The two one-story buildings at 248-252 9th Street were constructed in 1907 and occupied by various theater and performing arts groups in the 1990’s and naughts. Currently used for nothing but storage, the two Western SoMa buildings will be razed and a five-story mixed-use building would rise as proposed:


Plans for the new building include 15 dwelling units (8 one-bedrooms and 7 two-bedrooms) over 3,100 square feet of ground floor commercial/restaurant space and a 1,200 square foot roof deck for residents. And while the building would be built without any parking for cars, parking for 16 bicycles is planned.

Assuming approvals, construction is slated to start in the middle of this year and will last for around 12 months.  A total of three trees will line the sidewalk when completed.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by DCR

    Thanks SocketSite – been riding home every day past those and wondering what was happening.

  2. Posted by anon

    Excellent auto parking ratio, though my guess is that they’re probably underbuilding bike parking.

  3. Posted by futurist

    Mistake to not build some parking. Bike parking is fine, but not for everyone.
    I think this is an over-reaction approach by the owners and the Planning Dept.

  4. Posted by sf

    So curb cuts and driveways will be removed, wow, is this a first?

  5. Posted by Alai

    Gee, I wonder what pays more in rent: nine parked cars or 3100 square feet of newly-built storefront?
    Then again, that would be a capitalist concern; and when it comes to cars, we’re old-school commies. People, of course, have to pay their own way.

  6. Posted by futurist

    You make a false assumption that on site parking MUST be at grade level, which would then imply losing much of the retail space.
    Below grade parking is pretty common for new buildings, requiring only a ramp down to the parking level, thereby preserving much of the ground floor for retail.
    Yes, below grade parking adds cost to the selling price of the units. So, it will be interesting to see if there is a “substantial” reduction in market price due to no parking costs. This can be easily done thru comps of similar units in the area with parking.
    Let’s see if the developer really passes on the “savings” to the future buyers. I doubt it.

  7. Posted by anon

    I think this is an over-reaction approach by the owners and the Planning Dept.
    Um, the planning department had nothing to do with the idea to not have parking in this building, other than simply allowing it to happen. Are you seriously asserting that the planning department should FORCE the developers to build parking. Wow, just wow.

  8. Posted by anon

    futurist – of course the owner will sell the units for market rate, but if you lower construction costs you’ll allow for MORE development.
    Also, you won’t likely see lower prices for the units here if you look at comps, you’ll just see increased prices for those that already have parking. Net is the same though. People who don’t want parking won’t have to pay for it.

  9. Posted by futurist

    Planning Dept. on most projects requires 1:1 ratio of parking and living units. They apply that regulation to a single family house, or even two units in the neighborhoods. Makes sense.
    I think they should apply a certain ratio for this project; perhaps not 1:1 but perhaps 1 parking space for every 2 units,or some similar ratio.
    Not everyone will be biking. Not everyone wants to, or can. And using a modest 1:2 ratio, does in fact, mean those who DESIRE a parking space and CHOOSE to buy in this building CAN have a parking space.
    But how does lower construction costs by eliminating below grade parking “allow” for more development? You mean adding another floor? or what?
    In theory, the developer will reap bigger profits on this project if the units sell for current competitive market rates (by not providing any parking).
    On another note, why aren’t the bike centric people screaming for more bike parking spots in this building?
    I would like to see a reasonable amount of off street parking in this project.

  10. Posted by anon

    So you’re against allowing builders to supply what the market desires. Got it.

  11. Posted by Bob

    I assume that these are rentals, most of which will rent to professionals with room mates or couples. Given the projected costs and transient nature, I don’t see the real need for parking as most other rental options in SF do not have parking. Once these folks start having families which would require a vehicle, they would be out of space and move to a larger location with parking. Maybe that’s the plan for Bayshore /Candlestick. Once the twitter crowd starts having kids…. move em’ to the new SF suburb rather than sending them packing down the peninsula or back East.

  12. Posted by james

    futurist, you are wrong SF Planning has been reducing the number of required parking in the SOMA area. Only districts that are primary RH1 and RH2 are there a requirement to provide 1:1 parking.

  13. Posted by futurist

    Hmmm. @ james: not sure where I said that SF Planning has been “reducing parking ratios in SOMA”..because, no, I did not.

  14. Posted by Dan

    Perhaps there should be a market for parking rights, like air rights. In a 1:2 parking:units district, a building could choose to build no parking, and sell rights to build the spaces to another building that builds 1:1 parking.

  15. Posted by futurist

    @ james: got it now. You should have put a PERIOD after your word “wrong”.
    That would have completely changed the clarity and intent of your statement.
    And I also said “most” in my statement.
    And I also said that perhaps a 1:2 ratio could work here.
    Just to be clear.

  16. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    It’s about time we turn SOMA into a real SF neighborhood. Which means every block has to have cars circling around looking for street parking at all hours. And it’s always extra fun on one-way streets.
    Btw, if I’m not mistaken this proposed buildings has (OMG) right angles! Surely Brahma will be here any minute complaining about the Soviet-style architecture…

  17. Posted by Mark

    Can’t we turn it into a funky warehouse-style cougar pad like Melissa had on thirtysomething? Okay, I just dated myself and revealed my questionable TV viewing taste.
    Seriously, not all new construction needs dedicated parking. Some people, oddly enough, prefer transit, bikes or zipcars. Personally, I prefer to drive because transit in SF offers very little incentive to ditch my wheels. Then again, I live out in parkside where I have plenty of parking options and few realistic transit options. If I chose to live on 9th St. perhaps I would reconsider having a car since I’d be walking distance to work, close to BART, etc.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles