2100 Market Street Site 2016

The refined plans for razing the shuttered Home restaurant at the Corner of Market and Church, and constructing a four to seven-story building designed by Arquitectonica across the site, could finally be approved by the City next week.

2100 Market Street Rendering 2016

As proposed, the 2100 Market Street project now includes 62 apartments – a mix of 6 studios, 31 one-bedrooms, and 25 two-bedrooms – over 2,600 square feet of restaurant space on the corner, the operator of which has yet to be identified. And while the previously proposed garage for 15 cars has been scrapped, the plans include an interior storage room for 62 bikes.

As such, the existing 19-foot-wide curb cut on Market Street would be eliminated and the curb cut on 14th Street would be reduced from 30 feet to 11 feet and only provide access to service vehicles. The plans also include widening the 14th Street sidewalk from 9 to 12 feet where feasible.

2100 Market Street Rendering: 14th Street Facade

Having sat vacant since 2011, Chipotle had planned to renovate and occupy the existing 2100 Market Street building, but those plans were rejected by San Francisco’s Planning Commission in 2013. Brian Spiers Development, the developer behind Linea down the street at 1998 Market is leading the charge this time around, with the Planning Department’s support.

The development’s seven (7) required below-market-rate units will be provided on-site if the project, which will take 20 months to construct, is approved.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by aerel

    Chipotle, LOL!

  2. Posted by Deke Rowell

    Now that is an awful looking building

    • Posted by neighbor

      Disagree, I think the building fits that corner nicely. Certainly a tremendous improvement over what’s there now.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        That’s a low bar. This building looks like it should be in a suburban office park… nothing near the quality of the buildings recently built at the other diagonal corners along Market.

        • Posted by Orland

          I thought the first iteration was the best. The “refinements” have been negative fussies IMO But, as has been stated, it’s certainly an improvement on what’s there now.

          Any construction timetable available?

          • Posted by neighbor

            Architecture and design appeal is very subjective…some will say this is too modern, some not modern enough, some fugly, some more of the same, etc. etc. It’s a corner that is begging to be developed, I am tired of the mess down there…

          • Posted by Jon @ SFBARF

            I agree. The first iteration is best. This is typical when a firm puts an interesting design on the table in SF. It falls prey to nitpicking about massing and bulk and facade treatment (which all admittedly have a positive purpose), till the developer just throws in the towel and says “fine, here!” and gives you a perfectly acceptable and standard compliant but less aspirational design. We are setting ourselves up to be a city of yawns.

      • Posted by Torger Cobus

        It is certainly not up to my expectations for a world-class firm like Arquitectonica. Linea is another bore. They do great work all over the world. Why not here?

    • Posted by JayJay

      Looks way nicer than the current building.

  3. Posted by residentsf

    This new building looks great! It looks like there will be units on the ground floor on 14th? That will really help with making that corner active. How soon can this start??

  4. Posted by donjuan

    Wow that’s a beautiful building.

  5. Posted by MoFoPlzz

    What sucks the most is the City could’ve bought that land or used it’s imminent domain chit and put 62 low income units there instead of ANOTHER high end apartment building that zero middle class/working class/working poor SFians can afford.

    • Posted by woolie

      The city can do that, today, anywhere they like. They can even buy lots on the open market and use them for affordable housing. The construction of this building has zero effect on the city’s capability to do this.

    • Posted by brooder

      The question is how to pay for all of that? The mission low income development of the city is almost $900000k per unit, which boils down to about 4500 in cost per month, capital cost, maintenance, and tax. Subsidized renters can be expected to pay around 1000, which comes then to a rent subsidy of 3500/unit and month, courtesy of the fellow citizen and taxpayers of San Francisco. You can build only that many low income units with a given budget. It’s not just about getting the land.

    • Posted by Chris

      The City has the authority to put low-income housing ANYWHERE, including buying a mansion in Pacific Heights to turn into low-income housing.

      The issue is how to pay for it. The Constitution requires the city to pay fair market value for taking private property.

  6. Posted by Bob

    Can’t fix this corner fast enough, build it.

  7. Posted by Orenthal Jay

    another boxy box people will be “protecting” in 50 years when we demolish it for an sh*ttier built building in Communist Chinese Occupied Cali

  8. Posted by unlivable city

    Here is just one example of what happens to one of the world’s most beautiful cities when you pack its site lines with ugly, over-sized buildings: the pink triangle displayed every year for Pride on Twin Peaks because you could see it from all over the Castro, will pretty much be invisible now.

    These buildings are taking all our corners that used to be open and sealing them visually shut just so a few more rich people can pack in. In other cities these corners are often turned into mini parks that open up the spaces for the people to enjoy. Not here. Instead we are jamming every last scintilla of space with just more ugly condos.

    • Posted by woolie

      The present building has been around for a while. I’m sure there was an opportunity to buy it and turn it into the park you desire. But apparently the city has other budget priorities.

    • Posted by parklife

      I’m curious as to what cities you are referring to when you describe mini parks on corners. I’ve not been to all the great cities of the world, but my experience has been that most do not have parks on corners. Perhaps you’re thinking of small towns instead.

    • Posted by Fishchum

      Yes, I can’t think of a better way to spend the afternoon than in a small park surrounded on three sides by traffic. That is, if I can find a spot to sit down in that isn’t occupied by the homeless.

    • Posted by tj

      What you are seeing now is simply the implementation of the Market-Octavia plan, a plan that was widely discussed, debated and ultimately accepted by the community and by this city ~10 years ago. Your criticisms, while potentially valid, are a bit late.

  9. Posted by spencer

    Way too short for that corner which has fantastic transit. Should be 15-20 floors

    • Posted by MorganDriver

      fantastic transit as long as you don’t have to get anywhere at any particular time

      • Posted by Zugamenzio Farnsworth

        MUNI….if you have all day…..we’ll get you there.

      • Posted by busrider

        Muni Metro underground is faster than driving, especially if you’re headed downtown or out to West Portal.

  10. Posted by two beers

    Wait, is this the building Lucky 13 is supposed to be relocated to?

    Dive bar in a bland and generic, wide and shallow footprint, reflective glass facade? Now, that just screams “character.”

    • Posted by redseca2

      If you google the developer for 2100 Market you will discover he is the Owner of Lucky 13, so I guess the answer is YES.

  11. Posted by BTinSF

    Does San Francisco really want to be a city of only 20-somethings; the sort who can get everywhere by bike? I guess seniors like me are going to be confined to ghettos like they are building down Market at Laguna or in older buildings where we can park the cars we need to get around (even climbing on a bus, then transferring to another bus as I would need to do, with sacks of groceries is beyond this 70-something).

    • Posted by anona

      Um, Uber?

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Who are these wealthy elderly you have in mind, who can afford not only to live in San Francisco, but to take Uber wherever they need to go? And if they have that much money, why haven’t they retired to Maui?

        • Posted by tm

          There are certainly a lot more affordable places to retire to besides Maui or SF.
          As much as I love this city, if you are retired, you don’t need to be close to where the jobs are. Why not move to some place you can get more housing for your money?

          • Posted by Gus

            I invite you to use your imagination as to why it might be very attractive for elderly people to live in an urban environment. Less reliance on a car, more walkable destinations. Vibrance. Culture. History. Family.

            Diversity is powerful—this is true in many areas of life. When we force out huge swaths of some demographic, we lose something. There’s no “right” or “wrong”, but there are consequences.

            I believe we should subsidize some populations to live in SF but those subsidies should be means-tested. We already do this in hundreds or thousands of complicated, indirect ways that have lots of unintended consequences (e.g. rent control). The elderly is one such population.

    • Posted by Alai

      Are you suggesting that no seniors currently live in buildings without parking? Lots of older buildings have no parking either…

      Are you suggesting that all seniors drive??

      Bizarre.

      Ok, you don’t want to climb onto buses with sacks of groceries. Even setting aside $5 Uber rides (which are, of course, trivially cheap compared to all the costs of owning a car, not to mention safer), there’s a Safeway AND a Whole Foods a block away.

      But I guess, if you insist on driving, you’ll be “confined to the ghettos” that are 99% of the country, and most of San Francisco as well. Meanwhile, we must put strict limits on building housing, and drive up the cost, in the few places that are actually walkable.

      Meanwhile, Trader Joe’s can’t open right up the street because there’s not enough room for cars. A great victory for seniors, I’m sure.

      • Posted by Orland

        It is a bizarre phobia which would deny others their chosen option of transport.

      • Posted by zig

        Actually in many places senior housing is about the only you can build without parking as it is assumed many can’t or no long want to drive

        BT might just be expressing personal feelings about getting older. Who knows

    • Posted by g

      Is there not a Muni station basically under the building? F-Line in the middle of the street? J-line running on Church? Busses? Pretty sure I see all these things on a regular basis so they do exist.

      Is there not a Safeway, Whole Foods, and several smaller indie shops within one block of this development?

      This site is absolutely perfect for a no car parking development.

      • Posted by Orland

        Except for the fact that a not insignificant portion of the targeted market for such living accommodations would likely opt/be constrained to maintain a personal vehicle as a part of their transport needs.

        • Posted by wc1e

          And surely those people who desire parking for their car will buy a building with a parking space.

        • Posted by g

          An assertion backed up by nothing.

          • Posted by Orland

            SF automobile ownership rates have been repeatedly posted here and indicate that the possibility of these units being filled with persons with no need of parking their individual cars is NIL.

            Face reality, please!

          • Posted by anona

            Um, the rates have been posted, and show that auto ownership rates are extremely low in SF compared to other areas of similar income. So it seems that you need to face reality?

          • Posted by Anonalso

            Um, the number of vehicles registered within the city of San Francisco has increased, not decreased, especially in the last 5 years as the economy improves. So it seems that YOU need to face reality.

          • Posted by Orland

            It seems it’s the truth you have trouble facing. A 2014 study (apparently using data tabulated in 2012) found that 69% (do really contend that is “extremely low”?) had access to at least 1 private automobile. Given the socio-economic demographics of the potential buyers of this property, that number will definitely be even greater.

            It is an impossibility to fill these 62 units with people who do not own automobiles.

            As noted in the data posted by “Jake” below, street parking in the neighborhood of this project is currently very difficult which will only be exacerbated by the addition of the households and their automobile which will inevitably spill onto the already crowded streets. It is madness to build these residences without at least 18 onsite parking spaces.

          • Posted by g

            None of which proves that people who rent in a parking free building (on top of lots of transit options) will in fact have cars. SF could make this more concrete by reforming the parking permit system and metering more streets so that it would be virtually impossible for people in these kinds of buildings to street park but that’s way too logical to ever be implemented.

          • Posted by Orland

            What you’re positing is making life in SF impossible for a great majority of its citizens. As I noted earlier in this thread, it is a very bizarre phobia (whether in the sense of fear or hatred) which would so dictate how others should lead their everyday lives.

          • Posted by anona

            Um, 69% is exceptionally low compared to other cities in the US with similar income (it’s 95%+ in other places with median incomes as high as SF). So again, face reality.

          • Posted by anona

            “it is a very bizarre phobia (whether in the sense of fear or hatred) which would so dictate how others should lead their everyday lives.”

            Exactly. So why are you forcing the developer to build more parking than they’d prefer? Why not let the market (and thus “others”) decide how much is needed?

          • Posted by Jake

            This “market” is dominated by the SF government, which is by far the biggest owner of parking spaces and makes rules for everyone else, including the range of choices available to this developer.

            There should be a realistic minimum parking requirement with an option to buyout. If a developer wants to externalize the costs of parking, they should pay into a transit fund instead of freeloading.

            This project is proposed with 55 market-rate and 7 BMR units. At household incomes of ~$100k/market-rate and ~$50k/BMR unit, we would expect 30+ cars to be owned by the residents, based on the known data for car ownership rates for this area. If you think the incomes will be higher, then you should expect more cars will be owned by the residents.

            I’m for practical approaches to minimize the impacts of car ownership and operation in SF, but our current policies are impractical because they tend to maximize freeloading by developers and car owners.

          • Posted by Orland

            If I lived in Manhattan, I wouldn’t countenance even a thought of enduring the expense and hassle of owning a passenger car. This ain’t Manhattan. Of what possible relevance are the relative rates of car ownership in other places?

            Here, the 69% ownership rates means that these 62 units will mean many more autos competing for already inadequate storage.

            These policies are reducing the quality of life in San Francisco.

          • Posted by anona

            Jake, 100% agreed that the government needs to market-price the street parking. We’ll never get there if the government can just force private owners to build excess parking, rather than correctly pricing all of it.

            Orland, I was just responding to the 69% number. I do consider that very low considering it’s faaar outside the norm for the US, and to me it seems crazy that you also wouldn’t consider it to be low, since it’s astoundingly lower than places even five miles outside the city. Surely the lower rate has something to do with the amount of parking available? Or does Mississippi have higher auto ownership rates than that because of…

          • Posted by Jake

            anona, SF can’t “market price” street parking without installing meters and running them 24×7. State law limits the price of the residential parking permits, btw.

            SF is actually forcing developers to build insufficient parking, not excess parking, at least in this part of town. You really don’t seem to be connected with the reality of what is going on. Here are some facts to help with understanding, from the 2014 Census ACS for SF:

            31.2% households have no car
            32.8% households have income less than $50k/year
            41.4% of carfree SF households have no employed person

            And that makes 41.4% * 31.2% = 12.9% of SF households with no car and no job. Guess what the poverty rate is for San Francisco. By contrast, 90+% of homeowners in SF have at least one car, which is around the USA average.

            This big difference you see between car ownership rate stats for SF and 5 miles away is mostly due to the poverty of Chinatown and the greater Tenderloin that spills into SoMa and Mission. As soon as you get to Noe and Bernal the car ownership rates are over 80% and around 90% for the Potrero Hill/Dogpatch area. Just a few blocks from this location as you go up into the hills the car ownership rates exceed 90%. You don’t have to leave SF to see the change, just get away from where the poor are concentrated and where it is a short walk to the central business district.

            The idea that going carless is some hot new lifestyle trend is bizarrely naive. Sure, a small percentage of the carless have been so by lifestyle choice at least since the 1960s and the fashion waxes and wanes, but the majority of them then or now just can’t afford it. US vehicle miles traveled is at an all-time record. US sales of cars and light trucks were the highest ever in 2015: 17.5 million new vehicles sold for $570 billion. 6th year in a row of increasing sales, right in line with the slow crawl out of the near depression. It’s the stupid economy.

            Orland, Manhattan has more cars registered per sq mile than SF, last I checked. Having a car there is about like having one on Nob Hill or the SF FiDi. Not much hassle if you can afford a nearby garage, and if you can’t afford garage rent, may as well move to Long Island or Sunset or Jersey or East Bay.

          • Posted by anona

            Thanks Jake, I see no problem with metering all spots 24×7. That would be a huge step forward, IMO. It wouldn’t have to be all areas, just the northern quadrant of the city plus a handful of some other areas.

            SF is actually forcing developers to build insufficient parking, not excess parking, at least in this part of town.

            Key phrase: “this part of town”

            Also, have developers in this part of town asked for more? It seems that most cases I’ve seen for the past 3-4 years in this part of town are developers asking for less.

            Last note – the large SV company I work for recently did a study of their ~2000 SF employees who ride shuttles south. 76% did not own a car, of which 65% said they would buy a car if the shuttle were to no longer be available. Small sample size, sure, but you can be assured that these folks are not under the poverty rate.

          • Posted by Jake

            If you “see no problem with metering all spots 24×7, then you really are disconnected from the realities of SF. SF has ~30k meters and would need to install another ~100k to meter the over subscribed areas. People don’t want parking meters installed in front of their homes and they certainly don’t want to pay to park overnight on the street. You want to lose all credibility, then go propose that in city hall. They will give you your huge step forward, right out the door.

            It hardly matters if any of the developers asked to build more parking or not. All of them together represent about one percent of the housing affected. And they are the beneficiaries of zero-minimum parking requirements. What part of freeloader don’t you get?

            SF doesn’t charge these developers a “market-rate” for the extra street parking load they create by building new housing without sufficient parking. SF thanks them and rewards them for it. And “this part of town” covers where ~90% of all new housing has been built in the current boom.

            Your company stat didn’t measure what we need to know, which is vehicles per housing unit. In the Castro it is about one-to-one. Overall, SF has about 150k more residents with a job than housing units and about 100k more registered vehicles than housing units. So how many of the 76% live in a household without a car (no cars owned by any occupant)? And how many cars are owned by the households of the 24% that you already know own at least one car? The US Census gathers all of this information and has been doing it for decades, so we don’t need your company stats.

            Of course most of the people in SF that don’t own a car are above the poverty line. Simple arithmetic will show you that from the numbers I gave above.

            It would be interesting to know where the hundreds or thousands of cars owned by your bus riding fellow-emps spend the day. Bet your company didn’t ask if they keep them parked on the public streets of SF or in private off-street parking. Wonder how many have residential parking permits.

          • Posted by anona

            I’d be fine with metering use of the streets as well. You have to agree that we can’t simply keep adding parking when the street network itself is overloaded.

            I think you underestimate the possibility of meters being added everywhere – if it were done in conjunction with other things.

            As far as my company stat, yeah, who knows, maybe most have roommates. Not my anecdotal experience, but could be. I don’t draw any weird looks when I mention that my wife and I don’t have a car and just spend a few hundred a month on Uber and a couple hundred a month on rental cars, but who knows. I suppose it just seems insane to me that people would want to put up with end destination parking in SF or god forbid, searching for street parking each night (!!!). I’d move out of SF in a heartbeat if I was forced to own a car for some reason. My time has value.

          • Posted by Jake

            SFMTA has been trying to add meters to Potrero, Dogpatch, and Northeast Mission for years with no success and plenty of backlash. In SF meters are deployed in places that get a large amount of non-resident parking. They are not used or desirable to regulate the on-street parking of the residents.

            Of course you are welcome to attend the upcoming SFMTA community meetings about street parking to try to persuade everyone otherwise. You might want to begin with your “other things” before you explain how “fine” you are with installing meters in front of their homes.

            FWIW, SFMTA has a recent report on the commuter shuttle program, including a survey of riders that found 45% did not own a car and of them 47% said the shuttle was the main reason they didn’t own a car. That works out to about 20% shift to mass transit from car when it is a viable/attractive alternative and they have the financial means to do either. From that maybe we can reduce the expect number of cars this (transit-rich) development will add to SF to ~25. How much money is it worth to this developer to not be required to build 20-25 parking spaces? Maybe enough to buy and operate a new MUNI bus.

            Since you apparently work for an enlightened company and you have a grasp of the value of parking and the potential of micro-payments, you may want to suggest that your company charge everyone parking at their facilities. A UCB study done for the Bay Bridge found that ~76% of the cars in the AM commute are on their way to free parking. And about 20% of those cars are going from the East Bay to SV. All the gallant riders corp shuttles gather up from the Marina to the Mission minimize their freeway footprint so that it may be filled by SUVs from the east bay, Marin, the Sunset and Bayview. You have to agree that we can’t simply keep adding (free) corporate parking when the SV street network itself is overloaded.

            As for your time having value, well that is a major reason people own cars. It waits for you, while someone else waits for a bus or clicks for uber. Don’t need to compete with others for a ride when demand surges as you have a fully-dedicated resource, all to yourself. And most residents of SF that commute by car have dedicated parking or live in areas where the extra time to find street parking is far less than the time wasted waiting for a bus that is slower than they drive. At least they do until we build something like this project within a block or two of their home.

          • Posted by spencer

            You guys are missing the fact that 40% of households own 2 cars as well. So with 70% owning 1 car and 40% owning 1, we can see the problem with develops dump these cars on the street by not building parking. Even if we cut those numbers in half to 35% and 20% which wont happen, then its still a problem

          • Posted by Jake

            The numbers I used are based on the total vehicles owned, which accounts for multi-vehicle households. In the Castro it is about one vehicle per housing unit. Average for all of SF it is about 1.3 vehicles per occupied housing unit. Here is the breakdown for all of SF, according to the 2014 Census ACS:

            31% No vehicle available
            40% 1 vehicle available
            21% 2 vehicles available
            6% 3 vehicles available
            2% 4 or more vehicles available

          • Posted by anona

            Of course I’d be for market-pricing parking and driving everywhere, Jake. What makes you think otherwise?

            I do get a chuckle about how 6-7 years ago on this site everyone (everyone!) was claiming that the city must allow 1:1 or more parking everywhere, otherwise the market would never build any housing here (the exact argument that the Infinity used to secure a 1:1 parking allowance). Now…we must require 1:1 or more parking everywhere because those dastardly developers will build with no parking whenever possible to avoid the cost.

          • Posted by Jake

            You keep referring to vague concepts like “market-pricing for parking and driving everywhere” as if they are going to solve some equally vaguely stated problems. How would you establish whatever that is and what difference would it make?

            FWIW, I wasn’t reading or posting to SS 6 years ago, but the key stats that I’ve offered here now and inform my opinions haven’t changed much since then and the basic patterns have been in place for ~20 years. I certainly haven’t recommended “we must require 1:1 or more parking everywhere because ….” Not at all. Enjoy your chuckles, but so far in this thread you’ve mostly waved a magic “market-rate” voodoo solution and exhibited a profound disconnect with the facts/realities of SF parking, car ownership, and politics. For all your allegiance to market rate pricing, mostly what you’ve given us rates market-imprecise.

          • Posted by anon

            Worth pointing out that the free market doesn’t necessarily imply 24×7 metering. The free market produces all you can eat subscription plans such as unlimited DSL data plans, capped usage plans such as some cell phone data plans as well as a la carte plans for some other services. Metering and caps can be very useful when some people have a tendency to consume far more than others. But here where most households have 1-2 cars and very few have 3+ cars, it makes a great deal of sense to recoupe the cost of providing parking in other ways such as taxes, builder fees, permits,…

          • Posted by Jake

            The oligopolies that provide ISP and cellphone services to most Americans aren’t good examples of “free market”, unless you are suggesting the FCC or some other federal agency should get involved in pricing and terms for parking in SF. And their “plans” are widely and justly reviled by their customers/prisoners.

            FWIW, we already have “other ways such as taxes, builder fees, permits,…”; though they are apportioned to allow freeloading like this proposed development.

          • Posted by anon

            OK, pick Netflix as another example where you can watch all you want for one monthly fee. Or even “all you can eat” restaurants. The point is that there are lots of ways to price goods and services and “free market” doesn’t imply 24/7 dynamic pricing.

          • Posted by Jake

            Of course there are many (possibly an infinite ** infinite) number of ways to price goods and services. We weren’t discussing some abstract pricing theory, were we?
            Regardless, there isn’t a “free market” for street parking in SF, unless you think a near gov monopoly is some kind of “free market.” Now if you would like to explain how to create a free market from this sow’s rear-end, go right ahead. And if you can do it without parking meters everywhere, then more lipstick for you.

    • Posted by skyscraperluvr

      If you don’t have the motor skills, flexibility, or strength to walk, bike, or get on the bus, should you really be driving?

      • Posted by spencer

        Yes

      • Posted by missiondweller

        Yes, driving with arthritis is easier than standing (and falling) on MUNI or BART.

        • Posted by skyscraperluvr

          Uber? Lyft? Taxi? Paratransit?

          This isn’t the 1950s anymore people.

        • Posted by Alai

          It’s also safer! When an old person driving hits a pedestrian, the driver remains perfectly safe. That’s why we need to make it as easy as possible for seniors to own private cars.

    • Posted by zig

      You’re really worried about a small percentage of SF. I think the self selecting 70 year olds who would choose to live here would be able to figure it out

    • Posted by OtherDan

      Isn’t this across the street from Safeway?

    • Posted by OtherDan

      And a block or two from Golden? Down the street from Harvest? Isn’t Whole Foods less than two blocks away? This might not be a good use case for your grocery problem. . . .

    • Posted by Brad

      What a ridiculous statement. This project would add units in a transit-rich neighborhood with excellent access to services. It amazes me that people still foster ideas of SF being a car-parking paradise (as though that were ever the case).

  12. Posted by pickles94114

    Wow, what a beautiful addition to the neighborhood! I had been planning a trip to Barcelona and Paris next year but now no need – we’ll soon have timeless, inspirational architecture to admire right in our own backyard. I do hope they’ll add some little triangles on top, those really make the finishing touches.

    • Posted by tj

      You are being facetious, I hope…

      This is nothing more than Linea v2 but in slightly modified form. Such a waste of a perfectly good building site.

    • Posted by Chris

      Yes, of course, the existing abandoned run-down one-story crap-hole where Home restaurant used to be that is now used as an outdoor urinal is very Parisian. When I walk down Market Street, Paris is so typically the first-thing that comes to mind–not!

      Honey, give us break! The street never looked like Paris, doesn’t look like Paris now, and would never look like Paris. If you want Paris (which is a lovely city), then move to Paris!

  13. Posted by two beers

    I’m calling it: ugliest project of this building cycle.

  14. Posted by Jake

    This is in the middle of residential parking zone S, with free street parking for blocks in all directions. Only Market St has meters, AFAIK. This will be an ideal building for someone who can beat the neighbors home to score a sweet spot on 14th or Belcher or Sanchez. Given the demographics and the convenient transit alternatives, this building is likely to add 10-20 cars to the street parking, permits for which SF will collect $111/each annually, which is limited by state law.

    And they won’t be alone. SFMTA issues 95,000 residential parking permits annually for only 78,000 permitted parking spaces. 44% of SF households are eligible. Zone S is among the most over-subscribed (the number of annual permits issued is greater than the number of on-street parking spaces), rated in the 120-152% subscription category.

    SFMTA is in the early phase of re-evaluating the Residential Parking Permit program. All the stats above are from the presentation on the documents tab.

    • Posted by Alai

      It’s good that they’re re-evaluating the RPP program, because it’s obviously broken.

      What doesn’t make sense is to insist that new buildings construct garages–at the cost of millions and at the expense of other uses like housing and commercial–in order to fruitlessly try to solve the problems of this broken problem. Those garages will last decades after the current RPP is a distant memory.

      • Posted by Jake

        When people insist every building no matter how small either must have or must not have parking, they are allowing their ideology to overcome their sensibility and their rigid narrow solutions to complex dynamic problems are easily discounted as nonsensical. It has taken nearly 100 years to make this hairball of parking regulation and resulting negative outcomes. A few spritzes of ideological detangler ain’t gonna fix it and often are so misdirected as to blind the very people doing the spritzing.

        As I posted above 3 days ago: “There should be a realistic minimum parking requirement with an option to buyout. If a developer wants to externalize the costs of parking, they should pay into a transit fund instead of freeloading.” Notice that if we did this and if the buyout fee were smallish compared to the cost of building garage space, you might get your new developments mostly without parking as you seem to wish, and we would get some extra money for MUNI which we surely need.

  15. Posted by Some Guy

    Not a terrible-looking building. But try to picture the rendering as it will look in reality, with all those ugly overhead Muni wires.

  16. Posted by crisper

    Though reference will be lost on many–as long as they name it “Church Street Station” I’m down for it.

  17. Posted by Cameron Newland

    Why is this building only 7 stories tall? SF desperately needs new market-rate housing units, and there’s a new development who is proposing only 62 units in a high-density Market Street Corridor?

    I’d much rather see a 20-story building occupy this site. Just my $0.02.

    • Posted by Chris

      Because the area is not zoned for 20-story buildings. Why are you asking questions that you already know the answer to?

      Changing the zoning, requires changing the law. If you want to change the law, then petition the Board of Supervisors to pass a rezoning of the area.

  18. Posted by redseca2

    Just to add another wrinkle: I know one retired person who has a condo that comes with a garage that they do not use. But they do rent it out for the going rate for the area (high) and that money gets them to Europe on vacation once a year.

  19. Posted by JR

    At one time it was a drive in burger joint. In the seventies it was Church Street station and Rear Entry bar, owned by Bob Dameron (Dameron’s Address book guide, The Mind Shaft bar, The Eagle Bar, The Eagle Creek Saloon, The Mint and the Skate World rink in El Sobrante CA. This was the ultimate late night favorite hangout for gay bartenders after bars closed and their bar-fly fans. One of the most important sites responsible for the gay bars spreading out from Castro Street into the general area.

Add a Comment

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