SWL 337 Proposal: Build Inc.
Thanks to a seriously plugged-in tipster, we have the sketch (larger size) and additional details for Build Inc.’s proposal for the development of San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337 (SWL 337):

This is a sketch of Build Inc.’s proposal [for Seawall lot 337] – essentially an open porous mixed use project of Green Tech office (the round building), 900 for sale homes, 700 for lease homes (mix of affordable, affordable by design (unsubsidized), mid level, and high level), extensive artist studio/ gallery space, flower mart, contemporary arts exhibition space, approx. 7 acres of outdoor open space, sustainable energy/utility towers/gardens, (including geothermal, wind, solar, fuel cell, etc).

We’re digging the “affordable by design” line (as well as emphasis on the arts). And that’s two down, two to go. Tipsters?
Four Teams Submit Development Proposals For Seawall Lot 337 [SocketSite]
The Rendering And Additional Details For The Giants SWL 337 Proposal [SocketSite]

16 thoughts on “The SocketSite Scoop: The Build Inc. Proposal For Seawall Lot 337”
  1. I love the concept! I love that we are beginning to build “green”, esp. in San Francisco. I also love the Flower Mart, open space, and office space (we can’t just keep building residential buildings, because we will not have any jobs in the city). Have a good short wk!

  2. Not quite sure what to make of this ‘rendering’. definitely need to see more. so far i prefer the larger open space of the giants proposal. But neither of the buildings in the proposals.
    Am i the only one who’s wanting a truly signature building/design on this site..? How about something incredibly well designed, like some innovative Japanese inspired landscape architecture with futuristic high rise buildings blended in. Heck..even something minimalistic and stylish and high density would be sweet. Not some forced ‘urban village’ of sorts.

  3. I think the Giant’s proposal is my favorite because of the 5,000 seat music venue and a parking garage for the ballpark. San Francisco needs a new/moderan music venue and the parking is needed for the ballpark. Plus, it includes a condo tower and open space. It has the most bang for the buck for this area.

  4. NONE of the proposals appear to have distinguished architecture of any kind. One can only hope that these proposals get an extraordinary level of review for planning and design before they move forward– and thre message they need to do better.
    Many qualified and experience developers took a pass on this because of the preception that the Giants have it tied up — And the Giants are encouraging this preception in order to keep down the competition. For a project of this size the experience and talent brought to the table so far is very modest-both on the lead- developer side and on the architect side.
    Having a small cast of bidders with some weak members will also greater depress the potential land value offered. The Giants may be hoping for this; others have to hope the Port understands this dynamic, and can get the value the city deserves.
    As frame of reference– look at the competition currently in new York for the West Side Rail Yards, wehere the results are considered a disaster.

  5. overall I think I like this design better, but wish it had more open green space.
    there may be 7 acres of green space, but it looks to me like the green space is small bands along the sides of the buildings…
    oh well…

  6. I’m having trouble judging this project and the previous proposal based on these renderings.
    But my sense is that nothing notable is going on in either and that’s unfortunate. I agree with others who’ve expressed the desire for some sort of iconic building here–and I don’t necessarily mean a soaring tower, though some height would be nice and, moreover, appropriate. For in spite of all the new development in the area (all of which I’m quite happy about, in general), nothing really grabs the eye. Why not raise the bar on one of the few remaining parcels of bayside land? On that note, it would also be nice to see a project oriented in some way towards the bay–something Mission Bay has failed to do, in my opinion.

  7. This proposal primarily suffers from the fact that there is no compelling reason for people to come out here. With only an office building and residential, no one will come here unless they work or live here. Contemporary arts exhibition space? Flower mart? Both sound interesting, but when was the last time you actually went out of your way to go to either one?

  8. Uh Oh! I guess I have been too hard when I have sat in on Architectural School Crits as a guest. This is a design!!? I have seen second year architectural students give more thought, more creativity, and have more “green” issues solved than ANY of these proposals so far. How San Franciscans can sit in their coffee houses and put down other urban areas is beyond me when you look at what has been built in this city in the last 30 years.
    World Class indeed!
    I am still in awe that they would even try to claim that this is based on the success of what they built in Chicago with Millennium Park. But I guess the architecture in Chicago does not count because it gets “hot in the summer and freezing in the winter” there, so why would we want to even consider that city as an example? This is what a developer would propose in Riverside or Ontario, not in a “world class” city.

  9. Build Inc: Seems every programmatic trick in the book is used to satisfy current trends and news, which makes it a little superficial and cliche. If the flower market moves in, might the notorious Academy of Art elbow in?
    Drawing might not be a pretty picture BUT conceptually Build Inc’s scheme much more interesting than the Giant’s plan. Worth a public dialogue.(did you notice bridge created to allow for little beach area?)

  10. The area (my new neighborhood) is real dull/dead as is. The SF Giants proposal would bring some needed activities to the area. This is just offices/residences using the “GREEN” buzzword. zzzzzzzzzzz…. dull

  11. This plan has officially put everyone to sleep as evidenced by only 13 comments. Thoroughly uninspiring. Is there no shame in what passes? Looks like a suburban mall redo with an obligatory Sheraton.
    This site is an unparalleled opportunity to do something brilliant and inventive. It begs for something special especially against the backdrop of blocky, formulaic and dull Mission Bay (which itself has turned itself away from the Bay). Challenge us to the waterfront — go tall! – don’t settle for something which belongs in suburban Maryland with a superficial bow to the water.
    We demand better especially for a neighborhood of the future. Visit Hamburg, A’dam, Barcelona – be stunned by the possibilities. Have we entirely lost our desire?
    This proposal could be fit anywhere — a lakeland corporate complex in Dallas, in Charlotte NC. It has none of the qualities we cherish & embrace – Light, form, romance, transcendence. Just say no.
    Almost forgot. IMO.

  12. I agree, quite uninspiring. What happened to the request for the enhanced park? It looks like this drawing is trying to maximize every last inch of space, something I would be against as a resident of this neighborhood.
    I don’t think this plan is consistent with the idea that this land should benefit the public use of the land, not more office space which benefits the few. There has to be a balanced plan that benefits not only the needs of the port but also takes into account the valuable opportunity we have to create a greatly needed open space on the waterfront.

  13. Now that the other proposals have been aired, Build, Inc’s stands out as the most thought out, lively, potentially ‘urban’ solution among them all.
    A big reason is that the team has assembled at least FIVE architects to work on all the separate buildings; another reason is they are more connected to the community than the others and I think it shows in the design.
    Thats a 400′ tower, and there’s this cool ‘beach they are creating. I also like the fact that the open space is spread out and used to enhance streetscapes rather than just one big open space.

Leave a Reply

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