SkyscraperPage Forum - SAN FRANCISCO | 536 Mission Street | 752 or 698 FT

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)

- Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)

- - SAN FRANCISCO | 536 Mission Street | 752 or 698 FT | 46 FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=262506)

SAN FRANCISCO | 536 Mission Street | 752 or 698 FT | 46 FLOORS

The specs for 536 Mission St:

Office variant:
- 46 floors, 752 ft
- 1.25 million sq ft of office space
- 9,410 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 62 cars and 270 bicycles

Mixed use variant:
- 46 floors, 698 ft
- 554,440 sq ft of office space
- 370 residential units (110 studios, 160 1BR, 100 2BR) on floors 22-46
- Residntial amenities on floor 21
- 1,780 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 183 cars and 358 bicycles

The site:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/83S1mZ3GKf6nTyAj7

Quote:

Permits Filed for Skyscraper at 536 Mission Street in SoMa, San Francisco

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...OM-777x451.jpg

By: Andrew Nelson 5:30 am on August 19, 2025

Permits have been filed for a potential new skyscraper to replace the existing Golden Gate University campus at 536 Mission Street in SoMa, San Francisco. The plans consider two variants for the site, building either a 698-foot-tall mixed-use tower or a 752-foot-tall office tower. If built today, the project could become the fifth or sixth-tallest building in the Bay Area. Lincoln Property Company and McCourt Partners are jointly responsible for the application. Reached for comment, a representative for the project provided the following statement from Golden Gate University, Lincoln Property, and McCourt Partners, “Our dual entitlement approach for the site envisions two potential pathways, allowing us the flexibility to respond thoughtfully to market dynamics while maximizing the site’s potential to serve both the University and the surrounding community.” This approach is not unusual, with some notable examples in the Bay Area, including at 1431 Franklin Street in Oakland, and the now-withdrawn 2019-filed plans for 530 Sansome Street.

...

SOM is the project architect responsible for drafting both plans. While renderings have not been shared, initial elevations and cross-sections have been included with the application. Preliminary illustrations for the office variant show a tapered tower similar to the same firm’s proposal for the stalled project at 45 Third Street, a joint venture from Hearst and JMA Ventures. The mixed-use variant includes a more geometric design wrapped in curtain-wall glass.

...

Demolition will be required for the existing Golden Gate University campus, which is comprised of a five-story, heavily altered commercial building from the 1920s attached to a seven-story Brutalist expansion built in the late 1970s. According to a historic resource evaluation drafted by Kelley & VerPlanck, the older loft building was constructed by Mary N. Allyne as a speculative commercial building. Golden Gate College purchased the structure during the 1960s and announced its intent to build a $9 million addition. The Brutalist structure was designed by the local architect, William D. Podesta. Podesta collaborated with the more well-known consulting engineer, Tung-Yen Lin. According to VerPlanck’s review of the structure in 2008, the site is not eligible for listing in the California Register, noting that alterations to the 1923 building have removed any historic integrity. Regarding the 1970s addition, the review concludes that “… not enough time has elapsed to adequately understand the significance of the 1978-1979 addition. While a good late example of the Brutalist style, the authorship of the building’s design is not entirely certain.”

https://sfyimby.com/2025/08/permits-...francisco.html

Hope this one gets built, its an ideal location for a mixed use building, although I'd prefer the taller one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill (Post 10470739)

Hope this one gets built, its an ideal location for a mixed use building, although I'd prefer the taller one.

Yeah, the preliminary illustrations of the office variant does look better, but mixed use is probably better functionally for that area.

They should definitely go with the mixed-use so there's ~1000 people around the area even after work hours

Mixed use variant gets my nod

Not that it's important but I agree with Gillynova to have people in the area at night.

We have some updated specs and renderings for 536 Mission St:

Office variant:
- 46 floors, 752 ft
- 1.25 million sq ft of office space
- 7,37 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 60 cars and 264 bicycles

Mixed use variant:
- 46 floors, 698 ft
- 575,570 sq ft of office space
- 396 residential units (86 studios, 221 1BR, 54 2BR, 35 3BR) on floors 22-46
- Residntial amenities on floor 21
- 2,290 sq ft for retail
- Parking for 184 cars and 380 bicycles

The site:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/83S1mZ3GKf6nTyAj7

Quote:

Updated Plans Published For 47-Story Tower at 536 Mission Street, San Francisco

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...OM-777x449.jpg

By: Andrew Nelson 5:30 am on November 7, 2025

Updated plans have been published for the potential redevelopment of the Golden Gate University Campus at 536 Mission Street in SoMa, San Francisco. The team is still considering two 47-story variants for the site, either a 698-foot-tall mixed-use tower with housing or a 752-foot-tall office tower. Lincoln Property Company and McCourt Partners are jointly responsible for the application.

...

Skidmore Owings & Merrill is responsible for the design. Updated illustrations offer a slightly more detailed insight into the future towers, although the overall design scheme remains unchanged since our previous coverage. The office variant remains sculptural, with a curved setback away from Ecker Street culminating in a tapered rooftop The 29th-floor amenity lounge will feature an outdoor deck, producing an aesthetic focal point across the otherwise repetitive curtain-wall facade. The mixed-use plan shows a rectangular tower with a series of terrace setbacks on floors 10 and 21. A slight variation to the facade will differentiate the housing and commercial use, allowing residents to open the windows.

The development team states in the planning application that “San Francisco’s office market does not at this time have an office demand issue, but there is a supply mismatch in terms of the type of office space that is needed and wanted by many office tenants, especially regional and international companies seeking a significant amount of office space.” The Q3 2025 office report by Cushman & Wakefield notes that rents for Class A Office space are inching higher as Class A Tier 1 properties are reporting just 10.2% vacancy. The report adds “Class A Tier 1 asking rents remained robust, cloding the quarter at $104.88 psf, underscoring the sustained demand for premium office space.” Public data collected by the city show that office vacancy was at 35.3% during Q3 2025, a slight decrease from 35.7% in Q2 2025 and 35.4% in Q1 2025. The office project is expected to be slightly more expensive than the mixed-use variant, with a projected budget of $349.6 million or $342.9 million, respectively. The estimates do not account for all development costs. The estimated timeline for groundbreaking has not yet been established.

https://sfyimby.com/2025/11/updated-...francisco.html

Glad to see this is progressing!

Same! While I much prefer the height and aesthetics of the office variant, I think the mixed use variant is the one to go with. We definitely need more housing.

I actually like the facade treatment and the massing/setback of the mixed use variant. Great to have additional height, sure, but this at nearly 700 ft, it's no slouch.

I'm just glad San Fran is building stuff lol

The Golden Gate University building has been granted landmark eligibility - not a final determination but a potential barrier to the project.

https://sfyimby.com/2026/02/brutalis...francisco.html

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...on-777x518.jpg

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...ell-Nelson.jpg

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...n-777x1166.jpg

This may be a controversial take here but I do agree with the findings of the study. The brutalist building is very unique and an interesting addition to the urban fabric (although admittedly I had never taken notice of it until this project emerged). The curved concrete benches and the sunken plaza with rounded staircase stand out to me as particularly cool design elements.

That said, I'm always in favor of a new tower, and if it has to go, so be it. Curious to see how others feel about the preservation vs. development angle for this site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by unpermitted_variance (Post 10559430)

This may be a controversial take here but I do agree with the findings of the study. The brutalist building is very unique and an interesting addition to the urban fabric (although admittedly I had never taken notice of it until this project emerged). The curved concrete benches and the sunken plaza with rounded staircase stand out to me as particularly cool design elements.

That said, I'm always in favor of a new tower, and if it has to go, so be it. Curious to see how others feel about the preservation vs. development angle for this site.

I think a lot of people hate that building but I think it's not too bad. It's got an interesting design with the inverted ziggurat. Certainly unique.

If there's a way to preserve it and build the new tower over it through advanced engineering, or renovate it and incorporate it in some sort of way that makes sense both aesthetically and financially, then sure, have at it. However if that's not reasonably feasible and if it has to go in order to make way for one of these two new buildings, I'd say knock it down, 100%. I don't think it's special enough to thwart progress, especially when you consider the high ceiling of potential for this site, with potentially 396 new residential units on the way.

I tend to dislike glass curtain walls, specially when they become the singular look of a neighborhood, but I dislike brutalism sevenfold.

Unique should not equate to preservation.

This is obviously a personal opinion, but the Golden Gate University building is hideous. I highly doubt its depressive architecture is inviting nor inspirational, specially for aspiring students; students who would stick around purely out of convenience.

Preserve beautiful architecture, not unique architecture.

not a brutalism fan, but damn if that isn't oddly unique -- and a very sf building.

a shame the nice tower can't go elsewhere.

I've always hated this building honestly because it feels dirty and unkempt, exactly the image that SF is trying to avoid. Sure if they renovated it and updated a few aspects it might grow on me, but right now it just feels icky.

I'd be more than fine if that were torn down to make way for this.

Is there a way to build over it a la Citicorp center in NYC? lol

It's an ugly building and not worth saving as historic. Should be torn down and build something more useful.