Preliminary permits have been filed for the demolition of the vacant Empire Theater at 85 West Portal Avenue in San Francisco’s West Portal neighborhood. The building has been vacant since Cinemark closed the location in February 2021, with plans to replace it with a nine-story apartment complex with ground-floor retail. Jesse Appleton, co-managing member of Empire West Portal, LLC, is listed as the property owner and applicant.
The 119-foot-tall structure is expected to yield approximately 113,670 square feet, including 93,920 square feet of housing, 4,095 square feet of ground-floor retail, and 15,650 square feet for the basement garage. Once complete, the development will provide 64 rental apartments. Unit sizes vary with 16 one-bedrooms, 36 two-bedrooms, and 12 three-bedrooms. Parking will be included for 27 cars and 71 bicycles.
85 West Portal Avenue view from along Vicente Street, illustration by Handel Architects
85 West Portal Avenue residential floor plans, illustration by Handel Architects
The developer has invoked Assembly Bill 2011 to request ministerial approval for a residential project with some affordable housing on a lot previously zoned for commercial use. The applicant also utilizes the State Density Bonus law and Assembly Bill 1287 to achieve a 100% density bonus. Of the 64 units, 10 will be deed-restricted for affordable housing, with 5 for very low-income households and 5 for moderate-income households.
Handel Architects is responsible for the design. Detailed renderings have not yet been published, but the published facade elevations offer a glimpse into the plans. The exterior will be clad with colored pre-cast concrete, contrasting off-white, brown, and terracotta-tone paint. The ornamental cornice for the existing building will be retained along West Portal Avenue, though the rest of the century-old theater is expected to be demolished.
85 West Portal Avenue view from along Vicente Street, illustration by Handel Architects
85 West Portal Avenue rear view, illustration by Handel Architects
The building will include a basement garage with access from Vicente Street, a residential lobby, and retail on the ground floor. The housing will be located on floors two through nine, with amenities spread across the residential floors and a rooftop deck overlooking West Portal Avenue.
According to contemporaneous reporting by J.K. Dineen for the San Francisco Chronicle, Appleton purchased the building with his brother and a friend in July 2021 for $2.5 million. Appleton told the Chronicle that he hoped to revitalize the site as a movie theater, but couldn’t commit to that, quoted as saying, “we are still trying to get our arms around it.” After purchasing the site, Appleton found the building was in a state of disrepair, including damaged electronics and a hole in the roof.
According to the local history non-profit website run by Western Neighborhoods Project, OutsideLands.org, the cinema first opened up in 1925 as Portal Theater, with its Moorish facade designed by Irving Morrow of Morrow & Garren. The facility was later rebranded and reopened as “Empire” in 1936. The building was later operated by Cinemark as the CinéArts at the Empire up until nearly five years ago.
85 West Portal Avenue, image via Google Street View
The 0.4-acre property is located along West Portal Avenue and Vicente Street, in the heart of the West Portal’s commercial thoroughfare. The site is a block away from the western exit of the Twin Peaks Tunnel.
The estimated cost and timeline for construction have yet to be shared. The project team has yet to reply to a request for comment.
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
Delighted of course to see infusion of housing in this staid 1950’s-frozen-in-time retail stretch, but to plop something that looks like a state college dormitory in such a graceful area is offensive & engenders no goodwill.
One of the reasons why this region has a housing crisis is an overemphasis on form rather than function. This design looks just fine, and will be 1000% more functional than what is currently there. What’s actually offensive is the severely underrealized land use policies.
“An overemphasis on form rather than function” has nothing to do with why the region has a housing crisis. Cost of building, zoning, and a hyper-localized permitting process are to blame.
By implying we should prioritize function with little or no regard to “form” is promoting a pretty bleak view of urban fabric, space, and quality of life (or a lack there of).
I agree, which is why I said “one of the reasons”, not the only reason. I just came back from a trip to Hong Kong. It features a lot of architecture which many on here would categorize as offensive. Yet the urban fabric, space, and quality of life far exceeds that of San Francisco’s. Simply because they are willing to build housing that meets the demands of its residents. When you nitpick over subjective things like aesthetics and label things emotionally like “offensive”, it definitely leads to a rampant NIMBY culture which has really held back SF’s potential.
So, what you’re saying is that in order to “save” San Francisco, you have to destroy it?
We San Franciscans never asked for you tech bros to come here….and we don’t want you to remake our city, that you dislike so much, in your image.
I don’t want to live in Hong Kong; I want to live in San Francisco.
I see that you’re trying to make the point that concern with aesthetics is inhibiting new construction and I agree that there is far more to be concerned with than aesthetics, but I think that you’re making a bit of a straw man argument. Criticism of “form” is kind of inherently a part of the architecture approval process (whether you feel the public’s opinion should weigh heavily or not).
HK (or anywhere else for that matter) having an array of architectural styles isn’t really a universal principle, it’s [an entirely different] context.
Without attempting to sound repetitive; dissatisfaction with a project’s design, scale, materiality, etc and being a YIMBY are not mutually exclusive.
this area is full of ugly buildings, but they create a pretty little urban vibe in aggregate. I’m not worried about it.
There are gracious moorish buildings & homes in the area.
Our Planning-created desperate housing environment does not mean we don’t have design standards & that any piece of garbage is OK.
YIMBY has forfeited design for anything-goes-functional units.
Wrong. There are literally design standards set by the city and this meets them. If you have a problem with the city’s design standards, lobby them to change them. This developer is following both the objective code rules for building and the subjective aesthetic rules set by the city.
Apparently you’re not privy to what these “subjective aesthetic rules” are or how open to interpretation they are. There’s very little that forces an architect or developer into conforming to some magical “San Francisco beauty standard”
The architecture is one of one the mansions, French villas, Spanish villas, great housing in this area what are you smoking on, this is the city’s version of Beverly Hills just a couple blocks up and west portal heights not to far away this is some of the more exclusive housing anywhere in the US.
Love to see residential built right on muni.
There are so many glowing Sf Standard and Sf Gate articles about how West Portal has so much going on, but when you walk around after 6pm there are 0 pedestrians. Hopefully this starts to change that
The Stonestown Mall is PACKED until it closes. Try going on a weekend; that parking lot might kill you. There is no reason this energy can’t be dispersed in the areas where people actually live.
For the good of all, we need to spread this love across the map. Concentrating all the fun in one location has its business benefits, but getting around is hellish, and foot safety is getting rough again. If only Market St. could see this energy again. Those skyscrapers pending can’t come sooner.
Could it be less brown and brutal?
This is ridiculous. It should be restored and reopened as a movie theatre. I would always eat at a local WP restaurant when going to a movie, and I’m sure a lot of others did the same.
it would be great if all the old movie theaters would re-open. Unfotunately people don’t go out to watch movies anymore so we have way more theaters than we need. Instead of leaving them all vacant and crumbling we should re-develop the sites to something the city actually needs!
Okay, who is going to pay for that restoration? Why has some other group not offered to buy it and do that?
You’re living in the past Ed. There isn’t demand for that.
Ed, you are about 70 years behind the times. People don’t go to theaters like this. Just check out the ticket sales over the last 5 years.
It is long past due to be demolished and replaced with high-density housing.
Too bad that some wealthy speculator with spare change couldn’t restore the Empire Theater for films, plays and concerts. It could become the centerpiece of the West Portal commercial district similar to the Castro Theater. The proposed structure is like most new buildings–an architectural eyesore.
how many times did you go out to watch a movie in theaters this year? When this theater was built most people went to the movies dozens of times per year, now most people rarely if ever go out to theaters. Its a beautiful old building, but its also a relic of a bygone era, instead of an abandoned building, this developer wants to do something useful with the site, its good news!
I love West Portal the way it is, but I guess that makes me a NIMBY.
Seriously, going up to five or even six stories along WP Boulevard would be fine. There are several early twentieth century apartment buildings that already do.
I’d be happy to see all the boring one-story bank buildings replaced with dense mixed-use buildings, but there are a lot of charming old San Francisco buildings that the “Build It!” auslanders hate. This nine-story monster that is proposed looks exactly like a suburban hospital. It has nothing whatsoever to do with San Francisco.
But it doesn’t matter what I think. YIMBY is in the driver’s seat and they’re well funded by AI tech bros, who are the true masters of San Francisco.
Let the wrecking balls commence and make all of San Francisco Mission Bay. We voted for this, I guess.
I wonder what you would say when you find out how much rent would be in a building designed to match your standards? Would you pay $7000 per month, $10000 per month? This looks like a perfectly decent building, that will fit in just fine in this neighborhood. If you want a luxury palace build with marble and hand crafted wood trim, build it yourself!
Excuse me, I blame the AI tech bros that my neighborhood bakery, that I last visited 10 years back, is closing because they are unable to pay rent.
Could a factor of the bakery closing be that ‘customers’ like you haven’t gone there in ten years (as opposed to putting the blame on “Ai tech bros” for its closing)?
“Has nothing whatsoever to do with San Francisco.”
Neither did Queen Annes, Edwardians, or Italianates at one point. Neither did Mission Revival. Neither did art deco, brtualism, Eichlers, or craftsman.
There isn’t a single major city in the country that hasn’t evolved architecturally over time and doesn’t have a wide mix of building styles.
I think part of the issue here is that there is no formal or well-established architectural style to replace the (albeit, antiquated) Victorian type the city is known for. The concern is all about identity and architectural standards, not preservation or replication IMPO.
This is a disgusting WOKE joke and a big middle finger to the best neighborhood in SF. NO ONE wants affordable units near them and you’re forcing 10 units in. Hopefully this doesn’t pan out and I’m sure it will be a “modern” urbanist eyesore. Thank your local liberal for this monstrosity.
That’s insane. These are libertarian AI tech bros who are trying to destroy the city. We libs like it the way it is you MAGA nitwit.
Boomer NIMBYs are so confused.
This is disgusting 🤮 I’m angry and in a big mood to fight this.
You don’t even have a coherent rationale or any real moral framework other than “all change is bad.”
Your ancestors opposed the Stone Age advancing into the Bronze Age.
The conversation around housing and architecture in this city is so broken. It’s entirely a game of extremes, cagey subjective takes, and unwavering YIMBYs vs reluctant YIMBYs. All of which leads no where better AND architectural integrity/identity of the city suffers.
No rendering of the street-facing facade? Curious to see what sort of retail integration they’re plotting here. It’s sad to see a shell of an old-school theater go away, but I don’t think it’s going to seriously compromise the feel, identity, or character of the strip as long as the design pays attention to and adds something to the pedestrian experience.
The SF Chronicle article today by J.K. Dineen has a street view rendering of the proposed project.
It definitely gives a bit better sense of the design than these long-side elevation drawings shown here…
agreed, and I personally think the renderings in the SF chronicle article actually make it seem like a more handsome building than these drawings. not that the naysayers in this comment section would have reacted any differently…
Yes. It looks more palatable after seeing the street view via The Chronicle. I wish that image were shown here too.
Glad to see mid-rises going into West Portal. So many under-utilized single story properties (Ocean Avenue’s got a lot, too). Perfect spot for density along transit lines.
A toast to the Empire. Some good memories of seeing movies at there with my friends in my youth.
Great place to build housing. Glad there are some 3br for families and some low cost housing too. So good
I am sooooo glad that modernity + density is being injected into this outdated place.
NIMBYs like Ed are 70 years behind the times.
Such a transit-connected area should be built up to 10+ stories within 0.5 miles of the station. People who use transit will voluntarily drift over to living there.