Denny's Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day Tuesday
Marina Yoga Studio Donates Old Mats for Haitian Relief
Muni Bus Nails a Fire Hydrant
Prop 8 Trial Judge Is Gay; Should This Matter?
One Dead in Fisherman's Wharf Nightclub Shooting
Rendering courtesy of SF Planning Dept.
In addition, the plan covers a 145-acre district bounded by Steuart and New Montgomery Streets, between Market and Folsom, giving landmarks status to four buildings including the Palace Hotel.
We don't know what the hell happened to the proposed 1,200 foot phallus with preliminary design by Cesar Pelli, which was chosen by the jury in the 2007 competition for a new Transbay Tower, or the other imaginary complex of 900-foot-plus towers by Renzo Piano. Well, we do know -- lots of people complained so city planners are trying to compromise at 950 feet now for the tallest tower. What's another 250 feet? (As you can tell, we like tall things). The surrounding, shorter towers will all have height caps of 800 feet, all well above the existing cap of 550 feet, voted in under the "sunlight protection initiative" of 1984. The revised height limit will have to be approved through a public process in order for the plan to move forward.
The first public meetings about the plan are set to happen soon (dates are unclear), but the draft Environmental Impact Report won't be released until mid-2010, and plan adoption won't be underway until late next year.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Higher! HIGHER!
If we're going to 'Manhattanize' San Francisco can we please get more 24-hour businesses too?
yeah! and black and white cookies!
AND bars open till four. Oh and a 24 hour public transit system. A real one. None of that owl line crap.
Why is building tall buildings and density considered 'Manhattanizing'? Is Manhattan the only place in the world where tall buildings are allowed to exist?
Because I think most of us would rather "Manhattanize" our city than "Dubaize" it.
That would really put a damper on pride week.
That's not that bad. but to emu's point, what do the neighborhoods look like? will we finally have more density - which means more demand - which would allow business to hire people who would work graveyard shift- which would keep places open 24hrs?
or will it be more provincialism?
I'd be for this if they gave a few of those towers to low/regular income people to live in.
Everyone should be home in bed by 9:30pm.
FYI the Pelli phallus is still very much on the table. The draft plan proposes a 1000 foot cap on occupied floors of the transit center tower, but up to 200 extra feet of mechanical equipment (read: wind turbines!). So 1,200 ft. isn't yet out of the question. Real skyscrapers in SF?? It's a christmas miracle!
So here's the good news: SF has had the highest decline in office rents (-14.3%) and 4th highest decline in apartment rents (-5.3%), or so's the intertubes tells me's... And, now, the bad news: It's not because the hearts of landlords grew three sizes recently, but because we have pretty high vacancy rates (good ol' supply and demand, trusty ol' invisible hand). So remind me why the Planning Department is popping architectonic viagra?
Percentage decline in rental rate isn't a very good indicator for absolute demand. Especially the decline that immediately follows a bubble.
Can you find recent vacancy rates? I had trouble doing so, just articles that are telling me they were growing...
I don't really care what's on top of the Transit Center as long as we get high-speed rail to LA.
Uh Sasha, these won't be done for a decade. Demand might be low now, but the planning dept hopes that won't last forever. If we are still in this recession in a decade we have bigger problems.
Also, these buildings are going to mixed use. I believe the plan for the biggest tower has hotel, residential, and office uses in it. Groundbreaking was supposed to happen next year, but it sounds like that's been delayed at least another year until this plan gets approved.
Rental vacancy? Only because landlords choose to leave them vacant hoping that they won't have to lower prices (and thus have people locked in through rent control).
If we would actually *build* housing here -- tall, dense housing -- then the free market would be its own rent control. Add 1,000 units to SF, and not much changes. Add 500,000 units and there will be a *huge* change.
Most of this opposition to building is spearheaded by wealthy landowners who want to keep their land values up by using GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION to limit building density. It's socialism-for-the-rich.
That's why the only dense housing that ever manages to get built is housing for rich people.
There are at least a million people out there who want to live in SF -- yearning for freedom. SF, despite its recent conservative shift (see past posts on the anti-fun crowd), is still a beacon of hope and freedom for people in the bible/mormon/redneck parts of the country (not just other states, but places like Bakersfield). It's the NEW New York, where people dream of going seeking to throw off the reins of oppression from where they come from. The only problem is that unlike New York the city planning process has been hijacked by anti-growth landowners.