Golden State Warriors Mission Bay Arena Site

Snohetta and Manica Architecture will remain the design team for the Golden State Warriors’ Arena in Mission Bay.  And while the Warriors remain focused on opening the arena in time for the 2018 season, they are adding two 120-foot-tall towers with 500,000 square feet of office space along Third Street to their plans, according to the Business Times.

Slated to be built on 12 acres of land bounded by Third, 16th and South Streets, and Terry Francois Boulevard to the east, the San Francisco Sports and Entertainment Center will feature an 18,000-seat arena which is expected to rise around 125 feet in height and will showcase Warriors games as well as concerts, events and convention activities.

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.

And with respect to Proposition M which limits the development of office space in San Francisco, according to the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, Mission Bay projects get priority.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by BigV

    All these office plans — and prop M.
    Which part of this logjam is going to break first?

    • Posted by Chris

      The Warriors’ parcel is not subject to the Prop M. cap because it was pre-allocated office space many years ago under its original owner. Remember, Prop. M only caps how much space can be APPROVED in a single year, not how much can be built. Since, the pre-approved space for the Warrior’s lot was already deducted from the Prop. M. limitation in effect under the original owner, it does not affect the existing cap limit (which including roll-over amounts) is about 2 million square feet. So, an additional 2 million square feet of office space could be approved this year. The new allocation year begins October 17 and brings with it the annual additional allocation of 950,000 square feet of office space, of which 75,000 square feet must go to small office projects). Of course, there are over 8 million square feet of office space in the pipeline (not counting the Warrior’s project or other pre-approved Mission Bay projects), so some projects will not be approved.

      But, the Warriors need not worry.

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        Thanks for the excellent explanation. Do you know if the office development rights are transferrable – e.g., could someone with existing approval for, say, 500,000 sq.ft. auction it off to someone else (now that demand’s up)?

        • Posted by Chris

          The rights are transferable with the property (which is how the Warriors acquired them through purchasing the property), but I am not aware of any rule that would allow development rights attached to a specific piece of property to be sold to someone who wants to build on a completely different site.

          I believe there were a little over 1.2 million square feet of commercial development approved for what was called the Alexandria Development District (formerly owned by Alexandria Real Estate) in Mission Bay, and the Warriors purchased a portion of this development entitled propery on which they plan to build 500,000 square feet of space. Another portion of the former Alexandria property is now owned by Kilroy Corp. which is planning a 680,000 square foot development about two blocks from the Warriors site. So, nearly all of the development rights on the former Alexandria property have been spoken for.

  2. Posted by Adam

    Well I hope for their sake that the Warriors organization plans to include ground floor retail all around the base of the site, especially along the waterfront and along 3rd street. There is a huge opportunity to cater to the people living and working in the area, and to people attending games and events. If they don’t, there will be no street life to speak of in the immediate area.

    And here’s hoping the new arena design + tower blocks looks as cool as the early designs for the first site.

    • Posted by FoggyDunes

      Agree– and I also hope that they make a strong connection to the new waterfront park.

  3. Posted by cfb

    I’m gonna love when the rich NIMBYs get up in arms about the “massive 120 foot skyscraper wall that will block the entire waterfront from all sunlight and views forever! Also: something something greedy developers!” and distribute flyers all over the city that make it look like these puny buildings are as tall as the empire state building, not to mention somehow framing the project as wealthy invaders vs. working class SF residents…and then they’ll draft another height-limit ballot measure, which will pass, because no one votes…and those who do vote are apparently all NIMBYs and/or gullible idiots who believe the doom and gloom NIMBY propaganda.

    • Posted by Darren

      Yeah, this campaign is probably being hatched as we speak right now. Renderings of the towers taken from 2 inches off the ground pointing 90 degrees up in the air will be on the cover of the flyer, which will be “Paid for by San Francisco Neighborhood Altruists” or something.

  4. Posted by notarealcity

    Exactly how do they expect the non-existent infrastructure of this city and neighborhood to support this, not to mention across the street from a Children’s hospital??? This area comes to a stand still every time there’s a Giants home game and the nearby businesses have to plan their day around it. It needs underground transportation directly into it. Do people realize we are talking the equivalent of Madison Square Garden???? This will not work!

    • Posted by cfb

      A hospital and arena on the same street? Madness! It’s Manhattan + Hong Kong multiplied by infinity! The earth will stop spinning, the buses will all spontaneously combust and it will rain acid. And the sky is going to fall too, didn’t you hear?

      Seriously, it’s not going to be that bad, and it’s not the same exact thing to Madison square garden either (why must every development in SF be compared to Manhattan? It’s like there are only two development types NIMBYs know of: none, and “manhattanization”). Especially considering transit improvements that will have happened by the time this is built: more trains (that are new and more reliable), and the central subway. Maybe BART will finally be designing a new transbay tube/new lines by then too (i can dream). Is that an optimal transit situation? No, but it’s improvement, and you also have to consider that projects like this are one of the things that create the demand for yet more public transit improvements.

      Or we could just complain that nothing will ever work right or look right or be right, ever, and never build anything ever again. There you go, nothing new for you to be potentially disappointed in or inconvenienced by.

      • Posted by whywhywhy

        Seriously, NIMBY’s need to actually learn about other cities other than Manhattan and Hong Kong. Some seem to know about Vancouver, but seem frightened by it as well. Whereas everyone I’ve talked to who’s been to Vancouver says it’s like a cleaner, more beautiful, and friendlier San Francisco, haha.

      • Posted by shza

        The original comment from notarealcity was not an anti-manhattanization comment; it was precisely the opposite — i.e., that when Manhattan does something like this, it actually has world-class public transportation to support it; and that SF should be *more* like Manhattan in that respect. I agree with that. Out of all the major cities I’ve lived in, SF has by far the worst transportation infrastructure. Totally JV and totally laughable. I never owned a car before coming here.

        My reaction to this was actually the same as notarealcity’s — it will be a huge traffic problem, given the lack of underground transport. Too late now (thanks to the real NIMBYs), but the original location on the pier was nearly perfect, both in terms of public transportation connections and showcase qualities. This downgrade is pretty depressing. Still looking forward to seeing the design though — at least Snohetta can generally be counted on.

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          I don’t know if notarealcity’s comment was pro- or anti-Manhattan, but it was spot-on, as is yours. Ridiculous to propose the density of Mission Bay and depends solely on a surface trolley as the main mode of public transit. Should have buried the T-Third when it was a wasteland… what’d be really great is a cross-town Muni line along 16th, from the Arena, connecting at BART, and continuing to Castro. Would really help tie all those areas together, and really improve Mission Bay access.

  5. Posted by Joseph A

    1st 120 feet is not massive even if it is 2 towers , I think that the complex should make a statement.

    I would be much happier if the towers were of mixed heights in the 250 – 400 foot range at least ,, with the taller of the 2 being built as a hotel , and the ground floors and possible 2nd floors devoted to retail and or restaurants

  6. Posted by guest

    120 feet towers?

    Isn’t the arena itself going to be about 100 feet; so the towers will barely stand out if at all

  7. Posted by Arch

    Mission Bay could be one of the greatest missed opportunities of all time. Sports stadiums and arenas are what struggling cities plop down in urban renewal zones that need serious help. Mission Bay was sold 20 years ago as the next Marina District, except with more and better transit, canals with bike paths, and frequent view corridors to the bay. Now all we get is a street named after the original developer who sold these plans to SF, but went back to Los Angeles long ago, and we now have one of the most unimaginative uses of desirable urban land in a world class city ever . Maybe I travel too much in Europe for business, but the waterfront is our most desirable resource, and I am not convinced the only way to “save” Missiin Bay and bring “street life” to the neighborhood is a sports arena.

    • Posted by Joseph A

      We are really talking though about more then Mission Bay ,
      Mission Bay, the SOMA, the Dog Patch are all linked as one much larger project , with Mission Bay being a diverse project of Bio Tech, Entertainment, and Housing
      If anything San Francisco probably needs additional Hotels , and needs to take steps to make the city more Tourist friendly

    • Posted by James

      I don’t know about your experiences in Europe, but I think it’s quite common there, too, to use entertainment venues as a way to revitalize postindustrial waterfront land. The O2 dome in London and Snohetta’s own Olso Opera House are two obvious examples. At any rate, I don’t see this as the city hanging all its hopes for Mission Bay on a sports arena. They’ve been building out the neighborhood for over a decade. There have been many missed opportunities, but this stadium is just an extra piece of the puzzle. It’s not the keystone of the whole plan.

  8. Posted by Ralph Anavy

    Why are they using a photo taken several years ago, before the current Hospital, Campus, and the rest of Mission Bay on-going construction transformed the landscape. Deceitful(?). Do they want you to think that they are building in a wasteland?

    Now for the height. Mission Bay developments are constrained by a master plan, with specified height limitations, block by block, and also by bulk and other design constraints. If the proposed plans meet these guidelines, it will be fine. If not, the warriors should be prepared for a fight over any building code variances they may seek, and thus it will delay in their plans. Let us see what is being proposed, and how it fits the MB planning guidelines. Let us see what they will offer in exchange for any proposed variance requirements (if any).

    • Posted by emanon

      Those sneaking, greedy, out-of-state developers are at it again! All of them should be sent back to republican Texas. Good thing you found them out in time before they fooled the rest of the true San Franciscans!

  9. Posted by Mr. E.

    For some sense of scale, 120 feet is approximately the height of the Palace Hotel.
    Does anyone know the height of the new hospital, off hand?

    If I have the correct document in front of me, the base height for the parcels in question is 90 feet, with up to 7% of the developable area able to be built to a tower height of 160 feet. I presume a greater percentage may be built at 120 feet.

  10. Posted by primeminister

    120′ is a tower? That says a lot about this place.

Add a Comment

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