As we first reported last year:

Having already been redesigned to look “less upscale” and eliminate its garage, the proposed redevelopment of the “One $ Store” parcel on the southwest corner of Mission and 17th Streets was subsequently challenged by the Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) for the potential loss of a “low-price-point community-serving retail” establishment and the number of condos within the development to be offered at below market rates.

In response, the project team asked the operator of the One $ Store to consider returning to the future retail space, with a below market (but above current) rent, but the operator declined. Goodwill, however, has been approached by the project team and is currently “expected” to sign a lease for the future space.

At the same time, while the total number of condos to rise above the retail space has been reduced from twenty-nine (29) to twenty-seven (27), the code compliant number of units to be offered at below market rates (12 percent) remains at three (3).

Having subsequently agreed to provide four (4) of the twenty-seven (27) residential units at below market rates and offer the ground floor commercial space “to a lower-price-point, community serving business,” at a reduced rate and for a term of 50 years (for which Goodwill has inked a letter of intent for up to 25 years and MEDA has secured the right to select the future tenants), the proposed development to rise at 2100 Mission Street, as rendered below, was approved by Planning.

And while building permits for the project have been requested, and the One $ Store is currently operating on a month-to-month lease, the corner site and plans are now on the market with a $5.5 million price tag rather than positioning to break ground.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    Wow, so for $5.5mm I can:

    Knock down the existing building
    Build four Below Market Rate units
    Build a huge ground floor space locked in a 25 year below market lease to a thrift shop type business (and then let whatever cartel is in control of MEDA in 25 years choose the next one)
    Get personal liability for the the rising construction loan financing rates
    Pay all the impact fees, permit fees, and in exchange I get to offer 24 bland units at market rates above the same thrift shop?

    6,000sf per floor * 4 Floors * $450psf = $10.8mm construction cost rough (probably low)
    $5.5mm dirt
    $16.3mm cost

    Sure seems like a good use of money when I could go put it in a diversified basked of securities that I have to check one a quarter.

    Congratulations on the entitlement. I would want to pass along this bucket of slop too.

    Great job extracting concessions, MEDA. Keep the Mission poopy!

    Good luck with the sale. Looking forward to the price reduction article from SS in 4-6 months.

    /s/ Rents in San Francisco are really going to come down once all these projects get built /s/

    • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

      I miscounted floors. (Is that a double-height top penthouse level?)
      I guess it’s either five or six floors.
      So construction will cost more. It just gets better and better.

      • Posted by Amewsed

        Well done analysis, a basic concept most are unable to grasp.

  2. Posted by Hunter

    So ugly. I’d be willing to bet this will never get built, and we’ll get something taller next cycle.

    • Posted by Chris

      Not if the city and neighborhood insist on extracting the same concessions for approval. And, the building is ugly because the neighborhood insisted it be ugly, which they call “less upscale.”

  3. Posted by anon2.5

    The building already there looks much nicer

  4. Posted by Sam Walters

    Extortion is still a big racket in San Francisco. But in a twist from the old days, the city promotes rather than prosecutes it.

  5. Posted by cynthia

    Hopefully it gets a design refresh before anything moves forward.

  6. Posted by Chris

    San Francisco should outlaw beige.

    • Posted by Neighborhood Activist

      It’s ugly, and MEDA wanted ugly. God forbid we build anything attractive that people get excited about living in.

      • Posted by kbbl

        Have to give them credit for at least recognizing market pricing as influenced by aesthetics.

  7. Posted by Miraloma Man

    Wow! When was the last time you saw a Yellow Cab? A Crown Vic, no less. How old is this rendering, exactly?

  8. Posted by Miraloma Man

    It’s not as ugly as some. It kind of looks like several 1970s-era medical-dental clinics stacked up in a pile. Still, it’s vastly superior to the hideous retirement facilities and the occasional TODs that get built in the suburbs.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles