With a ceremonial bucket of cement hoisted atop 1188 Mission, Trinity Properties officially topped off the 24-story Phase I of the 1,900 unit Trinity Place development this afternoon.
If all goes as planned, the 440-unit building will open in two phases with residents of the lower twelve floors occupying their new apartments by the middle of January 2010 and residents of the top twelve floors by the end of March.
There’s been good buzz about the design and finishes of the units to be (not to mention the marble and granite lobby). And in case you’re wondering, residents of record as of early January at the current 360-unit Trinity Plaza will get first choice of units and maintain their current rents (and rent control).
Any word on the rental rates?
How much did the developer pay per square foot into the SOMA Stabilization Fund? Oh wait, a 1,900 unit building at 8th and Market won’t have any impacts on SOMA to mitigate … but 300-400 unit buildings in the 14 blocks of the Rincon Hill Plan Area that ARE required to pay an additional $14 per square foot into the SOMA Stabilization Fund, located about 1-2 miles away from this part of SOMA, do have an impact? Huh?!? Glad buildings are going up in mid-Market … it’d be nice to see more buildings going up in Rincon Hill.
This developer paid a hefty price in terms of “voluntary” rent controlled units, including some units that will not reset to market rates ever. This block is the perfect place to build a ton of housing due to it’s proximity to transit.
I’m struck by how much the early photos of Trinity look just like SOMA Grand right next door. Also, I heard SOMA Grand did a good job of disclosing that views would be blocked by Trinity but after seeing it in person I wonder if SG buyers could truly appreciate how terrible their view would be with the new Trinity building so close and so completely blocking natural light into their units for much of the day.
If I hear another complaint about air or light in relation to another building….
Light is the heroin for SF’s NIMBY junkies.
Jamie – perhaps you should propose a deal. New developments in Rincon Hill can:
A. Pay the $14 per sqft that they are currently paying.
B. Make 25% of their units rent-controlled apartments FOREVER, with renters coming into the building at some rents that were started 30 years ago.
I’m going to go ahead and guess which one they’ll take.
“This developer paid a hefty price in terms of “voluntary” rent controlled units, including some units that will not reset to market rates ever.”
They have to reset eventually, people don’t live forever.
wait, there is permanent rent control regardless of how many people have lived in the unit?
one way it might never reset is if the tenant passes the apartment over to their offspring.
They’ll act like all other rent-controlled buildings in the city – base rent resets when someone else moves in – then it’s rent-controlled from that level. By comparison, all units in Rincon Hill can have rent raised by whatever amount at any time whenever a lease expires. Rent-controlled units come with lifetime leases.
My understanding is that some units (15 or 25% IIRC) will not reset to market rates even if someone moves out but I don’t remember the mechanism used to determine the rental rate. Ordinarily a building going up now will not have any rent restrictions but Trinity’s developer made a deal (with Daly et. al.) for the right to develop. I think SS convered this pretty in depth a couple of years ago.
Joe- chill out, that post was shrill at best. I didn’t say I care if SG buyers have natural light only that I wondered if they fully understood how the new Trinity building would affect their units. I would not want to live on that side of SG. I think most buyers spending that kind of money to live in S.F. would appreciate access to some sunlight and there is nothing wrong with that. Light=heroin? That’s a new one.
anono – 440 units are rent-controlled with vacancy decontrol, just like all apartment buildings built in the city before 1979.
There are an ADDITIONAL 15% of units that are BMR units, where rental rates are determined by the Mayor’s Office of Housing, based on area median income numbers, etc.
This is very exciting for those of us who live here. As accustomed to my current home as I have become it will be nice to finally have a real kitchen. ill miss the view of market street though.
now lets just hope that between now and january the building fills up with hot single gay guys and not families of 6 in a studio.
Another “world class” building for a “world class” city.
Why should we expect anything better when we are already so “perfect”?
Meanwhile, towers with over 50% of the units going to market as rentals are winning design awards in other cities. We are happy to see Marble in the lobby, and “they” expect rooftop parks, lap pools and great design. I guess better weather and coffee makes up for our poor design and high prices?
This is what a rental tower looks like in Chicago…
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3416089265_9b6cfdbb9c.jpg
[Removed by Editor]
Something occurred to me yesterday, for all you inveterate SF bashers. If SF sucks so bad and there’s nothing, not a speck, “world class” about it, why are there so many embassies here? Please ‘splain.
“I’m struck by how much the early photos of Trinity look just like SOMA Grand right next door.” Trinity is still under construction. Based on the facade elements already in place, Trinity will offer a lot more visual interest than SOMA Grand.
“Light is the new heroin for SF’s NIMBY junkies”. Just like birds can migrate based on the position of sunlight, I think seeing a piece of the sky fulfills some deep seated psychological needs in all of us, like keeping an overall track of time without looking at our watches.
San Francisco isn’t a place that ever strived to be “like” another place. San Francisco has never had to make any kind of overblown effort to get people to like it. There’s no “we have the biggest this or the tallest that” Our bridges aren’t the longest or highest adn we don’t have the “greatest” this or that. yet people clamor and climb all over each other to live here and we are one of the worlds top tourist destinations. and with so little effort. WE don’t need you or your chicago style rental tower or your chicago style pizza for that matter. All we have to do is smile and look pretty for the camera and all the boys come around. jealous much?
Interesting point jt, but you are talking about SF as of today. Today’s SF rides on the coat tails of past SF which DID strive to be the greatest and the grandest, which is why we are still a great city. When the bridge was built it was the grandest, largest and longest bridge in the world. The bay bridge was also known as the world’s grandest bridge when it was completed. During the gold rush immigrants who struck it rich built the grandest mansions in the country and the world (many of which burned down during the great quake). SF used to be a city of high fashion and a center of art, particularly the written word. Now, it just seems like everybody is so damn lazy- people wear tatty clothes and don’t care about their self image, which is portrayed across the over all city’s image with the crumbling streets, worn out dilapidated vacant buildings and lots everywhere that everybody wants to save but are too lazy to do anything worthwhile with them, a crime problem that is ridiculous for such a small city but that isn’t addressed because banning plastic bottles is such an easier way of pretending you are doing something worthwhile. I see these kids who come out of the SF public school system and they are complete rude, stupid, small minded, worthless assholes that are going to grow up living off of government assistance because their parents are too lazy to pretend to even care about their own kids and thus the world around them. SF’s motto for modern times is “it’s someone else’s fault/ problem/ responsibility.” The reason we are a tourist destination is because past generations gave a damn. Wish I could say the same about the current.
you know what they say about people buying sports cars and big trucks to make up for inadequacies.
The reason we are a tourist destination is because we are the principal city in one of earth’s most unique regions.
I watched al these problems get worse every time we had a development boom. They promised more money, and instead just created more problems – the last boom being the absolute worst. There is no reason to be cramming even more people in this city. There are 100,000 too many here as it is. All the neighborhoods where too many people live are the worst.
If you want light and air – go the F outside.
Why are some SF’ers so incredibly provincial?
“Go the hell back to where you came from”
and people like light and views and don’t want liveable neighborhoods transformed into concrete canyons. you don’t see anyone trying to ram development down the throats of sea cliff residents, but if its a working class neighborhood then it’s a different story. on the upside, at least the eastern neighborhoods plan and western soma plan will corral growth and heights to reasonable levels.
anonn wrote:
> If SF sucks so bad and there’s nothing, not a speck,
> “world class” about it, why are there so many embassies
> here? Please ‘splain.
I think anonn probably remembers that it was recently here on Socket Site that someone pointed out that there are no “embassies” in SF (plenty of “consulates”, but no actual “embassies”) so I don’t get the joke…
I think I’ve posted this before a couple of years ago but, what the hey.
Create a building that is 7 miles by 7 miles by 2 miles high.
Fill it with 10′ x 10′ x 10′ rooms with an equal volume for access and service spaces.
And voila! Finally, all 7 billion people on the planet will be able to “live in SF”. Except, of course, that it won’t be “SF” anymore.
“Something occurred to me yesterday, for all you inveterate SF bashers. If SF sucks so bad and there’s nothing, not a speck, “world class” about it, why are there so many embassies here? Please ‘splain.”
Reminds me of your pejorative comments directed at “bridge & tunnelers”. If the SF suburbs suck so bad, why are the house prices there so exponentially more expensive compared to those in Shytzville, Ohio, where you come from? I mean really, how can anyone from Shytzville, Ohio, look down on ANY Bay Area town?
San Franciscans with roots in the area often have family throughout the Bay Area and tend not to look down on the suburbs. Quite tellingly, it’s transplants like you from crap places like the one where you spent your formative years who like to sneer at “bridge & tunnelers”.
You and your ilk (from places like Shitzville, etc..) like to think you’re “real San Franciscans tm” and superior to the rest of Northern Californians on the asinine basis of having lived within city limits for a few years. Instead, this mindset reveals how utterly and innately foreign to the area you all really are.
@sf –
Well said. I have lived in the City for three years after having longed to live here from the suburbs. But I have learned that, like a Monet, the City of San Francisco is “good from far but far from good.” I just don’t get the hype. The main redeeming quality about living here seems to be the relatively short commute, as opposed to having to come in from the Peninsula or East Bay. But with the crappy weather, ridiculous homeless problem, dirty streets, and rude residents, I’m ready to move out. The best part of the City is the views from hundreds of feet in the air, and I’m lucky enough to get that from my office every day.
Really, truly, that my comment today was deserving of your vitriol? Wow! You are really something. I have heard the hayseed stuff my whole life. I went to college with a bunch of East Caost prep types. It does not faze me. I am sorry if I touched a nerve, OK? Can we move on?
OK, Former Apt Broker, “consulates.” If we suck so bad, then why are they here?
Like nnona says, we do have family from all over the bay. and northern california, and while me may poke fun at the burbs or sacramento, we still consider it all part of the neighbrhood. The inlux from the east that cam with the last boom was very damaging. slow thoughtful natural growth and change occurs in the bay area and that’s fine and in the past, there have been booms – most notably the post war boom – but it was different, people moved here because for one, many of the military who had a chance to visit sf, fell in love with it for what it was and wanted to relocate here. and most people since came here because of waht the city was and had to offer, for the spirit of life here, The recent boom 96-2006 or so, was a different breed. Shallow, money grubbing, pretentious, with no respect for the city or its past. They were just rude and obnoxious. Just like they are here, with these comments. When you go to some ones home, you show them respect you don’t barge in and rearrange their furniture.
Nj’s comment is just what I mean. They have an expectation and are here for the wrong reasons. All they see is the bad part. Those of us who have any history love it here because its home not because we expect to be something or do something to entertain us.
The best par of the recession is that so many who came here are leaving to move on to greener pastures, leaving the city calmer, quieter and more pleasant for the rest of us. don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
getting back to this particular building. The design of the overall project is a good one for this location. The units, and I have been inside one, are wel designed and make maximum use of the space. Full size kitchens with ample storage space and pantry cupboards, huge spacious bathrooms with built ins for linens and such, nice finishes, no carpet to change or maintain. large 6×6 picture windows on some units, floor to ceiling windows on other units. The one bedrooms will rent in the 1800-2000 range and the studios will rent in the 1200-1600 range roughly, based on the existing rents we are paying now. ( with a hand full of exceptions- due to the amount of turnover and popualtiry of the short term rentals/ students etc the rents on most of the units now matches the current market rates for the neighborhood. My rent is actually higher than what I can get studio down the street for.) In any case, the new building will have a community center and playground for families, as well, and the project when complete will have retail, and a park/plaza and some much needed parking with the whole thing located smack on top of the busiest transit corridor around. Its a good, well thought out project, that came about through compromise, community input, and good design. The developer gets a legacy/signature project with nearly 2000 units, the majority of which are market rate, the city gets to preserve and create both a tax base and some affordable housing, and the tenants don’t get thrown out into the street. Its a win for everyone who came together. The fact that some punk from god knows where doesn’t think its world class enough is irrelevant. to paraphrase a line from rocky horror,… “we didn’t make it for you”
Could we put an end to the whole “I’m an Xth generation San Franciscan and I think….” please?
I pay my taxes just like everyone else. Just because your grandparents are SF natives doesn’t give your opinion any more validity than some recent transplant’s.
I agree the dot commers for the most part were incredibly shallow and destroyed a lot of good stuff here that will never come back (Club Universe for one). They did bring a lot of tax revenue though, but it seems that this was all funneled somewhere (my guess is contractors who give the city an estimate for something like road repair and go into overtime giving us a bill 10x greater). I’m from Sonoma county and my family is throughout Northern Ca, so the only thing we bash is Oakland 🙂 I must say one thing that makes this city less charming is people “natives” who talk down to others, it’s very unbecoming. SF should be proud of its immigrant/ migrant heritage. Better to have people come here because they WANT to be here than be here just because there were born here and FORCED to be here (the hardest working Americans are illegal or new immigrants from other countries). I know many kids who were born here who really dont like it here.
“Could we put an end to the whole …”
Yup, unless you’re one of the Muwekma Ohlone I don’t want to hear it.
It’s not about bashing outsiders just the sake of doing it, its about being fed up with people coming here and then complaining about everything from how things are done, to what the buildings look like, to how everything is so much better in some other city. That’s what pisses me off for one. I mean honestly why would any one go live someplace, by choice, and then complain about how its not good enough for them? Would you move to houston and then complain about bad air and bad freeways? I mean like its a big surprise that you didn’t know houston is a total clusterfk.? Or move to Atlanta and then complain about humidity? The constant obsession with bashing SF is getting really old especially when it comes from newcomers who hail from places that are generally god awful ugly to being with. i mean who in hell makes a comment like ” if you want light and air go outside” as if anyone wants to live in some dark shadowed cracker box all day. THAT is what brings out the defensive comments.
“I mean honestly why would any one go live someplace, by choice, and then complain about how its not good enough for them?”
Because that’s where there job is?
“Would you move to houston and then complain about bad air and bad freeways?”
The first step to making things better is to notice what’s wrong and complain about it. Even if that wounds someone’s delicate sensibilities.
The same architecture firm is trying to get a real bold architectural design approved for the corner of Market/Buchanan and is running into the same NIMBY/Victorian only resistance. Initially proposed bold design usually gets watered down by the time its approved in SF, could be what happened here.
“The first step to making things better is to notice what’s wrong and complain about it. Even if that wounds someone’s delicate sensibilities.” Assuming something is wrong. I happen to think the city is fine the way it is.
“The same architecture firm is trying to get a real bold architectural design approved for the corner of Market/Buchanan and is running into the same NIMBY/Victorian only resistance. Initially proposed bold design usually gets watered down by the time its approved in SF, could be what happened here.”
nothing “happened” here. This is a good design by a well known respected firm.
and its not about “victorian only resistance” its about neighborhood impacts. The people of san francisco have every right to determine what goes on in their neighborhoods and to have those impacts mitigated to their satisfaction. democracy trumps capitalism.
“I happen to think the city is fine the way it is.”
Well god bless you, but I think a little less human excrement on the sidewalks and a public transit system that works would be improvements.
besides its not just in sf, neighborhoods, cities and towns all over america are realizing the benefits of preserving their character and history and people in just about any neighborhood in america are concerned about quality of life issues and have every right to have input on development decisions.
Well god bless you, but I think a little less human excrement on the sidewalks and a public transit system that works would be improvements. — well cramming more people in here isn’t going to solve that problem now is it? I use muni everyday and it works just fine. The only problem is congestion, due to too much development and over population. That’s what slows it down. Take 100,000 people out of town and the whole place becomes more pleasant, muni less crowded, streets less congested
world class architecture isn’t going to keep mentally ill people from poopin on the street.
jt, if you think sf is too crowded, why don’t you move somewhere less so. I, for one think more and more development is making san francisco a much better city. i would appreciate a little mroe creativity in some of the architecture, but there are definitely some new buildings and designs that are interesting. i would love to see the 2008 building boom continue intil 2009,10 and beyond. new lifeblood is what makes the city great. if we keep the old generations here without the new transplants, sf would grow old and stale. people who come in afresh and complain are also the same people who impact and instill change which keeps the city vibrant.
well, I lived elsewhere but this is home. And growth, that is measured and well thought out is fine. But just architecture for its own sake doesn’t do anyone any good. The bottom line is are neighborhoods pleasant places to live. Why should I leave so others can move in? again, people can come, but they need to show a little respect and quit badmouthing the place.
Hello nativeguy1964. Nice that you have also found Socketsite for your tirades.
I just went to breakfast and saw some of the “new people” “vibrancy” young people in clown like outfits with their hair tied up in rope like knots, giant baggy clown pants and carrying accordians. They sure aren’t from around here. I mean each to his own but if you’re gonna take your hippie ass to breakfast, bathe first.
tirades? you mean defending sf against people who have nothing better to do than badmouth it?
jt wrote:
> I just went to breakfast and saw some
> of the “new people” “vibrancy” young
> people in clown like outfits with their
> hair tide up in rope like knots, giant
> baggy clown pants and carrying accordians.
> They sure aren’t from around here.
Don’t be so sure…
There are quite a few kids that grew up in Presidio Heights (and Ross and Piedmont and Hillsborough) who have dreds (aka hair tied up in knots) , smoke a lot of pot and don’t bathe to piss off their parents (who in most cases were working a lot and didn’t pay an attention the kids when they were growing up)…
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trustafarian
oh. well, they need to take a bath. I mean I know about rebellion but didn’t realize that “homeless” was the new chic.
” trustafarian 345 up, 65 down
a. a spoiled rich white kid who smokes pot.
b. a person who, in an act of rebellion has taken to smoking pot, pan-handling, and following grateful dead rip-off bands during the week, and then returning to his or her parent’s cozy home in the suburbs during the weekend.
c. one who lives with poorer people in an attempt to gain credibility, or street-cred, while disguising the trust fund they actually live off”
Yep that was them alright. Imust be getting old because I fail to see the draw of being perceived to be a loser.
But with the crappy weather, ridiculous homeless problem, dirty streets, and rude residents, I’m ready to move out.
That would be great. Then your spot could be taken by someone who does more than just kvetch all the time.
San Franciscans with roots in the area often have family throughout the Bay Area and tend not to look down on the suburbs. Quite tellingly, it’s transplants like you from crap places like the one where you spent your formative years who like to sneer at “bridge & tunnelers”.
I don’t look down on anybody. One day, after I suggested you would need good luck in order to do anything in SF real estate if you paid attention to LMRiM’s valuations instead of what I have to say, you personally insulted me. You googled me, and talked a lot of mean spirited trash about where I hail from. You went on about how a transplant such as myself should leave the city. How you belong, and I do not. I responded in kind. I pushed your buttons.
If you must know, I view all of the Bay Area as a great place, and think that there are lots of cool smaller towns on all sides of the Bay. I think “bridge and tunnel” is sort of lame, actually. It’s a NYC thing. We have, what, the tunnel on 101 in Marin and the Caldecott tunnel. I don’t think they’re all that apropos.
Tell you what, quit personally insulting me and I will be as nice as you like. You did not do yourself any favors today. The logic by which you equate me having a bloated sense of San Francisco belonging and a disdain for Bay Area suburbia, from my benign hypothetical about consulates is pretty twisted.
Was I the one that started all this by just posting a picture of what rental projects look like in another great city? (for half the cost)
http://www.blueverticalstudio.com/go/wp-content/uploads/aquatower2.jpeg
Aqua is built in an area of downtown Chicago that 25 years ago was a railroad yard, similar to Mission Bay, but they chose not to make this district look like an Orange County office park.
As was mentioned above, San Francisco did not become great by constantly patting itself on the back, it did so through a concious effort to create what some USED to call “Paris on the Pacific”.
The whole direction of this city from about 1880 through 1940 was to create a cultural capitol for the West Coast, including (at one time) the tallest civic structure in America, the grandest Opera House of the West, the most expensive hotel ever built in the world at that time (The Palace), fountains, public transit, record breaking bridges, etc. What happened?
While we have been sitting back and watching the world come to enjoy our city and notice that it is now decaying, other cities are now passing us by. What cities like Chicago are doing is making up for their poor climate or location by creating urban public amenities that are truly extraordinary, and well beyond anything we have. They do not tolerate litter or homeless, they create new parks, cultural institutions and landscapes in an effort of constant improvement. Chicago, Vancouver, Singapore, etc. are making a continual effort to create an urban landscape that is truly “world class”.
Another thing I dont understand is why we cannot look to other cities for examples of things they are doing right. I posted the picture of Aqua Tower because even in this economy, the condos and rentals at Aqua are almost completely sold out, and the design was a requirement from a city government that demands developers create unique and interesting architecture as part of their proposal. Good Design SELLS!
Why do we settle for this or the Soma Grand is truly bizarre. I submit that neither building would be allowed today in Chicago, Vancouver, or some other cities which would require the developers to go back and create something worthy of a “world class” city.
I have to be honest with you, if I was 22 years old today and did not already own properties in San Francisco, I would rather rent for HALF THE COST at the Aqua, and be within blocks of Millenium Park, the CSO, the Art Institute, and Michigan Avenue .
http://www.blueverticalstudio.com/go/wp-content/uploads/aquatower2.jpeg
How’s that Chicago Spire coming along, ugh? It was just a year ago that people on this site were saying the same thing about that building – Design sells! Great architecture sells! Look how many units in this great building have been pre-sold!
And now, it’s a giant hole in the ground with no hope of starting construction any time soon.
Huh. Guess design doesn’t sell all that much after all.
You know that is not the point. As for the Spire, with some of the most expensive psf cost units in the country, who is not surprised at the current problems? The point is why do we settle for such bland architecture here when the San Francisco of the past had architecture that was anything but bland. Why do we live with the problems on our streets that would not be tolerated in other cities?
Do you think today’s NIMBY’s would allow the Golden Gate Bridge to be built? Just think of the howls about how it would bring more cars, people, traffic and how they would scream that it would ruin the “light” and views of the hills and water. The people who have moved to this city and call themselves San Franciscans are mostly from small towns who secretly hate the idea of living in a real urban city.
ugh – The opposition to the Golden Gate Bridge went all the way to the Supreme Court at the time.
None fo it matters much now because there are homes for sale and empty apartments all over time and a 10 percent unemployment rate and nothing much is going to happen here in the next ten years beyond what is in the pipeline already, and even that is likely to stall for a while. In the meantime, ( and by the way there’s nothing wrong with the trinity plaza design, its pretty damn nice for basic studio housing – the developer has said that he wants units that are reasonable – and “who can afford two or 3 grand for rent”_ and hes’ right. I’m just happy to have a roof over my head for christ’s sake. Other cities that have lower real esatate costs in general can afford to use more extravagant design and still offer a competitively priced product. San Francisco still moves forward, but slowly and thoughtfully and themost important thing toremember is that in san francisco there is a ton of community input and that steers the design. If people who live here want to steer it in that direction then so be it. I mean lets face it, no one is even going to attempt to build something out of place in sea cliff or st francis wood, so why would those people, deserve more consideration that the people who live south of market or on ocean avenue? politics here is from the bottom up not the top down. and there was a ton of opposition to the bridges. My grandmother told me that the bay bridge was the beginning of the demise of san francisco. Prior to that she said, it was living on a island out in the fog, in another world, it was magical. Id’ give anything to get that back. anyway, the majority of new growth in san francisco will be in the 4th street/third street corridors/eastern neighbrhoods plan. the plan was worked on to death and as far as I know, will be the blue print for the next 20 years or so. Id rather see the city work on sprucing up existing older buildings and re-using them before they go building new ones. and really unless you live here and unless you plan to live in soma grand or trinity place or whatever,, whats it to ya? And besides,if you want to rent an apartment do you really make the choice based on the exterior design? I don’t know I just don’t get it. maybe my needs are just simpler. I dont’ get all the fuss.
hees a statement taken from my nieghborhood’s “western soma plan”–“The Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force shall promote neighborhood qualities and scale that maintain and enhance, rather than destroy, today’s living, historic and sustainable neighborhood character of social, cultural and economic diversity, while integrating appropriate land use, transportation and design opportunities into equitable, evolving and complete neighborhoods. Throughout the life of this Task Force, the membership shall respect one another, be responsive to the constituencies they represent and foster a citizen-based democratic decision-making process.”—–Now I ask you, what could be more american than neighbors taking an interest in and participating in a democrat process to decide the future of their neighborhood? Part of the problem of urban decay is because neighbor -neglect- to take an interest in what goes on.
I think folks just need to realize that SF is just not an elite city anymore – we’re secondary. We’re not in the group of LA, Paris, Tokyo, etc. We’ve gone from “Paris of the Pacific” to “Boston of the Pacific.”
And that’s ok.
Lolcat, San Francisco has always been a “secondary city” relative to NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. It has never been the national center of commerce or political power. However, it has been a center of innovation, and never more so than in the past few decades, in computer technology, the internet, biotech, etc.
If you look at the plaque at the sf side of the golden gate bridge, it mentions that there were something like 2000 lawsuits against the thing when it was being planned. Just something to think about when we look back at what sf “used” to be.
Part of the deal, too, is that LA kind of took over as the major center of wealth and power on the west coast, and as the major harbor for trade with Asia.
I wonder how SF would look if it replaced ORH with Aqua. Can somebody photoshop and post?
The point is why do we settle for such bland architecture here when the San Francisco of the past had architecture that was anything but bland.
Row upon row of the same Victorian or Edwardian is not bland? The BS constructed from the 50’s through the 80’s is not bland? The majority of SF’s buildings and structures have NEVER stood out, just as it is in EVERY city. Yes, in the past we built the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge, while in the past few years we’ve built the SFMOMA, the new Federal Building, the deYoung, the CAS, the Millenium, and the new Contemporary Jewish Museum.
Most buildings are always going to be boring. That’s what makes the non-boring ones stand out. If Chicago is building four times as any great buildings each year, that’s just about right (considering that Chicago is four times as big).
ORH was built by a Chicago firm. So either Chicago has great architects or Chicago has silly architects. Pick one.
I really like the design of Trinity Place. I think it is a great urban design worthy of a world class city. The materials are high quality- marble, stone, concrete, glass, and metals.
Soma Grand, on the other hand…
Dan- SF has its history as a center of not only national political power but international political power. We don’t have a United Nations plaza just for the fun of it..
There’s a UN Plaza because the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco. But then NYC was chosen over SF as the permanent home of the UN.
In many ways, the SF Bay Area influences the world now more than ever, with people using Google, Facebook, Apple, Intel, etc, etc every day.
The SF Bay Area has become an international center for biotech, with pharmaceutical companies scrambling for a presence here.
Wells Fargo, with the Wachovia addition, is one of a handful of dominant national banks, making up for the loss of B of A.
Oakland remains an important port, though smaller than LA/ Long Beach.
The idea that SF is a shell of its former glory is gauzy-eyed nostalgia for a past that never was.
There is a difference between whether or not San Francisco is a great city (YES), or, whether it has great architecture (NO). I have always felt the people are far more interesting than the buildings in the Bay Area, for most tend to look the other way that we are actually a huge sprawling region not unlike many other modern cities.
What is funny to me is that many here trust in the myth that Bay Areans live more like New Yorkers or Chicagoans than someone in Southern California.
We in San Francisco do, but not the majority of the population of the greater Bay Area.
Like Atlanta and Los Angeles, the Bay Area has multiple centers with ours being Oakland, San Jose, S.F. and others. Most Bay Areans climb in a car and slowly pass shopping malls, Big Box stores and office parks on their way to work.
What San Francisco offers is a unique high density residential enviroment, but will it be the density of an Italian hillside town or will it strive to be more like Chicago by providing new housing for the middle class? I myself believe that San Francisco is becoming an expensive urban historic residential enclave for the very very rich and the very very poor, but not much left for those only making 80k or 90k a year.
Agreed. SF is on the path to being the next Monte Carlo – a nice little quant shopping/dining/scenery escape for the rich.
Interesting… It seems to me house and condo prices have been trending more affordable lately.
Yes, and prices in SF (per unit) have really never been that much more than prices in Marin, San Mateo, or Santa Clara Counties. The idea that SF is the Disneyland while the rest of the Bay Area does the grunt work is absurd. The Bay Area is expensive and has multiple job centers that have pull for many of the other areas in the Bay.
Housing prices are more expensive here because of simple demand, as well as restrictive land use EVERYWHERE in the Bay. Since SF takes up so little of the land, I would put more blame on the other areas for not helping to produce a fair share of housing. How much new housing is being built in San Mateo County?
but not much left for those only making 80k or 90k a year. ONLY 80 or 90? If only! geez, what does that make me on 50. In any case the prefious comment about the italian hillside town versus chicago/NYC is true, I’d rather it be the italian town. There are plenty of places to put more people in cities all over the state. They should do their share. And yes, while no one will admit it, we are far more like our southern cali brethren and far less like new yorkers (and thank jesus in heaven for that) than we’d like to admit.
When I moved to SF 25 years ago, it was not for the architecture. It wasn’t even so much for the beauty of the surrounding area or the views, although that was a sweet bonus. In fact, I remember recoiling at the atrocity of the Embarcadero Freeway (omg…where’s the waterfront!) and being appalled at what were considered the “nicer” neighborhoods. Noe Valley in the 80’s was up and coming, and not pretty – there are no yards in most neighborhoods…where is the green? Alamo Square was cheap, and very dangerous. SoMa was a complete dump, and nobody was using the contraction SoMa yet. I moved here almost completely for the people and the vitality of the place. The city was totally welcoming. Everyone went out of their way to welcome you, make sure you were taken care of, and were invited to a party or three…sometimes all in the same night. And every other person you met was creative, educated and smart. The people are what make this town, and will make or break this town as we go forward. The dotcom era saw a marked decrease in civility in SF, and we have never really recovered from that. Rudeness was very seldom tolerated 25 years ago…now it seems the norm, as if rudeness is a sign that we are a more important city somehow. Maybe I’m looking through the haze of nostalgia, and I’m sure I’ll be ripped to shreds on this board, which has become very hostile, but I continue to love this city warts and all. It is vibrant and changing in a way many cities just aren’t.
Bernal Dweller. I remember those days. It’s why I get so frustrated because I don’t seem to hear from the newer folks that any of that is what matters, its all about hurry up and build stuff, world class this and that. It did used to be about getting invited to parties and sharing our common san francisco ness. I don’t know what it is now but its ruined.
If you want light and air – go the F outside.
Why are some SF’ers so incredibly provincial?
“Go the hell back to where you came from”
I think locals should start get extremely proactive and oragnized ala the telrgraph hill hill dwellers. Protect your right to light and air while it is stil there.
It also protects your property values.
As long as the high rises were east of Van Ness and out of the neighborhoods, I did not care. But I live here for the light and the air and I need it to live.
Joe can go live in undergound cave anywhere in
the world if he doesn’t care about light and air.
Here’s an idea –
let us go out and buy Joe a hole in the ground in Colma and offer it to him.
Peace.
Some of you are lambasting the dot-commers for changing this city in the pursuit of wealth. Don’t forget this city sprang up out of nowhere during the gold rush, built entirely by “newcomers” in avaricious pursuits. Wonder how the “native” ranchers and farmers felt about that circa 1850? They probably blogged about all those ugly Victorians blocking their light and air.
Others are complaining about the hippies or the “kids today.” How cliche is that? Ironically, other groups of NIMBYs can’t let go of the summer of love, and want to keep the city stuck in the 60s forever.
Well, guess what? We’re not going back to the 80s, the 70s, or the 60s. Sorry. Cities are living, breathing entities with wills of their own, driven by the collective mindset of their residents as well as exogenous factors outside of the control of those residents. We can’t stop progress. We can’t stop evolution. We can’t stop change. And we won’t keep this city frozen in time. None of us can, or should. We grow and change with it, maybe exert some influence along the way. Or get left behind, or move out. Simple, and the natural order of things.
My long-winded point: there are enough interests aligned to keep pushing the city forward and upward. So welcome to the new San Francisco, you’ll get used to it. And even if you don’t, there’s one thing here that never seems to change: the grating sense of entitlement of the “locals,” whether native or transplant. We can always count on that, as this thread has clearly evidenced.
Well Legacy dude, you are right and we will continue to defend our city against unbridled development. Change will come, but what the efforts do is make sure that the change is manageable and not disruptive. The people of san francisco have every right to be in charge of what does and doesn’t happen here and we will be in charge of what does and doesn’t happen here. The neighborhoods run the show, not the mayor, and not the developers. The dotcommers who came here, devastated the city, threw old people out into the street, took their homes, acted like pigs, and now that its over, they are gone, the units are empty, and for what? There is simply no truth to the lies that are told about what development will do for us. Ultimately it will always cause more problems than it solves. Its a net loss in the end.
“The dotcommers who came here, devastated the city, threw old people out into the street, took their homes, acted like pigs”
Yes, I remember it well. Gangs of chubby, pale programmers roaming the streets in their Dorito-stained manga t-shirts, curb-checking blue hairs and setting cable cars on fire. Thousands of indolent hippies and ossified bourgeois roaming the streets, homeless, waiting for the National Guard to deal with the scourge. I still have sinus problems from second-hand teargas inhalation. The city was decimated, the world wept, and sensationalist exaggeration followed. Puh-leeze.
Kathleen – exactly where are highrises “popping” up west of Van Ness? Are you talking about an eight story building on Market? No, that can’t be it, considering every neighborhood in the city has eight story buildings from 80 ore more years ago.
I would be opposed to a highrise in the Castro or Noe Valley or somewhere like that – but there have been NO (READ – ZERO) attempts to put towers in the neighborhoods over the past few decades, and certainly not any time recently.
Those who don’t care about light and air might be interested in some great real estate opportunities in decommissioned ICBM silos :
http://www.missilebases.com/
http://www.silohome.com/
I moved here pre dot-com. The SF populace has definitely changed. But the world has changed a lot since the mid 90s too. Before the last couple tech booms there simply never used to be that many high paying jobs around here.
@ legacy dude – thats how I remember it. The days and weeks after loma prieta are a more comforting picture in my mind that the end of san francisco as we knew was.
This whole SF is a magical place is probably one of the most twee overused overwrought sentiments that I hear from the white baby boomers who are so overwhelmingly opposed to anything changing anywhere in this town.
While you are worrying about your precious light and air (as if all new developments came with a black bubble which envelopes your housing) there are families being pushed out to the suburbs – eating up open space on the bay area perimeters and multiplying bay area carbon emissions with their commutes to and from work.
What you call “unbridled development” is actually a TINY fraction of the housing numbers required for SF to sustain its current population – without even taking into consideration people who move here.
I’m sorry.. Its wonderful that you have been able to put down roots in such a great place, but this doesnt mean you should actively campaign to prevent others from having the same opportunities.
It just all seems so insanely selfish to me. Of all the places in the US I have lived in, it is San Franciscans who campaign so vociferously to prevent development on the basis of how it will specifically affect them. MY light, MY air, MY view.
that was a pretty funny post though.
I’m not a baby boomer, Everyone who lives here already has a place to live. I don’t give a rats ass about carbon emission. And if people want more density, put it in sacramento or fresno where they have room for it. Why can’t Walnut creek be more dense? They don’t want it either. Why can Livermore build highrise housing? They don’t want it either. how about San jose and and Oakland? San Francisco has more than done its share in both density and environmental issues. Time for the rest of the state to do it part. By the way there are thousands of places available for rent and purchase sitting empty right now so I don’t see this great need to build more when units are already sitting empty. We have every thing from cheap studios in the loin for 800 bucks to luxury rentals and brand new towers and mid rises for yuppies, and homes and condos for sale all over town from 300k to million dollar penthouses. How bout we use those, not to mention the floundering projects already in the pipeline, before we start worrying about some housing shortage that doesn’t exist.
and as for protecting light and air and views…. thats not an sf thing, that goes in neighborhoods all over california. Every city and small town has zoning and planning restrictions, CCand R’s and a democratic process that allows residents to steer the direction of their community. San Francisco is no different. You want a high rise, put it in your neighborhood. knock yourself out. If you are a concerned san franciscan who cares about your neighborhood now is the time, during this economic lull, to get on board with our local neighborhood networks, preservations societies, and other such entities to help guide future planning.
Anyway, there won’t be any more development in the western and northern districts and the eastern districts , where the majority of new development will take place over the next 20 years or so, have already been addressed in the eastern neighborhoods plan.
which you can find here: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=25288
“MY view”
Again, no. This argument holds no water at SF’s DBI. It needs to be couched within “light and air” for anybody with power to consider it. They can suss out what’s purely a “my view” argument in about two minutes. All a “my view” protest couched within “light and air” is really going to do is slow the process down by a month or two. Views are not sacred in SF. There are a few neighborhoods where residents got other residents to sign upward expansion easements, tho.
What really kills me is when it’s folks who live in a house that did the SAME DAMN THING, whether either on their watch, or previous to their ownership. Streets where nearly every house used to be basically the same thing, but over decades many morphed large. Very often I’ve seen this. Objections made to the neighbor’s vertical expansion, made by people who live in the same damn house. You want to talk about hypocrisy.
And thanks for proving my point. Screw the environment! “everyone that lives here already has a place to live” – Um. homeless?
It’s all about you isnt it? It is the job of the CITIES to densify. SF is a CITY. We dont need to sprawl out further just to satisfy your sense that you live in an urban Mayberry. SF has a ton of land which can be developed more. We are FAR from built out. We could build 3k units a year for the next 50 years and we wouldnt even come close to being the manhattan boogeyman that people like you love to yell about.
It’s sad that there are people here who think like you. Xenophobic, provincially minded – you dont like it get the hell out. SF would be fresno if its founding fathers acted like you.
Hey JT,
A greedy developer built the house you live in.
It must absolutely kill you.
Not at all. I don’t have a problem with development. I just want to reiterate that it must be done with community input. This project was done that way.
The homeless people don’t belong here and they aren’t from here. They need to be sent back home and its not a cities “job” to denisfy. That may be your opinion but it isnt true. There are plenty of other cities in california that need to catch up in their own duties when it comes to densificcation and ill say it again… there are thousands of empty units of housing available. If there is such a shortage why arent they full? if so many people are clamoring to get in why aren’t they signing leases? Again, densify your own cities. do your part.
“And if people want more density, put it in sacramento or fresno where they have room for it”
jt – I hope you realize the inherent conflict of your statement.
But for what it’s worth, I agree that other cities need to increase their density too. Many of the inner bay area cities are already increasing density, particularly in transit oriented developments.
Still, SF is not off the hook and should continue to pioneer the creation of dense livable neighborhoods.
Both Sacramento, and Fresno, have viable downtowns that are in need of and open to, high rise development, and transit oriented development and it makees sense to use the potential of those under utilized downtowns. Id like to see green belts and restriction on sprawl put on all our medium size cities, (where by the way – the majority of the next 20 million california newcomers are going to live anyway) . Better to have 20 dense cities the size of san francisco, than to leave sac, fresno, bakersfield, mercedm riverside, and the rest, to continue to sprawl while oever burdening the people who have already done more than their share. Again, Im still waiting for the answer as to why, if theres a housing shortage in sf, are their thousands of units of every style and price range available?
And thanks for proving my point. Screw the environment! “everyone that lives here already has a place to live” I don’t own a car, I walk everywhere, I work in public transit, and my energy use amounts to 12 bucks a month worth of PGand E so I don’t need a lecture on carbon footprints either i’ll put mine up against anybody’s here.
Again, Im still waiting for the answer as to why, if theres a housing shortage in sf, are their thousands of units of every style and price range available?
Because they cost more than people are willing to pay right now. Has nothing to do with SF being “full” or having “excess” housing. Has to do with people who own that housing wanting to sell it for more than people want to buy it for. Econ 101.
Hundreds of thousands of people commute into San Francisco every day to work. As long as we have more jobs than housing, we can reduce the amount of CO^2 people emit into the atmosphere by building housing here.
I agree that other communities need to do their part, but they have started, witness all the high density housing near the BART station in Dublin, for instance.
Just because there are a small number of rentals vacant does not indicate that there is not a housing shortage. A functioning market always is going to have a few percentage points empty due to turnover. There is a pretty severe shortage of affordable homes large enough to raise a family in, even if you stretch the definition of “affordable” and “large enough” pretty far.
What about all the empty rental units? Apparently the demand isn’t so desperate after all. I mean are any you dying to move to san francisco, but you can’t find an apartment? And for buyers, if they cost more than they are willing to pay, then what’s the problem? pay or don’t pay, buy or don’t that’s not the cities problem. and as for property owners, landlords and homeowners both, why would they want to se their property and rents worth less due to more competition?
lets call this what it really is – a bunch of people, most of whom don’t live here, and don’t plan to live here, trying to tell the people of san francisco, who pay the taxes, vote, and participate in the democratic process, how they should and shouldn’t do things based on their obsession with high rises or some ideological environmental basis, all of which is nonsense. The city is doing its part – more than any city in the state. Anyone who wants to live here can find a place to live. and the residents aren’t doing anything that isn’t done in cities and towns across america concerning the planning process. That’s just the way it is. most of you ought to be attending your own communities meetings and doing what you can to make your own cities better. or else come on over here, get yourself an apartment, register to vote, put up with the perks and the downsides of living here for a while, and then go to a meeting and have your say about how things are done or else quit buttin’ in cuz really, it’s none of your business now is it?
“Im still waiting for the answer as to why, if theres a housing shortage in sf, are their thousands of units of every style and price range available?”
Because the existing housing stock remains overpriced relative to local economic fundamentals. But it’s slowly correcting. Imagine if everyone needed a car, and wanted a Honda Accord. But the car manufacturers built a bunch of Ferraris instead. Now there’s a glut of overpriced luxury units on the market that people either can’t afford, or don’t want to pay top dollar for because they can lease something similar for much less. It’ll take a while for the market to rebalance.
But the best part? The anti-development NIMBYs inadvertently push developers to build these because it’s so tough to make a deal pencil in SF otherwise. Tough to build quality, affordable middle class housing when every raving lunatic in town needs to opine on how every brick is layed, whether the facade matches the historical neighborhood, and how their light and air will be affected.
jt, you say this building was developed properly. Wonder how much of your approval was driven by the fact that you were given a brand new, rent-controlled apartment in it? Yet you proclaim democracy over capitalism.
jt, you say this building was developed properly. Wonder how much of your approval was driven by the fact that you were given a brand new, rent-controlled apartment in it? Yet you proclaim democracy over capitalism.’ It was democractic process whats yoir point? The developer wasnt’ allowed to jsut over ride the people willy nilly, it was a process where all sides came to the table to reach a consensus. Thats called d e m o c r a c y.
“lets call this what it really is – a bunch of people, most of whom don’t live here, and don’t plan to live here, trying to tell the people of san francisco,”
How is it that this is so obvious to you?
Do you work for socketsite? How would you know where the people posting here live?
jt, you say this building was developed properly. Wonder how much of your approval was driven by the fact that you were given a brand new, rent-controlled apartment in it? Yet you proclaim democracy over capitalism.’ It was democractic process whats yoir point? The developer wasnt’ allowed to jsut over ride the people willy nilly, it was a process where all sides came to the table to reach a consensus. Thats called d e m o c r a c y.
This project came about by bring all the sides to the table and reaching an agreement. thats called democracy.
lets call this what it really is – a bunch of people, most of whom don’t live here, and don’t plan to live here, trying to tell the people of san francisco
While Socketsite certainly does have its share of frequent posters who do not live here, most of whom live in Easy Bay or Marin but have a strange obsession with San Francisco real estate, the majority of regular posters here, do in fact, live in San Francisco. I certainly live here, own a home, pay taxes, schlep my kids to school every day, and so on.
You proclaim your dedication to the democratic process and then want to deny others the same right? Think about this for a second.
And I actually think we need better regional planning, for exactly the reasons you mention. I would like to do more “butting into people business” when it comes to land and transportation use decisions in the suburbs. I would like things like urban growth boundaries, wouldn’t you? You can’t really have it both ways.
and if we are really using environmental concerns to push the idea of higher density, I think we all know that the real progressive solution isn’t the old school method of cramming more poeple on top of each other and having more and more people vying for the sam patch of land, but the real solution is to put new jobs in the other large and medium size cities where they are more desperately needed so that people won’t need to commute in. With the advent of tech, the need for everyone to be in a SF office tower is not as important. So, why aren’t people in other cities clamoring for density? because they DONT LIKE IT and don’t consider it to be the end all be all. If they don’t like it, why should sf like it? again, we have done our part more than any of the 58 counties. You all need to pick up the slack my dears.
@noevalley jim – Im not denying anyone’s democratic process, im saying that is exaclty what is in play, here and around the state and that is how it should be. No one is blocking democracy. im late for work but Ill be glad to here why the other cities refuse to do their part.
jt – increasing density is almost universally opposed by NIMBYs whether it be rural dwellers who don’t want a subdivision popping up in their bucolic countryside or urban dwellers who don’t want to see a new hi-rise.
Density will continue to increase *somewhere* so long as population increases. I really don’t see why west coast cities are exempt as they are a far from being saturated with density.
I doubt it is politically or legally possible, but it would be interesting to see what would occur if there were a statewide moratorium on greenfield development.
Until then, don’t worry : demand for suburban homes will continue to drive sprawl and ease the pressure to build-up urban cores. A shame that is because when gas exceeds $10/gal there’s going to be a lot of hurt out on the fringe.
Until then, don’t worry : demand for suburban homes will continue to drive sprawl and ease the pressure to build-up urban cores. A shame that is because when gas exceeds $10/gal there’s going to be a lot of hurt out on the fringe.
The trend taking place in American society is precisely the opposite. We’re moving toward urban centers, not away from it. What you describe is the last generation’s migration pattern.
The idea that SF has done more building out than all of CA’s other counties is purely ridiculous.
SF has built a tiny fraction of the share of its own housing for the people who live here.
LA and San diego easily outpace san francisco in new housing construction even when adjusted for population.
>A shame that is because when gas exceeds $10/gal there’s going to be a lot of hurt out on the fringe.
We could dream. But as we have seen when gas prices spike, it is often followed by a recession which drives the price of gas back down. Now inflation might get gas up to $10/gal but I am doubtful supply/demand will get it there all by itself.
“The trend taking place in American society is precisely the opposite. We’re moving toward urban centers, not away from it.”
While I agree that we are currently seeing a net inflow to urban centers, I don’t think that the trend has really shifted away from the same old sprawl. There were a lot more homes brought online in greenfield suburban developments vs. urban infill. Surely you’ve been watching what has happened in Antioch, Pittsburg, Brentwood, Manteca, Modesto, Los Banos, Gilroy, Tracy, etc. over the last decade. Even fairly remote Patterson doubled in size.
Long term I hope you are right and the Northern California desire for urban living outstrips our appetite for the suburban lifestyle. But I don’t see that happening yet. Urban centers need to become more family friendly before that tipping point is reached.
The current political (i.e. urban growth boundaries) and economic (commute times, transport costs) forces are too weak to offset the trend just yet. Its really hard to convince a family of 3 that they should pay double for a home half as large and then have to struggle to acquire good education.
I saw the exurb growth, yes. I don’t want to get into all the lifestyle differences or work opportunities. I’m looking forward to the 2010 census numbers. I mentioned this the other day, but I spoke with a census worker recently. She was of the opinion that SF is much larger than 808,000 residents. I’m thinking that city growth happened simultaneously with exurb growth. And if SF were to actually become as cheap as some on here predict, it will start drawing even more people. Right now it’s pretty far away from being a place with completely abandoned cul de sacs with houses now holding large scale marijuana operations instead of people.
We don’t need no stinkin’ houses.
We need less stinkin’ people.
ZPG
Remember that idea people?
Cross your legs or tie your tubes, baby.
Snip snip boys…
STOP IVF now.
You can’t send homeless people back HOME.
They are HOME-less.
“You can’t send homeless people back HOME.”
Yes you can. The chron did their special on homelessness a couple of years ago and all the stories were the same. They had been living somewhere else and doing fine when they decided to up and move to SF. Once they got here they couldn’t keep it together and wound up on the street. A shower, a sandwich and a bus ticket back where they came from is a great idea.
Agree with some of the comments on Chicago. I just got back from a business trip today. It really puts San Francisco to shame in so many respects. They have so many wonderful avenues and the architecture is outstanding. (It’s also really clean!)
With respect to the property in question it sits on Market Street which is the major boulevard that divides our city. Quite frankly it is an embarrassment and has been that way for a long time. The city can do much better and should set higher standards for liveability.
The idea that SF has done more building out than all of CA’s other counties is purely ridiculous.
SF has built a tiny fraction of the share of its own housing for the people who live here
you need to rephrase that because it doesn’t make sense. We are talking about density. and on a per square mile, per square block and per square foot basis, i.e piling more and more too often stinky ass people on top of each other – county in california or city in california has done anywhere close to what san francisco has done in the way of density. Please tell me what california city is more densely populated. AND, we still have extra housing laying around empty that no one even wants. Hell, you can a studio in the trinity plaza right now for a grand a month utilities included, and lock in your lifetime rent contol in the new tower, and still they can’t get them rented. SO, between now and the time the next big cali boom arrives in maybe 10 years, the other cities need to plan for properly dense, transit oriented downtown development. and if people don’t want it, there’s nothing you can do about it. but you sure aren’t gonna dump em all here. Period end of discussion.
and I’ve been to chicago, and it is a terrific city I like it a lot, but I don’t want to live like that. or I would live there. The whole draw/perk of living in SF is that you get small town feel and big town amenities on a scale that is much more relaxed and casual than the east coast rat race. Which brings me back to the transplants who want to ruin our laid back California lifestyle – the very thing that makes cali desirable to begin with- with hyper active type A wall street madison avenue bullshit that we don’t play out here. You aren’t going to get away with it so you might as well give it up or go home. Someone told me once – that an east coast real estate agent said “californians are weak, you have to push them around, its easy” Well think again,.–oh yeah and to NOEVALLEY-jim — not to single you out but just think about it – do you really expect me to believe, assuming you live in Noe Valley, that if you wake up tomorrow morning, and while enjoying your cup of Peet’s coffee (single cup method not automatic drip) and your blueberry scone, you peek through the plantation shutters and see a tower crane and graphic for a 14 story condo tower on you street, that you and your neighbors aren’t going to raise a ruckus down at city hall? well guess what, my neighborhood is a neighborhood with concerns just like your neighborhood and just because yours is la de effin da noe valley, and mine is western soma doesn’t make your quality of life concerns any more important than mine. Okaaay??? and we all know it would be a lively day in Colma before that happens, in noe valley or any of the other more “precious” neighborhoods. I’m not triyng to be harsh people, even though you all want to gang up on me -I’m trying to point out what “is.” And what “is”, isn’t what you wish it to be. and you know the saying about wishing in one hand… So please, go “densify” Sacramento and Fresno, and San Jose and when they have a downtown core as functional and politically /environmentally correct to your specifications as SF, then come back and we can considering commencing with those towers in Noe Valley.
I dare anyone to look at these pics a visitor from back east took – of san francisco – from every angle – and he really captured the very essence of the city in these pics – and then tell me it needs to be “fixed” I think these pics capture its perfection
http://209.160.24.7/showthread.php?s=9e7f284d33388ffb14058d629c077cf5&t=159056
any changes would disract from that perfection from an aesthetics standpoint.
NOBODY born in California calls California “Cali”.
Sorry JT, I would not be surprised if you grew up near “annon” in Ohio.
Also regarding leaving California, many people do, in fact most new residents to California are un-educated and barely able to speak in english (not their fault, but a fact), while most of the people leaving California have college degrees and speak english. On your next trip to Chicago, take note of all the cars with San Francisco parking stickers still on their back bumpers. There are tons of “M”‘s “K”‘s and “G”s btw. I still own property (rented) in the Marina, but moved to Chicago for a partnership opportunity in our firm.
Trust me JT, there is more of a “San Francisco” atmostphere in Lakeview with a younger and MUCH larger gay community that goes out to clubs that are still opening up instead of closing like they did in the Castro. IF you really want to see San Francisco in Chicago on your next trip, go to the Wicker Park neighborhood, or Andersonville. Andersonville reminds me of Mission-Noe Valley in the early 90’s.
Oh, Chicago is CHEAP!
Honestly, who wants to live in this provincial, preserved in amber museum town that he is espousing?
New flash – chicago is not east coast.
Who the F are you to tell people what SF is – and that they should go home.
Urban hillbilly.
Very bored by constant Chicago talk?
Apparently at a recent architect’s convention, they liked SF a lot more than everybody who wonders why SF can’t get buildings done as well as Chicago. (The answer is that SF is not ruled via machine fiat.) Sure, it’s the Chronicle. But consider this particular source. John King doesn’t pull punches.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/05/DD9U17CTSP.DTL&tsp=1
NOBODY born in California calls California “Cali”.
Sorry JT, I would not be surprised if you grew up near “annon” – sorry noe i was born in paris and and been herer since I was 2 years old and my family has been in sf for 100 years. I call it cali in print only- because Im to lazy to type the whole word. and by the way others from here do call it that – especialy the youngsters. and you’ll notice in the post where those pics where that that coments were 100 percent pro sf as well. and chicago being a major railroad hub I cold be working there in a heartbeat but the thought of getting up a tfour AM and donning a polar bear outfit and scraping ice off my face when i get to work does not appeal to me. but go ahead knock yourself out.
and by the way all Im pointing out is how things are done here and why and the only reason I support the anit development anti high hirise anti freeway forces in sf is because they are effective at slowing things down to a point where everyone gets a chance to a look and have a say. Therres’ nothing wrong with that. Growth will come, in due time, slowly, and in a way that enighborhood groups agree on. and why are some people so hell bent on worrying about the skyline and such? I mean wtf? Is that what you think makes a city? You know we have a natural skyline here shaped by hills which was quite attractive for decades. Some people just get some weird jolies from looking at tall massive buildings. but it doesn’t make the city a better place per se. I put together pics of sac-san diego-boston-seattle-philly-sf-LA-and dallas- and none of those cities is any more or less spectacular than the other.
must be a lot of unemployed real estate agents posting here.
and lincoln park – those folks who leave here and move in search of greener pastures – ( i call them traitors – or people who left cuz they can’t handle it) they can go. They will be the ones who hang out at sf gate and other bay blogs and talk endeless about how this that and the other should be or shouldnt be done hee – even after they leave they remain obsessed with sf. tying to convince themselves its so much better shoveling snow. lol. I know, I’ve left a couple of times, and no matter how cheap and easy, seattle, reno, dallas, boston, may have been. they weren’t home. so my heels got to clicking. for me, ive learned though experience to love it here just the way it is. I also work with 100s of touriss from around the county and around the world and its pretty much hands down high approval rating.
AND if you want to get in on this new tower while rents have come back down nows your chance! (attractive single gay men get priority consideration)
current studio and one bedroom rents at trinity:
May 3 – $1125 Moving Special, Don’t Wait /Apply Today, Call Fernando (Photos) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 3 – $1975 Furnished One Bedroom, Many Amenities, Pool, Fitness Center…(Photos) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 3 – $1575 Great Bargain For Furnished Junior One Bedroom, Call Fernando (Photos) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 2 – $1975 FURNISHED ONE BEDROOM, $99 DEPOSIT. – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 2 – $1575 FURNISHED JR ONE BEDROOM IN THE HEART OF S.F. (PHOTOS) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 2 – $1125 FURNISHED STUDIOS AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY. (PHOTOS) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 1 – $1125 Furnished Studio, Amazing Location (Photos). – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 1 – $1975 / 1br – FURNISHED ONE BEDROOM IN THE HEART OF S.F. (PHOTOS) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 1 – $1575 FURNISHED JR ONE BEDROOM IN THE HEART OF S.F (PHOTOS) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
May 1 – $1125 STUDIOS: FURNISHED, SHORT TERM LEASE, $99 DEPOSIT. (PHOTOS) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
Apr 28 – $1125 FURNISHED STUDIOS AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE OCCUPANCY. (PHOTOS) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
Apr 28 – $1075 Amazing Furnished Studio,Huge Discount/LastDay,Only One (Photos). – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
Apr 28 – $1075 Beautiful Furnished Studio In The Heart Of San Francisco (Photos). – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
Apr 28 – $1975 Spacious Furnished One Bedroom With Balcony, Historic Location(Photos) – (downtown / civic / van ness) img
Apr 28 – $1475 Charming Studio, Big Discount, All Utilities Paid, Only One (Photos). – (downtown / civic / van ness) img