2350 Market Street

Listed for $2.4 million in July and reduced to $1.9 million after a week, the sale of the former Streetlight Records building at 2350 Market Street has closed escrow with a reported contract price of $1.85 million.

Delivered vacant by the owner of the store and building, after 35 years in business on Market and with a property tax basis of $389,454 last year, the site is a prime candidate for redevelopment as it’s zoned for development up to 65-feet in height.

That being said, the existing two-story building does fall withing the “Upper Market Street Commercial Historic District Extension” and was originally constructed around 1900. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Exploratory plans for opening a medical cannabis dispensary on the site were thwarted by its proximity to the Randall Museum which primarily serves persons under 18 years of age.

30 thoughts on “Streetlight Records Building Sold, Zoned For 65-Feet In Height”
  1. From what I’ve heard there is a terrible water runoff from the hill behind the building…and the building experiences lots of water intrusion!

  2. The Randall Museum? That’s at the top of Corona Heights. What’s the problem?
    Visiting the museum will make underage teens create fake IDs to use at the dispensary?

    [Editor’s Note: Medical Cannabis Dispensaries are not allowed within 1,000 feet of a school or recreational facility that caters to those under 18 years of age in San Francisco.]

    1. Best I can tell it’s at least 2100 feet walking distance between the two locations.
      I’ll never understand why as-the-crow flies distances apply to zoning rules like this.

    2. The Randall is closed for construction for about another year. I wonder if they can sell weed (yeah, uh, for medical purposes . . .) until then? Maybe earn back at least some piece of the purchase price?

      1. zoning rules are often arbitrary. If the setback requirement was based on something more direct (but expensive to document) you would complain about that.

          1. Exactly, thank you. Your response that it would look bizarre, while subjective, is no less subjective than @skyscraperluvr’s opinion that a 6-story skinny here would look good. After years of internet comment boards, I still don’t understand that another person’s subjective opinion is no less (or more) valid than their own.

  3. I’m just bummed that my only neighborhood record store is gone. It wasn’t the best, but I did still drop money there regularly. The building is nothing to love.

  4. Even if it is 65′ tall, 45% of the floor plates will be dedicated to circulation with two stairways down + an elevator. Probably still better ROI to have a 4-floor walkup.

    1. There was another 25′ wide building somewhere down in SOMA that was featured here recently – can’t remember the address. All those stairs don’t leave much room for living space…

      1. That was exactly my thought above, soccermom, although I didn’t fully explain it. If they acquired the truly ugly piece of 1960’s dreck to the left (the WORST retail frontage in the castro) then they’d have a parcel worth developing. EVEN to 65 feet…although I’d prefer to see height on the corner rather than mid-block. And yes, that’s subjective.

        1. I think the worst retail frontage in the Castro is on this same side of Market but a bit closer to Castro (next to Catch). That copy place, tax office, dental office weird one story combo that looks like something out of suburbia. I would love to see a photo of what was there prior. I’d love even more to see it replaced with something more suitable for that block.

          1. Just dined at Bisou this weekend, sitting at the window bar, so happened to think about this block frontage quite a bit recently.

            In one sense I hear you and completely agree – all of these buildings are “out of place” for a dense urban environment, and should be built up. At the same time, we need to recognize that they were *not* out of place as recently as 15 or 20 years ago (and certainly not 30 or 40 or 50). To me, storefronts such as the copy place (didn’t it used to be a film shop? I remember they always posted pictures of Folsom, Castro Street Fair, etc.) harken back to a different era of California urbanism – it reminds me of, say, Coronado or the old iteration of Venice. And I remember first visiting the Castro in 1991; it was still a much more village-y feel than “dense urban setting” such as Greenwich Village might be.

            That definitely seems to be out of place now, and not what we now want for inner, transit-heavy areas such as the Castro. But I don’t think their original incarnation should be damned as inappropriate, because I think they *were* appropriate for their place and time.

          2. Disagree, partially because like SierraJeff I have nostalgia for that old film development place with the windows full of local beefcake. Part of the gayborhood that is long gone. But even if it’s not urban, the fact that it has a little courtyard along Market gives a little variation to the street, and would’ve provided a great place for a café, but no tenant ever has really taken advantage of it. No….I think the Worn out West/Frame shop buildings are worse in any number of ways….really awkward stairs up or down to retail uses, huge security gates, absolutely no architectural distinction….would love to see them torn down!

          3. Yes, I had film developed there in the 80’s, and the employees left fingerprints all over the pictures. Density appropriateness aside, It was hideous architecture then, and it is now. That side of Market has always felt like a dead zone.

          4. I like that stretch of the Castro. Prefer it to, say, the main block or two of Castro itself. Don’t exactly know why, but I do. Having said that, Streetlight was perhaps, along with Rolo, my most visited store there, so that may end…!

  5. What is the rules pertaining to curb cuts for the new condos likely going in here? This building would have no other street access for parking

    1. Curb cuts are heavily discourage on Market…I don’t think you could get one. But, there’s also no need of parking in this location.

  6. I would think 4 stories walk-up would be more economical as someone above said. Because at 6 stories and with elevator a fair chunk of each floor plate will be taken up by the access structures.

    Maybe new owner could look into purchasing adjacent building to provide for a larger footprint for whatever they propose to build here.

Leave a Reply

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