Transbay Park and Buildings Rendered

With the timing to complete San Francisco’s new Transbay Transit Center having slipped, the groundbreaking for the future Transbay Park, which will occupy the middle third of the Temporary Transbay Terminal site, has been pushed back from early this year to sometime in 2019.

The projected groundbreaking for the construction of the 2.5 acre Under Ramp (formerly “Oscar”) Park has been pushed back from 2018 to 2019 as well.

And once again, while a 247-unit affordable development will eventually rise up to 165 feet in height on the southern third of the Temporary Transbay Terminal Site, fronting Folsom between Main and Beale as massed in the first rendering above and known as Transbay Block 2, the temporary terminal building on the site is now slated to be turned into a sales office for Tishman Speyer’s twisty 400-foot-tall tower and podium development that’s under construction across the street on Transbay Block 1 through the first quarter of 2020.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Orland

    A 165′ on the park’s southern boundary is too high for the shadowing effect it will have most of the year.

    • Posted by Joshua Goldstein

      Yeah, and let’s knock the 605′ building across the street down too!

    • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

      Probably shouldn’t plant any trees either, as they also have a tendency to cause shadows.

      Tall people should also hunch over when they pass the park, for the same reason.

    • Posted by SFRealist

      They should also install huge fans to blow the fog away. Fog creates shade.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Sad to see the knee-jerk negative responses to you – the fact is that postage-stamp park is just silly. Either the entire block should be a park (a la Bryant Park in NYC), or the “park” third should be on the southern end of the block, to take as much advantage of sun as possible. Putting the park in the middle of the block, surrounded by mid-rise buildings, means that it will be a relatively hidden – and yes, shaded – spot that doesn’t see maximized usage.

      • Posted by Orland

        Yes, they are quite ridiculous in their senseless Pavlovian reaction to any sensible appreciation of a balance of priorities.

        And, no, there needn’t be any wholesale rejiggering of the plot– just a reasonable limitation on the height of the developed parcel fronting Folsom St.

      • Posted by Joshua Goldstein

        While I was joking with my initial response, I do work right next to where this park will be, and I think it will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood, shade or no.

        • Posted by Oaklandlover

          I work very close as well. This is going to be amazing! As sf weather watms further the “ shade” will be more welcome. This area is already pretty sunny anyway.

      • Posted by SFRealist

        I also work nearby and I’d like to have lunch in a small park.

        I prefer shade over sun.

        • Posted by Anon123

          I prefer shade as well, but not fog – I am in favor of your fan proposal, in case I should ever be in this area to enjoy my lunch.

        • Posted by Richard

          Me too, especially after having undergone my second melanoma surgery in two years.

      • Posted by Googler

        +1 I agree that the park should be the entire block or the southern third rather than the middle. This is fairly a fundamental aspect from basic city planning studies.

  2. Posted by Martin

    Are they really proposing to put up a bouldering wall in the “Under Ramp” park? Very cool to see rock climbing / bouldering go so mainstream.

  3. Posted by RGBiv

    The NPIMBYS are out to play. “No Parks in My Neighborhood.” What a bunch off selfish individuals.

  4. Posted by jimbo

    we should have a moratorium on new parks until we can cut homeless population in half

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles