MFHC Staff
October 26, 2026
A proposed AI data center at San Francisco Centre could contribute to downtown recovery only if its technical operations can coexist with a genuinely active public-facing use, and if the project addresses basic questions about ownership, power, resources, and community benefit. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle on October 19, a development firm had asked city officials about permits, but no application had been filed as of the Friday before publication. The concept is therefore an early-stage possibility, not an approved project or confirmed redevelopment.
The discussion matters beyond one building. It raises a practical question for downtowns with large vacant properties: can a new technical use help bring a site back into productive use while also serving the people and businesses around it? The answer depends on what is actually proposed, what the city permits, and whether public benefit is built into the project rather than simply promised.
What has been reported, and what remains unconfirmed
According to the Chronicle, Maryland-based KG Growth Partners contacted the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection in June to ask what permits would be required for an AI data center. KG said it was working with an unidentified potential buyer for 845 Market St., the address of the 350,000-square-foot section of the shuttered mall formerly occupied by Bloomingdale’s.
KG construction consultant Trenton Hartlaub wrote to the department, “I just wanted to see what permits we would need for an AI Data Center.” The Chronicle reported that no application had been filed with the city as of the Friday before its October 19 article.
Those details establish a preliminary inquiry, not a formal proposal ready for approval. The prospective buyer is unidentified in the reporting, and the purchase remains uncertain. The Chronicle identified completing the purchase and determining whether the site can draw the electricity and other resources a data center would need as significant hurdles. The article also noted the possibility of public opposition or opposition from City Hall.
That distinction matters. A permit inquiry can signal interest, but it does not settle whether a property will change hands, whether a specific plan will be submitted, or whether the city will approve it.
What a mixed technical-public use could mean
KG CEO Jared Krieger told the Chronicle that the firm’s projects are not “a conventional suburban server farm.” He described a possible conversion in which “the ground floor and the public-facing levels of the building” would remain active and open, while technical uses occupied upper floors and back-of-house space. Krieger argued that this kind of reuse could do more for the block than a closed, inactive building.
That is the firm’s description of its preferred model. It is not a verified design for San Francisco Centre. For downtown recovery, the difference between an open ground floor on a plan and an active public space in practice is important. The contribution would depend on what the public could use, how consistently those spaces operated, and whether the surrounding block gained activity rather than simply hosting a facility with limited public access.
A technical use could be one way to put some portion of a large vacant property back into use. But an occupied building alone does not establish a broader recovery benefit. Observers would need to understand how the proposed uses fit together and what the project would mean for nearby businesses, workers, residents, and public life.
What the 45-day moratorium means
The Chronicle reported that Mayor Daniel Lurie had signed a 45-day moratorium barring the city from approving new data center facilities while officials studied potential impacts and considered regulation. The article described concerns about data centers’ power and water consumption and their effects on adjacent communities. It also placed the moratorium in the context of wider opposition to data center construction, which it said had become a national issue and a topic in the November midterm elections.
For this proposal, the moratorium makes the city’s near-term review of data center impacts directly relevant. It does not, based on the Chronicle’s reporting, establish that the proposed mall project has been approved, rejected, or formally submitted. The next questions are what the city concludes during its review, whether it changes or clarifies its approach, and how any future application would be evaluated.
That review also matters because the proposed use is described as mixed. A project may combine technical functions with public-facing space, but that description alone does not answer how the city would classify or assess it. Until a formal application and further city decisions exist, the project’s regulatory path remains unsettled.
Public benefit needs evidence, not only a compelling concept
Krieger also told the Chronicle that KG’s client was interested in developing the property, including Bloomingdale’s, into an “AI-controlled living space” in partnership with a “known AI Lab.” He said the firm’s proposed design could use resources in ways that include dedicating water to a rooftop garden, with the garden’s produce donated to a nonprofit focused on food insecurity for use in transient shelters.
Those are statements from KG’s CEO about the client’s interest and the concept. The article does not establish that the partnership, garden, water allocation, donation arrangement, or intended use has been finalized or approved. They should be treated as the firm’s descriptions, not completed commitments or demonstrated community outcomes.
For residents and community organizations, a useful test is whether benefits become specific and accountable. Who would be able to use the public-facing areas? What would the garden’s proposed donation arrangement involve, and which nonprofit, if any, would participate? How would the project address its demand for power and water? These are questions for a more developed plan, not assumptions that can be settled by the concept alone.
The same standard applies to local businesses and workers. A mixed program might create activity around a previously closed property, but the Chronicle article does not establish particular hiring, purchasing, training, or business opportunities. Those benefits should not be presumed. If the project advances, its public materials and any city review should make clear who would benefit, through what mechanisms, and how those commitments would be assessed.
What to watch next
Four developments would clarify whether the idea is moving beyond preliminary interest:
- A filed application: The Chronicle reported that none had been filed as of the Friday before publication. A formal filing would give the public and the city a specific proposal to evaluate.
- The moratorium’s outcome: City action after the 45-day review will indicate what rules or approval process apply to new data center facilities.
- The property purchase: The proposed use depends on whether the potential buyer can complete a purchase. The article did not confirm that a sale had closed.
- Power and resource feasibility: The Chronicle identified the site’s ability to draw the electricity and other resources needed for a data center as an unresolved hurdle.
These milestones can help separate a reported concept from a project with defined plans and an identifiable review process.
A practical standard for downtown recovery
San Francisco Centre’s possible reuse presents a real but unresolved planning question: how can a large vacant downtown building return to use without treating occupancy as a substitute for public value? KG has described a mixed technical-public approach, but the proposal remains unfiled, the purchase is uncertain, and the resource and approval questions are unresolved.
For observers, the most useful approach is to assess each next step on its evidence. A filed application, a completed purchase, a clear account of resource needs, and specific public commitments would provide a stronger basis for judging the proposal’s potential. Until then, it is appropriate to discuss the possibility without presenting the firm’s stated concept as an approved plan or a proven contribution to downtown recovery.
Learn more about MFHC at https://www.m-fhc.com.
MFHC publishes weekly perspectives on business, leadership, portfolio industries, and community development, with a focus on practical insight, responsible growth, and long-term value.
McFadden Finch Holdings Company
Vision. Leadership. Lasting Impact.
Lake Merritt Plaza
1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Main: (800) 994-9028
Office: (510) 973-2677
Fax: (800) 210-5252
Website: https://www.m-fhc.com
Email: info@m-fhc.com
Sources
Laura Waxmann, “Exclusive: San Francisco’s shuttered downtown mall is being eyed for an AI data center,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 19, 2026. Read the article.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: MFHC does not provide tax or legal advice. This article provides general information and education, without individualized financial, investment, accounting, securities, lending, real estate, architectural, engineering, construction, employment, veterinary, medical, nonprofit, philanthropic, public-policy, or other professional advice. Business conditions, regulations, services, programs, costs, funding, investment criteria, and availability change. Readers should verify current information and seek qualified professional guidance appropriate to their circumstances. References to MFHC, portfolio organizations, affiliated nonprofits, outside organizations, products, services, or resources do not guarantee engagement, funding, investment, approval, availability, endorsement, partnership, or results. Reading this article or contacting MFHC does not, by itself, create an advisory, fiduciary, client, funding, investment, or other professional relationship.
