HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1121  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 6:14 PM
peanut gallery's Avatar
peanut gallery peanut gallery is offline
Only Mostly Dead
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Marin
Posts: 4,782
That couldn't possibly start construction for at least 5 years though, correct? The arena would have to go on Seawall Lot 337 and the Giants have delayed touching that until at least 2017. That one-liner makes it sound imminent but if that's the case I wonder why the Giants would be asking for an extension to develop that parcel. It seems like they would be more anxious to get started.

Assuming it's true though, this would be a killer to Oakland's Coliseum City dream -- something I have little faith in to begin with. The A's are clearly uninterested in it and if the Warriors aren't either, you're left with the Raiders (who have unapologetically made it known they are open to the best opportunity anywhere). 10 games isn't a good foundation for building the consistent traffic they are seeking for that type of development.
__________________
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
     
     
  #1122  
Old Posted Apr 2, 2012, 8:41 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 422
Any deal can be broken if a new deal is struck, but yes, it's odd that they'd suddenly be locking up a new 5-year agreement for parking now if development was imminent. They've been going month-to-month on the parking deal for nearly two years.

My understanding is that the Seawall Lot 337 development team is due to submit a new proposal to the port any time now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1123  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2012, 3:11 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 422
Following up on my post from two days ago, the Giants are holding a press conference today to show off their plans for Seawall Lot 337. Interestingly, an arena is not included in the plans, but they say they'd work to incorporate one should the Warriors express interest.

But construction on the plan as is, which includes 1000 rental units, 1.9 million sf of office space, and retail, is scheduled for 2015.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNUS1NUA5G.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1124  
Old Posted Apr 4, 2012, 3:30 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
Following up on my post from two days ago, the Giants are holding a press conference today to show off their plans for Seawall Lot 337. Interestingly, an arena is not included in the plans, but they say they'd work to incorporate one should the Warriors express interest.

But construction on the plan as is, which includes 1000 rental units, 1.9 million sf of office space, and retail, is scheduled for 2015.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNUS1NUA5G.DTL
My guess is that the meeting with David Stern went a little like this:

Bear: "So how much money will the NBA provide us to build an arena in SF?"

Stern: "None, the NBA wants to make money off of any stadium deal"

Bear: "Well so do the Giants, the NBA will make lots of money simply by being in SF rather than Oakland"

Stern: "Will the city of SF give us money to build the arena? we typically find a stupid city to give us cash"

Bear: "No"

Stern: "Well it looks like only one of us can make a killing on this project"

Bear: "Well, if anyone, its going to be us, happy hunting for that stupid city"
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1125  
Old Posted Apr 5, 2012, 6:33 AM
minesweeper minesweeper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 429
The Giants put up high res renderings here (same as the ones in that SFGate article): https://sfgiants.box.com/s/b78b1f9d466c55dd2849
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1126  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2012, 5:45 AM
homebucket homebucket is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 17
I like it! Looks like a mini Millennium Park/Santana Row hybrid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1127  
Old Posted Apr 6, 2012, 2:30 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 422
Small gallery of photos inside and from the UCSF hospital project.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...-hospital.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1128  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2012, 4:24 AM
timbad timbad is online now
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 743
2121 Third

copying this post by 1977 from the SF City Compilation thread, since it is close enough to count as within the MB orbit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1977 View Post
here is a shot from this afternoon showing that they've begun to clear the site. from the Illinois (aka 'back') side:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1129  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 1:38 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 422
Here's why the Giants' plan for Mission Bay didn't include a Warriors arena....the Warriors want to build one on Piers 30-32.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAQB1O0653.DTL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1130  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:39 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,566
^nice. I think that might be an even better location, as it's still close to AT&T park (I like the idea of multiple stadiums/arenas in one area), but is right beyond the edge of downtown, so it will be a bit easier to get to it by BART, and just as easy to get to by Caltrain or Muni as compared to the Giants project location.


And maybe I'm wrong, but I would guess this is good news for the giants proposal, as they won't have to potentially change their plans around in the future to accommodate an arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1131  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 4:48 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY/Bellevue, WA
Posts: 3,723
^Yeah, agreed, I like that location better than the Giants' location - especially if it means that we still get the proposed development at the Giants' piers along with finally (finally!) doing something with 30-32.

As long as they don't do something like propose a giant parking garage across the street (next to the Watermark).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1132  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 5:29 PM
rocketman_95046's Avatar
rocketman_95046 rocketman_95046 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SD/SJ, CA, USA
Posts: 1,718
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).
__________________
1,000 posts and still going...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1133  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 5:37 PM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 223
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). The freeway is right there but I can't imagine there being much parking since the area is pretty built up. I guess there is the T line, but lets not kid ourselves.

In retrospect, if they could have built the arena into the new transbay terminal that could have worked well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1134  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 6:42 PM
1977's Avatar
1977 1977 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 636
Wow, I think this could be amazing, but I have to agree with rocketman_95046...the NIMBYs will be out in full force! I would love to see some open space incorporated into the design so it could be enjoyed year round and possibly help damper some of the NIMBY opposition. We'll see...it's an exciting proposal none-the-less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1135  
Old Posted Apr 9, 2012, 6:53 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOPA View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman_95046 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1136  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 2:48 AM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
prediction time!

1. nimbys and environmentalists tangle this one up for years and it's never built.
2. the basketball team will stupidly try to score a big parking structure, earning them enemies from various sides among folks they should be working hard to mollify.
3. shooting for a crazy location like this instead of piggy-backing on the giants plans is going to require a completely visionary design and urban plan in order to get significant political buy-in, which it won't be.

you read it here first. no way this thing succeeds without crazy attention to the critics, a visionary design, and zero parking entitlements. which is something that no non-insane basketball ownership team would want to subject themselves to.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1137  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 4:37 AM
hruski hruski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 102
never gonna happen. there's no parking there, not much nightlife in the immediate vicinity (compare to att park), and an arena is not a good use of a pier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1138  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 2:06 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 422
Seems like arenas of that size typically come in around 100-120 feet high. Not huge, but definitely not inconsequential for being right on the water.

I'm also curious about functionality, being on a pier. Don't know much about arena operation, but don't they usually have some sort of underground access for loading and equipment. Wondering how that would work over the water...I guess just lift it up a bit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1139  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 3:03 PM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Twin Peaks, San Francisco
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
Seems like arenas of that size typically come in around 100-120 feet high. Not huge, but definitely not inconsequential for being right on the water.

I'm also curious about functionality, being on a pier. Don't know much about arena operation, but don't they usually have some sort of underground access for loading and equipment. Wondering how that would work over the water...I guess just lift it up a bit.
I also believe that this will never fly after all of the waterfront controversies we've had here for years. The Cron is even suggesting this morning that the Warriors could be using this as a bargaining chip for obtaining a new arena in Oakland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1140  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2012, 4:27 PM
flight_from_kamakura's Avatar
flight_from_kamakura flight_from_kamakura is offline
testify
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: san francisco and montreal
Posts: 1,319
yeah, if the basketball fellows were serious, it's hard to see how they didn't go with the giants and their partners, who are doing all the lifting. this location is so incredibly unlikely for a stadium that it's clearly just the team trying to make people think they're still serious about leaving oakland now that the giants proposal forced them to play some cards.
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 1:51 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.