CFAH

The site between Mission and Julian along 15th Street has been cleared, the design for the building has been redesigned, and today, the ground will officially be broken for 202 new rental units to rise at 1880 Mission (click either rendering to enlarge).

Think 1 to 1 secured parking, over 200 spaces, for…bikes (and 155 spaces for cars); flex space for residents to work (and play) and over 7,500 square feet of new street level retail; and yes, landscaped courtyards with outdoor lounge areas and a grill.

Target occupancy is spring 2013.

And as the long dormant and dilapidated site previously appeared, recycled materials from which will be incorporated into the new building:

1880 Mission Past

Full disclosure: We were engaged by Avant Housing to consult on the development of 1880 Mission but received no compensation for this post.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by lol

    More renters. Yeah!!
    j/k
    What this city needs is not new renters but a rebalancing towards homeownership. We already have 60% renters which puts SF at odds with its surroundings. Because of that we have insane rules to shelter SF from CA or US rules.
    Access to homeownership, when done in a responsible way, leads to the strengthening of a middle class status. With only renters you have a whole class of people weary of change (change in a city mostly comes from owners).

  2. Posted by Dan

    This looks like a great project. Perfect area for workforce housing– near BART and near bike routes, and near the restaurants/nightlife of Valencia St.
    There is a high demand for rentals in the Mission. Give the people what they want!

  3. Posted by BobTheBuilder

    {over-generalization-warning on}
    Market-rate rentals (80% of the project) tend to attract a different population to rent-controlled or BMR rentals – the former are usually not reliant on the charity of others and come without the sense of entitlement that the latter develop a few years in. So this would be a net gain for the Common Sense Party in this District.
    {off}

  4. Posted by Dan

    Yes, market rate rentals represent change more the homeowners. Rent-controlled renters and homeowners (due to Prop. 13) each have incentive to never leave. Market-rate, non- rent controlled units such as these will be occupied by people without those incentives to stay. And 15th and Mission is the perfect location for these rentals– the area appeals more to younger folks seeking the nightlife of the Mission, rather than parents and older folks who might prefer someplace more tranquil.

  5. Posted by tipster

    “flex space for residents to work (and play)”
    What does this mean?
    [Editor’s Note: Co-working and workshop space for residents, a reservable commercial grade kitchen with areas for entertaining, and a few other surprises to come.]

  6. Posted by Rob

    @Tipster… probably a “game room” with internet access… and a treadmill.

  7. Posted by McBravio

    Why engage the Editor when everyone knows anonymous SS commenters are the true real estate masterminds of san francisco?

  8. Posted by @lol

    But making home ownership available in SF will mean a decrease in the supply of renters and the landlord lobbyists wouldn’t want that. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I’m 28)

  9. Posted by curmudgeon

    Did anyone else notice the EEEEE!

  10. Posted by tipster

    ^Maybe an optometrist will open across the street and can use it for an eye chart.

  11. Posted by markballew

    I think this a project that has taken too long to land on 15th street. This area needs housing badly. The bike storage is perfect for the new Valencia St make over, but I question the storage of 155 cars. While this place is near BART and the 14(L)/47(L), it is also close to the freeway, so there is an incentive to use these as rentals for those going to the S.Bay to work instead of locals working in the city and shopping on Mission and Valencia. Even as this is the case, BUILD IT!

  12. Posted by lol

    Sure we’re adding hard-working (and probably high-earning) market renters. When life choices will have to be made, they’ll upgrade or/and buy into a market that didn’t add enough units for them. Good luck guys.
    Then again, the landlord can do whatever he wants as far as I am concerned.
    Another reason I’d have preferred owner-occupied units.
    Owners tend to care more about their immediate surroundings. On my street you can see where people rent and where people own.
    Renters: weeds, homeless guys camping out because no renter feels he has to do anything.
    Owners: The sidewalks are cleaned, bums are pushed away, incidents and suspicious activities are reported.

  13. Posted by lol

    Did anyone else notice the EEEEE!
    Nope. But the EEEE, yes.

  14. Posted by observantneighbor

    Does anyone know what incentives (if any) the city provides in the development-approval process for developers to build rental units as opposed to condos? Does anything prevent the developer (or subsequent owners) from converting the building to condos, or do SF’s condo-conversion restrictions apply only to pre-1979 construction (i.e., buildings subject to the rent-restrictions of our rent control ordinance)?
    I’m curious about this because the tenant lobby seems almost entirely uninterested in the creation of new rental units, as opposed to the protection of existing tenants in rent-controlled units. Of course, if the renter-residents of buildings such as this are rational and self-interested, they will vote *against* rent control for pre-1979 buildings, as rent control limits the supply of rental alternatives to the tenant’s current (and by hypothesis not rent-regulated) residence . . . .

  15. Posted by 47yo hipster

    I’m almost certain this is built as condos. i.e. It will already be subdivided. So in the future they can sell individual units. They may have had to agree to keep them as rentals for X years to get city approval though.
    And there is no rent control on these, thank god.

  16. Posted by tNOB

    I welcome new market rate rental housing in the city, as it may provide some competition with the existing rental stock. The current environment doesn’t incentivise the current landlords to upgrade their units after a long-term renter has left. They just raise the price to the current market price, and since it is so competitive why bother with upgrades?
    I don’t understand bashing renters in this thread. As is discussed ad nauseum here, the hurdle to homeownership is very high here. For those of us that don’t plan to plant roots here, renting is a reasonable option, and more of this type of housing in desirable neighborhoods is welcome.

  17. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    @lol wrote:
    > making home ownership available in SF will
    > mean a decrease in the supply of renters and
    > the landlord lobbyists wouldn’t want that.
    > Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I’m 28)
    My family only owns one rental in SF (the house my grandfather bought for $5K in 1932), but we have many friends in the SFAA and SPOSF (and I have attended many of their meetings over the years). I have never heard of a landlord group or any “landlord lobbyists” doing anything to stop new home or condo development in San Francisco since new construction typically makes an area nicer and makes rents go up.

  18. Posted by OneEyedMan

    The big issue with building as rental vs. for sale multi-family is access to financing for the developer. Currently financing for condos is still virtually non-existant, but money for rental properties is there if the proforma works. Don’t think these developments will be rentals forever. I am sure they are designed as condo units and condo mapped so that when selling units becomes financially viable that is what will happen.

  19. Posted by Modernqueen

    I certainly hope this project eventually goes full condo.
    Home owners (meaning condo owners as well) typically take more pride in the neighborhood, than renters. This means tree planting, sidewalk landscaping, cleaner streets, etc.
    All of this simply means a better city to live in.

  20. Posted by occupy this

    observantneighbor –
    the “tenant lobby” (ooo! scary!) doesn’t see much point in advocating for more rental units, because affordable units comprise a small percentage of new units. Despite simplistic supply-and-demand analysis, adding more “market rate” units doesn’t ease housing costs for lower income people. More high-priced units are added, raising average rents, and drawing more higher income people, who put upward pressure on lower rents. Of course, this is good for landlords, but bad for everyone else. Building high-rent units doesn’t ease housing costs for lower income people. Landlords know this well, but they cloak the truth in simplistic and obfuscating supply-and-demand gibberish.
    A class war has long been waged by landlords against lower income renters. The 99% are just waking up.
    Occupy is the very first push back by the 99%.
    We will be occupying you, soon!

  21. Posted by Snark17

    Flex space for residents to work and play surely refers to the tunnel that will connect the parking garage to Kink.com next door. WhhEEE!

  22. Posted by BernalDweller

    Sorely needed units in a neighborhood that could really use them.
    Hey editor…just a note here. Your use of the word “think” (as in “Think 1 to 1 secured parking, over 200 spaces…) is really, really tired. It has a time and a place for conceptualizing something, but you use it over and over.

  23. Posted by lol

    occupy this,
    Don’t confuse 99 with 10, 20 or 30. Most landlords are in the 99%. They are mostly middle class. Only a few are in the 1% richest.
    Plus building more units usually causes lower prices overall. Whereas subsidized affordable housing only creates a pocket of lower prices combined with higher prices for the rest of us. In short the middle class undercut by the lower class. The 1% just have to sit back and enjoy the fight.

  24. Posted by CandiRae

    What an awesome design! I especially like the idea of the bike area.

  25. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    “Home owners (meaning condo owners as well) typically take more pride in the neighborhood, than renters. This means tree planting, sidewalk landscaping, cleaner streets, etc.”
    Since when is it the renters responsibility for Tree planting and sidewalk landscaping? The renters are only responsible for taking care of the interior of the unit, it’s these vaunted ‘owners’ you all speak so highly of, that are letting the paint peel, the trees go unplanted, and the sidewalks unlandscaped.
    As for cleaner streets, I see plenty of condo owners walk away from a big pile of crap their dog left behind or throw their cigarette butts in the into the gutter.
    Again I return to my old mantra. I will gladly give up rent control (because of it’s market skewing effects) as soon as owners give up Prop 13 (because of it’s market skewing effect)
    As far as the original post goes I say build it (though I am getting a little sick of the lego design trend). More housing options is nothing but a plus for SF renters and owners.

  26. Posted by 47yo hipster

    This design is better than the previous version. Glad it’s going up- will help connect 16st to 14st. Will be a seamless transition of hipsters and tech workers. I own several market rate rentals nearby. So this is good news!

  27. Posted by Michael

    This is a neighborhood changing development. 300+ new people, activity and investment on this street. That’s huge.

  28. Posted by A.T.

    Yes, I hope this gets built. We need more housing in SF.
    Now for the notion that building more units somehow puts “upward pressure on lower rents” – well, good luck with that one! EEEEEE!

  29. Posted by Modernqueen

    @badbear: I think you mis read what I said. Never said renters are responsible for tree planting.
    And yes, there are tons of Owners who really do not care at all about trees, or landscaping or nice buildings. I agree.
    But as a general rule, for example, the property owners on my street chipped in to add more street trees. The renters did not.

  30. Posted by ManontheMission

    I’ve been waiting almost 20 years for something like this to come to my part of Mission Street — I’ve owned a condo on Mission @ 15th since 1984. Now if someone can do something about that horrible piece of neglected, neighborhood blight on Mission between 16th and 15th that used to be where Phoenix High alternative school was. SF Unified is the owner, and they are a terrible neighbor to have.

  31. Posted by SocketSite

    Yes, I hope this gets built.
    There’s no need to hope. Financing has been secured and it’s moving forward.

  32. Posted by Pffft

    Ugh, more of the same ol’ same boring, ugly design. But, I guess on the brighter side, it’s better than what’s existing.

  33. Posted by Modernqueen

    Totally agree SS! this is a great project for the Mission and can only help to slowly improve the neighborhood and make it safer and more pleasant to be in.
    Change is good. This design is good. The complainers and naysayers will quiet down once this is built and occupied.

  34. Posted by sparky-b

    “We were engaged by Avant Housing to consult on the development of 1880 Mission but received no compensation for this post.”
    In what capacity was SS engaged as a consultant?

  35. Posted by 47yo hipster

    Modern queen- wrt the renters who did/not chip $$ for street trees- was it all renters, or did it skew towards the longer term, rent controlled types? In other words, did yuppie renters cough up tree dough more willingly than long term RCers? (my guess is no….)

  36. Posted by shza

    Is it really surprising that renters would be less willing to spend money to increase property values for your benefit? The request for tree money should have been made to the owners of the rental properties, since they are the ones who benefit from it in the long-term.
    I thought the city had a program where they provided trees anyway?

  37. Posted by Modernqueen

    Guess what? you both have it all wrong. You don’t listen.
    You mean renters don’t also benefit from the effect street trees on the entire environment? Walk down Valencia and see the difference that new street trees make to the area, enjoy by hipster renters as well as prop owners.
    The renters on my street did not flat out want to chip in (about $35 each) to help plant a street tree. Not a dime. Some of these self entitled renters also jump into their Volvo or Beemers or Audi’s to head off to work. Let’s talk about that, shall we?
    You get my point. It costs very little, but it benefits ALL of us.
    Most of the tree planting program is done thru volunteers with the Friends of the Urban Forest and they rely heavily on donations. The City program is small and only adds trees to commercial corridors, such as Valencia or similar streets.

  38. Posted by A.T.

    Friends of the Urban Forest planted trees on my block a few years ago and did not ask for a dime from anyone — just had to give permission to plant in front of our property and sign a waiver.
    Not sure why they asked y’all for money, but it’s the owners of the rental units that should have chipped in. It is they who will reap the benefits for years and years, not the tenants who will see the benefits for a much shorter time. By the same token, it is the owner of a building who pays to paint its exterior, not the tenants, even though the latter benefit too.

  39. Posted by Alai

    Renters do benefit– which is why it’s logical for their landlords to chip in for street improvements, since the rentals will command a higher price in the future. It’s not very logical for someone planning to move on in a few years to pay for something that will benefit the area years from now. (On the other hand, if they’re long term rent-controlled tenants the landlord will have less reason to contribute– but by the same token the tenants, planning to stay for some time, will have more).
    But anyway, there are good reasons to both rent and own, and it’s not a moral failing to choose one over the other.

  40. Posted by Modernqueen

    Gosh, I didn’t realize one should only do things that only benefit oneself directly and personally. What a concept.
    Thanks for enlightening me.
    The two previous comments are flimsy excuses for not participating in making this city better. But you are absolutely right on one thing:
    A LOT of people, renters and owners think this way.

  41. Posted by Edward

    why only 6 stories – for this location should be higher density – 12-15 stories – so close to BART and other transportation – oh yeah – this is San Francisco – the city so terrified of actually being a city

  42. Posted by Kurt Brown

    Well, the design competes with the blandest complexes circa 1990 San Jose, but just by undergrounding the wires and putting in some trees, they’ve brought the neighborhood up enough to more than make up for the lack of architectural imagination.

  43. Posted by Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable

    Dear god that is a horrendous looking monstrosity. Yet more soulless crap architecture taking over San Francisco. *sigh*

  44. Posted by GoBlueInSF

    So, apparently, renters are second class citizens and trash, while homeowners are super-awesome and our public policies should be geared to making as many homeowners as possible. Got it.
    Because that B.S. mindset worked soooooo well over the last 20 years.

  45. Posted by lol

    GoBlueInSF,
    Nice flame thrower…
    1 – The point that some of us want to bring across is that homeowners are usually more involved in their immediate surroundings. Renters are more “consumers” (I pay therefore I take but I will not pay more than I owe) whereas homeowners do also “build” or “preserve”. Not that it’s a clean cut situation. Nothing is and everyone is different.
    My southern neighbor cleans his sidewalk and, more often than not, mine. I do the same with his.
    My northern neighbors never cleans anything. Not even their garden. Thankfully you have wind and rain otherwise their sidewalk would be a huge pile of stinking debris.
    One is a homeowner. The other one is a group of co-renters.
    Take a wild guess: Who is who?
    2 – No question that the “ownership society” program promoted by Clinton and Bush Jr created one big mess. They used reverse psychology to try and integrate the latest newcomers into the “mainstream” (for whatever that is). If homeowners are supposedly more stable and responsible, then transforming a segment of the population that is traditionally less stable and more affected with crime and uncertainty into homeowners should be beneficial to both society and these people as well.
    They forgot how the previous generations of newcomers got integrated into the mainstream: upward mobility through education and opportunity!
    By taking people from the ditch and minting them as instant “homeowners” they did an a$$-backward move. These people didn’t get the jobs that allowed them to afford the places they just bought. Their kids didn’t get the education that came with the supposedly stability of the new “roots”.
    Plus by perverting the financing system we created a no-limits mentality across all the RE and financing industry that forgot to look at facts. By relaxing standards, all layers of homebuyers got over their heads. The cheapest properties were snatched by the lower segment, pushing the next layer towards paying more and so one all the way to the top.
    But this shouldn’t distract us from the point made in #1…

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles