Decommissioned in 2006 and since dismantled, the environmental cleanup of the 31-acre Hunters Point Power Plant site, a site which was operational for 75 years, is nearly complete.

The City’s draft India Basin Shoreline Plan had envisioned an “Emerging Technologies Employment District,” with office space, a conference center, hotel and retail rising upon much of PG&E’s former power plant site and housing on the other side of Evans and Hunters Point Boulevard.

But that plan was drafted nearly a decade ago.

Over the past three years, over 50 community events and “activations” have been held on the site as part of PG&E’s NOW Hunters Point program, activations intended to engage the community and help guide the future programming and design for the site.

And tomorrow, August 10, San Francisco’s Planning Department will launch the FUTURE Hunters Point project with a public workshop at Our Lady of Lordes Church (410 Hawes Street) from 6 to 7:30 pm.

“FUTURE Hunters Point will help inspire the transformation of the 31 acre site of the former power plant into a vibrant new addition to the existing community, with potential for additional housing, open and recreation space, as well as convenient commercial uses that will foster a pedestrian-friendly, ecologically progressive community that will be a benefit to the neighborhood and the city as a whole.”

And yes, the 15-acre India Basin parcel to the southeast of the power plant site, on the other side of India Basin Shoreline Park, is the 700 Innes Avenue site upon which Build Inc. is planning to build up to 900 1,240 homes, 1,800 parking spaces and 196,000 square feet of commercial space:

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in as the plans progress.

41 thoughts on “31 Acres of Opportunity on San Francisco’s Southeastern Shore”
  1. This is the way to go!

    A long neglected part of the city will be revamped and the city’s housing supply will be increased. At the same time, nobody’s precious views or scarce parking spots will be compromised. On top of that, transit infrastructure can be expanded quite easily, using the wide boulevard which is Evans street to access 3rd street streetcar and the 280 highway. Also, the waterway should be used to connect this part of town to Embarcadero, Mission Bay, Pier 70 etc.

    I know, all this won’t see the day of light for another decade, but at least the city has a concept (Eastern Neighborhoods) and it is following a coherent strategy to revamp dilapidated parts of town and provide housings.

  2. I’m assuming it was actually the plant, not the cleanup, that was dismantled, but garbled syntax notwithstanding: what a lost opportunity! Imagine this…not so much in the (re)use as a gym but just as a preservation of the industrial architecture; perhaps the contamination was too great.

    Anyway, more suburban architecture; and anything that can put even more office space in inaccessible spaces at the edge of the city is to be supported…of course.

    1. I read this as meaning the office component has been dropped which would be great. SF doesn’t need more office space so turning this into all residential and park space with commercial support facilities would be a major improvement over the original plan.

      1. Are you basing this on the phrase “convenient commercial uses” and interpreting that as “not office”? Could be, though the site plan indicates beaucoup d’offices…perhaps that’s the earlier version (hard to tell w/ the H G Wells like mixing of past, present and future in the article)

    2. “Putting more office space in inaccessible spaces”

      If we assume this development won’t be ready for a decade, there is plenty of time to improve public transport accessibility to this part of town.

      1) Several structural conditions should allow for improved access (fast-paced, wide landed Evans Street / Proximity to 280 highway / access to waterways).

      2) Many cities have moved towards a decentralized model of multiple office-nods, away from the one-center-and-sprawling-suburbs model. This model mitigates one directional rush-hour traffic and allows for live/work mixed areas that are lively 24/7.

      3) For anyone commuting into the City from the South by car, this are will be much more accessible than Market Street. For those taking Caltrain, transfer access should be provided at the Bayshore and 22nd Street Stations.

      1. 1) Thanks, though I was speaking more in the general sense that anything built on a piece of land sticking out into the water is by nature restricted in access….kind of like SF itself.

        2) I think you and I – and Dave, judging by his remarks in other threads – are in agreement on this one … we (he and I) just think this particular node is about 7 miles Southwest of where it should be.

        3) True, but it will be immensely more inconvenient for people from the Eastbay, that dynamo whose industrious inhabitants power the Bay Area 🙂 , so six of one, two dozen of another.

        1. re: #3 Genentech used to run very convenient shuttles to Glen Park for East Bay employees. FREQUENT last mile shuttles should required as part of all large developments TDM plans

      2. ITA about de-centralizing Bay Area business nodes. But the de-centralization at this point needs to be out of SF. Instead of offices here and millions of square feet of offices in Central SOMA and HP/CP, most of this office growth should be shifted to the Oakland CBD. Built out it could rival SF as a CBB. Don’t stop there of course. Other nodes need to be developed in the Bay Area. Instead of the planned 44K jobs in Central SOMA and another 25K or so in HP/CP, imagine putting those jobs in Oakland and the massive pressure that would take off of BART and the Bay Bridge. Not to mention the improved quality of life for scores of thousands of workers who would not have to face the daily grind of squeezing into SF.

        1. If you consider the Bay Area as a single entity it is already highly decentralized. Moves like Google to downtown San Jose are great for the region

          1. Agree, Google next big expansion push into downtown San Jose within walking distance of Caltrains, light rail, ACE commuters trains as well as future BART and HSR is a big time plus for the region.

            Also, with all the Brisbane nonsense going on I would think it would be great to see another Downtown Oakland office tower or two rise at a minimum before anymore 4-5 story high spec office space is built along the Hwy 101 corridor on the peninsula.

        2. Oakland is a great spot for a business center. It allows people to live in cheaper areas (e.g. Richmond), public transport is build out and there is still plenty of space. If you are a bank or similar business that requires a lot of people in the 60-90k per year pay range, Oakland is the place to be.

          However, South San Francisco is a cluster for Biotech companies. They have less people but pay much better on average. Most employees live either in the city or San Mateo counties. They value proximity to research institutions (Stanford) and hospitals (Mission Bay). Therefore, Hunter’s Point / Candlestick / Brisbane Baylands are very attractive locations for BioTech office space and research facilities

          1. Then I would suggest Emeryville/West Berkeley as the analog which
            (1) already has a number of them (tho I have no data on the number relative to SSF)
            (2) is proximate to research (some pretty decent place up on a hill whose name escapes me at the moment) and hospitals (Summit/Kaiser/Children’s)
            Of course the bio industry is a small part of the scene – even in the Bay Area – and we can grant them an exemption if they want to be in the mid…, on the edge of nowhere.

          2. Notcom,
            I’m sure you’re better at picking the right location for office space then the developers that invest their own money. The South East end of the city is not the ‘edge of nowhere’ but a highly sought-after brownfield area with access to 101, 280, Future Caltrain connection, Rapid Bus to BART link etc.

          3. Pero, might I dare to suggest that if (one of the ways) this is to be made to work is by spending public money to expand mass transit – as might be inferred by your several references to such – then the investors won’t just be spending “their” money, they’ll also be spending some of “our” money, and as such we get to comment on what we think of it.

            As for the comments themselves, I’ve made no claim of my expertise: the arguments may stand – or fall – on their own merits; I imagine they are of similar quality to the many other comments here from people of unknown pedigree, that don’t like something….probably worse than some, but hopefully better than others.

          4. Notcom,
            A bus service connection to Bayshore Caltrain station and the Rapid Bus connection to Balboa BART are already part of the Hunters Point Candlestick development plans. The city is paying for them, sure, but it contributes to the development of an entire new neighborhood. Given the lack of affordable housing in this city, this development will be for the benefit of most residents. Also, the new offices and jobs will be accessible to all residents.

        1. Au contraire, as I noted (above) I thought such an adaptive reuse would have been kewl. But the plant was demo’ed…so unless you’re including building reincarnation in you plan, there’s not much to dream about.

    1. Nice idea though not equivalent. The Bankside power station that was converted to the Tate Modern is centrally located and an interesting Deco structure. The Hunter’s Point power station is isolated at the edge of the city and doesn’t have nearly as endearing architecture.

      Bankside B isn’t even London’s most interesting abandoned power station. A couple of miles upstream sits the iconic Battersea Power Station, still awaiting reuse. Let’s face it, California can’t compete with England when it comes to building dazzling utilitarian structures 🙂

  3. I remember being in 1st grade art class. They gave us these wonderful tools to create with and blank paper. They looked so beautiful and were so inspiring. Then, in a six year old’s rush to do *something* with them, a few minutes pass et voila: a mess.

    I feel like every time San Francisco finally gets around to doing anything with all of its potentially evolvable areas, we do the same thing.

    We race in with the most uncaring lowest common denominator out of town mega-developer — with the fattest wallet of course, and turn out the blandest stuff that could be anywhere.

    The only examples I can think of off hand — where this is not the case — are in micro areas like Mission Creek, 18th between Harrison and Church, and parts of Dogpatch — where for serendipitous reasons of politics and convoluted history, the city and its woefully dullard planing and development departments were pretty much excluded from the process.

  4. Is this site below the public housing that has been boarded up for the past 4-5 years? I saw these (AGAIN) the last time I visited the HP Lennar project. It’s frustrating to see the city manage our resources so poorly when we are in the midst of a housing crisis. Nice job SFHA.

    1. The Projects in the area are being rebuilt I believe one at at time although not sure about that one in particular

    1. Alarmist. These issues will be mitigated in new development. Sea Level rise is now baked into SF building codes, and anything will have a podium well above future high tide lines. (Shame that Mission Bay was built without that consideration….)

      1. Gotta love the GSW arena new basketball ball court floor 15′ below street level. Lower than the existing adjacent Bay level outside – forget any future sea level rise. As shown by the leaning Millinium tower and Mel Murphy houses sliding down hillsides the building code in SF is highly fungible for those with enough $$$.

        1. Do you have backup for that? In a quick google search this is what I found: ” The Warriors’ last environmental report, approved in 2015 by the Planning Commission, acknowledged that sea level rise could get bad enough to flood plazas and the arena’s basement during a storm in 2100.”

          1. So there going to be playing there in 83 years??… LOL: life expectancy for sports facilities these days is about one-fourth that.

  5. people who stay there will have incredible views of the ocean. Its an under developed part of the city . Looking forward for the change.

  6. 1800 parking spots and crap for transit upgrades. Sorry, but if you think for one second that running a bus to the T line is transit, then you’re quite mistaken, especially given that the T doesn’t even connect with Caltrain. This is no better than the garbage development going up on Alameda Pt.

    1. T connects to Caltrain no problem!
      T to Embarcadero
      BART Embarcadero to Millbrae BART/Caltrain station.

      Easy as pie! 😉

Leave a Reply

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