In the works since 2015, plans to level the long-shuttered Chevron service station site at the corner of Van Ness and Union and construct a contemporary seven-story building upon the Cow Hollow site are slated to be approved by San Francisco’s Planning Commission next week.
As designed by Handel Architects for DM Development, the 2465 Van Ness Avenue project includes 41 market-rate condos (a mix of 10 one-bedrooms, 24 twos and 7 threes) over 2,800 square feet of ground floor retail space and a basement garage for 31 cars and 41 bikes with its entrance on Union.
Shuttered in 2009, the former gas station’s underground tanks were removed in 2010, after which it was confirmed that contamination from the removed tanks would not pose a threat to public health or the environment.
And as such, once the project is approved the ground could soon be broken, the permits for which have already been requested and triaged.
Looks great. Keep on infilling those 1 story lots!
Looks quite nice. Very similar to their 240 Pacific design.
I’d say almost identical.
It won’t be as pretty, but much more realistic when they add back in what was left out of the picture. The bus stop on Union (which will cover almost the entire Union Street side of the building) and overhead electrical wires for buses (on both Union and Van Ness) have gone missing! And whatever Van Ness Avenue is supposed to look like when it is converted to Bus Rapid Transit lanes.i’m guessing that the bus shelter itself will take up most of the curb space directly in front of the building’s main entrance. Add all these back in to the picture and you’ve changed the look considerably.
very good points; but let’s not forget we live in a city and having a bus stop in front of the building might be an advantage.
BRT puts the bus stop and travel lane in the median so there may not actually be anything in front of the building. Regardless, architects shouldn’t be blamed for or be expected to respond the presence of unsightly but necessary infrastructure like overhead wires, bus stops, street signs, curb paint, lights, or unappealing street trees—even less so blame the rendering for omitting any of the aformentioned nonsense.
Looking forward to this rising.
The bus stop being discussed is for the 41 Union line not a Van Ness Avenue bus. Will the bus stop for the 41 Union bus will be in the median along with the stop for the Damn Mess Avenue buses?
This rendering appears to be of the “new” Van Ness — see the two bus lanes divided by the green median. This 41/45 stop is one of only three sheltered stops on eastbound Union. I wonder if it will become unsheltered like most of the others after this is built?
Looks quite nice
Keep building.
Taller please
they should use the density bonus and get 2 more floors on this sucker
A density bonus would require the inclusion of below market rate units on-site.
And to the chagrin of Planning, as we referenced above and first reported last year, the development is positioned to be 100 percent market rate.
The Pacific Heights Inn around the corner at 1555 Union between Van Ness and Franklin will soon also go before Planning for a complete rebuild.
[Editor’s Note: Refined Designs and Timing for a New Cow Hollow Hotel.]
It looks great. Given the kerfluffle over window sizes in the Mission – I find it slightly humorous that big windows seem to be given a free pass on this side of town. 🙂
Didn’t people in the Mission equate big windows to displays of wealth? Ha.
Yes. They looked too fancy and would spoil the “starving artist’s vibe” of the neighborhood. Mission gentrification is fine as long as buildings are cloaked in downplayed facades.
There is no rule against big windows. The only reason it caused a kerfuffle with the 2100 Mission Street project is that a handful of self-proclaimed neighborhood activists complained that large windows were a trait of a luxury development, which would contribute to gentrification of the area. Though, interestingly enough, the proposed redesign of that project features a rather sleek and trendy Stanley Saitowitz designed facade.
As for this Cow Hollow development, the neighborhood has long been an affluent area, so there are no gentrification concerns.
And guaranteeing 100 market rate build, even though the housing strapped city could use more units by requesting a variance for a few more floors. But, that would mean including some BMR units which in Cow Hollow is clearly a no-no.
BMR is a scam anyway. Since we can’t have what would be natural to build (even more market rate units), they should build this with all due haste.
The “issue” with including BMRs in “luxury” buildings is not push-back from wealthy owners/tenants. It is the ever-increasing HOAs which can be a burden on the BMR occupants. By law, fees must be proportional to the benefit received (typically based on square footage) for all units, with no differentiation between market rate and BMRs. So while “mixed” buildings may be more socially desirable, they have proved to be a problem over time.