SocketSite™

Is this "pure living" built on contaminated soil like the rest of the developments in Mission Bay? What kind of spin did the Arterra people put on that in order to promote their "pure living" concept? I wonder.

One of Patrick Catalano's legal claims against The Beacon is that the original sales documents did not adequately disclose that the developer "capped" the contaminated soil underneath the site.

A deed restriction has been recorded that now forces re-sellers to disclose the contamination issue to prospective buyers...just one more reason to avoid even thinking about buying in this building.

Are you planning on digging up the concrete and licking the soil? Sure it's contaminated soil, like most of Mission Bay - but being as it's been encapsulated by the concrete you are hardpressed to have it affect you.

The pure living is in the building materials and 'green' technology that helps heating cooling costs. And it's expensive for what it is but nice to see they are at least trying.

I'm with anonymous. (oops, they're all anonymous).... The soil is capped by these developments. There is no way for your little Johnny or Jane (or Spot for that matter) to have any health effect. We live in a city...there's gunk everywhere. The Arterra is that last thing you need to worry about. The fact that it's green probably means that the flooring and surfaces won't be leaking volatile chemicals into your personal atmosphere for years.

What does it mean by "capping" the soil?

"capping" means to put a layer of impermeable material (usually some tight packed clay like bentonite) on top of objectionable waste to keep it contained. I can't comment on whether it works though.

Is it how all the developers in SF do it if there is contamination?

I don't see what the big deal is - buyers will be lining up to pay $900 / square foot to live next to a freeway, across the street from a noisy rail yard, on top of capped (you hope) industrial contamination... as long as it's painted a nice shade of enviro-green.

Insanity.

Instead of capping, why didn't they remove 5-10 feet of the top soil and cap it 5-10 feet down and replace the rest with clean soil? (or did they do that?)

Just capping the topsoil with packed clay doesn't seem to work for me. I mean won't some of the soil and waste eventually make it's way to the surface where it gets in the air, our shoes and clothing, pets, etc?

Just don't buy the first floor if it bothers you. The first few floors are usually the garage any way.

Let's not get paranoid here - we've already wrecked half the planet and the rest will melt away once our Hummers burn off this pesky atmosphere. Sarcasm aside, we probably breath more garbage in city air or ingest it in processed/junk food than you'd get living in a building on contaminated soil. Like Anonymous said, the dirty stuff is under garages, and apartments are several stories up.

What? So you admit "living in a building on contaminated soil" is OK???

I mean, why would people even take a chance and live on land that's already known to be contaminated and toxic? And at nearly $1000 SqFt!! You know... toxins CAN seep up to the surface after a few years.

There are much cleaner places in the city at the same cost or even less expensive than Mission Bay...

I’m with curmudgeon on this one. The “contaminants” inside most buildings are probably more harmful than anything you’ll end up walking though on the way into the lobby. And the whole “contaminated soil” issue seems like a red herring. Two thumbs up for green building(s)!

This whole business about organic stuff and green building and contaminated soil is just so pretentious and yuppie like. No one lives forever, you know.

they had a booth set up today at the mission bay/south beach block party. a guy who worked there said the dues would be almost half what they are at other buidlings in the hood b/c of all the green/enviro smart stuff. could this be true ? 1 beds lows 300's hoa, 2 beds low 500's hoa. I pay 600 hoa for my 1 bed at the beacon !

I can't see that the "green" materials and approach would impact dues in a beneficial way, unless they can achieve the following:

1. Lower energy cost considerably (which has been a major factor in the dues increases for large developments in recent years).

2. Dramatically increase the useful life of materials and finishes for the development, such as roofing, paint, and carpet.

3. Eliminate the need for earthquake insurance.

Dues are a combination of operational costs (security and maintenance staff, energy costs for common areas, insurance, etc.) and savings based on the point at which big-scale items will need replacement, such as roofs, common area carpeting and paint, ventilation and heating systems, etc.).

I think we still live in an age where the environmental route comes at a premium, not a savings.