Parkmerced Map
From J.K. Dineen at the San Francisco Business Times: “Parkmerced’s owners want to add 5,700 housing units to San Francisco’s largest apartment complex in a dramatic redesign that would cost billions of dollars and nearly triple the west side community to 9,000 units.
Stellar Management and Rockpoint Group’s aggressive plan calls for the construction of between 200 and 300 units a year over the next 15 to 20 years. The owners plan to file an application for environmental review with the city before the end of the year, according to spokesman P.J. Johnston.
The proposal, as envisioned by architects Skidmore Owings Merrill, would reinvent the automobile-centric World War II-era community as a denser, more pedestrian-oriented neighborhood with a new transit stop, parks, and grocery shopping. Ten of the 11 existing 13-story towers would be preserved. Approximately 70 percent of the 5,700 new units would be in townhouses of three or four stories. Others would be in new towers up to 13 stories. The housing will include a mixture of rental apartments and for-sale condos.”
Parkmerced Map
“The heart of the future Parkmerced would be a new Muni station. The developers are proposing to bankroll moving the San Francisco State University Muni station from 19th Ave. and Holloway, considered one of the city’s most dangerous intersections, onto the Parkmerced property. The new station would be built on Crespi Drive and would be integrated into a Parkmerced village center with a grocery store, farmers’ market, cafe, and other small shops. The owners are also considering adding one or two more Muni stops on the 110-acre property.”
“The Stellar/Rockpoint scheme calls for a number of extreme green measures. Some, like narrower streets with bike and walking paths, are commonplace. Others are more unusual, like a plan to remove the entire property off the city’s power grid and instead generate electricity through wind turbines and microturbines that operate on a variety of gaseous or liquid fuels and emit very low emissions. Skidmore’s design partner for the project, Craig Hartman, said cleantech advances can reduce energy consumption by 62 percent per household. A highly-efficient plumbing system and a new water recycling plant could reduce water and sewer consumption by 43 percent per home, he said.”
Huge housing plan to add 5,700 units [Business Times]
Parkmerced [parkmerced.com]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    Are they planning on closing the streets to the public? This looks similar to what was done with the Park LaBrea(the twin sister project in Los Angeles) when they turned some units condo and made the streets into private pedestrian areas. Park LaBrea was a great investment for those that got in at the beginning. The private streets and security added huge value to that project. The Muni station is a huge plus and this is only good news for the city. Being so close to 280 I am suprised more south bay commuters don’t consider this area.

  2. Posted by Brutus

    Outstanding. If only the mall could be redeveloped as well to be a little less auto-centric and, well, ugly.

  3. Posted by Invented

    Brilliant.
    But isn’t this right next to the huge parking @ Stonestown where the ‘hood shot down a housing proposal for one building? (too much traffic or some other fear-of-urban-living knee jerk response).
    Unfortunately, something this intelligent is unlikely to come to fruition in that area.

  4. Posted by TB

    Five thousand seven hundred new homes?
    And if you think the traffic on 19th is bad now …

  5. Posted by Rillion

    Maybe someone should explain to the owners of Parkmerced that the RE Bubble has popped and that prices are going to plummet by 50% so that it will end up being more expensive to build a unit of housing then they would be able to sell it for. Plus there are going to be so many vacant houses all over the city that people will not even have to pay rent any more as they will just be able to squat in all empty houses in St. Francis Woods and elsewhere around the city.

  6. Posted by John

    “RE Bubble has popped”
    Did you see that “plan calls for the construction of between 200 and 300 units a year over the next 15 to 20 years.”?
    That will cover the bottom, the recovery, the next peak, and probably the next down-turn, next bottom, next recovery and then the next peak.
    Actually, I think they are very smart. They want an alternative to Soma in this side of the city. Just brilliant plan.

  7. Posted by Nonce

    Traffic will always be bad and will get worse no matter what. If Stellar/Rockpoint doesn’t redevelop the area, someone else will. And maybe that someone else won’t care about building a sustainable community.
    Reduce energy consumption by 62 percent per household; reduce water and sewer consumption by 43 percent per home; take Parkmerced off the grid; transit-focused development — this is the most forward-thinking plan in SF since Treasure Island.

  8. Posted by zig

    excellent
    this could be the family oriented development that this city sorely needs

  9. Posted by zig

    Also adjacent to here San Francisco State has some pretty ambitious plans to redevelop their campus including new housing
    I would be concerned with the Muni access here. It is nice that they plan to move stations but as someone who has taken it from time to time from State this is so ridiculously slow to downtown it is discouraging
    Its a shame that we don’t have a way to reward smart growth with improved transit investment. Instead we build Bart stations next to Costcos in South City and malls in San Bruno and insult people who are trying to utilize transit and live carfree

  10. Posted by tony

    Sounds like a great plan, as long as we invest in public transportation as much as the housing. Traffic is already a nightmare on 19th.
    Overall, it seems like we need to find ways to grow SF and eliminate the gating factors like traffic. Other world class cities have great subway systems, and it seems that SF will not really progress without one as well. Muni just doesn’t cut it.

  11. Posted by Rillion

    “Did you see that ‘plan calls for the construction of between 200 and 300 units a year over the next 15 to 20 years.’?
    That will cover the bottom, the recovery, the next peak, and probably the next down-turn, next bottom, next recovery and then the next peak.”
    Sorry but after six months of reading the comments on this blog I was under the assumption that RE will only go down or stay flat in the future and that it would be just absolute financial foolishness to spend a dollar on buying or building housing as you can get better returns on your money playing blackjack in Vegas.

  12. Posted by Kazillion

    Sorry but after six months of reading the comments on this blog I was under the assumption that RE will only go down or stay flat in the future and that it would be just absolute financial foolishness to spend a dollar on buying or building housing as you can get better returns on your money playing blackjack in Vegas.
    Um, excuse me, Vegas will not exist in about five years. It will be abandoned, as all of the housing there was “surplus” housing.

  13. Posted by SocketSite

    And now back to Parkmerced…

  14. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “And if you think the traffic on 19th is bad now …”
    I don’t think that the developers will be requiring new residents to drive.
    Yeah, it would be nice to have a more free flowing 19th Ave. I’d prefer a more free flowing Muni. As hard as it is to improve Muni it is far easier than increasing automobile capacity on 19th.

  15. Posted by Rillion

    Okay in all seriousness and back on topic, I do think this is a good idea and I hope that they would eventually expand the muni service to the area. Too bad they don’t have extra set of tracks so they could have “local” and “express” trains do downtown.

  16. Posted by TB

    “Yeah, it would be nice to have a more free flowing 19th Ave. I’d prefer a more free flowing Muni. As hard as it is to improve Muni it is far easier than increasing automobile capacity on 19th.”
    It’s not about increasing the traffic capacity on 19th, it’s about adding MORE cars to a particularly choked piece of road being a boneheaded maneuver.
    And no, the developers won’t require residents to drive, and I’m sure the residents will voluntarily give up their cars upon moving in.

  17. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    TB – I guess my comment was too obtuse but what I meant was that we shouldn’t let roads capacity limit development. There are other options and the transportation “market” will guide people towards making the best decisions in the long run.
    Yes, in the short term there will be pain but as one other poster here noted, this project phases in over 15-20 years. If we can get some forward thinkers in the city, there is plenty of time to mold 19th Ave. into something more efficient that it is now. Single occupancy driving is really poor usage of that enormous arterial. We can do much better and it isn’t that hard to do.

  18. Posted by John

    I would imagine most of the residents will use their cars to drive to SV for work. It is unlikely to attract people working in North Bay.
    Coming from 101, if you want to get into Park Merced, you take Brotherhood exit. You don’t get on 19th because there is no way to turn left until Stonestone.
    Yes, some residents may decided to drive to Irvine for the shops and restuarants there. However, Sunset Blvd will be a better alternative than 19th.
    So, I don’t get how this project impact 19th that much.
    That Brotherhood exit is very awkward. However, it can be improved.

  19. Posted by james

    this is a brilliant plan. developer sponsored and subsidized muni improvement.
    i love it!

  20. Posted by aaron goodman

    see http://www.tclf.org and understand why parkmerced is not just land for developers, but a well designed landscape and architectural design. Another mission bay, will result and the densification will eliminate one of the few formerly quiet (pre-SFSU) family orientated rental housing areas remaining in the city. Sad that this site could not be shifted with TDR’s to another downtown location for denser development in the city center….
    but hey, greed is greed…..

  21. Posted by Harry

    I think it would be a great idea but before they decide to do it I hope they really think things through and they should be talking to the residents. They can’t really handle what they got so what makes them think for any reason they could handle 9000. It will be totally impossible with the style in which the perform now. Just read in apartment ratings on the internet and see what has been said about them. This will put some light on the whole thing. Most of the stuff is true and believe me, it is.

  22. Posted by aaron goodman

    already, design “guilding” of the property is turning a pleasurable area into a “disneyland” of colors. The neglect of management over 20+ years has taken a sever toll, however no information has been given to tenants on the “lifespan” of the buildings, and proof of the need to tear-down completely such a neighborhood after spending 130 million on upgrades. Highly “UN-SUSTAINABLE” see http://www.nthp.org under advocacy, and http://www.tclf.org for info on parkmerced and its original design. Management continues to ignore comments, and input, and the latest meetings were attended by only a handfull typically at community meetings, so there has not been sufficient outreach to surrounding communities and the effects are being seen daily, in the landscape work, sandblasting of the brick (kitschifying) the place like a doll-house, rather than keeping it austere and simple as originally intended.

  23. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    See http://www.parkmercedlandscape.blogspot.com
    The landscape is the key issue, the open space existing.
    The loss of this area will assuredly ruin the small scale feel of the western neighborhoods.
    We are pro-density and sustainability, but tearing down units after fixing them is the most “un-sustainable act” arond…
    Development team has not provided full blown and developed “options” to the community.
    A historical resources survey is being conducted by the Owner, but this has not been completed and determined.
    We need RENTAL units and not “for-market-price” housing.
    Dont ruin another neighborhood through gentrification, and emphasis on “green-$-greed”
    They already built stucco crap suburban homes on 19th at the prior Shriner’s site… Why allow more devastation to neighborhoods and communities…
    A.Goodman VP @ PRO

Add a Comment

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