1415%20Mission%20Street%20Site.jpg
The southwest corner of Mission and 10th Street has been cleared of its former parking lot and one-story garage, and with the permit for a construction crane in hand, construction of the 14-story building with 117 residential units over a garage to rise on the SoMa site at 1415 Mission Street should soon be underway.
1415 Mission Street Rendering
A Step Forward For 14 Stories And 117 Units At Mission And 10th [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    Good stuff. Still underbuilding, but not terribly so.

  2. Posted by chitrana

    Such a bland building… is there no business case to be made for building attractive developments and attracting top dollar for it?

  3. Posted by Pfffttt

    Apartments or condos?

  4. Posted by Mark

    While not every building going up needs to be a stunning piece of architecture at least make some attempt to create an attractive residential building.

  5. Posted by lyqwyd

    Whoo hoo, more deveopment, keep ‘em coming! And over 10 stories to boot!

  6. Posted by anon

    Such a bland building… is there no business case to be made for building attractive developments and attracting top dollar for it?
    If we actually had enough housing being built, yes, there would be demand for attractive buildings. As it is, demand is soooooo much higher than supply that buyers can’t be picky. So basically, if a developer somehow navigates through the approval process, he/she can build whatever and it will sell.
    Allow more through and we might get some quality.

  7. Posted by Futurist

    Allowing more thru a more streamline process has nothing to do with design quality.
    The complainers just don’t get it. And the developers don’t just “build whatever and it will sell.” Not true. The Planning Dept. and the Planning Commission still have broad based design guidelines and reviews. Quite often they ask for design revisions and further studies.
    I think this is a fine building, appropriate to the site and context; balconies, insets, variations in materials; modern and clean.

  8. Posted by anon1

    I think you have an old rendering. San Francisco Magazine had different picture of the most current design in there CraneSpotting article.

  9. Posted by anon

    The Planning Dept. and the Planning Commission still have broad based design guidelines and reviews.
    You completely missed the point, Futurist. Of course there are design reviews, etc, but the MARKET isn’t signalling for better quality, only government planners. We’ll only see market signals for better quality if the market is willing to pay for better quality. Right now it isn’t, because crap gets top dollar. Because that’s the case, the only folks looking out for quality are government bureaucrats (For better or worse).

  10. Posted by Futurist

    And guess what anon? What exactly is your definition of “better quality”? Means nothing, unless you tell us how you define it.
    Is it more expensive exterior cladding?
    More expensive balcony railings? More articulation on the façade? More ins and outs?
    More expensive interior finishes and appliances?
    More amenities like indoor pools,spas, gyms, heated garage? What?
    Or is it just that you don’t like the “design” with no specific recommendations, except maybe like NVJ, just copy the Dutch?
    Sure, the market can pay for “better quality”, and price of housing will go up even more?
    How is that helping the cost of new housing at all?

  11. Posted by anon

    Again, you’re missing the point. The current method may in fact create higher quality buildings, it’s tough to know.
    However, the one thing that we do know is that the MARKET is not causing better buildings to be built, but that it’s completely in the hands of government bureaucrats.
    If we had a more open market, there would be more chance for better AND WORSE quality, which is where the market would be created for higher quality architecture (and lower quality). As it is, we’re prevented from seeing that, because every design is under the control of the government (at least to a large degree). Maybe the market would freely decide that designs should be worse, because people care more about a lower price than quality – touch to know, and we’ll never find out.

  12. Posted by Futurist

    Completely illogical thinking. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
    The simple truth is that a lot of people find fault with EVERY project. It makes them feel superior to emote their feelings for wanting “quality”.
    Fact is, we are getting lots of new housing built in SF. The work varies in style, design, materials and pricing. That’s the way it should work.
    Go look at the projects along Upper Market. All interesting, all varied. What’s your problem with them? They are filling up. They are selling.
    Go look at Mosso, look at Vara, among others. Well designed and all are selling and/or leasing.
    Any more complaints?

  13. Posted by $AN FRANCI$CO

    “The complainers just don’t get it. And the developers don’t just “build whatever and it will sell.” Not true. The Planning Dept. and the Planning Commission still have broad based design guidelines and reviews. Quite often they ask for design revisions and further studies. I think this is a fine building, appropriate to the site and context; balconies, insets, variations in materials; modern and clean.”
    Barf. Which are you F-ist? A current planning employee or a futurist planing employee?

  14. Posted by Turin

    I believe this is the old Heller Manus design. I’ve seen a newer one from Arquitectonica that looks much better. Not quite as nice as the affordable building going up directly across the street IMO, but at least an improvement over this.

  15. Posted by anon

    Geez Futurist, you’re STILL not getting what I was saying. I’ll spell it out very slowly for you:
    1. I’m not complaining.
    2. Design is not controlled by the market, but rather by planning department bureaucrats.
    3. Therefore, we have no idea what designs would come forth if the market were able to decide. Maybe better, maybe worse.
    4. It’s not a “I wish it were this way…” situation, I was just answering the question of why the market doesn’t create wacky designs in the hopes of higher prices – lack of incentive. It’s just the way that it is, and will always be that way.
    Get it now? If not, wow.

  16. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Wow you really seem to hate the Dutch don’t you Futurist? Did something bad happen to you in The Netherlands or something? If so, I am sorry to hear that. I do think that they have quite a few good urban ideas that would transplant here well. Have you ever visited Amsterdam?

  17. Posted by Futurist

    You still don’t make sense anon. Why not stop talking about architecture all together? When you use the term “wacky design”, I know then you need to stop.
    @ NVJ: I was just waiting for you to get around to the tired and loaded question of “Have you ever visited Amsterdam?” A standard question when you disagree with someone. I’ll indulge your query: Yes, several times.
    But no, I don’t hate the Dutch. It’s just a bit tiresome to hear you use them as a solution to our urban design issues.

  18. Posted by anon

    Oh geez Futurist, the entire discussion had nothing to do with actual architecture, but whether the market could influence architecture. It really can’t in SF, and you’ve done nothing to show that it can.

Add a Comment

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