As newly rendered by SCB, along with a generic massing for the massive 5M project, the proposed infill tower to rise on Nordstrom’s underdeveloped parking lot parcel at 469 Stevenson Street would now measure 284 feet in height.

As we first reported earlier this week, while the tower’s proposed height has been reduced, its proposed density has been increased. And in addition to 468 residential units, an underground garage for 234 cars and nearly 22,000 square feet of open space (including a new solarium and terrace atop the tower’s 14-foot-tall podium), the proposed project now includes 5,500 square feet of ground floor retail space which is intended “to enliven” the development’s frontages along Stevenson and Jessie.

18 thoughts on “Proposed Mid-Market Infill Tower and Its Frontages Newly Rendered”
    1. Ah, the famous internet grammar police, although it is grammatical but seems awkward. I would say something like “I love the way that the green wall harmonize the transition” or “I love that the green wall harmonize the transition”

    2. Sorry to break it to you, but the 1% aren’t going to be living here, or even the top 10%.

      This is for percentiles 60-90%.

      1. im pretty sure 60-90% are not buying any market rate condos in SF. maybe 85-99, but even 85 would be stretching to pay $1M

        1. SFRealist: and if you use this calculator, you’ll find that for a household bringing in 175k in zip code 94103, the max recommended price when buying with a 30yr fixed at 3.875% APR would be $972,600 in 2018 dollars. And that’s using totally unrealistic budget numbers for existing debt and monthly spending and also assuming that the buyer has 50k sitting around in an account in seasoned funds, ready to devote completely to a down payment.

          1. Even rich people here spend a high percentage of their income on housing. I’ve always exceeded the ‘recommendations’ of those online calculators.

            It’s the same in Palo Alto, New York, London, and other expensive cities around the world. What’s the problem?

    3. Dont you see the secure eye-scan entry point, and luxury street level private spaces… That’s for the caviar lunches while there is no signs of debris, street conditions, and obviously a restricted pathway along the pedestrian space so no wheelchairs allowed, or any seniors or children… Looks like the ideal pied-a-terre for an urban denizen with no soul besides walking on the phone or the lyft uber pick-up and drop off… sad looking state of the city currently is that no money is focused on improved public realm, only private demarcation….

    1. I think it’s a quite different scenario (massive floor plates to be filled by very specific sorts of tenants vs a handful of smaller groundfloor units), but agree that it’s unfortunately ironic. Nevertheless, we can’t avoid building retail because it’s grossly overpriced at the moment.

      1. But the “developer community” always manages to avoid building residential when it’s even slightly oversupplied at a given moment. Funny how that works.

  1. It’s beautiful, but again the parking is just too much. Halve the parking spaces and I will be this project’s biggest supporter.

  2. add another 10k riders to muni…. and bart, with zero pay in for their upgrades…. nice…. sure to be plenty of lyft and uber cars circling and double parked in front, that empty street is a joke…

  3. In case some haven’t noticed, housing is desperately needed in SF. Build it and help diminish the housing crunch.

Leave a Reply

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