1960-1998 Market Design: South Elevation
Our discussion around the shuttered 76 Station at Market and Buchanan quickly turns to the Arquitectonica design and details. And a plugged-in tipster delivers on both. From the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (1960-1998 Market):

The proposed project would involve the replacement of all existing uses on the site with a nine-story, 85-foot-tall mixed-use building totaling approximately 146,800 gross square feet in area, including ground floor parking.

1960-1998 Market Design: Site Plan

The proposed building would include approximately 108 condominium units, 86 off-street parking spaces located on the ground floor and in two below-grade garage levels, and three ground-floor commercial spaces totaling 8,150 square feet. Off-street parking would be accessed from Buchanan Street.

A tip of the hat to our tipsters. And as always, we’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
Movement On Up To 115 Housing Units At Market And Buchanan? [SocketSite]
1960-1998 Market Street: Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration [SFGov]

33 thoughts on “The Designs And Details For 1960-1998 Market (At Buchanan)”
  1. Yuck. It looks like a design circa 1960-1998.
    We don’t need anymore low-rise units with funky facades and low-floor retail. Living above a Safeway isn’t my definition of luxury.

  2. I wish it had one of those Arquitectonica trade mark cut-outs like the one at the Atlantis, Miami, or the one on Morphosis Federal Building, to help break the mass down and add interest.

  3. I guess living above a Safeway (or a block away, actually) isn’t luxurious, but living above a freeway is.

  4. Flaneur’s suggestion would make this much better — although I think it is not bad as it is. Sure as heck beats an ugly gas station. That is a popular biking corridor, and the bicyclists are going to be pissed at the huge increase in traffic turning right off of Market Street (and right into them).

  5. Now just replace 75% of the glass with stucco panels and other cheap substitutes and that’s what it will actually end up looking like…

  6. Yay! Another glass sided slab box with lollipop trees! But check out teh funkeh wit da mismatched slab ends!
    Lest I be accused of purely destructive criticism, they could have played off the mild sidewalk slope and had the horizontal lines defined by the glass panels set at similar and opposing slopes. Or they could have had the lines evoke an ocean beach wave set.
    Or hell, just stick some gargoyles on the corners–anything to give the building a bit of soul or whimsy, something beyond lowest cost quonset hut.

  7. so… dead space at street level? and it’s going wrap around and over The Mint? just a personal opinion, but it’s a shame that any lot becomes a single building the size of that lot… this could be two or three more interesting-looking buildings rather than monoblock.

  8. San Francisco is the 7th layer of hell for both Architects, and people who actually want to live in a real city…. you know with ACTUAL change.

  9. Huh? Underwhelming. Puts me to sleep.
    Here’s the problem. It’s a really really interesting flatiron corner, the slope of Buchanan is pure San Francisco and a wonderful challenge; the Mint Hill and structure – quirky and amazing; the rail barn/bikeway is a great urban tangle.
    This? Complete turns its back on the facts. Looks like flat Sacto, thoroughly disregards the complex setting and will be a loss for rising Market St.
    Add a corner tower stepped back or cantlevered over, live it up, add color or create a beacon, respect your place, – this an important /complex intersection. But this? Wholly safe uninteresting & mechanical. Snore.

  10. It’s funny that y’all are talking about what it would be like to live above, or a block from, a Safeway. As someone who has spent both quality and quantity time at the Mint, it’s hard to imagine this working out. Of COURSE Mint patrons are going to be loud and “problematic” at late hours — it’s part of their business model, as a karaoke bar. Not a problem when you’re next to a gas station, but a big problem when you have fancy neighbors living above you. This points out an important gap in SF’s development model. Why don’t we build nice condos on top of 1015 or Zeitgeist? Lots of vertical space going to waste there…

  11. This is the first I’ve heard of this project wrapping over The Mint. The developer bought the air rights above the Mint’s building, but I believe the intent was just to keep that space open for air/light, etc.
    I think the drawings are being misinterpreted.
    [Editor’s Note: Yes and no.

    The existing structure on Lot 004 immediately to the east of the project site is a 2,364‐square‐foot, one‐story commercial building constructed in approximately 1936. It is currently occupied by a restaurant and bar. The project sponsor has acquired the air space above Lot 004 extending from about one foot above the existing structure at the property line and upwards over the entire lot.

    As is shown on the project drawings, the proposed mixed‐use building on the project site would extend approximately eight feet over the adjacent property along the east side from the second floor to the top of the eighth floor for the depth of the lot (100 feet along the eastern property line).

    Note the red lot line on the Site Plan above (second image). The perspective of the main rendering above along with the angled lots on Market do, however, distort the magnitude of said overhang.]

  12. As a neighbor of this building, I am very excited to see development on top of an underutilized space in a vibrant transit and mixed-use corridor. Unlike most new developments, this one comes with a top-notch architect and adheres to neighborhood urban design plans that have been developed over the past ten years (Market and Octavia, and Upper Market). Given the current economic situation, we are fortunate that at least a few of the empty lots on our city’s main street will be developed into places where people can live, work and shop. Good luck, developers.

  13. I agree with invented’s comments: “It’s a really really interesting flatiron corner, the slope of Buchanan is pure San Francisco and a wonderful challenge… [t]his….[l]ooks like flat Sacto, thoroughly disregards the complex setting and will be a loss for rising Market St.”
    I love the density of Erupean cities and am happy to see the holes plugged along Market. And so I love the new Trinity development and replacement of Moonblight restaurant (whenever that happens). Market St. iss a straight shot to downtown by car (and MUNI) and so while I’d like the holes plugged up and higher buildings built I would also like to see the Market St corridor developed in such a way that is uniquely San Franciscan. This proposed building just looks like another glass building that does not accentuate anything about San Francisco or use the setting to it’s benefit (or the benefit of passers-by).
    It’s certainly a few steps up from the eyesore that’s there now, but I would rather not have Market St. (west of Van Ness) filled in by the same impersonal glass buildings one can find in Sacto or elsewhere.
    Let’s have a little more character and warmth with a nod to our beauty and history.

  14. The building the developer bought the air rights from is 1946 Market Street, which houses Sushi Delight. The Mint is at 1942 Market Street.

  15. Here is Google Street View:
    The 2 storefronts of Sushi Delight and the Mint are actually part of the same building, but the Sushi Delight storefront would be the one below the airspace of the new building.

  16. i think this is awesome.!! finally something different
    Uh, no. This is just another blah glass squared off building. The bar coding helps a little, but seems like an afterthought. Some random office parks for comparison…

  17. I dream of a day in this small town where Architects dont have to suffer the burden of a thousand small minds trying to out San Francisco one another. I dont love this design, but I love that it doesnt look like anything else in this 2 trick pony town.
    Its almost as if people think one single building is going to cause the hills to go flat, the ocean to disappear, the sky to be less blue, the people to move away. I dont know about you all, but SF isnt about buildings – and one building that dares to defy the local yokels expectations isnt going to ruin the whole thing for me

  18. Architects, builders and others need to start having thicker skins in this town. Doesn’t anyone know the traditional learning process in Archtitectural Schools? You post your drawings, sometimes weekly, and then your classmates, professor, and visiting guests tear your project apart. Seldom are comments positive, but THE POINT is that your design becomes part of the public landscape. You need to accept that the design does not exist without a larger context, and as the first architect I worked for used to say when hearing negative comments, “You are welcome to your opinion”.
    Instead of telling people they are small minded, backwards, anti-growth or anti modern, why don’t those who like this design and others, engage in the real battle of showing the benefits of this particular design vs. other solutions. If we stop looking at buildings as temporary ojects on the landscape, perhaps we can start building structures that generations in the future would be still willing to embrace. The ultimate “green” building is a structure that you do not desire to tear down in the future.

  19. But shouldn’t a building look like what it is? This building looks entirely commercial to me – like an office building. Shouldn’t a residential building “look” residential?

  20. That is only a massing model elevation of the site. The actual renderings will show the building in greater detail. I’m very excited about both the design and the fact that a significant architectural statement will be made at theis major corner on Market Street.

  21. The design is meh. I think this corner should be edgier perhaps with a slender flatiron tower with a mid-rise podium.

  22. The elevation shown is obviously only a massing model of the building that does not show any of the actual architectural detailing. I am very excited for a significant architectural statement on theis corner as opposed to the cookie cutter buildings we normally get.

  23. I find the armchair architectural musings on here to be incredibly amusing:
    “shouldnt it look like (what I expect) a residential building”
    “should it fit into the context of the neighborhood better”
    If San Francisco 100 years ago was as narrow minded as it is today – then we would REALLY be in trouble.

  24. Jim/bill:
    How does one add detail to sheer glass panels? I suggested going in different direction from the rectilinear deadness of the current design, but I’m pretty sure if they were doing anything else the “massing model” would show that.

Leave a Reply

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