New Mission Theater gets the thumbs up from the City Planning Commission

Tim League, of Alamo Drafthouse Cinema, posted this update today:

Last night the City Planning Commission voted to approve the project, so we are off to the races. That said, we still have a long road in front of us. Seismic upgrades and the historic nature of the renovation we make this a challenging project. Nonetheless, I am ecstatic about finally being able to march forward on the New Mission. Expect many more updates here as we make progress.

The $10 million renovation will convert the dilapidated furniture storage room / roach crash pad into a 5-screen, 348-seat theater that will serve you beers. In addition, approval was granted for a 114-unit condo development which will replace the beloved neighboring GIANT VALUE building.

Opposition was light but, as expected, you can’t get through a community meeting in the Mission without some folks speaking up against gentrification and high rents. More over at SFGate.

28 Responses to “New Mission Theater gets the thumbs up from the City Planning Commission”

  1. scum says:

    Does anybody know if this will be a union build?

  2. wtf says:


  3. Old Mission Neighbor says:

    Mission St is going turning into an awesome nightlife destination. Valencia is a little to dinnnneerrrrrrrr-y for my liking.

  4. Pete says:

    Any info on the price range of the new condos?

  5. Herr Doktor Professor Deth Vegetable says:

    I’m psyched for the theatre portion, it’s sad that the giant eye-sore of a luxury-condo tower got approved, though.

  6. Ashleyanne says:

    What I’d like to know is if there is anyone giving this project a thumbs down?

  7. Ashleyanne says:

    Both or either, the theater and/or the condos. I had a sense that there would be loud opposition, but it seems to be muted so far.

    • Boney Bob says:

      Really? You’re thinking that they might be the same?

      I’m thinking that the opposition to them might be very different, but the official city approval of them might is about the same.

      • Ashleyanne says:

        Because both properties were owned by, and brokered by Murad, they’ve always been discussed hand-in-hand in the media, though they are two separate projects. Whether the opposition to one versus the other will be different still remains to be seen–public opinion just seems to be uncharacteristically quiet. I’d be interested in hearing thoughtful opposition about either projects, if it exists.

    • james says:

      Maybe enough people have decided that the solution to a housing supply problem is build more housing.

  8. Johnny Jenkins says:

    I buy my crack and blowjobs in this area and I’m worried this will lead to further gentrification to follow. This is another attempt by the city to muscle out the pimps, dealers and street hustlers that give this part of the city it’s flavor and vibrance.

  9. Gimme says:

    I went to the hearing and voiced my support for the project (I live on that block@Bartlett). The developer (Oyster Development) has been very open and engaged with the community. They held a neighborhood open house inside the Theatre months ago and were open and responsive to feedback/concerns.

    At the hearing, there were definitely more people in favor than opposed. There seemed to be two major reasons for dissent:

    1) People who lived around Shotwell and Caesar Chavez who were concerned about the details of the “affordable housing” units planned for the project. The developer is donating a parcel of land near there to the city to use in construction of low-income housing (see the SF Gate article for more details). Folks are concerned that there is already a lot of low-income housing in that location and concerned about “ghettoization” of the area. I can see their concerns for sure and it’s a hard calculus — at the end of the day, there are going to be more affordable units out there because of this setup.

    2) The others were community activists who used the project to decry gentrification in general. I found it amusing that they they railed against the horrors of gentrification and then said they were in favor of the affordable units being built. So I guess the developer should cancel the project and just donate the land to the city…

    The 5-1 vote is misleading as all the board were in favor of the project. The dissenting vote was more a protest vote because they wanted more parking assigned to the project. Seems the rest of the board thinks restricting parking forces people to use bikes/public transit and this guy not so much.

    I for one look forward to seeing movies at the New Mission and think the questionable design of the condos is more than made up by the benefit it will bring to the block.

    The board made several comments that this project may set the tone/bar for future projects that come before them. A good sign that perhaps there’s a happy compromise to be found, if you can find more progressive/responsible developers.

  10. Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed!
    Very useful info particularly the last part :) I care for such
    info a lot. I was seeking this particular information for a long time.
    Thank you and best of luck.