SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   SAN FRANCISCO | Golden State Warriors Arena (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199507)

gholgado Apr 28, 2014 4:42 AM

I was honestly REALLY bummed out once I found out that Pier 30/32 plan fell apart. That site would've easily made it the most spectacular-looking venue in all of sports with its breathtaking views.

However, I always look at the positive side of things. That being said, Mission Bay needs this arena more than the Embarcadero needs this arena.

The Embarcadero is already a crowded and thriving corridor filled with nice waterfront restaurants, exploratorium, and ferry building. Without the arena, Mission Bay will just be a luxury condo district surrounded by Biotech companies and hospitals. This arena, without a doubt, will be a lightning rod to attract high-end restaurants, retail, and most importantly, increased foot traffic. SF lacks a sports entertainment/nightlife district and MB will be the best place in the city to develop it in.

This development will easily be passed with very little opposition from neighbors as it is a more inland site and will trigger the development of an adjacent 5.5 acre park. I am really looking forward to the new renderings of the arena and surrounding entertainment venues.

I've been following this development since Day 1, and I will definitely be there at the ribbon cutting.

LETS GO SAN FRANCISCO WARRIORS!

timbad Apr 28, 2014 6:12 AM

as with most people, it seems, the MB site looks like an awkward fit to me. on three sides you have biotech buildings and a medical university campus - there is only one parcel not already built on or spoken for, so it's not like the arena is going to change its surroundings significantly. there is the nice tie-in to the bayfront park (which would have been put in whether the arena was there or not), but if the arena can't be on the Embarcadero, I would have preferred the Giants' Mission Rock site, because *that* is where the sports entertainment district will be (and is closer to Caltrain).

viewguysf Apr 28, 2014 6:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timbad (Post 6555965)
as with most people, it seems, the MB site looks like an awkward fit to me. on three sides you have biotech buildings and a medical university campus - there is only one parcel not already built on or spoken for, so it's not like the arena is going to change its surroundings significantly. there is the nice tie-in to the bayfront park (which would have been put in whether the arena was there or not), but if the arena can't be on the Embarcadero, I would have preferred the Giants' Mission Rock site, because *that* is where the sports entertainment district will be (and is closer to Caltrain).

I agree timbad--it would have been a natural partner to AT&T Park, while it won't be that to the UCSF hospital.

Enigmatism415 May 10, 2014 3:51 PM

If they bury the railway tracks and truncate 280 to 16th street, then the neighborhood above that street might just turn out to be nice after all.

timbad Aug 1, 2014 3:58 AM

towers!
 
socketsite mentions that Warriors are planning to add a couple of 120-foot office 'towers' to the Third St side of their parcel. (note this means they will still not rise above the 125-foot top of the arena itself.) Snøhetta still on design team

Rail>Auto Aug 1, 2014 6:01 PM

I can't wait to see the new renders. I hope they're better than the dull and boring ones on the pier. I know this lot is set back a little ways but it'd still be nice if they could find a way to juxtapose the arena over the bay.

peanut gallery Aug 15, 2014 7:51 AM

No renderings yet, but they've released a diagram of the site layout and other new details. This is from The Examiner:

Quote:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/imager/the.../Site_Plan.jpg

Warriors arena conceptual plan includes 2 office towers, plazas, retail space
By Jonah Owen Lamb

Plazas and multilevel walkways lined with restaurants and trees, all straddled by two office towers, is what could await fans on game days as they enter the new home of the Warriors in San Francisco.

……

The arena itself, slated to be 135 feet high at its tallest point -- a height that will need a variance along the waterfront -- will seat 18,000 people, the same size as the former site along The Embarcadero.

Two 160-foot office towers will stand to the west of the arena and at ground level, anywhere from 55,000 to 95,000 square feet of retail space will be available.

Parking will be provided below ground in a 700-car lot with two access points on the north and south ends of the site. All arena-related functions will be accessible through the two entrances to the underground garage.

The $1 billion project, which will be financed privately, is slated to be ready for the 2018-19 NBA season.

Rail>Auto Aug 15, 2014 11:55 AM

I know this is just a rough draft but it looks like they are going back to that boring circle design again that looks like the bastard child of the BOK Center & American Airlines Arena.

If they are going the complex route it'd be nice if they would do something like the original barclays center design where the buildings connected to a park on top of the arena.

I wonder if there's someway they can move the upper level of the arena farther over the bay.

WildCowboy Aug 15, 2014 2:29 PM

There's a road and a park between the arena and the bay. Probably a couple hundred feet between the arena and the water.

peanut gallery Aug 15, 2014 4:43 PM

We'll need to wait for the detailed renderings later in the fall to really assess how it will look. For now, we can just get a sense of the layout and size of public space. The SF Business Journal has a few additional comments on that:

Quote:

Dykers said he hoped the site would be somewhat reminiscent of the Piazza del Campo in Siena, Italy.

“The basic idea is to avoid building out to the property line,” Dykers said. “We really want that outdoor space by the arena to be a key feature, a defining feature. The outside spaces, the spaces between the buildings are as important as the buildings themselves.”

The main plaza area by the arena would be comparable in size to San Francisco’s Union Square.

Building heights would conform to existing limits at the site, team officials said.
That last sentence contradicts what was said in the Examiner. Anyone know for sure if this requires any special approvals to move forward (other than the normal approval process)?

fflint Aug 16, 2014 12:13 AM

160' sounds about right for that parcel--IIRC, the UCSF residence halls across Third Street are that tall.

It's going to be weird to have a big arena across the street from a research university and catty-corner from a major teaching hospital. Mission Bay certainly is a mash-up of urban uses!

rriojas71 Aug 16, 2014 2:18 AM

The one thing I always felt that SF severely lacked was a sizeable arena. Also knowing that it can hosts many events other than sports, like concerts or various forms of live performances will help energize the area.

I'm definitely interested in what kind of vibe the area develops into after it gets built. I'm thinking some of South Beach will spill over into the area if the project is done right. Imagine what the area could be on a nice night while both teams are playing.

WildCowboy Aug 16, 2014 1:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6692963)
160' sounds about right for that parcel--IIRC, the UCSF residence halls across Third Street are that tall.

UCSF's housing tower is about 125 feet if I recall correctly. They originally wanted to go to 155, but the Potrero Hill folks thought it would block their water view too much so they got John Burton to threaten to hold the entire UC budget hostage unless UCSF lowered the height.

Never mind that the site directly across Third from the housing tower is also zoned for 160 feet.

Now, as for the zoning guidelines for the arena site itself, it's blocks 29-32 on the map below, part of zone HZ-5. The eastern shaded portion of the site (blocks 30 and 32) has a max height of 90 feet.

As a whole, HZ-5 has a height limit of 90 feet over 93 percent of the developable area, with the remaining 7 percent allowed to go up to 160 feet, intended to allow for signature skinny towers at major points. Now, I don't believe anything else in HZ-5 has exceeded 90 feet, so I'm not sure whether the arena can "claim" the entire allotment of higher limit for itself.

http://i60.tinypic.com/29glxl4.jpg

timbad Aug 16, 2014 3:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6692963)
...

It's going to be weird to have a big arena across the street from a research university and catty-corner from a major teaching hospital. Mission Bay certainly is a mash-up of urban uses!

weird is right. in isolation, having the arena between a major street like Third and a bayfront park is great, but I just don't see how this use will fit with the already-existing surroundings.

one example: after UCSF made an effort to improve vehicle circulation around the medical center, I wonder if they will worry about the impact the arena will have on event days.

too bad the Warriors couldn't have worked out something with the Giants to put it up the street on their parcel, where the function aligns better and transit is more accessible.

LWR Aug 19, 2014 4:53 AM

Know what I think? (probably not)...
I think we better start building more bridges and widen freeways if we want all that traffic into SF over the next 50 years! :runaway:

fflint Aug 19, 2014 8:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LWR (Post 6696576)
Know what I think? (probably not)...
I think we better start building more bridges and widen freeways if we want all that traffic into SF over the next 50 years! :runaway:

Nope. Run away indeed--your ideas are bad, and you should feel bad.

There won't be any additional bridges for car traffic or widened "free"ways in San Francisco (they're not free) because the young generations don't obsess exclusively on private car travel like our dipshit hippie elders did.

Exclusive roadways for cars are neither free nor affordable nor sustainable. Car-obsessed hippies should take BART and Muni, instead of complaining about how every other elder drove to the Paul McCartney concert and somehow gridlock ensued.

Boohoo! I drove my private car to the show, like all my lazy generation did, and I got stuck in traffic!!! Whaaaaaa! It's everyone's fault but mine!

#cars-first asshole
#the worst generation
#if you complain about traffic you are part of the problem

cv94117 Aug 19, 2014 3:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 6696663)
Nope. Run away indeed--your ideas are bad, and you should feel bad.

There won't be any additional bridges for car traffic or widened "free"ways in San Francisco (they're not free) because the young generations don't obsess exclusively on private car travel like our dipshit hippie elders did.

Exclusive roadways for cars are neither free nor affordable nor sustainable. Car-obsessed hippies should take BART and Muni, instead of complaining about how every other elder drove to the Paul McCartney concert and somehow gridlock ensued.

Boohoo! I drove my private car to the show, like all my lazy generation did, and I got stuck in traffic!!! Whaaaaaa! It's everyone's fault but mine!

#cars-first asshole
#the worst generation
#if you complain about traffic you are part of the problem

Jeez, hate much? I know his position may be unpopular with many, but that was totally uncalled for - on many levels. You can state your disagreement in a civil manner without resorting to name calling and sweeping generalization of an entire generation. Watch out, some day some younger generation might have the same attitude toward you.

a very long weekend Aug 19, 2014 4:16 PM

no way, totally appropriate response to knee-jerk know-nothingism. go fflint.

fimiak Aug 19, 2014 6:10 PM

Cars are evil. Building more bridges to SF would mean more traffic on the streets, not less. Something the old generation always forgets is in 1950 the US had about 150 million people and today it has over 310 million people.....public transit is NECESSARY and having two vehicles per person is IMPOSSIBLE in this century simply due to population growth. By 2050 we will have over 400 million so the problems are only getting worse.

What the city needs is massive levels of public transit investment, and not just fast bus lanes but actual subways. I still want the central subway to continue to fishermans wharf and back down van ness...instead of wasting $400 million on building a bus lane on van ness. Then the line can swoop back east and create another tunnel under Oakland! Ok that will never happen but I can dream.

mt_climber13 Aug 19, 2014 6:25 PM

:offtopic:


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.