CFAH

8 Washington Street Project Area
From the Port of San Francisco via a plugged-in tipster:

On August 13, 2008, the Port of San Francisco issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking private sector development proposals for Seawall Lot 351 on The Embarcadero at Washington Street. Responses were due on October 30, 2008 which unfortunately coincided with severe financial uncertainty worldwide. As such, the Port received only one proposal which was submitted by San Francisco Waterfront Partners II.

The Port applauds San Francisco Waterfront Partners II for their commitment to our process and our due date despite such uncertainty. However, to attract additional proposals for this extraordinary waterfront site, the Port will terminate the current RFP process and initiate a new solicitation with responses due in December 2008.

No update on said “severe financial uncertainty worldwide” (which apparently includes San Francisco), nor its impact on other Seawall developments citywide (think SWL 337).
SWL 351 And The Proposed 8 Washington Street Project: Port Hearing [SocketSite]
The SocketSite Scoop On The 8 Washington Street Project [SocketSite]
Joint Giants/Kenwood Proposal For SWL 337 Into Extra Innings [SocketSite]
Did The Port Get Punked? (San Francisco Seawall Lot Redevelopment) [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Jamie

    Glad they’re going to go out for RFP again …. December 2008 sounds a little soon though …

  2. Posted by Zig

    I know this is like a drum beat on here but I wish they could do some taller buildings here
    I actually like the 60’s style buildings around here and J-town and wish there were more

  3. Posted by vonT

    The Telegraph Hill Dwellers group will come down hard on this if there are any buildings taller than 6 stories – it’ll block their view of the Ferry Building.

  4. Posted by noearch

    the balance of low rise and high rise is a good fit, and the right planning approach. you can’t have all high rises next to each other, you’ll end up how China is building cities. bad for people. bad for living.

  5. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I agree with noearch. If there were a wall of hirises on the waterfront then only those highrises would have the long water view. With a mixture and a tiered (low near water rising inland) plan there’s more opportunity to create views and add value to the whole city. I’m sure that there’s some geometric explanation for this phenomenon but I’m too lazy to work it out 🙂

  6. Posted by Zig

    A mix is fine but what we have now is not a mix in this area but a line that will never allow another tall building in this area at all
    How is that good planning?

  7. Posted by SausalitoRes

    Does anyone know who is the developer behind SFWP II?

  8. Posted by sf

    If certain people are entitled to views (of which I am not one) then I want to be entitled to free wine baskets at my door every 2 weeks. Where do I sign up to whine?

  9. Posted by Salarywoman

    It’s not good planning. It’s clever politics on the part of Telegraph Hill residents. They somehow got the height limit imposed at the state level as part of the approval for the Port to develop its seawall lots for non maritime uses. I believe state senator Carol Migden may have been involved.
    On another note, if you Google San Francisco Waterfront Partners you will find they are a partnership of Pacific Waterfront Partners and the California State Teachers Retirement Fund. Pacific Waterfront Partners has close ties to the Port and to Lend Lease and Mapletree, though I didn’t think the latter two are involved in US projects any more (at least for the time being).

  10. Posted by noearch

    whether it comes from neighborhood pressure or not, this is a GOOD planning solution, from an urban design point of view. just because there were political (if at all) components involved does not make this a bad planning solution.

  11. Posted by Salarywoman

    It’s not a good planning solution because it has ended up forcing height and density disproportionately to other seawall lots. I’d agree 100% if all the lots had the same restrictions, but height and bulk on them have been pumped up to make up for what was lost on this particular one.

  12. Posted by noearch

    you dont know how to discuss the issue at hand..but rather hung up big time on the what ifs..the what was…
    this particular little triangle of land is well designed for its’ location, zoning and surrounding buildings. I really dont give a crap HOW they arrived at the solution. I just feel it’s a good one..
    thats all.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles