Plans for a 239-room Ennismore hotel to rise up to 8 stories in height across the irregularly shaped, 64-space Central SoMa parking lot parcel at 424 Brannan Street have been massed by Handel Architects and submitted to the City for review.

As proposed, the hotel’s lobby would front Ritch Street with a ground-floor restaurant at the corner of Brannan and a mid-block pedestrian passage between Ritch and Zoe Street with 2,500 square feet of retail space at its end and no garage.

And as envisioned, the hotel would be topped with an outdoor pool, terrace(s) and bar.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in as the plans progress.

25 thoughts on “Plans for a 239-Room SoMa Hotel with a Rooftop Bar and Pool”
  1. (Your first image has the word ‘street’ misspelled multiple times…)

    [Editor’s Note: Bad typos happen to good people (such as the project’s architects who labeled the first image above).]

  2. Great site for a hotel, but if this is depending on a Central SoMa Plan rezoning, it might be waiting a while. Support for that plan is rapidly eroding as people realize it has a 6:1 jobs to housing ratio, which will worsen already high rents.

    1. The 424 Brannan Street site is currently only zoned for development up to 65 feet in height and the project as proposed would require the adoption of San Francisco’s Central SoMa Plan to reach the full 8 stories/85 feet as massed above.

    2. I also hate the mid-rise, table-topping plan around 4th and Townsend. Yay…another block of cubic 200 ft mid-rises to drape the skyline from anything interesting.

      1. Not sure what you mean, the current plan that is being pushed zones the hd buttercup corner of 4th and Townsend to 400ft towers and 160ft pedestals.

    3. The Central SOMA plan is in trouble and planning is going to have to make big changes. Reduce the jobs/housing balance to no more than 2:1. Reduce the height on the few “supersized” parcels which are basically giveaways to favored developers/owners. 30 story towers are not appropriate in this area. If planning refuses to listen to and work with the community there are alternative plans in the works.

        1. No. I’m saying basically keep the same height limits. Go to 15 stories at a few spots. If the jobs/housing balance is reduced to 2:1, thousands of units can be added under existing height limits. Something scalable and pedestrian friendly can be created. The plan has to be shelved and started from scratch with only limited height increases and nothing much more than 15 stories. Alternative plans along these lines are bubbling out there.

          1. I have to disagree. There’s no better place to increase the density and thus affordability of housing. Reduce the ratio to 2:1 and remove all height limits, there is no need for height limits other than to make it look like planning is doing something.

      1. Dave: Given that all of your examples of exemplary residential neighborhoods are effectively suburban in character (c.f., the glories of single family living in Portland), your constant promotion of more dense urban infill seems incoherent.

  3. Odd ground floor plan – no way to get from the lobby / elevator area to the mid-block passage and retail areas, without going outside. (And a surprisingly large lobby, but then elevators shoe-horned into an awkward area by the counter – also weird.)

    1. You’re right the lack of passage to retail is very awkward. The elevators are very intentional though – have you been in a SoMa alley as the bars let out? Two words: Access Control.

  4. Poor 426 Brannan looks so lost in this massing. Wouldn’t a better option be to acquire the building and incorporate it into the hotel?

Leave a Reply

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