ive always preferred negative public space

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:

Yeah, or the one that works out the best financially. I hope it's not Federal Development.

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.

No argument there. Frankly, I'm increasingly glad the Giants are said to have the edge. Their proposal isn't bad and is certainly one of the two best (arguably THE best).

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.

I hope we don't have a repeat of the Transbay Terminal, where they select the least architecturally inspiring design, not on merits, but because they throw around the most cash.

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.

I can think of 3 logical places for it: Broadway & Columbus, Mission & 4th St, Market & Van Ness.

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.

That's Mission & 4th--right in front of the Metreon where there's already a neon moving sign showing what's playing at the movie theater.

Actually, I'm going out on a limb BT. The Giants/Cordish project has the best pockets and, pay attention, relatively competent development officials who've negotiated this city's development snake pit for a decent length of time. Plus, I like the way they're project embraces the current Mission Bay open space along the creek.

^^^I pretty much agree. But I also like the way the Build, Inc plan utilizes the piers.

Yes, that's part of it.