Speaking of Tishman Speyer projects, first approved for development in 2010 and “diligently pursuing financing and preparing to start construction” ever since, Tishman is finally ready to start construction on the 350-foot office tower to rise at 222 Second Street at the corner of Howard this summer:

Corner of 2nd and Howard
Originally planning to acquire the loading dock of 631 Howard Street and incorporate the area into the tower’s design, the acquisition of the dock fell through and the tower’s footprint has since been modified, a modification which is expected to be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission this week.
The 26-story tower will now yield 430,650 square feet of office space, 2,100 square feet of ground floor retail (down from 5,000 square feet), 8,600 square feet of publicly-accessible open space, and underground parking for 54 cars.
Tishman Teams With China On 201 Folsom And Plans To Start Soon [SocketSite]
222 Second Street Seeks Certification (And Exceptions) This Week [SocketSite]
The 222 Second Street Scoop (For The Second Time) [SocketSite]

25 thoughts on “Second Street Tower Ready To Start Construction This Summer”
  1. Even though the design is pretty generic, the addition of this much square-footage (and additional office workers) will really add to the area! Can’t wait!

  2. A boring box. The aesthetic success of this project will hinge on whether it actually has that nice cool-grey-green color to it in real life. It does make a difference to tenants that they work in an attractive building. Developers should remember that.

  3. Im excited for this project, even though it is pretty plane and boxy, it would be a great addition to the area, however, I feel that it would be much more beneficial if this tower was built a little bit higher, about an extra 100ft since the towers being built in close proximity will be taller and make this tower look obsolete.

  4. Reminds me of Midtown Manhattan and not in an inspiring way. The facade could use some definition to it to break it up a bit.
    Still beats a surface lot.

  5. Sidewalks on 2nd will likely be widened as part of the repaving and beautification plan that is currently in public hearings.

  6. Why the drop-off in retail from 5,000 to 2,100 sq ft? That’s a pretty huge drop-off and will hurt this area. Having people in tall buildings is pretty useless to a neighborhood if they have nowhere to walk to.

  7. ^Both 2100 sq ft and 5000 sq ft are piddly amounts of retail and will not affect the area in any meaningful way (think one nail salon or two nail salons). Workers will walk to the other retail that already exists or is planned in the area (quite a few vacancies in other buildings with more retail space at the moment).

  8. “Why the drop-off in retail from 5,000 to 2,100 sq ft? That’s a pretty huge drop-off and will hurt this area. Having people in tall buildings is pretty useless to a neighborhood if they have nowhere to walk to.” -OMN
    Did you actually read the article? The drop-off is because the building footprint is now smaller, because they couldn’t acquire the neighboring loading dock from 631 Howard. And what do you mean this will hurt the neighborhood? They’re ADDING 2,100 square feet of retail and 430,000 square feet of office space where there is now a parking lot. 2,100 square feet of retail isn’t is nice as 5,000 square feet, but it’s still a good thing. Plus, all those new office workers are going to patronize existing establishments too. This building will not hurt the neighborhood, but do the exact opposite, and make it more lively.

  9. I should have been more clear. This will not hurt the neighborhood, but leaving out the additional 2,900 sq ft “helps the neighborhood less” (better?)
    Also, to sf “People don’t want to shop in high rise districts.”
    I don’t know where this comes from. Have you been to 5th Avenue, Manhattan or Michigan Avenue, Chicago?

  10. ^The reason for the smaller amount is simply that they weren’t able to buy the loading dock from next door. At some point, that loading dock could be torn down and a small retail building built. Not seeing the harm that this entails.

  11. To those who complained about this being a “boring box” –what else do you expect to be built on a square lot–a miniature version of the Centre George Pompidou? May I remind you that this is a commercial real estate development, not a museum. In order to get built, it’s got to pencil out, the building needs to pretty much fill up the lot. Any departure from that would reduce the leasable space.

  12. Live up the block from here and happy to have something other than a skanky parking lot to walk past. Only question is, where will the ever present bums do their business? Hope they can find a space for the crepe cart.

  13. It’s a 25,000 square foot lot– I think it’s perfectly legitimate to complain about there being only 2100 square feet of retail. What’s the rest of the ground floor used for?

  14. Sorry Drew: this is hardly 80’s architecture.
    Think Lever House in NY, designed by Gordon Bunshaft of SOM; 1951.
    Elegant, simple, all glass facade, and timeless.
    This new building echos that esthetic very well. A nice addition to our skyline.

  15. lived at 246 2nd street overlooking the parking lot this building will be built upon. while both buildings (246 and 222) have a similar number of floors, 222 2nd street will be almost double the height at 350 feet accounting for commercial vs. residential space. unfortunate for those with views from residential units all around. also, factor in the the noise during the construction. very happy to not live in the neighborhood anymore!!!

  16. Anon said: “People don’t want to shop in high rise districts.”
    Interesting theory. Maybe you can try to convince the citizens of Tokyo and Manhattan that. They evidently didn’t get the memo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *