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)

timbad Mar 7, 2014 5:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Folks3000 (Post 6482235)
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 second the :tup:

ozone Mar 7, 2014 6:49 PM

OK I understand your arguments about it being close to transportation and hotels. But what I never understand is why people become emotionally invested in a particular location as if it's the only place it could go. If they had suggested a different location first - say on top of the rail lines at 7th and Townsend then people would insist that this is the best place for it. I think Pier 30 is a dead deal. Fighting for it is a waste of energy. By the time people finally accept that the team will be moving into it's new arena in downtown San Jose.

timbad Mar 15, 2014 6:05 PM

waterfront measure tricks
 
now I really really hope the measure loses. that is contemptible

WildCowboy Mar 24, 2014 2:05 PM

Warriors plan to press ahead with the Piers 30-32 as their preferred plan, taking it to the voters if required. They've also brought their hotel/condo project across the street down to the current 105 foot height limit.

The two Mission Bay sites remain in play, however.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier...to-5342857.php

ozone Mar 24, 2014 11:12 PM

I can't be the only one who thinks this toilet bowl arena is fugly. Also I think the whole idea of putting it out on the piers is kind of stupid. It would be a real shame if SF got more restrictive about it's waterfront development all because of this dog.

pizzaguy Apr 21, 2014 8:36 PM

Waterfront arena is dead. The team has bought Salesforce's old Mission Bay property.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...#photo-6195065

mt_climber13 Apr 21, 2014 8:47 PM

It's getting built. But what a BORING neighborhood!

"I'm hungry, let's go get a bite to eat and a cranberry juice from the hospital food court!"

Gordo Apr 21, 2014 9:03 PM

Hm, that's a pretty terrible location for transit connections (at least compared to piers 30/32 and even Mission Rock).

Should be interesting to see how this works.

mt_climber13 Apr 21, 2014 9:15 PM

If the city would do anything about the completely inept, pathetic, embarrassing state of the light rail subway system transit would actually WORK in SF instead of being a burden. Two car trains that travel an average of 15 mph is no way to operate in the 2nd densest city in the U.S. The MTA in their genius bought Breda trains that were too heavy for the tracks. The trains were supposed to operate at 55 mph but have to be slowed down to 30 mph max because of this. It's also why you hear those terrible blood curdling squeals whenever they turn. (source links http://www.sfweekly.com/1998-12-09/n...rding-failure/) It's actually a pretty decent transit location- when the Central Subway is open it will be within walking distance to this stadium, and will shoot right to the BART station. It will be much more connected here than the current Warriors stadium. The question is- will it be able to handle the capacity?

Gordo Apr 21, 2014 9:33 PM

The T can't handle significantly higher capacity, regardless of the trains. It's a surface light rail system with stations designed for 1 or 2 car trains. Even if that could somehow be fixed (stations rebuilt, some kind of system to allow blocking intersections when stopped, etc), the Central Subway is being built with underground stations not designed to handle longer trains, so...

I don't really see how this location would be more connected than the current Warriors location in Oakland. More central to the fanbase (maybe?) and within a walkable neighborhood, sure, but a high capacity heavy rail line stops right at the current location. That was the beauty of the pier 30/32 location - BART a short walk away + various Muni options + Caltrain. This is basically some Muni options + Caltrain a reasonable walk away. BART is two miles away, which is a bit far to really depend on to handle heavy loads.

mt_climber13 Apr 21, 2014 10:10 PM

It might ignite further high rise development in Mission Bay.

Oh yeah, it's already 10 story hospitals and parking garages.

Huge lost opportunity to be centrally located. But at least there will be an arena. Look forward to the concerts and parties! (not a big basketball fan)

k1052 Apr 21, 2014 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 6548021)
The T can't handle significantly higher capacity, regardless of the trains. It's a surface light rail system with stations designed for 1 or 2 car trains. Even if that could somehow be fixed (stations rebuilt, some kind of system to allow blocking intersections when stopped, etc), the Central Subway is being built with underground stations not designed to handle longer trains, so...

I don't really see how this location would be more connected than the current Warriors location in Oakland. More central to the fanbase (maybe?) and within a walkable neighborhood, sure, but a high capacity heavy rail line stops right at the current location. That was the beauty of the pier 30/32 location - BART a short walk away + various Muni options + Caltrain. This is basically some Muni options + Caltrain a reasonable walk away. BART is two miles away, which is a bit far to really depend on to handle heavy loads.

IIRC, Muni plans to move to a peak 4 minute headway on the T once the Central Subway was complete. While definitely not optimal they should be able to surge T service for a short period out of the Metro East complex when required. Boarding outside the arena will surely need to be addressed though. It's definitely not as good as the pier but not a disaster.

I'm sort of hoping that people will hang around before and after events to give this area some much needed street life and retail a major boost.

OhioGuy Apr 21, 2014 10:45 PM

Too bad. It was a potentially exciting proposal for Piers 30-32. Are the NIMBYs in San Francisco some of the most effective NIMBYs in the country, at least in their abilities to prevent development? Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?

theskythelimit Apr 21, 2014 10:54 PM

Being within walking distance from the Bay, I can imagine a Ferry service from the East Bay to this site.

Gordo Apr 21, 2014 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k1052 (Post 6548080)
IIRC, Muni plans to move to a peak 4 minute headway on the T once the Central Subway was complete. While definitely not optimal they should be able to surge T service for a short period out of the Metro East complex when required. Boarding outside the arena will surely need to be addressed though. It's definitely not as good as the pier but not a disaster.

I'm sort of hoping that people will hang around before and after events to give this area some much needed street life and retail a major boost.

I'll believe the "peak 4 minute headway" when I see it. They've long stated that at meetings, but never addressed the fact that they simply don't have enough trains in the system to make that kind of headway happen with taking SIGNIFICANT service away from other lines. (There's also simply the fact that four minute headways on a mostly-above-ground line is legitimately hard to pull off in any kind of reliable way).

Maybe they have some secret capital purchase plan...it would be nice to see it! :)

If you live along the T, I'd prepare for horrendous commutes once this thing opens, since many if not most of the planned 150+ events per year will land right in commute times...

What a lost opportunity with piers 30/32. That really is the most transit-friendly location for an arena west of the Mississippi, it's a shame that it'll stay rotting and empty. Maybe it can be used for office space or something else at least.

k1052 Apr 21, 2014 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 6548148)
I'll believe the "peak 4 minute headway" when I see it. They've long stated that at meetings, but never addressed the fact that they simply don't have enough trains in the system to make that kind of headway happen with taking SIGNIFICANT service away from other lines. (There's also simply the fact that four minute headways on a mostly-above-ground line is legitimately hard to pull off in any kind of reliable way).

Maybe they have some secret capital purchase plan...it would be nice to see it! :)

If you live along the T, I'd prepare for horrendous commutes once this thing opens, since many if not most of the planned 150+ events per year will land right in commute times...

What a lost opportunity with piers 30/32. That really is the most transit-friendly location for an arena west of the Mississippi, it's a shame that it'll stay rotting and empty. Maybe it can be used for office space or something else at least.

Muni is supposed to get the first couple batches of new rail cars concurrent with the opening of the Central Subway. Fortunately Breda has been disqualified from bidding. ;)

Ferry service and bus circulators to bart stations should probably be looked at as well to help spread the load.

Gordo Apr 22, 2014 12:44 AM

^The last I had heard those were replacement vehicles rather than adding to the total number? I could be wrong.

viewguysf Apr 22, 2014 3:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy (Post 6548111)
Too bad. It was a potentially exciting proposal for Piers 30-32. Are the NIMBYs in San Francisco some of the most effective NIMBYs in the country, at least in their abilities to prevent development? Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?

No, not always, but the waterfront is considered to be "sacred"--we really need to accept that and move on because it's not going to change any time soon.

NOPA Apr 22, 2014 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy (Post 6548111)
Too bad. It was a potentially exciting proposal for Piers 30-32. Are the NIMBYs in San Francisco some of the most effective NIMBYs in the country, at least in their abilities to prevent development? Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?

Yes the NIMBYs here are professionals. Heaven forbid you try to build anything in this city, cause they will cut a bitch.

Also, SF law lends itself to be easily manipulated by NIMBYs. For one, building permits are discretionary, even after the city has done a neighborhood planning and rezoning process, each project still needs to get individually green lighted. NIMBYs can appeal projects at several levels and then file a CEQA lawsuit if they are still feeling super cunty. Even after that you can do a ballot initative which is what was going to happen to this and what killed 8 Washington.

With that said, I'm actually dissapointed with this site. I heard a suggestion of bundeling this project into the Moscone Center Expansion, which would make it more of a demo and rebuild, but at least it that location is better connected to transit and more centrally located. And of course ironically the waterfront is now a mere 100 feet or so away.

ozone Apr 22, 2014 4:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy (Post 6548111)
Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?

Ah it's called democracy. I understand you guys in DC might not be too familiar with the concept :-)

ozone Apr 22, 2014 5:17 AM

I know a lot of zombies are now moaning about the poor transit connection this new MB site has. As if the public transit will not be beefed up in time for the opening game. And they seem to have forgot that the city is building the Central Subway line that will take them from the BART/Muni Metro station on Market right to front door of the new arena.

mt_climber13 Apr 22, 2014 6:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone (Post 6548575)
I know a lot of zombies are now moaning about the poor transit connection this new MB site has. As if the public transit will not be beefed up in time for the opening game. And they seem to have forgot that the city is building the Central Subway line that will take them from the BART/Muni Metro station on Market right to front door of the new arena.

lol.

so naive.

Rail>Auto Apr 22, 2014 8:35 AM

Judging by the layout of the site, this could still be a waterfront location just not as good as the Piers one. Hopefully they will redesign the arena but still have it overlooking the bay.

ozone Apr 22, 2014 3:02 PM

I haven't been down to that area of the waterfront in years but I believe a park is planned or has even been created along the water so there is a good chance it will be quite visible from the waterfront.

One thing that isn't talked about much (but the team did mention), is how they came to realize that the pier site was going to need a lot more rebuilding than they originally had thought. Meaning a lot more $$$ I don't think that was just saving face.

People complaining about taking up space that could have been used for a tech company. (blank stare)

People complaining about the sterile environment. Uh right. Come on, no matter how nicely designed it's still going to be a big hulking enclosed building.

The best was from another forum "This is going to ruin Mission Bay." Ha ha. How could it? Nope dope but it just might save it.

People worrying about the lack of nearby eating options. Do they really think as there won't be several included in the arena development itself and others that will spring up nearby?

People complaining about lack of transportation. People in other cities would love to have San Francisco's problems.

Oh the disappointment and shame. A shiny new arena is going to get built in San Francisco ("stolen" away from poor Oakland.) No doubt will be an even better design. No vote, no hassle. Really sometimes San Franciscans can act like such spoiled children.

mt_climber13 Apr 22, 2014 3:58 PM

Have you ever lived in SF ozone?
Why I said you are so naive is because of your statement of "don't worry guys the transit will be fixed when it's open!"
I live in Sacramento now, as yourself, but I lived in SF for over a decade. Transit will never be fixed. MUNI is pinned down like a fat lady on a cupcake by unions who don't want anything to change. The city takes funds from the MTA and redistributes taxpayers hard earned money on non profits and homeless which doesn't work (seems to be more homeless every time I go back- and more potholes). I can't tell you how many times I've seen Fulton 5 buses one after the other pass me in the other direction meaning I have to wait three times longer than usual for a bus to come get me, since the inept drivers demand a 20 minute break at the end of every line. I once waited an hour for a bus that was supposed to arrive every 10 minutes. That is why the tech companies pay boatloads for private shuttles, because MUNI can't be relied upon to get their workers to work and to CalTrain on time.
Friends that would visit would all laugh at the slowness of he bus system. You could usually jog faster. And on big events, like pride, the entire city comes to a screeching halt. The underground just can't handle it. It's broken. It won't be fixed. And as others have mentioned, the central subway will actually make things WORSE because service and trains will have to be redistributed.
BART, on the other hand, is typically efficient, but seems to have an abnormal amount of problems lately with trains derailing and breaking down. Maybe MUNI is contagious?
Anyway, after getting real experience as a local of how SF works, it ain't changing anytime soon. Muni will actually be much, much worse when this arena is open, because all of these huge new towers and housing developments will be built and the city population will increase by the tens of thousands.

San Franciscans deserve to be and should be pissed. They're not spoiled. They're fed up.

JWS Apr 22, 2014 5:25 PM

As somebody who lives in SF, Muni is an utter joke and a complete disaster. Anybody defending it has absolutely not had to depend on it to get around.

Just yesterday, I had to get from 16th and Valencia in the Mission to Fillmore and Chestnut in the Marina. Google Maps shows a drive time of 9 minutes. It took me 40 minutes on the 22, during which a mentally challenged woman screamed and cried from Valencia to Market, and then in the Fillmore we had to stop because a homeless man passed out and we had to confirm that he had not died. He woke up in a drugged stupor, realized that he missed his stop, and angrily demanded the bus turn around and had to be helped out by MTA employees.

It is hopelessly slow, beyond unreliable, dirty, extremely unpleasant, and frankly at times unsafe (my girlfriend will not take it anymore due to some extremely unpleasant encounters). The city's constant constraints on parking and driving to force people to take it is a slap in the face, because it will NOT get people to ride MUNI...fixing MUNI and making it an efficient way to get around will get people to ride MUNI.

ozone Apr 22, 2014 5:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad (Post 6548933)
Have you ever lived in SF ozone?

Yes, actually I divide my time between the two cities now. Born at O'Conner in San Jose, lived in towns around the Bay Area (before we moved to Southern California.) My grandparents lived in the Richmond when I was kid. And I lived Hayes Valley during my early 20's (bad/good times) and spent a lot of time riding Muni.

I understand what you are saying about MUNI. And I was not defending MUNI. All I said was that many cities would love to have a transit system like San Francisco's -pisspoor as it is. Maybe I am being naive, but I just do not see how the new location will make matters sooo much worst. Nor do I see how the Central Subway will make getting around the city worst? I've never seen a credible explanation of this theory. I think it's just thrown out there by the people who oppose the project to begin with.

Bottom line for me is that there will be no vote and no long delay. Whatever problems people have with the new location I'm sure, in time, that these will be resolved to most reasonable people's satisfaction. And we need to realize that it could have been worst. They could have built the arena out at Hunters Point or Candlestick.

tech12 Apr 22, 2014 5:52 PM

So much hyperbole regarding Muni.

Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it as bad as you guys are claiming? Hell no.

It works pretty well most of the time, and i say that as someone who actually uses it to get around 24/7. If it were as bad as you guys are saying I would have killed myself out of frustration nearly 20 years ago. It doesn't see the amount of use that it does because it's "pisspoor", it sees it because it's actually pretty useful. Compared to 99% of US public transit agencies Muni is like some kind of magical non-stop orgy of awesomeness.

That said, pier 30/32 definitely has the better transit access than this new location.

peanut gallery Apr 22, 2014 6:49 PM

I'm definitely disappointed, but hopefully the new location works out. There will be foot traffic benefits to MB, which should create more retail demand and benefit the residents. Will that outweigh the worse transit connections? Time will tell.

Regarding the arena itself, my heart tells me this location will never be home to the iconic building envisioned at the piers (location matters). But my head tells me never say never.

Then there's the question of the piers and adjacent lot across the Embarcadero. As much as anything, I was looking forward to seeing that complete dead zone (on both sides of the street) transformed. Sad to see the wait will continue indefinitely.

Overall, I guess you can say I'm discouraged but not totally without optimism.

ozone Apr 22, 2014 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 6549142)
So much hyperbole regarding Muni.

Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it as bad as you guys are claiming? Hell no.

It works pretty well most of the time, and i say that as someone who actually uses it to get around 24/7. If it were as bad as you guys are saying I would have killed myself out of frustration nearly 20 years ago. It doesn't see the amount of use that it does because it's "pisspoor", it sees it because it's actually pretty useful. Compared to 99% of US public transit agencies Muni is like some kind of magical non-stop orgy of awesomeness.

That said, pier 30/32 definitely has the better transit access than this new location.

tech 12 obviously, considering my other remarks I was intentionally using the term "pisspoor" as a bit of hyperbole. I agree with you.
Also I agree with those saying the old location had better transit access.

PG I think the new location could turn out to be much better as there are less constraints on the design. I wasn't all that thrilled with the old one. Maybe they will choose another firm? (fingers crossed) Heck with all the stararchitects working in the city now maybe they could get someone like Frank Gehry? (Don't shoot me)

As for the piers 30/32 -why not but a multi-use park there? Look at what they've done in NYC.

fimiak Apr 22, 2014 8:35 PM

I think MUNI should have smaller buses and more of them. So lets say buses that fit 60% of the people that fit now, but have many more buses. This would require the removing of the ultra long buses. Short buses will be able to load and unload faster, and the bus driver will have better control over who gets on illegally etc.

I know people will argue that more seats per bus is necessary, but that is actually contributing greatly to the slowness of the system. If you need more and more seats then its obvious that buses just wont cut it and only more subways will do. They should have the Central Subway go up to Fishermans Wharf and then back down Van Ness to Market street at least.

simms3_redux Apr 22, 2014 10:16 PM

^^^I rarely ever ride the "long" busses and still face the same issues of delays, overcrowding, and general transit debauchery. I think the bus system is about as good as it's going to be in a dense city with tight streets and ineffective rail transit to supplement the bus system.

In my opinion, the real fix to SF's transit will be more rail. And I'm actually looking forward to BRT on Van Ness (though like the Central Subway, I'll either have grey hair or may have even moved on by the time it opens!). SF transit is awesome relative to the general US. Relative to a few specific northeastern cities? It's meh. Relative to Europe, it's dismal. For the city's density, it shouldn't be this difficult to get around. I appreciate the city going for more transit reliance and less parking/driving, but it's just got to do more to step up transit simultaneous to adding more housing/jobs and eliminating more parking. It can't all be on residents to make the shift - we first have to be able to actually make the shift by having better options.

I'm pretty optimistic about the new location, however, transit is my biggest concern, by far. Mission Bay feels pretty isolated as it is, and that stems partly from lack of transit connections. We have to bear in mind that the transit connection to the new location is the T Third. It's not the Central Subway, though that will tie into the T Third. Like many of yall, having been to Warriors games in Oakland, I have seen the crowds and how they were more or less effectively handled by BART (albeit still with hour+ to clear the main crowds). BART can handle many times more passengers than MUNI on a single rail line. This will be interesting, that's for sure.

Gordo Apr 22, 2014 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak (Post 6549424)
I think MUNI should have smaller buses and more of them. So lets say buses that fit 60% of the people that fit now, but have many more buses. This would require the removing of the ultra long buses. Short buses will be able to load and unload faster, and the bus driver will have better control over who gets on illegally etc.

I know people will argue that more seats per bus is necessary, but that is actually contributing greatly to the slowness of the system. If you need more and more seats then its obvious that buses just wont cut it and only more subways will do. They should have the Central Subway go up to Fishermans Wharf and then back down Van Ness to Market street at least.

Muni's number one cost (by a LOOOOOOONG shot) is labor. A plan that doubles the number of buses would add hundreds of millions to Muni's annual budget and is simply not sustainable.

The real push should be attempting to build the next subway, wherever it may be, with driverless vehicles like Vancouver and Scandinavia have been doing for years now. That allows amazingly high frequency with amazingly low operating costs (by having more smaller vehicles, as you mention above).

Or maybe self-driving buses will be here before too long to solve this issue.

mt_climber13 Apr 22, 2014 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 6549556)
Muni's number one cost (by a LOOOOOOONG shot) is labor. A plan that doubles the number of buses would add hundreds of millions to Muni's annual budget and is simply not sustainable.

The real push should be attempting to build the next subway, wherever it may be, with driverless vehicles like Vancouver and Scandinavia have been doing for years now. That allows amazingly high frequency with amazingly low operating costs (by having more smaller vehicles, as you mention above).

Or maybe self-driving buses will be here before too long to solve this issue.

As I said before, the union has a stranglehold on the city. They would never allow more efficiency and driverless vehicles because it would mean a loss of muni jobs (which are the highest paid in the nation by far). You should really read that article I posted yesterday. It's proof of why transit in SF will never change. It's a pipe dream, it ain't gonna happen, never in out lifetimes. I'll just have to keep burning fossil fuels and emitting pollution in SF every time I visit because I can't get around effectively on public transit.

peanut gallery Apr 22, 2014 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone (Post 6549247)
PG I think the new location could turn out to be much better as there are less constraints on the design. I wasn't all that thrilled with the old one. Maybe they will choose another firm? (fingers crossed) Heck with all the stararchitects working in the city now maybe they could get someone like Frank Gehry? (Don't shoot me)

As for the piers 30/32 -why not but a multi-use park there? Look at what they've done in NYC.

Looking at the space in MB a little more, you're right that this could turn into an interesting building. Perhaps they'll fill the lot, including many of the restaurants and other ancillary developments within one footprint. I still can't envision something on the order of the Sydney Opera House, but it certainly can be a quality building.

The problem with piers 30/32 is the cost to repair them. Developers with the means (and dream) to pay for that don't come along everyday. Unfortunately, there isn't profit in a park to cover that kind of expense so it would take a huge grant from someone to make that work. And NIMBYs will kill anything profitable enough to cover the repairs. I won't be surprised if they rot in place until they finally crumble into the bay.

simms3_redux Apr 22, 2014 11:15 PM

Lots of MUNI's legacy problems seemed to come about when MUNI inherited a former MARTA (Atlanta's system) exec as its chief. I could be mistaken, though it wouldn't surprise me. MARTA is the worst F'ing big city system I've ever had to ride (I used to live in Atlanta), and has many of the same problems as MUNI (union stranglehold, cost inefficiencies, reliability issues, poor planning/coordination). I'll take MUNI riders, crazy as they may be sometimes, over MARTA riders, though.

Maybe the Warriors' decision to move to Mission Bay and the support the team has and the political influence the team owners/management has with the city leadership will ignite a conversation about transit in SF. That would be good (unlike in Atlanta, everyone in the city can agree on one thing and that is that we need better transit!).

minesweeper Apr 23, 2014 2:16 AM

Once again, it's Benioff making things happen:

Quote:

About six weeks ago Benioff, whose cloud computing company owns several acres in Mission Bay, reached out to Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob.

“He said, ‘We have this 12-acre site we think would be a good site for the Warriors, but we are about to put it on the market,’” said Rick Welts, the Warriors president who is overseeing the team’s proposed move from Oakland.

That phone call prompted the team to reconsider its focus on the piers, setting in motion several weeks of intense deal making between the NBA club and Salesforce that culminated in the team’s agreement to buy the parcel from the tech giant. Terms of the sale were not disclosed and Salesforce declined comment.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci....html?page=all

Rail>Auto Apr 23, 2014 6:32 AM

Will Oracle Arena be kept after the Warriors leave?

fimiak Apr 26, 2014 8:29 AM

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...alesforce.html

Interview with Warriors president. This is interesting, they might be dropping Snohetta which would completely change what this looks like. They are also dropping housing and the hotel. The height is more workable than what they were at at the piers. I really liked the Snohetta design I hope they stick with them.




Q: Will architecture firm Snohetta continue work on the Mission Bay arena?
A: We love the team (at Snohetta), but their commitment was for Piers 30-32.

Q: What is the Mission Bay land zoned for?
A: The land is zoned for 160 feet (height). We expect the arena to be almost the same height as on Piers 30-32, so it will conform with the height. We have the opportunity to go below grade here and we have not determined if we will do that.

Q: The Piers 30-32 project envisioned not only an arena but housing, office, retail and a hotel. Do you plan to build all that on Mission Bay as well?
A: We will still have some retail, mostly restaurants, and some office. We don’t envision housing or a hotel.

ozone Apr 27, 2014 1:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fimiak (Post 6554516)
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...alesforce.html

Interview with Warriors president. This is interesting, they might be dropping Snohetta which would completely change what this looks like. They are also dropping housing and the hotel. The height is more workable than what they were at at the piers. I really liked the Snohetta design I hope they stick with them.




Q: Will architecture firm Snohetta continue work on the Mission Bay arena?
A: We love the team (at Snohetta), but their commitment was for Piers 30-32.

Q: What is the Mission Bay land zoned for?
A: The land is zoned for 160 feet (height). We expect the arena to be almost the same height as on Piers 30-32, so it will conform with the height. We have the opportunity to go below grade here and we have not determined if we will do that.

Q: The Piers 30-32 project envisioned not only an arena but housing, office, retail and a hotel. Do you plan to build all that on Mission Bay as well?
A: We will still have some retail, mostly restaurants, and some office. We don’t envision housing or a hotel.

I disagree. I'm not a big fan of the Snohetta and never really liked their design for the arena. So I for one am hoping they dump them.

gholgado Apr 28, 2014 4:42 AM

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!

timbad Apr 28, 2014 6:12 AM

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).

viewguysf Apr 28, 2014 6:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timbad (Post 6555965)
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.

Enigmatism415 May 10, 2014 3:51 PM

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.

timbad Aug 1, 2014 3:58 AM

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

Rail>Auto Aug 1, 2014 6:01 PM

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.

peanut gallery Aug 15, 2014 7:51 AM

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

Quote:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/imager/the.../Site_Plan.jpg

Warriors arena conceptual plan includes 2 office towers, plazas, retail space
By Jonah Owen Lamb

Plazas and multilevel walkways lined with restaurants and trees, all straddled by two office towers, is what could await fans on game days as they enter the new home of the Warriors in San Francisco.

……

The arena itself, slated to be 135 feet high at its tallest point -- a height that will need a variance along the waterfront -- will seat 18,000 people, the same size as the former site along The Embarcadero.

Two 160-foot office towers will stand to the west of the arena and at ground level, anywhere from 55,000 to 95,000 square feet of retail space will be available.

Parking will be provided below ground in a 700-car lot with two access points on the north and south ends of the site. All arena-related functions will be accessible through the two entrances to the underground garage.

The $1 billion project, which will be financed privately, is slated to be ready for the 2018-19 NBA season.

Rail>Auto Aug 15, 2014 11:55 AM

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.

WildCowboy Aug 15, 2014 2:29 PM

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

peanut gallery Aug 15, 2014 4:43 PM

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:

Quote:

Dykers said he hoped the site would be somewhat reminiscent of the Piazza del Campo in Siena, Italy.

“The basic idea is to avoid building out to the property line,” Dykers said. “We really want that outdoor space by the arena to be a key feature, a defining feature. The outside spaces, the spaces between the buildings are as important as the buildings themselves.”

The main plaza area by the arena would be comparable in size to San Francisco’s Union Square.

Building heights would conform to existing limits at the site, team officials said.
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)?


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:18 PM.

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