In typical San Francisco fashion, while alarmist have been clanging on and on about gentrification and condos, non-profits have been building up nice little new condos with great abandon. Now, I have nothing against people living in good buildings. I just have yet to understand a) why they need to all be focused in the Tenderloin (people will indeed go to where services are) and b) why these new structures have to look so crappy. Those buildings that were built down on Taylor near Market are decently okay, but will not age well. They were also built upon empty lots, so no real harm done (although green space would have been nicer). But, a new building development has been proposed to go up at 121 Golden Gate, which is at the corner of Jones.
Apparently that rather bland building, built in 1912 is a historical building that can’t be torn down outright. So, in order to go ahead with their plans, they’ve proposed plopping this new structure on top of the historical one. Oh, just in case that doesn’t look like a tub of shit to you in the photo, take a look at a similar lump at the corner of Frank Norris & Polk.
This mix of new and old simply does not bode well. I think that a much better option if this needs to be done is to do what H&M did on Powell wherein they tear out the interior and keep the facade. While I hate to see the old buildings go, that is a far better option than what’s being proposed now.
HT to Socketsite for keeping up these haps.
3 Comments until now
Building new buildings on top of old buildings. I’ve never heard of that.
You say that “non-profits” (none of which you name) are “building up nice little new condos with great abandon.” Where are you getting that information? You only mention what I think is four building, which all were built within the last 5 years. 4 buildings, 5 years. Why don’t you think the low-income housing on Mason (not Taylor, there’s only one on Taylor two on Mason) that was funded by Glide Family Housing won’t age well? Don’t you understand that there’s an influx of homelessness in the Tenderloin, hence why they build here? Not to mention it’s centrally located? Do you really, honestly think green space would have been a better use of an empty lot than providing shelter for poor families? Honestly? Do you know how many proposed building sites never get built? Do you understand that it’s been universally deemed more important to provide permanent shelter- and quickly- to low-income families than blow a non-profit’s budget on making sure the building’s exterior is good looking enough for you? But they hold public meetings anyway so that your voice can be heard by the developers? Do you understand the the existing building at 121 Golden Gate doesn’t equal the amount of square footage needed to house the amount of low-income families in the proposition? That’s why they’re building up? Do you know how much more labor-heavy and costly it is to build out (like H&M) than build up?
Yeah, that’s pretty horrid. Looks like one of the generic/modern/awful things that has gone up around the ballpark. This kind of bland architecture appeals to the yuppies that are fleeing the dying suburbs but kills the funky, old-school vibe that makes most SF neighborhoods charming (yes, I used the word charming in response to an existing TL building).
This crappy housing style is even popping up in the Bayview now, where I live. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was affordable housing directed toward low to mid income renters, but almost exclusively it’s high-rent apartments or condos that are being shoved down our throats. Bad, bad trend.