While the plans for the Hayes Valley development with 139 residential units and a ground floor grocery store at 555 Fulton Street have been dusted off, as a number of plugged-in readers quickly noted, Ian Birchall and Associates is the new architect of record, having drafted a “distinct evolution” of the approved Saitowitz design.
The revised exterior design now employs “horizontally striped glass in two offset panels to assist the privacy of the units.”
I can’t figure out less than 50 percent parking spaces for a development right off the freeway. Planning is insane.
^Hopefully we can peel that freeway back a few more blocks. Slowly but surely it’s receding. I assume that’s what planning is thinking as well.
^^ I can’t figure out why you’d have a .5 parking ratio at a development in a neighborhood that is saturated with transit options. Planning is insane.
“saturated with transit options”
The rich will buy the units with parking, for much more than those without. The poorer people will enjoy the saturation of transit options, especially when they need to go on the freeway to the Peninsula. A clever way to maintain the privileges for the rich.
Wasn’t this the development the one where more parking was refused by the Planning Commission over the requests of the community, including a number of important African American groups? I think it was Olague who cast the deciding vote, just as she later did in another famous case.
Excellent point Conifer. I seem to remember catching a replay of a Planning Commission hearing about a year ago where the same issue was brought up by public speakers from the audience.
That night, the first project up for review was a 17 unit condo building with prices starting at 900K and every unit had parking and was approved. This was then followed by a project near Market Street with about 35 units proposed and the Board members felt there was “too much parking!”. Unit prices started around 400K and the Board felt only the largest most expensive units “should have parking”. When challenged by the audience, they just responded that they could not “control market forces”, and had “their hands tied because of the Transit First policies”.
So the argument here is that we should destroy our city streets to ensure that those who can “only” afford half million dollar condos have a parking spot, as opposed to those who can afford million dollar condos? Sweet.
Fifty percent parking has little if anything to do with the freeway being right outside the door.
In fact , it makes sense to have MORE parking at this location, with the logic being that many of the residents buying into this (very well designed) project could be working down the Peninsula, driving their own cars to get there.
Pretty sensible to me.
Please provide a link to the hearing anonandon, I would like to check your recollection. TIA