The massing should be adjusted, and the fine details need to be worked out, especially how the entrance will interact with the sidewalk. That being said, I do recognize that the drawing is certainly a rough proposal which will undergo many iterations before a final project is approved. On whole, the project looks like a good way to bring a medium-density mixed-use project with a contemporary design aesthetic to the Mission.

As for the proposal supposedly being an "abominable project," my impression is that as far as the NIMBY/SFBG/real estate speculator-investors are concerned, ANY new development is "abominable" because it might actually increase supply of housing/office/retail space in the City, which could potentially lower the astronomical local property values; therefore, lowering the return to those who already own real estate and/or diminish the power of those select few people and organizations who possess undue influence on local politics.

I understand that everyone who has "gots theirs first" wants to keep prices as inflated as possible and/or keep power consolidated as much as possible, and damn everyone else. Nonetheless, it would be nice to actually see some constructive criticism, as in "here's how the project could be improved," or "this is what I would propose in its place," instead of the usual angry mob with pitch-forks response to any new proposal. The rest of us are tired of letting every local planning and other governmental decision get hijacked by the usual suspects, and now we are jumping into the fray to make our voices heard.

With respect to local planning going forward, here's a hint: While none of us want ugly or wrong-headed development, it is a fact that the City cannot get by with just the occasional beige-colored single-family faux-Victorian infill project and the opening of a little yuppie wine and cheese shop on every corner. (The show South Park got San Francisco nailed a few years ago when it did its send-up of SF politics on one episode). San Francisco needs to grow and adapt, and that means things must and will change. Certain people and organizations need to either get on board with positively and COLLABORATIVELY shaping that change, or they need to get out of the way before they get pushed out of the way. Selfish obstructionism will no longer be tolerated.

Chris, this whole thing about people wanting to keep real estate prices high is nuts. Matt Smith at the SF Weekly keeps trying to peg me with that. Frankly, I want property values to COME DOWN in my neighborhood; I don't want all my neighbors to be rich people.

But I don't think building more market-rate housing will ever bring down housing costs. Doesn't work that way, not in San Francisco.

I agree we have to go beyond cutesy faux victorians, but please: this particular project is way out of scale and lookes hideous at that corner.

Building more housing while prices are falling and people are being pushed underwater is bad public policy. In no other jurisdiction would government entitle more construction under those circumstances.

Under what was normal economic conditions, Tim is correct, demand is so intense that adding supply does little to lower price. Under current conditions, with the dollar falling off of the reserve currency cliff and jobs evaporating, you're just building housing trinkets for Europeans and Asians to scoop up, not housing that anyone around here can afford.

Real estate locally is like the health insurers are in DC, they can buy elections and oust incumbents because they're the 800# economic gorillas in the political room.

-marc

I live a block from there and would love it, we are so far behind architecturally that it is an embarrassment. The neighborhood is a cesspool, I have been burglarized twice this year. It needs to clean up, the Richmond drug dealers and Oakland hookers need to go home, the piss and shit and needles need to come off the street. The underlying politics of San Francisco is "status quo forever and ever", so many people who feel empowered by shouting "no, not status quo enough!" are of course going to do their little ritual, as they are here.

Also, Chris, some rules of debate: 5000 new houses does not mean homes for 5000 people -- it means second homes for 5000 google employees whose primary home is in Palo Alto. Home prices, at realtor's conventions and in the SFBG, only go up. It is a rule, like the iron laws of history. More supply equals more demand, remember your Reganomics. Stick to these rules and you will fit in here.

Hey anon, you should have moved to a place that's a block from a San Francisco Police Department station if you wanted public safety protection.

It appears that the local burglars are quite discerning in choosing their marks from amongst the ranks of the newcomer complainers.

I did not realize that architecture was a contest.

Do the math on local wages and you'll see that they cannot service the notes to cover market rate housing.

-marc

Marc is that a stab at irony? The police station is at 17 and Valencia, one block from 17th and Mission.

Why exactly should people not complain about the uselessness of our elected foreign policy experts in the mayor's office and Board of Supes.

My ex girl friend had a gun pulled on her at 17th and Mission crossing the street, I would guess by a Chris Daly voter.

I would guess the property taxes on that place would be astronomical, so its a mystery why all the bitching.

Marc-- Interesting theory about who gets ripped off, I will run it by the old Latino guy in my building who had all of his tools stolen in one of the break-ins. I think he has only been here since the early 70's, so maybe he had it coming. As for me, my great-grandmother came here in the 20's, my grandpa built public infrastructure you use every day, both my parents were born in the city -- were in the same hospital at the same time, in fact. If I said one was Irish, and you were from here, you would know which hospital. I have more childhood memories of the city than you and the entire paid staff of the guardian put together -- not that it matters. You are projecting -- a person from elsewhere who doesn't care about the city or its inhabitants who gets his pitiful kicks implying that others are not from here and suffer your same defects. On the other hand my daughter has only been here for 6 months -- not just in San Francisco, but planet Earth! Maybe she was the newcomer those discerning burglars were after.

Otherwise you sound like a real estate broker: the world is awash in Asians and Europeans who can't wait to tie up hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in the plunging SF housing market. You should give talks at realtor luncheons, it would lift their spirits.

Gun pulled by a Chris Daly voter?

Did you ID them?

If so, thank goodness that people are allowed to vote unless still serving their felony conviction. Alternately, we could just forbid anyone who is poor and/or black from voting!

Is Chris implying that being poor and or black is correlated with having a felony conviction?
I see some progressive true colors shining all the way to Fairfield, CA.

I think the true abomination with this proposal is that it hasnt been hand delivered to the arms of a local non profit developer.
Anyone who follows Tim's development politics will recall his sputtering misspelling and poor grammar laced diatribes against the proposals for transbay.
One can only hope this is a last gasp from the old guard in SF: Tim Redmond, Sue Hestor, Randy Shaw, Calvin Welch. Do nothing unless it falls into the hands of our own klatch of non profit developers/ financially benefits the non profit mafia.
I also particularly love the solutions put forth here:
The rules of economics dont apply in SF - so dont do anything. people will still come here to compete for ever more scarce housing - and gentrification will still continue.

I really hope that comment from Chris Daly is authentic -- excluding violent felons from voting is equivalent to excluding black and poor people from voting, since all black and poor people are violent felons. Way to keep it progressive, Chris. I think maybe this Daly character is a brilliant performance artist, who is ironically enacting every possible cliche about wannabe sandinista post-college Bob Marley-poster poseur pseudo-progressives. Rich white boy who is only distinguishable from the others in that he has less education, skills, and general brain-power, comes to the city and builds career railing against rich white people coming to the city, mommy and daddy buy him a condo, spends years impoverishing the public sphere and fighting the construction of places like his own, notices that the environment he is creating is a crappy place for his children, mommy and daddy buy him a new place in the suburbs, to be continued. I keep waiting for the big reveal -- an 800 page journal published under the title "From Joseph Beuys to Chris Daly -- When Museum Stipends Aren't Enough."

...Back to the building at hand, I hope its supporters realize that what they see is not what they will get. The renderings show cafe tables and grass in the slot off 17th street that will be the driveway to the basement.

From the numbers I personally think it's a good building: 29 units in 6 stories over retail close to BART, 14 parking spaces and 26 bike parking spaces, etc. Aesthetics are a matter of taste but it seems we can all agree this is a ME ME ME look at ME building - some of us like that and some of us don't

But the renderings are deliberately deceptive, and all you Erector Set boosters would do well to counsel your real estate developer friends: you lie to us in your renderings and we will resent you on your next project.63d

Glen Matlock:

"Marc is that a stab at irony? The police station is at 17 and Valencia, one block from 17th and Mission."

No fucking shit, sherlock. Gavin Newsom gave the SFPD a 25% raise and we've got a police station one block from heroin dealing central, have had it for more than a decade when it replaced a Pepsi bottling plant.

The cops still get paid and the smack still gets traded, and you want us to build more housing that doesn't pay for itself over time?

Of course, this is all Chris Daly's fault, and the way to solve it is to just build more luxury condos, right?

I was under the impression that the heights for Mission Street were kept back at 55' pending further study.

How can this project go to 65'?

Marc, I don't care either way if they build the place.

Chris got himself a below market rate condo, he should be all for this.

I have no idea what you mean by paying for itself? If it's private contractors then who the fuck cares what they have going on?

The city has decided that this is where they are going let a tolerable amount of crime go about its business.

In your amazing libertarian world, housing just spring into existence and doesn't put any additional load on the existing city infrastructure, their residents don't put any additional load on city systems and everything just works out.

I'm sure that you're so happy with the basic essential services provided by the City to residents that you'd want to build housing for more people who will put more demand on those systems without correspondingly more resources. According to Planning Department studies, property taxes and sales taxes of new housing on the east side will not cover the costs of providing services to them incurred by to the City similar to the fact that fees charged developers will only cover a slim percentage of the demonstrated costs of impacts that will have to be paid by the City. That will mean more degraded systems, slower Muni, dirtier streets all with no measurable decrease in housing prices during normal market conditions.

But the developers will come out smelling like roses and vacuous politicians like Newsom will end up with campaign contributions.

-marc

San Francisco planning department studies? That's entertaining.

Essential services? You mean some of SF's bums who use up more services a year than most people make in a year are moving in?

This is a hoot, what "experts" should I believe, the experts who think we should build housing around transit hubs, such as 16th and Mission BART? Or should I believe "experts" who work for the city of SF, a city run by cranks?

If it's ugly then fine complain away, but this nonsense about density and services, when a person can find any number of liberal "experts" who will say exactly the opposite, then, if its good enough for Saint Daly then its good enough for me.

If using services is so bad, then you live in the wrong city.

ESSENTIAL SERVICES, meaning the stuff that makes it so that you can life in a City, streets, sewers, water, cops, transit and the like.

New residential does not cover the costs to the City to provide ESSENTIAL SERVICES, so I'd bet you'd want to entitle freeloaders to suck off of the public teat so long as they live in new condos.

The same "experts" who crafted a land use "plan" as the bubble was fixing to pop, are the ones who were unable to adequately "plan" for that eventuality because they were directed not to.

The idea that we can put greater residential densities near transit and that everything will just work out is a fantasy. If Muni is currently not meeting its standards, and Muni's budget is being cut, fares being raised and services being cut, and the regional transit network from Mission to job centers is not competitive with private autos and is seeing fares rise and services cut, then we'll see more cars clogging SF's streets, snarling Muni, as these new condo owners motor down south to make the cash to pay those notes.

It will literally take tens of billions of new investment to make TOD work in a way that does not cause more harm than good. Condo development is easy money, transit contracts require more effort.

The "experts" who work for the Planning Department, who are expert in doing what their bosses say, who are experts at doing what Newsom needs to keep his political shark moving forward, are the ones who promoted the Eastern Neighborhood plan, which will not work in a world without serialized mortgages, Transit Oriented Development, which will not work in a world without significant transit investment, and the study showing that entitling new market rate housing construction is little more than a subsidy to developers up front and over time by San Francisco's taxpayers.

Ain't long range comprehensive plans great when they cannot account for what happens 12 months out!