Polk Street Parking Lot Shuttered, Apartments Ready To RiseApril 23, 2014
The parking lot on the 101 Polk Street parcel has been shuttered, its kiosk razed, and the heavy equipment should soon appear to start preparing the site on the northwest corner of Polk and Hayes for the 13-story building with 162 rental units over a subterranean garage to rise.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
I think I commented on that mural in the previous post on this development, but now it occurs to me how silly it was for the city to offer that particular wall for the purpose. I know that the mural won’t be covered up, but it was intended to be seen by more people and the development of this property should have been considered.
I hope the influx of thousands of new residents around the Civic Center plaza area puts pressure on rethinking the minimal use of City Hall park. It feels like a barren landscape with campers usually — and a vast amount of angled street parking effectively cutting it off from any welcoming pedestrian experience. Shouldn’t some of the streets be narrowed or better, altogether banned from car use? (like Grove btwn Polk and Larkin)
Regarding that mural…
Every death is tragic — why should the city allocate a large wall for a permanent memorial to that particular sailor? There were 21 pedestrians killed in SF accidents last year. Do they get murals too?
yeah, lets ban car use from civic center. i’m sure your alternate reality is a wonderful place.
In 5-10 years, you won’t recognize the Plaza/Park. It’s not 1955 any longer.
Watch what happens. (Even if only out your car window).
I like the density here, but why not more? A separated bicycle boulevard is currently being installed along Polk and this tower increases the walkability/bikeability of Polk St. Residents here will find little use for owning a car. There is plenty of transportation infrastructure around Civic Center Plaza that auto access is an unnecessary convenience, mostly for people that don’t live anywhere near the neighborhood.
Progressive anti-car agenda = making the choices for people. If people choose to not own cars, then eventually parking will disappear from these buildings. If people choose to own cars, then parking will continue to be built.
Ableism, ageism, and anti-family sentiments aside, which have been discussed ad nauseum, just because your particular lifestyle means having a car in this location is unnecessary does NOT mean that everybody else who may choose to rent or own in this area agree with you. A city like NYC does not build many parking spots in their new developments because their incredibly efficient, reliable, and extensive transportation network creates very little demand for driving. San Francisco’s transit system is decidedly fourth-rate when compared to NYC’s, and as such, many continue to own cars.
Just like with housing, you cannot legislate away demand. By reducing parking and eliminating cars, etc, you are simply skyrocketing the rate upward and taking car ownership away from the middle-class, who are already pretty much shat on in this economy and are often the ones who NEED it (due to jobs, families, etc).
Yay! Happy to see this get started.
And there you have it, just a handful of comments into the remarks on a fine but plain in-fill mid-rise building, and the rapid pro- and anti-car folks are out in force.
On a different topic – the views from the upper floors on the west side should be nice – great view of City Hall. Though will tend to be a bit noisy during Pride and such, LOL
Its already been reported that the old AAA parking lot and building are going to be razed for housing ,
But any word about the AAA building next to this project that currently houses the Arts Academy ?
@JWS you can legislate demand with regards to cars. I think London’s proved it with congestion pricing, I think that SFPark has proved it now that higher costs during peak times make spots available when you need it, etc. SF already has about 25% of it’s total area covered by roads and we’re one of the most congested cities in the US. We obviously have to grow since demand to live here is so high, so why not be smart about the lifestyles we want to encourage in a downtown location. The Tenderloin has the highest rate of children in the city and the lowest rate of car ownership. Places like Amsterstam have the vast majority of people of all ages traveling by foot/bike. Step outside of where we are now and think about where we can be.
The Civic Center may have a low rate of car ownership but not necessarily a low rate of car use nor do we residents–yes, I am one–want traffic in the area made ever worse by closed off and one-way streets. There are already proposals that may make Hayes less usable than now. Do the same to Grove and you’ll make for gridlock.
I don’t have a car but I do use Zipcars when I need to haul lots of groceries or bulky items. I want to be able to get home. We do not need people from other parts of town redesigning our streets.
@BTinSF – pretty much every structural change in SF streets made for the benefit of pedestrians/cyclists hasn’t resulted in increased delays or congestion. This includes the new Cesar Chavez redesigns, Folsom st road diet, the church st transit only lane, etc. I too use a car but there’s nothing wrong with smart and balanced planning for different modes.
I love the density here, because I’m dense, but as it **rises** could we add more parklets and actually aim for negative parking spaces (in other words, if you want to build you need to REMOVE existing parking from somewhere in San Francisco)
Got lots-a udder great ideas but I’m boarding my Doodler Bus for SFMTA HQ where my job is to murder San Francisco.
Get the cars out of Civic Center. I have no sympathy for drivers at all. I visit City Hall at least 2-3 times a week and it is a rare occurrence that I do not almost get squashed in the crosswalk on Polk St. because some fool couldn’t be bothered to slow down and/or stop. With privilege comes responsibility, but that is an alien concept for most Americans. Once we get the cars out we can landscape the street rights-of-way.
It seems like the solution for car parking is robotic car rotisseries that can use volume much more effectively than self parking facilities. The amount of volume devoted to accessing a parking space is at least 50% of the floor area of a parking facility if not more. Add in the extra height needed because individuals need head room and it seems that 3-4x the number of cars can be crammed in a volume taken by a parking garage. These can be placed on narrow lots and don’t need windows. They can also extend underground.
So I don’t get it. I hear about the housing crisis in SF but just about every new larger building outside of the Financial District (and some in it) is residential or being converted to residential. The Ava, the Nema, the Marlow, the old AAA building (400 apartments), at least 3 projects in Hayes Valley, and all the corner lots on Market that have recently sprung up. I understand the affordable housing issue, but it seems like there is a huge amount of residential on the market or about to be on the market. Am I missing something?
Robotic car rotisseries are probably coming, but they’re still expensive. When people complain about parking, they’re usually talking about a lack of free parking, not a lack of expensive parking.
the quality of that mural is a bit of a shocker. I wish I were more amazed that it exists at a major location in san francisco. it would be great for a high school gymnasium.
Comments are closed.