Approved for development this past October, South Beach Partners is partnering with SKS Partners and Mitsui Fudosan America (the U.S. operations of Japan’s largest real estate company) to develop the 200,000 square foot office building at 270 Brannan Street.
Shooting for LEED Platinum certification with a landscaped atrium in the center of the building to allow natural light to penetrate deep into its core, 270 Brannan will step up from five floors along Brannan to seven floors on the north side of the site with a rooftop deck and city views.
The development team currently plans to commence construction in the second quarter of 2014 “regardless of the preleasing status” with delivery slated for the second quarter of 2015.
Great to hear the construction will start soon! The current surface parking lot on the site is an eyesore on an otherwise pleasant block of Brannan.
Good luck getting a permit.
“Approved. New Construction of 7-Story Office Building (Total 187,614 gsf), including ground floor retail space (minimum of 600 gsf). Subject to NSR No. 2013J775448, Recorded on 10/24/13, and NSR No. 2013J775446, Recorded on 10/24/13. Subject to HPC Motion No. 0209”
Nevermind on that previous post 🙂 I was looking at the permit site out of my own curiosity. I now clearly realize there are still many steps left before final issuance of the permit. That’s just one dept approval.
“otherwise pleasant block of Brannan”?! Half of the south side of that block is a 4-story self-storage warehouse. Besides this lot there’s another, smaller parking lot on the other side of 274 (the white building). And except for one location on the corner of 2nd, there’s no ground floor retail to aid walkability.
The October posting on this had an extended argument about the parking at this building, so I hope that isn’t rehashed here (we aren’t going to solve the problems in a comments sections), but regardless of how one feels about developers being entitled to and/or required to build (or not build) a certain amount of parking, there’s a real-world issue when dozens of in-use parking spaces are taken off the market.
there’s a real-world issue when dozens of in-use parking spaces are taken off the market.
Yes, it’s called “People currently parking in the parking lot must find somewhere else.” Not much different than redevelopment of a building requires current tenants to move, etc.
If that’s a “real world” issue, um, ok.
could be 10+ floors in that location.
Definitely not enough parking
Your nonchalance astounds me. Those cars have to go somewhere – and yes, maybe you don’t care how much car owners pay for parking, nor do you care about making car owners’ lives more inconvenient. Frankly, I don’t care about those particular car owners as individuals either.
But in a larger sense, just dumping those 80+ cars on the street (plus the inevitable additional cars from the new building’s residents) impacts the urban fabric for all, and decreases quality of life for all. It means more traffic, more pollution, more hassle and frustration – it makees life more difficult not just for car owners, but for other drivers, and for pedestrians, bicyclists, tourists & out-of-towners looking for parking [to patronize shops and museums], etc.).
As I’ve said before, if San Francisco wants to run Muni lines down Geary and Van Ness and Lombard and Folsom or Harrison, and make it actually feasible to get around without owning a car (as in Manhattan, or central Boston or Chicago or D.C.) – great. fantastic. I would love to live in such a city – and I would be willing to pay additional taxes in the low triple digits to do so.
But the City can’t put the cart before the horse; it can’t make life impossible for car owners at a time when the transit system is already woefully inadequate – let alone add 1000s of new residents to SoMa with no apparent strategy on how to accommdate their transit needs.
There are more than 400,000 registered cars and trucks in SF. These 80 don’t matter at all. Yeah, I get the slippery slope argument (if everyone threw a pebble into the Grand Canyon, it would eventually fill up), but this is just a non-issue.
I drive a fair amount, and while I’ve experienced nasty traffic getting in or out of SF, it really is not that bad getting around town. I’m with you that more (and more and more) mass transit is a great thing. But people with cars is not tearing apart the urban fabric. FWIW, I’m an avid biker, and a-hole bikers have caused me way more headaches than cars.
You haven’t really explained why redeveloping a parking lot creates a “real world” issue, but redeveloping anything else into a different use doesn’t create this issue.
The market clearly values housing over parking, just like we see in another thread that it values housing over a dance club. Why is one a “real world” issue and the other isn’t?
“But in a larger sense, just dumping those 80+ cars on the street…”
You’re assuming that those 80 drivers won’t adapt to changing conditions. In reality people adjust their commutes as facilities come and go. Build parking and more people will drive. Remove parking and less will drive. Same goes for transit.
“But the City can’t put the cart before the horse; it can’t make life impossible for car owners at a time when the transit system is already woefully inadequate…”\
I’m with you on investing more in transit. But the sad political reality is that it is hard to find funds for transit from any level: city, state, fed. But yet we somehow find hundreds of millions per year to expand the Bay Area’s freeway system and create more parking which simultaneously puts more pressure on streets while making transit less attractive.
Write to your elected representatives and tell them to:
– phase out spending on freeways
– discourage auto oriented development
– increase funding for transit
Even if we do a 180 degree turn today, it will still take a decade to significantly improve transit. Unfortunately there is pain in our future no matter how you travel. But that is no reason to begin solving the problems ASAP.
“Write to your elected representatives and tell them to:
– phase out spending on freeways
– discourage auto oriented development”
I would like to write to them to say exactly the opposite
Half of the south side of that block is a 4-story self-storage warehouse
The worst part of that hulking monstrosity is the sidewalk encroachment. Between that and the parking meters, it’s a single-file stretch of sidewalk that runs for half a block.
Something about that encroachment seems to smash-and-grab thieves like nobody’s business, too. The cars that park there have their windows smashed at what must be by far the highest rate in this part of town. I’ve often thought there should at least be a few “warning, high crime parking spot” signs along there. Some better lighting and high-visibility cameras would work wonders, but so would revoking the encroachment and tearing the ramp down.
*seems to [i]attract[/i] smash and grab…
We are actually losing 159 parking spaces. This lot is managed by attendant and cars are strategically parked to allow for more parking. Sold out almost very day of the week and weekends when giants in town.