Housing Watch is Mission Local’s attempt to keep track of all the new development in the neighborhood. We’ve pulled data from the Planning Department and created maps and lists of the planned and completed projects in the neighborhood, linking to stories we’ve written about them.

Market-rate units since 2008: 1070
Affordable units since 2008: 144
Total units built since 2014: 387
Affordable units since 2014: 39
Promised units from Supervisor Hillary Ronen: 5,000.

Let us know if we’ve missed any developments, we’ll be sure to keep this list current.

Projects Proposed, Projects Completed — A list of all the housing projects in the Mission District that have been proposed since 2000. Those completed are in purple, and those proposed but not yet completed in blue.

Housing Pipeline — Projects planned to be completed in the neighborhood — in different stages of development — with the number of below-market-rate units within each project in orange.

Status Report — The projects named in the above map sorted by their status in the pipeline: plans preliminary, approved by planning, under construction, and completed.

Project List — A list of the planned and completed projects in the neighborhood.

Join the Conversation


Please keep your comments short and civil. Do not leave multiple comments under multiple names on one article. We will zap comments that fail to adhere to these short and very easy-to-follow rules.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. sfdbi is still at it….my 10 week project is now gone on for 5 years and they still keep writing NOVs after issueing permit after permit. All because of Bernie Curran and Santos. 5 years ive been dealing with this bs

  2. You should include units lost to landlord arson and add the amount of rent controlled units lost to fake OMI or Ellis Acts. Also, none of these new units is “affordable” you should change the wording to Below Market Rate (which is more or less a subsidy for entry level tech workers) not actual people.

  3. I would love to find any affordable housing for my unable to walk wife (we live up a flight of stairs).

  4. Nice study man you really put up a great article learned many things I think I can remember that 2004 time when the prices were a bit low and it was quite affordable right. Anyway good job.

  5. Add in the excelsior, and the eastern side near t-third, and you get a better indication of overall impacts…

    Transit needs to be 10x amped and quickly…

  6. Amazing work Mission Local! God bless you, brothers

    You should add a project completed in 2012:
    411-415 Valencia St
    16 units, 2 of which are BMR

  7. The problem isn’t whether the units are affordable, It’s who they’re affordable too (rich tech workers). The average resident who’s lived in neighborhoods like the Mission and Hayes Valley cannot afford to live here anymore. Let’s stop denying that gentrification is happening all around the city.

    1. >The problem isn’t whether the units are affordable, It’s who they’re affordable too (rich tech workers).

      Actually, rich lawyers, rich trust funders, rich accountants, rich doctors, in fact anyone rich can afford these units.

      It’s so much easier to stick a label on a class and blame the troubles on them (some historic examples from our city: Chinese, Undocumentimagrants, Homosexuals, etc.) then it is to actually admit the fault lies with us. Long term residents of this city failed to support building housing in this city.

    2. Hi,
      I’m a Nurse. That’s about as blue collar as they get and I bought a home in the Mission. What gives anyone a right to say who should get to live here. Let those who can afford it buy or rent and those who can’t live where they can afford. Forgive my blue collar intellect, but this isn’t rocket science.

        1. I’m not surprise with your attitude. It’s not unusual for someone with money to feel that way. How I miss our long gone native San Franciscans, who were more caring and compassionate. Peace and Love.

      1. Nursing is not blue collar. it’s professional, requiring full 4+ years college education, highly paid (valued by society); in a profession that’s growing / in demand / guaranteed not to go away (until robots take it over in 20 years).

        Contrast to factory laborer, janitor, hospital orderly, hotel maid : those are blue-collar (mostly using their bodies not minds [expendable once their bodies lose strength], some training but no formal education, easily replaced by another).

  8. Whats sad is the builders (some not all) building these units Are not worried about building them to be “affordable” where financially it is smarter for them to simply paying the fine to city for not meeting the affordable housing requirements and renting the units at or above market rate. If Ed Lee and the city really wanted to create more “affordable housing” the would change the laws or impose bigger fines for not meeting the requirements. The way it is now the city and the builders both stand to make money. the city gets there money immediately by the fines and the builder in the long term by raising the rents to above or at market and just paying the city its money for the fine. Its sad but true that what makes this city so great it’s diversity of class and culture is disappearing and soon will be a white collar city for the rich. The city is all about making the money and low to middle class people don’t have it to give.

    1. I think the problem is not the fines, but the City’s inability to use that money to build affordable housing. Why can a home builder build a block of units in less time that the City, when the City should theoretically have an easier time with permitting, etc? What is so dysfunctional about the city that it’s can’t build housing even when being paid to do so? The Vida apartments on valencia are built and inhabited and the city still hasn’t broken ground on the affordable housing units the homebuild paid the city to build.

      It’s at the point where activist can’t even trust the city to build housing and are advocating that the home builder be responsible in lieu of the city.

      1. Firstly, the Vida project is located on Mission St near 22nd, not Valencia.This was a completely corrupt deal by the developer, Supervisor Campos office and the dozen non profit organizations who extorted nearly $1 million in cash donations from the developer. The arrangement allowed the developer to build 100% luxury condos. I lieu of building affordable units on site, the developer donated land at 1296 Shotwell St near Cesar Chavez to build 100% affordable apartments in a proposed 9 story building. The current zoning allows a height limit of 6 stories. The building site is located in a very congested residential area on a narrow street. Residents on Shotwell St oppose the height and zero parking spaces planned on the site. There is very good reason to delay this project indefinitely until MEDA (Mission Economic Development Association) negotiates in good faith with the Shotwell neighbors to reduce the height and density of the proposed building. Until now, MEDA has not offered any concessions to Mission neighbors who will be directly impacted by this “Monolith” on Shotwell St.

  9. Quite the article. It surprises me that completed/planned ownership units so vastly outnumber rental units. In a city where 2/3 of the residents rent, the Mission (once again) stands out. Property being as expensive as it is, I fear that few of the homes for ownership, especially those built recently, were priced for the blue-collar worker… if San Francisco has any of those left.

    1. I too share you concern about pricing out people who live in this city.

      However, I think homeownership is great. I think in an ideal world most people would own homes not rent. You get all the value of appreciation, you have a vested financial state in your community, you are going to get evicted and lose rent control, etc. etc.

      Walk down any street street and you can probably pick out most homes that are owner occupied and which homes are renter occupied.

      The common complaint is landlords don’t care, and if that is true, we shouldn’t want to expand that group and instead of supporting home ownership.

      Now if we can support the dream of homeownership while not squeezing people out of this city, that is another story.

      1. Yes. Imagine Old Havana working something like this: The tenants have been occupying a flat in a mansion which is now in a state of advanced decay. The tenants pay $75 per month in rent and complain that the walls are crumbling and the ceiling is caving in. If asked why they do not repair the place on their own they would be offended and incredulous, why should they make the repairs when they do not own it?! So, in their minds the owner, albeit the government, should come and repair it at public expense. No! They are getting what they paid for.

  10. I really enjoyed reading this article. Lots of good useful information. I think we all have to remember that all units build and occupied are affordable units. If they were not affordable they would sit empty. $5,000 a month for a luxury two bedroom is affordable. The below market rate is screwing up the market.

    1. They really should stop spinning the subsidized units as “affordable” Because they are not magically affordable. They just force someone else pay to for them, they are SUBSIDIZED !

      1. Not necessarily subsidized. When a developer builds a large project, the city’s Inclusionary Program kicks in, requiring that at least some of those new homes be “affordable” — there are caveats to this. And “affordable” means the developer can only price them up to a certain level. For rental units, that level is 55% of the median income for this region — again, there are caveats. For example, if you, alone, snagged an “affordable” apartment this way, then the developer couldn’t legally price it higher than what an income of $37,350 could afford.

        But you’re right, some of the affordable housing is subsidized, such as the entire buildings of reduced-priced units owned and operated by nonprofit orgs.

        1. >Not necessarily subsidized. When a developer builds a large project, the city’s Inclusionary Program kicks in, requiring that at least some of those new homes be “affordable” — there are caveats to this. And “affordable” means the developer can only price them up to a certain level.

          So subsidized by the developer, who can eat those cost or increase the price of the non subsidized housing, which means they are subsidized by the purchases or those units.

          Someone is paying for those affordable housing units, and whoever that is, is subsidizing the cost.

          1. Ian ,you are right. I am a Latina landlord. I am moderate income, drive an old car, disabled, and pay $10,000 in property taxes! I own an old Victorian with three flats. I am using my funds to restore and repair the building. The market rate for each of the units is $5,000-6,500. The units are huge! However,, I receive only $900-1,300 for the units.. I am subsidizing the tenants in all three units. I am providing private Section eight to my tenants. To make matters worse, my tenants are saving their money to build homes in their native countries and plan to retire or move back home. I do not see much commitment to the community (besides fighting gentrification). The tenants are fully aware that my eating the rent each month is allowing them to send their money outside the USA so they can build their
            dream home in their home town.

      2. Let’s defeat any extension of rent control. Either you can afford to live here or not. There are no guarantees and living elsewhere is the solution. Rent control defeats development in the city.