San Francisco's SWL 337 Site Map
The Port of San Francisco is now calling on “experienced development teams” to respond to their official “Request for Developer Qualifications/Proposals” (RFQ/P) for the 16 acres that comprise San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337. The stated goal:

[T]o bring forth cutting edge and integrated approaches in sustainable architectural, landscaping and urban design, [and] to create a shoreline park and open space network with a mix of activities that inspires and stimulates the human spirit, and celebrate public views and the preciousness of the San Francisco Bay environment.

And while the Port’s deadline to respond to the official RFQ/P is February 14, 2008, let’s consider this our unofficial request for proposals/suggestions from some of the less “experienced” (but of course no less talented) readers in our midst. And yes, drawings, renderings or animations are always appreciated (email tips@socketsite.com).
Request For Qualifications (RFQ) on China Basin SWL 337 [SFGov]
RFQ/P for a SF Port Mixed-Use Development Opportunity [SFGov]
Could This Be Curtains For Cirque Du Soleil In The City? [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Jamie

    Any chance a public school would get built in there?

  2. Posted by james

    a public school has .7 acres already alloted in the mission bay campus. we need to find a consulting firm to do the feasibility analysis and then raise the money to build it, 20-25 million. if you want o help me get this done, send me a note.
    james dot w dot ash at gmail dot com

  3. Posted by SFhighrise

    The question isn’t whether a public school will get built, but if a good public school can be sustained in the city. Although this area will be no doubt affluent, I’m sure that they will bus in children from more impoverished areas. I have serious doubts about the quality of public schools here or anywhere else in the city. When I have school aged kids, I’ll either send them to private school (if I can afford it), or move out of the city.

  4. Posted by SerialJingleMailer

    That’s offensive, SFhighrise. Kids from impoverished areas aren’t what makes a public school bad. Shame on you.

  5. Posted by SFhighrise

    Serial, quit being so PC. There is a strong correlation between affluence and school performance. If you choose to deny this, you are kidding yourself.

  6. Posted by School Kid

    It’s not the impovershed kid’s fault that him being bused in will lower the quality of the school, but it’s a well known fact that kids coming from impovershed areas have parents that care less about schooling – leading to worsening schools because parental involvement is soooooo huge.

  7. Posted by james

    it’s actually worse than that sfhighrise. we have a program in the city called choices, wherein you chose 7 schools you want your kid to go to and the city chooses for you. it’s some hair brained idea to remove property ownership as a predecator for where you get to send your kid to school, sacrificing your little one for someone else’s chance to bus their kid from a fringe area to yours where you chose to buy. it’s the most ass backwards thing i’ve ever seen in all my years.
    there is a change a brewing however as people are starting to accept that not even this left wing nutbag idea is saving the enrollment in our public schools and folks are still running for the exits. i predict that we will see the end of choices very soon, 12-36 months and that neighborhood schools will once again be seen as a logical choice for where to send your kid, get involved, choose to live, etc.
    hope springs eternal!

  8. Posted by SerialJingleMailer

    What I deny is that the quality of any public (or private, for that matter) school is the fault or the virtue of the kids attending.

  9. Posted by james

    its a much more complicated problem than anyone would like to admit, however, we cannot afford to pay teachers what we should when folks like cafeteria workers and janitors get a lifetime of benefits after 5 years of work. the unions protecting bad teachers, some say 15% of them are horrible, isn’t helping either. we need to start prioritizing the zero sum game that is funding what’s important to us. for example, it really chaffs my hide that we spend 180 million on the homeless and only 330 million on education in this town. imagine what we could do for the kids if we spent all that money on them, as we should, not the derelicts of society that even their own families have given up on.

  10. Posted by School Kid

    What I deny is that the quality of any public (or private, for that matter) school is the fault or the virtue of the kids attending.
    You’re 100% right. It’s the parents. However, parents from a more impovershed area are significantly less likely to be involved in their kids education, hence worse schools where impovershed kids go – it’s ugly, but it’s factual. Society would certainly be better off if folks like SFHighrise sent their kids to schools with impovershed kids, because it would help raise the aptitude of the poor kids, but you can’t expect SFHighrise to sacrifice his kid for the good of society.

  11. Posted by SerialJingleMailer

    Society would certainly be better off if folks like SFHighrise sent their kids to schools with impovershed kids, because it would help raise the aptitude of the poor kids
    No, School Kid, society would be better off if the quality of public education for all kids, regardless of geography or means, were a priority. _That_ would raise the attitude of poor kids. Unfortunately, the will to pay teachers competitively and to fund schools reasonably doesn’t exist in America, neither among the public nor the leadership. I grant: many parents, in many locations and income brackets, fail their kids. However, a public travesty requires a public commitment.
    PS
    You said poor kids have low aptitude. That’s as offensive as anything anybody has said here today. Aptitude, attitude and performance are not synonymous. They’re barely even related.

  12. Posted by School Kid

    If you’re searching for ways to be offended, you will be offended. I think it’s pretty obvious that when I said “aptitude”, I was not referring to “potential”, but rather possibly misused the word aptitude, meaning performance. I apologize profusely for offending you so.

  13. Posted by james

    the performance of kids from different socio economic backgrounds is now be studied as directly affected by whether or not the parents read to them or talk to them at home. that may be the magic bullet. we need to convince and educate our economically challenged parents in the city about how important it is to engage their kids at home, not just plop them in front of a tv or video game.

  14. Posted by Reality

    I hate to say it but things will get worse before they get better, which is why we’ve opted to move to a community where our children education won’t be sacrified because of politial shenanegans.
    1. The new SF schools chief said he likes the assignment process.
    2. The school board (dominated by Progressives angling for broader political power) fought to keep the assignment process – and selected the new chief accordingly.
    3. SF is more interested in dogs and the homeless than kids – who are leaving with their parents in droves because of the school situation.
    4. Private schools are eating the city’s lunch – exacerbating the problem.
    5. Declining enrollment reduces the funding SF schools get – which is based on the number of kids who show up (or in SF’s case don’t show up) for class.

  15. Posted by james

    maybe we should have a revolt among property tax owners. abolish the choices system and let us send our kids to the school next door or we won’t pay?

  16. Posted by Reality

    So you’re left with the following scenarios.
    1. School leadership from Board to Chancellor – are going to keep the status quo which will lead to more families leaving SF for communities where their kids can go to neighborhood schools.
    2. Funding for schools will decline because the number of kids in school will also decline.
    3. Teacher salaries will go up because of union pressure
    4. This will cascade down to school closures which will absorb more management time given the hot topic nature.
    5. And Parent/Education lobbying power will diminish as more voting families leave the city – and/or stop caring about the problem and enroll their kids in private schoool. Remember – if you pay for your kids to go to private school – there is less incentive for you to want to support a ballot initiative or parcel tax to raise money for public schools since your kids wouldn’t directly benefit. Not saying it’s the right way to think about – just being pragmatic.
    6. SF has the lowest percentage of children of any major city in the US – which partially explains why these issues are not recieving the attention most of us would agree they deserve

  17. Posted by james

    dont count out carlos just yet. he’s a much smarter and better boe president than we’ve ever had. he’s admitted the current system is basically only serving middle class or lower class families but i see promise in his potential to lead us through some very difficult years ahead. why would he take on these nutbags running the board today? why not wait till they term out? i think he gets it.

  18. Posted by pica1986

    “3. SF is more interested in dogs and the homeless than kids – who are leaving with their parents in droves because of the school situation.”
    Reality is right on the money. To add to that, the city seems to be increasing the population of single professionals w/no kids (like me), DINKS, and empty nesters who don’t always place the issues surrounding public education at the top of their priority list – although we should. After all, if we don’t take care of the kids, it’s more likely they will wind up being our problem later in the form of the homeless or involved in criminal activity. I applaud James for taking action.

  19. Posted by Jamie

    It sounds like parents who are sick of the ‘assignment’ system need to get on the San Francisco USD School Board – a thankless job, but that’s the path to change things.

  20. Posted by emmett_brown

    Here is a link with the sad, sorry tale of the Consent Decree. Thank goodness for the Chinese parents who had the guts to do what needed to be done.
    http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=62b76e43cf6febedc8965ef39c5cdee2&this_category_id=178

  21. Posted by james

    great post emmett. gives me an interesting idea. maybe we could lobby both the chinese and african american communities in the city to voice their opinion to sfusd that neither has an interest in busing their kids across school. that would leave the lone defender in the room for our current f’d up enrollment process as the whites. they would look pretty foolish.

  22. Posted by emmett_brown

    Even that won’t work, since every group is a minority including Caucasian. Through some mobius logic (seemingly) all kids go to school across town regardless of ethnicity.

  23. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    San Francisco has the best urban school district in California and it is getting better all the time. No good schools in San Francisco? Look up Lowell High School in the top 100 High Schools in America rankings sometime.
    SFhighrise is just a snob who doesn’t want his children interacting with those “other” people. My daughter will go to public school when she is old enough and I am sure she will get a great education.

  24. Posted by anon

    “San Francisco has the best urban school district in California”
    Yeah, San Francisco touts that all the time. Look up how it defines “urban school district.” So we’re better than L.A.’s absolute sh**hole schools. Big deal. Good luck navigating the public school sinkhole that the city has set up.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *