HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2010, 6:37 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by peanut gallery View Post
There are still more hurdles, but the SC vote was the big one. The Yorks still need to come up with the rest of the funding needed to build it, part of which I believe is hoped to be a contribution from the league. The league's new stadium fund was exhausted awhile ago and a new one hasn't yet been put in place. I'm also not sure where the negotiations with Cedar Fair stand for using that land. The city owns it, but Cedar Fair still has the lease.
If they can't get funding in Silicon Valley they couldn't get it in SF. There is alot more money down there for sponsorships etc... than anywhere else in the bay area.

Before the vote Cedar Fair sued the Santa Clara EIR. However, the judge threw the suit out a few weeks before the vote. So they are pretty much forced to go along with the plan.
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2010, 6:44 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
If they can't get funding in Silicon Valley they couldn't get it in SF. There is alot more money down there for sponsorships etc... than anywhere else in the bay area.

Before the vote Cedar Fair sued the Santa Clara EIR. However, the judge threw the suit out a few weeks before the vote. So they are pretty much forced to go along with the plan.
I'm a huge proponent of moving the 49ers down to Santa Clara (an NFL stadium belongs in a suburban environment, not an urban one, IMO), but I don't particularly buy that there is more money in sponsorships available in the South Bay than in SF for football. Football is pretty regional (only 8-10 home games a year, etc) - if there was a nice, new stadium in SF, it would likely garner the same sponsorships as one in Santa Clara.

Now, if we're talking baseball or basketball (or anything with a lot more home games), I agree with you there. Luxury boxes in a San Jose A's stadium will likely fetch much more than equivalent boxes in a new Oakland-area stadium.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2010, 7:01 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 5,234
Totally agreed all the way around, Gordo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
If they can't get funding in Silicon Valley they couldn't get it in SF.
Very true, but it doesn't negate the fact that moving to a new SC stadium still has some funding hurdles. I wasn't drawing a distinction between SF and SC. The Yorks don't have the deepest of pockets so they'll need some help.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
Before the vote Cedar Fair sued the Santa Clara EIR. However, the judge threw the suit out a few weeks before the vote. So they are pretty much forced to go along with the plan.
That's good news! I was fearing a long, drawn-out lawsuit.
__________________
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
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2011, 10:36 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
Figured this was worth sharing. It's still possible the south eastern half of San Francisco will get a skyline.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=87006

Quote:
QUOTE: Gov. Brown, no fan of redevelopment, supports Hunters Point project

"This clearly affirms all of the hard work and efforts by the city, its redevelopment agency and the Bayview-Hunters Point community. This should put to rest any concerns about the use of tax increment and the tool of redevelopment funding for this project."

-- Mayor Ed Lee, after Gov. Jerry Brown's office announced its support for the Hunter's Point redevelopment project at the State Lands Commission Wednesday.

After Brown proposed cuts to redevelopment earlier this year, some worried the project, approved in 2010, could stall.
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 4:58 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
An Updated image of the project.
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 4:58 AM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
An Updated image of the project.
http://www.sfredevelopment.org/index.aspx?page=174

__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 5:28 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
I'm a huge proponent of moving the 49ers down to Santa Clara (an NFL stadium belongs in a suburban environment, not an urban one, IMO), but I don't particularly buy that there is more money in sponsorships available in the South Bay than in SF for football. Football is pretty regional (only 8-10 home games a year, etc) - if there was a nice, new stadium in SF, it would likely garner the same sponsorships as one in Santa Clara.
Why are you against NFL stadiums in urban environments? Soldier Field is pretty well-integrated into its neighborhood, and so are Ford Field and Lucas Oil. The Superdome isn't ideal, since the entrances are up on an elevated podium, but the parking is pretty compact.

If you provide high-quality transit access, then you can greatly reduce the needed parking. Tailgaters will complain, but only until they discover that they can drink freely during the game and hop on a train to get home.

Proper design can allow the stadium to be used for other events (soccer, for example, as well as concerts and rallys) and at that point the stadium becomes a real asset to the city.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 6:27 AM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 320
Personally I'd rather see SF get an NBA arena, but was the proposed Hunter's Point stadium even that connected to public transportation?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 3:59 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
Some additional images of the "Candlestick" portion of the development.







__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 4:50 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 996
^^^Awesome! I hope I get to see this built out in my lifetime.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 5:41 PM
CyberEric CyberEric is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
This looks great! Very promising news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOPA View Post
Personally I'd rather see SF get an NBA arena, but was the proposed Hunter's Point stadium even that connected to public transportation?
I believe the T train goes very near where the new stadium will be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 7:36 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Why are you against NFL stadiums in urban environments? Soldier Field is pretty well-integrated into its neighborhood, and so are Ford Field and Lucas Oil. The Superdome isn't ideal, since the entrances are up on an elevated podium, but the parking is pretty compact.

If you provide high-quality transit access, then you can greatly reduce the needed parking. Tailgaters will complain, but only until they discover that they can drink freely during the game and hop on a train to get home.

Proper design can allow the stadium to be used for other events (soccer, for example, as well as concerts and rallys) and at that point the stadium becomes a real asset to the city.
Opportunity cost. The three fields that you mention are in relatively low-cost, low-demand areas compared to what we're talking about here. Even the most used NFL stadiums are empty and dead spots more than half of the days of the year (probably more). That's a vast, vast dead zone for the pedestrian environment. As far as concerts and other events, anything large enough to be in an NFL stadium is a regional event, IMO, so I don't have a problem with it being in another city close by - and besides, AT&T Park already handles dozens of concerts a year, so it would likely just be taking most things away from that park. I'd love to have an arena in SF, because that's a much smaller size, which allows for many more events per year.

It's also been made abundantly clear during these negotiations that the NFL and the Yorks are completely unwilling to negotiate on parking. The only allowance they would even consider was that the parking could be on multi-purpose fields, but the number of parking spaces and access for tailgaters is a make-it-or-break-it deal for a new NFL stadium (anywhere, according to the NFL).

Transit access isn't really an urban thing in the Bay Area as far as stadiums go. An NFL stadium at Hunter's Point would have worse transit access than the Santa Clara site (which is at an existing light rail stop in Santa Clara and a short walk from a Capitol Corridor stop as well). The Oakland Coliseum is right at a BART station, and the oft-mentioned idea for an NFL stadium for the Raiders in Dublin would also be right at a BART station. I'd be pretty pissed if we used some scare SF transit dollars to build rail transit to Hunter's Point for a few dozen days a year when it's already needed far more (on a daily basis) in several other corridors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 8:00 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
Opportunity cost. The three fields that you mention are in relatively low-cost, low-demand areas compared to what we're talking about here. Even the most used NFL stadiums are empty and dead spots more than half of the days of the year (probably more). That's a vast, vast dead zone for the pedestrian environment. As far as concerts and other events, anything large enough to be in an NFL stadium is a regional event, IMO, so I don't have a problem with it being in another city close by - and besides, AT&T Park already handles dozens of concerts a year, so it would likely just be taking most things away from that park. I'd love to have an arena in SF, because that's a much smaller size, which allows for many more events per year.

It's also been made abundantly clear during these negotiations that the NFL and the Yorks are completely unwilling to negotiate on parking. The only allowance they would even consider was that the parking could be on multi-purpose fields, but the number of parking spaces and access for tailgaters is a make-it-or-break-it deal for a new NFL stadium (anywhere, according to the NFL).

Transit access isn't really an urban thing in the Bay Area as far as stadiums go. An NFL stadium at Hunter's Point would have worse transit access than the Santa Clara site (which is at an existing light rail stop in Santa Clara and a short walk from a Capitol Corridor stop as well). The Oakland Coliseum is right at a BART station, and the oft-mentioned idea for an NFL stadium for the Raiders in Dublin would also be right at a BART station. I'd be pretty pissed if we used some scare SF transit dollars to build rail transit to Hunter's Point for a few dozen days a year when it's already needed far more (on a daily basis) in several other corridors.
The whole discussion is moot. Santa Clara is building a stadium. The voters have approved the plan, SC has moved their redevelopment dollars to ensure that the state can't take it, they have already started moving utilities in prep for construction to start, and to top it all off, the voters allowed the Raiders to play there as well if the 49ers have financing issues.

It is a done deal. My bother works for one of the construction companies that will build it... the 49ers are spending a lot of money getting ready for groundbreaking as we speak.

How much money are they spending on any plan in SF???
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 8:33 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
Opportunity cost. The three fields that you mention are in relatively low-cost, low-demand areas compared to what we're talking about here.

the number of parking spaces and access for tailgaters is a make-it-or-break-it deal for a new NFL stadium (anywhere, according to the NFL)
You said it as a generality. Clearly, other cities have made NFL stadiums work in urban environments.

Soldier Field does make it work. It has large garages that are extremely well-concealed into the park environment, as well as one surface lot. Tailgating is totally possible in a garage, and for the people who are committed to open-air, they can simply pay more to go in the surface lot.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Apr 15, 2011, 9:52 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
You said it as a generality. Clearly, other cities have made NFL stadiums work in urban environments.

Soldier Field does make it work. It has large garages that are extremely well-concealed into the park environment, as well as one surface lot. Tailgating is totally possible in a garage, and for the people who are committed to open-air, they can simply pay more to go in the surface lot.
Sure, it was a generalization, but being that the conversation six nine months ago (when I made that post) was entirely made up of Bay Area forumers, I was mostly thinking of our discussions of the 49ers and Raiders. If a larger or smaller share of the metro (such as Chicago or New Orleans) is in an urban environment, sure, that changes the calculus.

In any area where the amount of land available for good urban development (due primarily to political reasons) is small, I think using that land for an NFL stadium is a poor choice. I think that that generalization works for most US cities, but perhaps not all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 1:27 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Okay, then that makes sense. I haven't been to San Francisco in years, so my understanding of the city isn't terribly informed.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 3:54 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
This is not news about Hunter's Point/Candlestick, but a nearby development. Actually there is a lot "potentially" happening nearby with Executive Park, Schlage/Lock, and The Brisbane Baylands.

From:http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2....html#comments


Quote:
Executive Park: From Office Park To Neighborhood As Long Proposed

April 7, 2011

One of the big items on the agenda for San Francisco’s Planning Commission this afternoon, General Plan, planning code, and zoning map amendments for the 70-acre site adjacent to Candlestick Point known as Executive Park.

The Executive Park area is divided into three subareas generally defined by property ownership and phase of entitlement. The central area includes three office buildings (approximately 307,000 gross square feet) and expansive surface parking. Two areas to the north and northeast of the office park are being developed for residential use. Signature Properties is developing the portion of Executive Park directly north of the office park, and when complete, will consist of approximately 450 dwelling units, and 14,000 square feet of retail. The Signature Project includes three podium buildings (between the heights of 60 and 90 feet tall) and a series of joined townhouse structures. At this point, only one podium building has been built along with roughly half of the planned townhouses. An expansive natural open space along the hillside has been improved in conjunction with the Signature development; it includes a public trail to a hilltop lookout.
To the northeast of the office development is another residential development being constructed by Top Vision. Five buildings consisting of roughly 300 units have been constructed, three of which sit atop a hilltop embankment overlooking Harney Way and the Candlestick Point State Recreation Area (CPSRA). A final phase for Top Vision has been approved for an addition 465 dwelling units upslope from the existing buildings which has not yet been constructed. These units would be within podium buildings and a 160‐foot residential tower.
In the works since 2006, the proposed amendments would allow the two sponsoring development groups, Universal Paragon and Yerby, to raze and redevelop the central office components of Executive Park as 1,600 housing units, 70,000 square feet of retail, and roughly 2,400 parking spaces with buildings rising between 65 and 240 feet tall.




http://www.universalparagoncorp.com/...c-projects.php
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization

Last edited by San Frangelino; Apr 16, 2011 at 4:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 16, 2011, 9:50 PM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 320
Oh cool, I always wondered what the hell was going on there. The problem I see with the whole area is that it is so isolated from the rest of the city. Maybe it would make sense to extend the T line down to Hunters point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2011, 2:49 AM
patriotizzy's Avatar
patriotizzy patriotizzy is offline
Metal Up Your !
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,585
Anyone know when those proposals are supposed to begin?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2011, 2:22 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 655
Looks like they are going to start building 240 units this July.
From:http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...struction.html


Quote:
Hunters Point Shipyard construction set for July

San Francisco Business Times - by J.K. Dineen
Date: Friday, April 29, 2011, 3:00am PDT

After a number of false starts, Lennar says it finally plans to start construction this summer on 240 homes in the former Hunters Point Shipyard, according to Executive Vice President Kofi Bonner.
While a drop in the bucket compared with the 10,500 units Lennar is entitled to build in the defunct shipyard, the number of units is four times the 88 homes Lennar previously said they would start with.
“We have black-topped the roads and the street lights are going in this week,” said Bonner. “We are polishing off the construction documents and hope to be under way in July.” ...


Read more: Hunters Point Shipyard construction set for July | San Francisco Business Times
__________________
I ♥ Manhattanization
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 8:40 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.