706 Mission Rendering
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to allow the proposed 550-foot tower and Mexican Museum to rise at 706 Mission Street is slated to be reviewed and potentially certified by San Francisco’s Planning Commission in two weeks.
The proposed project consists of the construction of the 47-story tower and the restoration and rehabilitation of the adjacent Aronson Building which would be attached. The existing Jessie Square Garage would provide 260 spaces for tower residents.
706 Mission Rendering 2012
The tower would contain up to 43 floors of condos and four floors for the museum. The Aronson Building would contain retail/restaurant space on the ground floor, museum space on the second and third floors, and either offices or condos on floors four through ten:

Aronson Building with 706 Mission Rendered
As plugged-in people know, the parcel is currently zoned for 400-feet and the project will require a zoning map amendment to see its full potential versus being cut short.
And in addition to the issue of new shadows on downtown public open spaces, opponents of the tower as proposed, most of whom reside and park at the adjacent Four Seasons Residences, cite increased traffic and congestion concerns.
As always, we’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
The 706 Mission Scoop: Design, Details And Timing For Museum Tower [SocketSite]
Sneak Peek: 706 Mission Tower Design And Aronson Building Rehab [SocketSite]
Planning’s Responses To Comments On 706 Mission As Proposed []

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by curmudgeon

    increased traffic lol

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Given the shadow ordinance limitations, it seems like buildings ought to be allowed to exceed their zoned height a little if it can be done without shadowing parks. That’s to counterbalance other parcels that cannot build up to their zoned height due to shadows. The resulting skyline would have building built in the shadows of existing buildings.

  3. Posted by Turin

    Everyone knows their real concern is their view. NIMBYs are always so transparent.

  4. Posted by futurist

    This has already been well debated.
    Shadows constantly move. Shadows are part of life.
    Four Seasons residents? seriously, you’re worried about “traffic increase”? Oh, I get it. You already have “yours” but others cannot. Get a life or move.
    Build it now.

  5. Posted by Brad

    Traffic in that area can’t get much worse than it already is. A building of this size will put more people in a centralized area within walking distance to most things they’ll need (including Target and Whole Foods) and also places them near a bevvy of transportation options. We’ve seen too many undersized “high rises” going up lately; I hope this gets approved as-is.
    As an aside, there is a typo in “attachjed”.

  6. Posted by Common Sense

    So … let me get this straight… because the residents of the Four Seasons are wealthy they are automatically the bad guys? Only poor people can care about the city? Only the poor can care about too much traffic in an area “where it can’t get any worse”? Only the poor can care about a massive building creating shadows all the way over to Union Square? Only the poor can care about dwarfing the historic St. Patrick’s Church and Jessie Square?
    The POOR POOR developer … Millennium is the good guy here?
    They have lobbyists and a lot of powerful contacts with the city racing this through with faulty EIR studies … but hey … the resident are really the bad guys here……What you don’t know is all the residents are asking for is a reasonable tower height … one that follows the codes that were established to protect the city from powerful developers…..

  7. Posted by Mark

    I’m surprised the Telegraph Hill Dwellers aren’t up in arms about this as well.
    Just go ahead and build the darn thing. Even though I like the building, we’re just talking about more market rate condos with sterile open floor plans, granite countertops and stainless appliances. There is a market for this and the location couldn’t be any better for it. It’s just not my thing.

  8. Posted by Ebro

    Common Sense: To me this is a reasonable tower height for the downtown of a major city. Could be higher, even. And it’s ridiculous for people living in Tower A to complain about the construction of Tower B.
    In my opinion, the incredibly high SF rents are a fundamental threat to the future of the city. Only rich people can live here, and that’s terrible.
    The way to fix this is increasing supply. (Yes, even super-high-end supply.) I understand the issue of shadows on churches and such, but I’m willing to overshadow a downtown building in return for 43 floors of units.

  9. Posted by futurist

    Even increasing supply of housing both high, market rate and low end will not lower the cost of housing here.
    Largely, demand keeps the prices high. More people want, and can afford, market rate and high end housing.
    I keep saying: not everyone can or is “entitled” to live here. This is an expensive place. Not about to change. Unless hundreds and thousands of “low income”,very cheap housing were built in all areas of SF.
    You want that? then think of North Korea.

  10. Posted by common sense

    I disagree with Tower A not being allowed to complain about Tower B. Tower A just wants Tower B to play by the same rules. Does House A get to complain about House B? Or do we all get to do whatever we want anywhere we want? ….. and when is too high too high? Do we just forget about shadowing all together? Why don’t we surrounding Washington Square with high rises next? Or does it makes sense to have some limitations? How do we try to keep some sunlight getting down to the few open spaces in the city? What if we were to build the really tall building among the other really tall where there are no open spaces……

  11. Posted by Ebro

    Futurist: Your comment is strange. First, there is surely a middle ground between one of the most expensive rental cities in the U.S. and a kleptocratic wasteland. And high prices are a combination of high demand AND low supply. We haven’t appreciably increased supply over the last few decades. Mission Bay is something, but we need more.
    Common: Yes we need some rules. This tower would not make sense in, say, the Presidio. But in this location, I’m fine with it. A high rise in downtown is perfectly acceptable. It is asking the rules to be changed slightly, which is fine.
    There are tradeoffs. Common Sense, you need to realize that preserving open spaces has a tremendous hidden cost. No, I don’t want to pave over Golden Gate Park. But yes, I do want S.F to build up, perhaps around 100,000 units. If you’d rather do it another part of the city, fine. But it has to be somewhere.

  12. Posted by Sam

    Ha look at those pictures, the skyline is so sparse. I hope this gets approved, skeptical of course course

  13. Posted by Brian

    It is crazy to say that this building will cast shadows over Union Square!!! No Way! The Four Seasons sure doesn’t and this building is not much taller…the distance is too great. Lame excuse. Build it!

  14. Posted by Dan

    I agree with futurist to build it now, but am confused about why he is asking us to think of North Korea.

  15. Posted by futurist

    Here’s why I used the term “North Korea” in my previous comments.
    1. San Francisco is expensive and, IMO, will remain so.
    2. Not everyone can afford to live here and own, or even rent. Pure fact. (and I mean actually in The City proper). that’s reality, and no judgement implied.
    3. High demand is part of our great livability and quality of life. And that quality of life is supported by low density, low scale neighborhoods. Don’t expect to see super high rises in Noe Valley or Potrero, etc. Not gonna happen.
    4. We are a small land mass; limited amount of land to build on. Adding housing, even very tall buildings will only occur in a few areas: downtown, Mission Bay and south, SOMA.That housing is expensive to build and will sell high to make a profit. Profit is not evil.
    5.So, adding lots of “low cost” cheap housing for low income people will, IMO, just result in low quality, cheap, mass blocks of housing. Gee! now lots of people who are poor, or lower income can live here.In cheap housing. Blocks and blocks of it. Quality of life goes down.
    6. Think housing in North Korea (as an extreme image).
    That’s what I meant.

  16. Posted by Tat

    Only the rich will be able to live here? Really? SF has TONS of subsidized and below market rate options. And the homeless seem to do quite well – they come here in droves.

  17. Posted by C_Bronson

    Great, another beige tower. I don’t care about increased traffic, shadows on Union Sq?, etc….but can we please get a decent well-designed tower in the area?
    The Aronson Building puts the tower to shame, with its intricate detail. The tower is essentially this large bland backdrop, which would be OK if it wasn’t 550 feet in the air. Across the plaza, all we see is the bland beige backdrop. 🙁

  18. Posted by WarrenSF

    As San Francisco is located at 37 degrees north latitude, the sun will always be high above the southeast, south, and southwest from the church and Jessie Square. There is NO obstruction in that direction (given the location of Yerba Buena Gardens). The proposed tower will not impact this much, if any. So, shadows aren’t really the issue. NIMBY-ism is.

  19. Posted by Oceangoer

    I am a bit tired of the mantra of NIMBYism every time someone criticizes a new building in San Francisco. Why can’t I say what I think if I live next door to a proposed 47 floor tower and don’t like the idea of more cars or whatever, without the wrath of the commenters on Socketsite? There’s no discussion … just “get a life”. Wow.

  20. Posted by UrbPlanr

    Both the 4 Seasons and 706 Mission did/will require exceptions from the rules. The 4 Seasons was grandfathered in on an old approval in the YBC Development Plan. It was developed by Millenium and the architect was Gary Handel and Associates. 706 Mission is requesting exceptions from the current rules. It is proposed to be developed by Millenium and the architect is Gary Handel and Associates.
    So neither building developer nor architect has the higher moral ground since they are one in the same. But it seems as if the residents on 4 Seasons don’t want to let new residents to have the same rights that they had.
    Or something else…

  21. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: The Environmental Impact Report to allow the proposed 550-foot tower and Mexican Museum to rise at 706 Mission Street was approved by San Francsico’s Planning Commission yesterday. Next (potential) stop, San Francsico’s Board of Supervisors.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles