8 Washington Rendering circa 2012

Blocked at the ballot box last year, Pacific Waterfront Partners is quietly preparing to present a revised proposal for building a mix of condos and retail at 8 Washington Street, the parcel upon which the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club and adjacent Port-owned parking lot currently reside.

According to the president of the adjacent Golden Gateway Tenants Association, by way of the Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association, “the new proposal will reportedly be different from the old one in two respects: height and affordability,” but no specifics were provided.  The revised proposal is expected to be delivered to the Port by the end of the year.

As plugged-in people know, while the ballot measure blocked an up-zoning of the site for the development as was proposed, approved and requested by The City, the waterfront parcel remains zoned for building up to 84-feet in height.  Of course, it’s not nearly as simple as building within the existing limits in San Francisco.

Pacific Waterfront Partners has an Exclusive Negotiating agreement with the Port for the 8 Washington site, an agreement which doesn’t expire for a couple of years.

37 thoughts on “Defeated “Wall On The Waterfront” Development Revived”
  1. Good to hear this is still moving forward in some capacity. It’d be great to have anything other than a parking lot there… and add some life to that side of the Embarcadero.

    1. Yep, there’s that horrible, soul-destroying “wall on the waterfront”. Looks pretty nice, as walls go.

    1. Instead of Lee’s and Gavin’s smirk and smarm, what I really wanted to see in a supportive campaign ad was a voice over in the most Reaganesque intonement, “Mr Agnos, tear down this wall,” with a picture of the Ferry Building which, of course, presents the greatest “wall” along the Bay.

      1. Or the Golden Gateway Commons buildings? Talk about massive, soul-destroying buildings, with super blocks and everything*. But they are probably considered “historic” now.

        * I actually kinda like Golden Gateway. LOL

  2. I’d love to see the expression on the faces of all the ‘no’ voters once this thing breaks ground.
    Actually never mind – most of the ‘no’ voters knew so little about the project or its location that they wouldn’t even be able to make the connection.

      1. An incredibly arrogant commet. Whether you were for or against the “wall” this kind of trash talk on a realty blog only makes people who don’t agree with you fume.

    1. More than likely this development will have little or no parkland, compared to the original proposal which included a moderate amount, so that the developers can cover their costs to include more affordable housing and less density. The left wing of San Francisco shoots itself in the foot yet again!

    2. This has ZERO impact on the waterfront. It is lower than the buildings behind it.
      You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and complete lies put out by the opponents.

      I sincerely hope a well design project gets built within the legally allowed height limits.

      1. It’s not literally on top of a BART station, but pretty close. Less than a quarter mile away from BART, Muni Metro, many different bus lines, and ferries. Also right next to Embarcadero Center and downtown. I reluctantly voted for 8 Washington despite the excess parking primarily because I could not stand the deceptive, overheated rhetoric of the opponents. I suspect that the revised version will continue to have too much parking because of the deal the Port cut with nearby landowners years ago. Too bad.

        1. It’s not too bad. I am fine with the parking ratio. Parking is still needed. Those who buy here will, most likely, own a car.

      2. Gawd futurist chill out. That was hyperbole man. “On top of” can also mean, as it does here, very near to…

  3. Jamie Whitaker is a shill for the owners of nearby parking garages.
    If they decrease the number of parking spots, then the owners of nearby garages can raise the rates and get richer.
    No more parking spaces in SF !
    Keep parking garage owners rich!

    1. My main impetus is the need to decrease the air pollution and traffic congestion that causes the air pollution downtown. Air pollution kills 7 million people per year, according to the World Health Organization.

      I speak my mind, and make no apologies for doing so.

    2. Well, instead build plentiful parking on site because we know that adding the cost of parking to developments has ZERO impact on the costs of the units.

      Keep the price of housing in SF ever higher!

  4. It is good to see this picture once again, indicating how the real “wall on the waterfront” is the group of buildings behind the 8 Washington project. 5 & 6 story buildings in front hardly constitute a wall. The 2nd tier of buildings allowed the gradual rise to the very tall buildings behind, what City Planning has suggested for decades. The voters were duped by a very effective campaign which did not emphasize the facts. Remember, this site is not zoned to be “open space”, the open space is south across Washington St.

    Hooray for the continued development of this site on the west side of the Embarcadero.

  5. City Place, on Market Street, has been postponed because they can’t find an anchor tenant. Despite all of the supposed well-heeled Mid-Market tech. The developers of the Transbay Terminal have dropped their building plans. All good. SF government is getting a swift kick to their arses. SF rents will flatten out by 2015, not because of, but in spite of, government intervention. Market forces always win.

  6. Build it as it’s currently zoned, no problem. It will be fine. Views are not guaranteed, so the folks behind it will have to get over it (selfish obstructionism?). There is a large park next door with a new playground, so the need for open or public space is not really that great right there imho, but air and space are always nice in any project (think not NYC). I think it can improve that area. Sad to see the swim/tennis club go, but its far from the best use for that prime spot and we need any and all housing units (i thought it would be cool to incorporate a swim/tennis club into the new project, but obviously not feasible).

  7. But the courts there are playing so nice, since they recently resurfaced them! Seriously, I’m a member of the club, and I’m not opposed to development there, but I selfishly think it would be a shame to lose 9 fantastic tennis courts and a great outdoor swimming pool. On top of that, there is talk of similar development at SF Tennis Club. Responsibly speaking, I actually think they should redevelop both, but only with the right concensions around suitable replacements and timing. It would suck for both clubs to be closed at the same time.

    1. Lance,

      Agreed. I’m a member of the club as well and my kids go to Summer Camp, take swim, and tennis lessons there…it would be a shame to lose, at least temporarily, but who am I to tell what the owner/develop can do with the property even AFTER they have gone through the SF planning process.

  8. The original design, pictured above, is the most contextual and beautiful design possible for that site. Contrary to the nimby “no wall” propaganda, it was respectful of its neighbors and had no adverse effect on the waterfront. The developers should go back to the voters with the same design until they win. A lower development will look totally squat near those downtown highrises.

Leave a Reply

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