Treasury Island Development Aerial SOM Rendering (Image Source: SOM)
From the San Francisco Business Times today:

The Treasure Island development team has increased the target number of housing units from 6,000 to 8,000, a move that could help attract stores and other services to the new neighborhood and make the staggeringly expensive project economically viable.

Kheay Loke, project manager for developer Wilson Meany Sullivan, said the bump up in density is being driven by public response to the project “notice of preparation” — part of the environmental review process — as well as calculations about the how many residents will be needed to support the variety of retail and services that will make the island a real neighborhood.

Yes, it’s all about density. Okay, and dollars.
Treasure Island boosts housing [San Francisco Business Times]
The (SOM) Master Plan For San Francisco’s Treasure Island [SocketSite]
Treasure Island: Sold To The Bidder Across The Bay For $105M (Plus) [SocketSite]
The Next Era In San Francisco’s Development: It’s All About Density [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by reguru

    Folks, this project is never going to fly. Several reasons:
    1. Treasure Island may well be underwater by the time this project is completed. (Only partly kidding on this — do any of us really know what world sea levels are going to do in the next 20 years?)
    2. Has anyone planning the project ever commuted to and from TI on a regular basis? I have — it wouldn’t be my first choice of where to live.
    3. Fog. It is often really cold and damp.
    4. Economics. This just has the look and feel of a huge black hole for money…
    5. Seismic issues. TI is all landfill, yes? Liquefaction?

  2. Posted by reguru

    And one more thing — ESTIMATED cost is $6 billion. We all know what that means. Ask the people of Boston what the original estimate for the Big Dig was vs. the final price. Or, closer to home, the estimate for the Bay Bridge replacement. And, don’t forget, it has now been over 20 years since the ’89 quake.

  3. Posted by rubber_chicken

    $6 billion for 6,000 units? That’s $1 million per unit. At 8,000 units = $750K / unit. This sure makes Mission Bay seem sane. I’m not versed in the Houdini finances of something like this. But what are these people thinking?

  4. Posted by Oceangoer

    nuff said … reguru and rubber_chicken have said it all. I can only think the Treasure Island talk is like the handkerchief the magician waves while he is making sure you don’t see what he/she is doing with the other hand.

  5. Posted by Gil

    Vote for the shadow ordinance in June. That will put a stop for sure to this and other schemes by the city and developers to make tons of money from radically increasing the density of the city when many San Franciscans do not want that. But, is the city listening? No. The voters need to step in a put a stop to this.

  6. Posted by Rincon Hill Billy

    Forget housing…we should turn TI into the equivalent of TI in Vegas…an island with a casino!!!
    It would be similar to Hong Kong having its Macau…would be a totally sweet place to go

  7. Posted by PPC

    I agree RHB, a casino with access only by ferry would be a great idea and bring in some much needed revenue. Plus Cache Creek is too far away.

  8. Posted by anon

    So now Gil is for using the ballot box for no new building in SF? I thought there was no demand for any new construction, Gil, because SF is soon to be Detroit?

  9. Posted by yao

    haha. i really like the casino idea. preferably one with a smoke free casino/wing or a smoke free poker room. it would provide jobs and help generate the revenue required for such a project.

  10. Posted by OneEyedMan

    Brainstorm!! TI should be the only place in SF where smoking is not banned and is allowed in all public places. All smokers will have to relocate there, creating demand for housing, restauants, shopping, and oncologist offices. Also, you can only build a park on TI if it is shaded by a large building.

  11. Posted by Invented

    Excellent. Density is good here, but also needs transit connections to East Bay; ferry service up and down and over — and another 2000 homes will help sustain business & services. Look @ Roosevelt Island in the East River. 9000 homes and not even crtitical mass for many businesses.(no tram please, altho bike lanes on the SF side of Bay Bridge which help connect).

  12. Posted by spitpalm

    Vote NO on that ridiculous shadow ordinance in June and help get San Francisco out the 1950’s!

  13. Posted by lyqwyd

    I agree with Invented, density should go way up, it’s the only way to make public transit & ferry viable. Otherwise it’s just another 6000 people who will be crowding on to the bridge every day. Put like 20,000 people and there will be enough for a diversity of businesses so people won’t need to leave for every little thing.
    Also, the casino idea is great!

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles