November 7, 2013
The Early Designs For Six New SoMa Stories At 1140 Folsom
As we first reported earlier this week, plans to demolish the two-story building on the northeast corner of Folsom and Rausch along with the adjacent parking lot on Rausch have 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 which "will appear as a series of individual buildings no more than 50’ in width…enhanced by varying finishes, window arrangements and mullions, colors, and façade proportions" and up to 65 feet and six stories high along Folsom (click images to enlarge):
As proposed, 40 percent of the 128 units at 1140 Folsom Street would be two-bedrooms, 42 percent one-bedrooms, and 18 percent studios. And while the building of three-bedroom units is encouraged by Planning, the developer has determined that "the neighborhood is less family oriented; therefore three bedroom units would not be a good fit for this location."
First Published: November 7, 2013 8:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
This looks like a basic massing diagram. A trial balloon to float to see if anyone shoots it down before investing in a more detailed design. And yeah, should be taller.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 7, 2013 11:22 AM
this building is only 4 or 6 stories tall so in 20 years it can all get torn down and rebuilt 12 stories tall. Politically, that isn't doable quite yet.
Posted by: imax at November 7, 2013 5:46 PM
The developing entity, 1140 Folsom LLC, gave Pier 1 Bay 2 as its address to the CA Secy of State. Does anyone know what relationship if any it has to other real estate entities using that same address?
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 8, 2013 9:53 PM
Lets be honest going to 6 stories pushes the limits of whats going up in this area of Folsom, BUT , that building needs more parking that equals at least the numbers of units, plus it should have a few spaces for commercial usage.
There is going to be enough pressure on finding parking in this part of Folsom with adding to the issue with insignificant parking.
Posted by: Joseph A at November 9, 2013 3:15 PM
^I don't see how any of what you're saying is "being honest". This site needs to have a height limit of 4-5 times what is currently there, with no additions to the parking number. The area can sustain thousands more people, but is already choking on cars.
Posted by: anon at November 9, 2013 5:25 PM
Don't any of you monolith morons realize these side streets are residential enclaves? We can't be expected to live in permanent darkness to appease some yuppie view ten stories up.
Posted by: JR at November 9, 2013 5:32 PM
^buy a lamp. Residential enclaves work just as we'll at eight stories as they do at six. No idea what in the world you're talking about.
Posted by: anon at November 9, 2013 6:11 PM
anon takes over the Socket Site in an apparent coup. You are wrong --buy a lamp ?
There is no intellect/common sense/civility shown in many of these threads.
I wish the ED worked on weekends
Posted by: contraian at November 10, 2013 8:25 AM
^Please explain the huge difference in "light" between 6 stories and 8 stories.
Posted by: anon at November 10, 2013 10:29 AM
@Martha - What is the nature of your inquiry into the entity?
Posted by: politely at November 10, 2013 7:59 PM
Western SoMa neighbor here. Interested to know who we'll be working with these next few years.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 10, 2013 11:01 PM
Have you tried reaching out to the planner for the project?
Using the existing means of obtaining information about the project? (Filings etc.)
Contacting the applicant directly in good faith?
A letter of introduction/request to meet?
Posted by: politely at November 11, 2013 8:44 AM
This comments thread isn't our main approach to the subject. Just looking for more information.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 11, 2013 10:28 AM
If you are affiliated with the project's proponent you are welcome to contact me through my Web site, which is linked from this post.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 11, 2013 11:08 AM
I've just tested my Web site's contact form and it may be glitchy. If you have already sent a note I'd like to ask you to re-send to my direct email: bridegam [at] gmail [dot] com. Thanks./M
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 11, 2013 11:42 AM
Why would a neighbor be "working with" the developer for the "next few years"?
Posted by: R at November 11, 2013 11:43 AM
@Martha - Who is the 'we' in 'our main approach'?
Do you represent a group, or is it a royal 'we'?
What is your 'main approach'?
What do you hope to achieve vis-a-vis this project?
Posted by: politely at November 11, 2013 1:47 PM
Time to take this discussion offline, I think. Please contact me at the email address above.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 11, 2013 2:08 PM
It seems you want other people to supply you with information about the developer of a real estate project for reasons you are unwilling to share in a public forum.
I don't see why anyone should help you until you begin your search in good faith and with an open mind and in a spirit of open exchange of ideas.
Too many good projects get sandbagged by people who, rather than engaging with an open spirit of progress, instead obstruct and delay improvements to our city.
Posted by: politely at November 11, 2013 2:28 PM
I am one of quite a few neighbors interested in hearing and discussing more about the practical effects of the Folsom/Rausch project on its surroundings. I'm interested in establishing mutually respectful communications with the proponent of the project. If you are involved with the project, or if you are otherwise a fellow stakeholder in our area of Western South of Market, by all means please introduce yourself so we can begin a constructive conversation as neighbors. Again, you are welcome to email me at bridegam at gmail dot com.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 11, 2013 3:19 PM
did anyone else mention this is way way too short for that location. should be at least 12 stories tall
Posted by: moto mayhem at November 11, 2013 4:49 PM
There's not a building nearby that's even 6 stories. The closest is the old brewery at 11th. Context.
Posted by: Gary Keim at November 11, 2013 7:32 PM
Gary -- how do you dare to dispute a Lord of Density
Posted by: contraian at November 11, 2013 8:48 PM
FWIW, 900 Folsom, currently under construction at 5th, will be taller and more massive than this building. Otherwise, I think the closest taller existing buildings are on Mission and 850 Bryant.
According to the SF zoning map (see namelink), Folsom from 6th to 9th is zoned for 65-foot height limit.
Hint: on the SF map in Step 2 select the Zoning tab and then within the tab add whatever map overlays you want (such as height & bulk districts).
Posted by: Jake at November 11, 2013 9:28 PM
What a waste of space. Unbelievable how short this is. They will tear this down to make more space in 30 yrs. Why not build for the future? This area is an industrial wasteland now. This is a good time to make the neighberhood nicer and more architecturally appealing
Posted by: jill at November 11, 2013 10:21 PM
@jill - how dare you insist upon ruining our perfect San Francisco with a new building. contrarian states that the city must be preserved in amber, thus it will be so!
Posted by: anon at November 11, 2013 10:54 PM
To build more density South of Market it is not necessary to pretend that what's here now is wreckage, nor is it necessary to disparage neighborly concern about the way new properties will be built.
"Industrial wasteland?" Writers here should familiarize themselves with our residential enclaves on the interiors of South of Market alleys. These are zoned at 45' away from the street for reasons. Langton and Rausch Streets are two of the prettiest alleys downtown.
I would really urge Jill, and others who seem to judge our area from its commuter arteries, to visit our alleys at least on Google Street View before pronouncing.
Better, treat yourselves to a stroll here in spring when the plum and cherry trees are blooming, especially on Langton Street.
Everyone knows this Bay Lighting property at Folsom and Rausch is going to be built up. The question is whether the process will respect the neighbors and the neighborhood.
As I hope people here know, a badly managed or otherwise intrusive construction project can be hell for its neighbors. A compaction grouting process, just for example, is an awful boneshaking thing to live next to.
There is a lot more to discuss in preparation for major construction than the size of the building. We have experienced both good and bad project management on this block over the past 15 years and we know the difference.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 12, 2013 8:41 AM
I stand by the assertion that this area is industrial wasteland. A few flowers in a desert does not a lush meadow make.
Posted by: anon at November 12, 2013 11:07 AM
^ you have it exactly right! Get rid of the deserts, they are a waste and it is very hard to grow flowers there anyway. We do not need any of those stinkin deserts
Posted by: contraian at November 12, 2013 11:14 AM
Deserts are fine in central Nevada where no one lives, just like industrial wastelands are fine in Detroit and Gary, IN where no one wants to live. People want to live here, no advantage to having an industrial wasteland.
Posted by: anon at November 12, 2013 12:06 PM
Thousands of us live in historic western South of Market, many of us in residential enclaves containing wood-frame post-earthquake and 1920s apartment buildings. This area has a very definite sense of place -- or rather, many senses of place, alley by alley. Before you declare we are rubble to be replaced, please come and visit us on foot, or at least via Google Street View. You may also be interested in reading some local history: http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=Category:SOMA
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 12, 2013 12:36 PM
^Hundreds of thousands of people would like to live there. Please don't shut us out just because you fear change.
Posted by: anon at November 12, 2013 12:41 PM
I'm glad we agree South of Market isn't a "wasteland" at least. That hurt.
Probably no point trying to get anyone here to stop whacking the Straw Neighborhood Activist tho.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 12, 2013 12:49 PM
I think your ability to speak for the entire neighborhood is admirable, Martha. What confuses me is when you suggest others are attacking a straw man Neighborhood Activist. Isn't someone who presumes to speak on behalf of her neighbors who "have experienced both good and bad project management on this block over the past 15 years and [...] know the difference" kind of presenting herself as a neighborhood activist?
I double-checked the googley street maps and I did not see any "residential enclaves containing wood-frame post-earthquake and 1920s apartment buildings" being taken down by the proposed project.
It looks like an industrial building and a parking lot to be replaced by new housing units.
Posted by: soccermom at November 12, 2013 2:09 PM
You've read the Bay Lighting proposal correctly. It calls for replacing an industrial building and a parking lot that have been obviously waiting for replacement for a long time.
The apartment buildings are nearby. That is, the new structure will not be built in a vacuum, nor in a "wasteland". It will be built close to people's homes in a preexisting neighborhood.
I don't speak for anyone here. I am only telling you that all of the long-term neighbors in this area are well aware of the potential nuisance effects of large construction projects.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 12, 2013 2:20 PM
One vote for Martha's reasonableness in presenting her viewpoint, enough with the whacking! I'm with most of this board on wishing that West SOMA had denser zoning, but Martha's just been presenting her perspective as a neighborhood resident, and it's a valid viewpoint. Nice to see some civility from that side.
I agree with Martha that there are some great residential alley's in SOMA that should be celebrated. Where I don't agree is that we need to keep everything so low to the ground. Western SOMA really suffers, in my opinion, from it's sprawl, lack of density, lack of walkability or active commercial corridors, etc. Folsom, in particular, could evolve into a much better neighborhood street if there were more people around. This project will certainly help bring more life to the corridor, but it could be a lot better.
Posted by: curmudgeon at November 12, 2013 4:24 PM
I agree that there are some nice alleys, but agree that a few flowers in a desert does not make it a meadow. SOMA needs a lot of infilling and upgrading. Absolutely, those homes in those alleys should be preserved, but big industrial lots can be replaced with more density. Martha, wouldn't you like to have more services, more restaurants, better transportation, cleaner streets and more culture in your area. that comes with density.
Western SOMA is way way underzoned. SOMA is the place where SF can grow because there is so many parking lots and 1 story buildings to replaced. I don't think a big space like this should be wasted with a 5 story bldg. its important to think about 30 yrs from now, not just tomorrow. this will help your neighborhood. dont be afraid of positive change
Posted by: jill at November 13, 2013 2:35 PM
Amazing the sociopathic attitude for a area that has a mixed use determination, everything from Edwardians with historic significance, converted warehouses, to small business. And the monolith, Marie Antoinette's , care less about diversity or history, just knock em down, pile em' up and let those who can't afford it eat baked moves to Modesto. Pitiful Reagan babies.
Posted by: JR at November 16, 2013 11:36 AM
Has anyone looked at this thing? It is hideous, basically one room coffins, stacked like cargo containers, all we need is a mausoleum full of yuppie zombies.
Posted by: James at November 16, 2013 2:17 PM
While your Pavlovian response is noteworthy, please read the first comment on the thread.
Posted by: politely at November 16, 2013 2:34 PM
Hey, "politely", We had to live through 8 years of construction on Rausch Street with those education killing, funding killers, the Work Live Lofts. I have never fought so hard to protect where I lived from the greed that nearly destroyed the foundations of the 1907 Edwardian I live in. It destroyed and undercut 25% of the established garden I worked years to build, and eventually cut 3 months of sunlight off, and would have destroyed it completely if the neighborhood had not fought back. Under estimating the greed in these projects is a big mistake.
Posted by: James at November 16, 2013 9:26 PM
Wow James and to think all of your well established reasons for objecting can be summed up by most of the Socket Siters as noting but another old scared "NIMBY".
Posted by: contraian at November 17, 2013 9:32 AM
The part where it seems like James is a NIMBY is when he writes (nearly verbatim) "Not In My BackYard."
The garden, the sunlight, the foundation, etc.. That's pretty much what NIMBY means.
Posted by: politely at November 17, 2013 8:10 PM
Let me sure that I understand you correctly James:
You and other neighbors worked together to reduce the size of an adjacent building so that you could continue to grow a larger garden. Is that correct?
How many units did you reduce the construction by? How many people would have lived in those units?
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at November 17, 2013 9:37 PM
"Greed" definitely seems like an appropriate word for James to use - about himself, of course.
Posted by: anon at November 17, 2013 10:39 PM
Wow thirty years of very hard work, and my residence nearly destroyed, tons of sand pouring into lower bedroom widows, and a whole bunch of heartless apartment vampires could care less, just toss away nimby's who only deserve scorn. If that is the kind of arrogant a..holes moving here, the less the better. Who wants to live next to that ? Dear god, please save us and make the thing a park!
Posted by: James at November 18, 2013 12:53 AM
You'd get some sympathy with different wording. Your posts started out as "keep them folks out! Who cares if they need a place to live! I need my garden more! They can live somewhere else!"
Posted by: anon at November 18, 2013 7:03 AM
I don't need to have my words twisted to mean more than they are.
If you can not respect my position and have no ability to sympathize with another's persons unfortunate experience, that is your problem. Consider if you lost some of your living space that you made a contract for and was taken against your will by a outside party. But that would take the ability to have common human empathy.
Posted by: James at November 18, 2013 2:09 PM
anon has his foot on James throat, he won't release and doggedly pursues the NIMBY James until the last breath is choked out of him.
Thanks anon, you have repulsed another potential socket site participant.
Posted by: contraian at November 18, 2013 3:11 PM
I am genuinely curious to hear James story, but he has to understand this is not going to be the most sympathetic crowd, especially to efforts to block construction.
Tell us more James, why was this construction particularly noxious? Was it larger than what is zoned for the neighborhood? Were the builders particularly egregious?
I am all ears.
Posted by: NoeValleyJim at November 18, 2013 4:06 PM
Consider if you lost some of your living space that you made a contract for and was taken against your will by a outside party.
I would sue the person that I made the contract with for fraud, if you actually believe that something that you "made a contract for was taken against your will".
This seems pretty open and shut. You were first claiming losing light for a garden, now you're claiming that something illegal was done to you. Which is it? I'm completely on your side if laws were broken.
Posted by: anon at November 18, 2013 5:32 PM
I was given a lifetime lease from my dear friend and landlord for over 30 years, he passed away almost two years ago. The construction and conversion of the warehouse, parking lot (adjacent to my living space) and the extension, directly to the rear of the property, was a eight year nightmare. Destruction of property, broken windows, cracked paster, and undermining the foundations was only the tip of the iceberg. Even city inspectors, shook their heads in disbelief. The lawsuits by new tenants are just barely addressed to this day. I wanted to sue, but the landlord was too old and feeble to do that, and without the help of neighbors, I was lucky just to save the property at all.
The laws only apply to those with the economic means and energy to defend themselves. I was lucky to have a great neighborhood to back me up. They way these comments are made, I have doubts this project will encourage that.
Posted by: James at November 19, 2013 7:55 PM
Ohhhhhh, it totally makes sense now.
The landlord was too old and feeble to defend his economic interests from the construction project next door, to the point his building was going to fall over.
Around the same time he "gave" you a "lifelong lease" before he passed away.
I totally see where you are coming from now.
If I made this stuff up, I wouldn't believe me. Come to think of it, maybe this is an elaborate tr*ll posting. But it's San Francisco, so probably not.
Did you publish a pamphlet that the ladies over at 929 Hayes read? Tactics seem very similar. Elderly landlord passes, to reveal sweetheart deal for longtime tenant cloaked in self-righteousness.
Isn't there a fancy legal term for taking advantage of older people in situations like this? Which city department handles elder abuse?
Posted by: politely at November 19, 2013 8:27 PM
Poor thing, this James. I only hope that I'm never so unlucky as to be given a lifetime lease to a ridiculously valuable piece of property.
The greed displayed by James is just mind-boggling. He got his, so everyone else screw off! Live somewhere else! Live on the streets! No housing for you! James has a lifetime lease and deserves to have much more than you!
Posted by: anon at November 19, 2013 10:25 PM
Used to live in one of the those old wood apartment buildings near this place. Now I just hope that whatever they build here does not ruin Folsom Street. I use Folsom Street to get onto the bridge to head out of town on the weekends. I'd hate for construction or more traffic to get in my way. Is there a term for that, maybe a NIMOR, not in my on ramp?
Posted by: Rillion at November 20, 2013 10:19 AM
Nobody is telling anyone to "screw off", twisting words and putting heavy value judgements in others mouths to sound superior, just isn't my thing either. Just like my neighborhood and want to protect it's great character, guess that means nothing now days, just "I want mine and who cares who it might hurt to get it" seems to be the "new" advocacy. Pathetic.
By the way, I heard Folsom is being considered to be made two way again and sidewalks bumped out significantly, have fun getting out of town when that happens. Done here, this site attracts too much vicious trash.
Posted by: James at November 21, 2013 1:38 AM
You started with the heavy value judgments, buddy. Your talk of "zombie yuppies", "heartless apartment vampires", "education killers", etc. Other just want a place to live, but I fear that might disrupt your garden too much, so you'll probably fight it.
Posted by: anon at November 21, 2013 8:22 AM
I've just revisited this thread to find a bunch of strangers bullying my friend and neighbor James and even making unfounded accusations of misconduct against him.
It's like a school bus in here.
Let him alone. Grow up. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at November 21, 2013 10:03 AM
No one was "bullying" anyone until James starting throwing around wild insults like "zombie yuppies" and "heartless apartment vampires".
I'm sure James is a friendly guy in person, it's just too easy to label anyone who disagrees with him as a zombie or heartless.
Posted by: anon at November 21, 2013 10:16 AM
Posters here are not likely to show much compassion here once you mention "sweetheart lifetime deal for tenant". I can only imagine the rent and the multipliers compared with actual market rent.
Quite a few here believe that the lack of affordability in SF partly comes from very poor turnover (buy or rent) which are most likely the result of people voting themselves more and more protection.
And this affordability issue is precisely what motivates new construction. In short: you cling to a cheap rental that someone else wants for much more money: someone will build next to you to have what you have.
I am sure the irony is obvious here. Make your bed, sleep in it.
Posted by: lol at November 21, 2013 10:50 AM
Posted by: SocketSite at March 4, 2014 11:50 AM