HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 5:40 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
SAN FRANCISCO | Hunter's Point

Quote:
Hunters Point plan given the go-ahead

The Board of Supervisors voted in favor of plans for a Hunters Point stadium.
Joshua Sabatini, The Examiner
2007-05-16 10:00:00.0

SAN FRANCISCO -
An ambitious plan to redevelop Candlestick Point, the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, and build a new San Francisco 49ers football stadium was embraced Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors.

In a 9-2 vote, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution allowing The City to proceed with planning for the major project and authorizing an environmental study of it.

The project includes 6,500 units of housing at Candlestick Point, 2,000 units of housing at the Hunters Point Shipyard site, retail and office space, parks and a new stadium for the San Francisco 49ers at the Hunters Point Shipyard site.

Tuesday’s board vote shows that Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors are “very much on the same page,” said Michael Cohen, of the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development, which is overseeing the project.

Cohen said development would move forward even if the 49ers decide to move to Santa Clara, but that the plan “happens to be our best chance to keep the 49ers in San Francisco.”

The City and lead project developer Lennar BVHP are eyeing summer 2009 for final plans since the project includes a new stadium for the 49ers, who have said they want a new stadium by 2012.

The 49ers are in talks with Santa Clara about building a stadium there, but continue to negotiate with San Francisco officials. The City abandoned an initial proposal to build the stadium at Candlestick Point, after the 49ers criticized that plan because of concerns of stadium parking and traffic.

Supervisors Chris Daly and Ed Jew voted against the resolution.

“This is the most enormous redevelopment project ever undertaken by The City,” Jew said. “I am not convinced that diverting property tax from an area this large to the redevelopment agency makes sense.”

He also said The City should not “ignore” the 30,000 residents who signed a petition “to put this plan on the ballot.”

Daly said community involvement has been lacking, although he said it has improved lately.

Brian O’Flynn, who organized last year’s referendum campaign against the Bayview-Hunters Point Redevelopment plan, has argued that no project should proceed until voters weigh in on the overall redevelopment plan for that area.

The signed petition to put the redevelopment plan on the ballot was deemed invalid last year by the city attorney because the plan was not attached to the petition. Advocates of the referendum have filed a lawsuit against this decision.

Source: http://www.examiner.com/printa-73079..._go-ahead.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 5:57 AM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Here's an earlier but more detailed Chronicle artyicle on the project:

Quote:
City unveils new 49ers stadium proposal
Grand plans would aim to reinvigorate Hunters Point, Candlestick areas

Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, March 26, 2007

(03-26) 22:01 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The neglected areas of San Francisco's southeast shore would be remade into a destination spot with a new football stadium, hundreds of acres of open space and thousands of new homes under an ambitious city proposal that rivals plans for Treasure Island and Mission Bay.

Mayor Gavin Newsom says his plan for the 790-acre site would not require public funding for a stadium at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, a toxic site that the Navy is cleaning up. The plan also calls for a new look for Candlestick Point, where the 49ers' current stadium would be bulldozed to make way for high-rise homes, retail shops and parks.

The plan, unveiled Monday night, makes other far-reaching promises, such as plentiful parking for tailgate parties, no seizures of privately owned homes, possible rebuilding of a troubled housing project and, ultimately, the chance for city voters to bless the final vision.

"We have a plan that we can finance -- no surprises,'' Newsom said in an interview. "I want to put pressure on the 49ers. I want to make it very difficult for them to leave our city,'' Newsom said.

The team is working on a plan to build a stadium in Santa Clara and is trying to raise public support for partial public financing. A detailed financing plan for that project is expected next month.

But Newsom is betting that the 49ers will not get what they are seeking in the South Bay. He said he plans to ask the Board of Supervisors to endorse his plan in May, and environmental reviews could start in June. Construction could begin in June 2009, and the stadium could be ready by the 2012 season, he said.

City officials insist that the transformation of the troubled neighborhoods will happen regardless of whether the team builds its new home in San Francisco.

The city's plan embraces financing tactics that have worked in San Francisco before. Its partner is the Lennar Corp. of Miami, a Fortune 500 company that is leading redevelopment efforts at former military bases on Treasure Island and Mare Island in Vallejo.

As it did for the San Francisco Giants' waterfront ballpark, the city would contribute the land. Lennar says it would contribute $100 million in cash and help finance the stadium's infrastructure, including parking, roads, electrical lines, sewer pipes and water service.

The 49ers apparently don't have anything like that in Santa Clara, and the team says the city will have to make some sort of "up-front public investment,'' possibly in the form of land or access to the city's utility funds. One source involved with the deal said the team wants between $150 million and $200 million.

Team spokeswoman Lisa Lang said San Francisco's latest proposal represents progress but doesn't address all the team's concerns. That includes the cleanup of the Hunters Point Superfund site, designated as one of the country's most polluted areas.

"We are still in the midst of working through the issues associated with the cleanup time frame of the Superfund site, the public transportation plan, the infrastructure issues and the traffic plans, and these are not yet resolved,'' she said. "But we are making progress and working through these issues with the city and Lennar."

In November, 49ers owners John York and Denise DeBartolo York announced that Santa Clara had become their favored stadium site, abandoning a Candlestick proposal that city officials hoped could also support the 2016 Olympic Games. San Francisco's plan, the Yorks said, would feel cramped with the high-rise housing development, and a proposed multilevel parking garage would ruin the fans' tailgate traditions.

They also questioned whether Lennar Corp. would construct needed infrastructure improvements in a timely manner.

Newsom and Lennar's new plan provides open-air parking for 19,500 cars immediately around the stadium. The parking surface would be made of "dual use turf'' -- natural grass held together with a synthetic mesh in the root system, allowing the space to be used for recreation year-round.

The plan also includes at least 8,500 housing units, 2 million square feet of office space, an 8,000- to 12,000-seat arena and 700,000 square feet of retail and entertainment uses, including a large grocery store near Highway 101 at Candlestick and a smaller one at Hunters Point.

There would more than 350 acres of parks and open space, including the stadium parking and a waterfront trail.

Newsom said the plan would need the support of Bayview-Hunters Point residents, most of whom seemed pleased with the vision at a Monday evening meeting of citizens involved with the long-discussed redevelopment of both Hunters Point and Candlestick Point. To that end, Lennar's plans call for replacement housing for artists who have been living at the former shipyard.

There would also be an International African Marketplace, replacement housing for residents of the city's 45-year-old Alice Griffith Housing Development and even a cable-guided tram that would climb the steep hill that dominates Bayview Park, one of the city's least-used parks.

Lennar representatives said their project will be financed with private money, funds borrowed against future property taxes and assessments and fees typical of new development. They expect the project to be finished by 2021.

The 49ers are skeptical that the cleanup of the 500-acre former shipyard can be done expeditiously.

But Navy and Environmental Protection Agency officials say that much of the hardest work has already been done, and top Navy brass committed this month to trying to meet the city's schedule for a phased transfer of the shipyard, with the 27-acre parcel for the stadium conveyed first, by the summer of 2009, to allow for stadium construction.

The key issue is whether Congress will maintain the same level of annual funding for the cleanup of Hunters Point -- about $70 million. The answer to that question will not come until this fall, but the city has U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on its side.

The 49ers also have questioned whether fans will get to and from a Hunters Point stadium quickly. Santa Clara boasts that it has four- to eight-lane roads serving the potential stadium site, between Great America amusement park and the city's convention center near the nexus of highways 101 and 237 and Interstate 880.

Lennar's traffic engineers believe the "dump time'' for getting cars out of a Hunters Point site would be less than what fans currently experience at Monster Park and would be comparable to what fans would experience in Santa Clara. They reason that traffic would travel on several routes. Northbound traffic, for example, would go through industrial neighborhoods. The company has not provided any traffic studies. The city's plan also calls for mass transit, including buses and possibly water taxis or ferries.

The 49ers have not made a formal proposal to Santa Clara yet. Last week, however, 49ers officials were openly coordinating with former Santa Clara city staff members and elected officials who publicly called on the city to study using some of city-owned Silicon Valley Power's money for a stadium project.

One advocate for studying that approach was former city manager and councilman Don Von Raesfeld, for whom the city recently named its new power plant. Team officials told him they need a public investment of somewhere between $150 million and $200 million, he said.

John Roukema, assistant director of Silicon Valley Power, said that drawing down the utility's reserve funds could lead to an increase in electricity rates, which are among the lowest in the state.

Roukema said that as of January, the utility's cash and investments totaled $387 million. And of that, nearly $169 million is committed to specific projects or needed to pay down bonds. The remaining $241 million, he said, is needed for capital improvements and insurance against electricity market volatility.

"The fact is that this money is still used to allow us to provide competitively priced electricity,'' Roukema said. "It's certainly not a windfall here.''

Von Raesfeld said he did not think a citywide vote would be required if the city chose to invest utility funds directly into the stadium.

Santa Clara's city attorney in 2001, however, opined that voters would have to change the city charter to tap utility funds to help fund a baseball stadium for the Oakland Athletics. That effort, led by local citizens including Von Raesfeld, withered away without a vote after years of work.

In 1990, the San Francisco Giants also went to voters in Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Milpitas seeking approval of a 1 percent electricity tax to pay for a stadium. The measure was soundly rejected.

E-mail Patrick Hoge at phoge@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...G3UOS7BF11.DTL

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 5:09 PM
djvandrake's Avatar
djvandrake djvandrake is offline
I'm going slightly mad.
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 787
This looks like an awesome plan. Why so much opposition to it? I hope this happens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 5:27 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
^^^Why the opposition? In San Francisco, that's often hard to say. One thing to keep in mind is that the Giants have already announced they want to move to Santa Clara so this is a little late. It could probably be redesigned without the stadium if the city gives up--they haven't given up yet because nobody's sure Santa Clara will be any more cooperative with the Giants than SF has been so far--but then gthere's the simple fact that in San Francisco every Supervisor and every resident has an idea what should be done and how it should be done and they try to insist on things being done "their way". Finally, there's politics and that's probably mpore complicated than you want to know. Suffice it to say that this is SF's last remaining large black majority neighborhood and African-Americans in SF don't have a reassuring history with "redevelopment".

I'm sure other San Franciscans will have ideas about it if they noticed this thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 5:46 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 BTinSF View Post
^^^Why the opposition? In San Francisco, that's often hard to say. One thing to keep in mind is that the Giants have already announced they want to move to Santa Clara so this is a little late. It could probably be redesigned without the stadium if the city gives up--they haven't given up yet because nobody's sure Santa Clara will be any more cooperative with the Giants than SF has been so far--but then gthere's the simple fact that in San Francisco every Supervisor and every resident has an idea what should be done and how it should be done and they try to insist on things being done "their way". Finally, there's politics and that's probably mpore complicated than you want to know. Suffice it to say that this is SF's last remaining large black majority neighborhood and African-Americans in SF don't have a reassuring history with "redevelopment".

I'm sure other San Franciscans will have ideas about it if they noticed this thread.
you mean 49ers right I'm sure the Giants are happy with AT&T Park
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 5:48 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
you mean 49ers right I'm sure the Giants are happy with AT&T Park
Yeah, sorry. I'm in a "New York state of mind" today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 17, 2007, 6:29 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Well, for this one, I actually can't blame the supervisors, although Chris Daly continues to be a lame duck supervisor that halts all improvements in the city. The scary thing is that I was viewing beyondchron the other day (yeah, I know its biased) and they're discussing him doing a grass-roots campaign to win against Newsom in the next election. If that happened, I'd move out of the city. But I digress.

On another note, is anyone else as upset with John York as I am? I'm a die-hard 49ers fan and loved the way the team was run when Eddie D. was the owner. He's really upsetting me that he's being a little whiny baby and thinks its ok to move the site to Santa Clara, rather than working with the city. Sure a lot of fans live down there, but it just doesn't have the same aura or feel to it being way down in Santa Clara (or Los Angeles north). Sure, it may make business sense, but he'll still make a large profit by having it in the city. I wish they would have an owner that actually cared about the team and the illustrious history of having them in the city, rather than simply looking for business profits. Also, his "ambassador" Lisa Lang is nothing more than a puppet and really needs to get a backbone, rather than giving the owner special favors to get to the top.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jun 18, 2007, 4:20 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
338-unit condo project slated for the former Coca-Cola plant

Quote:
Noteware and Goldman add 2nd Bayview project
San Francisco Business Times - June 15, 2007
by J.K. Dineen and Ryan Tate

James Noteware and Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group have wrapped up their purchase of 5800 Third St., a 338-unit condo project slated for the former Coca-Cola plant site in the Bayview/Hunters Point neighborhood. Citigroup is providing the construction financing for the project. The sellers were Lennar Corp. and Levin Menzies & Associates.

The $146 million development is the second collaboration between Noteware and UIG to build housing in the Bayview. Their first project is the 198-unit family housing development under construction on Jamestown Avenue near Monster Park. The first homes will be ready in January.

The new project will be across the street from the new Carroll Station on the Third Street T line. Noteware Development CEO James Noteware said the project would help "kickstart the revitalization of the Third Street corridor." Between the two projects, the partners are investing $250 million in the southeastern corner of the city.

Christiani Johnson is architect on the project. Chris Foley of Polaris Group brokered the deal for both sides with Skip Whitney and Clayton Jew of GVA Kidder Mathews also advising the seller.

Alicia Glen, managing director of Goldman Sachs' Urban Investment Group, said the project -- with units starting in the $500,000s -- would provide "moderately priced, quality housing that working families can afford and bring much-needed retail to diverse and vibrant neighborhoods like the Bayview."
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...wscolumn1.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2007, 5:35 AM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior View Post
but it just doesn't have the same aura or feel to it being way down in Santa Clara (or Los Angeles north).
They're in the worst neighborhood at the edge of the city as it is, snob.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2007, 3:48 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
They're in the worst neighborhood at the edge of the city as it is, snob.
You don't need to resort to name calling. That is extremely immature of you.

To counter your point, have you seen the other postings about how much development is going or will be going into this part of the city? Its not going to be the worst neighborhood of the city for long. You must be from the South Bay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2007, 5:25 PM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior View Post
You don't need to resort to name calling. That is extremely immature of you.
As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior View Post
To counter your point, have you seen the other postings about how much development is going or will be going into this part of the city? Its not going to be the worst neighborhood of the city for long. You must be from the South Bay.
My point was not about what will be. It's about the situation now, which has persisted for well over ten years. The city sat on its ass with Candlestick repairs and now everyone jumps in the blame the Yorks for refusing to be dicked around anymore. They want to move to Santa Clara, which is currently nicer than their dump of a home on the Point.

I personally think they should stay in San Francisco. I wouldn't want the Sharks or [new] Earthquakes playing up there so I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work both ways. I can still root for the Niners no matter what. But the arrogance of you people is disgusting, nonetheless.

Also, I don't want gentrification masked over with some "African Market" pandering farce.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2007, 8:50 PM
roadwarrior's Avatar
roadwarrior roadwarrior is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?

Well, you have to admit that while Silicon Valley is nice, it is primarily suburban sprawl and looks very similar to the San Fernando Valley. The main differences are that there are more trees and less smog in the Silicon Valley.

My point was not about what will be. It's about the situation now, which has persisted for well over ten years. The city sat on its ass with Candlestick repairs and now everyone jumps in the blame the Yorks for refusing to be dicked around anymore. They want to move to Santa Clara, which is currently nicer than their dump of a home on the Point.

Yeah, and I'm sure that there are parts of Sacramento and Fresno that are nice as well, but it still isn't San Francisco. I'm not saying that the city is perfect (I'm no advocate for the current or former city council), but I do think that the Hunters Point area has GREAT potential. Look how much the area around AT&T Park has improved over the past several years. I'm not saying anything bad about Santa Clara as a place, but it shouldn't be the 49ers home and York and his crew shouldn't be so willing to give up when they hit adversity. They should apply the long-term strategy of building a great team on the field to placing a world-class stadium in the city.

I personally think they should stay in San Francisco. I wouldn't want the Sharks or [new] Earthquakes playing up there so I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work both ways. I can still root for the Niners no matter what. But the arrogance of you people is disgusting, nonetheless.

I'm a 49er fan either way as well. Its not that we're arrogant, its that we LOVE our city. Believe me, I used to live in the Silicon Valley and moved up here a while back. You honestly don't understand how great it is until you live here.

Also, I don't want gentrification masked over with some "African Market" pandering farce.
What's with trying to play the race card here? Most residents of the area actually support the redevelopment plan and understand that building a stadium will help attract other badly needed services and amenities to this long neglected part of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2007, 11:07 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?

My point was not about what will be. It's about the situation now, which has persisted for well over ten years. The city sat on its ass with Candlestick repairs and now everyone jumps in the blame the Yorks for refusing to be dicked around anymore. They want to move to Santa Clara, which is currently nicer than their dump of a home on the Point.

I personally think they should stay in San Francisco. I wouldn't want the Sharks or [new] Earthquakes playing up there so I'm not going to pretend it doesn't work both ways. I can still root for the Niners no matter what. But the arrogance of you people is disgusting, nonetheless.

Also, I don't want gentrification masked over with some "African Market" pandering farce.
A few minor corrections:

- The Yorks want to move to Santa Clara because they think they can suck more subsidy out of the taxpayers there than in San Francisco which has finally wised up to the stupidity of handing taxpayer money over to sports-oriented businesses.

- The city has refused to pour money into Candlestick because everybody has known for some time that no amount of renovation there would satisfy the Yorks who have made it clear as long as they've owned the team that they wanted a new stadium, preferably on somebody else's dime (these are business people, not playboys like Eddie DeBartolo).

- There is (or was) another thread about San Franciscan arrogance. We are arrogant about our arrogance so tread carefully.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2007, 11:16 PM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadwarrior View Post
What's with trying to play the race card here? Most residents of the area actually support the redevelopment plan and understand that building a stadium will help attract other badly needed services and amenities to this long neglected part of the city.
The stadium has been inadequate for years. The neighborhood has been in need of revitalization for even longer. The team finally decides that there are better options elsewhere and suddenly Newsom comes out and says that the 49ers are doing a great injustice to Bayview-Hunters point, because it's somehow their fault. Fans at Candlestick have little to no connection to the area as it is. A change is needed but the new planned development would only price out current residents by becoming Mission Bay Part II. The city wants to sugarcoat it with something generic and "African."

So no, I am not playing the race card. Newsome and Friends are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
A few minor corrections:

- The Yorks want to move to Santa Clara because they think they can suck more subsidy out of the taxpayers there than in San Francisco which has finally wised up to the stupidity of handing taxpayer money over to sports-oriented businesses.

- The city has refused to pour money into Candlestick because everybody has known for some time that no amount of renovation there would satisfy the Yorks who have made it clear as long as they've owned the team that they wanted a new stadium, preferably on somebody else's dime (these are business people, not playboys like Eddie DeBartolo).

- There is (or was) another thread about San Franciscan arrogance. We are arrogant about our arrogance so tread carefully.
-I know the Yorks are no Saints and I hope Santa Clarans (?) vote it down.

-I'm not talking mass renovations. That's a waste. I'm talking simple repairs, like the escalator that's been a stairway for decades.

-I'm arrogant in pointing out your arrogance, so please excuse me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2007, 3:12 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Surrounded by Nature
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Walnut Creek, California
Posts: 2,028
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
As immature as San Francisco's constant fixation on L.A.?

Most cities have a rivalry with another (NYC/Boston, Seattle/Tacoma, Dallas/Houston, etc., etc., etc.) just like universities, high schools and many other institutions do. It is immature, but we certainly don't have a lock on it. We are truly a "world class" city on our own without fixating on anyone else. Just admire us and help us fix what's wrong with the place. Personally, I don't give a damn if the Forty Niners stay or go. I suppose it would be nice if they stayed and this development could be pulled off, but as BT believes, don't ask for my tax money to subsidize any sports team. Cities that do that generally do not benefit from it other than to reap PR benefits, which we don't really need as much as others.

Last edited by viewguysf; Jun 20, 2007 at 3:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2007, 5:16 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
krudmonk, lose the gratuitous insults and personal attacks.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2007, 5:37 AM
krudmonk's Avatar
krudmonk krudmonk is offline
Of Heart's Delight
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
krudmonk, lose the gratuitous insults and personal attacks.
Other than "snob," what have I done wrong? Disagree with people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by viewguysf View Post
Seattle/Tacoma
Really? I thought Portland was in that role.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2007, 10:03 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
Other than "snob,"
Don't do that.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2007, 5:23 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Grandkids: Get ready for 49ers' stadium
Scott Ostler
Wednesday, June 20, 2007

It will be nothing more, really, than a bunch of plastic seats bolted to an oval hunk of concrete poured around a rectangle of grass. But by the time the 49ers' new stadium is built, the project will make the planning and building of the Golden Gate Bridge look like an Amish barn-raising.

The bridge took 16 years from proposal to opening. The stadium project is going on a decade and the 49ers are at Step 1: Gleam in eye.

The slow and painfully awkward dance continued this week when three NFL representatives came to the Bay Area to tour the two sites voted Most Likely to Land the 49ers.

On Monday, they visited Hunters Point in San Francisco and Tuesday, they toured the area next to the Great America theme park in Santa Clara. The NFL people seemed pleased with both visits, and why not? Who wouldn't be dazzled by a VIP tour of a toxic-waste dump and an empty parking lot?

The NFL drop-in inspection isn't likely to affect much. The league has site input only in terms of influence it could exert on the 49ers when they come asking for a stadium loan.

The ball remains in the 49ers' court and they haven't figured out yet whether it's a tennis ball or a golf ball, or what they should use to whack it.

Fans to 49ers: Shut up and build. Somewhere.

Fans merely want a place to sit. Once you're seated on Grand-Opening Sunday, whether it's in Santa Clara, San Francisco or Stinson Beach, you'll be in the cozy confines of Corporate Name Stadium sipping a $17 beer and cheering touchdown passes thrown by Steve Young's grandson.

The NFL inspection team didn't indicate which site it favors, and we might never know, because so much of this stadium business is conducted in secret, driven by unknown agenda $.

The NFL trio reportedly was impressed with the Hunters Point site, not only by the amount of work the city has done, on paper and on the land, but with the scenic views. The three were impressed with the Santa Clara site's access to public transportation.

For what it might be worth, John York and his son Jed of the team's ruling family helped conduct the tour in Santa Clara but didn't make the tour at Hunters Point.

Santa Clara is still the Yorks' No. 1 choice, though much has changed since November when the 49ers announced they were abandoning most hope of a San Francisco stadium and that Santa Clara was their future home.

Stuff keeps happening. The company that owns Great America, Cedar Fair, recently expressed its opposition to a stadium in its parking lot. The 49ers say they easily and gladly would deal with Cedar's concerns, but that Cedar hasn't replied to 49ers e-mails for three months.

You might think if a company was threatening to block your new stadium and wasn't returning your e-mails, you would try a more advanced form of communication, like, I don't know, the telephone.

Meanwhile, communications remain open between the 49ers and San Francisco.

The city has two master plans for the 775 acres at Hunters Point. Plan A includes a football stadium with extensive grassy parking areas, and about $100 million worth of cash and goodies to help the 49ers build their home. Plan B is sans football.

The 49ers are asking Santa Clara for about $160 million, in addition to the land for the stadium, and that's no sure thing, especially now that Cedar is putting up a roadblock.

San Francisco officials say the massive development project at Hunters Point isn't a hope or a dream, it's a solid plan that's already in motion, and the 49ers could start building there in 2009.

Or they could drag their feet and, a couple years from now, wave as that train leaves the station.

The stadium gets fuzzier and fuzzier, and officials in Santa Clara and San Francisco probably are starting to wonder if the 49ers ever had a clue or plan, other than to figure out where they could shake the most fruit from the tree.

The 49ers say their main concern is for the game-day experience for their fans. They bailed on a Candlestick Park site partly because of concern over tailgating ambience. Now San Francisco is promising vast grassy pastures for parking/tailgating, overlooking the bay, in contrast to Santa Clara's asphalt prairie in the shadows of roller coasters.

The slow, awkward dance continues.

Fortunately, it's only a football stadium. If the 49ers had been in charge of building the Golden Gate Bridge, they'd still be listening to overtures from Livermore.

E-mail Scott Ostler at sostler@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...PG3AQI9LO1.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Aug 22, 2007, 3:26 PM
San Frangelino's Avatar
San Frangelino San Frangelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 653
I hope this is the correct way to post anothers picture.

From wade2tall at flickr.com

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne...908@N01&size=l


Just thought this picture gave a great overview of the development opportunity San Francisco has along its eastern shore. I am going to post some information I have on the large Brisbane brownfield later on in the Bay Area development thread.
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 10:01 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.