While currently only zoned for building up to 65-feet in height, the parcels upon which the San Francisco Tennis Club sits could be up-zoned for development up to 200-feet in height as part of San Francisco’s Central SoMa Plan.

Originally known as the Central Corridor Plan, the Central SoMa Plan could also clear the way for a modern 300-foot tower to rise at 330 Townsend Street.

Central SoMa Plan Heights: High Rise Alternative

In fact, if the High Rise alternative for the Central SoMa plan is adopted as mapped above, eight towers over 150-feet in height could rise between Bryant and Townsend and a tower up to 400-feet in height could rise on the Creamery parcel at the corner of Townsend and Fourth.

An alternative “mid-rise” plan would still result in four towers rising over 150-feet in the area but would limit the corner of Townsend and Fourth to 320-feet in height and the 330 Townsend parcel to 130 feet.

Central SoMa Plan Heights: Mid-Rise Alternative

The required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the draft Central SoMa Plan is expected to be finished by the end of the year and the public hearings should commence in early 2015.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

    Wow, expect longer lines at the nearby Trader Joe’s ;)

    Seriously, more housing is good. I am not sure about the timing though. We could be a bit too late in the cycle for these projects. That’s a born-again bear speaking.

    • Posted by Brad

      That entire shopping center needs to be killed with fire. It’s terribly designed and a total nightmare to visit.

      • Posted by d-b

        I assume you refer to Trader Joe’s on 9th Street. This is the easiest location to access by car due to fairly good parking. It is a breeze compared to Fisherman’s Wharf, Masonic and Nob Hill.

        • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

          Trader Joe’s is famous for their ridiculous parking situation in most stores. This one is almost decent.

          But I agree the old windowless shopping mall design is dated and not very human-oriented. SF has the perfect weather for more open designs.

        • Posted by curmudgeon

          I somewhat disagree about the parking. It’s got pretty awkward and somewhat dangerous access and egress, and during popular hours is jam packed on the lower level. The key to parking is to go straight to the upper level, which usually has space. Even better is to simply park on 9th and pay a buck for parking. Much easier access. I agree with Brad that the shopping center as a whole is pretty awful. But note that the center is blocks from the parcel in question….

          • Posted by Fim

            Hey stop giving away the secrets. Of course anyone with a brain goes straight up the ramp, but the last thing we need is a traffic jam on the way up!

  2. Posted by observant neighbor

    please, more upzoning!

  3. Posted by Richard Kerr

    I disagree with the height limits imposed on at least the downtown area of San Francisco. These limits created a wall like effect for the skyline of the city, which is only now being broken through by such buildings as the coming Sales Force Tower.

  4. Posted by anon

    The “high rise” plan seems rather unambitious. What’s the point of the 160′ limits? I don’t agree that towers have large negative effects period, but it seems like anyone would does buy into that would see 160′ as just as bad as 250′ or 300′ or whatever.

  5. Posted by unlivable city

    No mas.

  6. Posted by Alex

    Hope they stick with the High rise option! We need the living space and its in close proximity to the Caltrain station. Lets see how it works with the development over the rail yard in the future!

  7. Posted by JWS

    This is fantastic, especially since you already have 10-20 story buildings just across the station. I am in the middle…SF needs to preserve the charm of its classic neighborhoods, and so upzoning there should be extremely cautious and only on major underutilized thoroughfares (Market, Geary, Lombard, et al). But we significantly need housing and density, so put it where it makes sense. Upzoning low-utilization warehouses near public transportation, entertainment districts, central proximity to our business core, and where taller structures already exist in close proximity? There should be no opposition to this, not even the higher of the two proposals.

  8. Posted by P&M

    Historically, SF has been a town of ebbs and flows. It is a good thing. You take as much as you can get when it flows ie. the Gold Rush which created this city, the influx of Chinese immigrants which gave it some ethnic flavor and work ethic, the Harvey Milk era which gave a voice to an entire community, and more recently, the technology sector. All of the flows created disruption and forced change, and like the laws of nature, will create winners and losers. Which side of the coin you are depends on you, not by blaming others or relying on government handouts.

    • Posted by AlfieJr

      sure. just ask the Native Americans how the Gold Rush worked out for them. the cultural genocide, concentration camps (aka “reservations”), and virtual slave labor for survival. boy, they sure blew that opportunity.

      • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

        Nobody’s sending anyone to concentration camps. Comparing the current changes SF is going through to the plight of native Americans trivializes it.

        Yes we are going through a disruption, but it is very slow and people can adjust. Unemployment is almost non-existent, employers are desperate for good workers, etc… People who cannot adjust: should we wait for everyone to be ready to board the train? This is a cycle, we should push for SF to profit from it as much as possible. This means creating growth by adapting SF to the increased demand. We are very very lucky because we are relevant in today’s world.

  9. Posted by NoeMom

    We’re sure this is happening? Adamant denial from the people I spoke to at the club this morning …

  10. Posted by Ben Scrima

    Highly doubtful this will be happening. I heard that the entire reason for the change in ownership was to expand on their brand and add additional product/properties that compliment what they already own. If it were me, I’d preserve the courts and build housing above them. There are far too few facilities of this kind in SF and as an avid Tennis player, I’d hate to lose the facility.

Add a Comment

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