Trumark Urban is working on plans for a modern 12-story building to rise along Market and Oak Streets, between Franklin and Van Ness, with 109 condos over three ground-floor retail spaces and a basement garage with parking for 28 cars and 110 bikes.
As designed by Handel Architects, the proposed 1546-1564 Market Street project would be composed of two distinct structures: one fronting Market Street with the project’s two main retail spaces, and the second fronting Oak Street with the building’s lobby, garage entrance and the third little retail space, likely a café.
Narrow pedestrian walkways would connect the two structures at every level above the ground floor, including between the roof-top terraces on each of the structures which would be shielded by a 16-foot windscreen.
Located directly adjacent to the Market Street parcels upon which the Richard Meier designed One Van Ness tower is proposed to rise up to 37-stories in height, three existing buildings will need to be razed for Trumark’s project to be constructed, including the garage at 55 Oak Street and the office building at 1554-1564 Market Street, both of which are historical resources and will require a detailed environmental review.
If eventually approved, the development would take around 20 months to construct, including the initial demolition and site work. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
Bleak institutional design. Yikes! This mid-Market area will look awful and be totally uninviting at street level. Luckily I visit Portland and Seattle often and get the chance to see far more intimate and appealing mid-size residential projects.
You could visit Hayes Valley, literally 5 blocks away to get the same experience, Dave.
Haha, seriously– comparing two entire cities to one neighborhood in this one.
I believe that at some point in future to the east side a super residential tower is planned. I gather it will hide the eastern face of this structure. Any positive change in this area is welcome given the street people that seem to gather in this location, my only concern is that said folks are pushed out to my soma hood.
[Editor’s Note: As reported above, “Located directly adjacent to the Market Street parcels upon which the Richard Meier designed One Van Ness tower is proposed to rise up to 37-stories in height…”]
Yeah, and not to mention plans for the Honda, Goodwill, and 30 Van Ness sites
I rather like the design… though I have trouble trusting renderings that can’t even get the re-clad AAA building right.
Just had to do a Google street view to recall the 2 “historic” buildings that will be razed. OMFG, you’ve got to be kidding. I’m a huge historic preservation supporter, but c’mon – those two buildings could not be more plain and unremarkable. So ridiculous that a special “environmental” review is required because of these two lumps of masonry.
Plain, unremarkable, already so muddled, what could possibly be the point? Even if they were 300 years old, I’d say yank ’em down.
not really loving the design either even though its better then what currently exists ,
Looks nice to me. The walkways sound cool.
Is the Meier tower still happening? Seems like no news for a long time on that one.
The pigeons will enjoy those ledges.
I like it. But then again I’m for the “bleak, institutional” changes happening to SF, especially since it means less hippies and hobos.
Uber needs to create a hippie n hobo app so developers can highlight decreasing in urban undesirables as they attempt to lure techie crunchers toward the zone
You and everyone else here. Welcome to Dallas.
It’s so bad that you’re just gonna have to stay and complain about it.
The design of the “Meier” building has been re-tooled, maybe even a new architect, but that tower should make a real difference in how this builidng looks: it will obscure the blank, east-side property walls of these two towers. This building’s facade will pretty much be all the public can see, which is clearly the most compelling part.
As part of a set of buildings anchring this critically-important corner, this Handel design should appear much more elegant than as the stand-alone rendered here.
Spot on- I wish someone could put this in context of the future massing.
109 units and only 28 parking spaces? LOL. JFC.
There’s a muni station across the street and Hayes Valley, the Mission, and the changing SOMA all within 10 minute walk. I’m surprised they bothered with any parking.
If I’m plunking down $1000+ per square foot I absolutely want parking. Doesn’t mean I won’t avail myself of walking/biking and public transit, but car ownership isn’t an evil thing that needs to be as actively discouraged as SF seems hell bent on doing.
You may want it, but perhaps for others (especially future generations) it is becoming less and less of a priority in their housing decisions: Young people are opting for public transit over buying their own wheels.
Young people turn into 30 somethings and then 40 somethings, some with families and they WILL buy a car, or two.
But of course, the car haters here will continue their endless rant. I’m all for bikes and public transit as well AS car use. It’s making sure different people have choices.
Futurist, why do you want to remove choice then?
@anon: Perhaps you’re playing a clever word game re: “choice”.
How am I removing choices?
You want to force developers to build more parking. You’ve been on the record many times opposing the removal of parking minimum requirements. Thus you want to remove the choice of developers to build the proper amount of parking (which may be zero in many cases) and the choice of people to buy in a building without parking.
Why do so many believe developers would pass along the “savings” to buyers by not providing parking? I actually think units without parking subsidize the cost of units in the same building with parking. Also, if the majority of the buyers are looking for parking, that’s the product developers will want to build. It’s all about selling. Buildings without any parking provide the best possible cost savings.
Um, who said anything about developers “passing along savings”? Do you not understand how markets work? Allowing developers to determine the appropriate amount of parking to build lowers their costs, which encourages more developers into the game AND allows all developers to build more units (since less space is taken up by parking). More supply leads to lower prices, not any of this nonsense about developers passing along savings.
Also, I’ve said numerous times that I’d be fine with eliminating all parking requirements (minimum and maximum) and allowing the market to determine the appropriate amount, instead of the politburo. Futurist much prefers the heavy hand of the central planners in determining the amount of parking that us lowly citizens “need”.
Here’s why I have this opinion:
1. Most of the owners, I believe, will have a car, or intend to buy a car. Renters generally ride bikes, up to a certain age. Owner (who typically) are more wealthy will want a car, perhaps also enjoying a bike. At this price point, a typical buyer profile will WANT a parking space.
2. Without adequate parking, they will end up parking on the street, if available, or paying for it in a garage.
3. Having on site parking only relieves congestion in looking for a space. I like on site parking.
4. In some past posts I have been only with a 1:2 ratio of parking. In this case, it’s almost 1:4. I call that unbalanced.
Again, let us know why you’re more qualified to decide this than the marketplace. The arrogance of the central-planning-at-all-cost folks is just crazy. Learn from the wisdom of crowds.
Who said I was more qualified? just giving my opinions.
You seem pretty defensive when others disagree with you.
The “wisdom of the crowds” is not the same as the wisdom of property buyers. Two different incomes, two different age groups, and two different levels on a career path. Builders build what buyers want, they are not “forced” to build units and projects that will not sell.
Do you mean the wisdom of the crowd driving around looking for a parking place?
Exactly Anon. Builders should be allowed to build what they want. They’re not allowed that now, with parking minimums in the vast majority of SF, and parking maximums in the rest. Futurist and his politburo of parking experts is now deciding exactly how much each development needs.
@BobN, yes, that’s exactly what I mean. If we see places where many folks are circling for a parking space, then obviously the on street parking is priced waaaaaay to low. Price it higher and the circling stops, because no one would be hanging around for the killer cheap/free spot.
not trying to hijack this thread with the usual “number of parking spots” squabble, but a lot of NYC condos don’t have parking. it’ll be interesting to see if it becomes less of a “given amenity”. while i agree with you- that a fancy condo like this should have it, things are changing. it will become more and more of a precious commodity.
@Patrick: Sounds like you’re not in the target demographic for this project then.
Haha, I typed the exact same thing in MoD. If you don’t want to buy here, don’t buy it, but don’t expect the City to force your preferences on everyone else.
im changing my tune on the parking thing too for selfish reasons. I dont want any new buidling to ahve parking and no neighborhood permits to be given out to new residents who do not have an assigned aprking space. the traffic has gotten quite a bit worse over the past 1.5 yrs. As long as they dont give out new neighborhood permits, then im in favor of limiting the parking spots in new buidlings. however, if they continue to give new parking permits to new residents without a garage, then it will just make traffic worse with the circlers.
if they continue to give out new permits, then every new unit should have a garage to cut down congestion
Agree with Spencer, no more neighborhood permits should be issued if no off street parking is included. If someone is going to pay $1000 sq ft here, no parking is part of the deal. BTW…I’m surprised there are not more “taller!” comments.
Anon: there is logic to that idea. But it’s also a bit silly to say “we’ll give you cheap street parking, but only if you don’t really need it because you have your own parking.”
I’d add to your proposal that the people who do own the right to neighborhood permits that they don’t need should be allowed to sell those rights to people who don’t have them because they live in new buildings. That way, those who need them can get them (at a cost) while existing owners profit– win-win.
If you’re plunking down $1000+ per square foot, the average parking spot will cost $300,000+. At that price, you may reconsider whether you absolutely want parking.
Of course, basement space is a discount from other space– but not that much of a discount. Another planned development already includes a below-ground supermarket, so there’s competition even for the underground.
You know what’s crazy!?!?! I live in a building in SF with 8 units and zero parking spots!!!! JFC!!!!!
Do you happen to know how many total cars the 8 units own?
Can tolerate it. So glad it’s not 3 stories. Street level experience on Market HAS to be better. If anyone is awake in Planning and has any sense of Market as main boulevard for SF — they will make the street experience grand. Market is moving towards a pedestrian- and bike-only street as we should plan accordingly for an increasingly dense and engaging pedestrian experience.
Many new buildings in NY have parking. It adds to the value way beyond the cost to the developer.
In Paris, run by socialists, they are also against cars, but there are multi-story garages under virtually every park and plaza big enough to have them, including many famous places such as the Madeleine and the Bourse.
It is manipulative and short-sighted to limit parking spaces. Cars are not going away.
Moreover, as I have said before, Muni will never be a system even remotely as useful as that of those in big cities like NY, London, Paris.
every single friend and family member i have who lives in Manhattan owns a car. they didn’t in their 20s and early 30s, but they all do now
So do all of my friends, and they pay good prices for their parking spaces if they live in buildings without garages.
Hm, as long as we’re debating public policy choices based on anecdotal evidence, all of the people I know that live in NYC have pet dogs, therefore SF should force all apartments to be built with doggy doors.
You guys must not know many people in New York, lol. I lived in Manhattan for five years, and I don’t think I met more than 10 people that kept cars in the city (worked in midtown at an IB). I knew more people that had their own full time drivers than people that had their own cars.
i wasnt making a policy comment about NY, just an observation about friends and family. i know about 12 households in Manhattan and they all have cars. two of them drive from upper east site to downtown every day. the others dont use them a lot but they have them
Not sure what the point of bringing it up was then? 12 people in Manhattan is like a grain of salt on th beach. You just happen to know some people that fall WELL outside the norm for Manhattan, since we can look at you know, data, to see that it’s VERY rare for Manhattanites to drive to work.
i never said it wasnt rare. im giving commentary, not statistically evidence. it was related to the conversation. im not making a public policy point. are you not OK with people just sharing what comes to their mind about a topic? would you like to monitor all of my communications and make sure there is a point to them all? not everything needs to be a key message
Yes, please send me all of your communications post-haste. I’d like to review them.
Most people I know in SF *dont* have a car. But they are mostly renters. Maybe new rental buildings should forego parking and the condos can make up for the slack?
hehe, looks like the old falsities are alive and well:
Paris has underground parking == SF should allow unlimited parking
limiting parking == socialism
cars are here to stay == allow unlimited parking
muni is bad now == muni will never be good
On the last one, consider that one of the reasons that Muni is so poor is that we’ve over-subsidized parking and that leads to congestion which interferes with Muni. So asking for more parking because “Muni will be bad forever” becomes a self-fulfilled prophecy.
Well, no. MUNI’s awfulness has nothing to do with oversubsidizing parking. It’s terrible because of (1) decades of incompetent management, (2) meddling elected officials, and (3) under funding (largely caused by #1 and #2).
And oversubsidizing parking. You forgot #4.
In what sense is parking subsidized, let alone over-subsidized? The parking structures in the city are revenue sources, no?
If you mean the streets, etc. that’s subsidizing driving, not car storage.
@BobN
Free (or minimal cost) street parking, planning required parking minimums, and anything other than market rate parking meters are subsidized parking
Literally tens of thousands of cars are stored for free (or an artificially low cost) on the streets. Not sure what you’re smoking if you think streets are only for driving.
If we are for eliminating “free” on street parking, why does the SFMTA refuse to allow off street parking to be built? I believe Ed Reiskin and Cheryl Brinkman’s “not one new space” policy still stands? During the Polk Street hearings I remember watching that they had refused a private developer from building a parking garage because it would “increase the number of spaces in the city”.
Why does one have anything to do with the other? Are you saying that the city has an obligation to provide free parking?
Quite the opposite, I am NOT saying the city has an obligation to provide free parking. I am saying the city should allow private developers to build private pay parking garages like the one proposed between Polk and Van Ness. This project was blocked by Reiskin and Brinkman because their “not one additional space” policy includes off street private parking….don’t believe me, watch one of the hearings on SFGOV. The garage project was proposed in anticipation of what at that time was almost 60% of the street parking on Polk, this of course has since been relaxed, but I would have been in favor of the garage, AND the bike lanes.
I guess I missed the part where I disagreed with you on this?
Again though, that has nothing to do with the ridiculous subsidization of on-street parking, and subsidizing more than 100,000 parking spots in the city would be a much higher priority for fixing than other issues, IMO.
Yes, some people supposedly being against private parking garages is a completely different topic than whether parking is subsidized (which it has been shown to be).
Also, please cite a reference for your “not one new space” quote. I’d be interested to know who actually made such a statement, and in what context.
“It adds to the value way beyond the cost to the developer.”
Right – not having parking actually makes these units more affordable than they would be otherwise. Why do rich people want to live in the center of a city only to force their suburban preferences on an environment clearly not built to accommodate those preferences?
I would probably walk past this and not notice that it didn’t used to be there.
It isn’t ugly.
It’s just very blendy.
It’ll blend in even more once the towers start going up on the corners… If it has a nice active ground floor use then I think it works fine to eventually bridge in the gap between One Van Ness and the rest of the block. Not ugly, nor iconic, but it will do it’s job relatively quietly.
From the sides it looks like a jail.
That’s because the sides are designed to be covered up by other buildings.
Way back when, I worked for a bit in that office building, and indeed the place was completely uninteresting dump. I’m shocked that it would end up on a “historic” list.
I will shed a tear for the garage’s facade though.
A couple of months ago, in a SF Business Times breakfast, the largest developer of housing units in SF said “Today I don’t have any problem building 1 parking space per four units; there is no problem in the market place. Five years ago, yes; today, no.
Fifteen years ago I met with the French Minister of Transportation; he absolutely could not understand why anyone would want to limit parking. That is when the build a parking garage under every postage stamp plaza in Paris. Five years later, I met with his successor who told me that it is now the national policy of France not to build any urban parking garages. Lets face it, its relatively easy to build parking, but impossible to widen streets. The more parking there is, the more of us drive; and vice versa. Give me plentiful (and hence cheap) parking and sure, I will drive to work; and jam up our streets even more than they are. Bad public policy. Its really not a philosophical question, its a simple matter of geometry.
Really interesting
I don’t love the back! Why not make the wall a green wall. I don’t think this warm enough. It can be modern and without being heartless.