996 Mission Street Site

The second floor of the two-story building on the northeast corner of Sixth and Mission is currently The Balmoral South, a 29-room residential hotel (a.k.a. SRO) with a sex shop (Soma Secrets) and a couple of restaurants (Spicy Garden, Supremo Pizza and Jenny’s) below.

And while San Francisco’s Planning Code doesn’t allow for the overall number of residential hotel rooms in the city to be reduced, the owner of the building has a plan to level the existing building and raise a 105-room tourist hotel in its place.

The proposed development would shed the 93 Sixth Street hotel address and rise 8-stories at 996 Mission Street, with 5,600 square feet of new restaurant/retail space along Mission and Sixth.

And in order to meet the City’s conservation of residential hotel rooms requirement, the project sponsor is proposing to technically transfer the 29 SRO rooms three blocks south to the existing Raman Hotel at 1011-1019 Howard Street.

The problem with the plan, the Raman Hotel is leased to the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and is already operating as an approved, and fully-occupied, residential hotel for formerly homeless seniors.

We didn’t say it was a good plan, but the intent is clear.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Kyle

    How does one “technically transfer” the rooms? Is the Raman Hotel not officially an SRO? Does it operate as if it were one?

    • Posted by david m

      yeah, i don’t see how they could get away with something like this. and it’s not even like something that would trick anyone if the plan in this case were merely to score the entitlements and then flip, as 29 units represents a very large chunk of change. unless this is the hot new area in which investors are willing to take huge risks, i don’t see it. one has the feeling that the only way this pencils at this location for the developer is to build back on site.

  2. Posted by San Francisco

    Quit gentrifying Sixth Street

    • Posted by Mark

      Quit complaining about gentrification.

      • Posted by VictorC

        Because the current state of Six Street is somewhere all the the kids who cry gentrification would want to visit after the sun day or not (or buy as their own personal, permanent residence)?

        Yes, stop gentrification and keep Sixth Street exactly as it is for generations to come.

        • Posted by justsayin

          I work on 6th and mission. There are families who live in those SROs, still lots of community serving small businesses. It’s pretty clear what they’re trying to do to 6th street.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      “gentrifying” meaning someplace an adult male can feel safe to walk at night? someplace where you don’t feel ick just walking down the street in the day? someplace where you don’t immediately wonder, on seeing it, how such squalor can exist pretty much in the heart of one of the richest and most prosperous cities on the planet? *That* gentrification?

      • Posted by BobN

        I think it just means “with palm trees”.

  3. Posted by donjuan

    They could build it taller being so close to market street and the high-rises on 4th and 5th, but I suppose 8 stories is good enough to meet the increasing demands in the area.

  4. Posted by brooder

    6th street has a long way to as far as gentrification. A regular hotel would mix it up, at least. Wouldn’t put up my mom there, though, even if it were a Ritz.

  5. Posted by alberto rossi

    Folks booking here online will have quite the surprise when they arrive to check in.

    • Posted by cfb


      • Posted by colby boles

        I already feel bad for all of the European tourists I see staying on 7th Street between Howard and Mission…

  6. Posted by skyscraperluvr

    Is that the building that the MUNI bus crashed into many years ago? Surely there is some reason for historic preservation in that.

  7. Posted by MukDutch

    Sixth from Market to Harrison is the skid row of SF, easily the most depressing stretch in the city. Development here should be welcomed but it will take a while for gentrification to set in

  8. Posted by Really?

    If memory serves me, this was the scene of a bus crash a few years ago where the 14 crossed Mission and went through the front door of the sex shop. The locals took advantage by looting it. Must have made for some interesting times in the neighborhood when they set out to sell all of those liberated goods. I don’t know what the market is like for pilfered sex goods is, but if it’s anything like used, there were some real bargains to be had.

    • Posted by Bertie Anglis

      Who’s to say they resold them? Drug addicts need sex toys too.

  9. Posted by Notcom

    Wouldn’t it be “a problem” regardless of whether the other property is leased or not ?? Unless he (she/they) is either planning to build 29 units some other place (unlikely) or set aside 29 units in the replacement ( even more unlikely) it’s a loss.

  10. Posted by Joel

    Someone told me the developer of the 145 Leavenworth / 361 Turk project, which tried to allow the units to count as replacement units for five residential hotels (but scrapped that component due to opposition), is now reapplying for the conversion now that the CU has been granted.

    • Posted by david m

      don’t think that would really apply here though, would it?

  11. Posted by Davester

    yeah, no one loves screaming crazies and human waste more then San Francisco.

    • Posted by Mike

      You think they’ll just go away… or maybe find a way into your ‘hood?

  12. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    Looks like another building tilting over, no sense of proportion or scale, can the architect and the developer before it gets built…

    • Posted by alberto rossi

      Tilting over? Because of the corner bay windows?

  13. Posted by Pablito

    I think the developer should be required to retain the existing neighborhood serving retail uses as a condition of approval….. 🙂

  14. Posted by Cody

    Many years ago when the Airporter Bus traveled down this stretch of 6th Street the driver would tell the passengers were were in wine country.

  15. Posted by Jake

    The current googlestreetview on 6th st was taken at night (namelink). Notice the cab in the foreground.
    I didn’t know Google posted night views. Maybe the influence of an informed curator.

  16. Posted by BayviewSF

    Sixth street gentrification should be easy and should go really fast. It has a lot of commercial and not many residential buildings. I assume it is easy to redevelop commercial buildings since most people would welcome it and it causes very few evictions.

    I walked 6th st during the day time. It is not nice but I do not feel any safety issue. What’s the problems exactly for 6th street? How does it compare with 9th street, 8th street and 7th street?

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      6th doesn’t feel unsafe to me at night either. There’s just too many people flowing by for violent crime to go unnoticed. Granted there are some rather unsavory people hanging out who make 6th feel decidedly less elegant but not necessarily unsafe.

  17. Posted by alberto rossi

    The most interesting thing about 6th Street was the defenestration building. Which therefore had to be torn down.

  18. Posted by Fishchum

    If by “interesting” you mean a dilapidated eyesore, then sure.

  19. Posted by Stop Driving

    Drugs and hookers will keep this hotel booming.

  20. Posted by Archie

    Correction: The proposal for this project has been changed to include the residential hotel units on site. One residential unit will be added, making the proposed building include 30 residential hotel units and 75 tourist / extended stay units. Also, the height limit in this district is 85′, which this project will not exceed.

    [Editor’s Note: Thank you for the update. Please keep in mind that according to the Planning Department, an updated proposal has yet to be received, or at least processed.]

  21. Posted by Jane

    I live on 7th and walk 6th Street all the time, as an older woman. To call it “not dangerous” is blind. Most of the people are harmless, and friendly, but I have witnessed several serious mental breakdowns, too many drunken, passed out in their own vomit and poop to count, and serious fights. Sixth Street has had two fatal shootings in the last few years and is one of the most dangerous for pedestrians in the city. Bringing a market rate hotel to the block would help a lot, especially if it had Doorman/Security watching the corner, but it must find other homes for those it will displace or the neighborhood will correctly oppose it. We must find a balance and better serve those in need, especially the mentally ill. Come spend some time here before passing judgement.

  22. Posted by Government Shrinkage

    I work here. I walk home frequently. I spent a lot of time there. The answer is simple. The mentally ill need to be in treatment, not roaming the streets. The people who fight on a daily basis need to discipline themselves or be thrown in jail for a night or two.

    This is the heart of our city. It needs to be vibrant, clean, exciting and attractive. Not dangerous or dirty.

  23. Posted by Sonja

    Link to the application please?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles