1300 4th Street Design

A plugged-in reader delivers the early designs for the mixed-use development to rise on Mission Bay Block 6 (a.k.a. 1300 Fourth Street) with 135 affordable apartments over eight distinct ground-floor commercial spaces.

As designed by Mithun Solomon and Studio VARA, a double-height restaurant at the corner of Fourth and Mission Bay Boulevard would overlook the future Mission Bay Commons, while the northern most corner of the development at Fourth and China Basin will provide space for an after school writing and literacy program to be run by 826 Valencia.

Six additional retail spaces would line the ground floor of the development along Fourth Street while a mews with townhomes facing a mid-block walkway between Mission Bay Boulevard and China Basin would rise up to three stories along the western edge of the development.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Danny

    Another boring box for a neighborhood full of them… Can Mission Bay please get some high rises?

    • Posted by zig

      Those with homes in P Hill already made sure the answer was no to that

      • Posted by SFRealist

        And by ‘those with homes’ you mean ‘Phil Burton’

        • Posted by Jake

          Almost, if Phil had still been around it might be a national park.

          It was John Burton, then resident of Potrero Hill and CA Senate President Pro Tem, who told UCSF “You’re not building any mother– skyscrapers at the foot of Potrero Hill” when they proposed a 17-story dormitory in Mission Bay.

          From an old John King (namelink):

          The proposed tower would have been 160 feet high, which is as tall as Mission Bay’s zoning allows. To put that height in context, it’s similar to the lighting posts that illuminate Pac Bell Park; also, Mission Bay is separated from Potrero Hill by Interstate 280. As for the dorm site, it is northeast of the hill — half a mile away.

          The housing probably will still get built. But either the number of dorm units will be trimmed, meaning less of a good thing, or the tower will grow fatter as it gets shoved down. The result could be a squat box that, when finished, will make people wince and ask “Why did they do that?”

  2. Posted by spencer

    ive never seen a box that flat. its more like a chubby envelope

  3. Posted by Futurist

    Mission Bay has plenty of high rises and other mixed heights and densities of buildings. Look again.

  4. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Kind of boring looking, but at 6 stories it’s perfectly reasonable for purposes of a viable, ped-friendly neighborhood. From central Paris to Piccadilly to Back Bay, there’s nothing wrong with this height if the goal is a dense, vibrant neighborhood that is still accessible and human-scaled.

    • Posted by Futurist

      Well said and eventually when the plan is complete, people will realize the value of this human scaled neighborhood. It is becoming dense and vibrant and will so more in the future. I’m thankful to the planners vision of keeping the scale relatively low. And I’m thankful they don’t have to listen to the critics who demand high rises everywhere in SF.

      • Posted by Alai

        This is hardly human-scaled. Human-scaled buildings are not hundreds of feet wide. There is very little in Mission Bay that I’d describe as human-scaled. The Giants development on their parking lot seemed promising, but that seems to be dead.

  5. Posted by Dave

    Another weak cookie cutter piece of mediocrity.

    After getting back from visits to Seattle, Vancouver and Portland one sees what could be. Returning to SF one sees what can’t be. At least in SF.

    On a positive note the brewing entertainments/sports/hotel/residential complex in Oakland could become what the initial promise of Mission Bay was. Great conceptual architecture, easy access and some want to see, hush, hush, canals included. Make the water, the bay the focus around which a great city space is built. It is not guaranteed to happen but Oakland has the potential, in time, to do what Vancouver, Seattle and Portland have done.

  6. Posted by Pfffttt

    While they’re at it, a giant Goodwill store in one of the ground-floor commercial spaces would be awesome!

    • Posted by Dave

      Too funny. Really, when out of town friends come as they did this past week and we take them to Clement or Noe or SOMA their almost universal reaction is what an unappealing looking city. From the ground level of course. Coming in over the GG bridge it looks great. Once on the ground one discovers SF has among the most unattractive neighborhoods of any major US city. I know, we as residents get used to it and I live in Miraloma park which has non-grid streets and grass and a fair number of detached homes. But the truth is the truth and it bites.

      • Posted by Futurist

        Actually, no. We as residents don’t have a clue as to what you’re saying.

        So your definition of an APPEALING neighborhood is basically something like suburban style Miraloma park with grass and non-gridded streets?

        Tell us you’re joking.

        • Posted by Dave

          I think you make the point. Residents of SF get uses to the cemented over fronts, lack of green-space, biter row homes with no break. I can fall into that trap too. Until visit a place like Vancouver or Portland or Seattle or even San Diego of all places with real, intimate neighborhoods.

          So yeah, I get that you might not get it.

          • Posted by Futurist

            But Dave. you’re trying to compare us to cities that were developed and constructed VERY differently than our own. Not every neighborhood (here) has “cemented over fronts”. What is a “biter” row house? We were built largely 100 years ago with gridded streets, small lots and houses on zero lot lines. It’s neither good nor bad, but rather part of SF.

            What exactly is a “real, intimate neighborhood” to you anyway? Sounds like you have not been to Bernal Heights, Glen Park, Russian Hill, Noe Valley to mention a few of our great “intimate” neighborhoods. So you favor Miraloma Park and seem to use it as the basis for what you want ALL neighborhoods to be like here.

            Guess what? We are unique, we have lots of great neighborhoods. You just have to discover them.

          • Posted by whywhywhy

            @ Futurist: Nicely said. It sounds like Dave needs to get out and actually explore the incredible diversity of San Francisco neighborhoods; it sounds like he has an extremely narrow point of view.

      • Posted by Anon2

        I had the same reaction from my brother who brought his family during the weekend to San Francisco and was astonished when he finally got to see the Mission and the Castro which he has heard and read so much about over the years. “THAT’s the Castro?”, and both the Mission and Noe struck him as rather dumpy. He’s from Washington D.C. and also thought our public transportation was lacking and asked if he could use my car instead when taking his family around the city. Of course, as mentioned, they loved the view of the city from the Marin Headlands, and walking along Crissy Field to the Warming Hut and the Marina Green, but they could not stop talking about how they thought San Francisco would be “cleaner”, “safer” and were expecting a more “European” experience.

        What really drove me nuts is all they could talk about is how much they enjoyed Southern California (sigh!), especially their hotel in Laguna Beach, shopping in Newport Beach, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood, and driving around looking at the homes and neighborhoods. Maybe that is the California most visitors are expecting when they come here?

        • Posted by spencer

          The north side of the city is a lot more appealing to tourists.

        • Posted by James

          The nice thing about people who prefer Los Angeles is that they live there 🙂

          • Posted by swiftamine

            I bet this is just Dave again, rambling to himself about imaginary guests who were apparently so shocked by the city. But either way, different strokes for different folks.

            I live in Alamo Square and would MUCH rather experience enjoy my beautiful community on foot than depend on a car to experience neighborhoods in LA. Plus who would want to deal with all the vapid, silicone injected clones of Laguna Beach, Beverly Hills, etc? You think people from DC would be smarter than that.

        • Posted by NoeValleyJim

          Someone from DC was complaining that San Francisco wasn’t safer? That is a hoot. The crime rate in DC is 50% higher than here. If you prefer to drive everywhere, Southern California is much better.

          • Posted by spencer

            i lived in LA for 1 yr in 2005. I can promise you that SF is much better for driving. It takes forever to get anywhere in LA in a car. I actually took my bike a lot in LA.

  7. Posted by Grace

    Re: reaction of out of town visitors… Locals can have a similar reaction. When we leave the city for a few weeks we realize upon return just how filthy our city is. We also re-experience the transportation nightmare as we try to travel across the city. Almost every street has orange men working signs. Who manages this work? And we see how large the homeless encampments are getting at Justin Herman Plaza and along the embarcadero. These are big issues that need to be addressed and your friends and family observations are correct.

    • Posted by spencer

      im waiting for us to become a big city , and do the roadwork at night, similar to NYC. having gough crowded every morning with construction really makes no sense. do that work from 10PM to 6AM

  8. Posted by cvp

    Ew, ew, and ew. This town needs some architects. Fast.

  9. Posted by Conifer

    Some of the criticism of San Francisco neighborhoods is justified. The Mission is widely described both here and around the country as “gentrified” and there are protesters who want to stop it. While a stretch of Valencia has nice restaurants and shops, Mission Street in the Mission is just as slummy as ever especially around the key corner of 16th, where there is little sign of gentrification or anything very decent.

    • Posted by Anon

      Mission street itself is quite changed on many blocks, actually. Your broader initial point is not accurate. Point taken regarding the 16th st area, but there are big changes slated to happen there soon. The Mission is experiencing the changes wrought by the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan without the opposition Jane Kim has brought to SOMA.

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles