Stepped-on Del Taco Box to Replace Giant Value

Have you ever wanted to live in a weird 70's bowling sign?  Well, soon you'll be able to, as Mission Street's Giant Value is set to become a deflated accordion/fancy 110-unit condo development that'll rival the height and majesty of the New Mission Theater marquee.  From the architect, Kwan Kenmi:

110 Market Rate Condominums [sic] will inhabit this urban site adjacent to the New Mission Theater.

The project showcases quality and urban living. Meticulous detail 'weaves' the project tightly into the existing vibrant urban fabric. Small meticulously designed one and two bedroom condominiums bring value and density the neighbourhood [sic]. The design utilizes contemporary design and materials to bring idividuality [sic] to the building and dwelling units.

I'm inclined to think that these rendering inaccurately portray the true magnitude of this thing, considering the New Mission Theater marquee is only 70 feet tall and they've designed it to be 8 stories (unless the floors will only be ~8 feet tall each).

Anyway, no word yet as to if there will be any affordable housing, when construction is slated to begin, and how much each unit will be flipped for (but we're hearing rumors that the developer, along with Alamo Drafthouse, is pitching in $1.2m to revitalize Bartlett Street).  Stay tuned.

Comments (38)

We kind of need to build up SF. Why are we so afraid of tall buildings?

So, instead of a five screen cinema that serves beer it’s going to be condos? Mission, the end is nigh.

Alamo Drafthouse is a different project. This is adjacent to the movie theater. As far as I can tell, the movie theater is still moving forward.

^ correct

Meh, It’s not terrible. Not great either.
The massiveness of it could probably be improved with a setback at the fourth floor.
Truth be told we NEED more housing in this city. Here’s hoping some of it will be affordable housing.

Terrible. I’ve already written to Supervisor Campos to urge him to fight any such huge building at that site. I’m not against new housing, but a 100-unit, 8-story development in that area is wholly inappropriate. A two-to-four story building would be much more reasonable.

the mating call of the NIMBY who claims to want housing but doesn’t want it built. How “progressive.” Be sure to call your buddy Campos, he can get a cheap press hit out of it for his re-elect, and then when he leaves in 2014 won’t do a thing to stop it. EVERYONE WINS LOL

Agreed. And by the way, other people’s “ugly” is my “very attractive.” Nice to see some 21st Century architecture in the Mission - the Victorian era was over quite awhile ago.

Naw. There is new architecture that looks good. And, honestly, I don’t even mind the aesthetics of this design. Certainly a hell of a lot better than the uglyass Mission-bay crap that has been springing up all over the city recently.

The problem with this design is the inappropriate and unreasonable SIZE, not the aesthetics of the architectural style.

sure it’s bigger than its neighbors but you still haven’t explained why that’s inappropriate. Not every building has to be the same.

See Judy B’s comment below.

Funny how your idea of “21st century architecture” is exactly the same as my “1960’s architecture.”

Blame “Mad Men”.

While there are clear distinctions, you’re not that far off the mark. U.S. architecture is so deeply in thrall - to this day - to 18th and 19th Century architecture, that it will probably be another 200 years before the International Style (begun in the Twenties) and its offspring actually gains a foothold. So yeah, there are similarities between ‘60’s and 2010’s architecture, but think of all the quasi-Victorian stuff in SF that *still* gets built.* People in New England still build Colonials. The present may not be futuristic, but at least it’s not reaching as far into the past for its ideas.

* I hate this *so much*: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=3181+Valencia+Street,+San+Francisco,+CA&hl…

Wait, what? Your idea of the future is based on how far back we’re looking?

That kind of thinking really makes my head hurt.

Really? I don’t like the color scheme, but they did a pretty good job of fitting it in with the neighborhood. Same with the relatively recent building on the corner of Mission and 29th.

I guess we just have different ideas of what we want from architecture. For me, “fitting in with the neighborhood” means being permanently tied to a particular style. Nothing new shall pass. This is a common approach in planned communities: all changes have to be approved by some central authority for stylistic consistency. I prefer variety to the imitation of surrounding buildings. I like Victorians and Edwardians, but since Victoria is no longer Queen, nor Edward King, I say we move on. But hey, it’s all just different tastes.

Queen Victoria died in 1901. Most of the Victorians in SF were built post-1906, for obvious reasons.

that’s why he mentioned Edwardian too.

Those are different styles, though. Even if they do correspond with the same time period.

I thought was making a simple point, but your posts suggest that I was unclear. Let me rephrase: old-timey architecture is fine, but rather than continuing to imitate it, I’d like us to build in newer styles. I didn’t mean for anyone to get hung up on regime, date, or design peculiarities.

I do understand your point, but I don’t understand why you think fetishizing 1960’s design is somehow intrinsically more desirable than fetishizing 1900’s design. Both are retro, are they not?

The proposed design (and this gets back to my first post in the thread) is consistent with 2012 architecture. Yes, 2012 architecture may recall 1960 architecture, but is not identical to it.* I’m not sure there is any contemporary architecture that does not owe a debt to early-mid 20th Century architecture. There are things that are more airy**. There are things that are more curvy/organic***. But by and large, you are going to see right angles, windows, and attempts at integrating interior with exterior, and plenty of light and space.

Again, ultimately, I just like the design.

*The inward-outward angling/undulation, for instance, is more contemporary - I can’t think of any pre-1990 buildings that look like that.

**Jean Nouvelle’s 1994 Cartier Foundation building - http://fondation.cartier.com/#/en/art-contemporain/88/the-foundation/128…

*** Like Gehry, or, say, Zaha Hadid’s Chamber Music Hall - http://www.zaha-hadid.com/architecture/js-bach-chamber-music-hall/

Its not a matter of taste.

So it’s objectively attractive or ugly? Great! It’ll be nice to nail that down. I’m tired of having opinions, I want facts!

Yep, that’s me, total NIMBY who doesn’t like anything new. You’ve got me pegged.

The renderings indicate the Mission Street façade is about 75’ in height since the ground floor is taller than those above. In sketch #2 it appears that there is a pavilion-like set-back storey that achieves the 80’ height. There looks to be a second set-back on top of the first on the roof which raises the height yet again. The elevator housing will add another 16’.

Also, in sketch #2 we can see that the project extends all the way from Mission through mid-block to Bartlett Street. That section of the proposed project is taller yet, possibly hitting 90’.

The Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan set Mission Street heights at 80’.
Will this developer be granted ‘exceptions’/variances to build it higher than the Plan sets the maximum height?
What does the accompanying text indicate its height will be?

Bartlett Street residents must be absolutely thrilled to look forward to (what appears to be) 50 linear feet of heights of 90’ and 25 linear feet of a 70’ height rising up on their street.
No wonder the developer says he will revitalize Bartlett Street - as if it needs it.

Why do we bother to have Area Plans - or the Planning Department itself - if the rules are ignored and broken time and time again?

Hear, Hear.

Just leave Serrano’s intact.

I’m in favor of anything that provides more density. I will miss the Giant Value though- it was a great place to find unexpected treasures.

I can’t believe we’re 30 comments in and I’m the first one to quip the following:
“New Mission indeed.”

But please, let’s just agree to make it fit within the planning limits for this block and then hope they can leverage the crap out of it to bring the theater back to life. Let’s all keep our eyes on the prize here. Single screen movie theaters aren’t being resurrected very often these days, and this one has the potential to restore some of Mission Streets historic vibrancy. It was the Miracle Mile after all. Plus the New Mission is one of the last remaining (relativlely) unadulterated movie palace gems left in the city. Let’s make it happen!

Looks too big, and kinda fugly. Gotta wonder if these type of buildings are going to be a theme of the Ed Lee years.

You know what I really hate? The unrealistic street renderings.

I expect to see two 14’s stuck behind a homeless person wandering in the street, a cyclist crossing against the light, and at least a dozen skeevy looking dudes scattered around. Half those parked cars should have citations stuck in the hood and let’s not even talk about the trash we should be seeing here. And graffiti! C’mon, is it really that hard to put some in? Otherwise it’s lies, all lies.

Feh. Next we’ll see umbrellas and tables out front.

What a monstrosity. Perhaps we will get lucky and it will collapse into the BART tunnel.

Why are we allowing something so stubby on a multi-billion dollar piece of transit infrastructure, yet building a 20 story hospital on Van Ness miles from BART? Double the height of this and then maybe, maybe we’re talking.

Say no to stubby buildings here!

As I read the comments, I chuckle. If the question is drinking in DP, food truck regulations, or the foie gras statute, everyone on SF blogs says, “the rules stink!” “change the rules!” All of a sudden, however, with buildings, it becomes clucks of, “well, so long as the plan is followed,” and “above all, follow the height rules.”

Post New Comment