In the works for over a decade, the official development agreement and approvals necessary for the San Francisco Giants to move forward with their massive (yes, massive) redevelopment of A&T Park’s Parking Lot A into “Mission Rock,” the plans for which include over 1.4 million square feet of office, retail and restaurant space; over 1,300 units of rental housing in buildings rising up to 240 feet in height; 3,100 parking spaces; and nearly 8 acres of open space and parks, are slated to be approved by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors tomorrow afternoon.

The anticipated ground breaking for the four-phase development, which is expected to take at least a decade to complete, is currently pegged for “as early as next year.”

And as we first reported, Anchor Brewing, which had been courted to open a new brewery, restaurant and museum on Pier 48 has been officially dropped from the plans.

Speaking of which, while the associated redevelopment of Pier 48 (and 48 ½) may still occur “at some future date,” with the Giants and Port having agreed to cooperate on identifying “a potential long term use,” an effective 10-year extension of the existing lease for Pier 48 – which allows for its use as a parking and special events facility – is slated to be approved tomorrow as well with a clause which would allow the Port to terminate the lease for a Port program, project or long-term development opportunity.

45 thoughts on “Giants’ Development Slated for Approval sans Anchor”
  1. I cant wait to see this. This is what is going to make MB feel like an actual neighborhood. That and the warriors stadium are really going to bring it online. I know several people who work down there who still say it feels isolated, empty. This will help amazingly!

    1. Agree! Also glad they’re starting with the waterfront park first, rather than holding off on the public benefits until the end (looking at you One Mission Bay).

  2. What a great municipal give away to the Giants organization.

    How much money can the Giant’s organization net a year with this 1,300 units of rental housing, 1.4 million sq feet of office space and then the 3,100 paid parking spots?

    $100-$150 million a year when this is all built out after financing costs?

    1. What exactly is the problem here? The team privately financed their stadium, bought the land in Mission Bay, and got citywide voter approval for their development plans. I challenge you to name another pro sports team in the US that has done that. Hell, even most dedicated developers don’t have a process like that.

        1. Okay, so they are still paying for it. That still fits my overarching point that this doesn’t really seem to qualify as corporate welfare or a backroom developer handout.

      1. Unless the sponsor of the project does nothing short of bankrupting themselves, people are always unhappy with the developer behind it.

    2. It’s a benefit to the Giants and to the city both. What you might call a win-win. The fact that the Giants stand to make a profit doesn’t mean it’s not a good project.

  3. The 3rd Street bridge is already choking on bike and foot traffic on weekends and game days, so they will need to either expand it or build another bridge across Mission Creek. Would be cool to see something like the “kissing bridge” in Copenhagen built across McCovey Cove.

      1. I’ve been asking the same question? Seems there are objections regarding navigable waters concerns from houseboat owners down creek.

      2. I’m not sure a crossing at 5th (or 6th) street would be all that useful, since it just dumps you on a dead-end street, which is also blocked off by the Caltrain yard to the north. The best bet is probably to improve connections through 16th street and 7th street.

          1. Your point? As a PEDESTRIAN, what utility is gained by crossing at 5th and being dumped onto the stub of King and the Caltrain yards?

        1. I live in Arden, and would use such a bridge multiple times a day. Pedestrian only bridges are pleasing, I’ll take them over shared ones when given the chance.

          But I 100% agree connections towards 16th would be better. Getting over to 7th will be fine when darn Channel street opens…it’s been stuck in a rut for nearly a year. They finally striped it in the past week, so here’s hoping that means it will open soon!

  4. I don’t know if anybody else watched their presentation to the Land Use and Transportation Committee, but the Giants level of preparedness, detail, and goodwill surpasses almost any other big project I’ve ever seen here.

    Neighbors thoroughly consulted and in fact virtually all voiced their unconditional support, their retail plan is extremely thoughtful (they diagrammed Hayes, Valencia, Chestnut, and Fillmore to determine what size, dimensions, and amount of storefronts per block would be most likely to attract vibrant small retailers and activate the pedestrian experience), they are delivering in spades on park space…there is so much heart and thought behind this one.

    I am super bummed to see how long it will take to complete, but they really went above and beyond, and I think it will contribute significantly to the desirability of otherwise sterile Mission Bay and help prop up the retail areas that aren’t directly attached to the project.

    A huge win for San Francisco.

  5. Hopefully some other SF brewery will step up to get the pier done.
    21st Amendment Brewery?
    Fort Point Beer Company?
    Magnolia Brewing Company?
    Speakeasy Ales & Lagers?
    Harry Bridges Beer hall?

    1. Gosh I hope so. IMHO, the Anchor Brewery Restaurant on the piers was one if not THE most exciting aspect of this great project. The experience I had during the playoffs in 2012 visiting St. Louis that had a brewery restaurant next to the ballpark was just incredibly fun (the mass gathering of the fans/great atmosphere pre- & post-game).

    2. While not a local brewery, Ballast Point has been doing some serious expansion what with their Downtown Disney deal. Their SD brewery/tasting rooms are a huge party and good beer. I would of course prefer a local one, but Anchor seemed like the one in best financial shape to do so.

    3. The primary problem is that the engineering studies showed that the rehabilitation costs of the pier are prohibtive for most uses.

      1. Believe that is the case for almost all the piers available for redevelopment or don’t have a pile of money into them already.

        The numbers are tough to make work considering how old these piers are, the timber pilings built on and all the associated costs to bring them to seismic code and so on.

        From a contractor perspective it is also a lot of tedious, labor intensive and tough to get from underneath to type of work.

        Simply no cheap options to dealing with the piers on top of how expensive construction is already from topside.

    4. I’m a big fan of craft beer though do not see why this space must be occupied by a brewery. Big breweries contain heavy stuff, some of which fluidly shifts from place to place, causing dynamic loads. It could be expensive to satisfy the engineering requirement in a building supported by wooden piles.

      1. When Otis Redding sang Sittin’ On The Dock of the Bay he wasn’t drinking chamomile tea or kombucha. This is San Francisco – the Barbary Coast – of course it needs to be a brewery.

        Build a bridge across the Golden Gate to Marinin the middle of the Great Depression? Sure it was difficult engineering – but we also threw in a bridge to Oakland and SF got both done on time and on budget.

        You want omelettes? You gotta break eggs. You want good land use and an interesting City? You gotta take risks and build difficult projects that mean something to the people that live there.

    5. Not sure it’s a financially good idea for a breweries to occupy expensive space. Magnolia’s dogpatch location declared bankruptcy and renegotiated their loans. Speakeasy I believe was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy as well due to their new location, but I believe they got bought out by a private investment firm. Probably Anchor Steam getting acquired resulted in their abandoning this location, maybe it sounded nice but was not really financially a good idea.

  6. Is the office space exempt from M as this is Port property? Either way this will generate almost 5K jobs and likely more which is going to make road conditions much worse in the area.

    The green space is welcome but I wish there had been some restaurants right on the water in MB as a whole or this development in particular. It doesn’t seem there will be. Sure, there is Fisherman’s Wharf but that is too touristy for some. Same goes for HP/CP. The park space along the water is great but a few areas for restaurants would have been a nice touch.

    1. I’ve also voiced a desire for more such waterfront amenities in other projects as well such as Hunters Point and Candlestick.

      1. Yes, amenities that cater to the locals primarily. There could, should be a string of restaurants at points all along the southern waterfront. At water’s edge. Each time I visit Seattle a fun thing we do is find a waterfront restaurant we haven’t tried before. Another thing that would be nice to see at CP/HP is a condo building(s) that is/are near the water’s edge with their own docking area for boats. Friends in Seattle and also in Vancouver (Canada) own such places. I know – woulda, coulda.

        1. I think that approach is deemed too exclusive for ess eff…even the restaurants (expensive) and certainly the private piers. This city is way more comfortable keeping all/most of the waterfront area public parks “for everybody.” And I’m sure they’ll make great homeless encampments, as they deserve waterfront views too. Just throw is some public toilets and a nav center and it’ll be a perfect SF experience.

    2. “I wish there had been some restaurants right on the water in MB as a whole”

      Dave, if you haven’t already, go check out ATWater Tavern. Lovely little place, right on the water there. Same owner as HiDive on Embarcadero.

  7. Gosh I hope so. IMHO, the Anchor Brewery Restaurant on the piers was one if not THE most exciting aspect of this great project. The experience I had during the playoffs in 2012 visiting St. Louis that had a brewery restaurant next to the ballpark was just incredibly fun (the mass gathering of the fans/great atmosphere pre- & post-game).

  8. But what happens to the great Giants History Walk on the other side of McCovey Cove where fans also dished out big bucks for their personalized tiles? They better not scrap that!

  9. Is it still worth pointing out that the Giants reserved the right to drag the development out as far off as the 2050s, according to a post on this site? Or is that an open secret?

    1. That’s good news imo. 1300 rentals. Why aren’t some/most of those for sale condos? Don’t want too many rentals coming on line over the next few years…

  10. Unless 1 or more bridges are built in the area, it’s a bad location. The 3rd and 4th street bridges are bad enough as it is. Mission bay is going to be chocked with traffic all the time.

    1. Everyone seems to forget that Mission Bay Boulevard will connect through to 7th Street (which is grossly underutilized) – that will help significantly.

      1. They need to eliminate the damn parking on the north side of 7th St between 16th and Townsend. It creates these oscillating bottlenecks with absolutely no upside.

      2. Although with Caltrains expanded schedule due to electrification, and no underpass – that intersection is going to spend half its time closed at rush hour…

  11. Will there be any residential condominiums available for San Francisco residents to purchase, or will it just be corporations owning apartment buildings?

  12. Being an architect, it is laughable when I see these rooftops disregarding any and all mechanical equipment, cooling towers and elevator penthouses, in lieu of green grass. Too bad they aren’t held accountable to produce what they peddle to the public and the planning department as fanfare. There is usually a small asterisk with a note indicating : “Artist’s representation / interpretation, subject to change” along the bottom of any rendering.

Leave a Reply

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