May 21, 2012
ESPN Source: Warriors Are Committed To Moving To San Francisco
While Golden State Warriors Owner Joe Lacob isn’t make any statements, other to state they "are not prepared to make any announcements at this time," according to an ESPN source, the team is close to making a deal to move to San Francisco:
The team wants to make the move and is committed to making it happen, the source said.
San Francisco mayor Ed Lee sent a letter on May 11 saying the city would work with Warriors executives to bring the team to San Francisco in time for the 2017-18 season.
As we wrote with respect to Piers 30-32 being a stadium pipe dream, "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."
∙ Source: Warriors close to moving [ESPN]
∙ A Piers 30-32 Warriors Stadium Pipe Dream [SocketSite]
∙ Salesforce.com Kills Mission Bay Campus, Open To Offers For Land [SocketSite]
First Published: May 21, 2012 4:45 PM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
two thoughts for the mayor:
a. NOT A CENT of city money should be spent on this
b. PUBLIC TRANSIT FIRST... bringing the Warriors should not bring the snarls of traffic that Giants games bring
Posted by: commonsense-voter at May 21, 2012 5:00 PM
What will this do to property values to the condos across the street?
Posted by: MIKEMMM at May 21, 2012 5:02 PM
Cool! Can't wait to start watching the Warriors lose games in a brand new stadium, rather than lose games in their old worn out one.
Posted by: jasper1000 at May 21, 2012 5:04 PM
Sweet. Regarding traffic, bikes are fantastic for getting home during rush hour..
Posted by: BDB at May 21, 2012 5:10 PM
Hope they take advantage of the unique site, with lots of glass so that there are views from the common areas away from the court. And restaurants and cafes on the exterior of the building that also are accessible when the arena is closed. It would be great if there was a public plaza to enjoy the views, as well.
Posted by: Dan at May 21, 2012 5:45 PM
There is no chance they will get a stadium built on the piers in time for the 2017-2018 season. Look at how long it has taken for 8 Washington to get any kind of approval and they're still not in the clear and didn't have to deal with environmental impact studies for the bay.
Posted by: Michael at May 21, 2012 6:04 PM
I'm ambivalent as to whether the Warriors move to San Francisco.
For me, building such a massive view blocking stadium on the waterfront is non-negotiable.
The area south of the Bay Bridge is one of the few areas where we can still see the Bay from The Embarcadero.
I don't see San Francisco voters allowing this on the waterfront.
It's going to be a wild ride for the Warriors.
Posted by: Jackson at May 21, 2012 6:05 PM
But PacBell Park was built "south of the Bay Bridge, is a view blocking stadium, and is on the waterfront."
And it was built within the past 15 years.
Posted by: sf at May 21, 2012 6:13 PM
Car Haters, why not DEMAND that this stadium have NO parking spaces? To have observed countless posts about how new residential units should not come with a parking space, but now turn a blind eye to this traffic causing nightmare would expose your hypocrisy. So what shall it be? No parking for this project, or lay off people who cannot afford single family homes with garages in Noe Valley?
Posted by: anonandangry at May 21, 2012 6:22 PM
The area south of the Bay Bridge is one of the few areas where we can still see the Bay from The Embarcadero.
Don't forget the area north of the Bay Bridge!
Honestly, if the Ferry Building were proposed today, it seems that people would reject it for blocking views of the bay. It Makes No Sense. Just like the Ferry Building, and TelCo Park, preserve public access on the perimeter, and you've got yourself views and a useful new building, too. So you can't see it from the Embarcadero? Just because it's different doesn't make it worse.
Also, I second commonsense-voter.
Posted by: Alai at May 21, 2012 6:31 PM
The area around PacBell was a wasteland when the Park was built, no community opposition or NIMBYs to get in the way, and while PacBell is ON the waterfront it isn't IN the bay.
Posted by: Michael at May 21, 2012 6:48 PM
A stadium on these piers will not get BCDC approval.
Posted by: emanon at May 21, 2012 6:49 PM
I really hope this is just a feint to pressure the Giants to offer better terms for a stadium in Mission Bay. A stadium on piers 30/32 would be a complete disaster for the residential neighborhood.
There is little synergy with the Giants' parking lots, because they average one mile distant. (really, look at it on google satellite view, the parking lots are signficantly on the other side of the ballbark) That's even farther away than the most distant outer lot at Candlestick. There simply isn't much local parking here, and spare me the notion that everyone will magically switch to bikes and muni and saddled unicorns. Or is the idea to build a multi-story garage on the waterfront to go with the concrete mushroom?
Brannan Street is not designed for event traffic volume, yet a stadium on pier 30/32 would bring that volume 60-80 days per year.
Jane Kim, between your support for this and your support for SFPark's plan to increase residential street parking fees by a factor of 10 in your district and none other, I wonder who you represent? Are planning on running for a second term?
Posted by: Oasis at May 21, 2012 7:08 PM
as a resident of this area, i strongly urge SF against this move. we can't afford another stadium here as public transit has not been built up enough to support it. I have lived in SF for 15+ years and am PRO most development, but this will create a massive congestion problem unless the city actually creates a long-term transit solution.
Posted by: anon1 at May 21, 2012 9:37 PM
typo: last sentence should be: "Are you planning"
Posted by: Oasis at May 21, 2012 10:02 PM
There is no comparison between the ballpark, which is an outdoor facility and which takes brilliant advantage of its waterfront location, and an inwardly facing basketball arena which will basically be a box blocking views. I concur that this pier would be a ridiculous location. I can see it on the Port property just south of PacBell (what is that, Pier 42?), but not directly on the water...on the land side with park space in front of it.
In this case I would definitely be supportive of South Beach Nimbys.
Posted by: curmudgeon at May 21, 2012 10:39 PM
We are all NIMBYs, or at least should be if we're worth anything and have a spine to stand up for your own interest.. If you won't stand up for your self-interests, you're just pathetic. Hell yes I'm a NIMBY! :)
Anyhoo, the City has already screwed up again ... Smells like OEWD, but who knows .... By not vetting this idea a bit with the locals, they've already got people going fr their guns, so-to-speak, to shoot this down. Traffic, trash, ticket scalpers, pre-gaming (when idiots sit in their cars and getting drunk before even going to an entertainment venue, because it's cheaper than buying drinks at the venue), and more traffic issues.... Of course, if you don't live nearby, you don't care one bit..... And so it goes. Personally, I just want to see congestion pricing to try to minimize traffic congestion by charging $$$$ for folks to drive into or out of the area at the times when deman spikes and congestion tends to get out of control without congestion pricing.
Posted by: Jamie at May 21, 2012 10:53 PM
1) Why not in Mission Bay instead? It would draw people to stimulate restaurants, retail, and night life in that area.
2) Mission Bay could use a signature piece of architecture to define the area. So far, the architecture is very vanilla.
3) We lost Santiago Calatrava for the Transbay project. Let's get him for this. http://imgs.abduzeedo.com/files/archi/calatrava/lyon.jpg
Posted by: jlasf at May 21, 2012 11:45 PM
Both sites have pros and cons. A site in Mission Bay is better for multiple transit types, while the pier is further from 280 and Caltrain. Mission Bay also has more opportunities for street life. The Pier is an opportunity for a more daring design and would revitalize that stretch of waterfront- lots of possibilities. Anything built there would have to include new waterfront access (like the promenade behind the ballpark) which is also good. I think it just comes down to two considerations: cars and design. It would be cheaper to build in Mission Bay, and you could have a parking garage. A stadium on the pier would need to be more visually interesting to get approval, and would force improvement of local transit over time.
Posted by: Adam at May 22, 2012 4:23 AM
Posted by: SocketSite at May 22, 2012 7:25 AM
"A stadium on the pier would need to be more visually interesting to get approval, and would force improvement of local transit over time."
I've lived in SF a long time. Improvement of existing public transit is less likely than winning the lottery.
Posted by: anon at May 22, 2012 9:28 AM
^ That's a bit harsh, anon at 9:28. Afterall, the T Third, which goes right by this site, is a new (well not so new anymore) rail line specifically built to serve this part of town. Transit DOES improve in SF. My argument would be that the transit infrastructure is already in, and can't be improved a great deal to provide better access to this site. It's not a long walk from Embarcadero BART, but MUNI is not going to provide substantially better service to this site, and when there's actually something going on at BOTH PacBell and this site, the crush loads on the T-Third will be even crushier. Unfortunately, those little two car MUNI trains can't do that much to handle event crowds.
Posted by: curmudgeon at May 22, 2012 9:40 AM
Certainly Muni could provide better service: more reliable and more frequent (and maybe more pleasant and secure). Those rails aren't exactly bumper-to-bumper. Yeah, it'll take some better management and organization, but it's possible.
Posted by: Alai at May 22, 2012 12:24 PM
I'd say it's only marginally possible for MUNI to provide enhanced service. You can stack up cars on the rail line only to a very limited extent around the beginning and end of events, and those two car trains have very limited capacity. Running some ctrains in shuttle between PacBell and Embarcadero would help,if it's possible. Or you could augment service with some special buses. But it's going to much much easier to walk than deal with thousands of fans trying to get on Muni, and thankfully Market Street isn't very a far away.
Caltrain and BART are much better at dealing with event crowds, but of course they have much greater capacity, and its an end of the line station for Caltrain.
Posted by: curmudgeon at May 22, 2012 12:42 PM
Thank you for this post, SS. You've outed precisely how many clueless haters you hold. This City has no arena currently, no bball team, and there is nothing on that site. In fact the site needs hundreds of millions in fixing to be viable. Along comes a private solution. Yet people are dissing? What a joke.
Posted by: anon1 at May 23, 2012 8:35 AM
There is another anon1 up above that was against this build, glad to here that is not you. Otherwise you were not going to get your hands on any of my 2017 season tickets.
Posted by: sparky-b at May 23, 2012 8:42 AM
Why the waterfront? Why can't our waterfront be more of an open space for all? Why not build this in some other part of the city that needs help? What is wrong with the Mid-Market idea or Mission Bay?
Chicago has it right, from the city north all the way to Evanston, their waterfront is parks, beaches, and open space surrounded in the background by residential towers that take advantage of the views of the water and parks as their front yard.
Posted by: anot at May 23, 2012 9:53 AM
^Those aren't the places that were chosen?
I'd love to have a Safeway across the street from me, but those darn folks decided to build a store a few blocks away! Why can't I have everything exactly as I'd want it!!!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?
Posted by: anon at May 23, 2012 10:05 AM
Mid-Market is a terrible idea. Arenas belong on the fringe of activity areas, as they suck the life out of everything most of the time (they're only active for short periods of time before, during, and after events - which may be only a few days a week, and for only a few hours each day. No way do we need more pedestrian vacuums in Mid-Market, when we're trying to ADD activity to the area.
Mission Bay would be ok, as long as it's squished against the waterfront. But then, what's the difference between having it on the waterfront there and having it on the waterfront here?
Posted by: anon at May 23, 2012 10:35 AM
@anon, my point is that the waterfront should be special and used as public space. The whole planning of San Francisco missed an opportunity after the ports became a ghost town. At least we have Crissy Field and the Marina Green, but why can't we have a waterfront as stunning as Chicago?
There are more than the options currently given which is: A.) Empty Pier or B.) Arena.
Why not a bolder plan for the waterfront?
Posted by: anotherview at May 23, 2012 10:39 AM
One way to make this location more lively when the arena is not in use would be to make the bay facing part of the pier available for fishing. It is a cheap adaptation. Just add a few benches, trash cans, and perhaps a cleaning table with running water. I saw a fantastic stainless steel cleaning table on a Long Island City pier recently. It was like a piece of art.
If retail is built into the perimeter of the arena it would be even better.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 23, 2012 10:53 AM
We also have ocean beach, baker beach, and lands end. The whole south east is getting parkland at the water, the giants land south of AT&T will have a park at the water.
You are picking and choosing what you like about Chicago's coast. Also that park is on a lake not the ocean.
Posted by: sparky-b at May 23, 2012 10:57 AM
"why can't we have a waterfront as stunning as Chicago?"
Unlike Chicago, have three waterfronts: west, north, and east. The Embarcadero is pretty stunning, with some gaps at the old piers. If you prefer park-lined waterfront, I recommend you visit Aquatic Park, walk along Marina Green and Crissy Field, hike the Land's End Trail, and have a drink at the Cliff House before you suggest that SF's shore isn't stunning.
Posted by: James at May 23, 2012 11:21 AM
We have waterfronts and waterfront parkland already that make chicago's look like Cleveland's. Ever been to Crissy Field, Baker Beach. Land' End, Kelly's Cove? Lay off the crack, haters. There's no room for your dumbness on this topic.
Posted by: anon1 at May 23, 2012 11:43 AM
"I've lived in SF a long time. Improvement of existing public transit is less likely than winning the lottery."
My understanding is that in 1912 the average speed for trams, trolleys and cable cars on their runs was about 9 MPH and that in 2012 the average speed for buses, trams and cable cars is 9 MPH.
But then in 1912 you could get on a tram at Ocean Beach to the Ferry Building, cross the bay on a ferry to connect with the Key Line light rail to Vallejo and connect with the valley lines to Sacramento.
What is still the same in 2012 is, why do you want to go to Sacramento?
Posted by: redseca2 at May 23, 2012 11:49 AM
@redseca2^^^^ You could take rail transit all the way to Sacramento back then? I did not know that. Your post got me to do some googling and I found this entertaining video.
I will say that the Bay Area and Los Angeles both had some of the best public transportation systems outside of Europe at one time. There was a time when you really did not need to have a car, especially (believe it or not) in Southern California.
Posted by: anonandon at May 24, 2012 11:25 AM