Speaking of previously undeveloped hillside parcels in San Francisco which are now in play, the 1.5-acre parcel of land which sits below the 18 homes stretching from 107 to 141 Topaz Way, fronting Diamond Heights Boulevard and across from the Walter Haas Playground and dog park, is in contract to be sold.

And while no formal plans for the parcel have been approved, much less submitted to the city for review, the marketing materials for the site tout an initial development study and conceptual plans for four six-story buildings to rise upon the Diamond Heights parcel with the “possibility” of building “100+” units across the site.

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

26 thoughts on “Another Hillside in San Francisco Is Now in Play”
  1. It’s funny, I ran by this site recently and thought to myself ‘I wonder what the feasibility would be of building something there?’ without expecting there to be a chance in he11 that it would actually happen. With this post, it sounds like it could!

    I’m not sure how NIMBYistic the residents of Diamond Heights would be about a development here – I haven’t specifically heard about them protesting things in the past, but that’s in part due to the fact that they have been insulated from much development due to their rugged surroundings (and bordering Glen Canyon, which of course will not be built on). My guess is they would fight it for all the reasons that NIMBYs everywhere fight things – parking, congestion, hurting neighborhood character etc.

    It’s a shame because I would love to see this built.

  2. Wasn’t Diamond Heights originally planned to be topped with high-rises, but because they mistimed the market it never happened? Would be great to honor Diamond Heights’ history by doing something similar to that original proposal… and we could then get a lot more than 100 homes.

  3. I don’t think this will be a problem for NIMBYs the neighborhood since that stretch of Diamond Heights Blvd is already mostly public housing. Build it!

  4. @Noe. I thought the same thing this weekend when I drove by! I don’t think it will be issue and should be built. The biggest issue would be the additional traffic at that intersection. It can get busy during commute times.

    1. True, particularly turning from DHB to Diamond Street can be hellacious with oncoming traffic. Would require a stoplight at the least.

  5. The “Topaz Open Space” (just north of this site) was acquired by the city through the Open Space Fund at the insistence of very politically active neighbors on Topaz who caterwauled about the horrible impact of a proposed development on the unique natural areas, traffic, views, way of life, etc etc until the City gave up and bought it. This is despite the fact that there is plentiful open space in the neighborhood, and the only thing that this particular open space is notable for is views from the sidewalk on Topaz…not a very unique thing in Diamond Heights.

    The steep lot is fenced off, and has no trails, public access, or other park facilities. In other words, it is not really a park even though it is now owned by Rec and Park. So…I’m highly doubtful the neighborhood will just say “sure, build lots and lots of housing!”

    1. Appalling, but not surprising. Down the hill, the Glen Park Greenway along Bosworth is another “park” in an affluent, over-parked neighborhood that exists to block housing.

      1. That’s not why that greenway exists. I understand that land was seized to make way for road expansion that (thank goodness) never happened.

        1. The lots were indeed eminent-domained and the earlier homes demolished for a planned freeway, but once the freeway was canceled, the City could have used the land to build housing.

          If that is true about Islais Creek, that’s no excuse either. There were perfectly sound homes there once, and plenty of people live over Mission Creek.

    1. What I’m saying is that they are incredible NIMBY’s. It’s not going to be easy to buy them off. They didn’t want a park, they just didn’t want development.

      1. Oh, I assume there’ll be a long list of concessions. I just figured I’d toss one in. And I’m not holding by breath.


  6. I know this will go over like a lead balloon with the Build It! crowd, but why not build higher at the outer corners of the site and preserve the center of the site, which would be joined to the Topaz Open Space? Then build a switchback trail from Diamond Heights Blvd. to Topaz Way and plant the rest of the open space with native shrubs and oaks to prevent erosion and suck up some of the carbon spewed out by the cager commuters. Win Win.

    1. Because open spaces are good for places like Wyoming?
      Because cities that are job centers should have lots of housing?
      Because building a tall building with a small footprint would block more views and make the housing provided exponentially more expensive?

      1. Why can’t San Francisco have its little scraps of open space? They are one of the things that make us special.

        Unlike a city built on flat terrain where you can cover ever last particle in asphalt, San Francisco is first and foremost a natural landscape. Have you ever read the book The Wump World by Bill Peet? It’s a wonderful kids book about a lovely planet invaded by an insidious, human-like people called the Pollutians. The native inhabitants, the Wumps, are forced into exile in subterranean caves while the Pollutians bulldoze Wump World. Eventually, they toxify the planet to such a degree that they have to leave. The peaceable Wumps reemerge to find their planet totally wrecked. It’s a bummer until they arrive at one tiny corner that the Pollutians didn’t get to….that is what San Francisco’s unbuildable nooks and crannies remind me of.

        But, it’s tough to convince the Build It! crowd that anything is worth preserving in San Francisco. Because progress. Because who cares what the locals think?

        1. You probably feel better about your NIMBYism when couched in terms of children’s books. This is not a case for the Lorax, man. There are loads of lovely little towns in California that are not urban centers of innovation and have plenty of open space. Amador County needs you. Pricing out potential aspiring entrant with construction limits and sclerotic rent-controlled incumbents and aging property owner bias hurts many and advantages a few.

          San Francisco is a big city and ought to act like it. Put housing near jobs. This is a vacant hillside where one could reasonably build housing. So build it.

          1. Not a NIMBY. Quit being so emotional. You and your Build It! crowd just want to Other anyone who doesn’t want to turn all of San Francisco into Singapore. And why should we? People like you will be long gone once Trump finishes tanking the economy.

          2. What does it mean to “Other” someone? Is that like when one takes a discussion into “People like you..” territory?

            This is a fine place to build housing. Housing is too expensive in San Francisco because there isn’t enough of it.

            And don’t worry – there’s far too much human waste on city sidewalks for us to ever be confused with Singapore.

  7. Diamond Heights area has more opens space than just about anywhere else in the city. The adjacent parcel is owned by the city and will remain open space. There is a difference between unbuildable and vacant land.

  8. I live across the street. I will oppose this. It will bring more crime. Cars parked in front of Walter Haas park are always being broken into or stolen. This is beautiful open space the city needs. Building here would also weaken the hillside. The homes above look like they are already sliding.

Leave a Reply

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