CFAH

As we outlined and suggested earlier this year:

The refined plans for a 14-story tower with a variegated upper mass to rise upon the Polk Gulch parcel at 925 O’Farrell Street could be entitled next week.

Having added an additional 10 feet in height since formally proposed, the 140-foot-tall tower on the through block lot would yield 50 apartments, a mix of 24 studios, 25 two-bedrooms and one three, with 800 square feet of ground floor retail space; a 690-square-foot roof deck for the building’s residents; 27 individual decks or terraces; and a secured storage room for 50 bikes, but no garage, as designed by David Baker Architects.

Technically only zoned for the development of up to 24 units, based on the size of the parcel, and 130 feet in height, the project team is seeking a “HOME-SF” based exemption for the density and height as proposed. And yes, the building was designed with the redevelopment of the adjacent parcels, which are zoned for development up to 130 feet in height, prior to any bonuses, in mind.

All that being said, building permits for the proposed project have yet to be requested, which suggests its entitlement is likely to be banked or sold with the underlying parcel and shuttered restaurant building on the site having been purchased for $3.6 million back in 2017. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

And as suggested, the since approved plans for the 14-story tower and Polk Gulch parcel at 921-925 O’Farrell Street have now hit the market with a $9 million price tag, or under $180,000 per entitled unit, rather than positioning to break ground.  We’ll continue to keep you posted and plugged-in.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by City Person

    That thing is hideous.

    • Posted by Tony

      It’s really not that bad, you’re being hyperbolic.

    • Posted by Build baby build

      Does it contain housing? Yes. Build it.

  2. Posted by Call_Me_Ishmael

    Agreed. Beyond awful.

    • Posted by Chris

      It is not attractive, but I do not find it any more ugly than a lot of existing 1950s through 1970s (and beyond) buildings in the city. And, it shows the irony that how ultimately even with all the regulations San Francisco has about height, massing, setbacks, open space, shadowing, density, number of bedrooms, parking, materials, energy efficiency, labor requirements, affordability, window size, “community input,” etc. the city still cannot guarantee that a building will end up being attractive, or even actually affordable.

      I love beautiful architecture, but I also appreciate that not every building can be a gem. When we have a housing crisis, my main concern is if the building is functionally livable, safe, and well-constructed; and if it gives some thought to the pedestrian experience, along with light and airflow (which even this ugly building does). It would be nice for a building to be “pretty” on top of all that, but prettiness is both highly subjective and quite unnecessary.

  3. Posted by build it!

    1000x better than what is there now.

  4. Posted by Yimby_1990

    What is so hideous and awful? Private outdoor spaces that are cantilevered off of the superstructure? This looks like half of the buildings in New York and all of the new vertical projects in Europe that you would say are progressive designs.

    Please build this as soon as possible so we can add some units to the supply! As demand is picking back up with semi-return to office, everyone that was able to take advantage of COVID rents are bragging about how they were able to take advantage of the supply/demand imbalance.

  5. Posted by Ludwig Tausche

    Well said, Chris.

  6. Posted by Botan Kozsegi

    Looks fine to me, especially if it was surrounded on both sides be equally tall buildings.

  7. Posted by Jim

    Actually quite beautiful. Definitely not a cookie-cutter design. Definitely not cheap to construct. Great balconies that even most “luxury” buildings don’t have. Will be a very positive addition to the neighborhood.

  8. Posted by Ken

    It is both interesting looking (quite nice actually) and 1000% better than what is currently there.

  9. Posted by Jedd

    Part of the problem is the angle of the rendering – the side view has little to recommend it other than advertising the building’s bulk.

  10. Posted by Joe

    I find the building interesting. I wonder if they are positioning themselves to be purchased along with 921-925 O’Farrell Street. Personally, I would live in the front apartments but being stuck in the middle or in the back may not be a place where I would want to be stuck. People continue to rent studios but it seems like people would want more than 1 room for a longer term commitment.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Articles