Waterfront height-limit proponents praise Warriors arena move

|
(44)
Courtesy rendering by Steelblue

In another waterfront win, the Golden State Warriors have backed off their original arena site to another spot by the bay. 

Multiple news outlets are reporting the proposed Warriors arena is moving from its contentious and hotly debated waterfront location at Piers 30-32 to what is now the home of Salesforce, in Mission Bay, a move praised by opponents of height-exceeding waterfront devleopment.

The story was first reported by Joe Eskenazi of the SF Weekly, and within the hour the Chronicle and San Francisco Business Times reported the move as well. 

The Warriors' original proposed arena site drew almost as much fire as the 8 Washington luxury condo waterfront project, which was overwhelmingly rejected by voters last November. Those against 8 Washington, and against the original Warriors site, argued that voters should have the right to weigh in on projects that exceed height limits on the waterfront.

Advocates against both waterfront projects praised the Warriors' move.

“The Warriors have shifted to a smarter alternative because the people, not just the politicians, became involved in the process," said former mayor Art Agnos, in a press statement. "Passing Prop. B is the next step to ensure that every other waterfront developer understands that the voice of the voters matters.”

Becky Evans, Sierra Club Bay Chapter Chair, evoked the imagery used to garner opposition to 8 Washington in her praise of the move. "We thank the Warriors," she said, "for abandoning their wall on the waterfront."

Yet the bid to protect the public's views the bay doesn't end at the Warriors' arena

Yes on B is a June ballot initiative which would require waterfront projects exceeding height limits to seek voter approval. And importantly, the Warriors' arena is only one of three height-limit exceeding properties currently proposed for the waterfront. Two additional projects are a large housing and retail site proposed by the San Francisco Giants at Pier 48/Seawall Lot 337 and a mixed use office, residential, and retail project by Forest City at Pier 70. 

The reasons behind the Warriors' arena move are still as of yet unclear, and we were unable to reach Warriors spokespeople before press time. Sources close to the project however indicated the motivation behind the move is likely the obvious one: they didn't want to deal with the headache of fighting the opposition.

Salesforce recently announced a move to the new Transbay Tower in 2017, potentially leaving their site in Mission Bay vacant. The Warriors' arena move to the old Salesforce site represents a compromise it appears Mayor Ed Lee is happy to accept.

"I couldn’t be more thrilled to welcome the Golden State Warriors back home to San Francisco with a brand-new, privately-financed arena in Mission Bay," Lee wrote in a statement earlier today. "The new Mission Bay arena will generate new jobs and millions of dollars in new tax revenue for our City."

Jon Golinger, Campaign Co-Chair of No Wall on the Waterfront, viewed the news as a victory.

"When the public gets involved with deciding the future of our waterfront we get better results," he wrote in a press statement. "Passing Prop B is the only way to be sure that other crazy Port Commission schemes like the Giants’ plans to build 380 foot tall towers for luxury condos on waterfront open space, zoned for a public park, also gets the public scrutiny needed to turn them into sensible projects worthy of our unique waterfront.”

Comments

Like progressives.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 5:33 pm

Like "moderates." I guess city politics is boring when you don't get what you want.

Really, though, I had no idea what game these warriors even played until I read your comment. Whether they win or lose their silly ballgame has no bearing whatsoever on my life or anybody else's.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 7:30 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 9:59 am

is that I don't watch mind-numbing sports games.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:41 am

Is your political extremism an over-compensation for your lack of physical and personal prowess?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 8:56 pm

You're right. It does say a lot:

"their silly ballgame has no bearing whatsoever on my life or anybody else's"

Meanwhile, back on planet earth thousands of people pack the arena to have a good time with friends and families cheering for the bay area team. Black kids get to see people who look like them being treated as heroes.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 12:31 pm

Sound racist much? Like black men are the only ones playing basketball or any other sport for that matter. Men (and women) of ALL races play basketball. I grew up in an area where you rarely saw anyone who wasn't of white Scandinavian or European decent and we still had basketball.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 9:58 am

It's the anti-hockey.

So voting NO on the stadium is clearly racist.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 26, 2014 @ 10:57 am

so we can afford the $200 million it'll cost to fix the piers.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 6:05 pm

Pushing back works.

Posted by marcos on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 6:19 pm

It has never been a question but that the screechiest, whiniest, most inflammatory and demanding -- left or right --- are the ones who are getting their way in this world.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 9:12 pm

Be happy, troll. This is a good compromise for your side. It won't destroy the best part of the waterfront like you want, but I'm sure it'll ruin somebody's view. It'll still cause massive traffic problems, and I'm sure taxpayers will wind up footing part of the bill one way or another, just like you want. Don't despair, troll. I've yet to see a stadium anywhere wind up being a good deal for a city, and I'm sure this one will be no different.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 7:37 am

>"I've yet to see a stadium anywhere wind up being a good deal for a city"

Really? AT&T Park isn't good for San Francisco?

Or were you just saying whatever you wanted without any regard for the truth?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 8:16 am

How so? It's a dump right now.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 9:57 am

We accept this as another battle won, even though we anticipate future "unintended consequences". That is the buzz phrase for the month, and the excuse for doing or not doing many things.
The most important part of those unintended consequences is to not ignore them when they stick their little heads up and introduce themselves.
Just because the voters got conned into accepting something once does not mean they can't change their minds and turn unacceptable consequences into a bad memory.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 2:18 pm

We accept this as another battle won, even though we anticipate future "unintended consequences". That is the buzz phrase for the month, and the excuse for doing or not doing many things.
The most important part of those unintended consequences is to not ignore them when they stick their little heads up and introduce themselves.
Just because the voters got conned into accepting something once does not mean they can't change their minds and turn unacceptable consequences into a bad memory.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 2:23 pm

What's it like to hate everything?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 10:00 am

The piers will rot into the bay. They've being doing that for years, nothing to stop them now. It wouldn't be prudent to spend a dime on them if you're not allowed to build anything on them. At some point someone will propose tearing them down, but no one will come up with the money.

Posted by Luc on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 6:20 pm

I like 'em just fine over there and San Francisco's Mission Bay and Soma neighborhoods don't need another 80 days of screwed-up traffic from Warrior's games.

Posted by lillipublicans on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 9:46 pm

Because the owners want to maximize their investment. Duh... Look at what happened when the Giants got their new stadium downtown.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 10:19 pm

Oakland supported the Warriors when they didn't deserve it. The Oracle Arena is one of the best in the NBA. It is convenient for most of the Bay Area. This is worse than the Yorks moving the 49ers to Santa Clara.

Posted by Richmondman on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:01 am

But there is nothing to do around Oracle. That's why Oakland was originally trying to have the Warriors, A's, and Raiders move near Jack London Square. They saw the revitalization of the area around AT&T and wanted the same thing for Oakland.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 4:23 pm

The last thing it needs is a big, ugly stadium. I was just there on Sunday. It's much more pleasant than the area around AT&T.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 9:36 pm

They have murders. We don't.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 9:46 pm

We don't have murders in San Francisco?

And you're saying that stadiums prevent murders?

Having a Warriors stadium hasn't helped Oakland much in that respect, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, the comment still stands. The area around AT&T is deserted when there is no game. It makes for peaceful biking turf, but not much else. By contrast, the Jack London Square is vibrant. A stadium would destroy the area. Thank goodness they were smart enough not to build the thing there.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:22 pm

Deserted is ridiculous hyperbole. More people live in the vicinity of ATT park than live in the vicinity of Jack london square.

You're a troll.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 9:15 am

He thinks that Oakland doesn't have a murder problem.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 9:35 am

Where does he say that? And how is he a troll?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 11:11 am

How is calling the area around ATT park, where thousands of people live "deserted" - not being a troll?

He knows the area isn't deserted, yet he says it is to spark outrage = troll

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 2:30 pm
Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 3:22 pm

Saying this:
"They [Oakland] have murders. We don't. "

Then claiming that Greg says that Oakland does not have any murders, when he said nothing of the sort, while YOU(!) said that San Francisco has no murders.

That is trolling at its finest.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

Another NIMBY win for the city with the highest housing costs in the country. There really is nothing the NIMBYS in this town can't stop.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 21, 2014 @ 10:05 pm

I'm glad someone did. Yes, it's good that it won't mess up that part of the waterfront anymore. And it's good that it'll be privately funded and it supposedly won't cost the taxpayers any money like some other stadium boondoggles (although I'm still skeptical about that). But frankly, why do we need it at all?

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 7:24 am

I don't like sports because I'm kind of a sissy.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 7:50 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 9:58 am

Not to mention the vast majority of the Warriors.

Posted by Greg on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:43 am
Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 8:57 pm

How does it show?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 11:13 am

Frankly why do we need anything? Lets just sit by our miserable selves in the dark, satisfied that we have stopped another change in SF

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 9:45 am

This comment says it all - this is a private development on private land (vs. the previous proposal which was on public land). Yet Greg believes it all belongs to HIM and HE should have a say in everything.

This neatly encapsulates what's wrong with progressives these days: they want their finger in everyone's business and they want to control everything - much like conservatives.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 11:51 am

And he had his youthful beauty and ex-lover returned to him within 48 hours. You can too!

Posted by Guest on Apr. 22, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

So a big stadium will now take up valuable land where housing could be built instead of someplace that's even more expensive to build and housing will never get built.

The same "progressives" complain incessantly that rents are out of control and you can't afford to buy a place in SF, yet you turn out in droves when a developer wants to build tall condo or rental buildings, sue, and drive up the price of what ends up getting built even further.

Something's gotta give, and unfortunately it will be prices, which will continue to rise.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 9:22 am

that means building less below-market affordable homes.

Amazing, but true, sadly.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 9:44 am

Mission bay does not have the infrastructure to support the type of influx of thousands of people for games. It is isolated, and only two tiny bridges to get there, from downtown. This will be a disaster, guaranteed.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.