1321%20Mission%20Street%20Rendering%202.jpg
Measuring an average of 291 square feet, the 120 studios proposed to rise at 1312 Mission Street might have been considered to be “micro-units” by some a week ago, but they’re now 30 percent larger than the soon to be legal minimum of 220 square feet.
And at 646 square feet, the building’s 40 proposed suites, which will be two or three bedrooms, are almost three times the new minimum for occupancy by two.
In addition to the 160 residential units, the proposed 11-story building includes 3,359 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 2,185 square feet of basement space for parking up to 240 bicycles, and a 696 square foot garage for one car share car.
Proposed as Student Housing, which requires the building to be controlled by an accredited post-secondary Educational Institution in the form of a master lease or contractual agreement with at least a five-year term, no below market rate (BMR) units would be required. And as Student Housing, even if the units were to be shrunken to the new legal micro-unit minimum, they wouldn’t count toward the initial micro-unit cap.
Up for approval by San Francisco’s Planning Commission this week, the construction of 1321 Mission Street is tentatively scheduled to begin early 2013 with occupancy planned for fall 2014, replacing the existing one-story commercial building on the corner of 9th Street which was once the Guitar Center and most recently occupied by a furniture store:


1321 Mission Street Site
Micro-Units Approved For San Francisco, But Capped For Some [SocketSite]
A Big Vote For Micro-Units In San Francisco [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    We need a couple hundred more of these buildings. Love, love, love the number of units and parking ratio.

  2. Posted by wc1

    I think they are generally a good idea. A whole highrise of these for student housing is ideal.
    However for the residential market, I’d rather see them mixed in with one and two beds and even traditional sized studios.

  3. Posted by curmudgeon

    This will be great. And the presence of that many students in that neighborhood will add to its vitality.

  4. Posted by futurist

    These may work for a small part of our urban population, and they may work for a short time.
    But, I see a constant turnover of tenants in a building like this. It’s like a dorm for hipsters.
    Better to mix in 1 and 2 bedroom units, and more parking spaces.

  5. Posted by Bill

    Why call these “micro-units”? Call them what they are — “pathetic little crackerboxes”.

  6. Posted by Jamie

    SoMa is the wrong location for these efficiencies – it’d be more appropriate in an established residential neighborhood like Noe Valley or Sunset with close access to lotsa green open space and neighborhood serving businesses (those things SoMa lacks)

  7. Posted by Invented

    These would work well near all of our colleges/univs. Students are packed in roommate filled flats because of rental prices and ltd on-campus housing. Would seem to offer a reasonable alternative for a student wanting ones own living space.

  8. Posted by Jabba

    The proposed rent on these is something like $1500. At that rate, you could rent a 2-3 bedroom place in the area with roommates and have LOTS more room. I don’t think it will work out. After 5 years, the place will be so run down that it will look like a poorly run residential hotel. The only way students will stay there is (a) the school forces them to and (b) the government pays their rent. I’ve seen this before in other cities with other schools and the rents are so out of whack with the market that the school resorts to (a) and (b) to pay for it.

  9. Posted by Julie

    I don’t think this is a bad idea, but I agree that the rent rate would be completely out of whack. And what SOMA needs is some green space to off-set all the highrises that the city intends to build. Is there a big roof green space on this building? No comment of one whic if not is shameful. We need green space and residential spaces that speak to the street instead of folding inward into a courtyard. Not sure why SF can’t get this right. All we need to do is look around at other cities both in the US and abroad to see how its done right. People want trees, parks, and neighborhood go-to’s. Not a series of CVs, Walgreens, Starbucks and what now appears to be an opening of 711′s. Wow – we are getting this so wrong. If we really want to build community with architecture then it needs to not all look the same AND create environments for people to connect with eachother and their immediate surroundings.

  10. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    There is a big green space called Civic center nearby.
    I mean wow, that place is really changing. All these new constructions, new companies and new retails moving the area. It will be really different compare to just a few years ago.

  11. Posted by Families

    Please help me…I understand that at one time there were groups of related people living together in apartments in San Francisco, I think they were called families? Is that true?

  12. Posted by Mark Ballew

    There is also public/private space behind the new location for Dolby near 9th and Market. It’s not green space but it is a fairly nice spot to hang out and have lunch, though I don’t know what the light will be after the condo development next door is complete. The space is currently closed due to the remodel.

  13. Posted by BobN

    The description sounds like a series of twists and turns to evade one planning rule after another.

  14. Posted by frshmn

    I think this is as good as a site as there can be, this would never get approved in Noe Valley or the Sunset. 9th and Mission isnt exactly a family friendly neighborhood too, so can’t imagine demand would be huge for larger units. Roommates suck for the most part, I think most people rather have a small place of their own than share with others. Also allowing small spaces frees up 2bds, 3bds and converted 4bedroom places so a family could live there, rather than 4 unhappy strangers sharing one bathroom.

  15. Posted by zig

    “The proposed rent on these is something like $1500. At that rate, you could rent a 2-3 bedroom place in the area with roommates and have LOTS more room”
    I haven’t looked for a rental in about 7 years but this is cheaper than 1998 when I had my first place ($1600; 2-bedroom Irish 4-pack bld in the inner sunset)
    Where are you seeing 2-3 bedroom places for $1500?

  16. Posted by zig

    Please help me…I understand that at one time there were groups of related people living together in apartments in San Francisco, I think they were called families? Is that true?”
    Correct me if I am wrong but at one time SF was the largest city west of the Mississippi but now makes up less than 1/7 of the area we refer now to as the “Bay Area”

  17. Posted by fred

    Zig
    I believe the comment about $1500 for a 2-3 bedroom means per roommate (e.g., $3000 for 2 bedroom with 2 roommates).

  18. Posted by lyqwyd

    My take was $1500 for a micro unit, and he was saying that you could get a room in an apartment for less.
    Is the expected rent in any documents? The only reference I see is the post from Jabba.

  19. Posted by mike

    It’s funny to read posts where people speculate that the property won’t keep tenants, will get run down, etc.
    Clearly there are people who would be happy to spend $1500 on a modern 220sf studio other in a convenient downtown location than $1800-2200 on a slightly larger, 350sf (?) studio in a traditional sf building in another neighborhood (I’ve lived in one and it was great). So what’s the problem? Not everyone has to like it, just 120 people. Hopefully more will be available.
    Remember how everyone trashed Cubix – people who live there claim to love it.

Add a Comment

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