Mission Bay Block 1 Site

The CIM Group is gearing up to break ground for the construction of 350 condos on Mission Bay Block 1, the San Francisco Giants Parking Lot D site which is bound by Third, Fourth and Channel Streets and fronts Mission Creek to the north.

The development will include a 16-story building on the northeast corner of the block, a 7-story building fronting Mission Creek, around 14,000 square feet of retail space, and parking for 335 cars.  Permits to begin prepping the site have been issued and bids for the first phase of construction are due May 1.

A 250-room hotel being developed by the SoMa Hotel Group will rise up to 160 feet on the southeast corner of Mission Bay Block 1, at the northwest corner of Third and Channel, with construction slated to begin in the fourth quarter of 2015 and the SoMa Mission Bay Hotel aiming for 2017 grand opening.

Mission Bay Block 1 Site Plan

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by anon

    Should be much larger.

    • Posted by Futurist

      Tell us why.

      • Posted by Transit101

        The simple answer is that it is right next to a brand new light rail line. It is puzzling why there is so much parking in an area that is so well served by transit. There’s few nearby structures to create shadows on as well. Perhaps the developer was afraid of another voter mandated height cap, but if I were to venture a guess, it is probably that planning capped the project size.

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          “It is puzzling why there is so much parking in an area that is so well served by transit.”
          1) ballpark
          2) neighborhood is in transition; a lot of that parking will be gone soon (just like this lot is going to be).

          • Posted by zig

            When they built the ballpark where it is and assumed 50% of the people would take transit (which they do) the chicken littles were out in force warning us of disaster. Just like the Ferry Bld.

        • Posted by Josh G

          Yeah, they did. If you look at the planning documents, the tallest buildings allowed are 160 feet.

      • Posted by anon

        Tell us why not.

  2. Posted by James

    I hope residential building has ground floor retail facing the creek. A cafe with a view of the water would be a great amenity. It was a missed opportunity on the north side of Mission Creek, but here they can still get it right.

    • Posted by Keepitup

      Yeah, lets hope the smell of their fresh brewed $5 dollar creamy Latte is enough to overcome the odor from S_it creek…..i.e. Mission creek…..lol

  3. Posted by Futurist

    Typically when projects are being criticized here for not be this or not being that, I defer back to the original planning process that ultimately determined the solutions.
    1. The entire Mission Bay neighborhood went thru exhaustive and detail public planning studies. Anyone was invited to attend and make comments and offer criticism.
    2. Often the very critics of these projects simply never attended a meeting during the process, but now they complain.
    3. This particular density was deemed appropriate and correct for this location and this neighborhood and for these uses.
    4. Building denser, bigger, taller, etc, is not, just for the sake of doing it, a reason enough to do it. Quality of life in San Francisco is very important to our urban planning process, and should remain so.

    • Posted by anon

      Um, most of the planning and process for Mission Bay took place before half of the people commenting here were even born. That’s a problem – excessive bureaucracy that leads to the previous generation making decisions for the generation that will live with the consequences.

      The density was considered “appropriate” several business cycles ago, when SF was substantially less wealthy and not the center of a worldwide internet boom (most of the decisions were made prior to the FIRST internet boom, let alone the current one). Revisiting mistakes is far too difficult, and making it that way means leaving billions of dollars and the associated rise in living standards on the table.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Um, nevertheless it’s the law, and you can’t just quip “build it taller” and then stomp out in disgust when you don’t get your way.

        • Posted by Futurist

          You pretty much echoed what I feel he said. thanks Sierrajeff.

        • Posted by anon

          Comments on an internet site are a bit different than formal addresses at meetings, no?

      • Posted by Futurist

        Had to laugh out loud this time. Are you serious?

        So, by your logic, the urban planning that was done, say 100 years ago in downtown SF when Market St. began to grow; we who are alive now should be outraged at their decisions? Or other parts of SF that you NOW do not like? ….Ridiculous.

        Fact is NO planning process can predict the future or changes to the economy or demographics. Each generation who (actively) participates has the chance to create change. Those who do not participate can only complain. The City evolves and changes as life evolves.

        Your reasons, to me, come across as sour grapes, rather than comments about the true process that took place.

        • Posted by anon

          Outrage no, discussions of change yes. I have no idea why you seem to think that questioning past decisions and promoting changes that I feel are more appropriate is somehow “outrage”. This is how planning happens – citizens voice their complaints over past decisions, and those currently in power listen to the complaints, and if they’re loud enough, changes happen.

          If everyone else feels that things are good as is, nothing will change. That’s the way things work.

          • Posted by Futurist

            No. Responsible urban planning happens by getting involved in the process. Complaining about what eventually gets built is just complaining. Your comments here have largely been simply “build more and build bigger”, ad nauseum.

            Thankfully our city is not moving in that direction.

          • Posted by anon

            You’re assuming that I’m not involved, which is incorrect. I also, as a separate item, comment about changes that should be made on Socketsite.

          • Posted by moto mayhem

            the urban planning process does take too long and needs change during those times. its too beauracratic.

      • Posted by zig

        The “process” for the Octavia Market plan took so long that they determined that the “stakeholders” had changed and they had to start part of the process over

        • Posted by moto mayhem

          the absolute worst plan in SF is the western SOMA plan. basically allowing suburban density in a core downtown area. it took more than 10 yrs and the plan was more than 10 yrs out of date by the time it was in place. its a shameful pllan that has no vision and really didnt think about the future at all

      • Posted by Keepitup

        “anon”……wrong……….So you are saying half of all the newbies to SF are 10 years old?…..lol

        The first MB proposal was completely scrapped 10+- years ago. The a new plan was developed while Willie Brown was mayor. Brown lobbied UC to build their new campus in MB and with that MB was off to the races. Without Brown’s lobbing efforts MB would have languished for decades, if the truth be known. Plus the MB planning process was in full swing…pun intended after the Giants ballpark had been completed.

        The whole MB plan is and was a product of the now defunct SFRDA San Francisco redevelopment agency. The lot has always been cited for Hotel.

        • Posted by Orland

          All very true and can we please recognize what a great mayor he was by renaming Third Street from the Lefty O’Doul Bridge to the Bayview “Willie Brown Blvd” in his lifetime?

        • Posted by anon

          Um. Willie Brown left office in 2004. So, someone would have to be at least in their mid-30s to have had any possibility of being involved in the plan, and that would mean that they were attending meetings while just a year or two out of college (instead of going to work for 50-60+ hours a week like most fresh graduates in this city do).

          No idea where you’re getting your 10 years old comment? What does that even mean?

        • Posted by Schaetzer

          Actually, the first MB plan goes back as far as the mid-to-late 1980s. I worked at a firm that had some peripheral involvement in it at that time. It was interesting to see how changed over time and what it ultimately became. The land was owned by Catellus, a spin-off of Southern Pacific RR’s land division. The MB that is getting built only vaguely resembles what was proposed back then. UCSF wasn’t even in the picture originally. They came along later. And they played MB off against a new location at Harbor Bay Island (Alameda), if I remember correctly. Catellus has since been absorbed by ProLogis, SPRR was bought by UPRR when they got into financial difficulties, and as for SFRDA, well…

          And neither Catellus, SPRR or SFRDA

    • Posted by zig

      Oh please. “The entire Mission Bay neighborhood went thru exhaustive and detail public planning studies. Anyone was invited to attend and make comments and offer criticism.”

      You can’t be serious with this comment. There is no public interest or consensus just special interests especially in a place like SF

      • Posted by Futurist

        Oh please, zig. did you attend any meetings, offer any input, email or write to any one?

        Your comment is just full of built in dislike for the project anyway.

        Next.

        • Posted by zig

          I think I was too young to participate but would it matter if I wanted taller buildings in Mission Bay when the powers that be would not blocked views in P Hill?

          And I didn’t even make a comment about the height. In general I have a big problem with the planning process in SF though. The only thing I find worse is the planning process for public transportation

  4. Posted by Bib B

    The original plan did not include a massive stadium. The infrastructure that was put in was based upon the original plan (sewers, storm drains, etc.). Now that the plan has changed the infrastructure can’t support the buildings that are going in.

    • Posted by Orland

      The “massive stadium” (please, it’s a BALLPARK) is not a part of Mission Bay and the original plan included a lagoon and canals.

  5. Posted by Orland

    At any rate, it’s good to hear that the proposals for Block 1 are finally moving forward to actual construction.

Add a Comment

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