Giants' development idea best of 4 proposals
John King, Chronicle Urban Design Writer
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The best piece of land up for grabs in San Francisco is a 16-acre parking lot that sits across China Basin from AT&T Park.
The political buzz is that the development team with the best shot at winning the land is the one organized by the San Francisco Giants.
Lucky for us, that's also the team with the best of the four proposals being reviewed by the Port of San Francisco.
The Giants' vision of a generous park perched against the bay and woven into a busy new district is the one most in tune with how the Mission Bay area around it is changing - and how this once-remote location can become an integral part of the city.
There's ample room for improvement, to be sure. But there's also a potential for the spark that this emerging corner of the city still lacks.
If nothing else, the demand for the lot underscores that this is no longer the rump end of downtown, a drab stretch of rail yards and industrial sheds. The UCSF Mission Bay campus has sparked a construction boom in medical research buildings, and more than 1,900 housing units have opened since the Giants moved to China Basin in 2000. A streetcar line runs along Third Street, the dividing line between the parking lot and the rest of Mission Bay.
That's why the cash-strapped port last fall invited developers to submit proposals for "a vibrant and unique mixed-use urban neighborhood focused on a major new public open space at the water's edge." There's also a call for at least 2,000 parking spaces, environmentally friendly buildings and, yes, "significant annual revenues to the port."
Four teams responded this month, and each works hard to woo the public. Along with hefty amounts of residential and office space, there are plans for kayak launches, concert venues, street-level retail and a pledge to make room for the likes of Teatro ZinZanni or Cirque du Soliel.
What sets the Giants' proposal apart is that it's the best fit with the emerging northeast waterfront.
Park central
The most obvious gesture is the park designed by Hargreaves Associates - nearly 6 acres aimed at the downtown skyline where the China Basin shore curves south to meet the bay.
There's already green space here, a strip along the water that is maintained by the Giants and includes a tot-sized ball field. That diamond would be moved next to Lefty O'Doul Bridge on the west edge of the site; the new landscape would be shaped to include a walkway that slides out above the rocky shoreline of McCovey Cove, and an inland lawn spacious enough for 10,000 people.
At a different bayside location this would be an empty gesture, but here it works: few sites offer such a bracing juxtaposition of city and nature. The ballpark is in the foreground, the Bay Bridge close behind. The tight blue of Mission Creek meets the wide-open bay. An enticing park here could become as much of a destination as Crissy Field, another Hargreaves design.
Since the Giants unveiled their proposal, two other teams have said they could add waterfront parks to their plans. But the Giants' approach also works best as urban design.
Essentially, architectural firm SMWM treats the site as the culmination of everything else going on in Mission Bay and adjacent South Beach neighborhoods - keeping a grid but making the individual blocks smaller to make the street scene more lively.
As for the commercial buildings, Giants' partner Farallon Capital Management undoubtedly is behind the idea of including structures aimed at biomedical firms; Farallon is developing the portion of Mission Bay where the market for such buildings is now hitting its stride.
What's proposed is a logical outgrowth of what's already occurred. Or will occur: Most of the plan's 2,650 parking spaces would be tucked into residential buildings on the south edge of the site, turning game-day crowds into a clientele for streets lined with dining and entertainment venues.
Two other proposals are strong, but each treats the site more as an island unto itself.
One comes from a team including local firm Kenwood Investments and Boston Properties, a heavyweight national developer. Their lead designer is Daniel Solomon, one of the Bay Area's most thoughtful architect/planners. Solomon also extends the Mission Bay street pattern into the site, but most of the blocks would be lower, leading to a crescent-shaped plaza that faces the bay between Piers 48 and 50 and is lined with artist work spaces.
Those work spaces are part of the team's larger selling point: The housing and commercial development would subsidize art space - including a restored Pier 48 - and a theater for performing groups.
While it's an intriguing idea, there's no compelling reason to implant the arts here instead of somewhere else (similar plans are in the works for the much larger redevelopment of Hunters Point Shipyard, for instance, where an artists colony already exists). As for the planning approach, it's nuanced and graceful. But it could translate into the master-planned monotony that characterizes the early stages of Mission Bay.
There's also something beguiling about the approach by a small local developer, Build Inc. The partners invited in some of the city's best designers, such as architect Jim Jennings and planner John Kriken, and had them work jointly on what could be.
The result is quirky, with the site cut up by diagonal streets and a shop-lined pedestrian path that includes a 65-foot-high colonnade punched between two central towers. Some of the ideas have flair - such as building walls covered in vegetation - but the overall design doesn't gel. Also, the economic proposal is a grab bag with a vaguely defined "green-tech/clean-tech incubator facility" and an underground parking garage that, given Mission Bay's landfill, would probably cost a fortune to build.
Future steps
Then there's the oddest approach of all: A team organized by Federal Development LLC would turn the site into a parking podium swathed in green and sprouting four towers. The concept suggests 1950s urban renewal rather than 21st century San Francisco, and it shouldn't survive past early April, when the Port Commission is scheduled to winnow down the entries.
Whoever emerges as the winner, their proposal is certain to change. And if the port does choose the Giants' team, then the real work begins.
The danger is that their proposal could spawn an overly dense, generic urban entertainment district - the specialty of the most established developer on the team, Cordish Co. from St. Louis.
To keep that from happening, place needs to triumph over programming.
For starters, the park has to keep its scale and ambition. The details can change but not the broad splash of green against the bay. The port also could push the Giants to include architects from rival teams as specific buildings are designed. If the Giants truly want a district that feels like it could be nowhere else, hiring talents like Jennings or Solomon to flesh out SMWM's site plan would be ideal.
Few sites are unique. This one is. It can't be treated as a cash register for the port or a beachhead for franchised urbanity.
*************
Developer: San Francisco Giants with Cordish Co. and Farallon Capital Management.
Architects: SMWM and Beyer Blinder & Belle. The landscape architect is Hargreaves Associates.
Main ingredients: A bayside park, 400,000 square feet of retail, 875 apartments, 790,000 square feet of office space and a 6,000-capacity music hall. Pier 48 would be event and conference space.
Special twist: The retail includes "a concept based on showcasing the slow food movement."
Developer: Federal Development, Lehman Bros.
Architects: C.Y. Lee Architects, Patri Merker Architects.
Main ingredients: Four towers of 18 to 22 stories containing a hotel, 450 apartments and 430,000 square feet of office space. Tucked into the parking podium is a 2,500-seat theater and an outdoor amphitheater.
Special twist: The four-level parking podium would be hidden in landscaping to "appear from at least three sides that there has been a hill created by nature."
Developer: Kenwood Investments, Boston
Properties and Wilson Meany Sullivan.
Architects: WRT/Solomon E.T.C.
Main ingredients: Two office buildings of 400,000 square feet, 1,100 apartments spread through six-story flats and a 300-foot tower, and a 500-seat performance hall. Pier 48 would be reserved for artist work space.
Special twist: Environmental artist Ned Kahn, whose large-scale work includes wind baffles.
Developer: Build Inc. with Cherokee and UrbanGreen Devco.
Architects: Jon Worden, Jim Jennings, Stanley Saitowitz, Peter Pfau and David Meckel.
Main ingredients: 450,000 square feet of office space, 905 residential units and open space spread through the site. Most buildings are low, with two towers of roughly 40 stories in the middle. Pier 48 contains art exhibitions and an organic food market.
Special twist: A beach and a floating swimming pool.
E-mail John King at jking@sfchronicle.com.
|