June 22, 2012
Highlights And Insights From Warriors First Neighborhood Meeting
A few highlights and insights from the first meeting between Golden State Warriors President Rick Welts and neighborhood advocates from Rincon Hill, South Beach, South Park and Mission Bay by way of Jamie Whitaker's Rincon Hill blog with respect to the Warrior's plans for a new arena upon San Francisco’s Piers 30-32:
The proposed arena will take up about 40% of the [Piers 30-32] space.
Arena estimated to be 125-ft high. Estimated to hold 17,000 -18,000 seats. Currently at Oracle Arena, they have parking for 5,000 spaces. The Warriors believe parking for substantially fewer cars will be required for the new arena due to the better public transportation options available.
No architect has been selected. No design yet either. The location of the arena (where on the piers will it be built) will be critical in order to maximize public access to the waterfront.
Estimated $75-100 million to repair/retrofit the existing infrastructure; estimated $400-500 million to build the arena. 100% private financing. Allow 2 years for the EIR, then 3 years to build (including the time to retrofit the piers). They plan to be open for the 2017 season.
Also noted, while the parking lot across the street at the base of Watermark (SWL 330) is part of the proposed project, nothing has been decided with respect to its use.
∙ Notes from First Golden State Warriors and Neighbors Meeting [rinconhillsf.org]
∙ The Plans For A Legacy San Francisco Warriors Arena Upon The Piers [SocketSite]
∙ Seeking Noncompetitive Negotiations For Piers 30-32 [SocketSite]
∙ San Francisco’s Last Minute Giveaways To Get The America’s Cup [SocketSite]
First Published: June 22, 2012 11:30 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
At least not as tall as the 300 ft (with 400ft alternative) tower zone change they want to propose at 4th and Townsend corner in the central corridor plan.
Posted by: RobBob at June 22, 2012 11:32 AM
so they can say the stadium will take up less than half of the pier. That should help in winning over some opponents.
Posted by: James at June 22, 2012 12:20 PM
"The Warriors believe parking for substantially fewer cars will be required for the new arena due to the better public transportation options available."
Yeah, because having an almost mile walk from the Embarcadero BART station or CalTrain station on city streets is sooo much better than the half-mile walk from the Coliseum BART station with a dedicated path.
Posted by: Q at June 22, 2012 12:41 PM
@Q, You must not realize you can transfer to the muni at Embarcadero. No doubt the city would add a stop at this location for T and or N if the Folsom or Brannan stations aren't sufficient.
Posted by: kg at June 22, 2012 12:47 PM
Q - It's closer to the Embarcadero BART station by foot than AT&T Park, no? The light rail will also be able to literally drop people off right in front of the arena.
Posted by: Fishchum at June 22, 2012 12:53 PM
The question isn't whether it has access to public transit. The question is whether that access is better than the current arena's access, which it isn't.
Driving home over the bridge might be a pain in the ass for East Bay fans, which may make them want to take BART instead of drive, even with the longer walk or transfer. That might reduce parking demand.
Posted by: Q at June 22, 2012 1:00 PM
Q - you're forgetting that sports are entertainment. What can you do before or after a Warriors game in their current arena?
Location, location, location.
Posted by: Fishchum at June 22, 2012 1:03 PM
@ Q - according to the Rincon Hill blog link, it was stated that the E Embarcadero is scheduled to start in 2013 during the America's cup, so there is that as well. Plus, there will be ferry access.
Posted by: Patrick at June 22, 2012 1:08 PM
@Q - at this location, you have Muni, BART, Caltrain, AC Transit, SAMTrans, and Golden Gate Transit within a 15 minute walk.
At the coliseum you have BART and AC Transit within a 15 minute walk.
Which do you think is better?
Posted by: Q checker at June 22, 2012 1:28 PM
I drive to the games now, and I will Muni to them at the new location, so for me it will be much better.
Posted by: sparky-b at June 22, 2012 1:39 PM
I think a good way to gauge parking is to figure out how many cars park in the area for a 40k Giants NIGHT game vs. how many for a 40k A's night game. I figure the ratio of cars parked for those would be similar to a basketball game.
Posted by: atlas at June 22, 2012 1:44 PM
A comparison will be difficult; the A's can't draw 40K to a game.
Posted by: marko1332 at June 22, 2012 1:58 PM
"@Q, You must not realize you can transfer to the muni at Embarcadero. No doubt the city would add a stop at this location for T and or N if the Folsom or Brannan stations aren't sufficient"
I've seen the ingress and egress of hundreds of Giants games and would say that 10x as many people walk to Market St ferries and Bart than take Muni streetcars. The Muni is just too packed and has to few cars to move a serious number of people.
Posted by: anon at June 22, 2012 2:14 PM
BTW, there has been some buzz from bay area sports radio that the Arena would be in Mission Bay, not pier 30-32.
@DamonBruce News: A very good source has told me #warriors move to Piers 30/32 is already dead. Team will look to build closer to AT&T Park.
4:15 PM - 8 Jun 12
Posted by: anon at June 22, 2012 2:37 PM
I nominate Herzog & de Meuron as architects...
Posted by: Joshua at June 22, 2012 2:42 PM
@Joshua, that is a pretty spectacular building. If we can get an arena as unique as that, that would be amazing.
Posted by: Palms at June 22, 2012 3:07 PM
Yes, this is an extremely prominent location in San Francisco, and deserves a fantastic building.
Traffic, neighborhood involvement, etc. are also important. But if they don't produce a spectacular design, then you'll find me front and center against them building this...luckily this could be a dream project for many architects (world-class city, on the water, Bay Bridge background) -- can't wait to see the entries in the design competition. And yes, they should have a competition for this one.
Posted by: Joshua at June 22, 2012 3:32 PM
I've said this before, and will say it again. Two car muni trains (or single buses) are not going to provide a meaningful source of transportation when thousands of people are leaving an event. Luckily, Market Street is a pretty short walk away, and I believe most people will walk there (or to Caltrain) rather than wait for a jammed E or T.
If this is going to happen, I believe it's actually best to enforce virtually NO parking in the immediate area and train people to do the walk or muni connection. What I'm really worried about is the seawall lot in front of the Watermark. If a proposal comes down the pike to load a bunch of parking in there as a part of this project, I think it could really jam the streets.
Posted by: curmudgeon at June 22, 2012 4:49 PM
I think this is simply the wrong location for a large sports arena. Move it down south of the ball park.
This location is more suited to hotel/retail/housing.
The pier site is way too small for a truly functional large sports venue.
Posted by: futurist at June 22, 2012 5:09 PM
Why do you think hotel/retail/housing is better in that locations?
They are only going to use 40% of the pier for the arena so how is it that it is too small to be "truly funcional"? What will it be missing that more space would allow?
South of the ballpark = lots more people driving to it in my opinion. Not sure that is great.
Posted by: sparky-b at June 22, 2012 6:21 PM
The anti-arena crowds' many disingenuous statements rile this SoMa resident and homeowner to no end (sorry, this rant is long..). Per the neighborhood association's letter...this is not "ANOTHER" stadium and to imply that the crowds will be equally large is simply wrong. Crowds at the new arena (17-18k) will ALWAYS be 45% or less of what the always sold out Giants crowd is (41k) -- and the neighborhood does just fine w/ that. And traffic issues with the Giants are overblown, too. For the most part, Giants fans have learned to take transit. The parking lots are NEVER filled. Typical rush hour traffic is the issue -- due to workers commuting (+ the vast army of Academy of Art buses that drive around with nobody in them clogging Townsend! -- and critical mas makes it worse. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT ). If anything, the arena will bump up the number of F-line trains which is a win for all. Meanwhile, a resident who thinks they'll lose their own view should not be able to shanghai this, either. When you buy (or even rent), you should be well-aware of any development that MIGHT be built. The piers and the parking lot around Watermark have always been tagged for development. Plus, we have parks and green areas in abundance along the waterfront stretching from the GG Bridge to Mission Creek. Taxpayers should NOT have to shell out another $160 million to fix the piers and build a park just for a handful of residents (we need public park areas in OTHER areas of SoMa....but that's another issue). Moreover, it's not a "100% residential" neighborhood as one miffed resident and the neighborhood association suggest. Never has been. Always been mixed-use and that's why people want to live in SoMa.....convenience (otherwise, live in Hercules or Mission Terrace). And crime? Puh-leeze....if anything, there is less crime during a Giants game because of crowds and police presence. The worst crime involves homeless vagrants "charging" people for parking spaces or breaking windows of parked cars. The later gets worse when there is NOT a game AND NOTHING IS BEING DONE TO ADDRESS THAT because too many homelessness activists want to coddle the culprits (so the police don't even try and stop it). That's a REAL SoMa neighborhood issue for those that live here. Let's address that instead of hypothetical issues or exaggerations. Stop looking a gift horse with $500 million in the mouth; build the arena now!
Posted by: Spencer at June 22, 2012 6:43 PM
"...I believe most people will walk there (or to Caltrain) rather than wait for a jammed E or T."
Me too. After sitting through a game many spectators are going to want to stretch their legs. It is a short pleasant walk and not much farther than walking to a parking spot anyways. Why not?
Fishchum brings up a more relevant point: some fans will extend their evening and enjoy the neighborhood. Those who arrive via transit will be more likely to spend in the neighborhood. Those who drive will want to leave quickly and just add to congestion.
I'm not a sports fan and won't be attending any games here but can see the logic of how this fits into the city's matrix. And yes, bring on the design competition: this is a highly visible location and deserves top notch architecture.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at June 22, 2012 6:47 PM
But MoD you are a HUGE ice show fan so you'll be going to the arena at least a few times a year.
Posted by: sparky-b at June 22, 2012 6:59 PM
I love it. Great for San Francisco. Great for the Warriors.
Posted by: soccermom at June 22, 2012 7:54 PM
Love it as well. I understand that the neighbors need to have their voices heard and if reasonable compromises can be made to accommodate some of those concerns, then they should be made.
But this looks like a hue win for the City - lets get this thing built!
Posted by: Helmut at June 23, 2012 1:52 PM
@Joshua. That is indeed a spectacular building. An "airy" building of this type would be well suited for a waterfront location (i.e. it's better of a waterfront structure is not so monolithc). The irony of course, is that the stadium in Oakland has the same form as the one in Beijing.
Posted by: VancouverJones at June 25, 2012 9:13 AM