San Francisco’s Second Tallest Tower Slated to Open in 2021November 30, 2016
With the ceremonial groundbreaking for the massive Oceanwide Center development in Downtown San Francisco slated for December 8, the two new towers to rise up to 910 feet in height at First and Mission Streets should be ready for occupancy in 2021.
Designed by Foster + Partners in collaboration with Heller Manus, at 910 feet, the 60-story First Street tower will become the second tallest building in San Francisco, behind the Salesforce/Transbay Tower which is rising to 1,070 feet across the street, with 109 condominiums (including a grand penthouse) over 1.1 million square feet of office space and a five-story Urban Room.
The condos atop the multi-faceted tower will be the highest residential units in San Francisco.
The adjacent 54-story Mission Street Tower, which will rise up to 605-feet in height on the currently vacant site at the corner of Mission and Ecker Place, will yield 156 condominiums over a 171-room Waldorf Astoria hotel, with 2,000 square feet of ground-floor restaurant space fronting Ecker, which will be a pedestrian alley.
The development includes an underground garage for 360 cars, a third of which will be dedicated to the condos, and 364 bikes. And as of today, there are no other parcels in San Francisco which are zoned for development over 900 feet in height.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
are these bedrock buildings or sinkers?
Once they sink through the muck they will be on bedrock 😉
haha, great sass! Luv luv this tower, cool look, nice height.
The millenium tower was an exception…. most buildings aren’t built incompetently like that. There’s no way they don’t anchor a building this big to the bedrock, especially after the situation with the millennium tower became public.
PR nonsense over science!
Are you sure Millennium Tower was an exception? Other towers built during that period are reported to have used the same foundation technique, The St. Regis and The Paramount come to mind.
I believe (s)he mean it was an exception in its incompetence; and the other buildings are many blocks further “inland”….soils change a lot in those several blocks.
I wish they used this design for Salesforce tower. The Pelli design already looks like a eye sore. Why did SF choose the worst proposal for the Transbay tower? Oh right…Pelli offered the most money for the terminal.
I think the salesforce tower looks nice, and i think the pelli design was the best of the bunch. The SOM design was more unique and exciting, but i think it would have been very easy for it to look tacky and out of place, and to look dated in a couple decades. And the rogers design was cool, but even more out of place, and the ugliest of them all.
The pelli design is a safe one, but i think its pretty elegant, and will fit in well with the rest of the skyline. It also may have been easier to scale down to 1070′ (any taller and it would shade union square too much…or was it justin herman plaza, or both?) than the others. Plus, the pelli design was the only one with a rooftop park, and the money thing too.
The Rogers erector set would have been an eyesore from Day One.
Pelli had nothing to do with the property or the Transbay Terminal Park. The rooftop park was always part of the terminal design. The developers chose Pelli, and paid for the development rights. Complain away, but get the facts right.
No, actually Pelli had a lot to do with the park. It is absolutely not right that the park was always part of the terminal design. The park first came into being as part of the Hines/Pelli/PWP submittal during the design+development competition in 2007. No other teams had it, and it was never part of the program before that. But yes, that team ultimately did win because they offered twice as much money as the others.
I did go back and look at the original proposals. Clark/Pelli also designed the terminal, so you are correct the park was part of the overall project. I stand very corrected regarding the the firm’s role in the park.
I agree the Pelli design is elegant, and IMHO in the way that it tapers to the top, I think it’s a great 21st century homage to the Transamerica Pyramid.
The other designs were garish and obnoxious.
The process for choosing a design for what has become known as the Salesforce Tower was pretty elaborate. Part of the process included displaying maquettes of all the finalists in City Hall and inviting the public to view and vote. Of course, the vote wasn’t itself determinative, but it did offer the interested public a voice. Guess which proposal won? Yep, the Pelli design. I remember this because unlike 99.9% of San Franciscans, I went down to City Hall and inspected the maquettes closely. Actually, I went several times. And I voted for the Pelli design.
One may or may not prefer it to the others – differences of opinion are natural and to be expected – but this is absolutely, positively for sure: Whatever design was selected, some or many would have objected and continue to complain.
Thanks for sharing. Good to know there was some public feedback.
I was at City Hall to see the architects make their presentations. Cesar Pelli spent almost all of his time talking about the park – with just a few minutes describing the tower. That’s a bit odd, considering it will be such a prominent part of our skyline. Unfortunately, it’s much less interesting than some of the skyscrapers around the world. Certainly not an iconic addition to the City.
Isn’t it the case that, after offering the most money, they ended up only paying a much smaller amount, but kept the property anyway? Always seemed like a real bait-and-switch.
ecker is already pedestrianized. other than that, it’s really hard to imagine how this lot could absorb much traffic during the daylight hours. i’m all for height but would have preferred a super restricted amount of parking, basically instead of the two ingresses (on opposite sides). the mission street side is going to be the site of a large number of auto-pedestrian conflicts, and backed up cars on mission and turning off first run right into the maelstrom. a real shame. a regular condo tower with ground floor retail and laneway parking access would have been great. i guess we’ll have to wait until i’m archon of san francisco…
I can’t think of another SF building with as long a build-out and can’t imagine why it is going to take 4+ years to complete this
Is it materially different than Salesforce Tower? That ceremonial groundbreaking was in March, 2013, and it won’t be ready for occupancy until, what, mid-2017?
More like late 2017, but the operative word there is “ceremonial.” For whatever reasons, virtually nothing really happened in way of serious construction till 2015. I’m truly amazed at how quickly it has gone up and find it hard to believe it will actually be completed a year from now. But that is a far cry from 4+ years of actual construction. That’s assuming the Mission/First Street project will move directly from the current demolition/site preparation activities to full on construction without the kind of lull of 415 Mission (Salesforce Tower).
Now that Salesforce Tower has overtopped the Hilton tower in my view from the NW corner of Alamo Square, I can see changes every day and offer this eye-witness report: This building is going up fast. It’s smokin’!
One difference is that there are several existing buildings on the Oceanwide (50 1st) site and they are presently under demolition and have been for at least 6 months. Taking these structures down is apparently not just a matter of swinging a wrecking ball because of the close proximity of buildings not involved in the project. They are being dismantled piece by piece.
Then there’s a matter of the foundations. Proper foundations in this area–YES, one’s that go to bedrock–seem to take about half the construction time so it’s a drawn-out matter. I seemed to me like they worked on the caissons for 181 Fremont forever.
[Editor’s Note: They Dug It Downtown On Fremont Street, And It’s A Bad Mother…]
yes, remember that the Salesforce Tower site was a blank slate of dirt when they took ownership of it, having already been cleared by the TJPA in the course of demoing the old terminal and prepping the Transit Center site. The Oceanwide sites have multiple buildings on them that need to be removed first.
The one building to be demolished (a very handsome example of turn-of-the-century commercial architecture I’m sorry to see go) is already nearly down after about a month. I suspect the timing of the groundbreaking is to coincide with its clearance. Excavation and pilings should soon follow.
What do you call that tapered design that appear to be in current favor? And why has it gained favor? I like it, just curious.
At the risk of being crude, my wife has always referred to it (the shape in question) as a “tampon applicator”, starting with the appearance of 30 Hudson in Jersey City.
I had to Google it to understand the reference. Honest.
That is pretty crude.
As opposed to Egyptian obelisks and pyramids, Gothic cathedral towers, the Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building, etc.? Tapering toward the top has always been a favored style – in no small part because it added stability (in older buildings that needed it) / visually telegraphs stability and height (even for modern engineered buildings that could otherwise be differently shaped).
To me the Salesforce Tower has always reminded of a sandworm from Dune.
What is the tall building going up now in unison with saleforce tower?
It is unfortunate 181 Fremont is going up in the shadow of Salesforce. I think it is actually quite beautiful. And at 802 feet, it will be the fourth or fifth tallest building in the city by 2021. It will be taller than President Trump’s 555 California (779 feet), but shorter than Salesforce (1,070 feet), Oceanwide (910 feet), and Transamerica (853 feet). The “wild card” in all this is Transbay Parcel F (currently zoned for 750 feet, but the designers want to go for 800 plus).
[Editor’s Note: As we first reported with respect to Transbay Parcel F in October, they’re shooting for 806 feet.]
Is San Francisco compensating for something as it builds huge towers to block out the sun? This is not how you build a livable city. These monstrosities are over powering the Bay Bridge and the classic Transamerica Building.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what they said about the transamerica building back in the day. (Well, minus the part about the “classic Transamerica Building”).
lol, really? So do you consider any city with a building taller than 853′ to be devoid of sunlight, and compensating for something, and also unlivable? Because a whole lot of cities across the world have a whole lot of buildings taller than the transamerica pyramid.
Steel and glass cylinders are charmless. I like charming historic cities like Paris, Lisbon, Rome, and London. American cities seem to think that charmless skyscrapers blocking out the sun make for great livable cities.
I like those cities too. London and Paris have skyscrapers, you know. The Shard is 1000 feet, isn’t it?
Just from what I have seen on movies, a lot of skyscrapers has been build in London the past 10-15 years
Yes they do, but no one goes to those cities to look at their skyscrapers. People go to look at the charming historical low rise stuff.
Have you been to lisbon?
Yes I have. I like Baixa, & Alfama.
Livable? So… pricing everyone out from the city except for the rich is livable?
SF, please continue adding more of these great buildings.
San Francisco has no sun to begin with. Livability is a matter of opinion. Denser cities offer more options. Dining, shopping, museums, housing and experiences otherwise not offered in smaller towns. Those options grow as the population and quality of citizenry grows.
San Francisco is one of the top 50 sunniest cities in America – fog be damned.
That is true, but depends on where in the city you live. Certainly not in the Sunset or Richmond from late June-August. Brrrr.
the inner richmond is sunny 75% of the time in Jun-aug
Sunset is sunny about 75% time in the last three years I live there. There are more sun in Sunset than the sunshine state of Florida.
Well not sure about “overpowering,” but it that’s the word of art, it seems only fair to note that the “classic Transamerica Building” *overpowered* Chinatown, North Beach, Telegraph Hill, Columbus Avenue, and a thousand views of the Financial District when it was built way over there by its lonely self. Lest we forget, at the time, many loathed it and decried the ruination of San Francisco.
Ha! LOL. I almost spit out my lunch at the phrase “classic Transamerica Building.” These sentiments you are attributing to these new towers are the exact same things that naysayers in the late 60s/early 70s said about Transamerica. Classic! That’s rich. Well, it is approaching 50 years of age. In this town that rises to the level of an historic resource.
It’s called progress. You obviously have never been to NY, Chicago or Hong Kong. Salesforce was going to be 1200ft but sunshine laws cut it back. Too bad they don’t build this in Oakland. :p
The greed is ruining San Francisco. These monstrosities do nothing for livability. These huge buildings create shadows and wind tunnels.
Well, you should live where they have no tall buildings, somewhere like London. Oh, wait, no they have tons of charmless monstrosities. The Shard, anyone? Well, then try Paris! Oh, so classic and beauti…….oh wait. Tour Montparnasse anyone? It’s not even interesting enough to be charmless.
Yes, but no one goes to those charming cities to look at their skyscrapers. Those are the blandest parts of those otherwise charming cities. S.F. just doesn’t have that type of charm so it attempts to impress with soulless skyscrapers,
So we should price everyone out of the city so that we can keep the city charming for you? More and more people are coming to this city, we have to build.
Charm is subjective. If you despise the charm of a city that’s less than a 150 years old versus cities that have been around for greater than a millennium then that’s your choice.
As for livability, do some research on the cost of living in London, Paris and Rome. Once again, a subjective term.
Greed happens in all cities, regardless of their charm and livability.
San Francisco doesn’t have “charm”? Not even in places like Pacific Heights, Noe Valley, Cole Valley, Dolores Heights, Russian Hill, Telegraph Hill, North Beach, just to name a few? Or the multitude of parks scattered throughout The City? None of these places exudes “charm”? Really?
Those areas are as charming as Lake Merritt, Rockridge, Montclair, Piedmont Avenue, Temescal, Grand Lake, Crocker Highlands, or Claremont in Oakland. While it’s true that Oakland and S.F. are more charming and unique than most American cities, they are still a far cry from truly great and historic European cities. In SF and OAK we are talking small time semi urban neighborhood residential charm. Not the same as Europe.
@E. Gonsalves – That’s not what you said – You said San Francisco doesn’t have that type (European, I assume) of charm and attempts to use “soulless skycrapers” which is patently false. San Francisco doesn’t try and charm people with it’s downtown/FiDi core – it has plenty of charm in the areas I mentioned. Comparing that to Europe isn’t exactly fair, given how much longer those European cities have been around.
And what does Oakland have to do with this? No one’s addressing Oakland.
I was just wondering why the need to build so tall? Isn’t this a way to one up someone else? Trying to be a sort of “Manhattan?” Tall buildings like these are an obnoxious way to get attention. I can see that huge structure all the way from Oakland. I find that huge in your face intrusion kind of offensive. It affects views from all over the Bay Area, not just S.F..
Or they’re a way to add more housing or office space than in a shorter building? Nah, couldn’t be that.
Burrito, that is a silly comment. Many cities have tall buildings and great public transport (New York, London, etc.). San Francisco (and the bay area) is building like crazy with basically zero improvements to public transit. It’s fine if you can walk or bike anywhere, but if not it is already hellish and is going to get much worse.
To say there have been zero improvements to public transit is false. What about the central subway, SJ and antioch BART extensions, expanded ferry service, SMART, the planned electrification of caltrain and van ness BRT (yeah i know, it should be a subway), BART and Muni expanding and updating their fleets, etc. Things could be better but why pretend that things aren’t changing?
Central Subway: political move to placate the late Rose Pak after the Embarcadero Freeway was torn down. It will do very little to solve transit issues or reduce congestion.
BART-to-SJ/Antioch eBART: BART’s spending billions in suburban expansion while ignoring upgrades and expansion within its core system. These are mostly huge, car-centric commuter rail
stations surrounded by parking.
Caltrain electrification: how many decades has this been pushed and still no wires? DTX continues to be delayed. Maybe in another generation or two…
BRT: let’s see how much time saving and operational efficiency comes of this project.
For the record, Anon said “basically zero improvements” and is correct. Keep adding those jobs, keep building those condo towers and pushing people further into the burbs for affordable housing, but have disparate and dysfunctional transit agencies continue to think small picture and not refuse to work together and the Bay Area in 2020 will be the LA of 1970.
The BART connector to Oakland International. There have been improvements to the BART system.
Do you commute from outside SF to SF or have co-workers that do? Ask anyone – commuting is worse than ever. And it is going to get much, much worse in years to come as more homes and more office towers are built in SF. The total cluster-f commute experience was once a rare occurrence. It is now very commonplace and is soon to be an everyday experience.
The only hope is that thousands of never-to-be profitable startups implode and the employees permanently leave the bay area.
By SF standards, San Francisco is building like crazy, but it’s small potatoes when compared to most cities. It’s a small town. 840 thousand people? SF should have taken care of transit issues long, long ago and may have shot its self in the foot and made it nearly impossible to build a proper subway, now. Density may be the only way to ever possibly get the enormous funding it will take to build even tiny improvements to transportation within the city. Oakland, the peninsula, Marin aren’t going to fund SF’s transpiration needs. So the city should just come to a halt?
Shadow and wind analysis is part of the design and approval process. Stop falsely implying that these things aren’t considered and designed for.
I’m sitting in one of the downtown office building right now. I love the street, the buildings and the vibrancy of San Francisco downtown. No Mountain View for me.
Yes, indeed. Vertical SF is much more enticing/exciting than boring horizontal Silicon Valley suburbia.
I have worked in office towers downtown for about 20 years. The problem is not the lack of sunlight, the problem is the traffic and the lack of a subway. The entire area is virtually gridlocked from 7:00 AM until 7:00 PM every day. Adding a few million square feet of commercial space and hundreds of condo units and hotel rooms into a few of the worst blocks is going to make it unbearable.
um, there’s a subway underneath Market St downtown. with two levels.
“um, there’s a *barely functioning, over-capacity* subway underneath Market St.” – FTFY
I hardly call the Muni Metro a real subway. If BART hadn’t abandoned its plan to use the first level for a BART line out to St. Francis Circle, Muni would still be operating its legacy system on the surface of Market St.
JIPB, you make a very valid point. SF, OAK and others can build to the moon and back, but unless there is some serious investment in transit you’re just going to create more congestion. In addition, the high cost of living in the inner Bay Area forces more and more people to live farther away from their jobs. It’s a negative feedback cycle.
At some point downtown SF will turn into permanent gridlock all day long. Only then will companies stop placing workers here. The over-development will eventually kill the golden goose.
The deteriorating transportation infrastructure in the Bay Area is going to make this area less desirable – 20 years from now LA will have a magnificent public transportation system – its already getting there – and most likely the Bay Area will be about where it is now in terms of public transportation.
The lack of a regional authority with real power over zoning, transportation priorities and such puts the Bay Area at a severe disadvantage to places like LA which have that kind of authority.
It’ll be so crowded that no one will go there anymore!
Agreed on the great need for expanded transportation infrastructure.
LA’s “great” public transit system is barely used by most of the population and will still be barely used in 20 years.
Calling a two-car Muni train a “Subway” is subjective, for sure.
It’s a train that runs underground partly. The underground part is called a subway. That’s why theres nothing wrong with calling the subway a subway. Hope that clears it up for you.
Sorry, but it’s not a real subway in terms of capacity. dB was being extremely generous with his two-car Muni train reference since half the time you only see 1-car trains running in the “subway.” It’s merely a streetcar system that runs underground for part of the line…5 lines, by the way, that converge in one cramped tunnel. When the system runs properly you can get from downtown to West Portal in less than 15 minutes, but then the subway magically becomes a streetcar which stops every two blocks in mixed traffic, taking 15 minutes to go one mile. Hope that clears it up for you.
The “as of today” words in the last sentence are interesting. Its a safe bet no more parcels will be zoned for heights more than 900 feet in our lifetimes. Never say never, but the brief spate of suoer talls (or whatever they call these buildings) is over.
Thats ridiculous. As the baby boomers die off, there will be less and less people who have this reflexive knee jerk response to height.
Trust me, there will be upzonings coming along. There are already studies out there citing the table top effect of the current height limits and possibly advocating for parcel specific height limits. 15 years ago, no one would have ever thought that we would have 2 buildings going up over 900′
And the taller the better!
Seriously, anything getting built in this city will effectively be with us for at least the next 50-100+ years. We’re mostly stuck with anything built already, and since so much of that was zoned down from what it should be (due to the NIMBYs back in the 70s/80s), we’be got a huge glut of fairly squat, really bland, and wall-like building masses.
Do you remember “The Towering Inferno”? Classic film. The fictional “Glass Tower” was christened “tallest building in the world” back in the early seventies with a height of 550m (~1800′). Funny that this movie took place in San Francisco! We are getting closer to it with the SFT at 326m. Hoping during the next boom cycle we’ll get some more supertalls. One can dream and hope…
Agree with Joe 100%.
Supertalls are over 1200 i think. We dont have any
I’ve mostly seen supertalls defined as 1,000’+.
Yes, supertalls are considered to be 300m+ (~1000’+) high.
It just doesn’t make sense to build more huge office buildings in San Francisco when most of the population lives in the East Bay and Oakland offers three downtown BART stations and plenty of developable surface parking lots downtown. People spend 30 minutes crawling along the toll plaza in Oakland trying to get to S.F. every morning. Makes no sense. Build in Oakland.
You mean it makes no sense to you. Clearly the developers and companies looking to locate headquarters feel differently.
Ok. If it makes more sense to build in Oakland, buy a parcel there, get it through the Oakland planning process, and build it. If it really does make sense, I’m sure banks will be lining up to lend you money
Why wouldn’t make sense? Because of some sort of prejudicial view towards Oakland? Oakland has better accessibility, better weather, great restaurants, great transportation, etc. What’s not to like?
Dude, you really have an inferiority complex about SF you need to get over. We know you’re a rah rah Oakland cheerleader, but man, it gets old after a while.
What about building more in Oakland and less in San Francisco doesn’t make sense? Why is that being rah rah for Oakland? What, only SF boosters are allowed here?
It’s not me who’s saying it makes sense to build in SF, it’s the reality of the market. I understand that YOU would prefer to work in Oakland. But on aggregate more people prefer SF. That’s just reality, as evidenced by the number of tall buildings in SF vs. Oakland.
(This is not a dis on Oakland. Just an observation of the actual world)
People prefer to work closer to their homes. You are confusing what greedy developers want to what working people want.
Nope, people prefer to work where they get paid the most. Incomes are higher in SF than Oakland on average. Businesses on average prefer to be in SF for a very specific reason: with higher density comes higher productivity for knowledge workers. What you call “greed” is known as ROI, and the return per dollar on office rents in the SF cbd is higher than in the Oakland cbd. Nature of the beast. Been study, documented, and verified.
You are confusing what you want to be true with what is actually true. Sadly, those two are very different things wrt to SF >>> Oakland.
It still makes no sense and anyone stuck at the toll plaza or 30 minutes every day just for the pleasure of working in S.F. would agree. There are 2.6 million people living in the East Bay and 850,000 living in San Francisco. How does directing everyone over the Bay Brige to San Francisco make any sense for our region when Oakland offers a much better alternative?
Again. It makes no sense to you. I’m pretty sure that most of the people coming into San Francisco from a daily commute perspective are not coming over the bay bridge.
Exactly. Interesting that Gonsalves completely ignores the “soulless” character of SJ and Silicon Valley…and their horrific commutes. Nor does he provide any solutions. If SF has no charm whatsoever then he should move.
I agree about Silicon Valley and San Jose. S.F. has the views, the bridges, and a few charming areas like Chinatown and North Beach, but nothing to compare to historic European cities.
chinatown and north beach may be some of the least charming parts of SF
My solution is to build more office buildings and housing in downtown Oakland. Everyone knows that’s the obvious solution instead of trying to cram everything into inaccessible San Francisco.
So you want to cram everything into equally inaccessible Oakland, unless there’s some kind of mass transit and super freeway network that I don’t know about on the other side of the bay.
But, how are you going to address the charm factor in Oakland if you build towers for housing, or does your solution create a Mayberry Effect on Broadway with 2-story clapboard cottages and wide front porches?
They are still coming from the East Bay wether over the Bay Bridge or by BART or ferry. The point is that downtown Oakland is closer and more accessible to s larger portion of the population. It would make more sense for the region to build more office buildings in Oakland instead of San Francisco.
When you have thousands of people gridlocked on the approach to the Bay Bridge for 30 minutes heading to S.F., why not just build more offices in Oakland so that they don’t waste 30 minutes just to get on the Bay Bridge? We all know that the counter commute from SF to Oakland is much easier.
The charm factor can be preserved in Oakland. Most of the housing bring built along Auto Row, Uptown and Jack London Square is 5 to 7 stories tall. In Oakland they are building communities with retail, sunlight and plazas, while in S.F. they are building towering cylinders which block out the sun and don’t activate the pedestrian scale of s vibrant street scene.
Wait now. You’re opposed to more construction in SF, and at the same time you complain about all the people travelling there over the bridge? More housing in SF could actually reduce traffic on the bridge, you know.
No need to build more offices on a tip of peninsula dependent on bridges. Build on the mainland in Oakland in the geographic center of the Bay Area.
Mainland? For real?
BTW-how do you expect all those bridge-dependent folks from SF to get to Shangri La?
It will be a breeze going counter commute direction towards Oakland and also BART heading east towards Oakland is much less crowded during commute hours.
yup, it is so easy to get to Oakland from SF and the peninsula because so few people want to go there from here. Why do you think so many more people want to live in SF than want to live in the much larger Oakland? And why do so many more companies want to have their offices in the there of SF than the not there of Oakland? And why do so many more people that live in the east bay want to commute the extra distance to SF as they pass through Oakland, instead of Oaklanding? Probably all the extra crime.
Hopefully, we’ll keep building more soulless skyscrapers so E. Gonsalves will move.
Fremont is about the “geographic center of the Bay Area”, and has been ever since San Jose’s population soared past Oakland decades ago.
Not at all, San Jose’s population vs Oakland population is irrelevant. There are 2.6 million residents living in the East Bay in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
uh, the “relevance” is that the geographic center is and has been well south of Oakland for a half century or so. That is a fact. It may be closer to Hayward than Fremont, though, haven’t looked it up in a while.
As to the geography of Alameda County, most of it is south and east of Oakland, in area and in population. But don’t let facts get in the way of your Oaklust.
I hate to break it to you but the office vacancy rate is lower in downtown Oakland than downtown S.F. You are lucky you have S.F. developers banking land in Oakland in order to keep businesses from further leaving SF for Oakland. SF has already lost residents, restaurants, artists, a port, and many other businesses to Oakland. Real Eastate has also appreciated much faster in Oakland than in SF in the last five years. The quality of life is better in Oakland. As far as crime, S.F. recorded 56,000 crimes in 2015, compared to 33,000 crimes in Oakland. That figure also includes 700 more violent crimes in SF. Once people move to Oakland from S.F. they realize they’ve been lied to and never want to go back to San Francisco.
Yes, SF has lost some residents to Oakland. It has also gained more than it has lost.
You didn’t answer any of the questions. Guess you don’t have answers, just diversions.
I don’t hate to break it to you because the office occupancy in SF is many times greater than it is in Oakland. SF has twice the population, three times the jobs, about three times the number of businesses as does Oakland. higher pay and income too. Oh, and the housing in SF is worth about double per unit what it is in Oakland, and there are at least twice as many housing units in SF, meaning that the total value of SF housing is at least 4 times the value of Oakland.
Everyone knows Oakland has far more violent crime per capita than SF. Which is remarkable, because Oakland is a suburb of SF and always has been, according to the US Census. Yup, officially Oakland is a sub-urb of San Francisco, and always will be.
SF is so popular for office construction that we’ve limited it for ~30 years, while Oakland is so un-popular that they have had very little built in a loooong time. Generally, I’m a booster of the Jersey side of the Bay, someplace has to house the extra workers that are willing to endure even the worsening commute to get to the most valuable downtown in the Bay Area. We greatly appreciate that Oakland is a causeway for the multitudes that seek their fortunes in the City by the Bay.
What arrogant snobbery. SF is expensive simply because it’s so hard to get in and out of the place. It’s not that people are clamoring to live in a congested city with the highest density crime rate per square mile in the United States.
S.F. has the most crime ridden downtown of any city on the west coast. The crime ridden Tenderloin neighborhood is right next to Union Square and is the most crime ridden area per square mile in the United States. There are vagrants lining the streets wandering around intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. Assaults, stabbings and shootings are common place. This is in the very heart of San Francisco. There is nothing like the Tenderloin in Oakland.
S.F. has no business looking down it’s overrated nose at Oakland. Clean up your city before throwing stones.
My my, you love to troll. Oakland is on track to have over 100 murders this year compared to 46 in SF. Your stats are all wrong and suggest you cite the stats before making such ignorgant statements. Also, Suggest you you clean up your own small City before looking across the Bay at our ever growing skyline.
I don’t live by the Bay on either side, but your rants are absurd. Check any national statistic to see that Oakland is among the most dangerous places in the US. Clean it up! Putting down SF or any other place will not solve your problems.
Facts are not “arrogant” or “snobbish”, they are facts. Objective. Jake is, in fact, one of the most objective posters on this site. If you don’t have something constructive to add, put the tinfoil hat back on and stop trolling here.
Yeah, SF is so popular people are even willing to commute through Oakland to get there. Face the facts: the only time Oakland grows is when San Francisco overflows. Fortunately for y’all, our cup overfloweth. And you are as welcome to it now as you have been for time beyond living memory.
The hilarity of you of all posters to write: “Clean up your city before throwing stones.” Thanks for your many absurdist rants. Very very funny stuff. Have we introduced you to Dave?
I think Dave and this guy are one of the same.
[Editor’s Note: They’re not.]
Here you are. SF is no 1.
the increase in car breakins in SF coincides with an increase in cars driven into SF from the Jersey side of the Bay, and not just Uber drivers. Similar to how other major categories of property crime, such as theft of cell phones, track with the influx of Jersey-siders via BART/bridge/ferry. The jury is still out on whether these additional “bridge and tunnel” folk are more predator or prey in the property crime waving. We are one people separated by a common moat.
Jake, that’s a typical SF reaction to San Francisco’s rampant crime. The idea is to minimize and then blame Oakland. Putting your head in the sand doesn’t change the fact that S.F. registered 26,000 auto break-ins in 2015 while Oakland recorded 7,000. SF also has many more assaults, home burglaries, per capita than Oakland. You need to research crime maps and you would see just how crime ridden San Francisco really is. Trying to always point fingers at Oakland doesn’t help San Francisco address its rampant crime problem.
And trying to smear SF doesn’t hide the fact that Oakland has a RAMPANT problem with violent crime – If they can solve that problem, people and jobs will move there.
You seem to think that you’re in Manhattan. You keep bringing up New Jersey. It must be hard not being Manhattan. S.F. seems obsessed trying to pretend it’s Manhattan. Poor little San Francisco.
Nope, much happier in SF than Manhattan, but thanks for your concern. Oakland even relies on SF to overflow our image. Seems living in one of the lesser suburbs of a much more famous and greater city has really gotten to ya. Notice you have not responded to the many time your glaring misstatements of facts have been exposed. Is that what the “E” stands for? “Exposed”. or more likely “Errorevermore”.
I have been to Manhattan, and SF is more charming and inviting.
E Gonsalves@ AH, the link you provided are for property crimes not rape, murder and violent crimes. But here is a link showing Oakland is #2 in the Nation for rape, murder and violent crimes. Congratulations for being #2, I think.
Looking forward to the new Oceanwide Center and its imposing height of 910 feet! This is going to add more depth and balance to the higher and more impressive skyline. Death to the tabletop! 😉
101, you are making things up about “Oakland being on track for 100 murders.” SF just recorded it’s 50 homicide when a city worker was shot and killed cleaning graffiti. Keep in mind that the real number is closer to 60 since SF keeps officer involved killings off the books as well as having more “suspicious deaths” per capita than any city in the Bay Area. Also, SF has lost its culture to Oakland. People now go to dinner in Oakland instead of S.F. Your city has a few expensive pretentious restaurants. All the cool kids now live in Oakland.
People left SF in droves in 1906 after the great quake and never went back to the foggy, dreary city. They all stayed in beautiful sunny Oakland. Even the wealthy from SF chose their final resting place in beautiful Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland. Enjoy the congestion, concrete and shadows in your over ratted little city of 49 square miles.
Sorry. This is really obvious trolling.This is not adding anything to the discussion. Looking through this persons posting history, its clear that they have no intention of engaging in meaningful dialog.
E. Gonsalves wrote: “Even the wealthy from SF chose their final resting place in beautiful Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland”.
Gotta believe they chose their final resting place there due to the most excellent view of San Francisco from up there! 😉
Actually, the cemetery city of Colma south on the SF peninsula houses many if not most of the wealthy from SF. Cypress Lawn and Holy Cross among many others…
Time for the EDITOR to clean up this discussion and delete all the comments about OAK vs SF. This discussion is about Oceanwide Center development.
[Editor’s Note: Please feel free to lead by example (and don’t help stir the pot and then object when it’s swirling).]
Point taken EDITOR.
With regards to the Waldorf opening in the Oceanwide Center, will this be their first Hotel on the West Coast?
From a quick glance at their website, it appears this will be their 2nd in California (after a resort in La Quinta near Palm Springs) and the 4th overall west of the Rockies after ones in Park City, Phoenix, and the aforementioned La Quinta.
Can’t resist the last word on Oakland vs SF:
Went to HS in SF, lived there for 15 years after college.
Moved to Oakland in 2014 as part of the great diaspora, still living here.
SF is better, period. Any conceivable counter claim is trolling. Except the weather, Oakland weather is superior.
Because yours is the only opinion that matters?
UPDATE: The ceremonial ground breaking for Oceanwide Center has taken place. And to answer a common question these days, the two towers be founded on large diameter shafts drilled into the Franciscan formation bedrock nearly 300 feet below.
Comments are closed.