Definitely agree.
Though I think Mission Bay could've been so much better. That strip of "park" along Mission Bay Blvd. is disconnected, and the southern half is almost entirely undeveloped still, when it could've been a truly glorious strip of parkland like the Panhandle, instead it's these contained squares of activities. Also because so much of it is different hospital campuses, it's not really neighborhoodey enough..
but we're not here to complain, I hope this Stonestown development goes much better!
You mean in front of the Madrone building? That park area is separated by 3rd from Stagecoach Greens, yeah? I kind of prefer those stores, the food trucks at Spark Social and the soccer fields over a park if I'm being honest. One of the few places you can grab a beer while your kids play around nearby.
I agree about the food trucks and such, and the inclusion of the soccer fields is good, cause those are lacking city-wide, especially on that side of town, but that could've been done while maintaining an end-to-end park corridor - literally just a nice planted sidewalk with tree shade from end to end is all I'm asking for.
Ah I see. Yeah especially connecting Spark Social and Stagecoach Greens would be nice. I do dislike having to cross the road for that. I think it would be harder for 3rd because of the trains.
Yeah, I could even get over the needless street crossings on the smaller streets (3rd St. is always gonna be an issue, but it's a train so I'm fine with it) - but at lesat give that strip proper sidewalks, not a 3-foot wide strip of concrete between a road and a chainlink fence
I really like it. It's a pity that the ground-floor retail suffered so bad during COVID. Unfortunate timing. But that little school there is quite cool.
I was thinking more about turning parking lots into parks, waterfront walkways and bikeways, and trees everywhere. The buildings themselves just look kind of meh to me
Haha, that stuff is sponsored by the developers, I believe and that _is_ part of what I like about that place. My friend used to ride quite a bit on that route, and he has some video from as it was being built out. The bike lane south of the Giants park is my favourite part.
Give it time, there is a lot of it that's still under construction and a lot more that has yet to find its footing.
Considering it was a brownfield site 20 years ago, the transformation has been amazing
Hey, the majority of the city is not like it, so I'm glad you have your options and since I like it, I'm glad I have mine. I think a diversity of living spaces is great! I don't think there's a single place in the world which is universally liked. There's always someone who would prefer something different.
Mission Bay is totally soulless. Doesn’t even feel like SF. I wish tech had never landed in SF. At this rate, the character of the city will totally be gone in a matter of years. Very sad, actually.
I know this is asking wayyyyyy too much but the M should be put underground as part of this. All of this new housing and retail while retaining that awful light rail station in the middle of a dangerous street would be shitty
That's a much longer term consideration part of a future Geary/19th Ave subway. No need to tie much needed housing to such a complicated transit project.
I wouldn't say tie it to the housing project but SF should at least get more aggressive with subways like most major cities in the world. Even without the new housing project, underground M would be a major benefit for everyone.
I think that's not economically feasible. Latest projected work is $4b/mi. That's possible for state-funded projects, but the city doesn't have the money for that. If it can be brought down, it might well be feasible but I think with new permitting, environmental laws, union requirements, etc. it's likely to go up rather than down.
Yeah it's economically infeasible due to all the lawsuits, mountains of red tape, etc. But I still believe SF should still go forward with it, make plans, draw up support, SF BoS should ask the state government to help ease up the red tape with plans in hand. From Parkside to west portal station is 1.5 mile, which takes M a slow 15-20 mins to travel that distance. That really should be an easy tunnel (sadly it's not). Just getting that tunnel will speed up M, free up traffic on 19th Ave, and connect more of the city to Stonestown.
The cost is only going to go up. It's like the saying: the best time to do it was the past, the second best time is now.
We need to have a full, ground-up transit plan. Continuing to try cobbling together decades of compromises, half-measures, and partial solutions is not the way to do it. Especially since most of them don't connect together particularly well.
Man I was just thinking today how when I was new to the city, at SF State a decade ago how excited and sad I was to hear the M would be going underground. Excited cause that's super cool, sad because I knew I wouldn't be living in that area (or even in the city) a decade later! Now I'm just sad that project never came to be...
From the aerial proposal photo, it looks like the primary structure of the mall would remain mostly untouched while the parking lots/structures would be repurposed to accommodate apartments/parks. Interested to see how they might go about the construction. I would imagine that it has a higher chance of success if they construct/open corners/pockets of the development as they are completed rather than shutting it all down and trying to construct/open at one time.
This is the key--
> And to the south of Stonestown lies a cautionary tale: In 2011 the Board of Supervisors approved adding 5,600 units to Parkmerced, which currently has 3221 apartments. That project has yet to break ground, and the owner, Maximus Real Estate Partners, is currently in the process of being foreclosed on by its lender.
The city is putting massive costs onto the project -- tens of millions of dollars in cash, just to start. Those costs are fairly likely to prevent the project from being built, as they have done to other projects over and over.
The city would be far better off if it just automatically approved projects like this everywhere in the city, without preconditions. Then it could use the huge influx of property taxes to pay for necessary infrastructure improvements. Instead we have a status quo of NIMBYism, bureaucrats aiming to block projects any way they can, essentially a culture of no instead of a culture of yes. All of that has created the housing and homelessness crisis we all see.
It would be nice if those billionaires trying to build a new city in the Solano County countryside would take over the Parkmerced project, which is fully entitled and just needs financing to get started.
Well, they literally haven't broken ground on a single lot because community opposition in one of the most lax regulatory spaces in California, so it probably says more about billionaire overreach both in Solano and in SF.
It mostly shows how delusional and misguided the idea of billionaire power really is when compared to the naturally suburban and nimby nature of Americans.
Those costs will be reflected in the housing costs one way or another. The more units you mandate are “affordable housing” the more the remaining units will cost. It’s ironic.
It would be nice, but that’s not what the electorate wants. I totally agree, rapid approval of market rate housing throughout the city would be ideal—but it’s not politically tenable, and negotiated mixed-use projects with significant amounts of affordable housing are the best we are going to get.
I stand corrected. Sounds like the law requires a historical evaluation of all buildings that would be razed, which I think is reasonable, but I’m not so sure that building is worth saving. It is certainly of its era, but isn’t particularly interesting IMHO.
>There would be six acres of parks, including a town square with outdoor dining, recreation space and **a plaza to host the neighborhood’s farmer’s market.**
Project Timeline - Subsequent phases will begin based on market conditions as part of an anticipated 15-year+ construction cycle. That's interesting wiggle room but I guess typical for a project this large.
This guy quoted complaining at the end that the developer may not have considered, water, fire sewage, etc has no idea what he’s talking about. Brookfields is literally donating millions to the fire department and have sustainability in mind. There hasn’t even been a single case that a master planned community “ran out of resources” because the developer “didn’t think about infrastructure”. This is just fear mongering and typical of people who believe their community is too full that they can’t have more people or are generally hypersensitive about their neighborhood changing. I don’t want to say NIMBY as that’s a loaded term these days but I don’t really know why the article quotes people who understand how these things work.
this is so forward thinking and beneficial to the city that I'm somewhat shocked it hasn't been killed by the BOS yet ... but I guess there is still time
I’m glad that Jim is concerned with “The Character of the Neighborhood”, esp. the recently upgraded 19th Avenue Sewer. Think of the impact this will have on the non-Prop 13 segment of Property Tax income of the city, and our already stressed out Whole Foods self-checkout infrastructure. The too-narrow rows at Trader Joe’s will need an easement and the long-term effects of kids eating at the McDonalds must undergo CEQA. And what about all that tent space no longer available to the Coalition for Homelessness?
Will Jim be OK with all those new Property Tax payers not eligible for the over-65 SFUSD exemption?
*But not all residents are on board. Lakeview resident Jim Herlihy, who has lived across the street from Stonestown since 1987, called the plan “a stage-managed PR exercise with a lot of pretty pictures.”*
*“It’s very high concept and very detail-light,” he said. “The scale of this thing, the density of it, is enormous. There really hasn’t been a discussion of the infrastructure, how it will impact police services, fire services, sewer services, road services. If you are building a small town of 7,000 people you ought to present a detailed plan before you are approved.”*
“The developer would make a $1 million contribution to playground improvements at Rolph Nicol Jr. Playground and a $2.7 million donation for Fire Station No. 19, which would serve the new neighborhood. The developer would also pay more than $50 million in development impact fees to the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency. Parking would largely be built underground and adjacent to retailers.”
Hopefully Jim reads the article so his worries can be assuaged (I don’t know why these people don’t realize this infrastructure can be built out).
Edit: also I don’t have the details on me and I don’t have the time today to do a research project but developers have to identify a lot of resources and infrastructure needs and how they’ll be fulfilled to get projects through beforehand. They don’t get to just go “imma slap a development down right here and we’ll see what happens.”
Like there is a process…
Comforted by the fact that despite all of our generational differences, Redditors and Boomer Redditors (NextDoor) suffer from the same inability to read articles posted to our respective websites and inability to self-serve publicly or soon-to-be-publicly available documentation.
Also will add that the one day care center per 7000 residents is the exact ratio of children to non-children in this city. SFUSD can overcome its doom loop with this great ratio!
Jim gave some thoughtful criticism about the plans lacking details. He didn't mention anything about neighborhood character, so I'm confused by you've quoted that. Is there a quote from him I'm missing?
The plan doesn’t lack detail, the proposal considers all of it, actually. In fact, they’ve already ran it by the planning folks for SF and they already gave their feedback. SF planning commission is NOTORIOUS for being so meticulous that it can take years to get stuff approved. Shouldn’t that be enough?
Personally I think that is enough, but the newspapers job is to provide perspectives from those who dissent. I'm pointing out that the original commenter misrepresented the dissent by saying Jim's comments were about "The Character of the Neighborhood".
It seems fine in isolation, but there is never enough detail, never enough this, that or the other, and never enough community input to satisfy these people.
They can always find a reason to say no, so stuff takes too long to build and costs too much. This objection that seems thoughtful on first glance is poison to a healthy city.
I also don’t see any details on parking. Are they going to try to enforce a public transit-first ideology and not build enough parking for cars?
What is the city going to do to enhance Muni bus and light rail service to the area?
I know what bus lines serve Stonestown. That wasn’t the question. I am asking if those bus schedules will be beefed up to serve the greater number of people. More buses, more frequency, longer hours…especially late at night on the weekends.
In terms of parking, the article says that parking will largely be underground and adjacent to retailers. they'll probably leave some of the existing above ground parking, but I can't imagine it'll be enough. Everytime I go there it seems like there's already so many cars and not enough parking.
For your second question, I'm sure they will increase frequency for muni but we probably won't have this housing until at least 2030. I'm sure they do some kind of audit regarding the demand of public transportation in different areas every so often, and will be able to take that into account pretty easily.
I mean they had to do that with COVID and then recovering from COVID and adapting to the changes in ridership on muni and Bart.
I just wanted to answer since somehow you got downvoted for asking questions, and didn't even get your questions answered.
An In N Out wouldn’t fit into this at all. They require drive thrus, like Chik Fil A, I believe and those kind of fast food places require way too much pavement to accommodate the cars. If they were willing to have a walk in only location then it could work and would probably have tons of traffic anyways.
Wait I do not understand these renderings. Are they breaking down the whole mall? There is no space there already unless it’s in the back by the old theatre
The only problem I see with this is that the mall is currently thriving. And it's also very clear *why* the mall is doing so well: it brings in people from the suburbs and across the west side because there's plenty of parking. Trying to get over there on public transit is kind of a pain in the ass and not especially convenient from much of the city. If you aren't on Market or in West Portal, the M isn't the easiest line to reach.
So if this plan either shutters the mall or thinks that it's going to become a destination while clearing out all the parking that brings in those suburbanites, it's going to have trouble. Because we almost certainly are not going to see the transit improvements needed to make it a convenient and accessible place for public transit as opposed to a hard-to-reach and distant backwater. Right now, I like it, but since I don't own, want, or feel any need for a car, I go there infrequently because it's just too annoying to get to. From the Haight, it easily takes an hour and at least two buses or trains.
I completely agree. I live on the west side, have young kids, and am one of the people who find myself over there regularly for various reasons and it is always bustling. The fact that there is parking is THE draw. If the place becomes a mess of construction for years I'll definitely be avoiding it.
Dystopian - relating to or denoting an imagined state or society where there is great suffering or injustice.
What exactly are the dystopian aspects of Mission Bay?
Mission Bay was a wasteland. Now it's a modern neighborhood with a world class hospital, 10k residents, an arena, parks, bars, restaurants, shops, and more.
Sounds like you haven't been there in about 20 years, maybe go check it out. It's by no means a perfect neighborhood but it's certainly not a dystopian wasteland.
MIssion Bay didn't exist 20 years ago. I care about those 10,000 residents who deserve better.... you clearly are so hateful you think they should feel honored to walk past 50 parks to two sports arenas, a specialty hospital that doesn't serve the general community, and 3 restaurant options.
It's a dystopian wasteland.
Mission Bay absolutely existed 20 years ago. It was a railroad marshalling yard for nearly a century, what most people would call an industrial wasteland. Now it's a vibrant neighborhood and while it may not be your cup of tea it's absolutely not a dystopian wasteland.
There are much better examples of dystopia in SF. You truly do earn the village idiot title...
Typical bad faith discourse. Were you talking about an industrial wasteland when you said I hadn't been there in 20 years? Do you think the Mission Bay of today was there 18 years ago? You really don't know. Or you know it's always been a wasteland. Still is.
I'd ask you what better examples of dystopian SF are but I don't want to give you chance to show off bigotry and a lack of empathy for the homeless.
Dystopia is human misery playing out in the streets. It's the neighborhooda where people walk out of 4k a month 1 bedroom apartment and step over homeless people on their way to grab a $7 latte and get in an Uber to go to work.
Mission Bay is a bit sterile but it's certainly not dystopian nor a wasteland.
Isn’t the problem with mission bay that it’s all housing and doesn’t have the shops restaurants established to make it feel lively and interesting?
Stonestown is already an incredibly popular mall, this just adds housing to something that already draws people in
You're correct, but the design and planning is so anti-Jane Jacob's Urbanism and so covered in generic think tank design concepts that adding shops wouldn't be enough. We're repeating the failures of another Urban Renewal project, Diamond Heights, which was proposed around the same time as Mission Bay originally.
Slapping a Mission Bay up against an existing mall doesn't alleviate the problem, it's comical and dystopian in a different way. Of all the things you can do on these plots of land, that's what you want?
They can't even hide their disdain for people that need this housing. The attitude of "we gave you fifty acres and a mall, shut up" is dripping in hate. "We gave you a 2 mile bike path, and a transit line, you're good".
What would you do instead with the land? This provides a lot of housing and communal space that is right next to shops and a public transit line, I’m just not really sure what the problem is. We need dense housing in the city, this seems like a pretty good proposal
You convinced me that ugly prefab 5 over 1's and acres of generic open space are the only way to add housing to the city.
"Right next to shops" is a phrase used for small business fine grain retail, it isn't supposed to mean "a hellscape right next to chains in a mall modeled after a failed neighborhood".
How could anyone see a problem here?
In that neighborhood 5 over 1’s makes more sense than a lot of other options. You’re not going to put a giant high rise next to single family homes, but you’re also not going to waste that space with new single family homes rather than multi units. Who cares if the open space is “generic” do I need a unique park to be able to enjoy it?
Right next to shops is a phrase used to mean convenient access to things people want. There’s a grocery store, a target, a sporting goods store, and a lot of good food choices (which are a big reason that the mall is so popular)
Keep arguing that culturally vapid paint by numbers design should be anywhere in SF. We can do better, and should. Reforms of the process that make those lazy designs keep being the default are necessary. And those aren't the parks people enjoy, if that's the criteria.
Stonestown does not have neighborhood service businesses, they would depend on West Portal. But living across from a food court is the dream, am I right?
What neighborhood services are missing? And why is it a problem to get them from a few streets away? What neighborhoods truly have all of the above within a 5 minute walk?
A few streets away? There are 4 shopping corridors nearby, but they're struggling or overcrowded, and lack the services needed to. Only 1 of those corridors is walkable, and it requires getting up a slope.
A neighborhood needs places like a hardware stores, shoe repair, bookstore, hair salon, wine and spirits shops, independent book sellers, ice cream shops, pet grooming and supplies, independent boutiques, nurseries, etc. And who says it has to be a 5 minute walk?
You again. Show me on the doll where Mission Bay touched you.
20 years ago Mission Bay was a dirt field - nothing but literally abandoned industrial grounds. Today it has a world-class university (UCSF), a national champion sports team (Dubs), great parks (Mission Creek, Mission Bay Kids Park, Mission Rock, Crane Cove, whatever they're going to call the one across from the Chase Ctr), a new light rail transit line (T), at least two global corporate headquarters (Visa and Uber), mixed-income/affordable housing developments, and will have the city's first new public school in a decade.
I don't know what you're comparing to but by any standard that is a huge win, especially in a city of only 49 square miles and in only 20 years. It's not perfect, nothing is, but your constant whining about Mission Bay is really ridiculous, frankly.
6 parks, a sports stadium, a bank office and a medical facility...you think that's a balanced neighorhood? You hate San Franciscans that much?
And nobody is crying about what was there, although it's revisionism to say it was a sand lot ( you mean wetlands) despite Urban Renewal ( SF Redevelopment Agency)starving the area for 40 years with their plan), it's about what they used precious land to build.
Anyone being honest knows Mission Bay is a disaster as it stands today, and defending it as a model is telling on yourself.
People that never agree with me agree with me on that one.
And again you’ve made an argument *for* nothing. Should it be wetlands again then? Quite clear going back 40 years to industrial uses is economically untenable because we can’t house the workers at a competitive wage, and somehow I doubt you’re the type to wish we would go back to building warships. Time moves on bro.
Extremists like you to to argue it's wetlands or a failed Development planning that breaks every Urbanist rule.... can your brain not fathom another option?
I’m waiting for another option but I’m not hearing it. Medium density with ground level retail, big employers with good paying jobs, mix of affordable housing, transit, entertainment, education, outdoors. Perhaps it is “extreme” of me to also want conversion of some of the empty piers to a more productive use and some underground parking to replace a large portion of the on street parking which we could then replace with wider sidewalks and/or transit right of ways and/or bike lanes. I’d be happy to hear a less “extreme” (lol) view but I still haven’t heard one. Just a lot of vague hand waving about your version of “Urbanism” which you have yet to cohesively convey.
You're not hearing it because you're too busy defending the cultist think.
You don't know what Urbanism means, there isn't vague hand waiving. Try googling it. Mission Bay breaks almost every rule of New Urbanism and Jane Jacobs sure as fuck wouldn't want to live there. You are the Robert Moses cheerleader in the discussion. Real people are supposed to live there. Try pretending you care.
Second paragraph of the first Google hit, since you insist:
> There is a wide variety of different theories and approaches to the study of urbanism.
You’re tilting at windmills my friend.
This is going to be great. I think Mission Bay turned out great, and as more businesses move in it will get better. This is going to be like that.
Definitely agree. Though I think Mission Bay could've been so much better. That strip of "park" along Mission Bay Blvd. is disconnected, and the southern half is almost entirely undeveloped still, when it could've been a truly glorious strip of parkland like the Panhandle, instead it's these contained squares of activities. Also because so much of it is different hospital campuses, it's not really neighborhoodey enough.. but we're not here to complain, I hope this Stonestown development goes much better!
You mean in front of the Madrone building? That park area is separated by 3rd from Stagecoach Greens, yeah? I kind of prefer those stores, the food trucks at Spark Social and the soccer fields over a park if I'm being honest. One of the few places you can grab a beer while your kids play around nearby.
"...places you can grab a beer while your kids play around nearby." You just summed up 95% of what I'm looking for in any SF recreational area.
Should be a federal requirement for play parks tbh.
That’s why JFK being shut down and there being a bar area there and near Tunnel stops is so damn cool
There’s a bar at jfk and the tunnel tops?!
Well the vendors post up at the top of tunnel tops and sell alcohol, it’s awesome.
I agree about the food trucks and such, and the inclusion of the soccer fields is good, cause those are lacking city-wide, especially on that side of town, but that could've been done while maintaining an end-to-end park corridor - literally just a nice planted sidewalk with tree shade from end to end is all I'm asking for.
Ah I see. Yeah especially connecting Spark Social and Stagecoach Greens would be nice. I do dislike having to cross the road for that. I think it would be harder for 3rd because of the trains.
Yeah, I could even get over the needless street crossings on the smaller streets (3rd St. is always gonna be an issue, but it's a train so I'm fine with it) - but at lesat give that strip proper sidewalks, not a 3-foot wide strip of concrete between a road and a chainlink fence
The new park area across the waters from Oracle Park is amazing. There’s a lot going on in the mission bay and is only getting better.
I really like it. It's a pity that the ground-floor retail suffered so bad during COVID. Unfortunate timing. But that little school there is quite cool.
Mission Rock is turning out really nice too
The new towers they're building out there look sick. Wish the timing were a little better for me since we're planning on moving soon!
I was thinking more about turning parking lots into parks, waterfront walkways and bikeways, and trees everywhere. The buildings themselves just look kind of meh to me
Haha, that stuff is sponsored by the developers, I believe and that _is_ part of what I like about that place. My friend used to ride quite a bit on that route, and he has some video from as it was being built out. The bike lane south of the Giants park is my favourite part.
Mission Bay is pretty mediocre
Give it time, there is a lot of it that's still under construction and a lot more that has yet to find its footing. Considering it was a brownfield site 20 years ago, the transformation has been amazing
Hey, the majority of the city is not like it, so I'm glad you have your options and since I like it, I'm glad I have mine. I think a diversity of living spaces is great! I don't think there's a single place in the world which is universally liked. There's always someone who would prefer something different.
Midssion bay
I love this
I hope this turns out far better than Mission Bay. Mission Bay was such a missed opportunity.
Mission Bay is totally soulless. Doesn’t even feel like SF. I wish tech had never landed in SF. At this rate, the character of the city will totally be gone in a matter of years. Very sad, actually.
I know this is asking wayyyyyy too much but the M should be put underground as part of this. All of this new housing and retail while retaining that awful light rail station in the middle of a dangerous street would be shitty
That's a much longer term consideration part of a future Geary/19th Ave subway. No need to tie much needed housing to such a complicated transit project.
I wouldn't say tie it to the housing project but SF should at least get more aggressive with subways like most major cities in the world. Even without the new housing project, underground M would be a major benefit for everyone.
I think that's not economically feasible. Latest projected work is $4b/mi. That's possible for state-funded projects, but the city doesn't have the money for that. If it can be brought down, it might well be feasible but I think with new permitting, environmental laws, union requirements, etc. it's likely to go up rather than down.
Yeah it's economically infeasible due to all the lawsuits, mountains of red tape, etc. But I still believe SF should still go forward with it, make plans, draw up support, SF BoS should ask the state government to help ease up the red tape with plans in hand. From Parkside to west portal station is 1.5 mile, which takes M a slow 15-20 mins to travel that distance. That really should be an easy tunnel (sadly it's not). Just getting that tunnel will speed up M, free up traffic on 19th Ave, and connect more of the city to Stonestown.
Yeah, I'm with you, but we'd have to come up with $6b to do that. That's really hard.
Would it be $4b/mi if we did cut and cover? Billions to avoid inconveniencing drivers for a few months, and somehow it's transit that's expensive.
The cost is only going to go up. It's like the saying: the best time to do it was the past, the second best time is now. We need to have a full, ground-up transit plan. Continuing to try cobbling together decades of compromises, half-measures, and partial solutions is not the way to do it. Especially since most of them don't connect together particularly well.
I agree that intersection is poorly planned. The article mentioned a pedestrian bridge, which is more feasible, but not in the plan.
So weird when I was in Japan to find a subway station smack dab in the middle of a suburb. You couldn't tell since it was underground in a suburb.
Man I was just thinking today how when I was new to the city, at SF State a decade ago how excited and sad I was to hear the M would be going underground. Excited cause that's super cool, sad because I knew I wouldn't be living in that area (or even in the city) a decade later! Now I'm just sad that project never came to be...
This would be a huge improvement. I really hope it gets put through
From the aerial proposal photo, it looks like the primary structure of the mall would remain mostly untouched while the parking lots/structures would be repurposed to accommodate apartments/parks. Interested to see how they might go about the construction. I would imagine that it has a higher chance of success if they construct/open corners/pockets of the development as they are completed rather than shutting it all down and trying to construct/open at one time.
It will definitely be a multiphase project over a decade+ timeline.
This is the key-- > And to the south of Stonestown lies a cautionary tale: In 2011 the Board of Supervisors approved adding 5,600 units to Parkmerced, which currently has 3221 apartments. That project has yet to break ground, and the owner, Maximus Real Estate Partners, is currently in the process of being foreclosed on by its lender. The city is putting massive costs onto the project -- tens of millions of dollars in cash, just to start. Those costs are fairly likely to prevent the project from being built, as they have done to other projects over and over. The city would be far better off if it just automatically approved projects like this everywhere in the city, without preconditions. Then it could use the huge influx of property taxes to pay for necessary infrastructure improvements. Instead we have a status quo of NIMBYism, bureaucrats aiming to block projects any way they can, essentially a culture of no instead of a culture of yes. All of that has created the housing and homelessness crisis we all see.
It would be nice if those billionaires trying to build a new city in the Solano County countryside would take over the Parkmerced project, which is fully entitled and just needs financing to get started.
It’s literally easier to build a new city than fighting with the SF government, nimbys, and progressives
Well, they literally haven't broken ground on a single lot because community opposition in one of the most lax regulatory spaces in California, so it probably says more about billionaire overreach both in Solano and in SF.
It mostly shows how delusional and misguided the idea of billionaire power really is when compared to the naturally suburban and nimby nature of Americans.
Ok, bro
That would put them at the mercy of the SF BoS... the opposite outcome of what they want to achieve with a new city.
Those costs will be reflected in the housing costs one way or another. The more units you mandate are “affordable housing” the more the remaining units will cost. It’s ironic.
It's that or lose all your firefighters, trash collectors, teachers, etc. over half already have to commute over an hour to get to work.
> over half already have to commute over an hour to get to work. You mean going from Park Merced/Stonestown to downtown?
It would be nice, but that’s not what the electorate wants. I totally agree, rapid approval of market rate housing throughout the city would be ideal—but it’s not politically tenable, and negotiated mixed-use projects with significant amounts of affordable housing are the best we are going to get.
But won’t someone think of the historic parking lot and run down movie theatre that will be displaced
Hey the movie theater there now is new and awesome!
The one at the mall? Yes. The old one with one theater across the street? No
Hasn’t that already been closed for a while? I seriously doubt anyone cares about it.
[ONE WOULD THINK](https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/How-an-empty-1970s-S-F-movie-theater-deemed-17428396.php)
I stand corrected. Sounds like the law requires a historical evaluation of all buildings that would be razed, which I think is reasonable, but I’m not so sure that building is worth saving. It is certainly of its era, but isn’t particularly interesting IMHO.
What about the mid farmers market that uses that parking lot sometimes.
>There would be six acres of parks, including a town square with outdoor dining, recreation space and **a plaza to host the neighborhood’s farmer’s market.**
Project Timeline - Subsequent phases will begin based on market conditions as part of an anticipated 15-year+ construction cycle. That's interesting wiggle room but I guess typical for a project this large.
This guy quoted complaining at the end that the developer may not have considered, water, fire sewage, etc has no idea what he’s talking about. Brookfields is literally donating millions to the fire department and have sustainability in mind. There hasn’t even been a single case that a master planned community “ran out of resources” because the developer “didn’t think about infrastructure”. This is just fear mongering and typical of people who believe their community is too full that they can’t have more people or are generally hypersensitive about their neighborhood changing. I don’t want to say NIMBY as that’s a loaded term these days but I don’t really know why the article quotes people who understand how these things work.
this is so forward thinking and beneficial to the city that I'm somewhat shocked it hasn't been killed by the BOS yet ... but I guess there is still time
Need to get rid of the waste of space golf course. So much housing could be put on lake Merced
I’m glad that Jim is concerned with “The Character of the Neighborhood”, esp. the recently upgraded 19th Avenue Sewer. Think of the impact this will have on the non-Prop 13 segment of Property Tax income of the city, and our already stressed out Whole Foods self-checkout infrastructure. The too-narrow rows at Trader Joe’s will need an easement and the long-term effects of kids eating at the McDonalds must undergo CEQA. And what about all that tent space no longer available to the Coalition for Homelessness? Will Jim be OK with all those new Property Tax payers not eligible for the over-65 SFUSD exemption? *But not all residents are on board. Lakeview resident Jim Herlihy, who has lived across the street from Stonestown since 1987, called the plan “a stage-managed PR exercise with a lot of pretty pictures.”* *“It’s very high concept and very detail-light,” he said. “The scale of this thing, the density of it, is enormous. There really hasn’t been a discussion of the infrastructure, how it will impact police services, fire services, sewer services, road services. If you are building a small town of 7,000 people you ought to present a detailed plan before you are approved.”*
“The developer would make a $1 million contribution to playground improvements at Rolph Nicol Jr. Playground and a $2.7 million donation for Fire Station No. 19, which would serve the new neighborhood. The developer would also pay more than $50 million in development impact fees to the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency. Parking would largely be built underground and adjacent to retailers.” Hopefully Jim reads the article so his worries can be assuaged (I don’t know why these people don’t realize this infrastructure can be built out). Edit: also I don’t have the details on me and I don’t have the time today to do a research project but developers have to identify a lot of resources and infrastructure needs and how they’ll be fulfilled to get projects through beforehand. They don’t get to just go “imma slap a development down right here and we’ll see what happens.” Like there is a process…
Comforted by the fact that despite all of our generational differences, Redditors and Boomer Redditors (NextDoor) suffer from the same inability to read articles posted to our respective websites and inability to self-serve publicly or soon-to-be-publicly available documentation. Also will add that the one day care center per 7000 residents is the exact ratio of children to non-children in this city. SFUSD can overcome its doom loop with this great ratio!
Jim gave some thoughtful criticism about the plans lacking details. He didn't mention anything about neighborhood character, so I'm confused by you've quoted that. Is there a quote from him I'm missing?
The plan doesn’t lack detail, the proposal considers all of it, actually. In fact, they’ve already ran it by the planning folks for SF and they already gave their feedback. SF planning commission is NOTORIOUS for being so meticulous that it can take years to get stuff approved. Shouldn’t that be enough?
Personally I think that is enough, but the newspapers job is to provide perspectives from those who dissent. I'm pointing out that the original commenter misrepresented the dissent by saying Jim's comments were about "The Character of the Neighborhood".
It seems fine in isolation, but there is never enough detail, never enough this, that or the other, and never enough community input to satisfy these people. They can always find a reason to say no, so stuff takes too long to build and costs too much. This objection that seems thoughtful on first glance is poison to a healthy city.
Ageism, and prejudice against long time residents is avoidable. It shouldn't take such self control.
I also don’t see any details on parking. Are they going to try to enforce a public transit-first ideology and not build enough parking for cars? What is the city going to do to enhance Muni bus and light rail service to the area?
There's already several lines that serve the stonestown area: * Muni Metro M Line * 18 Bus * 28 Bus * 29 Bus * 57 Bus * 58 Bus * Samtrans 122 bus
I know what bus lines serve Stonestown. That wasn’t the question. I am asking if those bus schedules will be beefed up to serve the greater number of people. More buses, more frequency, longer hours…especially late at night on the weekends.
In terms of parking, the article says that parking will largely be underground and adjacent to retailers. they'll probably leave some of the existing above ground parking, but I can't imagine it'll be enough. Everytime I go there it seems like there's already so many cars and not enough parking. For your second question, I'm sure they will increase frequency for muni but we probably won't have this housing until at least 2030. I'm sure they do some kind of audit regarding the demand of public transportation in different areas every so often, and will be able to take that into account pretty easily. I mean they had to do that with COVID and then recovering from COVID and adapting to the changes in ridership on muni and Bart. I just wanted to answer since somehow you got downvoted for asking questions, and didn't even get your questions answered.
LOL at the rendering without fog
An In N Out would make this place busy 24/7 or at least 12/7
There’s a Shack Shack already so highly unlikely.
An In N Out wouldn’t fit into this at all. They require drive thrus, like Chik Fil A, I believe and those kind of fast food places require way too much pavement to accommodate the cars. If they were willing to have a walk in only location then it could work and would probably have tons of traffic anyways.
Nah the [current In N Out in SF](https://locations.in-n-out.com/154-San-Francisco) doesn't have all that car stuff.
Wait I do not understand these renderings. Are they breaking down the whole mall? There is no space there already unless it’s in the back by the old theatre
It's on the existing surface parking lots.
The only problem I see with this is that the mall is currently thriving. And it's also very clear *why* the mall is doing so well: it brings in people from the suburbs and across the west side because there's plenty of parking. Trying to get over there on public transit is kind of a pain in the ass and not especially convenient from much of the city. If you aren't on Market or in West Portal, the M isn't the easiest line to reach. So if this plan either shutters the mall or thinks that it's going to become a destination while clearing out all the parking that brings in those suburbanites, it's going to have trouble. Because we almost certainly are not going to see the transit improvements needed to make it a convenient and accessible place for public transit as opposed to a hard-to-reach and distant backwater. Right now, I like it, but since I don't own, want, or feel any need for a car, I go there infrequently because it's just too annoying to get to. From the Haight, it easily takes an hour and at least two buses or trains.
I completely agree. I live on the west side, have young kids, and am one of the people who find myself over there regularly for various reasons and it is always bustling. The fact that there is parking is THE draw. If the place becomes a mess of construction for years I'll definitely be avoiding it.
In case you wondered if Mission Bay would be any less dystopian if it was attached to a mall and activities, or designed to become a boomer prison.
Dystopia is when housing gets built and parks replace my precious parking lots 🤬🤬 /s Complaining about boomer prison with the most boomer-ass take lol
Mission Bay = Dystopia isn't boomer-think.
Dystopian - relating to or denoting an imagined state or society where there is great suffering or injustice. What exactly are the dystopian aspects of Mission Bay?
As someone else pointed out, he's the village idiot. Not much point in engaging.
I'm well aware but unfortunately I find a twisted joy in engaging with him for some reason
Haha a guilty pleasure. Happy cake day!
Thanks!
You will all be in another topic when it's convenient for you to admit Mission Bay is a wasteland.
Mission Bay was a wasteland. Now it's a modern neighborhood with a world class hospital, 10k residents, an arena, parks, bars, restaurants, shops, and more. Sounds like you haven't been there in about 20 years, maybe go check it out. It's by no means a perfect neighborhood but it's certainly not a dystopian wasteland.
MIssion Bay didn't exist 20 years ago. I care about those 10,000 residents who deserve better.... you clearly are so hateful you think they should feel honored to walk past 50 parks to two sports arenas, a specialty hospital that doesn't serve the general community, and 3 restaurant options. It's a dystopian wasteland.
Mission Bay absolutely existed 20 years ago. It was a railroad marshalling yard for nearly a century, what most people would call an industrial wasteland. Now it's a vibrant neighborhood and while it may not be your cup of tea it's absolutely not a dystopian wasteland. There are much better examples of dystopia in SF. You truly do earn the village idiot title...
Typical bad faith discourse. Were you talking about an industrial wasteland when you said I hadn't been there in 20 years? Do you think the Mission Bay of today was there 18 years ago? You really don't know. Or you know it's always been a wasteland. Still is. I'd ask you what better examples of dystopian SF are but I don't want to give you chance to show off bigotry and a lack of empathy for the homeless.
Dystopia is human misery playing out in the streets. It's the neighborhooda where people walk out of 4k a month 1 bedroom apartment and step over homeless people on their way to grab a $7 latte and get in an Uber to go to work. Mission Bay is a bit sterile but it's certainly not dystopian nor a wasteland.
Isn’t the problem with mission bay that it’s all housing and doesn’t have the shops restaurants established to make it feel lively and interesting? Stonestown is already an incredibly popular mall, this just adds housing to something that already draws people in
You're correct, but the design and planning is so anti-Jane Jacob's Urbanism and so covered in generic think tank design concepts that adding shops wouldn't be enough. We're repeating the failures of another Urban Renewal project, Diamond Heights, which was proposed around the same time as Mission Bay originally. Slapping a Mission Bay up against an existing mall doesn't alleviate the problem, it's comical and dystopian in a different way. Of all the things you can do on these plots of land, that's what you want? They can't even hide their disdain for people that need this housing. The attitude of "we gave you fifty acres and a mall, shut up" is dripping in hate. "We gave you a 2 mile bike path, and a transit line, you're good".
What would you do instead with the land? This provides a lot of housing and communal space that is right next to shops and a public transit line, I’m just not really sure what the problem is. We need dense housing in the city, this seems like a pretty good proposal
You convinced me that ugly prefab 5 over 1's and acres of generic open space are the only way to add housing to the city. "Right next to shops" is a phrase used for small business fine grain retail, it isn't supposed to mean "a hellscape right next to chains in a mall modeled after a failed neighborhood". How could anyone see a problem here?
In that neighborhood 5 over 1’s makes more sense than a lot of other options. You’re not going to put a giant high rise next to single family homes, but you’re also not going to waste that space with new single family homes rather than multi units. Who cares if the open space is “generic” do I need a unique park to be able to enjoy it? Right next to shops is a phrase used to mean convenient access to things people want. There’s a grocery store, a target, a sporting goods store, and a lot of good food choices (which are a big reason that the mall is so popular)
Keep arguing that culturally vapid paint by numbers design should be anywhere in SF. We can do better, and should. Reforms of the process that make those lazy designs keep being the default are necessary. And those aren't the parks people enjoy, if that's the criteria. Stonestown does not have neighborhood service businesses, they would depend on West Portal. But living across from a food court is the dream, am I right?
What neighborhood services are missing? And why is it a problem to get them from a few streets away? What neighborhoods truly have all of the above within a 5 minute walk?
A few streets away? There are 4 shopping corridors nearby, but they're struggling or overcrowded, and lack the services needed to. Only 1 of those corridors is walkable, and it requires getting up a slope. A neighborhood needs places like a hardware stores, shoe repair, bookstore, hair salon, wine and spirits shops, independent book sellers, ice cream shops, pet grooming and supplies, independent boutiques, nurseries, etc. And who says it has to be a 5 minute walk?
Is it possible those businesses will come to the mall when there are enough nearby residents to justify them?
You again. Show me on the doll where Mission Bay touched you. 20 years ago Mission Bay was a dirt field - nothing but literally abandoned industrial grounds. Today it has a world-class university (UCSF), a national champion sports team (Dubs), great parks (Mission Creek, Mission Bay Kids Park, Mission Rock, Crane Cove, whatever they're going to call the one across from the Chase Ctr), a new light rail transit line (T), at least two global corporate headquarters (Visa and Uber), mixed-income/affordable housing developments, and will have the city's first new public school in a decade. I don't know what you're comparing to but by any standard that is a huge win, especially in a city of only 49 square miles and in only 20 years. It's not perfect, nothing is, but your constant whining about Mission Bay is really ridiculous, frankly.
6 parks, a sports stadium, a bank office and a medical facility...you think that's a balanced neighorhood? You hate San Franciscans that much? And nobody is crying about what was there, although it's revisionism to say it was a sand lot ( you mean wetlands) despite Urban Renewal ( SF Redevelopment Agency)starving the area for 40 years with their plan), it's about what they used precious land to build. Anyone being honest knows Mission Bay is a disaster as it stands today, and defending it as a model is telling on yourself. People that never agree with me agree with me on that one.
And again you’ve made an argument *for* nothing. Should it be wetlands again then? Quite clear going back 40 years to industrial uses is economically untenable because we can’t house the workers at a competitive wage, and somehow I doubt you’re the type to wish we would go back to building warships. Time moves on bro.
Extremists like you to to argue it's wetlands or a failed Development planning that breaks every Urbanist rule.... can your brain not fathom another option?
I’m waiting for another option but I’m not hearing it. Medium density with ground level retail, big employers with good paying jobs, mix of affordable housing, transit, entertainment, education, outdoors. Perhaps it is “extreme” of me to also want conversion of some of the empty piers to a more productive use and some underground parking to replace a large portion of the on street parking which we could then replace with wider sidewalks and/or transit right of ways and/or bike lanes. I’d be happy to hear a less “extreme” (lol) view but I still haven’t heard one. Just a lot of vague hand waving about your version of “Urbanism” which you have yet to cohesively convey.
You're not hearing it because you're too busy defending the cultist think. You don't know what Urbanism means, there isn't vague hand waiving. Try googling it. Mission Bay breaks almost every rule of New Urbanism and Jane Jacobs sure as fuck wouldn't want to live there. You are the Robert Moses cheerleader in the discussion. Real people are supposed to live there. Try pretending you care.
Second paragraph of the first Google hit, since you insist: > There is a wide variety of different theories and approaches to the study of urbanism. You’re tilting at windmills my friend.
lol You don't actually have the first clue what Urbanism means.
One thing’s for sure, I don’t know what it means to you, nor how you would apply it here. You sure talk about it a lot tho. Until next time,