3400 Cesar Chavez Design
“The sales office [for 555 Bartlett Street (a.k.a. 3400 Cesar Chavez)] opens in the fall and…the units will target first-time home buyers. Prices will be in the $400,000s for one-bedroom units and mid $500,000s for the two bedrooms. A few larger units — there are a couple of three-bedrooms — may be priced over $600,000.”
Seven Hills targets first-time condo buyers [San Francisco Business Times]
3400 Cesar Chavez: Approved But Opposed (By MAC) In The Mission [SocketSite]

23 thoughts on “555 Barlett (A.K.A. 3400 Cesar Chavez) Positions For Sales”
  1. This is going to coincide with the Cesar Chavez greening initiative. I don’t see how both will not change the neighborhood for the better.

  2. It’s funny, when MAC and BHNC were opposing the development, their refrain was, “No million dollar condos in the Mission!” (Hyperbole even then, as the expected prices then were $500,000s to $700,000s).
    Well, there are no (or very few) million dollar condos in the Mission, so perhaps that is some consolation to MAC.
    Properly priced, these should sell. The immediate neighborhood will beautify with the changes to Cesar Chavez, and the Mission continues to be where it’s at for new restaurants in the City. Close to Noe and Bernal. It’s a great location for both BART and 280 commuters as well. The biggest downside is street noise–hopefully the units will be well insulated for sound, but in the warm Mission one needs to be able to open the windows.

  3. I’m not sure how much a new set of projects (er, I mean ‘market rate units’) is going to move the needle much. There are already a set of relatively new ‘market rate units’ directly kitty-corner to this development and another relatively new set just a bit further east. I wouldn’t say either of those created too much of an improvement…
    I think the greening initiative will be a positive.

  4. “There are already a set of relatively new ‘market rate units’ directly kitty-corner to this development and another relatively new set just a bit further east.”
    No, the units “directly kitty-corner” are an affordable housing complex run by BHNC, built about 10 years ago. The relatively new complex to the east is the rebuild of the Bernal Dwellings public housing project. There has not been any other large scale construction, and no large market rate projects, along Cesar Chavez in the 14 years I’ve lived nearby.

  5. First off, you’re comparing pure projects with market rate for profit, “Dave.” Secondly, I think the density this development will bring will eradicate the blight that is 26th and Bartlett drug dealing. You may or may not know about that particular problem, and your mileage may vary. I definitely am looking forward to the CC greening tho. Man does it need it.

  6. Oh, and the replacement of the Bernal Dwellings did improve that part of Cesar Chavez. On the block adjacent to the project, a trendy food fair is scheduled for next month, with several famous chefs participating:
    That never happened in the early ’90’s, when gun shots regularly rang out from the old projects.

  7. You guys seemed to miss Dave’s point. In his very first sentance he equates market rate housing with projects.
    Now why Dave believes anything built in the mission is automatically a ‘project’ regardless of if it is market rate or low income housing is a different matter. Perhaps Dave can explain why he believes that?

  8. Fair enough. I thought ‘market rate’ was code for ‘affordable housing’ which is of course code for ‘projects’… I stand corrected.
    The biggest challenge to this location is the highway that is Cesar Chavez. I like the idea of ‘greening’ and even shrinking the lanes down from six to four (even if it screws my passage from 101 to Noe).
    But I do fear it will end up like the ‘greening’ of Octavia. (Have you ever actually seen anyone sitting on one of those park benches while dozens of idle at the red lights? Never looks terribly inviting.)
    I love to jog from my place through Mission to Dogpatch and up to the ballpark on the weekends, so even a slight improvement along that route would be very welcome.

  9. That rendering sure does make walgreens look tasteful and understated. Do you think their window displays will feature something equally tasteful, or the usual bulk-stacks of depends adult diapers?

  10. It could be a display featuring a Santa Claus mannequin clad solely in Depends on a winter sleigh towed by singing hamsters. As long as those trees actually happen it is all good IMO.

  11. To those who think that this development will spruce up the neighborhood and end street drug deals, I point to the rampant dealing outside of the SFPD station in the Tenderloin. Not a few blocks away, but across the street from the station.
    SF drug dealers operate with impunity and no fear of prosecution. A bunch of condos are not going to change that fact.

  12. I wouldn’t equate the TL with 26th and Mission or 26th and Bartlett. They differ greatly in terms of real squalor. (If you want to that’s your prerogative). What this will do, IMO, is to make Bartlett street a whole lot more active. What’s happening currently is that they’re taking advantage of a little pocket of relative slow pace in an otherwise pretty dense and busy area. This development will probably eradicate that.

  13. anonn, I was just providing a data point; I’m not equating the two by any means.
    I’m saying that some new condos aren’t going to change the local drug dealers.

  14. Well, the Bartlett street frontage might just make it uncomfortable for them. I don’t know. Let’s watch and see. Regardless, bring on those trees please.

  15. Also, new owners of $500k+ condos tend to call the cops alot when seedy folks hang around. The day laborers are diffetent, but I think there are less of the there now that Kelley Moore paint store is gone. And the Walgreens will bring in lotsa foot traffic. This development will definitely improve the area.

  16. No single building is going to magically transfor a neighborhood, but this is definitely a step in the right direction.
    The bigger issue for this area is the new St. Luke’s hospital design. The current plans are very neighborhood unfriendly. St. Luke’s has to be completely rebuilt for seismic safety; it would be nice to start from a blank slate and rebuild something that worked with the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the nurse’s union is insisting that the existing tower remain in operation while a new building is built. That creates design constraints that makes it impossible to build a truly neighborhood friendly building.

  17. There is plenty of room to the west of the current tower to build the new, smaller St. Lukes, which will only have about 1/3 the beds of the old tower.
    The nurses’ union opposes demolishing the old hospital before the new one is built because that would make it easier for CPMC to decide not to rebuild an acute hospital at all. CPMC would prefer to centralized all beds at its new Van Ness facility, but agreed to rebuild a smaller new hospital responding to city and community pressure.

  18. 555 Bartlett is a huge victory for this neighborhood.
    Regarding St. Luke’s, while there is a space to the west of the current tower, it is not appropriate for a medical facility without a lot more planning that rights the wrongs of the roadway widenings/freeway plans and housing demolitions of previous decades. The strip of residences left on the city block between Guerrero/27th/Chavez/San Jose Avenue have no back yards, and carry ~35K vehicles per day. The “plenty of room to the west of the current tower” was created in the 1970s by demolishing the 2-4 unit Victorians and evicting the residents that were there. Poor planning/design of St. Luke’s will determine who lives on these blocks for the next 50-100 years. More importantly, the vacant lot that will be left indefinitly once the existing tower comes down cries out for what we really need at St. Luke’s – a medical office building with active ground floors/wellness center/urgent care, so that Noe/Bernal/Mission/Glen Park don’t have to drive across town for the preventive care that keeps us well and out of hospitals in the first place. The rebuilt St. Luke’s will either become a unifier or continue to be a divider (of neighborhoods, and of people).
    Happy to give anyone a walking tour of what happened here.

  19. Wow, a bunch of crappy houses were knocked down 30 years ago and you want the hospital to “right the wrongs” that were done??
    You’re insane.
    And no one is interested in a walking tour of an empty lot.

  20. The greening of the Guerrero median strip is great, but it seems to me that the opposition to the plan to build the new St. Luke’s just to the east of the current hospital is NIMBYism– Guerrero St. neighbors not wanting the hospital any closer to their homes.
    It makes more sense to build the new hospital where CPMC proposes it, but to make the new building (and whatever is build on the site of the old hospital) as pedestrian and neighborhood friendly as possible. Shutting down the hospital and the ER would be a mistake.
    The site of the old hospital is the perfect place to then build a new medical office building, next door to the new hospital.

Leave a Reply

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