Transbay Park and Buildings Rendered

A plugged-in tipster delivers the latest rendering for San Francisco’s future Transbay Park, the construction of which is currently slated to commence in early 2018 (once the operations of the Temporary Transbay Terminal move to San Francisco’s new Transbay Transit Center and free up the blocks bounded by Folsom, Main, Howard and Beale).

While rendered with a full 400-foot Bay Tower tower at the corner Folsom and Spear in the background, the required up-zoning for which is gaining momentum, the shadowed massing for a 165-foot-tall building at the corner of Folsom and Main might catch some by surprise.

San Francisco’s Downtown Area Plan doesn’t currently note the intended upzoning of the Block 2 corner from 85 to 165 feet, but it was outlined in the adopted Transbay Redevelopment Plan.

And in addition to formally amending the Area Plan to allow for the 400-foot tower at 160 Folsom, an ordinance working its way up to San Francisco’s full Board of Supervisors would solidify the 165-foot height limit for the corner parcel at Folsom and Main.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Sharperblue

    wow. that’s….capital ‘B’ Budget

  2. Posted by SF local

    I would not be surprised if that gets upzoned to 265ft or even higher given what is happening to Block 1.

  3. Posted by info

    Block 2 is already zoned for 165 feet per the Redevelopment Plan, which is the controlling regulation. No further action is needed to “solidify” the height at 165 feet. That was all done in 2005 when the Plan was adopted.

  4. Posted by james jr

    Not a homeless person in site. The artist must not be local.

  5. Posted by moto mayhem

    we do not need more parks and green space downtown until we do something about the homeless problem.

    • Posted by Mark

      They congregate everywhere, not just on grassy stretches. Solving the homeless problem starts at the top with the BOS and mayor. Unless they admit there’s a real problem and find solutions then you will see continued problems in the city which, over time, will only worsen.

      • Posted by donjuan

        Everyone knows there’s a problem. Even the progressives are proposing ’emergency’ measures.

        Problem is people can’t agree on the solutions. The Mayor thinks you have to crack down and make them move south to shelters. Progressives think you need to ban the tech busses and spend hundreds of millions on free prime-location condos for the homeless. Expect no real solutions in the next century.

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          thats not progressive. thats idiotic

          • Posted by Orland

            What’s idiotic are his misstatements and untruths.

    • Posted by Orland

      Trying and tiring boobs, all. You guys must be bedeviled by homeless apparitions in your sleep.

    • Posted by DM

      I’ve come to conclusion the “homeless” problem is unsolvable. It really is.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        its unsolvable if SF not willing to take harsher measures

        • Posted by Orland

          So you intend to remedy the situation by further marginalizing the already abased? Right.

          • Posted by james

            If that what it takes, yes

          • Posted by Orland

            Please specifically spell out the “harsher measures” you contend will “solve” the “homeless problem.”

            I thought so.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            step 1. determine who is on drugs or an alcoholic, or have untreated mental ilness
            step 2. for those who are not (probably <25%), prioritize housing
            Step 3: forced institutionalization for 6 months for those in step 1, where they are treated for addicition and/or pyschiatric illness
            step 4: for those will uncontrolled pyschiatric illness post 6 months, send to a permanent institution
            step 5: for those addicts and alcoholics and mentally ill who have successfullly been treated, relase back to their families, or temp shelter.
            step 6: for those in step 5, if they end up committing further crimes or back on the streets, put them in JAIL

          • Posted by Orland

            Not bad I suspect financing would pose a problem as well as questionable constitutionality aspects though, as noted earlier, I do not personally believe this involves “civil liberties” issues.

          • Posted by Orland

            Some also might question whether such measures are “harsher” or actually beneficent.

    • Posted by AnonAnon

      Are you really advocating not creating public spaces because the homeless might take them over? Isn’t that just giving up. I don’t see buildings being torn down to make public spaces, so once a building goes up the likelihood of it ever becoming a future park is about nil. There is always the possibilty that a future government body will better deal with the homeless problem than the current knuckleheads.

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        in the spirit of a moratorium on everything (hehe), I suggest we have a moratorium on new green space in inner San Francisco until the homeless population is cut in half

        • Posted by AnonAnon

          “we do not need more parks and green space downtown until we do something about the homeless problem.”

          Oh, you were joking, now that I re-read your post I can see the humor. I guess you aren’t really so obsessed with the homeless that you would advocate such a ridiculous position. Thanks for clarifying.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            im not quite joking

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        and the homeless “will” take this over, not “might”

  6. Posted by anon2.5

    In a free society, some will choose to live on the streets. There will always be homeless and they have just as much right to enjoy green space as anyone else.

    • Posted by Mark

      Not when they are defecating/urinating in public, hassling people, creating huge messes, engaging in drug use, etc. There are laws in place for a reason that apply to everyone, even in a free society.

      • Posted by james

        This is why we can’t have nice things!
        I live right near here and while a nice park would be great there I have no illusions that it won’t become a homeless magnet and sewer

    • Posted by c_q

      Yes, homeless have a right to enjoy green space. But that does not mean that you can infringe on someone else’s right to that green space by abusing the use of the space. Green space are not shelters, nor are they trash bins or toilets or drug needle disposal sites.

      • Posted by Emanon

        Nope. It’s the block bounded by Folsom, Main, Howard, Spear which is Northeast of the proposed park. The low-rise residential shown in the simulation is bounded by Folsom, Main, Beale and Clementa.

    • Posted by Orland

      I agree that everyone (including the homeless if that is one’s current state) has right of use of such public amenities. However, I do not agree one has a “right” to choose to live a “homeless lifestyle” or that this is a civil liberties issue. Incumbent upon Society’s refusal to allow such behavior is a responsibility to provide the means to shelter such unfortunates until, if ever, they have the capacity to provide for themselves.

  7. Posted by Orland

    It would be insanity to build any higher than 6 stories on the southern boundary of this park which is going to be an absolute gem.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      either an absolute gem or a toilet

    • Posted by Snark17

      This site is not on the boundary of the park.

      • Posted by Orland

        It’s the block bounded by Folsom, Main, Clementina and Beale which is directly south of the park.

        • Posted by Orland

          Upon a closer reading, it appears the proposed increased zoning is restricted to the corner “parcel” and not the entire block. Still, being immediately to the SE would mean morning shadowing.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            on a park which does not currently exist, and is surrounded on *all* sides by even taller buildings on surrounding blocks. per the image above.

          • Posted by Orland

            That’s not really true. Any buildings to the east are midrise at most and far enough removed as to present little problem as are Solaire and its low-rise BMR building at Folsom/Beale to the SW. The Park Tower to the *north* presents no problem. The Gang+ building to the SE will mean some additional morning shadowing though I support its upzoning as the effect should be within acceptable levels. That is to be contrasted with the extremists who object upon the basis of the very minimal effects it might have upon the primary areas of Rincon Park to its SE!

            This should be a wonderfully sun-splashed greensward from mid-afternoon onward in the very middle of all that urbanity you describe. An absolute gem and worthy of genius planning.

            But to put a hulking mass directly upon its SOUTHERN boundary would be sheer madness.

          • Posted by Orland

            The prior comment should have read “from mid-morning onward”

  8. Posted by Jim

    You might think it insanity, but 165 feet has been the law for 10 years, after a prior 10 years of planning, public meetings, etc etc etc.

    • Posted by Orland

      Plans to build a park here post-date any such zoning and that should be reflected in whatever general planning does not take it into account.

  9. Posted by donjuan

    People in here talking about this park being a homeless hangout should realize that this park is surrounded by dense, residential dwellings. People will constantly complain and call 311 on the homeless and they will have to move elsewhere. It’s not like this park is a BART stop or a market street alley.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      you can call all you want but the police and mayor refuse to do anything about the problem

      • Posted by donjuan

        They can’t do anything about the wider problem. But they can keep homeless out of small areas like certain parks and neighborhoods. Ever see homeless wandering around pacific heights?

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          yes, in fact, when i lived there, i had to call multiple times because a guy kept sleeping in my carport.

          there are also frequent homeless in lafayette and alta plaza park, sepcially at night and early in morn. not as common, but they are there and they are increasing. but they wont be able to control downtown because there is a denser population of homeless. yerba buena is a nice park, but frequent homeless people there.

        • Posted by Orland

          Yesterday, mid-afternoon after having read this item, I walked the 5 or 6 blocks of the north side of lower Mission Street passing numerous plazas, mini-parks and squares paying particular attention to the people using them. I saw one apparent “homeless” (though neatly kempt) person sitting on the concrete seating in front of Golden Gate Law.

          I don’t mean to minimalize the situation, especially the human misery, but sometimes I wonder if I’m living in the same city as some here.

  10. Posted by SassySFboy

    As long as it blocks Infinity, I say higher n wider!

  11. Posted by GoodByeBadTimes

    Maybe one solution would be a glass enclosure around the space and card-key access provided only to members of the neighborhood urban gardening group. A majority portion of the space could be devoted to orchards and vegetable gardens and the produce provided to the food bank. It would be so much more attractive and productive than being otherwise occupied.

  12. Posted by Anon

    Rincon Hill Vigilantes a.k.a. Rincon Hill Community Benefit District will keep it clean

  13. Posted by LST

    A park surrounded by tall buildings? Not the smartest idea … leave the original plan in place.

    • Posted by anona

      Agreed, Central Park sucks.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles