Big Plans for San Francisco’s Temporary Transbay Terminal SiteMarch 23, 2017
The Transbay District block bounded by Howard, Beale, Folsom and Main – which is currently the site of San Francisco’s Temporary Transbay Terminal – will be divided into three upon the opening of San Francisco’s new Transbay Transit Center.
The middle third of the site (Transbay Block 3) will become Transbay Park, the construction of which is slated to commence in early 2018.
A 165-foot-tall building is slated to rise on the southern third of the site (Transbay Block 2), fronting Folsom between Beale and Main, with a total of 242 below market rate (BMR) units, which shouldn’t catch any plugged-in readers by surprise.
And on the northern third of the site fronting Howard (Transbay Block 4), a 450-foot-tall building is expected to rise.
Packaged together with the sale of Transbay Parcel F, the latest plans for which we revealed last week, F4 Transbay Partners is expected to propose building over 550 residential units and 10,000 square feet of retail space on the Block 4 site.
And in order to allow the 175 condos atop the proposed Parcel F tower at 550 Howard Street to be 100 percent market rate, F4 Partners is expected to propose that over 300 of the 550 units to rise on Block 4 will be designated as permanently affordable units (i.e., offered at below market rates).
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
“in order to allow the 175 condos atop the proposed Parcel F tower at 550 Howard Street to be 100 percent market rate, F4 Partners is expected to propose that over 300 of the 550 units to rise on Block 4 will be designated as permanently affordable units (i.e., offered at below market rates)”
55% BMR in a downtown tower site? This reeks of political blackmail, to put it mildly
yeah, SF got off easy. Since this was state land, California could have required a 100% affordable or 100% open/park or some such. Lucky they went easy on SF in the terms that allowed development of State of California property.
100% BMR entices no developer, hence no funding to support the transbay terminal. The % BMR is all negotiated…at least some developers comply and include the units in the same parcel, while others push them out to less desirable neighborhoods.
We do need a new toilet for the homeless.
Yep. Because they control the city.
yes, this park will be completely overrun with homeless and become a public health nuisance in no time. keep your children and dogs away from the needles
The buildings on either side of the park are adhoc!
Vagrants can sun themselves there and shoot heroin.
Nobody will ever sun themselves here, because it will be in shadows 24 hours a day, all year long.
this – such an asinine location for a park – *between* tall buildings. I think the entire block should be a park; but barring that, put the park portion on the southern edge, for sun (and partial views of the Bay Bridge).
Better yet would be limiting Block 2 (the southern edge fronting Folsom St.) to 3-story SFH row-houses.
sort of as per the original plan.
I live a block from the site and agree with you 100%. There’s no grass anywhere in the neighborhood, except on roofs. The corporations put plastic grass in their diminutive lawns.
How frequently are you guys at the Temporary Transbay Terminal? I am there at least once a day, during the peak sun period ( noon to mid afternoon), and it’s plenty sunny (as long at sun is out). Once the sun crosses into the western zenith, the impact of hills, horizons and the already extant skyline put the area in shade, but you make it sound like some apocalyptic darkness will descend on what is essentially a public amenity for the block. You can always have more green space in the city.
WOW someone who actually knows something! You are correct this park will get plenty of sun. I am there all the time as well.
Really? And when you visit it now, is it already bounded on the south by a 160-foot building?
The horror with which people mention shade is very entertaining.
If the worst thing about this park is the shadows, it will be a great place.
I predict it will be overrun….by nearby workers eating lunch outside.
Didn’t you read the study how tall buildings result in depesssion?
i read that, but was thinking about this a bit….how much of this is due to the type of people who choose to live in tall buildings?
I think about it this way…people chase false idols thinking it will bring them happiness…things like money, status (I could see how people think living in tall buildings brings status/bragging rights, prestige, etc)….when really they think these things will solve underlying issues they have. Anyone with an once of wisdom knows this will not happen.
then some people figure out that happiness is not tied to materialism or status or where you live (generally, unless its extrems like the slums), and I would bet more or those people than not realize its probably not worth it to pay so much money (especailly if you cnat really afford it) that could be used for better ends, just to live in the tall building or cool spot.
obviously Im over generalizing to some degree, but based on personal experience i have seen I think this is worth some food for thought.
this applies to the masses, not the rich or super rich, who have thier own problems for sure.
I used to live on the 17th floor on post and jones at the post st towers – spent some of my happiest days there! so on a personal level it this study didnt make sense to me, which got me thinking about the above.
I bet there’s a good study saying that depressed office workers like to eat lunch sitting outside.
Oh hey, the low effort commenters with garbage attitudes are here!
Nothing will change unless you complain. The current situation is not acceptable – I’ve lived in West soma for a decade and Draves park is disgusting.
“Nothing will change unless you complain. The current situation is not acceptable – I’ve lived in West soma for a decade and Draves park is disgusting.”
hmmm, i think nothing will change unless you do something to change it. complaining is just polluting the air with bad breath.
have you dont anything to improve your local park?
Will this new park be a public park managed by Rec Park? Or will it be a mega POPOS?
NICE. I didnt even realize there was going to be another 450ft tower on the north 3rd of the block.
This park and block is going to be so amazing….all you naysayer pessimists feel free to never use this upcoming jewel!! I’m lucky to work so close to such an amazing developing area and plan on using it a lot!
Jewel? Seeing is believing. Let’s also see how much of a jewel the TTC park turns out to be.
The entire block is only about 500′ north-south (well, northwest to southeast…). With a 160′ tower on the south side, that means that the bulk of this park will be in shade the bulk of the time.
To limit a down town lot to a park is foolish especially considering the park at TTC already in process. No idea what the shadows will be on this park, but i know for sure the potential shadows of new development going forward will be deal breakers.
What a sorry looking city park.
Readers looking for a kick in the pants should click on SocketSite’s first link above (re: the temporary terminal) – take a gander at the aerial photo there, from 2010 – just seven years ago – and marvel at the incredible changes we’ve seen in this neighborhood in so short a time!
No more dog parks!!!
Too late now, but we could have saved $2 billion by making this the New Permanent Transbay Terminal. It’s perfectly functional.
And more still if they’d kept the original TT…also perfectly functional.
The original terminal was functionally fine, the only real issue was with seismic retrofitting which they claimed was too expensive (though for 1.8bn i’m sure you could do an awful lot).
I think caltrans let the terminal go to pot so as to provide more support for a replacement, which of course got bundled in with HSR and Caltrain to help justify the expense (and let’s not even talk about the 3bn they still need to connect it to 4th/king).
But the semi-permanent terminal isn’t that great, there have been numerous times that due to traffic buses can’t even get out of the terminal for 30 minutes (really!). The dedicated bus ramp from the old terminal was the best part about it and not having that in the temporary terminal has been a real drag.
I have taken the 6:30 or 6:45 bus home every day since the temporary terminal opened (and before) and have never once experienced a 30-minute delay in my bus being able to leave the terminal. I can think of one time when there was a ~10 minute delay.
try earlier like 5-530. 630-645 is usually a good time. I’ve had 3 times now where the entire terminal was stuffed with buses that can’t move.
They did perform some kind of retrofitting – columns were jacketed, bents were k-braced, etc. – which made the demolition seem even more stupid/unnecessary. Of course standards always change, and though the claim is made that it wouldn’t be as good as new construction, that also means the current cocoon will likely be under whatever standards come out in 202x.
It isn’t “perfectly functional”. It adds 20 minutes to every bus ride.
“Every” bus ride? That’s not true. In any case, they could have simply modernized the old terminal for far less than $1.8 billion. High speed rail is never going to happen, and the $3 billion needed for Caltrain is coming from where?
Maybe the HSR will get ditched in favor of the hyperloop, which is going to happen.
Just build a wall around it.. people are so quick to pick on the homeless.. the shadows, the workers. Those people.. sound so stupid..and maybe I do too..this world is made up of everything…and everyone plays a role..Joe the juice sales to everybody, so does Starbucks so does Charles Shwab.. don’t think your so special and intitled
What a ridiculous comment.
Yes, everyone plays a role in this world: some work, produce something of value and make the world a better place. Others merely drag the rest of us down.
Calling others “entitled” (learn to spell it correctly if you’re going to throw it around) because they rightfully complain about SF’s disgusting homeless problem is utterly absurd. The hard-working people who pay all the taxes that fund everything have every right to live in a clean, safe city.
Doesn’t it make more sense to build the parks on rooftops in that area rather than taking up a whole footprint?
No it doesn’t parks increase walkability
Should make it a private gated park for nearby residents,
Hope we have a chance to get a 4,500-5,000 square foot section to build a playground like the community raised funds to build over in Sue Bierman Park. I appreciate tye grassy space, but a playground wouod at least preserve a section for kids and keep dog pissing and pooping away from kids play space.
The comments about homeless people are really ignorant as hell. Clearly, the writers have no damn clue about Rincon Hill.
My 2 grade teacher is on here trying to correct my spelling… I think San Francisco was built just for you.. with all your hard earned money…foolish ..Go home clean your house do thing that you can control.. miserable about the things you can’t control… I pay lots of taxes and very productive and want things my way. nothing here belongs to me. I am nobody and so are you…Nobody!
The park will be privately managed by the non-profit Greater Rincon Hill Community Benefit District, paid for by assessments on several hundred buildings from Mission Street to I-280 and the Embarcadero to Second Street. Rec and Park will have nothing to do with it. Think Yerba Buena Gardens, not a typical SF city park. Maintenance, security, programming, management.
UPDATE: SF’s Temporary Transbay Terminal to Become a Condo Showroom
UPDATE: Timing for New Transbay District Parks Pushed Back
Comments are closed.