2100%20Market%20Street%20Site%202.jpg

Plans to raze the shuttered Home restaurant at the Corner of Market and Church and construct a seven-story building designed by Arquitectonica with 64 apartments, 15 parking spaces, and 4,700 square feet of retail space on the ground floor have been submitted to Planning for review.

2100%20Market%20Street%20Apartment%20Rendering.jpg

Having sat vacant since 2011, Chipotle’s application to renovate and occupy the existing one-story building at 2100 Market Street was rejected by San Francisco’s Planning Commission last year. Brian Spiers Development, the developer behind “Linea” down the street at 1998 Market is leading the charge this time around.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Mark

    Just what The Castro and Upper Market area needs…another charm free building.

  2. Posted by Bob

    Will be glad to see the homeless urinal that home has become gone.
    There will be massive amounts of hysterical hyperbole about this proposal. Too modern, too chintzy, too tall, not tall enough, etc.

  3. Posted by sf

    Looks great. Much more charming than what is there now. 7 story buildings were now be the norm in Upper Market, an area that looks like the city ran out of money the more Upper you get.

  4. Posted by George

    Arquitectonica always seems to produce good renderings but not so sure that this will loll good when completed. Linea looks like an office building and this one probably will to.

  5. Posted by Michael

    I like it. Build it.

  6. Posted by Joe

    And what is “charm” specifically? You want some fake victorian? Should the new building be drafty, have horse hair plaster, knob and tube wiring?
    Life may go on as you know it even if this building is constructed as proposed.

  7. Posted by Phil Ting

    Wow, according to the rendering they are removing the Muni Electric lines as well.

  8. Posted by invented

    Love concept, notwithstanding my nagging concern about Arquitectonica’s disappointing execution of other buildings on Market.
    From a use standpoint, how practical is it for the lower levels to be residential on such a busy (and becoming busier) intersection? Add another two floors, become mixed-use with only upper levels residential.

  9. Posted by redseca2

    They should hold a disco fueled reunion party in that space before it is torn down for those who remember the “Church Street Station” bar and restaurant.
    Before cell phones, the internet, Craigslist, if you were new in town and needed to find an apartment or a job you where there every morning if you were temporarily staying nearby.
    You bought your SF Chronicle early edition out front and sat in the cafe checking apartment and job listings over coffee. You would ask for lots of dimes in change when you paid your bill. Out in their foyer was a row of at least 6 pay phones and there was often a line to get one. Then you started calling listings. Sometimes you heard the person next to you obviously talking to the person you had just tried to call and got a busy signal from.

  10. Posted by Brian

    Looks great, love the mid century modern feel, and the colors, new with a retro feel!

  11. Posted by Tim Bracken

    Definitely a better use of this site than a Chipotle or any other restaurant.
    I expect that some of the neighbors–including those who invoked the formula retail rules to fight off the Chipotle–will object to this development for lost views, light, etc. What did you think would happen when you thwarted a big corporation from moving in? The site needed extensive renovations and legal representation to restore its liquor license, costs that a smaller operator could not have afforded.

  12. Posted by zzzzzzzz

    Check out the rendering of the 14th St. facade that appears in today’s SF Business Times. I notice that it has the same kind of notch in back that’s present in the Century development just a block up at 15th and Market. Is there a design reason for creating a notch in both developments?

  13. Posted by friscan

    Great concept: prominently anchoring a key corner, removing blighted vacant lot, putting housing directly over transit, etc. I’d love it even more if there were development agreement,partnered with Safeway, to open a Muni entrance on the north side of 14th. I’d love it even MORE if Safeway would then follow suit and build housing over its parking lot.

  14. Posted by SFMichael

    @Phil Ting, lol about the overhead wires.
    At least though the people are people sized in this render. The last one for this location had the people averaging about 12 feet tall.
    That said I can’t help but notice that the buildings down Market street are now just a bit taller then they really are, making the new building look more in scale with them.
    And of course now all the trees, even those across Church, are three stories tall rather than the one story they actually are. Again, making the new building seem smaller in comparison.

  15. Posted by Futurist

    Yes Yes Yes!
    One more vacant, un-used piece of property gets developed. Looks like a promising design.

  16. Posted by BTinSF

    @invented: The BizTimes article says it will have 4700 square feet of retail. I preume tgat’s the ground floor.
    [Editor's Note: Or as reported above, "with 64 apartments, 15 parking spaces, and 4,700 square feet of retail space on the ground floor..."]

  17. Posted by Brian

    As for the comment about a 2nd floor apartment being too loud at that intersection, that’s a fine trade off for city living. My girlfriend lives on the second floor at the intersection above Rikkers Liquors (the building with Ace Hardware), and yeah, it is super loud. But you get used to it and it’s worth it to live right in the heart of everything. (And she has super old single paned non-tight-closing windows)

  18. Posted by mdg

    Not bad….I’m sure the usual chorus of people horrified at anything changing will rise up…un unison
    Think they’ll hate this…? Wait til the upper market Safeway and the surrounding parking lots get built on in the next few years….
    The plans are already submitted….120 feet tall….
    Cheers!

  19. Posted by JWS

    On a slightly related note, outside of Whole Foods, any news on the street level retail in the buildings that were just completed on Market? Linea, etc? Am hoping we will get some really interesting stuff, especially since the Mid-Market/Civic Center buildings seem to be doing really well with attracting exciting new restaurants, coffee stores, bars, etc.

  20. Posted by Joseph A

    I have little issue with the new building.
    It provides a great deal of new housing.
    It retains a significantly large retail space.
    and Modern or not , its not removing anything significant with its development.

  21. Posted by james jr

    Retail space not big enough for a Trader Joe’s.
    Bummer.

  22. Posted by CoronaGuy

    Well it’s about time. One story and surface parking was a poor use for that lot. They can’t tear down that suburban eyesore quick enough

  23. Posted by Stucco_Sux

    @ redseca2 — thank you for that wonderful recollection. It made my day and my FB page. xxxooo

  24. Posted by Max

    Multiple bedrooms will help drive families into The Castro ( Eureka Valley) thats great news! But why cant this be taller. We must build if we are to solve this CRISIS! I have no problem with 16 or 20 floors! Bring it on.

  25. Posted by Sierrajeff

    @zzzzzzz – without the “notch”, you wind up with a lot of interior space far away from windows. I’d think most architects could deal with that – that’s where you put the elevators, stairs, utility risers, etc. But it’s probably easier for architects to cut a notch to turn a triangular slice into two rectangular sites (one with a point)…
    That SF Business Times rendering makes me like the building less. From the rendering above, I thought the windows were angled out, mimicing the angle of the buildling… but from the SF Business Times pic, it’s clear that they’re just ordinary bay windows, minus some edges here and there.

  26. Posted by formerly%whatever

    I’m guessing the notch is the required rear yard setback.

  27. Posted by Mark

    @Max: certainly not middle class families, especially in the high end Castro market. The new development going in on Brotherhood Way south of Park Merced is marketing the townhouse units towards families. However, with prices starting over $1M my family won’t be living there any time soon.

  28. Posted by moto mayhem

    great addition. would be nice to be about 2 stories higher, but can live with this one. the design is cool

  29. Posted by Rawk Star Ninja

    Although I am happy to a building go up at this location, does anyone else think that it is ugly as hell?? I feel like in 5 years, people will hate this building the way we hate anything built in the 1960 – 1970’s.

  30. Posted by Mark

    Okay… I stand corrected. The link provided from the SF Business Times did look pretty cool.

  31. Posted by Gary

    Love this. I can’t wait for it to be constructed. One story buildings just don’t belong in the City.

  32. Posted by Schaetzer

    Hmmm. They forgot to include all the wires in the rendering.

  33. Posted by R

    I don’t think you guys understand what ‘rendering’ means.

  34. Posted by Brian

    The “notch” is used to visually separate the building so it looks like two smaller buildings side-by-side instead of one huge building. It’s part of the overall plan to make buildings like this have an a “vertical” feel so they fit in with the many narrow buildings in the neighborhood instead of feeling like a single huge box.

  35. Posted by SF Citizen

    Brian – If you are Brian Spiers, what are your plans for providing BMR units in this building?

  36. Posted by gribble

    Why do people always feel it necessary to talk about wires missing from the renderings? The point of the rendering is to show how the building style and size, not hide it behind trees, wires and poles.

  37. Posted by Joe

    YAY!! Bring on more over-priced apartments, techies and hipsters! How is building new high-end apartments going to solve the “crisis?” How MUNI is going to accommodate these people (if they aren’t getting on a Google bus)and the hundreds of others that are getting on at Castro or Church? 64 units and 15 parking spots…wonder how much more difficult it will be to find parking in that neighborhood. Isn’t there going to be retail space on the bottom floor? What non-chain business is going to be able to afford that space? I’m all about in-fill and utilizing dead space, but I don’t think the Planning Department has really accounted for all the impacts with these developments.

  38. Posted by Sierrajeff

    IMHO the point of a rendering is to show interested parties – including both neighbors and decision-makers – how the building will look when complete. As such, the renderings should be as accurate as possible – a feel-good gauzy image does no one any good.

  39. Posted by redseca2

    Renderings Side Note: Although you often see idealized renderings on the cover of permit and construction drawings sets these days, when I worked in the 1980’s for one of the top 5 or 10 design firms we were totally not allowed to do that.
    There take was they would be liable for mis-representation for each and every way that the reality was different than the renderings.
    We were only allowed to put a line drawing, usually and elevation on the cover.

  40. Posted by emanon

    Jeff I agree with you if the rendering is prepared for a CEQA document or permit application when a discretionary decision is dependent on accuracy. However, socketsite is a private real estate blog. No representation of accuracy is stated, implied, or necessary. I doubt this site is the prime source of project information for decision makers.

  41. Posted by Futurist

    I’m fine with the rendering not showing every little “existing” detail and urban infrastructure. It’s just a rendering.
    We all know the various poles and utility elements are there. They neither enhance nor distract from the building. It’s not like the City is about to get rid of power poles and electric wires for our transit system.
    Building looks interesting and will fill a nice void at that corner. These will rent or sell quickly.

  42. Posted by Jim Jenkins

    Just not cool enough for that corner! Make it better! It looks like all the rest.

  43. Posted by Jason

    Should be Victorian. Why are we opposed to building classic Victorian style in this city? It is WHAT TOURISTS COME FOR. Would sell much faster and add significantly more charm as a Victorian home in this location.

Add a Comment

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