HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2021, 9:09 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
so strange to walk past this tonight - or rather, not walk past it, since it's pretty much not there anymore. the new sightlines are jarring

looking SE from 5th and Brannan



NE from 5th and Bluxome



and the relation to 5M, down 5th

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2021, 7:26 PM
BobbyMucho BobbyMucho is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 250
I am looking very forward to this one (two?) take shape.

Did you get a look across the street at 598 Brannan? I think demo permits have been pulled but haven't heard/seen any updates.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2021, 8:33 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyMucho View Post
...
Did you get a look across the street at 598 Brannan?
just as last month, I forgot to look specifically, but I think I would have noticed if there had been any significant activity yet. I will try to make a point of paying attention next time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2021, 8:32 PM
wanderer34 wanderer34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Miami/somewhere in paradise
Posts: 1,467
typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2021, 3:01 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
peeking through the fence



looking along Brannan



and just a reminder what Bluxome used to look like (2014, right before the shorter whitish building on the right got replaced), so we have a 'before' pic

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2021, 1:31 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
Tennis club dropped from 88 Bluxome plans
By Laura Waxmann – Staff Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Apr 6, 2021 Updated Apr 7, 2021, 10:43am PDT

Alexandria Real Estate Equities is making changes to its 1 million-square-foot mixed-use development in SoMa, nixing plans for a tennis club at the 88 Bluxome St. site.

The change comes after the project lost its anchor tenant in August, when Pinterest Inc. terminated a 490,000-square-foot lease at the development.

Pasadena-based Alexandria (NYSE: ARE), one of the Bay Area's most active developers, removed the 164,350-square-foot club slated from the basement, co-CEO Stephen Richardson told me.

“We lost our anchor tenant, Pinterest, a couple of quarters ago so this project has been front and center for us and we really have been evaluating the components of the project, the viability of the project, as well as the market,” he said.

The Bay Club sold the 88 Bluxome site — home to Bay Club San Francisco Tennis — to Alexandria in 2017 for $130 million and was set to operate the new club there as part of a deal negotiated with San Franciscans for Sports and Recreation (SFFSR), a nonprofit group that had advocated for a replacement club at the site. The project was approved in 2018 as part of the Central SoMa Plan . . . .

Alexandria will pay a one-time termination fee of $7.5 million to SFSR. Richardson said that the group agreed to the fee payment — which will be used to expand public sports and recreation spaces across the city — should market conditions change and the club no longer be feasible to build.

However, Seth Socolow, executive director of SFFSR, told me on Tuesday that the group has not accepted the payment and is "currently evaluating all options," though it acknowledges that the previous agreement allows for the one-time payment if market conditions changed.

"ARE have been excellent partners to date in supporting our efforts to improve public recreation throughout San Francisco and in providing an interim 12 court indoor tennis facility at the Cow Palace for use during construction of the planned indoor tennis facility at 88 Bluxome," Socolow said. "Our board were all shocked and deeply disappointed on learning today that ARE does not intend to build the indoor tennis facility that they contractually committed to us to build and is included in their current plans on file with the City Planning Department."

As part of the 2016 deal, Alexandria agreed to pay for and construct an interim indoor tennis club prior to the demolition of the. The Bay Club operates the interim site, which opened at the Cow Palace last year.

Richardson said Alexandria remains committed to the other components of the project and promised community benefits. These include a fully engineered pad for the construction of 107 units of 100% affordable housing, which will be donated to the Mayor’s Office of Housing for development; a public recreation center with two new swimming pools; an on-site child care center; retail amenities; production, distribution and repair (PDR) space; and the Bluxome Street linear park envisioned by the city’s Central SoMa Plan.

When asked if it was adding more office office space, Richardson told me the rest of the plan stays the same for now . . . .

Vertical construction has not yet begun on 88 Bluxome St., and it is unclear when the project will move forward in the absence of an anchor tenant.

“A project of this scale and size really commands an anchor tenant commitment in order to kick off, which is what we’ve done as a company for nearly a decade now — anchor projects with preleasing,” said Richardson. “Until we get to that point it's very much of a ‘stay tuned’ type of approach that we’ve got here.”

During an earnings call with investors in October, Richardson had indicated that 88 Bluxome St. could be built out to attract a life science user in response to muted demand for office space.

Richardson said this week that the company would like to “keep optionality” in regard to the 88 Bluxome St. development.

“I think that’s another aspect of the ‘stay tuned’ — we will see how the market unfolds,” he said.

“It doesn’t escape us that this once-in-a-century pandemic has had impacts on almost every aspect of every person’s life. And broadly the commercial office market in the U.S. has been very adversely impacted with people having to work remotely, and San Francisco has been amongst the hardest hit in the country.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...Pos=9#cxrecs_s

Sounds to me like it's not going vertical until they find another anchor tenant, either infotech/office or "life sciences", and there could be litigation in its future from San Franciscans for Sports and Recreation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 8:46 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 3,150
not much verticality in sight

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2021, 7:15 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,177
Quote:
S.F. board sides with tennis club advocates after 88 Bluxome developer pivoted on plans
By Laura Waxmann – Staff Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Dec 10, 2021 Updated Dec 13, 2021, 11:07am PST

San Francisco recreation advocates scored big against a major developer on Wednesday after the city's Board of Appeals ruled in their favor in the ongoing fight over a replacement tennis club dropped from a 1.2 million-square-foot mixed-use project in the SoMa neighborhood.

The tennis club saga started earlier this year when Alexandria Real Estate Equities, a publicly traded REIT (NYSE: ARE) and one of the nation's leading biotech developers, sought a permit to drop a small but key component of its entitled 88 Bluxome project — a 134,000-square-foot tennis club that was planned to replace the San Francisco Bay Club that operated at the site since 1974.

The move angered recreation advocates, who had negotiated the replacement club as Alexandria sought entitlements for the project in 2019. On Wednesday, the Board of Appeals disagreed with the Zoning Administrator's determination that Alexandria's modification to the project to be "less than significant," voting 4-0 to send the proposal back to the city's Planning Commission.

The move doesn't not restart the entitlement process entirely. The commission will be asked to determine if Alexandria will be allowed to drop the tennis club . . . .

SFFSR's appeal hinged on the word "significant." As I reported previously, the project's entitlements included language that required any changes to the project deemed as "significant" by Zoning Administrator Corey Teague to be reviewed and vetted by the city's Planning Commission. But after Alexandria filed for a permit to modify the project's plans, Teague ruled in October that the change was not significant enough to force the developer to start over.

Teague reasoned that while the replacement facility was the result of negotiations and a private agreement between the group and Alexandria, it was neither a requirement by the city nor a condition of the project's approval. He also said that striking the club from the project plans would not alter the project in a major way.

Anthony Giles, an attorney for SFFSR, argued on Wednesday that Teague erred in his judgment. Giles said that the removing a recreation space that spans 3 acres and comprises 10% of the total project — and that was negotiated by community stakeholders — constituted a significant modification.

He said Alexandria touted the tennis club as one of four public benefits offered by the project when it sought approvals from the city, and even recruited SFFSR members to testify on its behalf at public hearings leading up to the project's approval in June 2019. A year later, the developer pulled a "bait and switch," said Giles . . . .

Kevlin argued on Wednesday that dropping the private tennis club from the plans for 88 Bluxome does not breach any conditions of approval set for the project by the city, and likened the change to existing guidelines that allow developers for residential projects to increase unit counts by up to 5% without additional review.

"Virtually all projects make some modifications between the Planning Commission approval and building permits," said Kevlin. "In 2017, I worked on a project at 988 Harrison that was originally approved with a below-grade story consisting of parking. Post-planning approval, we eliminated the floor and planning staff were able to approve the building permit without going back to the Planning Commission."

But the members of the Board of Appeals disagreed.

Commissioner Ann Lazarus said that she was concerned that Alexandria's modification would set a "dangerous precedent" for large projects going forward.

"This suggests to me that in the future, put a project that you need to put in there to satisfy the community in the basement and then yank it, because it won't bother what the project looks like, and it will get the same sort of analysis as this project was given," said Lazarus.

"I see no harm in asking the Planning Commission to revisit this with the revision that is being proposed," she said.

The Board of Appeals is expected to issue a written determination on Dec. 21, and a hearing on the tennis club modification at the Planning Commission has yet to be scheduled.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...me-appeal.html
__________________
Rusiya delenda est
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 20, 2022, 5:17 PM
obemearg obemearg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: San Francisco / NYC
Posts: 116
Hopefully seeing this pop up at the top of the forum didn't get anyones hopes up too high but there is some minor activity at the site: The crew is putting up a more substantial barrier which could either mean that some construction is starting sometime soon, or that it won't be for a longer period of time and a better security fence is needed.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2023, 3:52 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
The specs:
- A 243 ft building and a 199 ft building
- 775,000 sq ft for offices
- 19,540 sq ft for retail
- 31,400 sq ft for community recreation center
- 4,600 sq ft for childcare facility
- Separate 6 story building for affordable housing with 118 units
- Parking will be included for 179 cars and 400 bicycles

The current site:
https://goo.gl/maps/XFqSU8pKMCsjtAzWA

Quote:
Meeting Thursday For 88 Bluxome Street, SoMa, San Francisco



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON JULY 24, 2023

The San Francisco Planning Commission is scheduled to review office plans for 88 Bluxome Street, a years-delayed project at a key site in SoMa, San Francisco. The proposal is part of the second attempt to renege on their agreement to rebuild the Bay Club’s tennis club. Alexandria Real Estate Equities and TMG Partners are joint developers.

According to the revised application, Alexandria and San Franciscans for Sports and Recreation have reached a private agreement to terminate their private agreement and eliminate the planned private tennis facility. The application also states that while the private club is gone, “the off-street parking and public recreation facility with two pools will continue to be located on the two floors below-grade.” Once complete, the project will be dubbed the Gene Friend Aquatic Annex. A six-story affordable housing project on the parcel is expected to be built by the Mayor’s Office in a future and separate application.

The project was originally proposed with Pinterest as the anchor tenant. The technology company terminated its 490,000-square-foot lease in August 2020 at a cost of $89.5 million. Demolition started on schedule in late 2020, with completion in early 2021. The 2.6-acre property has since sat empty.

The proposal creates two towers, including a 243-foot-tall West Building and a 199-foot-tall East Building. The development will create 775,000 square feet for offices, 19,540 square feet for retail, 31,400 square feet for the community recreation center, and 4,600 square feet for a childcare facility. The planned affordable housing component is expected to create around 118 units. Parking will be included for 179 cars and 400 bicycles. BKF is consulting on civil engineering, and Magnusson Klemencic Associates is the structural engineer.

Iwamotoscott Architecture is the project’s design architect, with STUDIOS Architecture serving as the executive architect. IwamotoScott writes that the “taller buiding is clad in a gradient punched aperture skin combining facated metal and cementitious panels that tilt in opposite directions… The lower building is developed as a dynamic rhythm of stacked and shifted masses articulated by a vertically-striated skin of angled glazed terracotta panels.”

Surfacedesign is responsible for landscape architecture. The plan involves the much-anticipated linear park serving as an 825-foot-long connection from 4th to 5th Street with a mid-block passage to Brannan Street. The park will provide a network of open green spaces with decorative corten steel, bike racks, and native flowers. On the east end of the Bluxome Linear Park, Solbach has proposed a 47-story residential tower at 636 4th Street.

The nearly block-wide property is bound by Brannan Street, Bluxome Street, and 5th Street. If built, future employees will be a block from the Caltrain San Francisco Station and the recently completed San Francisco Subway expansion.
https://sfyimby.com/2023/07/meeting-...francisco.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2023, 3:54 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 8,722
And some additional renderings that haven't been posted here before:







https://sfyimby.com/2023/07/meeting-...francisco.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2023, 12:47 AM
Charmy2 Charmy2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Cool, I really hope to see this get built. Feels like the entire area south of the Bay Bridge is getting its own skyline.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2023, 3:01 PM
unpermitted_variance unpermitted_variance is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Oakland
Posts: 113
It will be incredible when all these projects in SoMa are built out and driving into the city on the bridge feels like driving into a canyon of towers. Unfortunately that is probably many years away, I don't expect most of these to break ground until the next economic cycle, and who knows when that will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:47 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.