Brannan%20Street%20Wharf%202013.jpg
The ribbon cutting for the Brannan Street Wharf project, San Francisco’s newest 57,000 square foot park with lawn, shade, tables and chairs along the Embarcadero between Piers 30-32 and Pier 38 will take place next Wednesday, July 17. Click the plan below to enlarge.

Noting that parking is very limited down in the heart of South Beach/Rincon Park neighborhood, the use of public transit to reach the cutting is encouraged. No word on how the Mayor, Board of Supervisors, and members of the Port Commission are planning to arrive, but we will note the Muni platform right across the street and our policy is transit-first, correct?
From Piers To Park And The Brannan Street Wharf By 2012 2013? [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    If you have a livery (limousine) service drop you off and pick you up afterwards, then you don’t need parking.
    That said, I’ve never seen how the members of the BoS or the Mayor arrive at public events, so I don’t know if that’s the way they typically roll.

  2. Posted by Dan

    This location is well-served by flat bike paths.

  3. Posted by Jackson

    The Brannan Street Wharf project is an excellent example of what can accomplished with piers 30-32 to preserve open bay views, instead of a massive Warriors stadium in the bay.

  4. Posted by Fishchum

    Jackson, you realize the Warrior’s Arena plan calls for 7 acres of park space, affording the public views of the bay from all vantage points?

  5. Posted by Jackson

    Fischum, Take out the idea of the, privately owned, massive seven-story stadium structure and the seven acres of public park space on piers 30-32 sounds absolutely lovely.

  6. Posted by Seriously

    Build that stadium!

  7. Posted by wc1

    Why does every angle of view need to be preserved? There are plenty of places along the Embarcadero to stop for an unobstructed view.

  8. Posted by gribble

    Jackson,
    The City is not going to nor does it seem to have the will to spend the money required to keep that pier from falling into the water, let alone build a park on it.
    If the stadium is built they will maintain the nearly seven acres of public parkland. That doesn’t cost the city. It brings business to the city. It brings concerts. It brings sporting events. It brings families out to enjoy the bay and the sun.
    Build that stadium.

  9. Posted by Michael E

    Getting back to the Brannan park, as a neighborhood resident, I am very happy to see this open. It’s a huge improvement over what was there. The city got this one right.

  10. Posted by James

    I’d like to thank Jackson for volunteering to finance the rehabilitation of Piers 30-32.
    Anyway, this new wharf (the one the original post is about) is a nice discrete amenity for this part of the waterfront. I appreciate that it’s not overly programmed with sculptures or bocce or whatnot. Just some benches and a little landscaping is all it takes to activate another edge of the Embarcadero.

  11. Posted by grrr

    Build the arena. Disregard the NIMBY lies and extortion.

  12. Posted by loftlover

    The concerns about the Warrior stadium are not limited to views. I live in this neighborhood. I have no issues with the views being obstructed. I have no issues with the stadium being built. I have an issue with the the traffic and the pollution. These not lies, these are realities for the people who live in this neighborhood.
    Let’s stop with the attacks on NIMBYs and recognize that City of San Francisco has failed to present a plan around the serious implications for traffic, parking, and pollution It’s called city planning. It’s what we pay them to do and they are not doing it.
    Please do not placate this thread with lines like, they can take MUNI or a Ferry. You cannot get on the Ferry or MUNI before/after Giants game. You can barely walk on the sidewalks. How do I know? I live here. I was at a game last night. Where were you @grrr?
    Adding the Warrior’s stadium to this neighborhood without a well though out plan is negligent and irresponsible. I didn’t vote for this kind of government. I don’t pay taxes for this kind of leadership and the NIMBYs have every right to be heard.

  13. Posted by Anowned

    Yes it will be extremely crowded at times, like the great success story which is The Giants ballpark. Yes people will take public transportation that will be crowded. Yes there will be gridlock for those who choose to drive, as in the rushes before and after the great success story that is the Giants ballpark. Yes there will be pollution, because too many people are littering slobs, like the great success story that is the Giants ballpark. You remember the Giants ballpark? Youwere there last night? The place that transformed the neighborhood you reside within? Cities deal with traffic and pollution. Build the Warriors arena tomorrow.

  14. Posted by Zig

    “I have no issues with the stadium being built. I have an issue with the the traffic and the pollution.”
    You live near a very busy freeway and you are worried about pollution from the stadium?
    And last I heard 1/2 the patrons of the Giants games come by means other than car.
    Less than half as many people will be going to a basketball game. Stop whining

  15. Posted by zig

    Adding the Warrior’s stadium to this neighborhood without a well though out plan is negligent and irresponsible.”
    I’d love to hear what infrastructure you suggest that would placate you

  16. Posted by loftlover

    I do remember the Giants ballpark being built. I also remember multiple meetings with the Giants organization specifically to listen to the citizens and local business to incorporate their perspective and concerns when building the stadium. The Giants had a plan and they worked with the city to manage transportation and pollution concerns.
    All I’ve seen from the Warriors is pretty pictures of a stadium. I have not seen a plan from the city to address any of these concerns.
    Do you remember what the Embarcardero was like during last week’s strike? How well did the city “deal” with that traffic and pollution? Now imagine that 150+ days/year.

  17. Posted by Anowned

    Your example is a transit strike? No thanks. I’ve got better things to do than encourage nonsense. It’s really comical how the very people living in what was previously a dead light manufacturing zone are against the Warriors plan. I mean, full stop, that’s rich.

  18. Posted by anon

    “This location is well-served by flat bike paths.”
    Except people generally have to lock up bikes and then your bike won’t be there when you return. I wish there were some ultra-secure bike vaults or bike valet facilities around town.
    Anyway, the proposed open space for the Warriors arena is pathetic. There is probably 1/10th of an acre of green space. The remainder is just stone or concrete. Like a Justin Herman plaza near the water. What a terrible waste of prime space. How about making the roof of the arena a green roof where people can hang out?

  19. Posted by Sam

    Back to the park: Why no trees?
    And @Anowned: clearly you have no idea how cities grow and develop. San Francisco has never been a place for development for its own sake. Move to Chicago for that, and read about SF’s 1986 anti-manhattanization prop. The city cares about livability and transit (not to mention wind and shadows).

  20. Posted by lyqwyd

    The whole traffic issue has been debunked numerous times, but here it is again:
    the warriors stadium has a fraction of the seating of the giants stadium, which is a tiny fraction of the number of people (hundreds of thousands) that commute into SF every day for work. A fraction of a tiny fraction with have a minimal impact on traffic.
    The pollution complaint is a total joke.
    These are simply concern troll NIMBYs trying to come up with any excuse to block development.
    I mean look at this: a thread about a new park on the Embarcadero suddenly becomes an excuse for NIMBYs to complain about the Warriors stadium.
    It’s nice to see a new park on the Embarcadero, I’ll have to go check it out next time I’m down there.

  21. Posted by Anowned

    “Move to Chicago,” “read this” “two and one half decades old citation written in a completely different political era for SF”? No thanks. Adding an arena to a city that only has the Cow Palace as one, while rebuilding piers and adding public space isn’t “development for its own sake” either. It’s addressing needs. How dishonest these NIMBYs are!

  22. Posted by Anowned

    “A terrible waste of prime space” ?
    No. That would be the decrepit piers that you’ve certainly never once contemplated setting foot upon.

  23. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    The pier is built over water. Maybe it is not possible to grow a tree there.

  24. Posted by Moto mayhem

    Please build the warriors stadium. Wild be the best development for SF in a very long time. The design would be only 2nd to GGB as iconic for SF. It’s moronic and the worst kind of nimby ism to be against warriors stadium.

  25. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    A point to make about the Brannan park, and who paid for it. It was paid for by the developer of the Watermark, in exchange for the ability to build out the Watermark building. I’m not certain if that payment also included the ability to build out the additional 8 & 11 story accompanying towers on SWL330 along with Watermark that never made it due to the economic downturn. If true, you can argue they overpaid the city in return for what they built.
    As for piers 30/32, just read that the expected life of the piers if nothing is done is roughly 10 years. Also, to remove the piers is about $40+ million; just strengthening them is roughly 2x that, from what I can remember. If we want the piers to be open space, then I would think a deal would have to be cut similar to the Watermark deal with a developer wanting to build out in South Beach to the tune something north of $80+ million to get piers 30/32 “open space ready.”
    What developer would jump on something like that? Would somebody really swallow $80+ million to build what they really want to build? Just wondering.

  26. Posted by lyqwyd

    I can’t imagine any developer paying anywhere near $80 million. That’s 8% of a billion dollar project, and 8% in fees is almost never acceptable. Not to mention there are not many billion dollar projects.
    Now if the costs to rehabilitate are part of a major project (like the Warriors stadium for example), there’s the possibility of them paying for the work to fix the pier.

  27. Posted by anonanon

    Anowned,
    “It’s really comical how the very people living in what was previously a dead light manufacturing zone are against the Warriors plan.”
    Why is that so comical? Part of the reason that the construction of AT&T Park and the general build up of the area worked so well was precisely that it was pretty much dead before. That’s not the case anymore. The Embarcadero has already been transformed to the point where the transportation infrastructure is almost maxed out and the thousands of condos that are under construction won’t make things any better.
    If you think that AT&T Park had a positive transformational effect on the neighborhood, why not build this stadium in an area currently in need of a similar stimulus?
    Yeah, AT&T Park was great for the neighborhood, but just because you can pour 9 gallons of water into a 10 gallon bucket doesn’t mean that you can pour another 9 gallons into the same bucket with the same successful result. But of course, anyone who would point that out to you is probably a “NIMBY”.

  28. Posted by Jake

    The Warriors are not proposing to pay to rehab piers 30-32, they are just offering to finance the costs up to $120 million. SF will reimburse them for it, mostly by rent credits.
    The current fiscal plan is in a pdf at
    http://sfgov3.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=3078.
    It includes:
    “In fiscal year 2011-2012, the Port received revenue of approximately $1.7 million from Piers 30-32 and SWL 330, including $693,333 from SWL 330 parking revenues, $997,423 for Piers 30-32 parking revenues and $59,848 from Red’s Java House.”

  29. Posted by Anowned

    Buckets of water. Look at this decades old anti-Manhattanization movement. Consider the BART strike. All nonsense.
    It will be crowded upon occasion. So what? It will also be a beautiful, iconic, well needed structure with a very cool park attached, and it rehabilitates decrepit waterfront.
    You lot are just like the “stayaway.com” people who wanted the area near the Giants ballpark to stay the way it was. A wasteland where Burger Island was the only restaurant open at night. Things change. One person’s “too crowded” is 20 others’ “vibrant.” You’re gonna lose, and it’s gonna be great.

  30. Posted by anonanon

    “well needed structure”
    That’s so funny! I wonder how SF has managed to survive without it. But again, don’t you think there are areas of the City where it would be even more “well needed” and help in revitalizing them similarly to what AT&T Park did for South Beach?

  31. Posted by egg_cream_of_OCD

    Oh so that’s why there’s never anyone down there except lost tourists.

  32. Posted by anon3

    I thought arenas and stadiums were being placed in some decaying urban centers to help create “life” in American downtowns that needed help. Does San Francisco really need a basketball arena to help its waterfront and downtown? Is this really going to be used by actual citizens of the city or suburban visitors? I would rather see a performing arts center on the waterfront than a private sports arena.

  33. Posted by Anowned

    Uh, you find it “so funny” that people have to go to Oakland for arena-size entertainment? I don’t. I find the lack of one a glaring absence any city of this size should clearly have.

  34. Posted by sjg

    @brahma:
    The Mayor is provided a car and driver by the City. Currently the auto provided is a Chevy Volt.
    (I saw him arrive at an event here in the Castro a while ago).He also had a couple bodyguards with him.
    I assume the Supervisors are provided some sort of transportation to events if necessary. I do know that Scott Weiner usually takes Muni to work.

  35. Posted by Moto mayhem

    A sports stadium will be used by many more residents than a performing arts center. We already have a nice opera house and symphony hall. A sports/ concert / eventsvenue is sorely needed. The architecture is amazing. It really is on par or greater than Sydney opera house. And they are building a huge park. I am axed that people are against this.

  36. Posted by anonanon

    “Uh, you find it “so funny” that people have to go to Oakland for arena-size entertainment? I don’t. I find the lack of one a glaring absence any city of this size should clearly have.”
    Why on earth is there a problem if people have to ride BART 20 minutes to Oakland to watch “arena-size entertainment”? To inconvenient for them? Poor people! But then again, if you want an arena in SF, why not locate it a neighborhood that could really benefit from it? If the SF Giants could help transform South Beach, why can’t the Warriors help transform a neighborhood that actually needs to be transformed?

  37. Posted by Anowned

    You act as if “transform a neighborhood” is somehow superior to “rehabilitate shoreline and create public space on the shoreline.” And you also are trying to posit that South Beach is a completely mature area, or that that part of the Embarcadero is already completely a finished product. None of those notions are winning arguments. The whole area is still maturing.

  38. Posted by anonanon

    “And you also are trying to posit that South Beach is a completely mature area, or that that part of the Embarcadero is already completely a finished product.”
    It’s not completely finished product, of course, but it’s getting closer and closer. It’s definitely not the kind of almost empty slate that existed when AT&T Park was built. There are thousands of condos under construction that will add additional pressure on a transportation infrastructure that is already heavily taxed. There is a very real possibility that a stadium this size would do more harm than good for the neighborhood, whereas there are likely areas where the effect of building the stadium would primarily be beneficial. So why insist on trying to pour 9 gallons of water into a 10 gallon bucket that already has 9 gallons in it rather than trying to find a new bucket?

  39. Posted by Old Giants Fan

    Good comments from everyone. We choose to live in a high density urban environment. Traffic and people come with a high density urban environment. If we wanted views of the bay and fewer people and traffic, we would have chosen another city. The new arena will hold about 18K. AT&T holds 42K. It is a shorter walk from BART. Yes there will be impact, but should be manageable. Just look at the afternoon commute to the bridge or weekend traffic along the Embarcadero.

  40. Posted by good christian

    the snøhetta park / stadium will look awesome. what an opportunity. I think if people look at the project closely there will be a groundswell of support.
    compared to the pacbell baseball stadium I think it’s much more compelling in terms of architecture and public space and bay access.
    I don’t think naysayers are even looking closely at the design. all I hear is the “traffic” whine.
    sometimes I find it hard to believe some people are so against it. (I live nearby).
    as for the brannan wharf park, I’m very glad they built it. though, not to put a wet blanket on things, but I was a bit underwhelmed when I saw it a week ago. just a large strip of grass. it … wasn’t so exciting.
    there’s some great native planting being done by the ggnra near the golden gate and lands end and it’s even pretty good around the hideous fiberglass arrow sculpture and those tacky tourist restaurants. I would have liked to see something more than just grass.
    it seemed a bit rushed and cheap – like corporate park open space design. but maybe when I go back and see it totally finished it’ll look better. regardless, definitely good for high speed zipping around by dogs. that’s a big plus.

  41. Posted by Seriously

    I love the support for the new stadium here. Finally some common sense! BUILD THAT STADIUM!

  42. Posted by anon

    There is a very real possibility that a stadium this size would do more harm than good for the neighborhood,
    What is your basis for this absurd statement?

  43. Posted by sunset guy

    Build the arena and build it taller. Why not put residential units on top.

  44. Posted by anonanon

    “What is your basis for this absurd statement?”
    Are you kidding me? You haven’t been paying much attention to transportation infrastructure issues, have you? Hey, if you can pour 9 gallons of water into a 10 gallon bucket, you should be able to pour at least another 4 gallons into the same bucket, no? That’s essentially what some of the geniuses here have been suggesting with their quotes about capacity. And you show no indication of raising the IQ of that conversation.

  45. Posted by anon

    I’m not worried about a facility less than half the size of another down the street, both of which are a fraction of the size of the daily commute crowd, no. Come back when you have a legitimate concern.

  46. Posted by tj

    Rode by this park this afternoon – it should make a great addition to the neighborhood. What struck me most was the lack of trees, which, in a city where the Friends of the Urban Forest seem to be claiming every bit of open space, is a welcome change, even if it is only due to technical constraints.
    Regarding traffic at the proposed arena – people will travel by whatever means is most expedient. Keep easily accessed parking a 20 minute + walk from the arena and people will travel by bart or muni.

  47. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    To look at the Arena from perspective, when Foundry Square III is completed, the four buildings together will have 1.2M square foot. That enough space for 10,000 office workers. Just 4 not so tall buildings are already comparable to the Arena. And there are many more even taller buildings are being constructed in the transbay area.
    If you compare this to the office towers, the impact of Arena is not such big deal after. Maybe it is comparable to one city block of office building.

  48. Posted by anon

    “We choose to live in a high density urban environment.”
    Ahhh, that is where the logic fails. I know a lot of people moved in to South Beach 20 years ago specificically because it was not a dense urban environment. Not to mention the city itself had 100k less people than it does now.
    If you ask you average long-time San Francisco resident if they would want a mini-Manhattan with double the current population, the answer would be a resounding F no. They would say that the character is being replaced by bland towers and tech yuppies….ultimately making SF indistinguishable from so many other cities.

  49. Posted by anon

    ^So why don’t they vote in people who agree with them and block all development? Maybe because they’re a tiny minority of the actual public? Nah, your friends think this, so that must mean that most people think that way.

  50. Posted by busboy

    I would love it if they marked half of the park off for people with dogs, and the other half just for people. Who wants to sit on dog feces? Being 100% non pets will not happen in this neighborhood so this is a good alternative.

  51. Posted by lyqwyd

    @anonanon
    “if you want an arena in SF, why not locate it a neighborhood that could really benefit from it?”
    The definition of a NIMBY, you are totally against it unless it’s in a different neighborhood.
    Lots of people in SOMA & South Beach support the arena, and think it will benefit the neighborhood

  52. Posted by lyqwyd

    @anonanon
    “Are you kidding me? You haven’t been paying much attention to transportation infrastructure issues, have you?”
    Already debunked numerous times above and on every thread about the stadium, but here you go again.
    the stadium will hold 18K people which is about 2/5 of the seating of Giants Stadium (42K). Giants stadium is a tiny fraction of the number of daily work commuters (hundreds of thousands).
    Traffic impacts of this stadium will be minimal, possbily to the point of being unnoticeable.

  53. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    ^^^ except that commuters arrive and depart during a fairly long time span (a.k.a. the rush hours) compared to event patrons who will arrive and depart in much narrower time frames. So the traffic effects will be noticeable though their duration will be short.
    I’m not against the Warriors stadium development but lets be realistic and acknowledge that there will be a rush right after the final buzzer sounds.

  54. Posted by lyqwyd

    I disagree that the arrival and departure are substantially different. That’s especially true for arrival, where many people come in hours earlier to shop or dine/ drink.
    Departure is certainly more of a point in time, but even that is mitigated by the fact that the stadium itself takes time to empty out, and many people leave early to beat the rush if the game is not close, and since there’s no designated parking people will have to take time to get to cars.
    Also, given the duration of events, only one of either arrival or departure can impact rush hour, any non-rush hour traffic impacts are trivial. And not all games are during rush hour.
    Lastly, I suspect a large number of attendees will already be in SF working near the event, and in that case it will have a beneficial impact on traffic as those people will be REMOVED from rush hour traffic.
    So to summarize, while there will be noticeable amounts of pedestrians at the end of the event, real traffic impacts will be minimal to trivial, certainly not a legitimate concern about the stadium development.

  55. Posted by Guest666

    “Lastly, I suspect a large number of attendees will already be in SF working near the event, and in that case it will have a beneficial impact on traffic as those people will be REMOVED from rush hour traffic.”
    This is something that is never discussed with respect to traffic. One of the main reasons the Warriors would like to move to SF is the high number of businesses who will shell out for season tickets for either staff or clients. I suspect you will see a significant percentage of financial district workers attending games after work which will offset the number of attendees heading in to the arena from out of town.

  56. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    Responding to a previous comment that “If you ask [an] average long-time San Francisco resident if they would want a mini-Manhattan with double the current population, the answer would be a resounding F no,” anon wrote:

    So why don’t they vote in people who agree with them and block all development? Maybe because they’re a tiny minority of the actual public? Nah, your friends think this, so that must mean that most people think that way.

    That’s one possibility, granted.
    Another is that the people who want to turn S.F. into a mini-Manhattan, usually because they are in the property development business in one way or another, are the ones who have the money, and because it’s in their economic self-interest, are willing to spend it to get candidates and ballot measures advanced who are aligned with those interests. They also have lobbying and interest groups like SPUR and CRG and others advocating for their interests.
    The people who don’t buy into the mini-Manhattan ideal aren’t as engaged, aren’t spending as much (or any) money and therefore aren’t (currently, for sure) attracting as much support from the general voting public, who usually are just going about their lives and don’t care as intensely about development (at least before it’s happened, and of course afterwards it’s too late).
    The pushback on 8 Washington Street is the rare exception, which is why the pro-developer crowd is so shocked by its existence, even though they know they’re going to win in the end.

  57. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Playing the “Manhattan” card on socketsite is the equivalent of playing the “Nazi” card in any political discussion. Absurd hyperbole.

  58. Posted by R

    “Another is that the people who want to turn S.F. into a mini-Manhattan, usually because they are in the property development business in one way or another, are the ones who have the money, and because it’s in their economic self-interest, are willing to spend it to get candidates and ballot measures advanced who are aligned with those interests.”
    Completely opposite for me, and many. I am far better served monetarily, as a property owner in SF, from the city preventing all future growth.. And yet I support growth because that will allow SF to continue to be a great and diverse place to live.
    And those without property, and without money, are far better served by your so-called Mini-Manhattan syndrome (incidently, how does adding a single stadium for 18k people turn San Francisco into Mini-Manhattan?).

  59. Posted by Jake

    Nasty’s law:
    “Playing the “Manhattan” card on socketsite is the equivalent of playing the “Nazi” card in any political discussion. Absurd hyperbole.”
    with apologies to Mike Godwin ….

  60. Posted by anon

    The pushback on 8 Washington Street is the rare exception, which is why the pro-developer crowd is so shocked by its existence, even though they know they’re going to win in the end.
    Um, do you actually live in SF? The name Sue Hestor ring a bell? Proposition M? The shadow ordinance? The height limits act of the 70s? One of the most restrictive big cities in the US to build in? No? Bueller?

  61. Posted by lyqwyd

    The whole “Manhattan” thing is simply begging the question.
    The completely unsubstantiated claim that some people do, or do not, want SF turned into Manhattan somehow becomes a reason that the stadium shouldn’t be built.
    I’m still waiting for the NIMBYs to come up with a single legitimate reason to oppose the stadium.

  62. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    Is “Manhattan” suppose to be a derogatory term? I thought “Manhattan” is a very desirable place as the real estate cost indicates and it is among the top tourist destination in US.

  63. Posted by Guest666

    IMHO, I would like a little more “Manhattan” in SF.

  64. Posted by JWS

    Here is the problem. SF, as a WHOLE, will never and should never become Manhattan. If you want SF to be towering skyscrapers from Ocean Beach to the piers, then you should find a different city. The appeal of SF has always been, and always will be, the historic, human scale, and walkable neighborhoods, whether it’s the Marina, the Mission, Castro, or Inner Sunset. If you are salivating about turning those neighborhoods into skyscraper forests, then guess what…you probably are not a great fit for this city.
    On the flip side, the city needs a SIGNIFICANT amount of “Manhattanization” right now. Why? The good ol’ economic principle of supply and demand. Lots of people want to live here. Most cannot, because the housing stock is woefully underbuilt. So you can entertain your provincial fantasy of SF without nary a skyscraper to be seen, but it will (and I do mean will, not might) mean saying goodbye to artists, teachers, plumbers, waiters, senior citizens, etc. Particularly the younger class of creative/retail types, who, guess what, have already given up on SF for Oakland, because rent control favors those who have been in and enjoyed the city for 30+ years as opposed to those wanting to start their life here.
    So, the question is this. If SF should not condone massive revitalization of every neighborhood, but desperately needs to grow, then where, oh where, should this development be? The answer is really, really, really simple. SOMA/Rincon Hill/South Beach. Mid-Market. Mission Beach. Geary. And to some degree, Lombard. Why? Large land plots, woefully underbuilt, not currently supplying housing (old parking lots, warehouses, etc), central to transit. Any 13 year old with an old copy of Sim City can tell you this.
    By focusing heavily on these areas, we can stop entertaining requests for 30-story towers in Glen Park or the “micro units in Alcatraz” or whatever misplaced Hong Kong fantasy people cook up. But we can also provide for the growing number of people who want to live here.
    So, if you live close to South Beach and are concerned about the new stadium, well you may or may not be able to block that. But there are likely two dozen (or more) large scale building and projects coming down the pipeline in the next ten years that you’ll have to fight as well. Maybe the neighborhood has moved on, and unfortunately, maybe it is time for you to do so as well, because I don’t think anybody sees the trend of SOMA densification (made up the world, deal with it) going anywhere but forward — and decidedly so — over the next several years.

  65. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    I guess you can toss me in the camp concerned about congestion in this area regarding the arena, which will now connect to the new Brannan street park. Why? Don’t forget:
    - the arena pencils out 205 events per calendar year; 50 Warriors specific. 50/50 split attendance to all events modeled, mass transit versus auto. Plus add the traffic from the open park space and retail open almost every day of the year.
    - SWL330 across the Embarcadero is currently is planned with a 227 room hotel and 17 story condo tower in addition to more retail. Can somebody say wall on the waterfront? Oops, that’s another thread.
    - The various 30/40 story condos currently being built and online by the opening of the arena within 2/3 blocks of said arena.
    - By the opening of the arena, SWL337 (Giants Parking Lot A) will be under construction with unknown amount of parking removed for said construction.
    I was told by a representative of the Warriors that the city is currently doing traffic modeling for the timeframe of the arena’s opening, and including all the city blocks that are affected by the various projects (and I think even a little wider scope if I remember correctly) I mentioned above. The city knows somethings up in regards to congestion, and so do the Warriors.
    Just keep in mind when talking about congestion in relation to the Warriors arena in this area, don’t look at it in isolation – look at the bigger picture and start your projection at 2017 and beyond; maybe a little earlier if you feel construction will effect traffic congestion as well. But, that being said, I think we all know that what I’ve mentioned as potential congestion issues is probably solvable. Its just that there’s been no plan to date (that I’m aware of) presented by the city yet that discusses this topic and proposes solutions (if deemed needed).

  66. Posted by anonanon

    lyqwyd,
    “the stadium will hold 18K people which is about 2/5 of the seating of Giants Stadium (42K). Giants stadium is a tiny fraction of the number of daily work commuters (hundreds of thousands).”
    That argument might work if all the events were held on days when there’s no activity at AT&T Park. However, supposedly there will be 200 event per year in the stadium. Do you really believe that there will be no overlap with Giants home games?
    And if you think that Giants games have no impact on commuters, you obviously have never commuted to Silicon Valley from SF. Every Giants home game has a very noticeable negative impact on traffic, Caltrain, and Muni services.

  67. Posted by anonanon

    lyqwyd,
    “I’m still waiting for the NIMBYs to come up with a single legitimate reason to oppose the stadium.”
    I’m still waiting for the pro-developer crowd to come up with an argument as to why there aren’t neighborhoods where this kind of project could be more beneficial in term of developing the area similarly to what AT&T Park did to South Beach. The response to that request is usually “NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY!” as from a 5-year-old trying to win an argument.

  68. Posted by Jake

    I am not opposed to the Warrior’s stadium plan. I think it is the best plan I’ve seen for pier 30-32 in the 20+ years I’ve lived nearby. Sadly it is the only plan I’ve ever seen worthy of the site with any hope of being built.
    I expect it will get built in some form by some contract if the Warriors have financing.
    My questions are less why than for what payments and at what external costs.
    From what I’ve seen of the financials, I suspect San Francisco could do better by at least $100 million over the term of the lease. It is complex and blog comments are not a good venue to vent, but consider one line item among hundreds:
    Stadium Admissions Tax
    Events at the multi-purpose venue may be subject to the current stadium admissions tax.
    Currently, the San Francisco Giants pay a Stadium Tax of $0.25 a ticket for events at AT&T Park.
    The majority of events at the proposed multi-purpose venue would be subject to a higher tax rate of $2.25 ticket. To the extent the Stadium Tax applies to the Project, Stadium Tax receipts will be deposited into the City’s General Fund.
    A buck or two per ticket by 2 or 3 million tickets per year will buy you more than a few votes from the few votes that count, as the Giants have shown.
    Greedy fingers reaching for your wallet want you to goo gaa at the shiny object and greenspace.

  69. Posted by Jake

    I think the Warrior’s stadium plan is the best plan for pier 30-32 in the 20+ years I’ve lived nearby. Sadly it is the only plan I’ve ever seen worthy of the site with any hope of being built.
    I expect it will get built in some form if the Warriors can secure financing.
    From what I’ve seen of the financials, I suspect San Francisco could do better by at least $100 million over the term of the lease. There are many complex details, but consider one line item among hundreds:
    Stadium Admissions Tax
    Events at the multi-purpose venue may be subject to the current stadium admissions tax.
    Currently, the San Francisco Giants pay a Stadium Tax of $0.25 a ticket for events at AT&T Park.
    The majority of events at the proposed multi-purpose venue would be subject to a higher tax
    rate of $2.25 ticket.
    A dollar or two per ticket by 2 or 3 million tickets per year for decades is a lot of money.
    And the fees for 100,000 cars parked per year
    and ….
    The Warriors show you a shiny object and green park while they pick your pocket.

  70. Posted by anon

    @anonanon – that “concern” has been addressed in 50 other threads. There is no other neighborhood that has space on the fringe (arenas don’t belong in the middle of neighborhoods, since they’re dead space most of the time) AND phenomenal transit access.
    If you’re concerned about congestion, you don’t want this anywhere else – this is the only spot that has a ridiculous amount of transportation capacity just sitting there waiting to be used.

  71. Posted by lyqwyd

    @can’t think
    So the fact that the city is doing a study means they know something is up. Nice conspiracy theory.

  72. Posted by lyqwyd

    @anonanon
    ” argument might work if all the events were held on days when there’s no activity at AT&T Park.”
    Argument still works. If carmageddon doesn’t happen with 40K people, it’s not gonna happen with 18K more, especially when there are already hundreds of thousand commuters every day going in and out of SF.
    So currently on a no game day, there’s maybe 200,000 commuters. On a Giants game day there are 240,000 commuters. On a Giants plus Warriors game day there would be about 258,000 commuters, which would be a less than 10% difference. And that’s assuming every single attendee of both games was not in SF for other purposes, which we all know isn’t the case. So probably more like a 5% difference.
    I fail to see an issue.

  73. Posted by lyqwyd

    “I’m still waiting for the pro-developer crowd to come up with an argument as to why there aren’t neighborhoods where this kind of project could be more beneficial”
    No, actually it’s your job to show that there’s a better neighborhood, since it’s your theory. As pointed out by anon, that theory has already been debunked, much like the congestion theory.
    Regarding NIMBY, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

  74. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Pier 70-80 would be a fine location for the arena. It doesn’t matter what the transit options are today, what matters is what they will be once the arena is built. At the time the Giants ballpark was proposed for China Basin it was far less served by mass transit than Dogpatch is today.
    You already have the T-Ghetto and Caltrain 22nd St. station in walking distance. By 2018 (earliest possible opening day for an arena anywhere) with Mission Bay and the other Eastern Neighborhood projects further progressed there will be even more. Not to mention the Central Corridor. Add better/faster bus connections from the Mission BART stations on event days and Pier 30 has nothing on Pier 70 except more congestion on the Embarcadero and the odd nice photo of the Bay Bridge.
    But of course this argument makes me a NIMBY, even though I’m proposing a location closer to My Back Yard.

  75. Posted by Dan Clark

    Does anyone know how many events per year are currently held at Oracle Arena? Looking at their schedule, it seems to be only about 7-10 per month, but maybe I’m missing something (or they plan to have way more events in the new location).

  76. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    @formidable doer,
    I beg to differ about pier 70. Pier 30 is far superior in terms of public transit. Dogpatch has never seen much commuters. It has nothing that handles remotely close to what Embarcadero St does. You are probably asking for 10x increase public transportation for the Arena. Pier 30 is also serviced by Caltrain, from the much larger 4th and King terminal rather than the ditch of 22nd St Station. Bus connection to 16th St BART is not a very effective option let’s just say.
    There are 2 other possible candidate locations. 1. Candlestick, well, I’ll let other people to advocate for it. And 2, Mission Bay. This is actually worst off transportation-wise. Everyone who arrives in Mission Bay probably will pass thru south beach or SOMA anyway. And it makes walk form BART even less attractive option.
    The more I think of it the more I see Pier 30 as an ideal location to handle large event. It is conveniently serviced by Caltrain, BART, Transbay Terminal, dozens of MUNI lines and even ferries. I challenge anyone to come up with a better location.

  77. Posted by sfjhawk

    Arguing in favor of Pier 70 as an alt location for the arena – or any other location in SF for that matter – on the basis that it somehow has superior access over the Pier 30 location is without merit IMHO. Here’s a good litmus test: make a list of cities where one could live and take public transportation (BART, Caltrain, Ferry, Samtrans, muni, etc.) that would put them within ~1M of the arena (i.e. walkable or via pedicab). Whether one lives as far south as San Jose, as far north as Vallejo, Fairfield, Hercules (planned ferry service) and Santa Rosa; as far east as Fremont, Pleasanton, and Concord; and west to Ocean Beach. That is to say, the Caltrain station, the Ferry Building, the Embarcadero BART station, and the Transbay terminal all pass this test and serve these cities. Pier 70 nor any other location I’ve seen proposed on this thread or past ones: mid-market, china basin, western addition don’t even come close.
    Without question, Pier 30 is the optimal location for the arena.
    Two additional points:
    1. As much as against-arena peeps have harped on the lack of traffic/public transportation capacity planning as one if the main reasons against building the arena at pier 30 I have a hard time understanding how propping an alt location with future dependencies makes for a strong argument.
    2. I live two blocks from the Ferry building and can confirm that Giants fans do indeed take the ferries to ball games. I can imagine how the sidewalks close to the ballpark would be crowded before and after games (I go to about a dozen games a year and have been to 5 this season) it doesn’t equate to the assertion that no one takes the ferry.

  78. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    @ lyqwyd, maybe “something’s up” isn’t the best phrase to use, but what I was trying to say was that the city *is* looking at congestion in the 2017 time frame – and that’s a good thing. If they’re actually looking into that specific topic today, you have to surmise that they at least think that there may need to be a plan to mitigate any potential congestion.
    For example, I was at a neighborhood transportation meeting earlier this year where transit folks were showing a map called “sports zone transportation impact area” or title similar; it was in relation to both AT&T Park and the Warrior’s proposed arena and the impact those facilities can/will have on traffic of all kinds. The outline was roughly bordered from 16th & 3rd in the south to 6th & Bryant in the west to Pier 1 or so in the north. The goal of reviewing that map was to agree upon the size of the swath of the city that needed reviewing for properly supporting traffic of all kinds moving forward.
    Feel free to call me a conspiracist, but when I hear what I heard and see what I’ve seen and then layer over that the fact that the Warriors have to go somewhere and be up and running by the start of the 2017 NBA season since they did not renew their lease at Oracle Arena, to me we may (and I will stress, may) have an issue with traffic (foot, bicycle, auto) in the area.
    I’m AOK with the general idea of the arena. I simply wish that the city would be more forthcoming with information we know they’re working on for the topic of congestion mitigation as the information we already have on the arena plan itself, and the details we see every day on this blog regarding new construction in the immediate vicinity of the arena’s location.
    And I’ll go out on a limb and say that after talking to a few Warriors representatives during various CAC and private community meetings, my gut tells me they have concerns on this topic as well…

  79. Posted by lyqwyd

    @formidable
    Pier 70 may be fine, but it’s certainly not better. We all know why you prefer it… it’s not in your neighborhood.

  80. Posted by Spencer

    Most concerts and basketball games end after 10 pm. Why is there a concern about traffic congestion. This is by far the best location in the city for public transit. Even if as many as 1/3 of event attendees (6000) drive, that is so little impact. This is a world class design and makes the park and waterfront 100x better. Plus it brings another major sport and the economics of that (and entertainment) to SF. Building this in another sf locale with poor public transport would be really dumb. Honestly, I can’t figure out why people are against, unless they just think basketball will bring the wrong crowd to their neighborhood. Possibly “congestion woes” hidden by “racism and elitism”

  81. Posted by Spencer

    Larkspur ferry sold out for every weekend giants game…

  82. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    @Spencer, I’d still say look at the bigger picture. By 2017 and beyond, there will be a lot more people in the area in general – 24x7x365, not just due to/during arena events.
    Yes, I agree that this is probably the best location based on *current* public transit infrastructure. But, as I mentioned before, what’s the plan for *future* public transit/auto for the whole population in the area, not just for arena events? Those events will be just an addition burden, as you mentioned, on whatever infrastructure is in place then 205 times a year.
    That’s the missing info we not getting from the city and that very response from them could effectively kill this discussion topic once and for all. We seem to have just about everything else to make informed decisions.

  83. Posted by anon

    ^If the city EVER builds transportation infrastructure in another part of the city that is BETTER than that which exists in the densest CBD in the western US, I will give up all hope for SF.
    This section of the city will always have the best transportation infrastructure of the city because it SHOULD – past, present, future. I’d love to see more investment elsewhere as well, but if another area becomes better, that means that we’re spending money in the wrong place.

  84. Posted by lyqwyd

    Sow now the NIMBY argument is that since there are going to be more people in the future, we can’t allow more people in the future.

  85. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    @lyqwyd, I guess. I personally have no issue at all with more people moving here in the future. I just think we need to properly plan for it.
    Here’s one of my favorite links. I personally can’t wait for the Phase 1 work to be published…
    http://oewd.org/media/docs/WaterfrontTransportationStudy/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Waterfront%20Transportation%20Assessment.pdf

  86. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    There are plans. Some random searches get this
    City Design Group: Transit Center District Plan
    http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/CDG/CDG_transit_center.htm
    While people are focusing on high profile project like the Arena, the big picture is there are lots of development in SOMA and those development bring substantially more people to the area than the Arena.

  87. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    lyqwyd: “Pier 70 may be fine, but it’s certainly not better. We all know why you prefer it… it’s not in your neighborhood.”
    And you “know” this like you know all the other nonsense you peddle on this site. I live in Potrero Hill.

  88. Posted by lyqwyd

    @Can’t think
    As Wai Yip pointed out it is being planned. If you don’t think that’s sufficient then you need to explain what properly planned for means. In my opinion saying “must properly plan” is just another euphemism for “no development”, much like “we must fix muni first”.
    @formidable
    I stand corrected, you’re not a NIMBY. You are still wrong on all your points, but you are not a NIMBY, happy?
    I’ve provided numbers to support my arguments (and demolish yours). So if there’s any nonsense being peddled it’s from your camp.

  89. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    @lyqwyd, go back and look at both the links that I and @Wai Yip Tung provided immediately above your post. They’re different and are looking at two different issues.

  90. Posted by Grace

    The Brannan Wharf project … Is being used as a dog park by local dog owners while humans have to stay off the grass due to the dog’s business. Was this meant to be a dog park? There are no signs – and it cannot serve both children and dogs.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *