San Francisco Landmarks Map

San Francisco’s Planning Department is seeking nominations for new historic landmarks to be added to the City’s official list of 266 “iconic architectural masterpieces, monuments to historic events, and places associated with cultural and social movements” that have defined San Francisco.

Nominations can include buildings, districts, places, structures or objects that are:

  • significant for their association with historic events, including the City’s social and cultural history;
  • significant for their association with a person or group important to the history of the City, State or Country;
  • significant for their architecture or design;
  • valued as visual landmarks, or that have special character or meaning to the City and its residents; or
  • properties or features that are linked by history, plan, aesthetics or physical development.

Official nominations/applications submitted to the City will need to contain supporting historic, architectural and/or cultural documentation.  We’ll be a little less strict with respect to any unofficial nominations made below.

Mission Dolores was the first building to be designated a San Francisco landmark back in 1968.  The Marcus Books and Jimbo’s Bop City building on Fillmore was the most recent addition to the list.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by S

    wow I’m kind of surprised that there aren’t more historic districts

  2. Posted by Sierrajeff

    How about the homes of Peskin and Agnos, so they can never make any changes to them, ever again.

  3. Posted by anon

    how about Frank Nolan’s residence? “The man who gentrified the Mission.”

    • Posted by Futurist

      NO. Demand and desirability has gentrified the Mission, and it’s good and it’s how cities evolve.

      • Posted by Anon

        Actually the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan is doing it, and you should know that as an architect.

  4. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    Modern Medical Office Buildings (West Side of San Francisco)
    Many 60’s and 70’s modern buildings exist in the city and throughout the westside of SF.
    A list of appropriate designations and list of properties should be generated including the medical office building at Stonestown, and other sites along Taraval, Ocean Ave. transit corridors.

    • Posted by Amewsed

      I hate to say it but add all single story small MOBs on California St. near CPMC. (I am sorry, Dr. Gonda, but your colleagues’ building is exactly the same as it was 30 yrs. ago)

    • Posted by Joel

      …this is a joke, right?

  5. Posted by Sierrajeff

    on a more serious note – St. Ignatius is not on the list currently? It is one righteous building (pun intended), I enjoy looking at it silouetted against the sky from different angles, particularly against the sunrise. I’m not the least bit religious, but I’d hate to see something happen to St. Ignatius.

    • Posted by SFHelmut

      I am guessing you mean SI Church on Lone Mountain, not SI School on Sunset.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        in any other city, it’d be a landmark in its own right.

        • Posted by Orland

          Lone Mountain or the USF campus on “the hill?”

  6. Posted by jlasf

    I am surprised that “The Crooked Street” – Lombard Street between Hyde and Leavenworth –
    is not already on the list. Certainly, an important landmark of the City.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      I wondered that many buildings in the Presidio and Fort Mason aren’t on the list. Presumably that’s because they’re federal (or quasi-federal) property, and so ultimately the government could do what it wants with them regardless of historic or landmark designation. But I’d still think that having them designated as landmarks would help with tourism, security grant funds (preservation and renovation), etc.

      • Posted by Emanon

        The SF list is not the same as the National Register of Historical Places. The NRHP includes many buildings at Fort Mason as well as a designated Fort Mason Historic District. Same for the Presidio. The list is maintained by the National Park Service. All federal agencies are responsible for preserving listed historic resources under their jurisdiction in compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Also, to be nominated or considered eligible for the list, the property in question must meet certain criteria (such as those listed by the city) as well as having historic “integrity”. That is the property cannot have substantial changes (additions, modern windows, etc,) from its original plan.

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          Uh, yeah, I know it’s not the same as the National Register. That doesn’t mean a building in San Francisco can’t be on San Francisco’s own list, just as a species can be on both the federal and state endangered species lists (or just be on one or the other).

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      Why would the second-crookedest street in the city be a landmark if the crookedest street (Vermont St. between 20th and 22nd) isn’t.

      • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

        Easy. Lombard is much better known, in the midst of Touristastan, and more photogenic.

  7. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I’m going to try to landmark myself. That way not only will I live forever, I also won’t get any larger.

  8. Posted by nry

    San Francisco’s *Disneyification* Department.

    There. Fixed it.

    • Posted by Dixon Hill

      Because honoring the history and culture of the city = Disneyland? OK. Got it.

    • Posted by Anon

      “there, fixed it” needs to be extinguished. what’s wrong with coming up with one’s own stuff?

  9. Posted by bill

    Lets put the entire city in Amber!

  10. Posted by Fishchum

    I nominate:

    Liverpool Lil’s
    Final Final
    Brazen Head

    • Posted by Orland

      Where’s the topical and obvious — Elbo Room?

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty


  11. Posted by MarketSt

    The hated/beloved Sutro Tower! Landmark it now or it’ll get torn down when ground-based broadcast signals are obsolete, which must be coming soon now.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      I was just thinking the other day – imagine the outrage if someone proposed building Sutro Tower today! It’d never get built!

  12. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Surely we can add some crack houses and homeless encampments to this list so they can never be “displaced” by those nasty techies.

  13. Posted by SFian

    I’d start with that nasty encampment right off the mission duboce off ramp. Scariest people I’ve ever seen in my life. Retired Mad max extras for sure.

  14. Posted by morpheus

    They forgot to include the Duboce Park district. I’m sure they’re working on plenty of others too.

  15. Posted by Britta

    I’d love to see the old Mission Police Station on 17th & Treat get formally protected, it’s a lovely little building with obvious historical value.

    • Posted by Orland

      I’m amazed the old SFPD station @20th/3rd (Willie Brown Blvd) in Dogpatch has not yet been repurposed given all that has been going on in that neighborhood. I don’t think there is anything at all in the works as to what the City intends to do with the surplus property. Awaiting actual build out of Pier 70?

    • Posted by joh

      Thanks for that link. I used to walk by that old police station regularly and wondered what it was being used for.

  16. Posted by JustLooking

    OK. Since most of the users seem to have mis-placed their sarcasm fonts, so will I. I live on the upper section of Twin Peaks. I want to nominate all of the houses near me (left, right or below) that could “if redesigned” negatively impact the aesthetics (read: negatively impact my view and home value) of my home.

    What could be wrong with that?

    Best regards,

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles