Big Plans for Shuttered Nightclub Site
June 24, 2019
Having been shuttered back in 2016, the sale of the Club Tapatio building at 4742 Mission Street, which once housed the Rock Garden and Club New Yorker as well, and was actually built to serve as a bocce ball facility back 1938, closed escrow last month.
Plans to raze the longstanding club to make way for a seven-story residential building to rise up to 75 feet in height on the Excelsior District site have since been drafted.
And as envisioned by SIA Consulting, the proposed development would yield 36 residential units, a mix of studios, two-bedrooms and threes, over 6,000 square feet of commercial space and a basement garage for 7 cars, leveraging San Francisco’s HOME-SF program to build over the existing 65-foot height limit for the site.
We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Comments are closed.
Wags will suggest having a nightclub next door necessitated the “seismic” work for the building on the right (and realists will suggest it will come in handy for the construction work looming…in every sense).
Club Tapatio lives on in the second shelf in my right-hand refrigerator door. #spicytake #noonewillbuildthisnonsense #don’tberidiculous #sevenstoriesyeahright
Thanks for the laugh #hashtagsareannoying #twittergoaway
Stop with all these dam .. buildings… SF NATIVE
Wonderful please build it as a Mission resident. My fear is that once MEDA and the other neighborhood “activists” become aware of this they will do everything to block it. There are a few recent 100% affordable housing projects that are being built, so they should be happy. We need more housing!
We need affordable housing.
Affordable for whom? I don’t see much being built that the middle class can afford. They are priced out of market rate and don’t quality for BMR. Just ask any teacher, nurse, firefighter, etc.
those three professions do not have equivalent base incomes.
THANK YOU. I’m really getting tired of people trotting out police and firefighters as some sort of hard luck cases when it comes to salary.
room for 7 cars? 36 units, how many “affordable“? ?
As proposed, 9 of the units would be offered at below market rates (BMR).
Building this will cause havoc in the neighborhood. We do not need more housing. Has anybody stop to consider the amount of cars that now will need to find parking? MTA can’t keep up writing tickets fast enough. This kind of building will cause havoc in the neighborhood. This is the aggressive type of growth that has turned New York into the mess it is now. Let the investors take the money and go build elsewhere. Has anybody stop to consider the amount of cars don’t now need to find parking? I don’t know what the economic impacts [on] the neighborhood will be.
Sarcasm at its finest. I hope.
NYC has a mass transit system that, in spite of its age, surpasses anything in the Bay Area.
7 car parking is a shame. They could put 36 spots in the basement.
please just let them park in the “commercial space”, i.e., empty storefront. And let it be commercial, charge by the hour/day/week/month. There is 3800 SF of empty retail space roughly 4 blocks south at 5050 under 61 newly built apartments. It sits empty and awaits the resurrection along with the rest of the empty storefronts in this city.
they should put zero parking spots in this location
absolutely
Yeah put me down as skeptical. This one ain’t happening as proposed
Increase the car parking spots to 30 at this location. Make all the parking spots car share. Include more transportation sharing in this area, it will help alleviate parking issues over time as people’s mentality changes.
I read two different studies recently that concluded people who regularly take Uber or Lyft are significantly more likely to own a car and drive it alone than the average resident of a large city.
When I read that I thought of one of my best friends who lives in the South Bay and works at his company’s HQ in Mountain View. Commutes by himself by driving daily in rush hour traffic on 101 (which is my idea of hell).
When he comes into the City, which is often, he parks his car at whatever lot or parking garage he can find space at and then calls a Uber driver to take him to his actual destination (where parking is scarce or nonexistant) and back. This is his “solution” to alleviate parking issues. And of course he expenses the parking and the illegal cab…er…”ride sharing” trip to and back from his actual destination, so he’s not feeling any financial pain from his behavior.
The reason “car share” is popular is because up until very recently it was heavily subsidized by venture capitalists and allows people to not change their mentality.
agree completely. we should stop building parking near heavy transit. A 7 car garage for 36 units seems reasonable, but it is still adding car spots to the city, increasing capacity for car usage. if new units are built in the sunset or richmond or other areas that have very poor transit, i get that parking needs to be more avaiable, but close to BART is a no-brainer. Bringing a subway to the richmond would do more to alleviate car use than any single SF transit project (IMHO)
Where should the cars park? The more parking spots you take away, the fewer places to park. This, in turn, leaves the helpless and hapless to traverse the streets looking for parking adding to traffic. The more rideshare vehicles you have circling the neighborhoods, the more traffic and congestion. Might I also add the pollution from these activities? I think everyone wants to have a better traffic situation, look at how the traffic lights are set up and analyze the best ways to maximize the efficiency of traffic flow. The less cars sit in traffic, the better the standard of air is. Having Lyft and Uber always circling just negatively exacerbates the issue.
UPDATE: Planning Pushing for a Higher-Rise in the Excelsior