Purchased for $4 million back in 1990, the former three-story apartment building with 47 units at 2578-2598 Mission and 22nd Streets was ravaged by a fire which killed one person and left over 60 people homeless in early 2015.

Leveled last year and its borders since fenced, the half-acre Mission District parcel is now being marketed as a development site, “subject to community participation (as expected for all significant development sites in San Francisco)” and without a disclosed asking price.

And while a handful of lawsuits between the former building’s owner, tenants and the company that maintained its fire alarms are pending, and no formal plans for the parcel have been drawn, the site is zoned for development up to 65 feet in height.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Metroliner

    Assuming this ever gets developed, will the residents have first rights to return at their old rents? Does that ever expire? I see a lot of activity recovering fire damaged buildings (particularly Church and 15th and 15th and Dolores) that seem to drag on forever with no sign they’ll ever re-open.

    • Posted by Gorkem

      Hopefully most of them will be offered other affordable housing options elsewhere by the time this site gets redeveloped.

    • Posted by ian

      They don’t have a right to return since it was red tagged.

      ‘They’ve recently learned their building has been red-tagged, is set to be demolished, possibly wiping out their “rights of return” and rent control. Monday night, they converged in their old neighborhood searching for options.’

      That ‘possibly’ is a certainty under the current legislation. And even if they did want to come back, they usually do not.

  2. Posted by Mark

    I always like the façade, but the building was clearly damaged beyond repair. Let’s hope the 65′ height is reached. Who knows how long this parcel will remain vacant.

  3. Posted by MukDutch

    Vida SF is disgusting. Hopefully anything built on this parcel can subtract from that eyesore. Will probably take a decade or more for anything to be constructed. Perfect storm of typical SF delay coupled with mission infighting.

    • Posted by Stakes Is High

      Would you be surprised if I said that elements of the design were directly and indirectly affected by community concerns and feedback?

    • Posted by Notcom

      I concur: standards seem to have slipped over the years.

      • Posted by wayne sall

        what a tragic waste. that street was so cool back in the day. I appreciate them saving the mission marquee though.

    • Posted by scott f

      I love how Vida looks distinctive and together with the restored “New Mission” sign, it’s great placemaking. Wish all new architecture in the neighborhood could be so bold.

      • Posted by innermish

        totally agree that the new building is a fun even “daring” architectural add to Mission Street. I like it.

        Admitting that SF standards for “daring” architecture seem to be pretty low.

      • Posted by JayJay

        I think it’s a cool design, but It doesn’t aesthetically fit with the areas architecture flow.

  4. Posted by JayJay

    I wonder how much the owner of the land paid the arsonist.

    • Posted by gribble

      Do you have access to a secret fire department memo about the cause of the fire? I believe the fire department said the likely cause was an electrical short.
      As an ex-landlord in the Mission I can tell you a lot of these older buildings can’t handle what tenants are trying to plug in. Older wiring and panels combined with too many power hungry appliances and gadgets create a lot of problems.
      Tenants won’t limit the number of items they plug in to what is safe and want to push all blame on the landlords. There is often plenty of blame to go around.
      No need to invent charges of arson.

    • Posted by Ayhsmb

      Citation needed. Insurance companies and police are highly motivated to track down arson and insurance fraud in general. Unless I missed something there has been zero evidence of arson.

    • Posted by marco

      These are just the “alternative facts” manufactured by the SJW Missionistas. There’s been no evidence whatsoever of arson, but there has been a concerted effort to plant such rumors in comments sections in various publications.

  5. Posted by RonMonster

    Whole Foods Mission and condos above…

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      that would be awesome. definitely needed in this area

  6. Posted by formerly%whatever

    Owner should take the insurance money, pay some architect to design a code complying box with maximum number of units, and at some point the “community stakeholders” will “force” the owner to sell to the city at well over market price per unit (remember 16th and S Van Ness?). Everybody wins, except the taxpayers of San Francisco.

  7. Posted by BuildHighAndDense

    I have a feeling that a temporary parking lot permit is in the works while neighbors and developers battle out height and ‘affordable’ allocation over next decade. Perhaps a food truck lot? MissionEats?

  8. Posted by moto mayhem

    this would be a perfect place for a nice 12 floor architectural gem.

  9. Posted by Willow

    Any chance that Popeyes returns? Please not another WF’s…

  10. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    That red line plane needs to be first adjusted due to the adjacent home backyards, and the courtyard shown of the adjacent building… perhaps a shared interior courtyard, or a corner building break and back street smaller quad-six-plex building unit. Wont be the solid red shown…

  11. Posted by wayne sall

    what a terrible waste of a building.. and one of the only popeye’s in the city. Last time I went there a homeless guy started fights with everyone in the restaurant.

    I’m sad. piece of history, gone forever. soon to be replaced by something lackluster.

  12. Posted by Patrick Flanagan

    Will Popeye’s ever return to that corner?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles