Inner Mission Development Racing To Beat Building MoratoriumFebruary 26, 2015
A permit to raze the shuttered Western Plywood warehouse at Harrison and 22nd Streets in the Mission has been requested, and in its place, a four-story residential building is planned to rise, with the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way right behind and Parque Ninos Unidos a block away.
As designed by Kerman/Morris Architects, the wedge-shaped building includes 20 condos, with a gigantic roof deck for residents and parking for 15 cars in a series of stackers on the ground floor.
And if a plugged-in tipster is correct (email tips at socketsite.com), the project team is hoping to start demolishing the Western warehouse at 2600 Harrison as soon as next month, likely in a race to beat the adoption of a threatened housing moratorium in the Mission which could stop the development in its tracks.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
But, but, doesn’t this fall into Campos’ purity zone? They better hurry it up.
Stop the Manhattanization!!!
Sorry, I suffer from NIMBY Tourrette’s. I’m taking meds, I swear.
Are the old RR rights-of-way being preserved for any particular purpose? I suppose someday soon people will want them to be a linear park (when a better use might be a light rail transit corridor from SoMa to Potrero Hill, etc.) – either way, I’m kind of surprised that SP didn’t sell off these parcels and/or they haven’t otherwise been folded back into the urban fabric.
That sounds dangerously close to a good idea, we can’t have any of those, not in this city and certainly not in the Mission. Best watch yourself…
Some SP ROWs are still owned by them and I am sure they have no interest in doing anything other than holding onto them. SP properties either got divvied up by Catellus Development (SP’s real estate holding arm) and sold off (for instance, Mission Bay) or whatever was still useful is used by Caltrain now.
Many SP ROWs in the Mission are now privately owned. The lot behind this building is actually still owned by SP.
I was wondering the same thing. It seems short sighted to not build on that land as well.
A light rail would be great… though i think this one of only a few remaining undeveloped SP Rail lots left. I fantasize about a 16th line to this day. Really anything in the vein of this: http://newmunimetro.com/m-market/
That lot is really the only undeveloped parcel left. Everything else on the old ROW has been developed, so a transit line is not going to happen.
A personal opinion of mine is that this could be made into another nice park. This is actually one of the last SP parcels left that has nothing developed on it. You could even integrate the old track into it similar to what is done on the Embarcadero with remnants of the Belt Line.
Mine too, Serge. It would be the perfect extension of Niños unidos, and even provide some nice local gardens that a place like Local Mission could help foster.
Totally. I’ve always imagined one, long, linear park that stretched all of the way from the southern part of Mission, to the edge of Showplace / LoPoMissiShow (or whatever), bike paths and all.
In regards to undeveloped SP lots… There are actually a few; somewhat hidden. The first few are on both sides of 24th and Capp, and then at 23rd and Folsom (behind a fence). There are a handful that run along Treat between & 14th as well… most of which have been relegated to parking lots.
hope the Atlas Stair Builders building (shown on the right in the picture) will be preserved forever. Nice part of the urban fabric.
“Planning Dept. Historic Resource Status: A – Historic Resource Present”
Looks like it’s not going anywhere, which is good.
The SP ROW between Guerrero and San Jose was turned into a park a long time ago: Juri Commons. Cute little place.
Surprisingly well-used but it does make sense to consolidate any remaining parcels with adjacent properties.
oh, I do hope they get this built quickly — *and* that we have a moratorium on moratoriums.
Is there a way to impeach a supervisor for gross incompetence?
Yes, you can impeach any elected officers. In SF, it needs a 10% or 15% signatures:
California, Const. Art. 2, §19, Code §11000 et seq.
Elective officer of a city, county, school district, community college district, or special district, or a judge of a trial court
County and city charter provisions providing for recall are not affected by state provisions.
Recall may commence after 90 days in office. Recall may not commence if officer has 6 months or less left in term.
No specific grounds are required.
Time for gathering signatures is 40 – 160 days (depending upon the size of the jurisdiction).
Signature requirement varies according to the number of registered voters in the jurisdiction: 30% if registration is less than 1,000; 25% if registration is between 1,000 and 9,999; 20% if registration is between 10,000 and 49,999; 15% if registration is between 50,000 and 99,999; 10% if registration is 100,000 and above.
if someone takes the initiative, you have votes from my wife and I
me too! I’m in his district (unfortunately!)
The only thing wrong with this proposal is that its not 6 stories. Every infill lot within the city limits should be built up to the maximum height limit for wood-frame construction that the building code allows. None of this 3-story or 4-story multifamily B.S.
Add one more for not understanding what’s going on with the RR row.
While I’d be all for using it for community gardens (I think there would be a real “market” for this in this part of the Mission), the ROW would definitely not serve any transportation purpose..even as a bikeway..it’s only one block long. Why SP (or whoever) has held on to it is beyond me. In 1998 the City acquired the park site for Nino Unidos along the same right of way (on the adjacent block – 23rd between Treat and Folsom). The ROW in the block after that (Folsom between 23rd and 24th) is still vacant, with a fenced garden on one portion (maintained by who I have no idea) and a small parking lot on the 24th street frontage.
Getting back to the subject…I suppose the flat-iron-ness of this building is kinda interesting, but it’s certainly inefficient. From a development perspective, it was a significant lost opportunity to not merge the two lots. It also makes eventual development of the ROW significantly more difficult (which probably isn’t a bad thing if you’re a fan of community gardens).
Not sure what you mean with the Folsom, 23rd, 24th ROW. The section from Folsom to Shotwell has apartments on them, the garden is next to the old ROW. Then from Shotwell to SVN, it’s the old Cala, on the other side of SVN is a new building, and finally at 24th/Capp, there is the “small paking lot”, i.e. the few spots for one of those car shares
Sorry, you’re absolutely correct, what was I thinking? There is a very strange linear apartment on the ROW at Folsom/23rd, that goes through to Treat, and there is an equally strange vacant parcel/park directly adjacent to that. Who controls this parcel has always been a mystery to me. I’m assuming that that was part of the ROW, but I’m unsure. And the part I was thinking of on 24th is actually at Capp and 24th…clearly part of the original row but currently used for parking (zip car has a bunch of cars there). The ROW is very clear when you look at a satellite view on googlemaps, and its a strange mishmash of lots that have been developed and lots that have stayed vacant. Amazing how that pattern persists generations after the use is gone.
where’s “nada zip” guy @ ?
brushing up on his Guatemalan Spanish. ¿Qué onda vos?
Right here, prick. BFD, a few projects. I already said that. Nada, zip was regarding how significant of an impact this will have: maybe 100 units. In the grand scheme of things, nada zip. Kapish?
it’s understood that you get your development news from what Socketsite chooses to publish, yes.
[Editor’s Note: It’s true, we are selective with what we publish. We don’t blindly regurgitate press releases nor rehash reports we haven’t bothered to substantiate ourselves. And if you think we’re missing coverage of a major development that’s in the works, it’s more likely you missed it when we first broke the news.]
you do a good job on reporting major developments, no doubt about it. Campos’s thing would look to target all things big and small, and there are scores of smaller ones underway in various stages certainly. regardless the La Parilla Saitowiz one alone would bring about significant change to that particular locus. so if it comes to pass or goes is not nothing.
Inactive rail ROW is sold off and often developed when buyers come along. This particular one could easily accommodate development, even with its odd shape. Assemblage is often the highest and best use so the most frequent buyer is usually an adjoining property owner.
For examples of developed parcels see 1) 1616 16th St, 2) 370 De Haro St, 3) 135 Vermont St, 4) 2700 Folsom St, 5) the church at 3715 26th St. I think maybe Treat Street itself was a railroad ROW, but I’m not sure about that one.
For examples of sales to adjoiners – which usually involves commercial or industrial properties in the urban environment, see 1) 2511 Newhall St, behind the Foods Co supermarket, 2) 400 Paul Ave, behind the data center, 3) 1143 Thomas, adjacent to 1150 Shafter.
Comments are closed.