1601 Mariposa Rendering - Public Plaza

The plans for Related California’s proposed Potrero Hill development to rise up to four-stories at 1601 Mariposa Street – stretching from Mariposa and Carolina to 18th and Arkansas – have been refined and now totals 316 apartments, 9,000 square-feet of retail/commercial space, and nearly 40,000 square-feet of open space with a public greenway between Mariposa and 18th, “designed to encourage child’s play and community engagement such as farmers markets.”

1601 Mariposa Site Plan 2014

Designed by David Baker Architects, a two-level underground garage with entrances on Arkansas and 18th Streets would provide parking for up to 275 cars and over 450 bikes.

And in response to opposition from the neighboring Live Oak School, two floors at the corner building near the school’s playground have been removed and the setback between the development and the school has been doubled.

San Francisco’s Planning Commission will hold a hearing to review the project’s Environmental Impact Report on January 22.  And with over a hundred letters, emails and comment cards having previously been submitted to Planning about the project, the hearing ought to be a rather lively affair.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by anotherSF

    David Baker has been doing some great work lately.

  2. Posted by R

    I can see the smoke coming out of the Nimby ears on this one.

    But it looks good!

  3. Posted by alh

    They’ve refined nothing.

  4. Posted by potrero nimby

    Agreed, these refinements are inadequate considering the impact the project will have on Live Oak and the neighborhood. Taken in the context of other proposed projects and projects under development in the immediate vicinity, we anticipate over 1500 units within 5 blocks of Jackson Park.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      this is insanely massive underbuilding. I cant undeestand why new residential buildings of only 4 flrs are going into a market with a very significant shortage of housing and an areea of high job growth. This should be at least 7-8 stories high.

  5. Posted by alh

    Yup. Completely out of scale and inappropriate for the location. And does David Baker have to design everything in the neighborhood? We already have one next door to this project, one on 7th and another on Daggett.

    • Posted by R

      How is it out of scale with the other 3 and 4 story buildings in the immediate neighborhood?

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Right? And 1500 units within 5 blocks of the park – OMFG, it’s the apocalypse! Why that’s… 60 units per block (1500 / [5 x 5]). What do they think this is, a city or something?

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      do you mean its too short, because i totally agree. it should be at least double the size

    • Posted by Adam

      The architects who are able to get their work approved by the neighbors get more work than their competitors who do not.

  6. Posted by Snark17

    Too bad it’s not 7-8 stories, but this looks nice to me.

  7. Posted by jamesjr

    Is orange the only accent color available to these design teams?

    • Posted by gribble

      I believe that is a natural wood in these proposed plans.

  8. Posted by soccermom

    Out of scale with the city you found twenty years ago or out of scale with the city we are growing into? How is four stories inappropriate in a very mixed neighborhood like Potrero?

    Every Potrero project we’ve seen here seems to get the most vehement opposition short of the Telegraph Hill people.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      it is very inappropriate because its frankly insane to be underbuilding this much

  9. Posted by potrero nimby

    How many other residential complexes containing 316 units over 3+ acres can you point out on Potrero Hill? The issue is not height, but bulk and density. Just because they are putting these things all over SOMA and Dogpatch doesn’t mean they fit the existing neighborhood of Potrero Hill, which today is primarily 1-3 unit buildings on 25×100 foot parcels. Furthermore we don’t have the transit, street capacity or open space to support all the development the city is trying to shove down our throats.

    • Posted by Not Bashing

      I live in this neighborhood and like this project. More retail is a welcome development and the project includes ooen space. I think our neighborhood is the ideal place to add density to the city – we’re on bedrock, we have easy access to downtown and the mission and of course to 280. Building more 2-4 unit building would be such a wasted opportunity…

    • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

      DAGGETT Triangle – 468 units on 3 acre.
      The Potrero (whole food) -165 units on a site about half the size.
      1717 17th Street – 41 units on a plot about 1/6 the size + additional 25% of PDR space.

      So pretty every large complex these days has the same or higher density.

      1-3 unit buildings is what we built 80-100 years ago? Are you arguing this is all we can do?

      • Posted by potrero nimby

        No I’m arguing for neighborhood character and appropriate scale. Density alone is not the issue; it is the combination of density and BULK. The Potrero and 1717 17th have nowhere near the number of units that are proposed for 1601 Mariposa. BTW people are going to freak when they see the completion of the David Baker monstrosity that is Daggett/EQR.

        • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

          People are totally not going to freak. They will love it. We have this sort of building all over San Francisco and all over the world. Why should anyone freak?

          Editor I propose you to make a post in 2020 to revisit Daggett triangle to look at how much it is selling and how people receive it, which a commenter 5 years ago called a monstrous building freaking neighbors out.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            I should create a widgit that will automatically insert my favorite comment here: that if one looks at the most expensive and desirable urban neighborhoods around the world, from central Paris to Kensington to lower Manhattan, you see 4 and 5 and 6 and even 7 story buildings, cheek-by-jowl. And the vibrant, pedestrian friendly environment that they create is amazing. Contrast that with the dead blocks of the outer Richmond or Sunset, lined witih 2-story single-family homes (every NIMBY’s dream!), and devoid of life.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            sierrajeff: in those cities, it’s usually 7-8 floors in the highly residential neighborhoods. Ive spent a lot of time in paris and i cant remember any buildings shorter than 7 flrs

          • Posted by I spent time in Paris too

            Yes, agreed, this project would fit in nicely with all the 19th century stone buildings in Paris.

  10. Posted by Joy

    Great design. Thank you! It doesn’t look cheap and feels like one would really enjoy the outside space.

  11. Posted by Schlub

    This whole area needs to get some attention from the city in terms of traffic and pedestrian flow. There are issues now, and they’ll only get much worse as these projects get completed – not to mention the Warriors stadium.

    The pedestrian access between The Mission and Potrero neighborhoods under 280 on 16th and 17th are particularly bad. Way too narrow sidewalks, often clogged with encampments and pedestrians trying to walk through.

  12. Posted by invented

    Underground transit on 16th Warriors to Market St. Invest in grown-up-city infrastructure and move people fast. (At the risk of repeating myself.)

    Nice safe suburban complex.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      I’ve always thought it’d be a great idea to have a cross-town line along 16th, connecting Mission Bay, Potrero, the Mission, and the Castro.

      • Posted by S

        I think MTA is exploring adding either BRT here or lightrail. I’ve read about it on streetsblog I think but can’t remember when.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        i think the need along geary and van ness is much greater than 16th, but would welcome all 3.

  13. Posted by modernedwardian

    i used to live at mariposa and arkansas directly across the street from this project. loved the neighborhood and only bought in noe when nothing affordable hit the market while we were looking for a multi-unit in 2009. personally i’d have welcomed this.
    newer, wealthy neighbors (improved property values), a more active park, less empty night streets (improved safety and elan). more retail, goodbye to a parking lot.
    this is jane jacob’s dream… factoring in the local brewery, commercial, design, restaurants and services.
    the new health campuses at Kaiser and UC requires close higher end housing.
    the train is an easy walk as is the T Muni. Bus service sucks along 16th (you can regularly outwalk the bus), but walkabability and bikability is high. it’s flat.
    enough whining. please approve and build.

  14. Posted by John Smith

    This is just more dumb-downed planning, design and architecture. Pathetic. These hideous developments are being shoved into the neighborhood while city leaders pay lip service to providing adequate infrastructure and community benefits. Potrero Hill is being screwed big time.

  15. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    I’m all for more infill development and the density of this project is not problematic, PROVIDED THAT the city vastly improves the infrastructure and community support. Jackson Park needs to be converted into a public park, law enforcement needs to be stepped up, and Muni service is already woefully inadequate for the current “suburban” density of the neighborhood. With the increase in traffic, the 90-degree street parking will have to go away as well, making public transit even more necessary.

    • Posted by Fishchum

      Jackson Park isn’t a public park?

      • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

        No, it’s a couple of softball fields. Rented out most of the time on weekends and evenings (except in winter) which means there’s no access for casual use.

        • Posted by Anon

          did you ever go to Jackson Park without your headphones on, and without staring at your phone the whole time?

      • Posted by actionless action

        of course it is a public park, including ball fields, tennis and basketball courts, and kids play area. I’ve been there many many times and rarely seen the fields or courts in use.
        next we are going to hear that the muni bus isn’t public transit because someone once got on one and couldn’t find a seat.

        • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

          Maybe you should stick to topics you know something about. Those fields are in use quite often and when they are, nobody is allowed on the field size of the fences. The field is also closed for days after it has rained – another hint that this is a sports facility and not a public park. There’s a playground, yes, but adults without kids are not permitted there. Then there’s a basketball court and a tennis court, is that your idea of a public park?

        • Posted by actionless action

          You want us to believe that Jackson Park isn’t a park because it has rec facilities and it isn’t a public park because sometimes other people are using those facilities when you get there.
          Public parks are for all the people, not just for you and your nearest neighbors.
          As a parent who has frequented this public park for years, I welcome you to join us in the children’s play area the next time we are there. It’s a great place to learn to share with others.

          • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

            OK, we’ll try it one more time for the dense crowd:

            The playground is a playground and only for children and the adults accompanying them. There are signs clearly stating that. And it’s beside the point.

            The “park” being discussed here is obviously the grass field. During most of the year, softball leagues rent this field for their exclusive use on weekends and weeknights, thus it is not a public park “for all the people” during the times when residents (including those without children) want to go there. If you don’t understand this simple distinction, I’m guessing you’re one of the toddlers on that playground, not one of the parents.

          • Posted by Anon?

            admit you were wrong and move along, formidable doer of the nasty

          • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

            All playgrounds in SF ban adults who are unaccompanied by kids. It’s an anti-perv measure. That does not make it “private” or non-public.

            I get your point about the fields seldom being available to the public because they are rented out, and thus, for all intents and purposes they are not “public” in the sense of being available to use at any time by the public free of charge. But any member of the public can rent them – just like any member of the public can play on a public golf course. If they pay. It is overstating it to say they are are not public.

          • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

            Gee, well isn’t that wonderful news? So if I want to go to my neighborhood “park” on a Sunday afternoon all I have to do is travel 6 months back in time and pay a few hundred bucks to reserve the whole thing for a couple of hours. You’re right, I didn’t consider that. Silly me.

          • Posted by Anon?

            you’re silly all right

    • Posted by potrero nimby

      Potrero Hill has considerably less open space per person then much of SF. I’ve been in the neighborhood for over 20 years. Apart from the playground and tennis courts, Jackson Park doesn’t serve the neighborhood as it should. When the weather’s nice it’s primarily used by softball leagues from other parts of the city. Furthermore, the Showplace Square/Potrero Hill Plan promised new open space to meet the needs of new development but the City has failed miserably in providing it.

      “The conversion of portions of this area for residential and mixed use development and consequent addition of new residents makes it imperative to provide more open space to serve both existing and new residents, workers and visitors. Analysis reveals that a total of about 4.0 acres of new space should be provided in this area to accommodate expected growth. Thus, this Plan proposes providing at least one new open space in the area, in addition to widened sidewalks with pocket parks and green streets, and an increased private open space requirement.”

  16. Posted by actionless action

    OK, one more time for those that wouldn’t recognize a public park even if they were standing in it.
    Just because a public facility is available for temporary reservation or rental does not mean it isn’t a public facility. This is a publicly owned and publicly operated public park, including the “grass field”. That you don’t like some of the ways the public authorities manage this public park doesn’t mean it is not a public park, because that is exactly what it is.
    If you think the ballfields in this public park shouldn’t be rented out at all or as much as they have been, then you can take your opinion to SFParkRec. Who knows, they might be open to reconsidering after what happened at the soccer field in the Mission. They ended adult reserved soccer there, now only youth soccer can reserve it.
    Meanwhile, refusing to acknowledge this park by it’s rightful name or classification just because you don’t like something about it, is just the kind of thing I might expect from a formidable denier of the obvious, but not you.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles