Development Of SoMa Block Financed, Shooting For Rentals In 2015April 1, 2014
The development of 350 8th Street with 408 rental units and commercial/retail space to replace the three acre bus depot at 8th and Harrison has been financed. Associated Estates Realty is partnering with AIG Global Real Estate on the $220 million project.
The development’s 315 off-street parking spaces for cars and 414 spaces for bikes will be located mostly underground or within the interior of the Stud-adjacent site.
In addition to 44,000 square feet of open space throughout the development – and over 20,000 square feet of ground floor retail, arts and commercial space – the 350 8th Street project includes a 5,400 square foot public plaza and café on the corner of 8th and Ringold:
Assuming no major delays, the development should be ready for occupancy in late 2015.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
this is the former archstone site i believe.
the interior block has really, really tight building separations- it looks like maybe 25 feet across interior walks from window to window.
would be interesting to see the entire block plan as it looks like it would be oppressive.
the result of packing extreme density into zoning that is (too) low rise. On a site this size it makes no sense, but its the WS plan.
WS plan should be rethought/redone but thats a 5 year exercise ,and it a bubble market now, so builders will just build whatever they can jam into current zoning and rent or sell before the music stops.
as to the subjectives it looks fairly ugly.
[Editor’s Note: Big Plans For The “Short-Sited” SoMa Block At 8th And Harrison.]
As dense as italy, I like it. I just wish it were higher, just 1 or 2 floors. Can’t really complain though when its just a bus parking lot today.
This height is a good fit for Concord or Pleasanton, not for 3 acres of prime SF land.
Should have thrown the Stud site into this…somehow
Wow… that’s fugly.
public plaza = convenient hang out for squatters, homeless, etc.
Jeez, for such a huge patch of land at least vary the height here and there.
Taller, taller, taller.
Nice to see this space being put to good use, but what a missed opportunity to build for much needed density.
file this under “Projects That We Will Regret In Less Than 10 Years”. What a waste of potential.
Something should be done about a single individuals posting multiple times.
There should be a tower in the middle of the lot. 6 stories, really?
You can thank NIMBYs for this project being so short despite the location being perfect for highrises. NIMBYs got their way with the western SOMA plan, and now a huge swath of SOMA has ridiculously low height limits. It’s one of the few remaining parts of SF where highrise construction could occur in large numbers (providing a lot of much-needed housing) without ruining any “character” or leading to the demolition of historic buildings, and this is what we get. And people wonder why housing is so expensive here. It’s because of decades of bad planning like this. Thanks NIMBYs!
It’s not exactly fair to say Western soma has no character, I think the gay readers of this website might dispute that. But I agree, if the area is going to radically transformed, it might as well be radically transformed in a way that is most useful to the residents of the city.
That said, I dislike huge projects like this. The thing that makes soma an interesting place is the plethora of small buildings tightly packed with alleyways meandering around. I realize its easier to sell this huge lot to one developer, but I’d have much preferred this was sold piecemeal. We could have had random and interesting commercial on the ground floors of buildings.
another low rise prison. What a waste of space. THis should be at least 10 flrs. The western Soma plan was basically a piece of toilet paper after it was completed. The NIMBYs in this city refused to look beyond the next 3-4 yrs when thinking about neighborhoods. Western SOMA does have little character now, and has a chance to be a nice place with increased density and increased economic potential..
Spencer, not sure what you’re arguing for. A high rise prison as opposed to a low rise prison?
emanon, SF desperatly needs *housing units* to be produced. It’s not about prisons, it’s about having enough housing built to meet demand, otherwise the elite-ization of the city will only accelerate.
Unfortunately, SF continues to under-utilize obvious sites where dense developments could be built, like this one.
“It’s not exactly fair to say Western soma has no character” -Sam
I didn’t mean that the neighborhood has no character, I know it’s a diverse neighborhood with thousands of residents, including a lot of low-income people, and that it also has significance in the gay community. What I’m saying is that there are plenty of lots to build on without demolishing tons of existing housing or much-loved businesses that already serve those people…which can’t be said for 95% of the city. I’m talking highrise infill replacing parking lots, old warehouses, derelict buildings, etc, not wholesale demolition and redevelopment with highrises. Meaning it could be the same neighborhood as it is now, more or less, but with a lot more housing added to the mix (transit improvements would be necessary too of course).
But in the middle of a housing crisis, we’ve decided that all new construction there will be short buildings, so we’ll get way fewer housing units than we could have otherwise. It’s a missed opportunity. I guess we can hope that somewhere down the line some new plans will go into affect that raise height limits.
Not to mention that western SOMA is directly adjacent to downtown and the vast majority of SF’s highrises. Meaning, it’s not like they’d seem out of place in western SOMA, except to people who really hate change I guess.
a lot of these huge low rise building look like prisons. they are hulking ugly building because that is the only way in the stupid SOMA plan to get a lot of units. Taller slimmer buildings are much more aesthetically pleasing, and help with the lack of housing problem. Western Soma is a blank canvas that can really be developed into something beautiful and economically meaningful
Taller buildings will NOT result in lower cost housing. That’s a myth, and no one can prove otherwise.
There will always be people coming to SF who WANT to live here and CAN afford it.
^^^ That’s not an absolute. When the cost of dirt is expensive a two story building definitely provides housing cheaper than a one story building. Same goes for three stories.
Yes, at some point there’s diminishing returns since building higher results in higher per sq.ft. construction costs. But the land value is a big big factor.
Actually, my thinking behind what I said is this:
Doesn’t matter what the cost of the land is, there will be a steady supply of available new renters or owners who WILL pay what the developer asks for a unit. The developer, as a business person, will charge as much as he can get.
Now, unless we were to become “Detroit”, our housing costs will not go down.
^ Look through the SS archives.
The “supply and demand don’t apply to SF” meme has been debunked numerous times.
futurist, you cant seriously believe that. your saying that limiting the number of units does not increase housing costs, and increasing number of units will not limit the increase in housing costs.
He’s basically making the same socialist argument that he makes with many other issues – that somehow the price is the price, and there is no way that anything can influence a price, even if we double or halve the amount.
Yes, it’s insane, but hey. That’s how the future will work (I know, because Mao told me so decades ago).
If you follow your assertion to it’s conclusion, then the price of every unit in this city would be infinite dollars.
Reportedly they paid $44 million for the land last year, which is 20% of the expected total project cost.
Even if they kept the same number of units and sqft, it would have been nice to have added a story or two in exchange for a larger park. This part of SOMA could really use a couple small parks, even if they are only 0.25-0.5 acre each.
Yea, people. That’s what I believe. It’s my opinion.
Show me otherwise here in SF that housing prices are coming down. Are existing rents going lower? Are existing condos and houses priced lower than last year?
Show me where NEW projects on line to be finished this year will be cheaper than similar projects of last year.
Show me. Prices may “soften”, or level off somewhat, but in the long term, they will continue to be higher.
Um, what? We’re not building anywhere near enough to bring prices down or slow them in nominal terms. If you don’t think prices are lower than they would be without these new places coming online, show US why, since it seems quite obvious that 10 of something will make each one cost less than if only 5 of something existed.
Nominal prices are useless to look at. This should be obvious.
I think futurist is just playing with us. There is no way anyone believes what he is saying. It’s as dumb as saying the world is flat “in San Francisco”
OMG. We’re not New York. We’re Berlin 1950.
Nope. Not playing.
Trouble is, no one can really dispute what I’m saying or prove the opposite. It would help if you separate my point of view from your “dislike” as to what I’m saying. Is it because you can’t afford the prices here? I’m sorry then, but that’s reality.
Then show us how building more and building up is can directly LOWER housing prices here. Guess what? it can’t. Sure, we will increase density. More people will be able to live in SF proper, but THEY will be the ones who can afford the high prices.
Short of section 8 public housing, that is. Is that what all of you want to make it “affordable”?
Case in point, if it’s not already obvious: Manhattan. Building up and out like crazy. Has it gotten cheaper to live there?
I don’t hear much from those of us who own property here complaining about prices going down. We are expensive, and will continue to be so. As I’ve said many times here before, not everyone can afford to rent or own here. That’s just life.
Nobody said it will keep costs from rising. The point is more until will keep it from rising as fast as it would with fewer units.
Spencer got it right. Can you answer his question?
“your saying that limiting the number of units does not increase housing costs, and increasing number of units will not limit the increase in housing costs.”
No one dislikes what your saying. Most of us learned basic economic principle and math. I owned 2100 sq ft home on Lake and 4th. Not priced out, but I want the city to be affordable enough for the next new dreamers to make it here
I didn’t say anything about the “speed” of costs rising. I have no knowledge of that info. Do you?
Actually, spencer did not ask a question. He merely presented a statement.
And I don’t agree with that statement. Ok?
I believe fundamentally we will remain very expensive for housing (and the others costs of living) here in SF, because of desirability and the choice for well to do people to come here BECAUSE they can and choose to pay for it.
No matter how much we build. And how high. However, on a more important note, our density could increase to the point of negatively affecting our ‘quality of life” here.
We don’t need to be big and dense. For what primary purpose?
As for your “dreamers”, you have no idea who they will be and if they can afford to live here or not.
But some will. And I’m fine with that.
If what you are saying is true, Futurist, then why aren’t rents higher than they are now? If there is a limitless pool of wealthy renters/buyers just waiting to move in, why wouldn’t landlords have raised the price of a rental even higher than it already is?
I think you are right, though, that even with some increased density in certain areas of the city, it is unlikely that enough units can be built to realistically lower prices by very much anytime soon. And people who already own have incentive to resist an increase in supply. What constitutes appropriate density is also very subjective. Your point of view on that is obviously as valid as anyone else’s.
If futurist were right and it’s clear he’s not, then market rent prices would rise to a level to suck up all demand, not just price out blue collar. Saying supply and price have no relationship is like saying world is flat.
@ moto: it’s not really about being right or wrong. It’s my opinion.
Then I invite you to share with us your vision of lowering housing prices.
And if blue collar can’t live here, they can’t. Reality. There’s Oakland, there’s Daly City.
Somehow the exorbitant cost of housing in Manhattan has not shut down all the blue collar jobs, retail, restaurant and service jobs from continuing. Those people just live in the outer boroughs.
It’s not an “opinion” to say the world is flat or that supply and price have no relation to one another. That’s simply refusing to believe a provable fact. Very, very different from an opinion.
I think that anon and others just really “want” to believe that our great city of San Francisco will become affordable to all those who want to live here. They believe that by building enough housing, dramatically increasing density and building higher and higher is the answer to their utopia.
They abhor neighborhoods of single family homes, because they represent “suburbia” to them, but seem to ignore the fact that those neighborhoods are very much part of the unique character that we have here.
They would rather SF be turned into a fully subsidized, super dense urban place of super-tall buildings, which would, of course, lower prices and allow everyone who wants to move here be able to.
And yes, I suppose their so called “provable fact” of supply and price do have a relationship to one another.
Especially in the massive public housing blocks in China.
I and many others simply want San Francisco to grow in a responsible, careful way to maintain our special urban environment, with regard to walkability, services, transit, green spaces and way of living.
The Western Soma Plan, AS DESIGNED, does just that.
“I think that anon and others just really “want” to believe that our great city of San Francisco will become affordable to all those who want to live here. ”
All of the many people correcting you are simply pointing out how you’re wrong.
Now as to quality of life issues between suburban, low density and high density areas. That’s a matter of opinion.
It’s as if you wrote a post claiming that vaccines are ineffective hoaxes and your favorite color is green. Half of that statement is wrong and half is opinion.
Oh, I think exactly that anon and other anons, etc.
They don’t like the Western Soma Plan, and I do.
Pretty simple. It works, and it was debated and studied for years. And it’s done. And many of us are glad.
Fantastic, you think the SoMa plan works. Many of us don’t.
Doesn’t change the fact that your take on basic economic principles is flat-out wrong.
That’s fine, but you and others need to take a proactive stand in developing the future of SF.
I attended some of the Soma meetings and wrote letters and emails to the planners stating my point of view. You need to do the same thing.
Armchair comments after the fact do little to change the future.
But nobody has come out with facts or studies that imply or prove continued building of new residential HERE in SF will result in lower prices of housing. Slowing the increase, perhaps yes.
Rent control certainly hasn’t helped, just resulting in more substandard housing being left to crumble, and many many units being removed from the market by owners who refuse to deal with draconian laws favoring outlandish tenant rights.
“But nobody has come out with facts or studies that imply or prove continued building of new residential HERE in SF will result in lower prices of housing. Slowing the increase, perhaps yes.”
ahh, you finally came around. No one said it would lower prices, just that it will slow the increase. now you are agreeing. thats good progress
Oh, plenty believe that more units will simply LOWER prices, which, of course it won’t.
The “slowing” part is highly subjective, anyway.
I still support the idea of careful, restrained growth. 4-6 stories in most of Soma and Mission Bay is appropriate.
Petition your supervisors if you don’t like it.
The “slowing” part is highly subjective, anyway.
Ok, just like you don’t understand what “opinion” means, you don’t seem to understand what “subjective” means. Either additional supply has an impact on prices or it doesn’t – that isn’t subjective, and it isn’t an opinion.
So anon, I get that you don’t agree with what I’m saying. That’s fine. No problem.
But isn’t is kind of late to be complaining about the Western Soma Plan?
It’s moving forward nicely and things are developing. Somehow, you seem to think that these brand new units with the latest amenities and materials will be “affordable”. Am I wrong?
The developers and owners are also out to make a decent ROI. They know they have a new set of young well off tech monkeys just churning to pay top dollar and move in.
And that’s a good thing. The ‘hood will get safer, cleaner and lots of new retail/restaurants will move in as well.
I neither know about nor care about the Western Soma Plan. Furthermore, a while back “two beers”, who has a completely different ideology from you, came on here with the “supply and demand don’t work in SF” nonsense and just like you was completely shot down.
So this has nothing to do with ideology, you’re just wrong.
Um, I said nothing about affordability. Where in the world are you getting that from? I was merely disputing your claim that supply has no relation to prices whatsoever, and the later claim that price movement is “subjective” – even though we have objective data to look at.
UPDATE: Ground Broken For The Development Of An Entire West SoMa Block.
Comments are closed.