I was honestly REALLY bummed out once I found out that Pier 30/32 plan fell apart. That site would've easily made it the most spectacular-looking venue in all of sports with its breathtaking views.

However, I always look at the positive side of things. That being said, Mission Bay needs this arena more than the Embarcadero needs this arena.

The Embarcadero is already a crowded and thriving corridor filled with nice waterfront restaurants, exploratorium, and ferry building. Without the arena, Mission Bay will just be a luxury condo district surrounded by Biotech companies and hospitals. This arena, without a doubt, will be a lightning rod to attract high-end restaurants, retail, and most importantly, increased foot traffic. SF lacks a sports entertainment/nightlife district and MB will be the best place in the city to develop it in.

This development will easily be passed with very little opposition from neighbors as it is a more inland site and will trigger the development of an adjacent 5.5 acre park. I am really looking forward to the new renderings of the arena and surrounding entertainment venues.

I've been following this development since Day 1, and I will definitely be there at the ribbon cutting.

LETS GO SAN FRANCISCO WARRIORS!

as with most people, it seems, the MB site looks like an awkward fit to me. on three sides you have biotech buildings and a medical university campus - there is only one parcel not already built on or spoken for, so it's not like the arena is going to change its surroundings significantly. there is the nice tie-in to the bayfront park (which would have been put in whether the arena was there or not), but if the arena can't be on the Embarcadero, I would have preferred the Giants' Mission Rock site, because *that* is where the sports entertainment district will be (and is closer to Caltrain).

I agree timbad--it would have been a natural partner to AT&T Park, while it won't be that to the UCSF hospital.

If they bury the railway tracks and truncate 280 to 16th street, then the neighborhood above that street might just turn out to be nice after all.

towers!
 

socketsite mentions that Warriors are planning to add a couple of 120-foot office 'towers' to the Third St side of their parcel. (note this means they will still not rise above the 125-foot top of the arena itself.) Snøhetta still on design team

I can't wait to see the new renders. I hope they're better than the dull and boring ones on the pier. I know this lot is set back a little ways but it'd still be nice if they could find a way to juxtapose the arena over the bay.

No renderings yet, but they've released a diagram of the site layout and other new details. This is from The Examiner:

I know this is just a rough draft but it looks like they are going back to that boring circle design again that looks like the bastard child of the BOK Center & American Airlines Arena.

If they are going the complex route it'd be nice if they would do something like the original barclays center design where the buildings connected to a park on top of the arena.

I wonder if there's someway they can move the upper level of the arena farther over the bay.

There's a road and a park between the arena and the bay. Probably a couple hundred feet between the arena and the water.

We'll need to wait for the detailed renderings later in the fall to really assess how it will look. For now, we can just get a sense of the layout and size of public space. The SF Business Journal has a few additional comments on that:

That last sentence contradicts what was said in the Examiner. Anyone know for sure if this requires any special approvals to move forward (other than the normal approval process)?

160' sounds about right for that parcel--IIRC, the UCSF residence halls across Third Street are that tall.

It's going to be weird to have a big arena across the street from a research university and catty-corner from a major teaching hospital. Mission Bay certainly is a mash-up of urban uses!

The one thing I always felt that SF severely lacked was a sizeable arena. Also knowing that it can hosts many events other than sports, like concerts or various forms of live performances will help energize the area.

I'm definitely interested in what kind of vibe the area develops into after it gets built. I'm thinking some of South Beach will spill over into the area if the project is done right. Imagine what the area could be on a nice night while both teams are playing.

UCSF's housing tower is about 125 feet if I recall correctly. They originally wanted to go to 155, but the Potrero Hill folks thought it would block their water view too much so they got John Burton to threaten to hold the entire UC budget hostage unless UCSF lowered the height.

Never mind that the site directly across Third from the housing tower is also zoned for 160 feet.

Now, as for the zoning guidelines for the arena site itself, it's blocks 29-32 on the map below, part of zone HZ-5. The eastern shaded portion of the site (blocks 30 and 32) has a max height of 90 feet.

As a whole, HZ-5 has a height limit of 90 feet over 93 percent of the developable area, with the remaining 7 percent allowed to go up to 160 feet, intended to allow for signature skinny towers at major points. Now, I don't believe anything else in HZ-5 has exceeded 90 feet, so I'm not sure whether the arena can "claim" the entire allotment of higher limit for itself.

http://i60.tinypic.com/29glxl4.jpg

weird is right. in isolation, having the arena between a major street like Third and a bayfront park is great, but I just don't see how this use will fit with the already-existing surroundings.

one example: after UCSF made an effort to improve vehicle circulation around the medical center, I wonder if they will worry about the impact the arena will have on event days.

too bad the Warriors couldn't have worked out something with the Giants to put it up the street on their parcel, where the function aligns better and transit is more accessible.

Know what I think? (probably not)...
I think we better start building more bridges and widen freeways if we want all that traffic into SF over the next 50 years! :runaway:

Nope. Run away indeed--your ideas are bad, and you should feel bad.

There won't be any additional bridges for car traffic or widened "free"ways in San Francisco (they're not free) because the young generations don't obsess exclusively on private car travel like our dipshit hippie elders did.

Exclusive roadways for cars are neither free nor affordable nor sustainable. Car-obsessed hippies should take BART and Muni, instead of complaining about how every other elder drove to the Paul McCartney concert and somehow gridlock ensued.

Boohoo! I drove my private car to the show, like all my lazy generation did, and I got stuck in traffic!!! Whaaaaaa! It's everyone's fault but mine!

#cars-first asshole
#the worst generation
#if you complain about traffic you are part of the problem

Jeez, hate much? I know his position may be unpopular with many, but that was totally uncalled for - on many levels. You can state your disagreement in a civil manner without resorting to name calling and sweeping generalization of an entire generation. Watch out, some day some younger generation might have the same attitude toward you.

no way, totally appropriate response to knee-jerk know-nothingism. go fflint.

Cars are evil. Building more bridges to SF would mean more traffic on the streets, not less. Something the old generation always forgets is in 1950 the US had about 150 million people and today it has over 310 million people.....public transit is NECESSARY and having two vehicles per person is IMPOSSIBLE in this century simply due to population growth. By 2050 we will have over 400 million so the problems are only getting worse.

What the city needs is massive levels of public transit investment, and not just fast bus lanes but actual subways. I still want the central subway to continue to fishermans wharf and back down van ness...instead of wasting $400 million on building a bus lane on van ness. Then the line can swoop back east and create another tunnel under Oakland! Ok that will never happen but I can dream.

:offtopic: