UCSF Mission Bay Medical Center Design

Designs have been released for the new UCSF Medical Center at Mission Bay (“just south of the Mission Bay UCSF campus, in the area bounded by 16th St, Mariposa, 3rd St and 280”) and the Regents have “reacted favorably.”

As our tipster notes: “Bound to bring more activity to Mission Bay, Dogpatch, and the Central Waterfront” albeit not for at least another six years (the first phase isn’t expected to be completed until 2014). And as we note, not nearly as edgy as the proposed Rafael Viñoly design for Parnassus Heights.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by DavidQ

    Funny, those pictures are missing the enormous suburban-style street-level parking lot and parking garage in front of the hospital. For a schematic:

  2. Posted by SFhighrise

    Nice design, but 2014? C’mon, finish the development in Mission Bay already

  3. Posted by Michael

    Mission Bay will be under construction for the next ten to twenty years. It is great to see the development but I think it has been oversold in terms of how quickly it becomes a neighborhood.

  4. Posted by Mark

    Is Mission Bay all state property? i.e. Hands off to the Board of Supervisors?
    The University doesn’t pay property taxes, so I doubt our board of Supervisiors even really wants UCSF to be in San Francisco, let alone if they are building a new City in the Mission.
    I am assuming the University is doing this because they can. Don’t get me wrong — I love it! No more obstruction from SF!

  5. Posted by Ryan

    First, the schematic doesn’t have any geographic legend on it, so you are forced to guess which street is which. I can only guess that north is up (based on the location of ‘mariposa park’), but that means that the short edge of the building will face 16th and the hospital will orient 90 degrees compared to the dominant lay of the campus, which is odd.It also means that the best view of the whole complex will be on 280 heading north toward 6th.
    If that’s the case, the street on the right edge of the hospital must be 4th.
    Thus, both pictures posted above are the view from the west, looking east while standing in the parking lot.
    The alternative is that mariposa is to the left of the image, meaning that the back of the hospital will face 16th, which would be even weirder, as no one would ever see the main entrances.
    Anyone else note that the two town hall meetings scheduled are at Mount Zion and Parnassus. How many people at Mt Zion care what’s at Mission Bay? What about those of us that actually work at Mission Bay?

  6. Posted by noearch

    The schematic design plan is pretty clear to me. 3rd street is on the right side of the plan, running north and south, as it really is. If you read the full text and link up the building renderings with the site plan, you’ll see the correct orientation.

  7. Posted by jd

    Ryan asks why the town hall meetings are at Mt Zion and Parnassus…Many departments currently at both Mt Zion and Parnassus will be moving to the new Mission Bay Medical Center. These departments have already been working on the logistics for their relocation.
    Also moving to the Mission Bay facility will be the entire UCSF Children’s Hospital.
    Those currently in other Mission Bay buildings will be staying where they are for the most part.

  8. Posted by curmudgeon

    The city actively courted UCSF to remain in the city. A decade ago, hemmed in at Parnassus Heights, UCSF was considering moving at least a portion of the institution out of SF completely. The City (under Willie Brown at the time) brokered a deal with Catellus to get UCSF as the anchor of the Mission Bay development. The City was very aware that it was important to keep UCSF and its research dollars in the City.
    People on this board sometimes act as though all city folks (both elected and professional) do stupid things all of the time. You can quibble about individual aspects of the Mission Bay Campus, but I think that most agree it’s a good thing UCSF is there.

  9. Posted by luvinmissionbay

    Weird designs wouldn’t be anything new…what’s up with UCSF building the existing parking garage on third. Seems like the corridor along third would be prime land yet they waste it with a parking garage. Wouldn’t throwing the garages behind UCSF (closer to 280) have made more sense.

  10. Posted by noearch

    the parking garages on 3rd basically make sense. you want cars to enter the garage as close to 3rd as possible, rather than have vehicles driving thru the campus to get to a garage. Besides, the garage on third most likely just forms and edge to other buildings to be constructed behind it. it’s all part of master planning.

  11. Posted by Brian

    God, that architecture is banal. Straight out of 1975.
    Of course, that helps it fit into the dispiriting quality of Mission Bay as a whole. I can’t think of any building more depressing than The Beacon.

  12. Posted by jamie

    The police department is currently on track to build a new Southern District Station in Mission Bay as well. However, the talk about redrawing district boundaries may slow that project down … who knows.

  13. Posted by dissent

    “the parking garages on 3rd basically make sense.” ?? NO it doesn’t.

    The energy center or central utilities plan on Third Street will feature a two-story window that tilts outward toward the street, revealing the interior and operations.

    Look at the pic. The energy center is on 3rd means the parking lot long side is along 280.

  14. Posted by Ryan

    I didn’t believe UCSF owns the land all the way to third. Click my name to go to an older PDF of the mission bay site usage. Perhaps they did buy X3, though. I see those two gray lines are supposed to represent rail lines.
    So the back of the building will face 3rd, the busiest street, and then the side will face 16th, the second busiest. The parking lot should be at the corner of those two, I think, with the front of the hospital facing 16th (long side). That way, you’d be able to see it from most populated angles, the front of the hospital wouldn’t face just 280, and 16th wouldn’t jammed as all traffic, under the current plan, must take 16th to reach the parking.
    Still, it looks pretty nice and agrees with genentech/byers located just across the street. It also has close proximity to the open lot just across the street which will eventually get developed and probably hold clerical and research offices for the doctors and nurses based at the hospital.
    The garage on Third is at the edge of the campus, so at least that makes sense. I believe they put it where they did for two reasons- first, to put it next to the adjoining housing units, and second as a money grab to make $20/vehicle during every giant’s game. (It’s only going to get fuller as the parking lots get removed for redevelopment). If it were on the other side of campus, people may not know it’s even there, or be unwilling to walk as far to the stadium.
    People may move from other hospitals, but how much do they care what it looks like? It’s the people here that care the most about the appearance.

  15. Posted by noearch

    I referred to the EXISTING parking garage on the UC campus along third street. yes it does make sense there..from a planning and circulation point of view.
    having had a good deal of experience designing health care architecture, and master planning, these are just “schematic” concepts. The design and layout will evolve over time..and it will change from what you see here. The process is just evolving now.

  16. Posted by Craig

    You guys do realize that UCSF already has 2 garages: one by 3rd and the other by the gym, i.e. close to 280? 3rd St. makes sense. As I understand it, the master plan for Mission Bay calls for 4th St to be the “main drag”.

  17. Posted by curmudgeon

    Yes, the masterplan for circulation in Mission Bay is a bit strange (IMHO). Third Street, which would seem like it SHOULD be the main drag, is in fact the main circulation for transit and autos, but is not the pedestrian & shopping street…that is (will be) 4th Street.
    I guess you could compare the situation to that of Van Ness vs Polk (kinda). But Van Ness with narrow sidewalks…
    Thus the existing parking garage backing up onto Third Street. Horrible urbanistically in my opinion. Sidewalk doesn’t feel wide enough to mitigate for the bulk of the building. But I guess pedestrians are suppose to quickly get off 3rd and onto the UCSF campus.
    BTW, keeping the T Third in its own ROW accomplished the same thing to 3rd through dogpatch…to accommodate both transit and cars the sidewalks have been kept narrow. The Central Waterfront plan assumes that retail/pedestrian corridors will be off Third (like 20th).

  18. Posted by maltamark

    Wow, it’s ugly. Big surprise for UCSF. I’m sure it went through months of review by hundreds of people. What do you get? A banal, blocky conservative building that is almost as ugly as the current medical center on Parnassus. How disappointing.

  19. Posted by fluj

    ” the other by the gym, i.e. close to 280″
    That garage is filled to near capacity on a nondescript Tuesday afternoon, week in and week out. It’s barely adequate as is.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles