1395 22nd Street Rendering 2016

As a condition of its approval last December, the design of the proposed 251-unit market rate development to transform Potrero Hill’s East Slope known as 1395 22nd Street was to be revised, “to better address the topography of the surrounding neighborhood,” both at present and as relatively soon to be, prior to any building permits being issued.

The design team of Min|Day and Perry Architects have since reduced the overall height and massing of the project, incorporated varied rooflines, and expanded the palette and variety of building materials.

1395 22nd Street Rendering Revised

At the same time, the number of dwelling units has been increased to 257 (a mix of 144 one‐bedrooms, 100 two‐bedrooms, and 13 three-bedrooms); off-street parking has been reduced from 213 to 165 spaces; Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) along Pennsylvania Avenue has been reduced from 47,500 to 42,000 square feet; and the project’s open space has been increased from 23,300 to 30,000 square feet.

1395 22nd Street Rendering Revised

In addition, the secondary garage entrance at the base of development’s main plaza, at the intersection of 22nd and Texas has been eliminated, a café space (“A Mews Brews”) has been added, and the opening to the Serpentine Steps and mews has been widened.

1395 22nd Street Rendering Revised

And with the paperwork for the development’s building permits having been filed and triaged, the revised plans for the development will be presented to San Francisco’s Planning Commission this afternoon.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Bart Samsung

    a new hive for the minions! at market rate! build it and ed lee will come

    • Posted by Sutro_Tower

      Vague platitudes are so cute and precious. You get a gold star. Any real solutions you’d like to share?

      • Posted by Sabbie

        We all know what the solution is to improve the SE slope of Potrero. It’s the difference between helping and enabling. Public housing should be transitional only and come with strings attached!

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      Even if they only built this to annoy people like Bart S. it would still be worth it.

  2. Posted by R

    This actually looks pretty awesome! Time to build it.

  3. Posted by curmudgeon

    I like it. Not quite clear where the garage entrance actually is, but having the retail space at the curve is MUCH better. I’m guessing the parking entrance is tucked into the left (as looking up 22nd)? I’m also fine with the amount of parking. There’s a lot of daytime parking here by Caltrain riders, but at night there’s lots of availability. Even if everyone has a car (and I hope they don’t), I think it will be OK.

  4. Posted by Notcom

    Looks like the main changes are in the second row up, where a monotonous set of square windows fitted into a jumble of shapes has given way to monotonous shapes and trendy, incoherent fenestration (slit windows will be sooooo 2016 and passee by the time this is done).

    The lighter, more consistent palatte (lots of gray and white) and more boxy, institutional shapes makes if less favela and more Costiera Amalfitana.

    • Posted by Brian M

      Nothing wrong with favelas. They represent an excellent ad hoc housing solution in urbanizing societies that would never be able to house the rural migrant populations…even in soulless government housing projects hours away from jobs. Better favelas than tower blocks.

  5. Posted by Serge

    How does this even pass for architectural design? I’m struggling to find a single positive aspect to the aesthetics of this. The buildings on the top of the slope aren’t too bad, but everything below that looks like a mess.

    • Posted by Frisco

      Thankfully, “looks like a mess” is not a serious architectural critique.

      • Posted by Serge

        What would you call it? It really is a mess; there is no congruent style. A hodge-podge mix of slats pretending to be windows (a la the Oakland Jail). An arbitrary choice in colored panels that will surely age well (sarcasm). Short of a haphazard stacking of Lego pieces, I don’t see how this is “architecture.”

        Our resident contemporary architect Futurist might argue that it’s a complex design intended for an “educated” audience. But this is no different than the Richmond District Specials we have to live with. An eyesore that will plague the landscape for upwards of a century.

    • Posted by Brian M

      we need more conformity and orderliness! Just like the wondrous Portrero Hill housing projects, which are so orderly!

      • Posted by Joe

        Amen. This area has a lot of potential but the public housing is a major eye sore. I would agree that this is not the best design, but still looks A LOT better than what currently stands – public house/public storage. Please start building this ASAP. BTW the drawn buildings up top will have some awesome views of the east bay!

  6. Posted by anon2

    What are the more bland boxy looking buildings in the back, up the hill? Is that part of the same development?

    It’s a big change from the aging public housing projects there now.

    I like it either way.

    [Editor’s Note: Try clicking the “as relatively soon to be” link in the first sentence above.]

  7. Posted by Maddison

    This development needs parking! I live up the street from this proposed complex and the community does not have adequate space for the 95+units that will be built without parking. Build the community, just make sure the already adjusted neighbors are not displaced.

  8. Posted by Conifer

    Parking? You are advocating parking? Do you not know that parking in San Francisco is evil? Cars are evil, and anything that accommodates them in any way is evil. Far more evil than Trump, even worse than IS. You are going to be excoriated on this site. Just you wait.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles