|
I recently saw a picture of mission bay on flickr. There was a big new yellow crane right next to the freeway. Is it for 1500 owens? If so , are there any renderings of it?
|
How is work progressing at 350/300 berry (mission walk) ? Are they starting to rise?
|
Quote:
Here are a couple of renderings, courtesy of J&C Consulting. They have renderings of a number of other Alexandria projects in the area if you want to poke around the Portfolio section of their site. http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/9...parcel5wb2.png BTW, SMWM is coordinating all of Alexandria's work in Mission Bay. They have a small page with some overview schematics here...not much detail though. |
On another note, I saw the latest site plan and renderings for UCSF's medical center at Mission Bay...they're coming along quite nicely in my opinion. Much improved over the early concepts.
I'll try to dig up some images to post in the near future...it's not opening until 2014, so we've got some time. ;) |
There are some really GREAT pictures on here! I love Mission Bay pictures i would love to move there one day!
|
Also, from Socketsite.com:
Addional renderings regarding Seawall 337: http://www.smwm.com/index.php?p=project&id=106 |
Today's Examiner featured another, amazingly crappy, entry:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...onBay-8998.jpg Someone trying to reaniminate Zombie Corbu? :yuck: Mission Bay progress from my lunchtime venue: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...onBay-9005.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...onBay-9024.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...onBay-9012.jpg |
It looks something like the Golden Gateway, sorry:slob:.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...onBay-8998.jpg From calisphere - University of California http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...NW:en%26sa%3DN Model of proposed Golden Gateway CA, 1964 http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb2b69n7nt/FID21 The towers were eliminated north of Jackson St to preserve views. Also note the proposed Alcoa Building and Embarcadero Center to the right. The Embarcadero Center part of the model reminds me of the early (before 2005) Transbay area concept renderings and models. It is very different from what was eventually designed and built. |
Here's the proposal in the Ex direct from their website ( http://www.examiner.com/a-1240299~Gi...ake_swing.html ):
http://www.examiner.com/images/newsr...CA1497376C.jpg It reminds me of parts of Vancouver around 1990 except that, unless my mind decieves me, all that grass and greenery appears to be on the roof of a huge parking lot (which figures given what the Giants want). Anyway, here's the article (same source): Quote:
|
Here's a tiny rendering from http://www.examiner.com/a-1240299~Gi...ake_swing.html
damn, beat me to it by half a minute, BT...:D |
Reminds me of Charles River Park. No thanks.
|
Yeah, pretty boring, though much better than the parking lot there now. i wonder when we'll get the last rendering. I see 4 teams, and we've had 3 renderings so far.
|
I know nobody has talked about this for a while, but does anyone else think that Arterra is progressing at a snail's pace? It seems that they've topped off and have made virtually no progress (not removing the blue cover) for at least 6 months now.
|
Just walked the length of Berry for the first time...must say I was rather disappointed in the street-level experience. I thought maybe since there's not really anything on King along west of Fourth, Berry might be a bit more activated, but it's awful. All steel bars and garage doors...it's basically just an alley. I did like the courts under the freeway, even if they're fenced off...nice use of the space.
Yes, Arterra does seem to be taking a long time...doesn't look anywhere near finished. They were just finishing up assembling the second tower crane for Avalon III when I was there. Foundation work is underway on 330 and 335 Berry. 335 looks to be a bit further along. Lots of rebar in the ground and lots of PVC piping sticking up all over the place. As for Mission Bay South: I mentioned awhile ago that there was some grading work going on at the northeast corner of 16th and 3rd. It was some drainage work, and they've finished installing lights for a surface parking lot. Not quite ready to be paved over yet, but it's obviously parking. Was hoping for something more exciting there, but apparently not yet. It makes sense though...Old Navy is cramped on parking, and with 500 Terry Francois probably opening relatively shortly, there's going to be more demand. 409 Illinois should also be opening later this year...it has a lot of parking underneath it, but that may not be enough to completely meet demand. You can see 409 Illinois in the background of some of Downtown Dave's Radiance pics. I'm not liking it too much right now. The stone façade is fine, and I don't mind the grey metal and window portions on the first floor (and up a bit higher on the eastern side). But the windows being inserted into the stone portion of the façade, while resembling the lower ones in most respects, have a yellowish cast to them instead of grey. It's kind of tough to see in his pics, but me no likey. Saw some trees up on top of Radiance today. Downtown Dave's pics show preparation for some cladding on it, but much of the exterior is painted concrete divided by color into several different sections. That's coming along, so that project is definitely making good progress. It'll look a lot better once they remove the blue protective film from all of the windows. UCSF's cancer building is still moving along...they've got a lot of the travertine installed along the south and west faces, and windows are going in on the south face. |
Quote:
Oh man, look at that. What a ride, cars almost flying in the sky with freeway access all the way into the center to the financial district. The double deck freeway extends along the waterfront all the way around the city to the Golden Gate Bridge. What a dream, just a smooth elevated car ride in from Hayward or Concord. San Francisco is truly the city of the future* Take that Los Angeles. /sarcasm |
Quote:
|
I don't know if this has been posted before but it helps me stay oriented:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/M...0Bay%20Map.jpg And here are some more renders: 1450 Owens http://www.socketsite.com/Mission%20...0Rendering.jpg Parcel 26 http://www.socketsite.com/Mission%20...0Rendering.jpg Everything is from http://www.socketsite.com/ |
re seawall lot 337
i like: Build Inc.;Cherokee Investment Partners;UrbanGreen Devco, LLC and Kenwood Investments, LLC; Boston Properties Inc.; Wilson Meany Sullivan, LLC at least so far (u can see all plans at http://www.sfgov.org/site/port_page.asp?id=56101) ps. thanx bt for that map - really helps me since im not in the city ;) |
^^^The four:
http://www.socketsite.com/SWL%20337%...0Proposals.jpg The fourth: http://www.socketsite.com/swl%20337%...20Overview.jpg http://www.socketsite.com/swl%20337%...treetscape.jpg All images courtesy http://www.socketsite.com/ I'll go out of a limb and predict that, since it's the ugliest and least imaginative, #4 is what will get picked by any right-thinking San Francisco commission or board of "deciders". Sorry you like it, northbay420 but come on--those interior courtyards remind me of public housing or Lower East Side tenements. |
double post
|
Quote:
if uve ever read "a pattern language" (which is essentially the architects/urban planners bible) they have a chapter on how small negative public spaces (spaces surrounded by bldgs, rather than a bldgs surrounded by space) tend to be the most dynamic and populated ill take that over the federal development proposal any day now THATS 60s style city planning/public housing look-a-like plus it breaks up the lot into managable walkable blocks :tup: |
Quote:
Judging from the renderings, I like Build Inc. and Giants so far. Notice how the Giants scheme has their tower away from seeing the ballpark's infield? Kenwood Investments' scheme looks the most 'San Francisco' to me, being a little more conservative. Does anyone here like Federal Development's scheme? I don't. |
I was shocked to open the paper and see that Federal Development proposal. What were they thinking? About the only thing good about it is that since it involves several towers the NIMBYs will likely also hate it.
|
Quote:
|
So far, I'm liking:
1. San Francisco Giants; The Cordish Company; Farallon Capital Management 2. Build Inc.; Cherokee Investment Partners; UrbanGreen Devco Those two seem to stand out more, at least for the way they present them in the renderings. The other two look like they were put together in 10 minutes. Where's the architectural distinction there? However, it scares me that BT said what he said because theres actually a high chance of that happening. Sigh ... |
hmmm, i wonder if we could get a mod/admin to put a poll?
im thinking this could be interesting |
Right now, I'm somewhat crossed between liking two of the schemes. It seems maybe others are too. I agree, a poll would be interesting.
|
My vote is for the Giants. It fits in better with the neighborhood and looks more exciting and urban.
Since this is San Francisco, we will probably end up with the most boring, Federal Development. Which looks like a 1960s housing development. |
We'll end up with whoever offers the most money. Design will have very little to do with it.
|
Quote:
|
The Giants proposal (which is easily my favorite) reminds me of L.A. LIVE. Maybe, it'll get a "Blade Runner" billboard too. Yeah...and monkeys might fly out of me....!
|
I hope the highest points from whatever jury or selection committee on this doesn't just go to the cheapest to build. I'm almost afraid to ask, "which one do you think THAT is...?"
Anyway, I'm a bit jealous of Times Square and Hong Kong billboard and lighting excitement, but I'm not sure if any "Blade Runner" billboards will make it in San Francisco any time soon - not until the 'it's not San Francisco, or it's too big city for our village' protectors fade away. I could be wrong. Perhaps, San Francisco's natural beauty should not be distracted by too many flashing lights. Tall buildings also face similar thinking from similar people, but the times may be changing with younger people and more new immigrants from Asia, and others coming into San Francisco thinking differently...so maybe there still some hope for those flashy video walls, flashy sign boards and colorful lights after all. SOM had huge video walls in their Transbay Tower, but they so sadly lost to Pelli. Actually, I still think San Francisco should at least allow a little more carefully placed lighting action in areas such as Mission Bay to help liven the city. It would be nice to be able to see it lit up from the ballpark and the Bay Bridge at night. Every time I return to San Francisco from New York, Hong Kong or Asia, I just think, "it's just soooooo blah boring around here..." I still love San Francisco for its many other qualities though, and it's getting better! The Federal Development proposal has no life to it. I sure hope the city picks a scheme most of us like this time. Otherwise, :hell:! |
I don't really miss not having a lot of Hong Kong style lighting anywhere. I can appreciate it in a place like HK or Shanghai, but I've never felt it was essential to have something like that here. I don't know. Perhaps along Broadway?
|
I didn't say a lot - just a little. I agree that San Francisco is still a different kind of city for too much of that for now...and you're right that it isn't really essential here. I would be happy enough if they just build more projects in San Francisco that are the more exciting, interesting and more attractive kind like I am hoping for Mission Bay. Those fancy lights are secondary.
|
Quote:
I also think directly across McCovey Cove from the ballpark wouldn't be bad but I'm sure all those new condo owners along China Basin would loudly object. |
:previous: ...And maybe in the area in and between Union Square and the Metreon, new Transbay and Piano Towers, and Pier 39. Actually, I think Pier 39 already has a video board.
I've stayed in hotels in China where they had rather large, bright and elaborate animated flashing lights on the buildings outside my windows. I thought they would bother me a night when I went to bed, but with the right kind of dark curtains, they didn't - same thing in Las Vegas. Again, San Francisco is different. I'm not sure if people would accept it here either, even if they did have the right kind of curtains. This new Mission Bay project, seems like it might be a good place for some animated signage though. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
^^^I pretty much agree. But I also like the way the Build, Inc plan utilizes the piers.
|
Quote:
|
Thanks for posting those pictures SFView :)
I continue to support my two original choices, they have the most detail integrated with them. The other two proposals are so plain and boring, a part of me would rather keep whats there right now than to see those come to rise. More frowning architecture is not what we need here. I just hope the Giants are willing to open up the wallet a little for this one. They dont spend much for players, so at least make this happen. |
Quote:
I'm pretty much with you on your choices so far. Overall the Giants renderings are very impressive. The open spaces are nicely situated for potential outdoor events. The rendering depictions are vibrant with activity. There is also green everywhere, including the rooftops. The Build Inc. renderings are a bit sketchier, but the architecture looks of especially nice quality, and might be potentially more interesting. Build Inc.'s site plan looks very well thought out, with view axes oriented in sensibly attractive ways. The larger open spaces are more nestled between the piers to the east. That's okay, but I'm not sure if that would encourage as much outdoor activity as the Giants scheme. It's understandable that the Giants might have the slight edge in knowing about successful outdoor activity. |
the giants proposal has grown on me
ill be happy with anything but federal developments proposal |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Kenwood Investments has appeared to have updated their proposal:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...hinabasin2.jpg ...As well as Federal Development: http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...hinabasin4.jpg The Giants and Build Inc. proposals appear to have remained unchanged. Above images and Chronicle story below from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNHHVBISJ.DTL Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNHHVBISJ.DTL |
^^^Except for the fact that he gives too little respect to the Build, Inc proposal and maybe too much to Kenwood/Boston Props, I pretty much agree with Mr. King on this one (and I'm quite shocked by that fact).
Looking only at the Giants proposal, I really like the smaller/tighter street grid and the dissimilarity among the buildings so that they look like they were not "planned" in the sense that they very definitely are. It reminds me almost of a modernistic version of the New Orleans French Quarter--a tight, vibrant, busy little enclave within a larger city. And King is right--the park does work very well here. |
This is all very interesting and a lot of fun to think about, but when do we find out how much each team is offering for the development rights? Then I'll know which proposal to which I should start getting accustomed.
|
^^^In this case, it's more about politics than money. In the case of the TransBay tower, they need money to build the terminal and still don't have enough so they had little choice but to pick the developer who offered them far and away the most money. In this case, while the Port can use every dime it can get out of this site, there's no fixed requirement and they have the luxury of basing their decision on other considerations. In SF, "other considerations" usually involve political clout and from everything I read the Giants are pretty well wired in that department, certainly as compared to the other options.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 1:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev