SAN FRANCISCO | Railyards Project | 850 FT | TBD FLOORS

[obemearg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The Portal's(DTX) "portal" should be moved south to before Mission Bay Dr or ideally before 16th St so the entire alignment is below grade from the Pennsylvania Ave tunnel to Transbay. I don't understand why they're designing it like this having a couple thousand feet of at grade running instead of a trench or tunnel. Plus the DTX ramp wastes a bunch of space with this development.

There's a plan to eventually do that with an pretty thorough preliminary study completed a few years ago: https://www.sfcta.org/projects/pennsylvania-avenue-extension

https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/file...oject%20Initiation%20Report%20Signed.pdf

But considering that the portal isn't anticipated to open until 2035 (assuming it gets funded and all goes well), it's probably several decades away.

[Busy Bee]

^ The bigger point I was trying to convey was that the phasing and masterplan of this railyard development should anticipate for that and not build the westermost element of this project the way it's depicted in the image. That phase should sit directly over the r.o.w. and not waste all that land by building around an open ramp and following its shape. That tower built at an angle like that is poor planning. Not only that but it totally precludes the ability to eventually extend King to 7th with or without the "boulevardation" of 280.

[38 Geary]

Some additional renderings for what is slated to become the West Coast version of Hudson Yards. This will also essentially provide a 3rd skyline other than the main one in the FiDi and the one at the Hub.





https://sfist.com/2026/03/10/caltrain-unveils-group-of-tall-towers-with-2500-units/

[Zapatan]

Throw in the new tallest (~1,300 feet) too.

[tall/awkward]

10 South Van Ness looks massive in that top render!

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by tall/awkward

10 South Van Ness looks massive in that top render!

Yeah I didn't realize it would be so girthy but I guess given its orientation and location on Market and Van Ness it makes sense.

[38 Geary]

Approval Deadline Set For Caltrain Railyards Mega-Project, San Francisco
By: Andrew Nelson 5:30 am on April 24, 2026

The City of San Francisco has published a complete application notice for the plans to redevelop the 4th and King Station into a master-planned neighborhood in SoMa, San Francisco. The notice establishes a deadline for the planning department to make a final decision by mid-June. Prologis is sponsoring the development, in partnership with Caltrain. The developer is expecting to construct between 7 and 8 million square feet at full build-out, including approximately 4 million square feet of commercial office space and roughly 2,500 dwelling units. The tallest tower would rise around 850 feet above 4th and King Street, with the new Caltrain Station at its base. The first phase of construction includes 2.5 million square feet on the blocks at 4th Street and 7th Street.

...

Plans to form a joint venture or find a co-sponsor have not been announced. An example of a potential partner with relevant experience in the Bay Area is Related Companies. Over in New York City, Related Companies and Oxford Properties are co-developing the 28-acre Long Island Rail Road’s storage yard into Hudson Yards, a mixed-use high-density neighborhood costing an estimated $25 billion.

...

A significant question posed by the developer is whether to have the train tracks at-grade or below ground. The construction schedule estimates that a below-grade rail iteration could take around 13 years to complete, or 12 years for the at-grade rail version. The estimated cost has not yet been shared.

https://sfyimby.com/2026/04/approval-dea...ailyards-mega-project-san-francisco.html

[ChiND]

Very nice!

[theskysthelimit]

Originally Posted by homebucket

https://sfyimby.com/2026/04/approval-dea...ailyards-mega-project-san-francisco.html

A significant question posed by the developer is whether to have the train tracks at-grade or below ground. The construction schedule estimates that a below-grade rail iteration could take around 13 years to complete, or 12 years for the at-grade rail version. The estimated cost has not yet been shared.


I hope they have the foresight to go with the below-grade option.

[38 Geary]

^ It's not 100% clear, but I'm guessing they're referring to that portion in between 6th/280 and 7th St, since everything from 6th to 4th St is showing as below grade in the renderings.

The other thing they should do is to demolish 280 from Mariposa and up, and have it feed into 7th St similar to how they have the Central Freeway going into Octavia. That way Mission Creek can be fully opened up as well.









https://sfyimby.com/2026/03/deep-dive-into-caltrains-san-francisco-railyards-redevelopment.html

[38 Geary]

Something like this.


https://www.cnu.org/highways-boulevards/campaign-cities/san-francisco-280


https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Razing-I-280-stub-only-part-of-vision-4227940.php

[SFView]

I also favor train tracks below ground, and the Interstate 280 removal. If construction can begin by 2027-2028, then we could see completion around 2040-2041. Usually construction projects in San Francisco take a bit longer than we initially attend, but I'm still keeping my hopes up for not taking so long. Just as an aside - AI might have an effect on speed, but that cannot yet be determined.

[Busy Bee]

Like I said.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The Portal's(DTX) "portal" should be moved south to before Mission Bay Dr or ideally before 16th St so the entire alignment is below grade from the Pennsylvania Ave tunnel to Transbay. I don't understand why they're designing it like this having a couple thousand feet of at grade running instead of a trench or tunnel. Plus the DTX ramp wastes a bunch of space with this development.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ The bigger point I was trying to convey was that the phasing and masterplan of this railyard development should anticipate for that and not build the westermost element of this project the way it's depicted in the image. That phase should sit directly over the r.o.w. and not waste all that land by building around an open ramp and following its shape. That tower built at an angle like that is poor planning. Not only that but it totally precludes the ability to eventually extend King to 7th with or without the "boulevardation" of 280.