The Port of San Francisco received 52 responses to their request for concept proposals from developers and tenants interested in redeveloping thirteen of San Francisco’s historic piers (which stretch from Pier 35 to Pier 48) along with the Agriculture Building adjacent to San Francisco’s Ferry Building.

The 52 proposals, which range from a network of sports and entertainment facilities and workspaces for artists, to tech  incubators and innovation space, hovercraft facilities, hotel developments (which are currently prohibited on the piers), berths for super yachts and a Gateway to the San Francisco Dream.  And then there’s Kenwood Investments’ generic proposal for “public oriented uses that are able to generate sufficient economic return to construct our project, provide a market return to our investors, and return a fair and balanced rent to the Port.”

Based on a review and culling of the concepts, a targeted Request for Proposal(s) is expected to be issued by the Port for one or more of the piers in early 2019.  And once again, with all of the historic structures in need of some serious rehabilitation and investment, responses at the RFP stage will need to be financially feasible (which bodes well for Kenwood).

We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Frisco

    What an amazing list. Honorable mentions to: The Zenviba Catapultech Incubator, The Royal Cuckoo Museum Bar and Pipe Organ Lounge, and The International House of Prayer For Children (“A VENUE SPACE FOR CHAPERONED YOUNG CHILDREN TO BE FREE TO PRAY TO THE LORD”)

  2. Posted by Scott F

    Why are parking lots not on the list? Asking for my friends in the affluent Telegraph Hill Dwellers, who will oppose anything else as gentrification.

    • Posted by john

      Parking lots? But that implies people should be coming to San Francisco. Much better as a spooky deserted building.

    • Posted by Alai

      Hey, just look at the successful redevelopment of pier 27. Got rid of unproductive uses, like a circus, and replaced them with discount parking (4.4 stars on Yelp!). Only loses a couple million a year, too, last I heard.

  3. Posted by JWS

    Really bummed the Jamestown/SFMade rehab of Pier 29 never took place. That would have been an actually successful use and given retail space to tiny/independent vendors who couldn’t afford their own storefront. And of course, while I’m excited for the Chase Center, I still wish we had gone forward with 30/32 with that amazing Snohetta rendering of the window inside the stadium that gave fans views of the illuminated Bay Bridge.

    A quick glance at these proposals was quite a bit of fun and lots of typical SF zaniness. I can’t really see how we can rehab these piers without selecting verboten uses like hotels and office (I’d much rather see other uses don’t get me wrong), but this is a lot of money that I’m guessing the International House of Prayer for Children will not be able to help with.

    • Posted by Dave

      Maybe a combination of verboten uses such as tech space/hotels and museums/local vendor spaces. Short of the former the latter types of uses can’t support the massive investment needed. 150K of office space on the waterfront would command a premium rental. It could subsidize a parallel public use. Or an upscale (very) hotel tied into a cultural use such as a museum.

    • Posted by Brian M

      Maybe if every SocketSite reader contributed “Seed Money” to the HOPFC, Yahweh will miraculously restore the piers?

      I will lead the campaign. As long as I get a Gulfstream Private Jet for the necessary travel.

  4. Posted by Martin

    I think greater focus should be given to number of people patronizing the area. While a sports concept is fine, if it turns area into a dessert at 6pm, it doesn’t really revitalize the area and just creates another FiDi. A single hotel would be fine to have, as I’m always proud of unique spaces that SF has – like Presidio.

  5. Posted by BornAndRaisedSFC

    I think SF should research and look at other cities that successfully rehabilitated and energized their waterfronts. One great example is Sydney who has made great strides to improve the waterfront with restaurants, museums, pathways, gathering places, housing, recreation, etc. The Sydney Opera house is unbelievable and the annual Sydney Live is such a great event that brings people to the waterfront.

    I believe the problem in SF is the limitations we put on the waterfront development. We should welcome any and all ideas right now. I don’t think twiddling our thumbs trying to make the “perfect” decision does us any good. Look at the construction fails of the Bay Bridge eastern span and Salesforce Transit Center.

    Nothing is perfect and SF should stop wasting time and money to reach a perceived “perfect” development. The NY subways were not part of a grand scheme of things but look at how practical and useful it has become (SF needs a subway system and should not waste time and money on grand Station designs, just get people in and out is all we need and would make construction cheaper, but a discussion for another day).

    SF needs to think more practical and move quicker to give the people a great waterfront to enjoy.

  6. Posted by DP

    Bring back Battlebots 😆

Add a Comment

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