10th and Mission: Mercy Family Housing (www.SocketSite.com)
Having broken ground in August of 2007 and rising, the soon to be 12-story building on the northeast corner of 10th and Mission should be completed by August of 2009.
10th%20and%20Mission%20-%20Mercy%20Rendering.jpg
A Mercy Housing project, the development will provide 136 affordable apartments for families with household incomes ranging from 15% to 45% of the area’s median (44 targeted for occupancy by chronically homeless families), a 5,400 square foot youth and family center, and 3,000 square feet of ground-floor neighborhood retail space.
UPDATE: The corner before as noted by a plugged-in reader and captured by MapJack:
10th and Mission: Before (Image Source: MapJack.com)

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by sf

    Mercy Housing is a great developer for families and lower income people. They did a great job with Carter Terrace and this place looks very ‘cute.’ I think it will look great in the neighborhood.

  2. Posted by greater fool

    The facade looks like the Microsoft Windows logo.

  3. Posted by Mercy that area is getting packed with low income housing!

    This is just like the Filmore — spot zone an area for packed tight low income housing and watch the neighborhood deteriorate for the rest of time. It’s depressing. That whole quadrant of the city from 6th to 12th, Mission to Harrison, is becoming the next low income housing zone.

  4. Posted by Anon

    The rendering on Curbed looks a lot more appealing, albeit blurrier. Link below.

  5. Posted by lolcat_94123

    phrase of the day: chronically homeless.

  6. Posted by JKD

    Give me a break, 11:53. There will be thousands of units of market rate luxury and workforce housing built in that neighborhood. Adding some affordable projects to the mix is not going to hurt anyone.

  7. Posted by Howard Roark

    WOW!……is it possible that this project can get any worse?….Was KMD trying for the Ugly Betty award? I don’t know who to sympathsize with more: the people that will live here, or the the design team who had to draw this thing up under the design leader’s tutelage. I’ll have to remind myself to never be in that area on a full stomach in fear of being sick.
    Good job KMD…..ranks ups there with the worst of the city-right behind the Intercontinental Hotel by Patri Merky.

  8. Posted by Zig

    Howard really? this looks like a Google Sketch-up cheap-o rendering but to my eye this looks pretty much like 90% of other projects around SF
    At least there appears to be a color other than beige

  9. Posted by anonymous

    @Howard Roark (love the literary reference)
    Please let us know of the architectural masterpieces that you have designed? It would be interesting to see if you were speaking from your experience or your ass.

  10. Posted by ex SF-er

    I’m sure this will be considered un-PC…
    but why are we building housing for sale for families making 15% of the median household income?
    I would think this is not quite the right demographic who is “homeowner ready”. how much is that per year anyway? I get $65497 x 0.15 = $9,824/year.
    flame away.

  11. Posted by ex SF-er

    I will correct myself.
    I know little about this organization.
    The minute research I’ve done would indicate that Mercy is a nonprofit organization, using their own money (donated from the private sector)
    If that is the case then they can do whatever they want with their money, including building homes for sale for people who make $1/year if they so choose.

  12. Posted by SocketSite

    but why are we building housing for sale for families making 15% of the median household income?
    We’ll clarify above, but these are apartments not condos.
    The minute research I’ve done would indicate that Mercy is a nonprofit organization, using their own money (donated from the private sector)
    That they are (and a great organization). A few Mercy facts.

  13. Posted by BRCGranny

    “but why are we building housing for sale for families making 15% of the median household income?”
    Because all those horrible domestic types (janitors, maids, etc) need places to live.

  14. Posted by CameronRex

    I don’t see anything wrong with this design. It has clean but varied lines and the colors will brighten an overcast San Francisco summer day. It is also a good and needed use and certainly does not detract from market rate structures in the area such as the SOMA Grand. I notice Fox Plaza is not included in the rendering….if only it was that easy.

  15. Posted by ex SF-er

    Because all those horrible domestic types (janitors, maids, etc) need places to live
    I thought these were for sale, not apartments. clearly we need more apartments.

  16. Posted by Live Smart

    Good to see more development of rentals in these parts. Hopefully its residents can walk to work thereby bringing more neighborhood businesses and a sense of community.

  17. Posted by leisuresuit

    It would have looked better without that gimmicky facade.

  18. Posted by invented

    It’s a little innocent happytouch of Disneyland for people who look glum having traversed the endless length of uninspiring Van Ness & need a visual pick-me-up before continuing on down Mission or 10th street. It’s instant happiness.
    That the entrance is angled to embrace a desolate intersection is um, a little weird, but we have the happiness of the building to offset that odd reality.

  19. Posted by mow

    It looks a lot better than the Diner that was there.

  20. Posted by Morgan

    Perhaps we could move the Venice-L.A. Ballerina Man moving statue from Southern California to this location and put it up in front of angled entrance? (In the spirit of Invented’s post)
    http://www.joelfletcher.com/roadside-oddities_files/page34-1009-full.html

  21. Posted by Mark

    Over under on how many years until it is razed? 20?

  22. Posted by Jay

    Why was this not mixed income?
    In parts of the city we are tearing down projects to build mixed income projects and in other parts we go ahead an build purely low income projects.

  23. Posted by anon optimist

    god, what a huge improvement. we need more of this.
    http://www.mapjack.com/?zY6mWvm6bF9F

  24. Posted by natomahead

    seriously, this area does not need more low-income housing. this is a huge project, of which we are only seeing 1/2. The other 1/2 of this project runs along that back alley and unto half the block on 9th st. All of it low-income. Down the street on folsom & 10th is another low-income (work force) housing for formerly/chronic homeless men. A few years ago 3-4 buildings were put up on minna/natoma/8th st area. There’s a proposed site on 7th, between howard & folsom for low-income housing/services. This area is poised to become the new tenderloin. Thanks Daly.

  25. Posted by zzzzzzz

    I agree with the comments about the folly of concentrating low-income housing in any single neighborhood. Have we learned nothing from decades of miserable experience? Just because we’ve linguistically upgraded “the projects” to “affordable housing,” we have no reason to expect any different outcome from concentrating poverty in a small area. Even if Mercy Housing has a good track record of managing its developments, the cumulative effect of having so many low-income developments in western SOMA will be something to regret.

  26. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    They got rid of the King Diner with the permanently stuck in the 80’s juke box? The food there was nasty, but I used to go in just to get a blast from the past from the music. All the greatest hits from my days in high school were on that thing and it never got updated.
    I am curious for those who don’t like it here, where would you have non-profits like Mercy build low income housing? I agree that it is not such a good idea to concentrate all the low income in one area, but they sure aren’t putting something like this in The Marina. Maybe they just accept that they can’t get that many units and put in smaller housing units spread out throughout The City, but they are going to get much less bang for their buck that way.

  27. Posted by dissent

    Duh. This project is not for welfare people, but for the working poor. Give those people a safe, clean, secure environment in which to raise their kids, and all you realtor types get into a lather. This is a shameful thread. You guys really out to get out of your bubble a little bit. There are other projects built on this premise, NOT housing projects, hello is anyone home? How often does that need to be said? There are other developments build in San Francisco along these lines that are stable well functioning communities. If you weren’t anti-social retards, you would know this. Gawd you embarrass me.

  28. Posted by sf

    But dissent.. they cringe at the sight of homeless and needles on the ground. They are all boxed and bordered up on the Broadway Octavia Lyon corridors. They call anybody names who appreciates something that does not cost $100,000,000 as “scummy” and our neighborhoods as “toilets” and “sewers.” I’d rather live around bums than these types anyday, at least bums have more class and know when to keep quiet.

  29. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Everyone cringes at the sight of needles on the ground. Don’t you?

  30. Posted by sf

    I find it disgusting but I don’t cringe. Cringing is for stuff you would find in Bagdhad or Sudan.

  31. Posted by asiagoSF

    >I find it [the sight of needles on the ground] disgusting but I don’t cringe
    sf, you obviously don’t have kids

  32. Posted by natomahead

    dissent,
    please. no one, well, atleast not I, is against low income housing. i’m against grouping all low income housing in one area. that is an irresponsible way of doing it. it breeds contempt, crime, and despair. Yes, I would build this in the Marina, why not? Why not in pac heights? If instead of building 10 low income buildings in a 4 block radius in w.soma, why not build 1 building in every district? I guarantee you that if the city had been doing that, we wouldn’t see the crime that we do in potrero hill, b.view, w.addition, etc AND we would give “those people a safe, clean, secure environment in which to raise their kids”.

  33. Posted by fluj

    @ dissent,
    “safe, clean, secure environment in which to raise their kids, and all you realtor types get into a lather.”
    Realtor types? Ha! This site? Double ha!
    But “a safe, clean, secure environment”? When you put all the new projects and BMI developments in the same area is it that? Maybe the building itself. You know the 10th and Folsom development is going to be all formerly homeless right? This is one block away.
    I’m a realtor saying this one should have gone up in Noe Valley instead.

  34. Posted by Brutus

    I don’t think anyone here would argue that it wouldn’t be better for there to be many different lower income housing options built all over the city, but I bet that most of you who currently live in Pac Heights or the Marina or Noe Valley would fight tooth and nail to keep out anything that tried. I’m sure that Mercy wouldn’t mind building this in the Marina, but there is absolutely zero chance that it would happen. Absolutely zero.

  35. Posted by view lover

    I guess there is not much of a neighborhood in this area to have a proper NIMBY’s brigade to get up in arms so it’s an easy target for building low cost housing without as much hassle.
    I doubt these could really be built in nicer neighborhoods even though it would be a better idea.
    It was an easy fight.

  36. Posted by Eric in SF

    Two Words: Transit Access
    Some but not all of the other neighborhoods mentioned are not very friendly to the car-free.
    I’m with everyone else hoping that such a concentration of the working poor (of which I am just a step above, I’m not kidding myself) doesn’t turn into a ghetto but realistically how are the working poor living in the Marina realistically expected to get to work? Most do not have cars and those that do spend an unhealthy percentage of their income on operating and maintaining it. At least in the SOMA area the transit options, both internal to SF and external to the region, are numerous. For those relocating from less transit-rich areas they can get rid of their car, freeing that money for other things.
    And everyone should remember that there are WAAAY more units of market rate going in than below market rate. Trinity Plaza, Argenta, 10th/Market, possible 100+ units added to Fox Plaza, 9th btwn Mission and Market are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

  37. Posted by Brutus

    ^^^Some good points, Eric, but I’m not sure that your theory about the working poor not having a car is that true. The Bayview has one of the highest auto-ownership rates in the City, despite being one of the poorest neighborhoods.

  38. Posted by Eric in SF

    Brutus, I wasn’t as clear as I should have been. I knew that the working poor has higher than average car ownership rates. But planners don’t like that, and I agree, therefore new housing for the working poor is situated in areas that would enable those wanting to get rid of their car to do so.
    SOMA also has a higher percentage of services within walking distance that a lot of neighborhoods. It’s also an easy place to live for the differently-abled and elderly, due to the flat terrain.
    That being said, I suspect the concentration of housing for the working poor here has as much to do with the lack of NIMBYs as it does an active effort on the planner’s part to put the housing in “more appropriate” areas.

  39. Posted by Brutus

    Eric,
    That makes sense, and I really didn’t read your first post closely enough, as you were pretty clear.
    I agree though – this concentration has got to be almost entirely NIMBY related.

  40. Posted by sf

    I don’t understand the complaints, this is the only low income development that I know about at this intersection. And I got to say, people who work and live in these properties are actually really interesting, pleasant people, and since I work with clients all over the city, from very rich to very poor, I find that working with these types is a bright spot in my day and they will go out of their way to welcome you. Can you imagine if this whole city were populated with Marina and Pac Heights types? SF would lose its charm faster than you can say entitled trust fund.

  41. Posted by renzomatic

    Damn, I liked that burger joint!

  42. Posted by sf

    King Diner? Are you serious? Last time I went there I ordered cheese fries or something and they cooked it by just putting it in the microwave (right in front of me too) This was quite a few years ago too.

  43. Posted by viewlover

    to melt the cheese product 🙂

  44. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    I’m a realtor saying this one should have gone up in Noe Valley instead.
    Do you really believe that a 12 story, full-block building would be appropriate for Noe? Maybe it should go in Bernal, say at the corner of Precita and Elsie…
    I remember when the blue Church on Church started talking about building a shelter for unmarried homeless women with children on their site. They never did get funding, so I think the whole discussion was moot, but I remember hearing my neighbors complain about the plan. I personally believe that a small scale building like that would be appropriate, but not this hulking beast. I doubt even that would make it past neighborhood opposition though.
    I am sure there is a worthwhile discussion in there somewhere about the appropriateness of shoving all the social services into a few neighborhoods but you can argue that a neighborhood with lots of schools and kids provides a different kind of social benefit. A city can’t be just drop-in shelters and million dollar luxury condos, there needs to be space for families, too.

  45. Posted by fluj

    I said that for the sake of discussion. Are there tall buildings in Noe? No. There are tall apartment buildings in Pacific Heights tho. Why not there? Though I question the logic of placing this a block away from an efficiency studio building for recovering addicts and formerly homeless, I would rather see this built than not built.

  46. Posted by Tiffany

    Oh that sucks. That diner was the perfect place to get greasy food at 3AM. Absolutely loved their chili cheese dogs and milkshakes.

  47. Posted by Marlon Woodward

    After reading all the complaints about the look of the building, and all the compliments of the greasy slop that used to be served on this corner, I’m certainly happy that ANY HOUSING for the working poor is being built in SF. Who will sling the mops and burgers for the Pacific Heights types without housing for them? Personally, I see about a 100,ooo one and two story buildings taking up space that could be repurposed to high density housing. FACE IT! We cannot grow anywhere but UP!! I don’t see anyone complaining about the 70 story Billion dollar condo tower smack dab up against the Bay Bridge. Why not build ten or twelve of those for low income folks? There’s plenty of one story buildings that could be bulldozed to make way for them, particularly in the SOMA area. But, that might create another ‘ghetto’ as some have observed. Yes, why not spread them around town and bring up the quality of life for everyone? Yes, even in Pacific Heights! The population is only going to grow, and we ran out of space long ago.

  48. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    The population is only going to grow
    I question the assumption that this is necessary, or even desirable. There are already too many people on the planet as it is.

  49. Posted by jessep

    That’s not a controversial statement at all, NVJ 😉
    I actually favor more people in the city, I think it would bolster support for more expansive transit projects.

  50. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    I favor slow to moderate growth in The City proper, for the main reason is that I think it is better for society as a whole to have more people living in cramped urban apartments than driving in from Tracy. And I realize that is the trade-off.
    But in general, California and the Bay Area is growing too fast, that is the root of most of our troubles. Really great cities, like Rome, Paris, Prague, Amsterdam, all were built over many centuries. Our population growth has outstripped our ability to build enough infrastructure to support it.
    Maybe someone can point me to a good example of a fast growing city, like Hong Kong, that counters that thesis, but I have never seen one. Most fast growing urban areas are a disaster.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles