469 Eddy Site

The unit count has been reduced from 34 to 28, the proposed off-street parking spaces have been eliminated (except for 28 bikes), and the ground floor retail space is now envisioned as a 450 square foot coffee shop.

And in three weeks time, the plans for a modern eight-story building to rise behind the historic façade of the two-story garage at 469 Eddy Street in the Tenderloin are slated to be approved for development by San Francisco’s Planning Commission, as designed by Natoma Architects for JS Sullivan Development.

469 Eddy Rendering 2015

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by sassySFboy

    hmmm…and it can’t be as tall (if not taller) than that tall adjacent building because…?

    • Posted by SocketSite

      The adjacent 15-story building was constructed prior to the adoption of an 80-foot height limit for the block.

      • Posted by BTinSF

        Which just means the 80 ft limit is foolishness if there is already a large, prominent building there that’s taller. This is a classic example of the sorts of silly policies that make housing scarce and unaffordable in SF.

        • Posted by Mark

          Height limits were put in place for a reason.

          • Posted by Torger Cobus

            Please expand on that.

          • Posted by Serge

            Indeed. They were intended to keep some uniformity to neighborhoods. Just look what happened to Russian Hill, Nob Hill, etc. You have a quaint neighborhood of 1-3 story buildings and then WHAM, some huge mid-century turd that is 30 stories tall. Wish we can undo that dreck.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            to protect housing values for NIMBYS and to preserve SF in amber

          • Posted by SFRealist

            …a reason that makes no sense but does serve to make housing more expensive

          • Posted by anon2

            One man’s “mid-century turd” is another man’s castle.

            Real actual people really actually live there in that “turd”. Besides, those are some of the most popular neighborhoods in one of the most popular and most densely populated cities on the West Coast. Hardly an appropriate place to be preserving some relic of a “quaint neighborhood”.

            Why do people like Serge seem to value their own personal aesthetic tastes about the look of certain neighborhoods above the needs of the actual people who actually live there?

  2. Posted by NOPA

    Just another example of under building. The addition is pretty boring in my opinion too.

    However, I am a BIG fan of maintaining historic facades and allowing an addition that is set back. There are dozens, maybe even hundreds of sites across the city that could have additional housing built in this way.

    Too bad San Franciscans want a city that doesn’t include housing for a middle class and homeless.

    Must be nice to be a progressive in a rent controlled unit or a wealthy landowner.

    • Posted by BobN

      “hundreds of sites across the city”

      We are going to become the oddest looking city in the world.

      • Posted by Serge

        You should see Toronto. The facadism there is off the charts.

        • Posted by BobN

          Wow! Just Googled “facadism toronto”. Wow.

          The difference, though, is they’re protecting significant buildings. We’re protecting former garage and car repair shops. I think this is just a manifestation of SF’s penchant to think itself in the same league as truly large cities.

          • Posted by Dave

            Exactly. Toronto is an older city and has more historic architecture. True too that SF is not truly a large city – its a moderate sized city.

          • Posted by Q

            Toronto has better designed older buildings. Stucco boxes could not withstand the cold climate there.

      • Posted by Mark

        And why is that odd to you, BobN? The streetscape itself doesn’t change much if the facades are left intact.

        • Posted by BobN

          It’s odd to want to preserve a streetscape of former auto shops. And, heck, if that’s the goal, what’s with replacing those authentic roll-up metal doors?

      • Posted by francis

        And why not? Shouldn’t our buildings be at least as weird as our people?

    • Posted by Mark

      Who do think pays for housing the homeless?

    • Posted by two beers

      “Just another example of under building”
      “Too bad San Franciscans want a city that doesn’t include housing for a middle class and homeless. ”

      Those are mutually-contradictory statements. Overbuilding raises land values so high that middle class (and lower) housing is priced out. The higher you build, the higher the cost of housing and/or office space on that parcel gets, and all nearby property values climb, too, as a result of the new building’s increased property value.

      This is the dirty little secret that bankers, developers, realtors, and landlords skirt when shouting build!build!build! as the solution to unaffordable housing.

      • Posted by SFRealist

        So you’re saying that increasing supple lowers price.

        Then we should start knocking down buildings, decreasing supply. If we have less housing, it will definitely be cheaper

      • Posted by anon2

        “Overbuilding raises land values”

        That may be true, but it has not been empirically proven.

        Obviously a large building is worth more than a small building, but why would the land underneath be worth more? Even if it was, is that necessarily a bad thing?

        I think that’s fine, because people aren’t living on the land itself (the dirt), they’re living inside the multi-unit structure that’s above it.

        The more relevant question is “Does overbuilding raise the price of each housing unit?”

        Any first year economic student will tell you no, obviously, because of the simple relationship between supply and demand. Of course in the real world, things are more complicated than that, but in the big picture, in aggregate, over the long term, the answer is still no, unquestionably.

  3. Posted by Elitist Pig

    Very ‘meh’, very very ‘meh’ indeed. What a waste of a site, should definitely be taller.

    • Posted by Mark

      The best part of this design is the historic façade. At least from the street it will provide some visual appeal.

      • Posted by kbbl

        Were designs eliminating the façade ever submitted? It seems silly to assume the counterfactual alternative would’ve been the exact same design minus the “preservation.”

  4. Posted by Sutro_Tower

    This site should fall under the Affordable Housing Bonus Program — the developer should force the issue. Would SF Planning put up a fight? This location is the perfect area for additional density.

    • Posted by ralph

      Poor planning always getting the blame. They developed the Housing bonus and I think would love to see it used, but here they still get blamed.

    • Posted by sorry not sorry

      There is no AHBP

  5. Posted by Curt

    Could be higher, but definitely a win to have more housing where there is currently zero units. Also a big win to get no off-street parking, which will attract car free people who spend more locally.

  6. Posted by Ken

    Build it. I’m ok with the height as I live in the tower next door. We have a central courtyard that connects the two towers and our building’s kids play out there daily. Not typically one to “fear shadows” but the kids in my neighborhood seriously need a safe play zone with sunlight and if it is built any taller it could block that light. But I am all for more affordable housing so maybe a few more floors won’t hurt. On a personal note, this WILL block my “views” as proposed, my balcony faces the rear of this building and I’m still welcoming it with open arms. WE NEED HOUSING.

    • Posted by two beers

      “WE NEED HOUSING”

      OK, WHAT KIND OF HOUSING? AT WHAT POINT ARE THERE ENOUGH CONDOS FOR HIGHLY-PAID PEOPLE? EVER?

      • Posted by Ken

        um, I’m an unemployed student, hardly “highly-paid”. We need the kind of housing that is for HUMANS. For all socioeconomic classes that creates a diverse city like ours. I agree that affordable housing is badly needed and thats included in “WE NEED HOUSING”, but thats an issue in its self. I’m just hoping that NIMBYs and the like don’t keep our city from developing and growing further, possibly hurting future generations that we always seem to forget about.

      • Posted by kbbl

        If condos for highly-paid people don’t get built, highly-paid people will buy pieces of crap and then spruce them up themselves. Normal people call *that* displacement.

    • Posted by Sabbie

      No, there’s plenty of housing in San Francisco. We only lack enough housing for people who work at mythical tech companies that have no idea how they will ever turn a profit, and that is just a temporary condition.

  7. Posted by alberto rossi

    When I saw the photo, I thought the new development was the tower on the left and was thinking “wow, this whole retro modern thing is getting out of control”.

  8. Posted by anon2

    About 7 years ago, I applied to rent one of the apartments in the building next door to this one, which at the time was relatively cheap for ‘high-rise’ living. I think the 15th floor 1-bedroom was going for about $1700 a month at the time.

    I ended up not moving, because I would have had to give up my car to live in that neighborhood, and because I decided it was better to keep my rent cheaper by staying where I was.

    Would have been cool though, definite lifestyle change.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles