Thanks for posting those pictures SFView :)
I continue to support my two original choices, they have the most detail integrated with them. The other two proposals are so plain and boring, a part of me would rather keep whats there right now than to see those come to rise. More frowning architecture is not what we need here. I just hope the Giants are willing to open up the wallet a little for this one. They dont spend much for players, so at least make this happen. |
Quote:
I'm pretty much with you on your choices so far. Overall the Giants renderings are very impressive. The open spaces are nicely situated for potential outdoor events. The rendering depictions are vibrant with activity. There is also green everywhere, including the rooftops. The Build Inc. renderings are a bit sketchier, but the architecture looks of especially nice quality, and might be potentially more interesting. Build Inc.'s site plan looks very well thought out, with view axes oriented in sensibly attractive ways. The larger open spaces are more nestled between the piers to the east. That's okay, but I'm not sure if that would encourage as much outdoor activity as the Giants scheme. It's understandable that the Giants might have the slight edge in knowing about successful outdoor activity. |
the giants proposal has grown on me
ill be happy with anything but federal developments proposal |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Kenwood Investments has appeared to have updated their proposal:
http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...hinabasin2.jpg ...As well as Federal Development: http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...hinabasin4.jpg The Giants and Build Inc. proposals appear to have remained unchanged. Above images and Chronicle story below from: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNHHVBISJ.DTL Quote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNHHVBISJ.DTL |
^^^Except for the fact that he gives too little respect to the Build, Inc proposal and maybe too much to Kenwood/Boston Props, I pretty much agree with Mr. King on this one (and I'm quite shocked by that fact).
Looking only at the Giants proposal, I really like the smaller/tighter street grid and the dissimilarity among the buildings so that they look like they were not "planned" in the sense that they very definitely are. It reminds me almost of a modernistic version of the New Orleans French Quarter--a tight, vibrant, busy little enclave within a larger city. And King is right--the park does work very well here. |
This is all very interesting and a lot of fun to think about, but when do we find out how much each team is offering for the development rights? Then I'll know which proposal to which I should start getting accustomed.
|
^^^In this case, it's more about politics than money. In the case of the TransBay tower, they need money to build the terminal and still don't have enough so they had little choice but to pick the developer who offered them far and away the most money. In this case, while the Port can use every dime it can get out of this site, there's no fixed requirement and they have the luxury of basing their decision on other considerations. In SF, "other considerations" usually involve political clout and from everything I read the Giants are pretty well wired in that department, certainly as compared to the other options.
|
anything but the feds... that should go in the worst proposal thread!
|
Quote:
|
Quick update from me on MB South goings-on.
That parking lot I've mentioned a couple of times at the corner of 16th and 3rd has been paved and striped, so it should be about ready for business. It looks like it may be contiguous with the Old Navy parking lot just northeast of it, so I'd bet they'll just pull down some fencing and make it one big lot. I know the existing lot is frequently full. I almost wonder if it has something to do with providing a place for the cars that currently park along Terry Francois in anticipation of them starting to reroute that section of the road, but that's probably just wishful thinking. Piledriving is done on what I still think is a parking garage directly west of the Old Navy building as well. One piledriver is gone and the other is parked along 3rd. They've moved on to the foundation work. Third and fourth levels of steel going up on 1500 Owens. There's also a small façade mockup nearby. Windows are in on most of the second and third floors of the south and west faces of the UCSF's cancer building on Block 17. The contractors are cleaning up most of their laydown area on the rest of that block in anticipation of the beginning of construction on the new 240,000-sqft cardiovascular research building. The last I heard it was supposed to start construction in April, so it looks like that may still hold true. UCSF is also moving forward with a neuroscience building on the western part of Block 19, adjacent to the existing Rock Hall. This project has been delayed many times now due to a lack of funding, as well as timeline issues as funding came in to support other projects and bumped this one down the list. But they've committed to putting the building up ASAP, so they're planning to ground lease the site to a developer who will bear the upfront costs and lease the building back to the university. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out for a site right in the middle of campus...hope it appears seamless to the users. Still trying to get you guys some of the latest renderings of the hospital. I have some older ones, but things have changed significantly over the last six weeks or so. Everything is still very much in flux. |
There are some images on Flickr posted by mchoey of a model of the building going up at Third Street and Mission Bay Blvd, phase II of the Radiance condo.
From the southwest: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2293/...1ded0e_b_d.jpg From the north: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2002/...3edde8_b_d.jpg More images at mchoey's flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/1397517...7602476365514/ |
I wish there was a way to sticky this at the top of every page because I can't be the only one who finds it impossible to remember which block is which etc:
http://www.socketsite.com/archives/M...0Bay%20Map.jpg Source: www.socketsite.com So I take it Radiance II, as depicted above, will take up all of Block 10?? |
Question? Is phase 2 of The Radiance under construction? I thought I remember seeing pictures of pile driving being done for it.
|
Quote:
|
^^^I think the darker yellow in the graphic I posted is intended to represent buildings built or under construction at the time it was done--so that would indicate both phases of radiance under construction.
Again, I ask--the model of Radiance II posted is going up on Block 10, right? |
Quote:
|
Sorry about the block numbers...I've got them all in my head, so I've got to remember that not everyone else spends their days wandering through them.
Just so we're all clear, yes, Radiance Phase II is all of Block 10. Phase I is Block 10a. Piledriving on Phase II finished up just over two months ago, and there has been no additional work since then. I haven't heard when they plan to start on the rest of the foundation. The pieces of their two tower cranes are still sitting in their trailer area over on Channel Street...can't be cheap to have them just sitting there. Oh, and they removed the exterior lift on the shorter of the two "towers" (the northern one) on Phase I today. The other lift is still up on the taller, southern tower. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.