680/690 Folsom
From the San Francisco Business Times:

The complex at 680 Folsom St., a property the city has targeted for the expansion of the Moscone Convention Center, has been deeded back to the lender in the latest of a string of high-profile commercial real estate defaults.

RREEF, a real estate investor based in San Francisco, deeded the property back to lender Wells Fargo in lieu of foreclosure, according to real estate sources. RREEF acquired the property in 2007, one of a series of acquisitions made in an investment partnership with CalPERS. Wells Fargo is in negotiations to bring in a new capital partner to replace RREEF.

RREEF and TMG acquired the two-building complex at Third and Folsom streets in 2007 for about $80 million. In April 2008, TMG and RREEF announced a $200 million renovation and expansion designed by Craig Hartman of Skidmore Owings & Merrill. The project would have increased the building to 505,000 square feet, with 440,000 square feet of office and retail. The project was derailed when the market collapsed in fall of 2008.

690 Folsom: Redesign Rendering
TMG maintains a minority interest in the property.
Moscone growth site deeded back to bank [Business Times]
From Renovation To Potentially Razed For 680/690 Folsom [SocketSite]
Additional Details To Go With The Glassy Design: 680/690 Folsom [SocketSite]
Wet Weekend Special (And Scoop): The Designs For 680/690 Folsom [SocketSite]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by question

    Did the project site include the demo of that ugly monster next door?

  2. Posted by Mike

    This building is such a waste of space and an eyesore in the neighborhood

  3. Posted by Marten

    I thought that corner was targeted to become MoPaD(Museum of Performance and Design), which is now in the Veteran’s Building.
    [Editor’s Note: Museum of Performance & Design: Familiarity With The Corner/Design.]

  4. Posted by spitpalm

    I thought all of these plans (MoPaD, 680 Folsom) had been scrapped and the area was to be redeveloped as Moscone East?
    [Editor’s Note: From Renovation To Potentially Razed For 680/690 Folsom.]

  5. Posted by sidelined

    Regarding “waste of space,” these two buildings are far from alone in being vacant in a supposedly high-density area. For example, 140 New Montgomery (the Pac Bell building) is still sittin’ there, doin’ nuthin’, and you can’t help but to wonder if it will meet a similar fate. I’d like to be wrong about that.

  6. Posted by Turin

    I still hold out hope the old plan to turn the PacBell Building into condos will come to fruition. It’s a great-looking building but I don’t know if it will ever be useful as an office building again.

  7. Posted by sfrenegade

    question, are you talking about 611 Folsom? That building is really ugly. But I guess it has its reasons for being so ugly. (Google it)

  8. Posted by sfrenegade

    (you’re obviously not, since it’s across the street — but I just wanted to point out that this building doesn’t have the monopoly on being an eyesore in this area)

  9. Posted by hugh

    I may be the only person in town who likes that building. But it’s definitely an example of California Modern architecture, and probably of an era that’s a decade or two from being appreciated.
    Does anyone know if it’s William Periera? Sure looks like it. He was incredibly prolific.

  10. Posted by John

    The “building next door” is 666 Folsom Street. Years ago it was also occupied by Pacific Bell, housing a variety of clerical functions. Like the beautiful 140 New Montgomery and the utilitarian 370 Third Street, it was sold off once Pacific Bell merged with Texas-based SBC (and ultimately became AT&T – again).
    I second the hope (mentioned above) that the plans to convert 140 New Montgomery to condos will eventually be realized – even if it will be at a price that I will never be able to afford. I worked for a time in all three of these buildings, and really love that one.
    In case you think “666” is a terrible street number to have been given to that “ugly monster”, I understand that 140 New Montgomery has actually been changed to “138 New Montgomery”, as the number “4” can have unlucky connotations for potential future condo-buyers from the Asian community.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles