Transbay Parcel F

The minimum bid for Transbay Parcel F, which is located mid-block between First, Second, Howard and Natoma Streets and zoned for building a tower up to 750-feet in height, has been set at $160 million and the live auction has been scheduled for 10am on September 2, 2015.

The Transbay Joint Powers Authority will collect sealed written bids for Parcel F from pre-qualified bidders at the end of August. The highest written bid will be revealed at the time of the auction. And all bidders who had submitted a written offer will then be allowed to orally raise their bids for the parcel which includes the potential for connecting to the 5.4 acre rooftop park to be built atop San Francisco’s new Transbay Transit Center by way of a pedestrian bridge over Natoma.

At least two-thirds of any development on Parcel F, which has the potential to support up to 750,000 square feet of building, is designated for commercial use per the City’s approved Transbay District Plan.

For perspective, Hines ended up paying $192 million for the Salesforce Tower site which is zoned for 1,200-feet in height and 1.6 million square feet of space.  Hines had originally bid $350 million for the site but was subsequently allowed to reduce their bid along with the height of the tower.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by jsimms3

    I wouldn’t touch this land with a ten foot pole right now until I knew for certain that after I spent $160M+ on the land alone, justified by 750 ft zoning (presumably), that I would be able to build to that height to my heart’s content without NIMBYs or [new] regulations breathing down my neck, and a City with no power and no backbone over constituents sitting back and doing nothing at best to back me.

    I’m literally fuming reading about the amount of hypocrisy in this town and the absolute lack of leadership. I think this town is too ____ for me, and that has certainly led it to be too expensive for me. I ask myself every day whether it’s worth it or not.

    • Posted by deadlyshadows

      It still kills me they shrunk the tower from 1200′ to 1070′ and now LA is going to have a taller building because of it (the wilshire grand tower @ 1100′). we could have been tallest on the west coast, but no…

      • Posted by Turin

        I wouldn’t worry about that. The Wilshire Grand is actually a 935′ building with a 165′ stick plopped on top. No rational person looking at it will consider it as the tallest in LA (the US Bank Tower stands a full 1018′ without any flag poles, etc.) let alone the West Coast. WG is shaping up to be a beautiful building and it will help fill a big gap in LA’s skyline, but it’s a new tallest thanks to a technicality, not real height.

    • Posted by John

      a 750 ft tower? You mean a playground for the rich that casts shadows on our children’s parks all while creating a wall on the water front??

      • Posted by SFRealist

        Yeah, man, like a total wall on the waterfront. If by “wall” you mean “building” and by “waterfront” you mean “6 blocks away from the bay”.

        • Posted by kbbl

          No he said “water front” … two words. The space between them represents those extra six blocks.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            You’re right. My bad

      • Posted by bleeper

        Ladies and gents: Jon Golinger. Next gen NIMBY (same as the last three decades) and Peskin mouthpiece!

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        our children are going to evolve into moles with so little light.

  2. Posted by c_q

    considering that this parcel is actually partially over the (future) train track tunnel, that may limit what you can build here – and that’s before everyone and their dog will protest whatever building plan is submitted (unless, of course, it is a self-sustaining renewable energy organically constructed building for destitute people for free rent which would require some rich guy to build it who won’t even put his name on the building so as to not appear pompous and generate protests).

  3. Posted by Charlie

    That’ll raise just enough money to feed our Homeless-Industrial Complex for a year.

  4. Posted by R

    The city should be selling the parcel directly to the west of Parcel F as a 750 foot tower, not parcel F. That is going to take a ton of the sunlight from the transbay terminal park and run into issues with prop K whereas the parcel to the west would shade other buildings and less of the park. This could seriously jack up the rooftop park.

    • Posted by Dave

      Yes. This is problematic from Prop K point of view. It can easily be challenged.

      Not to mention the enconomy worldwide is slowing and this project will come on line (if it is ever built) probably during a downturn.

      Let’s see what developers bid for a problematic site in an upcoming uncertain economy.

  5. Posted by ZeeGold

    The City does not own the land under Parcel F; Transbay Joint Powers Authority does. Underneath the parcel immediately west of Parcel F are the tracks to connect Caltrain/HS Rail to the Transbay Terminal, which may be a less than suitable location for a 750 tower.

    City Park (on top of the Transbay Terminal) will not be owned or operated by SF’s Recreation and Park’s Department, which exempts it from Prop K’s Sunshine Ordinance requirements.

    Remember challenges to the Mexican Museum over the 20 minutes of shadow it would cast over Union Square in December? Nothing was ever mentioned about the far more extensive shadows that would be cast over Jessie Square and Yerba Buena Gardens, neither of which are owned or operated by RPD.

  6. Posted by Jamie

    The train tracks will go under the corner of 2nd and Howard (demolition of those existing buildings will be coming .. Bye Adolph Gasser camera shop). They will not go underneath the bus connector to the Bay Bridge.

    I am not sure Prop K applies to parks that did not exist when the voters passed that local proposition – though voters may decide to change that.

    Did 181 Fremont have opposition? I doubt this shorter zoning would get any noise as long as it stays within existing zoning height limit.

    Hope they get $200 million. 🙂

  7. Posted by Chris

    Nevertheless, as a skyscraper enthusiast, anytime a new building has the potential of being 600+ ft, yet alone 750 ft, it’s something to look forward to, especially in San Francisco.

    And by 750, this probably refers to roof height (such as the 700 ft height limit for the 802 ft 181 Fremont). This building could very well be close to 900 ft with the help of a spire crown and a steel toothpick for Godzilla.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles