1150 Third Street Site

The designs for a five-story building with 119 below-market-rate apartments for otherwise homeless veterans and low-income families to rise at 1150 Third Street, on the eastern half of Mission Bay Block 3 which fronts Third Street, between Mission Rock and Long Bridge, have been drawn.

1150 Third Street Rendering

As designed by Leddy Maytum Stacy Architects, the project, which is being co-developed by the Chinatown Community Development Center and Swords to Plowshares, will cost an estimated $47 million to construct and will provide a mix of 62 studios and one-bedrooms for formerly homeless veterans and 57 units – a mix of one, two and three-bedroom units – for low-income families earning up to 60 percent of the area median income, with on-site supportive services, a landscaped central courtyard and a garage for 24 cars and 72 bikes.

1150 Third Street Rendering: Looking South

The apartments will range in size from 371 net square feet for the smallest studio to 1,050 square feet for the largest three-bedroom.  And final approval for the development of 1150 Third Street is expected to be secured by next summer with the ground to be broken in the fall of 2017.

The 147-unit “Venue” already sits on the western half of Mission Bay Block 3, fronting Fourth Street.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by matteo

    the words “homeless” and “veterans” should never be next to each other in a sentence.

  2. Posted by Stop Driving

    I love that there’s parking for low-income people in the heart of the city. I make 6 figures and cannot afford a car in the city. This is ridiculous.

    • Posted by donjuan

      Its only 24 parking spots for 119 units. If you lived in that building, it would be unlikely for you to have a spot.

    • Posted by Futurist

      Really? with your income you actually can’t afford a car? Seriously?

      Well, maybe not a Tesla.

    • Posted by jlasf

      Because some of the residents will be vets, I would assume they might be handicapped. In which case, a car in the building would be helpful. And the other spaces might go to shared cars, like ZipCar.

  3. Posted by "Stop Driving"

    …and even though i make 6 figures and can afford to live in the city, i still whine about homeless vets getting more than me.

    • Posted by Stop Driving

      Do you actually think people on welfare should have better amenities than those who provide their welfare? Where’s the logic in that?

      • Posted by Brian M

        Your share of the amenities that are provided is minimal. Most of the money goes to war and the old, not “homeless vets”.

        Besides, given your user name, why are you whining that you cannot afford to operate a car. That seems rather…odd.

      • Posted by two beers

        Now, here’s a person who understands neoliberalism, and has thoroughly internalized it.

    • Posted by HousingWonk

      A portion of these units are family sized units (2BR and 3BR). They are not all for single homeless vets. The leasing requirements for affordable housing developments funded by the City generally require that 2BR and 3BR units be leased to households with children 18 and under. (That is, larger sized units get reserved for families with children). While its entirely possible that some of these families won’t need parking, its not unreasonable to provide parking for some of these units given the possibility that some of these families with involve families with heads of households who work outside the City at jobs that are not easily accessible via public transit.

      But please, keep up the welfare queen myth and your hurt fee-fees. You want to be poor? I am sure any one of these poor tenants would be more than happy to give up their apartment with a parking space in exchange for getting to be not poor.

      Nobody whines as hard as the privileged.

      • Posted by Onslow

        @HousingWonk:

        Your comment is ludicrous.

        Those of us who work hard, make wise life-choices and manage to amass some wealth through thrift and delayed gratification are not “privileged”.

        Sucking hard on that Government teat, are you?

    • Posted by Sabbie

      If you think $100k lets you afford to live in SF, at current prices, you’re not very good at math. Unless by live you mean bunking up in a rent controlled commune or parking your camper under the freeway. Makes me wonder if you even live here.

      • Posted by Dave

        True, and that is the reason arguments to build more, build more are absurd. The housing being built, aside from BMRs, is not affordable to the average resident. Unless they have inherited a lot of money.

        The sad truth is SF will be more and more a city for the wealthy -. short, God forbid, a natural disaster though even then it will rebound over time.

        The answer is not more uber-expensive housing in SF. The answer is more office development in the East Bay and other areas. And less in SF. The housing imbalance will never be addressed given the current plans for thousands and thousands of more jobs in HP, Central SOMA and other areas – most of which jobs will not afford the income necessary to live in SF. But they will afford an income that allows one to live in large parts of the East Bay. So why aren’t the jobs going there?

        • Posted by Jake

          jobs do go to the east bay. The east bay is increasing employment, and has been except during recessions.

          The greatest concentrations of “jobs” continue to be in the CBD of SV and SF. The reason is very very elementary: it is more profitable to do business there. Higher productivity, higher ROI, market forces at work, so to speak. That’s also why rent is higher in the SF CBD than in Oakland or anywhere in the east bay. And why it should be higher in Mt View than in Hunters Point. It is worth it for companies that can leverage the higher productivity.

          Any high productivity CBD will have a ‘housing imbalance’. That is necessary to achieve the workforce concentration that produce more per person. The land is more valuable when used to pack high earners in every 100-200 sq ft compared to the greater amount of living space they need/demand/payfor when not laboring. So we stick ’em in a variety of cans and hyperloop ’em back to paradise valley for the night and weekend.

          Is there a ‘housing imbalance’ in Noe Valley or the Sunset or the Castro or the Western Addition or North Beach or Chinatown or Nob Hill or Twin Peaks? Yup, they all house far more workers than jobs. The horror of it. Better start a commission to fix them now. Perhaps declare a moratorium on new housing in the Richmond until they address their way outtawacko Housing Imbalance.

          FWIW, the area over which to compute your ‘balance’ equation would be a 30-60 min commute of the CBD. Most everyone is willing to commute 30 min, not many are willing to commute more than 60 min. Notice that for the SF CBD that would include a population of 5+ million, more or less the SF MSA. Not clear what any analysis of housing imbalances below that scale would address, as the ‘market’ for housing the SF workforce is spread over many counties.

          • Posted by Dave

            There is not the political will, but if this were a single region then zoning might actually prioritize jobs and immediate future (10 years) office development to east downtown (Oakland) over west downtown (SF).

            The quality of life will continue to deteriorate in SF given that ain’t happening. The tube and bridge and SOMA streets are at near capacity now. With no realistic upgrades in sight, transportation-wise, for 20 years? Yeah right, just keep adding those jobs and those office buildings. The crony PTB are doing fine – whether corporate or political.

            And if one is lucky enough to own a multi, multi million dollar box in the Millennium (oops, wrong example) who cares. Many of them live here part time only. .

          • Posted by Jake

            Um, nothing zoningwise to make it harder to build office space in Oakland than in SF, AFAIK. And some is being built or reconfiged there, but the market will pay more for it in SF because they get higher productivity there. They really will because they really do. If you don’t understand that or can’t factor it in then you may as well give up on proclaiming what is ‘realistic’.

            It is more economical to concentrate the jobs in the SF CBD from the FiDi to the Dogpatch and the housing in the bucolic outer boroughs (eastbay, foggysideSF, San Mateo County, etc), and build the rail capacity to swoosh it in and out, just like a modern 20th century city.

            But yeah the issue is the political wallet. Hmm, more prisons, freedom bombs, tax loopholes for Trumpster, or … mass transit?
            FWIW, there is also a continuing movement of PDRish jobs from the west to the east bay. Some call it displacement, I call it getridification: ‘This land is too valuable to permit poor businesses to park on it’

          • Posted by Dave

            If there was a regional zoning authority then indeed office development could be shifted to Oakland. By down-zoning SF downtown or halting major projects for a decade. See where we are then. SF does this within its boundaries but the problem is regional and job formation must be shifted through zoning to more affordable housing areas. Not to mention such a shift would take pressure off the tube and bridge.

            It won’t happen because of cronyism. Build rail capacity? Yeah right – I assume you are saying that tongue in cheek as it ain’t happening..

          • Posted by Jake

            Dave, gov’t forcing growth in Oakland and inhibiting it in SF would be self-defeating and counter-productive. We want biznesses to flourish.

            Central gov’t clumsyhands pushing office businesses to locate where they are less efficient is a sure way to reduce quality of life, as in fewer jobs, less cash and prizes (IPO). Besides, all a moratorium on SF office construction would do is help inflate the costs of what is already here and give businesses more reason to locate the jobs in other metros. And SF is much much much bigger in office space than any potential alternative on the Jersey side of the Bay. The idea is ludicrous, and not in a good way that could be laughed off.

            Easy enough to reduce the congestion on the SoMa and FiDI streets: charge more to park. Use that money plus bonds to increase subways/BART/Caltrain/ferries/etc. And stop electing people that muse about cycle tracks and BRT making us into Copenhagen. I heard my BOSer Jane Kim on the radio today ramble about that in response to a question of the form “I’ve never seen traffic so bad in SF, what are you going to do about it?”

  4. Posted by ohmy

    Nice to see that this land use is proposed for a location other than western soma. Time to spread this housing, as well as public services for those less fortunate, throughout the city. And yes, there are people in need of services throughout the city, not just western soma.

  5. Posted by dubocer

    And the cost per unit for the lucky few?
    Our tax dollars out the window……

    • Posted by Orland

      It’s not like they’re giving them away. Just one commendable application of resources. The resentful avarice of some continues to amaze me.

      • Posted by Onslow

        Not commendable at all, as dubocer wisely said it’s a massive waste of tax dollars, and in the end only succeeds in feeding yet another wasteful City bureaucracy and drives up the price of housing for everyone else who doesn’t win the lottery for a precious subsidized unit.

        In one sense I’m not complaining because this “affordable housing” idiocy only makes my market-rate SF condo that much more valuable, so if I was really greedy I guess I’d be happy. Still, I hate to see idiocy of any kind thrive, even if it does pad my net worth.

  6. Posted by Orland

    Nice to see these lots being filled in. Unfortunately, two of the last holes in the Mission Bay community are among the most prominent fronting 3rd Street (Willie Brown Blvd).

  7. Posted by unlivable city

    Well… I wish the elders and vets good luck finding anything, utterly ANYTHING to do in the simultaneously anti-septic and yet strangely septic Mission Bay. Maybe they’ll find employment scalping tickets at the Warrior Bowl. But otherwise it will be a long hike to a place with any life.

    • Posted by Brian M

      It’s basically Bishop Ranch or Hacienda Business Park. And it is far more lively and urban than these suburban deserts.

    • Posted by Columbo

      Maybe they will have to suffer hanging around the fire pits at Spark, listening to live music. Or maybe they will have to suffer taking walks along the shoreline or enjoying the beautifully groomed parks.

  8. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    Does the $47 million account for land cost? Otherwise it is 400k on average for these 371 to 1050 sq ft units.

    [Editor’s Note: No, it does not.]

  9. Posted by 4th Gen SF

    I think the American homeless, and homeless vets should be at the top of the list. I really resent the fact that Mercy housing prioritizes illegals over Americans. Anyone that’s an American, especially vets and low-income Americans should be prioritized for all subsidized housing anywhere in the USA.

    • Posted by Anon

      Yeah, cuz the fact that you were lucky enough to be born in America should count for something and keep you ahead of all those other folks, goldarnit.

      • Posted by 4th Gen SF

        I’m a 4th gen San Franciscan, your response to me is reprehensible. I believe in America First. Period. Get used to it, we’re going to win.

        • Posted by Jake

          win what? a semi-coherent shouting contest. The term “America First” has an ugly discredited history in these United States, though Hair Trump has regurgitated it as a key expression of his foreign policy. And who is “we”, kemosabe? Trump gonna lose yuge, historically yuge, embarrassingly yuge, whether you ever get used to it or not.

          Don’t suppose Mercy Housing is going to revise their policies according to the dictates of angry “Americia Fisters” either. As for sustainability, well I suspect these programs will be around after we are all gone. Really, decades after all of us are gone, this project is likely to still be here, caring for human beings first. And y’all might be amazed at how much charity American taxpayers provide not only to immigrants among us but to people that never ever even visit our humble nation. Billions year after year, voted even by rethuglican congresses. Even bad people can have some good habits.

        • Posted by Columbo

          Just the fact that you have to call yourself a 4th generation San Franciscan is sad and very telling. Hey, chip on your shoulder much? Entitled much? The world passing you by?

      • Posted by donjuan

        Its just unsustainable for american citizens to shell out tax dollars to house illegal immigrants on US soil in prime real estate in San Francisco…

  10. Posted by jamesjr

    So you serve two years in the military and then you get lifetime healthcare? And if you’re homeless, a free apartment in SF? Really?

  11. Posted by ncydr

    $47 mil estimate for this project at $400,000 is optimistic projection going forward to 2017. As a comparison 1180-4th St affordable housing (two blocks away) the total development cost was $80 mil for 149 units which ran about $533,333 a unit in 2014. This is based on OCII published data and is a mind blowing amount to support a single family or tenant. With new code changes, more SF ordinances and energy requirements piling, they will add significant dent on cost. That being said the facade is unattractive a needs a three sided face lift.

Add a Comment

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