Start saying your goodbyes to the derelict, eyesore of a gray building between Mission and 18th streets. By early next year, at the latest, the building at 2205 Mission St. will be something much better: Dozens of homes for teachers.
Indeed, the nonprofit Mission Economic Development Agency has finally secured the $12 million it needed to build some 63 affordable condominiums for educators at the site. That funding is thanks to the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development.
“This is a very audacious project for MEDA, and we’re excited to meet the needs of our families, teachers, and our city,” said Karoleen Feng, MEDA’s director of community real estate.
So far, San Francisco has developed only one affordable housing project for educators, the Shirley Chisholm Village in the Outer Sunset, which is still under construction.
MEDA is one of two developers awarded a total of $32 million to build housing for teachers including early childhood care staff, public school and community college teachers.
This spring, the city announced a series of applications to help jumpstart housing projects, and earmarked one award specifically for educators.
The sites at 2205 Mission St. and 750 Golden Gate Ave. near Civic Center, the other awardee, were two of seven projects in the running for teacher housing. The project at 750 Golden Gate Ave. will convert a parking lot into 100-percent affordable housing. That project requires $20 million in city funding, and will result in 72 apartments for rent.
All projects are for those earning between 40 to 140 percent of area median income, which is between $40,350 and $141,200 for individuals, and between $57,650 and $201,750 for a family of four.
City leaders acknowledged that San Francisco’s affordability crisis has driven out essential workers, like educators and first responders. “Having our educators be a part of our community, instead of having to drive long distances makes our whole public education system stronger,” Mayor London Breed said in a press release. Superintendent Dr. Matt Wayne echoed the sentiment, noting housing is key to attracting teaching talent.
Feng said MEDA has “always seen the power for wealth-building for our families.”
Supervisor Hillary Ronen said in a press release she is “thrilled” a District 9 project received funding. “With both a teacher shortage and affordable housing shortage in our City, this NOFA resolves two of the top issues facing San Francisco.”
It also solves a tiny piece of Mission Street’s vacancy and blight problem. “We’re very excited, because we have been advocating for this innovative solution,” Feng said.
When MEDA bought the site for $6 million in 2017, it had originally envisioned one-bedroom condominiums. But after speaking with teacher union representatives who mentioned those might be too expensive, the nonprofit redesigned the project. In its current iteration, the 63 condos will be two- and three-bedroom units.
Expect construction to begin late this year or early next, Feng said. 2205 Mission St. is deemed a historic building; it was formerly home to appliance and furniture stores during the heyday of the commercial district known as the Mission Mile in the 1950s, so MEDA likely will preserve the building’s existing facade. Previous plans note the developer will “reconstruct” the existing two-story building and build the new one.
The nonprofit and the school district will start collecting applications for those hoping to live on-site in the next few years. Educators will be able to move in by 2026, a condition of the city funding.
The complex would be one of 10 affordable housing projects built or proposed in the Mission in the last eight years, when a slate of projects were funded after demands by anti-gentrification activists — and a failed moratorium on market-rate housing in the neighborhood — put housing front-and-center. Since then, hundreds of affordable units have been built or approved in the neighborhood.
These articles should cite the market rate project whose fees MOHCD used to fund the building. Maybe it would help folks understand how $1300/sqft “affordable buildings” come to be.
Important to note MEDA was skeptical on SB 35 for approvals for this building. Also, MEDA opposes current proposals like 2023s bill to extend SB 35, SB 423.
It’s a nice gesture, but what most SF educators want is a professional-grade salary: one that allows us to select our own (modest) living arrangement. For many of us, the LAST thing we want to do is live in a teacher ghetto. After school hours we want to be off the clock and around other types of people!
Of course, many of my colleagues are desperate enough that they will jump at the chance for something like this, even if it comes with unpleasant stipulations, like requiring people to move out if they quit teaching. Some teacher housing has rules like that.
It will be instructive to see how an educated unionized tenancy interacts with the normally paternalistic nonprofit operators.
Clash of the titans!
Great, so “educators” earning $141,000 per year could take units from educators, who really need help affording a place to live in SF.
Why is an old former appliance shop an historic building?
The building has a distinctive art deco facade.
How are 2-3 br units more affordable than 1 br units? Are they thinking the larger units will be for a roommate setup?
From the article:
it had originally envisioned one-bedroom condominiums. But after speaking with teacher union representatives who mentioned those might be too expensive, the nonprofit redesigned the project. In its current iteration, the 63 condos will be two- and three-bedrooms.
Originally a standard wooden storefront for a stove showroom, then renovated in Deco-Moderne style with yellow opaque glass panels, and clock tower as part of a “spruce up your main street” program in the ’30s. Even the 1980s, as a used furniture showroom, it was fairly stylish.
Now, it would also be wonder to see progress made on 1515 S Van Ness! The abandoned shelter was supposed to turn into housing 5 years ago!
Excellent news! Can’t wait for that eye sore to be spruced up!
I like art deco as much as the next guy, but a historic store is not a thing. Even if it was part of an area with a catchy name.