SAN FRANCISCO | Mission Bay

[timbad]

the draft EIR for the Fourth St Public Plaza proposed as part of the Medical Center is available here:

http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/pdf/F...DF_2-14-12.pdf

(17+Mb, only a few juicy figures and diagrams buried deep in the middle)

[pseudolus]

Definitely doesn't look like any place I'd want to walk around or linger in.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by timbad

the draft EIR for the Fourth St Public Plaza proposed as part of the Medical Center is available here:

http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/pdf/F...DF_2-14-12.pdf

(17+Mb, only a few juicy figures and diagrams buried deep in the middle)

Yeah, UCSF, way to fuck up the neighborhood. Horrible.

[WildCowboy]

Not sure I see the problem with the plaza. What's the objection?

They want to turn what was supposed to be an asphalt road into a little gathering place. It's a difficult spot that will eventually be wedged into a canyon between two hospital building and with pedestrian bridges overheard. And they won't own the land, so they're limited in what they can do and the investments they can make in it.

[peanut gallery]

I have two issues with it:

1. The mixed-use pathway won't really work for pedestrians or bikers. You're never going to keep people in those lanes. There's plenty of room to separate those usages on either side of one of those rows of trees.

2.Who's going to want to hang out in an amphitheater in that location, especially once the pedestrian bridge is in place? It will almost always be in shadow and the bridge will feel like it's looming over you. It makes sense to create space where patients and visitors will feel comfortable spending time outside, but I don't think this will be one of those.

The north cul-de-sac looks difficult to get to yet takes up so much room. I wonder if they could get away with just the south drop-off? Even if it had to be bigger, it would take less space than having two. Removing the north drop-off allows you to move the amphitheater (or some other outdoor waiting area) further away from the south bridge. If you stick with the south-facing amphitheater, being close to the north bridge won't be an issue, which opens even more space.

It's a challenging space to work with. But I think they can make it better than this.

[timbad]

my initial brief reaction was that, given its location between two massive pieces of a medical complex, the area was never going to be a place I as a member of the public was gonna want to linger in much anyway - I am OK with 'ceding' it mostly to the patients (and staff) of the complex. however, as pg mentioned, I think making the thoroughfare at least work and be as pleasant as possible is important, especially since there will be a park at its southern end. and of course, this is the draft, so hopefully there will be some good constructive weigh-in that will result in improvements.

* * *

elsewhere, work continues in the courtyard behind the CVRB...it's kinda hard to tell very well from the south (Nelson Rising Ln) what is happening:



...but approaching from the north (Mission Bay Blvd and Commons), the pathway between the CVRB and Diller Cancer building is done:



...and walking down to the end of it you get a better visual of the progress with the paving stones in the courtyard itself:



another view, looking to the right thru the fence visible in the previous pic:



jumping around a bit, it looks like they're getting ready to drive more piles at the public safety site (looking northwest from China Basin St, with block 2 in the distance):



... and speaking of the medical center, we haven't had a shot from the roof of the South St Garage in a while, so:

[RST500]

Why are there no highrises in the Project? Its much like a suburban office park.

[Trojan]

The blocks seem long too, not too good for promoting walking.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by RST500

Why are there no highrises in the Project? Its much like a suburban office park.

master planning agreement with city and original developer. 85 ft. height limitation unless a conditional use permit requested, such as for the student housing. Private developers are building a few high-rises near the ballpark, but most development will be in the 85/90 ft. height limit.

Most of the infill and urban developments are on the exterior of the UCSF campus. You were looking at lots of shots of the campus, not the entire Mission Bay development.

[WildCowboy]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

master planning agreement with city and original developer. 85 ft. height limitation unless a conditional use permit requested, such as for the student housing. Private developers are building a few high-rises near the ballpark, but most development will be in the 85/90 ft. height limit.

The plan itself calls for a maximum of 160 feet, but that is limited to only a small portion of each area...ranging from 7-15% depending on which zone of Mission Bay you're in. For commercial zones, the max is 90 feet for all other construction. In residential areas, you're looking at the vast majority (75-80%) limited to 65 feet then about 10% at 90 feet.

The reasons for limited heights are several...one being a desire to create a bit of a stepping down approaching the waterfront. Potrero Hill neighbors in particular didn't want their views of the bay obscured by the development. In fact, John Burton threatened to hold the entire state portion of the UC budget hostage until UCSF lowered the height of its residential tower by 20 feet.

Another factor, at least in the southern portion, is the fact that much of the space was envisioned as being for biotech companies. Lab space doesn't do well with height...larger floor plates are better for minimal vertical movement of equipment and people, and ventilation needs become harder to meet as you go higher. It certainly can be done, but it's more expensive and you lose more floor space to mechanical and piping just to get everything properly ventilated. Similar thinking applies to the hospital...much easier to roll patients down a hallway than having to wait for an elevator.

[timbad]

they've striped the roads in the roundabout area... here the inbound one, by day:



... and the outbound one, at dusk:



and as seen from Owens on the south side:



benches have begun to be installed in the courtyard behind the CVRB:



and an official ONESF sign has gone up at the site of the public safety building:

[timbad]

a couple of years ago, we discussed the Bluepeter building, and the effort at the time to preserve it for inclusion in the open space that would surround it. I hadn't heard any news since then, but this shot from today clearly points to the outcome:

[KVNBKLYN]

So much for the Salesforce campus. They're postponing it indefinitely:

From Socketsite:

Poised to receive Planning's approval to move forward with the first four buildings at the center of their proposed 14-acre campus in South Mission Bay this week, Salesforce.com has just killed any near-term plans for the massive development.

According to the Business Times, Salesforce "needs space faster than it can build it and thus will focus its efforts on expanding into existing buildings in downtown San Francisco."

[WildCowboy]

You'd think if they were expanding that fast that they'd keep moving forward on the MB campus even while they're taking more space in existing buildings. It's a 2 million SF campus...where are they going to find that kind of space in existing buildings?

Something smells fishy here...

[minesweeper]

I agree that the math just doesn't add up; there isn't 2 million SF of downtown office space available. I think they have something up their sleeve, and hopefully it's good news.

They just signed an 18-year 400,000 SF lease at 50 Fremont, and have the option to buy the building in 5 years. Even if they eventually take over that whole building, that's only 900,000 SF or so. But, right across the street from 50 Fremont is the site of the fully-entitled 350 Mission, which would offer an additional 350,000 SF. Nearby are proposed towers at 50 First and the Transbay Tower, each of which would provide over 1 million SF. Of course, none of those are built yet, which doesn't square with their claim that they "need space faster than it can build it."

For Mission Bay, this is a definite blow in the short term. Long term, I think it may be a good thing. The Salesforce suburban office park never felt like a good fit to me.

[mt_climber13]

This neighborhood would have been dated 30 years ago. Looks like crap.

[fflint]

Upon reflection, I'm not too bummed about the Salesforce switch. Consider:

*Something like 3,000 workers will easily gobble up empty office space in the Financial District, which will give investors the green light to consider new office construction that is, shall we say, shovel ready but currently without financing.

*Concentrating workers at 50 Fremont and nearby towers will help stabilize downtown's retail and restaurant scene, which has been a bit forlorn since the recession eliminated thousands of FiDi jobs and resulted in a lot of closures.

*Office workers in downtown San Francisco skyscrapers almost always utilize public transportation, because the area is much, much better served by public transit than Mission Bay will ever be--Muni, BART, Golden Gate Transit, and AC Transit all have hubs within easy walking distance of 50 Fremont. It's a perfect location for transit users, and will only get moreso with the arrival of the new Transbay Terminal.

*I wasn't against Salesforce developing its campus in Mission Bay, and they're saying they still intend to do so down the road, but thinking long-term I'd prefer Mission Bay not merely be a low-rise extension of the Financial District office market. It would be better for the city's economy if we had developable land for bio-science labs and other uses that aren't suited to downtown skyscrapers, IMO.

[RST500]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

master planning agreement with city and original developer. 85 ft. height limitation unless a conditional use permit requested, such as for the student housing. Private developers are building a few high-rises near the ballpark, but most development will be in the 85/90 ft. height limit.

Most of the infill and urban developments are on the exterior of the UCSF campus. You were looking at lots of shots of the campus, not the entire Mission Bay development.

Thats about 8 stories. I checked out the area on google maps. There is still a lot of empty space left. Are there any renderings on future projects there?

[WildCowboy]

Originally Posted by RST500

Thats about 8 stories. I checked out the area on google maps. There is still a lot of empty space left. Are there any renderings on future projects there?

Read through this thread...lots of info. Virtually all the land is spoken for, and plans/renderings have been put together for most of the projects. Of course, who knows what will end up being built. The Salesforce campus had a whole plan laid out by Alexandria and had detailed plans for a number of buildings in the works when they sold it to Salesforce.

[peanut gallery]

Damn, fflint, I was going to write a very similar point about the Salesforce.com news, though not nearly as detailed nor eloquent. After first thinking about the bad news for MB, I quickly realized this could be a huge boon to the FiDi and to the chances for more than one proposed office tower to get built.

One thing I don't get is their stated reason: can't wait for new construction. Maybe they meant can't wait for the entirety of the process from where they are in MB vs. an already entitled building that could be started a little more quickly. But in the grand scheme of things, how much time is that really? And why would they word it like that anyway? Seems like they would have said they need something further along, rather then comparing new to existing. There has to be something more. Perhaps they got word that someone is about to give up a lot of space they can take over? I certainly hope not. I'd rather they filled already vacant space, adding pressure for new construction. Can't wait to see how this plays out.