Originally Posted by NOPA
I'm not sure how I feel about this location. We definitely need an arena, but this location is a good 5 blocks away from BART and Caltrain (SOMA blocks at that).
5 blocks from BART sounds much better compared to an entire mile with the Giants proposal. As for CalTrain, it will be 5 long blocks away with this proposal, as opposed to 4 short blocks away with the Giants proposal. So the giants proposal doesn't even have a big advantage for CalTrain proximity in the first place. And I'm pretty sure BART is useful to far more warriors fans than Caltrian is anyways, since it has much better coverage and much higher ridership numbers. Plus, muni access is the same for both sites (right out front). So really, as far as transit access is concerned, the pier 30-32 location seems better, despite being slightly farther from CalTrain. It's also closer to downtown, and right on the embarcadero and next to the Bay Bridge, meaning it will be slightly easier for some visitors to find (not that the old location would be much harder to find, it's in a good spot too).
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046
The only problem with this location is that it may be harder to get approvals. A Big arena over the water blocking views just sounds too scary for SF to pass.
The Giants proposal had the arena tucked back away from the water, with a big park on the water to open up views.
Count me a skeptic but this proposal will have the NIMBYs up in arms in no time. When the cruise ship terminal was going through approvals for this same location ,the NIMBYs fought like mad and had the size reduced until it just didn't pencil out (especially when the economy tanked).
True, I forgot about the cruise ship terminal proposal.
I don't doubt there will be the usual NIMBY naysayers who hate change, but I have a feeling their complaints are going to be more about traffic and parking and such, not views. This building's not a skyscraper, and it's immediate neighbors are the Bay Bridge, a parking lot, an apartment tower, and a couple shorter condo buildings which would still have giant, 90% unblocked bay views, and there are a ton more towers just to the north/west (not to mention the behemoth "eyesore" of the Bay bridge approach). So complaints of blocked views would be extra ridiculous in this case...but I guess anything is possible.
"oh no!!! the new condo I moved into 5 years ago in a busy area that is under redevelopment that is directly adjacent to a noisy freeway and an area with hundreds of highrises and which has several highrises in the immediate vicinity already, might get its view partly blocked by an arena in a great location that would benefit the whole city!!! We better stop it and make sure that the area in question remains a crappy parking lot forever!!"
I wish people like that would stop moving to SF. Or they should at least move to quiet, low-key parts of town, and stop trying to screw with development in the core.