As we noted in response to a reader’s query as to what’s actually in the pipeline for the Inner Richmond, a 7-story building is slated to rise on the shuttered Ashley and McMullen-Wing Sun Funeral Home site, on the northwest corner of Geary and 6th Avenue.

As designed by Y.A. Studio for an affiliate of the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC), the bonus-sized and priority development, per former Mayor Lee’s Executive Directive 13-01, will yield 98 units of below market rate (affordable) senior housing on the 4200 Geary site.

While currently owned by the 4200 Geary Associates L.P., which is the aforementioned affiliate of the TNDC, the City and County of San Francisco is slated to acquire the site and finance the development, after which the site will be leased back to 4200 Geary Associates, which will oversee the development and operations of the building, the permits for which are close to being issued.

16 thoughts on “Pipeline Development Slated to Rise in the Inner Richmond”
  1. I lived in the Inner Richmond for 8+ years, until October, and never realized this funeral home was shuttered – so kudos to the former owners for maintaining it better than most operating businesses.

    Now if we could get rid of the underbuilt KFC structure on the adjacent corner (and so many other 2- and even 1-story buildings along Geary)…

    1. That would be nice. Really any parcel that abuts Geary should have 75ft height limits, no setbacks, no open space requirements, and no parking permitted. Make it a real street for a change.

        1. That’s what they stated with the M-line to Daly City BART. Let sfsu-csu stonestown and parkmerced taxes pay for the extension… than 10 years passed and not an inch of track or proper planning done….brings to mind the old saying “where’s the 🥩!” As in 🚊 transit??? Building looks fine all for density but we gotta get real on the transit logjam…

          1. You’re right. It’s a good theory, but in practice it’s unlikely that San Francisco city government could pull it off.

          2. Just look at the Central Subway as a guide for how transit planning “works” in this city. Or the T, which still lacks signal priority and a direct connection to Bayshore over 15 years after it opened.

        2. Exactly. But to u/Aaron’s point below, this needs to be via a dedicated improvement district tax (Transbay Terminal providing a perfect example) that can only be spent on a subway line, not mixed with general revenue.

  2. If most of geary and sloat and sunset Blvd was up zoned and LRV lines extended properly from F-line to T-line to K and L and M lines looping properly and linking up on the west side we may actual see traffic not go up with all the density. The focus on downtown has drained the compass of SFMTA staff and the rail engineers on simple fixes that can link loop and connect districts reducing traffic and solving the network of LRVs. The YA studio. Project is again perfect 👍🏻 and timely but we need to see some serious 🧐 planning by SFBos and SFMTA sfdpw and sfcta to get the lines done correctly and quickly or we all will be in an auto zone……

    1. That would be the idea. You need to have enough density to support transit, but if you build transit, then people don’t need to take cars. San Francisco talks a big game about wanting to cut car use, but then doesn’t provide transit that works for enough people.

      1. You didn’t give a percentage to quantify the idea, but if you define “transit that works for enough people” by percentage of people who take public transit as opposed to driving or riding in a car, then your complaint isn’t specific to San Francisco talking a big game and could equally apply to almost any city in the U.S. New York City is the only city in the United States of 100,000+ inhabitants with greater than fifty percent of commuters taking public transit to work.

        You could build all the transit that S.F. planners want, and meet your and their goal of “people not needing to take cars”, but people will still take cars.

        This is the key reason why Travis Kalanick is a billionaire, not because he has any particular acumen for making money for shareholders. The baristas at my local Starbucks take Uber to get to work in spite of not needing to take a car.

        1. Plenty of people live carless in San Francisco. The goal should be to make it easier to do so. The city has broadly failed to do this for the last 50 years.

    2. Oh, they can’t even fix West Portal and the commute hour outbound backups there – SFMTA’s too (insert your adjective) to build elevators for ADA compliance so they keep allowing ppl crossing in front of train cars, holding everything up.

  3. That looks like a killer location… but It might just be me… I’m into KFC. But looking for street parking or getting around town with public transportation is going to take up a major portion of anyone’s life living there.

    1. Well, maybe. It’s right on a 38R stop, which is probably the busiest and most frequent line in the city, and runs 24/7.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *