645 Texas Rendering

If approved next week, a five-story building with 91 condos and 600 square feet of corner retail space could rise at the eastern end of Potrero Hill, fronting Texas, 22nd and Mississippi Streets.  As proposed, sixty percent of the condos would be two-bedrooms or larger and average a little over 870 square feet apiece.

Designed by BDE Architecture with a facade finished in wood veneer and composite panels, the 645 Texas Street project includes 69 off-street parking spaces (including 2 spaces for car sharing); parking for 104 bikes; and 9,500 square feet of open space with a central courtyard outfitted with “fire tables,” seating and an outdoor movie wall.

645 Texas Courtyard

As we first reported about the project two years ago, early plans for the site had included 101 units and a non-conforming 101-car garage, a proposal which led to “strongly encourage” Trumark to minimize the number of off-street parking spaces, “because of the site’s proximity to public transportation, and in conformance with the General Plan and the recently enacted Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan.”

While the total height of the development as measured from one end to the other would exceed the 40-foot limit as zoned, the project breaks the building into eight different segments along the sloped lot, and the height for each segment, as measured at its northern most point, is equal to 40 feet and doesn’t exceed 45 feet at its midpoint, an approach for the parcel which San Francisco’s Planning Department finds reasonable as proposed.

645 Texas Rendering: Texas Street Looking South

And with eleven of the condos to be below market rate, “creating a socially integrated development,” and $881,150 in impact fees to be produced from the development, the Planning Department is recommending that the project be approved as proposed.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Arefugee

    Oh boy, two bedroom condos with 870 sq. feet. I’m sure they’ll be “cheap”…NOT! This is ridiculous!

  2. Posted by blabla

    Oh the ubiquity. Why can’t we have nice things?

  3. Posted by Michael

    Nice scale for the neighborhood, variation in design and choice of materials. I like this one.

  4. Posted by Jackson

    I like the design of the courtyard open spaces; however, from the photos I can’t figure where they will be located since the lot is bisected with public street easement.
    The closeness of the projects will always make this an unsafe location. Another murder was reported there this morning.

  5. Posted by Joseph A

    It is a good fit for how this part of San Francisco needs to be developed ,
    As for the projects they need to be torn down and rebuilt so that the usage is more balanced as is being planned

  6. Posted by jwb

    600 entire square feet of retail, eh? Don’t go crazy.

  7. Posted by BobN

    I see the cowboy rode in on a miniature pony…

  8. Posted by jill

    i do like the dseign better than most of the new condos being proposed. i wish it could go higher than 45 ft. though.

    870sq ft is the size of junior 1 bdr.

    • Posted by Futurist

      People can do quite well with 2 br in 870 sf. This is the future: smaller units for higher price. Those who scream about the housing “crisis” should get used to this. This is how new units are produced in Europe and Japan.

  9. Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

    Let’s all try a little math: 91 condos, 60% will be two-bedrooms or larger. Units would average a little over 870 square feet apiece.”

    Can’t conclude that 2BR condos will only be 870sf from that. Since 40% of the units will be 1BR or less, and thus likely less than 870sf, it is almost certain that the 2BR units will be larger than 870sf (unless there are a lot of 3BR+ units).

    870sf is pretty small for a 2BR although not miniscule. But 1000sf, where these 2BR will likely fall, is a perfectly decent size. We had the two of us plus two kids in 1000sf for a long time. More than enough space. We have about triple that now, and it frankly is way too much space. Great for parties, but too much to clean the other 361 days of the year. But I was out-voted on the right-sized place to buy.

    • Posted by Conifer

      This is the Commissioner Sugaya theory of planning: take your own personal experience and preference and apply it to everyone else.
      JR “Bob” Dobbs thinks for four people “1000sf … More than enough space.” 3000 sf “way too much space”
      What is wrong with allowing builders to build what they think will sell?
      And people to buy what they want and can afford?
      There are many people who want a lot more space than JR “Bob” Dobbs. Indeed the average new house in this country is about 2200 sf.

      • Posted by Anonandon

        “take your own personal experience and preference and apply it to everyone else.”

        What is so strange to me about many of the people commenting here is that they demand others do as they say, but NOT as they do They want NO on-street, or off-street parking, but some of the biggest anti-car posters here have admitted they own and use a car regularly themselves. They have a garage, but demand that other people not be allowed to have one as well. I say that is just another form of NIMBYism.

        The same goes for those yelling “Taller!” and “more density!”, but yet these same people admit to living in single family homes, with back yards and private garages, which are really just another form of suburbia, but in a slightly denser setting. On another thread someone posted that like the up and coming southern neighborhoods of San Francisco because they can still afford a single family home with a yard and garage. That is urban living? Riding a bus 1 hour each way to work is not experiencing city life as I understood it when living in Chicago and New York and walked to work or took the subway. There is a true disconnect between demanding tall towers without parking be built as long as it is not in “their” neighborhood of low density single family homes with ample parking available.

  10. Posted by unlivable city

    Let’s talk about removing off street parking and the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. The San Francisco Planing Department is flat out guilty of environmental racism with what only Planning calls the utterly idiotic Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. Everyone else calls it an utter failure. That is because it jams industrial use right up against mixed use and residential. No environmental rules whatsoever. As a result, you can pollute the same at Harrison and 19th street (by Flour and Water) as you can anywhere in California — its much worse for instance, than the Richmond Oil Refineries. The reason that Planning did this to the neighborhood is because its residents were mostly working class and immigrant. They couldn’t push back. Its a travesty. I only hope that the new people moving into the neighborhood start to speak up and force the creeps at Planning to fix their mess. If not, in time, lawsuits will do the job.

    • Posted by Futurist

      What exactly is (your) problem with off street parking?

      • Posted by anon

        What isn’t the problem with off street parking?

  11. Posted by Sfsoma

    This development is going to block my bay views given the proposed heights. My living room will no longer be private as it is right now. Oh we’ll I hope it is better for the community. The bigger change we need is to redevelop the housing projects. Sick of hearing gun shots throughout the night.

  12. Posted by Boojum

    I wonder whose Bay views your building blocked? In big, dynamic cities, old views are lost, new ones are created. In shrinking, pulseless cities, old views rare go away because very little new building takes place. I’m speaking as one who lost his view from the Upper West Side to the late Twin Towers in New York and who recently lost his view of Mt. Diablo from Alamo Square. Without question, dozens of neighbors lost their views when the 7-story rental building I live in went up in 1927. Too bad for them, me, and you. But I’d rather live in dynamic San Francisco than dying Detroit or struggling St. Louis any day – not to denigrate those estimable cities, only to cite them for contrast.

  13. Posted by Anon

    yeah and Sfsoma said “oh well I hope it is better for the community” so why did you jump on a soapbox

  14. Posted by Sfsoma

    Just made a comment that my views would be blocked. No hard feelings like you guys have. Would like to still have views so apologies for the offensive comment. If it’s better for the nabe then helps my resale value. Is that ok?

Add a Comment

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