I don't think the polling is indicative of how a ballot measure would turn out. The waterfront project near Embarcadero probably had majority support if you took a poll of SF residents, but lost by a margin when people were asked to affirmatively vote on the issue.

The problem is while most ppl think these projects are generally desirable, only a small % of them actually care enough to come out and vote. The attitude is one of "good if it happens, but doesn't really affect me if it doesn't, so why bother voting." By comparison, a much larger % of those who oppose projects feel strongly enough to go out of their way to vote down the project. The attitude here is "sucks for me if it happens, so it I will vote it down for sure."

I'm still thinking the Warriors arena and it's opposition may be high profile enough to get enough people to actually vote for it though. AT&T park had tons of opposition too, and for all the same reasons, yet it ended up passing.

"The cost to rebuild two linked piers has risen dramatically since the Golden State Warriors announced the team wanted to build an 18,000-seat waterfront arena in San Francisco, and the franchise will likely miss its target fall 2017 opening date.

Team officials have not publicly conceded that the arena won't be ready for the start of the 2017 NBA season but acknowledge the projected cost just to fix the crumbling piers, currently used as a parking lot with magnificent views of the Bay Bridge, is now $180 million. That's roughly double the original figure the team estimated when it announced in May 2012 that it wanted to move from Oakland.

The new figure represents just the cost to make the 13-acre site suitable for an arena complex that would include stores, restaurants, a practice facility and a parking garage with terraced public plazas and greenery covering much of the structure. The $180 million figure is $10 million more than the previous high projection from last summer and comes after months of design work and outside review of costs for rebuilding Piers 30-32.

Team officials say they remain committed to the site and the higher price won't mean more public money going into the $1 billion project."

http://www.sfgate.com/warriors/artic...le-5191031.php

...

Uh oh. Also, just curious, are SFGate commentators representative of the majority of San Franciscans? Because it seems like most of them oppose the arena.

No, not really. Like any news site comments section, it tends to mostly be whiners, people with too much time on their hands, crazy people, idiots, etc making the comments. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of conservative types who gravitate towards SFgate as well, just to see what "crazy SF" is up to, and to talk shit. And of course NIMBYs come out in force in comments sections too, because people are always more ready to complain about something than to praise it. A lot of San Franciscans outright dismiss the chronicle as garbage. It's basically a glorified tabloid at this point, with some snippets of news which is in large part just copy-pasted from the AP...often for local stories even :haha:

Mutiple recent polls say that about 60% of SF residents are in favor of the new arena, so the comments really aren't representative of SF as a whole.

Well, they represent the majority opinion of a large segment of San Franciscans, yes. Most of whom live nowhere near the proposed development, yet view San Francisco as a quaint little fishing village that needs to be preserved.

I actually do understand and to some degree empathize with the shift San Francisco has made, and that many moved here for countercultural reasons and thus view the "Manhattanization" (a term I find tremendously foolish, by the way) of the city as a threat to their existence and lifestyles. Not to mention that even though they are rent controlled, the cost of living has skyrocketed to an unreasonable point for everybody (including people making six figures), and they see this as further proof that the soul is being sucked from their city (regardless of the fact that it was their own anti-growth ballots and movements that partially put those rents where they are). So while their mobilization makes me almost nauseous because of the sheer denial, fear mongering, and lunacy, I do understand where it is coming from and empathize with their frustrations and fears.

However, Summer of Love/Gay Rights Movement/90s stagnancy aside, we have to logically face where the city is now. Despite the movements that brought them to the city, nobody would look at these facts on paper and view San Francisco as some small little town that is anti-density, business, and growth:

- One of only five American cities to be designated as a Global Alpha City (the other four being NYC, Chicago, LA, and Washigton DC).
- Second highest population density in America (although I understand we aren't even at Bronx levels)
- Top 5 in the country for highrises above 35 meters (and per capita, we're #2 behind NYC), Top 5 in the country for buildings above 100m, #6 in the country for buildings above 150m. If you adjust the second two for per capita, we would rank higher once again but I haven't run them specifically to see where we are.
- Sixth most visited city in the US for tourism, 44th in the world.
- The hub for a region that boasts the headquarters of Wells Fargo, Visa, Facebook, Google, Apple, Oracle, Gap, Levi's, a federal reserve branch, Chevron, and which founded Bank of America. And those are just some of the heavy hitters.
- Center of a metropolitan region that, by some measurements, is over 8M people large.
- Culturally, one of the few American cities that can boast world class ballet/opera/symphony, all of the "big 4" sports teams regionally, 20+ Michelin starred restaurants, a park bigger than Central Park, a full roster of world class museums, dozens of internationally renowned landmarks from Alcatraz to the Golden Gate to Lombard to the cable cars, the list goes on.

The fact is that this little fishing village of 820,000 casts a very long shadow, not just domestically, but internationally. That is the reality.

So when you see these people fighting tooth and nail to keep the city the way they envision it, I respect where they are coming from, but their vision of the city is ideologically skewed and nowhere represents the reality. The issue is that the way the political system is set-up heavily caters to this demographic, which then produces policies and procedures that cater to the counter-cultural, anti corporate, fishing village full of quaint bakeries and 3-story buildings that doesn't actually even exist, and ignores the growing and increasingly international/powerful city that does exist.

They are protesting tech and finance as if this is new...the Bay Area has been the tech hub and the "Wall Street of the West" for DECADES.

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of lunacy, greed, and ridiculousness on the development side, but I am continually exhausted by people who vote based on ideology, not reality. I am not even in tech, but would love to see those companies mobilize their employees to vote pro-development for both candidates and ballot measures, because that is the only way I can see the tide turning against the extremely well mobilize anti-growth group. Ed Lee may not be perfect, but with the class-war brewing in SF, you can bet the next mayor will be anti-development and "progressive" in the regressive SF definition of the word, so this is the window.

[/End Rant].

^well said!

It's frustrating how people tend to see what they want to see, rather than see what the reality is. It helps us to unwittingly and constantly do things that are against our own best interests. Human beings :shrug:

From the very beginning I was pretty baffled at the low estimates that the Warriors had for the pier reconstruction. Not surprised that they've now raised them, and I hope that it doesn't seriously endanger the plans.

just to get these on here, 2 socketsite blurbs:

- Warriors officially declare delay at least until 2018 season

- supporters of measure to put heights along waterfront to the voters delivered many more signatures than needed to get it on the ballot

I wonder if the ballot measure should be more of a general discussion because doesn't it potentially affect development anywhere in the city? Or is it just along their very loose definition of "waterfront"?

This proposed ballot measure specifically targets the Waterfront and does not affect the interior development. There are plenty of regulations already In place for development projects.

Warriors, Giants open to teaming up on arena near AT&T Park

I don't think moving to Mission Rock will help overcome the ballot measure. It will still be on the waterfront and still be taller than 48' and thus still subject to voter approval. Frankly, I think that ballot measure (assuming it passes) will eventually kill the Giants' whole plan for Mission Rock -- with or without the Warriors -- as most of it is supposed to be taller than 48'.

Sorry to be a downer, but I just don't see anything getting approved at the ballot once that goes into effect.

Will NEVER happen across from AT&T Park. I have said since Day 1 that the NIMBY's who are saying, "Put it in Mission Bay!", "Put it in Civic Center!" etc are just blowing smoke. The second it gets formally proposed for those sites, they will be just as vicious, if not more so.

It would be infuriating if it wasn't so expected. An iconic structure for SF will not get built out of fear mongering, class warfare, and a "I have mine, forget yours" mentality.

Wow, I think you're out of touch with a large segment of society here! While what you said could apply to some other projects (notably the Mexican Museum tower fight), I find that it's middle class renters who oppose highrises along the waterfront and often other development in general. I personally couldn't get any of my long time friends to vote against Prop M last fall. More than any place, the waterfront is considered sacred territory and it will never be developed with more highrises any time in the foreseeable future. I could see a successful exception for a new Warriors arena at Mission Rock, but not for the taller buildings the Giants are proposing. You can thank the lingering affects of the Fontana for that, as well as not wanting to look like Miami, Rio, or other cities with waterfront towers.

A similar thing is happening here in Sacramento with the new Kings arena downtown. NIMBYs tried to get it on the ballot for this June and it was blocked. I'm not sure why as I haven't been following too closely. You hear he same arguments here as in SF about traffic, too much density, et al. Anyway demolition is set for June. I hope SF can have as good of luck.

Why couldn't the Warriors just buy one of the Transbay blocks or any other lot with high density to help finance the arena, instead of having to develop the lot across the street?

If you angled it right, a new arena across the cove from AT&T Park could still look off the bay and even have the bridge in the background. One thing I would like to see changed if the site changes is a new exterior design. The current proposal is flat out boring. The outside is a carbon copy of American Airline Arena while the inside is a carbon copy of Sacramento's new arena. Surely, with a project like this the Warriors can do much better.

Have they thought about Pier 50 again?

OK so what are the other options for a new arena in San Francisco? I think there's several. What about Pier 70? Or somewhere in the Candlestick/Hunters Point area? Treasure Island?

I don't think there are too many other options. One thing to remember is this arena is not only for basketball but for conventions and other events. So, they need to be relatively near Hotels and good transportation. Candlestick would not fit this criteria and TI has issues with solid contamination, settling issues and virtually no transport. Pier 70 is already spoken for development.

I will never understand the issue with this arena. It is within walking distance of a Muni light rail route, the future Central Subway, Caltrain, BART, the future Transbay Terminal with buses to everywhere, the SF Ferry Building with ferries to everywhere else. It has better transportation that 90% of stadiums in the US (especially the new one in South Bay), and yet all I hear are these arguments about traffic. I mean, if the traffic does turn out to be that bad (which I kind of doubt) it will just give an incentive for people not to drive to the stadium the next time. They certainly have a multitude of options most cities would kill for. Do all the people who live around the area drive cars? If I lived in South Beach I certainly wouldn't care about "my" roads getting congested because I'd probably never drive on them anyways. Downtown SF is the focal point of the SF Bay Area, it will be congested with traffic stadium or no stadium, so wouldn't it be better to have an awesome sports and concert venue than a decaying pier?

I think so! "They" made the same argument about Pac Bell Park in the day and it has been nothing but beneficial for the neighborhood, the City, and the entire Bay Area. :tup: