Despite being redesigned and re-branded in an attempt to assuage fears that the proposed hotel to rise at 1196 Columbus Avenue, which had originally been targeted to millennial travelers, wouldn’t attract “late-night activity” that was “incompatible with the adjacent residential development,” the plans were rejected by San Francisco’s Planning Commission by a vote of 4 to 3.

And while opponents of the development had also argued that the privately-owned site should be used for affordable housing instead, an argument which had caught the ear of a number of commissioners, the former Tower Records Annex turned bike rental shop building, which sits upon a 6,400-square-foot parcel, is now quietly on the market with a $6.5 million price tag, touting “one of the highest trafficked corners in San Francisco” and the as of right potential for Formula Retail as a permitted use.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by archiwha?

    affordable housing? give me a break. i’m an affordable housing architect, and let me say this loud and clear: economy of scale is the only path to feasibility, especially in this market of enormous construction prices. no way a tiny parcel like this, with a tiny 4-story height limit, would pencil for any non-profit developer. such a ridiculous demand. let the hotel be built!

    • Posted by archiwha?

      just to add some numbers: 6400 sqft parcel. assuming maximum density bonus = 7 stories, 1st story being all utility. 6400, 70% efficiency = 4500 sqft = 4 units max per floor = 24 units max. and this assume a 2-story concrete podium with wood framing above. zero possibility of feasibility.

    • Posted by Notcom

      I’m intrigued by this concept of “Free bike rentals”…could it be applied to housing – free apartment rentals ?? – that would seem to solve the affordability issue right there.

  2. Posted by Metroliner

    Put in another Walgreen’s or CVS and really get the neighbor’s goose. Serves them right.

  3. Posted by Nathanael

    I was wondering that too. The small print at the tops reads “Basically”

  4. Posted by GR

    I think the whole idea of rejecting the [hotel based on the idea] that millennials are the partiers is so wrong. We need to cater to different audiences old young. The older generation have got what they wanted and are coming in way of younger generation.

  5. Posted by ignorant

    What has happened to plans for a “boutique” hotel on the nearby site of Ginsberg’s Pub? The bar was torn down long ago, the site was finally fenced in, but no work is visible.

  6. Posted by Amewsed

    Property will sit vacant for years. Now you know the reason why. I felt my time spent on commenting on this project was wasted. Think about how the owners and developers feel about this city.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles