2123-2127%20Castro.gif

As proposed, the existing two-story house at 2123 Castro Street which was built in 1912 will be demolished in order to make way for a contemporary, three-story home to rise with designs for it to be a certified Net-Zero Energy (NZE) building.

Despite a building size of over 3,670 square feet including the garage, the proposed Noe Valley home will not have a furnace nor air-conditioning and will be “passive” in design, a super-insulated structure with an air-tight building shell which will primarily derive its heat from the sun and people inside, the first new passive house in San Francisco.

A second three-story home of equally efficient and ambitious design is proposed to rise on the adjacent 2127 Castro Street parcel, upon which the 500-square-foot garage for the existing home at 2123 Castro Street currently sits.

2123-2127%20Castro%20Marked.gif

Opposing the project, a nearby neighbor and 44 signers of a petition who are concerned that the development will replace affordable housing with high-cost housing and that the scale and design of the buildings are out of context with the neighborhood:

2123-2127%20Castro%20Parcels.gif

Keep in mind that the existing “affordable home” at 2123 Castro Street has recently been appraised for $1,525,000 and neither of the neighbors in the adjacent single-story homes to the north and south of the proposed project are opposed to the plans.

San Francisco’s Planning Commission is slated to issue a decision with respect to the proposed plans for 2123 Castro Street this week with the Planning Department’s recommendation that they be approved.

The proposed sister building at 2127 Castro Street is following under cover of a separate permit.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by woolie

    A city where a man with a petition can cry wolf forever.

  2. Posted by Mark

    “Affordable” in NV is a relative term.

  3. Posted by Michael

    If it’s the same group led by the same couple on Diamond Street who opposed ours and every other project in the neighborhood, then the project sponsor needs to call this out during their hearing.
    Their petition against our project on Valley Street was bogus.

  4. Posted by Futurist

    These will pass. These will get built. There may be some minor revisions, but this will happen.
    The Nimby’s who cannot deal with change can just keep whining.

  5. Posted by mdg

    Per the petitioners:
    “We don’t like it, we hate it, it’s ugly, we want to see the same 120 year old piece of shit stay there forever, what if it casts a shadow…..”
    It really boils down to: Hi – we are your new neighbors and we hate you and we are jealous as all shit so we are going to block your project….and make you miserable – cause we’re miserable too….

  6. Posted by joh

    That driveway for 2123 is going to result in another curb cut, resulting in one or two fewer on-street parking spaces.
    Not that I care one way or the other, just noticed it and thought I’d point it out.

  7. Posted by soccermom

    I think you win hearts and minds in the planning department with a ‘passive’ building design like this. The staff may part ways with the commissioners on this one, but if anyone cares about green energy building, it ought to be (probably is in SF) the planning department.

  8. Posted by Joel

    The irony is that the neighbors would complain even more if they’d gone for “affordable” units by maximizing density.

  9. Posted by KD

    Neighbors = three year project

  10. Posted by sfresident

    Are there clear definitions of what constitutes “affordable” housing? This term is thrown about all the time and I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean. Are there defined prices? Or is this a catch-all to mean “don’t build homes for those f@ckers with more money than me!”
    Developers are generally not idiots – they tend to invest in building properties that will sell. So these homes are likely “affordable” by someone who wants to – or already does – live in SF.

  11. Posted by g

    Reason #128 that I would never try to build or alter the exterior of a SFH in the city. I have a life to live.

  12. Posted by Sierrajeff

    “A 2+ story home is out of character for the neighborhood! Whaa! Whaa! Just like the 2+ story homes across the street and at either end of the block… and throughout Noe Valley! Whaa! Whaa!”

  13. Posted by inclinejj

    The 2 buildings on the corner of 28th look to be about the same size as the proposed buildings.
    The nimby’s are quite a piece of work the way they just pull things out of their arses!

  14. Posted by Joseph A

    Not seeing legally or even morally how these 2 homes can not be replaced.
    If you look at the block via Google Maps you will see that every other home on that block rises 2 stories except the 2 in question , PLUS , the design will remove the already existing wall that extends across the front of both properties.
    The truth is that all this does is remove some on street parking which in San Francisco you would think of as a good thing !

  15. Posted by noodle

    I’m really glad to see more passive house / NZE projects going in. When looking for a new place to rent, I was always surprised by how poorly insulated much of the housing stock is here.

  16. Posted by davantage

    This complaint makes as much sense as Donald Trump complaining about his neighbor’s high rise is too tall.

  17. Posted by noe mom

    This is a Mandatory DR. No one filed a DR.

  18. Posted by Elizabeth

    FYI: this project was given unanimous approval at the planning commission hearing.

Add a Comment

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