The Intersection of 16th, Noe, and Market streets in San Francisco
From a tipster:

Heard recently that the giant pit at the corner of Market/16th/Noe (south side of Market)…the former church which burned eons ago and is known by most as a Christmas tree lot…was finally sold recently, and a project (condos over retail, I believe) is in the works with Stanley Saitowitz as architect. Anyone know any details? I can guarantee you that the neighborhood won’t accept a typical Saitowitz concrete bunker at that location.

We’re turning to the readers for the scoop on this one. (And just for the record, we happen to like Saitowitz.)

15 thoughts on “Another Big Pit Goes Condo (And Retail) Near The Castro”
  1. I hope this project really happens. Anything Saitowitz does is always interesting and creative as far as I am concerned. The people watching from these units alone would be non-stop entertainment.

  2. “I can guarantee you that the neighborhood won’t accept a typical Saitowitz concrete bunker at that location.”
    I can only hope that the neighborhood, having a more “artistic” sensibility than some, will welcome a fresh take on this high profile corner.

  3. It’s about time! That hole has been there for 20+ years. Mixed use housing over retail would be perfect for that location. But expect the usual “community activists” to begin insisting that the commercial space be allocated 100% to nonprofits…
    Thank goodness they lost that battle in connection with the old Bank of America space at the corner of Castro and Market – which now has a Diesel store that the neighborhood loves.

  4. I love Saitowitz and I think it could be a good match for the neighborhood. The recent loss of Tower Records in the area has been a big blow to it’s retailing. But I think of gay community activists and architecture, and I have to think of the disaster that is the LGBT Center. What a waste of space and ugly.

  5. Lets just hope there are no more real estate offices, escrow companies or banks….there are already enough in the neighborhood. Hmmmm, a Ted Baker store would be nice…

  6. What do you mean the neighborhood loves the Diesel store? It is the joke of the neighborhood. It’s a great place, though, if you want to pay $200 for a pair of sorry looking jeans.

  7. Someone told me that Saitowitz did the building at 15th/Market/Sanchez (where there’s a tanning salon, the Nickel Spa, and (until recently) Patelco Credit Union. Is that true? That is a truly horrible building, a giant eyesore. I hope for something much better for the “big pit” church site at 16th and Market.
    The artist’s renderings of the Saitowitz projects proposed down in the Octavia Blvd area look really promising, but I’ve learned not to put too much faith in artist’s renderings.

  8. I live around the corner from here and I’m not sure I understand the need for any additional retail space. There are several empty retail spaces along Market from Castro down to 15th with a fair amount of turnover. Especially the old two story Tower Records location exactly across from this location. It’s my understanding the local merchants are hoping either a large or national retailer takes over the Tower location space but unlikely as the anti-chain store ordinance would prevent this. A couple years ago Trader Joe’s was hoping to put a store at Market & 15th (the current Dulux Paint Store) but the community smartly nixed that idea mostly because the parking/traffic would be a nightmare.
    I just hope they put in something that keeps with the neighborhood not some ultra modern experiment. I have no doubt that whatever it is will be closely scrutinized.

  9. Mixed use, residences above ground floor retail, isn’t working in San Francisco. Look around at all this ground floor retail space lying empty.

  10. The Tower Records location is grandfathered as far as the anti-chain store law goes, so the chain store ordinance doesn’t apply to it – it’s likely that a chain store will go into that space though there’s no guarantee of that. Finding the right kind of store (which doesn’t create huge parking, traffic, or delivery noise at 4AM issues) is a major concern for both the landlord and the neighborhood residents.

  11. Yeah, everybody knows if you truly want to look cool in two hundred dollar jeans, you buy them used for 175 in the mission.

  12. It isn’t that mixed use, with residences above the retail stores, won’t work here in San Francisco. The problem is that the rents for the retail spaces are too high and so anything that goes into the retail space struggles to make money. For some reason building owners in this city would rather leave stores empty for long periods of time rather than charge a reasonable rent and fill the spaces.

  13. “Mixed use, residences above ground floor retail, isn’t working in San Francisco. Look around at all this ground floor retail space lying empty.”
    The high turnover rate is a result of high rent prices with the routinely disregarded fact that most areas of SF simply do not have sufficient residential density to support anything but basic neighborhood services & the occasional unique establishment whose revenue is increasingly augmented by online sales. (Ever wonder how someone stays in business? — web sales).

  14. Lots of comments here about what the neighborhood “needs”. I suggest that if there isn’t a “need” for another bank, or restaurant, or whatever, then the prospective tenant will figure that out. And if they guess wrong, then they’ll go out of business, and something that the market “needs” will replace them. All of this “I hope we don’t get a [fill in blank] because the neighborhood doesn’t need another [fill in blank] is really just saying the poster doesn’t want a [fill in blank].
    “Mixed use, residences above ground floor retail, isn’t working in San Francisco. Look around at all this ground floor retail space lying empty.”
    Now this is just silly. The entire Market Street corridor, from Church to Castro, and continuing around Castro down to 19th, is nothing but residences over ground floor retail!

  15. Agree with Bob and some of the other comments. The Castro has a relatively high density of residents, and is a tourist draw as well, so there is lots of potential for ground floor retail/business. Regulations obviously present some obstacles to retail uses (notably the new misguided chain store hurdles), and some of the building owners do seem willing to sit on empty properties for extensive periods of time. But I do not doubt that there is a “market” for such a high profile corner with tons of foot traffic.
    OK, if I had my druthers, the ground floor space would be some sort of live theatre/music performance space. That’s a use that the Castro does really “need” in my opinion. However, that’s not something the development is going to be able to provide, and I don’t see a lot of public or philanthropic money laying around that is going to make that happen.
    I believe that the church that owned the site forever and ever had some sort of idea that it would develop a joint sanctuary/community performance space. As attractive as that idea is, I guess they could never get past the wishful thinking stage.
    In the meantime, the hole in the ground has been a good advertisement for why religious organizations should be taxed. They had absolutely no economic imperative to do anything with it for all of these years (althoug they finally get the economic windfall of selling it).

Leave a Reply

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