Having failed to be assembled into the bigger plans for an 800-foot tower to rise on Transbay Parcel F, plans for a skinny 44-story tower to rise up to 450 495 feet in height upon the adjacent 10,350-square-foot Temple nightclub parcel at 540 Howard Street, which is 15 percent smaller than the 524 Howard Street parcel upon which another skinny tower has been approved to rise but yet to break ground, are now officially in the works as well.

As envisioned and preliminarily proposed, the 44-story tower would yield 149 market rate condos over 52,000 square feet of office space, 8,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space and a basement garage for 89 cars and 135 bikes.

And as a point of reference, the footprint of the 540 Howard Street parcel is 30 percent smaller than the parcel upon which 181 Fremontthe 802-foot-tall tower with (and including) the spire in the background above, was built.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by oakland lover

    Are you saying the temple is in play for a 44 story tower, parcel F is still in plan for an ~800ft tower, and the parking lot parcel is also still in play for a ~500ft tower (same as always).

    In other words we are now talking about possibly 3 buildings on the parcels in the picture vs 2?

    I hope the answer is yes!!!

    Or are you saying its now potentially only 2 ~450ft towers in play (and the previous ~800 footer is now only ~450ft?)

    I hope the answer is no!

  2. Posted by 101

    Another news outlet stated that Parcel F is still planned. This project is at 540 Howard and 524 Howard “skinny tower” is delayed due to rising construction costs.

  3. Posted by Dave

    Was the developer of Parcel F trying to assemble 540 into their project? Or was the owner of 540 trying to hook onto the Parcel F project? What were the plans if the site had been combined? The above mentioned 450 foot tower or something else?

    On a side note – SS usually uses “in play” to mean an entitlement has been put up for sale yet there is no formal proposal for 540 Howard – just the now preliminary proposal. Nothing to put into play at this point. Unlike 524 which was entitled and has been delayed with the developer seeking a 2 year extension of the entitlement – presumably setting up to sell the site though as far as I know it is not on the market yet. And wouldn’t be until they get the 2 year extension approved.

      • Posted by Dave

        Interesting – I did not know that. So, piecing it together, it seems the Parcel F developer wasn’t willing to pay the Temple site owner an acceptable amount (in the eyes of the owner of course) and that despite the 15 million assemblage bonus the developer would have gotten. As this would have been an all residential building it’s not surprising the developer may not have wanted to wade into all of that given current conditions.

        Basically, 540 and 524 (after entitlement extension) will be on the market. Too bad the sites are adjacent as potential buyers will likely force owners of the parcels into a reverse bidding war. It begs the question of Parcel F, per reports still moving forward, insofar as will the developer drop the residential component and go with a scaled back project – given the condo marker around that area. Or, will the project be slow walked with shovels in the ground years away?

        • Posted by SocketSite

          The $15 million “assemblage bonus” would be paid by the Parcel F team to the City if the 540 Howard Street site was rolled into their project, not the other way around.

  4. Posted by excuse me while i kiss the burrito

    The Foundry Square buildings with their giant footprints have to look pretty appealing to a mega-builder like BP, Related, etc. just buying one outright to redevelop. What’s the over/under on one of those being emptied out and built up before, say, 2025?

    • Posted by BTinSF

      When they were designed and built, the City/Planning Dept. publicly expressed gratitude to the developer of Foundry Square for coming up with a project that was short enough NOT to shade the rooftop TransBay park. I think the odds they would now approve a redevelopment of these modern buildings that would do exactly that are low.

      • Posted by emanon

        Do you have a source? Foundry Square IV and II were completed in 2003. Building I was completed in 2007. The design for the Transbay Terminal with the park on the roof wasn’t selected until 2007.

  5. Posted by fogmachine

    Wasn’t that the Caribbean Zone lot? If they could land a plane there, they can do anything.

    • Posted by Grubber2

      As to the 540 parcel, I say bring back DV8. If you don’t know what I am saying,……ask someone.

  6. Posted by hmmm

    There is about zero chance this will ever get built and the owners presumably know it. Odds are the owners of 540 are just trying to get an entitlement to justify an exorbitant price they are asking of both neighboring suitors. I’m sorry — 4 units per floor for 40+ stories? If the 524 Howard project, which is a 20% larger site and has been entitled for years by a very experienced and well-capitalized high-rise residential developer, can’t get built, there is even less odds that this is a realistic proposal.

    • Posted by Dave

      You are likely correct that this tower will never be built. If the Parcel F developer wasn’t willing to take it on who would be? It makes no sense for the owner to get an entitlement as building now is not practical. Better they just sell the lot to the 524 group. Or wait until after 2035. By then Caltrain might finally reach the TTC and make the site viable for development.

      524 is iffy to be built as planned. Don’t be surprised if the new owner (assuming Crescent sells it) chooses to go with a variant plan and build a medium sized hotel. Right now that is all that is viable there. Offices might be but with the M cap it could take a decade or longer to get an M allotment.

  7. Posted by RGBiv

    let’s keep the park sunny. No towers near there blocking the sun, but elsewhere downtown even bigger ones are ok by me.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Articles