SWL 322-1 Site

Identified by the Port of San Francisco as “the greatest affordable housing development opportunity among the Port’s seawall lots in the northeastern waterfront,” but having faced neighborhood pushback over just how affordable the development should be, the City has awarded the development rights for the half-block parcel on the east side of Front Street between Broadway and Vallejo to Bridge Housing and The John Stewart Company.

The team’s winning proposal for the 88 Broadway/Seawall Lot 322-1 site, which is currently a 225 car parking lot, includes 182 apartments – 130 of which will be available to families earning 50%-120% of Area Median Income and 52 for seniors earning 40%-70% of Area Median Income – over 11,400 square feet of retail/commercial space, including a 55-slot mixed-income childcare center to be operated by the YMCA of San Francisco.

In addition, a subsidy will enable 20% of the development (37 apartments) to be set aside for formerly homeless households with supportive services provided by Lutheran Social Services.

Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects is designing the building which will rise up to 65-feet in height. Plans to build a 475-room hotel on the site, with 160 off-street parking spaces, had been drawn a decade ago but were subsequently abandoned.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Elitist Pig

    Excellent news. They can all enjoy Teatro Zinzanni, or if the way of SF holds true they can violently oppose it with NIMBY passion.

  2. Posted by Oh Dear

    Didn’t want a wall, no problem with affordable housing. Hope its the deepest subvented affordable…

  3. Posted by Just My Opinion

    No negative comment on the affordable housing. It just, to me, seems like a missed opportunity not to assemble the site from Broadway to Front to Vallejo to the Embarcadero and do something really fantastic.

    • Posted by anon2

      Yeah, that would have been pretty nice.

      Just seems less efficient with regards to utilization of space, to make lots of little buildings instead of a couple larger ones.

      • Posted by alberto rossi

        So it could be more like Mission Bay?

    • Posted by Orland

      Your “fantastic” would likely be anathema to Peskin’s THD’ers!

      • Posted by Just My Opinion

        And Peskin himself. You are probably right. Better to leave it as a carbon monoxide spewing parking lot adjacent to one of the most important bodies of water in the world.

        And Alberto, I was not thinking Mission Bay. Office or medical use in this location would likely not be the highest and best use. Also, BMR housing makes NO SENSE to me in this location. It is a hike to mass transit and any real services except that small Safeway, never mind the RE taxes that the City could collect on this location (to help provide services) if the assembled site was used appropriately. Why use logic when one can make decisions based on (1) what will get your elected (2) what will help you raise funds to achieve #1 (3) what is in your own best interest and (4) pure emotion.

        • Posted by Jake

          I think the CA state legislation that authorized the Port to lease this land required it be used for affordable housing. The state has an interest in the Port Trust lands, not just SF.

          There is an existing light rail stop a block away as well as Muni bus service. Hardly a mass transit desert.

          I guess by your standards the entire coastline of California is “adjacent to one of the most important bodies of water in the world.” So what?

          Love the hyperbowler, not the hyperbowling.

        • Posted by alberto rossi

          @JMO and anon2, my point about Mission Bay was not about the uses. The north half of Mission Bay is residential, btw. Rather that long, horizontal buildings, even if they’re low-rise, make for an oppressive street realm.

          • Posted by Dave

            ITA. The outer Sunset is a perfect example of this.

  4. Posted by Smith

    I agree! They could have sold this for top dollar and developed something interesting and for the use of everyone and used the proceeds to build more housing someplace else or re-develop the Potrero Hill housing projects.

    • Posted by Harvey

      That was attempted long ago. Peskin and the people on TH who pay him well to oppose such things, opposed it. If you can beleive it…

  5. Posted by Government Shrinkage

    That would have been far too sensible. Formerly homeless families are entitled to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world. And they call people who work hard entitled…

  6. Posted by Mark

    “Someplace else”, like Chico or Fresno?

    “Developed something interesting and for the use of everyone…” can you elaborate please? Lots of market rate housing going up all over town, but they are hardly for the use of everyone.

    “Just seems less efficient…” people whine about a “wall” being constructed along the waterfront, yet want to develop the entire square block with one, apparently fantastic, building. Have you been to the area? It’s not SOMA.

    • Posted by Luis

      Hey don’t knock down on Chico! I go to Chico state and I love it here hell of a lot better than most places in the Bay Area and 5x Cheaper as well. Currently doing my BS in Construction Management, I got to tour the Lumina building and penthouse and it was a sight to behold, might get to intern at Tehama and maybe even SF tower!

  7. Posted by BobN

    Bread, circuses, and lottos!

  8. Posted by Frank C.

    A region-wide building response to affordable housing would be ideal – but such regional cooperation isn’t likely. Therefore, it’s going to be up to the individual cities, and San Francisco is not an exception.

    People who say, “Why should SF have to build affordable housing?” need to understand this.

    • Posted by Mark

      A region-wide response to public transit would also be ideal. You can build all the affordable housing you want 50 miles outside of the Emerald City, but you somehow have to get these folks in to pour your coffee, teach your kids and fluff your sheets.

    • Posted by Dave

      Shame there is no real regional Bay Area planning. The BA is losing out to other major metro areas like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston because of this. LA too.

      By all rights if there was a regional planning authority both major office projects and major housing projects (BMR especially) would be shifted to Oakland/San leandro and such.

      For a host of reasons and affordability, relative, is just one.

      The little secret is SF can’t absorb another 150K residents and as many more jobs. And the Warriors arena and the TI development and the Hub. Given the current infrastructure and especially the lack of a transportation infrastructure to handle any more significant development.

      • Posted by sf

        Sounds like you want to turn SF into Monaco. By not building anything ever in SF that is what it will become. You will even be priced out at some point.

      • Posted by Orland

        What would certainly be helpful would be to reduce gratuitous private vehicular driving including the hundreds of thousands of solo commutes daily. Our transit options are not nearly so bad as made out here (including MUNI) and service could be made immensely better by uncloging the streets and highways with so many trips which just cannot be justified for reasons other than selfishness, indifference, lack of awareness or just plain habitual behavior.

      • Posted by Just My Opinion

        AMEN! WE MUST HAVE A METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT. Why the voters don’t insist is beyond me. We put ballot initiatives up for all sorts of crap – let’s create another nuclear free zone! – but for something that is CRITICAL to the survival of the region, nothing. But wait, our BOS are too busy stripping property owners of their rights so they can garner a few more votes, rather than focusing on what is truly important to the City.

  9. Posted by Notcom

    I see from the map that KRON is going sharesies with KGO – guess w/ costs being what they are even businesses have to have roommates – but one has to one wonder why – and how much longer – prime waterfront space is being given over to a function that could just as well be located somewhere cheaper…either in SF or – perish the thought !! – Oakland (KTVU has long had their studios in JLS, and they seem to function OK).

  10. Posted by Hitman

    Grinding filet mignon into hamburger meat

  11. Posted by brooder

    I am sure for the price of this development we could build more affordable housing elsewhere

  12. Posted by sf

    The residents of this area wanted affordable housing instead of the Wall on the Waterfront, and that is what they shall receive!

    • Posted by Orland

      But, according to them, it is “too affordable.”

  13. Posted by james jr

    Yes, Mark. Chico or Fresno.

Add a Comment

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