Kaiser Permanente’s Potrero Hill MOB Rendering

Kaiser Permanente has canceled their contentious plan to build an 84-foot high Medical Services Building at 16th and Mississippi and will build a few blocks away in Mission Bay instead.

“We…selected the site on the corner of 16th and Mississippi Streets in lower Potrero Hill, because of its close proximity to a large segment of our members. As we continued through the process, however, it became clear that building medical offices at this location was going to take more time and cost more than we had originally anticipated.

Ultimately, we have found an alternate site at 1600 Owens Street in Mission Bay, which is only a few blocks away and offers the same convenience for our members as the Potrero Hill location. The new site will allow us to open our medical offices about two years earlier than we would have been able to do otherwise — which means our members will have more convenient access to their health care much sooner. Located on the east side of I-280, the site is well-served by public transportation and in an area that’s devoted to innovative health care.”

The 1600 Owens Street site is zoned for Medical Office use and a building up to 10 stories.

1600%20Owens%20Street%20Site.gif

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by db

    They had better provide plenty of parking at this location as the comment about good public transit here is a stretch. You have the T line on 3rd St. which is pretty far away and the 22 on 18th St. which is even further away. The adjacent parking for the UCSF Ortho Group next door is usually at capacity.

  2. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    If the blue and red outlines are accurate, that means Kaiser will be building taller in the new location? It looks like they lose a lot of square footage in the move.

  3. Posted by Observer

    This is great for Kaiser, we’re fans!
    Also it shows that there is a new question to deal with… if you are opposed to a development and you protest against it, what you willing to accept?

  4. Posted by Dan

    This location is 0.4 miles away from the 3rd and 16th street T stop, a 7 minute walk.

  5. Posted by PN

    Other Kaisers “pretty far away” from transit offer free shuttles that run all day. I imagine they’ll do the same here.

  6. Posted by gribble

    Much better placement for Kaiser. As for the reduced footprint half of the other development block was actually housing and a mid block park, if I recall correctly.
    Personally I much prefer this spot for Kaiser. It will make my Dr. visits much much simple as I work in Mission Bay. I won’t have to cross over the train tracks.

  7. Posted by Dan

    Yay! A few people’s views have been protected!

  8. Posted by tom h

    The proposal for the 16th/Mississippi site included housing on the southern half of the site (along 17th Street). Anyone know if the housing portion of the project is shelved as well? I assume just the medical office stuff is moving east to a smaller parcel.

  9. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Yay, my awesome Pot Hill neighbors were successful in protecting those beautiful dilapidated warehouses and rusted corrugated iron facades. Well done! Don’t let anything interfere with the filth and pointlessness that brings “character” to the neighborhood.

  10. Posted by Jeremy

    Am I wrong, or is that not still blocking the view? It’s directly north of the same sight, and even higher!

  11. Posted by R

    “Am I wrong, or is that not still blocking the view? It’s directly north of the same sight, and even higher!”
    We can only hope.

  12. Posted by Rillion

    But since it is on the other side of 280 it will no longer block their view of a portion of that lovely elevated freeway.

  13. Posted by Navigator

    Re the T stop only a 7 minute walk away. This walk is likely after a 30-45 minute Muni experience to reach that point. Most folks are going to the doctor because they are sick or old. So why would anyone want to provide parking for a building housing doctors offices? Let ’em suffer.

  14. Posted by citrus

    Isn’t every other block in that area a large parking garage?

  15. Posted by Carrington

    A really good choice given the likely demolition of the 280 in favor of a boulevard along the western edge of the new site.

  16. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “But since it is on the other side of 280 it will no longer block their view of a portion of that lovely elevated freeway.”
    I think that 280 is one of the more interesting aspects of the Potrero north slope view, especially at night. Yes, I am serious.
    ————————–
    As for sick people suffering through a 7 minute walk from the T: most people I see in the waiting room are quite ambulatory. Those who aren’t can probably drive to the parking available onsite or nearby.
    And why is a 7 minute walk considered such a travail? Most people like a little fresh air and have no problem with a short walk, even if they’re suffering from GERD, dermatitis, pinkeye, or whatever. Even if you park in the garage you’re looking at a few minutes walk from there to the receptionist’s desk.
    Its not as if every patient is standing at the threshold of death’s door or something.

  17. Posted by anon

    I’m pretty sure there’s more parking in Mission Bay than in all of San Jose. Two thirds of the buildings in that area are parking garages. Folks who want to drive will be just fine.

  18. Posted by j_blu

    Fantastic location, plenty of parking already established nearby and great freeway and arterial access to this part of the city.
    db – “T line on 3rd St. which is pretty far away” – if four blocks from rail transit is “pretty far away” in your definition you need to move to New York. That is not pretty far away in able-bodied San Francisco.
    “The adjacent parking for the UCSF Ortho Group next door is usually at capacity” – the AMPCO garage on Owenst is often full. I have rarely had trouble finding free street parking on 7th St, 150 feet behind this site, however; if that’s a problem there’s the Third Street UCSF Garage and the South Street AMPCO garage…no shortage.

  19. Posted by Willow

    “And why is a 7 minute walk considered such a travail? Most people like a little fresh air and have no problem with a short walk, even if they’re suffering from GERD, dermatitis, pinkeye, or whatever. Even if you park in the garage you’re looking at a few minutes walk from there to the receptionist’s desk.”
    Being sick and riding on public transit is irresponsible. It just gets others sick too. Catching the T-line is the last thing you would want to do if you are not feeling well.
    Maybe the city can build a dedicated bike lane to the hospital so the sick and elderly can ride to their appointment. LOL.

  20. Posted by Marten

    It’s a clinic, not a hospital. May it be built to full site capacity though.

  21. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    ^^^ Not everyone is contagious and not everyone need ride transit. I’m just trying to say that just going to visit the doctor doesn’t mean that you’re incapacitated. I can’t even remember the last time I drove or was driven to visit a doctor. There was no suffering involved in making the trips.

  22. Posted by ncydr

    The move is good for Kaiser. Location put them in Mission Bay Redevelopment zone which would provides Kaiser with a “more” streamline design review process.
    Access to freeway is indeed very convenient. Parking is only plentiful after hours, saturday and sundays. Parking is NOT plentiful during work hours. The area is booked solid on the weekdays. It’s difficult to find parking on 7th St and 16th St. In the Mission Bay area, most of the streets are metered. Also, most of the streets around UCSF are abscent of any street parking. They were deliberately eliminated to address SFMTA transit first policies, which simply is not working when public transit is not yet developed in the area. The later has been an ongoing neighborhood compliant, which is why UCSF & MB shuttles came into existence.

  23. Posted by Sidney W.

    Now I don’t have to schlep up to Geary *AND* the unsightly industrial buildings remain graffiti magnets. #winning!

  24. Posted by Paul in SF

    They are not building a new building, so height and views are not an issue. They are taking space in an existing building. That is why they can deliver the space faster. This really is good news for everybody, including the “Save the Hill” NIBMYs.
    “If the blue and red outlines are accurate, that means Kaiser will be building taller in the new location?”
    The red outline includes the housing half of the project. The Kaiser side was really only half of the site.

  25. Posted by Paul in SF

    I should have said “good for everybody except KMD” 🙂

  26. Posted by anon

    Parking is NOT plentiful during work hours. The area is booked solid on the weekdays. It’s difficult to find parking on 7th St and 16th St. In the Mission Bay area, most of the streets are metered. Also, most of the streets around UCSF are abscent of any street parking. They were deliberately eliminated to address SFMTA transit first policies, which simply is not working when public transit is not yet developed in the area.
    Um, it seems to me that you’re specifically saying that FREE parking is not easy to find. I’m in the UCSF area several times a week, and there are like five half-empty parking garages at all times. But yes, you do have to pay. Talk about entitlement.

  27. Posted by Paul in SF

    Sorry for the triple post…I am checking my info. The map does seem to indicate an empty site.

  28. Posted by Richard

    KMD will be retained as the TI Architect.

  29. Posted by nycdr

    appreciate anon’s comments.
    My comments are associated with paid and unpaid parking and transit in the area.

  30. Posted by anon

    I have never once seen the Third St UCSF garage full. In fact, I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen it more than half full. I was there yesterday – probably 20% full.

  31. Posted by Futurist

    I can’t even remember the last time I took Muni to visit the doctor.
    Never.

  32. Posted by PN

    Futurist – you’re the same guy who repeatedly called Noe St a major north/south artery. Not surprising you wouldn’t take Muni to the doctor. J-Church doesn’t go there? Get in the car…
    To everyone else – Kaiser isn’t building a hospital on this site they’re building a medical office building. Think routine office visits, preventative care, etc. Yes sick people will need to go the the doctor, too. They’ll figure it out.
    Crazy how every discussion on SS turns into a debate about how much parking is available.
    To that end, where do people park downtown when they need to visit their non-Kaiser doctor in any one of the medical buildings on Sutter or Post?

  33. Posted by Denise B

    “To that end, where do people park downtown when they need to visit their non-Kaiser doctor in any one of the medical buildings on Sutter or Post?”
    Most non-Kaiser patients have a choice of many doctors, so they can find one with a location that is convenient for them. Kaiser patients don’t have that choice.

  34. Posted by Po Hill Jeff

    I’ve been wondering about the opposition to this development and what it presages for the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan I heard so much about 2-3 years ago. If I’m not mistaken many such buildings are supposed to be constructed over the next decade or two… will we see the same objections raised again and again for each new development?

  35. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    It certainly doesn’t bode well for the Daggett Place project, which is one the neighborhood sorely needs.

  36. Posted by tj

    it is unfortunate that Kaiser could at least hire an architectural firm whose idea of architectural quality consists of something more than a pastiche of 4 existing medical buildings already built in this city. Considering that they are a debt-free corporation that pays for all its facilities with cash, the utter lack of imagination and vision that this project demonstrates does not bode well for Kaiser of for the leadership qualities of its new CEO.
    Kaiser has in the past hired consultants such as ARUP for facility planning, so it is not as if they lack the institutional capability to support the construction of a building that is something better than “least objectionable”.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles