With the first pitch of the 2012 World Series being thrown tonight, and our Giants stepping up to the plate, the Port’s presentation of the latest plans for the development of San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337 across the cove from AT&T Park has been postponed to 11/3.
Once again, the plan to develop Seawall Lot 337 into “Mission Rock” has been dusted off with the Giants and their surviving development partner setting a goal of breaking ground on the project, currently the site of the San Francisco Giants Parking Lot A, by 2015.
As last proposed, the 27-acre development would yield up to 1,000 housing units, 125,000 square feet of retail, 1.7 million square feet of office space, a garage with 2,690 parking spaces, and over eight acres of public open space. Click the early rendering to enlarge:



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]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Mark

    It’s rare for a large city like SF to have a huge parcel of land to develop, like this one and the adjoining Mission Bay complex. Having seen what’s been put up to date on the latter I am not impressed. Too suburban/office park feel to it. I really had hopes of a more expansive grid of streets, more towers, more diversity in appearance and scale.

  2. Posted by taco taco

    I’m glad they’re trying to develop this, but man do these projects seem to miss the point. They simply aren’t walkable. Have you ever tried walking near AT&T park? The blocks are HUGE. It’s like hi-density living with all the problems of suburbia.

  3. Posted by K&L

    I couldn’t disagree with the previous posts more. I love what they have done with Mission Bay, AT&T park and look forward to seeing the continued development of the area. The open spaces are great, accessible paths with good lighting for evening walks/runs, basketball and tennis courts being used all the time, kayakers in the channel. Great weather, great transporation and highway access. Looking forward to see what comes next. Go Giants!

  4. Posted by Alai

    I think the problem is that all the roads they plan are very wide, so they have to cut down the number of them or the project would end up being mostly road.

  5. Posted by extra

    Mark, Taco and Alai: Take a closer look at the drawings. The SWL337 team’s concept for this plan is to create narrower streets and more fine-grained, pedestrian-scale blocks compared to the rest of Mission Bay, which is what they’ve done here. For instance, note that this rendering shows three blocks between Third and Terry Francois, compared to the rest of Mission Bay, which has one or two.
    Go Giants, for a great season and for your commitment to urbanism in San Francisco.

  6. Posted by Sprague

    AT&T Park and the Giants have done so much to make this part of SF a wonderful area. This has partly occurred, in my opionion, because the design of AT&T Park included almost no parking. UCSF at Mission Bay, as it is now being built, includes several hideous and very large parking garages. With two nearby Caltrain stations and the T-Third line (as well as several Muni bus lines), car commuting to this new neighborhood should not be promoted by apparently widely available parking. The T-Third’s potential is being greatly underutilized and Mission Bay does feel and function more like a suburban office park. Massive new parking garages and San Francisco’s official transit first policy don’t mesh. For the long term viability of Mission Bay, I would hope that the proposed Mission Rock parking garage’s size is scaled back.

  7. Posted by Alai

    I rode through Mission Bay today, and I was somewhat shocked and very disappointed at the number of brand-new parking garages.

  8. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Is it just me or does that Steel Blue video automatically start every time you visit this page or the front page? Cool video but I only need to see it once.
    I think if the “autoplay=1″ argument was removed from the vimeo URL then autoplay would be disabled. Or set autoplay=0.

  9. Posted by Karl

    I don’t think it is realistic to believe everyone will take public transportation. Especially with a hospital being built….you are going to need parking to support the medical and office buildings. They may not be attractive but as the remainder of the area gets built out the parking will not be the only structure in the area and will become less noticeable and blend in more.

  10. Posted by RobBob

    Hospitals existed before the invention of the automobile, nobody needs cars unless you’re from the south bay.

  11. Posted by sparky*b

    “Don’t worry the doctor is taking public transportation, he’ll be here any minute. Apply pressure.”

  12. Posted by [AntiFascist]

    How did all the anti-car fascists end up posting on this site, and why? Portlandia has spent two decades subsidizing non-auto trasit and bike paths only to find no change in car usage.
    http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/10/metro_study_84_percent_of_port.html
    There is nothing like the finger waggers telling others how they should live their lives or get around town. It’s funny but the Los Angeles area actually has the fewest freeway miles per population, and the highest density per square mile yet nobody screams to ban parking there. (Google and Wiki are your friends)
    Except for the stupid Central Subway, San Francisco is not investing in transit like Portland did, yet despite over 40,000 more registered cars in S.F. than year 2000, we are expected to do whatever the SMALL pro bike finger waggers want?
    I say make bike riders carry operating insurance, pay registration fees, and have operating license costs just like drivers.

  13. Posted by anon

    I’m not really interested in decreasing car usage, that’s where the disconnect is – you think it’s some kind of “anti-car” thing.
    I simply want the city to build for pedestrians first, and not make things crappy for pedestrians just to allow a bunch of car storage, and I want the city to not be completely drowning in congestion a la Los Angeles.
    Portland has succeeded above anyone’s wildest dreams in making things more pedestrian-pleasant, though they’re still drowning in congestion. Hopefully we can do better than LA or Portland in stopping the congestion before it gets to mind-boggling levels.

  14. Posted by contrarian

    Anti how dare you have facts to refute the finger waggers and walkers. They have the answers and they are “density, higher, NIMBY, less parking, more parklets bla bla bla”. and woe be to anyone who would contest them here on their home ground

  15. Posted by anon

    How do those “facts” disagree with anything being talked about here? No one is talking about getting rid of cars or decreasing car usage. They’re just talking about building a neighborhood not overrun with cars (gigantic difference). I have a car and no plans to give it up, but I certainly don’t want the city building parking garages all over the place and turning our streets into LA’s mess lol.

  16. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: The location for the Mission Rock design workshop this weekend has changed. The new location is at the Port of San Francisco, Pier 1, located at the foot of Embarcadero and Washington Street.

Add a Comment

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