HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2014, 5:31 AM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folks3000 View Post
I will never understand the issue with this arena. It is within walking distance of a Muni light rail route, the future Central Subway, Caltrain, BART, the future Transbay Terminal with buses to everywhere, the SF Ferry Building with ferries to everywhere else. It has better transportation that 90% of stadiums in the US (especially the new one in South Bay), and yet all I hear are these arguments about traffic. I mean, if the traffic does turn out to be that bad (which I kind of doubt) it will just give an incentive for people not to drive to the stadium the next time. They certainly have a multitude of options most cities would kill for. Do all the people who live around the area drive cars? If I lived in South Beach I certainly wouldn't care about "my" roads getting congested because I'd probably never drive on them anyways. Downtown SF is the focal point of the SF Bay Area, it will be congested with traffic stadium or no stadium, so wouldn't it be better to have an awesome sports and concert venue than a decaying pier?
I second the
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2014, 6:49 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,267
OK I understand your arguments about it being close to transportation and hotels. But what I never understand is why people become emotionally invested in a particular location as if it's the only place it could go. If they had suggested a different location first - say on top of the rail lines at 7th and Townsend then people would insist that this is the best place for it. I think Pier 30 is a dead deal. Fighting for it is a waste of energy. By the time people finally accept that the team will be moving into it's new arena in downtown San Jose.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2014, 6:05 PM
timbad timbad is offline
heavy user of walkability
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mission Bay, San Francisco
Posts: 2,436
waterfront measure tricks

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2014, 2:05 PM
WildCowboy WildCowboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 506
Warriors plan to press ahead with the Piers 30-32 as their preferred plan, taking it to the voters if required. They've also brought their hotel/condo project across the street down to the current 105 foot height limit.

The two Mission Bay sites remain in play, however.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier...to-5342857.php
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2014, 11:12 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,267
I can't be the only one who thinks this toilet bowl arena is fugly. Also I think the whole idea of putting it out on the piers is kind of stupid. It would be a real shame if SF got more restrictive about it's waterfront development all because of this dog.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 8:36 PM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 347
Waterfront arena is dead. The team has bought Salesforce's old Mission Bay property.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...#photo-6195065
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 8:47 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,273
It's getting built. But what a BORING neighborhood!

"I'm hungry, let's go get a bite to eat and a cranberry juice from the hospital food court!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 9:03 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,115
Hm, that's a pretty terrible location for transit connections (at least compared to piers 30/32 and even Mission Rock).

Should be interesting to see how this works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 9:15 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,273
If the city would do anything about the completely inept, pathetic, embarrassing state of the light rail subway system transit would actually WORK in SF instead of being a burden. Two car trains that travel an average of 15 mph is no way to operate in the 2nd densest city in the U.S. The MTA in their genius bought Breda trains that were too heavy for the tracks. The trains were supposed to operate at 55 mph but have to be slowed down to 30 mph max because of this. It's also why you hear those terrible blood curdling squeals whenever they turn. (source links http://www.sfweekly.com/1998-12-09/n...rding-failure/) It's actually a pretty decent transit location- when the Central Subway is open it will be within walking distance to this stadium, and will shoot right to the BART station. It will be much more connected here than the current Warriors stadium. The question is- will it be able to handle the capacity?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 9:33 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,115
The T can't handle significantly higher capacity, regardless of the trains. It's a surface light rail system with stations designed for 1 or 2 car trains. Even if that could somehow be fixed (stations rebuilt, some kind of system to allow blocking intersections when stopped, etc), the Central Subway is being built with underground stations not designed to handle longer trains, so...

I don't really see how this location would be more connected than the current Warriors location in Oakland. More central to the fanbase (maybe?) and within a walkable neighborhood, sure, but a high capacity heavy rail line stops right at the current location. That was the beauty of the pier 30/32 location - BART a short walk away + various Muni options + Caltrain. This is basically some Muni options + Caltrain a reasonable walk away. BART is two miles away, which is a bit far to really depend on to handle heavy loads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 10:10 PM
mt_climber13 mt_climber13 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,273
It might ignite further high rise development in Mission Bay.

Oh yeah, it's already 10 story hospitals and parking garages.

Huge lost opportunity to be centrally located. But at least there will be an arena. Look forward to the concerts and parties! (not a big basketball fan)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 10:22 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
The T can't handle significantly higher capacity, regardless of the trains. It's a surface light rail system with stations designed for 1 or 2 car trains. Even if that could somehow be fixed (stations rebuilt, some kind of system to allow blocking intersections when stopped, etc), the Central Subway is being built with underground stations not designed to handle longer trains, so...

I don't really see how this location would be more connected than the current Warriors location in Oakland. More central to the fanbase (maybe?) and within a walkable neighborhood, sure, but a high capacity heavy rail line stops right at the current location. That was the beauty of the pier 30/32 location - BART a short walk away + various Muni options + Caltrain. This is basically some Muni options + Caltrain a reasonable walk away. BART is two miles away, which is a bit far to really depend on to handle heavy loads.
IIRC, Muni plans to move to a peak 4 minute headway on the T once the Central Subway was complete. While definitely not optimal they should be able to surge T service for a short period out of the Metro East complex when required. Boarding outside the arena will surely need to be addressed though. It's definitely not as good as the pier but not a disaster.

I'm sort of hoping that people will hang around before and after events to give this area some much needed street life and retail a major boost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 10:45 PM
OhioGuy OhioGuy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 7,196
Too bad. It was a potentially exciting proposal for Piers 30-32. Are the NIMBYs in San Francisco some of the most effective NIMBYs in the country, at least in their abilities to prevent development? Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 10:54 PM
theskythelimit theskythelimit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 77
Being within walking distance from the Bay, I can imagine a Ferry service from the East Bay to this site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 11:13 PM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
IIRC, Muni plans to move to a peak 4 minute headway on the T once the Central Subway was complete. While definitely not optimal they should be able to surge T service for a short period out of the Metro East complex when required. Boarding outside the arena will surely need to be addressed though. It's definitely not as good as the pier but not a disaster.

I'm sort of hoping that people will hang around before and after events to give this area some much needed street life and retail a major boost.
I'll believe the "peak 4 minute headway" when I see it. They've long stated that at meetings, but never addressed the fact that they simply don't have enough trains in the system to make that kind of headway happen with taking SIGNIFICANT service away from other lines. (There's also simply the fact that four minute headways on a mostly-above-ground line is legitimately hard to pull off in any kind of reliable way).

Maybe they have some secret capital purchase plan...it would be nice to see it!

If you live along the T, I'd prepare for horrendous commutes once this thing opens, since many if not most of the planned 150+ events per year will land right in commute times...

What a lost opportunity with piers 30/32. That really is the most transit-friendly location for an arena west of the Mississippi, it's a shame that it'll stay rotting and empty. Maybe it can be used for office space or something else at least.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2014, 11:44 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordo View Post
I'll believe the "peak 4 minute headway" when I see it. They've long stated that at meetings, but never addressed the fact that they simply don't have enough trains in the system to make that kind of headway happen with taking SIGNIFICANT service away from other lines. (There's also simply the fact that four minute headways on a mostly-above-ground line is legitimately hard to pull off in any kind of reliable way).

Maybe they have some secret capital purchase plan...it would be nice to see it!

If you live along the T, I'd prepare for horrendous commutes once this thing opens, since many if not most of the planned 150+ events per year will land right in commute times...

What a lost opportunity with piers 30/32. That really is the most transit-friendly location for an arena west of the Mississippi, it's a shame that it'll stay rotting and empty. Maybe it can be used for office space or something else at least.
Muni is supposed to get the first couple batches of new rail cars concurrent with the opening of the Central Subway. Fortunately Breda has been disqualified from bidding.

Ferry service and bus circulators to bart stations should probably be looked at as well to help spread the load.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 12:44 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,115
^The last I had heard those were replacement vehicles rather than adding to the total number? I could be wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 3:37 AM
viewguysf's Avatar
viewguysf viewguysf is offline
Upper Noe Valley & Castro
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
Too bad. It was a potentially exciting proposal for Piers 30-32. Are the NIMBYs in San Francisco some of the most effective NIMBYs in the country, at least in their abilities to prevent development? Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?
No, not always, but the waterfront is considered to be "sacred"--we really need to accept that and move on because it's not going to change any time soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 4:45 AM
NOPA NOPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New York City
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
Too bad. It was a potentially exciting proposal for Piers 30-32. Are the NIMBYs in San Francisco some of the most effective NIMBYs in the country, at least in their abilities to prevent development? Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?
Yes the NIMBYs here are professionals. Heaven forbid you try to build anything in this city, cause they will cut a bitch.

Also, SF law lends itself to be easily manipulated by NIMBYs. For one, building permits are discretionary, even after the city has done a neighborhood planning and rezoning process, each project still needs to get individually green lighted. NIMBYs can appeal projects at several levels and then file a CEQA lawsuit if they are still feeling super cunty. Even after that you can do a ballot initative which is what was going to happen to this and what killed 8 Washington.

With that said, I'm actually dissapointed with this site. I heard a suggestion of bundeling this project into the Moscone Center Expansion, which would make it more of a demo and rebuild, but at least it that location is better connected to transit and more centrally located. And of course ironically the waterfront is now a mere 100 feet or so away.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Apr 22, 2014, 4:48 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioGuy View Post
Or is it simply the ease with which Californians seem to be able to push a public vote on seemingly anything (even if only a minority of people actually disapprove)?
Ah it's called democracy. I understand you guys in DC might not be too familiar with the concept :-)

Last edited by ozone; Apr 22, 2014 at 5:03 AM.
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 6:50 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.