Plans to redevelop the 15-acre parcel of India Basin land known as 700 Innes Avenue, the largest privately owned development site in San Francisco, have been in the works for well over a decade.

And following a failed bid to build three 650-foot towers on the bayfront site, detailed plans for a 15-acre San Francisco Adventure Park emerged, drafted by the San Francisco Parks Alliance.

India Basin Adventure Park Plan

Taken back by the bank in 2013 with over $26 million owed, Build Inc. has since purchased the 700 Innes property for $15 million and is now working on plans to build up to 900 units of housing and retail on the site which is adjacent to Lennar Urban’s Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by invented


    1. Planning –deal with the eyesore & crime ridden projects on Potrero FIRST and get the mixed income and use project under way. We’re resourcing the periphery while the center molders. Then encourage this dev. If the City can’t (they can’t) — bring in a developer,
    2. Yet another reason to rethink Cesar Chavez’s zoning. Should be transitional mixed use given the reality of booming Dogpatch to Bayview area. Anyone home?

  2. Posted by Bob

    I forgot about the 600 foot proposals for that site. Any info on them?

  3. Posted by BigV

    gosh, isn’t 900 units somewhat low for 15 acres of undeveloped land?

  4. Posted by SFrentier

    I kinda liked it all being a park. Would make an awesome walk from candlestick up towards the stadium.

  5. Posted by seriously

    why not have a TOWER again?? smaller footprint, larger park+more nature, great views, more desperately needed units. can we please grow the heck up (literally and figuratively)?!

    • Posted by SFrentier

      Ok. Me cool with that.

  6. Posted by RLV

    Hey, uh, folks? Cranky, much? It’s Friday, lighten up…

  7. Posted by seriously

    sorry. “40′ height limits” is like a trigger for me. happy friday!!!

  8. Posted by Joseph A

    Although I get that locals want this kept as an open space if that was their true wish they should have had the city buy this land vs the plot over near Pacific Heights so it could have stayed as it is , I actually think allowing a number of High Rise Towers to be built would have been a good trade off if it would have kept the bulk of the site as it is

  9. Posted by suburbanoid

    Why not both?

  10. Posted by curmudgeon

    ^ Spending the City’s very limited Open Space bond dollars on the Pacific Heights property was/is the boondoggle of the century. While I don’t think the park envisioned above makes a great deal of sense, I could foresee a great project that developed a portion of this site in residential and also provide a large park component, partially funded with Open Space dollars.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles