The owner of the Mission District parcel at 3620 Cesar Chavez Street, upon which a single-story office building and parking lot for eight cars currently sits, has engaged Sternberg Benjamin Architects to explore redeveloping the site.
And as proposed, a six-story building with 28 residential units, a little retail space, and parking for 14 cars would rise across the site.
The 16 one-bedrooms would measure 525 square feet apiece and the 12 two-bedrooms would average a little over a thousand square feet. A shared 2,400 square foot roof deck would act as open space for the residents of the building.
And once again, the development as proposed would be waylaid if the ‘Suspension of Market-Rate Development in the Mission District,’ Ballot Measure I, is adopted by voters this November.
great infill and perfect height for this location. i really hope this gets built
one more reason to vote for measure I
Ridiculous! This location shouldn’t even be within the demarcated area.
This looks great. Hoping that both the moratorium and the housing bond go down in flames.
Why does all the new buildings being approved for construction by the Planning Department look like steel and glass rectangular shipping crates piled up on each other? Or is it because architects have lost all creativity, or is the Planning Department requiring that new hi rise structures look like Stalinist architecture?
[Editor’s Note: Damn That Planning Department To Hell! Oh, Wait A Minute…]
You should take a peek at the design requirements, as well as a long list of other planning / code related items that often negatively affect design. Architects would love to make more interesting structures, but it ends up being extremely prohibitive and heavily affected by an exorbitant local regulatory system.
They don’t look that way. Except to you.
It’s called modern urban architecture.
It’s called lazy architecture.
Frank Lloyd Wright this is not.
Also, 1940 this is not. And a midwestern suburb this is not.
So was Japantown, exhibiting at the time an awesome use of “futurist” concrete.
The assertion in that article that architects never criticize another’s work is no longer true. The architect of an existing development on Tennessee St in Dogpatch was merciless in his critique of the design of a proposed adjoining property.
[Editor’s Note: For good reason.]
So, what was the outcome of the hearing before Planning?
new rule: whenever armchair architects denigrate the design of building X, they should submit their proposed redesign for public critique.
b.s. – so if I don’t like a piece of music, I have to keep my mouth shut unless I can play something different on the piano? If I don’t like public art, I can’t say so unless I can sculpt something different?
Any person with a basic sense of good taste can tell what is, and is not, aesthetically pleasing – and does *not* need an architectural degree in order to be able to criticize something’s style or attractiveness.
If I’m offering $1M to live in a building I have every right to decide the style of architecture I prefer. Translation: I can say something looks like crap or is spectacular.
Thank you, agreed.
You don’t know what Stalinist architecture is. I would love some Stalinist architecture here.
Exactly what the revamped Cesar Chavez was designed for – build it! Ludicrous for anyone to suggest that this should *not* be built, versus the current use.
Too bad they couldn’t make a deal with the A-G Pharmacy (Army-Guerrero). That is a tiny lot with a single story underperforming pharmacy. I also hope the parking gets reduced; the site is 4 blocks from BART and 2 from the J. Otherwise, build it!
What if the people want to go some where in the city other than the Market Street corridor? The fallacy of the Mission being “transit rich” is that most of the transport goes to the same place and getting to places other than Market Street (or to most places outside of the City) is not well supported by public transit.
Then they’ll call and Uber or walk if it’s close? Not seeing the problem. The Market St corridor is where most jobs are, hence the best transit. Other locations can be accessed by private sector alternatives.
yes, including the most popular private sector alternative: the privately owned automobile.
I’d be fine with the city allowing the market to determine how much parking should be built. My guess is that the developers in this location would be none.
Not sure what you mean by “the market.” In San Francisco the city government is the largest owner and operator of parking spaces by far. It is a huge part of “the market” by any useful definition. The part of “the market” it doesn’t own outright it regulates, as are all legal markets regulated by the government.
If what you meant was ‘I’d be fine with the city allowing the developer to determine how much parking should be built’, then I hope you are also fine with the city not allowing that because it ain’t gonna happen and for very good reasons including that is not what the community affected by it wants.
Bike. This is near the Valencia bike path, with flat routes to Upper Market, the Wiggle, SOMA, Mission Bay, etc etc.
And a short walk to BART to go downtown, the East Bay, the airport, etc.
Too much parking.
Not enough parking, too much carping.
How many affordable units come with this building? And/or what’s its payment into the affordable housing fund? The moratorium’s a bad idea, but to argue against it, we need to show that affordable housing is being built some other way.