More condos heading to the Castro

2201 Market Street Rendering
2201 Market Street Rendering

UPDATED 4/3 3:30PM –  Added architect renderings for 2201 Market Street that SocketSite managed to grab.

SocketSite reported Sunday that more condos are heading to the Castro. The San Francisco Planning Department released their Preliminary Project Assessment (PPA) for a 6 story 63.5-foot tall mixed use building at 2201 Market Street, the current site of Catarra Real Estate, and formerly proposed Starbucks location.

Edmonds + Lee Architects (Chestnut Residences, Sutter Street Condominiums) worked with the property owner to draft a plan that includes demolishing the existing 3,788 square foot commercial building on the lot that was built in 1956 and construct a six-story, 63.5-foot tall mixed use building that will nearly cover the entire lot (4082 square feet). The proposed mixed use building will include one floor of underground parking that will provide seven parking spaces and ten bicycle spaces, which will be accessed from a new curb cut along Sanchez Street.

The first floor of the building will include approximately 3,095 gross square feet of primarily commercial space, and the second through sixth floors will include a total of nine dwelling units, which include four one-bedroom, four two-bedroom, and one three-bedroom units. A 720 square foot roof deck above the sixth floor would function as common open space for the proposed dwelling units.

The PPA is an exploratory document that city planners put together to assess what permits and other requirements are needed to set the plan into motion. No building permits or notifications to neighbors have been made yet. The property owner has until September 24, 2015 to file a building permit, so we may not see any action for a while, but if we do, we’ll let you know!

via Biscuit tipsters and SocketSite

Roy McKenzie

Roy has been a Castro resident since 2010 and is passionate about drag queens, bicycling, and food. Follow his babbling on Twitter.

You may also like...

30 Responses

  1. Mitch Mansfield says:

    An interesting question: Which is better for that corner — a Starbucks or a six story building? I’m missing The Industrialist already.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 11

    • Sanchez Resident says:

      Ground floor retail is part of the condo project so there could be a coffee shop. But, I doubt a formula retailer would be approved.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

    • rblack says:

      Shop at The Industrialist often?

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

  2. Ray says:

    Good question. I honestly think more tall buildings along the Market Street Corridor will further divide the look and feel of our village. Its going from edgy quaint to downtown. I would say a Starbucks would be better than another 6 story structure. If anything the new commercial space will become Starbucks anyway!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12

    • rblack says:

      7 or so 6 story buildings have turned the Castro into “downtown”?

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3

    • Sasha says:

      Personally I want more people to be able to live within walking distance of Muni stops.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0

  3. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 35

  4. DerekSF says:

    That building is an eyesore and an inefficient use of space, glad to see it being developed into condos. We need more housing. Now they need to do something with the former Home Restaurant site.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 2

    • Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 33

  5. michael says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 30

  6. Mitch Mansfield says:

    Who knew Scott Wiener controlled the Planning Commission and that on his own he is developing the Castro! You can learn so much by reading the comments on Castro Biscuit!

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4

  7. Joe says:

    I’ve been in San Francisco for close to 40 years and the one and only constant has been change.

    Market Street is a major transportation street. It just makes sense to build high density housing. It seems to me the same folks who cry about the Manhattanization of SF, are the same ones who demand rent control and housing for all. You just can’t have it both ways.

    This lot has been an eye sore for YEARS, very glad to see something in it’s place. Wish the owners of the “Home” site would do the same.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 4

  8. bluesparrow says:

    “The complete & total “Manhattan-ization” of San Francisco continues”

    One can only hope. Maybe in the near future we’ll actually have some decent pizza in this cow town.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 6

  9. sjg says:

    I wonder how the new tenant feels about all this. They did tout this location (unbelievably) as their new flagship location. Actually, they should raze the building ASAP before it falls on someone.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

    • Sanchez Resident says:

      One of the comments on the socketsite page from Dubocian said that the real estate office required a Conditional Use permit (ground floor office space). I don’t think Caterra has a CU permit for their new space. Maybe their time there is temporary?

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      • sjg says:

        It’s possible.
        But it’s disruptive to a business to set up shop and then have to move again. Especially a real estate office, it would be very confusing to their clients. The whole situation seems odd to me. I have a feeling they didn’t know about these plans before they leased the space.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  10. Tom says:

    Yes, more housing is needed- I’m glad that something is being done with that space. I wonder what kind of view they’ll get of Beck’s from the upper floors. Be nice to get some smaller shoppes as retail on the ground level as well.

    I miss Capri too, but must admit I enjoy Marcello’s on Castro Street. If SF is becoming Manhattan- perhaps focus on making a proper bagel available in the Castro

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  11. Tom says:

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  12. Liv says:

    I think the linea is an eye sore. Looks like an office building with no privacy for homeowners. Love the wholefoods building though. Interesting that the sanchez – 15 – markets corners will have about 300 new residents with the next 2 years with all the condos. Yet muni is over capacity already. Packed like sardines. Yes we would need another Starbucks or something else for people to meet and accommodate the large number of new residents.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  13. Matthew says:

    We need to Manhattanize San Francisco.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

  14. Pickles says:

    If we ‘Manhattanize’ San Francisco, may we please have the better architects that NYC enjoys? These new projects (oh- sorry, too uncomplimentary to the new buildings?) lack potent design. They’re built to fly through approvals instead of be significant architecturally. Last, EACH of these new buildings should have solar power panels mandated.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

  15. Castro Resident says:

    First, Pickles, there is no such thing as “fly through the approvals process” in San Francisco. There are some very good reasons why many of the new buildings look the same in SF – i.e. Box Bay windows. It is because that is the way the codes are written. It is not necessarily because that is the way the developers want to build them. So, if we want more creative architecture, the city should, with citizen input, rewrite the rules so that developers can get more creative.
    Next, what you call “fly through the approval process” is associated with a concept called return on investment. Developing buildings is a business, sorry, it’s true. The developers put THEIR money, not yours, on the line, buy the land, take all the risk of getting the necessary approvals and hope that they build something that people want to buy or rent. If it works, they get rewarded with a return on the investment, if it does not, and sometimes it does not, they lose A LOT of money.
    The last point I will make is called the time value of money. When someone buys a piece of land, and the process to get it all approved takes a very long time, the investment is sitting not earning any return. The longer that takes, the greater the risk, and the less likely it is that developers will want to build in the city.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4

  16. Pickles says:

    Ok, ok, Castro Resident. Glad to hear your take on it (sadly, I missed a comment about my solar suggestion though..) however I beg to differ regarding the ‘fly through’ comment. If you don’t like those words how about ‘path of least resistance’? For certain, this exists. I wanted to reduce the footprint of our back stairs in our Castro building, to get more greenspace in the yard. Quickly we realized the difference between ‘in-kind’ repairs/replacement vs making a big, better designed change. We chose the ‘fly through approvals/path of least resistance’ mode. I get it. And so do developers. Which is certainly a reason developers don’t want solar mandated- they won’t directly appreciate the rewards (unti a power emergency, but I digress).

    Doing less interesting work IS the path of least resistance. Pushing a new building back 10 inches could create a green hedge that would enhance a neighborhood. They don’t do that because they certainly want the extra square footage vs the good of the neighborhood but some do- and THEY are the imaginative developers and architects we could use more of in San Francisco.

    Code is restrictive. This is why I write to the planning commission, supervisors and anyone who will read. If we don’t speak up, we get drivel. They get drivel. Let’s hope to move the game on and get San Francisco better design by any means possible.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4

  17. Jack M says:

    Why do all these new buildings look so brutal, ugly and totally graceless

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  18. RW says:

    Does a beautiful, world-class city like San Francisco really need more hideous, fugly, cookie-cutter buildings? With each new development of this sort, the City’s architectural heritage is being watered-down.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

Speak your mind...