830 Eddy Site

Plans to level the two-story parking garage at 830 Eddy Street (which currently provides leased parking for the adjacent six-story office building at 815/819 Van Ness Avenue Van Ness and serves as the drive thru entrance for the Burger King below) and develop a 13-story building across the Van Ness Corridor site could be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission on December 15.

As designed by BAR Architects for Build Inc, the proposed 120-foot-tall building would stretch from Eddy to Willow with 126 apartments over a garage for 105 cars, 40 of which will be dedicated for use by the tenants at 815/819 Van Ness Avenue which is also known as 203 Willow Street.

830 Eddy Rendering

While the entrance for Burger King’s drive thru, for which they have an easement, would remain on Eddy, the entrance to the new building would be along Willow.

830 Eddy Street Rendering: Willow Street Entrance

And if approved, Build Inc. is projecting that the development could be ready for occupancy by the third quarter of 2019.

33 thoughts on “Proposed 13-Story Van Ness Corridor Project Closer to Reality”
    1. “Due to spike in customers after the Socketsite article, BK decided to buy the property themselves and build a mega burger king.”

    2. Ever walked by there? It’s a source of steady income for certain members of the homeless corps who stop cars “driving through” for pedestrians on the sidewalk, then look soulfully at those pedestrians obviously expecting a reward.

  1. I love the density in this area, but it sorely needs better transit options. The fastest way to get downtown from here in peak hours is walking. Biking is probably too dangerous through the Tenderloin and FiDi. Hopefully this increases demand for a Geary Subway at least out to Cathedral Hill/Japan Town.

    1. They’ve added a bike lane or two through the tenderloin. Then there’s the personal safety aspect, but hopefully that’ll improve too.

      That said, what’s wrong with walking? It works, and it doesn’t even require multibillion dollar public investments. I would go so far as to say that one of the key advantages of a downtown is that people can get around just by walking.

      Of course I’m not going to say no to a subway…

      1. I actually love SF because the city is so walkable. Whenever friends visit, I always just walk them everywhere and they’re always amazed.

        The subway is for commuting and connecting areas that are not walking distance.

    2. I have been walking downtown from this area for 35 years and never felt any danger in daylight. Nighttime can be a little edgier. But there are plenty of other options. The 31 Balboa bus runs on Eddy and stops on the corner right across Van Ness. For those willing to walk 2 blocks on Van Ness in either direction, there are lines (5, 38) that run much more frequently. Given the short distance, a subway might save a few minutes but only a few. There are many reasons to want to build the Geary Subway, but getting from van Ness to Union Square is hardly one of them.

      1. BT – I am with you on this. I’ve been walking that same route for about 30 years. It’s a pleasure to see a comment from someone who obviously knows MUNI from their experience.

  2. Is this site across the street from the SF Planned Parenthood office? They occasionally get quiet but luridly-postered protestors there.

  3. Sigh… why can’t all the city be zoned as reasonably as the Van Ness corridor? This should be the standard height throughout Central and Western SoMa, Upper Market, Mission above 18th. And no silly-looking setbacks along alleys. I’m jealous that the Van Ness corridor gets all the tall-building love.

    1. I’ll add: unless and until the Richmond District community (and its Supervisor) agree to comparable levels of density, Van Ness, not Geary, should be first in line for a subway.

      1. Well a Geary subway + Van Ness BRT would be a perfect combination that would connect the homeowners along Van Ness to rapid transit. Also, the Geary/Masonic area has space for significant up-zoning and density. Japantown and Cathedral hill are already relatively dense with tall condo buildings. A subway that terminates near the City Target would serve tons of people…including USF students and people in the panhandle/haight who can take a quick bus ride up Masonic.

    2. Van Ness is not the Richmond or Upper Market or Mission above 18th. These are all lower density residential enclaves. One, two, three unit buildings. Unlike the Van Ness corridor.

      You will not see an up-zoning of heights in these areas in our lifetimes. Any more than there will be any up-zoning along Taraval, 19th or Ocean – aside from allowing maybe 5 stories instead of 3 stories.

      San Francisco is predominately a low-rise city and only begrudgingly has hi-rise growth happened. Until several generations have comes and gone, the seemingly general desire for a mostly low-rise city will not go. if it even goes then.

      1. there is already enough denisty from lower pac heights, japantown, divis corridor out to the inner richmond (park presidio) to support a subway. the 38 bus is the most widely used bus west of mississippi, and you sometimes have to wait for 2-3 buses to pass for one that has space to stop. a geary subway would carry more daily riders than caltrain in year 1. of course, the hope would be that buildling a subway would at least get the empty lots building to 5+ floors. I jus hope the efforts to block geary BRT work, because if they dont, then a subway is not in future. Geary BRT is a waste of money with little improvement to public transit, but will also increase congestion on already congested geary

      2. “San Francisco is predominately a low-rise city”

        Dave, this is just not true.

        SF is consistently either Top 5 or 6 in terms of both # of skyscrapers AND # of high-rises in America (depending on measurement), and when adjusted for population size or area, it becomes #2 behind New York.

        SF is consistently in the #30-#35 range for both # of skyscrapers and # of high-rises in the WORLD, above cities such as London, Dallas, Boston, Paris, Mexico City, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Seattle, Atlanta, Taipei, etc.

        Our tallest building was completed in 1972 when it was the eighth tallest building in the world. So it’s existed as a shockingly tall building for almost 45 years.

        I see plenty of high-rises in Nob Hill, Pacific Heights, Russian Hill, and the Tenderloin that are taller than this building and were built between 1910-1940.

        San Francisco is known for a high number of neighborhoods which are low rise (but very, very dense and almost all wall-to-wall architecture, things you also find unappealing so it’s interesting you promote that here), but it has always had tall buildings alongside other cities outside of the obvious NY/HK type areas. It’s always been a part of the culture and character. Every other postcard is of the SF Skyline alongside the Bay Bridge.

        Is a 13-story building appropriate in West Portal or the Marina? Certainly not. But here? Nestled alongside many taller buildings? Absolutely appropriate.

    3. A few decades ago the Tenderloin was undergoing rapid gentrification with quite tall buildings (think the Hilton Hotel tower) and this would have filled in from Van Ness to Union Square until the Supes and planners stepped in with mostly 9-floor height limits in the Tenderloin.

      The height limit on Van Ness itself, according to the Van Ness Plan, is mostly 12 floors (120 ft) but with a 4-floor streetwall stepping back and up to the 12 floors. Just off Van Ness stepping up to Cathedral Hill I believe taller buildings are permitted.

  4. It’s a completely unremarkable building which would be OK if it were shorter. Of course, the hacks on this site will say they love it. Also, there should be a wider setback from the street. Such tall buildings suck the life out of the street.

    1. There is almost no life on this particular block now (since the scone bakery closed) . . . except when maybe somebody is protesting in front of Planned Parenthood.

    2. Actually, the building looks fine, really isn’t that tall, and will do the exact opposite of “suck the life out of the street”. And why do you feel setbacks are so necessary? Do you think people will magically forget it’s a highrise with a setback? It can’t have any thing to do with shading on the sidewalk, because the building is on the north side of the street.

    3. the street life on van ness has been pretty dead for years, mainly becuase there was little housing on van ness.

      there is no life on the streets of manhattan? tokyo?

      This building is a step in the right direction, but on van ness, could go taller. this will improve the street life

      1. “Little housing on Van Ness”. 20 years ago, perhaps true. Not in this decade. Without making a formal count, I’d guess at least half the structures are now mixed use with housing on upper floors if not the ground floor and more (KRON, this project, McDonald’s) due for conversion to housing. Counting buildings within a block of Van Ness on side streets, this is a very dense housing neighborhood.

        On the other hand, there’s not a lot of neighborhood retail directly on Van Ness (perhaps because there’s a lot a block away on Polk) to draw pedestrians, traffic and parking on Van Ness itself are a b*tch and the street is intimidatingly wide to cross (especially for anyone mobility-impaired). I live there. I rarely shop there–I walk to Hayes Valley or Polk (and increasingly Larkin) in and around Nob Hill.

  5. Any movement on this project? Just walked by the Burger King today and looks like it could be in an episode of Stranger Things—right out of the 80’s.

Leave a Reply

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