Brannan Street Wharf: Concept Design
The long planned demolition of the dilapidated Pier 36 and transformation of former Pier 34 into the Brannan Street Wharf has received a tentative $6 million federal funding boost.

The new 830-foot wharf with 400-feet of new neighborhood lawn (click image to enlarge) could now be a reality “as early as July 2012” (but more likely by the end of that year).
Sprucing up The City’s waterfront [San Francisco Examiner]

10 thoughts on “From Piers To Park And The Brannan Street Wharf By 2012”
  1. I’m very encouraged that they’ve finished evaluating the substructure – and the conclusion is that the seawall is going to need retrofitting and the rest of the structure is too dilapidated for use. I’m very critical of the Port on my Rincon Hill blog about this project because it first began in 1997. That’s practically enough time for a kid to move from 1st grade through graduating high school.
    When I started reading about money being tentatively shifted from what was once going to be a cruise terminal at Piers 30-32 northward to Pier 27, I especially got concerned that Brannan Street Wharf was falling down the priority list. I know the Port is in a horrible financial situation, but these new parking meters that allow them to charge premiums for Giants baseball parking and the extension of operable hours could provide more money for the Brannan Street Wharf Project – our friends who come to visit us in the evenings and possibly on Sundays will certainly be adding to the Port’s revenue stream with the new variable rates and hours or operation for parking meters.
    Hopefully, this news and the Port folks talking with the neighborhood group on Monday are signs that we haven’t been forgotten … all San Franciscans should be demanding this stretch of The Embarcadero between AT&T Park and the Ferry Building that is an eyesore, fenced up with “Unsafe Area” signs, should be brought up to par to complete the continuous strip of fabulous open space. I applaud the movement … but will continue to be holding the Port Commission accountable for keeping up the momentum.

  2. Gotta love the positive spin in the article:

    When: Planning began in 2000. Most construction is expected to be finished as early as July 2012.

    About time too!

  3. That cyclone fence along the water has been up so long it can likely qualify for landmark status.
    I’ll enjoy the park if I live to see it, but I’m not holding my breath.

  4. An eight-foot-wide “pier” sticking a paltry few hundred feet into the bay sounds pretty darned pathetic.

  5. The City bungled this whole thing! Brannan Street Wharf was the “Carrot” that was to result from allowing Watermark to be built to its current height. SF got screwed when the developers bailed….after they completed the building. Years later and its still in the talking stages. I’ll believe it when I see it.

  6. The developers should have been made to build the new wharf before they were allowed to break ground on Watermark.

  7. I think there is a lot of confusion between the watermark developer and the port. They are two entirely different entities and the developer never had an interest in building the BSW.
    Instead the developer was required to, and did, pay fees(something like $16MM) to the Port (all from Watermark revenues) for construction on the BSW, and the port has been sitting on these funds for years. And every year the port has done nothing, the cost of the BSW project has increased. Shame on them.
    Anyway, I think the BSW will make the area much nicer. Pier 36 is a huge eyesore, and its demolition along with the construction of this mini-park will certainly make The Embarcadero a more appealing walk from the ferry bldg to the ballpark. Even the recent cosmetic improvements to Pier 40 are welcome.

  8. Just noticed the elements to commemorate the rail lines. Funny, I was watching Streets of San Francisco today. Mike and Steve were chasing the bad guys along this part of the Embarcadero and there were a bunch of rail cars lined up along the city side of the road. I had completely forgotten how you would see that along here. It brought back a flood of memories about how different this part of town was a couple of decades ago. It’s not a bad idea to include subtle reminders of what the waterfront once was like.

  9. I have been wondering why this project has not been built, now I know why. If the Port get’s it’s 6M Fed slush fund to throw around to the Newsom’s buddies, maybe this project will get built. The Port has had 21 million dollars for a couple of years now to build this project. (Not enough to pad the project budget) Let’s see who Newsom’s lackeys on the port commission toss a bone to. Remember Mr.Empty suit is running for Gov. He needs to curry favor, and how better to use the Fed’s money? This should be interesting to see who the bidders are on the project. I wonder how much influence Ms.(the CIA are a bunch of lier’s)Pelosi has had in pushing the Fed funding for SF? Hey…of course this is all just..Uhm.. speculation…nothing like this ever happens in SF. Or does it? How could these things ever be connected…?

Leave a Reply

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