Plans to raze the two, two and three-story, buildings on the northwest corner of Mission and Ninth Streets are in the works. And as envisioned, a new 15-story hotel could rise up to 143 feet in height upon the Mid-Market site which is currently limited to 120 feet and for which a rezoning and design exemption will be requested.

As designed by Stanton Architecture, the new hotel would yield 162 rooms for tourists over a 50-car basement garage.

And while the development would result in the demolition of the 21 residential hotel rooms in the existing Ram’s Hotel atop the Allstar Café, the project team is planning to pay a fee to eliminate, rather than replace, the residential hotel rooms.  We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Hans

    I wonder if the Ram’s Hotel is currently a SRO with long term tenants, and how eliminating works. My understanding is that the tenants are heavily protected under rent control.

  2. Posted by Hunter

    Should not be allowed to eliminate SRO space without replacing it. Plus the old building actually has great character among the blando new development in this area…doubt planning will let this slide. Also, incredibly boring design. Hotels are the thing we should be excelling at in this market!

    • Posted by hundoman

      Why do so many people feel they have a right to live in someone else’s private property for basically a fixed cost for the rest of their life if they choose to?

      • Posted by Matt of Uptown

        Why do people think that when they buy property that they’ve somehow also created a world all to their own?

      • Posted by Notcom

        The answer to that is obvious (self-interest); the more immediate question is why do people feel someone else has that right…probably for the reason that SF feels it’s entitled to suck up State and Federal money:
        – Because it makes SF “a better place”;
        – Because they can.

      • Posted by SocketSite

        Most likely because of existing contract and property laws, which is the same reason so many people feel they have a right to have their property taxes capped as well. And now back to the actual topic at hand…

        • Posted by Scott F

          Thank you for this dig at Prop 13. It has destroyed California’s schools and desperately needs to be repealed, and replaced with a much more limited solution for homeowners who really face hardship paying the tax on their residence — for example, partial property tax deferral until sale in such cases. And now for real back to the actual topic at hand.

          • Posted by Outoftown

            It is no secret that SS is strongly opposed to prop 13. However, it has wide support in the state as it protects homeowners from being taxed out of their homes. Homeownership is still a way for regular Joes to build a bit of security for retirement. If you want to repeal it you need a decent replacement – perhaps a homeowners exemption from taxes on the first 400,000 of home value? You may now return to your topic, but don’t leave digs like that without the opportunity to reply.

          • Posted by hundoman

            It will also be interesting to see what happens to long term home owners in California with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which eliminated the IRS deduction for the interest on a HELOCs when used as cash out.

            This IRS change could over the next 8 years put quite a bit of SFRs back on the market that wouldn’t have been put up for sale otherwise which in turn could bring in some real revenue for the state and local governments via getting these properties back to regular tax roll assessment values.

          • Posted by Notcom

            Of course Prop 13 didn’t “destroy California’s schools” – they have more money than ever (yes, after adjusting for inflation) – and while it may prevent people from being taxed out of their homes, it’s also certainly contributed to the meteoric rise in prices for them – since savings in taxes can go to higher mortgage payments.

            The more tangible – if less visible – long-term effects have been a shift in power from the local level to the state, and a shift from stable revenue flows to erratic ones (like capital gains).

          • Posted by Outoftown

            “it’s also certainly contributed to the meteoric rise in prices for them – since savings in taxes can go to higher mortgage payments.”

            But if you buy at the higher price, prop 13 doesn’t help you – only over time if prices inflate more than 2% per year do you benefit.

            It may keep some people from moving from high price area to lower priced ones – if they have a home with assessed base of 500K but market value of a million and they move to a less expensive location home costing 750K they will be paying 50% more in property taxes. So it could limit supply of resale homes in high priced areas like SF.

          • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

            Notcom, come on. You can only get away with saying California’s schools have more money than ever after adjusting for inflation because subsequent ballot measures increased school funding by mandating that a certain percentage of the state budget be spent on education. If that hadn’t happened, the destruction of California schools would have been complete. As it was, a heck of a lot of students were deprived of an adequate education during the period from 1979 through 1989.

          • Posted by Notcom

            Dear ‘incensed renter’ you’ll have to forgive my ignorance – I was a product of California’s education system for (at least the first half) of the period you mention – but what did I say in error ?? To say something is true only because of something else isn’t to refute it: I didn’t say they have more money because of 13, only that they do… that they do because of later enactments isn’t really relevant: I’m not saying 13 was good – indeed (as I pointed out) it introduced fundamentally bad features into California’s finances – only that histrionics like “destroyed..schools” don’t seem to be supported by the record.

    • Posted by Architect17

      I hope it will look better than in the picture. It usually depends on the quality of materials used. While older buildings can be interesting design wise, many don’t meet current exiting and fire codes, so are unsafe. Upgrading them can be more expensive than building new. BTW, whoever painted this building this nasty color has done nothing for an argument to save it.

  3. Posted by Peter

    Looks like a dreadfully dull and inactive street frontage along both 9th & MIssion.
    Planning should not allow an active retail frontage to be replaced by a blank wall.

    • Posted by Scott F

      With you on that. Especially at a corner. A lot of Howard has been ruined by corner developments with no activation.

  4. Posted by Billy Martini

    Taller Please! And make it look better!! Lots of cool (yet small) buildings in that area. This looks so cold! Get creative, 200 ft at least please. thanks

  5. Posted by AJC

    In my opinion it is a shame this building has no historic designation with the City.

  6. Posted by cmak

    I walk by this corner a lot and this purple building is one of my favorites in the entire city. I’m for building up here but this proposal would be so much better if it maintained the 2-story purple section as much as possible (and yes the ground-floor retail too, definitely please do not make this corner a glassed-off sterile hotel lobby)

    • Posted by Curious

      I really like the existing building, too! That said, I also think it would not be the end of the world to tear it down as long as something good replaced it. The current proposal does not seem to have had civic virtue as a design goal, however.

  7. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    Stanton (or the next architect) can do better. No doubt this project will see numerous revisions before it gets moving, esp with the two big obstacles—historic preservation and affordable / SRO protections.

  8. Posted by Panhandle Pro

    While this certainly feels like it should be an SRO, given the name and location, it doesn’t look like it is. It has a normal Yelp page, TripAdvisor page, and ability to book on Booking.com etc. It apparently is just a semi-run down hotel.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      The existing hotel has 6 tourist rooms, in addition to its 21 residential rooms, as well.

      • Posted by Jeff Webb

        there is of course the SRO Demolition Ordinance, but I would expect lawsuits if any of those residential units are inhabited now. This seems to be fairly early in the planning stages, so I wouldn’t be suprised if things get changed down the road

  9. Posted by Panhandle Pro

    Armchair architect all you want, but this should be built in some form. Forgot historical resources – this is an undersized, run down building in an area that needs foot traffic. Another ~160 tourists walking the area, security guards and lighting will help to clean up this area.

  10. Posted by Oh My

    We would lose the AllStar cafe

  11. Posted by jq

    Build it!!! Not a huge fan of the proposed design and not sad to see the purple building go, but this motel and corner attracts criminals. Walk by it often and see the drug dealers hanging outside of motel. Happy to see them go. Build it!

  12. Posted by MyOddCommentHandle

    i’m sure the motel’s residents will find other doorways to live in. just like i’m sure every tourist who ever booked there via internet badly regretted it once they arrived.

    build the damn hotel.

  13. Posted by sf_historian

    This will have to be reviewed by Planning Department preservation staff before any entitlements are even considered. The corner building has never been formally surveyed and so the project sponsors will be required to submit a Historic Resource Evaluation Report. Based on a cursory look as compared with the historic photo, the building is fairly intact. I suspect this will be determined to be a historic resource.

  14. Posted by JB10

    the modern building is horrible. It is a great shame to even consider knocking down the existing building – renovate don’t replace.

  15. Posted by Jason Rocker

    Good build it! We need more housing and hotels.

  16. Posted by JWS

    I live a block away from this corner. I understand the need to keep *some* if not many historic buildings in a city (we take ourselves FARRRRRR more seriously in this manner than NYC or London just FYI) but this corner currently is a cess pool of drug dealing.

    A new hotel would provide constant foot traffic, as well as more support for local Mid-Market restaurants, many of which are hanging by a thread if not closed. I’m 100% for it, although I do think there should be a plan put together to find housing for the current occupants.

    • Posted by that_dude

      I also pass by this every day, this corner is a cess pool of feces. Please make it better. And yes, this is better.

  17. Posted by Amewsed

    Yotel is opening this year on Market Street so it will need all the help to create a tourist friendly neighborhood. This includes Mission St. and this project.

    • Posted by Scott F

      As other commenters have noted, the rendering seems to show no retail replacing the All Star Cafe, and as such, no activation on the corner. Nothing tourist friendly about that. I personally like the All Star Cafe as a rare low-priced, casual option, but to call this an upgrade there has to at least be *some* replacement, IMO, even if it’s the upscale, hoity-toity type of place that would probably fill a new building.

  18. Posted by Condo Boy

    Keep the building. Lose the purple.

  19. Posted by Pablito

    I’m not in favor of saving the existing building, and the proposed design is not bad, but I have to ask what happens when we have city of these bland modern boxes. This proposal could be in Chicago, Shanghai, Chennai, or Seville. Nothing about it says San Francisco to me.

  20. Posted by RGBiv

    brutish. Modern Sovietism

  21. Posted by AndrewK

    I’d rather see something replace that awful motor inn across the street.

  22. Posted by Harvey

    Oh no – this is the same architect that did the monstrosity about to open on the old mcdonald’s site on Townsend…that did not go well.

Add a Comment

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