Updated 12:40 p.m., 8/13/11.

From the Dogpatch neighborhood where she has lived for 30 years, Janet Carpinelli has an up-close view of San Francisco’s past and future.

On the waterfront, Carpinelli has watched the brick, stone and steel buildings that once housed a booming shipbuilding industry deteriorate into graffiti-covered urban ruins.

Looking toward downtown, Carpinelli has witnessed the advance of the shiny, boxlike structures of the Mission Bay biotechnology hub on her neighborhood.

Now the Port of San Francisco is embarking on an ambitious development plan for the massive Pier 70 that involves restoring the old shipyard buildings and constructing 2.5 million square feet of new office space.

But as San Francisco officials court tech companies for what they call the “innovation corridor,” extending from Mission Bay to Pier 70 and beyond, neighbors and urban planners are asking how the architectural sensibilities — or lack thereof — of Silicon Valley will weave themselves into the urban fabric.

“The suburban tech campuses, they seem to be designed by engineers and not architects,” said Carpinelli, a graphic designer who heads up the Dogpatch neighborhood association. “I think the pressure is on to come up with something interesting for Pier 70.”

The city has thrown in with Forest City Development California, the firm behind the Westfield Center mall and the continuing transformation of the San Francisco Chronicle building, to meet that challenge. Forest City was recently chosen to plan and develop a 25-acre chunk of the 65-acre Pier 70, and envisions “a new model of innovation campus” alongside the restored historic buildings and a waterfront park.

With construction starting in 2015 at the earliest, the plans are short on detail. But the concept is a place featuring a mix of tech companies and arts organizations, public places that encourage the intermingling of people and ideas, and building designs that draw on the industrial history of the neighborhood.

Alexa Arena, a local Forest City executive, said the key was to think “beyond the physical buildings” to the tenants who could bring the space to life. That includes allowing development on the site to occur more organically and less through heavy-handed, top-down planning. It also means designing buildings that interact with their surroundings. “It’s a development that’s contextual,” Arena said.

Although vague, the ideas appear to be aimed at avoiding what everyone, from city officials to neighbors, does not want: a repeat of Mission Bay. That 303-acre development, anchored by the new hospital and research complex of the University of California, San Francisco, stretches from AT&T Park to the edge of Pier 70. Formerly an industrial railyard, Mission Bay grew up quickly over the last decade, with offices for biotech companies, parking structures and condos in the sanitized, suburban look and feel that dominates Silicon Valley.

While Mission Bay has been a success from a real estate and economic standpoint, its architectural style strikes many as out of place.

“It’s a great economic base and it’s great for San Francisco, but it doesn’t look like San Francisco,” said Lou Vasquez, a longtime San Francisco developer. “If the Bay Bridge wasn’t there, I’d completely lose my bearings.”

Indeed, tech-company architecture developed explicitly as a counterpoint to the urban-industrial fabric that San Francisco wants to preserve, said Alan Hess, a prominent California architecture critic.

“There are many good reasons why Hewlett Packard settled in suburbia,” said Hess, a California architecture critic. “It was a new concept of the factory with lawns and recreation areas, which was the exact opposite of the dirty, smelly factories with their belching smokestacks from the industrial era.”

Hess said that the tech campuses evolved to include more amenities but maintained a focus on functionality. Open spaces were meant to spur informal meetings and new ideas. Isolated campuses and in-house cafeterias were meant to keep employees hard at work.

“I can’t think of many buildings in Silicon Valley that would be put up there with the Guggenheim or the Chrysler Building,” Hess said. “It is a practical, functional architecture that doesn’t have any pretensions.”