May 15, 2013
Revised Designs For CPMC's Cathedral Hill And St. Luke's Hosptials
As we first reported in March, the revised Development Agreement for CPMC's proposed Cathedral Hill Campus reduced the height of the Cathedral Hill hospital by two stories within the tower and one story within the podium, decreasing the total proposed building height from 15 floors and 265 feet (above) to 12 floors and 226 feet (below):
At the same time, the height of the proposed St. Luke’s hospital with an adjacent Medical Office Building has been increased to seven stories, an increase from 99 to 142 feet:
∙ Rebuild CPMC Renderings: 2013 [rebuildcpmc.org]
∙ Compromise Reached For CPMC's Cathedral Hill Campus To Rise [SocketSite]
∙ The Revised Designs And Heights For CPMC's New Hospitals To Rise [SocketSite]
First Published: May 15, 2013 9:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
And it seems to have the same hopeless architect of the "chopped-up style" who did the new Mills Peninsula Hospital of Sutter in Burlingame.
It should have been one big hospital on Van Ness, with St Luke's as a satellite, and closure and destruction of the Brutalist monstrosity on Webster. The current concrete block must be among the ugliest buildings in California, and it can be seen from much of Pacific Heights and other northern areas.
Posted by: conifer at May 15, 2013 10:36 AM
It will be funny if the La Lengua residents oppose the taller St. Lukes, triggering a nimby vs. nimby war with Cathedral Hill.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 15, 2013 12:21 PM
U.G.L.Y. You ain't got no alibi.
The Van Ness campus has to be the most hideous urban megaproject ever rendered? Especially new building on the east side of Geary. It seems to be a pastiche of 40 years of the most dreadful styles of institutional architecture.
Posted by: hugh at May 15, 2013 12:42 PM
(sigh) I would guess that the new medical campus is doing all it can to keep up with the hotel/motel that it replaces.
Posted by: BayGuy at May 15, 2013 1:23 PM
As a resident of La Lengua I hope this inspires a surge in development. In place of Burger Kings and parking lots we could get us some luxury condos.
Posted by: Snark17 at May 15, 2013 1:29 PM
I've got a buddy architect. His firm mostly does labs and hospitals.
He basically told me that form goes out the window, unless you're on a large suburban campus. These buildings are largely generic and functional, designed to blend not inspire...
..and of course, meet seismic requirements.
conifer, I'm glad St. Luke's is being rebuilt; believe me, the community needs it. I like the new van ness campus. Make no mistake, once it is up and running the Buchanan campus will also be rebuilt, my understanding is as an outpatient campus.
Posted by: BillyBalls at May 15, 2013 8:13 PM
The Buchanan / Webster "campus" should not be "rebuilt" but should be destroyed and the land sold for residential construction. The Dentistry School is being changed into condos, a good thing.
The neighborhood needs houses and apartments and not the monolithic concrete bunkers of a hospital visible from miles away. Perhaps the buildings that are currently medical offices could stay, but the main hospital building is a carbuncle.
Posted by: conifer at May 15, 2013 11:44 PM
Not arguing the merits of its architecture. Nor the lands best and highest use.
The dental school is owned by UOP, a seperate entity.
The CPMC master development plan, but a google search away, shares that they intend to rebuild it as an outpatient campus.
If you were Sutter Health, would you sell that campus?
Posted by: BillyBalls at May 17, 2013 8:04 AM
CPMC would not sell even the ugly bunker but the city could have included that in a negotiation for a taller Van Ness building. There is no need for more medical offices in the building that is now the hospital. The neighborhood has all the doctors it needs, but the new hospital might want more office space for doctors. There is talk that Sutter is going to start its own closed medical group in something like a Kaiser model.
(The IOP Dental School was smart enough to move away.)
Posted by: conifer at May 18, 2013 10:09 PM
Conifer, already started. There are EPO and HMO versions in operation, with intent to expand.
The physician foundations that you see, including Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and the Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation are Sutter's analog of The Permanente Medical Group.
Posted by: BillyBalls at May 19, 2013 10:59 AM
There is talk that Sutter is going to start its own closed medical group in something like a Kaiser model.
I agree with BB; on this side of the Bay we have Sutter East Bay MF. My last doctor visit resulted in blood pressure, pulse, and temperature all being taken in a 15 second window. When I commented on the efficiency, the PA said that is so that I can get more time with the doctor instead of her. Also, customer service has improved since my doctor's group joined Sutter MF. My money is on Sutter eventually starting an insurance wing to match Kaiser on all 3 fronts.
Posted by: EBGuy at May 20, 2013 12:32 PM
With the changing healthcare market, hospitals and medical groups are going to have to change from a model that is "pay per service" based to a model that is "whole-health" based if they intend to stay relevant and profitable. Particularly with the dramatic increase in diabetic, aging and overweight population. Reimbursement will go down for ineffective care and small institutions will not weather the storm if they can't treat the whole patient and not just the symptom. I hope the improvement/expansion of both facilities and all of Sutter Health System will contribute to improved care for the SF population. Even more-so given the large #s of uninsured who will now have access to healthcare.
Posted by: aSFan at June 6, 2013 9:07 PM
YAWN. All these people who only play with Lego's think they know engineering, construction and planning.
Hippies, Noobees, nimby's STFU already!!
Posted by: inclinejj at July 12, 2013 4:56 PM