October 19, 2006
RFPs For Housing Along Octavia Boulevard
The City and County of San Francisco (“City”), through its Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development ("MOEWD"), is seeking proposals from qualified respondents for the purchase and development of Central Freeway Parcels M [as well as N, P, and V].
In issuing this Request for Proposals ("RFP"), the City is seeking a project that provides excellence and innovation in urban infill and architectural design and complements Octavia Boulevard. . . . Because of the importance of creativity and quality of design for a project at the Site[s], responses to this RFP are being sought only from teams consisting of, at a minimum, one (1) housing developer and one (1) architect (a "Developer Team").
The minimum prices which the City will accept for these undeveloped lots range from $495,000 (parcels M and N) to $11,000,000 (parcel P). Proposed height limits (around “Fifty (50) feet”), parking requirements (for the most part “Parking is neither required nor encouraged”), and density limits are all outlined in the RFPs.
Before you start fantasizing about getting your hands on one of those $495,000 parcels and becoming a junior developer, keep in mind that a tipster notices that “two of the four parcels being peddled by the city are all of 18.25 feet wide!” And yes, those would be parcels M and N.
First Published: October 19, 2006 1:01 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
This city is messed up about parking. this city hates parking. if this city just required x amount of parking spaces to be built with x new developments it would alleviate a lot of the parking headache due to the older structures.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 19, 2006 9:04 PM
Anon - Is the cause of the headache due to lack of parking or excessive reliance on cars ?
Posted by: thielges at October 20, 2006 9:15 AM
well the public transport is fragmented, dirty, smells bad, non-punctual, and basically sucks, so they are forcing people to drive.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2006 1:36 PM
There's no argument that Muni could use improvements though I don't recall ever being "forced" to drive.
One way to improve Muni would be to divert some of the cash currently subsidizing auto travel into public transit.
So long as there is an assumption that the car subsidy should be automatically increased as the city grows ("..if this city just required x amount of parking spaces to be built with x new developments...") then the auto mode of transport will consume the lion's share available resources, leaving crumbs for other transport modes, ensuring mediocre service.
Posted by: thielges at October 20, 2006 3:39 PM
rationing parking spots does not ration desire to own a car, or the need to own a car if your employment/chosen profession depends on it.
199 New Montgomery, a downtown residential building built in the approvals envelope of an office building had 0.5sp/dwelling unit [DU]. 90% of the buyers own automobiles. So the 35% who don't own a deeded spot in the building park on the street, or in other parking lots. Dumb solution.
Parking spaces are worth 40 to 60K/sp in the City. Planning codes should force them underground or behind 60' deep storefronts, but let the market set the number of spots. Rationing them to 0.5sp/DU is a ham-handed approach to land use.
People understand the numbers, and are smart enough to realize whether they want to pay the SOV [single occupancy vehicle] tax or not.
Posted by: teddy at October 20, 2006 7:59 PM
city should require 2 spots per dwelling underground for all new construction.
that would alleviate the problem. "Encouraging" public transportation doesnt eliminate cars or traffic. trans authority doesn tunderstand reality but I am sure all of the key memebers own a vehicle
typical "got mine" politics in elitest hypocrite San Francisco
Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2006 9:54 PM
What's the issue with paying for the parking if you want it? 40-50% of people living in central SF don't have cars
If you want a spot I am sure it will not be an issue buying it
Two spots per unit is silly in a city. Can you imagine what the development in Rincon and Mission Bay would look like with such req. Plus talk about making uaffordable places even more ridiculous. Add 120K onto each unit
There is also the simple logic of carrying capacity on roads. Please don't bring a suburban mentality to the city. Its going to be ok.
Posted by: Zig at October 22, 2006 7:30 PM
I know the 199 New Montgomery building well. Can't believe that 90% of the people there own cars - they're within spitting distance of the financial district and all public transportation in the city.
Posted by: Dude at October 24, 2006 9:40 AM