SAN FRANCISCO | Mission Bay
I thought there was a Mission Bay thread, but, if so, I can't find it and I believe this section is where it belongs. Therefore, I'm starting one now.
Here, courtesy of Cooltown Studios ( http://www.cooltownstudios.com/mt/archives/000722.html ) is the overall plan of development: http://www.cooltownstudios.com/image...ionbayplan.jpg And here an aerial with the area overlayed (courtesy of UCSF - http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/image...hword=mbcampus ): http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/image...-10-24-02a.jpg Here is an photo of the area before any development and another some UCSF buildings built (and also some of the housing north of Mission Creek)and the UCSF development plan overlayed (also from UCSF): http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/image...-03-07-01a.jpg http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/image...-03-18-01a.jpg And here (again, from UCSF) is a layout of their full new campus: http://pub.ucsf.edu/missionbay/image...-03-28-01a.jpg These are some of the new multifamily housing projects in Mission Bay (taken by KC Gridlock and previously posted on SSP at http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=125256 ): http://photos.imageevent.com/kcphoto...nfran_6490.jpg |
New timetable for Mission Bay biotech. These buildings are part of the development of the area colored red and labeled "Commercial Industrial" in the diagram of Mission Bay above:
Quote:
|
im glad that area is being "cleaned" up ;)
|
Great news... Mission bay booming will simply help keep the condo boom going.
I wish we had an updated picture of the entire area. :apple: |
Quote:
Housing component on the left side of Mission Creek, UCSF bioscience campus on the right: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/17...22a0907f_o.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/67/17...22a0907f_o.jpg Housing component and Caltrain terminal: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/17...bd4b8c17_o.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/17...bd4b8c17_o.jpg Not exactly new, but at least broad and relatively recent |
Interesting article by John King in today's chronicle about the development of Mission Bay: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGH0PMVIP1.DTL
It is most interesting to click on the video tour. While I think he hit the nail on the head about its current "bland" status, what he fails to see are the constant changes undergoing this neighborhood. I've lived nearby for the past 2 years and while I have seen many drab buildings go up, I've also seen more local establishments (shops, restaurants, bars) come in at a much more rapid pace than has been expected. I think that the end result will be much more urban than King speculates. |
Mission Bay -- dull by design and still growing
Adventurous architecture is needed as development continues to give it a true S.F. spark John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer Tuesday, May 8, 2007 http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05...sionbaygrf.jpg Up and Coming Mission Bay http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05...ionbayedit.jpg Julio Carballido, a post-doctoral researcher at UCSF, reads on the rounded steps of Genentech Hall on the Mission Bay campus http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05...nbayedit02.jpg King Street is a major thoroughfare in the Mission Bay district. The street cuts through the most developed part of the area between Interstate 280 and AT&T Park http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05...nbayedit03.jpg Despite signs of life at a King Street cafe, much of Mission Bay feels sterile -- mainly because it is large-scale and formulaic http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05...nbayedit04.jpg On the UCSF campus, the red stucco community center with bursts of purple and pink is a welcome change from the bland lab buildings nearby http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05...ionbayedit.jpg The Glassworks may be a small building, but it has a big presence as the graceful entrance to an area in need of pizzazz http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/05...nbayedit01.jpg A man sits on artist-installed contemporary furniture at the neatly manicured Koret Quad on the UCSF campus If good intentions and careful planning were enough to make a neighborhood come alive, then fast-growing Mission Bay would be a dynamic addition to San Francisco's storied landscape. They aren't. And it isn't. After decades of debate and six years of construction, the 303-acre district stretching south and west from AT&T Park feels more like a planning exercise than an actual place. The strict city guidelines that are intended to prevent architectural monstrosities don't stop one project from blurring into the next: It's a horizontal procession of market-driven forms, utterly lacking in surprise or small touches of delight. The good news? Most of the privately owned land south of Mission Creek hasn't yet been developed. The challenge for the city from here on is to build on Mission Bay's attractions -- such as generous amounts of open space and affordable housing -- while pushing for more adventurous architecture and urban design. A shot of pizzazz, if you will. The new neighborhood starts across Third Street from Willie Mays Plaza. Since the ballpark opened in 2000, eight housing developments have opened that together contain more than 1,600 units. South of Mission Creek -- now lined in part by an attractive promenade -- there's a campus for UCSF that already includes three research buildings, a community center and a block of student apartments. What's emerging is a distinct district within the city. So far, though, it isn't a district that will attract anyone in search of a memorable urban experience. Instead there's the squat monotony of King Street, where wide sidewalks and young trees are framed by vaguely modern buildings that average five stories in height except where broad slabs climb another 10 stories or so. The cladding of choice is stucco, leavened by tiles here and there. Colors run a short gamut from brick red to drab gray. Storefronts feel like afterthoughts at the base of buildings. Some buildings are better than others, but the overall impact is numbing. The mood is reinforced by the first batch of retailers: the likes of Safeway and Quiznos, Borders and Starbucks. What's ominous is that this dreary world comes after years of meticulous planning. Today's Mission Bay follows a blueprint approved by the city in 1998 -- 17 years after Southern Pacific Railroad first floated plans for the site, most of which is 19th century landfill created to hold railroad tracks and loading yards. Not only did early visions of corporate towers and sports arenas lead nowhere, but Southern Pacific was taken over by another railroad, the Union Pacific Corp., and spun off its land holdings as a separate company, Catellus. The 1998 plan crafted by Catellus and the San Francisco Redevelopment Authority slices the site in half. Six thousand housing units will fill blocks on either side of the creek, while the southern portion is devoted to blocks of commercial land wrapped horseshoe-like around a 43-acre UCSF research campus. The two zones would be separated by an east-west commons that's 134 feet wide and five blocks long, starting at the bay and ending at a large traffic roundabout near Interstate 280. Height limits and tower placement are dictated on a block-by-block basis. There are broad directives -- "tall buildings should avoid unusual shapes which detract from the clarity of urban form" -- and explicit rules that go so far as to dictate that "architectural projections" such as cornices shall have "a vertical dimension of no more than 2 feet 6 inches." Catellus -- still the master developer despite its 2005 purchase by ProLogis Co. -- is spending more than $400 million to build roads, utilities and 41 acres of parkland that include the commons and the creekside promenade. The goal is to create a new district that feels like old San Francisco: "Similar to the Marina, though a little denser," in the words of William Fain, whose Los Angeles design firm Johnson Fain Partners did the plan for Catellus. "People on the streets, retail at the corners, a wonderful active neighborhood right on the water." But this isn't the Marina or North Beach, two revered neighborhoods assembled from hundreds of small buildings. It's acreage that Catellus sold off in big pieces to big builders. They'll tweak their established formats to fit Mission Bay's rules, but then bottom-line economics kick in. That's why the current scene feels sterile. It's large-scale and formulaic -- development by spread sheet. The benefit of the city's careful planning is that the neighborhood will improve with age. Ten years from now there should be a leafy urbanity, since the landscaping plan by Olin Partners rolls out a sharp-looking street environment while the park designs by EDAW are subdued but attractive. As for the 6,000 housing units, 1,700 will be for low- and moderate-income residents in buildings throughout the district. This guarantees a mix of social classes and generations; already, elders from the apartments above the library can be seen sitting by the creek on sunny days. But for Mission Bay to become a memorable part of San Francisco, it needs more than demure buildings and decorous parks. It needs landmarks -- not in the sense of skyscrapers or monuments, but creative flourishes you won't find anywhere else. Here's one example: On its own, San Francisco's Kuth/Ranieri Architects has studied how leftover bits of Mission Bay could be used to enliven the image of the district as a whole. They seized on that western traffic roundabout; it's designed to be low and drought-tolerant -- out of sight, out of mind -- but Kuth/Ranieri suggests a lattice-like metal structure lifted cloud-like and airy above the circle, landscaped with vines and high-canopied trees to create a bird habitat that doesn't block drivers' sightlines. Even if the aviary never takes roost, it shows flair that Mission Bay so far lacks. There's also opportunity in an open space beneath Interstate 280. Both EDAW and Kuth/Ranieri see an ideal spot for a skateboard park; redevelopment planners are wary that it might attract vandals and trouble-makers. Meanwhile, Mission Bay plans call for a pedestrian bridge to cross the creek at Fifth Street. That project would be an ideal subject for a civic design competition. The redevelopment agency is taking steps of its own to jazz things up south of the creek. One smart move: Planners have fine-tuned the rules to spawn a livelier retail zone than what is along King Street. Shops and restaurants will be concentrated on three blocks of Fourth Street, with each building stepping back five feet above the second floor to focus attention on the storefronts. Realistically, Mission Bay will never be mistaken for the Marina. The scale of construction and modern economics will see to that. But to the extent city officials can nudge private developers to be more adventurous, they should do so. And when there's a chance to shake up the civic landscape, do that, too. You only get one chance to build a neighborhood from scratch. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mission Bay timeline 1860s -- Southern Pacific Railroad begins to amass tidelands along Mission Creek for rail yards and freight terminals. 1981 -- Southern Pacific announces plan calling for 9,000 residential units, 2,100 hotel rooms, 10 acres of parks and 10 million square feet of commercial space. Nobody bites. 1983 -- The railroad unveils another plan. This one includes canals and lagoons, 40 acres of parks, 7,000 housing units and 16 million square feet of commercial space. The design turns some heads, but this plan sinks also. 1987 -- Two years after Southern Pacific agrees to fund the city's community planning effort for Mission Bay, a company official says, "It's starting to be a little bit real. ... In 10 years, it's going to be one of the places where people will want to hang out." 1990 -- Voters narrowly defeat a Mission Bay plan that includes 8,000 housing units, 3,000 of them affordable; 6.4 million square feet of commercial space and 52 acres of parks. Developer now is Catellus, a Southern Pacific spin-off. 1994 -- Catellus teams with San Francisco Giants to propose a complex that would include a ballpark, an arena for the Golden State Warriors and "a technology-based indoor-outdoor entertainment experience." The Warriors decline the invitation. Giants go on to better things. Catellus goes back to the drawing board. 1996 -- Catellus changes direction again, saying it will concentrate on building residential buildings north of Mission Creek. 1997 -- The UC Board of Regents votes to build long-discussed UCSF research campus at Mission Bay on 43 acres donated by Catellus and the city. 1998 -- The San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopts a new plan for Mission Bay. Besides UC, it includes 6,000 housing units, as much as 6.8 million square feet of commercial space, a 500-room hotel and 43 acres of public parks. 1999 -- Construction begins on UCSF campus. 2000 -- The Giants open their ballpark at Third and King streets in April. Seven months later -- and 19 years after the first prediction of a bright future -- ground is broken for housing at Mission Bay. |
it's amazing at what the area around the ballpark looks like these days. My first time in SanFran was a year before the stadium was built (my brother moved some 5 blocks from it). It was relatively sparse back then. Things have definitely changed in a good way.
|
Mission Bay -- dull by design and still growing
John King's midterm grades John King Tuesday, May 8, 2007 The Glassworks: Developer: Catellus. Architect: Brand + Allen. Containing just 44 condominiums and 10,000 square feet of retail space, this five-story box is the smallest building in Mission Bay. With a taut skin of ceramic tiles and glass, it's also the best. A- The Beacon: Developer: Catellus. Architect: Skidmore Owings & Merrill. This building tries hard to make lively urbanism out of 595 condos packed atop a base of shops and offices. But the careful collage of bar-like slabs ends up feeling heavy and static instead. B Rich Sorro Commons: Developer: Mission Housing Development Corp. Architect: SMWM with Paulete Taggart Architects. Some buildings are designed to be backdrops -- such as these brick-clad, mid-block apartments for 100 low-income families. And that's fine. B Avalon at Mission Bay: Developer: Avalon Bay. Architect: Fisher-Friedman Associates. This 18-story tower makes a few stabs at distinction, such as a glass fin at the corner on the upper floors. But the drama is undermined by penny-pinching that's as plain as the drab stucco on the outer walls. C+ Avalon at Mission Bay II: Developer: Avalon Bay. Architect: GGLO. You wouldn't think a 17-story tower could be instantly forgettable -- but I defy anyone to look at this nondescript container for 313 apartments, turn away, and then remember what they saw. C- Mission Creek Senior Community: Developer: Mercy Housing. Architects: Santos Prescott and HKI&T. There's some good energy here, such as the metal bay that slides out along the creek below 140 stucco-clad senior apartments above. The library branch adds to the fun. B+ 235 Berry St.: Developer: Signature Properties. Architect: Leddy Maytum Stacy. Overall it's a bit subdued, but it's also sophisticated and clean -- stepping back from a four-story base along the creek to seven stories on Berry Street. The black slate is a sharp accent. B+ 255 Berry St.: Developer: Signature Properties. Architect: McLarand Vasquez Emsiek. The same developer as at 235 Berry and the same dictated-by-zoning form. But this hunk of white concrete is ungainly and crude. Nice corner terraces, though. C |
Big buildings, grand plans for UCSF
But with little attention paid to human scale, a public university excludes the public John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer Tuesday, May 8, 2007 The UCSF campus in Mission Bay is nothing if not ambitious. Lab buildings swathed in travertine stone flank a central green the size of Union Square. One parking garage is cloaked by strips of clouded glass arranged in DNA patterns. The entry plaza is as wide as Market Street and includes a Richard Serra sculpture with 49-foot-tall planks of rusted steel. What's been built so far has a $685 million price tag. At least 12 more structures are on the way, plus a 14-acre hospital next door. It's a remarkable investment in the future of San Francisco -- but the result could be a grand opportunity lost. What exists today is stocky on the skyline and sluggish on the ground. More troubling, this public university turns its back on the outside world -- as though the surrounding streets were nothing more than service alleys. Some problems are unavoidable, such as the way lab buildings are molded by the demands of medical research space. Other ills can be treated. The key is for UCSF is to do everything possible to make the campus a true part of the neighborhood around it, not just an enclave where researchers test the boundaries of science. The university's original home is on Parnassus Heights near Golden Gate Park, a site stuffed to overflowing long ago. Because of this, UCSF in 1991 began hunting for land where it could erect an additional campus. Mission Bay entered the running in 1996, when new Mayor Willie Brown and Mission Bay landowner Catellus offered UCSF 43 acres, gratis. It was a sweet deal all around: UCSF received a spacious blank slate with no contentious neighbors. Brown scored a political coup. Catellus jump-started a project stuck in limbo. Ten years after the UC Board of Regents made the selection official, a visit to the quad shows how far the campus has come. The 3-acre green space designed by Berkeley's Peter Walker & Partners includes rolling hills and clusters of pines. Both the scale and the landscaping have an orchestral sweep. The scale is monumental; the landscape has a grandly public feel. There's also drama in the community center on the green's west edge. It's a massive cube of red stucco cut by two deep notches: an entry courtyard with walls of vibrant purple and a fourth-floor terrace of glowing pink. To cap things off, literally, a slender campanile forms a 120-foot-high shaft -- no function, just form. "We wanted the building to really come out of the ground," says Ricardo Legorreta, Mexico's best-known living architect, who designed the building with his son, Victor. "We feel architecture should be sculpture." The community center isn't exceptional by Legorreta + Legorreta standards, but it's a welcome jolt in context. That's because the lab buildings around it are blandly overbearing, tedious from afar and deadening up close. This is especially true of the first building to open, Genentech Hall, an immense 434,000-square-foot monolith with 3-acre floorplates. It is only five stories, but when you add up the high ceilings required for laboratory space and the ventilation shafts on the roof, it tops off at 120 feet. The design is stiffly formal -- a semiclassical veneer on an oversized box -- and from Interstate 280 Genentech Hall looms like a beached ocean liner. The show for pedestrians is equally grim: There's no hint of human scale in the block-long structure, just blank walls on the ground and punched windows far above. To be sure, the architects are in a bind. Today's biomedical research buildings require elaborate mechanical and ventilation layouts, often more than one per building. This translates by default to squat forms. Worse, the Mission Bay campus sits on filled land -- mucky soil that can't be excavated. That means no basements in which to hide boiler rooms and the like. They end up on the ground floor instead, consuming space that otherwise could be geared to students and the public. But the first phase of the campus also suffers from UCSF's focus on researcher convenience. These buildings are designed from the inside out, the outside be damned. When Genentech Hall received a 150,000-square-foot extension to the east, for instance, the campus plan called for a 25-foot-wide break between the two buildings to make this block along the green a bit less forbidding. Scientists, though, wanted to walk down hallways to their colleagues without stepping outside. They won. The public lost. The comfort of researchers and graduate students is important, absolutely. But this campus exists because UCSF received a civic gift. The university shouldn't repay the favor with the architectural equivalent of "Keep Out" signs. Fortunately, there are signs that UCSF is growing more comfortable with its surroundings. One building that has particular promise is a cancer research facility being designed by Smith Group and local architect Jim Jennings. It would be another bulky five-story structure, but the outer wrapping would form a refined collage, with each surface material signaling a distinct use inside. Scientist offices would be contained within a wall of glass panels ranging from clear to opaque, for example, while service areas would be behind terra-cotta screens that complement the nearby stone-clad structures. There'd also be a glassy public passage through the building -- connecting a landscaped courtyard on the south to Mission Bay's common on the north. It's a welcome and overdue gesture to the neighborhood. Let's hope it signals a more inviting design approach to come. |
UCSF Hospital at Mission Bay moves forward
Quote:
|
Mission Bay development takes off
Quote:
|
China Basin's new addition to wrap up soon
Quote:
|
AvalonBay puts another big bet on apartments
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is why urban planning & development should be design-led, not formulaic planning or economically driven. ============================== Considering that Metro Frisco has 11 million people, you'd have thunk they would have gone for a wee bit higher density than 20 units/acre. Heck, even Portland's (sorry, shameless plug) new waterfront district is hitting around 270 with stubby towers... why in the heck are they afraid of height in a brand-new district on a brownfield site? However, the mix of affordable units is very laudable. 'Friscans should be quite pleased about it. |
^^^Aside from the repeated use of the term "Frisco" thereby making my teeth grind ( ;) ), I don't want to have to reread everything that's been posted to find where you got that 20 units per acre figure, but if it's an average for Mission Bay as a whole, it's not very helpful because a large swath is NOT residential (it's the UC campus, hospitals, research labs, offices, open space--parks--and some retail), hence contains NO "units per acre". I'm sure looking only at the residential parts, it's far more dense than that, being pretty much made up of 5 - 13 (roughly) story apartment and condo buildings (a few buildings like the Avalon apartments and the UC housing are even taller as I recall). You can see a lot of the housing in this photo (the building along the water in the lower right, however, is the China Basin Building discussed above--not residential):
http://photos.imageevent.com/kcphoto...nfran_6490.jpg As to the reason why it's not taller still, there are two reasons. Partly it is NIMBYism--tall structures in that area would block a lot of views of the Bay from Potrero Hill and those folks screamed loudly. But mostly, as one article says, the idea for the residential was to create something resembling some existing San Francisco neighborhoods--which rarely contain anything much taller than 6 stories and are mainly 3 stories. On the other hand, I agree with you about the maliciousness of design by committee and the SF planning process. |
Quote:
|
Nobody has a comment about the rents they are getting in what amounts to distinctly mediocre buildings? $3500 for a 2/2? :babyeat:
|
Quote:
|
So is this a a preview of Newsom's plan for Bayview-Hunters Point?
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.