November 4, 2013
Plans For Six Story SoMa Building And 128 New Homes On Folsom
Plans to demolish the building on the corner of Folsom and Rausch along with the adjacent parking lot behind have quietly been submitted to San Francisco's Planning Department along with designs to build 128 new residential units, 5,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 85 parking spaces on the site.
As proposed, the development at 1140 Folsom Street would rise up to four stories and forty feet high along Rausch Street, up to 65 feet and six stories high along Folsom:
The commercial space would line Folsom Street while parking for the development would be built in a basement garage with its entrance, and the building's, on Rausch.
First Published: November 4, 2013 9:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Queue the comments saying it needs to be taller and that there needs to be less parking.
Posted by: Serge at November 4, 2013 9:32 AM
TALLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEER!!!!! 20+ STORRRRRYYIIIEIIIEEES!!!!
Posted by: guest at November 4, 2013 9:55 AM
Taller, yes. Less parking, no.
There's no reason SOMA shouldn't have at least the same height limit as the Tenderloin--roughly 8 - 12 floors. That could double the number of available apartments in buildings like this and begin to match housing supply with demand.
Posted by: BTinSF at November 4, 2013 9:56 AM
Taller and more parking.
6 stories here is just an utter waste of space and lack of planning for the future. It needs more parking because public transit in this part of SOMA sucks. OF course, if they were to build 20 floors, then there might be some political will for better transit.
Every building under 10 floors should have 1 for 1 parking for 1 and 2bdr and 2 spaces for 3 bdrooms. Anything greater than 10 floors can be less.
Posted by: moto mayhem at November 4, 2013 9:59 AM
Thanks to Jim Meko and the ridiculous West SOMA plan, this is what we get in a neighborhood that could handle so much more. Six stories is pathetic.
Posted by: curmudgeon at November 4, 2013 10:09 AM
Adding to the queue. Would love even just two more stories maybe in exchange for a public amenity; a greenway mews between alleyw, Linden-like dev of Rausch -- wider Folsom sidewalk with very wide garden. *Something*! to create some interest for the public, make it more interesting and give the developer a spot zoning incentive for a permanent and maintained amenity.
Posted by: Invented at November 4, 2013 10:11 AM
Is there any way to revisit the West SOMA plan? It really seems like a huge blunder that will negatively impact the city for the next generation or so. If I had to guess, I'd say Ed Lee probably doesn't agree with it, either.
We at socketsite can continue to ***** in the comments section, but it would be great to something more productive.
Posted by: OMN at November 4, 2013 10:34 AM
The parking amount is fine, it just needs to be significant taller with 3 to 4 times the number of units. Horrible underbuilding at this location.
Posted by: anon at November 4, 2013 10:36 AM
Instead of dwelling on the mistakes made in the west soma plan, we should do everything possible to avoid making the same mistakes in the central soma plan, which is still undergoing the review process.
Posted by: Joel at November 4, 2013 11:05 AM
Those who want taller buildings in this area should vote for whoever Jane Kim's opponent is next year for District 6 supe. And should turn out to oppose the Jim Mekos of the world the next time something like this is up before planning.
Posted by: Mike at November 4, 2013 11:40 AM
Regarding Jane Kim -
There are plenty of reasons to vote for ANYONE but her - she's a disaster for public policy and a great example self serving governance.
We'd be better off if she is a one term Supe.
End of comment.
Posted by: mdg at November 4, 2013 11:59 AM
TALLER WITH MORE PARKING.
Mayor Lee, where are you? HELP. More lost opportunities being announced by the week from the Planning Commission.
Posted by: james jr at November 4, 2013 2:19 PM
That means there will be 3 concurrent projects between 7th and 8th on that side of Folsom. The neighborhood is a changin'. I'll lose my FiDi views but the area will improve. We'll still have CityBeer. ;^)
Posted by: Gary Keim at November 4, 2013 6:38 PM
Why is everything just 6 stories - I would happily have this be taller - at least 10, preferably 20 stories.
Posted by: Anton at November 4, 2013 10:24 PM
Posted by: SocketSite at November 7, 2013 8:09 AM
^sounds like you should move. This isn't the best neighborhood for you. Maybe check out Modesto? Nice and quiet, cheap, plenty of parking.
Posted by: anon at November 9, 2013 6:13 PM
The Lords of Density have generously granted 34 years of happy memories for you to reflect upon while cowering in your darkened hovel until the Iron Laws of Supply and Demand replace it with a gleaming tower priced far beyond your means.
You may show your gratitude to LoD by offering supplications at any SPUR event, not signing pesky ballot initiatives, and not voting.
So let it be written. So let it be done:
"If San Francisco decides to compete effectively with other cities for new 'clean' industries and new corporate power, its population will move closer to standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant characteristics....Selection of a population's composition might be undemocratic. Influence on it, however, is legal and desirable for the health of the city."
SPUR, 'Prologue for Action', 1966, in support of the Yerba Buena Project.
Posted by: for the health of the city at November 9, 2013 9:00 PM
^Thank you "for the health of...". A very interesting article and very appropriate to what we are seeing in SF today. Hopefully it is read and absorbed at least partially by the many on this site.
Posted by: contraian at November 10, 2013 5:58 PM
No thanks whatsoever for that uber-biased article. SRO landlords love their SRO cash cows. SROs blight the Mission, and SROs blight mid Market, SOMA, and the Tenderloin. As if street-level drug trade prevalence is not lock step with SRO prevalence?
Posted by: Truth at November 10, 2013 6:57 PM
Efforts to define residential hotels as blighted have been with us since the 1890s.
It's surprising to see positions taken here that both favor increased density and oppose residential hotels. Especially now that "mini-apartments" (carefully not labeled as hotels) are becoming discussable as options for upwardly striving professionals.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 10, 2013 11:41 PM
Yes eliminate SRO and other low forms of habitation. Let the water front, and the industrial districts, productive neighborhoods, the rail yards and of course the evil freeways RISE to their highest use, studio condos starting at a half a mil.
Posted by: contraian at November 11, 2013 8:42 AM
Yes, long since defined as a definitive source of blight.
Posted by: Truth at November 11, 2013 8:58 AM
yup, what good could ever come from those people?
Posted by: for the health of the city at November 11, 2013 1:34 PM
Very inspirational. But was SF the right place for this? The city is packed solid with artists and as we all know only a tiny fraction of these artists will break through. 3 options for the artists that cannot break through:
- Adjust their lives and either give up or compromise.
- Be lucky enough to have financial support (family, network, another set of skills). I was about to add rent control, because many self-declared artists are able to stay in SF for cheap thanks to that loophole.
- Be uncompromising without the means to proceed properly.
The people in the latter category one day become everyone's problem. "I failed and now I am showing up on your sidewalk. Please feed me and support my life."
Being uncompromising might be nice in writing, even poetic. Great geniuses usually are. But unfortunately for one Van Gogh there are 100s of Joe Schmoes who will not want to admit failure back home.
Trying is very nice, but if you tried and tried again, please make sure you have a plan B.
Posted by: lol at November 11, 2013 2:53 PM