Continuing up Market Street for an update on developments, and as the Castro Courier reported in December, plans to develop 2299 Market Street (a.k.a. “Hole in the Ground”) have been submitted to San Francisco’s Planning Department but sans an anchor tenant.
As we noted seven months ago, the site at the corner of 16th and Noe would become a five-story mixed-use development with 18 residential units, roughly 5,000 square feet of ground floor retail and 18 underground parking spaces as proposed.
And damn it, we still want what was once on the boards.
∙ It’s Back To Building Digging At 1844 Market (Not So Much At 2200) [SocketSite]
∙ 2299 Market Street Submitted Without Anchor Tenant [castrocourier.com]
∙ Designs For The Castro’s “Hole In The Ground” (2299 Market Street) [SocketSite]
For this prominent intersection, this design wholly underwhelms. This is mundane infill. We must demand something far better for this unique intersection (yes to the earlier plan).
Apple logo is gone; along with every good level of design; this is as dull as dishwater. Can’t we do better?
The original was better but this is better than that damn hole in the ground.
After 10 years I’m quite used to the hole in the ground. Dammit! That’s now a historic hole in the ground. It needs to be preserved. 😉
Yes, this is a prominent intersection. Yes, it demands a good solution, but to call this “rendering” a mundane solution is wrong. Let the architects do their job. Don’t try to design it for them, or by committee. Won’t work, and we will end up with a hacked up, mediocre solution, trying to please EVERYONE.
From what I see so far, I think the solution is clean, fresh, modern with an interesting and appropriate use of materials and colors. Keep in mind that budget ALSO is a key factor in the design solution.
I support this expression and hope it gets built soon. The hole in the ground, as a neighborhood blight, has been that way for OVER 30 YEARS.
Time for action. Time to build this project.
there’s nothing “fresh” about this design. It is another off-the-shelf cheap box trying to rationalize itself by calling itself “modern.” Ha. Square bays, a hodgepodge of geometry and lack of detail does not make a building “modern.” It’s just a contemporary richmond special.
Sorry to disagree Noearch…but that design is really really bland. (Think Mission Bay comes to the Castro!) That corner deserves better treatment.
after years and years of the land sitting vacant (for who knows what combination of reasons), what we finally get is…this?
The site used to be a church and/then? theatre if memory serves. A theatre there would be nice.
“Let the architects do their job. Don’t try to design it for them, or by committee. Won’t work, and we will end up with a hacked up, mediocre solution, trying to please EVERYONE.”
I agree that design by committee – planning, neighbors, interest groups – is a recipe for disaster and that’s exactly why we have so many mediocre “architect designed” buildings in San Francisco. But even good architects turn out a few uninspired buildings or bombs.
Being an architect doesn’t guarantee a great sense of design or style and certainly doesn’t grant a monopoly on deciding what’s good or appropriate.
What was “once on the boards” looks nice, but it appears to be about 75 feet tall, and the site is currently zoned for 50. That’s undoubtedly why that design never went beyond a conceptual drawing.
“..from what I see SO FAR…” remember, this is a digital rendering, in early stages of design. I don’t consider it bland. I do consider it fresh, clean, modern. To a large extent budget will in fact dictate certain solutions and certain materials.
All of the armchair critics, I assume who are not architects nor trained in the design profession need to relax. Let this evolve.
Guess what? I like Mission Bay..go look at some of the fresh modern buildings on the new UCSF campus…I like One Rincon, I like The Infinity, I like the Millenium…blah, blah blah.
There are plenty of good new buildings in The City..and yes, plenty of crappy ones too. This one is good, and appropriate for that corner.
They should have built the LBGT center here, complete with theater.
sigh
I think we should keep fighting amongst ourselves and rejecting all proposals for one or two more years, and then kink.com will buy the property “as is” without anyone knowing, cause they don’t need any city dept approval for the “outdoor porn set” usage they have in mind.
Same for the Tower Records store — but we propably have another 30 years of rejecting all proposals on that one before it defaults to a porn studio.
As for the design, I’ll channel milkshake…
Thirty year flame war
Still just a hole in the ground
Steve Jobs will save us
“outdoor porn set”
No way! Can you imagine the sidewalk congestion and traffic problems!
“After 10 years”, or perhaps more? Maybe I have just become so used to “the hole” that I cannot remember what was there before, but it seems to me I think this hole might be almost 20 years old? I honestly cannot remember what used to be there and I have lived in the city since 1988.
Traffic problems from an outdoor porn set? Those problems will pale in comparison to the TJ’s traffic across the street. These days food stops traffic way more than porn.
there was a nice brick church with a steeple there before……it burnt sometime in the late 70’s..I think ’77 or ’78..
Which stops more traffic?
Trader Joe’s or outdoor porn?
Gold coin spammer knows
[Editor’s Note: Gold coin spam since removed.]