SAN FRANCISCO | Projects: Under Construction, Approved, and Proposed

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Re: blandness of the buildings

Why should architecture in this area be outrageous? I think that the restaurants will fit in perfectly, as they are not flashy so as to deduct from the natural beauty of the area with the parks and the bay, bay bridge, etc. They are simplistic, modern, clean, and simple. I like them. They could be a lot worse! Hopefully they will detract from that horrible fisher price bow and arrow set nearby, though

I agree and think that the design is good for the setting. Not seeing the bay from the street in that area does take some getting used to however and I didn't like it when I first saw it.

[kenratboy]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Re: blandness of the buildings

Why should architecture in this area be outrageous? I think that the restaurants will fit in perfectly, as they are not flashy so as to deduct from the natural beauty of the area with the parks and the bay, bay bridge, etc. They are simplistic, modern, clean, and simple. I like them. They could be a lot worse! Hopefully they will detract from that horrible fisher price bow and arrow set nearby, though

Yup, thats exactly what I was going to post!

Those buildings look like the San Francisco I love. Simple, clean, honest architecture, not fancy, weird crap. I love the pre-war architecture, the Art Deco look.

As for the $18MM - the buildings probably only cost a few million, I bet almost all the money is being spent on the infrastructure (utilities, land prep, and all that stuff) as well as the fact they are building in SF, and they never make that easy!

[murrax]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

Yup, thats exactly what I was going to post!

Those buildings look like the San Francisco I love. Simple, clean, honest architecture, not fancy, weird crap. I love the pre-war architecture, the Art Deco look.

As for the $18MM - the buildings probably only cost a few million, I bet almost all the money is being spent on the infrastructure (utilities, land prep, and all that stuff) as well as the fact they are building in SF, and they never make that easy!

Can't they just leave this area alone , every square inch of open space in S.F seems to be a target for greedy developers or commerce, this is a beautiful waterfront location with open views , aren't there enough resturents in the area and the city without having to sacrifice San Francisco's natural beauty for two bland buildings and high priced face stuffing and mor traffic.

[tyler82]

Originally Posted by murrax

Can't they just leave this area alone , every square inch of open space in S.F seems to be a target for greedy developers or commerce, this is a beautiful waterfront location with open views , aren't there enough resturents in the area and the city without having to sacrifice San Francisco's natural beauty for two bland buildings and high priced face stuffing and mor traffic.

I might agree with you if this area actually were a "beautiful waterfront location," but right now it's just a dirt path with some beach weed grass and a tacky plastic bow and arrow sticking up. Really, what are they destroying by building here? You will still be able to walk along the waterfront just the same.

[LWR]

Originally Posted by tyler82

I might agree with you if this area actually were a "beautiful waterfront location," but right now it's just a dirt path with some beach weed grass and a tacky plastic bow and arrow sticking up...

I've always disliked that bow and arrow.

[murrax]

Sorry about getting away from the highrise for a moment, after the earthquake the city got the embarcadero back with it's great vistas. It was then realised that building a double deck skyway there was a horrendous vision, from what I am aware long term plans for the Embarcadero waterfont involves alot of development, they seem bent on making the same mistakes all over again.
It is an exciting time in the city for the current highrise projects

[kenratboy]

Originally Posted by murrax

Can't they just leave this area alone , every square inch of open space in S.F seems to be a target for greedy developers or commerce, this is a beautiful waterfront location with open views , aren't there enough resturents in the area and the city without having to sacrifice San Francisco's natural beauty for two bland buildings and high priced face stuffing and mor traffic.

Well, there still will be a lot of open area around there - actually, I was there a few months ago, and it almost seemed TOO open, it would be nice to have some small restaurants and shops (but NOT tourist traps!!!) right there, similar to what the Ferry Build provides. Just because there is stuff a block or two away doesn't mean additions to this area are bad.

Also, the reality is in the city, you know this property had to go thru 1001 approvals and boards, and its not like the 'greedy' developer 'got his way', I'm sure the city was calling the shots in terms of their vision of the area.

[fflint]

San Francisco has a higher ratio of open space to developed land than any other city in America except New York. The whole "greedy developers are taking away all our open space" line--we're talking about building a grand total of two ground-hugging single-story buildings along the newly-reclaimed waterfront--is laughable and counterfactual.

[fflint]

Anyway, here's a couple aerials I found recently showing many current projects under construction (although they're obviously a little old):


http://freelargephotos.com/001142_l.jpg


http://freelargephotos.com/001141_l.jpg

[roadwarrior]

Originally Posted by fflint

San Francisco has a higher ratio of open space to developed land than any other city in America except New York. The whole "greedy developers are taking away all our open space" line--we're talking about building a grand total of two ground-hugging single-story buildings along the newly-reclaimed waterfront--is laughable and counterfactual.

Yes, but that is including "untouchable" areas such as Golden Gate Park and other spots in the city. If you look at newly developing areas around Rincon Hill, this neighborhood is desperately in need of additional park areas.

[rocketman_95046]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

Yes, but that is including "untouchable" areas such as Golden Gate Park and other spots in the city. If you look at newly developing areas around Rincon Hill, this neighborhood is desperately in need of additional park areas.

Already done,,, the approved rincon hill & transbay plans include new parks allong with the "greedy developments"

[The_Analyst]

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

Already done,,, the approved rincon hill & transbay plans include new parks allong with the "greedy developments"

Not sure that this very small plot of land with a couple restaurants along a waterfront is that bad of a problem. I walk through the area all the time and this doesn't seem that intrusive or out of place.

That aerial photo reminds me, though: what we really need to talk about is what to do with Piers 30-32. Since it looks like the proposed Cruise Ship terminal is bound for Pier 27 (which is a more ideal location for tourists) what can be done with 30-32? To leave it as a barren asphault occasional outdoor party spot a few times a year seems like a waste to me. Could it not be improved into some kind of better public recreational facility?

[fflint]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

Yes, but that is including "untouchable" areas such as Golden Gate Park and other spots in the city. If you look at newly developing areas around Rincon Hill, this neighborhood is desperately in need of additional park areas.

Anyone who makes the conscious choice to reside in downtown San Francisco--including the new Rincon Hill neighborhood--cannot expect to find acres and acres of grass nearby. That said, if such a resident wishes for some open space and does not find the miles and miles of open bayfront promenades suitable for his needs, he can walk to Justin Herman Plaza, South Park, Yerba Buena Gardens, or Union Square. If those open spaces aren't good enough, he can hop on Muni and in short order enjoy nearly perfect solitude over miles and miles of open green space or miles and miles of mostly vacant beaches.

Personally, I think we're more in danger of having too much under-used and unused open space in this city than too little. And no, I'm not just talking about the giant greens on the west side. In most areas, on most days, residents clearly do not "desperately need" to spend a single minute on damp grass under gray skies in the howling wind. Most existing neighborhood parks are well-spaced and well-established--but nearly unused. I challenge the notion that this city should be pockmarked with dead zones because somehow those dead zones are necessary. They clearly aren't. Isn't the waterfront enough open space for downtown?

[Reminiscence]

I think fflint has it right. Areas such as those mentioned are within a reasonably close proximity to the areas under development now. Parks are a good thing of course, but too much of a good thing is not. For as much as I know, I have no problem at all with the proposed waterfront development.

[kenratboy]

In all fairness, Union Square isn't exactly 'open space' in the sense of a park. I even read some article on SF Gate (their MASSIVE piece of SF redevelopment) that said how the space really isn't used as well as it could and was not all that inviting/intimate (which is fine when you consider the area).

[fflint]

In all fairness, Union Square is totally open and a great use of the space. Better than it has ever been in my 34 years in the area, at least.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

In all fairness, Union Square isn't exactly 'open space' in the sense of a park. I even read some article on SF Gate (their MASSIVE piece of SF redevelopment) that said how the space really isn't used as well as it could and was not all that inviting/intimate (which is fine when you consider the area).

in all fairness ( ) as a resident of san francisco who lives and works within walking distance of union square, who shops in the district regularly, union square is open space, and it is very well used.

could it be better? sure. it's not perfect. nothing is. but it really is a good open space for the city in every way that really counts.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by kenratboy

As for the $18MM - the buildings probably only cost a few million, I bet almost all the money is being spent on the infrastructure (utilities, land prep, and all that stuff) as well as the fact they are building in SF, and they never make that easy!

Just to remind everyone, the buildings themselves are being put up by The Gap as a condition of being allowed to build their HQ building across the street several years ago. The interior buildout is the only cost to Pat Koleto.

Murrax--This was part of the plan for this part of the Embarcadero right from the start. It isn't a "messing with" the Embarcadero in any way. That's why this lot stayed bare dirt until they started building the restaurants while much of the other waterfront land was landscaped.

As for future development on the Embarcadero, on the Bay side of the roadway it's all low rise (mostly rehabilitation of existing piers) and will not impede views. In fact, it is intended to make some of the piers more accessible to and certainly more used by the public such as the new recreational facilities on piers 27-31 (I think it is). On the land side of the roadway, there are a few lots suitable for hotel or residential projects. But this is all port land and in order to do its job of maintaining the entire waterfront, the Port needs more sources of steady income such as it will get from leasing the rehabbed piers and land-side building lots.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior

Yes, but that is including "untouchable" areas such as Golden Gate Park and other spots in the city. If you look at newly developing areas around Rincon Hill, this neighborhood is desperately in need of additional park areas.

And it will get them. A park on Folsom (as I recall, on the 300 block) is part of the plan.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by The_Analyst

That aerial photo reminds me, though: what we really need to talk about is what to do with Piers 30-32. Since it looks like the proposed Cruise Ship terminal is bound for Pier 27 (which is a more ideal location for tourists) what can be done with 30-32? To leave it as a barren asphault occasional outdoor party spot a few times a year seems like a waste to me. Could it not be improved into some kind of better public recreational facility?

Recall that a large part of the reason the plans for the cruise terminal appear to be changing is that it would be too costly to rehab piers 30-32 for a modern use. If it's too costly to do it for a profitable venture, it's almost certainly too costly to do it for a public purpose or a non-profit purpose. My guess is this pier will eventually either be torn down or, like a few other piers have done, catch on fire and self-destruct (producing a lot of noxious smoke).