Built in 1929, the three-story industrial building at 351-353 9th Street has been identified as a potential historic resource for the Western SOMA Light Industrial and Residential Historic District. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be redeveloped. And in fact, plans have been drawn.

As proposed, the building’s foundation would be beefed up, its interior reconfigured, and a two-story addition would be setback from the street(s), reaching a height of 54 feet and 5 inches, 7 inches below the height for which the parcel is zoned.

The redevelopment of 351-353 9th Street, which is currently occupied by the Nomadic Arts furniture store and a church, would yield 31 apartments over 3,600 square feet of remodeled retail space fronting 9th Street.

And in the eyes of Planning, not only is the proposed approach – with setbacks on both sides of the structure – appropriate, but staff “appreciates the way the proposal respects and supports the existing character” of the building and the use of high-quality finishes by Kwan Design.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

9 thoughts on “Plans for More Density While Maintaining History in Western SoMa”
    1. I concur! And as I so often criticize them I think “credit where credit is due.” And I like the rendering partly b/c I like the proposal: modest, well-scaled to the neighborhood, almost looks like it was originally planned for this (‘course having a simple design in the first place helps).

  1. I’ve no issues with the proposed construction (looks nice for what it is), but calling what is currently there ‘historic’? Historic what? Historically boxy and bland? What’s next? A historic stop sign?

    1. There are historic warehouse districts. Portland’s Pearl District is a shining example of preserving old, adding new, while maintaining a balance of height and density. Boxy and bland should be saved to describe a lot of the new construction going up around SF which 100 years from now (if they survive) someone might deem historic.

      1. The Pearl is absolutely spectacular. Its mix of preservation with the new makes it more intimate and appealing than SOMA. The rush to up-zone the Central SOMA will I’m afraid result in the destruction of older buildings (not necessarily historic) rather than mixing old with new and balancing one off of the other.

        The above project is nicely done. It’s not historic as such but really SF has few historic buildings given its young age, relatively, and the seismic activity which has occurred over time here.

  2. This should not be a historic building. Designers should be free to design what the market wants and not be tied to some irrelevant former use.

Leave a Reply

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