soma mission bay hotel site

With the former San Francisco Giants Parking Lot D having been prepped for construction, the building permits for a 250-room hotel to rise on the northwest corner of Third and Channel Streets have been requested, the design has been refined and newly rendered, and construction for the SOMA Mission Bay Hotel should soon be underway.

Soma Mission Bay Hotel Rendering 2015

From the architects with respect to the design:

The hotel has a 40-foot high street-edge defining podium element containing public and back-of-house spaces, and a taller tower element containing guestrooms and guest suites. The “L” shaped guestroom tower is organized in two (2) perpendicular wings rising 16 stories. Typical guestrooms are provided with generous picture windows that allow for guestroom suites to be situated facing AT&T Park, Twin Peaks and the City Landscape beyond.

The ground level sidewalk pedestrian experience is activated by the hotel’s public use space – the lobby gathering areas and marketplace café. The main public entrances for the hotel and marketplace café are located along the 3rd Street façade. The Porte Cochere and direct access to the rooftop community space enliven south-facing Channel Street. At the 3rd & Channel Street corner the hotel’s 40’ podium volumetrically defines a glass-enclosed, corner lobby and public gathering space – “The Community Living Room.”

Formally, the top of the hotel tower is defined by a sheltering brow which provides a defined cap element to the tower as well as functional wind and weather protection for the rooftop community space. This horizontal brow will be accented with color on its underside and distinctively lit during evening hours.

Soma Mission Bay Hotel Detail

Originally slated for a late 2017 opening, it’s now looking more like the doors will open in early 2018.

The SOMA Mission Bay Hotel will abut the 350-unit residential development that’s to rise on the remainder of the Mission Bay Block 1 site to the north.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by bananas

    You quote the architects, but don’t mention the firm name? Wtf.

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      It’s in the “Related” tags below the article. Hornberger + Worstell.

      • Posted by bananas

        Thanks I didn’t see that – Although I think the tags are supposed to reference the content not be the content.

        • Posted by Elitist Pig

          I know, I went through the same thing.

  2. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    As long as there is long-term union jobs available…….. a hotel would be a plus near the mission bay and UCSF area. (No cars, though as we see the congestion getting worse, unless we restrict cars in the city more)

    Transit Tax – would help in the T-Line fixes as well… SFBOS????

    • Posted by SOMA resident

      The needs of SF residents have nothing to do with union jobs. I hope the developer contracts the most capable construction crew for the money. When local government mandates or steers the developer to use union construction, this is what is called corporatism, as the local politicians expect political support in return. It introduces inefficiencies that are passed on to the consumer. Frankly, it is befitting of Third World countries.

      • Posted by Elitist Pig

        How do you expect our local politicians to put money in the pockets of their cronies?!

      • Posted by moto mayhem

        i hope they don’t use unions at all. unions are nothing more than a mob racket to steal money from govt coffers

        • Posted by Orland

          Much better to concentrate wealth in that .01%.

          • Posted by Onslow

            @Orland:

            It has absolutely NOTHING to do with concentrating money with “the 1%” or anywhere.

            It has everything to do with the fact that in a supposedly free nation a developer should be able to hire capable workers of their own choosing and not be forced to hire a bunch of overpaid union types who have no interest in providing value for value.

          • Posted by Anon12

            While there is some romantic appeal in redistributing income, this is not what is happening here. Something cool like to believe that imposing union-only contracts, or affordable housing, is essentially taking money from the “rich” developers. In reality, since developers operate with a certain profit margin, the money will come from the land owner. That is, whether it is union construction, or affordable housing, developers understand that this equates to higher costs or less revenue. Thus, they will bit less, in the landowner will reap fewer revenues. In the case of Mission Bay,I believe this equates to fewer funds into the city coffers, which means the citizens/taxpayers are the losers.

        • Posted by Pfffttt

          Thank you, moto mayhem. I couldn’t agree more re unions. Unions are nothing more than legalized mobsters.

        • Posted by Ohlone Californio

          oh please. unions are the only thing that has ever benefited workers in American society. there are many libertarian sloganeers on here nowadays, seems like.

          • Posted by anon

            Unions were a good thing a 100 years ago, but moto’s right, these days it’s mostly just a mob front.

          • Posted by Brian M

            Ah, and the old “we needed them 100 years ago” argument (below). Because workers are treated so much better and their wages have grown so much more quickly than the incomes of the Spreadsheet Diddlers.

          • Posted by Pfffttt

            Union workers are nothing more than entitled mobsters. They do no better, if not worse, work than someone else in their same trade. Yet they are the most demanding and are just out to bleed/rob their employers dry. Then they just move on to their next victim. Wash, rinse, repeat.

          • Posted by anon

            @Brian M – you’re seriously claiming that workers are not treated better now than 100 years ago? Should we then repeal all worker safety laws? Minimum wage laws? Overtime laws? EEO laws? Etc? It would seem so, since according to you those have had no effect, and we need mobbed up unions to protect the huddled masses.

  3. Posted by Aaron Goodman

    one question on the north edge, looks flat and grey, plantings access for a promenade, public accessible, or is the hotel chain trying to solidify control of that zone?

    • Posted by Elitist Pig

      The hotel doesn’t take up the entire wedge, it’s just on the corner of 3rd & Channel Street.

  4. Posted by Pfffttt

    Wow. So . . . uninteresting design.

    • Posted by van nessident

      Feel free to submit your own proposed redesign for public critique

      • Posted by Pfffttt

        @ van nessident: I don’t need to design a building in order to critique its aesthetics. Grow up.

        • Posted by Brian M

          No, but your comment needs to provide more value than “I think this is boring”. In the context of modern hotel design (a particularly bland and low quality field), there is nothing really that wrong with this. It could be a hideous monstrosity like the Jukebox. It could be a far blander pencil-slab like the W or the St. Regis. Van Ness is correct in that drive by critiques which boil down to “I don’t like it” are pretty much useless.

          • Posted by Pfffttt

            A “comment” does not need to add “value.” That’s why it’s simply a COMMENT. Damn, everyone on SocketSite is so full of themselves in the superiority and self-righteous departments. Lighten the hell up, everyone.

    • Posted by moto mayhem

      i just wish it were taller

  5. Posted by Sutro_Tower

    The view from the upper deck at AT&T park will be an entirely new one once this and the eventual development of Seawall Lot 337 is complete. I can only hope that the 240′ towers in the Giants’ proposal will be a little more enthralling. Nighttime lighting on the crown of this building may help hide a lot of its blemishes.

  6. Posted by jamesjr

    “Community Living Room”? Really? Archispeak can be so humorous.

  7. Posted by Dave

    I’d think the Giant’s owners would want to complement the view from their beautiful stadium. This does not do that n any fashion. IMO.

  8. Simple, tasteful, handsome.

  9. Posted by Dixon Hill

    It looks like a squat version of 680 Mission Street (namelink).

  10. Posted by John

    What the hell is a community roof top? Why not just put a cafe or a restaurant up there? Do they just expect people from the community to go up to the 16th floor of some random building in mission bay and just stand there? At least let people get a cup of coffee, drink, or a meal there…totally narrow-minded planning.

    • Posted by Dave

      I believe it counts towards the open space requirement. Someone correct me if I am wrong on that.

  11. Posted by Columbo

    All the views from the Eastern side of this hotel including the “community living room” will be blocked by the 240 foot tower planned by the Giants. Prop D is not about open space, it’s about raising the height limits to 190 to 240 feet. The towers do in fact, have a wall effect as proposed. The Mission Rock Development site only rotates through the photos on their site but if you’re interested you can see that pretty clearly…

    • Posted by Alai

      Well, they’ll be “blocked” by buildings 100 feet away. So the views will be those of the street and the opposite buildings, just like millions of other views from millions of other buildings all around the world. So what? Should we cancel this building, because it’ll be blocking other views from the building behind it?

  12. Posted by timbad

    here it is almost a year later and this has not broken ground…

    • Posted by timbad

      and another year. still nothing. SS, little help?

Add a Comment

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