The proposed building heights for the Giants’ massive Mission Rock development range from 90 to 380 feet with two “signature residential towers” to rise on Parcels A and F at the northern end of the site topping the range. Click the image above with the proposed block-by-block heights to enlarge.
Replacement parking for AT&T Park, events, and visitors will rise up to 100 feet in a single parking garage on Parcel D at the southern end of the site, with 2,300 parking spaces for the 27-acre development with 125,000 square feet of retail and 8 acres of parks, plaza, and square.
Giants Moving Forward With Massive “Mission Rock” Development [SocketSite]
The Proposed Park, Plaza, And Mission Rock Square [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Alai

    I like it. Keeping all the parking in the corner will reduce car traffic and increase pedestrian traffic on the smaller internal streets, making them much nicer.

  2. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    It looks reasonable though I do not understand the logic of building F being twice as tall as its neighbors B and J. Perhaps to preserve F’s “water view” of Mission Creek? I’m sure there’s some better reason.

  3. Posted by Peter

    I sure hope the parking structure will be faced with ground-floor, street fronting retail; otherwise that garage is a huge, ugly box, killing Third St. pedestrian life.

  4. Posted by Keepitup

    Looks like pier 50 to the East is sitting vacant…what a great opportunity for a shinny new 19,500 seat Waterfront Arena…….hello!

  5. Posted by Mark

    2,300 parking spots in one building. Does this include parking for the residential structures or will those buildings have separate dedicated parking?
    What’s with the exclusion of transit integration in this project, even though the Mission Rock T station sits directly across from the proposed parking structure? As Peter said, unless there is ground floor retail included in the parking structure (like 5th/Mission) you’re killing any chance of creating a retail/commercial/residential strip on 3rd St.

  6. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Have the Giants revealed their strategy to get their own suburban fans (North Bay and Peninsula) to use public transit to/from games?

  7. Posted by Fishchum

    Formidable – yes, about 13 years ago when the ballpark opened. If you’re driving and parking to see a Giants game, you’re doing it wrong.

  8. Posted by Keepitup

    @Mark
    Those ships are movable. They are not “on” the pier 50. They could be moored at a different location further south.
    Pier 50 would be an iconic location for a new arena. It would be seen from the Bay Bridge and could be a huge success as a adjunct for seawall lot 337. The location would also work better with the planned transportation improvements at 20th street.
    The Giants do not have any development rights to pier 50 so why not have the Warriors focus on that location if they need to be on the water?

  9. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Well Fishchum, it’s certainly worked well for the last 13 years then, hasn’t it?

  10. Posted by anon

    @formidable – seems like it has to me. Are you saying that it hasn’t worked well?

  11. Posted by Fishchum

    Formidable – Uh, yes it has. Are you suggesting it hasn’t?

  12. Posted by James

    Keepitup, this is not a game of SimCity, you can’t just move businesses and services around because you think it looks nicer. Meanwhile you’d still have a dilapidated Pier 30-32 falling into the bay. What’s your solution for that?

  13. Posted by anon

    James, I’m betting the majority of south beach residents would love Piers 30-32 to fall into the bay. Certainly having Pier 36 removed made that stretch of the Embarcadero much nicer and no one wants the pier back.
    Anyway, it seems odd to me to have a nearly 40-story tower in Mission Bay.

  14. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. Even with the giant parking lot that is about to disappear, traffic and parking in South Beach and Mission Bay are a huge CF before and after Giants home games.
    Giants games attract a couple of thousand cars. When they break ground on this project, are those people going to (a) stay home, (b) magically transfer over to the public transit that doesn’t exist where they live, or (c) drive around even more areas of SoMa, Mission Bay, Dogpatch and Potrero Hill looking for parking?

  15. Posted by Karl

    I suspect the garage will be build prior to the removal of the surface lot parking so the transition for Giants fans can be seemless as possible. (i.e. parking structure next to the MB hospital that was build and is already up).
    With the Giants being a primary proponent of this development I serious doubt they would jeopardize alienating the fan base that prefer/need to drive to the games. Or maybe with two championships in three years it’s time to stick to the fans.

  16. Posted by anon

    Giants games attract a couple of thousand cars. When they break ground on this project, are those people going to (a) stay home, (b) magically transfer over to the public transit that doesn’t exist where they live, or (c) drive around even more areas of SoMa, Mission Bay, Dogpatch and Potrero Hill looking for parking?
    1. The parking garage will be the first thing built.
    2. Yes, some of those other things will happen.
    As far as transferring to transit that doesn’t exist – the morale is that if you want an easy way to get to Giants games, don’t move to Marin County and/or lobby your fellow neighbors to support transit expansion in the area.
    Not seeing the problems that you’re seeing I guess. I’ve driven to Giants games before and never seen much of an issue. Sure, some traffic, but that’s pretty expected. Not sure why it wouldn’t be.

  17. Posted by anon

    According to the Giants, approximately 75% of game attendees currently use automobiles rather than transit to get to the game.
    Anyway, the parking garage has very close to the same number of parking spaces as the surface lot it replaces. The main question is how many of those spaces will end up being used for non-game purposes and thus reducing game parking.
    Also, the Giants and the MTA are talking about bringing the E-Embarcadero line into Mission Bay with a turnaround in the Mission Rock development. But no source of funds has yet been identified for this extension.

  18. Posted by anon

    According to the Giants, approximately 75% of game attendees currently use automobiles rather than transit to get to the game.
    Um, source for this absolutely outlandish claim? In past press releases, the Giants have maintained that 65-75% of fans come via public transit or walking. It’s a part of the Warriors plan as well (direct data from the Giants).

  19. Posted by Mark2

    @anon “Also, the Giants and the MTA are talking about bringing the E-Embarcadero line into Mission Bay with a turnaround in the Mission Rock development. But no source of funds has yet been identified for this extension.”
    Ooh! Nice!!! That’s something I hadn’t heard previously. Suddenly, I want to take the E-Embarcadero down to the new, Pier-48 Anchor Brewery and enjoy an Anchor Steam and some tasty, Cali-style pub grub on a patio beside the Bay. (Maybe on the way back, I’ll stop off and take in a Warriors home game at Piers 30/32!) Well, it’s all a few years away, of course, but a guy can always dream.

  20. Posted by Fishchum

    Where are the Giants fans coming from where they can’t use public transportation? You can take the ferry from Marin, BART or the ferry from the East Bay, and Caltrain from the peninsula.
    Like I said, if you’re driving to a Giants game, you’re doing it wrong.

  21. Posted by anon

    “Um, source for this absolutely outlandish claim? In past press releases, the Giants have maintained that 65-75% of fans come via public transit or walking. It’s a part of the Warriors plan as well (direct data from the Giants).”
    The source of the “outlandish” claims is Jack Bair, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of The Giants. I have been to more than a few meetings with him, Peter Albert from MTA and Ellen Warner from the Warriors where this figure was discussed (and will surely be mentioned as part of the Warriors Arena EIR). Anyway, when the Giants stadium opened, something like 75% of attendees took transit. But for whatever reason that percentage has flipped the opposite way for the last ~10 years.

  22. Posted by Mark2

    @ one of the competing anons: “But for whatever reason that percentage has flipped the opposite way for the last ~10 years.”
    Hmmm . . . may never know that reason, but here’s a hypothesis:
    When Pac Bell Park opened, many fans, having heard that parking would be limited at this “transit centric” ballpark, took transit, but then over time realized that parking was more plentiful than they had initially imagined, so began driving more. A good hypothesis should be testable; I’m not sure whether this one is truly testable, but if the amount of parking near the ballpark should happen to decrease and the transit-using percentage shifts back proportionately, it would at least be supporting evidence.

  23. Posted by anon

    I’d still need to see a source to refute the studies that the Giants release to the public showing 65-75% of their visitors do not arrive by car. Why are they lying to the public?
    Also, lot A is almost never full during even sellouts. Where are these supposed tens of thousands of cars parking?

  24. Posted by ncydr

    Mission Bay Neighbors will not be too happy with the proposed height limits. What was presented in earlier community meetings were much lower buildings. In fact the community requested to LOWER the building heights along the shoreline to 5 story tall and stepping upwards in keeping with Mission Bay. In reverse the building heights grew like Pinochhio to 12 to 16 stories at the shoreline. Residents and working maritime operators on Pier 50 have big concerns about the narrowing of Terry Francois blvd to half its current width and how the entire project turns its back to Mission Bay South by ways of the humungous 10-11 story tall 2 block wide parking structure. I had high hopes Seawall 337 would get better but my doubts are growing. It’s becoming another brush stroke for capitalism.
    There is a HUGE cost premium to building highrises on old seabed. Adjacent buildings are driving steel foundation piles as deep as 250′ below grade. That’s 25 stories underground! Perhaps the density of piles required for these highrises and the sheer cost for the foundation substructure will drive the building heights down when all is said and done.

  25. Posted by anon

    anon,
    If you come to a the Warriors CAC Transportation Subcommitte meeting you could ask the Giants or the SF Municipal Transit Agency directly how the transportation mode usage figures are calculated. Or you can wait until the draft Warriors EIR is released to see the assumptions and results of the Waterfront Transportation Assessment modeling.

  26. Posted by SocketSite

    UPDATE: Our apologies for any confusion, but in addition to the 2,300 replacement parking spaces to be built in the single garage on Parcel D for the ballpark and visitors to the new neighborhood, another 700 parking spaces for residents and workers are proposed to be included in residential and commercial buildings spread across the development.

  27. Posted by anon

    If you come to a the Warriors CAC Transportation Subcommitte meeting you could ask the Giants or the SF Municipal Transit Agency directly how the transportation mode usage figures are calculated. Or you can wait until the draft Warriors EIR is released to see the assumptions and results of the Waterfront Transportation Assessment modeling.
    Um, I have gone to the meetings thus far – where do you think I’m getting my numbers? No one from the Giants or Warriors has stated something so absurd as “75% of folks coming drive”. That’s just an absolutely laughable lie and completely reverse from what they’ve stated at every turn.

Add a Comment

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