September 13, 2012
Neighborhood Survey Says: Mixed Sentiments For Warriors Arena
A survey by the South Beach | Rincon | Mission Bay Neighborhood Association asked the question, "What is your current opinion of the plan to build an arena on Piers 30/32?"
Of the 741 responses to the survey, 49% were either "strongly against" or "somewhat against" the Warriors plan to build an arena on the Piers; 45% were either "strongly favoring" or "somewhat favoring"; and 6% didn’t know enough to form an opinion.
Not too surprisingly, neighbors who live within 3 blocks of the proposed arena were more likely to be against the plan versus those who live farther away as broken down below:
First Published: September 13, 2012 9:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
To be honest, everyone should have responded "don't know enough." We haven't seen any plans yet. People are in favor of or opposed to something imaginary. Who knows what they're thinking of when they answer either way?
Posted by: James at September 13, 2012 9:21 AM
What a surprise. Of course neighbors are "against" something they don't know (enough about). Most people prefer things to stay as they are. We live in a developing urban environment...where a large empty parking lot and a huge decaying wharf (used mostly as a parking lot) and not likely to stay undeveloped forever. When you move to a city you can expect change, when you move to that neighborhood you should have considered future development on those parcels.
Posted by: SFOrange at September 13, 2012 9:50 AM
"Who knows what they're thinking of when they answer either way?"
At a guess they are imagining the possible noise, traffic, crime, pollution, and other unknown disturbances that would come with 20,000 NBA fans visiting their neighborhood 50 times a year.
Posted by: Ray at September 13, 2012 9:52 AM
"20,000 NBA fans visiting their neighborhood 50 times a year"
A deep playoff run by the Warriors, I like the way you are thinking Ray. If that comes with the new arena then we need to hurry up and get it built.
Posted by: sparky*b at September 13, 2012 10:13 AM
It's not 50 times a year. It's concerts, conventions and other events with targeted arena usage of 200-240 days a year.
Take the number of Giants fans that come to the neighborhood each year (~3 million people) and double it. Frankly unless there are massive infrastructure changes (Muni, ferries, roads, etc.) the area will not be able to handle the excess. And these massive changes are not coming.
So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of the environmental review and lawsuit(s).
Posted by: anon at September 13, 2012 11:08 AM
it's a good thing that land-use decisions in this town are not decided on referendums. Oh wait...
Posted by: rabbits at September 13, 2012 11:22 AM
Everyone is going to take the new water taxi service. problem solved.
Posted by: K&L at September 13, 2012 11:24 AM
I answered the survey because I do live within three blocks. I have no problem with urban development but I am strongly opposed to this development until I see the City making the effort to support neighborhood with the necessary infrastructure.
Currently, when a Giants games gets out you cannot use Brannan and Bryant or any related cross street for at least an hour. Not because there is traffic, because the fans both in cars and walking simply do not obey traffic signals at all. There is not traffic enforcement officer trying to control the crowds. It's just a free for all.
If the city doesn't have the money to pay for OT for the police officers... well then don't build another stadium or tax the people who attend the games.
Yes, I should have known that when I bought my place. Traffic I expected. I even welcomed it. I like the buzz before a game, but blatant disregard for the law, safety and common courtesy I did not expect.
If you add the Warrior Stadium to this mix, the situation will get much worse.
It's Sunday afternoon...I just want to go to Whole Foods and the gym in under an hour.
Posted by: loftlover at September 13, 2012 12:09 PM
"When you move to a city you can expect change, when you move to that neighborhood you should have considered future development on those parcels."
Of course development on per 30-32 was expected. It's the total disregard of the zoning that is raising eyebrows. Building 125' high on a parcel zoned for 40' is quite a stretch, woudn't you say?
Posted by: anon at September 13, 2012 12:42 PM
"It's Sunday afternoon...I just want to go to Whole Foods and the gym in under an hour."
I also live within three blocks of the proposed site and can easily go to WF and the gym in under an hour if I walk or bike. I've also been stuck in my car during the late afternoon commute from the peninsula on Folsom and had it take 20 minutes just to go 8 or so blocks. IMHO, I think a lot of living in soma/near the ballpark (and the proposed new Warriors arena) will increasingly be about adapting to the increased crowds, traffic, etc. Yes, the city could always do more (the water taxi's are certainly encouraging) to manage the growth (and traffic) but I for one am more than bullish on the new arena despite some of these growing pains.
Also, I have used their service only once so far but Postmates offers WF delivery!
Posted by: sfjhawk at September 13, 2012 1:12 PM
loflover, why don't you just walk or bike?
Posted by: Old Mission Neighbor at September 13, 2012 1:43 PM
Lacob and Guber should pull a reverse-8-Washington here, and go get signatures to put the arena on the ballot. As we now know, the cost is nominal. It would pass with 70% of the vote, and the local NIMBY's would all be free to sell their condos and move somewhere that'll never change. Telegraph Hill and Colonial Williamsburg come to mind.
What did these people think would become of the surface parking and abandoned warehouses in the vicinity when they moved into their condos?
Posted by: rabbits at September 13, 2012 1:52 PM
I walk or bike when I can, but sometimes I need to wear a suit and it is raining. Sometimes I need to pick up my wife from the train station at night, sometimes I need 4 bags of groceries. A lot of people have kids that they are bringing to school, appointments, etc. Walking or biking is great but it is truly not practical all or even most of the time for me and a lot of others.
Posted by: anon at September 13, 2012 1:54 PM
^Sure. So you're saying that every time you need to do one of those things there's a ballgame going on (or will be?). That seems strange.
Posted by: anon at September 13, 2012 1:58 PM
isn't democracy great!
all these points of view!
Let freedom ring!
Posted by: snider at September 13, 2012 3:40 PM
". . . sometimes I need to wear a suit and it is raining. Sometimes I need to pick up my wife from the train station at night, sometimes I need 4 bags of groceries. A lot of people have kids that they are bringing to school, appointments, etc. Walking or biking is great but it is truly not practical all or even most of the time for me and a lot of others."
Yet, thousands of people manage to do it everyday in places like NYC, London, and yes, even SF. I'm not belittling the issues/challenges, I'm just saying that there are ways to manage them.
Posted by: sfjhawk at September 13, 2012 3:47 PM
I've stayed in New York across the street from Madison Square Garden and it caused me no problems at all.
But it really shouldn't matter. This handful of people who live near the thing should not be allowed to ruin the opportunity to enjoy basketball for the whole city.
Posted by: BTinSF at September 13, 2012 3:57 PM
I think what irritates a lot of us,including me, with regard to the bikes/cars/walking/transit discussion is this:
It's not the discussion, the different points of view, or the different choices we are all free to make, it's this:
When someone says "why don't you just walk or bike..?"
Because maybe, just maybe I don't want to, I can't (for some of the valid reasons that anon mentions), and because it's none of your business.
And I guess, in this city of tolerance, we even have to tolerate those who tell me how to live.
Posted by: futurist at September 13, 2012 5:13 PM
Futurist - just remember that you're talking to a group of people who personally benefit from pushing maximum development in SF, but who like to pretend that it's other people who are acting from self-interest & not themselves. In other words, a bunch of hypocrites.
Posted by: Denny at September 13, 2012 5:39 PM
Anon - Ah, well. I'm not here often enough to know the players, but I imagine most everyone here is in the real estate game one way or another. Not I.
Posted by: Denny at September 13, 2012 6:43 PM
I live a few blocks away at the infinity. My unit actually looks out over the pier, so after watching a useless parking lot for the past 2 years, I'm excited the city is doing something.
It will come down to the actual implementation. If the architecture is solid and the infrastructure is well managed, it will be a cool addition to the neighborhood.
Posted by: sfresident at September 13, 2012 8:21 PM
Because maybe, just maybe I don't want to, I can't (for some of the valid reasons that anon mentions), and because it's none of your business.
Fine. As long as you're the one paying for it.
Space is limited, and cars use a lot of it.
If people driving to the basketball game cause traffic problems, then regulate the people driving. Don't penalize the 80% who aren't driving, just because you're ideologically opposed to regulating drivers.
Posted by: Alai at September 13, 2012 9:14 PM
When I lived in the midwest (relatively unlimited space) driving a car to go pick up my dry cleaning (drive thru) had little impact on anyone else's 'business.' Making the same decision in SF at the wrong time - and assuming others are making the same decision based on the same principle - actually does impact everyone else/the Big Picture in a negative way (added congestion, public safety, etc.): i.e. it becomes their/our business.
We can discuss ad nauseam other examples of how seemingly none-of-your-business/personal decisions negatively impact everyone: motorcycle helmets, smoking, gun ownership, etc., but it's a pretty simple point. I'm all for personal liberties: drive, smoke, do anything that your heart desires; but once your actions impact everyone else in an adverse way, then there should be some checks and balances (to Alai's point: be willing to pay for negatively impacting everyone else).
Posted by: sfjhawk at September 13, 2012 11:14 PM
Just so I've captured this correctly, I should ride my bike with 3+ bags of groceries + gym stuff because Giants fans don't want to obey the traffic laws and the city is too cheap to hire enforcement. Wow! Brilliant!
How about when I'm driving up from the Peninsula after seeing clients? And no you can't take the train to Redwood Shores and Mountain View in the same day. Should I ride my bike there too? Along the 101 and up 237? In my high heals and a suit?
A lot of Giants fans and have no respect for the neighborhood and I don't see it getting better with the addition of the Warriors stadium. Sometimes I drive into my condo only to see a grown man peeing in our driveway.
Can you imagine what would happen if I drove illegally in Walnut Creek, parked may car randomly on the street, and walked up to a stranger's driveway and started to pee on their garage?
Here's an idea. Why don't the fans take BART/Muni and learn to behave, follow the law, and practice basic civility?
Since that's not going to happen, the city has to pay for additional traffic controls BEFORE building the Warriors Stadium. Everything comes at a cost. Let's the fans pay.
Posted by: loftlover at September 14, 2012 7:48 AM
^Since AT&T Park doesn't have anywhere near enough parking for everyone to be driving, I'm pretty sure that most fans are already taking BART/Muni.
Is it seriously your assertion that the majority of fans are breaking the law or not following basic civility? LOL.
Posted by: anon at September 14, 2012 7:59 AM
This all sounds very lets complain before we know th facts.
Traffic, cars and the Warriors: The majority of season ticket holders are from SF. Season tickets include discounted parking. Lots of people driving through the city onto the brige now to get to the games. I drive to the games now, I would take the train to the game at the new location.
Peeing in the driveway: A lot more drinking is done at the much longer, slower, have lots of breaks baseball game than a hoops game. Less alcohol= less pee. Also there will be a lot less people.
Posted by: sparky*b at September 14, 2012 8:18 AM
Indeed I have quickly learned to avoid driving in this area on ballgame days. I have seen many times what it is like to have an external event deciding what you can do with your day. I won't criticize anyone opposed to this project for the reason of excessive crowd.
About fan behavior.
There are always a few bad apples in a group. The problem is that when many in a ballgame group get drunk, the craziest behavior becomes sometimes part of the collective fun. If you have 1000 Opera lovers with 10 bad apples (I know a few), they're usually tamed down by the mass even if the mass is drunk on Champagne. Take 20,000 ballgame fans with 200 bad apples and you can have a mess on your hands as a few 100 drunks from the mass will join the crazies in their "fun" and the rest will have a pretty good time watching them. Plus: too much beer, not enough restrooms... 'nuf said.
Also, this is an area of expensive condos and there could be social resent at play as some of the ballgame fans are not as well off as Embarcadero dwellers. They could say "Who cares? I bleed myself dry for these tickets. They have money, they will clean it up, they always do."
About futurist, from what I recall he lives very very far from the Embarcadero. No ballgame in the 94114. The only minor traffic grief we get there is from tech shuttles and Caymans blocking 24th to go to WF.
But this is a city that becomes more crowded by the month, justifiably so. Futurist is often the first to praise density and new developments. We have to accept that it must come with adjustments.
Posted by: lol at September 14, 2012 8:31 AM
"Yet, thousands of people manage to do it everyday in places like NYC, London, and yes, even SF. I'm not belittling the issues/challenges, I'm just saying that there are ways to manage them."
wow, I almost spit out my coffee. The public transportation in SF is nothing in comparison to NYC or London, and the reality is that it's not going to get significantly better in the next few years. Too bad.
Posted by: anon at September 14, 2012 8:59 AM
for context's sake: I've lived in SF 15 years, and have been traveling to NYC and London for 8 of them (work and pleasure). You're right: those cities have much better systems than SF, but I've used many lines over the years to know that they're functional/usable (that's the strongest endorsement of muni I can muster).
My overall point is that the challenges are manageable: i.e. wearing a suit in the rain? Really? I moved here right when El Nino hit in '97; went through a couple pairs of leather shoes and more than a couple of umbrellas. It was a definite shock since I came from a place much like Walnut Creek where one could drive door to door but yet everyone who had to wear suits in the city figured it out (albeit w/higher dry cleaning bills that year). Multiple bags of groceries? How about: go on an off/non-game day; use a delivery service like task rabbit, exec, or postmates? This assumes if one can afford 3-4 bags at WF, one can spring for the nominal delivery fee.
@loftover, I completely empathize w/your point about post game scofflaws; I see it from time to time as well. The city should do more but as someone else pointed out, I'm not for slowing down an initiative like a new arena (on a site that has been dilapidated peers for +15 years).
Posted by: sfjhawk at September 14, 2012 9:26 AM
"Can you imagine what would happen if I drove illegally in Walnut Creek, parked may car randomly on the street, and walked up to a stranger's driveway and started to pee on their garage?
Here's an idea. Why don't the fans take BART/Muni and learn to behave, follow the law, and practice basic civility?"
You know, it's a lot easier for 1 person to move to Walnut Creek than it is for 1,000s of fans to change their behavior. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Old Mission Neighbor at September 14, 2012 9:34 AM
"How about when I'm driving up from the Peninsula after seeing clients? And no you can't take the train to Redwood Shores and Mountain View in the same day. Should I ride my bike there too? Along the 101 and up 237? In my high heals and a suit?"
I get the hyperbole but it really is about being pragmatic (what works given the context). I used to do the daily commute from the marina to Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Fremont, so I get where you're coming from but again it's not completely unmanageable.
Posted by: sfjhawk at September 14, 2012 9:41 AM
I live in the neighborhood, probably the nine blocks away cohort. I am very pro-development. I don't particularly like NIMBYs. However, I am very much opposed to a Warriors stadium at the proposed location. I don't think it matters what the final form of the stadium might be. It should not block the water views from the Embarcadero, and it is certainly not part of the master plan for the water front. If the proposed location was the vacant lot across the street, where it would not block public views from the Embarcadero, or the Giants parking lot just south of Mission Creek, I think that would be fine. AT&T Park is a great neighbor, even with the occasional drunk fan wandering by our window after the game. However, AT&T Park was a pioneer, Mission Bay was pretty much a waste-land at that time, so just about anything would have been a positive change. 'Nuf said.
Posted by: Schaetzer at September 14, 2012 10:40 PM
Here's a survey claiming that 80% of San Franciscans are in favor of the Warriors arena:
Hell, even 66% of Alameda and Contra Costa county residents are in support of it. Keep that in mind SOMA NIMBYs. You live in a big city, in the downtown area no less (and in a particular area that has been having lots of new development for well over a decade now), it's not a quiet suburb, and it's not a quiet far-flung residential area of the city. You should expect to have people, events, and traffic all around you. And most people actually want this. As for public transit, most people will be using it to get to these games, and this is an area where it's actually adequate (light rail + nearby BART, Caltrain, ferries, and buses), so complaining about that makes little sense as well. Maybe Walnut creek would be more to your liking?
Posted by: dfb at September 15, 2012 9:43 AM
I am excited for the Warriors to be coming back to SF, but wholly not excited for the thought of an arena on the waterfront. Sure in theory the thought of an iconic architectural arena (not likely) set right on the water sounds amazing but quickly the reality of parking and traffic make it sound like a nightmare. We all know embarcadero traffic from 3-6pm is a nightmare, and with mission bay residents set to increase from 3 new housing developments and the UCSF Hospital...the parking and traffic plan for a new arena is going to have to be amazing. And if history repeats it likely will be far short of amazing.
I do wonder though more than anything if there was ever a consideration to put the stadium out at the Hunters Point Shipyards? Considering there was already a giant stadium plan completed once before complete with parking, and roadway infrastructure, set as well on the water, and maybe a lightning rod to hasten the development to that area much like AT&T did to Mission Bay/South Beach.
Posted by: Rob at September 17, 2012 10:50 AM
^Yuck, too far away from downtown.
The football stadium plan for the area was terrible, the last thing that that area needs is a gigantic mass of open space (the plan had acres and acres and acres of "dual use" space that was essentially just parking lots covered with grass).
If we were willing to put in some massive density around the arena in Hunters Point it might work, but then we'd need to build new transportation infrastructure to it. The football plan assumed heavy traffic only on game days.
As you rightly note, the Embarcadero already handles boatloads of traffic most of the time. This will be peanuts for it to handle.
Posted by: anon at September 17, 2012 11:10 AM
People who drive will be able to park at the existing Giants lots. Sorry, people who drive to this *much smaller capacity facility* will be able to park at the existing Giants lots . The "congestion" argument Holds no water.
Posted by: Anon1 at September 17, 2012 11:43 AM
It is time to move muni light rail underground from market street to Caltrain.That should be a must for moving potential 60k ( when both the arena and AT&T park are in use) fans. Don't forget that Madison square garden in New York is right on top of the Penn station.
The arena shouldn't be taller than Bayside village. Build some part of it under the water and reserve the waterview to all SF!
Posted by: Soma at September 22, 2012 11:20 PM
Central Subway will underground tracks already, a few blocks inland.
An underwater stadium doesn't seem practical. Imagine an earthquake after which water filled the arena!
Posted by: Dan at September 23, 2012 11:33 AM