A new zoning map for the Yerba Buena Transbay Center District confirms a higher than 800 foot possibility for 536 Mission Street, currently home to Golden Gate University’s much smaller main building.
If approved, Golden Gate’s rezoning would be part of a highrise cluster around a 1,000-foot Transbay Tower that would include six skyscrapers over 600 feet and allow for another 5.8 million square feet of new office space, 1,350 housing units and 1,350 hotel rooms. Fees from the development would help raise between $700 million and $850 million to help pay for a $2 billion transit center. However, with construction costs still relatively high and housing prices and office rents in decline it is unlikely that any of these towers will be built in the next five years…
Expect some opposition from neighboring landowner David Choo whose seven parcels were once pitched to bring a Renzo Piano design to San Francisco and would likely lose some potential height should 536 Mission Street get the 850 foot nod.
∙ Golden Gate University eyes new highrise [San Francisco Business Times]
∙ Proposed Piano Parcels (Including 50 First Street) On The Market [SocketSite]
It seems wrong to give some landowners more rights than the neighboring landowners.
That would be the Rincon Hill neighborhood, yep … not Yerba Buena or whatever the Realtors who just fell off the wagon want to call it.
It is wrong to give some landowners more rights than the neighboring landowners.
it doesn’t matter at this point anyway. Commercial RE securities are in the dumps right now, and there is considerable headwind for the foreseeable future.
There was arguably enough (or too much?) commercial RE during a huge credit boom. it is logical that we will need LESS commercial RE in non-boom times. Thus, not sure where the dollars and cents will come from for these mega buildings.
My guess is that we’ll need to wait for the next RE boom, which could be decades hence. it’s still nice to see them upzoning the downtown core, regardless of when it becomes financially feasible.
It is wrong to give some landowners more rights than the neighboring landowners.
Isn’t that called zoning? I’m not saying that I disagree with your notion, but doesn’t zoning ALWAYS give more or less rights to some neighboring landowners?
@flaneur: “It is wrong to give some landowners more rights than the neighboring landowners.”
to be blunt, what a dumb statement.
that would mean the entire world be zoned exactly the same — same heights, same densities, same everything. Every piece of land is a neighbor to another piece of land. So what should the zoning be for the entire world?
go back to kindergarten, logic boy.
@Jamie: Dude give it up. Mission and Freemont is NOT Rincon Hill.
@WTF:
first, it was ME that changed the “seems” to “is”
And I disagree this is dumb, given the context.
These properties are right next to each other, and are both in the same neighborhood. is there a reason why they should be zoned differently?
Sure, I agree with you and understand why the FiDi should be zoned differently than Sea Cliff as example. But why should 1st and Harrison be zoned differently than first and Jesse?
what is the rationale for such neighborhood micromanagement? is it THAT important if the tall buildings are here vs 1500 feet away? c’mon.
it stinks of favoritism IMO. suddenly the land under Golden Gate just became worth much more, and that under the 7 parcels much less. And I see no benefit to the city, given how close they each are to one another.
or is it that they just absolutely need to cover up ORH jutting up alone over there?
let the market decide where to build the towers, within reason. I see no reason why the govt needs to dictate tower placement within meagre blocks.