It’s not complete, and was put together for “conceptual” purposes to help in planning the proposals for the development of San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337 (SWL 337), but nonetheless it’s an interesting map of the massings related to the past, present and future development of San Francisco’s Mission Bay.
And with respect to our original quip concerning Cirque du Soleil: “The Port has leased SWL 337 to the San Francisco Giants, which sub-leases the site to Imperial Parking to manage the parking operations, and to special event organizers, such as Cirque du Soleil. The Port receives 50% of the net operating income received by the Giants from any of these economic uses (after amortization of the Giants’ cost for improving the parking lot). This lease expires in 2009.”
∙ Request For Proposals For San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337 [SocketSite]
∙ Could This Be Curtains For Cirque Du Soleil In The City? [SocketSite]
Neat! I hope they consider getting a public school in there somewhere … there seem to be more and more strollers rolling around South Beach these days.
Jamie-
the site at the NW corner of the UCSF campus near the roundabout is slated as a public school site; this graphic shows it as a low white block. also, the green space across the street from that site is set to be playing fields. But given the trends at SFUSD, don’t hold your breath.
That’s good news! I hear you about holding my breath though …. the Affordable Housing Measure, if passed in November, won’t exactly provide more money for public schools if my understanding is correct … and then there’s the education cuts the Governor suggested today, $4.5 billion or so. I am very curious to see what lands on Seawall 337.
Having a public school in the area doesn’t mean that much to me. It is not like students automatically become enrolled in their neighborhood school – that would only happen if the student is lucky. The student could apply to the Mission Bay school and end up going to Hunter’s Point instead. That is why 99% middle and upper income of families leave SF when it is time for their kid to get an education.
“why 99% middle and upper income of families leave SF when it is time for their kid to get an education. ”
No they don’t.
Once this is all done, anybody know what the highest residential condos (owned not rented) will be? I like ORH and Infinity but I like this neighborood a lot more. Methings the Beacon will prolly stay the highest but not sure.
I believe that the area has a 17-story height limit. I think that buildings such as Arterra, Radiance, etc will match the Beacon in height but not be taller. If you want to live in really tall residential buildings, looks like for the time being, you’ll need to move to Rincon Hill or Treasure Island.
Interesting…I like some of the beacon corner views but I need air conditioning. Global warming and all. Radiance is way too far out, I might as well go to ORH or Infinity. Maybe arterra –Ill have to check those out. Floor plans looked small though.
cooper, the cap for mission bay is 160ft. you may end up with a building as tall, such as altera and avalon, but nothing taller.
Anon checker: Not sure how you came up with that unusual perspective?
San Francisco has the lowest percentage population of under-18 residents of any city in the US. There have been numerous articles over the last decades that chronicle the trend of families leaving SF to move to the suburbs. Example from when the last census was taken:
San Francisco becomes a city of empty nesters
Chicago Sun-Times
SAN FRANCISCO–Despite its world-famous parks and postcard neighborhoods, San Francisco was the only major U.S. city to add population but lose children during the past decade, as cost-of- living pressures forced out middle- and working-class families.
While San Francisco boomed, it ended the decade with 4,100 fewer youngsters under 18 than it had in 1990, passing Seattle to become the major American city least likely to have households with kids.
“It’s just crazy that I can’t live where I’m from,” said Laurie Alessandra, 35, a native San Franciscan who left to find an affordable two-bedroom apartment for her partner and the twin girls she is adopting. “It breaks my heart. It’s a cool city for kids.”
Elsewhere around the country, the lure of bigger back yards, affordable housing and better schools in the suburbs continued to draw families away from otherwise desirable cities.
Ironically, three of the major cities with the fewest children– Portland, Ore.; Seattle, and San Francisco–were rated among the top five “kid-friendly” big cities this year by Zero Population Growth, a Washington-based group that factored in education, crime and parks.
“You would think that people with kids would gravitate toward these cities,” said a surprised Tim Cline, a spokesman for the group.
San Francisco has at least two strikes against it–troubled public schools and high housing prices. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, a full-time worker needs to make nearly $70,000 a year to afford a two-bedroom apartment in the metropolitan area. Last spring, the school system’s new superintendent described the system as “broken” when the FBI began investigating millions in missing funds.
The under-18 share of San Francisco’s population dropped from 16.1 percent in 1990 to 14.5 percent, or 112,800 of the 777,000 residents, a decade later.
One reason is that families are fleeing for the suburbs, babes in arms. No age group in San Francisco measured by the Census Bureau lost people faster than the 0-to-4 bracket.
As families with newborns moved out, they were replaced in part by career-driven twentysomethings trying to make their fortune in the frenetic dot-com world. Nearly a quarter of San Franciscans are between 25 and 34–an age group that grew 14 percent during the 1990s, according to census data.
“Cities actually serve as marriage markets,” said Edward Glaeser, a Harvard professor of urban economy. “They’re attractive places for young singles to be.”
The city also saw a spike in its population of people ages 45 to 54, as an older set of those without children gentrified the city.
Dogs are almost as prevalent as youngsters, with an estimated 100,000 in the city.
Other cities, notably industrial metropolises such as Detroit, Baltimore and Milwaukee, also lost under-18 population. But those cities shrank overall, too. San Francisco was unique in that it grew by 53,000 people during the 1990s, and still lost children.
City leaders are meeting to discuss reversing the trend, which many worry will leave schools underfunded and rob the city of its soul.
Because of the drop-off in children, San Francisco is the only one of California’s 10 largest school districts with a shrinking enrollment. Kids live in fewer than one in five San Francisco households, compared with more than one in three households nationally, according to census data.
Some day-care centers that had yearlong waiting lists now scramble to fill their ranks.
“We’ve never ever had to go out recruiting children before,” said Judith Baker, who for nearly 30 years has been executive director of the publicly subsidized South of Market Childcare center.
Those with the means to leave must choose between their nesting instincts and the attractions of city life that drew them in the first place.
“We wanted to be able to afford a place with a yard,” said Holly Schick, 32, who moved with her husband, Robin, from San Francisco in 1999, when their son Isaac was 2.
In Seattle, where mayors have mounted campaigns to keep kids in town, the under-18 population grew 3 percent during the 1990s, though it didn’t match the city’s overall growth rate of 9 percent.
Copyright The Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.
Same place you got your “99 %,” statistic. Which is to say out of thin air. 99 percent? Upper income families are the group that can actually afford to pay for private school. You are all sorts of wrong there.
Sink that terrifying & neighborhood-dividing 280, and let the tunnel surface nr Townsend somewhere (perhaps as part of the to-be-developed CalTrans yards). The maze of flying highways criss-crossing increasingly residential ‘hoods needs to go down (yes think big dig). Let Octavia and Embarcadero be a role model. And bc we’re in SF, we’re probably 50 yrs away from this eventuality.
To Anon (who thinks 99% of mid and upper income people leave SF for better schools).
Anon, if you have to leave SF to goto good schools… It means you are not upper income. It means you can’t afford to raise a family here.
Don’t complain about the lack of good public schools. Complain about not making enough money to go there.
Responding to “Radiance is way too far out”…Radiance isn’t as far out as you probably think. The vacant lots make it seem farther out but the reality is that it’s probably equidistant to both AT&T and Caltrain as AT&T and Caltrain are to each other. Plus, the plan makes south of the canal look even better than north of the canal once completed. Plus, the Radiance will be alot nicer than just about any other complex in the area (with a few obvious exceptions).