite a crushing economic downturn that has depressed the value of the state-owned site and precluded some major builders from taking on the project.

The three partnerships vying to take on project are: AvalonBay and affordable housing partner Bridge Housing; Golub Real Estate Corp. with affordable housing partner Mercy Housing; and Avant Housing with affordable housing partner Citizens Housing.

A number of developers who had been looking at the project, including Toll Brothers, Related Cos., and Intracorp San Francisco, did not submit proposals.

Mike Grisso, project manager for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, said the agency was still reviewing the proposals, but that all conformed to the Request for proposal, which called for a 550-foot condo tower reaching above two mid-rise affordable apartment buildings and a row of townhouses that will open onto Folsom Street.

“They are all housing and they all have a similar number of units, there is not a big variety” said Grisso. “The program was pretty proscribed in terms of height limits and bulk limits and building sizes.”

The 42,600-square-foot parcel is one of a dozen state-owned lots freed up when the elevated Embarcadero Freeway was knocked down after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. While nine of the 12 parcels are set to be eventually redeveloped with housing — two will be parks and one a 700,000-square-foot office tower — Block 8 is the largest. It calls for a 550-foot tower reaching above two mid-rise affordable apartment buildings and a row of townhouses that will open onto Folsom Street, a thoroughfare that will eventually be reconfigured as a shopping boulevard with wide sidewalks, greenery and outdoor seating.

All three teams feature deep pockets and experience. AvalonBay, a national apartment real estate investment trust, has constructed 823 apartments in Mission Bay and has another development site near City College. Avant Housing is a joint venture between well-known Bay Area developers AGI Capital and TMG Partners and is backed by CalPERS. Golub is one of Chicago’s most prolific developers and has developed, owned, or managed more than 30 million square feet of commercial property and 50,000 multifamily units.

"backed by CalPers"?? CalPers no longer has "deep pockets". CalPers is hurting, especially with regard to their real estate investments. I'm surprised they aren't pulling back from that asset class almost completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF (Post 4044818)

CalPers has less deep pockets, but it still has pockets. The recent 'alternate investment' fiasco stemmed from a stupid, stupid bet on raw land. This is one of those times we should be grateful, in a grudging to the point of resentment, for the restrictions on development imposed by Prop M. The artificial scarcity imposed from M mean this project, with these inducements, will move forward on a sooner rather than later time schedule. Not soon as in the next two years, but 2012-2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster (Post 4046917)

The artificial scarcity imposed from M mean this project, with these inducements, will move forward on a sooner rather than later time schedule. Not soon as in the next two years, but 2012-2013

Nobody can argue that Prop.M hasn't smoothed the building cycles somewhat, making new projects now more likely than they would have been. But I think this economy is bad enough (and may get much worse) that we aren't going to see new non-residential highrise projects that quickly except in unusual circumstances. By that I mean the folks behind 555 Mission decided to just take a chance and build it and lucked out (535 was just a bit too late). Somebody could take a similar chance with this building but it will be a major risk in 2012-2013 and I wouldn't bet it'll happen then.

If money again becomes available for non-conforming mortgages (or they raise the limits on conforming ones), we might see some residential building in that time frame and I still think a project like 45 Lansing, targeted to buyers wealthy enough to not need a mortgage in many cases and not really competing with all the buildings recently completed for upper middle class buyers, could be among the first to go forward.

By the way, I was being a bit hyperbolic about CalPers but even so, new real estate investments by them at this time do surprise me. They have a lot of repair work to their portfolio to do.

I must say I'm filing this in the "Shouldn't they have figured this out a couple of years ago?" file:

Quote:

Gavin Wants to Hold on Transbay Until It Gets Fast Train
The standoff begins: Gavin Newsom, while on way official important business in Paris, said that we should put construction on the Transbay Terminal on hold until we can find money to bring the high-speed rail downtown. Blame the High Speed Rail Authority. They're not planning on bringing the fast train into the city farther than the Caltrain station at 4th and King— leaving the billion-dollar Transbay Terminal and Tower project in a pretty awkward place. Says Newsom, in between sumptuous bites of foie gras: "We're not going to build a $2 billion bus station under my watch." According to NBC Bay Area, the Transbay Joint Powers Board has been mulling building the first phase of the terminal without the train terminal, and then coming back later to finish the job. Gavin, however, has come out against that, saying we should wait on the whole thing until we have the money (last estimated to be an extra $2 billion for the 1.3 mile extension). According to the SF Examiner, the High Speed Rail Authority finds Gavin's statement "puzzling." Sounds like they need to get their people to talk to Gavin's people.

Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

How long have they been planning this as a Phase I (bus terminal)/Phase 2 (bring CalTrain in) project? Several years at least!

Has this got something to do with the fact that Gavin arch-enemy Chris Daly is on the TJPA Board doing the planning for the terminal?

So what does Newsom want--a temporary terminal (under construction) in use for a decade (or more) and a giant surface parking lot at 1st & Mission? SF: The city that doesn't know how.

Viewing Page 99 of 168