New building permits have been filed for the market-rate component of 1111 Sutter Street in Lower Nob Hill, San Francisco. The application follows affordable housing permits submitted in late November of last year. Martin Building Company is responsible for the development.
Reached for c0mment, a representative for the Martin Building Company shared the following statement with YIMBY:
Martin Building Company secured early-stage financing from the California Housing Finance Agency’s (CalHFA) Mixed-Income Program for the 1111 Sutter Street project. As an awardee of the CalHFA Mixed-Income Program (MIP), we have a construction commencement deadline of March 17, 2025.
The new building permits describe the 22-story tower with 303 rental apartments, of which 102 will be affordable, and 201 will be market-rate. The November application revealed that Martin Building Company had increased the affordable housing capacity from the previous iteration for 38 below-market-rate units.
1101-1123 Sutter Street seen from the corner of Larkin and Hemlock, rendering by David Baker Architects
1101-1123 Sutter Street refurbished structure along Sutter, rendering by David Baker Architects
The 235-foot tall structure will yield around 358,000 square feet, with a quarter million square feet for housing, 2,800 square feet of commercial space,4,000 square feet for a childcare facility, and 43,150 square feet for parking. Unit types vary with 75 studios, 58 one-bedrooms, 128 two-bedrooms, 31 three-bedrooms, and 11 four-bedrooms. Parking will be included for 30 cars and 218 bicycles.
The project retains the historic preservation of the three-story auto-repair structure at 1101 Sutter Street. The 1920-built complex has been designated as an A-status Historic Resource and will be retained as a parking facility.
1101-1123 Sutter Street pedestrian activity along Hemlock, rendering by David Baker Architects
1101-1123 Sutter Street view showcasing the raised childcare facility’s open space overlooking Hemlock, rendering by David Baker Architects
1101-1123 Sutter Street south east aerial view, rendering by David Baker Architects
David Baker Architects is responsible for the design. The plan set has not shifted since the April 2024 design change. The tower will be wrapped with a mix of floor-to-ceiling windows and metal panels.
The 0.68-acre property occupies much of the block bound by Sutter Street, Larkin Street, Hemlock Street, and Polk Street. Van Ness Avenue is just over a block away, and the lively commercial neighborhood of Polk Gulch is three blocks to the north.
1101 Sutter Street (left) and 1123 Sutter Street (right), image by Google Street View
Construction is expected to cost $80 million, a figure not inclusive of all development costs. Work is scheduled to last around 22 months from groundbreaking to completion.
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
Another rendering, and they still don’t respect the existing facade. It’s not that hard to do a retrofit that preserves it. It’s so disrespectful to the city.
Why does the existing facade deserve respect? Do you know anything about its history? Why wasn’t is on the historical register like the auto shop next door?
So why is the auto-repair structure going to be saved again? Will future generations thank them?
Seriously. I hate when they keep some old building in the name of “preservation”. I’ve never seen it look good.
Right. Because people come from all over the U.S. to San Francisco to see new buildings. This ain’t Orlando, dawg.
Oh my cherubic winter child…
People don’t come to SF to see some auto-repair structure. Plus, the people who live here take precedence.
No, but people come here because San Francisco is not like Orlando. Or Dallas. Or Orange County. While this particular building is not especially notable, it’s part of a gestalt that is Lower Nob Hill.
Reread the post. The answer is in there.
In general, I think that this is a good project. There’s a little bit of something for everyone. I know that the “Build Iit!” crowd won’t be happy until every old building in San Francisco is replaced by a skyscraper, but so be it.
Seems like a bunch of funeral homes are disappearing. People aren’t dying anymore? Actually, I’d really like to know the answer. It seems like a loss of an important function.
Also, preserving the corner structure as a parking garage seems like a choice. Hopefully they can at least do something interesting with the ground floor.
To weigh in on why the corner building (what Kartik refers to as “some auto-repair structure”) should be kept:
I am no nimby, but aside from historic building designation being a fact of SF Planning, this 3 story structure is a clearly part of SF’s historic building stock. As a ‘background building’ It contributes positively to the city’s urban fabric and architectural character. While in need of some love, it simply has good proportions and facade articulation that you rarely see in newer buildings; and constitutes an example of how cars used to be stored (in above-ground parking) in an urbane manner – and it can easily still support this function, along with the open bays at ground level being filled in with some pedestrian friendly retail storefront.
And to Steve’s comment “I hate when they keep some old building in the name of “preservation”. I’ve never seen it look good” – Steve, you are simply not looking hard enough. While I agree the practice of ‘facadism’ (just keeping a historic facade as a gesture to the past) is lame, there are many, many instances of incredible award-winning adaptive reuse or old+new development projects all over the world – granted, maybe not so many in SF… Some of these being side-by-side old+new structures and others being radically new structures integrated on top of old structures.
BTW, on another note, buildings make up a huge proportion of human’s carbon footprint, and just tearing down ‘old buildings’ because you don’t like them, only to build a new building in its place is one of the least sustainable, most carbon-heavy things you can do in development…
They did a great job with the Aronson building, which was well worthy. I don’t see this parking structure in the same way but if others do, fine.