Plans Surface For 51 Brompton Avenue in Glen Park, San Francisco

51 Brompton Avenue, image via Google Street View51 Brompton Avenue, image via Google Street View

Plans have been published for a potential townhouse-style infill at 51 Brompton Avenue in San Francisco’s Glen Park neighborhood. An initial study has been drafted for the property owner and published by the city’s Planning Department, showing the now-vacant site could fit eight townhouse apartments. Studio KDA is responsible for the application.

51 Brompton Avenue vertical cross-section, illustration by Studio KDA

51 Brompton Avenue vertical cross-section, illustration by Studio KDA

The recently published documents were accompanied by a request for a project review meeting and not a planning application. The study, drafted by Studio KDA, writes that the resulting design with Senate Bill 684 and townhome-style apartments “optimizes development value,” is “clearly achievable for the site opportunities and constraints,” and is “approvable ministerially.” Once the complete application is filed, the city will have 60 days to approve it.

Details about the project are currently preliminary and are likely to change. The development is expected to rise four floors, with eight three-bedroom apartments. The team will also review adding four ground-level accessory dwelling units.

51 Brompton Avenue site map, illustration by Studio KDA

51 Brompton Avenue site map, illustration by Studio KDA

The property owner is listed as a local individual filing through Hayes-Diamond Properties LLC. The 0.15-acre property will extend down Kern Street between Brompton Avenue and Diamond Street. The site is a block away from the Glen Park BART Station.

Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail

Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews

.

6 Comments on "Plans Surface For 51 Brompton Avenue in Glen Park, San Francisco"

  1. Great project!

    Now if we can muster up the energy to build 40-60 units on the 1/2 block sized flat lot on the east side of Diamond, we’d be cooking. Keep it gentle, 5-6 six stories and cascade up, slightly higher on the SE corner of the lot, closest to the highway. A few reasonably sized commercial spaces on Bosworth and cozy townhome style walkups along Wilder. Done.

  2. Seems like it would actually be 12 units if those ADU’s are separately inhabitable. It is crazy that this lot has remained so for so long in such a prime spot. Let’s hope this gets built!

  3. It would be interesting to see if this could somehow be mirrored with 12-ish permanently affordable townhomes on that otherwise unused “park land” parcel shown on the plan along Bosworth.

    • Scotty McWiener | March 31, 2026 at 8:04 pm | Reply

      Seriously, only a YIMBY would think that paving over parks and public open space is a good idea.

      That property you’re talking about is SFPUC property that is the channel of Islais Creek (now channelized). It’s now part of the Glen Park Greenway.

      I know none a y’all are from here, but one reason why we locals love our city is because it’s dense, but it still has all of these unprogrammed parks and open spaces. Some are public, like the lot you want to develop, but others are privately owned but difficult to develop due to steep grades, irregular shapes, etc.

      San Francisco has ample opportunities for development, especially along commercial corridors and former industrial sites along the eastern waterfront, but only an unreasonable zealot would advocate paving over the city’s remaining open spaces just to accommodate more imported AI tech bros, who are only going to desert the city when this latest bubble pops.

  4. Rubin Rodriguez | April 4, 2026 at 9:24 am | Reply

    I live at twin Peaks, it’s nice to have that parking space available when residents drive to Glen Park, to their local restaurants and it’s free parking!!!!!

    • Sorry but BART needs ridership and it’s absolutely unhinged bonkers how few people live within a 10-minute walk of Glen Park BART. More shops & more frequent buses in the uphill neighborhoods is a better solution than keeping empty land in prime areas near urban train stations.

Leave a Reply to tom Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*