430 Main Street Site

Originally approved for development back in 2009 but waylaid by a successful appeal to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, an appeal which was championed by a group of neighbors primarily concerned about a loss of light and views for their Baycrest condos and pool, the plans for a 144-unit building to rise at 430 Main/429 Beale are ramping up and making their way through Planning.

430 Main Rendering

As proposed by War Horse and Tidewater Capital and newly designed by SCB, the development would raze the existing one and two-story storage buildings on the Rincon Hill site in order for the 9-story building to rise, with the entrance to the basement garage for 101 cars (and 119 bikes) fronting Beale.

430 Main Rendering: Beale Street

When originally approved, the then-developer had agreed to keep the project as rentals for at least 20 years before converting to condos. No official word on the new development team’s long-term plans.

And the formal application to proceed with the revised plans for the development of 430 Main Street was officially filed last week.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by van nessident

    What views would these neighbors be missing out on, exactly? Rush hour traffic on the bridge?

    • Posted by Matthew

      It’s not views these neighborhoods are missing out on. It’s the air. The neighbors buildings were built with a design for maximum airflow. Not designed to be a soviet style building packing in as much units they can. And do you really think this developer would say a valid reason why the building shouldn’t be built? C’mon. No ones taking about views. They are talking about light and AIR.

  2. Posted by Can't Think of Cool Name

    Wondering out loud if Main or Beale is the better street to locate the garage entrance since sometimes there’s a lot of backup on one or the other street (and Bryant) on various days with eastbound Bay Bridge onramp traffic.

  3. Posted by primeminister

    The Baycrest owners are on interesting group. They opted out of the CBD, but demanded to attend all meetings.

    • Posted by Trixie

      Indeed. And if memory serves correctly, they expected all of the benefits as well, without having to pay for them.

      • Posted by primeminister


      • Posted by Matthew

        This build was told 4 years ago to have a two tower design to PRESERVE the air flow in our building. They never did that, so the building was never built.

    • Posted by Jamie

      CBD Meetings fall under the Brown act and such – they are public by default. care to slander a group based on facts?

      • Posted by really????

        stating facts isn’t slander.

  4. Posted by Dave

    As proposed back then it was 8 stories. The Supervisors said no on appeal.

    At 9 stories and looking like pretty much the same design, why do the developers not expect this to be appealed yet again. And turned down again – especially with Peskin on the Board now?

    As to being rental possibly, other things aside, I expect it’d be easier filling this up as rentals than as condos. Would a condo owner want to live right below the Bridge? Maybe if the price were significantly less than Lumina but I don’t know how big the pool of condo owners is that would be interested in this site when there are so many better options.

  5. Posted by Anonymous Guy in SoMa

    What would have been the point for Baycrest of participating in the CBD? All it did was some stuff already provided by the Baycrest HOA while forcing members to pay more, admittedly a low amount now, but that could change, while having virtually no say because the companies that controlled large buildings would get to vote all of their Sq Ft however they wanted for the whole building.

    As for this building at 430 Main, I hope it gets stopped. Air quality is important. At the very least, the developer should be willing to work constructively with neighbors to alter existing plans in a mutually beneficial way for both his firm, its investors, and Baycrest owners. From what I understand, this isn’t happening.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      i hope they build this, but only 9 floors in this location is a shame. this should be 20 floors

    • Posted by James

      What does this have to do with air quality? And to be blunt – who cares about Baycrest owners? Why should they have any more of a stake in this than anyone else in the neighborhood?

    • Posted by cfb

      Oh no, a 9 story building in the middle of downtown SF, that is literally right next to a giant freeway! Think of how much it will negatively affect air quality! Surely it will be much better for air quality if instead of building this dense infill in a dense downtown area that already has questionable air quality, we instead build a bunch of car-dependent mcmansions in an undeveloped nature area!

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      Why should the Baycrest owners rule upon high in this area?

      • Posted by anon

        Let me explain in a simple fashion. The people that speak loudest at neighborhood and planning meetings and to their representatives get heard. Those who complain about things on message boards do not.

        [Editor’s Note: To which we’ll add, they’re not mutually exclusive. Depending upon the audience, of course.]

        • Posted by alberto rossi

          The people who pay fixers like Coblenz, Patch and Duffy are the only ones who get heard.

  6. Posted by farts

    SCB really nailed the design on this one – turn the facade so it faces the freeway. Brilliant!

    • Posted by Dave

      This whole re-proposing of the project is off somehow. Just like turning the façade around is off.

      Does the developer know something we don’t – because based on the previous try this will be turned down again? So why spend the money? Do they own the land? If they do, a second turn-down will reduce further its development potential and value.

      Are they hoping for an eminent domain deal? That would be fantastic. The City turning this into, if not a park (too close to freeway and fumes) at least green-space as a noise/pollution buffer to residents and workers a block away. San Jose has planted a redwood variety that grows quickly to 30/40 feet near freeways. It loves the pollution. But the City does not have the money, sadly, to pay the owner a fair, market-rate, compensation. Which would be required.

      This proposal is totally baffling.

      • Posted by Orland

        Where do you come up with these notions?

  7. Posted by Here we go again...

    Funny to see the Baycresters rise again with the whole “light and air” nonsense. It’s that glimpse of the bay and occasional sailboat they want. The only “compromise” to them would be a four-story building so they can keep their lot line windows, which doesn’t pencil. Here’s to hoping this passes…

  8. Posted by Anonymous Guy in SoMa

    Last time, the Board of Supervisors said that full EIR and air quality analysis needed to be done before this project got signed off on. It wasn’t done. Why would it not need to be done this time as well? Let’s see if there are air issues. What are you afraid of?

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles