CFAH

2249-2255%20Taraval%20Street.jpg
While neighbors have yet to be notified, the owners of the Parkside parcel on the northwest corner of Taraval and 33nd Avenue are quietly testing the waters of Planning with designs to raze the existing 12-foot-tall, 960-square-foot auto shop at 2249 Taraval and build a 52-foot-tall, 18,000-square-foot building in its place.
Early designs for the building include seven dwelling units, 2,350 square feet of ground-floor retail, and eight off-street parking spaces which would be accessed from a curb cut along 33rd Avenue.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by jenofla

    The buildings around there are already 2-3 stories tall, and the building kitty-corner from it is 4 stories, although the fourth story is setback. I could see this working if the fourth story of the new building was setback as well.
    Going from urban low-density to moderate-density here.

  2. Posted by anon

    This is one of the most important areas of the city to start densifying – right on a light rail line, good walkable shops, easy ability to handle loads more 5-6 story buildings.

  3. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Hopefully the neighbors will be cool with this proposal because it fits the street well. Corner lots on arterial streets should be allowed the tallest heights. And like anon points out this is a good place to add moderate density already.
    That street view shot is bleak. It could be anywhere in a western city. Stockton, Reno, Riverside, Mesa. Placeless. I hope the billboard goes away with the redevelopment.

  4. Posted by Joel

    I find it discouraging how Taraval is one of the only corridors on the westside zoned for +50′. The only exceptions I can think of are Parkmerced and a few blocks of Noriega and Sloat (which go up to 100′ – NIMBYs watch out!) Yet some transit-rich commercial corridors here (West Portal, Lakeside, & Miraloma) are only zoned for 26′, which is actually shorter than the residential limit of 40′. This vast difference seems like a form of redlining for these neighborhoods.
    We’ve seen the Planning Department publish numerous plans for the eastern half of the city, but offhand I only know of a couple plans drawn up for the westside (Parkmerced & Balboa Park… any others?) When will they reach our politically-uninviting neck of the woods?

  5. Posted by eugh

    I think that the 6- and 7- story tall apartment buildings sprinkled throughout the west side (e.g., 16th/Lincoln, 9th/Judah, 15th/West Portal, not to mention the churches) are really great corner buildings within the scale of the adjacent streets. Seeing more of them frame the west side neighborhood nodes would be great, but 4-stories is probably where the demand is.

  6. Posted by anon

    but 4-stories is probably where the demand is.
    No, I’m quite certain that 4 stories is where the zoning is. The demand is there for much higher, if the zoning were changed.

  7. Posted by curmudgeon

    anon…I think you’re forgetting (or not realizing) that construction becomes much more expensive after about five floors. Not an architect, but I believe the highest you can build wood frame is about four stories, add one if you build a concrete parking podium. I don’t think values on the west side have supported more expensive mid-rise construction.
    The reason the plans have been on the east side is because that is where all the potential densification is, at the moment anyway. Until there is the political will for massive changes, all change on the west side will be incremental (like this). Hardly needs a plan.

  8. Posted by anon

    Do we have a case where higher than four floors was permitted yet the developer chose to build shorter? I’m not aware of a single one. On the other hand, I can name dozens of ~6 story buildings built in the last 20 years on the west side where they have been allowed (many out near Ocean Beach in the Richmond – yes, with underground parking and many with a full concrete structure).

  9. Posted by lyqwyd

    “I believe the highest you can build wood frame is about four stories, add one if you build a concrete parking podium.”
    That is a building code issue. The Japanese have demonstrated 7 story wood frame structures that are perfectly earthquake safe.
    But the code is not likely to change anytime soon…

  10. Posted by pedestrianist

    1:1 parking on a light rail line? That’s pretty boneheaded. Otherwise this is decent

  11. Posted by Mark

    Interesting…this is only a few blocks from my house. I would love to see densification along Taraval. 4 to 8 story buildings rather than 1 and 2 story.
    As for parking…hate to say it but owning a car is almost a must on this side of town. I tried it sans auto for a couple years before taking up driving again after 15 years. The L train is slow as heck and unless you’re going downtown (praying the market st. subway isn’t delayed or shut down completely) you have to transfer to get anywhere else. It’s really just SF’s version of a suburb with low-density strip malls.
    Any renderings of the new Squat & Gobble going up at West Portal? While sitting on the L train for 10 minutes waiting to make its turn into the station I saw construction had started.

  12. Posted by George

    Yea, as much as Im for transit first, this area a car is heavily needed. The light rail line is just so slow, seemingly doesn’t come often at all, and is too far from downtown to make it functional.
    If SF ever has a heavy rail subway out to this area, then yea Id agree, but light rail is just such a buzzkill

  13. Posted by anon

    Totally fine with the building of 1:1 parking here – BUT it’s absurd that the city requires 1:1 parking be built. There should never be a need for requiring a minimum amount of parking.

  14. Posted by Mark

    @George: the light rail system could certainly serve as a feeder system to a heavy rail system that ran down 19th Ave from Daly City to Geary and down Geary to Market St. Having a station at Taraval/19th Ave could certainly warrant the need for densification along the strip.
    Commute time today from 28th Ave to Montgomery Station: 62 minutes, but not a record by a long shot.

  15. Posted by wifey

    Immmm Back.
    West side high rises are a must. would it not be cool to buy up some ticky tack Doelgers homes, combine lots and reach for the sky with high rise condos. NY here we come

  16. Posted by Sunsetter

    62 minutes from 28th Avenue to Montgomery? Are you on foot? Taking the L takes around 20 minutes from that location, its takes 40 minutes from Ocean Beach. Even if you assume you just miss the train and have to wait for the next one during non-peak/non-commute times and are counting that waiting time, you are looking at 45 minutes max.
    But yeah, bottom line: Taraval is in need of new development like this in a big way in between 19th and the beach.

  17. Posted by Mark

    @Sunsetter: I’ve been taking this route to work for nearly 6 years. When I said my commute time yesterday was 62 minutes it was 62 minutes. You’re assuming that this is my normal commute time which it is not. On the best days it takes about 40 minutes from the time I step on to the time I step off. Of course, factor in the typical delays and you can tack on more minutes to the commute. As for “on foot,” I do walk the 1.5 miles to West Portal to take my chances with the T/M when Nextbus indicates 38 minutes for the next L.
    The bottom line is that if this area of town had been zoned higher when it was built it could have had a much better mass transit option built decades ago.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles