1001 Van Ness Avenue Site

Speaking of Handel Architects, the firm has been engaged by Oryx Partners to design the 14-story residential building that’s proposed to replace the former KRON building at 1001 Van Ness Avenue, between Myrtle and O’Farrell Streets.

1001 Van Ness Rendering: Van Ness and O'Farrell

As proposed, the development includes 255 residential units, with townhomes fronting Myrtle, 5,200 square feet of retail space fronting Van Ness Avenue, and 12,000 square feet of open space (a combination of private courtyards, rooftop terraces and an open entry court along Myrtle).

1001 Van Ness Rendering: Van Ness and Myrtle

Mid-block curb cuts for roughly 190 parking spaces, and access to storage for 255 bikes, are proposed for both Myrtle and O’Farrell.

And in terms of timing, Oryx is currently planning to seek approvals for the development from San Francisco’s Planning Commission later this year or early in 2016.

38 thoughts on “Reveal: Designs For 14-Story Development On Van Ness”
  1. I’m glad I’ve lasted in SF long enough to see the initial transformation of Van Ness. It has always been, in my mind, one of the most underdeveloped corridors in the city in terms of its potential for residential development. It’s still pretty gritty (seemingly more so recently), but it’s central, comparatively flat, and has adequate public transportation. Get some better landscaping/streetscaping in and I look forward to not recognizing it in 5-10 years.

  2. It looks good to me. I’m all about the varied massing and scale. Let’s hope for more street level commercial.

  3. Was always a hope of mine that Van Ness Ave. could one day have the same density and its buildings a strong street wall presence like those of Park Ave. in New York.

    This project and others are a start but 130′ height limits on a street that is 125′ wide will always look small and underbuilt. One just needs to walk up to Cathedral Hill to see what the appropriate height should be.

    1. I think Park Avenue has the density and height of most of our FiDi. But we can definitely have some nice tall buildings with plenty of historic architecture mixed in.

    2. haha.. It’s funny, but I’ve often had the same thought. After living (thankfully, briefly) in New York, I always felt that Van Ness had the potential to function like a Park Ave, albeit … lower. The buildings should be taller, of course, but I don’t expect miracles. Van Ness does seem to act as a wind-tunnel at times.

  4. A big improvement on what is there now. But I predict some disappointment when the actual building doesn’t look as nice as the pretty picture. Are there any professional standards or ethics regarding renderings?

  5. Get over it… Nothing looks better in person (well sometimes ) just how selfies and photo shoots make a person look better digitally.. I mean you’re comparing a digital rendering versus a complete steel/glass building that will not Always come out perfect. But that’s besides the point I think it’s a great building and Yvette massing is nice! We need more of these buildings all throughout Van ness

    1. All the “taller please” people should call the planning department and tell them you want a taller Van Ness. I am with you. Especially with the towers up the street. There are quite a few projects that would love you for it.

  6. I hope they get the ground floor right. Just about every other recent midrise on Van Ness screwed it up.

  7. After four decades, I’m leaving SF within a month. I never thought I’d live to see BART to SFO – but there it is. Too bad I won’t be able to see the new Van Ness corridor – hope it turns out nice because you can’t get a second chance for a redo.

  8. Phenomenal. Built it, yesterday. Van Ness corridor is one of the most exciting places to watch in the city, with this, BRT, 2 CPMC buildings, One Van Ness, 100 Van Ness, 1200 Van Ness, Marlow, the old Mc Donald’s building, “the Rockwell”, and the list goes on…

  9. Agree with a previous comment – I liked the KRON building, it was distinctive. In contrast, this is horribly bland, boxy, and much too tall – particularly in comparison to height of the previous one.

    1. yes, BRT is an utter waste of money that will lead to barely faster bus times, slower car times, and will keep anyone from investing in a future subway

      1. I’m glad to see improved public transit. Car are an antiquated mode of transportation. Bikes and Public transit are the future. If you want to sit in a car be prepared to sit in traffic.

        1. i think most people would agree that bikes are a bit more of an antiquated mode than cars. but forget about historical facts.

          Im all for public transport improvement. I just think the new BRT lanes are not enough of an improvement to warrant the cost. if this type of money is spent to save 2 minutes, then we will neer get real transformative solutions like subways. BTW< 90% of my city driving is on a motorcycle and I avoid van ness like the plague. I dont ride buses because they are too damn slow and unreliable , but i ride subways in every city i visit that has them. I think its shameful that a modern city like SF lives in the dark ages of public transport. But, hey, more bicycles will solve all the problems.

          1. Cars and bicycles were invented right about the same time, not sure why you think that bicycles are more antiquated. I think this just shows your bias more than anything.

          2. Your “2 minutes” is hyperbole as well. MTA says ride times will be cut from 15-32%, as much as 7 minutes if you travel the whole route from Lombard to Mission. If they change the lights to favor BRT, more time could be saved.

          3. The 15-32% reduction includes the expected effect of timed signaling.

            Why the freaking thing still stops every two or three blocks mystifies.

        2. Personalize transport has existed for thousands of years. It used to be called horses and carriages and wagons, now its bikes and cars and truck. The latter two are not going to magically disappear.

          Center-lane BRT is ridiculous. We’re going to lose a nice median and gain additional paved surfaces, while (as moto notes) it will sap capital, both political and economic, for construction of a subway that would be of materially more benefit (and actually reduce surface congestion, making Van Ness more pleasant for all).

          1. “The latter two are not going to magically disappear.”

            Correct. It requires policy changes such as improving transit (which was the topic here).

          2. A subway would be so, so nice 🙁

            Everything you need to know about MUNI bus service is summed up by the fact that they stop twice on the block that has City Hall. Once north of Grove and again south of McAllister. God forbid they make anyone walk even one block, so let’s have all these stops, at the expense of the whole route moving 8MPH.

Leave a Reply

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