HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted Feb 29, 2008, 8:26 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,028
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted Feb 29, 2008, 9:36 PM
Reminiscence's Avatar
Reminiscence Reminiscence is offline
Green Berniecrat
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Richmond/Eureka, CA
Posts: 1,689
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.
__________________
Reject the lesser evil and fight for the greater good like our lives depend on it, because they do!
-- Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party Presidential Candidate
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2008, 12:27 AM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reminiscence View Post
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.
You're welcome, Reminiscence.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2008, 4:06 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,837
the giants proposal has grown on me

ill be happy with anything but federal developments proposal
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2008, 7:59 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbay420 View Post
the giants proposal has grown on me

ill be happy with anything but federal developments proposal
With no practical means of providing wheelchair accessible ramps from the sidewalk up to the roof park, and removal of fall hazards surrounding the entire perimeter of the site, without drastically effecting the design, I doubt Federal Development's proposal can be approved anywhere in the United States. I think they lost their ball out into the street with this one, almost literally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2008, 8:09 PM
coyotetrickster's Avatar
coyotetrickster coyotetrickster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFView View Post
With no practical means of providing wheelchair accessible ramps from the sidewalk up to the roof park, and removal of fall hazards surrounding the entire perimeter of the site, without drastically effecting the design, I doubt Federal Development's proposal can be approved anywhere in the United States. I think they lost their ball out into the street with this one, almost literally.
Federal's proposal makes me wonder if it's offices are headquartered in a timewarp. It is too reminiscent of the arrogant, distancing approach of public housing. The sop of an elevated park over a parking structure that must be above the water table is frankly insulting. The planning commission will look at the Federal's proposal for about 30-seconds (tops), the circular file...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2008, 11:43 PM
SFView SFView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,028
Kenwood Investments has appeared to have updated their proposal:



...As well as Federal Development:



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:
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.
You may also view reader comments here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MNHHVBISJ.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2008, 12:13 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2008, 2:44 AM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
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.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2008, 4:34 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2008, 5:08 AM
POLA's Avatar
POLA POLA is offline
urbanphile
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Western Addition
Posts: 2,147
anything but the feds... that should go in the worst proposal thread!
__________________
I'll make no subscription to your paradise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2008, 4:45 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^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.
I'm still skeptical because everything I've read says the port is even more desperate for funding (just to update and maintain their existing properties) than Transbay. I also read that this is their most valuable resource to close some of that gap. If anything, I would think this property would be even more susceptible to going to the highest bidder above all other considerations. On the other hand, I should keep in mind that the differences in the bids for Transbay were huge. If these come in anywhere near each other, hopefully the decision can be made on some of those other factors, like design and functionality.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Mar 6, 2008, 10:50 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 495
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 3:02 AM
KVNBKLYN KVNBKLYN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 336
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:


From the north:


More images at mchoey's flickr page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/1397517...7602476365514/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 3:15 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
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:


Source: www.socketsite.com

So I take it Radiance II, as depicted above, will take up all of Block 10??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 3:19 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 652
Question? Is phase 2 of The Radiance under construction? I thought I remember seeing pictures of pile driving being done for it.
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 3:24 AM
KVNBKLYN KVNBKLYN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by San Frangelino View Post
Question? Is phase 2 of The Radiance under construction? I thought I remember seeing pictures of pile driving being done for it.
I believe it is. The piles have all been driven. At the very least, sales have started for it, hence the model in the sales center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 3:28 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,095
^^^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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 3:44 AM
KVNBKLYN KVNBKLYN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
^^^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?
Yes, that's Block 10. To orient yourself, you can see the esplanade on Mission Blvd in the view from the southwest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2008, 5:38 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 495
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:45 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.