SAN FRANCISCO | Mission Bay - Page 12

livin' in the city · #**221** Posted **Apr 14, 2008, 8:34 PM**

In other words loose the House of Blues. The space should be more dynamic to both the dreaded tourist and local citizen a like than a primarily "closed" residential cluster. Somewhere in b/t these proposals lies the answer.

BTinSF · #**222** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 1:22 AM**

More of the Arterra visible per Socketsite:

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

viewguysf · #**223** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 4:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

More of the Arterra visible per Socketsite:

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

It's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder...the covering looks more interesting to me.

BTinSF · #**224** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 3:52 PM**

Radiance at Mission Bay (Phase I):

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

Well, it IS better looking than the Arterra.

NYC2ATX · #**225** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 1:15 AM**

I disagree. Arterra looks WAY better.

viewguysf · #**226** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 2:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Radiance at Mission Bay (Phase I):

Source: http://www.socketsite.com/

Well, it IS better looking than the Arterra.

Yes, somewhat. Is it going to have any color added to it? Right now it looks rather like a contemporary version of Opera Plaza.

peanut gallery · #**227** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 5:42 PM**

It has some color on it. This was taken from the other side. The area to the right that is red and silver will be solid red:

Like this:

And if you think there's a lack of color on Phase I, I'm afraid you'll like Phase II even less:

Personally, I like the limited accent colors on Phase I. And I like the way it will contrast against the much lighter Phase II.

There are a lot more photos (interior shots too) and information at:
SF New Developments.

peanut gallery · #**228** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 5:46 PM**

I saw this cool model of SF yesterday, including Mission Bay:

It's a little out of date, but still interesting to look at. I put shots of the rest of the model in the SF Rundown thread.

I shot this down in Mission Bay yesterday and don't have time to figure out what it is. Can someone identify it please?

BTW, those are piles for Radiance Phase II in the foreground.

WildCowboy · #**229** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

I shot this down in Mission Bay yesterday and don't have time to figure out what it is. Can someone identify it please?

That's UCSF's Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Research Building on Block 17C. (Yes, it's a mouthful..."The Diller Building" will be sufficient.) Scheduled to open late this year.

There's a piledriver just to the west of the Diller Building (Block 17 A/B) driving test piles for the Cardiovascular Research Building. Scheduled to open in late 2010.

UCSF is also pursuing a developer to design and build a neuroscience research building to be sited just west of Rock Hall (Block 19A) on the Mission Bay campus. They hope to have that open by the end of 2010 as well under an accelerated timeline.

rocketman_95046 · #**230** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 6:03 PM**

^
Great to hear that UCSF is moving at full speed. It will really help move more people into the neighborhood.

BTinSF · #**231** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 6:23 PM**

"17C, 19A etc". Here, once again for the feeble-minded like me:

Source: http://www.socketsite.com

BTinSF · #**232** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 6:27 PM**

By the way, WildCowboy et al: When is Mission Bay Blvd due to get its landscaping as shown in all the graphics and models?

peanut gallery · #**233** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 8:39 PM**

The east end (next to Radiance) is done, but still fenced off. West of there it didn't look started yet, but I didn't look that closely.

twinpeaks · #**234** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 8:55 PM**

It's unfortunate that the buildings are so short in Mission Bay. It almost like an office park without parking (thank goodness) Such a waste of valuable land especially when there is housing crunch. It should have been more dense/taller. probably too late to change anything.

WildCowboy · #**235** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTinSF

By the way, WildCowboy et al: When is Mission Bay Blvd due to get its landscaping as shown in all the graphics and models?

As p.g. mentioned, the easternmost block has been done for several years now, but is fenced off. I have to imagine they will open it up as Radiance Phase I opens and 500 Terry Francois (the "brick" one on 26a) gets commercial tenants to move in there.

No clue when the rest of it will be done, but I'd hope it will be in conjunction with Mission Bay Boulevard itself as that goes in west of Third. And that will have to happen (at least the block of it between Third and Fourth) by the time UCSF's cardiovascular building opens in 2010, if not sooner.

We've been waiting quite some time for them to finish up a number of streets in the area. Seems like most of the infrastructure has been laid for the entire length of Fourth Street and for the blocks of Mission Rock and Rincon between Third and Fourth (surrounding Block 4 where 555 Mission Rock is going up). Even the light poles have been installed for much of the stretch.

BTW, here's the latest on the proposed construction schedule for the UCSF hospital. Surcharging of some of the open space areas may start as soon as late this year...so lots of dump trucks piling up the dirt. Construction may start on the outpatient building in late 2009 and be completed by late 2011. The rest of the hospital would start in late 2010 and be completed in time for a late 2014 opening. The parking garage would start in late 2012 to be ready for the 2014 opening. I assume this means that the outpatient services will be up and running well before the hospital...I don't have confirmation of this, and this construction schedule is the first indication I've seen of that possibility.

peanut gallery · #**236** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 9:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

It's unfortunate that the buildings are so short in Mission Bay. It almost like an office park without parking (thank goodness) Such a waste of valuable land especially when there is housing crunch. It should have been more dense/taller. probably too late to change anything.

As I recall, this is a result of comments/complaints from Potrero Hill residents. Other than the Seawall Lot, I don't think anything is slated to be taller than ~15 stories with most buildings under 10.

BTinSF · #**237** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 11:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

It's unfortunate that the buildings are so short in Mission Bay. It almost like an office park without parking (thank goodness) Such a waste of valuable land especially when there is housing crunch. It should have been more dense/taller. probably too late to change anything.

It's not only too late, it would be politically impossible. There were to be some highrises in some of the early designs of Mission Bay. One was the UC dorm building. But the good dwellers of Potrero Hill, believing their views would be adversely impacted, put the screws to then State Senator and Democratic political machine honcho John Burton who got everything shortened. And shortened it will stay--you can bet on that (unless there were to be a radical change in the make-up of the Board of Supervisors and SF's delegation to the state legislature.)

WildCowboy · #**238** Posted **Apr 19, 2008, 2:33 AM**

Burton threatened to block state funding of UC if UCSF didn't lower the height of the building from 17 stories and 165 feet. So we have 15 stories and 145 feet in the tower.

Of course, 1455 Third Street, the building that will be directly across the street from that tower, was zoned for 165 feet and the actual design calls for 159 feet.

165 feet is the the maximum height allowable within Mission Bay, and that's only in a few selected spots...I believe the general rule is 10% of the area.

BTinSF · #**239** Posted **Apr 19, 2008, 5:53 AM**

^^^The UC dorm building was the tallest proposal within Mission Bay that I am aware of and I think it was pretty clear to everyone after what happened with it that anything else at 165 feet or in any way taller than the dorm ended up would not fly.

It'll be interesting to see where 1455 Third ends up (Aaron Peskin, are you listening?).

WildCowboy · #**240** Posted **Apr 19, 2008, 5:26 PM**

Actually, I was wrong on that location...1455 Third is across the street and one block north of the UCSF housing. But it was approved by the Planning Commission over a year ago and test piles were driven last year (at least I'm pretty sure those tests included 1455), so I'd be awfully surprised if we saw something less than 159 feet there.

Also noticed that Alexandria is building out a small space on the ground floor of 1700 Owens to be used for wooing tenants for 1500 Owens. There are three large posters now visible inside there advertising availability for early 2009 and with partial renderings of the building.