Bay Area Sports Centre

[Cal_Escapee]

The preliminary Snohetta design for the Pier 32 Warriors arena:

The proposed arena would rise 135 feet (AT&T Park is 183 feet to the light standard, 132 feet to the top of the seating bowl) and seat 17,500 (Oracle Arena seats 19,596).

Other key arena facts ;

Venue Footprint: 170,000 square feet
Venue Total Square Footage: 740,000 square feet
Community Event Room: 10,000 square feet
Retail: 105,000 square feet
Parking Spaces: approximately 630 covered by tiered landscaping (Piers 30-32 currently parks 1,500 cars out in the open)

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...s_30.html#more

The last picture with the Bay Bridge tower appearing at the top of the stairs just makes me swoon. The usual contingent of NIMBYs will sure come out to oppose this, but we must overcome them.

[612bv3]

I can't understand why someone wouldn't want to live near that. It's beautiful!

From what I can make out from the renders. The entrance will be right on the Embarcadero and the venue plaza, event lawn, etc is the roof for the walkaway that leads into the arena.

[krudmonk]

It's lacking an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House, the comparison we were given back in May. That looks more like it belongs on a blighted block in the middle of town, like that Disney building in LA.

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

It's lacking an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House, the comparison we were given back in May. That looks more like it belongs on a blighted block in the middle of town, like that Disney building in LA.

The Snohetta opera house is in Oslo, not Sydney and the steps down to the water resemble that (they are also doing the SFMOMA addition). That is the signature feature of both beautiful buildings. And these renderings are preliminary. They will be refined.

You sound like you think it belongs in . . . San Jose. Never happen.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee

The Snohetta opera house is in Oslo, not Sydney and the steps down to the water resemble that (they are also doing the SFMOMA addition). That is the signature feature of both beautiful buildings. And these renderings are preliminary. They will be refined.

You sound like you think it belongs in . . . San Jose. Never happen.

First of all, what the fuck does this have to do with San Jose? If anything, a Warriors arena belongs in Oakland, where they sell tickets even though the team has mostly sucked forever.

Second, when the location was originally announced, the waterfront location was likened to Sydney opera house on Port Jackson. My comment has nothing to do with the designers or their other projects, as they were announced well after the fact.

Last, this will only make the Bay Bridge look even better by comparison. That has a bold and distinct look; whereas, this arena looks like a building that melted in the sun. Conversely, the aforementioned Sydney opera house is so iconic in shape that it was worked into the Swans logo.

Wasted opportunity, that's all.

[612bv3]

I never heard it likened to the Sydney Opera House. Once they announced Snohetta was designing it, a lot people started talking about the Oslo Opera House. I find it funny that you think "a building that melted in the sun" is not a bold and distinct look.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by 612bv3

I never heard it likened to the Sydney Opera House. Once they announced Snohetta was designing it, a lot people started talking about the Oslo Opera House. I find it funny that you think "a building that melted in the sun" is not a bold and distinct look.

What is not getting trough here? Snohetta was announced months after the waterfront location.

[612bv3]

So they likened the location to the Sydney Opera House. I will admit they are very similar, but lacking a silhouette like the Sydney Opera House does not make this less amazing. I don't understand how this would "belong in a blighted block in the middle of town."

[techniques1200s]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

First of all, what the fuck does this have to do with San Jose? If anything, a Warriors arena belongs in Oakland, where they sell tickets even though the team has mostly sucked forever.

Second, when the location was originally announced, the waterfront location was likened to Sydney opera house on Port Jackson. My comment has nothing to do with the designers or their other projects, as they were announced well after the fact.

Last, this will only make the Bay Bridge look even better by comparison. That has a bold and distinct look; whereas, this arena looks like a building that melted in the sun. Conversely, the aforementioned Sydney opera house is so iconic in shape that it was worked into the Swans logo.

Wasted opportunity, that's all.

How do the warriors "belong" in Oakland but not SF, why would you hate this arena because it "doesn't have an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House" (that's pure opinion, and never mind the fact this is a preliminary design, and the comparison to the Sydney opera house was based on the prominent waterfront location, not the design itself, which didn't even exist yet, and still doesn't exist in any finalized form), and why do you hate the location for the arena?

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by 612bv3

So they likened the location to the Sydney Opera House. I will admit they are very similar, but lacking a silhouette like the Sydney Opera House does not make this less amazing. I don't understand how this would "belong in a blighted block in the middle of town."

Okay, that last part I was apparently very unclear on. I don't mean that it looks like a piece of crap, and thus belongs in a blighted neighborhood. The point was that something smooth/shiny/modern would stand out more amidst older, traditional buildings. On the water, which is already smooth and shiny most of the time, it doesn't play to the same effect as the ferry building, for example. Maybe I prefer contrast more than others.

Originally Posted by techniques1200s

How do the warriors "belong" in Oakland but not SF, why would you hate this arena because it "doesn't have an iconic silhouette like the Sydney Opera House" (that's pure opinion, and never mind the fact this is a preliminary design, and the comparison to the Sydney opera house was based on the prominent waterfront location, not the design itself, which didn't even exist yet, and still doesn't exist in any finalized form), and why do you hate the location for the arena?

They "belong," like any sports team, where they've been supported well for decades, that's all. I'm not doubting they'll do fine in appealing to the demographics they intend to, and still transfer over some current fans. The new San Francisco Warriors won't be a flop.

That said, I do not "hate" this design, nor its location. However, the location is only comparable to Sydney harbor as the building itself itself juxtaposed against it. In this case, as I explained above, the two designs go very different directions. Say all you want about the official status of such comparisons in the first place, all of which is true, but I never intended to hold the architects to some sort of promise.

[ElDudarinodotcom]

Keep in mind that this is no where near the final arena design. This is more of just a preliminary design placeholder. More time was spent on the layout of the piers and the surrounding infrastructure than the design of the arena itself. We may want to wait until a more polished rendering is released before we crucify the plan.

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by 612bv3

I never heard it likened to the Sydney Opera House. Once they announced Snohetta was designing it, a lot people started talking about the Oslo Opera House. I find it funny that you think "a building that melted in the sun" is not a bold and distinct look.

Neither did I. But hope WAS expressed that it would show a familial connection to the other Snohetta waterfront design, the OSLO opera house:


http://www.archdaily.com/440/oslo-opera-house-snohetta/

And never expect Krudmonk to say anything positive about anything, much less a building in San Francisco. This arena is beautiful in concept and will be beautiful in final design, his misanthropic opinions notwithstanding.

[Cal_Escapee]

Originally Posted by techniques1200s

How do the warriors "belong" in Oakland but not SF . . . .

The Warriors belong where they want to be, just as the 49ers do. All I personally care about is that the tax money going into the business of sports franchises is minimized. But if they are using their own money, where they play is up to them and the planning/zoning/permitting authorities.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Cal_Escapee

And never expect Krudmonk to say anything positive about anything, much less a building in San Francisco. This arena is beautiful in concept and will be beautiful in final design, his misanthropic opinions notwithstanding.

Oh fucking christ....


p.s. the 49ers "belong" up there and the Oslo opera house looks a thousand times better than the proposed arena

[Cal_Escapee]

Warriors see 200-room hotel near new arena
Friday, November 16, 2012, 3:00am PST
Eric Young

The extent of the Golden State Warriors’ proposed development in San Francisco is coming into sharper focus with the team giving more details about what it may build in addition to a new arena.

Along with a 17,500-seat arena on Piers 30-32, the Warriors also plan to build across from the Embarcadero on a 2.3-acre site at Beale and Bryant streets. That site, called Seawall Lot 330, would host 34,000 square feet of retail, enough parking for 200 cars, up to 125 condominiums and a hotel with 200 rooms.

The Warriors have said the team has not finalized its plans for the plot of land and the precise makeup of the project could still change . . . .

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...-near-new.html

[krudmonk]

Oh, they're just real estate developers, they don't care about sports, blah blah blah...

[Cal_Escapee]

Timeline And Key Milestones For Building The Warriors Arena In SF

The official project schedule, key dates, and milestones for building an arena upon San Francisco’s Piers 30-32 for the Golden State Warriors in time for the 2017-18 NBA season with construction proposed to start in the summer of 2014 and finish three years later:

∙ October 2012: Homeowner Association Meetings and Public Outreach
∙ October 16, 2012: Conceptual Drawings, Framework and Fiscal Feasibility Presentation
∙ October 23, 2012: Port Commission Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 20, 2012: Board of Supervisors Action on Framework and Fiscal Feasibility
∙ November 21, 2012: Notice of Preparation for EIR issued by Planning Department
∙ December 2012 thru 2013: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Design Review Board (DRB) Hearings
∙ January/February 2013: Port Commission Hearing and Action on Term Sheet
∙ January/February 2013: Board of Supervisors Action on Term Sheet
∙ Summer 2013: Planning Commission Hearings: Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
∙ Late Fall 2013: Certification of EIR; adoption of Zoning and General Plan
Amendments and approval of Conditional Use permits if required
∙ January – April 2014: Board of Supervisors Action on Transaction Document
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC DRB Action on Project Design
∙ January – April 2014: BCDC Major Permit & Public Trust Consistency
∙ January – April 2014: Other regulatory approvals
∙ Summer 2014: Proposed Start Construction
∙ Summer 2017: Proposed Complete Construction

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ent_of_pi.html

Board Of Supervisors Unanimously Approve Warriors Arena Resolution
Having been endorsed by their Budget and Finance Committee last week and right on schedule, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors has unanimously approved the resolution backing the proposed financial framework for the rehabilitation of Piers 30-32 and development of the proposed Golden State Warriors arena upon the site.

San Francisco’s Planning Department can now officially start work on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) necessary for the billion dollar arena to rise. The EIR is scheduled to be ready for review by summer 2013 . . . .

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...ors_arena.html

[Cal_Escapee]

The Conceptual Details And Design Discussion For Seawall 330

As roughly outlined in the endorsed Financial Framework for the Golden State Warriors proposed arena upon Piers 30-32, the preliminary plan for the development of Seawall (SWL) 330 across from the arena calls for two buildings rising up to 150 feet, one of which would be residential with up to 130 units and the other a hotel with up to 250 rooms, up to 300 parking spaces, and 33,000 square feet of retail at the base of the buildings.

http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2...or_seawal.html

[Aaron W]

Oakland A's: Camp issues

The A's are seeking a five-year extension at the Coliseum. They need a place to stay, but five years? Maybe they've given up waiting for commissioner Bud Selig to act on the club's desire to move to San Jose or to retire and leave the decision to someone else.

[pesto]

I'm not current on this, but last I heard the theory is that Cisco Field won't start for at least a year and will take over two years to build (it's in a downtown setting, surrounded by homes, a train station and HP Pavilion so building won't go as fast as 49er Stadium). That means 4 years likely before occupancy. You add one year as a cushion.

The big negotiating points seem to be over the right to early termination: Oakland wanted huge penalties for early termination (they understand the A's will leave as soon as possible) and that is what is holding up the negotiations.