Quote:
Originally Posted by hruski
Why build under height limits?
There aren't many parcels zoned for 700ft in this city; it's a shame when one of them is used for a 450ft buildings instead of the max 700ft.
|
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the full height limit isn't being used. I think there are two main reasons for the lower height, both having to do with the previous developer being deliberate and cautious. When GLL was entitling the project, the height limit was 550'. The parcel wasn't officially upzoned to 700'
until 2012, so they would have had to re-entitle it, or entitle it without a guarantee that the height would be increased (181 Fremont took the latter route and reaches its full 700' limit). Also, the parcel is relatively small (19,000 sq ft), and
here's what the previous developer said:
Quote:
At 27 stories, the 340,000-square-foot building proposed is shorter than the current 550-foot height limit allowed and dramatically less than the 700 feet the proposed Transbay District rezoning would allow. But with its relatively small lot -- about 19,000 square feet -- a higher building doesn't work economically, Wall said. Going beyond 27 stories would require a second elevator bank and force GLL to increase the "load factor" -- the non-leasable portion of the building dedicated to elevators, restrooms and mechanical rooms -- from 20 to about 30 percent.
"It just doesn't pencil," said Wall. "Believe me, I wish it did. Everybody wants more height. Give me a larger parcel, and I'll get more height."
|
It's interesting that having Salesforce pre-lease the whole tower suddenly made six more floors "pencil" out. It makes you wonder how tall it would be if a more ambitious developer had worked on entitling it. If they had really wanted to go to 700', they'd probably have to do what 181 Fremont is doing and make the top part of the tower residential, which works better with small floor plates.
Prev
Linear Mode
