Warriors%20Mission%20Bay%20Center%20Site%201.jpg

While the Golden State Warriors have yet to announce their specific plans for the San Francisco Sports and Entertainment Center to be built on 12 acres of land bounded by 3rd, 16th and South Streets, and Terry Francois Boulevard to the east, the basic elements of their Piers 30-32 plan remain in effect: the arena will hold about 18,000 seats, will rise around 125 feet in height, and will showcase NBA basketball games as well as concerts, events and convention activities.

The Warriors proposed development will be privately financed and the transaction with salesforce.com to acquire the land did not include any naming or sponsorship rights.

In addition, the build-out of the Mission Bay site will trigger the construction of a five-and-a-half-acre waterfront park across Terry Francois Boulevard, with water-oriented activities and large lawn areas to accommodate a variety of recreational uses similar to Marina Green.

Warriors%20Mission%20Bay%20Center%20Site.jpg

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by e flat

    Great! Something like Staples Center/LA Live. Too bad the Warriors couldn’t have worked something out with the Giants up at their Lot A, closer to Caltrain/N Line. Now the Giants will present a boring extension of Mission Bay with condos and suburban office park. No sports/entertainment district, no develpment of Pier 48 as an exhibition hall,

  2. Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

    No worries @eflat. They’ll be exhibiting beer at pier 48… :-)

  3. Posted by Joseph A

    Its a win for the Warriors , especially since they no longer need to foot the $300M Bill to fix the pier , PLUS , they no longer need to include a park area since that is part of the larger development

  4. Posted by inclinejj

    Have you ever been to Staples Center, the neighborhood is nothing like SF. If you don’t believe me walk around the place, I dare you.

  5. Posted by John Hudson

    Has the Snohetta design also been abandoned?

  6. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Snohetta here would look great – I’m assuming that they’ll keep the gist of the design to keep costs down – there are some great opportunities to integrate the arena with the park and waterfront here. I’ve gone from being mildly against the Pier site to very in favor of this location.

  7. Posted by Mark

    Now if we only had a BART station at 16th/3rd. Hey, why not?

  8. Posted by JWS

    IF the Giants can also revitalize their parking lot deal (suspect given the height limitations coming down the road with the ballot process), these two sites will add a significant amount of glamor and desirability to what has been in danger of being a boring and “suburban” neighborhood. While I am saddened by the pier deal falling apart, as I thought the location and design were spectacular, this is quickly growing on me. What they can do with the additional 4 +/- acres will be extremely exciting in terms of retail and amenities. Count me amongst those who are hoping for a similar layout to LA Live…with Snohetta at the helm, preferably.

  9. Posted by Poor in Potrero Hill

    What are the odds they run rail down 16th street to connect to Bart and eventually Market? 2) add ferry service to the ‘hood? Or 3) sink the T through the DogPatch?

  10. Posted by Joseph A

    @JWS ,
    The thing is that you do not need high rises near the arena, but it is nice to have a place with shops and cafes , which you will get about 2 blocks away once Mission Bay BLVD gets developed. In some ways this is the perfect thing for Mission Bay since it gets 2 event centers to Anchor it to its North and South which should help Restaurants, Bars, Cafes that open on Mission Bay Blvd thrive.

  11. Posted by Alvin

    I know there’s no naming rights sold yet but Salesforce Stadium doesn’t sound too bad.

  12. Posted by stuck

    well, technically, it would be salesforce arena, or the salesforce center
    how about the benioff bowl
    ucsf benioff childrens hospital and event center

  13. Posted by cwilly

    @JWS – Can you let me know where these “suburban” areas are that are filled with 8 story buildings built to the property line with a few 20 story buildings sprinkled in? Because that is what Mission Bay is/will be. It may be boring, but suburban it is not.

  14. Posted by jlasf

    We should now think beyond the Snohetta design and not be limited to a free-standing circle. Look to the model of the Verizon Center in DC, instead. It is integrated into the fabric of the neighborhood with street-level retail. It has created a vibrant active hub of restaurants and stores. In addition, the bars and restaurants help stretch out the traffic rush, as many people linger in the area. There is also a movie cineplex a block away.
    http://verizoncenter.monumentalnetwork.com/about-verizon-center
    It’s more of the idea that interests me, rather than this actual architecture, by the way.

  15. Posted by taco

    Wow… right near where nobody wants to be. It will be just like Oakland, so they’ll feel right at home.

  16. Posted by Mark

    @taco: back in the 90s no one really wanted to be where the ballpark is located. My how times change…for the better.

  17. Posted by arrrrrgh-matey

    can we vote on this?
    seems like san francisco’s future would be better off without another pro sports team & concert venue parked on the waterfront.
    i’d vote no.

  18. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    taco – you should visit Dogpatch and the Oakland Coliseum areas first and then see if you can conclude that they are similar areas.

  19. Posted by poor.ass.millionaire

    I’m thinking this will be a win for the Bayview too, as the main transport conduit is the 3rd street T line. It’ll make the T line that much more relevant; not just for downtown, but now also for sports and entertainment.
    Sí, ó no Sí?

  20. Posted by zig

    “I’m thinking this will be a win for the Bayview too”
    I am going to say no it has no relevance. Why would it?

  21. Posted by Mark

    Sadly, the T-line will be ill equipped to handle the volume of riders generated by the arena without disrupting traffic along the entire length of the line, not to mention messing up operations of the other light rail lines by hoarding cars. Expect big delays.

  22. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    Mark wrote:

    Now if we only had a BART station at 16th/3rd. Hey, why not?

    What is it with people in this city and their casual conception of BART with intracity transit?
    BART isn’t your intracity transit, MUNI is. And the hated, hated Central Subway extension (as alluded to by other comments above) will serve this area, no?

  23. Posted by brid

    Just back from a SPUR presentation fronted by SFMTA and this was touched upon in the context of the Eastern Neighborhoods/South Waterfront plans.
    Looks like their planning team is trying to stay ahead of things re transit needs and I’m sure there will be tweaks and greenfield transit initiatives to take account of the likely opening date of the arena.
    In a wider sense I think this new location – together with SWL337, Pier 70 and the Shipyard – will help “glue together” Mission Bay, Dogpatch and BVHP.

  24. Posted by ncydr

    One can pretty much abandon the iconic round design and limited programmatic use so restrained at Pier 30/32. Compliance to a maritime purpose is no longer in affect. As far as I can see, the Salesforce site is a clean slate with maximum development in mind. Expect maximum proforma recovery for the huge price tag paid. Salesforce is in Mission Bay redevelopment land which cuts down on public scrutiny, which cut both ways good and bad.
    I anticipate one of the early design will look like Snorhetta’s interior stadium design enrobed in a box with a 22-30 story highrise elements projecting up from it. Predictably ground level retail, restaurant and entertaiment lobby. Perhaps a SF version of the Nokia Center in LA? Holly cow.

  25. Posted by bbqeggs

    I would have used BART to get to the original proposed location. I will definitely drive to this location in mission bay. I imagine fans coming from the east bay will do the same. Nothing relevant will be done public transportation wise. Enjoy the traffic :)

  26. Posted by EH

    “I would have used BART to get to the original proposed location”
    Have you ever walked to that lot from BART? It’s not as close as you think.

  27. Posted by gribble

    They would be very smart to include a couple hotel towers looking out over the park/Bay.
    UCSF could certainly use a nearby hotel to lodge visiting folks.
    Not to mention people coming from out of town for events could make a stay of it.

  28. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Yes, the T will serve this location (subject to capacity constraints) but only from the north and south. Most of SF’s population lives west of this location and many will (attempt to) get there via east-west thoroughfares. Having a Muni Metro line along 16th St connecting the T to the J (and BART) would be fantastic but that is a pipe dream for sure.
    Capacity-wise, let’s keep in mind that this arena has less than half the seating capacity of AT&T Park. When there are concurrent events at the two venues it will be ugly, but otherwise I don’t think it’ll be too bad. General population growth in the Eastern neighborhoods will be the real problem to solve for.

  29. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    @bbqeggs:
    If the arena were at Pier 30-32 you would take BART to Embarcadero and walk 15 mins, but you won’t take Bart to Powell, transfer to the T (central subway) and ride that for 15 mins to be dropped off right on the arena’s doorstep? Then you’d rather drive?
    Hard to tell if you’re being hyperbolic or stupid. I’m gonna go with both.

  30. Posted by zzzzzz

    But won’t transferring to the T subway from Powell BART involve exiting the station and walking to either Union Square or Moscone? Not so direct as it might seem.

  31. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Btw, half of that “Bayfront Park” is a parking lot. But if they are really going to reroute Terry Francois as in that illustration, then I like the potential. I guess all the drug dealing going on down there now will have to relocate.

  32. Posted by AnotherMark

    @zzzzzz. Actually, no. The concourses of the two stations (existing Powell stn. and the new Market Street/Union Square stn.) will interconnect underground, forming essentially one long concourse from 5th/Market to Stockton/Geary. The platform-to-concourse escalator (the southern of the two) from the T-line platform will hit the concourse at approximately the (current) Apple Store location near Stockton and Market, from which point you’ll transition into the existing Powell concourse and enter either BART or Muni to complete the transfer. (The “exit at Union Sq. and transfer above ground” notion is a common misconception.)
    The limiting factor will be the extremely limited capacity of the single T-line to ferry all passengers bound for either BART or any of myriad Market street Muni lines (above and below ground) from the venue. The Pier 30 location would have put those within walking distance. I suspect the prediction above that people coming from the East Bay will be more likely to drive will be borne out.
    But these things are always exercises in compromise of some sort. This site may turn out quite well in other regards, just not as as “transit first” as one may have hoped for.

  33. Posted by Alvin

    @gribble There is a hotel! About 7 blocks away on Channel between Third and Fourth hopefully open by 2016.
    http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2014/01/15story_mission_bay_hotel_slated_for_2016_opening.html

  34. Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

    Concerning those who want to drive to events via the Bay Bridge, the “fastest” (note the quotes) way would be 2nd/King/3rd after a Harrison/Fremont exit from the bridge.
    But if I remember correctly, in this time frame 2nd will be undergoing – if its not already completed, its traffic calming work, removing two of the four lanes and some parking between King and Harrison and adding wider curbs and dedicated bike lanes in both directions.
    If 2nd/King/3rd is destined to become the Bay Bridge Boulevard for driving to/from 200+ events at the arena, maybe the traffic calming plan for 2nd should be reevaluated. Its either that or the traffic will probably self-route via the Embarcadero, which may not be any better.

  35. Posted by Jake

    Folks that drive from the East Bay during rush hour would be nuts to use 2nd, even in the current configuration with two-lanes each way. Far better to use the Embarcadero to 3rd St or get off either at 5th and cutover to 4th to Mission Bay or at 8th and cutover to 7th to 16th to Mission Bay.
    According to an SFGiants study, more people drive to a Giants weekday evening game than will fit in the new arena: about 8,000 cars with about 20,000 people. And the numbers are higher for weekend games. So, whatever traffic load the Warriors games create it shouldn’t be as bad as a Giants game. Same Giants study found 5-6,000 came in by BART from the east bay and nearly as many from Caltrain.
    Today in an interview Lacob mentioned there are 6,000 parking spaces within walking distance of the new location.
    Hopefully, on the nights when the Giants have a game and the new arena has an event the start times will be staggered by an hour or so, something like 7:15 first pitch and 8:30 concert.

  36. Posted by Joseph A

    Walking is an option for many going to the Giants Game , but this is a bit farther so seeing peeps jumping on MUNI , and for those thinking their will not be capacity , I can also see MUNI running express buses if they are concerned about adding additional trains just to ferry people between the Arena and Bart

  37. Posted by Ralph A

    Why are they using an old photo…several years old photo it seems, when Mission Bay is currently significantly more built-up and populated.
    Also for precision, the park is none of the Warriors doing. It is already on the books. The arena will simply provide more rapid access to the funds to complete it (currently scheduled after 2020, I think, when Terry Francois Blvd is also straightened and repaved. As a private development, they will contribute to the special district tax base and the funding for such a park anyway. I think many of the articles in the press make it sound as if they are contributing land and development for the park. Not so.
    Still, this is potentially a better location than at piers 30-32. The parking lots near this location are privately, or UCSF owned so it is misleading to assume that they will have 2000+ parking spots for it. Let us see if they will provide additional parking, or better, if the public transportation can significantly be improved before everything comes to a total gridlock status. I suspect that transportation will be the number one hurdle to overcome.

  38. Posted by Mark

    @brahma: I feel you’re misguided about intracity transit and the roles of both BART and MUNI.
    The arena is for the entire Bay Area, not just SF MUNI riders. Creating viable mass transit near the arena to handle as many people from the Bay Area as possible would be more ideal than just relying on the T-line. With your logic the Oakland Coliseum would only be served by AC Transit.
    BART has a “metro” style expansion project in the works. Granted, it’s still just an idea, but at least the concept makes sense.
    BART Metro: Bridging BART’s Two Identities (SPUR)
    How Will BART Expand to Serve Its Growing Ridership? (SPUR)

  39. Posted by Jamie

    Why not create a 3rd Street shuttle that runs from 3rd and King (AT&T Park) to 3rd and 22nd (Caltrain station) to pick up BART/ Caltrain/ FiDi workers/ Ferry service passengers/ locals with 5 minute head ways during events/conventions/weekday commute at the ballpark or arena (maybe UCSF shuttles can be recruited) and maybe 10 minute headways during non-event hours? T/Third shouldn’t/can’t be only option.

  40. Posted by Dan

    @Mike
    I’m confused by the MUNI comment. It’s not a transit system for SF residents only. A ton of Bay Area residents ride the T to the Giants’ ballpark. In fact, the capacity at AT&T is more than double that of the proposed Warriors arena, and it’s on the same line. Am I missing something?

  41. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Here’s an obvious question – if so many of you are worried about how all the folks from the east bay are going to get here….why not just build the stadium in the east bay in the first place? Problem solved.

  42. Posted by Fishchum

    I’m not particularly worried about how people from the East Bay are going to get there. That’s their problem. I know how I’ll be getting to the arena, and the East Bay crowds really won’t have any effect on that.

  43. Posted by anonanon

    “I know how I’ll be getting to the arena, and the East Bay crowds really won’t have any effect on that.”
    Why wouldn’t how people, East Bay or not, get to the arena be a consideration? And you are the guy saying you will be taking Uber but insisting on buying the tickets for a codgers concerts 8 months out? Talk about lack of sophistication! The Mission Bay location is not really that great when it comes to public transportation. Neither was the Pier 30/32 one. Keep the Warriors in Oakland. Uber operates there as well.

  44. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Enough of this nonsense. The East Bay people will take BART to Powell, then transfer to the T (Central Subway). Problem solved. If they can’t figure that out, then they’re probably better off staying home.
    The South Bay people will either take Caltrain to 22nd and walk a mile or take Caltrain to 4th & King and transfer to the T.
    Am I going too fast?

  45. Posted by anonanon

    Except that you are forgetting a little detail: Neither of the transport systems you mention has the capacity to handle it. But, I guess, why should that get into your way?

  46. Posted by Young Tech Guy

    You don’t know how many East Bay fans will or will not be coming in three years time. The ownership play appears to clearly be toward catering to other parts of the Bay in the first place. You discount the transport that hasn’t been built, which is to be volume expanded purportedly? can you cite some urban planning credentials?

  47. Posted by anonanon

    AT&T Park has been around for a decade and a half. Neither
    MUNI nor Caltrain has the capacity to adequately handle the crowds on game day. Caltrain can’t even handle the regular commute crowd adequately even when there is no baseball game. Urban planning? Have you ever taken Caltrain? MUNI? Probably not.

  48. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Enough of this nonsense. The East Bay people will take BART to Powell, then transfer to the T (Central Subway). Problem solved. If they can’t figure that out, then they’re probably better off staying home.
    The South Bay people will either take Caltrain to 22nd and walk a mile or take Caltrain to 4th & King and transfer to the T.
    Am I going too fast?

  49. Posted by Young Tech Guy

    Of course I have taken both muni and Caltrain regularly. And you’re talking about a facility with well less than half the capacity. Sorry, but you seem very, very fake all around. I gave you a chance to be real and you did not seize it. I won’t be talking to you in this forum again.

  50. Posted by anonanon

    “Am I going too fast?”
    How about taking Caltrain or MUNI on a day when the Giants play an evening home game before you open your mouth?

  51. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Don’t know where that double post came from. Anyway, I refuse to believe that there will be bigger capacity problems than we already have today with BART to the Coliseum. Getting back to SF after events over there is always a nightmare and I’ve had to wait on the platform for upwards of 20 minutes while multiple jam-packed trains took off.
    The same is true for Muni and AT&T Park. Yes, it’s a pain to get out of there on Muni but it’s a pain to get out of there by car or any other means too. That doesn’t mean there is not enough capacity, it just means that when tens of thousands of people need to get out of the same small place at the same time it causes congestion.

  52. Posted by Young Tech Guy

    Are you serious right now? acting like waiting an extra 10 minutes or so every now and then is some sort traffic Armageddon? Ridiculous. Now halve that, at most, when it comes to the new Warriors arena.

  53. Posted by Young Tech Guy

    Whoops. That was the same guy. Oh well. Now I’m done.

  54. Posted by anonanon

    My problem is not so much people getting out. If you get out at 10 or 11 after a game or event, yes it will be crowded, there will be lines and waits, but you probably knew that would be the case when you bought the tickets.
    My concern is more the impact on regular commuters, who may use Caltrain, MUNI, or cars, during the afternoon/evening commute. They may have no interest in the game/event in question and a new arena will just add to the pain that the Giants are already inflicting on them.

  55. Posted by anonanon

    “I won’t be talking to you in this forum again.”
    That is fine with me. I have posted on this site using the same name since about 2007. I have commuted to Silicon Valley using different means of transportation since the early 90s. If you don’t want to talk with me in this forum, just make make sure the door doesn’t hit your ass on the way out.

  56. Posted by Jake

    Consider how much traffic could have been generated if this parcel was built as offices.
    Salesforce had planned to build out offices for 8-10k employees in their 14 acres of Mission Bay, which could have been about 7.5k in this 12 acre portion. So there’s something like 7.5k people that won’t be added to the AM rush hour for this location in future years. At 200 workdays/year that means the Warriors just displaced 1.5 million AM rush hour trips per year for Mission Bay circa 2020 and beyond.
    With the Warriors target of 200 events/year drawing about 2 million attendees, that should be about 150 events timed for workday evenings with about 1.5 million attendees. So, they still cause somewhere around the 1.5 million PM rush hour trips per year, though somewhat reverse direction. And substantial additional non-rush hour traffic nights and weekends.
    But overall, building the arena in Mission Bay reduces the future traffic load for San Francisco by eliminating office capacity in an otherwise congested area, unlike the pier 30-32 location.

  57. Posted by Fishchum

    “Getting back to SF after events over there is always a nightmare and I’ve had to wait on the platform for upwards of 20 minutes while multiple jam-packed trains took off.”
    - Exactly. I’m guessing MUNI will have to iron out some issues, but seeing an event at Mission Bay is far more preferable than going to the Oakland Arena.

  58. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Click on my name link to see bay area populations by county. Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara counties have much larger populations than SF. I’d wager that this is where the majority of sports fans would be coming from, as they do for Giants games. We have a mass transit system which is already inadequate for regular commuting – why put additional pressure on it trying to cram more people from the east bay into a small town surrounded by water on three sides? Especially when you ALREADY have one stadium in this part of town. Build this thing in Alameda county and take the mountain to Mohammed.

  59. Posted by anon

    But all that just demonstrates why it only makes sense to have these venues in SF. Transit certainly could be better, but it has developed to move people in and out of SF, but nowhere else. Total pita to get from, say, Santa Clara County to Alameda County, or Marin to Contra Costa. Car traffic is awful. The BA population is spread out among many counties, but SF is the hub. SF is the most sensible place to have these big venues (plus, that is where the $$ is). The Warriors owners recognize this.

  60. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “..SF is the hub”
    Hardly. If the Bay Area has a transportation hub it would be Oakland where multiple freeways and rail transit converge. Even San Jose hosts more transportation than SF.

  61. Posted by Fishchum

    Bottom line is, the Oakland Arena is in the middle of a wasteland – there isn’t anything to do after an event except leave via car (ugh) or wait god knows how long on a BART platform for an empty car.
    The Warriors owners know this – these guys aren’t building an arena in Mission Bay in order to lose money.

  62. Posted by Jake

    ^^^ no one wants to build there, it’s not crowded enough

  63. Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

    Well, those East Bay counties with all those larger-than-SF populations have had how many years to prove that the Warriors should stay in Oakland? Turns out people from Pleasanton and Walnut Creek eschew Oakland just as much as people in SF do.
    Transit schmansit, this new arena location is the least imperfect site available in the entire Bay Area.

Add a Comment

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