CFAH

140%20Penn%20Site.jpg

As proposed, the single-story Potrero Hill warehouse at the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 17th Street will be razed and two residential buildings will be built upon the site.

140%20Penn%20Rendering.jpg

The building to be known as 1001 17th Street would be 4-stories and 48-feet tall with 26 condos and a ground floor garage for nine (9) cars and 28 bikes. The sister building at 140 Pennsylvania Street would be 4-stories and between 40 and 48 feet tall with 11 condos and a garage for 8 cars and 11 bikes. The proposed condos average 800 square feet.

An earlier plan for the site called for a four-story commercial building with retail on the ground floor and 57 parking spaces underground. San Francisco’s Planning Commission is set to approve the revised plans this week.

As plugged-in people know, plans to build 45 new units on the parking lot across the street at 98 Pennsylvania Avenue are in the works while the approved 468-unit Daggett Place development is a block away at the corner of 7th and 16th Streets.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by james jr

    Where is the “family friendly” development we hear so much about?
    800 sq ft is alright for two, but hardly enough for a family of three, four or five.

  2. Posted by lyqwyd

    Remember that’s an average, some will be smaller, others will be larger.

  3. Posted by Jackson

    Thirty-seven new condos and only seventeen parking spaces seems ridiculous. It’s not like this area has great public transportation, unless you are counting I-280 overhead.
    Additionally, I had friends who lived in the condos on the north-side of the 17th street who parked on the street and whose cars were broken into, twice.

  4. Posted by Grace

    The city will continue to deny one parking per unit until the people of SF stand up and demand change. They are bent on turning ‘transit first’ into transit only. New commercial buildings are being built to house 20000 employees with only 26 spaces. The answer of city hall: take the bus. Well, I think the mayor should have to commute to work only on public transit for a month. And, on his way home he should be forced to do what every day people do – pick up a baby from daycare, do his grocery shopping, and get his dry cleaning. And when he can manage all if that on the bus for a month – then he can push transit only.

  5. Posted by lark

    I think this is the right amount of parking spaces. The city can’t take all these additional cars in the streets.

  6. Posted by lark

    I think this is the right amount of parking spaces. The city can’t take all these additional cars in the streets.

  7. Posted by Joel

    As it stands, the city has more demand for housing than it has supply. Limiting the amount of parking available in new developments serves the dual purpose of filtering that demand and making the city more livable.
    That being said, the area could really use BRT on 16th st.

  8. Posted by Mark

    @Grace: I think “transit first” should really only apply if the city actually adopted that principle. SF is all talk and no transit. We can hardly call what’s in place a respectable system for a “world class city.” It’s a joke.
    As for development in general…I’d like to know the demographics of who is buying in these new condo buildings (income, age, city/town where they work, etc.) and how many of these people actually use transit versus driving.

  9. Posted by Zig

    Where is the “family friendly” development we hear so much about?”
    I agree it is all BS. If the city cared about families some of the development in Mission Bay and P Hill would include family friendly parks, an elementary school and 2/3 bedrooms units entitled with little redtape and exactions to encourage their development
    But the city is at best indifferent to families and likely wants them to leave

  10. Posted by Zig

    “New commercial buildings are being built to house 20000 employees with only 26 spaces. The answer of city hall: take the bus”
    Where is this? I think most new commercial buildings should be built with zero parking spaces near downtown. The roads are already way too congested as it stands
    I would rather see the citizen revolt and demand better transit planning and investment myself but we will see. I would rather not grow at all than add ten’s of thousand of new parking spaces around the city. That would be miserable for all.

  11. Posted by imminent domain

    Humm…how about the new owners praying that the city comes along and buys the land it off them for a 20% profit.

  12. Posted by Futurist

    The parking ratio is ridiculously low. Should be 1:1.
    Bike parking is fine, but it’s all to satisfy the bike nuts at City Hall. A total sham,trying to shove biking down ALL of our throats. For many individuals, of all ages, and some with families, bike transit will never work.
    And we are not a “transit first” city, but rather transit joke.

  13. Posted by Oscar

    This is a lot of development for this area. Does anyone know what the plans are for the site that was supposed to be developed by Kaiser?

  14. Posted by Patrick

    The building that to be demolished is an outstanding example of a structure built in the spare, midcentury industrial vernacular style of architecture. Once common, it is now vanishing from the scene. This rugged structure is uniquely suited to its place, its warm, tan finish complimenting the hard surface located across the street. Tearing this building down for yet another bland, featureless multi-family development would destroy the character of this vibrant urban streetscape.
    j/k

  15. Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

    “I think the mayor should have to commute to work only on public transit for a month. And, on his way home he should be forced to do what every day people do – pick up a baby from daycare, do his grocery shopping, and get his dry cleaning.”
    And the Mayor should have to do this on the T, 10, 19 and 22 in the evening without getting assaulted or robbed. Now THAT would be an achievement.

  16. Posted by johntrev

    I-280 overhead is right, and you get Cal Train rumbling right by too. https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wl
    Maybe like all the South of market folks who move next door to long standing nightclubs, one day we’ll have these folks complaining about freeway noise. (Anyone think they’ll actually follow through on that idea to knock back the end of 280 to around Mariposa?)

  17. Posted by Don

    “The building that to be demolished is an outstanding example of a structure built in the spare, midcentury industrial vernacular style of architecture. Once common, it is now vanishing from the scene. This rugged structure is uniquely suited to its place…”
    That comment is so well-crafted I’m still not entirely sure it’s snark. It’s snark, right? (Maybe it’s just that I really do think the real warehouse looks better than the fictional (aka “architectural rendering of…” new building, and is almost certainly better-built than its replacement will be.)

  18. Posted by Futurist

    @ johntrev: No, I don’t think the 280 will be demolished any time soon.
    The FB and Google hipsters, along with their buddies at City Hall would rather turn this entire city into another Mayberry; everyone rides bikes, cars are outlawed, we all wear beanies year-round, knit bomb the hell out of the city, leave our trash in Dolores Park.
    The freeway’s not going anywhere, any time soon.

  19. Posted by Mark

    @Futurist: exactly…that is, until they hit 40, realize their 4 year old needs to get into a private or decent public school, find out public transit sucks so they have to buy a car to drive their said kid across town to school, avoid going to Dolores Park because of the trash, homeless and drug addicts, etc.
    Self interest in this city amazes me, be it a hipster in the Mission who flagrantly ignores traffic laws while biking across town or a one percenter in Noe bemoaning the loss of the view from his oversized, but green-friendly, monstrosity of a house.

  20. Posted by Patrick

    @Don, yes, it’s snark, hence the j/k underneath. Thanks for noticing my little joke 🙂

  21. Posted by Moto mayhem

    Definitely needs more parking. Otherwise streets will be jammed with people looking for parking. Most People who buy own cars. Now they will just fill sidewalks instead of a garage

  22. Posted by Bang Ding Ow

    Futurist should see someone about his/her paranoia. FB and Google hipsters with buddies at City Hall? You don’t even know who to hate anymore, do you?

  23. Posted by lol

    To paraphrase the famous Charlton Heston quote:
    The FB/Google conspirators will have to pry futurist’s steering wheel from his cold dead hands.

  24. Posted by Futurist

    Calm down boys and girls. No body hates anybody here.
    You might wanna direct some of your vitriol at others who feel the way I do.
    And what’s with these new screen names that seem to pop up to offer a “new” opinion? just saying, Bang Ding Ow.
    Now go back to your keyboards and trash on some one else who has a different opinion than yours.

  25. Posted by johntrev

    “…until they hit 40, realize their 4 year old needs to get into a private or decent public school, find out public transit sucks so they have to buy a car to drive their said kid across town to school, avoid going to Dolores Park because of the trash, homeless and drug addicts, etc. ”
    Yes! Not everyone has the same circumstances, and not everybody would be keen on the relatively suburban part of SF in which I live, but I see development proposals like this, with 1 parking spot for every 3 units, and I say thank goodness I have a house where I can park my car (and my bikes!) in my garage or without roaming the neighborhood looking for 20 minutes.

  26. Posted by lyqwyd

    It’s so 2012 how the car fetishists turn any post that mentions parking into a diatribe against cyclists…

  27. Posted by Jackson

    Actually lyqwyd from my perspective the opposite it true.
    Anyone who professes the desire for owning a car and having a garage is chastised.
    You have SF Bicycle Coalition on speed-dial?

  28. Posted by lyqwyd

    I’m not surprised from your perspective the opposite is true, given you are the one who started with saying there’s not enough parking.
    You have SF Bicycle Coalition on speed-dial?
    No, and haven’t ridden a bike in years, but I do own a car and garage and drive every day and pay for parking at work. I’d love to have easier parking, but I don’t expect others to pay for my choices. Forcing parking into developments makes those who don’t want parking subsidize those who do.

  29. Posted by Schaetzer

    Last I checked the case file had been closed on 98 Pennsylvania without any decision noted. I believe that means no project. Horrible location. Right next to the freeway and the train but pretty far from the streetcar on 3rd St. Close to the 22-Filmore though, if that’s your thing. The saving grace would have been relative proximity to UCSF.

  30. Posted by Bang Ding Ow

    Futurist, all I’m saying is if you’re gonna attack straw men, at least make them look realistic. Hipsters, techies, landlords, unashamed motorists, political donors, developers connected to City Hall, etc. Those are all perfectly good enemies to have (or make) but they’re not the same.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles