32 9th St

Where 32 9th St is

Its block in Downtown San Francisco, drawn from San Francisco's own building outlines and street centerlines.

The plan: window line, shape and floor rhythm

29 ft of exterior wall for each home the screen estimates — enough for two- and three-bedroom homes across the plan.

The typical floor has 1,591 ft of exterior wall, and across 10 residential floors the building carries 15,912 ft of it in total, divided among the 547 homes this screen estimates.

Its plate is elongated at 0.39: a slab or an L, which is why so much of the floor lies within reach of a window: the outline buys daylight that a square plan of the same area would not. How window line and plate shape are measured.

At the model’s 750 sq ft average, the plan works out at about 54.7 homes per floor, repeated on every residential floor, since this building's outline does not change as it rises.

Why 32 9th St scores 45 out of 100

Daylight efficiency 52, Interior depth 1, Scale 100, Finance 45 — each out of 100, then weighted.

Most of what it earns comes from daylight efficiency, and what holds it back most is interior depth, at 1 out of 100: deepest interior point 80 ft from a facade, scored from 80 ft down to 40 ft.

Built in 1937

San Francisco records this building as going up in 1937, which puts it in the interwar stock.

As a rule, steel or concrete frames with punched windows and plates still narrow enough for daylight to reach the middle, often with high ceilings. Among the most convertible stock there is, and the reason so many early conversions were of buildings this age. That is the era’s general tendency rather than a finding about this building — the model reads an outline and a height, and can see nothing inside — but it is the first thing an architect would want to know, and it colours how much confidence the 66% daylight figure above deserves.

What the conversion would cost

$405 per square foot all-in across 776,122 sq ft of converted floor, or $314.3M in total — about $575K for each of the 547 homes.

That cost is charged across every converted square foot, including the 263,079 sq ft of windowless core, which has to be gutted, seismically braced and sprinklered like the rest of the building and then earns nothing. Against it the model sets a completed value of $366K a home, which for 547 homes is $200.2M.

What would have to be true

A $114.1M gap before any grant, $104.1M after the modeled one. The smallest single change that would close it: average unit size 34% down.

The shortfall before any grant is $114.1M. Closing it from the value side means each of the 547 homes finishing at $575K rather than the $366K the model assumes — 57% more. Closing it from the cost side means getting all-in cost down from $405 to $258 per square foot.

A modeled RESIDE grant of $10.0M moves that threshold to $556K a home. That is still above the $366K assumed, leaving $104.1M uncovered, which is why the grant does not unlock this one.

Nor do all four levers have to move. For 32 9th St, one alone would close the gap at:

All four are sliders in the survey, where 32 9th St re-scores against your own numbers.

How it compares in Downtown San Francisco

32 9th St ranks 195th of the 205 buildings screened here, against a median score of 87.

Its floor plate is better lit than 6% of them, and shallower than 5% of them at its deepest interior point. On size it is the 14th largest by estimated homes. The full survey of all 205 buildings ranks and maps every one of them, and the list by address links each to its own page.

Within South of Market and the C-3-G zone

12th of 14 in South of Market, 20th of 22 zoned C-3-G — the comparison that shares its rules, rents and streets.

San Francisco places 14 of the screened buildings in South of Market. 32 9th St ranks 12th of them against a median score of 82. 9 score 70 or more, their median deepest interior point is 45 ft from a facade against this building’s 80 ft, and together they would hold an estimated 2,045 homes. The group’s top scorer is 431 Natoma St, at 100.

22 of the screened buildings are zoned C-3-G. 32 9th St ranks 20th of them against a median score of 76. 13 score 70 or more, their median deepest interior point is 51 ft from a facade against this building’s 80 ft, and together they would hold an estimated 2,588 homes. The group’s top scorer is 40 Leavenworth St, at 92.

Its nearest match in size: 235 1st St

The screened building closest to 32 9th St in converted floor area is 235 1st St: 603,236 sq ft over 10 stories, against 776,122 sq ft over 11 here.

32 9th St scores 45 and 235 1st St only 32, and the difference is a hard fail rather than a matter of degree: the lower one is capped at 35 because its deepest interior point is 111 ft from a facade, past the 80 ft threshold beyond which conversion requires carving a light well. On the money they sit in the same place: each falls short even with the modeled grant. The two stand about 7,500 ft apart.

Would it qualify for a RESIDE Act grant?

The model awards 32 9th St $10.0M, on the assumption it qualifies. Whether it does, no published dataset can say.

That figure assumes the building meets the Act’s vacant-and-abandoned test, which turns on code-enforcement and receivership records no city publishes.

It does not sit in a 2018 designated Opportunity Zone, so it would not draw that Section 201 priority.

Other buildings screened near 32 9th St

The 4 closest the screen also covers, from 180 ft away. They are the colored outlines on the plan at the top of this page.

• 875 Stevenson St
  10 stories · 67% daylit · 228 estimated homes · scores 58/100 (Worth a feasibility study)
  about 180 ft away
• 1275 Market St
  17 stories · 69% daylit · 375 estimated homes · scores 52/100 (Worth a feasibility study)
  about 370 ft away
• 150 Hayes St
  6 stories · 76% daylit · 80 estimated homes · scores 64/100 (Worth a feasibility study)
  about 780 ft away
• 950 Minna St
  6 stories · 82% daylit · 72 estimated homes · scores 76/100 (Strong candidate)
  about 790 ft away