901 16th Street Site

With Kaiser Permanente having been dissuaded from building their Medical Office Building at 16th and Mississippi in Lower Potrero Hill, or “LoPo” if you will, new plans for a 260-unit residential building to rise up to six stories on the northern half of the Corovan Storage Facility site have been drawn.

901 16th Street Rendering

As designed by BAR Architects, the 901 16th Street building would rise to a height of 68 feet, not including the screening for the roof-top equipment nor elevator shaft which would reach a height of 82 feet, with over 20,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor and an underground garage for 263 cars and 264 bikes.

In addition, the plans for the proposed 1200 17th Street development on the southern half of the LoPo block have been redesigned by Christiani Johnson Architects as a four-story sister development, with 135 units over 4,700 square feet of retail and an underground garage for 125 cars and 191 bikes.

A private landscaped mews would run between the two buildings, while a public promenade and plaza would run mid-block between 16th and 17th Streets, aligned with the future Daggett Park across 16th.

901 16th / 1200 17th Site Plan

The proposed development by the Prado Group and Walden Development would total 395 residential units, with 25,000-square-feet of retail and parking for 455 bikes and 388 cars (including 47 spaces for the commercial tenants and 5 spaces for a car sharing program).

And with the Environmental Impact Report for the project about to get underway, “Save the Hill” is organizing to oppose the development as proposed.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Snark17

    More NIMBY nonsense. This looks like a good project.

  2. Posted by ph_goat

    It looks like a someone xeroxed any number of other bland buildings that have gone up in the last few years. I don’t mind more new neighbors, I mind having to look at another generic box… and a dreadful mural. (I know, I know – just a sketch.)

    • Posted by tyler

      I agree with you in part, it’s somewhat generic but I kinda like it. it’s a thousand times better than the crap in indiana.

  3. Posted by Abonadon

    “in Lower Potrero Hill, or “LoPo” if you will”

    No…no, I wont. That’s awful.

    • Posted by Amewsed

      I do not like all these shortened names — it butchers the English language. Spell out each word fully and no abbreviations ie. can not, not can’t, will not, instead of won’t.

      There is a SF law firm called Morison Foerster, shortened to MoFo. Had fun calling their attorneys mofos.

      • Posted by AK

        Though in ironic fashion you did not spell out “id est”

      • Posted by Invented

        Agreed. Usually marketing nonsense by the come-and-go real estate marketing industry who feels a need to make everything sellable and packaged like junk food at the supermarket check-out line. The same marketing machine has ubers living in buildings with meaningless names like Nema (and worse.). What’s Nema’s address? Use it.

        People generally aren’t idiots and don’t need every quadrant or building made into annoying acronym ‘things’.

        Good morning.

        • Posted by Amewsed

          Top of the morning. You are like Fifty Shades of Hitman. Agreement is sublime.

          Just realized Nema is Amen spelled backwards. LOL! No one told me about this new church, wherever it is.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        So when you go to NYC – er, excuse me, the Borough of Manhattan in New York City, New York – do you say “South of Houston”, or SoHo? Do you say “I’m going to a restaurant in the triangle below Canal Street”, or “I’m going to a restaurant in Tribeca”?

        The English language has been evolving and growing since Roman times, and is no worse for wear due to abbreviations, acronyms and contractions. Please go worry about more important things.

        • Posted by Amewsed

          Did you wake up alone this morning? If someone is not from Manhattan, they will not know where Tribeca is. So yes, I would prefer you specify a street address.

          • Posted by Anon

            no, a good portion of informed western consumers will know where Tribeca is, actually. It’s a famous NYC neighborhood, and as such has its own cultural currency. But yes, LoPo feels like a real loser. What’s wrong with Central Basin?

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            and thanks for maligning my personal life. I’m happily married, thanks.

          • Posted by tyler

            that’s taking it too far, those are good names and long established, these new garbage names are just trying to piggy back off of stuff like SOHO etc….

    • Posted by tyler

      oh god no, why are the people that create names for neighborhoods SO bad at it….

  4. Posted by frog

    I’ve always loved the bright neon lights of Asian cities. But I think we’ve recently had some ghastly examples in this city (starting with the Palms, and now the new building on 5th). However I hope they design this building with neon, searchlights and monstrous Van de Graaf generators, just so the people on Potrero Hill have something real to complain about.

  5. Posted by GreystoneSFO

    “Save the Hill”. More like “Save our Views”

    • Posted by XYZ

      Judging from the renderings, it would be better to “Save our Views” than look out the window and see this thing everyday.

      • Posted by Blabber Girl

        Yes, the current rusty and graffiti-covered corrugated iron shacks are much nicer.

  6. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Can’t find a single fault with project. A helluva lot better than that single-store grey ick.

    And I like “LoPo”. If the realtors can use the stupid and quasi-lurid “Tendernob”, then I’m certainly happy with “LoPo”.

    • Posted by tyler

      it’s lazy and piggybacking… i like tendernob though, it’s funny.

  7. Posted by circe

    Not that it’s a reason not to build this, but has anyone thought about how to handle the increased traffic at this intersection? It’s already pretty ghastly during commute, and now we are getting additional congestion from the new hospital complex.

    • Posted by johntrev

      Agreed on all counts. On 280, the northbound Mariposa exit and southbound entrance frequently back up. The exit off-ramp is inadequate, meaning cars are dangerously backed up well onto the freeway. Congestion getting to the onramp clogs multiple intersections in all directions. (Yet traffic is the only legitimate concern I can think of for NIMBY neighbors).

    • Posted by anotherSF

      Hopefully the new 55 route will help with some of that. The development is also close to the T line so it will have quick access to Powell Station once the Central Subway is done.

      • Posted by phil

        The 55 is temporary until the 22 is re-routed.

      • Posted by Morgan Driver

        Have you ever taken the “Terrible T” line? There is nothing quick about it.

        • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

          Perhaps you missed the “once the Central Subway is done” part of the post.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      They need to eliminate all street parking (incl. loading zones) on the 16th and Mississippi sides of this block and only have parking entrances on 17th and on Missouri. Then it will work. But when both this and Daggett Place are occupied, things will definitely get ugly. The foot traffic alone will increase by several orders of magnitude.

  8. Posted by Orland

    Anybody know the results of the Planning Commission hearing within the last 2 weeks on the proposed development a couple blocks west on 16th? There was expected to be spirited opposition.

    • Posted by phil

      Are we talking about 1601 Mariposa? Because that was a virtual love fest with the Commission and the so-called NIMBY’s. Try as you might to dismiss the opposition, we’ve got development exceeding all projections and no investment in infrastructure.

  9. Posted by invented

    Transit profs: Can we add 100,000+ residents n DogP Mission Bay, Design & Potrero over next 10yrs and not underground?

  10. Posted by Adam

    ARCH art supply got kicked out of their space due to rising rent, and are now over in Dogpatch.

    • Posted by reid

      not true – it was so the landlord could do seismic upgrades.

  11. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    Looking forward to the inevitable 16th street train (B(ay) line?).

  12. Posted by XYZ

    Another cheap, generic structure that will be lauded as “progressive” because it densifies a neighborhood that neither needs it nor asked for it in the first place.

    • Posted by LoPo

      “… a neighborhood that neither needs it nor asked for it” …nor provide the infrastructure to support it.

    • Posted by Blabber Girl

      I live in the neighborhood and I asked for “densification”. You seem like you’d be happier in Millbrae.

      • Posted by LoPo

        You seem like you’d be happier in Manhattan.

        • Posted by fbg

          LoPo, you’re a moron if you think a few 6 story buildings in Potrero Hill = “manhattan”

          SF will never be as dense as Manhattan–not even close–so maybe you should stop using Manhattan as a boogeyman. Like most NIMBYs, your arguments against development are clearly based on ignorance.

        • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

          I’m sure everybody has now taken note of the intellectual level on which the NIMBYs are debating. Very consistent with the shrill and childish expressions of opposition to 1601 Mariposa we’ve witnessed over the past couple of years.

      • Posted by XYZ

        Did you also ask for crappy buildings as well? Perhaps you should have asked Prado Group why they don’t spend more of their money on making the new, multi-million dollar building look better.

        • Posted by Blabber Girl

          So that’s basically what your argument boils down to? It’s ugly. Could have saved a lot of keystrokes there.
          Well then, feel free to post a link to the building you live in so these architects can see how it should be done. Or is it your presence in it that gives the building its special neighborhood-enhancing value rather than its architecture?

          • Posted by XYZ

            It’s ugly because Prado is interested in making profits, not making beautiful buildings. The game is tilted and people like you will ultimately lose out in the long run. You are basically allowing the new urban suburbia to be constructed in your backyard. Do you seriously think that the architects have any power against a private developer?

  13. Posted by Adam

    Fortunately, the Mariposa offramp is getting an extension directly down to 16th. You can see it taking shape right now, and the light poles have already been installed. Hopefully the backup on Mississippi will become a bad memory.

    • Posted by LoPo

      Owens? It’s really just a bandaid and it won’t help the onramp traffic which is what causes the Mariposa backups. Much of the new housing is for commuters who are looking to live near the 280 onramp.

      • Posted by Blabber Girl

        And that’s bad because…?

        • Posted by LoPo

          The streets can’t handle the backup of all the commuters who are forced to drive due to poor transit options. The air quality is rapidly declining; pedestrian and bike safety is seriously compromised and things just keep getting worse.

          • Posted by fbg

            LoPo, translated: “the sky is falling! the sky is falling!”

          • Posted by Brian M

            Maybe if we destroyed all the mediocre wooden cottages on top of The Hill that would eliminate the Traffic Apocalypse. I suggest everyone on The Hill relocate to Brentwood. Plenty of wide streets and freeways (and garages) there!

  14. Posted by LoPo

    Gotcha. Let’s tear down all the “mediocre wooden cottages” on top of Potrero Hill, send all the moronic longterm NIMBY residents to Brentwood or Millbrae, and replace them all with 300+ unit faux industrial housing complexes (with no parking) for all the visionaries who deserve the opportunity to live in a “real” neighborhood.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      Hey, you’re the one making it a “them or us” issue. You can keep your wooden cottages and others can replace their dilapidated industrial shacks with something befitting the character of a growing and vibrant neighborhood. Everybody gets what they want, except you won’t allow that. You’re the intolerant party in this conversation, don’t forget that.

      • Posted by Brian M

        fdotn: ROFLOL.

        LoPo….I am thinking of how to best meet your needs. Because as a suburban-style NIMBY it may become more…difficult…to drive everywhere in a densifying city, I was merely suggesting that outer suburbia might better meet your llifestyle choices!

        • Posted by LoPo

          And I would suggest that Manhattan or perhaps SOMA would better suit yours. Perhaps all those car commuters who love our convenient 280 onramp would like to move someplace a little closer to their jobs as well?

          • Posted by Blabber Girl

            You’re just a fountain of lame NINBY clichés, aren’t you? Move closer to their jobs? How many people work in Potrero Hill, I wonder. And do they remember to move out when they change jobs so others can move in? Or does this just come down to the usual “I was here first so screw you” argument we know so well from the rent-control proponents?

            I work in the South Bay, in a job I started after my son was already in school in SF. Please, O wise oracle, tell us where we should live.

            Formidable is correct, you are intolerant.

          • Posted by LoPo

            And how intolerant are you to tell me where and how I should live? You believe in densification and I do not. It’s that simple.

          • Posted by Blabber Girl

            Exactly when have I told you when or how to live? You’re the one sticking your nose in what other people do with or build on their property. Or did I miss the part about you actually owning that Cor-O-Van warehouse?

          • Posted by LoPo

            You said: “I live in the neighborhood and I asked for ‘densification’. You seem like you’d be happier in Millbrae.”

          • Posted by Blabber Girl

            That was an observation, not an order. Though given your additional posts I’m not sure you’d be happy anywhere.

  15. Posted by Brian M

    But you don’t have the automatic right to demand that all public AND private decisions in a large, curently booming city conform to your parochial wishes.

    I was wrong. Outer suburbia is not suitable for you. I think you might be happier in a small dying mill town with not even a chance of “densification” occurring near you. Not appealing? You like the energy and denisty and diversity of San Francisco? Then you cannot simply say to the world, to property owners of property you do not own “Do nothing. Change nothing. Because I may find it harder to drive somehwere.” It shouldn;t work that way. Luckily, right now, it doesn;t work that way as much as it used to.

    This is an industrial wasteland block. Letting the buildings rot because of “traffic” is stupid.

    • Posted by LoPo

      And you have no right to socially engineer a neighborhood based on your “build it bigger now” philosophy. I would add that, despite your narrow understanding of the area and your predilection for dismissing us all as ignorant NIMBY’s, the majority of the neighborhood believes that some development is appropriate, but that it must respect the neighborhood scale and its existing character, and be proceeded with a reasonable level of infrastructure investment.

  16. Posted by Brian M

    I am not “socially engineering” anything. The private property owners and the market making an investment decision are.

    This building DOES reflect neighborhood scale. There are multistory buildings nearby.

    Who determines “reasonable” and “neighbrohood character”? You, because you own one house nearby? Versus zoning and land use regulations developed after years of discussion and onerous discussions.

    Nobody has an easy answer as to California’s infrastructure woes. But that doesn’t mean development STOPS. Nor should development stop because a homeowenr experiences a traffic jam at one location in his neighborhood.

    The San Francisco process is already onerous.

  17. Posted by Paul

    Lo Po is actually a famous martial arts movie director. Dozens of films with Bruce Lee like Fists of Fury…..

    I think the developers need to get rid of the pandering bicycle mural and do a kick-ass Bruce Lee mural.

    Give their Hi Po neighbors something to reflect on:

    “Knowledge will give you power, but character respect.”

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles