The University of the Pacific has sold its Dugoni School of Dentistry building at 2155 Webster Street to housing developer Trumark Urban. Trumark plans to redevelop the Pacific Heights building into 75 residential condominium units averaging 2,000 square feet a piece.
According to the Business Times, the Webster Street building will be reskinned with “a mix of glass and earthy materials” and eleven townhomes will be built upon the building’s parking lot.
The Dugoni School of Dentistry will be moving to its rebuilt building at 155 Fifth Street.
All of this new housing is wonderful, but now I am getting worried. Where is the additional transit plans to move about the city all of these additional new homeowners? Especially the NORTH and Western neighborhoods!?
Removing and restricting parking throughout the city while at the same time not investing in new transit, sewers, street repairs, etc. is going to make for a very difficult future.
Parkmobiles, Parklets, and removal of parking for bikes and café tables is not going to handle the ever growing population.
Where is the school of dentistry moving?
[UPDATE: To 155 Fifth Street.]
This would be the most impressive location of any new future development.
let’s get ready to ruuuuuuuumlbe!
@Worried,
The Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) is actively working on upgrading existing as well as new transit.
As of this particular development, just 75 residential unit is not going to add much to the requirement of city service.
Personally I’m disappointed– it seems like the northwest is losing anything except housing. This, UCSF closing their campus (presumably to be turned into housing as well)– I’d prefer to see more variety.
[Editor’s Note: UCSF Seeking Developers For Their Prime 10-Acre San Francisco Site.]
@Worried, there is a plan to extend the F line streetcar as far as the Marina Safeway, but anything beyond that is strongly opposed by neighbors. So the question isn’t “where is the plan” but “where is the support”? The northern neighborhoods seem to not want better public transportation.
[Editor’s Note: What The F-Line.]
I live in the Marina and I would agree with James. The Northern end of the city is very car friendly and not a big fan of bring more public transportation to the area. I would love to see the F line go to Safeway and more busses and less car on Chestnut and Union street. That is coming from a household that has two drivers and three cars. I do take public transportation though five days a week.
Right now the northern half of the city is car friendly, but if you read the Marina Times, you know there is talk of removing over 50% of the parking spaces on Chestnut similar to what has/was proposed for Polk Street for an additional 2 way bike lane plus pedestrian bulbs and parklets. Cars will then spill over to residential streets.
Don’t fool yourselves, the planned removal of street parking, combined with restricting new parking could make even the northern half of the city a more difficult environment.
If SFPlanning allows this new project to have off-street private parking I would be a lot less worried. The current stated policy of the SFMTA as voiced at the May 2nd Board of Supervisors meeting was NOT one new parking space in San Francisco, period. (don’t believe me? video is available online of the hearing)
that’s weird worried, because zoning generally has parking minimums, meaning any new development requires parking…
2000 sq ft per condo unit and 75 of them? That’s like adding 75 new “SF McMansions” to the city
75 units
2000 avg sq ft
X 1250 conservative $/psf
=
$187.5m
+
15m in town homes
Wow
I applaud the fact that they are going with condos that are 2000 sq feet. SF needs more housing that can accommodate families, and the typical 1100 sq foot condo isn’t family-friendly. That being said, at the typical Pac Heights condo price of about $800/sq foot, I don’t see how there will be huge demand for $1.6 million condos. Perhaps for ones with a view, but not the rest. Why buy a $1.6 million condo when you can find a SFH in that price range?
Regarding transit…the TEP is a joke and won’t do anything to solve the current issues much less future problems when the MTA actually implements it sometime in the next decade. If the city had any foresight it would have built mass transit along its major corridors decades ago. It didn’t and our generation and future generations will be paying the price.
As for the F-line…a 1-car Rice-A-Roni-style streetcar is a cute, nostalgic way to shuttle around tourists, but in 2013 hardly constitutes mass transit. If the Marina doesn’t want better transit options (not like MUNI is rushing to build it any time soon) then let this area deal with traffic. Trust me, there are other more grateful and forward-thinking cities that would gladly take Federal dollars to improve their transit systems.
James and Marinaboy are right.
Most of the people in Pacific Heights do not want more public transportation running through their neighborhood. They like cars. They want more garages per unit. They do not want to fight for street parking. They are too old or too busy to bike regularly. They do not want parklets, because they see no reason to dine in the middle of a street.
They like the neighborhood as is, but do not object to more of the same.
This development is perfect for the neighborhood. 2000 sq feet is smaller than the average new US house. It is almost big enough for a couple with one child.
J wrote: “Why buy a $1.6 million condo when you can find a SFH in that price range?”
Because you can’t find a SFH in Pac Heights in that price range.
Dan — No, not in Pac Heights for $1.6m (there’s a reason Broadway is called Billionaire’s row). But you can find a SFH elsewhere in SF for $1.6m, as well as in suburbs like Marin, where you also get 5 star public schools for free, instead of paying $25k/year to send your kid to a mediocre private kindergarten here in SF. I’m not endorsing one over the other, just saying that the $1.6 million price level offers several viable alternatives to a condo in Pac Heights.
The assumption here is that they will build these as extremely high end condos comparable to the finishes at the top buildings in the city. Curious if they include any retail / restaurants within the building envelope. I’d expect concierge services and I’d also expect that if done right this would give a good option for those that want a more modern condo feel in a more classic part of the city. Could serve as a model for the 10 acre UCSF campus. My belief is that these would be sold long before the bldg was completed.
I’d have a full time expert on Prop 60 property tax transfer to help those older folks stuck in mega mansions with low property tax slide into one of these new condos.
Very exciting.
@conifer
You don’t need 2000 sf for a couple with 1 kid.
Perhaps you don’t, lyqwyd.
People in Pacific Heights do, especially if they have a Border Terrier or a French Bulldog.
@Worried: I suspect that a 75-unit condo building will actually generate less traffic than the dental school. There are currently 135 parking spaces in the building’s brick platform– the townhouses will be built on a surface parking lot. Given the 1:1 zoning, Planning will probably “recommend” they reduce the number of parking spaces, include car share, and bike storage for every unit instead of the current 1:4 ratio.
There are very few large, contemporary condos in this neighborhood, and none in 160+ high buildings. These should fly off the shelves.
Why buy a $1.6m condo instead of a sfh? Because of shared maintenance, insurance, and all those other items you have to deal with, and pay for, on your own as a sfh owner. If the HOA is run right, there’s a lot to be said for shared responsibility.
Why buy a $1.6m condo instead of a sfh? Because of shared maintenance, insurance, and all those other items you have to deal with, and pay for, on your own as a sfh owner. If the HOA is run right, there’s a lot to be said for shared responsibility.
Also shared walls, ceilings, floors.
Cozy, friendly and close to your dear beloved neighbors.
$1.6M for a 2,000 square foot condo is a steal to people in this price point. Honestly, they will sell for more than that, but pretending they will actually retail for $1.6M, you know what you can get in Palo Alto for $1.6M? A 3/1 single family at 1,000 square feet that needs updating. 2,000 square foot is more than enough room for a couple of GROWN kids, many in SF/Peninsula will raise a family in 1,600 square feet. A 2,000 sf foot print can easily support a living/dining room, kitchen with large attached family, and three full bedrooms, and the rooms will all have great dimensions.
If they include adequate parking this development will be a slam dunk for the developer.
They will sell well as long as the architect plans each unit, as the French say, sans perte de place.
i really hope they dont approve bike lanes on chestnut. I spend a lot of time there, and it is relatively rare to even see people on bikes. Whats the need?
@jill, Perhaps a perceived dearth of bicyclists on Chestnut is due to a lack of safe bike lanes? Safely designed bicycle lanes encourage those who otherwise don’t feel safe cycling to ride. Having fewer folks getting around town by car is doing our planet and our lungs a big favor. More bike lanes and paths are needed for that to occur.