In addition to the revised plans for 520 beds of student housing to rise up to five stories in height on its 188 Hooper Street site at the intersection of Hooper, Eighth, Carolina and Channel, the California College of the Arts is planning to construct a new 96,000-square-foot academic building behind its existing San Francisco campus at 1111 8th Street and has engaged Studio Gang Architects for the design.
As proposed, the multi-tiered addition would rise up 58 feet in height, not including the roughly 11-foot-tall frames for PV arrays atop the three four-story pavilion structures, with art studios, design labs, classrooms and multiple outdoor and maker spaces below.
A 20,000-square-foot area at the easternmost end of the lot along 7th Street would remain vacant and reserved for potential future development, with plans for both hard and soft-scape improvements across the area in the interim, fenced by the shipping containers currently sitting on the western end site.
And as envisioned, CCA’s master plan, which includes a renovation of the college’s existing building at 1111 8th Street, would provide enough campus space and housing for CCA’s existing student body, inclusive of a shuttering of CCA’s Oakland campus. We’ll keep you posted and plugged-in.
5 stories just a few blocks away from Caltrain and right next to highway where no views will get blocked? I don’t recall, but I think the highway might still be taller than 58 feet.
So?
Ground in this area is all soft landfill. You can build taller but it quickly gets expensive.
280 curves away to the north starting right there, so there’s a bit more air gap than you think between the property line and the freeway deck. And with the part fronting 7th street apparently not being built on for the time being, the gap between the freeway deck and building is substantially larger.
Also, the 1010 Potrero complex backs right up to the freeway and that didn’t seem to stop it from filling up.
I seem to remember, from years ago, a city planner by the name of Susanna Montana (?) who defended the height limits for parcels adjacent to the freeway as any height above the freeway blocks view from the freeway of the city. I kid you not.
I thought the height limits around here were due to John Burton, who lived on Potrero Hill and liked his views.
i am one of tose who think a nice city view from driving on the freway is worth saving (in some instances). the 280 ramp is one of those. its an iconic view of SF. the 101, not as much.
Closing their bucolic Oakland campus to relocate to SF? Why?
They’re a little vague, but you of all people should know the REAL reason…
With developers of “The Ridge” getting ansty about buildlng out the rest of their plot with retail, this would be a great opportunity to pair the two into a super residential project: if The Town can’t out maneuver The City it will just have to grow enough to outvote it!
Outmaneuver? Oakland is a suburb of SF, it prospers when the city prospers. A school like CCA isn’t like a corporate HQ or a commercial development which can bring spending power and gentrification to a depressed area.
And “Wissen mach frei” too: a cutsie nom-de-net and a pilfered arguing point can’t escape the reality that it is – or was – hardly in a “depressed area”, unless you consider a median home value of $1.6M “depressed”. Or are you maybe referring to the area it’s moving to?
They will have to sell the Oakland Campus in order to pay for this project. The Oakland Campus is home to at least two historic buildings and the school has been there for almost 100 years I believe, but that isn’t going to stop this plan now.
96 to be exact, but are you planning to testify for the prosecution or the defense? I believe the gist of EG’s question was that they don’t need a SF campus.
Be that as it may, if you read CCAC’s website the inference seems to be that the orientation toward a more commercial focus – “architecture and design” – is behind the reshuffling.
I’m an Alumni actually, and riding the shuttle back and forth between the campuses was not very convenient. Unifying the school makes sense for many reasons including facilities maintenance, travel times, class schedules, and fostering community. I just feel that for a school with some history, I never felt enough attention was paid to the CCAC legacy by the school administration.
The Oakland Campus is built on a rare surviving example of a Victorian Oakland estate, with the original Treadwell Mansion and carriage house, landscaping and retaining walls all largely intact. I just want the school to do right by that property, and find a way to protect that legacy.
Quality insight on your part, thanks.
Also a proud CCA alum (The extra C for Crafts was dropped during my first year). My understanding was that the school was exploring long-term lease options with a development team in regards to the beautiful Rockridge Campus.
If Oakland was located in the rust belt they should be worried about the loss of this institution, but being located in the Bay Area it will just open up new opportunities.
They are not selling the Oakland campus.
What are they going to do with it?
CCA has partnered with two San Francisco developers, Equity Community Builders and Emerald Fund, to create potential redevelopment plans of its four-acre campus at 5212 Broadway, including housing.
This first, exploratory stage of the project will take place over the summer months. Options will be presented to CCA’s Board of Trustees in the fall and then shared with the community for further input. Plans are still early and nothing has been proposed yet.
As Notcom has stated, housing in this location incorporated with the adjacent parcels at The Ridge development would be a great thing for the neighborhood and for Oakland. The question is how would they develop that unique site with the historic buildings and the interesting topography and vegetation. The area is basically a bucolic garden. I’m sure the nimbys in the neighborhood will have a lot to say about density, design, and type of housing proposed at that location.
Whatever the case, the developer of the adjacent Ridge development needs to get going and build on that unsightly huge empty lot.
Yes, I have many fond memories spending time on that campus. I do believe that housing can be incorporated in a sensitive manner on the site and look forward to seeing the upcoming proposals. In the meantime the Rockridge Community Planning Council is finalizing a position on land use policy in the neighborhood. A final version is expected to be released in six months.
Also as an alum, I have fond memories of that campus and its whimsical mash of architecture. The campus always felt like a giant tree house to me. I can remember long nights working in the printmaking studio and spotting a family of deer traveling the back of the ridge only feet away. The two campuses always did feel disjointed. The shuttle was cumbersome. And there was a lack of unity as you had one campus focused on design, with the other primarily devoted to fine arts and craft. I think for both areas of study, it always felt like you were going to an extension campus when you had a few classes at the other. I can see why, for those reasons, consolidation makes sense, though I’m sure they are not the primary motives. I hope that they create more of an outdoor and campus like feel to the extension, as I felt that was something always lacking, and i feel is vital to the well being and enrichment of a student’s experience and success. Something the Oakland campus had. As an SF native commuting to Oakland during my years there, and now a resident of Oakland commuting to SF for work, it is sort of ironic how that personal diaspora has stuck. As for the fate or future of that campus, i guess we will just have to see what happens. But i would hate to see it uprooted completely from the school’s legacy and history. College Ave, connecting CCA to UC Berkeley, would seemingly loose some of the integrity to its name.
UPDATE: CCA’s Master Plan Newly Rendered and Detailed