HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction


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: 24,176
SAN FRANCISCO | UCSF Parnassus Heights | 294 FT | 15 FLOORS

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: 3,148
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: 24,176
^^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
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,718
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: 49
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
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,718
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: 24,176
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
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,718
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 25, 2021, 12:11 AM
mthd mthd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 873
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
     
     
  #10  
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: 3,148
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
     
     
  #11  
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: 24,176
^^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
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2021, 5:33 AM
blacktrojan3921's Avatar
blacktrojan3921 blacktrojan3921 is offline
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 890
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
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 8:03 PM
gillynova's Avatar
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Austin / Bay Area
Posts: 2,422
30 year project, wow! Hopefully we all get to see how this turns out in our lifetime
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 4:57 AM
tall/awkward tall/awkward is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 177
How 6,000 bird deaths a year?

Are they demolishing a bird hospital to build this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2021, 5:17 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,176
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
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2021, 9:40 PM
unpermitted_variance unpermitted_variance is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Oakland
Posts: 131
New renderings from UCSF:








Source: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/12/42...nassus-heights


Can't say I'm too impressed, the design looks very bland and will likely be dated quickly. At least the shape is somewhat interesting I guess?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2024, 7:44 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,718
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2024, 8:51 PM
OneRinconHill OneRinconHill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Now THAT is going to stand out (and all the UCSF buildings already do as it is).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2024, 8:56 PM
homebucket homebucket is offline
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 9,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRinconHill View Post
Now THAT is going to stand out (and all the UCSF buildings already do as it is).
Agreed. It will be the flagship, both medically and architecturally, of all the hospitals in California.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2021, 3:48 AM
gillynova's Avatar
gillynova gillynova is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Austin / Bay Area
Posts: 2,422
That looks good! I could imagine how it would look like lit up during night times
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > Skyscraper & Highrise Construction
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.