May 21, 2012
The 260 Fifth Street Scoop: Late Summer Start On 181 Units
Hidden behind the 282 rendered units of 900 Folsom, the ground for which is set to be ceremonially broken this afternoon, Avant Housing’s sister project at 260 5th Street is currently scheduled to start construction late summer 2012 and will yield 181 residential units over 5,000 square feet of retail along 5th Street.
Full disclosure: We were engaged by Avant Housing to consult on the development of 260 5th Street but received no compensation for this post.
∙ 900 Folsom/260 Fifth Street Project: The New New Design [SocketSite]
∙ Groundbreaking Mid-Market News: 900 Folsom At Fifth [SocketSite]
∙ New And Approved: 900 Folsom/260 Fifth Street Project [SocketSite]
First Published: May 21, 2012 2:15 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
It feels like we are about to have a major construction boom this summer as quite a number of major projects are all scheduled to get started this year. It seems like this might help reduce the unemployment rate in the city, especially given the strong local hiring laws we have. This is especially welcome since it will help bring employment to those who lack the skills to benefit from the tech sector.
Any thoughts on where unemployment will be by the end of the year? 6%? 5%? 3%? we saw a .7% drop last month alone.
[Editor's Note: San Francisco Employment Up By 2,400, Unemployment Under 8%]
Posted by: Big V at May 21, 2012 3:04 PM
I don't know any construction workers that can afford to live in this city. All of these jobs will benefit Santa Clara and Contra Costa counties where these workers live and will spend the money, unfortunately.
Posted by: sf at May 21, 2012 3:45 PM
You don't know any who can afford to live in the city out of the how many you know????? 0 out of the 0 you know isn't very telling.
Posted by: sparky-b at May 21, 2012 4:01 PM
Many construction workers do live in Solano and Contra Costa and some even further away but I don't think this matters at all
Many others I know of live in San Bruno and Pacifica. They could afford to live in the Southeastern part of SF but would you want to?
Again why does this matter?
Posted by: zig at May 21, 2012 4:24 PM
This is going to make a huge difference in the area.
Posted by: Michael E at May 21, 2012 4:25 PM
I know several construction workers, from carpenters to foremen, who live in the city. Not in the fancy northeastern neighborhoods, but in the Richmond, Sunset, Glen Park, etc. Building in the city does benefit city workers and residents.
Posted by: James at May 21, 2012 4:40 PM
Both of these buildings should be about 10 stories taller....Another pint sized development. Sigh.
Posted by: Joe at May 21, 2012 4:43 PM
Taller would be better...but these are still better than the parking lot and smaller building they're replacing.
Posted by: c ik at May 22, 2012 5:26 AM
Height doesn't bother me. I don't dislike tall buildings, but five/six stories is a nice relatively dense scale to transition from the core to the lower scale SOMA, and a nice counterpoint to taller structures. Remember, places like Paris are five story cities and very dense. The scale is plenty dense to contribute to street life in the area.
Posted by: curmudgeon at May 22, 2012 9:47 AM
The property values in that area will always be anchored down by the huge homeless shelter nearby.
Posted by: lolcat_94123 at May 22, 2012 2:52 PM
All of the contractors I know and work with live in The City, and many of them own homes.
Posted by: futurist at May 22, 2012 5:52 PM
Not contractors, construction workers. You know, the people who actually assemble the building. Not that some contractors don't do that too. In fact the hands on bosses are often the best because they run a tight ship and have a constant eye on quality.
Most contractors hire help and those construction workers are the folks inclined to commute in from lower cost areas.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 22, 2012 8:08 PM
Joe, it's not easy to tell definitively because of overlays and overlapping code sections (and I don't have a degree in City & Regional Planning) but it looks from the city map that this is zoned 85-X Height and Bulk District [PDF], which calls for starting setbacks above a height of 65 ft. and in any event the developers couldn't have gotten ten more stories even if they'd agreed to a setback.
I agree with you that taller would have been better. Ask yourself why a setback is required over sixty-five feet and you'll get your answer is to why another ten stories wouldn't be possible without a variance.
Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at May 22, 2012 11:40 PM