SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Golden State Warriors Arena (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum//showthread.php?t=199507)

Pedestrian Sep 8, 2019 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mt_climber13 (Post 8680532)
The best thing about this arena is no public money was used to finance it. Sports franchises all across the country are pick pocketing the taxpayers of those cities. In Sacramento, parking meters were installed all over midtown and increased rates up to 9pm and on Sundays, and parking fines were increased to pay for Golden 1 Center arena. In San Diego, residents' water bills were added huge surcharges to pay for the Petco Park stadium. It's pure corruption.
And those are just the cities that I'm familiar.

Yup. I'm completely with you on this and I think we can attribute it to the fact that there may not be a high enough percentage of sports addicts in San Francisco (as opposed to the Bay Area) to countenance public funding. Recall that a public funding scheme was voted on for the Giants ballpark and it failed so they eventually went to mostly private financing ("mostly" because the land was donated by the city but not the building costs as I recall). The 49ers, on the other hand, were so determined to pick the public pocket they just left town when they couldn't get SF to hand them money.

timbad Sep 10, 2019 10:44 AM

I think this is the area of the NE corner where the building is to rise

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...cda3ca62_b.jpg

I imagine these areas overlooking the Bay will be popular if they can keep them warm

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...29442f20_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9ed417d9_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e58b3d1c_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...26e09cab_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...3eed2cd8_b.jpg

observatory Sep 11, 2019 5:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 8681198)
Yup. I'm completely with you on this and I think we can attribute it to the fact that there may not be a high enough percentage of sports addicts in San Francisco (as opposed to the Bay Area) to countenance public funding. Recall that a public funding scheme was voted on for the Giants ballpark and it failed so they eventually went to mostly private financing ("mostly" because the land was donated by the city but not the building costs as I recall). The 49ers, on the other hand, were so determined to pick the public pocket they just left town when they couldn't get SF to hand them money.


Actually SF voters narrowly passed twin bond measures for $100 million towards a new $525 million 49ers stadium-mall complex back in 1997. It was former owner Eddie DeBartolo's involvement in a Louisiana gambling boat scandal that derailed that SF stadium effort as he was forced to give up his ownership role with the team and the new stadium plan soon went down with him.

Pedestrian Sep 11, 2019 6:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by observatory (Post 8683812)
Actually SF voters narrowly passed twin bond measures for $100 million towards a new $525 million 49ers stadium-mall complex back in 1997. It was former owner Eddie DeBartolo's involvement in a Louisiana gambling boat scandal that derailed that SF stadium effort as he was forced to give up his ownership role with the team and the new stadium plan soon went down with him.

I don't remember the details now but my recollection was that in the case of both the Giants and 49ers there was a public contribution but it was mostly in the value of the land, not cash to help with construction costs. Also in the case of the 49ers, there was negotiating around unexpired leases and renovation of Candlestick vs a new stadium and so on--it got complicated. But what SF never did is what you seemed to be against--and which I am also against--which is to put public dollars not obligated by previous arrangements (such as promises to spend the same dollars renovating Candlestick) into a sports arena to be owned by the team or its owner.

Debartolo was never popular in SF, being from Ohio. I don't think losing his involvement would have been a critical negative. But memory dims.

timbad Oct 7, 2019 6:44 AM

from NE

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...e021853d_b.jpg

they were working at the northern end of the Bayfront Park on Saturday

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...03f632b4_b.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...8dcd9e7f_b.jpg

urban_encounter Oct 22, 2019 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mt_climber13 (Post 8680532)
In Sacramento, parking meters were installed all over midtown and increased rates up to 9pm and on Sundays, and parking fines were increased to pay for Golden 1 Center arena.

You’re only partially correct in regards to the Golden 1 Center. The City of Sacramento financed its share of arena construction costs through the sale of bonds ($212 million) to be repaid from mostly parking garage revenue.
But the point is they have monetized parking garages that were sitting mostly vacant evenings (after state workers fled to the burbs) and weekends when downtown was mostly deserted. Sacramento doesn’t have the kind of deep pockets that San Francisco has. Nobody is going to bankroll a privately financed arena because they’re not going to recoup their money through ticket sales, But so far it’s been a huge win for Sacramento. Pedestrian traffic in the downtown (not midtown) is up 47%; property tax revenue is up and it’s attracting more business and residential options downtown. Even RT has seen increased traffic on event nights. Golden 1 is the 15th busiest arena in the nation and 32nd in the world and it’s still a very affordable venue that won’t break the bank.

Some friends and I are planning a trip to the Chase Center to watch the Kings play the Warriors on a road trip this season and nosebleed seats are going for a staggering $200. $200 a seat with no Kevin Durant or Klay Thompson.

Ticket buyers are helping to pay off the debt on the Chase Center and again that’s partly because there are a lot of deep pockets in the Bay Area. But it’s a double edged sword because those exuberant prices will price many Bay Area residents out of attending events at the Chase Center.

So you can argue that public investments don’t pay off for communities and in some cases you would be right. That’s definitely hasn’t been the case in Sacramento and our city’s experience has so far been a positive one. There’s a lot of momentum downtown all thanks to the Golden 1 Center.



Sidenote: I like the design of the Chase Center. I think it fits I nicely along the water. I can’t wait to attend a game there.

timbad Nov 20, 2019 8:22 AM

the bayfront park still is pretty much dirt for now

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...6acb0b0c_b.jpg

gillynova Nov 20, 2019 6:19 PM

I'm guessing it will be completed next season?

BobbyMucho Nov 20, 2019 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillynova (Post 8753994)
I'm guessing it will be completed next season?

The timeline is fairly murky but it sounds like it's expected to open '2020 or 2021' according to the Mission Bay Parks website.

a very long weekend Nov 23, 2019 12:46 AM

Sterile, server farm architecture that looks like it comes straight out of Canada.

timbad Nov 23, 2019 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a very long weekend (Post 8756704)
Sterile, server farm architecture that looks like it comes straight out of Canada.

:shrug: server farms are round?

gholgado Dec 16, 2019 8:39 AM

https://2zwmzkbocl625qdrf2qqqfok-wpe...1-1200x674.jpg

"The redevelopment plan for the 300-acre Mission Bay area is maxed out, but amendments are in the works to allow for a few more major projects, including a 129-room hotel proposed by the Warriors next to their brand new Chase Center." -SF Examiner

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/sf-m...ther-projects/

Pedestrian Jun 19, 2020 4:16 PM

Quote:

Warriors' hotel-condo complex wins Planning Commission approval
The Warriors hope to start construction on this hotel/condo project next year
By Laura Waxmann – Staff Reporter, San Francisco Business Times
Jun 18, 2020, 7:33pm EDT

The San Francisco Planning Commission approved a request Thursday by the Golden State Warriors to amend redevelopment plans for Mission Bay to allow a 129-room hotel and condo complex.

The change, already passed at the Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure last month, now heads to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

The new development is slated to provide 29 residential units plus the hotel rooms — which will be operated by SH Hotel & Resorts — as well as about 12,000 square feet of retail space at Mission Bay South Blocks 29-30, adjacent to the Chase Center.

The planned 14-story building — shaped like a cruise ship looking out onto the bay — would rise 160 feet at its tallest side and slope down to 84 feet. It is expected to break ground early next year and be completed in 2023.

The project needed series of land use approvals, including allowing hotel use and homes as principal uses within the area, which is permitted for commercial Industrial and retail use.

The plan was approved unanimously, despite questions over whether a previously certified and legally required environmental impact report for the Mission Bay redevelopment would be sufficient to gauge the hotel and condo project’s impacts on the surrounding neighborhood . . . .

https://uniim1.shutterfly.com/ng/ser...583361/enhance
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...VPaXIifQ%3D%3D

Pedestrian Sep 15, 2020 6:44 AM

Quote:

Having been approved by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors earlier this year, the Redevelopment Plan for Mission Bay South is slated to be amended this afternoon, clearing the way for the Golden State Warriors to demolish the existing three-story retail building on the northeast corner of the new Chase Center site and construct a new 160-foot-tall hotel, condo and retail complex.

Prior to the pandemic, the Warriors were positioning to break ground next summer (2021) and complete the 270,000-square-foot building in early 2023, building upon the Center’s existing foundation to expedite development and reduce construction costs (which were being projected to run around $720 per gross square foot).

http://socketsite.com/wp-content/upl...ing-Aerial.jpg
http://socketsite.com/archives/2020/...and-dates.html

whitty Sep 15, 2020 3:15 PM

I'm trying to figure out why, after so many years of construction, they would demolish and rebuild the entire northeast corner of the complex?

Did the Warriors really not have this project in mind when building the original complex? Did they perhaps not add the hotel and condos originally in order to avoid having to deal with San Francisco's byzantine permitting process and expedite just the arena portion? Was the this hotel/condo something that really didn't pencil out initially with the rest of the project? Was it financing?

I'm just really interested in why this would be built in such an inefficient way as compared to the incredible efficiency at which the rest of the complex was built. Why would they choose to tear down a large portion of a brand new complex instead of just building this in from the beginning?

San Francisco development is so... interesting.

fimiak Sep 15, 2020 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitty (Post 9042345)
I'm trying to figure out why, after so many years of construction, they would demolish and rebuild the entire northeast corner of the complex?

Did the Warriors really not have this project in mind when building the original complex? Did they perhaps not add the hotel and condos originally in order to avoid having to deal with San Francisco's byzantine permitting process and expedite just the arena portion? Was the this hotel/condo something that really didn't pencil out initially with the rest of the project? Was it financing?

I'm just really interested in why this would be built in such an inefficient way as compared to the incredible efficiency at which the rest of the complex was built. Why would they choose to tear down a large portion of a brand new complex instead of just building this in from the beginning?

San Francisco development is so... interesting.

It is not being demolished, just built on top of. The money people who own this site and are building a new hotel are going to make even more money off of this hotel. I don't know if it is 'inefficient', seems pretty efficient to have 20% of your hotel built before construction starts. I don't remember any plans for a hotel when this project was announced, it just seems like an idea that came later.

Pedestrian Sep 15, 2020 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak (Post 9042650)
It is not being demolished, just built on top of. The money people who own this site and are building a new hotel are going to make even more money off of this hotel. I don't know if it is 'inefficient', seems pretty efficient to have 20% of your hotel built before construction starts. I don't remember any plans for a hotel when this project was announced, it just seems like an idea that came later.

No, I think the 2-story, rather minimalist structure that's there now WILL be largely deconstructed ("demolished" if you prefer) for construction of the hotel. It's really not much of a structure. Not sure if the foundation will remain the same or have to be modified.

I mean look at what's there--it's not much of a building (mostly glass and, in fact, it looks like it was designed as a "place holder"):

http://socketsite.com/wp-content/upl...Condo-Site.jpg
http://socketsite.com/archives/2020/...and-dates.html

gillynova Sep 15, 2020 8:02 PM

Underneath that is, I believe, hooptopia

https://www.thehooptopia.com/

fimiak Sep 16, 2020 12:21 AM

It is exactly because of its largely rough state that I think it will just be added on to. I don't see them demolishing this, they can simply remove the glass and add on to what already exists. :shrug:

WildCowboy Sep 16, 2020 2:40 PM

The proposal specifically includes the words "demolish" and "replace," so that certainly doesn't sound like building on top of.

twinpeaks Sep 16, 2020 5:55 PM

They over engineered the foundation to plan for possible hotel/condo expansion in the future according to this article.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...apartment.html

Technically, the foundation is ready.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.