While the four Mid-Market parcels which span 1338-1370 Mission Street, between 9th and 10th Streets, are currently only zoned for development up to 150 feet in height, the plans for a 30-story tower to rise on the assembled site have been drafted by SmithGroup for Malex Holdings.

As envisioned, the tower would yield 287 residential units (a mix of 77 studios, 138 one-bedrooms, 43 twos and 29 threes) over 1,500 square feet of ground floor retail space fronting Mission Street, with two levels of parking for a total of 49 cars and rooftop terraces for the building’s residents.

And in order to rise up to 328 feet as proposed, the development team is planning to seek a State Density Bonus for the extra 178 (plus) feet in height and a couple of other Planning Code waivers.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Bluntcard

    The bland’ing continues.

    • Posted by Anonymous

      You could maybe wait until actual architectural renderings, rather than what is basically a massing sketch, are released before still deciding to complain about the aesthetics anyway.

      Once again, for the people in the back: Not every building needs to be, can be, or should be a special architectural snowflake.

    • Posted by Tony

      It’s kinda obvious that you’ll regurgitate that response to literally any proposal considering that this is not actually a design. They’re just mapping out the height and floor space.

      • Posted by Bluntcard

        This is the first time I’ve used this response. I hope you’re correct. I hope they don’t continue with the giant, bi-floored, done to death, smoking balconies.

  2. Posted by Panhandle Pro

    Great to see that developers are still moving forward with projects. Perhaps the doom and gloom on this site and elsewhere is unfounded if professionals, who do more actual research and projections on the future of SF than any armchair commentators (like me!), decide to invest.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Keep in mind that entitling a site for development, and actually breaking ground, are two different things and frequently represent two different segments of the market (and the actual economics and forecasting involved).

      • Posted by Cave Dweller

        Entitling goes a long way towards de-risking the asset in subject for the owner/developer.
        Development goes a long way towards adding risk (for the developer and the buyer).

        In this environment ‘Entitling’ is the sound approach as it would protect the developers from a market downside while also leaving open the possibility of the upside should the market revert back to old days. Smart developer!

        • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

          Thanks for that insightful and concise explanation.

    • Posted by Notcom

      And what of the eight or nine projects that we’re NOT seeing (on SS…or anywhere else) b/c they AREN’T going forward? (Or even this one after the first lap)

      “Let’s see what happens when we are a year out of the pandemic.” I read that somewhere, seemed like such sensible advice.

      • Posted by Orland

        Speaking of proposed projects not going forward, the residential tower for 1270 Mission St. one block up continues to languish well after approval, apparent death knell and alleged rebirth.

      • Posted by Panhandle Pro

        Fine, fine…fair point. I reserve the right to be a non-logical SF fan boy once in a while 🙂

        Yes, I look forward to the editor’s next edition of the housing pipeline piece, which is one of my favorites.

  3. Posted by Alai

    But it’ll block the view of the Twitter logo from Folsom St. Terrible!

  4. Posted by JK

    Probably an “entitle and sell” deal as this group has never done anything remotely this big or complex.

    And if you figure 2-3 years for approvals, a year for permitting/working drawings, and two years construction. You’re looking at a building that would probably welcome residents in 2026 at the earliest. Hopefully the pandemic will be a distant memory by then.

    • Posted by Notcom

      Or we’ll be in the 16th Wave, and the children born during the first one will be just starting school…or is that ‘just NOT starting school’??

  5. Posted by UnlivableCity

    Let’s make a deal: the central freeway by any rational standard should have dropped where the Amazon distribution Center is going in closer to Mission Bay. Instead under a classically fetid SF land use compromise they dropped it onto Market. As predicted death and mayhem and traffic jams ensued. Lets freeze any new development until the foundational neighborhood it exists in is fixed. Deop the freeway in the correct place, and extendHayes Valley into a nexus with Valencia and remap the disaster that is the “HUB.” Then just imagine how great that 25 sq block heart of the city could be.

    • Posted by sparky-b

      I don’t agree with this at all. It should have stayed at oak and fell.
      How would all that traffic on the surface street all the way by mission bay not be horrible

      • Posted by CM

        Ideally they should tunnel I-80 from 2nd Street to the 101 interchange.

        That with HSR going to the transit center! And central subway going all the way to Pier 39, and an underground Muni line down Van Ness and down Geary.

        Maybe Secretary Pete will help us out! Haha.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles