With Anna’s Linens on Mission having closed, and the master tenant from which Anna’s had been subleasing having been paid to forfeit the remaining 30 years on their 99-year lease, plans to renovate the existing 12,000-square-foot structure and add four floors of residential units above are in the works.
As proposed, nearly 8,000 square feet of retail space would remain between the basement and first floor of the structure, atop of which eight two-bedroom units designed by Forum Design would be built.
An elevated rear yard over the commercial space would provide open space for the residents above.
Good news. Now when are the protests?
They started before the article was even posted.
Note to self: as a LL, NEVER agree to a 99 year lease, ESPECIALLY with subleasing permitted. Dude(tte) who did that = birdbrain!
It seems weird, but such a lease is not that uncommon. It is essentially a “lifetime” lease that provides certainty to both the lessor and lessee. It is the longest term lease that some jurisdictions will enforce. Sure, as with any long-term lease (or sale, for that matter), if the market changes and rents skyrocket, the deal looks bad for the lessor. On the other hand, if the market goes the other way, it works out great for the lessor. This lease was entered into not too long before a many decades long decline for SF, followed by a decades long boom. So it probably worked out about as planned (although that is just a guess as we have no idea what the terms were).
You might also enter into a lease like this as an estate planning measure, to skip a few generations before the property reverts back to one’s heirs. Or as a de facto sale to someone who cannot legally buy the property.
In SF, with rent control, many residential leases are in effect lifetime leases, and those are, of course, very common.
Your will can’t extend past 21 years. Rule against perpetuities.
A life in being plus 21 years. Seen one trust that named the person’s three youngest grandchildren as the lives in being, they ended up being 8 when the Trust came into being so if just one of them lives to eighty the Trust will be around for 93 years.
correction, if a grandchild lives to 80, the trust will last 101 years. It’s 21 years plus {after} the end of the life in being.
Very easy to get around. California has enacted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities. I don’t think it would apply here in any event. You’d just bequeath the building – immediate vesting, but it would be subject to any lease.
Long leases are typical in London. That is why the Duke of Westminster is one of the richest men in the kingdom. The leases can be sold, but deteriorate in value as their end comes near. In recent times, some protections for leaseholders have been enacted. The opposite of leasehold is freehold.
You obviously are not from SF
I have lived here for over 40 years, so you might allow me to say I am “from SF.”
There’s not enough housing in the Mission. Therefore I will vigorously protest this housing in the Mission.
Miami styled art deco?
Is it tile or marble at the base level….. ?
Makes a big difference aesthetically….
More like Autocad Draft.
The design fits in well with the more classically styled store fronts in the area. At least those that weren’t remodeled in the 60’s. As for the residential units, it’s refreshing to see something other than garish modern that’ll be dated or a riff on the bay window. Even with colored tile or glass, I think it’ll add some much needed dimension to the block.
build it now and please make all market rate.
I love the project, but I’m curious to know why they’re only building 4 stories high in a dense city on a site that is close to transit. Considering SF’s housing affordability crisis, you’d think the city would be working with developers to build 10+ stories on sites like this. I imagine the issue is zoning.
Because building market rate housing raises the price of housing.
no it doesnt and you know it.
Then we should build as much of it as possible – housing prices will just rise to infinity and all levels of government will be flush with cash. What’s the possible downside?
There are earthquake where they say in some country “building fall down”
i’m thrilled to see more of this. i just wish it could be taller. 8 units seems paltry, but if all of these empty stores add housing above it would make a difference! gotta start somewhere and i’m glad it’s here.
also- how did Vida get to be zoned for 85′? it looks like it should be 65′ according to the property around it.
There’s some interesting history about that.
Nice. Good to see no Bay window treatment.
I like the way the middle third of the building sets further forward than the thirds of the building on either side.
The divided lights on the ground floor are a good touch. I’d like to see them picked up in some of the upper floor windows.
The middle third of the building could use some kind of rooftop “cap” to further set it off and to pick up on the vertical element running up the middle of the building.
ofro
looks terrible
Divided lights are so “colonial, east coast” and so lower middle class. rooftop “caps” are so POMO and so Robert Sternish.
Basically, a very amateurish design, nothing of architectural merit.
March 9, 2016:
Futurist describes, without irony, divided light windows as being very colonial, east coast, and ‘so lower middle class.’
Perhaps not appropriate for this building, perhaps not this design, but divided light windows have a substantial place in West Coast Arts and Crafts architecture, my Noe-Valleyed friend. There was this firm called Greene and Greene…
did you just say, divided lights are lower middle class? There is so much wrong with that statement. Super in-accurate, super snobby.
I’m not a big fan of Robert Stern’s style, but to refer to his style as “amateurish”? Last time I checked he was the dean of the Yale School of Architecture.
It’s nice to see a narrower / single lot being developed like this. These smaller (lot width) projects keep the city interesting and unique by adding a greater range of architectural styles—regardless of it’s attractiveness. There’s far too much sameness with the squat, half block structures that seem to be the norm lately.
You don’t like those wide, shallow, opaque, dark glass frontages that all look the same and are generally empty except for the gym of the month club, medical offices, or seasonal H&R Blocks? They add wonderful flavor, atmosphere, variety, and safety to the block! I mean, who doesn’t love the warmth and inviting charm of the Linea storefronts. Don’t those endless banks of cold glass just get you hot?
Is generic commercial architecture supposed to sexually stimulating?
OK, partner. Maybe you need more than two beers to cool down!
(I kid)
Yup. And it’s nice that it preserves a substantial commercial space instead of turning into a token 700 square foot space which will only ever be a nail salon or a cafe.
Another sterile cold cookie cutter building, and cut it three stories. It’s out of scale on that block. More million-dollar condos will raise the price point even higher in the mission.
What would be non-cookie cutter. If you mean it is square and has windows, like most buildings, then yes, I guess it is “cookie-cutter.” Also, why should it match the height of a bunch of crappy, unattractive buildings on a commercial strip? It is not like it is adjoining some pretty Victorians or anything of great historical value.
I understand preserving things like the Russ Building downtown, or Golden Gate Park, etc. But, I always laugh when people who are just against change try to make an argument that even shanty spaces in the city need to be protected. No, they do not. Also, not building more of something does not keep prices down–restricting the supply of anything just makes things more expensive. San Francisco is one of the most heavily regulated places on earth, and it is also one of the most expensive, in large part because it is so heavily regulated.
Great to see one of those silly 1.5 story buildings on this stretch of Mission st getting replaced with more density. A pair of similar buildings about 2 doors to the left burned down last year, and will probably get the same treatment as well I imagine.
The building next door to Vida (half a block to the left) also burned down and is now scheduled for demolition very soon, but whatever replaces it will probably not go as high as Vida, since they don’t get Gus Murad’s extra-special planning variance referred to above.
Looking out my office window (I’m a block away), I can see a lot of buildings that could burn to make way for better density. It sometimes appears that’s the only way to get things moving here in SF.
UPDATE: Plans to Raise the Roof and New Rentals on Mission Closer to Reality