This morning, San Francisco’s Environmental Review Officer will hear presentations on the proposed project at 875 Sansome Street. The project, first reported on by SF YIMBY in February of 2024, will require the demolition of an existing commercial structure to make way for a new residential building. The meeting today will discuss the environmental impacts and reasonability of the project.
The project developer, N17 Development, originally brought two proposals for the site, including a fourteen-story mid-rise plan and an eight-story low-rise plan. The final plans have settled on the low-rise option, expected to produce approximately 32,000 square feet of residential space divided among 20 new dwelling units.
The units are to be divided into twelve two-bedroom and eight three-bedroom units, emphasizing larger family-friendly units. The top floor will also add two private decks and a shared rooftop amenity space, allowing residents a slice of outdoor space in an otherwise dense region of the city.
875 Sansome Street Sample 3-Bedroom Unit Plans, image by BDE
BDE Architecture is responsible for the building’s layout and aesthetic design. Illustrations show a dark brick facade with antique copper-tone painted metal. The exterior will be clad with cast stone, cement plaster, brick veneer, and metal panels. The project scope will also include sidewalk improvements to the immediate surroundings, adding trees and shrubs in raised planters, concrete pavers, and benches.
875 Sansome/303 Broadway street view, rendering by BDE Architecture
The 0.1-acre parcel is located along Broadway next to the Jackson Square neighborhood and on the southern edge of North Beach. The neighborhood’s proximity to the Embarcadero and Downtown San Francisco makes it highly walkable. Building residents will also benefit from access to 18 vehicle spaces and 10 bicycle spaces included on site.
875 Sansome/303 Broadway, image by Google Street View
875 Sansome Street Site Location, image via ArcGIS Online
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
Would have loved to see more density here, but will mostly be happy just see anything moving forward quickly on such a prominent site
That’s plenty of density for this site. San Francisco ain’t Hong Kong y’know.
Not if we’re being defeatist about it. We can work towards HK one building at a time! Would be lovely to improve the city that much. Subways with 90s headway? Fantastic
Except that this isn’t Hong Kong, or even New York, and most of us don’t want it to become either city. Targeted density increases, such as this project, are good, but why the hell would we want to raze the entire city and start over, which appears to be the YIMBY M.O.
It’s so weird that we have all these auslanders who knowingly move here to deliberately destroy our city merely to accommodate even more tech bros. Tourists come here because it’s the most beautiful and urbane city in this otherwise lackluster country. I would rather not destroy San Francisco to save it. Maybe put the tech bros somewhere else instead. I hear Austin is nice.
Try being less racist about it.
What did I say was racist exactly? Projecting much?
These three-bedroom “family” units in that location are a joke. They’ll be stuffed with tech bros.
Isn’t that the point of housing? For people to live in?
NIMBYS hate when there are too many studio units. NIMBYS hate when there are too many units that could support a family.
What don’t the NIMBYS hate? Urban decay?
Ed is a NIMBY, and so am I, I guess according to your rubric, but he is not wrong that this will be stuffed with tech bros.
But in regard to urban design, it’s a nicely designed building that will replace a nothing one-story building on a relatively densely developed street.
Why tf do tech folk occupying a home affect you in any shape or way?
They pay taxes, have to eat somewhere, keep local businesses busy. Yeah, you are a NIMBY.
I am, in fact, not a NIMBY…quite the opposite, in fact. I perhaps misstated my intention. What I meant was that this particular location is not one where I think families would like to be raising children. I don’t care how many tech bros live there; I just find the term “family” housing a bit twee.
Drew, it’s weird how even a nuanced view of development gets one tarred with the NIMBY brush these days. True NIMBYs are the boomer Karens and Kevins who complain about parking and traffic when a daycare center wants to add a few seats to their facility. So infuriating. But unfortunately their endless kvetching has unleashed the absolutist, irratiional, astroturf YIMBY zombie on all of us.
Build It! Sure, why not, if it’s a good project.
Let’s compile a fantastic, stupendous hyterical list of all the bullsh*t you’ve vomited over the years.
– Not a NIMBY but a “MIMBY”.
– Charicature of a sh*tposter changing your name from Mr. Whiskers. – Modernizing housing is a sin, but preserving a pissing ground of a “historic” parking lot is keeping the character alive.
– Mission Bay heckler for what was hundreds of acres of industrial nothingness.
– Berkeley hater when one of the few CA cities to tackle affordability as a dire risk to humanity.
– Belligerently stupid when it comes to the real costs of keeping a city functional.
– Market rate is bad, but enabling rent frozen slum lords is A-OK
– Burned-out structures are preferable as opposed to redevelopment.
– Recognizes that the 70’s set the stage for a housing bust, but every attempt to up-zone is… death to America? Honestly don’t even know at this point.
– HATES the tech folk who pay for the social programs that keep the homeless from overdosing and wasting away further.
– HATES the artists because, without any real housing solutions, they will continue to be priced out as they have for the past 4 decades.
These are just the themes that MANY have observed on this site. Maybe you don’t give a damn about perceived character, but the world sees you as such. Ready to give an opinion on what is destroying SF, but never capable of providing an ounce of remediation. Did you see the new study showing that most young Californians have no hope of homeownership unless they inherit it? Sounds like preservation is doing this state wonders!
Less parking, please.
And let’s ask SFMTA to modify the sidewalks widths and corners for safety.
I agree….sidewalks along Broadway should be widened. I believe they were narrowed back in the 1950s when Broadway functioned as an off-ramp for the Embarcadero Freeway. It’s actually a pretty attractive street with cool buildings….wider sidewalks and more greenery would make it a lot nicer for pedestrians.
Right after that, widen the sidewalks on Divis. They are painfully narrow and do not suit the level of pedestrian traffic they receive. It was also treated as a freeway to drive past poor people for decades. Widen the sidewalk and embrace parklets, which Divis invented in SF (Mojo Bike Cafe, ~2006).
Yes, Pro, I agree. I like the median landscaping that DPW has planted on Divis (Masonic too). It looks really nice, but yes, widening sidewalks would do wonders for Divisadero and a lot of other commercial corridors. In many cases these sidewalks were originally much wider but they were narrowed in the 1940s and 1950s to accommodate bridge and tunnel people coming in from the suburbs.