The public hearing for the proposed redevelopment of the old Alouis Radiator shop turned Seismic Retrofitters parcel at 650 Divisadero Street has been scheduled for January 26.

And if approved, an all-new, six-story development, with 66 condos over a couple of ground floor commercial spaces and an underground garage for 26 cars, could rise up to 65 feet in height at the corner of Divisadero, stepping down to four stories along Grove.

As originally designed by Forum Design, which has since been acquired by Ankrom Moisan Architects, an internal courtyard and roof deck will serve as open space for the building’s residents.

And in addition to a beefed-up acoustical wall, the southern façade of the development will be windowless, all in an effort to appease concerns that new residents will lodge a barrage of noise complaints that could threaten the viability of The Independent next door.

Of course, the 8,400-square-foot NoPa parcel upon which The Independent sits, which was purchased for $450,000 in 1996, is now zoned for development up to 65 feet in height as well.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by JRSF

    Yikes. The Independent is one of my favorite places to hear music in SF (I even liked it when it was the Justice League). Maybe they could dust off the SF Yoshi’s location.; I cannot imagine they will go 2 weeks without a complaint here.

    • Posted by Bogie

      Nirvana played there [when it was] the Kennel Club.

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        The Kennel Club! Nostalgia. Page Hodel and the Box was my jam.

  2. Posted by Bogie

    Wow – that’s a game changer.

  3. Posted by Bogie

    Look, I also have to say – the only people who use the term NoPa are clueless transplants and realtors – I know I sound like a heel but c’mon let’s drop the cheesy name already.

    • Posted by Dixon Hill

      Welcome Home to SoDoSoPa

    • Posted by aerel

      Not this smug refrain again… names are always changing, big deal.

      • Posted by Bogie

        How would you like it if people just started calling you Hal for no good reason?

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      this is western addition. agree. hate the new realtor neighborhood names that have popped up in last 10 yrs.

    • Posted by Geno

      I have lived in the neighborhood for 25 year. It’s changed a lot, and has become a distinct separate area from the Western Addition. So it deserves its own name.

  4. Posted by Frank C.

    I used to live in the ‘hood. Shocked that a sensible development is going to happen here. Seems too good to be true. Arch could be better, but oh well, the region needs the units.

    I love the Independent. However, the city/region’s need for housing trumps (ha! no worries, not a fan of that narcissist/racist/incompetent bankruptcy creator) the needs of the tiny sliver of population who go to live shows. The Indy’s owners are not poor, they can find another location, especially if they cash out of this site. Loud venues survive better in industrial neighbs anyway.

    • Posted by Matt

      Or maybe people who move across the street from a venue can understand that they are paying for a home across from a venue.

      People who think owning a home across from a venue means they can force the venue out are selfish.

    • Posted by Stop Driving

      People who move in next to music venues, then complain about the music are a scourge on the culture of the city. People want to live in areas like this because of the culture, of which places like the Independent are an integral part. We can’t just keep moving the cultural centers to undesirable neighborhoods once their original location gets gentrified. Look at what happened to the Fillmore when the SF Jazz Center opened. What was once a jazz district, fka the Harlem of the West, has now completely died. Yoshi’s, Roeslla’s, etc. are all closed now. If people keep sweeping the arts into the proverbial corner, there will be nothing desirable left for people to flock to San Francisco for.

      • Posted by Bogie

        Let me guess – they ‘should move to the suburbs’

    • Posted by Sabbie

      Explain to us why the city needs more housing please? Who benefits?

  5. Posted by taco

    Nice Anywhere, USA architecture ya got there

    • Posted by Brian M

      You are not very familiar with the suburban hell strip mall/tract home blandness that is “USA architecture” in all but a few corners.

  6. Posted by Metroliner

    This looks like every other building that has been built lately. That cheap press board siding and faux bay windows are just so blah!

    • Posted by Bogie

      As someone who lived through the era of Richmond specials, I don’t exactly mind. I have seen this style done both cheaply and not cheaply though.

  7. Posted by Alex

    I’ve been in the hood for ten years, and this is welcome! Two more retail spaces, while assuredly selling pricey goods, is better than an industrial box. More foot traffic is better.

    Next up, do the same for the giant Shell station on Divis and Oak!

    [Editor’s Note: With respect to said Shell station, redevelopment plans are in the works.]

    • Posted by Dave

      Soon, there won’t be anywhere to get gas in San Francisco but I suppose the anti-car people will be happy about that.

      • Posted by Brian M

        Since San Francisco is always imminently facing traffic apocalypse in Dave’s world, discouraging cars should be a good thing?

  8. Posted by Rillion

    I was just walking down Divisadero last night and noticing how many sites there are that can/should be redeveloped. Hopefully this continues to spread a bit further north as McAllister to Geary still needs some help.

  9. Posted by Conifer

    The reason for the NoPa name is that the Western Addition was too big a piece of real estate. What is now commonly called Lower PacHts was also in the Western Addition, and if one goes back far enough so was PacHts itself. Lower PacHts sounds much better than the “PineBush Freeway area.”

    This part of the Western Addition used to be a seriously dangerous place, but NoPa is much safer.

    The only virtue of the proposed, banal architecture is that they are using a new color, maroon.

    We need more housing because SF is richer and has more jobs for people. The alternative to prosperity is far worse. What we are lacking is housing for people who need or want big houses, for family or whatever reason. People who can afford big houses should not need to explain why they want them. Squeezing families out of SF is a foolish thing to do, and really great cities do not do so. Even in cities known for small apartments — Barcelona, Paris and New York — there are many large apartments and they continue to be built.

  10. Posted by Alura Gambino

    I agree about the architecture, SUPER disappointing & lacking interest. Just like that huge metal box of micro apartmentments on the corner of Divisadero & Ellis, what a miserable and cheap-looking eye sore. Come on Architects, what’s going on?

    I also agree about eeeeking out the culture of a place, the mere existence of it is the neighborhood draw. I was always under the impression that PLACE informed & inspired architects. Creating a residential building is an opportunity, why resort to same, same, same? LETS KEEP IT REAL IN THE Dub-U-A!

Add a Comment

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