Packing ‘Em In At 100 Van Ness, Even More Apartments ProposedOctober 10, 2014
The Emerald Fund is seeking permission to add another 18 apartments to the 399 under construction at 100 Van Ness Avenue, within the old AAA building which has been re-skinned.
If approved, the envelope of the building at 100 Van Ness wouldn’t be expanded, but rather the development’s planned storage areas for tenants, including a room intended for the storage of 121 bikes on the third floor, would be converted to a studio, a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom on each of floors three through eight.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
How can they remove the bike parking in favor of more apartments? It’s criminal!
Bike parking does not generate monthly income. It’s the developer’s right to want to increase profits. Bikers could choose not to rent here, or they could store their bikes in their unit or elsewhere, as I’ve seen friends/people do.
“elsewhere” doesn’t make sense, and in unit isn’t very desirable or efficient. Not only can scuff up hallways, but is a major pain in the ass for the tenant. MUCH more efficient to have one room devoted to them. Just Say No.
i have 3 bikes and keep them all inside my unit. i dont trust their safety in the cages or in my garage, and they are too expensive to lose. they dont take up much space
SF having some of the highest bike theft in the country, I wouldnt want my bikes anywhere else than in my apartment, especially when you are surrounded by 450 neighbors you know nothing about.
I keep my bike in my place, and i lug it up 4 flights!
How can a developer be allowed to want to “increase profits”? The nerve!
They should charge for bike parking, same as a monthly parking fee.
They can certainly do that if they want to, but the market wouldn’t allow them to charge that much because no one would pay. Take an economics course some time.
Futurist, believe it or not I don’t have a problem with that. I’m for “unbundling” for both bike and car parking. However, if the car cost, say, $200 per month, the bike would probably cost only something like $10/month, given the square footage requirements (not only the physical parking space, but also the required space for circulation and ramps. And you could easily do that by charging for key fobs to get into a bike room.
I know that this is already the practice in at least one new building.
Imagine having to PAY just like drivers do? The nerve of these developers! I have to pay for a storage locker in my garage, as well as a monthly fee for the parking space in addition to the purchase cost for the deeded parking space, so why should the bike parking be free? The bike crowd wants to be treated like adults, so let them start paying like adults for parking, street usage, insurance, AND be subject to traffic law enforcement.
Exactly. The tragedy, the horror, the outrage for cyclists to actually behave like adults.
And pay their fair share.
You mean like paying taxes just like everyone else?
Bicyclists pay more than their fair share of infrastructure costs. When are car drivers going to stop demanding a free ride?
who’s complaining? bikes do pay. about 50% of infrastructure is payed by income taxes which as you know, everyone with an income pays.
I really don’t understand the scapegoating of cyclists. EVERY DAY I see cars speeding, blocking intersections, double parking, and running red lights on a much wider scale than I see cyclists doing any of the above. Of course every one should be courteous and follow the rules – I’m not advocating that cyclists are above the law. I just wish I would see the outrage directed at selfish road users in general rather than scapegoating all cyclists.
Lots of buildings charge for bike parking, why do you assume that they don’t?
Who is demanding that bike parking be free? I just think it should be available, particularly in a new building with severely constricted vehicle parking. Even if it is a “free” amenity, they can charge higher rent for the associated apartments. Or even better is to just charge a la carte for bike or car parking spaces so only those who need them have to pay. I keep my current bike locked in a shared garage and it is way better than lugging it in and out of my unit all the time.
Unless I’m missing something, all of the units on lower half of the floor plan except the corner units have an interior / windowless bedroom which is legally not a bedroom. So the “2BR” units are really 1 BR with den; and the “1BR” units are really alcove studios. I guess if that’s the side of the building that faces VanNess, maybe that’s considered a feature since the windowless bedrooms will be quieter. But legally, they can’t market those as bedrooms, can they?
Interesting point. I was trying to figure out if this floorplan is oriented with N at the top – if so, I can’t believe that the potential views of Davies, the Opera, and City Hall are taken up with storage and bike parking.
The building is longer along Van Ness, so this drawing isn’t oriented with N at the top. Based on the easement my guess is that N is to the left (?).
This is a very “loosely defined” issue. Building code allows for a so called “bedroom” to not contain a window of legal size and configuration IF the bedroom opens onto the main space with a certain minimum sized opening. In truth they are not really bedrooms and should not be called that by the developer and realtors. They are “sleeping alcoves”. Trouble is that’s the new standard for many of these developments and buyers are willingly (falling) paying for it.
Architecturally, I think it’s sleazy.
In what sense, are they “not really” bedrooms. It doesn’t seem to me a room has to have a window to “really” be bedroom or for it to be used at that. So putting a lot of weight on an arbitrary definition seems odd. In any case, I would expect that the people who will reside in these places will look at them beforehand and can assess whether the space is suitable.
Oh, I agree with you that people who buy into this will not really be that concerned if it’s a “bedroom” or not. But I personally think it’s a rip-off.
Legally speaking, from the building code, a bedroom must be a certain dimension and minimum square foot. It must have a window of 10% of the floor area and 1/2 of that window must be operable to the outside. The bedroom must also have a built-in closet of minimum dimensions. Windows from a code/safety perspective are for purposes of fresh air ventilation, natural light AND and escape window in case of fire.
You may not agree with this, but it’s not an arbitrary decision. The developers have simply convinced the City to “adjust” these requirements in order to sell smaller and smaller units at higher and higher prices. The market doesn’t seem to mind.
How is it not an arbitrary decision? It may or may not be a good decision, but it is definitely an arbitrary decision, as the dictionary meaning of the word “bedroom” does not include “has window”.
Are you kidding me? Without a window or an HVAC system that supplies fresh air (not just heating and cooling) you would suoffocate.
I think many people have a very poor understanding of home ventilation noting that some friends rarely open their windows and have stale air which is likely to have a lower concentration of oxygen and be unhealthy. The difference between health and unhealthy is less 1% oxygen concentration difference. It’s not something you would feel however if you just stay in the room. It’s like the anecdote about the frog jumping into lukewarm water and staying while it starts to boil vs the frong jumping in and immediately out of boiling water.
1. I was applying the word “arbitrary” to the detailed definition of a bedroom by the SF Building Code. Building codes are constantly being reviewed, adjusted and revised by licensed architects, engineers and building officials. They don’t treat the code lightly as it pertains to the life safety of occupants of all types of buildings.
2. They don’t use any dictionary to define a “bedroom”. They define it by the code analysis that I previously mentioned.
3. I still think it’s a very bad decision to allow developers to build bedrooms without code compliant windows. The consumer/owner is really getting ripped off.
Again, it may be a good or bad decision. But it is still an arbitrary decision.
I see no issue with storage being replaced with units , BUT , thinking the city should hold out for some Bike storage
Actually when you look at the plans, it is kind of silly that they would put storage/bike storage in a corner location with windows.
I think the storage areas are where 100 Van Ness butts up against other buildings, the gray bars. (i.e., Van Ness Ave is on the bottom of the plan), These spaces would not be not legally habitable. So the implication is that something’s happening with those other buildings.
[Editor’s Note: Designs For Developing Half A City Block Along Hayes.]
Intuitively I agree with those who say that a bedroom should have a window. Even in Paris that is accepted practice, although the window may look out at a “cour” or sometimes small courtyard. What I find peculiar is that a bedroom must have closet, although it is nice to have one.
It seems as though there’s bigger news here: the plans call for an easement for windows where the existing next-door building stands. As far as I can tell, these new plans assume that the building next door will be demolished and not replaced, or replaced by a smaller one.
Alai, the Socketsite article “Designs for Developing Half A City Block Along Hayes” shows the new building plans which call for a more narrow structure that would allow these additional units to have windows.
It’s all about greed….how much more $$$$$ can they bring in? Disgusting!
It means more taxes coming in to fund portable toilets in the Tendrloin, complete with full time bouncers.
Yes, how dare the developers look to make money off of their work?!?! I hope that you never ask your boss for a raise, otherwise you’re just greedy.
I wonder if the Market Street – Civic Center area will ever become the neighborhood it deserves to be? The homeless problem in this area seems to only have become worse.
Bedrooms without windows = affordable housing
Market Street, despite the new developments, still look like crap. Tenderloin is still crap. When is Supervisor Jane Kim term up again? I want to see her take a rag and clean the urine smell for a day. Then she is of some use.
First it was Chris Daly. Now it is Jane Kim. The name changes, but the face stays the same. As more productive, responsible people move into the area, that is when real change will happen, as long as they vote.
Excellent post. Kim is of no use as a supervisor.
Bike storage should be converted to sweat shops. Only then will we be able to compete in the global economy. First!
Amenities signify a more luxurious lifestyle (55 Page) and thus command a higher price. Bedrooms w/o windows or closets? … well, we’ll just stuff ’em with bunk beds and make our nut with AirBnB. And who needs parks, when thats more space to build/monetize.
With 417 apts, 100 Van Ness will become its own percent.
I agree that Supervisor Jane Kim does nothing for the middle class, just works for her welfare constituency. But who’s the responsible alternative? There are presumably even worse wackos around.
Last week I saw a bicycle thief arrested in the 1200 Block of Market Street at 3:00 a. m. Theft is a big problem in San Francisco. My friend has a wall mount bike rack in his apartment.
San Francisco is definitely the bike theft capital of the world. The problem with the whole Copenhagen Euro fantasy that some promote is that we are not Europe and have serious crime and safety issues in this city. I could leave my bicycle unlocked when working on a project in Helsingborg Sweden all day without a worry, and used a friends bike in Denmark without ever locking it up while dining or shopping.
There is no street in Copenhagen with the sorry array of homeless, dealers, and other characters that we have on our so-called premier street (Market Street). I have some friends who now rent studios in the TenderNob area and they all are using a wall mount bike rack in their apartments. They are also paying rents in excess of what I paid for my 1br flat in London 8 years ago. Click on my name for a reminder of how one student rode a bike all the way across America only to have it stolen within MINUTES of arriving in San Francisco.
I lived in Amsterdam (Arguably THE bike capital of the world) and worked in Copenhagen many times….Bike theft there is a way of life…Esp in Amsterdam. There are terms for what type of bike you buy, and when – knowing that it for sure stolen…Most people joke that no one owns a new bike…even the stores buy them from thieves to be resold…It’s a way of life. SF is no different….
I’ve also heard that Amsterdam has a huge bike theft issue.
I never used a bike lock in Sweden or Denmark and never had a problem. I have heard that Amsterdam has a bike theft problem, but then Amsterdam also has increasing street crime issues as well. Amsterdam reminds me a lot of San Francisco, except for the fact they don’t constantly walk around lecturing people about how “world class” their city is the way we do to our visitors and friends.
theres a lot of drug use in amsterdam. that usually correlates with this type of crime. stoned people dont usually have too much thought about anyone but themselves
Wow, that’s some good stereotyping.
Here’s mine: stoned people are too lazy to go out and go for a bicycle ride.
R, that may be basically true. The stealing comes when they come down and need some cash to get high again. They don’t want to go for a ride. They want to turn whatever they steal around for some quick cash.
The bikes people use to get around Copenhagen and Amsterdam are not fancy road bikes, but they’re still reasonable. AND…most of them only have a little lock that attaches the back wheel to the frame. Many people don’t lock their bike TO anything. In SF that would be unthinkable. For even the trashiest bike.
Comments are closed.