November 14, 2012

Reaching Out For A 32-Story Residential Tower To Rise At 41 Tehama

41 Tehama

The original plans for a 550-foot tower designed by SOM to rise at 41 Tehama have been shelved, but with the Transit Center District Plan having been adopted and the site successfully upzoned from 220 to 360 feet, Fritzi Realty is moving forward with new plans to build an Arquitectonica designed tower of 32 stories, not 54, on the site.

41 Tehama:Map

As proposed, the new tower will yield 297 apartments and 250 parking spaces, all of which will be valet. While the project has yet to be approved by Planning, Fritzi is moving forward and has started up the neighborhood outreach machine.

41 Tehama: Fritzi Sees The City's 350 Feet And Raises It Another 200 [SocketSite]
Planning’s Towering Transit Center District Plan Decision: Approved [SocketSite]

First Published: November 14, 2012 12:00 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

The excessive parking being added to this area is really going to turn the entire swath of the city into a permanent parking lot. At least the arena isn't adding much.

360' is waaaaay too short for the location. This location should have a minimum height of 550'. Double the unit count, halve the vehicle count and things would be looking much better.

Posted by: anon at November 14, 2012 7:28 AM

That's a long lot, yet the building doesn't appear overly wide along Tehama. I would surmise that about half the lot's footprint will be open space/plaza. Any word on that in the latest proposal?

Posted by: Turin at November 14, 2012 8:31 AM

"The excessive parking being added to this area is really going to turn the entire swath of the city into a permanent parking lot."

That's quite an exaggeration. I'm confused about how providing parking in underground garages is equivalent to turning "the entire swath of the city into a permanent parking lot."

It's too bad the height limit at this site is 360' instead of 550' as originally proposed, but this is pretty nice too.

Posted by: cbf at November 14, 2012 9:46 AM

Could you all complain more? Every single time it's about parking, the height etc etc etc. I'm happy to see construction and vibrancy in SOMA, and yes I live here. We should consider ourselves fortunate when compared to most other places.

Posted by: Michael E at November 14, 2012 9:52 AM

That's quite an exaggeration. I'm confused about how providing parking in underground garages is equivalent to turning "the entire swath of the city into a permanent parking lot."

Um, because people have to drive to and from that parking garage. Unless you're like many folks here who refuse to believe that people buy cars to, you know, drive them (that's what I do at least?), many of these cars are going to be driving in the area every day - and the area streets are already absolutely choking to death on car traffic.

Posted by: anon at November 14, 2012 10:08 AM

We should consider ourselves fortunate when compared to most other places.

Um, that's entirely my problem. We're very fortunate to live here, thus we should be trying to make it possible for MORE people to share in the fortune, rather than restricting that fortune to a stagnant or decreasing set of folks (as measured in percentage terms).

It's the same reason that I'm for substantially increased (and easier) immigration, free trade, etc.

Posted by: anon at November 14, 2012 10:12 AM

I'd like to see some data about the driving activities of folks who live in downtown towers. While I'm concerned about adding cars to a congested downtown, I suspect that many of the cars in a residential building stay housed all day, and are used during non-commute hours (that assumes that residents work downtown) for shopping trips and excursions.

Does anyone happen to have any data on that?

Posted by: curmudgeon at November 14, 2012 11:01 AM

^^^

This is precisely what the anti-car morons don't seem to realize - that SF is congested not because San Franciscans have cars, but because the B&T crowd drives in for work, sporting events, lunch/dinner, etc. Want to reduce congestion on city streets? Set up toll booths at the city borders and charge $20 a day to bring a car into the city. Watch BART ridership soar.

Reducing the amount of parking spots built with new residential construction does NOTHING to deter Walnut Creekians or Marinites from driving their monster trucks over the bridge to go to the opera or ball game. It just pisses off those of us who live in Soma.

And while we're on the topic of parking woes, we need an additional tax on everyone who lives in the Richmond: they pile their garages full of crap they haven't used in 20 years and then park their cars on the sidewalk, compounding the problem. What's being done to address that issue?

Posted by: Legacy Dude at November 14, 2012 12:35 PM

Are you serious with that, it's all the Richmonds fault paragraph?

Posted by: sparky*b at November 14, 2012 12:43 PM

How would a tax on "everyone who lives in the Richmond" cause people to change their parking behavior? If you want to deter people from parking on the street in the Richmond, you should charge people... for parking on the street in the Richmond.

Posted by: Alai at November 14, 2012 1:11 PM

I agree with Michael E: the usual complainers about everything just keep hanging around here.

This is another great project to create density and urban housing near downtown. The parking provided is appropriate and will NOT cause downtown to become one big parking lot.

The sky will not fall.

More construction for SF!

Posted by: futurist at November 14, 2012 1:40 PM

Regarding the design, it seems like the balconies were afterthoughts. I never understand the need for a 4x6 piece of concrete jutting in the air at 30 or 40 stories. It's not like you're going to sit out there and have your morning coffee.

Posted by: Mark at November 14, 2012 1:43 PM

@Legacy Dude - I'm not sure why you think those of us looking to limit parking wouldn't also be in favor of tolling folks from driving in (more than they currently are).

As I've mentioned many times before, I'd be fine with allowing unlimited parking spots if there was a way to toll actual driving on the streets (market-based in real time). As it is, the closest proxy that we have is in limiting parking, as even attempting to meter parking at market-rate or charge market-rate for annual street parking permits is seen as "crazy" by the folks who love to suck from the government teet.

Posted by: anon at November 14, 2012 2:05 PM

I don't think there is enough parking in this building. I know its against the current wisdom but A 1:1 apartment to parking ratio sounds reasonable to me. They have that at the Infinity and it seems to have worked out well. I suspect that also has something to do with why the values in that building has held up reasonably well. As for the height, 32 stories is fine.

Posted by: Willow at November 14, 2012 2:24 PM

I miss the old days when Socketsite participants talked about more than just parking. What if EVERY thread were to turn into a discussion of vented vs. ventless dryers, or whether there was more sunny days at this location than another part of town? I think it is time for the car haters to stop turning EVERY posting about new construction into a parking discussion.

Posted by: EnoughAlready at November 14, 2012 4:20 PM

^Maybe because everyone assumes that those of us wanting to maintain some level of uncongested roadways must hate cars? I love my cars. Just don't want more parking that slowly turns the entire city streets system into a parking lot.

Posted by: anon at November 14, 2012 4:48 PM

Has anyone seen renderings of the top of this building? I like the base, but it'd be cool to see it in its entirety and in context with the surrounding area.

That being said, I'm happy to see some more proposals for the area. I'll take a parking garage with a 32 story building above it over a parking lot any day.

Posted by: gellan at November 14, 2012 4:49 PM

" I never understand the need for a 4x6 piece of concrete jutting in the air at 30 or 40 stories. It's not like you're going to sit out there and have your morning coffee."

Yeah, probably not a great space to hang out for hours. But I understand the value of having a little outdoor space in tall buildings. I need to get out of the canned air to breath the fresh once and a while. It would drive me batty to live on a high floor that required a several minute elevator ride just to reach the sidewalk. And then consider the smokers who prefer not to turn everything in their apartment a dingy beige.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 14, 2012 5:09 PM

"I miss the old days when Socketsite participants talked about more than just parking."

New building construction and parking go hand in hand these days so it's vital to discuss any issues with a construction project as they relate to "too much," "too few" or "just about right" amounts of parking. After all, if the city is going to add thousands of units of housing to its stock then that ulimately means there could be thousand of additional vehicles on the streets, many of which cannot handle additional capacity.

Posted by: Mark at November 14, 2012 5:28 PM

Looks like a good development. I agree that tiny little balconies 20+ floors in the sky are creepy. It's loud, windy and a long way to fall.

Posted by: Snark17 at November 14, 2012 8:08 PM

I'm looking down van ness right now and there isnt much traffic, no parking lots. congestion on the roadways varies by time of day, just like the congestion of headphone wearing, ipad reading morons that congest muni and walk through busy streets reading or texting during rush hour.

Posted by: grumpy at November 14, 2012 8:32 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« A Short-Sighted Plan For Western SoMa? | HOME | Glass Tower To Rise Over SF Mining Exchange Building On Bush »