One thing that stood out to me with both of these projects was actually the lack of government involvement from the development and engineering side - and instead the plethora of recursive subcontracts that were used.
It seemed to me that the city was only involved in the funding / permitting process, with mission rock and pier 70 both having (separate)
1. A master developer
2. An urban designer
3. Various sub developers for different pieces of infrastructure
4. And at mission rock different architects for each individual building.
Since all of those layers are private their lack of risk tolerance and need to make a profit seemed to drive up the costs of these projects to pretty extreme heights.
Imagine the economies of scale if the architecture, master developer, and urban designer rolls were served in house by the city. It’s my understand that this in house expertise is a large part of why Asian and European cities are able to build massive housing estates (with integrated transit) for a fraction of the cost of either of these projects.
I guess I want to see city governments behaving as actual developers - rather than just the financing layer.
Really interesting point. I enjoyed hearing that at Fisherman's Wharf the pergolas were made in house by the Port of SF -- a very small example of having the government have some capacity in placemaking. Having an integrated finance/design/build firm is just not how we do it in the US -- even in the fully private sector, aside from the big housing developers like Lennar. Most projects have subcontractors. Look at the number of subcontractors just to Jeanne Gang's team for the Verde project: https://studiogang.com/projects/mission-rock/ That would be the same even if it were fully private.
Years ago I had a design fellowship at SPUR focused on the Southeast waterfront in SF which is a really interesting case as well. Seems like a test balloon of sorts for what the Port is doing around Mission Rock.
Also, my good friend (at Surfacedesign) was the lead designer for Bayfront Park so glad you enjoyed it!
Awesome -- yeah what a gorgeous park. I loved that they had grills out -- seemed like a great way to invite a more social and celebratory use of the park. And so much gorgeous vegetation planted along the way.
Port of SF is doing a lot with their land and planning some major projects in partnership with developers. The Golden State Warriors developed their arena and many of the lots around it. California’s SB4 opens new potential for faith based and educational institutions to develop their parking lots. Development isn’t just for developers any more.
I really do feel that between YIGBY, government land, and adaptive reuse we are entering one of the most interesting periods of development in a long time. It's a post-greenfield era of development ... thanks, I think I just came up with a new article idea :)
I think we're seeing some great examples of government as developer recently. In Atlanta, in Montgomery County, and the one you mention above. I think we can see the ones that work and use them as a way to break free of the narrative that government can't or shouldn't be a developer.
But there's also another argument that I've seen running around that these public properties should only be public housing or only should be one thing or another and the government seeking value from their properties is less beneficial than whatever stated preference someone has. Here in San Francisco we'll also soon be starting a discussion about whether Muni property should be used for public/affordable housing, or whether it should be market rate housing where the value created should go back to the transit agency that has a funding shortage.
It's of course a delicate balance and discussion, but I personally believe we risk kneecapping our ability to do more for people if we don't think bigger and longer term about our fiscal sustainability.
Thanks for these items from our city, I'm glad you got to come visit.
Yes, one tour participant was asking the question of why govt should build any non affordable housing. My thought is that a mix not only helps the project pencil but is also better for economic diversity. As for the muni question that is super interesting. Much of the vaunted infrastructure in Asian countries is paid for by market rate development on top of it. It’s a model that we should consider.
I walked around the area off 3rd Street just north of Mission Rock if not Mission Rock itself during a visit to San Francisco in November, and I was impressed.
One thing that stood out to me with both of these projects was actually the lack of government involvement from the development and engineering side - and instead the plethora of recursive subcontracts that were used.
It seemed to me that the city was only involved in the funding / permitting process, with mission rock and pier 70 both having (separate)
1. A master developer
2. An urban designer
3. Various sub developers for different pieces of infrastructure
4. And at mission rock different architects for each individual building.
Since all of those layers are private their lack of risk tolerance and need to make a profit seemed to drive up the costs of these projects to pretty extreme heights.
Imagine the economies of scale if the architecture, master developer, and urban designer rolls were served in house by the city. It’s my understand that this in house expertise is a large part of why Asian and European cities are able to build massive housing estates (with integrated transit) for a fraction of the cost of either of these projects.
I guess I want to see city governments behaving as actual developers - rather than just the financing layer.
Really interesting point. I enjoyed hearing that at Fisherman's Wharf the pergolas were made in house by the Port of SF -- a very small example of having the government have some capacity in placemaking. Having an integrated finance/design/build firm is just not how we do it in the US -- even in the fully private sector, aside from the big housing developers like Lennar. Most projects have subcontractors. Look at the number of subcontractors just to Jeanne Gang's team for the Verde project: https://studiogang.com/projects/mission-rock/ That would be the same even if it were fully private.
Years ago I had a design fellowship at SPUR focused on the Southeast waterfront in SF which is a really interesting case as well. Seems like a test balloon of sorts for what the Port is doing around Mission Rock.
Also, my good friend (at Surfacedesign) was the lead designer for Bayfront Park so glad you enjoyed it!
Awesome -- yeah what a gorgeous park. I loved that they had grills out -- seemed like a great way to invite a more social and celebratory use of the park. And so much gorgeous vegetation planted along the way.
Port of SF is doing a lot with their land and planning some major projects in partnership with developers. The Golden State Warriors developed their arena and many of the lots around it. California’s SB4 opens new potential for faith based and educational institutions to develop their parking lots. Development isn’t just for developers any more.
I really do feel that between YIGBY, government land, and adaptive reuse we are entering one of the most interesting periods of development in a long time. It's a post-greenfield era of development ... thanks, I think I just came up with a new article idea :)
Looking forward to it!
I think we're seeing some great examples of government as developer recently. In Atlanta, in Montgomery County, and the one you mention above. I think we can see the ones that work and use them as a way to break free of the narrative that government can't or shouldn't be a developer.
But there's also another argument that I've seen running around that these public properties should only be public housing or only should be one thing or another and the government seeking value from their properties is less beneficial than whatever stated preference someone has. Here in San Francisco we'll also soon be starting a discussion about whether Muni property should be used for public/affordable housing, or whether it should be market rate housing where the value created should go back to the transit agency that has a funding shortage.
It's of course a delicate balance and discussion, but I personally believe we risk kneecapping our ability to do more for people if we don't think bigger and longer term about our fiscal sustainability.
Thanks for these items from our city, I'm glad you got to come visit.
Yes, one tour participant was asking the question of why govt should build any non affordable housing. My thought is that a mix not only helps the project pencil but is also better for economic diversity. As for the muni question that is super interesting. Much of the vaunted infrastructure in Asian countries is paid for by market rate development on top of it. It’s a model that we should consider.
I walked around the area off 3rd Street just north of Mission Rock if not Mission Rock itself during a visit to San Francisco in November, and I was impressed.
"the vast majority of people will cheer a “technological coup”"
Are the vast majority cheering DOGE?
Maybe vast majority is an overstatement, but I do think that Trump's base is happy with it, yes.