November 12, 2013
Warriors' SF Arena Design Slimmed-Down And Opened Up
With parks, plazas and paths along the bay, the open space for the proposed Warriors Arena in San Francisco has grown from half of the project area to 60 percent in Design 3.0.
The slimmed-down design lowers the 18,064 seat arena's height from 135 to 125 feet, reduces the proposed retail and event center area along the Embarcadero by 30,000 square feet, and expands the open space to 7.6 acres (up by nearly an acre).
The entrance to the arena's 500 space garage has been moved "mid-pier" to between Bryant and Beale and the height of the roof over the practice facility, parking garage and fire station on the northern end of the Piers 30/32 site has been lowered from 55 to 37 feet.
First Published: November 12, 2013 11:00 AM
Comments from "Plugged In" Readers
I think the whole project is kinda cool -
"500 space parking garage" Where? Under the water?
Can we watch THAT being built - But don't disturb any mud snails while you build it.......(Hey - I'm a total environmentalist - I think the roof should be covered in Solar Panels.....)
Posted by: mdg at November 12, 2013 11:29 AM
San Francisco deserves world-class architecture from a world-class firm. This project continues to look fantastic, and hopefully it will go forward without further reductions.
Posted by: Adam at November 12, 2013 11:33 AM
The newly redesigned Warrior's stadium plans reflect their concern over the 8 Washington vote.
However, the two 105-foot hotel towers, and 175-foot condominium tower remain as planned on the Embarcadero.
I can already see the opposition brewing on the height issue alone; let alone the appropriateness of giving wealthy sports team owners such significant city-owned property in order for the stadium to pencil-out financially.
Posted by: Jackson at November 12, 2013 11:40 AM
175 foot tall condo on SWL 30 in an area zoned for 105 feet. Did they not learn anything from 8 Washington last week?????
Posted by: d-b at November 12, 2013 11:41 AM
Too bad they couldn't figure out a better way to deal with the driveway than to essentially block the pedestrian area on the embarcadero. Also I am wondering how they plan on having cars coming off of the bay bridge get to the lot -- there's no left turn to get into the lot. Too bad they can't get rid of the lot entirely, or put it underground across the street.
Actually what would be more cool would be to have the area south of the arena between the existing piers in front of the newly finished park built out into some sort of urban forest on the waterfront.
Posted by: RobBob at November 12, 2013 11:57 AM
Pretty expensive real estate for a fire station. Not sure I understand that. If there was a fire how is the truck going to get out of there?
And why does SF have as many fireboats as NYC?
Posted by: Sam at November 12, 2013 12:00 PM
Fireboat station, a central part of the deal from the city's perSpective. Also those of you equating luxury condos with a a basketball arena package don't understand SF voters or the culture of the area you reside in.
Posted by: Truth at November 12, 2013 12:08 PM
LOL. Great catch Sam re: the superfluous fire truck shown in the Warrior's stadium photo and your question on access.
I had noticed the "babes" sun-bathing on the lower level dock, which I thought was pretty silly too.
Posted by: Jackson at November 12, 2013 12:14 PM
Love it even more. Build it. Ferry service will have to be beefed up. AT&T Park will be losing its surface parking lots, so sports fans will have to adjust to using transit to get to the games. I still want to know who is paying Agnos to lead the charge against the arena.
Posted by: Marten at November 12, 2013 12:15 PM
Not in favor of Warriors in SF. It's a form of urban bullying for a much more affluent city to snatch a team from another city that could really use the revenue (i.e.. Oakland). Let's spread the wealth around, and stop being so selfish!
BART goes right to the Coliseum/Arena. MUNI has not been able to deal with Giants' games' traffic/transit effectively (how long have you had to wait in the neighborhoods for the N Judah on game days?)
Luxury suites, less seating overall, greater population of affluents = higher seat prices--just like AT&T Park. Great for owners, lousy for average income fans. Stay in Oakland!
Posted by: TinyTim at November 12, 2013 12:30 PM
I voted no on B and C but would support any measures to build this arena. Go Warriors.
Posted by: noBnC-Y4GSW at November 12, 2013 12:30 PM
"let alone the appropriateness of giving wealthy sports team owners such significant city-owned property in order for the stadium to pencil-out financially."
Well the city gets the albatross crumbling piers fixed. Got to give something
Posted by: Zig at November 12, 2013 12:31 PM
They can tweak the design all they want, but those who are opposed to this project are opposed on principle, not on the exact percentage of parkland or specific roof heights. When it comes up on the ballot, It will be a basic yes or no question. The exact details really don't matter.
Posted by: James at November 12, 2013 12:32 PM
As long as this arena does not have ANY parking I am for it! Without parking, how could this possibly have any impact on the afternoon rush hour traffic in the area? This transit rich city should demand the driveway be removed.
Posted by: TransitFirst at November 12, 2013 12:35 PM
Mayor Quan, is going to build the Warriors a stadium in Oakland.
And the crowd goes wild laughing.
Posted by: inclinejj at November 12, 2013 12:39 PM
TinyTim: The walking distance from Embarcadero BART to the planned arena is about the same as the walking distance between the Coliseum BART and the current arena. (Current situation looks closer on a map, but fans have to circle around the baseball/football stadium.)
Posted by: Ebro at November 12, 2013 12:39 PM
I find it amazing but not surprising that the same kind of [people] who railed against the new Giants stadium 20 years ago are back with the same lame arguments. Presumably
this crowd thinks AT+T park is some kind of disaster instead of the boon it has been.
Posted by: Shmendrick at November 12, 2013 12:43 PM
^Design and benefits should matter but too many in SF are too self absorbed to really see the big picture and do what is right for the city
Posted by: zig at November 12, 2013 12:46 PM
Also with regards to the parking situ.... getting 500 cars out of the structure after a game sounds like a nightmare...
With regards to crowding up Muni... the pier is about half the distance as the walk from BART to AT&T park so I doubt most people would wait around or pay for muni.
Posted by: chitrana at November 12, 2013 12:50 PM
"getting 500 cars out of the structure after a game sounds like a nightmare..."
Getting out of the parking lots at Candlestick is slow, getting out of the Cow Palace after a concert back in the day was slow, getting out of Shoreline after a concert is slow
Nothing really special here
Posted by: zig at November 12, 2013 12:59 PM
We do not need the traffic, noise and distortion of the bay view by the development of this project. Why not build it where the Cow Palace sits or at Candlestick Point? I urge all residents to VOTE NO on this proposed development.
Posted by: Ken at November 12, 2013 1:11 PM
This should be built in Oakland. This area of SF does not need the economic boost that Oakland does. If you are too lazy to take Bart 3 more stops you aren't really a fan anyway. More to the point I think this is not a great location logistically. It seems more about being pretty than being practical.
Posted by: Justin at November 12, 2013 1:11 PM
Folks, life is not a game of Sim City - you just can't go around dropping arenas into different locations because that's the way you would like it.
Posted by: Fishchum at November 12, 2013 1:17 PM
I could be wrong, but I feel like the parking lot will be more for staff and other internal reasons rather than for fans.
Does anyone know how many parking spaces AT&T park reserves for the teams, umpires, television crews, etc?
Posted by: Luke at November 12, 2013 1:23 PM
"It's a form of urban bullying for a much more affluent city to snatch a team from another city that could really use the revenue." --TinyTim
You may be right about Oakland needing the revenue more, but it's worth pointing out that the Warriors used to be the San Francisco Warriors before Oakland "snatched" the team in the early 70s.
Posted by: Tim Bracken at November 12, 2013 1:46 PM
Those smaller buildings with the arced roofs between the arena and street seem to be a very un-Snohetta design. More like something out of 1998.
Posted by: The Milkshake of Despair at November 12, 2013 1:52 PM
I agree with that last comment. The initial design was my favorite, but what can you do. Hopefully they will not compromise much further.
Posted by: Adam at November 12, 2013 2:01 PM
but it's worth pointing out that the Warriors used to be the San Francisco Warriors before Oakland "snatched" the team in the early 70s.
Oh snap! Historical truth for the win...
Posted by: lyqwyd at November 12, 2013 2:07 PM
Oh my gosh. I still am in love with this thing, tweaks aside. The thought of being able go grab a dinner or beer in the retail area before heading to a Warriors game or large scale concert, all without making the trek to San Jose or Oakland...unreal. This would bring so much life and vitality to the waterfront, I know the haters will say otherwise but I don't think there is another project in the city I am more behind.
Posted by: JWS at November 12, 2013 2:22 PM
This is a great improvement to the dilapidated piers 30/32. Built it already. I'm voting YES.
Posted by: Matteo at November 12, 2013 2:26 PM
"AT&T Park will be losing its surface parking lots"
The number of Mission Bay parking spaces for AT&T will not diminish whatsoever. As currently proposed, all surface spaces will be replaced with garage spaces.
Anyway, funny how the Warriors didn't make any changes to the proposed hotel & condo towers across the street. Obviously these will not fly. Guess the architects ran out of time before today's meeting deadline.
Posted by: anon at November 12, 2013 2:33 PM
To avoid a delay, if opponents succeed in stopping this (I peronsally don't favor any arena in this location), they should propose alternate sites in SF for this arena.
I favor somewhere close to Moscone - accessible from 4 sides, and synergy with conventions.
Otherwise, SF could lose out to Oakland (which I really have no preference on...I think there is a good regional case for having the proposed Coliseum City project built.)
Off topic, for anyone interested in arenas, Atlanta is about to undertake a crazy race-driven new stadium build from city to suburbs...and the old stadium is only 17 years old.
Posted by: Frank C. at November 12, 2013 2:42 PM
Any reasonable person should vote yes. It looks great, and will be a positive addition to the city. Doom and gloom NIMBYs apparently have short memories, seeing as they opposed AT&T park for the same reasons...yet AT&T has been a huge success that helped revitalize the neighborhood, and is often held up as one of the best baseball stadiums in the nation. The new Warriors arena will bring similar benefits: a beautiful and privately funded facility that will bring more activity to a rundown section of the waterfront, more money to the city, and which finally gives SF residents an arena in the city proper...not to mention new open space and a boost to civic pride. And of course the warriors will make more money too.
It's a win-win situation. Nearly everyone gains something good, with the exception of a handful of self-entitled NIMBYs who feel that the city is their personal play-thing to manipulate, at the expense of everyone else. And even they'll be gaining something good, even if they don't realize it yet. Even NIMBYs like new open space, concerts and basketball right?
Posted by: cfb at November 12, 2013 2:45 PM
"I favor somewhere close to Moscone - accessible from 4 sides, and synergy with conventions." -Frank C.
And where is this multi-block location near Moscone that you propose should be completely razed for a new arena? That shouldn't and wouldn't ever happen. There simply isn't any other good site for it, with the possible exception of incorporating it into the new Giants development in Mission bay...which would be a worse location than pier 30/32 in terms of transit-access.
Posted by: cfb at November 12, 2013 2:50 PM
CFB, your suggestion all Warrior's stadium opposition consists of NIMBY's who also opposed the building of AT&T Park is incorrect.
First, AT&T Park is built on land, and not in the Bay.
Second, AT&T Park was financed by the team owners without the City being blackmailed to turn over valuable Embarcadero frontage property to sweeten the deal.
Third, the AT&T deal conformed to the SF Planning Code regarding heights.
Posted by: Jackson at November 12, 2013 3:05 PM
THANK YOU Jackson! The constant beating of the build anything anywhere drums is getting boring. Not every new project is the perfect use for locations such as this. There are plenty of alternative locations here in the city better suited to creating this project. The Staples Center in Los Angeles (and associated hotels, shops and residential towers) was created in an area south of their downtown that was nothing but parking lots. There are plenty of south city areas that could use this type of stimulus. The voters have spoken that the waterfront is of great value to the entire city.
Posted by: Amen! at November 12, 2013 3:17 PM
It's difficult to tell from the drawings, but how much will this stadium block off views of the bay and bridge from the Embarcadero? Walling off any part of SF's spectacular views from waterfront would be a major negative, in terms of whether to approve the project or not.
Posted by: Jim T at November 12, 2013 3:19 PM
Amen - Where would you propose this arena be built? Give me another location, similar in size, with same amount of access to public transportation. Oh, and here's one more thing - the land actually has to be, you know, AVAILABLE.
Jim T - This project won't "wall off" the waterfront at all. In fact, with the public walkway wrapping around the arena you'll have access to views of the water and downtown that are currently unattainable.
Posted by: Fishchum at November 12, 2013 3:48 PM
Revitalization may be a good thing in a location that needs it. That may have been the case with South Beach in the 1990s when AT&T Park was built in what was pretty much a wasteland but it's no longer the case. The area is doing very well with new condo towers going up ever so often straining a transportation infrastructure that is already strained.
Posted by: anonanon at November 12, 2013 4:34 PM
"Where would you propose this arena be built?"
If the billionaire sports team owners are unhappy with their current arena, why don't they build a new one in the same location rather than build a vanity arena in a location that doesn't have the excess infrastructure capacity to handle the additional transportation needs?
And I'm sure the NIMBYs could handle the 20-minute BART ride to Oakland to see a basketball game or a concert.
Posted by: anonanon at November 12, 2013 4:43 PM
"being blackmailed to turn over valuable Embarcadero frontage property to sweeten the deal."
The piers are derelict, ugly and falling into the Bay. Please wake up and join the real world. Nothing will be perfect but this is the only project that has come along with the real potential to fix this problem.
The area is not "doing well" because there is a big old pier that is falling into the Bay and is greatly underutilized soon to be unusable space until we pay to remove it.
There is no counter proposal that is realistic.
Posted by: Zig at November 12, 2013 4:46 PM
"If the billionaire sports team owners are unhappy with their current arena, why don't they build a new one in the same location rather than build a vanity arena . . . "
How about because they know it wouldn't be as profitable as building it in the proposed location? Isn't that ultimately what any owner wants (Warriors, A's, Niner's)?
"in a location that doesn't have the excess infrastructure capacity to handle the additional transportation needs? . . .
And I'm sure the NIMBYs could handle the 20-minute BART ride to Oakland to see a basketball game or a concert."
Options to get to Oakland Coliseum: 1) 880 or, 2) BART
Options to get to the proposed site: 1) BART, 2) Caltrain (allowing peninsula and South Bay access), 3) the Ferry Terminal (allowing access to Marin and as far north as Hercules and Vallejo), and, 4) if one insists on driving, 101 and the Bay Bridge.
I live a few blocks away from the proposed site (and the Bay Bridge for that matter) and yeah, traffic gets congested on Fridays and game days but it is a city and is to be expected. But to posit that the current location is much more accessible for the Bay Area as a whole and and less subject to congestion is very inaccurate.
Posted by: sfjhawk at November 12, 2013 5:25 PM
This building looks beautiful. However, I live one block from the proposed site, on Spear and Harrison. The traffic every evening is already pretty darn miserable as it stands now, with one lane going eastbound on harrison, and the other 4 lanes consistently stop and go from embarcadero up to 1st street and the bridge. Please come by the area between 430 and 630, and tell me if I am mistaken. I do it every day. I can lose 20 minutes every day, just waiting for cars to move out of the way, so i can go 1-2 blocks. Thats ok, i chose to live here.
Even if the majority of people arrive by mass transit [and only] 15% of people arrive by car/taxi, however, there really isn't any extra capacity to start with. The streets in this area weren't really designed for this type of traffic, with the cul-de-sac of spear, the one east bound lane at bryant, and one east bound lane on harrison. trying to cross north/south on any of the tributaries doesn't work either, because of bridge traffic lined up in the intersections.
as pretty as it looks, if they want to build it, they need to have a better plan with the roads leading to in.
Posted by: local resident at November 12, 2013 5:29 PM
"The traffic every evening is already pretty darn miserable as it stands now, with one lane going eastbound on harrison, and the other 4 lanes consistently stop and go from embarcadero up to 1st street and the bridge. Please come by the area between 430 and 630, and tell me if I am mistaken." -local resident
It's called rush hour. Everywhere is extra busy and full of traffic at that time. In addition to that, you live in the center of this city, which is not only a city, but a big and crowded city. Lots of traffic is to be expected, arena or not.
And with only 500 parking spaces, it's clear that the majority of fans will be arriving on BART, Muni, Caltrain, ferries, and by foot. Of course public transit could always be better, but traffic will not be impacted nearly as much as a lot of you guys seem to think. If the Embarcadero/South Beach can already handle the traffic on Giants gamedays without bringing on the apocalypse, then Warriors games and concerts should be no problem.
Posted by: cfb at November 12, 2013 5:44 PM
"And with only 500 parking spaces, it's clear that the majority of fans will be arriving on BART, Muni, Caltrain, ferries, and by foot."
The majority meaning 50.00001% of 19,000 fans? According to the Warriors, a very meaninful proportion will drive. We'll know the full details when the EIR comes out but expect the number of cars for a game to be in the 5,000-10,000 range.
The 500 car garage is only because the city and neighbors are pushing so hard to keep the number down. If it were up to the Warriors they would have a 5,000 car garage. As it is, they & the city are currently talking to every garage operator downtown to figure out how much space is available and to see if the garages will agree to close later than they have in the past.
Posted by: anon at November 12, 2013 6:13 PM
I still don't get what this arena needs 500 parking spaces for, when the Giants make do with about 50. I really fear that 500 parking spots in constant use will impact the flow non-vehicle traffic on the Embarcadero, all this in a transit first neighborhood. If America's past-time gets by with 50, the only reason you might need 500 is if you are trying to build a mega real estate project on the water with tax payer funding.
Posted by: Observer at November 12, 2013 6:32 PM
I'm also a local resident and agree that the traffic will be worse or at least there will be more very bad traffic days than without the arena.
According to an old 2007 Giants study (pdf at namelink), one of their games can 8,400 cars to South Beach/Mission Bay, of which about a third park in the Giants parking lots, about a third park on the street, and the other third park in other parking lots.
Interestingly, about 45% of their attendees take public transit, walk, or bike. That's about the same as the total capacity of the proposed arena.
I wonder if we will get an extra 8,000 or so cars per event or 4,0000 or 2,000 or what?
The Giants played 53 home night games last season. The new arena could have three times that many night events per year.
Posted by: Jake at November 12, 2013 6:45 PM
Posted by: SocketSite at November 12, 2013 6:52 PM
Hmm. New renderings are clunkier than the original design. I am disappointed, but ultimately still very excited for this to be built.
Posted by: JWS at November 12, 2013 7:12 PM
Why don't they build it in India Basin? There's a huge tract of land there that is going into foreclosure as as we speak (I think it's about 23 acres...the owner has been in bankruptcy forever and is losing it to foreclosure). Given that the city clearly needs to expand a project like this could be the catalyst to a renaissance in an area like that. As pointed out above, when the Giants built their park the area was massively underutilized. Putting a gigantic donut next to the Bay Bridge landing is stupid. As for the argument about "who will fix the broken down piers " well...they look pretty fine on a sunny morning when the sun comes up. They will get taken care of in good time. What exactly is the rush here? (other than Ed Lee wanting a "signature project" before he retires from the job he said he didn't want...). I love the idea of a basketball arena but does it really need to be in one of the most picturesque locations in SF? Hell, put it above the CalTrain station (like Boston Garden or Madison Square Garden). It's an indoor sport...who the heck looks out the window at a view during a basketball game at night? You guys need to get over the drooling at planning drawings and think long term. The transit at this location is already overwhelmed and this will only make it worse. Think a little more forward....as the Giants did.
Posted by: Wonkster at November 12, 2013 7:34 PM
"Near the landing of the Bay Bridge" ?? Among the other dumb words you used, that was the stupidest.
Build it tomorrow. Right there. This is a basketball town with a rich history. Kill all NIMBYs.
Posted by: NIMBY Exterminator at November 12, 2013 8:09 PM
Build it *over* the Caltrain tracks between 6th & 4th, between Townsend and King (and in the process, do prelim work for the underground Caltrain station when the train goes to the Transbay Terminal).
Posted by: Sierrajeff at November 12, 2013 8:18 PM
I love basketball. I grew up as a Celtics fan and had great childhood memories of watching them at the Boston Garden. Indoors. In the winter. At an arena built atop North Station. It never occurred to me that is should have been a gigantic project in Back Bay on the Esplanade. I guess I'm a "NIMBY" with ...although this area isn't exactly my backyard. I just like to stroll there and enjoy the wide open views. My bad, as they say...
Posted by: Wonkster at November 12, 2013 8:51 PM
Agree completely with Wonkster! Why not India Basin or above train tracks? Ed Lee is recently quoted as saying "San Francisco needs a new landmark" and my response is... The waterfront and views of the bridges ARE our Landmark. An arena designed for events that do not need a view of the water, built on the water, so it can block views of the water, does not make sense.
Posted by: 94123 at November 12, 2013 9:00 PM
"As for the argument about "who will fix the broken down piers " well...they look pretty fine on a sunny morning when the sun comes up. They will get taken care of in good time. What exactly is the rush here?"
15-20 years of dilapidated piers = the 'rush?' Really??
This has to be trolling.
Posted by: sfjhawk at November 12, 2013 9:20 PM
"Pretty expensive real estate for a fire station. Not sure I understand that. If there was a fire how is the truck going to get out of there?
why does SF have as many fireboats as NYC?" -Sam
According to wikipedia, they don't. NYC has 3 fireboats, and SF has two.
As for how the fire trucks will get out of the station...I dunno, maybe by driving the short distance along the pier until they get to the street? How else? Do you seriously expect that a fire station would be designed so that the fire trucks couldn't get out?
Posted by: cfb at November 12, 2013 9:36 PM
Fireboats being kept in use are a legacy of the 1989 earthquake. After the Loma Prieta quake, water service throughout the city dropped to almost zero and broken water lines caused no water pressure in city fire hydrants. With the Marina District on fire at four different locations the only way to get water to put out the flames was pumped from the bay by fireboats through a series of hoses connected together by fire fighters and citizen volunteers. Without the fireboats, it is possible the Marina and Cow Hollow could have had major fire damage.
Posted by: anon94123 at November 12, 2013 9:52 PM
Right, I "must be trolling."
I'm sorry your horrified by "dilapidated piers" I'm sure you would have viewed the Marin Headlands and Pt. Reyes as just ripe for development. I say slow down and think it through...and beware of any deal that's "today only."
But, you know what? We live in a democracy, so I say put it on the ballot. I trust my fellow citizens.
Posted by: Wonkster at November 12, 2013 10:58 PM
no, not india basin - or at least not the large chunk of waterfront land near hunters point. there's only one way in and out (evans ave) and it'd be a complete nightmare. i can't imagine them ever getting a major event there under the circumstances.
if you're thinking of a place in the southeast near freeways, not too far from caltrain and muni, then look to the spot south of cesar chavez between evans and 280. there's a self storage and a fed ex distribution facility there but i'm sure they could work something out.
Posted by: MossyBuddha at November 12, 2013 11:17 PM
We live in a democracy, so I say put it on the ballot. I trust my fellow citizens.
We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. The BOS should make calls like this, and if you don't agree, you should vote them out. Ballot box planning is horrendous, whether or not it benefits my particular interests or not.
Posted by: anon at November 12, 2013 11:34 PM
Dear team: who is giving you political strategy? You will be on ballot, downsized, squeezed etc. no matter what. Giving yourself a voluntary haircut has only moved the goal post away from you. It's the new baseline and the change is already forgotten.
Other location bloggers, how about this going next to PAC Bell Park, arenas folks can buy the Giants land position for say 150 mil, and get the G's out of the real estate business they really don't want to be in anyway. Larry .....ok w this?
Posted by: Louis at November 13, 2013 12:02 AM
How much of the developer's upside here comes from the venue and how much from the residential towers? And who exactly is "the team", do the players have significant equity in this project or are they basically mascots?
Posted by: heynonnynonny at November 13, 2013 12:43 AM
OK, so why does SF need 2/3 the number of fireboats for a city that is 1/10 the size of NYC?
(I know the answer, just pointing out an absurdity wit the way the city is run)
Posted by: Sam at November 13, 2013 7:12 AM
Sam - read anon94123's answer - the fireboats may be our only line of defense in firefighting after a quake, as they were after Loma Prieta. No fireboats then, no Marina district today. As I recall, earthquakes are not a major issue in NYC...
Posted by: Sierrajeff at November 13, 2013 8:35 AM
"OK, so why does SF need 2/3 the number of fireboats for a city that is 1/10 the size of NYC?
(I know the answer, just pointing out an absurdity wit the way the city is run)" - Sam
In addition to being a valuable asset in the event of an earthquake, there's also the fact that having two fire boats allows one to still be in operation if the other is being serviced. It's a good thing there are two boats, there's nothing absurd about it.
Posted by: cfb at November 13, 2013 10:49 AM
"I'm sorry your horrified by "dilapidated piers" I'm sure you would have viewed the Marin Headlands and Pt. Reyes as just ripe for development. I say slow down and think it through...and beware of any deal that's "today only."
Wonkster, less 'horrified,' by dilapidated piers than disappointed that a city with a finite amount of space, has left this one undeveloped and underutilized for such a long time. Again, it's all relative but the notion that change after 15-20 years is a 'rush,' is a bit of a stretch.
To the point about developing the Marin Headlands and Pt. Reyes: absolutely not. Apples and oranges.
Posted by: sfjhawk at November 13, 2013 1:55 PM
"The Phoenix was praised for saving the Marina from a devastating fire that could have wiped out the area".
At the time I was living at the corner of Green and Pierce (Cow Hollow) and watched the fires from our roof. SFPD cars were driving through the neighborhood asking people to pack up their belongings and prepare to evacuate as there was no water pressure to fight the fires. Then, about 45 minutes later they came back through and said that a fireboat was pumping water through hoses to fight fires. Everyone in Cow Hollow was hoping that the width of Lombard Street would stop the fires from spreading south. When the next Big One hits, we will all be surprised how helpless you can be. Living through the 89 quake is something I will never forget, and I now keep extra cash (cash machines were down and banks were closed for many days), flash lights, and at least 1/2 a tank of gas (gas stations all closed) in the car at all times. Power was out in Cow Hollow for about 5 days, but in the Marina it was out for weeks or many months depending on the street. Believe it or not, the first building I remember being completely back up after the earthquake was the Nikko Hotel which has quite an emergency generator system.
For those that are interested, here is an explanation on the need for two fire boats.
Posted by: anon94123 at November 13, 2013 2:11 PM
"I still don't get what this arena needs 500 parking spaces fowhen the Giants make do with about 50."
what are you smoking? The giants have over 2000 parking spots. this arena should also have at least 1500. otherwise, the fans are going to be trolling the streets looking for street parking and make the traffic worse.
Posted by: jill at November 13, 2013 2:53 PM
"what are you smoking? The giants have over 2000 parking spots. this arena should also have at least 1500. otherwise, the fans are going to be trolling the streets looking for street parking and make the traffic worse."
Aren't these spots (near at&t/Giants ballpark) - or, at least a good chunk of them - going away w/the proposed development that includes retail and a hotel? I seem to remember a dedicated garage structure but wasn't quite sure on the capacity.
I'm actually more concerned of the build-it-and-they-will-come-expectation that comes with providing 500 parking spaces: x2-4 will drive vs. taking public transit and expect that they'll be ample parking only to be sorely disappointed adding to congestion.
Posted by: sfjhawk at November 13, 2013 3:01 PM
As I mentioned on another Warriors thread, I believe a certain amount of parking spaces on site are required by the NBA. Not sure of the metrics the NBA uses, but I'm sure somebody can figure that out...
Posted by: Can't think of Cool Name at November 13, 2013 6:55 PM