1000 Broadway Site

The subdivision of the verdant Russian Hill lot at the corner of 1000 Broadway and Taylor Street has been approved and plans to build two high-end single-family homes and a two-unit condo building on the prime Russian Hill site are back in play.

Having sat vacant since the former house which had occupied the parcel was demolished back in 1910, the latest plans to redevelop the 1000 Broadway site were first drawn and pitched back in 2006. But in 2012, the hedge fund which had provided a $15 million loan to help finance the proposed “Wysteria Residences on Russian Hill” project foreclosed on the property without the development ever having broken ground (nor been approved).

As designed by Page & Turnbull, the proposed three buildings to rise up to four stories in height across the site would yield over 17,000 square feet of living space over a shared 10-car garage, including 1000 Broadway (a 4,000 square foot single-family home), 1010 Broadway (a 6,200 square foot single-family home), 1601 Taylor Street (a 4,400 square foot condominium) and 1625 Taylor Street (a 3,000 square foot condominium):

1000 Broadway Rendering

And yesterday, a new application for the development was formally submitted to the city for review and the paperwork for all the building permits has been filed.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Orland

    Beautiful. We need more SFH’s in SF.

    • Posted by Tony

      Why? Any real family will never be able to afford that.

      • Posted by Orland

        I’m speaking generally. I’d like to see more options. Thinking blocks of row/town-house type developments.

      • Posted by JustCurious

        What, pray tell is a “real” family?

  2. Posted by Futurist

    Wow. what an ugly piece of faux Italian Renaissance.

    • Posted by Notcom

      And what of the faux Maybeck next to it?

      • Posted by Stop Driving

        Very tacky. It’s Maybach, BTW. Strangely, those were discontinued as of 2012. I’d have used a Bentley Mulsanne.

        • Posted by Notcom

          How clever, but I was referring to the house, not what was in front of/below it.

          • Posted by Stop Driving

            You’ve just introduced me to a new architect! Thank you!

    • Posted by Frisco

      It’s a future landmark of early 21st century historicist vernacular! They will preserve the facade when they build a skyscraper here in 2095.

      • Posted by SFcitizen

        I’m not sure. Have you seen the City in the Star Trek movies? Starfleet is headquartered in the Bay Area, Marin I think. The City is saturated with 100+ story high-rise buildings. It looks amazing, at least in the computer generated landscape.

        • Posted by BobN

          Isn’t there a reference to some catastrophic earthquake in pre-Starfleet-HQ SF somewhere in one of the Star Trek movies?

          • Posted by SFcitizen

            Hmmm, interesting question. Nothing immediately comes to mind, but I like a challenge. Thanks.

        • Posted by Dixon Hill

          Actually, Starfleet is headquartered in the Presidio, as shown in several movies. Ironic that Lucas HQ is there now.

  3. Posted by Notcom

    Any explanations as to why – or really how – the plot has sat undeveloped for 106 years ?? (and BTW , the sheeple who cry “housing crisis” may note the prior domicile was KO’d in 1910…right in the midst of a real one)

    • Posted by cfb

      There most certainly is a housing crisis going on, and you must be doing some strong mental gymnastics and/or drugs to come to a different conclusion.

      • Posted by Matt in Uptown

        “strong mental gymnastics” -not a literary genius are we? It’s true that we’re in a housing crisis, but historically it’s been bad, too. In 1853 UC Berkeley’s Henry Durant paid more than $4300 in 2015 dollars per month to rent a house at 5th and Broadway in Oakland.

  4. Posted by Tony

    Why do all that work for just 2 units of housing? With walking distance to a brand new subway station this should be as high of density as possible.

    • Posted by Drew

      Well, it is two single family homes and two condos according to how the article is written which is four units of housing.

  5. Posted by goodforyougoodforme

    Ideal site for a navigation center.

    • Posted by SFcitizen

      Good idea. I’ll contact Sam Dodge immediately.

  6. Posted by Sutro_Tower

    Short of the city acquiring this lot for a public park this is as good as it is going to get. Fits within zoning and neighborhood character. For those clamoring for more height — gone are the days of highrises sprouting up along Russian Hill.

  7. Posted by Stop Driving

    The owners of 1020 Broadway must be pretty worried. Too bad they didn’t procure that lot when it was much cheaper.

    • Posted by Notcom

      You mean like this? (it’s been a mecca of speculation/lot flipping and appreciation from the start)

  8. Posted by daved

    I wonder why the house was torn down in 1910? I’ve done a bit of research and can’t find anything. I’m assuming that it survived the 1906 earthquake and fire.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      It may have taken some time for the owner to come to the conclusion that the structure was not worth saving. Even today I’ve seen fire damaged buildings remain standing vacant for years before being razed. I can only imagine that the owner was both juggling the repair/replace question as well as the hold+finance versus sell question.

    • Posted by Notcom

      “In 1910, the family demolished the original Homer house (next door at 1601 Taylor) to make way for a massive garden”

      It would appear it was for no other reason than to create an expanded yard for a (new) house next door

  9. Posted by Conifer

    This is one of the most valuable vacant lots in the western world. The owner plans to build four “dwelling units” for people who can afford to live here, in revivalist tastes that have endured for centuries, and long popular in San Francisco. Even with a leftist city bureaucracy determined to control consumption (rather than the means of production) this is an excellent solution. Welcome to the neighborhood!

    • Posted by Brian M

      But per Futurist, we are ONLY allowed to build modernist structures that are dated within 18 months! LOL.

      At least the architect is trying to do the revivalist styles reasonably well. No Mcmansionhell stuff (that blog is HILARIOUS, by the way)

      And I even LIKE modernist architecture. Dislike the idea that only modernist architecture can be built in SF. That attitude has a strong whiff of “From Bauhaus to Our House” about it.

  10. Posted by johny

    The designs look awful IMHO. Page+Turnbull are primarily (90%) preservation Architects, and it appears they cant create any contemporary work.

    • Posted by Serge

      Why does everything have to be contemporary? “Revivals” have long been something that happened. Not everything needs to be a bland and tacky box with floor-to-ceiling windows and a sterile interior.

  11. Posted by AnonAnon

    The street trees in that rendering are about 10 years mature. Also the city has been cutting back on allowing plantings with narrower sidewalks, so I’m not sure they’d even be allowed to plant those.

  12. Posted by Frisco

    Local trivia question: are there any locations that were built up prior to the 1906 earthquake, destroyed, and never redeveloped even up to the current day?

  13. Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

    That garage entrance is barely tall enough for my Murcielago.

Add a Comment

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