January 12, 2011
San Francisco's Pier 70 Redevelopment Attracts Six Suitors
Six development teams have thrown their hats into the ring with respect to redeveloping San Francisco’s Pier 70.
In addition to TMG Partners, Forest City, and Build Inc. which plugged-in people knew had taken tours, the Mission Bay Development Group, San Francisco Waterfront Partners and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs have all responded to the Port of San Francisco’s request for developer qualifications for the 69 acre site.
The six suitors will be whittled down with a final rose ceremony expected by the end of the year. We'll keep you plugged-in.
∙ Now Calling All Developers For San Francisco’s Pier 70 [SocketSite]
∙ Pier 70 (Q)uestions, (A)nswers, And Interested (D)evelopers [SocketSite]
∙ Six big developers vie for San Francisco's Pier 70 [Business Times]
∙ Pier 70 Deadline Extended (Prior To Any Punking) [SocketSite]
∙ Did They Say November December? Make It January. [SocketSite]
First Published: January 12, 2011 8:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
So who do the developers bribe now that Gov. Brown has disbanded the state redevelopment agencies?
Posted by: Fishchum at January 12, 2011 8:35 AM
Do you think they will expedite the process to coincide with America's Cup?
Posted by: January 12, 2011 10:01 AM at January 12, 2011 10:01 AM
This is great news and will increase the chance that the site is developed well. Hopefully the city will prefer proposals that reuse the historical buildings on this site over yet another Irving office complex.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at January 12, 2011 10:21 AM
Would the preserved drydock be operational? If it's true this is the largest drydock on the West why is it not used more?
Of course, like we need more office space with the huge vacancy rate in the city and the growing exodus of businesses from California.
Posted by: Gil at January 12, 2011 10:56 AM
Would the preserved drydock be operational?
From our first link above and overview before: "The stated objectives for the redevelopment of Pier 70 include: 1. Continued operation of the ship repair yard on approximately 17 acres..."
Posted by: SocketSite at January 12, 2011 11:04 AM
Businesses are growing in California. I know it fits into your Rush Limbaugh talking point that California= Democrats = death, but ever heard of Twitter? Google? Facebook? Apple? Some of the largest businesses in the world and growing, and all headquartered right here.
Posted by: @Gil at January 12, 2011 12:31 PM
@@Gil:"Some of the largest businesses in the world and growing, and all headquartered right here." While this statement is certainly true, California in general, and specifically San Francisco/Oakland, are generally lagging the rest of the US in terms of both job growth and unemployment rates according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (November 2010).
There is a ton of data available on the web, but I will give you one snippet: San Francisco-Oakland ranked #2 in total job loss YoY out of the top 100 metropolitan markets (25,600 jobs lost, i.e. 98 markets better than us). Sacramento area was 4th worst. In addition, it is well documented that CEOs of businesses find CA to be a business unfriendly state in multiple surveys.
If you think California is doing a bang up job supporting businesses and job creation I think you are sorely mistaken. IMO we have these few great businesses in spite of the business climate here in CA. Maybe Jerry Brown can make some inroads, but if we don't, our state budget woes are only going to get much worse.
Posted by: Skirunman at January 12, 2011 2:09 PM
Good points Skirunmun.
As to Twitter - how many folks do they employee in SF?
Or Apple - how much of their manufacturing jobs are in California?
The Google's and others maintain corporate (not so labor intensive) headquartes in California but their big job base is out of the state and to some extent out of the country.
It's quite sobering that the SF/Oakland area is virtually at the top of the jobs lost stats. It's why building more offices in the City is a riverboat gamble at best.
Posted by: Gil at January 12, 2011 3:06 PM
I'm failing to see how building more office space, which in turn should lower the cost of all office space (and make the region more competitive) is a "riverboat gamble at best."
Now, if no one wants to build office space and we keep the land zoned as such, that would be dumb, but if there are developers willing to build, I say build, build, build! I'd love to see what would happen with a prolonged period of falling lease rates (which is not the current atmosphere - they fell, but have since leveled out and begun to creep back up).
Posted by: anon at January 12, 2011 5:12 PM
Skirunman, your statistic is for the SF-Oakland-Fremont area, and 6,100 of those lost jobs were from the closure of the NUMMI plant in Fremont, and its local suppliers.
Meanwhile, almost all of Mission Bay's commercial lots are being claimed by developers and employers.
The number of high tech workers in SF has doubled in the past few years, and the number of biotech workers has increased more than 400%:
I predicted on this site that the VA would make a play for Pier 70 after getting shut out of Mission Bay. Business will be good for the VA for decades, thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Dan at January 12, 2011 6:03 PM
I live in Mission Bay which is very close to pier 70. We have Salesforce that just bought loads of acre to build their headquarter for 4000 people. We have UCSF and UCSF Medical Center plus Women and Pediatric hospitals being built. These hospitals will employ thousands of people. We have luxury condos, Radiance II that will accompany 200-300 residents are being built as we speak. We have Nektar plus dozens of other biotechs just moved in Mission Bay not too long ago. These are all big projects. The Mission Bay and surrounding areas are very hot right now, and I can understand these developers are bidding for this pier 70.
Posted by: Chris at January 12, 2011 10:37 PM
I agree with Chris. Having lived in Pac Heights for 11 years and working in the FiDi, I discovered that I was disconnected from a whole other element of the economy before moving to Mission Bay in mid-2009. But this is SocketSite after all, and if one were to remove references to SF you'd think they were talking about Detroit (an analogy which many on here might not disagree with if pressed to do so, BTW).
Posted by: Happy in SF at January 13, 2011 10:53 AM
I think what has happened in Mission Bay is great. I also think that what our state politicians have done in Sacramento in the last 10-15 years is helping drive away existing, and making it less likely to start new, businesses here in California. I've lived and worked for 22 years in the Bay Area and I don't plan to go anywhere anytime soon, but I would like to see a more business friendly climate. Here is another data point with CA selected by CEOs as worst state for business and job growth for 5 years running:
We get an "F" in taxes and regulation. Obviously CEOs decide when/where to open/close new offices/plants. Kind of makes me think we could be doing a better job.
Posted by: Skirunman at January 13, 2011 11:16 AM
^I'm kind of ok with CEOs of existing businesses not wanting to simply open more plants/offices *IF* we're still able to maintain our position as the creator of new businesses. I'll take a new building for Zynga over a new building for Geico any day of the week and thrice on Sunday.
Posted by: anon at January 13, 2011 12:46 PM
Twitter growing so rapidly it may be too big for SF http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/13/BUG91H7VVH.DTL
Posted by: January 13, 2011 1:19 PM at January 13, 2011 1:19 PM
@Skirunman - it's kind of hard for me to take that article seriously when it has such ridiculous falsehoods as this:
Little wonder then that while Texas gained over 848,000 net new residents in the last 10 years, according to the Census Bureau, California lost 1.5 million. New York State’s net loss exceeded 1.6 million - the highest of any state. High-tax, big- government New Jersey ranked fourth, with a net loss of almost 460,000, enough to drop it from 10th to 11th place in population.
Where in the world are they getting these numbers from? California has NEVER lost "net new residents" year-to-year, let alone over the course of a decade. Lack of a fact-checking department or blatant lying? Dunno.
Posted by: anon at January 13, 2011 1:38 PM
@anon: I'm not sure on what they mean by that stat, but I don't think it is all that important anyway. Maybe they meant state to state immigration which is negative for CA according to this article:
"Between July 2009 and July 2010, there were 72,000 more people who left California for other states than came here..."
The bigger issue is California is perceived as business unfriendly. My own personal experience as a founder CEO of a software company, which had various offices at various times in CA, MA, NY, TX, AZ and some other states over the years, pretty much agrees with many of the sentiments in the survey.
I also would rather have a Zynga then a Geico, but it need not be mutually exclusive and not all segments of society are going to find work at Zynga. I can also tell you that Pincus would love to locate his biz in Aspen if he could only get the rights developers there as his Aspen pad is quite nice.
Posted by: Skirunman at January 13, 2011 3:26 PM
The VA would be a good fit for the 3rd St corridor, because of proximity to UCSF and to transit, and to provide employment in southeast SF. If the VA isn't chosen for Pier 70, I hope they will look further south. Though not as close to rail transit, how about the spot being reserved for the 49ers at Hunter's Point? Still close to Mission Bay. Even better would be a land swap in which SF would get Fort Miley for parkland, or if the federal government would give Fort Miley to the Presidio Trust.
Posted by: Dan at January 13, 2011 6:26 PM
Skirunman: Zynga isn't going to move to Aspen. Aspen has only a small business park and development is limited far more than in SF. I know someone who moved his business from California to Aspen but had to move to Denver as it grew. You just can't build in Aspen-- commercial or residential. Cost of living is very high and workers have to commute long distances from down-valley.
Posted by: Dan at January 13, 2011 6:32 PM
My last comment on Aspen was a joke, sorry it was not obvious.
Posted by: Skirunman at January 13, 2011 9:13 PM