88 Arkansas Site

Martin Building is pushing forward with plans for a Lower Potrero Hill development to rise up to five-stories at 17th and Arkansas Streets, across from Jackson Park.

As designed by BAR Architects, the proposed 88 Arkansas project includes 127 apartments – a mix of 25 studios averaging 435 square feet, 50 one-bedrooms averaging 600 square feet, and 52 two-bedrooms averaging 866 square feet – over a basement garage for 98 cars and 107 bikes and 3,300 square feet of double-height restaurant space fronting 17th Street.

88 Arkansas: 17th Street Facade

The building’s entrances and five townhomes would line the street along Arkansas.

88 Arkansas: Arkansas Street Facade

And while the application for the development is still under review by the City’s Planning Department, a review which was expedited as Martin has proposed to include 20 percent below market rate units and build a LEED Platinum product, the paperwork to secure the necessary building permits for the project has now been filed as well.

47 thoughts on “Progress for a Proposed 127-Unit Potrero Hill Development”
  1. I wish planning was more insistent on having architects work to break up the massing of these sorts of projects. I’m sure the renderings above is still fairly rough, but I hope materials and final adjustments to design address the lack of refinement seen here.

    Also… glass balconies. Ughhh

  2. I’ve heard some of the protests from neighbors who say this place, which is practically within a stone’s throw of the downtown of one of the most desirable and densely-populated cities on the continent, is not an appropriate location to build large structures such as apartment buildings.

    San Francisco has so many residents who are so vehemently opposed to the essential elements of an urban lifestyle, such as proximity to large buildings or large numbers of people, that I must wonder why they have chosen to live in an unquestionably urban area.

    1. They got theirs, and now it’s time to pull up the drawbridge. Very simple. It is not at all rational, it’s purely selfish – Nothing. Can. Change. From. What. They. Bought. Into. Too bad if you didn’t make it in time.

      1. San Francisco where the idea of sharing is for libertarian capitalists, and the idea of walling everything off because “we got mine” is compassionate liberalism. Check your privilege SF NIMBYs…

    2. Because their idea of “urban area” consists of SFRs with backyards. Not everyone wants to live in a glass and steel highrise.

      1. This is NOT a high rise in any sense of that term.
        This is a central city of a major metropolitan area. If you “need” a star thistle-filled back yard, Tracy awaits.

  3. Maybe if you lived on Potrero Hill for 69 years you would understand why older residents feel all these buildings with many stories is ruining the character of the Hill. It’s not I’ve got mine now you can’t get yours. We just want to keep some of the wonderful character of the Hill.

    1. I grew up in that neighborhood. As a child, I played at the playground across the street from this planned new building. Over the years I’ve seen a lot of change, from goats to lofts.
      I still think the claim of “ruining the character” is frivolous and selfish.

      The last 69 years have been a transformative period in history. It’s fine if you want to live in the past, but why should others be forced to stay there with you?

        1. because they down’t own the land or the neighborhood, and they dont own the stoppage of progress. suggest moving to the petrified forest. not much changing there

    2. Hey Rose, you’re forgetting those of us who lived on the Hill, lost our housing and then had to to move because there is so little housing available. Glad you got yours, but your fight for “character” excludes real people like me.

      1. Evan, losing your place to live in Potrero Hill is certainly stressful and traumatic.

        Unfortunately, that’s not how capitalism works.

        When I asked for an increase in salary due to the high cost of living and representing my company in San Francisco, I was informed there are positions in open positions in Iowa. I declined.

        Perhaps you should look at less expensive rentals in cities around the Bay, be happy, and not try to fight the juggernaut?

        1. Capitalism should also work to build additional housing when demand is high. I’m pretty sure that’s what Evan was talking about – Rose is attempting to thwart capitalism by disallowing natural development.

  4. It is interesting to me that most neighborhoods south of California Street are being asked to “Build Higher!” while those of us on the north side of the city are pretty much living in neighborhoods that are unchanged and still have a density and urban context most people think of when they think San Francisco. I am for all these new buildings, and this one looks very attractive, but I understand why some may be troubled by neighborhoods changing rapidly. Why must the southern neighborhoods get all the development, why not a project like this on Lombard Street or even Chestnut?

    1. Some reasons right away:
      Many new well-healed residents of the city want to commute down the peninsula.
      Large lots previously used for industry / business are available.
      Southern parts of the city have long been cheaper than the north.

      That said, I’m not at all opposed to more (higher) construction in the northern parts of the city. Just saying, I understand why it rarely happens.

  5. I also think this should get plopped down in the Marina. If we are such a progressive city why is our current architecture so, so bad? There’s nothing appealing about another block like this. It looks terrible and just like every other ugly box being dropped into the area. Boooo. Build us something beautiful that you won’t be ashamed of in fifteen years.

  6. Speaking of preserving the character of the neighborhood, I hope this development won’t interfere with the sleep-in trash heaps always parked on this block, or the good citizens enjoying their crack on the Jackson Park playground.

        1. But nonetheless an area that includes some of the elements gentrified mentions. The Fun Bunch are always sitting along the Jackson Square frontage.

          1. Unless by “Fun Bunch” you mean one or two RVs, that’s not true. I’m around that park on a daily basis. Even the public bathroom is clean.

      1. As a matter of fact, I’ve lived 3 blocks away for the last 7 years. And I see on a regular basis what goes on there between midnight and 6am. Some of it’s surprising, actually, like the fact that the guys sleeping in those RVs have the means to be visited by prostitutes. I guess we all prioritize how we spend our money.

        I’ll grant you that it’s gotten better over the last few years – as the character of the neighborhood has been gradually destroyed, to put it in NIMBY terms I know you’ll agree with.

  7. i think the mix of units is good but the design does NOT say residential – it says office. Seriously if someone showed me this rendering i would think this as commercial space. Don’t use glass for the balconies and redo entire design so that it accommodates people that live there.

  8. A bland, soulless office box for people to live in. Forgive us if we’re underwhelmed at the prospect of this addition to our neighborhood. I don’t really have an issue with the size or scale, but can someone enlighten me as to how this building is contextual to it’s surroundings?

    1. I agree. We need a one story windowless concrete box covered with graffiti to better match the wonderous character of the street!

      1. Insightful comment. Again, I have no issue with the proposed size and scale. You’ve failed to shed any light on how this glass box fits with the surrounding neighborhood character. I can see how this proposed box would fit in well in downtown Walnut Creek. Go ahead and walk all the way around Jackson Park and report back on all the graffiti covered buildings you find.

        1. It’s my neighborhood too and I like the design. There is no distinct “style” or character to this part of Pot Hill that is worth preserving. Unless you’re really fond of run-down industrial blight like all the NIMBYs opposing 1601 Mariposa.

          1. Well neighbor, I’d offer that “Industrial” is a style. I can see how 1601 Mariposa perhaps takes some window cues from surrounding buildings. But I’m not an architect, which is why I was asking for contextual insight from those with more knowledge. I’d argue there is very little “blight” these days, save for the warehouse(s) near Bottom of the Hill and that an industrial style IS worth referencing, not necessarily preserving.

          2. OK, so keep most of the glass but add some concrete beams and you have a tacky “industrial” new-construction loft development a la SoMa circa 1997. Happy now? Or do we need smokestacks and loading docks to make it faux-thentic?

  9. The neighborhood has certainly gentrified over the last few years, but that’s without any of the large developments in place yet. At the moment there is plenty of the character left around Jackson Park, with an interesting mix of 1-3 unit residential buildings and small businesses. It’s ridiculous to credit future development for the neighborhood getting safer or “better”.

    1. Yes, ridiculous. We should credit the crappy rundown buildings going away with the neighborhood getting safer and better.

Leave a Reply

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