While the proposed urban bathhouse and eco-spa prototype dubbed “SOAK” never popped up on the future extension of Mission Bay Commons park in South Mission Bay, plans for an outdoor mini golf course to sprout on the “P15” parcel between Mission Bay Boulevards North and South, Third and Fourth Streets are in the works.

The facility would effectively be operated by SPARK Social SF, the food truck park across the street, in collaboration with Urban Sprouts and Honey in the Heart.

And as an interim use, the course would be in place until the five block Mission Bay Commons is fully developed circa 2022 (at which point SPARK is slated to have been displaced as well).

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Stakes Is High

    Had me nervous—thinking it was a commercial use replacement for the Commons.

    Is the 2022 dev date for completing the Commons park a delay, or is that in line with the original timeline?

  2. Posted by Pero

    Why does it take 5 more years to finish Mission Bay Commons?

    • Posted by Orland

      Why wasn’t it all done at once? The portion east of 3rd Street (Wille Brown Blvd) is way more mature than will be the rest of it.

  3. Posted by donjuan

    Just keep Spark and the golf course forever. When it goes away, the city will just fence it up and make it another ‘park in progress’. Mission Bay has too much empty park space and not enough urban retail/restaurants/activity.

    • Posted by scott f

      I feel similarly. SPARK is great, and there aren’t enough small street-facing retail spaces in Mission Bay to replicate anywhere near that level of activation. It would be a shame to end up with an empty lawn like the section east of 3rd is now. Maybe we can just keep SPARK.

  4. Posted by Richard

    Anyone have an idea what’s going on with Mission Creek Park across from Arden (block 12E)? There’s a whole lotta asphalt and parking and not much park. I can’t tell if they are planning to rip up the old Channel Rd and plant over it or just leave it there for houseboat access.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      It’s the former (slated to become an extension of Mission Creek Park with a community garden near the Mabel Circle roundabout).

      • Posted by Hunter

        Good, was wondering the same thing. Can’t wait until the park finally extends all the way to the bay…

    • Posted by Mission Bay Stakeholder

      The asphalt is private parking for the houseboat community and other boaters that dock at Mission Creek Harbor.

  5. Posted by timbad

    I still like to tell the story of when I moved to MB in 2007 and was handed a sheet of paper that had projected completion dates for all the park parcels across entire project area. the *last* ones were to have been finished in 2012. tripling (or worse) the timeline seems pretty outrageous. is the 10-year delay partly because of the disappearance of the Redevelopment Agency? the recession? overoptimism?

  6. Posted by Mission Bay Taxpayer

    Those parks should be in progress, if not completed, already according to the principle of adjacency that governs the development of common area land in Mission Bay. I don’t understand why the Mission Bay Development Group and Redevelopment Authority haven’t done their jobs already. Once a tax-paying entity begins construction on a lot adjacent to HOA land, development of that HOA land is supposed to commence.

    As much as I like Spark, it’s not supposed to be there right now. We pay two levels of HOA fees to live in Mission Bay. We’ve dealt with empty lot eyesores for years. It seems that ever since the state dissolved redevelopment groups, we have been paying for things that we’ve never gotten.

    • Posted by Orland

      Do either of you know the status of the *proposed* 5th St. pedestrian bridge over the creek?

      • Posted by diverj

        Unlikely to happen due to houseboat objection. How would they get their boats out?

        • Posted by Orland

          Is that an informed opinion (basis please) or conjecture?

          • Posted by Mission Bay Stakeholder

            It would have to be a suspension bridge because of the houseboats just as the 3rd Street bridge is. It would more than quadruple the cost and there is not enough money to support that.

          • Posted by HappyinSF

            I’ve heard this a couple of times from a former member of the master HOA. A standard pedestrian bridge would not be high enough to allow for passage of a fixed mast sail boat, and a bridge that swivels in the middle or rises would be very expensive not only to build but also to maintain (e.g., qualified harbor staff would have to be paid to operate it). I’ve always thought we should just offer to pay the South Beach Marina slippage fees instead for the houseboat people, which would also save on staffing expenses for the Third and Fourth Street bridges every time a houseboater wants to access the Bay. (Recognize that all of this is to accommodate ~7 sailboats owned by grandfathered squatters.)

          • Posted by Orland

            Thank you both for the responses though, unfortunately, it sounds as though it’s not going to happen. Would have been a nice amenity both as a convenience and attraction in itself as a point of perspective.

    • Posted by Mission Bay Stakeholder

      The adjacency principle doesn’t apply to the 3 unbuilt parcels according to the Redevelopment Documents that govern the phasing. It prioritizes waterfront parks and there’s not enough money in the CFD which is replenished incrementally to build all the streets, sewers, parks etc all at once.

  7. Posted by Columbo

    Build out the parks now. The delay is ridiculous- the tax base has arrived. The parks on the Eastern side of 3rd street get a lot of use. The next park segment where they want to place golf has two buildings facing it, with family housing. Kids need places to play and green space is good. Spark is great but can be relocated. No to golf. No to the fenced off “neighborhood” garden which costs $250 for a planting container. Parks! grass! Now!

    • Posted by Mission Bay Stakeholder

      The tax base has not filled the CFD enough to cover all the infrastructure under construction let alone outstanding projects.

  8. Posted by oh my

    Makes perfect sense. They removed the driving range and now we have mini golf.

  9. Posted by Pablito

    It is ridiculous how slow the Mission Bay parks are being delivered. The money from these ‘interim’ uses should go back to the neighbors who were promised parks by the City but given commercial uses.

    • Posted by Ohlone Californio

      Give city money to individuals who live nearby, because they’ve been made to wait for parks? really?

    • Posted by Mission Bay Stakeholder

      What makes you think there is profit being made relative to temporary infrastructure/installation costs?

  10. Posted by MB Neighbor

    MB Development continues to pursue for profit uses of public park space in MB – why? How much does topsoil, grass seed and some rain bird sprinklers cost to make the green space green, useable, and attractive for the neighbors that have been promised open green space for many years? Instead we have a trash strewn vacant lot that they keep trying proposed uses like shipping container spa, roller rink, mini-golf, ??? just build the damn park or make it green and clean until the final landscaping dollars are in from adjacent buildings.

Add a Comment

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