In the works for over a decade, the official development agreement and approvals necessary for the San Francisco Giants to move forward with their massive (yes, massive) redevelopment of A&T Park’s Parking Lot A into “Mission Rock,” the plans for which include over 1.4 million square feet of office, retail and restaurant space; over 1,300 units of rental housing in buildings rising up to 240 feet in height; 3,100 parking spaces; and nearly 8 acres of open space and parks, are slated to be approved by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors tomorrow afternoon.

The anticipated ground breaking for the four-phase development, which is expected to take at least a decade to complete, is currently pegged for “as early as next year.”

And as we first reported, Anchor Brewing, which had been courted to open a new brewery, restaurant and museum on Pier 48 has been officially dropped from the plans.

Speaking of which, while the associated redevelopment of Pier 48 (and 48 ½) may still occur “at some future date,” with the Giants and Port having agreed to cooperate on identifying “a potential long term use,” an effective 10-year extension of the existing lease for Pier 48 – which allows for its use as a parking and special events facility – is slated to be approved tomorrow as well with a clause which would allow the Port to terminate the lease for a Port program, project or long-term development opportunity.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I kind of liked the coincidence of the anchor tenant being literally named “Anchor”.

  2. Posted by oakland lover

    I cant wait to see this. This is what is going to make MB feel like an actual neighborhood. That and the warriors stadium are really going to bring it online. I know several people who work down there who still say it feels isolated, empty. This will help amazingly!

    • Posted by Hunter

      Agree! Also glad they’re starting with the waterfront park first, rather than holding off on the public benefits until the end (looking at you One Mission Bay).

  3. Posted by hundoman

    What a great municipal give away to the Giants organization.

    How much money can the Giant’s organization net a year with this 1,300 units of rental housing, 1.4 million sq feet of office space and then the 3,100 paid parking spots?

    $100-$150 million a year when this is all built out after financing costs?

    • Posted by Anonymous

      What exactly is the problem here? The team privately financed their stadium, bought the land in Mission Bay, and got citywide voter approval for their development plans. I challenge you to name another pro sports team in the US that has done that. Hell, even most dedicated developers don’t have a process like that.

      • Posted by Notcom

        The property is leased from the port (unless you’re referring to some other land) which may be the source of his/her discontent…what exactly, tho, I don’t know.

        • Posted by Anonymous

          Okay, so they are still paying for it. That still fits my overarching point that this doesn’t really seem to qualify as corporate welfare or a backroom developer handout.

      • Posted by donjuan

        Unless the sponsor of the project does nothing short of bankrupting themselves, people are always unhappy with the developer behind it.

    • Posted by Frisco

      It’s a benefit to the Giants and to the city both. What you might call a win-win. The fact that the Giants stand to make a profit doesn’t mean it’s not a good project.

  4. Posted by gentrified is a dirty word for clean

    The 3rd Street bridge is already choking on bike and foot traffic on weekends and game days, so they will need to either expand it or build another bridge across Mission Creek. Would be cool to see something like the “kissing bridge” in Copenhagen built across McCovey Cove.

    • Posted by Hunter

      Whatever happened to the 5th street pedestrian bridge project? Really wish it would get built.

      • Posted by Orland

        I’ve been asking the same question? Seems there are objections regarding navigable waters concerns from houseboat owners down creek.

      • Posted by aerel

        I’m not sure a crossing at 5th (or 6th) street would be all that useful, since it just dumps you on a dead-end street, which is also blocked off by the Caltrain yard to the north. The best bet is probably to improve connections through 16th street and 7th street.

        • Posted by Orland

          It was to be a PEDESTRIAN crossing.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Your point? As a PEDESTRIAN, what utility is gained by crossing at 5th and being dumped onto the stub of King and the Caltrain yards?

        • Posted by Michael

          I live in Arden, and would use such a bridge multiple times a day. Pedestrian only bridges are pleasing, I’ll take them over shared ones when given the chance.

          But I 100% agree connections towards 16th would be better. Getting over to 7th will be fine when darn Channel street opens…it’s been stuck in a rut for nearly a year. They finally striped it in the past week, so here’s hoping that means it will open soon!

  5. Posted by JWS

    I don’t know if anybody else watched their presentation to the Land Use and Transportation Committee, but the Giants level of preparedness, detail, and goodwill surpasses almost any other big project I’ve ever seen here.

    Neighbors thoroughly consulted and in fact virtually all voiced their unconditional support, their retail plan is extremely thoughtful (they diagrammed Hayes, Valencia, Chestnut, and Fillmore to determine what size, dimensions, and amount of storefronts per block would be most likely to attract vibrant small retailers and activate the pedestrian experience), they are delivering in spades on park space…there is so much heart and thought behind this one.

    I am super bummed to see how long it will take to complete, but they really went above and beyond, and I think it will contribute significantly to the desirability of otherwise sterile Mission Bay and help prop up the retail areas that aren’t directly attached to the project.

    A huge win for San Francisco.

  6. Posted by Pablito

    Hopefully some other SF brewery will step up to get the pier done.
    21st Amendment Brewery?
    Fort Point Beer Company?
    Magnolia Brewing Company?
    Speakeasy Ales & Lagers?
    Harry Bridges Beer hall?

    • Posted by MB

      Gosh I hope so. IMHO, the Anchor Brewery Restaurant on the piers was one if not THE most exciting aspect of this great project. The experience I had during the playoffs in 2012 visiting St. Louis that had a brewery restaurant next to the ballpark was just incredibly fun (the mass gathering of the fans/great atmosphere pre- & post-game).

    • Posted by JWS

      While not a local brewery, Ballast Point has been doing some serious expansion what with their Downtown Disney deal. Their SD brewery/tasting rooms are a huge party and good beer. I would of course prefer a local one, but Anchor seemed like the one in best financial shape to do so.

    • Posted by Orland

      The primary problem is that the engineering studies showed that the rehabilitation costs of the pier are prohibtive for most uses.

      • Posted by Tim E

        Believe that is the case for almost all the piers available for redevelopment or don’t have a pile of money into them already.

        The numbers are tough to make work considering how old these piers are, the timber pilings built on and all the associated costs to bring them to seismic code and so on.

        From a contractor perspective it is also a lot of tedious, labor intensive and tough to get from underneath to type of work.

        Simply no cheap options to dealing with the piers on top of how expensive construction is already from topside.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      I’m a big fan of craft beer though do not see why this space must be occupied by a brewery. Big breweries contain heavy stuff, some of which fluidly shifts from place to place, causing dynamic loads. It could be expensive to satisfy the engineering requirement in a building supported by wooden piles.

      • Posted by Pablito

        When Otis Redding sang Sittin’ On The Dock of the Bay he wasn’t drinking chamomile tea or kombucha. This is San Francisco – the Barbary Coast – of course it needs to be a brewery.

        Build a bridge across the Golden Gate to Marinin the middle of the Great Depression? Sure it was difficult engineering – but we also threw in a bridge to Oakland and SF got both done on time and on budget.

        You want omelettes? You gotta break eggs. You want good land use and an interesting City? You gotta take risks and build difficult projects that mean something to the people that live there.

    • Posted by RobBob

      Not sure it’s a financially good idea for a breweries to occupy expensive space. Magnolia’s dogpatch location declared bankruptcy and renegotiated their loans. Speakeasy I believe was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy as well due to their new location, but I believe they got bought out by a private investment firm. Probably Anchor Steam getting acquired resulted in their abandoning this location, maybe it sounded nice but was not really financially a good idea.

  7. Posted by Dave

    Is the office space exempt from M as this is Port property? Either way this will generate almost 5K jobs and likely more which is going to make road conditions much worse in the area.

    The green space is welcome but I wish there had been some restaurants right on the water in MB as a whole or this development in particular. It doesn’t seem there will be. Sure, there is Fisherman’s Wharf but that is too touristy for some. Same goes for HP/CP. The park space along the water is great but a few areas for restaurants would have been a nice touch.

    • Posted by Matt M

      Dave – That is about the nicest comment I’ve seen you make about any development in San Francisco.

    • Posted by Orland

      I’ve also voiced a desire for more such waterfront amenities in other projects as well such as Hunters Point and Candlestick.

      • Posted by Dave

        Yes, amenities that cater to the locals primarily. There could, should be a string of restaurants at points all along the southern waterfront. At water’s edge. Each time I visit Seattle a fun thing we do is find a waterfront restaurant we haven’t tried before. Another thing that would be nice to see at CP/HP is a condo building(s) that is/are near the water’s edge with their own docking area for boats. Friends in Seattle and also in Vancouver (Canada) own such places. I know – woulda, coulda.

        • Posted by SFrentier

          I think that approach is deemed too exclusive for ess eff…even the restaurants (expensive) and certainly the private piers. This city is way more comfortable keeping all/most of the waterfront area public parks “for everybody.” And I’m sure they’ll make great homeless encampments, as they deserve waterfront views too. Just throw is some public toilets and a nav center and it’ll be a perfect SF experience.

    • Posted by ciparis

      “I wish there had been some restaurants right on the water in MB as a whole”

      Dave, if you haven’t already, go check out ATWater Tavern. Lovely little place, right on the water there. Same owner as HiDive on Embarcadero.

  8. Posted by MB

    Gosh I hope so. IMHO, the Anchor Brewery Restaurant on the piers was one if not THE most exciting aspect of this great project. The experience I had during the playoffs in 2012 visiting St. Louis that had a brewery restaurant next to the ballpark was just incredibly fun (the mass gathering of the fans/great atmosphere pre- & post-game).

  9. Posted by MB

    But what happens to the great Giants History Walk on the other side of McCovey Cove where fans also dished out big bucks for their personalized tiles? They better not scrap that!

  10. Posted by Martin

    Will “The Yard” be moving to one of the Phase 4 development spots?

    • Posted by Pablito

      I’d like to see wheels put back on the containers ala “Mortal Engines” … 🙂

  11. Posted by Adam

    Is it still worth pointing out that the Giants reserved the right to drag the development out as far off as the 2050s, according to a post on this site? Or is that an open secret?

    • Posted by SFrentier

      That’s good news imo. 1300 rentals. Why aren’t some/most of those for sale condos? Don’t want too many rentals coming on line over the next few years…

  12. Posted by another anon

    Unless 1 or more bridges are built in the area, it’s a bad location. The 3rd and 4th street bridges are bad enough as it is. Mission bay is going to be chocked with traffic all the time.

    • Posted by Pablito

      Tunnel. Under the Channel and connecting Terry Francois to Embarcadero….

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      Everyone seems to forget that Mission Bay Boulevard will connect through to 7th Street (which is grossly underutilized) – that will help significantly.

      • Posted by Anonymous

        They need to eliminate the damn parking on the north side of 7th St between 16th and Townsend. It creates these oscillating bottlenecks with absolutely no upside.

      • Posted by Pablito

        Although with Caltrains expanded schedule due to electrification, and no underpass – that intersection is going to spend half its time closed at rush hour…

  13. Posted by Eric

    Will there be any residential condominiums available for San Francisco residents to purchase, or will it just be corporations owning apartment buildings?

Add a Comment

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