April 22, 2008
The Development Of Seawall Lot 337: And Then There Were Three
Three development teams (Kenwood Investments, San Francisco Giants, and Build Inc.) will be moving forward to the RFP phase for the development of Seawall Lot (SWL) 337. And while it’s almost certain that they wouldn’t have been invited to move forward anyway, the Federal Development team officially withdrew themselves from consideration.
The official Request for Proposals (RFP) should be published mid-May and will “provide approximately three months for the development teams to the prepare and submit their RFP proposals.” Scoring of the RFP’s will be based 60% on the Design and Development Program and 40% on the Financial Proposal and will likely take between 90 and 120 days.
And in moving from RFQ to RFP, emphasis and addendums have been added to the Development Objectives and Criteria. Two that stood out: 1. Minimum size for contiguous major open space, 5 acres at the northeast area of the site, and 2. Consideration for up to three "slender towers of 300 feet or more, to create an inspiring architectural identity."
∙ The Development Of Seawall Lot 337: Rankings After Round One [SocketSite]
∙ Request For Proposals For San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337 [SocketSite]
∙ San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337 Design Proposals: In Summary [SocketSite]
∙ The Kenwood Proposal For Seawall Lot 337: Details And Design [SocketSite]
∙ The Rendering And Additional Details For The Giants SWL 337 Proposal [SocketSite]
∙ The SocketSite Scoop: The Build Inc. Proposal For Seawall Lot 337 [SocketSite]
∙ The Federal Development Proposal For SWL 337: Details And Design [SocketSite]
First Published: April 22, 2008 3:58 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Wow, surprise Build Inc is still in the chase. The proposal looks um...odd.
Posted by: Dede SF at April 22, 2008 5:24 PM
I admire the Build Inc. proposal. The Kenwood proposal is boring and reeks of 'Geneva Towers' or some other type of monotone public project. The Giants is my favorite, they upped the density in the southern half in order to provide that vast amount of open space- SMART growth- as well as the arena that could give much needed life and intense energy to the outer Mission Bay area.
Posted by: sf at April 22, 2008 7:03 PM
I guess the problem I have with the Build Inc. proposal is that the drawing appears to suggest a misunderstanding of the scale of the property in question. The buildings don't seem to fit. Whereas when you look at the other two, it is very clear how big the buildings actually are and how everything fits. In short, the Build Inc drawing looks like an initial thought sketch as opposed something that is an representation of thoughtful analysis and actually shows what could be built. The buildings in the Build Inc. proposal look to be mammoth, when in fact it is expected they are not. It looks careless.
Posted by: Dede SF at April 22, 2008 8:35 PM
They want contiguous open space? Bring back Federal's Big Green Monster!
Posted by: EBGuy at April 23, 2008 11:42 AM