1080 Sutter Rendering

Conditionally approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission pending a few design refinements at the end of 2009, the surface area parking lot at 1080 Sutter is set to become an eleven story, mixed-use building with 35 dwelling units (including 23 three-bedrooms) over ground-floor retail and 31 parking spaces (including two car share).

The proposed refinements to the rendering above which the developers hope will satisfy Planning’s request to “[decrease] the void-to-mass ratio of the proposed façade” and “[create] more interest in the design of the top two floors”:

A metal projecting sunscreen was added at the 10th and 11th floors; The fascia was thickened between the 11th floor and the roof; and The windows were narrowed by 4 inches from a width of five feet, four inches to five feet.

The garage entry has also been moved from the east portion of the building to the west.

1080 Sutter Revised

And as the site looks today (more or less):

1080 Sutter Site (Image Source: MapJack.com)

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by invented

    Sort of preferred the original rendering which showed a gesture towards the very well built & handsome buildings on Sutter and in the Tenderloin. This however looks sort of cheap, bland and forgettable — and as encouraging as it is to have investment in this area – we could do better.
    Also a good self-assured design doesn’t really need afterthought add-ons such as metal projecting awnings. It might just be the angled balconies combined with the awnings which take away from the overall facade.

  2. Posted by Willow

    “It might just be the angled balconies combined with the awnings which take away from the overall facade.”
    I actually like both elements. It adds some visual interest without being too much of a distraction. The gray and white color palette is very safe but overall I think this could be a nice building if quality materials are used.

  3. Posted by tony

    Who is going to finance a 13 story project right now?
    Who would buy these units in the Tender Nob?

  4. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    They don’t need to build it right now, just get their entitlement approved.
    It is a pretty good strategy : acquire entitlements when the economy is down because there’s more political support for adding to the tax base. Then take the slow road towards actual construction so the product enters the market on a sunnier day.

  5. Posted by Al

    Can’t help but notice that the ceiling heights are significantly lower than its neighbors. This seems to be typical of modern buildings. Is there a reason for this, apart from maximizing the number of stories in a height-limited area?

  6. Posted by Dan Clark

    ^^^ Shorter people in the future? Anyone here remember the line from Genesis’ “Get ‘Em Out By Friday”?
    “This is an announcement from Genetic Control. It is my sad duty to inform you of a 4 ft. restriction on humanoid height.”

  7. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Ah yes, Genesis from way way back.
    I’ll bet this development has the minimum 8′ ceiling height as opposed to older buildings which went for taller rooms. No doubt this decision is driven by economics.
    The shortest ceiling heights have been in converted unwarranted space staged as bedroom or office space. These really should be staged as storage space. When people over 6′ tall need to duck in a room then it shouldn’t count as living space.

  8. Posted by sjmac

    i know these guys.Deep pockets,very little bank money needed.

  9. Posted by Beverly

    I used to live in the apartments at the corner of Sutter and Larkin. There was a nice little view from the back fire escape next to the parking lot, trees and greenery. Too bad all you can see now is another building.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles