Crusie Ship Terminal Sunk
A couple of important questions now that the Port of San Francisco has pulled the plug on the proposed Cruise Ship Terminal project at Piers 30-32:
1. How will the loss of the proposed retail, restaurants, cinema, and promenades affect property values in nearby developments?
2. How will this affect development of the Brannan Street Wharf (57,000 sqft public park)?
3. How long will it be before a class action suit is filed by owners at the Watermark…
Soaring costs sink cruise ship terminal plan [Examiner]
Bryant Street Pier Overview []
A Class Action Suit At The Metropolitan? [SocketSite]

10 thoughts on “Proposed SF Cruise Ship Terminal Sunk”
  1. The reason I didn’t buy at the Watermark was because I didn’t think the surrounding development would happen in a timely fashion, and that the area would be a building site for the indefinite future. So I guess there’s an argument that with a lack of construction in that area it actually more attractive! Otoh, that building is now presumably going to be surrounded by an ugly parking lot for the forseeable future, rather than the shops/restaurants etc that buyers were expecting. Not good news for Watermark owners.

  2. All those Watermark buyers hopping to have views of a beautiful new terminal with large sparkling cruise ships now have nothing to look forward to other than views of a bleak, ugly, wind-swept parking lot…
    Unfortunately, I think this will affect property values in that building.

  3. Development of the Cruise ship terminal was never promised, only planned. It still depended on economic fundamentals. I can’t see where any class action lawsuit would come from. If it is really dead in that location, then the city needs to do two things. 1) Scout for a new location, because we desperately need a new terminal 2) enter into a planning process for the current site, so that something appropriate can be developed.
    The site directly adjacent to the Watermark (inland from the Embarcadero) could be developed tomorrow…in fact, given the complicated financing for the Cruise terminal, the Watermark residents could end up having a completed project SOONER this way. The question is, what? The waterfront site itself has obvious problems due to the pier issue.
    As for Bryant Street Pier, I think there will be a lot of pressure to spend some of the money collected from the Watermark to complete that project. (Actually, there will be a lot of pressure to spend that money on a number of projects…the Port is perennially broke). In my opinion ALL of that money should stay in escrow until the question of how and where a new cruise terminal will be built. The intention of those funds is to subsidize the terminal, and it will need it whereever it is constructed.

  4. I never knew a view of a cruise ship and terminal was that highly sought after? Am i missing something? I’d rather have unobstructed views of the water.
    [Removed by Editor]

  5. If you live at Portside, facing the bay, this is good news — the terminal would have been blocking views of the bay. What’s bad is the impact it has on the overall South Beach neighborhood. The shopping and restaurants of the Terminal would have created a greater sense of community. You have condos everywhere, but when you walk out on the street, there aren’t many little coffee shops and drycleaners, markets and video stores and all those little places that make an area a true neighborhood.

  6. I agree that not having the cruise terminal is better for residents of the area…for those on the lower floors the views will not be blocked and personally, I would rather have an open waterfront even if it is an old, decrepit pier rather than some modern development bringing more traffic and congestion to the Embarcadero

  7. I’d rather see an events center there than some big boats that make a lot of noise and cause a bunch of chintzy souvenir shops crop up (a la pier 39).

  8. I travel whenever I can up the coast to Alaska. Villages of 500 in the Alaskan pan-handle and northern BC manage to have modern cruise ship terminals, the tourists and the salmon are the only things that keep these places going. So it is a little sad that San Francisco cannot get its act together on this. Of course they would sell you the town of Sitka and the entire island it is on for the money they say they need to restore the pier, and that is before they build the terminal on it.

  9. the south beach area is a wonderful place to live. it provides good weather, good nearby restauants and shops and close enough to walk almost anywhere including the financial district and union square.
    now without a new cruise terminal and pier we are going to be at a standstill for the future. we need that old rotten pier and ugly surrounding to be redone in order to keep this a wonderful place to live and play!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *