1066 Market Street Rendering

Shorenstein is pushing forward with the development of 1066 Market Street, a proposed 300-unit building designed by Arquitectonica to rise a narrow twelve stories along Market Street with the bulk of the building a floor or two higher along Jones and Golden Gate Avenue (as rendered above).

The proposed development includes parking for roughly 100 cars and three times as many bikes (300). Thirty-six (36) of the apartments would be rented at below-market-rates.  And while not yet approved by Planning, Shorenstein has already filed the paperwork to secure the building permits for the 1066 Market Street development in order to allow for a quick start.

And speaking of apartments and Market rates, down the street at The Wilson they’re asking up to $3,650 a month for studios and up to $5,075 for a one-bedroom, albeit a large one-bedroom of over 900 square feet which is 50 percent larger than the proposed 600-square-foot two-bedrooms designed to rise along Octavia.

51 thoughts on “Mid-Market Fireworks: Rendering Flash And Rocketing Rents”
  1. Kind of ugly! I want to have all beautiful buildings. Why are these kind of building being build that will not age well. Come on we can do better.

  2. It probably doesn’t matter that it’s butt-ugly. By the time it’s built, they’ll all be simple curtain walls with no variation.

  3. 5075 for a 900sq ft 1bdr is nuts! and i dont think 900 sq ft is particular big for a 1bdr. you can still buy a lot for 5000 mortgage. my mortgage is 3100 for a 3bdr 2000 sq ft, less than 1 mile away and in a nice neighborhood. if rents are really this high, then i think the market for buying is still cheap.

    1. I think 5000 would be a bargain for this location. Your right across the street from the new St. Anthony’s dining hall and your just a block away from all the best drug dealers in town! Can’t beat Tenderloin!

  4. If Arqu ‘value engineers’ that building it will be an eyesore. I do not trust then, but hopeful this Florida firm doesn’t dump on our city. Sorry for my bluntness but we have 100 years ahead living with the other garbage they’re doing on market.

  5. Great design to enliven a part of town where most existing buildings are horrible. Way to go Arqu.

  6. Well, I see rents are coming down (with sarcasm) due to the increased supply of units.

    I should have seen that coming.

  7. MUCH MUCH PREFER this future than the current state of garbage decorated with vomit, feces and urine!!!

  8. More ice trays… Lets slap up some more boring cube buildings in San Francisco.. Real architects arehttp://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=aNmG9CRB8jE5XM&tbnid=K6OeOA12x-F-DM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kikukawa.com%2Fen%2Fproduct%2F200architecture%2F100generalandcommerce%2Fpost.html&ei=LC23U5y9GoWoyATFnoCQAg&bvm=bv.70138588,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNHZ2pNPIjiNCkOSDz–6yRJ8WK1aw&ust=1404599913251848

  9. For goodness sake, if we don’t get rid of rent control this town is going to get beyond ridiculous w/ some folks paint $500/mth for a 1 bedroom, and others $5k.
    The developers are just playing off rent control.

    1. Getting rid of rent control isn’t magically going to drop rents across the city. If anything, it will make the city even less affordable to more people.

      1. You’re correct, it won’t drop them “magically”. Nothing magic about how supply and demand works.

        Many people currently here will see their rents go up and they’ll have to leave. But market rents will go down, allowing many new folks to rent for cheaper than they can now.

        1. Nope. Wrong again. Market rents won’t be going down. The rents will stay high and higher and simply attract, as they are NOW, a new economic class of people who willingly can afford high rent.

          1. You have some stats or studies showing that supply and demand rules do not apply in SF?

            Remember that the elimination of rent control would bring more than 200,000 units onto the open market.

        2. 1. Rent control is not about to be abolished.

          2. The “stats” if you wish to call it that are simply pointing to the fact that high rents are NOT discouraging people to move here. The high income newcomers gladly will pay to live here, because they WANT to and they can AFFORD to. That’s what property owners want and they have a ready and willing group to pay for place to live. I’m neither condoning it nor criticizing it. I simply see it as a fact of what SF is becoming: a small city for well to do people to live and buy.

          1. 1. Didn’t say that it was about to be abolished. We were talking about a “what if” scenario.

            2. I don’t disagree with any of this, but it has nothing to do with the hypothetical scenario where rent control is abolished. You stated bizarre ideas like 200,000 additional units added to the live rental market would have no impact on market prices, which is wildly outlandish.

  10. Weird rendering, in any case. Wouldn’t have guessed this was the Tenderloin, or even SF…looks more like the San Fernando Valley. These drawings don’t happen by accident: clearly the artist wanted this visual confusion.

  11. Takes more than expensive housing to get rid of the “vomit, feces and urine.” As for the building itself, as many people pointed out and we’ve seen countless times before, the finished product will be much different.

  12. I’d like to know more about the floorplate of this building. Surely it isn’t a solid cube. Are there atria in the middle or is it L shaped?

  13. To show how out of control these rental rates are, look at what a 1br rental in this building could get you In London. Try the Marylebone District (Think Pacific Heights north of California Street) and you could get a two bedroom without all the problems of Market Street. I would much rather take this 2br vintage flat and walk out your door to one of the finest neighborhoods in one of the greatest cities in the world. We need to get rid of rent control NOW!

  14. I wonder if the rents are set at what the average programmer at Twitter makes, and isnt a reflection of the overall market rate of the city. Meaning, the developers might figure that enough of the nearby tech programmers will want something close, and are young enough to not really care how much rent they are paying. So the developers find out the average programmer salary, which I’ve heard is 120-140, and just set rent for a studio at the maximum level these people can afford.

    1. I would tend to agree with your theory. It’s not really about supply/demand, but the fact that developers simply target their new rents toward those who make a high/good income.

      The developer/owners know exactly what they are doing and they have a willing group who want their product.

      1. this is supply and demand silly. their is a lot of demand from high earning individuals because of the SF job market is strong (not because everybody just loves SF). if the job market weakens, price increases will decelerate or even come down. this also happens if the numbers of rentals/ houses (increased supply) is greater than the number of high earning jobs available

        1. Well, I don’t think it’s about supply/demand.

          If there were suddenly tons of high paying, tech jobs in, say Bakersfield, the tech folks would quickly flock there and property owners would quickly jack up the rents for those folks without adding any supply of housing.

          The tech folks would gladly pay because they want to be in Bakersfield.

        2. Of course it’s supply and demand. If tech workers flocked to Bakersfield, and there were a glut of housing notwithstanding, landlords couldn’t jack up rents because there would always be a cheaper option, and the tech workers would rent that cheaper place instead of the one with jacked up rent. Landlords do not get to simply declare whatever high rent they want and force tenants to pay it (nor will tenants pay a higher rent of there is a cheaper substitute). Nor do tenants get to declare whatever low rent they want and force landlords to accept it. All depends on supply and demand – both of them.

          Just look at a simple supply/demand curve. If there is high demand or little supply (relative to the demand), rents go up. If there is high supply or little demand (relative to the supply), rents go lower.

          Income levels might put a cap on the highest price that could be charged, but they do not drive rents higher unless there is a scarcity of supply.

          1. its clear futurist is just playing dumb. no one could seriously be making his argument

    2. Um, this is exactly how a market works. What about this isn’t related to “the overall market rate of the city”?

  15. Sam, there is no way a developer could pull off the strategy you suggest unless the developer owned all housing units which are potential substitutes for the product the developer is marketing, and controlled the supply of units as well. When the price of a good doubles in a competitive market, someone else will bring new product to the market and undercut the existing seller’s price. There is no indication that rental or housing prices in San Francisco are being set through collusion, which frankly is impossible given decentralized ownership of land. The reason prices are high is because of high demand coupled with supply restrictions (some natural, some artificial), not monopolistic price setting.

    The one area where collusion may be operating (or have operated) is in the auction market for foreclosed properties. See the story in Sunday’s Chronicle.

    1. But the developer doesn’t have to price to capture the entire market, the developer only has to price to get enough of the market to fill its 300 units. The other factor is that, of course, the developer wants to price as high as possible to maximize its revenue stream.

      So e.g. in this instance, all the developer needs is 300 people (such as techies) able to pay this level of rent, and it will have both filled its building and maximized its revenue stream. Within a certain level of supply variability, it’s immaterial what else is on the market; the developer need only find 300 bodies to fill these 300 spaces. There’s no reason for the developer to offer these at, say, $2000 for a studio, merely for the sake of filling them; the developer can calculate that it can charge $3,650 for a studio and get just enough techie butts to fill the spaces.

      1. Exactly. And that will continue to keep the city rents and housing costs very expensive. We are or never will get more “affordable”.

        And I’m not complaining, I’m just stating a fact.

        1. people said that about detroit when GM and FOrd were booming. If the internet revolution is not the driving force of the economy in the future, we may no longer be the hot place. your mentality is nearsighted. we will not always be #1.

          1. Oh, I’m not sure what you mean by #1. Are we that? Have we ever been? In my opinion, no.
            But we, as a city, have a reputation of thinking highly of ourselves.

            There are plenty of other cities in this country that are desirable and far more affordable.

          2. “There are plenty of other cities in this country that are desirable and far more affordable”

            YEs, but they dont have the jobs we have. you think if twitter, facebook, apple, genentech, cisco, oracle, gilead, google, wells fargo, chevron, gap, visa all moved to cleveland, the prices and population wouldn’t skyrocket in cleveland?

            also, if all those companies moved to cleveland, then SF market would precipitously drop.

            SF has great jobs. and they are high paying jobs , and SF is a small city. thats why the market is so expensive.

  16. did people really say that about detroit during those times? i think not. I think the auto industry maintained a healthy blue collar class for a very long time, and that there was corresponding housing available for same. that is very much not what is transpiring in San Francisco.

  17. Enough already Aquitectonica…..we get it. Please look into your bag of “design-tricks” and come up with something else. We already have a Trinity and Linea……we don’t need any more.

    1. Linea and Trinity could not be more different than each other. Not sure what you are referring to?
      I also thought both buildings were well executed designs. Linea’s high end glass design for condo’s and Trinity for a large apartment complex.

      1. really? really? I guess I insulted your design. They are poorly designed buildings leftover from a late 80s / early 90s architectural design movement.

    2. I agree. Arquitectonica keeps showing interesting designs and, by the time they are finished, they look cheap and bland. Trinity is exhibit #1. But they sure are getting a lot of commissions here. Who’s to blame; the architect or the builder? In the end, does it matter?

  18. The Arquitectonica formula: crib something from a european design website or, in this case, a Sean Kelly painting, draw an elevation and floor plan at 1/16th scale, let selected vendors do the detailing. This is not architecture.

  19. The problem isn’t so much with Arquitectonica as it is with greedy developers like Angelo Sangiacomo who value engineered the Trinity project @ 8th & Mission down to the ugly mess it is now. One would hope Angelo (who was the architype greedy developer who is the reason for rent control in SF) would have wanted to leave an attractive set of buildings in the city that he has done so well in, instead people will look at 8th & Mission and then think of rent control and the greed of developers like Angelo. Hopefully the Shorensteins who are from SF will push for a better design from Arquitectonica.

  20. What good is a Planning Department that approves such an ugly new building on Market Street? We might as well abolish the PD and save a billion in salaries.

Leave a Reply

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