SEATTLE | Downtown Projects: Completed, U/C, Proposed/Approved - Page 183

mhays · #**3641** Posted **Nov 30, 2014, 10:44 PM**

I wish. But we'll make it tougher before we make it easier.

In terms of greater downtowns, I'm not thinking of any other than New York that are booming in both residential and office. Add transit and a freeway tunnel, plus lesser contributions in hotels, biotech, etc., and Seattle could be two or three for greater downtown growth.

Gordo · #**3642** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 12:35 AM**

Depends on what you call "greater downtown", but SF is certainly booming in both residential and office in what I would call greater downtown (Financial District, east SOMA, Van Ness corridor). I'd put the booms in SF and Seattle roughly on par with one another, though Seattle's probably has longer legs on the office front, simply because SF is about to run up against the proposition M cap that will limit new office construction.

mhays · #**3643** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 1:13 AM**

Including recent groundbreakings since 2010 that have started actual shoring, the current boom is somewhere around 6,700,000 sf (as I look up numbers, it's getting right around 7,000,000), in a "greater Downtown" area of maybe 2,500 acres. I haven't heard that SF is in that range.

The residential boom might be in the 12,000 to 13,000-unit range in the same area with groundbreakings since (late) 2010. That's closer to SF's citywide number than its greater Downtown number, or so I've heard.

SF probably wins on the transit side counting the spur and the big terminal, vs. our Link tunnel extension and one streetcar. Add the Mercer/Valley area and the Highway 99 tunnel, though the latter is having trouble so far, and we'd easily have the most impactful transportation changes.

Gordo · #**3644** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 1:55 AM**

The prop M cap that I mentioned shows 8.4 million sf either in the construction or "final permits approved" stage, which is a three year start permit (4 mil is actually under construction). Because of the prop M limitations, it's very unlikely that the permitted sf won't be started, because it's quite expensive to obtain the final permits AND you get fined if you let a final permit expire without a substantial reason (a big recession might count, a "can't find financing" reason doesn't count, because you can sell your allotment to another development - for this reason it's very rare for a developer to even apply for the prop M permits unless construction is imminent). 2.9 mil sf of that space expires before next summer, so I'd expect around 6.9 mil to be under construction and/or finished by then. The bad news is that now that we've hit the cap there's only 875,000 sf in new space allowed to be permitted each year.

Residential numbers aren't as easy to find, but five different 1000+ developments are breaking ground in the next two months, so you'll likely see SF catching up a bit on that front soon. The bad news is that there's almost no development in SF's peripheral neighborhoods, compared to quite a bit in Seattle.

mhays · #**3645** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 3:36 AM**

I don't know about the fines in SF. But something that goes through permitting still has major hurdles, uncertainties, and decisions to be made. Let's say it's two months from building permit and groundbreaking. It doesn't have anywhere near a full design, doesn't have financing (statements of intent yes, actual no), and doesn't have a construction cost. Nor is it clear what the market will look like at the time of groundbreaking, or what interest rates might be.

It seems likely that SF will be a "build now!" city, so I'd guess it'll all/mostly get built, but, potential work isn't actual work.

Regarding the housing, do you mean 5,000+ (or however many) units break ground, or the first phases of those projects will break ground? Again, announced starts aren't real starts, but it's at least interesting.

Gordo · #**3646** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 6:43 AM**

For the housing, I'm talking about 5000+ units breaking ground. In two of the cases it's a 1000+ unit phase of a larger project (third phase for one, first phase for the other), while the other three are standalone projects being built at once.

True enough on the office starts, but it really is different in SF with prop M. If you go as far as getting the final "prop M" permits, you're pretty committed (to at least paying millions in fees for a typical tower if you bail).

The cap will really start to have an impact next year, where I'd guess many sites that would be best for office will have residential options put forward instead (no cap for residential).

mhays · #**3647** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 7:05 AM**

A committed developer is only part of the battle. Figuring out the cost/benefit/risk equation, getting financing, etc., are not fully controlled by them.

alki · #**3648** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 7:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't know about the fines in SF. But something that goes through permitting still has major hurdles, uncertainties, and decisions to be made. Let's say it's two months from building permit and groundbreaking. It doesn't have anywhere near a full design, doesn't have financing (statements of intent yes, actual no), and doesn't have a construction cost. Nor is it clear what the market will look like at the time of groundbreaking, or what interest rates might be.

It seems likely that SF will be a "build now!" city, so I'd guess it'll all/mostly get built, but, potential work isn't actual work.

Regarding the housing, do you mean 5,000+ (or however many) units break ground, or the first phases of those projects will break ground? Again, announced starts aren't real starts, but it's at least interesting.

Here's some insight into SF's housing boom:

There were only 4,200 units built between 2010 and 2013, but as of January 2014, 6,000 new units were under construction, 4,200 had received building permits and were in pre-construction and a massive 29,700 units has been approved but didn't yet have planning permits issued. Another 10,500 units were under planning review.

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...rks_for_sf.php

mhays · #**3649** Posted **Dec 1, 2014, 8:58 PM**

The 4,200 sounds awful high. Maybe building permits work differently in SF. Seattle's process has building permits awarded often the day before construction (shoring) starts, and projects that don't start within a few weeks are sometimes ones that are pausing to redesign, get financing, or whatever.

The 29,700 sounds like long-term master plans, like the long-term plan for the island on the Bay Bridge, etc.

alki · #**3650** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 3:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

The 4,200 sounds awful high. Maybe building permits work differently in SF. Seattle's process has building permits awarded often the day before construction (shoring) starts, and projects that don't start within a few weeks are sometimes ones that are pausing to redesign, get financing, or whatever.

The 29,700 sounds like long-term master plans, like the long-term plan for the island on the Bay Bridge, etc.

The way I've it interpreted.....10K units are either in construction or pre construction; another 10K are in plan check and 29K are in processing before plan check. Pretty impressive esp if a good percentage of the 29K get into construction. The thing to remember......SF has 200K more people than Seattle and SF metro is nearly twice as big as the Seattle metro.

In the mean time, I take it.....no one has a problem with tall, dark bldgs on the skyline.

seapug · #**3651** Posted **Dec 2, 2014, 9:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alki

In the mean time, I take it.....no one has a problem with tall, dark bldgs on the skyline.

Not at all, I like a lot of the buildings going up now.

navyweaxguy · #**3652** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 1:51 AM**

Treasure Island is a dump. They could have done so much with it. I was stationed there in 94. Given the right developers it could be amazing.

alki · #**3653** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 4:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seapug

Not at all, I like a lot of the buildings going up now.

Well then Gotham City it is.

Gordo · #**3654** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 5:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

A committed developer is only part of the battle. Figuring out the cost/benefit/risk equation, getting financing, etc., are not fully controlled by them.

Sure, but that's kind of my point. With a full prop M-entitled permit, you have to already commit to millions in fees if you pull out, so you've typically got to have financing already in place before applying for that last permit - one because of the liability that the fallout fees create, and two because the permits are capped, and thus the city won't approve yours if there are others in line that are better. Seattle has no equivalent (thank god). Prop M only applies to office however, I'm not as clear on how the permitting process for residential works.

mhays · #**3655** Posted **Dec 3, 2014, 6:21 AM**

The financing isn't "in place." That's a myth.

You might have an equity partner and a debt lender, or whatever the set up is. But those people won't decide to "go" until much later. How could they, with the costs only known in very general terms, and with so many other variables that need to be considered closer to the end?

Gordo · #**3656** Posted **Dec 4, 2014, 4:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

The financing isn't "in place." That's a myth.

You might have an equity partner and a debt lender, or whatever the set up is. But those people won't decide to "go" until much later. How could they, with the costs only known in very general terms, and with so many other variables that need to be considered closer to the end?

I think you're confusing other building permits with the very-specific proposition M permits for SF. You have to have all other permits in place before you can even apply for a prop M permit (including demo, shoring, etc), and while the prop M permit allows 3 years to start, the average is more like a month, with many beginning within days (because many of the other permits would have to be renewed if you wait more than that). The Transbay Tower received its allowance under prop M less than a week before shovels hit the dirt.

alki · #**3657** Posted **Dec 4, 2014, 5:11 AM**

624 Yale Apartments Hope to Punctuate SLU Living

Tuesday, December 2, 2014, by Sean Keeley

http://seattle.curbed.com/archives/2...apartments.php

mhays · #**3658** Posted **Dec 4, 2014, 5:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo

I think you're confusing other building permits with the very-specific proposition M permits for SF. You have to have all other permits in place before you can even apply for a prop M permit (including demo, shoring, etc), and while the prop M permit allows 3 years to start, the average is more like a month, with many beginning within days (because many of the other permits would have to be renewed if you wait more than that). The Transbay Tower received its allowance under prop M less than a week before shovels hit the dirt.

Ok, if it's a month then they probably have the framework of an agreement. But they still need to work through buildable construction documents, define a construction cost and sign a guaranteed price, settle on financing terms, etc. Each party still needs to decide whether to go forward or not.

Sorry, I used to believe that sort of thing more readily, but 18 years ago I joined the construction industry.

chris08876 · #**3659** Posted **Dec 6, 2014, 5:48 PM**

5th and Columbia seems to have a lot of activity on the site. I posted a webcam image on the thread for it. Some nice renderings and leasing signs on the nearby structure.

Vashon118 · #**3660** Posted **Dec 15, 2014, 4:52 AM**

1007 Stewart St

1007 Stewart St 2014-12-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

1007 Stewart St 2014-12-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Premier on Pine

Premier on Pine 2014-12-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Premier on Pine 2014-12-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr

Stadium Place (east block)

Stadium Place (east block) 2014-12-13 by planet_lb, on Flickr