With San Francisco’s Mayor’s Office of Housing seeking to issue up to $375 million of mortgage revenue bonds to finance Related California’s proposed 1500 Mission Street development which could rise up to 320 feet on the northeast corner of Mission and South Van Ness, the half-block parcel upon which Goodwill currently resides, we get our first peek at the development’s design and details.
As proposed, Related’s 1500-1580 Mission Street project includes 565 units of rental housing averaging 728 square feet apiece. Twenty percent (113) of the apartments would be designated as affordable/Below Market Rate.
And of course, Related plans for the development plans to be “competitively amenitized,” complete with doorman, fitness center, pool, terraces, rooftop access and other amenities, “as dictated by market conditions.”
In addition to the housing, the 1500 Mission Street development includes plans for over 450,000 square feet of office space along Mission Street (one entrance to which would be by way of the existing Coca Cola Bottling Plant Clock Tower building which would be incorporated into the development) and 24,000 square feet of retail.
A subterranean garage would provide 300 parking spaces for the residents in the apartments and up to 150 spaces for the office tenants.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Comments are closed.
I don’t understand why the Mayor’s Office of Housing is involved in this market-rate (mostly) development. Is the developer not able to secure financing on their own without help from the City?
Isn’t this where several city departments are going to move?
I overheard two City workers talking on the bus (don’t know of they were Office of Housing workers or what) saying that City Offices would be centralizing in this new building.
Looks like a scaled up version of the Ellington development in Jack London Square.
Certainly won’t compete with Meier’s forthcoming 1 Van Ness. Good average background building which seems to be the standard for Mission Street. No complaints.
Hideous building, on a par with NEMA. Selling the soul of San Francisco for a mess.
Yes, because the former Goodwill building was such a prime example of San Francisco “soul.” Typical knee-jerk comment with zero attention paid to the actual project details.
Score 5 out of 5 on the metric of hyperbolic comment.
why must the city grow and replace decrepit buildings and empty lots?! I’m starting a special interest group to preserve our blight!! if it’s not what i want then it’s clearly not the “soul” of san francisco.
I know someone who’ll give $49,000 to your preservation group to get a proposition on the ballot.
I would bet that is hot off a $30,000 copier at the MOH?
I have no issue with this as long as City Employees do not get free parking , and that SF Gov Offices need to devote a percentage of their budget to pay Market Rate Rents to pay down the Bond ,
Parking alone would be about $1 Million per year
Why on earth do they need 150 parking spaces for city government offices? It’s about time for the city to start practicing the transit-first line it occasionally preaches.
Any parking should charge market rate and open to public.
Transit first? I agree. Perhaps if we had a more robust system in place.
The 60’s are back.
The 80% MR 20% AFF housing is what allows them to do the bond deal. Given that developer is on the hook for inclusionary housing anyway, the 80/20 deal allows them to get better rates and the city gets more affordable housing. We don’t see it that often because you need a big unit count to make it work.
Zero parking for office and 1:2 for residents sounds a lot better for an area already filled with deadly air pollution from cars.
Yawn
Umm so where are the NIMBYs and tenants supposed to park their bio diesel when they appeal a permit application? Where are the developers, homeowner going to park when they file for a permit? When someone bitches about the lack of off street parking at such a large (and new) city owned building they can look back at your post here and say, “Oh I was going to complain on Yelp but never mind Jamie didn’t want parking in this building”. =)
You’re hilarious. You might have a seizure if you paid attention to the parking ratios in my neighborhood’s new buildings… and much less local transit than at that intersection. But if you can take your head out of the 1950s to read a good rationale to clamp down on commuter parking where there is an abundance of transit options already in existence, check this out: http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Drive-to-clean-up-S-F-freeway-construction-air-5622234.php
I neglected to mention the parking for the City’s field inspectors. About 80 cars (housing and building… and maybe even Planning inspectors if this AirBnB enforcement is going to take traction) are needed.
Have you seen all the MTA vehicles also? These are mostly used so they can drive to neighborhood meetings to lecture taxpayers about not using cars and the removal of street parking spaces.
How does 82 + 228 + 66 = 565? Or am I missing something?
[Editor’s Note: Good catch. The summary unit mix which Related submitted to the Mayor’s Office of Housing was incorrect. We have since removed the mix from our post above until we can identify the correct counts.]
Gotcha, thanks!
$375 million bonds for 575 units .
Really?
right, because 300 parking spaces won’t add ~10 million to this project… totally justifiable on a ballot measure…
Nice! Now build it already!
stop with this stuff all looking the same. Build a tower but make it interesting. This is going to look like the West End of Vancouver. Everything looks the same.
Related can’t count.
UPDATE: Even Bigger Plans For Goodwill Site And New Mid-Market Tower.