HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2015, 6:38 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 611
I didn't realize this wasn't previously official. I guess the Warriors were waiting to make sure this didn't get killed like the last proposal:

Quote:
Warriors Formally Purchase Mission Bay Site

The NBA Champion Golden State Warriors announced today the team has formally acquired the 12-acre site of its future sports and entertainment complex in Mission Bay from Salesforce.

Terms of the deal were not announced.

The Warriors purchased an option on the private property in 2014, and have spent the past year and a half participating in a public planning process. Environmental review is expected to be completed this fall; the team plans to open the new arena in time for the 2018-19 NBA season.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2015, 6:12 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
The Warriors also announced that financing and a general contractor are in place. From the SF Business Times:

Quote:
A joint venture between Clark Construction Co. and M.A. Mortenson Co. is set to build the Golden State Warriors' $1 billion arena in San Francisco, which also has financing ready to deploy, team co-owner and CEO Joe Lacob said.

------------

The Mortenson/Clark joint venture was picked as the general contractor as long ago as last fall, but the team had not publicly identified the builder until Lacob spoke Monday to the San Francisco Business Times. A Mortenson official on Tuesday referred questions to the Warriors.

The still-undisclosed financier — which Lacob described as a "big, big, big, big financial institution," but not a bank — has been in place for a couple years, he said, and would layer on top of funding provided by a Warriors' ownership group of more than 30 people.

The arena project is entirely privately funded, a rarity in a sports business world where cities and regions subsidize stadiums as an economic development tool or to retain or attract "major league" status. The Warriors' plans would — in theory, at least — be accelerated because there is no direct government money and the team now controls the site.

------------

The Warriors hope to secure all the necessary government approvals for the project by the end of the year, Lacob said. The franchise, which expects to open an interactive preview center in Mission Bay early next year and allow season-ticket holders to pick their seats later in 2016, plans to have the entire site ready for a move from Oakland by the tipoff of the 2018-19 National Basketball Association season.

But the Warriors still must win a key sign-off of the environmental impact report, or EIR, from the city's Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure Commission. That OK could come next month, and the Board of Supervisors may approve the EIR by the end of the year, Lacob said.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Oct 22, 2015, 5:18 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,218
Yet more support for the project:

Quote:
Some of the largest biotech players — and potential neighbors — of the team's planned Mission Bay arena said in a letter Tuesday to Warriors President and COO Rick Welts that they are joining the project's lineup of supporters.

That includes big players in the life sciences industry, namely Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), Celgene Corp. (NASDAQ: CELG), Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Illumina Inc. (NASDAQ: ILMN), as well as a handful of startups and biotech landlord Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. (NYSE: ARE).

-----------

A copy of the letter, whose other signatories included FibroGen Inc. (NASDAQ: FGEN), Nektar Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: NKTR) and the California Life Sciences Association trade group, was sent to Mayor Ed Lee.
Full article at SF Business Times.
__________________
My other car is a Dakota Creek Advanced Multihull Design.

Tiburon Miami 1 Miami 2 Ye Olde San Francisco SF: Canyons, waterfront... SF: South FiDi SF: South Park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Oct 24, 2015, 6:02 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,451
Eir

<--- thanks pg; good news...

sfgate and socketsite articles on the release of the final EIR for the project, the former highlighting the $60 million transportation plan. from sfgate:

Quote:
...includes plans for a light-rail center boarding platform with “crossover tracks,” similar to the one in front of AT&T Park, that will “increase T-Third transit capacity and reduce walking distance to the arena and hospital,” according to the document.

And it calls for the purchase of four new rail cars for the T-Third line and the creation of two satellite parking lots on Port of San Francisco property south of Mission Bay. All of the improvements, as well as $6 million in annual operating costs, will be funded by fees collected at the arena from special taxes on ticket sales, parking and concessions. ...
right now the north- and southbound boarding platforms are staggered, separated by South St, with only the southbound one directly in front of the arena site, so I assume this means demo'ing the existing northbound platform and consolidating/reconstructing where the southbound one is*. I always thought the platforms had originally been laid out staggered because Third St's width didn't easily accommodate center platforms. I imagine the EIR document addresses this - I haven't dared to delve into its thousands of pages!

Mission Bay Alliance of course isn't happy and will appeal, but everyone else involved seems to be. SFMTA says they have gotten more than they need to handle the added capacity demands.

anyway, the vote to certify the EIR is Election Day, Nov 3.

*this would mean moving a platform away from right in front of the new Uber headquarters. so, how on earth are the Uber employees supposed to get to work now? I mean, if you make public transit less convenient for them, what other possible option is left to Uber people for their transportation needs? we don't want to be filling up nearby parking garages... I just don't know what the solution here is. someone needs to come up with a transport idea for people in situations such as these poor Uber folks.

Last edited by timbad; Oct 24, 2015 at 7:03 PM. Reason: clarified/corrected platform locations, added Uber
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2015, 12:58 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
right now the north- and southbound boarding platforms are staggered, separated by South St, with only the southbound one directly in front of the arena site, so I assume this means demo'ing the existing northbound platform and consolidating/reconstructing where the southbound one is*. I always thought the platforms had originally been laid out staggered because Third St's width didn't easily accommodate center platforms. I imagine the EIR document addresses this - I haven't dared to delve into its thousands of pages!
This is incorrect. They are simply going to extend the existing northbound station an additional 160 feet northward to allow for two two-car trains to stop simultaneously.

Yes, I delved into the EIR (warning: massive PDF)!

You can see it in a few figures including this one on page 5.2.61.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Oct 25, 2015, 2:08 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
This is incorrect. They are simply going to extend the existing northbound station an additional 160 feet northward ...
huh, is sfgate just making stuff up again!??! they had quotes around it and everything!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Oct 26, 2015, 4:39 AM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
huh, is sfgate just making stuff up again!??! they had quotes around it and everything!
Unless they updated things and I'm looking at an old proposal, which could very well be the case...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2015, 3:03 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 611
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the project today, apparently the last major approval needed (now come the appeals and lawsuits):

Quote:
The Golden State Warriors got a win Thursday even bigger than this week’s 50-point blowout of the Memphis Grizzlies, as the San Francisco Planning Commission unanimously approved the team’s proposed Mission Bay arena.

While the $1 billion, 18,000-seat arena will likely face a legal challenge from opponents the Mission Bay Alliance, the vote represented the final major approval the Warriors need as the commission approved the project’s design, environmental study and two adjacent office buildings.

The vote was the culmination of a 3 1/2-year process that started with a different — and much more controversial — plan to build an arena on Piers 30-32 just south of the Bay Bridge. When opposition to that project arose from neighborhood groups and environmentalists, the Warriors moved a mile south to a site they bought from Salesforce.com.

[...]

Warriors spokesman P.J. Johnston said the unanimous vote shows that the Mission Bay Alliance’s arguments have not gained any traction.

“They are like a Whoopie cushion that’s run out of gas,” Johnston said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2015, 6:47 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 611
The Board of Supervisors rejected the EIR appeal and approved the transportation fund:

Quote:
The Golden State Warriors’ three-year campaign to bring professional basketball back to San Francisco reached its final political milestone Tuesday night, as the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to support the construction of an 18,500-seat, $1 billion arena in Mission Bay.

After five hours of testimony about the arena’s impact on traffic, parking and the UCSF Hospital at Mission Bay, the supervisors found that plans for beefed-up public transit and a nimble fleet of traffic control officers could handle the thousands of basketball fans flooding the neighborhood for games.

While the board approval sealed the political deal, the fight will likely move to the courts. The Mission Bay Alliance — an organization made up of UCSF donors and former board members — has said it will file a lawsuit to block the arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2015, 3:55 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,451
sure enough, lawsuit filed,
Quote:
“arguing that the University of California at San Francisco (“UCSF”) illegally signed an agreement with the Golden State Warriors that would give away state property to private parties and pose potentially grave health and safety dangers to Bay Area residents.”
I don't get this. what state property is UCSF supposed to have given? didn't the Warriors buy the site from Salesforce? edit: who bought it from Alexandria?

Last edited by timbad; Dec 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2015, 3:46 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
I don't get this. what state property is UCSF supposed to have given? didn't the Warriors buy the site from Salesforce? edit: who bought it from Alexandria?
I'm not about to pay Alameda's exorbitant fees to look up the lawsuit myself, but here's what I've been able to piece together:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/1...arena-plan.htm

Quote:
The plaintiffs claim Hawgood on Oct. 7 secretly negotiated a memorandum of understanding to transfer UC property near the UCSF Children's Hospital to the Warriors basketball franchise.

"Such a transfer is unlawful because Chancellor Hawgood acted without the UC Regents' authority in purporting to bind UCSF and by extension the regents. Furthermore, the transfer is an unconstitutional delegation of the UC Regents' police powers, including the power to abate nuisances that affect land owned by the UC Regents; an unlawful gift of public property; and represents an abuse of the chancellor's discretion," the 93-page complaint states.
So I went to the memorandum of understanding, and it's not entirely clear what the lawsuit is referring to. It may be this part under the Warriors and Joint Obligations section:
Quote:
(b) recording of an agreement modifying a Grant of Easement dated June 30, 1999, by and between The Regents of the University of California ("UC") and Catellus Development Corporation ("Catullus") so as to consent to the Project...
That led me back to the Warriors arena SEIR, where I found discussion of a view easement.

UCSF has/had a view easement that extends along the line of Campus Way (the road between Third and Fourth that passes among UCSF parking lots, the Third Street Garage, and Mission Hall) across Third Street for 100 feet into the heart of the Warriors project site. That's apparently what Hawgood gave away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2015, 6:48 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
... here's what I've been able to piece together:

... UCSF has/had a view easement that extends along the line of Campus Way (the road between Third and Fourth that passes among UCSF parking lots, the Third Street Garage, and Mission Hall) across Third Street for 100 feet into the heart of the Warriors project site. That's apparently what Hawgood gave away.
nice sleuthing! and thanks.

just for the heck of it, here's a view of (the eastern portion of) the site from this last weekend

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2016, 10:14 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,451
not 2018

not too surprisingly, at least one-year delay
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2016, 1:43 AM
cos2x cos2x is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4
New Golden State Warriors arena in San Francisco to be named Chase Center

KRON
By Mario Sevilla
Published: January 27, 2016, 5:26 pm Updated: January 27, 2016, 5:37 pm

Quote:
JP Morgan Chase & Co. snatched up several domain names that suggest it has bought or considering to buy the naming rights to the 18,000 seat arena expected to open in the fall of 2019.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2016, 2:16 AM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by cos2x View Post
New Golden State Warriors arena in San Francisco to be named Chase Center

KRON
By Mario Sevilla
Published: January 27, 2016, 5:26 pm Updated: January 27, 2016, 5:37 pm
Looks like it's a done deal:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...arena-jpm.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Jan 28, 2016, 9:51 PM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 611
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2016, 12:13 AM
botoxic botoxic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Mission
Posts: 685
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...ew-8385295.php

Quote:
The Golden State Warriors’ three-year push to build an arena in San Francisco’s Mission Bay neighborhood passed a key hurdle Monday, as a judge ruled against a group that had filed multiple lawsuits to kill the project.

On Monday, Superior Court Judge Garrett Wong ruled that the city’s environmental review of the proposed arena was adequate, rejecting arguments it had failed to consider alternative sites for the arena.
More at the link above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2016, 8:05 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,451
and of course, the socketsite blurb
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2016, 7:08 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,451
first building permit! and mostly meaningless for the moment!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2016, 7:21 PM
observatory's Avatar
observatory observatory is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by timbad View Post
first building permit! and mostly meaningless for the moment!

Hopefully we'll hear some good news from the Court of Appeals this week or next!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 PM.

     

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