4128 Third Street Site

Built for a saloon in 1900, the first floor of the two-story Bayview building at 4128 Third Street was converted into McAfee’s One Hour Martinizing in 1996.

A fire damaged the second-story apartment in 2013, the dry cleaner was shuttered last year, and the building currently sits vacant.  But as a plugged-in tipster reports, plans for a five-plus-story building to rise upon the site have been drawn:

4128 Third Street Facade

As envisioned by Kodorski Design for Mr. McAfee (and no, not that McAfee), the building would yield seven residential units over a ground floor commercial space and stacked parking for three cars, with the top two floors of the building set back from the five fronting the street, creating both private and common outdoor spaces for the units below.

4128 Third Street Aerial

And while the plans for the 4128 Third Street site have yet to be formally presented to the City for review, we’ll keep you posted and plugged-in as the project moves forward.

UPDATE: With respect to a reader’s comment questioning the ability for the development to fit upon its parcel as proposed, the ground floor plan with the majority of the commercial space located at the back of the lot:

4128 Third Street Ground Floor Plan

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by woolie

    It would be wonderful and enheartening if simple 5-story infill buildings like this are now economically viable in the far reaches of San Francisco. However, I’d ditch the parking for a small retail space.

    • Posted by Hunter

      agreed!

    • Posted by Alai

      Or, rather, rearrange the space so that you can also reclaim the long hallway and the commercial foyer, which seem like they’re doomed to be wasted space in the current version–that’s another 250 square feet.

      Does anyone have good examples of commercial spaces like this, which have long hallways leading to the bulk of the space? I’m wondering how they deal with the design and security issues. Perhaps it could be used for something like a bakery, where most of the space is behind the counter, but even then there’s not really enough room to display the wares. Or a dental office?

      • Posted by Jude

        The Cutlery (hair salon) in the Inner Sunset off 9th/Irving has exactly this sort of setup.

        Their hallway is mostly bare, and thus wasted space, but otherwise it doesn’t seem to cause any nefarious activity.

        This may be due to the overall bustling nature of the 9th/Irving hub. It’s close enough to the street that anyone trying to spraypaint the wall, etc. wouldn’t have a whole lot of privacy.

    • Posted by Chad

      Parking garages create dead streets.

  2. Posted by seriously

    awesome! now build 1000 more.

    • Posted by hvac

      Yes! Especially on the transit corridors like Third Street… which also has the bones of a walkable retail street, attracting new businesses. That hawaiian grill two doors down recently opened and has great food.

  3. Posted by soccermom

    Will be interesting floor plates. 2 stairs plus an elevator? Just two stairs? I wonder what the steel budget is for this, or if they would frame it all out of wood for flexibility.

    Aside – I love seeing the aged aged Pepsi and Coke signs in the outer neighborhoods, like on the shop next door. You have to go pretty far out into the rural hinterlands to find any functioning signage of equivalent vintage.

  4. Posted by Swiftamine

    Isn’t this across the street from the proposed 6 story building? What’s going on with that?

    Not surprised to see development happening in this area. Tons of potential

  5. Posted by GiggleMe

    Oh, and you can get $4 sandwiches at the place next door. Where else in the Bay Area can you get a $4 sandwich? I’ve tried them; they’re not spectacular, but they’re good enough.

    • Posted by hvac

      In other parts of town $4 only gets you a slice of toast. Though I guess Trouble Coffee’s Bayview location serves this too… Neighborhood has options!

    • Posted by c_q

      haven’t been in a while, but i remember a banh mi place on steuart street half a block from boulevard you could get sandwiches for about $4. You can also get subway sandwiches downtown for about $4. And no, none of these are spectacular either.

    • Posted by JR "Bob" Dobbs

      Lee’s Deli (financial district where I work), and Courtney’s Produce (near where I live) both have $4 sandwiches. No need to trek down to the Bayview. But if I’m ever there, I will give it a try.

      • Posted by Mike Kennedy

        Courtney’s makes good sandwiches for $4.00.

    • Posted by SFrentier

      Yep, been meaning to try those $4 sandos, thx for the reminder.

      Also the new Duc Loi supermarket in the southern part of BV will have cheap bahn mi’s. So north side or south side, a $4 sandwich is within reach!

      Cool that these new constructions are coming north side. Should be good for my buildings too, as they’re nearby. Hopefully the protest-everything idiocy that infected the mission hasen’t hit BV…yet.

    • Posted by SFrentier

      Speaking of new construction, the bldg next door sold condos for sinfully high prices. Now there is a flip in that bldg; guy trying to get about $30k more out. Now that’ll be a great Apple-to-Apple SS tends to love. Expect to see it here shortly…

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      mcdoanlds has .99 sandwiches

  6. Posted by curmudgeon

    I really don’t see this happening in its current form. Also, I can’t imagine Planning looking kindly on inserting a new curb cut into a block which currently has none. If there’s not an explicit policy limiting new curb cuts on the commercial part of Third, then there certainly should be.

    • Posted by Swiftamine

      All the more reason to ditch the car parking for a ground floor retail space.

  7. Posted by Conifer

    Why is the mad idea that cars are unwanted by human beings so prevalent on this website? Or is it merely a sadistic form of social engineering?

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      Core retail streets are not the place to add curb cuts, Conifer. This is nothing about being anti-car, it’s about being pro retail/pedestrian. And pro street parking, for that matter.

      • Posted by Conifer

        It is not pro street parking. The curb cut, less than one car space, will allow three or more cars to be parked in the building, making a reasonable life for persons of the current century, and removing those cars from competition for remaining street spaces.

        • Posted by zig

          The curb cuts and parking lots on upper 24th sucked and degraded the pedestrian experience when I lived there

        • Posted by curmudgeon

          As 3rd Street develops, this frontage will eventually be metered for signed or metered for commercial use. There isn’t an equivalence between residential parking and parking along 3rd street.

    • Posted by c_q

      Cars are not a very good use of space in a compact urban area. Many single/double car garages in SF wind up turning into illegal second units or filled with so much junk people can’t park their cars there anymore. You are setting aside at least 200 precious sqft in your building for a car that you can just park on the street for free (or nearly free if you need a residential parking permit). People need cars to get around, but this can be solved by other methods – transit, taxi/uber, car sharing, etc. And, putting in a curb cut effectively turns public parking for one car into private parking for one car, and likely a perpetual sidewalk obstacle when people park in front of their garage as is so common throughout this city.

      • Posted by Jake

        The Bayview is not “a compact urban area.” It has about half the average population density of SF overall and this very block is mostly low-density/low-rise warehouse space.

        Cars are vital to the economic health of the Bayview. That’s how more than 60% of the people who live there and have a job get to work, and about half of them commute to work in SV. The easy freeway access south of the main 101 congestion in SF is one of the big attractions to living in BVHP and helps drive the rising property values there.

        The area around this location has an oversupply of free street parking. And with the water treatment facility a block away, there should be plenty for the indefinite future.

        • Posted by Busrider

          The area will grow more dense as more developments replace warehouses, empty lots, etc. Especially with if the affordable housing bonus program goes through. Also, the wastewater treatment plant is being redesigned by the city, though I’m not sure what that means for parking. I believe they are planning to move the digesters away towards Caltrain and put offices in the spaces closer to third. But you’re definitely right about the Bayview’s easy peninsula access being a big draw.

        • Posted by Jake

          Sure, some (other) parts of BVHP will grow denser, though not enough to bring the area up to the average for SF. Most of the northwestern section of Bayview is an Industrial Protection Zone. It boarders this block, and includes the whole area west of Phelps from Oakdale north, and the area north of Evans. Plus there are some PDR only blocks nearby.

          This is the “plan” folks, the official SF General Plan and the 30-year redevelopment plan for this part of BVHP. And there’s no reason to revisit it until other nearby large projects already in the queue (Pier 70, Schlage, Potrero Terrace, Sunnydale, etc) are digested over the next ~10-20 years. And “revisting/revising” these plans takes a decade by itself.

          So, no this part of Bayview west of 3rd will hardly get more dense, hardly at all beyond whatever gets packed into just the blocks that line 3rd. And, yes there will be abundant free street parking near this location for decades into the future.

          • Posted by Busrider

            You wrote that “this very block is mostly low-density/low-rise warehouse space.” Now that you’re writing “whatever gets packed into just the blocks that line 3rd,” are you saying that Third Street itself (the main transit/retail corridor) will become more dense and compact? “Packed” sounds like it implies compact density. Isn’t this the point? To create density along the transit corridors? AHBP, Katy Tang’s Sunset Blueprint, etc all focus on these areas.

            So yes, while Bayview’s large borders may include low-density areas (the variety is part of what makes the neighborhood interesting), that doesn’t mean it won’t contain dense ones, in this case Third Street (site of this proposed project). Third Street’s future compact density would still be compact density whether or not it extended into other parts of the neighborhood.

            Also, while the large redevelopment plans (just in the Bayview area these large plans includes India Basin, Hunters Point, Hunters View, and Candlestick/Alice Griffith if you want to talk South, etc) are doing their thing, infill projects on/near Third Street (like this one) will contribute density (again, especially if the AHBP moves forward). You don’t need major sweeping projects to increase density; a lot of individual projects concentrated in an area (along Third Street) will also do the trick.

            Also, I think part of c_q’s comment can boil down to whether or not car access is the best and highest use of ground floor/frontage space in this compact/dense/urban/etc property. The other point about one street-parking spot vs private spot isn’t accurate since this is proposing stacked parking. And since you sayso much free parking near the project, does that mean you don’t think providing on-site parking is necessary for the project?

            Finally, out of curiosity could you provide the source of your average SF density and specific neighborhood density information? I’d be curious to see how this neighborhood density compares to others (like the Sunset, Ingleside, Portola, etc). Also, how does the planned density of HP compare?

          • Posted by Jake

            I expect that gradually, very gradually, the blocks that line Third Street in BV will continue to be redeveloped and that will increase the density of BVHP a little, maybe 5%, probably not 10%. And over 10-20 years. The other side of BVHP has bigger increases underway and more future potential, and those have little or no impact on the street parking at this location.

            One block from this location a broad industrial zone extends for nearly a mile west to 101, more than a half mile north to Cesar Chavez, and through the large Indian Basin area north and east of Evans. The entire zone has very few residents. And this block with this building sits in a corner jutting into this nearly unpopulated vastness.

            A narrow strip of 65-foot or even 85-foot tall buildings that borders empty industrial zones and many blocks of SFH will not make this a compact urban density. Have you been to Brooklyn or the Bronx? No this will remain an area with a population density below the SF average with an abundance of free street parking. If you can’t understand this then I cannot help you. It is like trying to convince a person with one penny in their pocket, that if they add 9 more pennies to their pocket, though it will feel heavier, they still won’t have a dollar.

            Of course I “don’t think providing on-site parking is necessary for the project.” I don’t think it is necessary for a single project of a mere 7 units, or even 20 units, anywhere in SF. I don’t think the project is necessary either, though it may be desirable, especially compared to what is there now. The main reason to have secure parking here is security.

            Oh, and calling 3rd St in the Bayview a “transit corridor” just devalues any useful meaning for the term and shows how freely we claim to have created something we’ve been unwilling to build or pay for. Surface light rail that stops at traffic lights and waits for cross traffic is a nice return to a simpler poorer era about 100 years ago, but it doesn’t make for a real transit corridor like Market St. 3rd St in SoMa is a car sewer, in Mission Bay it is underbuilt/over-subscribed, in Bayview it is the axis about which a community struggles to recover from a 40 year decline. So, build them as high as you want and enjoy the view of the waste water treatment plant, though beware the soft ground that closed 280 down after the 1989 quake.

            I mostly use US Census data. SF gov sometimes has it already tabbed by their neighborhood or planning boundaries. Socialexplorer is a good enough vis tool and one of the few that will show population density to the census tract level.

          • Posted by Alai

            Seven units on a ~2500 square foot lot is now below average for SF?

            And if “there will be abundant free street parking near this location for decades into the future”, why would you insist on building more garage parking when the space could be used for something better?

          • Posted by Jake

            This thread has been discussing the density of Bayview and BVHP, not the density of a 2500 sqft parcel. And I have not and would not “insist on building more garage parking….” Just read what I wrote above and that should be clear.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            1- this area doesn’t have an over supply of free parking. If you visit the area you would realize that. Nobody is going to park half a mile away deep off Evans to walk home. The surrounding blocks get taken up by cars of people living in the vicinity, and housing is just about all around this location. And during the day those industrial business have plenty of cars parked on their street as well. Yeah, maybe not as hard to park as north beach, but certainly not barren.

            2- 3rd st is a transit corridor, by SF standards. This isn’t NYC so the comparison is irrelevant.

            3- the industrial areas of BV are largely separate from the residential areas. Sure there are some blocks that are on the divide, but largely separate. The residual areas of BV are pretty much medium density by SF standards. Like glen park, Noe, etc. many SFH’s and some multi units.

            4- it’s pure speculation to say if 3rd st will become more dense or not. It could, if many more projects like this are wanted (by both developers and the community). Or it may not. But the point is, it has the potential to be higher density, if the market and political climate calls for that.

            Despite repeating yourself, as usual, your views are obtuse and off the mark. And your condescending attitude to the two writers above challenging you is off putting.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            For the record I think parking is disruptive to the traffic and pedestrian flow at this location. People buying these will need to be ok with using T rail and uber, and those buyers are out there. It won’t be a big negative IMO. Then they can save all the money on the car lift (expensive and a PITA to install) and create a much better retail space, which this area needs. There are numerous business wishing to locate on 3rd, but much of the vacant and run down retail is owned by a small cadre of families, and they are not anxious to rent out their dilapidate spaces. That’s why 3rd st development is so protracted.

          • Posted by Jake

            FTR, no one said there was an “over supply of free parking,” whatever that means to you. In supply demand terms all the street parking here is already too cheap to meter, being free and all. Even 3rd St in-front of here isn’t metered.

            What I wrote was there was “an abundance,” which there is. FTR, 105 free public street parking spaces are on the four streets along this block. Another 126 free spaces on the west side of 3rd St are within one block of this location. That’s abundant, by “SF standards.”

            If it takes you more than a few minutes to find a parking space within a few minutes walk of here, then you are doing something wrong. And I have parked in the area. Try around Phelps & Hudson next time if you can’t find one closer.

            There are sections of BV where street parking is not abundant even though the density is low-medium with almost all SFH, often because of curb cuts, but this is not one of those locations.

            I agree with you that “the industrial areas of BV are largely separate from the residential areas. Sure there are some blocks that are on the divide.” This being one of those blocks, FTR. Which is why there is very little housing north or west of this location. If you visit the area you would realize that.

            It is not “pure speculation to say if 3rd st will become more dense or not.” It is the official plan of the City and County of San Francisco, has been for something like 20 years, has been backed, promoted, and funded by every mayor since Brown, and was part of the justification for building the light rail out here. You know, the only thing that distinguishes 3rd St as a “SF standard transit corridor” and not just a truck route with some bus service.

            The people buying here will most likely be able to park on the street for free almost whenever they want, just like their neighbors. I doubt they need us telling them how to live, though I too would prefer the developer not put a curb cut on 3rd.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            FTR you did exactly say “an over supply of free parking”- look at your first comment on this thread. But parsing between over supply and abundance is futile.

            What you fail to understand is that those industrial businesses have cars parked in front of them, quite readily, during the day. It’s not a super hard area to park in, but abundant it is not- meaning I don’t see rows of empty parking spaces when I drive through.

            As for building up 3rd st, I know it’s been a city goal, and there has been some successful projects like 5800 3rd. But by and large it hasen’t happened yet, namely because the few owners who control many of the run down and mixed use spaces there don’t need the cash flow (nor the hassle of doing a major renovation project to establish a new business at the ground level.) The interest is there from prospective business owners, but it’s tough to find a vacant store front which the owner will rent to you. It may seem counterintuitive, but that’s how a lot of SF RE operates.

            On another level, one thing that isn’t clear to me is how BV is going to handle all the new traffic that will come in from the shipyard and candlestick, once those communities are established. Unless I’m missing something, those areas can basically go: 1- easy access to 101, 2- on small residential streets over to 3rd (which will become a driving nightmare), 3- through Evans westwards, or 4- off 3rd through Oakdale to connect with the south central parts of the city such as the Mission. None of those streets are equipped to handle 20,000 something new residents.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            the area will not be gentrified without off-street parking. most people too afraid to park on the street in this neighborhood and walk a block to their fancy new $1M condo.

            Im not saying gentrification is bad or good, but i cant imagine too many new wealthy people moving into the bayview without parking. the reputation is just too bad

        • Posted by pizzapizza

          SFrentier: Thanks for fact checking. And you’re definitely right about property owners not making space available, which is why local groups are organizing to notify these owners of the new SF laws requiring registration of empty storefronts and payment of a $780 annual fee. May not seem like, much, but it’s a start. Failure to register can result in fees up to nine times the annual fee.

          • Posted by curmudgeon

            SFrentier: re parking availability. It is very likely that any resident here would not have a big problem finding street parking if there is indeed a lot of industrial property nearby. Even if (as you say) it is reasonably full with workers during the day, any resident with any normal kind of work hours would find it EASY to park in the evening when they come home which is when it matters most….and they could leave their car for days at a time on the street. In San Francisco scarce parking dynamics, this is the BEST place to live and be assured easy parking. Third Street currently has 2 hour meters, so it is NOT available to store your car on all day, but Innes and Phelps have TONS of parking.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            ^ no, they don’t have tons of parking. Yes, a bit easier to park then on the all residential streets nearby, but that’s about it. I know, I’m in that area on a regular basis. Even if industrial empties after 6pm, there is spill over of nearby residential already. Think about it: if parking is X hard on the residential streets, it will only be marginally better on a residential street bordering industrial. No one wants to park deep in industrial area and walk 4-5 blocks home. It’s dark, creepy, and already a good amount of the cars there stay overnight.

            I’m not in favor of having parking on this site, and I also think condos will sell just fine in BV w/o parking. But don’t kid yourself that it’s easy free parking forever kinda thing…cause it ain’t!

          • Posted by Jake

            Sorry, SFRentier, you’re right, I did. Thanks for the correction. And agree semantics isn’t the issue.

            I certainly understand “those industrial businesses have cars parked in front of them, quite readily, during the day.” If they didn’t, they wouldn’t have much of a business. But they have mostly trade type traffic that goes away before the commuting office workers return, as curmudgeon already mentioned. FWIW, SFMTA did a survey in BV. #1 complaint was safety, but not far behind was finding parking when they get home from work. Too many curb cuts and garages full of stuff not cars. That means there is actually some elasticity in the supply to be reclaimed as it gets worse. But eventually it could be as bad as many other SF hoods.

            It may just be a matter of personal opinion about easy vs hard to park around this parcel, but the main reason most people wouldn’t park were there is almost always space a 5 minute walk away on Evans or Jerrold beyond Phelps is fear/danger. In my neighborhood near South Park the streets aren’t as unsafe, but the odds of a car break-in overnight are so high that there is plenty of free street parking here after dark, while secure garage parking is expensive. As I already wrote above: “The main reason to have secure parking here is security.”

            Several SF neighborhoods have gone through transitions like what is likely to happen around BV 3rd St. For example, Dogpatch is further along in redevelopment and has been changing since the mid-late 1990s. And much of SoMa, including the area where I have lived for over 20 years. These little infill projects along 3rd should really help it and the immediate area, but the big potential wrt to 3rd are when they resolve the two large sections of pdr a mile south of this location: west side between Williams and Paul, and east side around Carroll/Yosemite/etc. If or when those go even 50% residential it could really help make 3rd a better retail street. Maybe once there are more customers in walking distance the longtime owners will have a bigger $$$ incentive to sellout or buildup.

            The plans to build 10,000 or whatever housing units at HP/Stick seem like … madness. And with a transportation plan mostly of BRTs and wishful speculating about transit mode splits that would have them like the Mission or North Beach. Oh well, maybe if they label Palou and Evans as “transit corridors” and give ’em a bus lane it will all work out.

            Hopefully, SF will reopen a Caltrain station in BV and connect it to HP and Portola via surface light rail east/west along Palou and Silver, or something similar.

            IMO, BV 3rd St has never recovered the cachet lost with Downtown Rehearsal.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            I agree the safety/car break in issue is significant, and another reason why most residents shy away from parking near the industrial areas over night, especially toward Evans.

            So regarding the transportation issue, when the city approved the redevelopment of the shipyard and candlestick, they didn’t include a specific transportation/street upgrade plan to handle the traffic? I didn’t read the entire plan, I’ve seen parts of it only. But it sounds unimaginable to me that transportation/street usage wasn’t addressed. I just don’t have the info on it, so if someone does feel free to come forward. I drive all the main streets I mentioned, and they are largely ok now, but couldn’t possibly handle the full load of the future redevelopments.

            I’m really hoping they add the Caltrain stop at Oakdale near phelps soon. It will be fairly easy as already there is a ready made area for it. Besides the train schedule, they need to add stairs and a couple platforms and it’s done. I’m sure they are trying to gauge the ridership they could gain too. But that will not help with the inadequate street pattern. Oakdale, Jamestown, Evans, and 3rd just can’t handle heavy traffic. Oakdale and Jamestown have stop signs and residences on them. And all the shipyard traffic from Evans will need to make its way westward if they’re going anywhere except towards downtown. Relying on existing streets will be nuts. I can’t believe there isn’t a street plan already in place, and I just haven’t seen it.

          • Posted by Jake

            The BVHP transportation plan, approved 2010, is one of the more readable I’ve seen from SF gov. Nice graphics, not much transport jargon, and a good/brief discussion of the parking issues that are often discussed on SS, such as ratios, pricing, unbundling from housing. And you only have to read about half of it because the other half covers the whatif the 9ers build a stadium at HP. Check it out.

            I haven’t studied this in detail like I have plans for SoMa and MB, but AFAIK the gist of it is in BVHP to make cars more expensive to park, add a bunch of buses, and repave some roads, including one around Candlestick so people can get to 101 without driving through the heart of BV. Also, they have a fantasy commute mode split target that BVHP will end up with 25% walk/bike and only 45% car. That’s kinda like the Mission. More likely it will be similar to the other SF peripheral hoods near fwy to SV, with 60+% drive to work.

            Anyway, reality-based transportation planning is not a core competency of the SF gov. More like a core incompetency.

          • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

            “I’m really hoping they add the Caltrain stop at Oakdale near phelps soon. It will be fairly easy as already there is a ready made area for it.”

            Is there room to add wheelchair ramps from the street to the platform on both sides? I hope so because if not Caltrain will need to install elevators. That would dramatically increase the maintenance costs of creating a Bayview station there.

          • Posted by SFrentier

            Thanks jake, yes that helps a lot. Extending Geneva through candlestick will be a good idea. And I guess they will try to beef up a few surface streets going toward BV. But it certainly looks like car ownership will be discouraged, and we’ll have to see how that plays out. 10 +/- years out, who knows it may balance out…driverless cars, uber, lyft.

            Of course without a stadium there, it throws the whole street and traffic plan off. Is there a specific plan already approved to replace the stadium with…??

          • Posted by curmudgeon

            Isn’t the construction of a bridge over Yosemite Slough a central point of the HPS plan? It certainly shows in the info Lennar puts out about the ultimate plan, but I have no knowledge of just when in the development process it is coming. I’ve been wondering how all the folks moving into the new condos at “the Shipyard” are getting to 101 (particularly going South), as the current street grid is very cut off and needs to be reconnected. (parenthetically, the Lennar website is useless in even figuring out their next phase of development plans….I would personally feel very strange buying there without understanding the planned phasing of future development.)

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        i love my car and my motorcycle, and i love having a garage for both. they are both still more efficient than any other transit in SF, including uber.

        • Posted by Alai

          And given that there are hundreds of thousands of garage spaces in SF, you’ll always be able to.

    • Posted by Chad

      This website is about San Francisco. The best cities in the world are the ones that promote walkability, have great public transit, and lively streets. Garages like this run counter to that. If the only way you can imagine getting around is by personal vehicle, then suburbia is for you. But the old fashioned SF philosophy of one parking space per family just doesn’t work in a growing, dense city.

      If you want to talk about social engineering, let’s talk about how billions and billions of tax dollars in this country subsidize personal car ownership. THAT’S social engineering. Every highway, street, parking meter, street sign, etc is funded by tax dollars, paid for even by people who don’t own a car. This isn’t to say we shouldn’t have these things. But if you think being pro rail and bus is “social engineering” then it logically follows that you think being pro car is “social engineering” too because they’re both publicly subsidized, and in the fact historically, government has heavily favored funding car ownership. But one works in a city, and the other doesn’t.

      At the end of the day, places are self-selective. If you’re a person that likes to experience life from a car, you’ll live in the suburbs or L.A., or the outer reaches of SF. If you’re a person that likes to walk and use mass transit, you’ll live in NYC, or parts of SF, etc. But the thing with SF is that the city is rapidly growing. And if every single person in this town used only a personal car to get around, this city would be in gridlock 24/7, and SF would be a miserable walk to walk around city-wide.

      • Posted by Orland

        Funny, but the “horror” scenario you describe for San Francisco fits Manhattan perfectly which you hold up as a walker’s paradise. The point is people should be allowed options to find a happy medium. Policies should be designed to facilitate reaching a manageable center. I’m not saying that those who wish to own a private automobile must be accommodated in all instances. Nor, should they be forced to adjust their choices to preclude ownership.

        This recent trend of building concentrated dense residences without any provision for reasonably convenient and economical means of storage seems to me too much of the latter.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        i am a person who likes to experience driving my car and i equally like living in the Core of SF. thats how ive self selected.

  8. Posted by Rdub

    This project would go well with the building recently built adjacent to it and the proposed development directly across the street…however I would be shocked to see the parking take place as proposed if onsite at all. If it does get built as a Bayview resident i do hope it will spur developers to begin looking further up the Third Street corridor at many of the 1 or 2 story vacant buildings/storefronts and some cases empty lots for development.

    • Posted by Biena

      I believe the empty, former Shiloh Church space on Third street at Revere station is being considered for a new 4- story development with ground floor retail. Also, the old mortuary at 6424 Third Street is being proposed for a large new housing building

      • Posted by Rdub

        @Biena: Glad to hear it. Maybe something will materialize for the vacant lot next to Bank of America (5012 3rd) and the lots on the 5200 Block that have previously been on the Market but not sure if they ever found a buyer.

        • Posted by Biena

          I walk past 5012 3rd all the time and agree it’s an amazing opportunity. That block has a few really nice old masonry buildings on both sides of the street (the modern new library was designed as a nod to them). Right next to the empty lot is that huge potential retail space at the old notary. Also agree about the 5200 block.

  9. Posted by skyscraperluvr

    Narrow, tall buildings are such a splendor to my eye!

  10. Posted by Wasabi

    Zoned 65-J. So seems like the height works as long as they provide affordable rental units.

  11. Posted by Rdub

    Unfortunately I just got a solid taste of the difference between rendering and “proposed” reality, having just left the sandwich shop adjacent to this proposed development (Costanzo’s). There is absolutely no way that this gets built with any parking unless part of this development includes purchase of the Sandwich shop property. The lot size simply does not allow for anything but pedestrian street access and very small commercial but certainly does not allow for pedestrian/commercial/garage access. I guess renderings have no basis on constructability or basic math.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      With respect to fitting the development on the parcel as designed, we’ve added the ground floor plan with measurements above.

      • Posted by Biena

        It shows the parked car on a platform. Does this suggest a car elevator?

        If the parking doesn’t work out, pedestrian access and a ground floor retail space instead of parking would be a great proposed reality.

  12. Posted by Dave

    Is this parcel in the proposed bonus height plan? Allowing it to go to 9 stories? Then again they’d have to go to a steel frame and It probably would not pencil out.

  13. Posted by BayviewSF

    There is no public parking garage in Bayview. I do not think it is feasible to build condos without parking in the Bayview neighborhood.

    • Posted by notagain

      The whole “impossible without parking” comment seems to come up for any proposed building in any neighborhood in the city.

      • Posted by Orland

        It has only become an inescapable subject when the number of individual proposals of multiple units without provision for off-street parking mount to the point that the aggregate pose quality of life issues both for prospective residents and existing neighbors.

    • Posted by anon

      There’s walking a few blocks at night in Noe to get from on on street parking spot to your home and then there’s walking a few blocks at night in the Bayview to get to your home.

      It would seem very wise to build on site parking for condos in the Bayview.

  14. Posted by soccermom

    Can anyone walk us through the math on projected rents to build this little slice of a building with an elevator and car stacker? What rents are assumed that would make this work? What construction costs?

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      I think you’re getting to the heart of the matter soccermom. I’ll repeat my assertion that I don’t see this going anywhere. Too much circulation, too small a floorplate for any kind of efficiencies. It’s not going to pencil out.

    • Posted by SFrentier

      Why rent? I’m quite sure that these will be for sale condos. Next door sold for crazy high prices for BV.

    • Posted by SFrentier

      And the flip next door to this just went pending (quickly)….which I think is good news for the seller. Look, they’ll probably loose $$ on the transaction with sales costs, but at least the unit (probably, will need to see closing) won’t drop in value, which is good news for BV resales in general.

Add a Comment

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