From Wikipedia (to jog everyone's memory):
Quote:
|
On May 1, 2008, the city of San Francisco presented its Transbay zoning plan which includes seven towers exceeding the current 550 ft (168 m) height limit, with six towers ranging from 600 feet (183 m) to 800 ft (244 m) and the centerpiece 1,000 ft (305 m) Transbay Tower. Under the city plan, the height of the Renzo Piano towers would be reduced by one-third and the Transbay tower by one-sixth. 181 Fremont Street and Transbay Project II saw their heights cut to only 700 ft (213 m), while 350 Mission Street, currently at 550 ft (168 m), could rise as high as 700 feet (213 m). The plan also permits buildings to rise as high as 600 ft (183 m) on a block of land bounded by Main (northeast), Howard (southeast), and Beale Streets (southwest). One of the reasons for this reduction was that the Transbay Tower, at 1,200 ft (366 m), would cast a shadow over Justin Herman Plaza near the Embarcadero, a violation of a 1984 law that prohibits structures from casting shadows over plazas and parks. A 1,000 ft (305 m) Transbay Tower would not shadow over a significant portion of Justin Herman Plaza.[3]
|
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fra...ay_development
I feel fairly sure the issue with Hines is money, pure and simple. There is simply no market for a new 1000' spec office building in San Francisco right now, so nobody is going to build the thing for at least several years--especially not Hines (I continue to think there's a good chance they will ultimately sell their development rights). And no developer in their right mind will pay for development rights further in advance of construction than they have to. I hope that while San Francisco may not yet have a final contract with Hines, they have some sort of binding agreement since everyone has been assuming for some time that the money for development rights to the tower was "in the bag". Of course, many developers wouldn't think twice about breaking such an agreement if doing so seemed financially advantageous.