May 6, 2013

Redesigned Warriors Arena Unveiled: A Peek Inside And Out

The Warriors have unveiled their revised designs for the proposed San Francisco arena at Pier 30-32, pushed back from the water to accommodate a deep-water berth to the east.

Transparent glass panels and a public walkway around the building would not only provide a peek into the arena but frame the Bay Bridge from inside (click images to enlarge):

The retail component along the Embarcadero has been reduced in size and the public plaza enlarged. And yes, Red’s Java House has been moved to the south side of the Pier.

The Warriors previous design and site plan for the pier: Piers 30-32 Arena Design 1.0.

First Published: May 6, 2013 7:30 AM

Comments from "Plugged In" Readers

Now it is starting to look like a Snohetta project.

Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at May 6, 2013 7:30 AM

A giant window at the expense of another 500+ tickets times games per season times years in useful life of this venue? Just to look at a rather ordinary-looking bridge? Haha, no way.

Posted by: formidable doer of the nasty at May 6, 2013 7:56 AM

If the NBA is anything like the MLB, they'll just cordon off seats anyway, so that the game is considered "sold out"

Posted by: Joel at May 6, 2013 8:28 AM

If Red's outdoor seating goes away in the building move like the rendering suggests, then I think they're in for a rough time business wise unless they re-invent. Lets face it - the best thing about Red's is (was) sitting outside on the pier on a sunny day.

Posted by: Can't think of cool name at May 6, 2013 8:39 AM

From the SFGate article:

"We are very happy with the idea that over 50 percent of the pier space is open and accessible at different times of the day for people who want to enjoy the waterfront,’’ said Craig Dykers, the lead arena designer for architectural firm Snøhetta, a Norwegian outfit with U.S. headquarters in New York."

As a neighborhood resident, the added open space (regardless of the arena) will be a very welome addition and vast improvement over the rotting, fenced-off piers that have been there for years. Any notion that the impetus behind all this is "just to look at a rather ordinary-looking bridge," (for forty-something home games, no less), is a bit short-sighted. In addition to the additional open space, the added convention event capacity alone is a great value add for the city.

Posted by: sfjhawk at May 6, 2013 8:42 AM

Sexy pic but much prefer the sinuous form of the previous which magically incorporated the sense of movement from the water. Anything built here has to relate to the water just as Snohetta's opera house feels likes it's nearly in the water.

Posted by: Invented at May 6, 2013 8:45 AM

As an FYI, the Warriors state that there would be a little more than 200+ events per year, 50 of which would be Warrior home games.

Posted by: Can't think of cool name at May 6, 2013 8:47 AM

For those folks in past threads who have complained about the lack of open/park space in the Rincon Hill and surrounding areas, this seems like a gigantic blessing. Oodles and oodles of open space where rotting piers now exist.

Amazing to see a project with literally no downsides.

Posted by: anon at May 6, 2013 8:47 AM

I love the giant window and the walk-around. Plus, looking at the site plan, the arena itself sits pretty far back from the Embarcadero, which will increase the feeling of openness.

It is pretty amazing that this project is being gift-wrapped to the City like this. Other cities would fall all over themselves to contribute money to a venue like this. We are fortunate to have the real estate and a willing developer. Build it.

Posted by: rabbits at May 6, 2013 9:09 AM

This thing is incredible. The design looks great, maybe not world class iconic great, though I may feel differently when it gets built.

The benefits to the public here are too immense not to rubber stamp this, hopefully the state legislature will override any nonsense the city wants to throw at this project.

Posted by: Sam at May 6, 2013 9:17 AM

'which will increase the feeling of openness.'
ditto...i really like how they push it out there a bit into the bay.

I see a Democratic National Convention here in the future for sure.

Posted by: DanRH at May 6, 2013 9:24 AM

The NIMBYs are lining up to pay all the usual suspects to champion their point of view.
The Save the SF Waterfront peeps, fronted by Uber NIMBY Larry Stokus is paying for Nontheberg, Kopp, and Agnos to voice their opposition.
You can bet they've reached out to Sue Hestor too.

Posted by: Bob at May 6, 2013 9:36 AM

Ok. Now just build it already!

I love how the arena kind of looks like a stack of coins. And I love that the bridge can be seen from the inside. The element of natural light in an NBA arena is pretty much unheard of.

Posted by: Ry at May 6, 2013 9:42 AM

Dumb question, but how is this place going to fare with rising waters/global warming...etc. over the next 20+ years?

Posted by: Dumb Question at May 6, 2013 10:01 AM

This has got to be built. Nimbys, please go away.

Posted by: Ivan at May 6, 2013 10:04 AM

I'm sure the extra 2000 cars on the Embarcadero on game days will contribute to the feeling of "openness" too. And don't give me the "everybody will take BART" BS. The Warriors' current arena is even closer to BART than this would be but the parking lot is full anyway.

Great project, wrong location.

Posted by: formidable doer of the nasty at May 6, 2013 10:07 AM

I liked the original in that the "Grand Stair" area in front was bigger, and it looked more dramatic sitting on the edge as it did.

On the other hand, keeping a berth for big ships seems like a great idea, and an effective use of space (I've boarded visiting ships at that pier, and it would be really cool if they could keep it up with the arena in place). I'm rather disappointed in the cruise ship terminal they've built up north-- single purpose, on a big pier, which is otherwise empty. This would be the opposite.

I like the windows, too.

Posted by: Alai at May 6, 2013 10:15 AM

I went to the relocated Exploratorium for the first time last week, and was amazed at how spectacular and new the waterfront setting felt, even though I've been to the Embarcadero a million times. This design is beautiful and takes advantage of its unique location. I love the window--it's a nice gesture to Oakland and adds a lot to the quality of the space.

Posted by: extra at May 6, 2013 10:17 AM

It looks like a metallic library of Alexandria. Very much a "Snohetta" look, but I'm disappointed it doesn't engage the water at all. Normally they're so good about contextural design, responding to the location.

Posted by: James at May 6, 2013 10:20 AM

It's great, and I love the windows but I agree with Invented about the wave-like form of the previous design, Why was that scrapped?It wasn't compatible with the glass? The previous one looked iconic, this one looks cool but I doubt it would attract worldwide attention.

Posted by: LK at May 6, 2013 10:24 AM

FDOTN - If the Coliseum had less auto parking, more people would take BART.

I think they've got some transit issues to iron out, but how would this not work? Ferry service, MUNI, BART, Caltrans - there'd be no reason to drive here.

Posted by: Fishchum at May 6, 2013 10:30 AM

pretty hilarious how many of these comments are thinly veiled PR attempts by the developers.

Posted by: ethan at May 6, 2013 10:38 AM

^only like two of the posts were unequivocally supportive. What's more clear is your bias, "Ethan."

Posted by: Anon at May 6, 2013 10:43 AM

Ethan - got some evidence to back that up? I'm a big supporter of this project, and I'm in no way connected to the developer.

Posted by: Fishchum at May 6, 2013 10:44 AM

ethan, I am not a developer, just a citizen. And like many citizens of SF, I think this plan kicks ass. I can't wait to take transit to see a concert here (transit - see how I did that?). Moreover, this would be a sign that sometimes we get something really awesome, instead of sad attempts at being a modern city such as our parklets.

Posted by: rabbits at May 6, 2013 10:49 AM

As a Warriors fan sick and tired of the slog across the San Mateo followed by BARTing it up from the Hayward station, I cannot wait for this thing to be built. The Giants are being such huge a-holes for blocking both the A's move to SJ, and this development in the city.

Posted by: ZapBrannigan at May 6, 2013 11:01 AM

Great project, wrong location.

2nd most biggest whine of the Noobees, NIMBY's and Hippies.

1st is: Traffic.

Posted by: Inclinejj at May 6, 2013 11:01 AM

@Invented and James, Very much agree on the context between the stadium and the water. I liked how the plaza almost receded into the Bay in the first set of renderings, in addition to the grand staircase as mentioned above. It now seems almost disconnected. But, regardless, excited to see a something like this on our waterfront.

Posted by: Joel V at May 6, 2013 11:13 AM

Ethan, not a developer, long time poster.
I like this 100%.

Traffic: anyone remember all the paranoid stories of parking for AT&T (PacBell) park? I remember it going on and on, how it will be a NIGHTMARE EVERY GAME, etc. etc. After listening to all of those predictions, I too thought it'd likely be pretty bad.
EVERYONE was surprised by how it didn't happen mostly. I really never hear folks complain about it and I'd argue it's been a success. People BART and walk. They take Muni. They take a cab. Some park. Some ferry. Some take bicycle-cabs.

I think all you can do is try and get the best possible place (nothing is perfect) and then allow for other services (ferry, bus, bicycle-cabs!) to help provide. The people will figure it out with something that we can't even imagine just yet.

Posted by: DanRH at May 6, 2013 11:32 AM

"I'm sure the extra 2000 cars on the Embarcadero on game days will contribute to the feeling of "openness" too."

Only if you are smart enough to not be in of those 2000 cars. :-)

Seriously, as much as I am a Warriors fan (probably closer to fair weather than die hard), it is worth asking the larger question of is it really worth the added traffic of 2000 (I don't know where this number comes from; source?) cars on the roads - typically during rush hours during the week - for 40 something basketball games a year? In it's current location, fans either take BART or drive. In the proposed location, they can take BART, drive, as well as take Caltrain, and the Ferry Service to the Ferry Building (both short walks or muni connections to the proposed arena's site).

For fans in Marin, the South Bay, and even Solano County (there's a ferry from Vallejo), a Warriors game is much more accessible via public transit and can hopefully lower the number of cars on Bay Area highways at arguably their busiest times of the day.

Posted by: sfjhawk at May 6, 2013 11:34 AM

The Central Subway will be in place with station at Brannan and 4th, Caltrains at 4th and Townsend, BART/MUNI Embarcadero station and the MUNI F line driving right by. Plus, a new ferry station, too. PLENTY of transit options! And the 2000 cars comments is a big lie! Probably not 2000 cars with the Giants games anymore, especially since the meter rates were (wonderfully) adjusted. Any congestion issues are simply due to commuters! More deterrents should be in place (higher toll for non-SF residents over the bridges, tax on non-SF resident parking, etc.). However, the NIMBYs will lie and distort and every turn. Their favorite is calling the impact "another AT&T Park" when 18k clearly doesn't equal 41k. Build this wonderful, needed arena now!

Posted by: grrr at May 6, 2013 11:50 AM

This is very exciting, I love having the Giants downtown and having the Warriors as well will be great!

It just adds so much to an already great area. Exciting.

Posted by: BDB at May 6, 2013 12:08 PM

Great project! This will be a terrific contribution to the neighborhood. Down with NIMBYs!

Posted by: Snark17 at May 6, 2013 12:35 PM

With the new cruise terminal already built at Pier 27, what will this proposed deep water berth be used for? They have a dotted outline of a big ship, but no facilities for processing the passengers, etc?

Posted by: James at May 6, 2013 12:48 PM

Not sure why this needs 500 parking spots... AT&T park manages with about 50 as a comparison...

Quote of the week from, Rudy Nothenberg, who has it about right in this SF Gate article:

"The changes aren’t likely to quell the criticism coming from environmentalists and a newly formed alliance of arena foes led by former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos, ex-state Sen. Quentin Kopp and retired City Administrator Rudy Nothenberg.

They don’t object to the Warriors coming to town — but they do think the proposed arena is too big for its waterfront site and will lead to gridlock.

“The design has never been an issue,’’ Nothenberg said. “It’s the location and use … that are wrong.’"

Posted by: Observer at May 6, 2013 12:48 PM

I have to admit I was once skeptical about an arena in the city, but I can't wait to see this built. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the changes in store across the street. It will be nice to see that big ugly parking lot turned into something more active. That's a huge dead space on the Embarcadero today. And it will hide the hideous backside of the Watermark. Color me excited.

Posted by: Turin at May 6, 2013 12:57 PM

The fact is that no matter how lovely the Warriors Arena is, traffic will increase considerably if it's built.

Traffic in this area is already a NIGHTMARE and if you don't believe that you don't live here and you don't have friends who live here.

Here's some facts: SF has the third worst traffic in the US. Maybe if we build this arena we can get to No. 2?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/04/worst-traffic-cities/2127661/

It's good to have goals!

Posted by: loftlover at May 6, 2013 1:03 PM

Oh my gosh, love it! Build it now. Traffic complainers -- please, this is a city not the suburbs. Get out of the car and just deal with it, okay?

Posted by: SF Agent at May 6, 2013 1:03 PM

Turin, you have it right. Getting the lot in front of the Watermark built on will be a big win for the neighborhood & city. Getting similar density to The Brannan buildings (Brannan & Colin P Kelly) or The Towers (Embarcadero & 2nd Street) on that lot is what is needed, the downside is it seems to be only available with... The Warriors package... #fail

Posted by: Observer at May 6, 2013 1:03 PM

+1 for SF Agent, totally agree. Not sure why this needs 500 parking spaces...

Posted by: Observer at May 6, 2013 1:06 PM

Great project, wrong location.

2nd most biggest whine of the Noobees, NIMBY's and Hippies.

1st is: Traffic.


Fully agree -- IMO it belongs further south somewhere between Pier 70 & Hunter's Point; that whole area is popping & has excellent transit..

Posted by: Invented at May 6, 2013 1:59 PM

there are more than 5000 cars for every giants game. its an easy count. i dont see any problem with this. our transportation is not up to par so it seems rational to drive. An adjacent 2000 car garage would be awesome. love this project.

Posted by: jill at May 6, 2013 1:59 PM

architecturally, this looks on par with the sydney opera house. I love it.

We don't have any nice design landmarks in SF since the golden gate bridge has been built. This would be a world draw.

i cant see why anyone would be against this

Posted by: jill at May 6, 2013 2:02 PM

Here's some facts: SF has the third worst traffic in the US. Maybe if we build this arena we can get to No. 2?

Um, those are metro stats, not SF stats.

Posted by: anon at May 6, 2013 2:11 PM

I'm a resident in the immediate area who would like to see this whole project be a massive success. That said, I believe that there is a major issue that needs to be addressed. It’s related to traffic/congestion, but that’s not my issue.

It’s the lack of a cohesive, coordinated, logical transportation plan yet to be put forth by the city, the port, etc. to deal with the upcoming traffic/congestion in the immediate vicinity of the arena. I've been to plenty of the public meetings since they were kicked off for the arena/SWL330 and I have yet to hear anything remotely answering the question of how they plan to pull this (traffic/congestion mitigation plan) off. Note, that when I say “traffic” I include driving, walking (to/from work or public transit), bicycling in the term.

I can’t see the plan being simply today’s public transport services as is plus additional water services (ferries, water taxis). Here are some of the data points that raise my concern:

- Warriors state that there will be 200+ events at the arena (50 being Warriors games). They modeled a 50/50 split between public transport and driving. Obviously, not all events will max out the arena’s seating.

- By 2017, there will be at least 5 new 30/40 story condos within 3 blocks of the arena (ORH tower 2, Lansing, Fremont, Folsom/2 towers). And I may be missing 1 or 2 more. Each will have its own daily traffic patterns.

- Qual: Beale and Delancey (via Bryant) are used today for car traffic for Watermark and Bayside Village parking (daily volume unknown to me).

- Qual: Byrant & Harrison onramps to eastbound Bay Bridge are typically backed up by 3/4pm weekdays (strangely, the most on Tuesdays & Thursdays). And bridge traffic in both directions in this vicinity crawls at this time in general.

- Starting in May, 2014, 2nd Street will be rebuilt from Market to King Street. From King to Harrison, 4 lanes will go to 2 lanes, east side street parking will be removed, bike lanes added. Those who live in the area know 2nd is a Bay Bridge feeder after Giants games – and guessing it will be for Warriors arena events as well. Believe it or not, its also a Bay Bridge feeder (via 3rd to King to 2nd ) after 49er games, but…

- Dual 10 story hotel towers, 17 story condo and retail on SWL330. Each with their own daily traffic patterns. Personally can’t see these being served via Beale and/or Bryant exclusively. My guess there would need to be (auto) access on the southbound Embarcadero, but I’ve heard it stated in public that modifying the Embarcadero is a no-go.

- SF Muni trains today can only handle 2 cars (think N-Judah). New trains that can handle 3 (maybe even 3+ cars) planned, but still 5 years out.

- Starting in 2016, Giants Parking Lot A (SWL337) will start development, with a certain unknown percentage of parking spaces removed to accommodate construction. This may or may not impact parking in the area for events at AT&T Park and/or the arena.

I think if a workable, holistic traffic/mitigation plan for the area including the arena, but not just the arena surfaces, I think a lot of the negative chatter goes away. I don’t consider myself part of the negative chatter – I just want to see better planning.

Posted by: Can't think of cool name at May 6, 2013 2:13 PM

I love this design. I think it is very iconic and not too conservative at all and will rival waterfront designs such as the Sydney Opera House. The LED roof, which displays the warriors logo in the renderings, could be (I assume) used for any kind of design.. imagine the possibilities. The facade is beautiful. The outdoor walkway is awesome. The entire project is a win win win. If i lived in that neighborhood I would be thrilled for this to be built! Embarcadero is always bumper to bumper traffic anyway, so what is the complaint? Get used to the Embarcadero being a parking lot most of the time and plan ahead. Or would you rather have the freeway and a dilapidated pier?

Posted by: sf at May 6, 2013 2:38 PM

Note the design changes now include the ability to park cruise ships on the structure. this is becoming the worst combinations of cruise tourists with drunk sports fans...the ultimate bridge and tunnel crowd. you want to build an opera house? then build that. this just attracts more bridge and tunnel folks who burn cars when they win championships.

Posted by: billpeters12 at May 6, 2013 2:59 PM

@can't think

You won't see any such holistic traffic study because the logistics of the site don't support a positive outcome. It will be 200 days a year of gridlock in addition to the current 100 days a year. Unlike tobacco economists who will produce studies with whatever preordained outcome you please (for instance, that America's Cup would be revenue positive for the city), traffic engineers can't just make it up and keep their jobs.

Posted by: tobacco citizen at May 6, 2013 3:14 PM

anyone who thinks that current transit, parking, and auto traffic in South Beach is currently adequate does not live in the area. An additional few million visitors a year is going to be a disaster.

Anyway, it's not nimbys that are going to derail this project. It's heavies like the Sierra Club and Save the Bay.

Posted by: anon at May 6, 2013 3:57 PM

@Can't Think

Best post on this thread, yet. Most of the comments that are pro-pier30/32 seem to just awe at the new redesign (not that anyone hated the original) and then complain that those oppose to it are "NIMBYs" and other types of haters. Please people, use your head! This project is going to be brutal to commuters, to neighborhood residents, as well as other visitors & fans! Not to mention the pollution & environmental impact.

As someone else mentioned, I do love the project and I do want the Warriors to return to SF. The location is just wrong.

Posted by: Bro at May 6, 2013 4:17 PM

re: "the pollution & environmental impact," if the piers are not rebuilt, they will crumble into the water, resulting in great pollution and negative environmental impact on the Bay. So, if you oppose the stadium, what is your proposal to fix the piers? The America's Cup plan didn't work. This is what the Warriors are offering. What is your alternative?

Posted by: James at May 6, 2013 4:25 PM

If i lived in that neighborhood I would be thrilled for this to be built! Embarcadero is always bumper to bumper traffic anyway, so what is the complaint? Get used to the Embarcadero being a parking lot most of the time and plan ahead. Or would you rather have the freeway and a dilapidated pier?
I don't think these are the only two options.

I can't for the life of me remember which large U.S. city I saw it in, but there's one city ballpark (baseball, if I remember correctly) where the approach is a sunken freeway/tunnel. Imagine driving in something like the caldecott tunnel adjacent to the embarcadero but lower than street level and then emerging from that tunnel into an underground parking lot. You can then catch an elevator to the street level, or in this case the waterfront level.

In any case, I agree with anon on this one: adding a few million car trips to this section of town is just asking for a parade of horribles without substantial infrastructure improvement.

The people coming to these games aren't going to be commuters, they're tourists really, spending entertainment (read: consumer discretionary) dollars in a city whose largest employer is tourism. If traffic is as painful as commuting on I-80 during rush hour, they'll stop coming to the games.

And bumber-t-bumper traffic isn't something to "just get used to", it means the planning process failed and can only be described one way: bad.

Posted by: Brahma (incensed renter) at May 6, 2013 4:43 PM

@James

One answer to your question about what else if not the Warriors arena with pier 30/32 is to pull it out. I read somewhere that it will cost $40 million to do so. But, the city is foregoing $120 million in taxes for the Warriors to upgrade the pier as part of the build out. I know its probably apples to oranges comparison, but the analysis might be biting the $40 million bullet and losing the revenue from parking on the pier or waiting X-amount of years to recoup $120 million in taxes that could have been used somewhere else sooner rather than later. Not sure its the right answer, but maybe worth analyzing? I can't do this analysis if it can be done, but if it can, I'm sure there's somebody out there reading this that can do it...

Anyway, I don't mid the location if my concerns mentioned earlier can be addressed properly.

Posted by: Can't think of cool name at May 6, 2013 5:11 PM

I come to this site to read posts like "Can't think of cool name" at May 6, 2013 2:13 PM.
This is the best summary of the issues I have read anywhere.

Posted by: anonandon at May 6, 2013 5:18 PM

IMHO, this would be the best project in SF in decades. there is a lot of public transport here, but sure it needs a lot of improvement. a lot of people will use the ferry and muni

Posted by: jill at May 6, 2013 5:27 PM

Major PR job on the part of the developer to make this feel like a win win for everyone.

Speaking on behalf of the folks who live in this part of the city, we just love the increased traffic, the joy of driving down the bumper to bumper car filled streets and saying bye bye parking spaces.

Love to know who the folks are that stand to make the big money from this use of public land. And how much money is being spent on the PR?

Remember when the Embarcadero was being designed and built for residents to bike ride, go for long walks and enjoy the view of the water...? Now its Coney Island and sports arenas.

Where is our fearless city council when it comes to making good decisions on behalf of its people instead of revenue for developers?

Posted by: Taver at May 6, 2013 5:58 PM

Count me as another supporter of this project. I don't really care about the Warriors, nor am I very likely to go to events that take that large of a stadium, but I do like the open space being proposed and fixing up the dilapidated pier. I also love the architecture, although I slightly preferred the original design for the stadium. Overall it will be a great addition to the waterfront.

I think cool name raises a valid point that there should probably be more talk about traffic management, but on the other hand traffic impacts will likely be mild, as has been covered in earlier threads on this topic:

1) The seats are less than half of what's available for the Giants.
2) Commute traffic is leaving SF at the same time people are coming to SF for the game. Contra - flow traffic has a much smaller impact
3) The number of people that already commute into SF on a daily basis is something like 170,000, far higher than the number of people that will be attending events.
4) Many of the people going to the events will already be in SF for work.

So while there will certainly be some increase in traffic it will not be nearly as large as some would have you believe.

Posted by: lyqwyd at May 6, 2013 6:06 PM

At the SF Port CAC meeting tonight, which is focused on Pier 30-32
http://sfport.com/index.aspx?recordid=836&page=2111

Posted by: Observer at May 6, 2013 6:42 PM

"Speaking on behalf of the folks who live in this part of the city, we just love the increased traffic, the joy of driving down the bumper to bumper car filled streets and saying bye bye parking spaces."

That is definitely NIMBY speak. This is civic project for the city as a whole. the people who live in stonestown or excelsior should have as much say as those who live in the neighborhood. this is the kind of project that makes a world class city. This is an iconic building in an iconic location. it is bigger than the traffic and parking problem for those in south beach. those are good challenges to have.

Posted by: spencer at May 6, 2013 6:56 PM

But, the city is foregoing $120 million in taxes for the Warriors to upgrade the pier as part of the build out.

As I understand it, the $120 million is not foregone taxes, but partially the value of the Seawall Lot on the other side of the Embarcadero (~$35 million) with the rest of it coming from rent credits from the pier itself.

Posted by: Alai at May 6, 2013 7:02 PM

I like the idea of framing the bridge; that's a nice touch. Why not go all the way and leave retractable on that end. It would be nice to come ago as you please from the arena to enjoy the view (u could use some type of wrist band) . And just think how primally exciting the games would be with real weather in the arena. It would also be nice the same type of membrane permeabilty occured with some resturants and other services. Imagine going to resuturant with a framed view of the people inside the areana watching the game. The ulitmate spectator sport...watching other people. The point is to have a permeable outer wall where possible. Otherwise you''ll get windswept plaza with giant, ice cube monolith dominating the site.

Posted by: vancouverJones at May 6, 2013 7:55 PM

Definitely support this project, and location! And, no, I'm not a shill for the developers.

@ lyqwyd:

"The number of people that already commute into SF on a daily basis is something like 170,000, far higher than the number of people that will be attending events."

-good point!

Posted by: MarkSF at May 6, 2013 8:02 PM

I note most of the comments regarding public access to and from and transit is about the fans. I can't imagine there are 17,000 fans living next door to this pier. So it must be about

I thought Scott Wienier hit the nail on the head today at the BoS land use hearing.

He said, "transit is near gridlock today". How are the Warriors proposing to address the current mess. Who's funding the additional LRV trains and operators?

Fourth street extension won't come on line until 2018...wishful thinking.

The discussion wasn't about the fans getting to the arena like most of the comments here. It centered on how the average San Franciscans will be effected. How the guy living out in the ave's or the Castro will get home after work.

Personally, I live two blocks away. I have private off street parking. I would love to see the piers get a facelift, including the seawall lot across the street. What do I care if somebody can't get home after work. It's not my problem.

Traffic is a mess here and now for three hours every M-F today. It can't really get much worse because the streets are only so wide. So the back up's will just get longer for the daily commuters and the pollution will linger a little longer around our homes. It comes with living next to a freeway.

The concerts and games will be manageable because the fans will pay a surcharge on the tickets to fund a community improvement district to clean up the mess and help out the SFPD with private patrols.

Love the design and the windows on the Bay.

What are they waiting for? Why even bother having hearings. It's not going to change the traffic mess, let's just approve it and get going.

Posted by: icangethome at May 6, 2013 9:05 PM

@icangethome

Sup Wiener seems to be the only supervisor who realizes we cant just keep adding people to the city whether it be a sports arena, or 1000 more condo units along Market St, without sorting out the transit infrastructure.

One only has to look at the 22m the city got from the state for transit. Scott wanted that money to go to deferred maintenance, the rest of them wanted free fares for youth.

Guess who won?

Posted by: wc1 at May 6, 2013 9:18 PM

Went to the CAC meeting last night. Did anybody else who went and saw the renderings for SWL330 get the same impression as me - 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag?

@Alai, I believe you're right. I knew the city is foregoing some amount of money, but for some reason thought it was taxes. The rent credits you mentioned sounds really familiar.

Posted by: Can't think of cool name at May 7, 2013 6:51 AM

@Can't think of cool name "The rent credits you mentioned sounds really familiar."

The $120,000,000.00 million is borrowed money from the Warriors to be paid back @ 13% for ? years.

The Port gets $0 from the project for 30 years.

Nice deal for the Warriors.

Posted by: icangethome at May 7, 2013 9:31 AM

In general, downtown basketball aren / concert stadiums are oversized bloated warts on the areas around them. Sydney Opera House, no. But MAdison Sq Garden, FedEx in Memphis, that whole Staples Center monstrosity in downtown LA. A nice open low lying little baseball park seems to fit neatly and add to the experience. But the giant trash receptacle to the sky, the tin can the size of Toledo... these are never an amenity except for their devoted fan base. And often even the fans lament the venue. Candlestick and ATT (Warrior's) Arena both being cases in point

Posted by: the_biker_elite at May 7, 2013 9:35 AM

^AT&T Park does not feel "low-lying" when you're on the Embarcadero. It's a 14 story building. This will be a 12 story building. Not really seeing the difference.

Agree with you that stadia should not be built in the middle of cities, but along the edges, like say on a pier. That way it doesn't really do much to deaden the area on days when not in use.

Posted by: anon at May 7, 2013 9:51 AM

@Can't think of cool name, I was also at the CAC last night, here is what I thought:

Key learnings:
All traffic entrances/exits from Pier 30-32 will continue to at the intersection of Bryant & The Embarcadero.

All traffic entrances/exits for Seawall Lot 330 will be off The Embarcadero, one planned on Bryant and two on Beale.

Overall, the project planned for Seawall Lot 330 is similar in density to The Brannan or The Towers and fit with the scale of the neighborhood.

The planned Warriors Stadium in itself is reasonable, transportation remains the key issue...

Posted by: Observer at May 7, 2013 10:25 AM

Posted by: SocketSite at May 7, 2013 12:09 PM

Instead of 13 stories right on the waterfront, it is now 12. Not much difference and that is the problem...and once it is approved who knows how the design will change, no matter how "lovely" it may appear to be now. How would people feel if it was a 12 or 13 story apartment building there on those piers? In reality what is the difference? The thing is too big in that location and wrong for the waterfront. The Giants China Basin stadium was a completely different site.
Why doesn't someone buy the old Armory on 15th and Mission from Kink, remodel it to fit 17K ticket holders yet look like a real fieldhouse (anyone seen the beautiful new gym out at Sunset Playground) and take advantage of the BART station at 16th and Mission?

Posted by: noe mom at May 7, 2013 12:37 PM

Noe mom - Because the Armory isn't for sale.

Posted by: Fishchum at May 7, 2013 12:39 PM

@noe mom - No. No. No. There should NEVER be a stadium of any type built in the middle of the city, as it becomes a complete dead space whenever it's not in use, and kills the streetlife surrounding it. That's why stadia should always, always, always be built on the edge of urban expanses, like coasts (AT&T Park), next to railroad tracks or freeways (already dead spaces), or cliffs, etc. Plopping it into an intense urban area is a recipe for killing the surrounding zone.

Urban planning 101.

The only possible other locations in SF would all be along the waterfront as well, though all of those other locations have terrible transit access compared to this site and would cost hundreds of millions to bring access up to an acceptable level.

And no, it's not the same as an apartment building, unless the apartment building was going to surround itself with open space and new parks for every citizen to use free.

Posted by: anon at May 7, 2013 12:54 PM

@noe mom, wow you want to knock down the historic Armory? People will be up in arms. Besides the Armory is only a small fraction of the size of pier 30.

Posted by: Wai Yip Tung at May 7, 2013 2:24 PM

With all eye on the iconic stadium, Red's Java house inherit the same shed, visible in the night rendering at the right most corner of the pier, LOL!

Posted by: Wai Yip Tung at May 7, 2013 2:39 PM

Thanks for the urban planning lecture...I guess the current arena in Oakland matches all those theories, maybe that is why they should keep it there since the Pier 32 area is already pretty vital...why else would they want a new arena there plus all that real estate development across the street which we learned about today.

I did not mean to tear down the Armory, just adapt it but maybe it is too small, like some thought the Pac Bell site might be...the more everyone talks about this whole thing, the Bill Graham auditorium site looks better and better, but that would probably turn into an Asian Art Museum type of controversy.

Thanks again for the urban planning lesson, it was good food for thought. It made me wish I could go to Wrigley Field this summer and see the Cubs and that crummy neighborhood with all those bars and restaurants and housing around them...

I still think the open space views of the Bay need to be preserved. Build the apartments but keep that east side of the Embarcadero wide open to the bay for the public views.

Posted by: noe mom at May 7, 2013 3:50 PM

The pier is the perfect place for this. If only the niners would've accepted the Hunters point deal, we could have 3 iconic stadiums on previously unused waterfront. This warriors development would be a great economic, cultural and tourist boon.

Regarding another comment, this is by no means in the city center. it is much more akin to sydney opera house in location and design than madison square garden. Although I agree stadiums in city centers can sometimes be problematic, most New Yorkers I know love MSG.

Posted by: Spencer at May 7, 2013 4:13 PM

I guess the current arena in Oakland matches all those theories

You're right, the Oakland arena matches exactly what we would expect from putting an arena into an area active on all sides - completely dead during non-events, overwhelmed during events. Absolutely a tragically bad location that will be much better used for offices/residential, especially if the street grid can be put back into place. Huge opportunity for Oakland to fix a terrible scar.

It made me wish I could go to Wrigley Field this summer and see the Cubs and that crummy neighborhood with all those bars and restaurants and housing around them

Wrigleyville is a decent neighborhood in spite of the ballpark. The ballpark still contributes a gigantic sucking of life sound 2/3 of the year.

Posted by: anon at May 7, 2013 4:19 PM

@Observer, thanks. I was thinking that in regards to the Beale dead end, there will be four parking entrances - Watermark, Bayside Village, the Condo, and the parking garage for retail on SWL330. The street in this area is also 90 degree parking, so it will be tight. Should make for entertaining traffic almost every day I'm guessing.

The question I wanted to ask but didn't was if there was to be a complete SFFD station on the pier (boats, fire trucks, ambulance(s)). Snohetta was never clear about that one. I'm thinking about what you mentioned with the exit being Bryant/Embarcadero, and getting SFFD on the road during traffic...

Posted by: Can't think of cool name at May 7, 2013 5:33 PM

Somebody mentioned Red's. I'm concerned for Red's since during the CAC meeting, the question was asked fairly straight forwardly if Red's would retain the beer garden when moved to the south side of the pier. The answer, from what I understood in the response, was no.

At least for me, as somebody who has spent time at Red's (how much time is none of your business... :-)), I can't see how it will be the same minus the beer garden. And of course, how much business it derives from having a beer garden is unknown to me. maybe this won't be an issue?

Posted by: Can't think of cool name at May 7, 2013 5:42 PM

I am still just sad that the original, bold design has been so altered to fit the "prevailing taste consensus." The more angular design felt stronger and more appropriate for the water's edge, evoking the piers and the industrial past of the site. The new design with its more organic lines feels samey and safe. I also don't know why another dock for cruise ships is necessary when the port has just put the finishing touches on a dedicated terminal not that far away.

Posted by: Adam at May 8, 2013 9:35 AM

Don't build the arena. DO build XX-thousand apartments AND offices on the land immediately adjacent to the waterfront (not on piers - clear all piers of development) to create a real urban mixed use neighborhood with a diverse and big tax base, and which permits an environmentally better shoreline that will reinforce appeal and values all of the above.

Don't create an entertainment zone full of low-wage jobs and concentrated quality of life annoyances. That belongs in a less valuable natural. People would go to games downtown. Why waste an amazing asset on a development that does not need the asset?

Posted by: Frank C. at May 8, 2013 9:37 AM

"Why waste an amazing asset on a development that does not need the asset?"

Having lived in SF for fifteen years - five of those years just a few blocks away from the proposed site - I'm having a difficult time understanding how rotting and fenced-off piers qualify as an "amazing asset," and how leaving them in their current state is less a 'waste,' than developing them and adding much needed open space to the neighborhood (regardless of the arena).

Posted by: sfjhawk at May 8, 2013 10:23 AM

Having been to the Miami Heat arena which is similarly placed right on the water.....it is totally dead when there is not an event. I don't think I saw a single person hanging out there. Take a look at the Google sattelite image.

What a waste of space on prime land.

Posted by: anon at May 8, 2013 11:35 AM

Having been to Miami, pretty much all of the city is dead all of the time. All of the areas packed with pedestrians are in Miami Beach or other adjacent cities.

Posted by: anon at May 8, 2013 11:42 AM

Post a comment


(required - will be published)


(required - will not be published, sold, or shared)


(optional - your "Posted by" name will link to this URL)

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


Continue Perusing SocketSite:

« The Most Expensive Closet In San Francisco | HOME | New Designs For Dwellings (And Retail) At Market And Sanchez »