1634 - 1690 Pine Street

Developer AF Evans has proposed to build 282 residential units, 332 parking spaces, and approximately 14,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space in a “seven-story building stretching from 1634 through 1690 Pine St. near Franklin Street, from which one 25-story and one 12-story tower would rise.”

Planner Tammy Chan said the project has raised some concerns among residents. “People don’t want more residential. That’s what it comes down to,” she said.

Who are these “people” and what the heck are they thinking? Concerns over design are one thing, but “people don’t want more residential?”

Towers proposed for Pacific Heights [Examiner]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Dude

    “People don’t want more residential. That’s what it comes down to,” she said.
    What do people want, then? Factories? Vacant lots or abandoned buildings? More porn studios?
    Here’s an idea: I propose a Super Wal-Mart right smack dab in the middle of the Marina Green, with an adjoining warehouse. Just tall enough to block everybody’s views. It would create a lot of high-paying jobs, which would then help drive home values. Maybe the food court could serve hot dogs with tomato compote fricasee truffled reduction demi-glaze instead of ketchup…for $37…to preserve that “true” San Francisco vibe. Everybody wins.

  2. Posted by Joe

    Are you guys new to San Francisco? Of course no neighborhood wants new residential. Bravo to Tammy for being the only elected official to call it out – EVER.
    The lists are endless… more people, less parking, more pollution, more noise, moroe construction, etc
    Most San Franciscans would love to live in a museum where nothing ever changed.

  3. Posted by anon

    Interesting… the vacant building at the corner of Van Ness and California (formerly housed a bank) has a permit sign on it that advises of a Ford delership possibly setting up shop.
    Also, the buildings that front along Pine are in need of serious maintenance. All are vacant with the exception of a Hertz Neighborhood store. I suspect that at least two or three may need retrofitting.
    Today, this area is a magnate for bumbs, graffiti and trash. While i think the proposed development is a little much, it would be nice to see this area cleaned up. Whole Foods is the only viable use on the entire block, and I’m sure they would welcome some new neighbors.
    My only knock on the Van Ness corridor is its curent lack of transportation options. I would rather see an underground muni line along Van Ness than the current one proposed for Chinatown.

  4. Posted by Mark

    The article mentions other developments in the area. Does anyone know much about this one? Renderings, Developer, etc.?
    “A 30-story residential tower proposed at Post Street between Gough and Octavia streets”

  5. Posted by redseca2

    Joe at April 24:
    What a minute, what do you mean? I thought I WAS living in a museum.

  6. Posted by Dave

    People better get used to more people and more residential. There are going to be more of both.
    As an example, the Market Octavia Plan, which was just approved by the Planning Commission and will go to the Board of Supervisors in the next few weeks for their approval, will rezone much of central SF (Hayes Valley, mid-Market, Duboce Triangle, part of the Mission) and ultimately add something like 10,000 new people to this part of the city over the next several years. I expect you’ll see similar changes, over time, in other parts of the city.
    My concern isn’t so much the additional residents, it’s the lack of any real focus on infrastructure improvements (MUNI, et al) and other amenities (parks, etc.) to support this major growth.
    Expect lots of new buildings with the potential for far less on-site parking than has been provided in the past, which could make street parking even more difficult.
    Pacific Heights isn’t going to be immune to the push for higher density and population growth. Neighborhood groups will have to fight to maintain quality of life while learning to accept the increases in density.

  7. Posted by RinconHill_Res

    Hilarious….
    “What are you people, on dope?” (Bonus points for the first person to name the movie)
    Everyone knows that the supply of residential housing in San Francisco is absolutely dwarfing demand, why else do you think it’s so damn affordable to live here?
    Personally, I’d like to see a commercial developer come in a construct some space for a new slaughter house I’d like to open in the financial district because I’m feeling like that market is a little tight and there are opportunities to be had…
    Sorry, but when people make statements that are that far off the Planet Reality, I don’t know how else to respond.

  8. Posted by Mark

    Oh, by the way, there is another new retail development that is proposed for this area in the former Bell Market on Sutter St btwn Franklin and Gough is . . . “99 Cent Store”. And I’m not kidding . . . I guess they think the area needs some more “upscale” retail. There’s a Cathedral Hill Neighborhood Assoc meeting on Thursday to try to thwart this new store from coming into that space.

  9. Posted by Damion

    No one told me it was Opposite Day. (So much sarcasm from everyone today! I love it!)

  10. Posted by etslee

    Is this area really Pac Heights?
    I walk through Van Ness quite frequently, and it is in a sad state. So many retail places have shut down. (Good guys, Galaxy Theater) I believe the ugly Cathedral Hill Hotel on Geary will morph into a new CPMC hospital? It always looked like one to me.

  11. Posted by Mark

    “I believe the ugly Cathedral Hill Hotel on Geary will morph into a new CPMC hospital? It always looked like one to me.”
    I agree. It’s probably the ugliest building in SF.

  12. Posted by Mr. Hand, Realtor

    It is a great corridor for higher density housing, and those two buildings have been a eyesore for quite some time. Here’s my concern: old people gettting blown off their feet at the corner of Van Ness and Pine.
    Seriously, has any planner ever tried standing there for a minute? A 30 story tower added to the mix that already includes the Holiday Inn and the gigantic assited-living complex is going to make that particular wind tunnel lethal.

  13. Posted by tom

    What in god’s name is with the epidemic of dollar stores sweeping the Bay Area? In Berkeley, you’ve got new ones downtown and on Northside. In SF, there’s a new one on Fillmore and one coming to Divisadero. And now this one. Is there some pent-up demand for plastic doodads that I don’t know about?
    Anyway, kudos to planner Tammy for her refreshing honesty. Pac Heights should be singing praises to this developer for blocking views of the Van Ness Holiday Inn.

  14. Posted by BuyerBeware

    “Hilarious….
    “What are you people, on dope?” (Bonus points for the first person to name the movie)”
    Answer:
    Mr. Hand from Fast Times At Ridgemont High
    Did I get it right??

  15. Posted by fizzandpop

    Donny Miller just posted a new vid on YouTube where he puts up a 99c Store Coming Soon! poster on a vacant storefront next to the Dior store on Rodeo Drive. I think the reactions of the Rodeo Drivers say it all. I don’t want to use this forum to be a link whore, so if you want to see it just search for Donny Miller on the YT (if you like, no pressure).

  16. Posted by RinconHill_Res

    “Answer:
    Mr. Hand from Fast Times At Ridgemont High
    Did I get it right??”
    Bingo!…and may I say, “Aloha.”

  17. Posted by hopefulbuyer

    Can’t imagine not wanting more residential – especially in that area, which is in such high demand. It’d be nice to have some less expensive options…maybe these new units and the increase in inventory will make things a bit more affordable in the area?

  18. Posted by Usually Named

    “Is this area really Pac Heights?”
    Actually no — Pac Heights ends at California.

  19. Posted by jhgjgjhg

    “More residential” = more houses i.e. slowing/dropping property values.
    It is all about money. Friscodians like their limited supply not for nature or environments, but for limiting supply

  20. Posted by jljlkjkl

    Why only 332 parking spaces? They should build at least double that.

  21. Posted by Pac Heights

    Where Pac Heights ends depends on what you mean – when people want it to be exclusive, it ends at California – when residents want to stop development, it goes to Geary.
    The Pacific Heights Residents Association has the limit at Sutter.

  22. Posted by EH

    Hm. Is it possible that the “people” who don’t want more residential might be developers who are worried about selling existent or soon-to-be units?

  23. Posted by Amen Corner

    I think this is a superb location for residential development and I would certainly be interested in buying there. Too bad the nimbys are out in force.

  24. Posted by Usually Named

    That’s the residence association. Anything south of California is generally accepted to be Lower Pacific Heights.

  25. Posted by zig

    Lower Western Pac Addition Heights

  26. Posted by David Prowler

    It’s great to see all the support for housing. Would any of the posters be willing to write a letter to the Planning Commission or Board? If so, please let me know at david@prowler.org. Thanks.

  27. Posted by alan

    does anyone know where the 30 stories residential building is going to be? the one mentioned on Post between Octavia and Gough? is it going to be on the side next to Geary or the side next to Sutter? I donot see any big space around that area. maybe they will tear down the exsiting rental apt on post street between octavia and Gough? or there is a playround between Sequoia hospital and Catheral Hill Plaza? I will really appreciate if anyone who knows it can share that information with me or tell me where I can find that information. I live near that area…30 stories…it is going to block lots of light to most of the building nearby…thanks.

  28. Posted by Mark

    It is going to be on Post between the Sequoia building and Cathedral Hill Plaza, on the Geary side. They are going to tear down the parking area for the Cathedral Hill Plaza and build it there. I don’t have any information on where you can find renderings, etc.

  29. Posted by alan

    thanks, Mark. I really appreciate your information. that is very important to me. so the city has approved the plan and they will build it for sure I guess… I actually pass by the area and looked from Geary side… there is a tennis court and indoor swimming pool in that space as well… I guess they will tear down that also to build the new building…I wonder it is going to be a condo building or another senior housing or hospital….

  30. Posted by af

    The so called “progressives” have been against new housing by private developers for a long time. it is only recently that they have explicitly stated so. if you watch the planning commission meetings this is very clear. They don’t beleive that supply and demand apply to San francisco, and they feel that any new housing will only go to wealthy out of towners. They also fear this will fuel further gentrification and change the political landscape in favor of more conservative voters. The recent oppososition to planting trees in the tenderloin is a good example of this kind of thinking. The rational was that if you improve the quality of life in the tenderloin, property values will rise and force the current residents out. Their ultimate goal is to limit housing development to non-profit developers builing only super affordable housing for the people with lower income. Personally, I beleive supply and demand always applies, in San Francisco the demand is so great however, that a huge amount of housing must be built in order to bring prices down to affordable levels. Most likely this will never happen and we will only continue to see the city become more and more affordable to only the very wealthiest people.

  31. Posted by John B

    I agree with af that most of the new housing can only be afforded by the wealthy or out of town wealthy investors, so it does not directly help the typical SF population.
    I have to imagine though that general increase in housing supply will swallow up the demand and lower housing prices overall. Is that not the standard micro economics that would be in play?

  32. Posted by soup

    What SF needs “As is Rights” to bring it up to the architectural status of a great city, but with the amount of nimbys and closet conservatives it’ll never happen.

  33. Posted by BT

    I walk by this stretch of buildings almost every day on my way to the gym. I agree. It is an eye sore and in desparate need of revitalization. Whether a 30-story tower is the answer, I don’t know. It’s obvious demand has far exceeded supply in the Bay Area for quite some time and will only continue to do so. So, any attempt at tilting that imbalance towards some semblance of equilibrium is welcome IMHO.
    I’ve lived in this part of “Ghetto Pac Heights,” as I fondly refer to it, for almost five years now and I can’t think of another neighborhood I’d rather live in. This stretch of land is ideal in that you have access to at least half a dozen muni lines within a few square blocks (1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 47, 49) and you’re close enough to downtown where it’s actually walkable.
    I’ll just continue to hold my breath till the day:
    1) Muni/BART/CalTrans get their respective acts together and put in place a world class ‘reliable’ transit system
    2) there are enough ZipCar/CityCarShare outposts strategically placed throughout the city
    3) the homeless/at-risk population is properly cared for
    4) enough to make people want to give up use of their cars, thereby reducing the ever increasing congestion in/around SF
    5) and the supply finally catches up with demand, thereby bringing Bay Area real estate prices back to earth (~do I hear $300k condos and $500k single family homes?)…

Add a Comment

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