San Francisco Landmarks Map

San Francisco’s Planning Department is seeking nominations for new historic landmarks to be added to the City’s official list of 266 “iconic architectural masterpieces, monuments to historic events, and places associated with cultural and social movements” that have defined San Francisco.

Nominations can include buildings, districts, places, structures or objects that are:

  • significant for their association with historic events, including the City’s social and cultural history;
  • significant for their association with a person or group important to the history of the City, State or Country;
  • significant for their architecture or design;
  • valued as visual landmarks, or that have special character or meaning to the City and its residents; or
  • properties or features that are linked by history, plan, aesthetics or physical development.

Official nominations/applications submitted to the City will need to contain supporting historic, architectural and/or cultural documentation.  We’ll be a little less strict with respect to any unofficial nominations made below.

Mission Dolores was the first building to be designated a San Francisco landmark back in 1968.  The Marcus Books and Jimbo’s Bop City building on Fillmore was the most recent addition to the list.

37 thoughts on “Now Seeking Nominations For New San Francisco Landmarks”
    1. NO. Demand and desirability has gentrified the Mission, and it’s good and it’s how cities evolve.

  1. Modern Medical Office Buildings (West Side of San Francisco)
    Many 60’s and 70’s modern buildings exist in the city and throughout the westside of SF.
    A list of appropriate designations and list of properties should be generated including the medical office building at Stonestown, and other sites along Taraval, Ocean Ave. transit corridors.

    1. I hate to say it but add all single story small MOBs on California St. near CPMC. (I am sorry, Dr. Gonda, but your colleagues’ building is exactly the same as it was 30 yrs. ago)

  2. on a more serious note – St. Ignatius is not on the list currently? It is one righteous building (pun intended), I enjoy looking at it silouetted against the sky from different angles, particularly against the sunrise. I’m not the least bit religious, but I’d hate to see something happen to St. Ignatius.

  3. I am surprised that “The Crooked Street” – Lombard Street between Hyde and Leavenworth –
    is not already on the list. Certainly, an important landmark of the City.

    1. I wondered that many buildings in the Presidio and Fort Mason aren’t on the list. Presumably that’s because they’re federal (or quasi-federal) property, and so ultimately the government could do what it wants with them regardless of historic or landmark designation. But I’d still think that having them designated as landmarks would help with tourism, security grant funds (preservation and renovation), etc.

      1. The SF list is not the same as the National Register of Historical Places. The NRHP includes many buildings at Fort Mason as well as a designated Fort Mason Historic District. Same for the Presidio. The list is maintained by the National Park Service. All federal agencies are responsible for preserving listed historic resources under their jurisdiction in compliance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Also, to be nominated or considered eligible for the list, the property in question must meet certain criteria (such as those listed by the city) as well as having historic “integrity”. That is the property cannot have substantial changes (additions, modern windows, etc,) from its original plan.

        1. Uh, yeah, I know it’s not the same as the National Register. That doesn’t mean a building in San Francisco can’t be on San Francisco’s own list, just as a species can be on both the federal and state endangered species lists (or just be on one or the other).

    2. Why would the second-crookedest street in the city be a landmark if the crookedest street (Vermont St. between 20th and 22nd) isn’t.

      1. Easy. Lombard is much better known, in the midst of Touristastan, and more photogenic.

  4. I’m going to try to landmark myself. That way not only will I live forever, I also won’t get any larger.

  5. The hated/beloved Sutro Tower! Landmark it now or it’ll get torn down when ground-based broadcast signals are obsolete, which must be coming soon now.

    1. I was just thinking the other day – imagine the outrage if someone proposed building Sutro Tower today! It’d never get built!

  6. Surely we can add some crack houses and homeless encampments to this list so they can never be “displaced” by those nasty techies.

  7. I’d start with that nasty encampment right off the mission duboce off ramp. Scariest people I’ve ever seen in my life. Retired Mad max extras for sure.

  8. They forgot to include the Duboce Park district. I’m sure they’re working on plenty of others too.

    1. I’m amazed the old SFPD station @20th/3rd (Willie Brown Blvd) in Dogpatch has not yet been repurposed given all that has been going on in that neighborhood. I don’t think there is anything at all in the works as to what the City intends to do with the surplus property. Awaiting actual build out of Pier 70?

    2. Thanks for that link. I used to walk by that old police station regularly and wondered what it was being used for.

  9. OK. Since most of the users seem to have mis-placed their sarcasm fonts, so will I. I live on the upper section of Twin Peaks. I want to nominate all of the houses near me (left, right or below) that could “if redesigned” negatively impact the aesthetics (read: negatively impact my view and home value) of my home.

    What could be wrong with that?

    Best regards,

Leave a Reply

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