Developers still betting on SF

As much as the media likes to scare the life out of us thinking the world has ended and real estate will never again be a good investment, you need only look to the big boys to settle your nerves. As J.K. Dineen reports today in the San Francisco Business Times (the best source for all “big” development news)

The Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corp. has acquired one of the most grungy, crime-ridden corners in the Tenderloin and plans to build a $78 million low-income housing development for families with a 15,000-square-foot ground-floor grocery store.

The 13-story, 130-unit building will be designed by David Baker + Partners, who designed TNDC’s highly regarded 67-unit Curran House at 145 Taylor St.

Eddy & Taylor Family Housing will be comprised of 130 studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom apartments. At least 20 percent of the apartments will be reserved for formerly homeless households. The building will include play areas for kids and community gathering venues.

Perhaps of greater interest to Tenderloin residents is the prospect of a grocery store on the site.

Nearly one-third of Tenderloin residents surveyed reported that it was difficult for them to get to a grocery store, and more than half obtain food from soup kitchens or food pantries.

This is just one of many articles cranked out by the San Francisco Business Times that rarely get mentioned in “mainstream” media. Why? Because they suggest things are moving forward rather than back.

Developer takes on one of S.F.’s toughest corners [San Francisco Business Times, J.K. Dineen]

New Development Resource [San Francisco Business Times]

7 thoughts on “Developers still betting on SF

  1. that is awesome!

    we need to shut down all the liquor stores and check cashing places in the TL to start

    then start checking id’s to see who lives there and kick the rest out back to the east bay to keep their drug dealing business on that side of the bridge

  2. Not quite – unless I am mistaken, this is an affordable housing development which will be financed with a healthy dose of public money – typically low income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) combined with some other programs. Affordable/publicly financed developments are much more able to develop in a down market as they don’t have to achieve market rent or market sales prices for their finished units (the buyers typically purchase or rent is typically subsidized) and they receive subsidized financing.

  3. Miles,

    True, but developers are not only going through with plans they inked years ago, but are also inking new ones all the time. Take a look at the laundry list of articles by J.K. Dineen from this post. There is so much “big news” that so often flys under the radar it is amazing. We’re going to start highlighting some of it. Time permitting of course.

    Take a look at some of the other quotes from the article as well:

    “If one looks strictly at cost basis, we would never build in the Tenderloin,” said Falk. “But density is the way of the future and height is the way of the future.”

    David Addington, who owns the Warfield Theater and office building at 988 Market St., said he advocates an even taller building.

    “I thought they should go 300 feet tall at a minimum or let someone build market rate on top of them,” said Addington.

    I read the biz times front to back with every issue. It is loaded with optimistic reports about development, business, and housing. For every one down report, there are three others stating the exact opposite, but nobody seems to really point them out.

    The market has taken a hit, no doubt, but nowhere near what everyone is saying. The future is certainly uncertain, but for now big money and big business is still pouring into San Francisco.

    In any case, thanks for your comment and insight.

  4. i wasn’t quite sure what miles was saying there. does he actually think development has or will stop in san francisco? has he been to mission bay in that last 10 years?

  5. Just to clarify, I’m not a doomsayer or overly negative on the market, but my point was that a subsidized housing development generally indicates that it is not feasible to develop market rate properties in that location (as they mention in the article). Subsidized housing developments rely on a significant amount of public money to make them pencil out where a market rate development would not. Subsidized housing developments generally are constructed at a fairly steady pace irregardless of market conditions and are more dependent on the availability of subsidized financing than the strength/weakness of the market. So yes, affordable housing developments will continue to be built even if the market gets considerably worse. Sure there are new market rate developments in the city that point to an optimistic view of the market such as the recently announced property on Hawthorne Lane, but the pace is way off from the frenzied activity of a few years ago. Truthfully, It’s probably in everyone’s best interest for the pace of development to slow a bit so the market can absorb all the new inventory coming.

  6. thanks for the clarification. i for one would be ecstatic to see them level the entire 6th street corridor and the TL to build new housing for subsidized housing. i’d argue that we need to be very strict on whom we let live there this time, like they do in places like alaska. only folks with jobs can apply to live in their new housing developments.

    imagine that!

  7. When the rest of the nation’s residential market takes a dip, the SF market just seems to go sideways. With regard to market cycle analysis, this could be the very best timing for developers to get started on a project in SF. Transit oriented development is always in demand.

Leave a Reply