23-Story Tower for 1965 Market Street, San Francisco

1965 Market Street, rendering by RG Architecture1965 Market Street, rendering by RG Architecture

New plans have surfaced for a 23-story residential tower at 1965 Market Street in San Francisco close to the Castro. The tower is a remarkable increase from the same developer’s initial plans to add two hundred rental apartments to the historic property at the corner of Market Street and Duboce Avenue. Keller Grover Properties is the project applicant.

Keller Grover Properties had filed plans in 2015 to redevelop the three-story historic structure and a surface parking lot with eight stories of housing. The initial redevelopment scheme was designed by David Baker Architects, with a spacious setback behind the historic facade and a contemporary-looking complex rising where the surface parking lot is today.

1965 Market Street view from across Market and Duboce, rendering by RG Architecture

1965 Market Street view from across Market and Duboce, rendering by RG Architecture

The existing Mission Revival-style complex was finished in 1924 with a design by Walter C. Falch as a mortuary and funerary chapel. Previous tenants at the site include the Gantner Brothers’ Funeral Home, which operated through the 1970s, and Atlas Saving & Loan Association between 1981 and 1985, which was the “first financial institution established by a partnership of gays and lesbians in the United States,” according to a historic review published by the city in 2016. Its current tenant is Keller Grover LLP, the current property owner, and an employment law firm.

RG Architecture is responsible for the new design. Planning documents focus on the relationship between the historic structure and the construction. Though construction will yield just one building, it will appear like two, with a shorter 12-story annex with terracotta paneling setback from the century-old facade.

The 239-foot tall structure will yield 220,890 square feet, with 201,500 square feet for housing, 16,100 square feet for parking, and 3,050 square feet for retail. Of the 200 rental apartments, there will be 12 studios, 80 one-bedrooms, 98 two-bedrooms, and ten three-bedrooms. Parking will be provided for 135 bicycles and 61 cars.

1965 Market Street view of the pedestrian activity at base, rendering by RG Architecture

1965 Market Street view of the pedestrian activity at base, rendering by RG Architecture

1965 Market Street vertical elevation, illustration by RG Architecture

1965 Market Street vertical elevation, illustration by RG Architecture

The application states that 28 units will be designated affordable to residents earning less than half of the area’s median income. The project achieves an 88.75% density bonus with the State Density Bonus program and likely uses Assembly Bill 1287. Representatives for the developer have yet to reply to a request for comment regarding this question. The developer has also invoked Senate Bill 330 to streamline the approval process.

The 0.39-acre site is located at the corner of Market Street and Duboce Avenue, across from the proposed 15-story affordable senior housing complex at 1939 Market Street, led by Mercy Housing. Mercy received final approval via Senate Bill 35 in May of last year, and new building permits were issued in October 2023. The developer has previously stated they hope to start construction in May or June of this year.

1965 Market Street surface parking, image via Google Street View

1965 Market Street surface parking, image via Google Street View

As for 1965 Market Street, the timeline for approval and construction has yet to be established.

Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail

Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews


45 Comments on "23-Story Tower for 1965 Market Street, San Francisco"

  1. This is great but will likely face fierce opposition from slow + no growthers. Not that there isn’t precedence on the north side of Market with other surrounding taller buildings like the Mint. It will create a mini-Hub gateway to the Castro.

    • Panhandle Pro | April 24, 2024 at 7:22 pm | Reply

      Those people are losing the battles and the war these days. There is so much pro-housing legislation out there now, and so many loud YIMBYs. The No Growthers lost. I’m not worried about them much anymore.

      • 48hills org/2024/04/breeds-treasure-island-developer-bailout-is-a-serious-problem/

        Typical YIMBY lies.

      • You sound like your job is to say dumb things rather than understand actual issues with development giveaways by cravenly corrupt political tools that gentrify and further exacerbate the housing crisis intentionally, all while pretending to be “of the people” singing kumbaya. Corporations don’t sing, and YIMBY’s don’t check the deets.

        28 out of 200 is pathetic and a joke, like most YIMBY slogan-wavers.

  2. Like everything about this. Wonder if the massive traffic intersection can be reconsidered. It’s a frightening dare for any pedestrian trying to go anywhere in any direction.

    Do we really need vehicular access to Buchanan from eastbound Market? (No).

    • Roundabout!

        • The intersection is a condition of the intersection of market street with the existing grid and has ample time for crossing in all directions (I live down the street). It’s just a three-way light instead of a typical 2 way light.

          A roundabout would undo the decades of tweaks the city has already accomplished to make this (and Church, Sanchez, Noe, and Castro) as pedestrian friendly as possible.

          And yes, people do need to use Buchanan to get to the lower Haight because church is for muni and Octavia is an onramp and laguna has no access to Haight.

  3. This is fantastic. Can’t wait to see it built!

    • Are you sure you’re a real person, not just an invention or AI?

      “Sounds great!” “Wonderful, can’t wait” – 2-3 word comments by one word names.

      Nothing fishy about that! /s

  4. Dante Preston | April 24, 2024 at 8:54 am | Reply

    This is gonna be fun. Not just because of the overwhelming diversity in the Castro that would clearly be supportive of the construction of new homes for younger generations, but because the Sunset and the North Beach neighborhoods clearly don’t want housing or people in theirs! The enigma of San Francisco!

    Nonetheless, build 1000 more of these across the city!

    • 28 units out of 200+, housing crisis solved already London? Clue in.

      Yuppie condos do nothing good for the housing crisis.

      Breed should stay in China and see all those massive unfinished towers and abandoned towns.

  5. This is awesome!!

  6. Peskin will vote yes for this because this historical building is not in his district.

    • Peskin might kill it for being so tiny % of low income housing, as all projects that are touted by YIMBY’s as solutions to the housing crisis but do so little to address it rightly ought to be. In fact, Peskin cares about SF more than the out of area developers who build the massive condo towers for the big $, only to watch them tilt further and drop panes of glass on the little people below.

      Peskin should kill more developer giveaways, not fewer, and Yimby’s should figure out that we need more low income housing, not more yuppy condo towers for foreign transplants who feel the need to come in and gentrify old neighborhoods in SF up to their NYC rat-packing standards of urban blight.

      • I’d rather take a development that provides 28 more people/families affordable housing along with market rate condos for yuppie foreign transplants over a 1-story law firm and a empty parking lot in a transit rich area any day. Sorry this isn’t a quiet suburb where nothing changes. You can’t freeze cities in time.

        Agreed we need way more affordable housing built, but saying no to every development that doesn’t meet your % standards aren’t going to get us any closer to our goal, especially when high affordable projects without subsidies don’t pencil out. We need housing at all income levels (sans luxury, agreed we have enough of that).

        • Exactly Anthony J. I agree as well. I doubt Mac Truong would support this amazing project any further if it was 100% really low-income. Peskin wouldn’t, neither would his supporters out of FEAR.

          Any BMR apartments are better than none, and it is egregious how many so called progressives would rather alienate and segregate those that are of a lower economic scale from those that do better. Why segregate on the basis of socioeconomic class?

          • “I doubt Mac Truong would support this amazing project any further if it was 100% really low-income.”

            Well you don’t know me, and I would, so your guess is doubly clueless. No, Peskin hasn’t weighed in on this, so you’re just blowing smoke out your well-heeled backside as a slogan-waver.

          • “Any BMR apartments are better than none”

            Total excuse making for corporate developer enrichment apologists.
            It does NOTHING to help the housing crisis and gentrifying makes it worse.

            YIMBY slogans and guesses and apologies do nothing in the real world.

          • Educate yourself on your own agenda please, slogan wavers.

            48hills org/2024/04/in-a-dramatic-move-a-ca-court-says-housing-density-doesnt-mean-affordability/

            The court cites the work of Michael Storper, the economic geographer at UCLA, who states that “there is virtually no evidence” that this sort of upzoning in wealthy areas will in any way promote lower costs, particularly that “lower costs [will] trickle down to the lower two-thirds of households.”

            If the Legislature decides to amend SB 9, the easiest solution would be to remove the language that talks about affordable housing. That would be a fitting epitaph to this entire episode, an admission that affordability is not the primary goal of state housing policy.

            Harvard scholar Susan Fainstein notes that “equity is by definition redistributive.” That means taking from the rich to help others. It doesn’t mean more market-rate development. And at some point, everyone watching this debate is going to have to admit that the Yimby agenda is not bringing prices down or addressing homelessness.

  7. It has taken so many years to start filling in those bleak parking lots and gas stations along Upper Market with new residential buildings. Those two gas stations at the corner of Market and Castro need to be developed into housing.

    • Yes – this – a thousand times this!

    • Agreed at redeveloping those gas stations (even though I use them frequently). Although I always thought the chevron station would be the perfect spot for a Castro town square, similar to the one in Noe Valley. Definitely upzone the old pottery barn building across the street.

      Anyways happy to see something proposed on the site! Hope it gets built!

  8. This is exactly the kind of housing needed in SF. Build it.

    • Low income housing % in the low 2 digits, you think, is the solution to the housing crisis?
      28 units total, 5-8 years from now. Pfft, please, London Greed.

  9. Donald Crabtree | April 24, 2024 at 2:38 pm | Reply

    Too big, too ugly, tacky boxes upon boxes. Looks like it belongs on Treasure Island. Forget cars, parking. Street traffic will be abortively truncated making travel and shopping an unmitigated disaster. Market Street was the “Street of Gold” harkening back 150 years. It could now be overdeveloped with aging infrastructure bursting at the seams.

    • The Yimbinator | April 24, 2024 at 3:43 pm | Reply

      Careful, the yimbsters might delete your comment as it opposes their Bob the Builder views!

      Also, lmfao @ the pedestrian crosswalks. You guys must think this is Las Vegas.

    • it looks great! Not sure what you’re talking about, considering that this neighborhood is currently very underdeveloped in spite of it having the best infrastructure in the city. Redevelop the safeway parking lot next!

      • RIGHT?!?!? The single-story Safeway complex set back off the street with a huge parking lot is a jolting piece of suburbia in an otherwise urban landscape . Pleasepleaseplease whoever owns that parcel redevelop it with a grocery right at the sidewalk at market, parking behind and above, and 6-10 stories of housing above that. As was done quite elegantly across the street with Whole Foods.

        @Donald Crabtree – I agree with Wes, not sure what you’re talking about. surface parking lots is not a “Street of Gold” it’s lifeless and a waste. All that’s happening is making this strip of market into a continuous ribbon of activity, life, and commerce – that’s your “Street of Gold.”

      • There was a pretty solid proposal for the Safeway lot 8-9 years ago that unfortunately never really progressed. I’d love to see that lot (er city block) get the treatment!

    • You must be new here. How do you think the city is able to finance new infrastructure?

  10. Matt in Uptown | April 25, 2024 at 12:07 pm | Reply

    It’s too bulky and too bland—it feels like it’s designed for Southern California transplants who really miss Culver City or Santa Monica. As a YIMBY supporter, I literally bought a house nestled between two large developments, hoping to one day increase the number of units on my property. I want San Francisco to showcase both its historic charm and modern progress. I wish advocates would be more transparent about the community impacts and the energy efficiency of structures like these. We need developments that are not only affordable by design but also ultra-energy-efficient, and that truly reflect the unique character of our city. Yes, ‘character’—it matters, beauty matters. Prove that you’re not just a group of construction and design professionals or would-be (cult of personality) political figures masquerading as genuine public opinion. Show that you understand development in all its dimensions

    • Everything you just said about beauty, character, all of that falls by the wayside as developers use well-intentioned YIMBY dopes (no offense to those like yourself who see through the hand-waving) to cram in the most lucrative, rent-raising and dollar-fetching structures they can possibly get away with and literally zero concerns besides the PR and slogans to get it rammed through with builder’s remedies. Breed, Wiener and the shameless “moderate sellout brigade” will happily matriculate to fail in higher offices with their thinly-disguised fundraising via developer group support, as SF’s massive spiraling public deficits demonstrate the City of Real Estate graft and DBI scandals truly does reflect that you get what you vote for. Moderate criminals filling their pockets at everyone’s expense, while shouting slogans literally focus grouped to appeal to the absent minded YIMBY who thinks gentrification is the only way to solve the housing crisis. Truly, we deserve this situation for all the years Ed and London stole and nobody did a damn thing about it. Wait for the big one, all these transplants will be scurrying off once more. Real SF knows it’s coming.

  11. YIMBY’s censor anti-YIMBY perspectives from ACTUAL SAN FRANCISCANS.

    This site is a joke.

    • Get bent 😅

    • SiliconValleyRiseUp | April 27, 2024 at 2:38 pm | Reply

      Ask anyone in San Francisco what the city’s biggest problems are, and they’ll mention expensive housing prices and homelessness. Which residential towers like these are built to address

      • Literally your JOB “SiliconValleyRiseUp” to disseminate this lie repeatedly, eh?

        48hills org/2024/04/in-a-dramatic-move-a-ca-court-says-housing-density-doesnt-mean-affordability/

        Thankfully the courts have demonstrated that there is no evidence backing your agenda.
        Scott Wiener’s developer slush fund benefits no one but the cabal itself. Get real please.

  12. Christopher Bolander | April 26, 2024 at 1:49 pm | Reply

    I love all the new buildings that went up between mid Market and Castro in the past 10 years, but this project is way out of proportion. Cut it in half and I’m all in.

  13. Irish Scarlett | May 2, 2024 at 3:52 pm | Reply

    This is too high, too massive, and will contribute to the parking and traffic misery. I live in the neighborhood and remember when the developers presented the 8-story structure. Now look at it, thanks to Scott Wiener’s bills and the hysteria about the perceived “housing crisis.” Beware of anything that SF calls a crisis – that’s an indicator that voters are about to be squeezed for more $$ to line developers’ pockets.

    I haven’t spoken to anyone in the neighborhood who is in favor of this structure.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.