As a plugged-in tipster notes, it’s not just the corner of Polk that’s being developed up on Pacific. Next up, a sketch of the 50 condos that will replace the Willy’s auto repair shop half a block away at 1645 Pacific (design by BAR Architects):
San Francisco real estate tips, trends and the local scoop: "Plug In" to SocketSite™
As a plugged-in tipster notes, it’s not just the corner of Polk that’s being developed up on Pacific. Next up, a sketch of the 50 condos that will replace the Willy’s auto repair shop half a block away at 1645 Pacific (design by BAR Architects):
This is a great neighborhood they are building in. Always the question is “how much?”. If it is $500/sq ft & 1% HOA per year, then it is a reasonable deal. If it is $1000/sq ft & 1% HOA per year, it is a raw deal. Anything in between will be still too expensive for the average white collar working class.
I looked at a 2-bd condo on the 4th floor of 1650 Jackson, which has a decent view of the bay and GGB that will likely be blocked by this new building on Pacific. I’m curious whether an anticipated view-blocker is something that would have to be disclosed by the seller before closing or if instead the law of caveat emptor applies. The realtor didn’t mention the plans for construction on Pacific, but I didn’t really ask many questions so I certainly don’t feel like I was deceived. And I sort of suspected that something was brewing because the condo on Jackson seemed decently priced (considering the view) and Willy’s auto repair was clearly not the best and highest use of the lot on Pacific.
Found some more pics (all the floor plans)
http://picasaweb.google.com/1645Pacific/1645PacificPlans
anonlooker, I have looked at that unit too. What I know is that the 1650 Jackson residents are trying to get the city to reduce the building height of 1645 Pacific. I have no idea what the status of that effort is, but whatever the outcome the agent acknowledged that that 4th floor unit would get its view blocked. Not disclosing that to a potential buyer would be a big legal mistake,imo. I don’t think that unit was particularly cheap. They were originally asking over 10% more than when they bought a year earlier, knowing full well their view would go. It now seems to have been withdrawn from sale.
Any idea on when these projects are going to be under way – 1946 Polk and 1645 Pacific?
It’s really disappointing to see two projects, in such a great neighborhood, so thoroughly mediocre in design. The sketchy views of both projects suggest a noncommittal attitude regarding character – we can all imagine the plaster-coated styrofoam that will render these buildings (much like their lemon-colored brethren) on the southwest corner of the street.
The Russian/Nob Hill community in this area is devoid of contributing new architecture – scarred, really, by almost everything multi-family constructed post 1980. And to think what the $/SF ROI could/should have inspired…
[Removed at request of Commenter]
The pacific avenue neighborhood association’s mantra should be “Limiting the heights of buildings to keep out future residents”
NIMBY powers unite! Together we can stop anything!
critique-du-SF, how about you put your money where your mouth is? Start your own development firm and build us all of these great, architectually kick-ass places you demand we build.
Otherwise, stop the drivel. Almost anything is an iterative improvement over the auto shop (this lot) or the j-random retail (the lot on the corner).
I used to live on the 7th floor before I sold in 2004. When I bought it in 2003, my agent inquired about that mechanic shop since I was worried about this exact problem. She said that the owner owned that mechanic shop for years and had no intention of selling. I’m so glad that I got out since I’d be staring at their roof instead of the Bay.
The whole appeal of that building is the view. If they lose their views, the units will lose a lot of value.
I too looked at units in 1650 Jackson — way back in 1992 when the building was first constructed and. Like many, I was impressed by the North Bay views.
I asked the selling agent about the potential for a building to be constructed in place of Willy’s and she laughed at the possibility but conceded that it was zoned for midrise development. When I pressed her to understand what would happen if that unthinkable event came to pass, she told me that the HOA of 1650 Jackson would “vigorously” oppose such development.
It’s interesting to see exactly that scenario playing out 15 years later. If the lot is zoned for development (and has been since at least 1992), I can’t imagine that the HOA’s protests will be very effective, but I suppose one never knows in matters like these.
‘The pacific avenue neighborhood association’s mantra should be “Limiting the heights of buildings to keep out future residents”‘
There certainly seems to be an element of that given that the residents of a nine storey building (1650 Jackson) are trying to get the height of a proposed six storey development reduced!
I too looked at units in 1650 Jackson — way back in 1992 when the building was first constructed and. Like many, I was impressed by the North Bay views.
I asked the selling agent about the potential for a building to be constructed in place of Willy’s and she laughed at the possibility but conceded that it was zoned for midrise development. When I pressed her to understand what would happen if that unthinkable event came to pass, she told me that the HOA of 1650 Jackson would “vigorously” oppose such development.
It’s interesting to see exactly that scenario playing out 15 years later. If the lot is zoned for development (and has been since at least 1992), I can’t imagine that the HOA’s protests will be very effective, but I suppose one never knows in matters like these.
1650 Jackson is a fabulous building. It is unfortunate there are plans to build a building behind it at 1645 Pacific. The current plans for the Pacific Avenue building call for a height that blocks the views of all units up to the 7th floor. Naturally, Owners @1650 are concerned and are trying to stop the complex from being built or in the least to have it more compatable in height to the two buildings on the East side of 1645 Pacific as well as in a style more compatible with the wonderful, eclectic neighborhood.
Concerned citizens are encouraged to attend the meetings of the Middle Polk Neighborhood Association. MPNA and PANA (Polk Avenue Neighborhood Association) are concerned about 1645 Pacific as well. They are also concerned about the complex being built at the southwest corner of Polk & Pacific as well as other buildings in the area. MPNA has meetings every third Monday at 7 p.m. at It’s A Grind coffeehouse on Polk & Washington Streets. MPNA meetings also address a variety of other issues and concerns.
Lastly, to answer the questions about the agents disclosing the construction. This must be disclosed by the Seller and the Agent in all the paperwork like the Transfer Disclosure Statement and the Supplemental Transfer Disclosure Statement. It is not required to be in the promotional materials passed out at open houses. That being said, the agent should disclose the details if asked.
Given that 1650 Jackson itself is not compatible heightwise with the building to the east of it (and is itself three storeys taller than the proposed development), I am not sure how this argument will fly. It really does sound as though the residents of that building are more interested in preserving their views (and hence real estate values) than in the compatibility of 1645 Pacific with the rest of the neighborhood.
Lets see, we have the owners of 1650 Jackson – a 9 story building that is itself “out of character” with the surrounding residential buildings in the area lobbying to prevent the construction of 1645 pacific – a building 3 storys smaller….
What is it called when the wants of the few trump the needs of many?
Isnt it unfortunate that there werent the same NIMBYS living in the neighborhood when 1650 Jackson was built ..