Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway, continue to post. Jsimms came on here and bashed Philly yet we're still posting what is going on here.
You really caught feelings didn't you! First of all, I never "bashed" Philly (Atlanta is about the only city I've "bashed" in some sort of way on this forum). If you want to review my posting history, a good half of it is captured below, more or less. I never entered this thread until Page 48, and have posted relatively sporadically ever since compared to you and a few others. Don't pin whatever weird stuff has been going on the past 10-20 pages on me
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Most of you guys are listing proposals, some or many (maybe most) will not actually come to fruition. I know in Philadelphia's case, while there are a plethora of buildings in the 10-25 story range UC, one greater than 30, and a few that will certainly break ground that are 400+ ft high (I'm not saying CITC is a definite go until I see some action), most of that list will not happen.
If CITC happens, then I'll eventually move Philly up beyond Boston for significant projects coming out of the ground, but there is no way it's even close to Boston in the here and now. Boston's economy is exponentially better than Philly's, and the fundamentals that attract the capital to build these projects is there, not nearly so much in Philly.
Seattle easily tops Philadelphia right now, as well. Probably on same level as Boston and typically has more UC than SF given the spirited NIMBYism in SF. My list might go like:
NYC
SF
Chicago (what's 10 400-500 fters in a downtown that massive?...that's average construction for Chicago)
Miami
Seattle/Boston
Los Angeles (the one supertall by itself...I don't know that it "does it" for a skyline already pretty large)
Houston
Philadelphia
Atlanta
In an average year, it might go like this:
NYC
Chicago
Miami
Houston
Seattle
Atlanta
SF
Boston/Philadelphia
everybody else
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Correction, Philly will be on fire when all of these projects are actually UC with cranes in or excavation going on (at minimum).
SF needs a reminder:
Cranes up right now (20 stories and up)
1 350 Mission (33 stories office)
1 535 Mission (27 stories office)
1 One Rincon Hill North Tower (50 stories resi)
1 399 Fremont (42 stories resi)
2 Lumina North (38 stories resi)
2 Lumina South (43 stories resi)
1 100 Van Ness (28 stories resi)
1 222 Second (26 stories office)
I know Oakland, SJ, and the Valley have some projects, but I honestly can't keep up or pay attention to anything outside of SF. If one were to add all the sub-20 story buildings, SF's list would be very long (there's one corner in the city with three 12-18 story towers UC right now and a 15 story a couple blocks down the street, for instance).
Of course there are planed demolitions and approved buildings and proposed buildings and recently completed buildings, but I think cranes up and excavation ongoing are the two metrics that should be used for "Buildings Coming Up".
In terms of sheer number of buildings coming up:
NYC
Chicago
Miami
San Francisco
Seattle
Boston
Houston
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Austin
Atlanta
Dallas
In terms of skyline changing (going up *right now*):
NYC
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Austin
Boston
Miami
Seattle
Philadelphia
Houston
Atlanta
Dallas
I think it's subjective and difficult, but I think there is no question about the top 5 cities for most high rises actually coming out of the ground right now, and I think it's pretty clear the top 4 cities undergoing the largest transformation right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
I think you're twisting my words somehow and trying to spin. In a year or two when all of the current crop of SF projects wind down and all of the proposed Philly projects are actually rising, then Philly will be a dominant construction city in the country.
For now, Philly isn't even close to SF and you clearly have no concept what my metrics are. I was looking at 20+ floors only, and was looking at cranes first, then excavation, not "I'm pretty sure it's going to happen" etc.
Right now Philly has for cranes:
Cira South 36 story resi
Lancaster Square 25 story resi
3601 Market 28 story resi
For excavation:
38th and Chestnut 25 story resi
Perhaps soon there will be more actually happening.
Things like 1900 Arch St at 14 floors and 162 ft don't boost Philly's ratings. Several cities have tons of 14 story buildings UC, so many in fact that on construction sites they get little mention because there is literally too many 20-30+ floor buildings actually UC to even pay attention to 14 floors.
Then we got in a tit for tat about how "confined" or "scattered" development was. Thankfully, Peanut_Gallery@SSP just posted a map he did of TB District/Rincon Hill to show just how close together most of the new SF towers are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Yea, but consider this, SF has literally single corners in the Financial District with multiple 30+ story towers rising on 3 out of 4 corners (when I say rising, I mean at minimum there is a hole with 200+ ft caissons in the ground, but likely at this point there is a crane up and steel and concrete literally rising). There are 2 blocks in Rincon Hill, which is only 3 blocks from the FiDi corner that I just spoke of, where there are 4 40+ story towers rising (one topped off, one 4 floors up, one has its crane up, and one is at "Philly" stage of development where it hasn't actually broken ground, but SF is a much stronger apt market than Philly and the developer is Equity Residential...so yea, not too concerned about a delay in the Demo permit).
Philly is still mostly in proposal/approved stage now anyway, so technically it doesn't have that many high rises literally "rising" yet to contend. Its economy is not as strong as Boston's, DC's, SF's, or Seattle's, and it doesn't have Latin American flight money like Miami does, so I'm going to sit back and wait for cranes to appear and steel to rise before I consider all of these proposals as done deals.
SF is doing Vancouver style development right now (except even taller). This is highly documented (via pics) on the construction focused sites (SSP for instance). Only on C-D does Philly even get this rep as the king of construction cities...it's definitely not even top 5 and almost always takes a back seat to others. Its economy is not one that allows for mega booms that you see elsewhere.
I'm not too concerned about posting pics (my hard drive just crashed anyway), however, I am a pic poster on SSP. If you want to prove me wrong, post some pics of all this construction you speak of. I don't see it on SSP. I see a few projects that are sizable enough for mention actually happening, and the rest being rendered and talked about with half of the Philly posters on SSP expressing their doubts that they will even happen.
Then we got in a tit for tat about TB Tower vs CITC. Since then, TB Tower signed on a 714,000 SF tenant and has been renamed. Kidphilly made the statement that he thought CITC would go up well before TB Tower, but that he "still thought TB Tower would happen." I'm not here to "bash" Philly, merely to inject SF development and a little bit of reality into this conversation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Excavation/foundation work is more than can be said for CITC in Philly, a tower that you and every other Philly poster on here is saying is a "done deal".
CITC is likely a done deal, but it hasn't even started construction yet. TB Tower's foundation phase alone is ~12 months, and anyone in LA or NYC, both of which are cities that have recently seen supertalls clear the foundation phase and go vertical, will tell you that it takes a very longggg time for a supertall to even go vertical.
Philly won't see CITC actually rise until at least mid to late 2015 (when is it even "breaking ground"? Add a few months to that for actual work to commence and a good 10-18 months to that for vertical construction), whereas LA's tower will be most of the way if not topped off by then and SF's tower will be well on its way.
Add to that the fact that even if you take TB Tower out of the picture, SF is still a stronger contender for top 5 high rise construction zone in this country. I have only mentioned towers actually in a vertical phase of their existence. I haven't even mentioned all of the other serious proposals still on the table and ready to hit the ground running in the next 1-2 years or the next cycle, depending on what happens with the economy. I'm also excluding recent construction and all low/mid-rises flooding the city's plethora of hot real estate submarkets (Castro anyone? Castro/Dolores Heights alone just saw 5 tower cranes up at once for mid-rises in the 6-10 story range). TB Tower is but one tower, but it is one that is a skyline changer that adds subjectivity points to "projects coming out of the ground" (vs Chicago, which by sheer nature of its size will always have more towers coming out of the ground than any city save for NYC, but won't always be a high % of towers already in place).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
From SSP's thread on the CITC, where you post frequently:
Groundbreaking: Summer 2014
Completion: Q4 2017
No pictures of any activity yet.
TB tower's completion is set for 2016 (late 2016), which is a year in advance of CITC (which has estimates pre-construction start, whereas BP/Hines at least have some stuff in the ground when they're basing their estimates).
So it would be a little crazy to expect CITC to be "rising by Fall". That would break all supertall construction timeline records.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Hmm, I'll just give this argument a rest. However, if you care to understand markets other than Philly, then you would know that spec development exists. Also, there is "build to hold", a semi-core strategy. This is often a strategy with apartment development. Development by nature is not "core", however, you can build completely spec in a hot market with a low cost of capital and proforma a 10+ year investment horizon. Look at the sponsors - Boston Properties (a large office REIT), and Hines (I can't recall if it's Hines Global REIT or another pocket). Zuckerman is highly optimistic about this tower and plenty of rumor mills have broken on discussions for possible anchors (Salesforce being the latest and most realistic). The JV spent nearly $200M on the land alone and has already invested tens of millions more on site work. The tower is going to rise on A timeframe, likely the one being presented to the market (delivery in 2016).
Not to mention, across the street a 411,000 SF office tower with 70+ condos on top is under construction completely spec and a half a block down Boston Properties just put up 535 Mission, which is 307,000 SF and 27 stories, completely spec (they just signed a lease with Trulia, news broke today). Tishman Speyer just put up 285,000 SF across the street completely spec and has gone vertical on a new 26 story tower that has over 400,000 SF, also all spec. Lots of SOMA office deals were contemplated spec and are beginning to pre-lease after construction financing has been secured and ground broken (333 Brannan for instance).
I'm not doubting CITC will happen, however, it will be a slow, long drawn out process like every supertall under construction around the world. Ground has not even been broken ceremoniously yet. Usually that precedes ground/foundation/excavation work by some time, and then the ground work itself takes forever.
You and all the other Philly posters are discussing Philly's boom as if it is happening right now, when it's mostly still planned/proposed.
I am simply arguing that Philly is not yet in the discussion, and that cities such as NYC, Miami, Austin, Houston, Seattle, SF, and Boston are seeing considerably more projects coming out of the ground right now. Well, I'd argue Austin has around a similar amount of projects as Philly, but is 1/4 the size with an even smaller fraction of a skyline, so it makes a large impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
So, you think CITC will move from site work to steel frame in a matter of a few months? I think this discussion is basically over on your behalf. Ask folks from NYC and LA how long it takes for supertalls to begin to go vertical after ground has actually been broken (I don't mean ceremoniously broken with the mayor and developers and a gold plated shovel, but cement mixers on site, excavators, drill rigs, etc).
And in the same breath you mention CITC will be directly connected to SEPTA. Add at least half a year if not a full year or more to the construction. The delivery set by Comcast is Q4 2017 assuming all goes to plan (and nothing has even started yet, so very easily not all could go as planned).
Good luck on your wishes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Perhaps. Groundbreaking March 31, 2005, tenants moving in to lower floors by December 2007, and official delivery in June 2008.
Call it 33 months for substantial completion.
So Comcast breaks ground sometime in summer 2014, so 11 quarters from then (33 months) is spring 2017, still behind the TB Tower timetable of full delivery by Q4 2016. And we aren't talking full delivery for CITC, so assuming Salesforce or some other tenant can begin moving in before final delivery of TB Tower, the substantial completion could very well be by Q1 or Q2 of 2016, well in advance of CITC.
I don't think you'll see CITC completed in any fashion before TB Tower barring an economic collapse of SF's tech sector.
Wilshire Grand in LA will be up well before both towers.
I think my points have been fair and true. Nothing "bashing" of Philly, unless you want to find a post of mine that I must have made when I was blacked out on something, LoL. I don't want to be compared to some of the other posters here - I bring a lot more to the table, even if it's not always said in the utmost tactful manner.
You really caught feelings didn't you! First of all, I never "bashed" Philly (Atlanta is about the only city I've "bashed" in some sort of way on this forum). If you want to review my posting history, a good half of it is captured below, more or less. I never entered this thread until Page 48, and have posted relatively sporadically ever since compared to you and a few others. Don't pin whatever weird stuff has been going on the past 10-20 pages on me
Then we got in a tit for tat about how "confined" or "scattered" development was. Thankfully, Peanut_Gallery@SSP just posted a map he did of TB District/Rincon Hill to show just how close together most of the new SF towers are.
Then we got in a tit for tat about TB Tower vs CITC. Since then, TB Tower signed on a 714,000 SF tenant and has been renamed. Kidphilly made the statement that he thought CITC would go up well before TB Tower, but that he "still thought TB Tower would happen." I'm not here to "bash" Philly, merely to inject SF development and a little bit of reality into this conversation.
I think my points have been fair and true. Nothing "bashing" of Philly, unless you want to find a post of mine that I must have made when I was blacked out on something, LoL. I don't want to be compared to some of the other posters here - I bring a lot more to the table, even if it's not always said in the utmost tactful manner.
I think you just showed that it's pretty clear there is only one city getting actually bashed in here (ugly buildings, awful retail, sterile architecture, etc. etc. etc......and in most other threads...horrible food, no culture, boring people, government welfare, leaches, no innovation, no talent.....did I miss anything....)
You're arguing whether Philly is booming in development or not. Don't see how that is bashing. The equivalent conversation when D.C. is the subject is about ugly buildings, awful retail, sterile architecture, horrible food, no culture, boring people, no innovation, etc. etc. etc. That's what bashing is. I don't really see how people are getting confused here. Did that one poster say something about one building in SF? Sure, but I'm pretty sure he/she didn't say the whole city was ugly like people have been doing with D.C.
Anyway, I'm sure the board will settle down tremendously with the elimination of D.C. development because that seems to be the hot topic on this forum to get people stirred up. If you want to see peoples fangs, just mention D.C. I learned that during my time here.
See, that's what doesn't make sense. I'm really the only one on here that DID post large mega projects. If we're being honest, other than myself, who has posted master planned mega developments? Almost everyone is coming here with random individual infill projects. That is not what this is supposed to be about. The only time I posted individual projects was during a single post to get a count of units during a debate and I just referenced that post throughout that debate. I haven't been coming here posting random single buildings one by one like everyone else seems to be doing. That's why this really makes no sense to me. It's really the rest of you that are posting every single project going on in your cities.
I posted the Wharf, the Yards, Poplar Point, St. Elizabeth, Walter Reed, Union Station/Burnham Place, SW Eco District, City Center DC, Capitol Crossings, Skyland Towncenter, and the DC street car network. All those are major mega projects and are relevant to the thread title and requirements by the OP. The real question is, what projects have the rest of the people in this thread posted that is relevant to this thread? Practically zero. I know of Tranbay in SF, the Beltine in ATL, etc. etc. Most cities don't have projects like this so the thread shouldn't even be this long to begin with.
Based on that, can you see why I feel people have something against DC?I mean, DC is the only city in the whole thread that has only talked about mega projects. This is supposed to be about multi-million sq. foot mega projects.
Post #947
Quote:
Originally Posted by sobchbud1
Miami doesn't get much love here in CD construction wise, and especially in this thread, but I assure you that there is much more going on here than most of the cities discussed so far.... and no it's not all just "suburbs in the sky".
Museum Park - under construction - the Perez Art Museum Miami has opened to rave reviews and the Frost Science Museum will open in 2015 with a new Aquarium housed in it. The park has been restructured and is bound to become the Bayfront destination Miami has always deserved. It is the piece that will connect the bayfront North to Edgewater and South to Bayside and the riverwalk.
There's a lot of fixation on height on this forum. Building tall is an economic indicator, but its not the only indicator. Total square footage under construction is a better metric than height. Some cities can't build tall (DC) and some have serious restrictions (FAA has a 600-700 foot cap on much of Boston's Financial District due to Logan Airport's proximity and flight paths. San Diego has FAA height limits too). These cities are still undergoing significant construction booms regardless of the fact that many aren't very tall.
There's a lot of fixation on height on this forum. Building tall is an economic indicator, but its not the only indicator. Total square footage under construction is a better metric than height. Some cities can't build tall (DC) and some have serious restrictions (FAA has a 600-700 foot cap on much of Boston's Financial District due to Logan Airport's proximity and flight paths. San Diego has FAA height limits too). These cities are still undergoing significant construction booms regardless of the fact that many aren't very tall.
Height is not everything, nor does it make a city feel more urban, imo. Compare Atlanta, or Miami to DC and DC wins hands down on feeling dense and urban. Personally, a city needs to have a nice crop of small of mid-level buildings in addition to tall towers to have a solid skyline.
Anyways, here is some more of what's happening in Boston:
For MDAllstar so we can distinguish what a "Flagship" is (this just came across my email so it was easy to post):
Quote:
SAN FRANCISCO -- Christian Dior has announced it will open a 10,000-square-foot flagship store in San Francisco. The international fashion house will be located on three floors at 185 Post St. in the Union Square shopping district. It is scheduled to open in 2016.
Grosvenor Americas purchased the building in 2005. Originally built in 1908, Grosvenor set about to preserve the building's brick exterior by encapsulating it in layers of translucent and frosted glass. The firm also upgraded all of its building systems, including seismic protection.
Grosvenor owns nearby properties at 251 and 180 Post Street, which are leased to notable tenants like Coach, The North Face, Ghurka and Facconable, among others.
"Christian Dior, one of the world's most iconic fashion houses, is the perfect tenant for our glass-enclosed building at 185 Post St.," says Andrei Gog, Grosvenor's asset manager.
I think the space they are referring to now is currently occupied by DeBeers. 10,000 SF is nearly the size of the average Trader Joe's (12,500 SF), just for reference. Anyway, too small a project to normally highlight since the tenant buildout will likely only be ~$1M, perhaps less, but a typical daily story from around here. Dior already has a Union Square boutique, probably around 2-3,000 SF right on Union Square, where they probably pay $500-$800/SF in annual rent. I guess they'll close that and expand shop in the new flagship.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,135,780 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
For MDAllstar so we can distinguish what a "Flagship" is (this just came across my email so it was easy to post):
I think the space they are referring to now is currently occupied by DeBeers. 10,000 SF is nearly the size of the average Trader Joe's (12,500 SF), just for reference. Anyway, too small a project to normally highlight since the tenant buildout will likely only be ~$1M, perhaps less, but a typical daily story from around here. Dior already has a Union Square boutique, probably around 2-3,000 SF right on Union Square, where they probably pay $500-$800/SF in annual rent. I guess they'll close that and expand shop in the new flagship.
Right, that's DeBeers in the ground floor only. Not sure what's in the upper floors (it's a 5-6 story building). Prada is right across the street, with one of SF's top ad agencies (the one that handles the Audi account) located above it. Shreve jewelers is across the intersection. Nice block.
For MDAllstar so we can distinguish what a "Flagship" is (this just came across my email so it was easy to post):
I think the space they are referring to now is currently occupied by DeBeers. 10,000 SF is nearly the size of the average Trader Joe's (12,500 SF), just for reference. Anyway, too small a project to normally highlight since the tenant buildout will likely only be ~$1M, perhaps less, but a typical daily story from around here. Dior already has a Union Square boutique, probably around 2-3,000 SF right on Union Square, where they probably pay $500-$800/SF in annual rent. I guess they'll close that and expand shop in the new flagship.
SF is like the city of high end flagships.
Dior's space on Stockton is very small, looks like SF has been good to them:-)
Looks like the FMC is adding commercial and residential floors - latest was 660 ft so now expected to be over 700 ft and will be breaking ground in June
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
