Mission Bay Block 40 Rendering

Kilroy Realty has purchased the 3.1-acre Mission Bay Block 40 parcel which sits just south of 16th Street and east of Interstate 280 and will invest $450 million, including the $95 million land purchase, to build a 680,000 square foot urban campus on the site, the early plans for which we first revealed early last year.

The project includes four office buildings, two rising six-stories and two rising 12-stories and up to 180 feet in height, with large floor plates, high ceilings and “numerous outdoor decks and other gathering places that foster communication and collaboration among today’s millennial workforce.”

Designed for LEED-Gold certification, construction is expected to begin in early 2015.  And unless the design drastically changes now that it’s in Kilroy’s hands, the western facades of the buildings and open spaces were designed so that if Interstate 280 is razed, the area could be repurposed as public open space.

Mission Bay Block 40 Rendering

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    Good stuff. For once, the height seems about right rather than absurdly low.

  2. Posted by OMN

    I’m curious whether any of the yet-undeveloped sites in Mission Bay will take into account the Warriors arena being just blocks away. Right now, it seems like there isn’t going to be a whole lot within a short walk of the 16th/3rd site.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      Not a whole lot of what?

      • Posted by OMN

        Entertainment options like bars, restaurants. The kind of stuff that runs all along King Street across from ATT Park.

        • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

          And how much of that stuff on King Street was there 4 years before they even broke ground on the ballpark?

          • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

            Sorry, I meant before they broke ground and at least 4 years before it was complete.

          • Posted by Jake

            None of the bars and restaurant on King St were there 4 years before the ball park was built, but almost all the ones on Townsend and Third were. Some of the best including one of the biggest clubs in SF are gone, torn down to build condos, offices, and a bank.

            Anyone that thinks an otherwise remote location dominated by a hospital and office parks is going to become an entertainment mecca just because of a sports arena is still smoking the fantasy that the ballpark made south beach.

          • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

            And what is someone smoking who refuses to understand that the majority of the development in Mission Bay is residential? Let’s let the paint dry and people move in before we start complaining that the storefronts are empty, shall we? As for 3rd St in Dogpatch which was a wasteland 4 years ago, there’s now new bars and eateries opening on a monthly basis. And it has a fraction of the residential units that are about to come online in Mission Bay.

            And maybe the ballpark didn’t make South Beach but the Embarcadero certainly did.

          • Posted by Jake

            The north end of Mission Bay is primarily residential. The south end where the Warriors will build is primarily commercial. Their closest neighbors will be office buildings, a hospital, and parking garages. Other than some UCSF housing, all the housing is north of Mission Bay Blvd.

            The ballpark had a big impact on what was built for one to two blocks, beyond that not so much. The revised Embarcardero was critical, but so was more than $120B in VC money that washed though SF from 1995-2000.

            I was referring to the part of 3rd st near the ballpark. Just about all the restaurants/bars/cafes along 3rd from Townsend north to the hwy were around before the ballpark, though some have changed ownership.

          • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

            The point is, there’s plenty of space and plenty of time for something to happen. Between residents, a medical center, a university campus, office buildings and a rehabilitated waterfront promenade, there’s gonna be lots of people around this area at all hours of the day even before the arena opens. This isn’t Candlestick Point.

  3. Posted by noemom

    No more views of the East Bay from the freeway, although there may be no freeway even though some are worried about getting into and out of the SOMA/Mission Bay area, citing the mess now during Giants day games.
    Maybe normal commute traffic vs. Giants’ day games are two different issues…

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      Huh? Are you saying we should be concerned about views from freeways?

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Why not? I hate driving through a sound-wall tunnel. Beyond mere aesthetics, it takes away a sense of place and ability to see what’s around.

        (Note, I’m not criticizing this project, nor saying that freeway views in general should be sacrosanct. I’m just responding to your apparently surprise that someone would care about the view from a freeway.)

        • Posted by anon

          So you also prefer elevated trains to subways?

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            No, and I’m on record here (to much malignment) for proposing burying 280 instead of razing it. All I was saying was that yes, the view from a freeway is something that’s not unreasonable to consider – even if it’s a very low level of consideration compared to other factors. Good lord, I even had a caveat at the end of my statement to that effect.

  4. Posted by AlfieJr

    Then: Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30 (we know how that turned out).
    Now: Don’t Hire Anyway Over 30 (ok, maybe it’s 40).
    so how do “the Millennials” make a living when they inevitably reach middle age and have a family?
    just askin’.

    • Posted by OMN

      We’ll be retired by then :)

      • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

        I said that too. Then you’ll see you’ll always be chasing the next million ;)

  5. Posted by Dan

    Will there be a road from the freeway off ramp at Mariposa to Owens Street across 16th? Looks like it from the pics. There needs to be a direct route to 16th from the freeway off ramp.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      When the hospital opens, 4th St will connect to Minnesota. That’s probably as close as you’re gonna get as long as 280 and the railway are still there.

    • Posted by timbad

      yes, there will be a sort of awkward connection from the off-ramp through to Owens, past this site. they are clearing and grading it right now.

      Fourth will actually not be a through-street to Minnesota for cars. it breaks into two in front of the hospital.

  6. Posted by MissionMom

    Fortunately there’s no transit connection from the west, and the bike lanes are crappy, so everyone will drive. This city’s transportation system is woefully underfunded.

    • Posted by anon

      The level of funding seems fine. The use of that funding is criminal (see yesterday’s “sickout” by spoiled Muni workers).

    • Posted by Wai Yip Tung

      22 is planned to reroute to 16th St all the way to Third St.

    • Posted by freddofrog

      There are bike lanes on 16th starting at around Kansas into Mission Bay campus, and bike lanes on 17th starting up in the Castro. In addition, a considerable number of riders, myself included, take Mariposa to cross under 280. While the bike connections in and out of the neighborhood could be improved (particularly on 3d, which is not bike friendly), there are bike connections out to the west which are used by many riders each day

  7. Posted by circe

    They seem to be adding a lane on the north side of Mariposa west of 3rd Street. Not sure where it leads, though.

  8. Posted by invented

    The highway-adjacent height should be a model for the recent- and future/forthcoming highway-adjacent Dogpatch developments — just blocks away I don’t think we should have a conversation about protecting city/Bay views of SUV drivers for their sense of place. The rats-nest network of highways should be undergrounded thus liberating SOMA, Design District, Potrero from this 50′s model of elevated highways criss-crossing our increasingly central evolving residential ‘hoods. All in time.

  9. Posted by Jill

    The elevated 280 views are beautiful and I love taking it downtown with visitors do they can see our beautiful city, it should be protected.

    • Posted by lurker

      I usually find SF’s anti-development fervor mind-boggling, childish, and a tad bit selfish, but this statement definitely wins the prize. Seriously, you want your *highway* views protected? Is that correct? Are you trolling?

  10. Posted by Jill

    Better to save the freeway view, which is shared by all, than saving the view of a couple of rich people like those who voted down 8 Washington.

  11. Posted by freeway not freeview

    Before the UCSF buildings went up the view from 280 north after Mariposa was great. You could see a 180 from Sutro Tower to Oakland. And usually had just enough time for a quick look before easing into the backup at the off ramps. Now it’s gone, gone, gone.

  12. Posted by Joseph A

    its a good place to build , and will help fill in what will become a very busy part of San Francisco , But , my wish has more to do with how blocks 26 & 27 get developed ,
    With 26 & 27 being the blocks North of the Arena I can only hope the ground floors become retail , bar, eating spaces with the floors above can be something that adds to a vibrant entertainment district

Add a Comment

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