The plans to level the historic Lucky 13 bar and construct a five-story condo building upon its 2140 Market Street parcel have just been granted an exemption from having to complete an extensive environmental review.

As such, if the proposed development either avoids or survives a potential Discretionary Review (DR), the project will be considered to have been approved once the pending building permits for the demolition and development are issued.

As we first revealed back in 2015, the proposed development to rise upon the 2140 Market Street site would reach a height of 55 feet, the latest design for which includes 27 condos over a 1,600-square-foot commercial space fronting Market Street and a storage room for 29 bikes on its ground floor:

A 2,260‐square‐foot roof deck would serve as the primary open space for for residents. And while originally proposed with 31 residential units and a smaller retail space, the plans for the development have never include a garage for any cars.

The existing one-story building on the site has a rather storied past, which includes being the site of Harvey Milk’s election night celebration when it was a bar known as Alfie’s.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Pierre smith

    Great, build it. Look for the new lucky 13 in the ground floor of the Home building just a 30 second walk from here.

    • Posted by Harambe

      Assuming they’ve struck an affordable rental agreement with the new building. It’ll be the end of a very grungy era for Lucky 13.

      • Posted by Pierre smith

        Developer of that project is the owner of the bar. Entirely within his control. But yeah, it’ll definitely be the end of an era

      • Posted by RSheng

        What the hell does affordable housing have to do with “grunge?”

        • Posted by Sutro_Tower

          This particular comment thread you jumped in is in regards to Lucky 13 potentially moving a couple doors down to the ground floor of the new development underway on Market and Church. Why so snippy?

  2. Posted by wako

    There is no certainty that the Lucky 13 will end up in the new building at the former Home site. The new development proposed for the current Lucky site has not even been fully approved yet so it could still take a while…

  3. Posted by garrett

    i used to love cities. now, it’s hard to tell one from the other. #vanilla

    • Posted by ben z

      Pretty horrible looking building from a design standpoint.

  4. Posted by Eddy

    Thank goodness they can wipe a piece if history off the map so that we can store 29 bikes on the ground floor. Good job everyone.

    • Posted by LM

      We already wiped the longer history of the site when they built a building there in the first place.

      • Posted by Kento

        Exactly! Why are these people forgetting that before there was the building there was other “history” there. I guess people only complain about things that are relevant to them…

        • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

          Same logic as when people who moved to SF 30 years ago are now complaining about gentrification. Um, so who lived in your home or on your piece of land before you? A bison herd?

          • Posted by Someone stole my burrito™

            How is a bison herd significant to the history of one of the greatest cities in the world? A random and ridiculous argument. Perhaps it’s just history you’d rather see removed. At least be honest about your prejudices.

  5. Posted by Just My Opinion

    If we want housing, and we want prices to come down on housing, then supply and demand have to come closer to equilibrium. Best way to do that: build more housing. This is a very good site for that. Our neighborhood has done a very good job of preserving Harvey Milk’s legacy in other ways.

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      Plenty of people here think the best way to achieve the equilibrium is reduced demand. That’s why they’re unashamedly intolerant of newcomers and rooting for another recession.

      • Posted by Just My Opinion

        These people should be careful what they are asking for. What we should be asking for is a complete overhaul of San Francisco City government. It is horribly broken and incapable of responding to the City’s most pressing problems. It has ceased being a representative form of government. San Francisco is a very sophisticated city with some big city problems. We still have supervisors who thinks it is Mayberry. They can’t agree on a set of priorities, and stick to them. So frustrating.

        • Posted by ess

          Overhaul of “San Francisco City government,” OK.

          Thank you for your entirely sane and realistic counterargument.

  6. Posted by Panhandle Amigo

    – We can’t have a surface parking lot on Market St and say with a straight face we’re trying to make SF affordable.
    – This approach is working. Rents are down 9% as we continue to add units from projects like this. We need to keep doing it.
    – It sucks to lose Lucky 13. It does. But bars come and go. Every bar from the year 1849 is now gone. I’m sure people in 1860 were complaining that the city was over then. There’s a new 2000 sf commercial space in this building for a new establishment to begin its history.

  7. Posted by charles temmel

    gotta build more [expensive stuff] to make us feel like we’re “doing something” when in fact we are lining the pockets of the developers and their political patrons in government. It’s like China but privatized.

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      Meanwhile, in the real world, new housing means new homes for people to live in.

    • Posted by Just My Opinion

      I know it is popular in some circles to say what you are saying, but try to back it up with facts. Explain, in concrete terms what “lining the pockets of the developers means”. Do developers not deserve to make a profit? Do you know that in fact the money behind some of these developers is, for example, the pension fund of the State of California teachers, firefighters, police, etc. I am just saying, be careful, words have meaning, and repeating crap that you hear because it seems right and expeditious at the moment is very Trumpian.

  8. Posted by mercury613

    The blanding of San Francisco continues…

  9. Posted by Netzard

    I do not care so much about the Lucky 13, per se, but the building itself, much as I enjoy the Lucky 13. Its storied history is of great value to the City of San Francisco.

    People were appalled that CBGB’s in NYC was turned into a John Varvatos store, but as the post-1906 clubhouse for the Carpenters’ Fraternal Order, and the place where Harvey Milk celebrated his election, the Lucky 13 is a little gem of San Francisco history.

    100 years from now, nobody will look twice at yet another bland, glass & steel, overpriced condo building. The 300 year old home of the birth of gay rights in San Francisco however, will likely be valued much more than it appears to be now.

    • Posted by Just My Opinion

      Then the citizens of San Francisco should appropriately compensate the current owner of the site and preserve it for future generations. But to illegally impose rules on someone after the fact and arbitrarily take value from a private owner is not the way to go about preserving history.

  10. Posted by Sutro_Tower

    Put a plaque on the new building and let’s move on. This is a great little infill site and doesn’t need to stand out and demand the attention of every passerby. Lucky 13 has had a great run, time to let it go.

  11. Posted by scott f

    We can retain more places like Lucky 13 if we raise height limits. More homes built per parcel = fewer parcels developed.

  12. Posted by Mark Cole

    Another one of the City’s few remaining empty lots goes to more sterile, luxury housing. The City should be land banking these lots until middle-class, working-class housing can be built on them. Looking forward to responses by all the realtors who fill up the comments section on socketsite.

    • Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

      In what sense is this “luxury” and sterile? Because it’s new and uses new materials?

  13. Posted by Wayne

    Anyone who truly misses the Lucky 13 and can hop on the ferry to Alameda and visit their other location.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      … or stay in the 7×7 and just go to Toronado or Zeitgeist. Different places, similar scenes. I’ll miss L13 but do see the reasoning for the redevelopment.

  14. Posted by Someone stole my burrito™

    They could build something significant next to this historic building by sacrificing the patio. I am all for new housing but to wipe a city of its history will be soon regretted. The city could have purchased the building and rented it with historic preservation restrictions and upkeep a part of the agreement.

    Maybe the building can be dismantled and moved? A shame to see it go.

    • Posted by ayhsmb

      I’m sure if you want to buy the building and dismantle it and move it, they’d sell it to you.

      But if you don’t, why would someone else?

      • Posted by Someone stole my burrito™

        I’ll dismiss your smug tone and answer you. Because it has historical significance. It could be used as a museum, could be partially reconstructed in a museum of SF history, etc. But, no, you’re right. I’m the only person who’d consider this, and alas, I don’t have the funds.

        • Posted by Panhandle Amigo

          There is a whole process around deeming buildings as historically significant, one which is fairly generous IMO. This site didn’t get flagged by that department. It doesn’t seem to be historically significant.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles