April 10, 2012
A Piers 30-32 Warriors Stadium Pipe Dream
With an estimated $50 million to simply prepare Piers 30-32 for any major development (on top of the $8 million the port has already committed for the America’s Cup) and only five years before the team’s Oracle Arena lease runs out over in Oakland, we’ll put the odds of the Golden State Warriors building a stadium upon Piers 30-32 at 5 percent.
If the Warriors were serious about making a move, we don’t believe they would have passed up the proposed Mission Rock development, irrespective of a Chronicle source’s claim that the Warriors "do not want the Giants to be their middleman.”
That being said, we would love to be proven wrong. And of course, there is another large parcel of undeveloped land around the corner that recently became available.
∙ Piers 30-32 Back In Play For The America’s Cup (And Beyond) [SocketSite]
∙ Warriors Sold, Plans To Move Untold [SocketSite]
∙ Mission Rock Plans Dusted Off With Giants Swinging For A 2015 Start [SocketSite]
∙ Warriors pass up S.F. Giants' arena offer [SFGate]
∙ Salesforce.com Kills Mission Bay Campus, Open To Offers For Land [SocketSite]
First Published: April 10, 2012 7:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
Strikes me that oracle is cheaper and bigger than either of the two other options.
Traffic on the waterfront during Postseason hoops and early baseball season (april, may, june) would be just murder. Maybe enough to adversely affect attendance.
Posted by: BillyBalls at April 10, 2012 7:53 AM
Five percent chance? That's generous. It would take a decade to get the approvals, nevigate the nimbys/legal challenges and get a stadium built on the piers. It's not going to happen.
Posted by: Michael at April 10, 2012 8:30 AM
Watermark residences with a view will not like this.
Posted by: Ivan at April 10, 2012 8:40 AM
"Postseason hoops"...not likely for the Warriors
Posted by: Be Right at April 10, 2012 8:56 AM
Does SS have it's own helicopter?
Posted by: sf at April 10, 2012 9:25 AM
if they do move, seems more likely that the W's would just go to San Jose and play in the HP Pavilion. whatever happens with the A's (whose lease expires in 2013) will influence the W's decision as well.
Posted by: vanillablue at April 10, 2012 9:31 AM
It would cost a couple hundred million extra just to build on the piers vs. Mission Bay, so I would be shocked if it happened.
Posted by: anon at April 10, 2012 9:37 AM
The Chron-ic reporters are smoking Oaksterdam green...
Posted by: CH at April 10, 2012 9:55 AM
Out of all the options the W's have, I don't see them choosing San Jose/HP Pavilion. Despite being the league's 8th most valuable franchise, they're still perceived as a small market team and not one where franchise players want to take their talents to, at that. Not to say that small market teams (OKC) have made a go at it (w/some help from the lottery, i.e. Kevin Durant), but if the W's move, it will be to SF, IMHO.
Posted by: sfjhawk at April 10, 2012 10:14 AM
I'd be surprised to see them move to these piers, given the extra work required, but I'm glad they seem committed to the City move. Maybe they can integrate it into the Transbay project, make it the Penn Station of the west! (not that that's a good model to follow)
Posted by: James at April 10, 2012 11:50 AM
agree with sfjhawk
these owners are not San Jose types it seems
Posted by: Zig at April 10, 2012 11:50 AM
nicer spot than mission bay. time and money needed to develop is probably way more than the warriors wiling to spend. they wasted the amnesty on charlie bell!
Posted by: brandno at April 10, 2012 12:47 PM
"Does SS have it's own helicopter?"
I think this vantage point is from Rincon Hill tower right.
Posted by: condoshopper at April 10, 2012 5:41 PM
I would hope that SF decision-makers and the Port would come to realize that an indoor arena (regardless of what it's used for) is hardly a waterfront-appropriate use, let alone on top of a pier. If you're in that arena, you might as well be anywhere. At least with the Giant's ballpark, and with baseball in general, it's an outdoor game that involves enjoying the scenery (views from the bleachers and upper decks to downtown, the Bay, Bay Bridge!), weather, etc. On top of that the Pac Bell Park architects nicely wove in public interaction with the action on the field itself via those awesome peek-through portals in right field from the waterfront promenade. Basketball is played in an insular closed arena. The site might have better transit going for it, but other than that, the thought of an indoor arena on a pier more than puzzling. It's something as sophisticated as they do in lower-tier cities. Stockton anyone? True that the previous mall proposal was even more nauseating, but still. If something like this ever moves forward, they'll have to do something much more innovative and interactive than just stick a new version of the Oracle Arena (gack!) onto a pier.
Posted by: hmmm at April 10, 2012 10:48 PM
i wish the new ownership team would stop looking across the bay and try to find a solution to keep the team in Oakland. jack london square? downtown? or even develop all that land they have now to build a new arena, retail and housing in what is currently the parking lot. jack london square is a 10 minute walk from lake merritt bart, keeping the arena where it currently is already has a bart station built in. oakland needs the tax revenu and with a new arena, the fan base would be re-energized. #OaklandWarriors
Posted by: ggold at April 11, 2012 12:50 PM