650 Divisadero Site

The original plan for redeveloping the old Alouis Radiator shop on the southeast corner of Divisadero and Grove called for retaining the existing building’s façade along Divisadero and constructing sixteen residential units in a five-story addition behind.

But with zoning changes allowing for increased density along the Divisadero corridor having since been adopted, new plans for the 650 Divisadero site have been drafted by Forum Design, plans which now call for the entire building to be razed and a contemporary six-story building to rise.

And as newly proposed, the supersized development would yield 60 residential units over two commercial spaces and an underground garage for 26 cars.  An internal courtyard and roof deck would serve as open space for the residents.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Mark

    6 stories is good. Bring on the gripes about it being too tall and not fitting the look and feel of the neighborhood.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      it could be at least 3 floors taller honestly, but seems like pretty good infill and a decent design for the neighborhood.

  2. Posted by jordan park

    The building across the street is 7 stories, not that I expect that to stop anyone from complaining.

    • Posted by sf

      Didn’t stop 555 Washington from being crushed, which was half the size of the building next door (Transamerica Pyramid)

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Actually it was about 1/4 the size of the Pyramid. It was 1/2 the height of the fugly concrete Gateway buildings, and 1/3 the height of adjacent Embarcadero Center.

  3. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    Where’s the top of the building? The setback upper story needs to be finished, material wise, color of the windows?, color of the red, or grey? At least use one of the material colors, on the upper story, to cap the building…if not by zoning than at least visually? Otherwise looks proportionately un-finished.

  4. Posted by farts

    tenants here will complain about the independent, a wonderful venue. chances are that business has no protections against these kinds of complaints. i’m all for infill, but potentially worrisome times ahead for SF’s most cherished music spaces…

    • Posted by van nessident

      The architects can get this right. I’ve been in the apartment building across the street from the Regency on a concert night, and there was enough concrete that I couldn’t hear anything inside.

    • Posted by simms3

      I believe that an ordinance was passed (by our relatively pragmatic politicians) Lee and Weiner that prevents noise complaints by new residents (i.e. after the fact that there’s a venue) to be taken seriously. I hope that bill passed, at least. It was announced around the same time as another city bill was bantered about that would set aside a fund to keep historically significant businesses in the city (such as the Independent, or Sam Flax, etc).

      • Posted by Freeloader

        London Breed championed this, with the Independent in mind

  5. Posted by Frank C.

    Very unusual for me to say: a mere 6 stories IMO is a good height for this SF parcel, given transit and nearby buildings. A rare piece of good news. I used to live just a few blocks away.

  6. Posted by Elitist Pig

    Great. Enough of trying to retain old buildings that don’t have any real architectural value aside from being old.

  7. Posted by me

    Why cant we keep some remnants of these old styles? We don’t have to raze everything? Why not re-purpose and build on the existing?

    Is that really so hard? Let’s keep some history.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      nothing of historical value in the older building. no reason to keep it.

  8. Posted by Sabbie

    Given the timing of this project, I am envisioning a blighted vacant lot for a few years ala the project on Ellis and Divis.

  9. Posted by Schaetzer

    They will be able to enjoy the music from the club next door without even leaving home!

  10. Posted by jeff

    Ellis and Divis, Saitowitz’s version of a great actor making a horrible movie for the paycheck. Problem with the building is that it doesn’t die for lack of interest it just sits there for 100+ years. Thanks Planning!

  11. Posted by David J Gill

    WE must demolish any existing building on a site because WE must maximize ROI (return on investment.) By WE I really mean property developers for whom WE must accept demolition of vintage structures, overbuilding and low budget construction.

    WE endure so that they can profit handsomely. What do we get in return? Nothing of course. Developers have enormous influence in virtually every municipal jurisdiction in the world. Laws and procedures are made to serve their interests. San Francisco is one of those rare places that doesn’t have to lie down and take it, yet we do.

    • Posted by anon

      I disagree with this 100%, and I’m not a developer. Perhaps you don’t speak for all San Franciscans?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles