Hunters View Block 10

As we first reported about the new “heart” and hub of San Francisco’s Hunters View neighborhood last year:

The rebuilding of San Francisco’s 22-acre Hunters View public housing development into a mixed-income neighborhood will triple the number of dwelling units to 800 – half of which will be market rate – and create three new neighborhood parks, a new community center, and neighborhood-serving commercial space.

The heart of the new neighborhood will be Block 10, a five-story building to rise on Fairfax Avenue at the southwest corner of Hunters View.

Block 10 is envisioned as the primary civic and commercial hub for the community, and ground floor uses will contain a community center, childcare facility, leasing office, and retail space. The ground floor will also include a one-story at-grade parking garage accessed on Fairfax Avenue that will hold 18 parking spaces. The upper four floors will contain 72 dwelling units (40 one-bedroom and 32 three-bedroom units).

Bids for the construction of Block 10, which was designed by David Baker + Partners and Paulett Taggart Architects, are due next month; the project is currently slated to break ground by June; and the heart of the new Hunters View neighborhood should be alive and beating by February 2017.

Phase Three of Hunters View redevelopment, which will follow the development of Block 10 and a couple of other blocks which altogether constitute Phase Two, will include up to 400 market rate units and a new Bayview Park.

Hunters View Phases

24 thoughts on “Timing For The New Hub And Redevelopment Of Hunters View”
    1. If the proximity to the projects is a dealbreaker/detriment to most buyers (which it almost assuredly is), the market rate for these units will drop until the point where the low price for the size/amenities is compelling enough to take a hit in location. That’s how market rate works.

      1. Another thing to remember is (I believe, somebody correct me if I am wrong) the city won’t be managing the BMR portion. All new residents have to sign leases that kick them out for sketchy and illegal activities. That isn’t the case with properties the city manages itself. Places like Valencia Gardens aren’t perfect, but they are far and away a much much better experience for everybody involved.

      2. Public housing should be a place for low income people. Public housing should not tolerate crime and all criminals should be expelled from public housing.

  1. Story after story comes out about the extreme cost of buying and renting in San Francisco, and yet as soon as there is mention of new affordable housing to be constructed in YES, AN AREA OF REDEVELOPMENT! there is always someone quick to condemn location. What matters here is affordable housing that is desperately needed. Not everyone is on the same wage scale that is dominating the majority of the city and many long time residents are now keenly aware that moving within the city is not an option, and that selling likely is a permanent goodbye.

    Market rate is firmly attached to location so obviously said market rate wont be on the scale of SoMa, Mission, Marina, Potrero, etc. but will be a Market rate that is in line with a developing area, and as phases are completed to remove public housing as it presently exists that rate will certainly increase. This is a City people, and yet somehow when it comes to real estate and development so many people expect this insta-build homogeneity with restaurants, bars, coffeeshops, parklets and a vegan/non-gmo/gluten-free market at the ready….newsflash…that’s called the suburbs. This is real urban development, not the latest in Sim-City.

    1. It’s the city’s management failure to make public housing a high crime spot. Public housing can be a safer place if management can evict the bad tenants immediately.

      Making it mixed income will help as well. It should be proportional to the general population.

      1. Public housing is often a high crime spot throughout the nation because more often than not public housing is funded through the FEDERAL government and FEDERAL housing authority agencies, who have long had the approach that they at one time provided an affordable roof, and beyond that no other concern for quality of life was their concern short of violations leading to endangerment of health. Prior to HopeSF city involvement stopped at SFPD, which honestly did not actively police as crime in the projects was…crime in the projects, and was confined to the low income with little political voice.

        As a federal agency no policy/guidelines/regulations were ever going to be swift, so with a lax approach and no investment by residents or agency a general disregard occurs for what goes on, allowing for those inclined to act in violation with the law particularly to carryon while others opposed remain prisoners to the environment.

        Mixed income, and the recent private management decree as established by the board of supervisors changes the dynamics from those of the past to where residents suddenly have a vested interest in their housing and environment, and private management should minimize the bureaucracy for which action can be taken against those who act contrary to the peace of other residents. If anything it may actually restore the notion that public housing is a benefit, as failure to comply may have real consequences.

        1. What is the ‘private management decree’ established by the BOS? Would love to read more if you have a link. Thank you.

          1. “San Francisco’s much-maligned Housing Authority is getting out of the management business, with a new city-federal plan putting private companies in charge of the 4,584 units that house some 5,400 low-income city residents.”

      2. Better to make public housing a privilege instead of entitlement. Make public housing a home for good citizens who work in SF. Unemployed within certain age range and with no major disability should not be given a public housing. Only good people of low income and middle income can qualify. We should allow teachers, social workers, government employees to live in public housing, never give the public housing to criminals.

        Also public housing better be a temporary home for a certain period. It is not a good idea to give people a lifetime public housing. We can house the young teachers for 2 years, social workers for 2 years etc. After the period is over, they need to move out to make space for the next young teachers and social workers.

      1. SF planners are pretty good about this, but they could be better. There’s so many sites in the Mission, Potrero, and SOMA that get approved without ground-floor retail.

Leave a Reply

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