San Francisco Flower Mart 2014

The ceremonial signing of the final agreement between the San Francisco Flower Mart Tenants’ Association, Kilroy Realty and the San Francisco Flower Mart LLC which will end the tenants’ threatened ballot measure to block the proposed redevelopment of the Mart is about to occur.

While the agreement aligns the development team with the tenants, it doesn’t guarantee that Kilroy’s proposed height for the project, which includes three towers rising over 200-feet in height, will be approved by the City.

San Francisco Flower Mart Site Plan

Currently only zoned for industrial use and development up to 55-feet in height, San Francisco’s pending Central SoMa Plan would rezone the Flower Mart site for commercial development and additional height, but the plan as prepared by the City’s Planning Department only recommends increasing the site’s height limit to 85-feet.

As we first reported last week, Planning’s preliminary response to the proposed extra height for a 350-foot tower a block away was less than enthusiastic.  And Kilroy’s agreement with the tenants doesn’t preclude another ballot measure challenging the spot up-zoning of developments within areas for which a neighborhood plan has already been drafted or adopted from being initiated.

Regardless, whether Kilroy moves forward with their designs for an underground replacement Mart or will pursue an alternative above-ground design with a main tower rising up to 280-feet and a central multi-level plaza, as we first reported earlier this year, remains an unknown.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Dave

    I think the Central SOmA plan should max the heights at 85 feet. Keep all buildings in the area 10 stories or less.

    I indeed think there will be initiatives mounted against any spot up-zoning by the PC either here or the site of the proposed 37 story tower.

    Keep the Central SoMa low rise and livable for those who move there.

    • Posted by anon

      What do livable and low rise have to do with one another? I’d much rather live in high rise Vancouver over low rise Detroit…

      • Posted by ElitistPig

        Exactly… height and livability have little to do with eachother.

      • Posted by Brian M

        But according to Dave’s recurrent theme everyone is abandoning San Francisco and we thus don’t need any new tall buildings!

    • Posted by gone on

      Yea Dave, but you are just another voice in the wilderness.

      The misplaced manhattanites will win out with their zealous ” higher denser build it now” mantras.

  2. Posted by sassyboyfrisco

    Build high to the sky, please!

  3. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    If there is a single neighborhood in this city that needs some extra consideration for additional height increases, it’s SOMA—even outside of the proposed height increases via the Central SOMA Plan. But, I do not necessarily think that every single lot / block should have 25+ story buildings on it either.

  4. Posted by Dave

    San Francisco is not Vancouver. The folks there generally support hig-rise development as do folks in LA and Atlanta, San Francisco is somewhat unique in the degree ofoppoition to high-density.

    For good reason. A city of hills with low-rise neighborhoods clinging to them. That is how SF developed. The topography reminiscent of Italian coastal towns.

    SF has historically allowed only a small part of its area to have hi-rise development. The idea behind Trasnbay was to expand that a bit and go higher but that was supposed to be it.

    Instead we got the attempt to build higher at Van Ness/Market. Totally out of scope with the 3 and 4 story building a block away to the west and south. One Oak is in trouble and along with th other proposed projects will likely never happen. Except in a much scaled down form.

    The Mayor now tries to sneak in a hi-rise node near CalTrain which is totally out of scale for that area.

    The up-zoning of parts of Central SOMA to 20 stories.

    Talk about hi-rise creep.

    Not to mention HP and Lennar’s plans for 30 story towers near the Bay. Like that will never happen.

    • Posted by Dave

      I should have said 30 story towers at Hunters Point near the Bay – like that will ever happen.

    • Posted by Julliurt

      “Out of scale for that area”? The area that used to be a freeway overpass and ligh industrial? That was then re-zoned to a low-rise residential area, despite being one of our city’s main entrance points?

    • Posted by anon

      I was responding to your notion that height makes a place less livable. Do you agree that the notion is absurd?

      I can agree with you that many folks in SF prefer low rise living, but preferences have nothing to do with “livability”.

  5. Posted by Jon Schwark

    Planning already knows about this, and has prioritized saving the Flower Mart. They are unlikely to torpedo this. ALL zoning in Central SOMA now is speculative, because the area plan is still in draft mode. This is exactly the time to be making proposals like this. If Aaron Peskin and the other NIMBY forces are seen making a stink about the height now, after this long fought deal has been reached, no one will ever make a deal with them again, because it will be clear they don’t bargain in good faith.

    • Posted by CH

      Towers aren’t needed to save the Flower Mart. The land could be redeveloped within the Central SOMA Plan’s recommended height and the project would still be profitable. If Kilroy threatens to walk away, let them.

      • Posted by Orland

        There is absolutely no reason the Flower Mart has to be located where it is either. If a development securing the current location by including them isn’t worth the while without the towers, make them move which is probably the best solution for all but heaven forbid anything gets changed.

  6. Posted by Pablito

    Building 2 and 3 should have beautiful south facing views. Building 1 is right next to the I-280 off-ramp /on-ramp. Hopefully Kilroy Realty will be paying special attention to soundproofing for building 1….Lots of honking going on

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles