2000-2070%20Bryant%20Site.gif

A plan to raze the majority of an entire Mission District block and construct nearly 300 rental units fronting Bryant, 18th, and Florida Streets has been drafted and submitted to San Francisco’s Planning Department for review.

The proposed development would level the existing 2000-2070 Bryant Street buildings – including the former CELLSpace turned Inner Mission – along with 2815 18th and 611 Florida, clearing the way for a six-story development with two distinct architectural styles, 276 apartments and parking for 151 cars and 145 bikes.

The industrial warehouse design would front 18th Street, wrapping onto Florida and Bryant with a 4,300 square foot retail space on the corner of 18th and Florida:

Mid-block courtyard entrances on Bryant and Florida would break the mass of the development, with a contemporary design for the southern half of the project as proposed.

And while the Esperanza Community Garden would survive the Bryant Street development, the garden parcel is zoned for future development up to 68 feet in height.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Sam

    Ah cellspace. Places like that are ever vanishing

  2. Posted by Sam

    Just to add, once consequence of having low height laws is the complete destruction of large space institutions such as cellspace, I figure eventually z-space, and others. If we want to spread out people evenly in low height buildings as we seem to prefer in this city, then where are clubs, performance spaces, art venues going to go? We are consuming tons of land for low rise buildings, when those people could be concentrated in higher buildings. Why does no one think about this?

  3. Posted by S

    San Francisco’s heart and soul is it’s low scale neighborhoods. High rises won’t fly for most of the city – that’s part of the SF identity.
    Places like CellSpace thrived in marginal areas where many PDR businesses left and space was cheaper and more plentiful. Now that these areas (at least in the Mission and Potrero) are no longer marginal, housing is moving in. I don’t think building towers would necessarily change that aside from delaying it for a few more years.
    Fortunately in the meantime there are still some areas where creative reuse can occur – namely off Bayshore and in Bayview/HP.

  4. Posted by KB

    BDE Architecture for Nick Podell Company

  5. Posted by redseca2

    Fortunately I was here in San Francisco early enough to be able to experience the low cost “good old days”.
    In 1979 and into the ’80’s, friends rented an entire floor of a warehouse building near this location for .07 cents a square foot, or $700.00 for 10,000 square feet of high ceiling space.
    You got up in the morning and rode your skateboard to the kitchen to get coffee.

  6. Posted by seriously

    I like more housing, but I wish they could preserve some of the quaint side of Bryant. Particularly the historic buildings.
    That said- I’m with Sam. The lack of housing is entirely a manufactured crisis, like Congress and the debt ceiling. There’s easy ways to fix it, like building higher and streamlining the ridiculous permitting and approval process from the city, but no one wants to do that.
    I don’t want huge condos going up in a historic neighborhood, because I agree it’d be against SF’s “character”, but what do we want it to be in the future? I’m sure those “grotesque huge victorian mansions” were “out of character” when they went up during the gold rush. What would 2 more stories do? Or a sprinkling of small towers like in Russian Hill? We have go to relax and try new (and old) things.

  7. Posted by BigV

    how much longer until Bayview becomes hip?
    I bet not long at all….

  8. Posted by S

    @seriously two more stories is one thing, high rises are another :)
    I don’t think 5/6 story buildings would destroy SF’s character in most locations as it’s still on a human scale. On the contrary I think it would enhance it.
    As an aside, (and please correct me if I’m wrong), I don’t see a lot of the residential high rises even having that many units. There was one tower I was reading about on here on Mission St near 3rd or 4th I think that only had something like 200 units. This project has 270.

  9. Posted by Joseph A

    Thats a really nice project ,
    I like how it tries to retain the old industrial feel of the area , and although I wish I would denote the ground floor as commercial space , I am still okay with it going all residential,
    The city needs thousands of housing units added and this is a nice contribution !

  10. Posted by invented

    “how much longer until Bayview becomes hip?
    I bet not long at all….”
    Soon — 15 years probably (which is soon for SF)– given the-about-to-explode Dogpatch, underway Hunters Point/Candelstick developments, the in-place light rail. Add good weather, lots of period homes, proximity to 101/280 a — the future of an amazing ‘hood is easily here. Watch what happens.

  11. Posted by jack

    I drove by Bayview and walked around 2+ block radius around Flora Grubb last weekend to see if that would be the first spot of Bayview to take off.
    That area feels isolated. Walking doesn’t get you to too many potentially interesting points (views, shops, parks, etc.).
    I kept remembering that 2007/8 thread where someone says that Bayview has been trying to get better for the last 20-30 years.

  12. Posted by Sam

    Bayview already has some underground things going on that most people probably aren’t aware of. That said, will it be the next Mission? No, I would be very surprised. It lacks the walkability and in place zoning to put random bars/restaurants in all corners of the area. Of course it will get hipper, but the future of hipsters in the Bay Area is across the bay.

  13. Posted by Spencer

    2 comments.
    should be at least 8 floors. this is another great area to expand the city.
    there is really not enough parking to support the number of units. will create too much street level congestion without car storage spots

  14. Posted by d-b

    I could not agree more with Spencer re the need for more parking and the issue of street congestion.

  15. Posted by Schlub

    I will miss Calumet if this happens.

  16. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    You guys actually mean street parking congestion. The actual street congestion will sort itself out in time. Street parking congestion can be addressed with SFPark and traditional limits and hours.

  17. Posted by S

    I actually bike through here on a daily basis. ALL of the congestion I see are people either 1. going into the parking garage of the neighboring building or 2. people driving in from outside the neighborhood to take advantage of the free parking already there (that’s free all day).
    Making this a 2 hour parking w/o resident permit would probably be the way to go to reduce congestion. That or meters which would give residents free parking through the night anyway.

  18. Posted by Rick

    I will miss Calumet if this happens.
    You’re already missing it. The Mission’s long-time photography supply house was shuttered a couple of weeks ago.

  19. Posted by Schlub

    RIP Calumet. I was wondering what was going on as I walked past there yesterday and noticed the parking lot was fenced off. Really sad, what a great store. I’m imagining they’ll continue only on-line.
    Just realized also that the block from this article is actually directly across the street from the now former Calumet.

  20. Posted by poor.ass.millionaire

    BigV- “how much longer until Bayview becomes hip?” A: it already has. “Hip” implies cutting edge, new, different. That is the Bayview wrt new demographics moving in. In contrast, the mission is done wrt being hip. It’s now only for moneyed and the more financially established.
    Jack/Sam- I tend to disagree with your sentiments on Bayview. The area near flora Grubb, especially going southwards is anything but isolated. A few blocks up 3rd st is the hub of the neighborhood, and it is getting a serious transformation, as part of the BV/HP redevelopment. Example, the bayview opera house compound will be great when renovations are completed, as will other parts of 3rd and nearby streets. I expect that over the next 5 years.
    Matter of fact I’m so bullish on the area, I’m in contract to buy a wonderful rental building 2 blocks from flora Grubb. The street is quite nice, and the surrounding housing stock is varied and interesting. Some really nice streets in BV.
    Bayview is very walkable, as its residential area is fairly compact. There are also plenty of streets with views. Even the flat area is higher than downtown, so there are peek a boo views from the second stories of many buildings (the one I’m buying had nice surprises from the upper back windows.)
    The problematic and run down projects are all getting redone, and will be mixed income. Since so many areas of SF have mixed incomes, I doubt that will be a problem, and I expect many people working in mission bay and down the peninsula to move in, as the area breaks critical mass in its gentrification.
    One thing I agree with you guys- there have been a couple of false starts wrt bayview being ‘up and coming.’ Last bubble it really got over speculated by foolish real estate money, and then the recession really froze that. If the overall Bay Area economy holds up over the next 2-3 years w/o a nasty crash, I expect bayview to move along nicely. But I do think it’s more like 7-10 years before it “pops”, like the way the mission popped in the last 2 years. Bayview is my new favorite hood to invest in!

  21. Posted by Susan Feelie

    I heard that a Tacolicious might move in…real mexican food like the Marina Girl Salad!!
    That old place was tooo scary (weird). I think the architecture looks fab. Very 90210!
    Me loves this change the area and sooo close to my job!!!

  22. Posted by Stucco_Sux

    David Campos — this is your district. Where are you? Stand up for the last remnants of our funky charm!

  23. Posted by Max

    After all the new buildings going up in Campos’ district we could end up with some super awesome like Scott Wiener. Maybe a Baby Gap on the ground floor!

  24. Posted by poor.ass.millionaire

    I saw sup campos dining at tacolicious. He had that guilty-pleasure look. ;~)

  25. Posted by Joseph A

    Okay a few things ,
    1st the parking is far less then I would have allowed , given that we are talking about a structure so far from the commercial districts I would have allowed / proposed 1 parking spot per unit.
    As for losing the charm of the area , I think thats a stretch , because both this block , and the one opposite bordered by York and Byrant should be rebuilt to add to the flavor , character , and to add vibrancy to this neighborhood

  26. Posted by Dan

    This block does not lack flavor, character and vibrancy. New housing is much needed, but in this case it comes at the expense of artists and small businesses.

  27. Posted by Joseph A

    Dan, your talking about the loss of cheap commercial rents that were going any way , vs homes to hundreds of families which will expand the residential foot print of this part of San Francisco

  28. Posted by Max

    Housing for [techies] from the east coast

  29. Posted by honest_SFMTA

    Milkshake of Despair, you should identify your affiliation with the SFMTA. Its illegal not to.

  30. Posted by antihippie

    Actually the worst toughest neighborhoods in Oakland are being bought up by the “rainbows”
    Neighborhoods change.

  31. Posted by Joseph A

    I dont care who is moving in , its not going to displace any current residents ,

  32. Posted by Moto mayhem

    Max, do you think people who grew up on east coast have less of a right to live here than west coast or people born in SF. If so, you may not realize that we all live in the same country and we are not bound to our states or towns for life. (Thank god). Do you feel this way about immigrants from other countries? If so, you are also missing the point of the vision and dream of the good ole USA. You are a protectionist, anti progressive if these are your beliefs.
    Do you realize how boring SF Would be if the only people here were born in SF? The city is vibrant because we bring in the intelligent and ambitious from everywhere

  33. Posted by Hawkins

    As usual, SF continues to gentrify its artists out of existence…the men and womyn who brought REAL soul and personality to this neighborhood. You lose the artists (the REAL Mission residents, not the tech scum), you lose the neighborhood. You can keep the bougie 1%-er tech haven condos.

  34. Posted by poor.ass.millionaire

    ^ wut ’bout techies that are also artists? Or artists that use technology in their art?

  35. Posted by Spencer

    “You lose the artists (the REAL Mission residents, not the tech scum)”
    I thought the Latinos were the real Mission residents? Or was it the Irish before them? According to Hawkins, the artists founded the Mission and deserve to have it forever.
    Nothing is encased in stone. This is America. A Capitalist, democratic country. And, besides the few trust fund kids, it is a meritocracy. So, if you work hard enough to go to a good school, and you work hard to get the best grade, and you work hard at your job, you get rewarded and are afforded the opportunity to live where you want.
    if you are lazy, and spend your time smoking weed or partying all the time and are now contributing to the economy, a productive town like this is not the best place for you. If you think artists who are not commercially successful have a right to lvie somewhere so expensive, then thats called “socialism”. America is not socialist, but there are a lot of other countries where you can have that lifestyle.

  36. Posted by lol

    Detroit is very welcoming to artists. A trust fund goes much further there.

  37. Posted by Boo

    @Hawkins – You join a long list of people aligning themselves against gentrification in the Mission that make the assumption that all people employed in the tech industry must have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth. I don’t see how you know that to be true. Don’t you think there is a percentage of them that came from lower income families without a lot of the advantages others have? Perhaps from families very similar to the ones being displaced in the city? They’re just people like everyone else. They weren’t farmed from bougie seeds. Instead of focusing your energies on vilifying a group of people that don’t deserve it, focus on solutions to the problem of poorer neighborhoods and minorities not having equal access to resources they need in order for a higher percentage of them to compete for higher earning and more secure jobs making them less likely to be displaced from their communities in the first place. What you’re doing now is treating the sympton and not the illness.
    @spencer Your comment is sufficiently naive to sound sarcastic. Unfortunately, I don’t think you intended it that way.
    Oh, and more housing is good.

  38. Posted by Spencer

    not sarcastic. there was one important misspelling. I meant “not contributing” instead of “now contributing”

  39. Posted by Spencer

    please let me know which part you thought was “naive”

  40. Posted by Boo

    @spencer – the part where you said we live in a meritocracy. Review income/wealth distribution in this country and tell me if you think that the few at the top that own almost everything really work that much harder than you and the rest of us. Also the SCOTUS rulings that have allowed corporations to be people with free speech rights and money to equal speech and increasing limits on political donations which benefits only those that are able to bump up on those limits in the first place. Add that to the unequal access to a clean environment, good education, and other resources based on socioeconomic and racial lines that I mentioned above and your idea of a meritocracy sounds a bit naive to me.

  41. Posted by Moto mayhem

    Not sure about Spencer’s ideas but I agree we are a meritocracy (except extreme examples). I was raised on food stamps and am doing pretty well based on being more disciplined than most of my schoolmates (in HS, college and grad school). I know a lot of people in same scenario. 95% of people in this country have an opportunity to do anything. Some have a better chance, but all have a chance.

  42. Posted by Boo

    @Moto mayhem – congratulations on your success. Not sure if you noticed but my original point to Hawkins was basically that people like you exist and that they shouldn’t be vilified. So thanks for making my point.
    The meritocracy you and Spencer believe in exists for you because it worked for you. That’s convenient. My point is that it doesn’t work for many more people for some really messed up reasons. The way you and Spencer believe in the status quo simply because you are two examples of who it worked for is like another topic recently on Socketsite, Prop 13. It helped those poor little retired old ladies but screwed a ton of others. But you got yours right? So who cares.
    And again, more housing is great!

  43. Posted by Spencer

    Boo. I dont get your animosity and you didnt exactly refute the claim that most people in the US have a very good chance for success if they are willing to work hard, be smart and take chances.
    Im not arguing for status quo and I didnt get that from moto’s response either. this chain from hawkins, me, moto and you started because Hawkins claimed
    “You lose the artists (the REAL Mission residents, not the tech scum), you lose the neighborhood. You can keep the bougie 1%-er tech haven condos.”
    He is being classist, and his claim that the artists are the REAL mission residents is a joke. The artists displaced the Latinos and the Latinos displaced the Irish. Cities change and evolve.
    this type of classism being expressed through the anti-tech crowd is a classist argument against success. Moto and my point is that America on average is a meritocratic society. We were using our personal success story but there are 10s of millions of such stories, including our President and the speaker of the House. There are the margins where things are really unfair. THose growing up in the ghetto in extreme poverty and those growing up with immense wealth and a silver spoon. Its clear that these people dont have a similar chance at success. but the majority in the middle of these extremes have a lot of chances for success. because we are a capitalist society, success is in many ways defined by our economic value to society. And our economic value defines what we can afford. I dont think the govt should regulate who gets to live where and sure the vast majority of america agrees with me. The benefits of the economic boom in SF greatly outweighs the exit of artists from the mission if that is what is happening. But those artists who are commercially successful can afford to stay. In many ways, SF is the cream of the crop so only those commercially successful in any business can afford to live here. not just in the arts world. SF is also not an island so artists in Oakland are still Bay Area artists and can still benefit from a wealthy SF buyer base. as far prop 13 and rent control, I am against them both. At the very least they should be means tested. Those people who have means should not benefit from prop 13 the same as those who have means should not benefit from rent control. if you removed these regulations, i think both home prices and rent prices would drop at least some degree. there are too many people who are using these regulations who they were not intended for.

  44. Posted by shza

    you didnt exactly refute the claim that most people in the US have a very good chance for success if they are willing to work hard, be smart and take chances.
    It’s hard to believe that you’re being serious. There were widely reported studies over the last few years showing that, “the American Dream” notwithstanding, there is considerably less socioeconomic mobility than in almost all of the industrialized world (including in far more “socialist” countries) — only the UK is worse:
    “By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.”
    The study in the namelink (Center for American Progress) is just one example. Brookings and other more center-identified thinktanks/foundations have reached the same conclusions. I believe there was an official government or UN report on this fairly recently that was also consistent.
    Moto’s n=1+small x (“lots of people I know”) anecdotal experience doesn’t refute what the overall numbers show: “Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.” You can try and chalk that all up to “the other 99% are lazy and don’t work hard,” but I doubt you would really want to try and make that argument.

  45. Posted by parklife

    @shza,
    Yes, but as recent studies (namelink) have shown US social mobility is highly dependent upon the area in which one resides. Given that San Francisco is one of the cities with the highest levels of social mobility (on par with other developed countries) it stands to reason that certain residents would have the perception that the “American Dream” is attainable for all.

  46. Posted by spencer

    those people in the 20th percentile to 80th percentile is the vast majority and they all have a chance. parents income is predictive because they have their parents genetics, which has a lot of impact on their work ethic.
    Almost all Americans have a chance at the american dream.

  47. Posted by anon

    60% is the “vast majority”?
    60% is “almost all”?
    Hm, interesting math you’ve got there.

  48. Posted by Moto mayhem

    I think he could have said the range from the 15% to 95% and still have been right. That’s 80%. The 94thpercebtile in US is not very wealthy.

  49. Posted by anon

    ^But he didn’t say that.

  50. Posted by Moto mayhem

    Good point. Nice addition to the content of the discussion

  51. Posted by anon

    The 94th percentile in US is not very wealthy.
    Just wealthier than 93% of Americans, but nah, not wealthy at all. Now 93% is the vast majority, unlike 60.

Add a Comment

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