SWL 337 Proposal: Kenwood Sketch

The Port’s advisory panel’s round one ranking (from high to low) of the four proposals to develop San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337: Kenwood Investments, San Francisco Giants, Build Inc, Federal Development.

The review panel praised the layout of the Kenwood project, saying it evoked a San Francisco neighborhood feel. But the panel expressed concern that the scheme failed to make the most of the waterfront and questioned the feasibility of creating an artists community.

The panel lauded the Giants’ plan for its emphasis on open space and recreation. It questioned the design’s large number of retail and entertainment venues.

The Build Inc. proposal appears to be at risk of not moving on to round two while the proposal by Federal Development will most likely be left behind.

6 thoughts on “The Development Of Seawall Lot 337: Rankings After Round One”
  1. what exactly is a “san francisco neighborhood feel”? puh-leez.
    TOTALLY agree on the lack of usable open space that harmonizes with the water, as it’s shown in the drawing.
    and do i see twin mid-rises a la Beacon on King St? O.M.G.! please, please, noooooooo!!!!!

  2. “But the panel … questioned the feasibility of creating an artists community.”
    What ? How do you create an artist’s community on a highly valued waterfront location in an expensive city ? Massive subsidies ?
    Artists seem to fall into one of the following categories :
    – little or no income from art and struggling to pay the bills via a day job while still making enough time to create art
    – sporadic income from art, but enough to pay the bills so long as expenses are kept low
    – trustafarians lucky enough to have received a gift from a generous family member
    – superstars (Chihuly, Serra, etc.) who have become comfortable wealthy from their own sales.
    The first two categories form the vast majority of artists who can’t come close to affording to live in SF. The second two can afford, but account for a tiny fraction of the total “artist community”.
    Real artist’s communities do occur naturally in low cost locations. Though rent control has protected many artists from being flushed out of the city during the recent housing cost run up, that is not sustainable. Look to places like Vallejo, Eureka, and Portland for where the new artist’s communities to form.
    SF is becoming a boutique city for the wealthy and to a lesser extent a shelter for the destitute. Its role as an artist community has passed.
    If SF wants to prop up struggling artists, then how can I get a piece of this government cheese ? What criteria will be used to decide who is and who is not an artist ?

  3. exactly. It feels just like the “San francisco neighborhood feel” of Delancy Street and that feels lame. the Giants’ proposal is way better. And why more subsidized housing/space for slacker artists? It will only make Academy of Art bigger, and soon entire neighborhoods will be swallowed up.

  4. Sad, very sad indeed. Really deadly, uninspired, and uninspiring design — and for such a major site…what is with this city’s lack of friggin vision?

  5. maybe it is the best of a weakling group of proposals.
    no one really likes it- just a lot of rationalizations.
    why not do over the design comp with some higher goals.
    sound like too much work? its a lot easier to redraw a neighborhood than tpo rebuild after its built and bad.

  6. What?! The Federal proposal came in last. Bring back the Big Green Monster — we want our open space plateau!

Leave a Reply

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