Highrise Hub wins vote amid pandemic
Uncertainty has always clouded the urbane visions of an emerging highrise residential district at Market Street and Van Ness Avenue, so it seems weirdly appropriate that the plan has now been approved in the midst of a global pandemic.
That’s what San Francisco’s Planning Commission did last week — clearing the way for a cluster of apartment and condominium towers that on paper has the potential to be a dynamic crossroads. A place where downtown workers live above bustling pedestrianfilled sidewalks and plazas.
It’s also the type of idealized 21st century setting thrown into doubt by the pervasive impact of the coronavirus on everything from the global economy to how we behave in public — if we choose to venture out at all.
Today’s concerns framed the discussion of the 84acre area that planners call the Hub, even if other aspects of the hearing
could have been scripted as soon as work on the plan began in 2016 — work that in turn updates the Market Octavia Plan approved in 2008.
From the beginning, planners have made the case that boosting height and density at the highprofile MarketVan Ness intersection would bring thousands of new housing units to the edge of downtown, revitalizing a somewhat sketchy area in the process. This would include three towers of 35 to 55 stories that are beginning to get their approvals, even though the plan still needs to go to the Board of Supervisors for a final vote.
One was approved on May 21: 30 Van Ness, which would replace an unsightly block of offices at the northeast corner of Market Street and Van Ness Avenue with nine stories of offices topped by 38 stories of condominiums. In addition to 25% of the 333 units being affordable, the project would contribute $12 million to the city’s affordable housing fund.
The even taller 10 South Van Ness would hold 984 apartments in a 55story, 610foot highrise — roughly the same height as Millennium Tower — and goes to the Planning Commission early next month.
The third site, 98 Franklin St., would place a fivestory home for the French American International School beneath 30 stories of apartments. The commission passed it Thursday by unanimous vote.
If built, these projects would join two towers now under construction at Mission and South Van Ness and a third complex, NEMA, completed in 2014.
If all potential projects in the Market Octavia Plan are built in the next decade or so, $958 million in public improvements would be generated by development fees. Those include an estimated $71 million in upgrades to streets, including wider sidewalks and protected bicycle lanes, and $116 million in transit fees that in part would be used to rebuild the Van Ness Muni Station.
As for affordable housing, the combination of housing fees and lowerincome units within new buildings has an economic value set at $682 million.
“The plan implements what long has been our vision, to make this an inclusive and active mixeduse district,” said Rich Hillis, who rejoined city staff as planning director this winter after serving on the Planning Commission.
But the other constant is the cadre of critics who portray the Hub plan in much different terms.
The opponents include both longtime development foes and opponents of marketrate housing in transitional areas. They paint a grim scenario of public parks shadowed by tootall shafts — affluent compounds that by their presence and population would exacerbate displacement pressures on the lowerincome residents who remain in adjacent neighborhoods, like the northern Mission or western SoMa.
“Trickledown economics has never benefited everyone,” said David Woo of the advocacy group Central Cities Coalition. “Land use determines who gets to live and work in a city, and Planning is making it clear who it does and doesn’t want here.”
The fresh angle to the debate is that opponents took the opportunity to question the timing of the vote.
“This plan is being pushed forward during a health crisis that highlights the class inequality that structures this city, state and country,” Woo proclaimed.
In fact, the vote already had been delayed because of concerns raised during the winter that there wasn’t enough of an equity component in how the plan would be carried out. In response, the department pledged to step up its outreach and monitoring efforts to try to make the district more inclusive.
Some commissioners questioned whether the plan takes sufficient note of how the coronavirus might alter urban life. Will Muni be able to handle an influx of new passengers at a key transit crossroads if buses and trains can’t handle as many people? Will extra shadows on existing parks erode the quality of outdoor spaces should strict shelterinplace requirements be imposed in response to viruses yet unknown?
“We have to learn something from the current crisis,” said Kathrin Moore, a longtime planning commissioner.
The dilemma, of course, is that the crisis is still evolving in all manner of ways. City government is under pressure from every direction. Putting a plan on hold that already has been studied would only add to the nearterm uncertainties.
“There are a lot of predictions about what is going to happen, but it’s tough in the midst of this to try and figure everything out,” Hillis said.
Another uncertainty is whether the progressiveled Board of Supervisors, which has the final say, will put the plan on ice because of advocate objections, or simply add a few more benefits and safeguards to the current package.
After that, what happens is anyone’s guess.
The northwest corner of the MarketVan Ness intersection holds a site where 40 stories of housing were approved in 2017. It remains empty except for parking spaces and a doughnut shop.
At Mission and South Van Ness, meanwhile, a handsome 40story apartment tower looks all but ready to open. However, developer Related California isn’t saying when this might occur.
These are strange times for San Francisco, along with everywhere else. The Hub may someday reach its potential — but it won’t happen overnight.