April 5, 2012

Mission Rock Plans Dusted Off With Giants Swinging For A 2015 Start

Mission Rock - SWL 337/Pier 48 - Proposal (click to enlarge)

The four year old plans to develop San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337/Pier 48 dubbed "Mission Rock" have officially been dusted off with the Giants and their surviving development partner, the Cordish Cos., touting a plan to break ground for the massive project, currently the site of the San Francisco Giants Parking Lot A, by 2015.

As proposed, the 27-acre development would yield up to 1,000 housing units, 125,000 square feet of retail (down from 240,000), 1.7 million square feet of office space (up from a million), a garage with 2,690 parking spaces, and over eight acres of public open space.

Mission Rock - SWL 337/Pier 48 - Proposal (click to enlarge)

As we first reported last month, the ten year lease for Seawall Lot 337 between the City and County of San Francisco and the China Basin Ballpark Company, a subsidiary of the San Francisco Giants, expired at the end of 2009 and was month-to-month before being extended five years by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors to 2017.

SocketSite Weekend Special: One Proposal For San Francisco SWL 337 [SocketSite]
Proposed Seawall Lot 337 Development Scrambling For Investors [SocketSite]
Could This Be Curtains For Cirque Du Soleil In The City? [SocketSite]
Five More Years For Giant's Parking Lot A And Big Development Delay [SocketSite]

First Published: April 5, 2012 8:15 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

The capital markets are opening up and the development would be great, but I'll believe it when I see it and the shovels start moving.

I hope they are planning to build and open the parking garage first, this is going to be a mess during construction.

Posted by: Michael at April 5, 2012 8:40 AM

This would be really cool.

Posted by: NJ at April 5, 2012 8:48 AM

Are they leaving an area for the Warriors when the arena could get plopped down, or will they need to redesign for it?

Posted by: sparky-b at April 5, 2012 8:52 AM

My understanding from what I read this morning is that they have the ability to include the arena in there if the Warriors agree to move before construction starts in 2015 but that they (the developers) are not holding up the development waiting for the Warriors to make a decision.

Posted by: Rillion at April 5, 2012 9:30 AM

It sure looks like that giant green patch of grass could disappear if there were a Warriors stadium.

Posted by: anon at April 5, 2012 9:56 AM

An 8 acre lawn? Gross.

Posted by: sf at April 5, 2012 11:08 AM

Damn. Where will I park my car after all this goes in? There's not enough parking in this neighborhood as it is!

Posted by: jason at April 5, 2012 11:50 AM

Cars and parking should be the very last thing on anyone's mind... Build a garage, take a train, ride a bike, walk.

Grass/parks are a hugely important piece of urban infrastructural progress. It'd be amazing to have a waterfront park on the south-ish side of SF.

I don't know why so many people squirm when they hear about Mission Bay development...

Posted by: Rob at April 5, 2012 1:01 PM

Another sign of the city's center of gravity moving south and east. Now, how long before new development replaces Candlestick?

Posted by: Martha Bridegam at April 5, 2012 3:41 PM

"the city's center of gravity moving south and east"

Reminds me of W Bush's comments on "Old Europe" (vs. new Europe). Guess we can start calling Nob Hill et al. "Old San Francisco"

Posted by: anon at April 5, 2012 5:20 PM

@anon That's actually kind of true, regardless.

Posted by: Rob at April 5, 2012 5:33 PM

Is that a huge parking garage fronting Third Street, along light rail line? What does SFMTA think of that? I assume they will have to do an EIR that will study the impacts on transit efficiency. UCSF already has an eyesore of a parking garage at Third and 16th, and here is another one -- right on the seam between the development and the surrounding neighborhood. I hope the project learns from UCSF's mistakes and internalizes these less desirable uses.

Posted by: transitfirst at April 9, 2012 2:56 PM

The quote that anon was referring to was another one of those famous quips not from George W. Bush, but from then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and yes, it seems pretty apt:

"Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem," Mr Rumsfeld told Washington's foreign press corps on Wednesday.

"But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany…they're with the US.

"You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't," he said. "I think that's old Europe."

…"If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the centre of gravity is shifting to the east," Mr Rumsfeld said.
With that out of the way, I agree with Martha that it seems like the center of gravity is moving south and east. The other parts of the city previously mentioned are pretty built-out, with some notable exceptions where the political reality is that new large-scale development is difficult, so new large-scale development is going where the space is available.

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at April 9, 2012 4:20 PM

"Another sign of the city's center of gravity moving south and east."

Yeah, realtors have been saying that for years. And they have been wrong for years. The one thing that is in the south and east is SF's foreclosure center of gravity.

Posted by: anon at April 9, 2012 4:33 PM

^ Man. The development around South Beach, everything in the Central Waterfront, the whole Dogpatch-Potrero-Mission-Bernal-Noe-Glen Park swatch continuing to gentrify. None of those things that have happened over the past 10 years or so is based in reality, "anon" ?

Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 9, 2012 6:20 PM

anoned, let me go out on a limb. You bought in one of the south or east neighborhoods during the bubble. Right? LOL! Yeah, right, just look at the foreclosure listings and market thrashing in the southern and eastern neighborhoods and tell me that "swatch" has done anything but lose people a ton of money over the last seven or eight years. That's reality. I know, Noe, a tiny little piece of the south and east, has not done as badly. But the rest has been a disaster for anyone buying since about eight years ago. That area is, was, and always will be "up and coming."

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2012 8:21 AM

You're welcome to walk around any of the neighborhoods in that general east-to-west line I described and take some notes. It's not just Noe, and it's not difficult to perceive. Whether 22nd/3rd and Tennessee in Dogpatch, 18th and 20th streets in Potrero, or Kansas @ 17th/Design Center in Potrero, Mission Bay development of world class facilities, 24th st in the Mission, Media Gulch in the Mission, or Valencia, or hell anywhere in the Mission, Precita Park + Cortland in Bernal, the Cesar Chavez greening that's underway, Chenery in Glen Park, or Church + 30th in Noe. All of these areas are full of amenities, and people that they did not have 10 years ago. "Done anything but lose money" is inaccurate. These neighborhoods have changed because money has shifted southward and eastward into them, and that is not debatable.

Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 10, 2012 9:00 AM

Yeah, right, and I'm sure your big bubble buy will pay out any day now! I'm just sure of it!

Here is one example of the impact of the "gentrification" of the south and east you note. 310 Townsend #309. Sold for 640,000 in 2007. Just re-sold for 395,000, after two years on the market! Here is another. 2225 23rd street in Potrero. From 395,000 in 2005 to 255,000 a few weeks ago. There's seven years of gentrification for you! D*mn, any more "gentrification" and we can just re-name this area "Modesto."

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2012 9:20 AM

You're not talking about the same thing as "center of gravity moving south and east," which, given the subject of the thread, is about amenities and changes to the general SF landscape. Yet you're on and on about individual people's properties, making derisive little quips as you go. Apples and oranges. There are plenty of threads where you can go that route and say the same things you always want to say.

Posted by: [anon.ed] at April 10, 2012 9:32 AM

anoned, you're confusing the terms "center of gravity" and "ground zero."

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2012 10:05 AM

Yes anon, two small 1BR condos (one a short sale, one a foreclosure) are certainly representative of all of "South Beach, everything in the Central Waterfront, the whole Dogpatch-Potrero-Mission-Bernal-Noe-Glen Park swatch". Good job.

Posted by: R at April 10, 2012 10:07 AM

Yes, R, those are the only two! Not! This area is foreclosure central, so of course foreclosures and short sales are going to be representative! LOL!

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2012 10:29 AM

I think you might be confused. "Foreclosure central" in San Francisco, without question or debate, is D10 (40% as per SS's most recent count) - not any of the areas being discussed.

Posted by: R at April 10, 2012 10:37 AM

R, you mean the D10 that is otherwise known as the "southeast" district? Exactly! As I stated above: "The one thing that is in the south and east is SF's foreclosure center of gravity." LOL double!

Posted by: anon at April 10, 2012 10:40 AM

Oh, I stand corrected. You're definitely confused.

Martha said the "city's center of gravity moving south and east". Not all the way south and east.

Then anon.ed defined the area as "South Beach, everything in the Central Waterfront, the whole Dogpatch-Potrero-Mission-Bernal-Noe-Glen Park swatch"

But apparently you were talking about Bayview/HP even though you were using examples in SOMA and Potrero? Definitely confused.

Posted by: R at April 10, 2012 10:53 AM

guys, this is obvious trolling. stop facilitating.

Posted by: shza at April 10, 2012 11:53 AM

Yeah, but what else am I supposed to do when on a boring conference call?

Posted by: R at April 10, 2012 12:32 PM

I think you might be confused. "Foreclosure central" in San Francisco, without question or debate, is D10 (40% as per SS's most recent count) — not any of the areas being discussed.

Don't know if this was part of the "obvious trolling"…but R provided a link to a SS post from January when attempting to support his claim of a 40% foreclosure incidence assignment. But I believe that socketsite's "most recent count" is from March 20, 2012:

…the number of properties currently scheduled for auction in San Francisco has ticked up from 549 to 592 over the past two months (34 percent of which are in District 10 versus 40 percent in January), but down from 668 in March 2011 (at which point 43 percent were in District 10).

So the number of foreclosures in district 10 is going down, not up, which in turn doesn't support the notion that district 10 is becoming "SF's foreclosure center of gravity". May have been in the past.

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at April 10, 2012 3:55 PM

I stand corrected, I didn't have the most recent post. So per the most most recent SS post on foreclosure data, a mere 34% of all foreclosures are in D10. Which I think still means it is "foreclosure central".

Note for Brahma: Nobody said anything about it 'becoming "SF's foreclosure center of gravity"'. I'm saying it is, has been, and will continue to be SF's foreclosure center of gravity.

Is there any other neighborhood/district with a third or more of all foreclosures?

Posted by: R at April 10, 2012 4:04 PM

My bad. You didn't say "becoming", I assumed it since I and others were discussing where the center of gravity was moving. And no, I don't have a plausible prediction as to what part of town other than Bayview-Hunters Point will feature a plurality of foreclosures in the near-to-mid future, so I should have just left that last sentence out of my last comment.

I still think that the rest of us are right about South Beach/Central Waterfront/Dogpatch and "Potrero-Mission-Bernal-Noe-Glen Park swatch".

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at April 11, 2012 11:44 AM

"I still think that the rest of us are right about South Beach/Central Waterfront/Dogpatch and "Potrero-Mission-Bernal-Noe-Glen Park swatch"."

Are you saying you agree that the "city's center of gravity moving south and east."? I'm not sure I agree, I would probably say that the center of gravity is expanding to include more of the south and east.

What I was arguing is the jibberish that 'anon' was talking about, how the south and east was all a huge bloodbath with foreclosures everywhere. That is clearly not true.

Posted by: R at April 11, 2012 12:59 PM

"Are you saying you agree that the "city's center of gravity moving south and east."? I'm not sure I agree, I would probably say that the center of gravity is expanding to include more of the south and east."

If a object expands to include more of the south and east then, by definition, it's center of gravity moves that direction.

Posted by: TJ at October 17, 2012 3:10 PM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« Clarifying, And Perhaps Even Enforcing, Existing Rental Laws In SF | HOME | Glass Tower To Rise Over SF Mining Exchange Building On Bush »