1450 15th Street

Permits to demolish the one-story warehouse on the northwest corner of 15th and Shotwell and construct a four story building with ten apartments on the site were disapproved in 2010, at which point the development plans for the parcel were cancelled.

Purchased for $1,450,000 this past October, a new plan has been quietly pitched to Planning with a proposal to demolish the building at 1450 15th Street and construct a 5-story, 50-foot tall building with 23 dwelling units and parking for 17 cars and 12 bikes.

From the Planning Department’s assessment of the property back in 2004 having identified it as a potential historic resource for the neighborhood:

This Industrial building is a representative of a general warehouse-industrial style, and dates from the reconstruction period of development (May 1906-1913). Industrial buildings are used for manufacture or distribution of products. Industrial buildings include canneries, warehouses, public stables, automotive repair and maintenance structures, and machine shops. It is a standard in its context but is not important because its context lacks cultural or architectural significance.

There is no evidence that the history of this property is associated with any persons or events of recognized significance in National, California, or San Francisco’s history, nor is the architect, designer, or builder identified in association with its construction…This property is not the work of a master, but is typical of modest structures of similar vintage in the Mission in its design and construction method. It does not possess high artistic values, is not distinctive, nor does it belong to distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction…This property was not fully assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history…For these reasons, this property is found ineligible for National, or California Registers or Local designation through survey evaluation.

The building appears to be in good structural and material condition. This property retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Character defining features that should be preserved: none.

As always, we’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Anonandon

    If there is anything representative of a bygone age it is the overhead wires and poles that make the neighborhood look like a slightly better version of a long ago mining camp. Please build this project but also, update the infrastructure, sidewalks, streets, etc. ( and this does NOT include removing street parking).

  2. Posted by mdg

    an undistinguished building being used to store automobiles – crumbling – you’re more likely to see needles on the ground and garbage strewn around –
    Please – approve this

  3. Posted by Jimmy (No Longer Bitter)

    Why is a dumpy warehouse a “historic resource”? Are these people smoking crack again?

  4. Posted by Dan

    Why were permits disapproved in 2010?

  5. Posted by James

    Jimmy, read the finding. This dumpy warehouse is not a historic resource. “Character defining features that should be preserved: none.”

  6. Posted by curmudgeon

    From the text it’s not at all clear that the decision in 2010 was linked to any historic value of the site. In fact, the 2004 analysis seems to basically say, “it looked like it was potentially historic, but on closer inspection it’s nothing much worth preserving”.
    If the editor could make it clearer WHY the 2010 decision was made it would be helpful.
    (And yes, please…develop).
    [Editor’s Note: Unfortunately we don’t have a definitive answer as to why the development was disapproved by the Department of City Planning in 2010, but we do know no appeals were made at the time.]

  7. Posted by MG

    I love that the Editor writes “quietly pitched to Planning.” How is filing the application with Planning being “quiet”?
    Also, who would ever want to publicize their project (before permit is pulled) beyond the 311 notification requirements? I’m sure property owners groan when their properties are featured on this site, because its more likely that more neighbors (outside the 311 radius) and neighborhood groups will come out of the woodwork to oppose the project.
    [Editor’s Note: You seem to answer your own question with respect to the difference between quietly filing an application versus publicizing the project, especially prior to any notifications having been sent.
    And in terms of any groaning, considering our readership tends to be pro-development, many developers actually pitch their projects to the site in an attempt garner early grass roots support and counter any entrenched opposition.]

  8. Posted by sf

    Gentrify the hell out of this neighborhood.

  9. Posted by Jeremy

    @MG – large projects are required to submit for the Preliminary Project Assessment, which is quite quiet. That’s how Socketsite found this. The neighbor notification is the next step, likely to follow in 2-3 months.

  10. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    I’ve already got a C-note on this not getting through Planning with anything over 10 parking spaces.
    Also, expect the addition of ground-level retail… which would be a good thing.

  11. Posted by Pfffft

    “having identified it as a potential historic resource for the neighborhood,” you’ve GOT to be f’g kidding me.

  12. Posted by emanon

    Come on folks, before you get your panties all tied up in knots, read the entire post:
    “For these reasons, this property is found ineligible for National, or California Registers or Local designation through survey evaluation.”

  13. Posted by EH

    The only historical element of this area I can think of has the words “GUN AND DOLL SHOW” emblazoned on it.

  14. Posted by fixie landbaron

    Come on folks, here’s how it works. Is it more than 50 years old? Then it’s found to be a “potential historic resource”. Potential historic resources have to then be researched to see if they have any characteristics worth preserving. In this case, it is determined that there are none.

  15. Posted by Christine

    Woah, I live kitty corner from this building, and I never knew there were plans filed for it. I think 5 stories is too tall for this corner, but 4 stories would be a great addition to this quickly-changing neighborhood.
    This building was just busted by police for housing a weed-growing operation, and is now up for lease. Hope to see something constructive done to it.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles