As we outlined back in September of 2020:

Having been approved back in 2016 but yet to break ground, the entitlements for a skinny 495-foot-tall tower to rise at 524 Howard Street, a development which could yield up to 334 condos, or 72 condos over a 273-room hotel, “depending upon market conditions,” were quietly sold, along with the parking lot parcel, to a group of investors for $78 million last year.

And having already been granted four extensions, the operators of the Transbay District parking lot, which is technically a temporary, non-conforming use, were positioning for a fifth extension in order to continue to operate the lot for (at least) another two years.

From American West Parking’s plea to Planning: “In the several years since you last authorized this use, the immediate area has seen a flurry of new nearby office, residential and retail buildings. With that new development, a number of surface parking lots nearby have been developed without replacing the surface parking, making the parking shortage even greater. The pandemic has led to even more people driving downtown.”

And while noting that San Francisco’s General Plan actively discourages parking within Downtown Zoning Districts, but acknowledging that public parking lots “provide off-street parking for essential workers, commuters, and other users of the immediate vicinity,” San Francisco’s Planning Commission is expected to approve the fifth extension, which would allow the “temporary” parking lot to continue to operate through September of 2022, this week.

And with the entitlements for the 495-foot-tall tower having technically expired, an application to secure a sixth two-year extension for the “temporary” parking lot, which would run through the third quarter of 2024, has been filed with Planning.  At the same time, building permits for the tower have yet to be requested.  We’ll continue to keep you posted and plugged-in.

There has been a steady stream of depressing news coming out of SF on the development front. Every story is about a major project being stalled, delayed, or cancelled. The city and it’s apologists really need to get ahead of the narratives on crime, homelessness, and cleanliness. I, and most who live here, understand these claims are overblown and divorced from reality, but these narratives are taking over the public consciousness and driving away capital, investors, tourists and prospective residents.

It is beyond frustrating when you look at B-tier cities like Austin, Nashville, and Denver have skylines littered with cranes.

They’re just catching up.

As glib as it may sound, there’s likely some element of truth to that: DTSF was quite possibly overbuilt – even a small amount, say 3% of space, would be enough to delay a year or two’s construction – and of course not everyone equates progress with growth in gsf’age.

As for your characterizations of the other cities: Austin is the captial of the country’s second biggest state and the flagship to the UofT; Denver is a major transportation hub – ask me how i know! – and the financial, cultural and distribution center for a multi-state region; I would call them A- tier…at the least.

Yes — Austin, Denver, Nashville are major domestic cities. SF is *supposed* to be a major GLOBAL city. We should be orders of magnitude above.

There is no such thing as a “global” city.

Right — Austin, TX and London are the same caliber of city.

The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo by Saski Sassen, Professor of Sociology and of the Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, and revised 2001

“A very significant book indeed. . . . A systematic detailed analysis of the three largest urban economies in the advanced world.”—Peter Hall, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research

Overbuilt, in terms of the ability for worker bees to commute in and out at a sane level? Absolutely. There is no going back to cramming into BART, Muni, Caltrain like has been. Come to think of it, where are with the second Transbay tube and the Caltrain extension to the Transbay Terminal? Right… Austin and the rest – you got to think they are all building themselves into commute hell just like we did.

The tallest buildings currently listed as “under construction” in Austin – including one of 1000+’ !! – seem to be either mixed-use or residential.

This is a residential development, and there’s no universe where San Francisco residential is overbuilt in 2022.

I am not anywhere near as anti-car as most of the urbanism proponents on this site, but the statement from American West Parking is kinda infuriating.

I can accept the assertion that “the pandemic has led to even more people driving downtown”, but what I can’t understand is why in the world “a flurry of new nearby office, residential and retail buildings” which were developed on surface parking lots somehow requires “replacing the surface parking“. It doesn’t.

Surface parking lots are an incredibly inefficient use of scarce land. The parking can (and should) be replaced by underground parking garages and such a garage could have been included in a modification to the design of the previously approved tower if for some reason the stacked parking for 167 cars previously proposed wasn’t adequate for satisfying the existing demand.

So the developer hasn’t submitted permits yet, so if they turned in today there would still be at least a two [year] time line to getting the permits. So, I think American West should be saying, “it’s either we run a parking lot or it’s a homeless encampment”

Sparky, if it was positioned that way, it would not surprise me if Planning chose the homeless encampment. LoL

Let’s be honest, the city is actually dirty, full of homeless people, unsafe & not business friendly. It’s easy to see why Denver, Austin etc. are growing at our expense.

I think 2019 was probably peak San Francisco; unless there is some serious change in social & economic policy, and a renewed sense of civic decency, it’s all downhill from here.

I was gonna add that part, but then got myself into a loop where planning approves, it gets appealed, goes to the Board of Sups who are the ones to approve for a homeless encampment, but have a recommendation that it be permanent and then that process takes year…

Right; San Francisco peaked in 2019 and there’s no coming back. The set of massive earthquakes, a string of city-destroying fires, and a post-war emigration into the suburbs were nothing compared to a pandemic-induced recession.

As surprising as it sounds, a lot of people (myself included) want to be here and commit to the city. SF just needs to make it slightly easier to build housing and/or convert large, unused commercial space into residential and get serious about local/neighborhood-scale businesses. This city has weathered plenty of bs over its 170-year lifespan and evolved as a result.

Right; it’s the government of SF that is preventing the conversion of office space to residential space, and not the cost-prohibitive physical challenges of doing so. Right.

Institutional office prices in SF haven’t even started falling yet. It will likely begin this quarter, or maybe 4Q2022 once one or two comps come in. If you think sentiment is negative now, wait two years when office prices are down 20%+ for all but the nicest trophy-type space.

Those of us who used to endure the pain of commuting into downtown SF on BART every day are GONE and we’re not coming back (well, to be precise, I have to come back 4 days a month…and I am SOOOO tired of encountering multiple mentally ill people every day I do come in. Life in the city I chose to relocate to is so much better). SF government and its progressive citizens are just starting to get what they have coming to them.

The rendering shows Parcel F / 550 Howard as a clean expanse but it is anything but that…

The development team [for Parcel F] renegotiated its purchase agreement with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority last spring. Under the previous agreement, F4 Transbay Partners would have had to pay $70 million to the authority if it doesn’t complete the tower by EOY 2023. It would also have had to pay an additional $15 million a year for every subsequent year of delay. The new agreement reduces the penalties and stipulates the tower be completed by EOY 2027.

We’ll add that a permit to start excavating and shoring the F4 parcel has been requested and building permits for the tower have been approved but not yet issued. Work on the site to date has been related to the exploration of designated archeologically sensitive areas, the trenches for which will be backfilled and graded, assuming there aren’t any show-stopping discoveries.

And now back to 524 Howard, or at the very least other parking lot parcels in the area…

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

Join our mailing list to stay up-to-date on what's happening with real estate in San Francisco...

Submit a tip, ask about advertising, contact an editor, reach the publisher or report a problem with the site...