SAN FRANCISCO | Mission Bay

[Gordo]

^I like the Salesforce bus with doors on the driver's side.

I like the look overall. It will definitely create a unique place easy to describe to someone looking for it

[ElDuderino]

It is definitely a far cry from the rest of the rather generic looking buildings in Mission Bay. It should be good to get some contrast.

[peanut gallery]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^I like the Salesforce bus with doors on the driver's side.

Ha ha! Good eye. Maybe driving on the left will be another interesting quirk of the campus.

[CyberEric]

I approve, the area badly needs some color and fun for contrast.

[San Frangelino]

My only worry is that it will look like a giant version of Pershing Square in L.A.

God, please don't let them put peach colored cement balls randomly across the area.....ppphhhuuuulllleeezz!

[WildCowboy]

I really like it. Bold is sorely needed in the area, and this fits the bill.

Most San Franciscans will hate it...let's hope it survives the process relatively unscathed.

[patriotizzy]

I really like the colors as well. Nice to have a variety in color schemes. It'll make for some cool pictures

[timbad]

Originally Posted by WildCowboy

timbad's going to like this one...

The city has received (PDF) a grant for brownfields cleanup that will allow them to move forward on the Mission Bay Boulevard roundabout and the connector roads under 280, along with park parcel P10 located in the center of the roundabout.

thanks for that, and all the rest, WC! moving forward they are... after weeks of nothing much discernibly new in the area, it looks like something concrete may just happen there soon. looking east under 280, this will be the inbound street:



this is the perspective looking north from the stub end of Owens:

[fflint]

I really like the way this looks. Going just from his UCSF building, Legoretta's bright colors look fantastic on gray days like the ones we get all the time. If built like this, they'll really create a sense of place for Mission Bay.
[/QUOTE]

[KVNBKLYN]

Well, I guess I'll be the lone contrarian: I think this design looks cheap and kitschy. Legoretta is nothing but a corporatized version of Luis Barragan and taking colors, forms and materials that are very much rooted in a specific place, ie, central Mexico, and plopping them down in a very different place with different light and climatic needs is just missing the point of the beauty of regional architecture.

End of rant.

The one good thing about this design is that it really does do a good job of engaging the street. I'm glad they're including retail along Third Street and keeping the campus as open as possible.

Salesforce.com has posted a bunch more renderings on Flickr. Here are a few:









There are a lot more on Flickr along with much, much larger versions of these renderings if you want to get into the detail.

[mahanakorn]

Thanks, KVNBKLN, for the Flicker link. Disagree about the Legoretta colors, however. I think you'll find all Legoretta's colors in the city's elaborately painted Victorians, though certainly not on this scale. (Prior to the 60's, most SF Victorians were painted solid white.)

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by KVNBKLYN

Well, I guess I'll be the lone contrarian: I think this design looks cheap and kitschy. Legoretta is nothing but a corporatized version of Luis Barragan and taking colors, forms and materials that are very much rooted in a specific place, ie, central Mexico, and plopping them down in a very different place with different light and climatic needs is just missing the point of the beauty of regional architecture.

End of rant.

The one good thing about this design is that it really does do a good job of engaging the street. I'm glad they're including retail along Third Street and keeping the campus as open as possible.

Salesforce.com has posted a bunch more renderings on Flickr. Here are a few:

I see where you are coming from, but compared to what used to be there this looks sexy as hell. Build away Salesforce.com

My only problem with the whole Mission Bay development is that I can no longer park at the old driving range for free to go to Giants games....oh well

[rocketman_95046]

I really wish there was a rendering with all four developments put together. UCSF Hospital, Mission Bay, Salesforce, and the Giants development.

[applejacks]

Whoa, I had no idea there was that much open land south of downtown. Hopefully this area will also be inundated with even more residential units as rents are crazy.

[pseudolus]

I have mixed feelings about Salesforce but, from an urbanist perspective, it's so much better than what Apple is proposing.

[Potrero]

Construction should be starting any time now. See Port document

[tommaso]

Originally Posted by ElDuderino

I see where you are coming from, but compared to what used to be there this looks sexy as hell. Build away Salesforce.com

My only problem with the whole Mission Bay development is that I can no longer park at the old driving range for free to go to Giants games....oh well

If S.F.'s just trying to gain tax revenue, wouldn't it just be smarter to upzone this waterfront land and build 20 to 40+ story office towers there? I don't understand why S.F. can't think in these ways. It's not that difficult to figure out that waterfront property is valuable and it isn't a stretch to see how 40+ story office towers can be built right there. All of S.F.'s politics aside, any other great city would have zoned this land specifically for 400 to 1000+ foot towers. It's waterfront land and absolutely not far from the rest of downtown. Logically it can and should be done this way. New York, Chicago and many other cities do it this way. S.F. should never be building office park's or any of the small town stuff they're building in this part of town. Change your zoning laws. Change your mentality. Think big. Be a big city. S.F. is respected. Respect yourself. Build up. Not 6 or 10 stories, build 40, 60 or 80 stories. S.F. will never cease to amaze me when it comes to this type of stuff. Too bad for people who really want S.F. to exist on the level of a Hong Kong or be in the conversation of the most powerful cities in the world. That can never happen so long as the zoning laws favor low rise over high rise especially in the underdeveloped sections of S.F.'s waterfront. Oh well.

Engage in a critical thinking exercise. This isn't the 3rd grade folks.

We shouldn't be here to be the cheerleader for every developer's project. It's about time we wake up and start thinking about how land should really be used in our cities and what the real impact is on the citizens of the place.

[WildCowboy]

^^^Well, for starters, much of Mission Bay (at least the southern portion) is lab/hospital space, which simply doesn't work well (if at all) at those heights.

Not to mention a complete lack of demand for stuff of that size. See how quickly Transbay is coming along? The demand isn't there.

And I even completely disagree on the basic principle of walling off the rest of the city from the waterfront with gigantic towers.

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by tommaso

If S.F.'s just trying to gain tax revenue, wouldn't it just be smarter to upzone this waterfront land and build 20 to 40+ story office towers there? I don't understand why S.F. can't think in these ways. It's not that difficult to figure out that waterfront property is valuable and it isn't a stretch to see how 40+ story office towers can be built right there. All of S.F.'s politics aside, any other great city would have zoned this land specifically for 400 to 1000+ foot towers. It's waterfront land and absolutely not far from the rest of downtown. Logically it can and should be done this way. New York, Chicago and many other cities do it this way. S.F. should never be building office park's or any of the small town stuff they're building in this part of town. Change your zoning laws. Change your mentality. Think big. Be a big city. S.F. is respected. Respect yourself. Build up. Not 6 or 10 stories, build 40, 60 or 80 stories. S.F. will never cease to amaze me when it comes to this type of stuff. Too bad for people who really want S.F. to exist on the level of a Hong Kong or be in the conversation of the most powerful cities in the world. That can never happen so long as the zoning laws favor low rise over high rise especially in the underdeveloped sections of S.F.'s waterfront. Oh well.

Engage in a critical thinking exercise. This isn't the 3rd grade folks.

We shouldn't be here to be the cheerleader for every developer's project. It's about time we wake up and start thinking about how land should really be used in our cities and what the real impact is on the citizens of the place.

I don't disagree completely, and I am all for making good use of SF's space; continuing to grow the urban core around public transport, creating density not sprawl, but some of your comments ring untrue to me. Saying "Any other great city..." is just not true and sounds silly. Being a great city has little to do with buildings on the waterfront.

You say "change your mentality." The mentality in SF is unique, and obnoxious at times, but it is one part of what has made it a great city. No one is going to change their mentality just so they can rah rah about a few more 40 story buildings near the water. One of the goals may be to gain tax revenue, but empty high rises aren't going to do it. San Francisco already has too much expensive housing, the last thing needed is more.

I like the idea of building good projects along the waterfront, and I think this is one of them. Blasting it for not being all 40 story high rises just doesn't seem prudent.

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

I don't disagree completely, and I am all for making good use of SF's space; continuing to grow the urban core around public transport, creating density not sprawl, but some of your comments ring untrue to me. Saying "Any other great city..." is just not true and sounds silly. Being a great city has little to do with buildings on the waterfront.

You say "change your mentality." The mentality in SF is unique, and obnoxious at times, but it is one part of what has made it a great city. No one is going to change their mentality just so they can rah rah about a few more 40 story buildings near the water. One of the goals may be to gain tax revenue, but empty high rises aren't going to do it. San Francisco already has too much expensive housing, the last thing needed is more.

I like the idea of building good projects along the waterfront, and I think this is one of them. Blasting it for not being all 40 story high rises just doesn't seem prudent.

Not to mention that San Francisco already has an area that is zoned for high rise residential in SOMA. We have seen some big residential projects near the waterfront go up recently in the Infinity and One Rincon Hill, but the demand is just not there right now for much more. When the demand increases there is still plenty of space in SOMA for large scale projects. It seems silly to me to keep Mission Bay as a wasteland because we want to reserved it for larger development decades down the line. The current zoning is allowing companies to move to and expand in San Francisco which brings in a good deal of revenue for the city.