One reader wonders about the demolition and development at the corner of 10th and Market, a few other readers nail the answer, and now SFcondo.org shares some renderings of the Heller Manus designed Crescent Heights development.
In summary, the development will consist of “four buildings and four retail spaces. The largest will be 35 stories on the market street side and the other three will be 9, 18, and 19 stories.” In total, “approximately 719 dwelling units, approximately 19,000 square feet of commercial space, and a garage with up to 668 parking spaces. The…north tower will be 35 stories and approximately 352 feet high, and the…south tower will be 19 stories and approximately 220 feet high.”
And according to J.K. Dineen, “The project will be more affordable than the Metropolitan, the Rincon Hill development Crescent Heights built three years ago. [Crescent Heights Vice President] Della Salla said he hoped the project would appeal to workers from the nearby City Hall and federal building, as well as current Hayes Valley renters across Market Street. Many of the units will be in the $500,000 to $600,000 range and some under $400,000.”
∙ Readers’ Questions: What’s Happening Here? [SocketSite]
∙ Renderings Of 10th And Market [SFcondo.org]
∙ Crescent Heights to start big Mid-Market project [SF Business Times]
[Removed by Editor]
I like these buildings a lot. The pricing is nice too. It will be a great addition to the neighborhood.
From the developer: “We like the idea of not going where everybody else is going, of places that are changing for the better,” he said. “This reminds us of Soho 10 years ago or the meatpacking district (both in New York) 15 years ago. We see streets full of people walking, riding bikes. We think that is going to happen.”
There are actually some people that can have a positive vision of the future?
From reading this blog you would not think so.
[Editor’s Note: Well, you could always try to lead by example (and add some value rather than simply stirring the pot).]
Has some similarities to the Infinity complex. Understandable since Heller Manus helped design Infinity…
The buildings are nice. Can only be positive for that neighborhood and we could hope the prices will be reasonable as they say it will…
“Della Salla said he hoped the project would appeal to workers from the nearby City Hall and federal building”
Well, government employees are doing better than I thought! Don’t you need to be making almost 6 figures to afford half a million? The renderings look OK, nothing exciting. I actually think many readers on this blog want a more “positive vision” of SF, but are frustrated by the current state of developments. I am optimistic things are getting better though.
I actually think many readers on this blog want a more “positive vision” of SF, but are frustrated by the current state of developments. I am optimistic things are getting better though.
Whether or not you think these buildings look nice, you have to admit that they are a MAJOR improvement of what is currently in that location.
yet another ugly, poorly proportioned project from Heller Manus. When will the developers wake up and realize this firm does awful work?
The exterior of the Infinity was salvaged by Arquitectonica after the Planning commission told the Heller Manus design was unacceptable for that project.
Plus Heller Manus only completes the project in house through design development and then passes it off to another firm to complete the detailing. I am an architect and would be very wary of buying any condo where the architect does not complete the construction documents.
“There are actually some people that can have a positive vision of the future?
From reading this blog you would not think so.
[Editor’s Note: Well, you could always try to lead by example (and add some value rather than simply stirring the pot).]”
It was refreshing to hear that some people including this develop have a vision of what some less desirable neighborhood will look like in the future. It always takes risk to develop these types of areas but some of the most interesting, lively and culturally diverse areas in this city and many others stemmed from places like this. They are like a raw canvas. You can’t have that kind of diversity in older already established not to mention pricey neighborhoods.
I would stress that there is going to be commercial space at this site too, according to the public records — absolutely crucial to the revitalization of the area.
I don’t think this is a poorly proportioned building. Something tall sleek and skinny would have been wrong for that block. I think they made the right decision to break up the lines with the twelve-story base along Market street, and the 9-story base on 10th, because it will make the street seem more pedestrian and shopper friendly. That’s a long block, and the other buildings are drab and sort of monolithic and uninviting, so it’s good they broke things up like they have.
I also like that there are so many different angles to the tower — that should cause the floorplans to be more interesting than your standard cookie cutter, with interesting curves and corners to highlight the views.
anon at 6:19, whats currently on that site is a medicore housing complex thats LOW. Walk 3 blocks away and you dont see it. This “design” by HELLer mANUS will be visible from far. Here is reality. If they want these to be “affordable” and it sounds like they do- they will have to use less expensive materials-. So that Glitzy glass in the rendering will look like the other tall bldg 6′ away from the Easy bay ramp.
“So that Glitzy glass in the rendering will look like the other tall bldg 6′ away from the Easy bay ramp”
Great comment. Still tears in my eyes from laughing so hard….
i actually like the scale (towers, mid-rise elements), proportion of the tower, courtyard focus, AND it looks like they designed for the windtunnel that is market street pretty nicely (i think). check out those fins!! what’s up with the mission side?
There is no housing complex currently at that site. It used to be an office building. You’re thinking of the wrong location.
I just noticed how the balconies get bigger as they get higher up on the building — it will look really cool when you look up from the street.
Between this, the Trinity Plaza rebuild, the new federal building and Soma Grand, and a large residential development proposed for the block between 5th and 6th (see today’s SF Business Times)—maybe, just maybe there’s hope for mid-Market. But no amount of new construction will really help until there’s some serious effort to restore public safety and a modicum of order on the street. One can only hope that the new residents of these developments will press city government to do what it should have done all along.
Very cool … happy to see more new residential development further down Market.
jamie
http://www.RinconHillSF.org
I am all for the revitalization of the mid market district and am glad to see developers focusing on the area.
That said, I have two questions: 1) Why now? Fox Plaza was there for years and nobody wanted to be down there… is it the resurgence of Hayes Valley, the new Federal Building… 2)What retail will want to move into these new spaces when there is already plenty of open space down there? Especially as you move east along Market.
Not intended to be negative…just interested in the logic.
The building. I like it. Thank goodness for proper density in this location. Will work well with civic center buildings. Mixed income levels in one location – exactly what SF needs nore of.
Retail? Questionable area? Don’t see the signs? This area is the covergence of really interesting neighborhoods — upper market – Hayes/Octavia, lower Van Ness, Civic, SOMA. Mid-market & environs has no less then 6,000 units slated within the next few years. W/its excellent transit out the door, walking distance to everywhere — it’s happening. And crticically, it has uniquely SanFrancisco urban fabric and architecture which other recent or developing areas (Mission Bay, South Beach) seem to lack. (Both of which could easily be transplanted to any city).
Retail?
All eyes here — the past & future is right here.
None of the linked articles say exactly where this is. Is it that huge octagonal building that was/is a Bank of America back office? Surely they are not demolishing the SF Mart???
I think it’s kind of funny that people refer to this area as a risky neighborhood from a development perspective. I think it’s a highly desirable location because it’s so incredibly conventient to downtown and BART. And it’s outside the more sketchy parts of mid-market. The pricing is sensible. It should be highly successful. There should be 10 projects like these going up if you ask me!
Jeffrey, the site previously had some dumpy lowrise office building that’s been vacant for a long time.
There actually was (still is until this week) a very nice midcentury modern black glass office building which has been vacant for years. It’s amazing how little respect there is for mid-century architecture in this city. If it’s a victorian shack it can never be torn down.
Respect a building which among a block of other buildings did nothing for the valuable space it took up all these years? The problem with mid-Market has been less about the “undesirable” people, but the undesirable architecture! Those buildings were all very poorly designed, and helped contribute to the unfriendly conditions you see from 6th street down to Van Ness.
“There actually was (still is until this week) a very nice midcentury modern black glass office building which has been vacant for years. It’s amazing how little respect there is for mid-century architecture in this city. If it’s a victorian shack it can never be torn down.”
Have you seen that black building?
Is every 60’s piece of schlock now ‘midcentury’?
If so let’s landmark all of Geary Blvd.
Many interesting comments. Obversations – infill is the name of the game for mid-Market. On the public safety question, several thousand new voters in his district will surely gain Chris Daly’s ear, especially if they are not happy about crime. He can’t afford not to pay attention. I think the retail will be slow in coming, but if you build it, they will come. And they sure are building. This only adds to my optimism about mid-Market/Civic/Hayes Valley.
Damion,
Yes, I have seen the black glass building and I think it was more than 60’s shlock. It was in pretty wretched condition and I’m not saying it was a crime to tear it down. All I am saying is there is absolutely no respect for anything mid-century in this town.
I happen to find the tower rendering quite perdy. And, if the prices remain “in the $500,000 to $600,000 range and some under $400,000,” I might take two. Not where I’d necessarily live, but I see potentially great investments.
I’m looking forward to this project and will keep an eye on it.
Frankly, its pathetic this Heller Manus crap is what any San Franciscans find pretty, likable or even acceptable — this formulaic suburban office-park on steroids. Its third-rate Richard Meier at best (and Meier was never an innovator himself, merely inspired by LeCorbusier like countless others and a bit more competent than average).
Come on SF people (especially developers)! Go open a book on actual good contemporary multi-family architecture (as is rarely found in the US other than some recent stuff in LA/NY, but abounds elsewhere, particularly in Holland, as well as Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Japan among other places), and it will hopefully be plainly evident how lamely cliched, unimaginative and banal this design is. I’m sick of the argument that “at least its more new housing” for SF — why can’t new at least be good? or even dare to be innovative?
I am sorry to see any Crescent Heights development in San Francisco.
I purchased a Crescent Heights Condo in Chicago and the development company did nothing but leave the once stately high rise in shambles, selling off bit by bit by big, leaving a big 56 floor carcass. Because Crescent Heights in an LLC, those responsible for screwing over their buyers are never held responsible, only the name of the LLC, which can always file bankruptcy and be reformed.
San Francisco should never allow a company with such poor business ethic to build there.
The building they tore down — long empty — had the greatest graffiti portrait of Mao on a balcony facing Market.
I already miss ol’ Ze-Dong…
Housing..yes
Redevelopment and revitalization…yes
Shade and lack of solar access…yes (unless you live in the penthouse)
Wind…YES
I would love to see government workers buying there, but 400k-600k translates to only the best paid people, not the people that we hold up to exemplify diversity. I also find it interesting that the renderings show so much blue sky. If you ever walked down 10th towards Mission, this was extremely windy (much beyond the 11mph that planning code considers acceptable) and this area is shady/sunless and Fox Plaza already gobbles up blue sky. Nonetheless, this sort of development is what is needed on Market.
“You just gotta wonder what is gonna happen when everyone in Rincon Hill flushes their toilet…”
Have you ever tried standing on this corner when the wind is blowing? I’m a 190# guy and got blown right into traffic the other day by a gust of wind at the crosswalk. As it stands, this development will only cause the wind buffeting to be worse. This development is so wrong as envisioned! It needs to be smaller or its going to be a disaster.
The developer received several exceptions and variances for this project. There is expected to be a contingent of neighborhood residents at the Board’s meeting next week (8/29) to opppose this project as envisioned and appeal the exceptions and variances granted to the developer. The meeting is at 5PM Wednesday 8/29 in City Hall, 4th floor. In order to get the developer to revise the plan, we need 4 out of 5 commissioners to support the appeal, so please come!
Support the development, but just not as it is planned. It is dangerous for the pedestrians in the neighborhood.
Wind buffeting impacts are an integral part of the EIR.
Brutus, you are correct, a wind study is an integral part of the EIR. It is my understanding the original EIR was reviewed with a smaller tower as part of the development and the developer received a variance for tower height based on the original review.
I do not oppose the development itself, because this neighborhood needs a shot in the arm; however, a 35 story building is going to be higher than Fox Plaza and the impact on the pedestrians is going to be dangerous.
I would oppose this project just for being ugly. Is this project trying to be a retro 60’s Florida High Rise, or if one is critical of this bad architecture, should I then assume that I will be told that I am a “Victorian” lover? Why must the choices we are given in the city be so extreme? Super ugly super tall high rise condos of poor design, OR, keeping the old existing urban fabric without any changes? Both of these choices are not acceptable, and I wish some of the new urban in-fill projects could be of different massing and scale. One Rincon may have won the SFCurbed contest for the ugliest building in S.F., but I would give this sad project the ugly prize if it is built.
I too find the architecture unlovely but of far greater importance is creating homes for as many people as possible on this corner to take back Mid-Market from the homeless and the miscreant. As for the wind, proper design in an equally large nearby building could actually mitigate the surface wind effects of Fox Plaza although I have no idea if this was a major design goal of Heller Manus. I want this structure, Trinity Plaza and any other residential projects in this area built as soon as possible. I don’t want to wait any longer to see Mid-Market become what it could become.
This and Trinity Plaza on Market will really create some much needed residential density. Time to start cleaning up the Mid-Market area, and UN Plaza!