As we wrote when the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Build Inc’s massive India Basin project, a proposed development which could yield over 1,200 units of housing, 1,800 parking spaces and 275,000 square feet of commercial space (or half as many units of housing and a million square feet of office, retail and R&D space) along with over 24 acres of recreation and open space fronting San Francisco’s bay, was released last month:
“Originally expected to published this past spring, the delay will likely push back any ground breaking to the second quarter of 2018, at the earliest. And that’s assuming the impact report is certified, the project is approved, and there are no other significant delays or challenges.”
Yesterday, Build Inc’s official timeline for entitling the project was quietly changed from “Q4 2017” to “Q1 2018/Q2 2018.”
And once again, in terms of the project’s timing once the entitlements are secured and the ground is actually broken, the development of India Basin is expected to be conducted in multiple phases “over a period of 5–15 years based on market demand and financing.”
the development of India Basin is likely to be conducted “in multiple phases over a period of 5–15 years based on market demand and financing.”
Can anyone answer the following question: Does the city have any legal/political means to nudge/push/pressure the developer to build this units sooner rather than later within the 15 year time window?
Are you suggesting that we now live in a command economy?
Marcos, yes, my post was a dog whistle to all the Bernie Sanders supporters to start the October revolution!
To all the non-Fox News watchers out there: When it comes to the market pricing and timing of new residential development, the city and the developer can have opposing incentives. Understandably, the developer wants to pace it’s condo construction in a way that the new supply does not depress market prices. On the contrary, the elected officials of SF want new condo construction to lower the sky-high rents that their constituents are struggling to cope with.
Therefore, I wouldn’t be surprised if the city were to stipulate that e.g. 1/3 of the new units needs to be constructed within a 5 year period. This could be made conditional on a specific level of market rents etc. My question is, does anyone know if such requirements exist for this project of the nearby HPCS?
Given past behavior, It’s not at all clear to me that “the elected officials of SF want new condo construction to lower the sky-high rents.” Sigh.
At least they say they want to do it.
What for, to entice more people that are desperately not needed here to move here?
Amazon’s new HQ2 here and/or at the shipyard next door? Probably unlikely, but interesting to speculate on. The space is there for it but I’m not sure city gov would be willing to give any concessions, as this would be perceived a super gentrifying move.
We’ll put the odds of Amazon’s HQ2 landing in the Bay Area at under 1 percent and not worthy of much serious speculation (unless one so happens to be trying to talk their book).
Agreed, I wouldn’t expect SF location to be in the top 25 due to the expense/lack of housing for 50,000 employees
Top odds for Amazon HQ are currently for Atlanta, where the median home price is $214,000.
I’m going to hazard a guess that it won’t be Atlanta. Yes, it’s affordable and has great air connections. However, it has a terrible transit system and a profound imbalance between suburbs and central city. I’m imagining the Amazon will actual want a central city location that ticks off all of those millenial desires: transit, culture/nightlife, walkable, bikeable neighborhoods, etc. I’m going with Denver. (Why the SF Bay area even bothered to submit is beyond me).
It’s hard to know how they will weigh the different requirements. I would think that Portland & Denver would already suffer from what is driving Amazon to look for a second HQ – rapidly increasing costs of real estate and high competition for talent, or said in a different way a 50,000 employee company would have a huge impact on the local market conditions.
Portland and Seattle are in major seismic and volcanic zones. It is not inconceivable that a single event could severely damage both cities. Portland’s median home price is 333K. less than half that of Seattle so that would otherwise work in its favor. Tech workers are in huge demand in Portland but there is a large influx of such from California and other places so it could probably handle a 50K influx of jobs.
ive lived in atlanta. the transit system is better than san francisco. the MARTA actually connects much of the city, unlike our BART that just brings people from East Bay to SF
It’s a cute little system, seemingly a shame practically no one uses it (or perhaps that’s what you mean by “better” >> lot’s of seats available)
daily ridership is equivalent to bart.
it runs along the heart of atlanta neighborhoods. BART misses on that mark.
The rail portion is less than half which would be the apple-to-apples (round, hard, rolling along their merry way apples) comparison.
For the whole system you’d have to compare MARTA > BART +MUNI+AC, so ~450K : ~450K+650K+200K or 450:1300…they have a ways to go.
I will concede it’s more “central”, which is logical considering Atlanta is at the center of its metro area, as opposed to off-to-the-side, but much less extensive…try taking it to the Braves new stadium.
I think they stated that a main reason they are looking away from Seattle is to find a lower cost region. And they’re targeting $100k range salaries from the headcount. So the SF BA seems not likely to fit the bill.
Homes are much more affordable in Seattle than in San Francisco. Median price in Seattle just hit 722K (a record) while SF’s median price is 1.4 million. The median salary in Seattle is not much less than in SF and when one factor’s in no state income tax it’s almost a wash.
Still, Amazon is looking for a more affordable region than Seattle for it’s second HQ. Balancing things out with the idea, it seems, of having more of a concentration of lower paying jobs in HQ2 than in Seattle. Now way SF was ever in the running. There are simply no companies shifting large work groups to SF. Those days are gone.
Austin has the advantage of no state income tax compared to Georgia’s 6% on income above 7K. But housing is cheaper in Atlanta. Both cities seem to be at the top of the list for HQ2. Both cities are emerging tech hubs, especially Austin. If HQ2 goes to Atlanta that will boost it’s growing reputation as a tech center – putting it near Austin and Seattle in that. Both Texas and Georgia have much lower business related taxes than California. Not only will HQ2 not go to SF, it won’t go to California.
Amazon has said that it would be an equal headquarter, not one of lower paying jobs, but either way jobs averaging 100k salaries would not attract the top talent in the Bay Area
they might if they realized they could actually afford to buy a house. but really most inland places won’t be able to attract them, especially red states. indianapolis submitted a bid and these people actually think they have a chance….. like… really?
Both Texas and Georgia are red states and near the top of the list. Austin is inland as is Phoenix which also is in contention. Red state/blue state – as long as the area is affordable for workers making 100K (as in being able to purchase a home on that salary) and there is a good tax situation for businesses (which there is not in California) as well as an educated labor pool Amazon will consider it.
there are few places i would considering leaving SF or Seatlle to live in, and assume that is true for much top talent who can get jobs in sf and seatlle.
Boston, and North Carolina fit the bill for me. Although prefer RTP if im going to leave a major city as will be dissappointed in Boston as compared to SF and Seattle. Im not sure why but i just really dont like Austin. Being in Texas doesnt help, but the citty also seems somewhat fake to me
Not even worth speculating. Cost of living, housing constraints, and lack of infrastructure will keep Amazon far, far away. Now, what will be interesting is what other firms will do in response to the chosen HQ2 location.
I’m thinking Phoenix/Scottsdale where Amazon would be the biggest fish in an ever emerging pond.
I’m thinking that if Amazon is doing this big stunt, it is because they want something from the host city not ordinarily offered. They may go for the big icentives offered by Chicago or Antlanta (billions $$) – those cities are very different from Seattle and would not stand a chance without the big gifts offered.
I have not seen any west coast cities offering this kind of incentives.
Why in the world would Amazon want to build another headquarters in another solid blue state when they could pick places like Austin or Atlanta, get much greater housing affordability, and increased support from the GOP-dominated Congressional delegations of those states, which they’re gonna need as they continue their quest for world domination?
The Development Agreement may be a mechanism for the city to nudge the developer to move forward with the residential components of the project.
Why is everyone commenting on Amazon’s HQ since nothing in article mentions it?
[Editor’s Note: Because someone was trying to talk their book above.]
Because that area would make a good HQ site for a high visibility tech company, university campus, etc. Especially one thinking long term, as it’s the only area left in the city where you can create, and influence the design of a campus size project.
And BTW, I don’t need to “talk my book.” I’ve already done extremely well investing in Bayview 🙂 Perhaps your sensitivity to talking one’s book should be tuned inwards for a change.
Isn’t Lennar having trouble securing tenants? No takers for several reasons. One is this will be a transportation nightmare when you add Ba(d)ylands in. Most of these workers, though well paid, will not be able to afford SF or SM County and will commute east. Via 101 to the BB? Good luck with that. Via 101 tp the SM Bridge – good luck with that too.
No university but a pricey K – 12 prep school has been rumored for a while to be taking a big chunk of the space.
Educational institutions will be more effected by the income levels of their employees. But a well funded tech firm will not. There will be plenty of housing right nearby being built. Plus people can live in several other SF neighborhoods (D10), as well as south SF, Daly City, etc.
I know Lennar has not been able to find a golden tenant like Facebook, Google, etc. to make a big stake there. But the development there is still in embroyonic stages- just a few hundred homes, and some newly built park space. It’s probably too early for a large firm to commit now. But I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few years from now that happens.
I believe the educational institution will/would be a consolidation and expansion to HP/CP. Most employees already life in the region. It will only impact them as to commute. Same for students. No new net demand on housing (or little) which would be good as HP/CP jobs/housing ration is 2:1. The school would be less labor intensive so that jobs/housing ratio would drop quite a bit. No SF project should exceed a 1.5:1 jobs/housing ratio – at most 2:1. hat said, plenty of techies can’t afford homes in the area which is why so many commute from the East Bay to Silicon Valley. This project is a disaster waiting to happen when combined with Baylands which will have almost double the workers/office space of HP/CP but just a fraction of the housing. The ration is around 8:1.
Good that you’ve made money in Bayview, but wanting more jobs with no matching housing is a fool’s game IMO. it will catch up at some point. I think the reason tech companies don’t seem interested is the impossible transportation situation. Let’s hope the private academy takes a big chunk of the space and SF State also – it’s rumored they may put a flag down there. Again, minimal impact on housing and transportation. Best if the office component is scaled back from 4.5 million feet to half of that and that most of it goes to educational institutions.
Oh, and for the record, the Bay Area Council did indeed submit a proposal for amazon’s new HQ, which included SF’s shipyards
Yes, they did. And had they not, we would have put the odds of Amazon’s HQ2 landing in the Bay Area at zero (rather than under 1 percent).
As expected: Amazon Eliminates Bay Area from HQ2 Competition: The Final 20
UPDATE: Timing for Massive India Basin Development Quietly Pushed Back, Again