As originally envisioned and proposed, the vacant “3rd Street Village” building at 4712-4729 3rd Street, in the heart of Bayview, was to be razed in order for a three-story residential care facility with 24 rooms for the elderly to rise on the site.

Instead, permits for a four-story development, with 13 two-bedroom condos over a 1,200-square-foot retail space and no off-street parking, save for a storage room for 13 bikes, have been approved.

And with a demolition permit having been approved, but not yet funded, as well, the parcel and plans are now on the market with a $2.59 million price tag.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Dave

    This brings the number of units in approved projects that the developer has chosen not to build but rather put up for sale to about 1900. At 2.59 million the purchaser will be paying 200K up front for each “paper” unit.

    • Posted by surfair

      Which developer is this? And what are some of the other projects for sale?

      • Posted by Dave

        1270 Mission (299 units), One Oak (300 units), 524 Howard (close to 300 units) and the 7th. Avenue project which would have been about 440 units. Also the Hines RH “counterflow” project – 180 units. Those are the larger ones. I don’t know whom the developer is of this project but the asking price seems in the ballpark compared to some other entitlements where the asked price/paper unit has been way too high.

        • Posted by JWS

          1270 Mission, One Oak, and 524 Howard are all such important projects. I hope all three eventually get built and soon.

        • Posted by Accuracy

          One Oak is Build Inc, while 1270 is AGI Avant and 524 is crescent heights. All three of these are different companies.

          • Posted by JWS

            I think Dave was using the term “the [developer] has chosen not to build” to mean an aggregate of specific developers rather than one specific developer. And lord knows I disagree with Dave on virtually everything and I’m far from a defender of him usually (I’m sure he’s a nice guy) but I think that was his intention with that sentence rather than a mistake on ownership.

          • Posted by Dave

            Also, the Inner Sunset project is by Westlake Urban and was entitled for 445 units. The entitlement has been on the market for a year plus now. No idea if it has sold or if there has been a drop in the asking price. At least one of the 6th Street housing block projects is also on the market. 363 Sixth by Realtex which was entitled for 104 units.

        • Posted by JWS

          Dave just out of curiosity, where are you seeing 1270 Mission on the market? I’m sure you are right but they at least pulled permits and were awarded a permit to build and I can’t see it online anywhere.

          • Posted by Dave

            Orland mentioned it in the comments about another Avant project and Socketsite confirmed it. 1270 Mission was a nice architectural break from the usual SF residential high-rise and it’s unfortunate not to see it get built.

          • Posted by Orland

            In point of accuracy, the report upon that project is not that it is being marketed but that it has been put on hold as not currently financially feasible in view of rising construction costs.

  2. Posted by DP

    Close enough to Palou to keep things “interesting”

  3. Posted by john downey

    Is this area safe? I’ve driven by here at night and it feels a little desolate with the occasional loud music playing car that speeds by.

  4. Posted by JB in B-HP

    I actually submitted this to SocketSite as a tip because I was curious about why somebody would sell a project at this stage… approvals and permits are so time-consuming + hard to get, so I find it sort of odd that they’d bail *after* the approvals came through. It does seem like quite a high price tag for a teardown in Bayview, with or without approved plans, but I’m not a developer so what do I know?

    I’m also astounded that they got 14 units approved in this neighborhood without a single parking spot! I’m fine w/ it personally, but being able to park multiple vehicles on the street for free is apparently seen as an inalienable right for many long-time homeowners, and they fight like hell against anything that might threaten that right in any way. It comes up at every community meeting we attend, and often derails any other conversation entirely.

    The parcels for sale are very close to Mendell Plaza which sees a lot of unseemly activity, all of which happens right out in the open without any intervention by the city or the police. It’s pretty clear that the powers that be have made a decision to consolidate and consent to all of it as long as it stays roughly within the confines of the plaza. I would love to see it change, and I suppose it will inevitably at some point… Perhaps expensive, shiny new condos filled up with entitled monied folks will be just he thing that makes it happen? Could be, but in the meanwhile, it’s really too bad that that the hard-working, middle class residents—most of whom are PoC—have had to endure it for years and years.

    • Posted by aerel

      The parking-as-inalienable-right crowd is a loud but dying constituency. This project is literally right next to a T-line stop. There’s no reason it should include parking, and I’m glad they haven’t. Parking also increases constructions costs, so removing it is probably necessary to make this pencil out in a less expensive neighborhood. Even then, with the high construction costs, it might not work anymore, hence the project being up for sale.

      • Posted by Orland

        To the cars-are-evil crowd, there are many reasons provision should be made for some amount of storage for personal automobiles of residents.

        • Posted by JB in B-HP

          I don’t think cars are evil, nor do I think they can (or should) be entirely eliminated. I DO think that we’re in a huge mess because cars have been prioritized over many other more scalable forms of transport for many decades now, and often this prioritization comes at the cost of the health, safety and enjoyment of city dwellers, most especially PoC.

          SF would be a far more functional city if it had public transit that worked, but it’s pretty clear to me that it’s never gonna happen. Its infuriatingly inept governance aside, there’s a deeply entrenched resistance to creating safe + accessible transit in this city, and a lot of that resistance is rooted in (surprise!) racism.

          • Posted by Orland

            SF has transit that “works” — could be better, but much more available than many places and would certainly benefit from less dependence upon private automobiles.

  5. Posted by Jim

    The reason many entitled projects are for sale is that they cannot be built…the costs are more than they can be sold (or rented) for. It is a combination of escalating construction materials costs, construction labor shortage, unworkable Below Market (BMR) Unit required percentages, and now Trump tariffs. There is one thing SF is in control of and that needs to be changed, and that is the BMR rates. But even then, many of these projects simply cannot be built and will not be built.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      No mention of the price of entitled land, which has been bid up by developers, not to mention a notable other, and could drop, as well?

      • Posted by Dave

        That notable other is absurd. 888K per unit for an affordable project sponsored by SF? The city could subsidize a low income person’s rent to the tune of 3K/month for 24 years at that price. And the assumption is most of the low income individuals will over time become not so and not need to 3K/month subsidy. So one could subsidize double the number of households (144) for 10 years. Or 288 individuals for 5 years. The BMR model needs to be revisited and changed.

    • Posted by JWS

      I would love to see a thorough analysis of optimal BMR rates. It seems like we are pushing for things that look fantastic on paper (33% in Central SOMA, 40% for Mission Rock, etc) but if the BMR requirements are causing large scale properties to no longer pencil, not only do we lose the on site BMRs but also the contributions to the 100% affordable projects we want so badly.

      What do we really want…numbers that look great and equitable on paper, or the percentage that would actually allow for the most net new units?

      We literally have the highest housing costs and rents in the nation, and projects STILL aren’t penciling. This is very, very, very bad news.

  6. Posted by Pablito

    13 two-bedroom condos – no off-street car parking- should result in a bike room for 26 bikes – not 13. Planning Dept too busy being conceptual to get the basic details right. Sigh. Decent looking building though. Definitely a big improvement over existing.

Add a Comment

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