1296 Shotwell Street Site

In order to avoid having to include any below market rate units of housing onsite, the project team behind “Vida” at 2558 Mission Street deeded the industrial building site at 1296 Shotwell Street, behind the two-story building on the northwest corner of Cesar Chavez, to the City for the development of affordable housing back in 2012.

And while Vida opened its doors in 2014 and the project team has since sold all its condos, the ground has yet to be broken on Shotwell Street.

But with San Francisco having approved a limited bonus height program for 100 percent affordable housing projects, the proposed 9-story building with 94 below market rate units for seniors – including 20 units for the formerly homeless – could finally be approved to rise up to 85-feet in height upon the Shotwell Street site, which is 20 feet higher than for which it’s principally zoned, as newly rendered by Herman Coliver Locus Architecture below.

1296 Shotwell Street Rendering 2016

In addition to the 94 units of affordable housing, the proposed development includes a little over 5,000 square feet of community and office space and 5,500 square feet of outdoor space across the ground floor, second floor and roof terrace.

1296 Shotwell Rendering

And in lieu of a garage, a dedicated vanpool drop off is proposed in front of the building’s lobby, along with bike racks and seating.

The public hearing to approve the additional height for the 1296 Shotwell Street project has been slated for December 1. And if the project is approved and permitted, it will take another two years to build.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by NoeEnvy

    I know this has been featured on here before but just to be clear – is the only opposition to this NIMBYs? I can’t see any other logical opposition to below market, senior, formerly homeless housing. That checks almost all the ‘housing crisis victim’ boxes, you have to be a pretty cold-hearted NIMBY to oppose that.

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      They are probably cold because this building is blotting out the sun and depriving them of air.

      • Posted by mjtowns

        Okay EP – your response is hilarious!

    • Posted by HousingWonk

      Yes. Its being opposed by the usual crew of SF NIMBY types. Most of the opposition is from Bernal Heights NIMBYs.

      • Posted by Orland

        I wouldn’t agree that BH’ers are necessarily NIMBY generally, but yes, in this instance opposition is coming from some North Slopers who are concerned about their skyline views being infringed upon.

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      I can see a rational reason to be concerned about the “formerly homeless” moving in next door, although this particular location is certainly no stranger to drug-related crime.

  2. Posted by pac hts dweller

    A monstrosity of a building with zero parking? Welcome to the neighborhood (not).

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      What’s monstrous about it? And I would sure as fog be bothered if Planning granted parking spaces to BMR units when market-rate units in this neighborhood can’t get approvals for 1:1 parking.

    • Posted by Chris

      Where do you propose we house homeless people? I would much rather have a “monstrous,” but clean and safe building to house homeless people than have to step over them on the sidewalk when I walk outside my home. And, I live in the supposedly “upscale” Cow Hollow were the median home price is $4.5 million dollars.

      So, yes, I would like to welcome a lot more of these buildings throughout the city.

      • Posted by Orland

        But, in Cow Hollow?

      • Posted by Sara Short

        The city already wastes huge sums on the 6,200 units they already have. Meanwhile San Francisco has the worst, most deteriorated streets in the nation! Throw out the warehoused bums and fix the streets!

  3. Posted by Rebecca Skinner

    This is fantastic. I am happy to see this moving forward.

  4. Posted by Sara Short

    Why build super expensive housing for poor people? Move the poor people to cheap housing!

  5. Posted by Sara Short

    How do you get “the right to live in San francisco” occupancy permit ?

    • Posted by Cynthia

      You earn at least $150,000 a year.

  6. Posted by Iolderpete

    or, in this case, less than $15,000 a year?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles