Crescent Heights Walks Away From $165M Transbay Deal

Crescent Heights says it cannot meet San Francisco's requirement for below-market-rate housing at or near its proposed high-rise on Transbay Parcel F, causing the developer to walk away from the $165M purchase of the last plot of land available in the Transbay District.

Crescent Heights had reached a deal last month to purchase the property, which is zoned for a 750-foot tower and requires that 35% of the apartments be below market rate. But the company says it isn't feasible to put those units on site or somewhere in the Transbay District as required, according to SocketSite. The Transbay plan demands that 35% of the 4,000 housing units planned for the site be below market rate, according to Curbed.

The lost sale means the money will not go toward financing the $2.1B Transbay Transit Center, already $360M into Phase 1 of construction (rendering shown above). The Transbay Joint Powers Authority plans to look for a new buyer early next year. [SS, Curbed]

Continue reading this story with a free account

Log in or register
Sign up for more articles like this
Subscribe to Bisnow's San Francisco Newsletters
Related Stories

Power Availability Becomes New Requirement For Shifting Bay Area Industrial Base

Developers Line Up To Convert Boston Offices To Housing, But Most Still Stuck At Starting Gate

To Rein In Costs, Philly Affordable Housing Players Look To Become 'Less Reliant On Consultants'

Rent Concessions Dip As Fewer Apartments Come Online

AvalonBay, Equity Residential Selling Boston Towers As Part Of Merger Settlement

IRES Looks To More Forward Funding As Resi Market Gathers Pace

Knightvest Capital Acquires 3 Multifamily Communities In Austin

Builders Turning To Prefab Solutions As Speed To Delivery Becomes Critical Consideration

Maturing Debt Triggers Wave Of Distressed Hotel Sales Across California

Millennium Partners Lands $281M Loan For Winthrop Center Tower

Vivmark Details Merged Entity, Becomes Largest U.S. Apartment REIT By Far

Making The Case For Preconstruction As Risk Management