180 Jones Street Site

Back in 2005, the then-owner of the parking lot parcel on the southeast corner of Jones and Turk filed for permits to build a 5-story building at 180 Jones, a building height which the Planning Department deemed too short for the Tenderloin site which is zoned for development up to 120-feet in height.

In 2008, the owner re-filed for permission to build an 8-story building with 37 residential units over 2,700 square feet of retail and 8 below-grade parking spaces, a plan which the Planning Commission approved in 2009 with a three-year window in which to start development or lose the right to build.

180 Jones Street Rendering circa 2015

Three years later, the ground had yet to be broken.  And given the economic downturn at the time, a downturn that waylaid more projects than all the NIMBYs combined, the Planning Commission approved a three-year extension for the project’s entitlement in September 2012.

In February 2013, the site was sold for $2.2 million.  And with the aforementioned three-year extension about to expire, building permits for the 180 Jones Street project were issued three months ago.

At the same time, the California Parking Company has requested a one-year extension of their permit to continue operating the parking lot on the site, a request which was approved this past October.

And the 180 Jones Street parcel is now back on the market as an approved development site, as it has been for six years and counting.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by seriously

    I really hope they get to build it to 120′!

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      should be upzoned to 200 ft with all market rate housing. Thats a good way to turn around the tenderloin.

  2. Posted by Zugamenzia Farnsworth

    seems like the hood still scares off many. wondering about the fate of the project at hyde and golden gate, i think it had one more minor hurdle.

    • Posted by Orland

      According to a Sept. 1, 2015 item at Hoodline.com, a “final appeal” was to be heard the next day addressing neighbors’ objections to its approval.

      Although I did not see an item thereafter expressly addressing the outcome, a 12/02/2015 follow up indicates demolition of the post office could begin as early as this January as the lease of USPS expires December 31.

      • Posted by Orland

        That same article at Hoodline includes an impressive round up of the status of other Tenderloin/Mid-Market development proposals.

  3. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    I hope that building is built strong enough to hold up against the other buildings that abut the site-lines and may cause the whole block to go up in a pile of rubble….Parking Garage on one side, and a lot of un-reinforced buildings adjacent is not a prime density site liability wise… Ground floor looks a little squished maybe a better pedestal/ground floor retail height?

    • Posted by Notcom

      URM….er, uhm, no. What’s the basis for your claim? The two neighbors look like reinforced concrete to me.

      • Posted by alberto rossi

        The render shows a parking lot on the first floor?

        • Posted by Serge

          Pretty sure that’s a mistake in the way the render was placed over the photo.

    • Posted by Joel

      Wow, I’ve heard the sentiment that NIMBYs believe bigger building eat the smaller ones… but this guy actually believes it!

    • Posted by Tony

      It’s a normal building with no parking. The image is just a lazy photoshop.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Is this Ben Carson’s architectural alter-ego?

      • Posted by alberto rossi

        The Tenderoin has a critical need for a grain storage facility.

  4. Posted by Elitist Pig

    I hope the potential new owners do a serious redesign of that exterior, it’s sooo 2005…

    • Posted by Serge

      That’s the problem with these contemporary designs. They are dated within a year or less.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      I guess 2005 was a good year. I like it.

  5. Posted by Alai

    100% lot coverage.

  6. Posted by Orland

    It seems private profit is not always the most efficient manner to develop needed housing.

    • Posted by anon

      How so? If private profit had been allowed to be the primary manner of deciding, this would have been developed 10 years ago, and been an additional ~25 units of housing for those ten years. Instead, bureaucracy has given us a parking lot for that time.

      • Posted by Orland

        Where in the World did you come up with that analysis given the facts related above? It’s clear that the inactivity has resulted from the owners’ “mothballing” the property awaiting the opportunity to exploit its potential for private financial gain to the maximum resulting in no activity either due to market considerations or their personal situation.

        • Posted by anon

          Um, read the first sentence:

          “Back in 2005, the then-owner of the parking lot parcel on the southeast corner of Jones and Turk filed for permits to build a 5-story building at 180 Jones, a building height which the Planning Department deemed too short for the Tenderloin site which is zoned for development up to 120-feet in height.”

          • Posted by Orland

            Planning was right. That would have been a gross underutilization IF it had ever gotten built.

          • Posted by anon

            Perhaps they were. Still seems that having some housing for 10 years is more efficient than having none.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles