Plans to add six new stories over the Ideal Auto Rebuilders building at 1335 Larkin Street are on the boards and the Planning Department has quietly been consulted.

As proposed, the existing ground floor of the building would be used for a lobby and off-street parking for 20 cars while above the building 20 new dwelling units would be constructed. The finished building would rise up to 65 feet in height.

With a proposed setback of between 20 to 50 feet from the front of the building, the proposed addition “appears to retain the primary façade where most of the character-defining features of the building are found” in the opinion of the Planning Department, an important point as 1335 Larkin was identified as “possessing individual historic significance” in the Department’s Automotive Support Structures Historic Resource Survey.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Rob

    Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through… and all in bad taste. I like the idea of integrating the historic facade and all, but I’m sure the top portion will do little to fit or match what’s already there. We’ll get the “glass cube on old brick building” solution, Im sure.
    I’m not sure I’ve seen one of these types of developments turn out aesthetically pleasing.

  2. Posted by lyqwyd

    Seems ridiculous to categorize an ugly old auto shop as a historic resource, almost as bad saying shelves in a library are historic.

  3. Posted by Invented

    The sooner that building is demolished the better. Don’t cling to ugliness. We’re kidding right?

  4. Posted by emanon

    It’s clear to me reading socketsite that most commentors have no clue how a determination of historic resource is applied. “Ugly” is not a consideration.

  5. Posted by lol

    The only difference between this and a fugly Taco Bell front is the construction date.

  6. Posted by James

    Preserving the facade of an auto shop while gutting the interior seems like a strange goal, since there’s nothing about the facade that would indicate to future generations anything about historic auto shops. It could be the facade of a former warehouse or any light industry. Some uses require special architectural forms (e.g. fire stations, theaters, factories) but auto support as a structural type? I don’t see what’s distinctive about that unless they preserve the machinery inside.

  7. Posted by lyqwyd

    sanity and logic don’t seem to be a considerations either.

  8. Posted by Drew

    There is nothing of historic nor architectural merit in that auto body shop. Ridiculous…

  9. Posted by emanon

    Drew, and you know this because?

  10. Posted by JWS

    I’m just going to pick and choose my battles in this city…after the SOM proposal for Cathedral Hill broke my heart, I am giving up on aesthetics and will just rejoice in well centered extra units, whatever they may look like.

  11. Posted by simpr

    This was done at 421 Arguello Blvd. You can google for pics but it looks like they simply kept the brick facade and built a box behind it to house 24 units. For my taste, this simply does not work.

  12. Posted by Niamh

    Alternatively, emmanon, I submit the lack of support here reflects a broader disenchantment with the Historic Preservation industry. Is it not possible that a worthy goal has become corrupted by ideologues? Exhibit A: rather than take an opportunity to educate and enlighten you choose to disparage.

  13. Posted by extra

    Thank you Niamh. Why do we need to remember for eternity that there was once an auto repair shop on this block of Larkin? Just don’t see the importance.

  14. Posted by gribble

    I believe that facade may have originally been for an auto repair shop but the last use I remember it having was a sheet metal shop.
    I haven’t really looked at it since the remodel and housing was put in, but I get over that way pretty often and will have to check it out.

  15. Posted by mdg

    It’s the facade of an ugly garage
    SF ineptitude & stupidity is AMAZING

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles