CFAH

Acquired for $1,075,000 in the second quarter of 2018, with plans for a skinny six-story, seven-unit building to rise on the site having been drawn, the fire-damaged McAfee’s One Hour Martinizing building at 4128 Third Street then re-sold at loss for $906,500 in June of 2019.

Permits to clear the site were subsequently secured in July of 2020, along with building permits for the six-unit development to rise. And while the former building on the site has since been demised, re-development has yet to occur and the permitted project returned to the market listed for $1.7 million six months ago, a price which was reduced to $1.6 million in May, to $1.55 million in June and is now down to $1.5 million.

And yes, the creative, but likely costly, solution for including four off-street parking spaces within the envelope of the new development appears to have been eliminated from the plans, as permitted and newly rendered below.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Mutal Kudi

    so the fire that damaged the upstairs apartment was 9 years ago, the building has been vacant for the past 8 years, and was demolished (“demised”) more than a year ago…but no prospect of building anything? while the housing crisis has just worsened year by year? SS should consider a special “greatest hits” category for sites like this that stay vacant for >5 years and are the subject of multiple posts.
    Nice mural, though.

    • Posted by Jeffrey W. Baker

      Would love to see the scoop on 1554 Market, was discussed here 8 years ago, has been substantially compete and standing vacant for almost a year now. Epic foot-dragging.

  2. Posted by Fact

    No secure garage parking? What could go wrong there?

    • Posted by Southsider

      Well, considering you can take 3rd Street light rail north to Dog Patch and Mission Bay and downtown or south to Caltrain station for access to peninsula and south bay you should be OK without a car. 24 takes you to other parts of SF, though admittedly it is a longer ride. There’s a good bit of food options in walking distance. All Good Pizza and Auntie April’s has some awesome chicken & waffles! There are coffee shops, a nursery (though very expensive), cleaners, and a decent little market walking distance. But for full grocery shopping you’d need to take light rail up to King Street Safeway I think. What do you mean by “what could go wrong there” without secured parking? Do you mean from a sales standpoint it would be harder to sell? Seems like transportation without a car would be OK there.

      • Posted by Notcom

        I believe s/he means a car might not be safe there.
        At night, people putting flyers on the windshield
        …or something like that.

        • Posted by Southsider

          Yeah, I knew that was the point he/she was making. Which was curious to me because if you check the actual crime stats for car break-ins in SF, that location is no worse than most and better than many. So in absence of data to support the idea that cars aren’t safe there, wasn’t sure why the comment was made.

          • Posted by Notcom

            I would think it’s b/c such is usually offered….or at least often enough that when it isn’t it becomes a discussion point.

          • Posted by Neighborhood Activist

            I think that property crimes, especially car break-ins, are dramatically underreported in SF, and perhaps even more so in that neighborhood. The published stats are pretty meaningless since most of the crimes never get reported, because many people perceive (accurately or not) that there is little to be gained by reported them.

            As for Fact’s comment, I didn’t take it as applying just to this neighborhood. It’s not safe to park on the street in huge swaths of SF.

          • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

            The actual crime stats are pretty meaningless, but for a kinda Idiosyncratic reason. From five years ago, SF’s car smash-and-grab reality even worse than count:

            Statistics obtained from the city’s 911 center show it received 25,031 calls about auto break-ins during the first six months of 2017 — 7,061 more than the 17,970 reported by police.

            The difference is that car-burglary victims’ first reaction is often to call 911 —
            but they don’t always follow through by filing an online report, and the cops don’t send anyone to the scene unless a smash-and-grab is in progress.

            What goes into the official crime stats? Police responses and victims’ reports. A 911 call with no follow-up doesn’t count.

            I can tell you first hand the police dispatchers are incredibly callous. They’re like “your window is smashed and no one is around?. Go on our website and file an online report.”

            The article goes on to quote a former San Francisco police chief who now teaches criminal justice at the University of San Francisco saying that auto burglary is classified as a nonviolent crime, and with citations issued for possession of stolen goods worth less than $950, those arrested often roll in and out of the court system over and over again. It is high time to reverse Proposition 47.

          • Posted by Southsider

            notcom – I know parking comes up in every new development posting but it’s usually in the context of viability of car free living, which is why I originally responded to that point. But Fact was suggesting something that isn’t actually true according to stats which was ironic considering his/her name.

            And then Neighborhood Activist proposed a hypothesis about this area underreporting property crimes more than other areas. Which reveals he/she is just commenting on their feelings and again, not facts.

            Go ahead and be critical of areas if you don’t personally like them for whatever reason it may be. But don’t do it by making unsubstantiated statements. Or if you do, maybe explain what leads you to that idea if it’s not actual facts.

            OK. Back to discussion about RE. Sorry for the digression.

  3. Posted by OP

    Kinda freaked out by that ENORMOUS child in the rendering lol

    • Posted by Notcom

      OMG !! Size-ism here on Socketsite.

  4. Posted by Joe Leland

    Quick take: The location and building type wouldn’t be very competitive for households looking to buy. The location wouldn’t be that attractive to renters that could afford market rate rents. Current Property owners should sell to a affordable housing developer like Habitat for Humanity.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Yes, I imagine it’ll be as unmarketable as the (full) equally-sized building next door…

      • Posted by Joe Leland

        Not unmarketable. Just harder to pencil out given the variables. Not a great location or design (no parking unlike any he building next door) for potential buyers or renters. Therefore are the projected sales price/asking rents going to justify the development? Hence why the site is featured here.

  5. Posted by eek

    No kidding. That kid is gigantic. Especially when compared to all the “small people” widow washers on every floor. Do the units each come with their own permanent window washer person?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles