In addition to the fates of 673 Brussels and 448 Diamond, the appeal of the proposed development at 1050 Valencia and an application to build at 380-398 Randolph Street will be heard by San Francisco’s Planning Commission this afternoon as well.
With respect to the development on Randolph:
380-398 Randolph Site

The proposed project includes the construction of a new, three-story, mixed-use structure on the existing paved parking lot. As proposed, the new building would provide two retail spaces at the ground level, eight residential units with eight off-street, below grade parking spaces, and an 18-room Residential Care Facility that can accommodate up to 36 occupants.

380-398 Randolph as proposed
The Department recommends the Commission approve the development on Randolph.
A Family’s Plea To Rebuild Their Home (And Planning’s Objections) [SocketSite]
The Planning Department’s Very Different Criterion For 448 Diamond [SocketSite]
San Francisco Planning Commission Calendar: September 30, 2010 [sf-planning.org]
Don’t Put A Fork In Spork Quite Yet (The Appeal Of 1050 Valencia) [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Gil

    Another cookie-cutter, boring San Francisco
    build- to-the-sidewalk infill project.
    The medicrity of these smallish projects is overwhelming and sad really. They will reinforce for another century the bland and uninspiring San Francisco streetscape.

  2. Posted by Gil's ghost

    San Franciscans don’t just accept mediocrity, they demand it!

  3. Posted by TEJ

    Is it a retail/residential/half-way house?

  4. Posted by Joe

    Whats the point Gil? 98% of SF is build to the sidewalk

  5. Posted by badlydrawnbear

    yeah, what Gil said.

  6. Posted by Gil

    Whats the point Gil? 98% of SF is build to the sidewalk
    What’s the point Joe?
    Well, it’s bad enough 98% of SF is built to the sidewalk line but, it’s made much worse when these lots are then covered over with butt-ugly buildings like this one.

  7. Posted by wayne

    Obviously, you have never built anything.

  8. Posted by Al

    Gotta agree. Unpleasantly bland. I just wish more of these projects were interesting and eye-catching. Even if some think they’re ugly– even if I think they’re ugly.
    So, here’s an example. Another, a few doors down.
    Nothing revolutionary, but they were a welcome relief from the usual monotony.

  9. Posted by VancouverJones

    The form is perfect. Build to the sidewalk, retail on bottom, housing on top. A fourth story would have been nice nod to the future as the city begins to frame super comfortable public realms. The architecture is quite ordinary. But maybe the market will punish the developer for that choice. Too bad good design is not important civic goal for our business or govt leaders.

  10. Posted by TEJ

    Al
    That’s not relief, that’s a cartoon. I prefer boring & bland here. Just a working class neighborhood, nothing fancy, don’t get too cute.

  11. Posted by Al

    Meh. You can’t get much more cartoonish than the typical San Francisco Victorian, but most people don’t object to them…
    I do agree that the form is good.

  12. Posted by TEJ

    You definitely have a point there.

  13. Posted by Gil

    “That’s not relief, that’s a cartoon. I prefer boring & bland here. Just a working class neighborhood, nothing fancy, don’t get too cute”
    Yes Al. And this is why San Francisco’s neighborhoods are so unattractive.

  14. Posted by spitpalm

    “And this is why San Francisco’s neighborhoods are so unattractive.”
    To each his own but this is a pretty bold statement.

Add a Comment

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