Mission%20Rock%20Site%202013.jpg

The target timing for the Giants’ massive Mission Rock development has been moved up by a year with work on the first phase, which includes a tower up to 320 feet in height, now slated to commence in 2015. Click the map of the development with building heights and uses to enlarge.

Phase 1 of the Mission Rock development includes parcels A, B, and C along Third Street and a 2,300 space parking garage at the corner of Third and Mission Rock (parcel D). While the redevelopment of Pier 48 upon which Anchor Brewing is planning to build another brewery had tentatively been scheduled for Phase 4, it has been accelerated and split between phases 1 and 2. Phase 1 could be ready for occupancy in 2018.

The construction of Phase 2 which includes parcels G and K and the five-acre China Basin Park is now slated to commence in 2016 with occupancy by 2019. Construction of Phase 3 which includes parcels E and F and Mission Rock Square would commence in 2017 and be ready in 2020 with a residential tower rising up to 380 feet in height.

The final phase of the Giants’ Mission Rock development includes parcels H, I and J with construction now slated to commence in 2018 and occupancy in 2021, a year earlier than originally projected.

Fully developed, the Mission Rock project will yield up to 1.6 million square feet of commercial space, up to 1,500 residential units, and between 150,000 and 250,000 square feet of retail/entertainment use with retail planned to be included on the lower floors of each building, including the Third Street frontage of the parking garage.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by overly liquid tech weenie

    Awesome. Get on with it!
    What’s the completion schedule for the buildings between 3rd and 4th?
    [Editor’s Note: It depends upon the block: And Then There Was (Mission Bay Block) One.]

  2. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Overall a fine plan, and glad to see a large lot converted to good use… that said, agree with some of the comments in January that a 320′ tower seems a bit out of place in this area, and Terry Francois should angle W to connect with Third Avenue, for better circulation (and public use of the waterfront S of China Basin).

  3. Posted by Marten

    The Warriors’ arena would have been great here, but the Giants organization’s greed messed that up. Are they now trying to stop a Warriors arena?

  4. Posted by d-b

    The graphic shows plot F designated as residential as high as 380 feet which seems a bit high for the area. What is the zoning there?
    I agree with a previous commentor that Terry Francois needs a better north outlet into Third St.

  5. Posted by Mark

    Interesting that a 320-380 foot tower can be built here where it will stick out from the skyline like a sore thumb, but the western SOMA plan is limiting height. Perhaps if the Mission Bay complex itself was built higher in some areas the building would fit in better. Instead, it looks like a suburban office park.
    Perhaps in this case the developers are factoring in building beautiful views for the 1 percenters who will occupy the tower.

  6. Posted by cfb

    320/380 feet sounds fine for this location. Not every single part of the city needs to be preserved as lowrise/midrise areas forever. Especially when said area is a barren wasteland that’s being redeveloped completely from scratch, and especially when we’re facing a housing crisis where we need as many units built as possible. C’mon giants, hurry up and build it all before the NIMBYS flip out.
    And you height-phobic NIMBY types will be happy to know that this could have included a 450′ tower, but apparently the plan with a shorter 380′ tower was selected….so this project has already been reduced in height from what it could have been.

  7. Posted by Hawkins

    This proposal is exactly why the Giants should never have been allowed to move to SOMA. Or any sports team, for that matter. More blue collar workspace selfishly converted to become a playground for the tech 1%, and slipped past the public. Where was our vote? Where was our say?

  8. Posted by Oceangoer

    @cfb The categorization of “height phobic NIMBY types” is getting old. It isn’t us against them, or nimbys against developers, its people who own property and have lived here for decades wanting the city to retain its character while still moving forward.

  9. Posted by Futurist

    I think the “height phobic NIMBY types” are alive and well.
    Some want height and density anywhere.
    Others call a tall building “sticking out like a sore thumb”.
    They’re very confused.

  10. Posted by anon

    It isn’t us against them, or nimbys against developers, its people who own property and have lived here for decades wanting the city to retain its character while still moving forward.
    Um, isn’t that exactly “us” vs “them”?
    “Us” being people who own property and want lower heights for the city to “retain its character” (whatever that means).
    “Them” being anyone else, including those who own property and want the market to determine heights.

  11. Posted by anon

    Where was our vote? Where was our say?
    Um, you can vote for your supervisor every four years. If you’re not using this right, you have no right to complain. If your supervisor is not following “your say”, you should vote for another one.
    SF has a representative government, remember.

  12. Posted by Hawkins

    We should abandon representative government when it comes to allowing and permitting any new building above 3-4 stories.
    The vast majority of San Francisco residents vehemently oppose these monstrosities, as can be seen by the battle over B and C.
    All large scale projects should be put on the ballot so the public can have their say. This is the only way we can fight the construction of these new buildings, which are making it impossible to live in the city unless you are 25 and a millionaire.

  13. Posted by Truth

    ^ that type of insanity is precisely why the entire 8 Washington arc has been so troubling. Funny disconnect tho, railing against “millionaires.” What a con job.

  14. Posted by anon

    The vast majority of San Francisco residents vehemently oppose these monstrosities, as can be seen by the battle over B and C.
    If the vast majority of citizens feel that way, why don’t the vast majority of citizens vote for representatives that match their views?

  15. Posted by Futurist

    8 Washington was hardly a “monstrosity”. wow. such hyperbole.
    It was much shorter than the early modern high rises BEHIND it.
    NO PROJECTS should be put to the public ballot. We have a Planning Commission and Planning Dept. If you don’t like the project voice your concerns at the meetings in person. Speak up.
    And putting every “large scale” project up for public vote will only do one thing: Increase the time delays and construction costs to build anything, furthering the high cost of living in SF.

  16. Posted by cfb

    “More blue collar workspace selfishly converted to become a playground for the tech 1%” -Hawkins
    Yes, the blue collar workspace of a giant empty parking lot. Are you serious?
    “its people who own property and have lived here for decades wanting the city to retain its character while still moving forward” -Oceangoer.
    And how exactly would this destroy the character of that part of SF? It’s proposed for empty lots in the middle of former industrial area, that’s already being redeveloped with tons of new midrise and highrise developments (which has been going on for over a decade now). This development will add character to a dead spot, and is a great way for the city to “move forward”, as you put it.
    And for the record, I say all this as a working class SF native whose lived in the city nearly my entire life. I can’t afford these new buildings, but I still see why they’r important in the long run. And no I’m not paid to say how great development is, which is a common accusation NIMBYs throw at anyone supportive of change that’s anything more than four-story faux-Victorians.
    Do you want SF to grow healthily, and remain affordable to more people than just the ultra wealthy? Then you better stop blocking progress, and that means not freaking out in an irrational way whenever a building taller than 4 stories gets built.
    Historical preservation and preservation of “character” is great to an extent, but what a lot of people fail to realize is that it has the potential to strangle this city if it goes overboard…and it has gone overboard. It’s not like every single inch of ground in this city is full of “charming SF character” and worthy of being saved forever. Especially when choices need to be made to accommodate the city’s growth. People want to live here, and they’re coming no matter what. We can either build sufficient amounts of housing and businesses for them, or we can let supply remain far below demand forever, resulting in the city becoming even more ridiculously expensive for all.
    Fighting against development such as this is not fighting against “big greedy developers” as is often stated (all development involves money anyways, whether the developer is big or small). It’s fighting against the continued ability for working and middle class people such as myself to be able to afford to live in the city of San Francisco.

  17. Posted by Stucco_Sux

    Its the mad rush to build before a moratorium on more “towers.” And after 8 Washington no renderings whenever possible so people can’t visualize what they already know will be fugly. But at least the SFMTA will provide for total congestion and zero decent parking options down there. And the view of the low flow toilet bowl backetbrawl-orama will be virtiganous if not virtuous.

  18. Posted by JWS

    While overall I like this plan, how many parking garages will be in Mission Bay once all of this is completed? I am probably more pro-parking/cars than most on this site, and it feels like a lot even to me.

  19. Posted by Mark

    Futurist: no, I’m not confused. The proposed building does stick out like a sore thumb. However, I’m not condoning two-story development here nor the false ideal of retaining what’s left of the blue collar city. In fact, quite the opposite. I’d be happy if this entire area had a ton more height and density. I say build more towers. Same for the entire Mission Bay area. Now go away.
    As for Parcel D, I’m not a big fan of the large parking structure next to a MUNI station (I’m sure The Almighty Futurist will have an issue with this because I’m not an urban planner) when this parcel could be better served with retail/housing and the parking structure constructed in another location. Instead of hiding the T-line it should be showcased and encouraged as an alternative to driving, especially once the CS opens.

  20. Posted by Frank C.

    I think it’s a shame that only 1500 residential units are in this plan.
    Anchor Brewery? sure, that’s nice, love the beer, but god, we freaking need more housing units. But I’m sure the developers will do wonderfully well, and that’s all that matters, hah.

  21. Posted by outtahere

    Parking garages can be redeveloped in the future. So, perhaps all parking should be decoupled from buildings, and allowed to float as an independent market. (Do leased parking spots have the full range of tenants rights as residential units?)

  22. Posted by spencer

    hawkins said ..”We should abandon representative government when it comes to allowing and permitting any new building above 3-4 stories.”
    I think We should abandon representative government when it comes to allowing and permitting any new building UNDER 7 stories.

  23. Posted by moto mayhem

    seems like not enough parking to cover when giants games are happening. I would think that there would need to be >10,000 spots. I guess people will continue to congest soma streets on game day, circling, slowing traffic and taking up all legal and illegal spots

  24. Posted by Brian M

    hey, all. Don’t make fun of Hawkins. He is just trying to protect the blue collar parking lot attendant jobs at this prime industrial location!
    The reality: industrial jobs will stay in San Francisco only as specialty products for the affluent. Like Rickshaw, the winery in Dogpatch, etc. You want “industrial jobs”? Then you need people willing to pay the extra price associated with manufacturing one of the most expensive real estate markets (after Manhattan) in the United States. Standard manufacturing? It’s in China or Vietnam, rural Texas or the Southeast, or, at best, in an industrial park in Vacaville or Tracy.

  25. Posted by SFRealist

    “Perhaps in this case the developers are factoring in building beautiful views for the 1 percenters who will occupy the tower.”
    Man, with all these buildings, there sure are going to be a lot of so called 1 percenters. Next thing you know, half the population will be 1 percenters. Errrrrr, I mean, 50 percenters.

  26. Posted by heynonnynonny

    “The Giants” are baseball players, not real estate developers. It’s disappointing to see SS falling for this attempt to cash in on the team’s popularity.

  27. Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

    Does anybody know what the parking capacity is today for SWL337? I’m just wondering if the 2,300 parking space garage is a wash or a net gain or loss for parking in this area.

  28. Posted by e flat

    There should be a revisit of the original plans by the Giants and Warriors to develop a sports complex with an arena and exhibition hall @ Pier 48 with restaurants and bars like Staples Center in LA.
    One of them (the Giants or the Warriors) got too greedy and dropped their plan to codevelop the area and now the Giants are pushing for this very boring expansion of Mission Bay and the Warriors are not ever (knowing SF and its’ contempt for “billionaire developers”) going to be able to build on Piers 30-32. Too bad for SF.

  29. Posted by noe mom

    Yes the Warriors Arena should have gone here. At some point there will be a backlash, like the anti-freeway thing when everyone in Twin/Peaks, Castro, Buena Vista, Noe starts loosing their views of the East Bay Hills and the Bay Bridge and sees a lot of twinkling high rises

  30. Posted by anon

    At some point there will be a backlash, like the anti-freeway thing when everyone in Twin/Peaks, Castro, Buena Vista, Noe starts loosing their views of the East Bay Hills and the Bay Bridge and sees a lot of twinkling high rises
    The “anti-freeway thing” affected everyone in the city. I really don’t think the folks in the Richmond, the Sunset, or the entire southern half of the city are going to rally behind spoiled millionaires on Twin Peaks bummed about their view changing a tiny bit. Talk about entitled.

Add a Comment

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