Take It Off! 555 Bartlett (Née 3400 Cesar Chavez) TeasesDecember 9, 2009
While the announced fall 2009 opening for the sales office of 555 Bartlett (née 3400 Cesar Chavez) never materialized (we’re expecting early 2010), the first bits of scaffolding surrounding the sixty-unit development have started to come down.
Precita Eyes has been commissioned to adorn the Caesar Chavez façade with a mural. And as of July, prices were expected to be in the $400,000’s for the 30 one-bedrooms, from the mid $500,000’s for the 27 twos, and $600,000+ for the 3 threes.
∙ 3400 Cesar Chavez: Approved But Opposed (By MAC) In The Mission [SocketSite]
∙ 555 Barlett (A.K.A. 3400 Cesar Chavez) Positions For Sales [SocketSite]
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
In form, that will be a nice solid presence at the previously blah intersection. I’m sure the materials are not what we would wish (more stucco..) but that cornice seems like a nice strong statement in the pic. Looking forward to the mural.
Looks pretty good so far from the pic. Will have to walk by and take a look, now that the building is being unveiled.
By the way, it was ridiculous (even back then) when opponents called these “million-dollar luxury condos.”
Its very cool that the developers have commissioned Precita Eyes to create a new mural.
I think it’s out of necessity since any large wall gets tagged up in The Mission
Actually, the are commissioning the Precita Eyes mural because they promised to do so when getting approval to build. The developer did a lot of work to reach out to neighbors, including promising landscaping Cesar Chavez and the mural.
In conjunction with the Cesar Chavez greening, which I think is supposed to happen in ’10, this is a welcome addition to the neighborhood.
Affordable for a average family maybe
Nice to see someone building stuff like this
Ooo, a curve, a mural, *and* separating breaks in the bulk of the building? My cup runneth over.
Great location for both both city and south bay access, and a very short walk to lots of mission goodness. babybluesbbq a half-block away…
Looks great in-person. Can’t wait for the upcoming bike lanes and greenery on Chavez. Just might save this little patch of neighborhood…
I have high hopes that this substancial new project, the new streetscape as well as the cesear Chavez greening will pick up this pocket of the hood. No reason the CC divide should be so baren and laden with urban blight and filth.
Another great step for the mission (take that, idiot ‘housing progressives’, MAC, dilly-Daley, etc.)
Apparently, the schedule for “greening” of Cesar Chavez is roughly:
1. Tear up the old water pipes and replace, repave
2. Narrow 3 lanes to 2, create bike lanes, new plantings
3. Rebuild/Reconfigure “the hairball” on-offramps to 101 and Bayshore blvd.
It’s going to be a few years of inconvenience, I’d wager, but the other side will be a major improvement.
I think it’s great that Precita Eyes was commissioned for this, but I do hope they make a good mural. There are so many hideous murals in the Mission.
Well hey now, no trailed-park-meets-lego-land boxy junk here.
Does anyone else just sort of get a warm breath panting in their hearts to know that every time the lunatics from MAC, Meda and all the other over-the-top predatory non-profit mafia cabals in the Mission have to go over and plot revolution with their brethren at the Sub HQ across the street, they have to pass this building they tried to doom through their usual dullard tactics?
Me? Oh I just live here.
Seems as if the developers have tried to do some good stuff here. But I don’t know why the effort to get this site for needed affordable housing needs to be vilified by some of the commentors. The choice wasn’t between this housing and keeping the vacant lot, but rather between this for-sale housing for mostly middle/upper middle class folks and something like the 100% affordable Bernal Gateway on the diagonal corner of Mission/Chavez.
Keeping/creating a decent place for low-income folks in an ever more expensive city is what those “predatory non-profit mafia cabals” and “housing progressives” are pushing for, not for “blight”. You can disagree with that concept, but that’s what the fight over this site was about, not about preventing this “pretty building” from replacing the vacant Kelly Moore lot.
From the picture, I like this building’s look better than Bernal Gateway, but I like Bernal Gateway’s social purpose more. Credit to the developers for the community pieces and pleasing design elements, at least.
As I recall the MAC crowd had no real or reasonable plan to secure this property from the owner.
To many this obstruction would equal blight as nothing would get built
A good addition to the neighborhood– much better than more institutionalized poverty in this corridor. Some of us want our area to improve (become safer and more beautiful) rather than stay poor.
Yentu- yes, of course. In the case of the armory MAC was very helpful in delaying any change of use to numerous private developers plans for something like 14 years. As a consequence it’s now known as the porn palace. Coulda been lots of housing. Even a private developer would most likely have put the mandatory inclusionary housing on site there.
You can’t unilaterally dismiss stucco sux and my initial (albeit harsh) comments. These non profits have put peoples needs by the wayside in their quest for power and control. They are insular, and self-created power structures within SF’s huge non profit fiefdom. I know first hand, my wife works for a major SF non profit (thank god not in housing!) and the peer struggles there and self serving power grabs make silicon valley tech firms look like meritocracies. All the market distortions these groups have placed in SF (chiefly restricting supply of market rate housing) have made for a very unfair playing field. In essence they have inadvertently made many SF multi property owners (myself included) quite wealthy- at least those that know how to work through all these market distortions.
yah, the funny thing is that anyone who has spent even a medium amount of time studying economics can easily point out that most of the efforts at creating “affordable housing” have actually made housing more expensive. by blocking market rate developments, existing houses become more expensive. Rent control takes apartments off the open market, and drives up prices. its really sad to me to watch the continuation of completely failed policies. I *totally* agree with the ideal — lets keep the city affordable and accessible to those of normal income. The problem is, the way most activists are trying to do that are counter productive to their own goals. I used to be very supportive of rent control and most affordable housing arguments, until I started paying attention and realized that it was the wrong approach. I like to learn from my mistakes. Lets move on and start doing this the smart way. I think it is *deeply* informative that 45yo hipster is happy to admit that the “progressive politics” have done more to make him wealthy than to protect the poor. I’m not at all surprised by that. That is what happens when you enact stupid laws….. good intention and bad policy is worse than doing nothing at all.
MAC and BHNC planned to try to halt construction after the developer had put a couple of years of time and money into the project, so that eventually, the developer would be forced to sell the property. They had no money to buy or build the project, but hoped the city would have a few million to spare by the time the developer was ready to sell to them.
Instead of the building going up now, if one supervisor had changed his/her vote when the approval was appealed, we would have had a trash-strewn vacant lot and boarded up store there for years to come.
Thanks, Jake McGoldrick, for doing the right thing!
Big V- the subtext of my point exactly. Isn’t it ironic that as a rental property owner my reflex is to abhor rent control. Yet in actuality, if I manage and manuver smartly, rent control is a huge benefit for me (all my tenants are at, or close to market rent.)
Great part is that if you need help moving in, you have 15 guy right outside your door to help you.
A good debate, thanks – I appreciate most of the comments (sorry, not so much yours, Snark17 – it’s either safe and beautiful or poor? really, that’s the choice?).
I think the commentors are wrong about this site because BHNC was involved. It wouldn’t be DONE now, like it is, but I think it would be underway. MAC is not a developer, so their sole involvement wouldn’t get an alternative project done, agreed.
As for the Armory, MAC made Rick Dishnica walk away, really? I think there was a very narrow window of opportunity there – REALLY difficult project – and perhaps a variety of neighborhood folks (and Planning, and preservationist) concerns made it not happen. Personally, I’ve got no problem with Kink there (and I doubt that if you lived next door, it would be a problem for you UNLESS you wanted to make money on property), but I know for some folks, including long-term neighbors, another use would have been preferred.
I get that folks on SS think rent control is counter-productive and affects the market and makes rents higher. Ummm, but not for the people who stay in place – they get to be here when they might be otherwise priced out. Be thankful about the “market distortions”, SS folks, but if you benefit then why would you also complain?
C’mon, 45yoh, don’t tar all np’s with the same brush because of your wife’s situation. Yeah, some np’s are awful, just like some private corps, some individuals, some gov’ts.
Finally (sorry to ramble on) – so the market, unfettered, will provide housing for low income folks? I may be too much of a believer in the various controls we use to give low income folks a chance to be here, but if you think the market will provide, I think you’re too much of a believer in something else.
If BHNC had the money to build an affordable housing project in the area, why wouldn’t it simply find another site? There are a number of underutilized lots in the area.
@yentu: OK, so please explain why property owners in the City should subsidize the rent of people who just happen to “stay in place”; why is there is any reason to think that ALL of those people are particularly deserving of a subsidy? and, if they are, why doesn’t everybody (not just random property owners) pay the subsidy? That is what is bizarre about rent control — it completely distorts the market and distributes benefits to a an ill-defined group of people that there is no reason to believe that more than a small portion of is deserving of those benefits.
I walked by the building yesterday. Looks good. I like the building its current off white, rather than the colors used in the rendering.
Comments are closed.