2000-2070 Bryant Street Site

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has unanimously rejected two appeals which had aimed to overturn Planning’s approvals for a 199-unit building at 2000 Bryant Street, the so-called “Beast on Bryant” to rise up to six stories in height across the northern half of the Mission District block bounded by Bryant, 18th, Florida and 19th Streets.

2000 Bryant Street: Bryant and 18th Street

In addition to the nearly 200 market-rate units to rise on the northern two-thirds of the 2000-2070 Bryant Street site, the mid-block 2070 Bryant Street parcel will be dedicated to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development for the construction of over 100 Below Market Rate (BMR) units.

And as envisioned, the 2070 Bryant Street building will include 7,000 square feet of art space, but the former CellSpace turned InnerMission building at 2050 Bryant Street will be razed.

The approved market-rate building includes a ground-floor garage for 84 cars and 7,000 square feet of retail space at the corner of 18th and Florida.

2000 Bryant Street: 18th and Florida

A mid-block passage between the market-rate and below-market-rate buildings will be lined with 4,000 square feet of new Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) space across the ground floor.

2000 Bryant Street: Mid-Block Passage

And the demolition and building permits for the 2000 Bryant Street project are in the works.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by minime

    This is a good looking building, can we please dumb it down and add an ass hat so it can fit in with the rest of the SF context?

    • Posted by Sara Short

      They are going to add privileged luxury subsidized units for a special few. So there’s that. A textbook example of how so-called “progressive” politics is actually extremely “regressive” and invariably involves giving preferential treatment to one favored group to the exclusion of others. 99% will get nothing, so those lucky few 1% can lord over them at cut rates in SF.

      • Posted by Brian M

        Of course, having zero inclusionary units would miraculously mean the Sacred Market would serve that 99%? It’s a MIRACLE!

        And BMI families are going to “lord over them”?

        I mean, come on. One can debate the problems with inclusionary housing, but this verges on hysterical. Are you playing some Libertarian Troll character in a play?

        • Posted by Orland

          No, that’s her for real.

          • Posted by Onslow

            And she’s absolutely correct. BMR housing is absolutely unfair and if you had ever bothered to take Econ 1A you’d know it does nothing but raise housing prices for everyone but the lucky few who win the lottery for the subsidized units.

            Look, I already own a market-rate house in SF and the irony is all this BMR crap only makes my place worth much more than it would normally be worth in a free market. I’m happy to benefit but that doesn’t make the policy any less stupid and unfair.

            Governments should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.

        • Posted by 4th Gen SF

          Libertarians & GOP’ers in SF are not “trolls” on SS. this is not like most other SF places. Face it, SF is changing. For the better I might add.

          • Posted by Orland

            Not nearly so much as you would apparently like to believe.

      • Posted by Victoria Fierce

        The special few who can afford these units can also easily afford to finance evictions of low income people in existing apartments. They need a place to live and have the resources to do that. Might as well give them somewhere to go that isn’t already occupied.

  2. Posted by Drew

    Just say no to fake brick. A dishonest building material attempting to evoke an image of an era gone by.

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      I assume this is NOT fake brick. What I think you mean is that the brick is not load bearing, as the project is no doubt a steel framed building. Fake brick is something else.

      • Posted by Cee Cee

        i doubt it is a steel frame.

    • Posted by an architect

      it’s not “fake” — it’s just brick tile. like any other rainscreen system. it’s better than stucco or plank or panel or other similar systems.

      • Posted by Sabbie

        Not necessarily better… although it’s not structural brick, it can still crumble all over the place in an earthquake? A thin chunk of brick is still a danger when it’s 1,000 thin chunks falling from four stories up.

        • Posted by Frankly

          What are you talking about? Why are they falling off? OMG thus comment section is hilarious.

          • Posted by Sabbie

            Here’s a few bricks that fell from the fourth story onto Bluxome St during the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989. No big deal, just crushed a few cars. With the people inside.

          • Posted by Orland

            @Sabbie TOTALLY inapposite.

            In addition to they being completely different types of construction, you appear to be under the impression that the bricks themselves are subject to “dangerous” fragmentation. Not only do the “bricks” of a prefab facade panel not spill individually, they don’t disintegrate into a thousand lethal shards.

          • Posted by Sabbie

            That’s good to know, I never claimed to be an expert, which is why I used a question mark.

          • Posted by SFRealist

            For those who don’t know, the way this would work is the actual structure of the building would almost certainly be steel and concrete. The “bricks” would be for appearances only, like at Pac Bell Park (bricks are terrible structurally in earthquakes)

        • Posted by an architect

          they are not bricks. they are tiles that look like bricks. they won’t fall off the building because they are thin and light. so many codes and checks exist to prevent a facade from crumbling off a modern building.

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      When you build something new you HAVE you make it look like it was built 50-60 years ago, you just do.

      • Posted by Torger Cobus

        That would be mid-century modern. Try 80-100 years…..

        • Posted by an architect

          buildings built 100 years ago were ALSO using brick as a finish, not structure. the structure was wood or steel or reinforced concrete. THERE ARE NO STRUCTURAL BRICK BUILDINGS IN THE BAY, that would be the most dangerous building ever. anything that might have been structural brick is now 100% reinforced with huge steal members, and the brick is merely a facade.

    • Posted by SFRealist

      Brick are inanimate objects. I’m not sure they’re capable of honesty or dishonesty.

      You may be expressing your personal preference, but that’s all it is. (Personally, I think it looks ok.)

    • Posted by DM

      The original MOMA used non-load bearing prefab brick panels. It looks beautiful and saved literally millions of dollars.

      • Posted by Orland

        The Giants’ ballpark is all prefab paneling as well.

  3. Posted by R

    Is the building satisfying 100% of its BMR requirement by deeding land for 33% of the total project (Market @ 200 + BMR @ 100) to the city? Seems like a much cheaper option in terms of cost at $200k-$250k/door for land value v. $750k-ish for a finished unit.

  4. Posted by katdip

    Can’t quite figure out how the PDR spaces will be accessed for actual Production, Distribution, or Repair activities, given they open onto a pedestrian walkway. How’s a delivery van, or car needing repair supposed to get in there? Maybe they’re being reserved for tasks reflecting the income levels of new residents – home brewing distribution? iPhone or Xbox repair? Wolf range repair? video game production?

    • Posted by SFrentier

      ^ Bingo.

      At least they better the poor door concept….with a poor building. This should lead to some interesting budding friendships across the divide. Or not.

      Personally I’m kinda bummed that this isn’t getting stalled much longer like the Monster in the Mission(TM). Just as rents are stalling, we don’t need any new units going up. Come on campos, I’d expect you to rally your cohorts and defeat this thing. Not much of a leftie, are you? And perhaps peskin had to keep a low profile, as he royally f*ed up the sinking millennium tower with his brilliant “deal making.”

      • Posted by SFrentier

        Whoops spoke to soon. Looks like some nut-job-activists are going to sue over this approval (per SF biz times). Atta boy!

        • Posted by 4th Gen SF

          Yes, I believe her name is Spike Kahn. From what she said, she’s a MAJOR LL in SF, and (!!) she RENTS a 1 bdrm flat under RC in the Mission from someone else! She’s retired from union organizing so being an activist is now her full time position. I believe that’s illegal to rent from someone else while being a LL but I digress…

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      ^ Bingo #2

      The definition of a PDR business is pretty flexible, with the irony being that the vanishing PDR spaces Mission residents like to moan about are going to turn into gentrified PDR.

    • Posted by BigV

      PDR == office space for physical tech. robotics, bio-sciences, autonomous cars, 3D printing, etc. If you need a machine shop as part of what you do, you are in.

  5. Posted by Sutro_Tower

    When can opponents of a project admit defeat? Our system is broken. We’ve seen this time and time again when a development has gone through every sort of hurdle required and yet once it hits the finish line it gets appealed.

    Sadly even if this lawsuit gets tossed out it will accomplish what the litigants hope for which is to stall, delay and delay some more… And then the progressive community has the nerve to cry foul that not enough is being done to address housing affordability.

    • Posted by Thatguynotthatotherguy

      Honest question: do developers ever proceed and break ground even after lawsuits like this one are filed? Seems like it might be worth it, given that (almost?) nobody thinks the plaintiffs are likely to actually win.

      Plaintiffs’ claim presumably hinges on the argument that the project’s EIR / Negative Declaration exemption — namely, the Community Plan Exemption under Section 15183 — was improper. The argument is apparently that the 2009 Eastern Neighborhoods Plan is too old for the project to qualify for the exemption. This is not my area of practice, but that looks like a weak argument to me. As the developer’s lawyer said, the “Mission Area Plan was created after 10 years of study and is only seven years old.”

      I’m just going off what I’ve learned in the past 20 minutes of reading, but it appears there’s no automatic pause on the project when the suit is filed. That is, plaintiffs can file for a TRO or a preliminary injunction, but it would be subject to the normal 4-factor test, the most important of which is the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the underlying controversy. If I was the defendant, I might like the idea of putting the pressure on the plaintiffs to slap together a TRO / PI pleading. Plaintiffs would essentially preview their losing argument for the judge.

      So, any reason why Nick Podell Co. shouldn’t put shovels in the ground ASAP and fight (and win) the lawsuit in parallel?

      • Posted by Orland

        I agree that absent the plaintiffs affirmatively obtaining a TRO upon the developers moving to break ground, there is no proscription from their doing so. However, in practice, they may bluster about proceeding pending litigation, but rarely do.

        The builders of 706 Mission (the Mexican Museum) initially said they would proceed last summer but then held off until they reached a settlement dismissing the opposition’s case on appeal earlier this year. Similarly, I suspect the Warriors stated intent to begin construction early next year will not see a lot of actual work done if MBA’s litigation has not yet been definitely resolved.

  6. Posted by BobN

    Is there something about the building code that prevents European-style apartment buildings with multiple stairways and only two units on each floor? Or is it just a cost analysis: more elevators, more stairs, etc.?

    • Posted by Frisco

      European countries don’t really have the equivalent of ADA standards.

      • Posted by BobN

        You mean the problem is the multiple elevator/stairways?

        America doesn’t really have the equivalent nice apartment buildings (except maybe NYC, I don’t know).

  7. Posted by Bay Guy

    I’m not really someone who wants to live in a brick building constructed in an earthquake prone area. Give me something made with hammer, nails and steel.

    • Posted by Brian M

      Pretty sure that’s what this is except for the outer skin.

    • Posted by Tony

      There’s a difference between brick facade and a masonry structure. There’s no way that brick is what holds up the building.

  8. Posted by jwb

    This is a very attractive building. Build it!

  9. Posted by moto mayhem

    i like it, but wouldve been nice to be 8 floors and have a lot more parking. without on-site parking, the neighborhood streets are going to become a LOT MORE CONGESTED

    • Posted by Ted K.

      BART is seven long blocks away and Safeway is five+ (HUGE parking lot to cross). There’s a bus to the downtown on Bryant with a stop at 18th. Portrero is three blocks away with service to the downtown and SFGeneral Hospital. A personal car or cars would be a money pit.

      • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

        In the real world, people have cars. And in the real world, people who can afford to buy a $2M condo are not going to bother with the slow, unreliable, uncomfortable, dangerous and disgusting insult of a mass transit system we have in SF. Uber and Lyft might suffice for some of them, but anyone who has a small child (who can’t ride Uber or Lyft without a child seat) and/or a place to go outside the city on a regular basis has a car.

        A parking space is just like any other resource – when it becomes scarce, it goes to the person who will pay the highest price.

    • Posted by 4th Gen SF

      You can thank the foul mouthed ex-Supe Chris Daly for intro’g legislation to remove parking from newer structures in SF. Yeah, smart move.

  10. Posted by BMR makes me wealthy

    Below market rate units are fantastic. A lucky few folks win the lottery (good for them!), and it keeps those units off the market for the folks in the market who want to buy my house. So BMR actually reduces the housing stock for wealthy people, and drives up the price of housing for the vast majority of city residents. Yay! Rich people win again, I love this town. Progressives keep making me richer and richer.

    • Posted by Sara Short

      Your getting richer is an unintended side effect… The BMR is just a carrot on a stick for the unwashed masses ,that hunger for housing they will never get. Pimped to them by cunning ( or clueless ) politicians for their votes.

      • Posted by SFrentier

        Yeah but the unintended consequence is often much larger than the intended consequence! Prog sups are an SF real estate investor’s best friend 🙂 (they’re just too myopic to realize it.)

  11. Posted by Some Guy

    I volunteered at CELLspace in a big way in the mid-2000’s. What a calamity of funk it was, a little of the good funk but more of the stinky kind really. Did plenty of physical construction work on the interior, much of it unpermitted and also funky. I remember when the block behind (west) of Cellspace was just a huge open lot with a disused former auto repair (?) place in the middle, and what a change it brought when that was torn down and redeveloped. Le plus ca change..

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles