Speaking of lawsuits, while Planning has approved Build Inc’s plans for its massive India Basin development, a development which could yield up to 1,575 units of housing, 1,800 parking spaces, 209,000 square feet of commercial space and 5.6 acres of open space along San Francisco’s eastern shoreline, the owner of Archimedes Banya, an adjacent spa and bathhouse which features “a breathtaking view [across India Basin from its] sun-lit deck,” has challenged the validity of the project’s underlying Environmental Impact Report in court.

And while the aforementioned challenge might be only partially to blame, or fingered, Build Inc. has just quietly pushed back their target date for starting construction, from “early 2020” to sometime in 2021.

As such, the first phase of the India Basin development, which is slated to be completed in multiple phases over a period of 5 to 15 years, wouldn’t be ready for occupancy until 2022, at the earliest, “based on market demand and financing.”  Keep in mind that Build Inc. has been seeking a buyer for their entitled tower to rise at One Oak Street, a development which was approved back in 2017 and has yet to break ground as well.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Dave (Seattle dude)

    Key phrase – “based on market demand and financing”. Not only this project but others such as HP/CP and Mission Bay are looking less viable. One Oak, keep in mind, had less strict affordable housing requirements than projects that have come online after it. If One Oak doesn’t pencil this one likely does not either.

    • Posted by Hancock

      [Some] commenters look at Build’s delays and cancellations as a bell weather for the wider market. Yes, the market is below its 2015 peak but citing Build’s delays and cancellations is misleading. Build has cancelled a 400+ foot skyscraper and is “quietly” delaying the creation of a new neighborhood from scratch. One Oak and India Basin would be marquis projects for any large REIT or established private equity fund.

      But look at Build’s project portfolio (www.bldsf.com/projects). Build has completed a handful of projects and none over five stories in height. I’d argue Build’s cancellations and delays speak more to Build’s capabilities as a developer (i.e. raising hundreds of millions of dollars – or not) rather than the overall state of the market.

      (P.S. no offense intended to the good folks at Build!)

      • Posted by JWS

        I agree. I heard somebody say before it became public knowledge that One Oak was for sale that Build INC was in over their heads and could not get their financing together because of lack of experience there. Meanwhile Crescent Heights (with exception of 542 Howard) and Related CA are moving full steam ahead.

        Compare for example Mid-Market. Build INC couldn’t get One Oak to work, but Related CA could get 1500-1550 Mission to work, 30 Otis/City Ballet School is plowing ahead, and Crescent Heights is still moving full steam on the Honda Dealership (just waiting on approval from the city) and they are currently finishing/constructing/proposing high-end projects all over the country (interestingly they are spreading their NEMA brand from SF to Chicago and Boston).

        But that’s not going to change Dave’s consistent opinion that SF has hit it’s population peak and is primed to become smaller and smaller every year and all proposed highrises will be turned into midrises with shrubs. Besides E Gonsalves, nobody hear twists facts to meet their preferred narrative more.

      • Posted by GECIII

        As someone that has done business with Build as an institutional investment partner, I can say with certainty that the delays at One Oak have nothing to do with Build’s credentials, experience, or ability to secure large scale financing. In fact their partner on One Oak is a highly sophisticated investment shop with billions of assets under management. It does have to do with construction costs, which are plaguing every development across San Francisco and generally the Bay Area.

        Can’t say enough good things about the folks at Build. They are honorable, talented, and care about this city.

  2. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    Those Banya people are [fools]. Their little place perched up on Innes could only be legitimized by having new people and more high dollar neighbors.

    I guess they are cutting off that difficult conversation that goes:

    “Honey, let’s go get some massage/bodywork session. I know a place down in the Bayview just below the public housing where they moved everyone out because the place was pest-ridden and falling down. It’s in the first floor of an apartment building between two vacant lots. It seems totally legit.”

    “Oh, that sounds great, as long as we don’t have to look out the window and see some new condos hundreds of feet away from us.”

    Because, you know, that’s what would keep me from going.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      Their primary argument (beyond all their CEQA BS) is that new buildings will be able to look down on their roofdeck, where nudity is currently allowed, and it will also block their sweeping bay view. I, too, think they are being ridiculous, but from their narrow self-interest perspective their NIMBY stance is understandable. By the way, the place is pretty cool.

      • Posted by SocketSite

        It’s also a concern of how construction related noise and traffic will impact the “relaxing” nature of the roofdeck, baths and spa over the development period of 5 to 15 years.

        • Posted by jenofla

          Isn’t that what happened with Brainwash? All that development next door curtailed business so it couldn’t survive. The banya may be fighting for its survival – they *might* get new business…assuming they can survive 5-10 years without the usual business.

          • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

            Should possible impact on a <10 employee business sideline the construction of 1,575 housing units in San Francisco city limits?

            Did you see that the Banya is located on Innes on the hillside far above India Basin flats?

          • Posted by jenofla

            I never said it should sideline the development. Just pointing out that they are reasonably trying to survive with their specific philosophy (nudity-friendly), not being “fools” for not salivating over some supposed flood of rich customers 10 years later. But it wouldn’t be the US if the little person didn’t try to put up a fight before eventually bending over for the greater development.

      • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

        Thank God someone in this city is still willing to fight for the rights of privacy for third parties to unfettered public nudity.

  3. Posted by John

    SS: It seems that about 80% of your articles refer to someone “quietly” doing something. Here, the developer “quietly” pushed back the development date. With condo or home listings, the real estate agent or seller “quietly” lowered the price. With office buildings, the developer “quietly” lowered the leasing rate. The implication, every time you use this terminology, is that the party to which you refer is doing something furtively or surreptitiously, intentionally hiding the act from public scrutiny. Is that your intent? Why is this such a frequent part of your lexicon?

    • Posted by John

      OK maybe not 80% of articles, or even close – but you do have 273 postings that use the term, and many of those even use “quietly” in the headline. Some of them use the phrase “quietly closed escrow”, which is really quite mysterious since that is certainly not an activity that anyone would be expected to publicize.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      As we wrote the last time you asked the same question, two months ago: “We typically employ ‘quietly’ when a property is on the market or changes hands without being listed/publicized or is actively trying to be obscured or hidden from public view. And apparently we’ve employed ‘quietly’ in around 2 percent of our postings, but thank you for your ongoing concern.” And now back to the topic at hand.

      • Posted by Hancock

        Dear SocketSite: At risk of sounding like a suck-up, I do appreciate your limited, but noticeable use of “quiet/quietly”- it’s part of SocketSite’s editorial style!

        • Posted by aerl

          Exactly. I have no problem with SocketSite having a “house style.” Part of the joy of reading the articles on this site is that feeling of getting to know the writing style and turns of phrase over time.

          • Posted by Outoftown

            It is somewhat like Chicken Little, but you can get used to it. There is nothing offensive about it, and there are good insights on the Bay Area market to be had.

  4. Posted by Martin

    Does any of this development include any Muni routes? Maybe extending T down Innes to Candlestick and Bayshore? Any protected bike lanes to provide safe passage to downtown, Caltrain or BART? Or does that not begin until everyone has settled into their automobiles.

    • Posted by Aaron Goodman

      Exactly the issues we push, but than we are called nimbys because we make sense… funny stuff

  5. Posted by Jimmythekid

    Hey BEO, Banya may not want to be “legitimized”. They may be doing quite well the way they are.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *