1201%20Tennessee%20Site.gif

As plugged-in people have long known to expect, designs to raze the southern portion of the Dogpatch block bounded by Third, 23rd, and Tennessee Streets have been drawn with plans to construct a six-story building with 259 rental units over parking for 147 cars and 259 bikes, and 2,300 square feet of retail, on the site (click renderings to enlarge).

The development’s mass is broken down into three distinct sections, wrapping from Third to 23rd.

And along Tennessee, townhomes would line the street:

A mid-block passage with public open space would run between Third and Tennessee.

The Dogpatch development known as 1201 Tennessee Street will be presented to San Francisco’s Planning Commission this week, with a recommendation from the Planning Department that the project be approved as proposed and designed by Fougeron Architecture.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by OMN

    I’m really not liking these tech-campus inspired architectural trends of goofy, neon, boxiness. But whatever; I never go to that neighborhood, anyway.

  2. Posted by Futurist

    Cool project. Love the colors and vibrancy of the forms.
    FYI, the angled buildings right next to this site were once the local of a rope making factory. They had to weave rope of almost 1000 feet into a single piece, so they built an overhead crane way OVER Third St. which stretched WAY out into the bay.
    [Editor's Note: A Nautical Nod To Dogpatch's Past, Present, And Future.]

  3. Posted by CrownZellerbach

    It would seem we are slipping into an era of bad architecture yet again. Are graduating architecture students skipping the chapters about classical modern buildings of the 50′s and 60′s? I would rather see simple honest facades than such unimaginative design gimmicks.

  4. Posted by Sam

    Eh, seems fine, eventually Dogpatch is going to lose its character as a DIY manufacturing, arts, food center, and will devolve into Mission Bay. Enjoy it while you can folks, good butcher there, a guy that makes his own wine is there (on 22nd just east of 3rd), good brewery, potentially the best cocktail bar in the city, good pizza, place on 22nd where people can manufacture items that range from full hardwood boats to ladders and plates, and random other little joints.

  5. Posted by Rob

    Perfect spot for a grocery store. It might even help get that random alley some foot traffic.

  6. Posted by invented

    Reminds me of big complexes of 1950s international style buildings when I lived in Tel Aviv, and traveled to Tunisia and Greece. Like the balconies and thus the indoor/outdoor touches.
    Dogpatch is becoming.

  7. Posted by moto mayhem

    who wears shorts and tshirts in SF?

  8. Posted by curmudgeon

    I do today!

  9. Posted by Joseph A

    I know we need housing ,, BUT , this is in he middle of an industrial area , would have thought that new housing would have been proposed more on the out skirts where the district borders existing residential developments

  10. Posted by Hugh

    Can’t believe I’m saying the refrain, but why not much taller? It would have amazing views. It should be 10 stories at least. Is there a height limit?

  11. Posted by d-b

    Not enough parking. Try walking to a full service grocery store. I don’t think you can.

  12. Posted by Sam

    I don’t own a car and manage to figure out the grocery store. I’ll bike the mile to whole foods, or walk to my local Mexican markets on lower 24th.people my generation are done with cars

  13. Posted by Futurist

    Oh please Sam. Spare us.
    It’s fine that you bike or walk all over the place. Congrats! But not everyone wants to or has to.
    But most of my friends in their 20′s, 30′s 40′s and beyond own a car. And a bike. and they walk.
    So what “generation” are you that is done with cars?

  14. Posted by Sam

    20s, just look at the stats my friend. Also I don’t care if you own a car, but lets allow developers to choose to not build a parking garage, which is a hugely expensive cost of any development. No one is forcing you or other car owners to live there

  15. Posted by Jake

    Sam, for some in your age group it may be a lifestyle choice, but for most it is economics.
    “A weak job market and sluggish income growth are two key factors that kept Millennials away from the new car market during the Great Recession and recovery…New car sales had suffered as Millennials delayed setting up households. Young adults living at home or with roommates typically have less need for their own cars due to the opportunity to share a car with other members of their households, but young adults living on their own are more likely to need their own cars”
    http://www.edmunds.com/industry-center/commentary/millennials-in-reverse.html

  16. Posted by frog

    My office is in the Dogpatch. We had a computer tech come by today, it took him 30 min to find parking. There are real business concerns about a lack of parking, even paid parking. I’d love one more big garage near the Dogpatch where we could comp visitors for an hour or two of parking. I’m not saying parking should be free, but it has to exist. Not everything can be done on bike or on the T-line.
    Also, we need to install more parking meters to encourage turnover.

  17. Posted by Futurist

    No Sam, we cannot just “allow” developers to choose to build parking or not. Planning Code articles spell out parking ratios, and for good reasons.
    People do and will own cars there, and they need to park OFF the street.
    It’s great that you choose to not own a car at this time in your life. But as you get older, make more money, chances are your needs will change. For some people that change means the need for a car and a place to park it. That’s what it’s all about.

  18. Posted by zig

    “My office is in the Dogpatch. We had a computer tech come by today, it took him 30 min to find parking.”
    What do techs do in the FiDi? My Dad and most of the males in my family have worked in the trades downtown for decades. They seem to have figured this one out. Maybe the guy just needs a truck with commercial plates

  19. Posted by phill

    “Planning Code articles spell out parking ratios, and for good reasons.”
    And this building is well within the required limits, so the argument of “not enough parking” is specious.

  20. Posted by frog

    The financial district has paid parking available. The dogpatch doesn’t. That’s the difference. There is a very real need for professionals to be able to rent a parking space for a few hours. You know, there’s a very real need for anyone to be able to do that.
    And I’m not arguing for residential parking amounts. I’m rich, I own a parking space. And I take uber, the T-line or my bike to work and use my car on weekends. That’s a lifestyle choice that I’m willing to make. I’ll always be able to afford parking at home, so there are enough parking spots for me.
    But I don’t know what planet people live on when they think that every computer tech or executive from genentech or medical researcher from south san francisco or whatever is going to have a commercial plate or know, feel comfortable, or care to use our absolutely unacceptable public transit system.
    Similarly, the elderly and the people who can’t walk well need parking not only at home (fine, buy a place with parking) but they also need short term parking when they get to where they are going.
    Car commuting within city limits should be discouraged (or more accurately, fast timely public transit would provide a better alternative.) But when I want/need to use a car, let’s make sure it’s useful.

  21. Posted by TimeToMove

    More and more, the Streetsblog / SFBC crowd seems to resemble religious zealots. It is not about the transit choice they make, but they want to tell the rest of us how to get around the Bay Area. Like religious fanatics, many admit they own cars themselves, but although they are sinners, they want to prevent us from sinning too. They restrict private off street parking and then complain that THEY subsidize street parking, so demand more meters and removal of street spaces. Why don’t they just admit they want no cars in the city?

  22. Posted by S

    meters are there to make sure there are not people hogging spots and that there is proper turnover. Everywhere they add meters and the pricing reflects demand, turnover increases and there are more spots available when you need one.
    I take offense at the comparison of Streetsblog/SFBC people being zealots. Every bike or ped project is backed by numerous studies. It’s the car zealots that try to force their lifestyle on everyone else by demanding more parking and no improvements for any other person who uses a street when it boils down to sacrificing a travel lane.

  23. Posted by frog

    I love parking meters and demand based pricing. And as for long overnight car storage, I think people should buy parking spots either in a garage or in a house. It probably wouldn’t be hard to convince me that there should be no bikes on oak or fell and in return, bikes should get entire streets to themselves (and maybe the localest of local traffic and buses.) I think separating bike traffic from car traffic is a very good idea.
    But I also find it hard to believe that there are that many people buying million dollar plus apartments that don’t want to have a car. And I will reiterate again that parking, especially paid parking, is essential to running a business that makes and demonstrates physical objects. Or one that has customers come in for an hour, like a service business.
    I do think that the Streetsblog/SFBC/urban design consultants, do tend to live in a bubble and they do tend to be bike hobbyists – e.g., people who actively enjoy biking and would do it even if it made no economic sense. If we’ve learned anything in this city, it’s that anyone can do a study that justifies anything.
    There are two things that bicycle advocates need to do:
    1) realize that cars have been here forever, and that “car zealots” don’t view ourselves as such, and with good reason, car travel has been dominant for the last half century. Which means that there has to be some give, along with the take. Close off roads, but build a couple of parking garages to make up for some of the lost spaces. Then you are getting what you want, but aren’t taking as much from drivers.
    2) lobby police to actively enforce bike laws. Yes there are a lot of terrible drivers, and at times police actually catch them. But last weekend I barely saw a rider all in black with no lights or reflectors riding at night. Then I made a right turn and another cyclist tried to pass me on the right, again with no lights, and I was mid turn. And what did I turn into, yet another guy on a bicycle coming towards me, going the wrong way with again, no lights. These kind of things have to be stopped, cyclists need to lose the attitude. Similarly, no biking on the sidewalk, at least not a normal bike speeds. (When I ride at night, I make sure I’m lit up like a christmas tree, often with a helmet mounted light as well as a normal headlight, and the brightest blinking taillight money can buy, and if my pack isn’t reflective, it gets a light too. Why? Because I want to be seen and really don’t want to be hit by a car.)

  24. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    frog – You will be pleased to know that most bike advocates already have come to the two conclusions (and more) that you outline. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any fringe radicals out there calling for a ban of all cars though. We try to ignore those extremists. Personally I’m a big advocate of replacing on-street parking with off-street garages if that is what it takes to reclaim street width for transportation.

  25. Posted by moto mayhem

    sam, the next generation after yours will be done with bikes and go back to horses. after enough generational backpedalling, we will be riding triceratops again. yabba dabba doo.
    there is this thing called technology and innovation. you may not have heard of it, but it will dominate what happens in the future.

  26. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    ^^^ that technology and innovation has yet to deliver a mode of transport anywhere near as efficient as the bicycle.

  27. Posted by frog

    Milkshake, thanks for the sanity. Give me another 5-10 parking garages in the most populated parts of the city and you can half half of all street parking for true protected bike lanes. As a bonus, put theft proof, video taped bike lockers in the garage and charge a couple bucks an hour to park a bike. It’s a win/win parking solution for everyone.
    When I bike, I’d happily pay 6 bucks or so to ensure the safety of my ride while shopping. Bike theft is a major deterrent to biking. Of course it was my fault, leaving my bike attached with a U-lock through the frame in Soma. What was I thinking?

  28. Posted by Brian M

    moto mayhem: peak oil is real. loss of the real economy to cheaper places (i.e., no money for 6,000 pounds of personal transportation technology) is real.
    Are you so sure that we will all be tootling around in Google Smart Cars? I remain skeptical.

  29. Posted by Futurist

    Thanks frog for you comments. pretty good analysis and I agree.
    Esp about the terrible cyclists.
    But MOD is completely wrong: MOST bike advocates ride just the way you describe. Everywhere. All the time. Every day. And night.
    It scares me to think how many times I have come close to hitting a cyclist at night while I’m driving: they have no lights, front or back, wear dark clothes and continually FLY thru the stop signs and lights.
    It doesn’t end. And they just don’t care.

  30. Posted by Fishchum

    A truck driver sent a cyclist to the hospital last night at Market & Front streets because he whipped an illegal U-turn.
    Do you think he “cared”?

  31. Posted by Alai

    It’s a pretty common idea, that people who don’t use cars should pay hundreds of millions– the cost of constructing these “5-10 parking garages in the most populated parts of the city”– in order to get some space to get around without being run over.
    Because the natural order of things is to have 100% of the public space devoted to cars. If you want to change that, be prepared to pay. And if someone takes a couple of percent away, it’s time to create a ballot measure to “restore balance”.

  32. Posted by moto mayhem

    i dont think use medicare or SS but i have to pay a lot for it. I also dont use or beleive in farm subsidies or the mass spending of the military but I pay. The vast majority of people use cars and will continue to use cars at least for the next 20 yrs, so car infrastructure is needed.

  33. Posted by Frog

    Also, 5 bucks an hour across an average of, say 1000 parking spots (assuming we build 2000 spots and they are used 50% of the time) is on the order of 100k per day. It’s not hard to imagine parking garages paying for themselves.

  34. Posted by Frog

    Also, 5 bucks an hour across an average of, say 1000 parking spots (assuming we build 2000 spots and they are used 50% of the time) is on the order of 100k per day. It’s not hard to imagine parking garages paying for themselves.

  35. Posted by Frog

    For that matter, even if you personally never touch a car or a zipcar or a taxi, fire trucks use the roads, as do busses. Your supermarket gets groceries by truck and your bike probably made it to the store in one too. Having a viable public transportation infrastructure is a vital local and national need.

  36. Posted by S

    I agree with a lot of the comments by frog – bike/ped/transit improvements shouldn’t necessarily be making driving harder. But it is about balance and the fact is that as many people have cars in SF, Muni moves something like 700k people PER DAY. A transit only lane here and there makes Muni more viable and faster. You may lose a car lane but no worries, it’s SF so most times there are two other lanes cars can use. :) Sad thing is that most people prioritize themselves rather than what’s the best solution for everybody. Case in point, Potrero Ave could have had a bus only lane but it pretty much died, all to preserve car parking for residents living along the street.

  37. Posted by Alai

    That’s my point, though: I’m not aware of any acute shortage of $5/hour parking spaces. I don’t see thousands of people clamoring to pay $50/day. And even if they were, it would make zero sense to have one of these garages while maintaining free street parking nearby, because you’d end up with massive half-empty garages and a street parking situation that was as bad as ever.
    Before you build massive and expensive garages, first raise the price of the free parking. I strongly suspect that once you do that, you’ll find that there’s actually no shortage to speak of, even at a price that is less than what you expected to charge for your garage. But, hey, if the shortage persists, then go ahead and build some garages.
    Plus, that 2000-space garage is a 700,000 square foot building. Maybe the city could break even on the construction and maintenance– but there’s a huge opportunity cost: to instead allow the construction of 700,000 square feet of office or residential space, and collect money first from the sale or lease, then from the property taxes, and then again from sales and business taxes. And, you know, maybe the added supply will help moderate the cost of housing and business as well.

  38. Posted by Frog

    Alai,
    Just wanted to let you know I read your post. This post is getting old. But we don’t disagree. I like parking meters and would rather streets be used for protected bike lanes and cafés. I just think cars have to go somewhere. Also, I’m thinking 10 more 200 car garages, not one giant one. The thing I see missing from most bike advocate’s approaches is that cars are a vital part of the transit infrastructure and that parking is part of that.
    Talk later in another post.

  39. Posted by I Live Next Door

    A little late to the party, but no one has mentioned that there’s a T Muni stop _right_in_front_ of the development; so, hypothetically at least, it would be relatively easy to hop on the T and take it to the Safeway on Townsend & 4th. Also, the developer has assiduously followed the SF Planning Commission requirements for parking spaces (car AND bike). I was told that since this was on a mass transit line, the SFPC purposefully limits the number of spaces to encourage fewer cars / use of mass transit. (Also note that a CalTrain station is only a couple of blocks away at Pennsylvania and 23rd.)

    Parking during the day is getting more and more challenging. My understanding is that the City is going to add meters on 3rd and enlarge the X residential parking area (whose SE boundary is now Tubbs and Tennessee).

    Joseph A says, “…this is in he middle of an industrial area , would have thought that new housing would have been proposed more on the out skirts where the district borders existing residential developments.” I would say that this plot fits your desired description to a “T”: it’s pretty much the boundary between the heart of the residential area of Dogpatch and the more light-industrial areas to the south and east. Also, as mentioned, it’s directly adjacent to the 23rd Street Muni T Line stop and down the street from the huge new UCSF medical complex being built at 3rd and 16th. This area is going to EXPLODE in the next few years.

Add a Comment

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