Having survived a parking related challenge, the plans for a nine-story building with 127 units of affordable housing to rise on the northern half of the parking lot parcel at the corner of Folsom and 17th Street, adjacent to the new In Chan Kaajal Park on the southern half of the lot, were formally approved back in 2017.

And yesterday, the ceremonial ground breaking for “Casa Adelante,” as newly rendered for the Chinatown Community Development Center and Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) by Mithun and Y.A. Studio above, was held on-site at 2060 Folsom Street.

The development, which has been in the works since 2011, when the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development purchased the site from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, should be ready for occupancy in late 2020.

25 thoughts on “Affordable Development in the Mission Finally Breaks Ground”
  1. Wow…almost a decade later and that’s the best that can be done? Nine floors and 127 units with that design. This city is a joke!

    1. That’s plenty of density; more than blocks you’d typically see in Barcelona, Paris, or Berlin. You’d b better off rooting for more development like this, not wasting time bemoaning a single development not being tall enough.

      1. The real issue is that it will have taken nearly a decade from when the city acquired the land for affordable housing to be built. The original poster was correct to bemoan the slow pace of producing new affordable units. And, Paris, Barcelona, and Berlin have plenty of equally tall & dense buildings, as well as several that are significantly taller and denser, but in any case, Barcelona and Paris are both considerably denser than San Francisco. As for Berlin, while it is reasonably dense, it covers a significantly larger area than SF, so it is probably not the best comparison (it is closer to LA in how it spreads out).

      1. Good point. Take that number and divide by 127 to see how much extra residents will pay for arguments over parking and other things.

  2. It looks a little upscale to me. Can MEDA make the windows smaller and change the exterior color to something less, um, yuppified? Like beige?

  3. This “affordable” BS, is just to hide the taint of SUBSIDIZED. all housing built is AFFORDABLE as you point out.

      1. Ask the spin doctors why they won’t label it, what it truly is. All housing is affordable to someone, but only a very limited amount of housing is subsidized by others (making them pay more than they normally would) so you have to pay less than 99% of the rest of the population. Pretty nice unearned privilege, if you can get on the very short list.

        1. Any home owner that takes the mortgage interest deduction is benefitting from subsidized housing. Get your facts straight.

  4. Taint, hah! Time to cut those corporate subsidies. And abusing city infrastructure without permit or use fee. After we fix the wealth taxes…

    BTW, what is the corporate tax rate and top personal brackets in Spain and France, as long as we r emulating?

  5. The mayor is proposing a ballot initiative to allow 100% affordable housing to be constructed “as of right“. So if it passes, I guess this is the kind of project that would not take nine years in the future.

    1. While “as of right” might sound great, the vast majority of projects in San Francisco seek a variance (or two) from code compliance, or in this case required a complete rezoning, challenges of which would still be permitted by law.

      And the passage of an “as of right” measure wouldn’t obviate the need for environmental reviews or block any such challenges.

  6. No balconies little outdoor space and rising sea water challenges in that part of the city… hope they considered a ? approach to the building entry as a later phase or ?….. does look bland like most buildings that are “affordable” Mithun and YA are creative firms wish they got a little more playful with the shapes forms of the buildings and heights in this and future schemes and roof deck approach….

      1. No not to not build but to show some chutzpah in what you propose as an architectural design… takes a bigger push by the architect vs the penny saved approach to housing build outs, which will cost a lot more by not addressing it as a starting step in the design…

      2. I’m not sure how sea level rise figures in. Yes, it’s a bland design. And yes, it’s ridiculous that it takes nine years to build a very average apartment building in San Francisco. But sea level rise? I don’t see how that’s a reason to not building housing.

        (Unless you’re suggesting that they should go back to the drawing boards again, which would add several more years.)

  7. There are disingenuous murals on the north side of the development reflecting images of those who are excluded from living there.

Leave a Reply

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