HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2021, 10:11 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,389
SAN FRANCISCO | UCSF Parnassus Rebuild | Multiple bldgs to 16 FL | 200 FT (Approx)

Quote:
Big(ger) Plans for UCSF’s Parnassus Campus Slated for Approval
January 4, 2021

While the growth of University of California San Francisco’s Parnassus Heights Campus was capped back in 1976, plans to add another 1.38 million square feet of clinical, research and administrative space, including the development of a new 16-story hospital on the eastern edge of the existing campus core, have been drawn.

And while UCSF’s plans for expanding the Parnassus Heights Campus had included the development of 750 new units of housing for students and staff as well, split between the Aldea Housing area near the top of Mount Sutro and along a restored 4th Avenue at the western side of the campus between Parnassus and Kirkham, the housing component of the proposed expansion has been increased to 1,263 units, half of which would be completed by the time the new hospital opens per a newly drafted Memorandum of Understanding with the City and the other half by 2050.

And with the goal of breaking ground next year and having the new hospital online by 2030, which is the year by which the existing Moffitt Hospital needs to be seismically retrofitted or decommissioned for inpatient care, UCSF will be seeking approval from the UC Regents to amend the existing space ceiling for the Parnassus Heights campus, an amendment which does not require Planning’s approval, and proceed as proposed on January 20-21.

(Now)


(Plan)
http://socketsite.com/archives/2021/...o-reality.html

Complete plan (160 pgs) with numerous renderings @ https://ucsf.app.box.com/v/parnassusplan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 4:08 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,824
UCSF doesn't want to delay Parnassus expansion

(excerpt: )

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday asked the University of California Board of Regents to slow down its approval of a 2 million-square foot expansion of UCSF’s Parnassus campus.

In a 10-1 vote the board requested that the regents delay its vote until March. The regents, the board that controls the UC system, is scheduled to consider approvals during its Jan. 19 through Jan. 21 meeting.

In a statement later Tuesday, UCSF rejected the request, saying that pushing back approvals would “only delay building the critical health care infrastructure San Francisco needs today.”

UCSF said it had held 28 community meetings over two years, working with neighbors to “develop a 30-year plan to modernize our campus that addresses our hospital’s current lack of capacity.”

As a state agency UCSF does not require city approvals for land use or development decisions, but did spend several months negotiating a memorandum of understanding with Mayor London Breed’s office. As part of those negotiations the medical school and hospital agreed to increase the amount of housing in the plan from about 750 to 1,263 units and make about 40% of them available at below market rates. In addition UCSF agreed to invest $20 million in transportation improvements.

A spokesman for Breed also said the requested delay was unwarranted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 10:36 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,389
^^As someone who has done post-graduate medical training at UCSF and who also receives high quality specialty care there, I am aware what an absolute gem this institution—one of America’s 5 best medical schools—is and how lucky the city is to have them here. And it seems to me that Parnassus is the right place for it, on a Muni Metro line and near the geographic center of the city (but apparently the closest major hospital to the entite western half of town).

As usual, the supervisors are being stupid and shortsighted and have their priorities wrong, probably listening to a few NIMBYs in the Parnassus Heights neighborhood and ignoring the value of the institution to the city and, indeed, the entire region.

I hope they get to work soonest on modernizing the physical facilities and making them seismically safe. They have the power to ignore the supes and its the right thing to do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 4:57 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
And it seems to me that Parnassus is the right place for it, on a Muni Metro line and near the geographic center of the city (but apparently the closest major hospital to the entite western half of town).
Southwestern quadrant of the town maybe. The northwest quadrant is well served with SFVAMC, St Mary's, Kaiser, and UCSF Mt Zion. And if you live at the border of northwest and northeast SF, CPMC Van Ness is also an option. If you ride 38 Geary often, you'd be quite familiar with all these various locations. Slightly off topic but interestingly it highlights the importance of Geary and is more reason why we should add either a Metro line or more ideally a BART extension underneath Geary.

Obviously these don't have the prestige and extensive specialty services of UCSF Parnassus but they're still major hospitals in their own right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 7:53 PM
memester memester is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Southwestern quadrant of the town maybe. The northwest quadrant is well served with SFVAMC, St Mary's, Kaiser, and UCSF Mt Zion. And if you live at the border of northwest and northeast SF, CPMC Van Ness is also an option. If you ride 38 Geary often, you'd be quite familiar with all these various locations. Slightly off topic but interestingly it highlights the importance of Geary and is more reason why we should add either a Metro line or more ideally a BART extension underneath Geary.

Obviously these don't have the prestige and extensive specialty services of UCSF Parnassus but they're still major hospitals in their own right.
SFVAMC does not see civilian patients (my old boss was chief of the medical services there in the mid-2000s), Mt Zion is ambulatory care only, no emergency facitlities, St. Mary's is very small and would route trauma cases to SFGeneral. Kaiser is restricted to it's HMO members. Ambulances typically won't route Kaiser members to the hospital. Just saying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 8:18 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by memester View Post
SFVAMC does not see civilian patients (my old boss was chief of the medical services there in the mid-2000s), Mt Zion is ambulatory care only, no emergency facitlities, St. Mary's is very small and would route trauma cases to SFGeneral. Kaiser is restricted to it's HMO members. Ambulances typically won't route Kaiser members to the hospital. Just saying.
None of what you're saying disputes that these are still major hospitals. Hospitals are required to treat patients regardless of insurance or ability to pay. They may be transferred once stabilized to a more appropriate facility, however.

St Mary's has 275 licensed beds, so it's not a small, rural hospital by any means.

Also, UCSF Mt Zion has 46 acute care private rooms and seven ICU beds.

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/locations/mount-zion
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 8:54 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Southwestern quadrant of the town maybe. The northwest quadrant is well served with SFVAMC, St Mary's, Kaiser, and UCSF Mt Zion. And if you live at the border of northwest and northeast SF, CPMC Van Ness is also an option. If you ride 38 Geary often, you'd be quite familiar with all these various locations. Slightly off topic but interestingly it highlights the importance of Geary and is more reason why we should add either a Metro line or more ideally a BART extension underneath Geary.

Obviously these don't have the prestige and extensive specialty services of UCSF Parnassus but they're still major hospitals in their own right.
I was referring to "west of Twin Peaks" and I'm sure you realize the VA medical center is only available to eligible vets (of which I am one and use it).

I am quite familiar with all of them and if I lived in the Sunset I wouldn't call any of them convenient as compared to UCSF Parnassus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
None of what you're saying disputes that these are still major hospitals. Hospitals are required to treat patients regardless of insurance or ability to pay. They may be transferred once stabilized to a more appropriate facility, however.

St Mary's has 275 licensed beds, so it's not a small, rural hospital by any means.

Also, UCSF Mt Zion has 46 acute care private rooms and seven ICU beds.

https://www.ucsfhealth.org/locations/mount-zion
Again, the VA is not open to the general public so forget it. If a non-vet goes there, he/she will be sent elsewhere after stabilization if necessary. I do not consider St. Mary's, Mt. Zion and Kaiser (which is also not available to the general public who aren't members except for stabilization if someone happens to stumble in--ambulances won't take non-members there) really in what I referred to as the western part of the city but I'll grant they are probably as convenient to the Richmond (but not the Sunset) as UC.

As you may know, ERs are rated according to their capability (what specialties are available 24/7 etc). SF has only one Level 1 trauma center which is SF General. St. Mary's, like UC, is a Level 2 ER. But UCSF is a Comprehensive Stroke Center and rated among the top 3 hospitals in the country for neurologic care. Also, as a teaching hospital, is has virtually all specialties in the building 24/7 which is something almost no non-teaching facility offers.

Anyway, at least for the Sunset, which is a sizable part of the city, it's a vital resource whose seismic renovation and improvement should not be impaired by San Francisco.

Last edited by Pedestrian; Jan 13, 2021 at 9:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2021, 11:24 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 2,033
I've never really thought about this in depth before but it does seem like the southwestern quadrant of the city is only served by UCSF Parnassus. And it's really in the northeast corner of the southwest quadrant. So someone in the Outer Sunset near the Zoo or Oceanview has a pretty long ride to the ED. The next closest medical center would be CPMC Mission Bernal and then Seton Medical Center (which nearly closed down) in Daly City. So yes, UCSF Parnassus is a vital resource.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 6:32 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,824
UC Regents approval

Quote:
UCSF’s “modernization plan” for its Parnassus Heights campus got the go-ahead from the University of California Board of Regents on Thursday. The $3 billion, 30-year project includes a new hospital and research facilities as well as 1,200 units of housing for students and faculty.

... The project will include the replacement of the 70-year-old Moffitt Hospital, which does not meet the state’s seismic code and must be decommissioned for inpatient care by 2030, the same time the new hospital is scheduled to open.

UCSF has said that the new hospital is urgently needed, as it currently turns away about 3,000 patients a year seeking care because of a lack of bed capacity.

...

While the regents’ vote allowed the project to move forward, there was also a victory for critics wishing to slow it down and iron out details. The regents voted to require that the agreement between the city and UCSF be “enforceable” and approved by regents chair John Perez.

...

Earlier in the week, UCSF announced it reached an agreement with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council and the project contractor to ensure that it is built with union labor. It is expected to create 1,000 jobs.

Next month, UCSF will begin a design process that includes community members and the architectural firm Herzog & de Meuron, which designed the de Young Museum in Golden Gate Park. Those meetings will focus on exterior building design, site access, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, landscaping and open space connections to the Mount Sutro Forest that is part of the campus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 8:02 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
Great news!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 8:03 PM
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,206
30 year project, wow! Hopefully we all get to see how this turns out in our lifetime
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2021, 12:11 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
^^As someone who has done post-graduate medical training at UCSF and who also receives high quality specialty care there, I am aware what an absolute gem this institution—one of America’s 5 best medical schools—is and how lucky the city is to have them here. And it seems to me that Parnassus is the right place for it, on a Muni Metro line and near the geographic center of the city (but apparently the closest major hospital to the entite western half of town).

As usual, the supervisors are being stupid and shortsighted and have their priorities wrong, probably listening to a few NIMBYs in the Parnassus Heights neighborhood and ignoring the value of the institution to the city and, indeed, the entire region...
and thank goodness that UCSF doesn't need their blessing on land use decisions. we all remember the concessions squeezed out of CPMC for their Van Ness hospital.

i'll echo that i don't think many in the city realize what a benefit it is to have a top ranked medical school and hospital right smack in the middle of the city, especially given the city's relatively small size. like many in the region, i get highly specialized care at UCSF (cardiac electrophysiology) and having world-renowned experts plus solid clinical care (literally) a few miles away is something to be incredible grateful for.

people offended by the size and bulk of a world-class hospital should move somewhere not so close to a world-class hospital.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2021, 8:02 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,824
I know we are all shocked that the neighbors are suing

Quote:
San Franciscans for Balanced and Livable Communities, the Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition and The Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium allege that the environmental impacts that will be caused by the expansion were understated by the university, and suggest that the expansion would be better suited to the existing Mission Bay campus.

“The aim of the lawsuits is not to stop this project, but to make it work for all of us,” said former Mayor Art Agnos, who has joined neighborhood leaders pursuing citywide efforts to change the plan. ...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 4:24 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,389
^^This is very interesting because as far as I know Agnos still lives on Potrero Hill, much closer to the Mission Bay site, and has a history of opposing development there too (he was a leader in the suit to block the Warriors arena). You know if UC said, “You win, we’ll build all this space in Mission Bay,” which would almost certainly require buildings quite tall given the available land, Agnos would fight that too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 5:03 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 2,033
Seems like a bad idea to not invest in the healthcare of San Franciscans and Bay Areans and Californians that come from afar for UCSF’s highly specialized services. Moving it to Mission Bay would also leave a huge void in healthcare services to the western neighborhoods, especially since for certain medical emergencies, time is tissue/muscle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 5:33 AM
blacktrojan3921's Avatar
blacktrojan3921 blacktrojan3921 is online now
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
I know we are all shocked that the neighbors are suing
Googled the Neighborhoods org; yeah this group is nothing but a bunch of nimbyist twats.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 8:39 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Seems like a bad idea to not invest in the healthcare of San Franciscans and Bay Areans and Californians that come from afar for UCSF’s highly specialized services. Moving it to Mission Bay would also leave a huge void in healthcare services to the western neighborhoods, especially since for certain medical emergencies, time is tissue/muscle.
Agnos, like the honey badger, don't give sh*t.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Today, 1:19 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 2,033
Looks like 6,000 bird lives is more important than having a decent hospital.

Quote:
In the Middle of a Pandemic, San Francisco NIMBYs Sue To Stop a New Hospital From Being Built
The lawsuit argues a 2,100-page environmental impact report for a major expansion of the University of California, San Francisco's Parnassus campus wasn't thorough enough.
CHRISTIAN BRITSCHGI | 2.25.2021 10:40 AM

These neighborhood groups argue in three separate lawsuits that the University California Board of Regents, the governing body of the UC system, failed to properly consider the serious impacts UCSF's planned expansion would have on housing demand, traffic, air quality, and aesthetics in the surrounding area when it approved those plans last month.

One of these lawsuits—filed Friday in the California Superior Court of Alameda County by the Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition and Haight-Asbury resident Calvin Welch—argues that a 2,100-page environmental impact report on UCSF's Parnassus expansion should be thrown out, and another analysis be performed that more closely examines the project's impacts.

"Although the [UCSF] project will cast shadows on Golden Gate Park and the Grattan Playground, result in more than 6,000 bird deaths a year, increase housing demand, and make traffic worse, the [environmental impact report] improperly dismissed all of these impacts as 'less than significant,'" fumes the Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition on its website.
https://reason.com/2021/02/25/in-the...m-being-built/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Today, 4:57 AM
tall/awkward tall/awkward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 140
How 6,000 bird deaths a year?

Are they demolishing a bird hospital to build this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Today, 5:17 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by tall/awkward View Post
How 6,000 bird deaths a year?

Are they demolishing a bird hospital to build this?
According to the EIR, Section 4.3, vegetation removal will harm bird nesting sites, night lighting of the construction site will distract migrating birds and building facades (and their lighting) will pose a continuing threat.

No mention of how many people deaths this huge mecical facility prevents.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Proposals
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.