CFAH

The proposed retail space for San Francisco’s Seawall Lot 337/Pier 48 (a.k.a. “Mission Rock”) has been cut by more than half and the developers are pushing to “complete the project in phases over a 17-year period that would start in 2013.”

As it stands, the project would produce approximately 10 commercial and residential buildings, including two towers near 200 feet and another taller than 300 feet. The area would be broken into 12 small city blocks and would feature 8 acres of open space, including the waterfront park.

One major parking structure and stalls in other buildings would accommodate 2,650 parking spaces for Giants games and other uses. There also are plans to refurbish Pier 48 for exhibitions and other events.

Construction of the cornerstone waterfront park would likely not begin for nearly a decade.

And gone from the proposal is the “scheme for an entertainment center tied to well-known names in food and music, including a 5,000-seat music hall.”

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by Really?

    “When pigs fly Smithers…”

  2. Posted by anon

    Really? – it’s a 17 year plan that doesn’t even start until 2013.

  3. Posted by Joe

    I dont support any development on that site which doesnt include an arena of some type. It would be a huge loss to not develop something like that on this site.

  4. Posted by SC

    SF takes so damn long to approve these things that will gentrify our city, yet they let One Rincon Hill to be built right next to the bay bridge without any hesitation.

  5. Posted by Turin

    I’m OK with the changes and building in phases. I’m not happy about the nearly 40% reduction in expected revenue for the port. And the city should require that the park get built earlier in the process than 10 years out. That should be one of the first things to go in.

  6. Posted by Morgan

    Joe & others, why are you so in love with the idea of an arena being located down there? Why not Fisher’s museum instead? I would rather seen an outdoor performance park-space similar to Millennium Park in Chicago and Fisher’s art collection in a dramatic waterfront setting.

  7. Posted by jlasf

    With the “entertainment center” gone, does this mean that there won’t even be any movie theaters? Surely, South Beach and Mission Rock are big enough to support a multiplex and, with enough parking for ball games, it would be able to hold parking for one as well. If a multiplex is built, then make one theater adaptable to other needs – concerts, speeches, etc.

  8. Posted by anon

    jlasf – there are almost 30 screens less than a mile away at the corner of 4th and Mission (Metreon + SF Centre). Do you really think more movie screens are needed that close? Especially when this area will be connected DIRECTLY by the Central Subway by the time any of this is built – we’re talking a 5 minute subway ride.

  9. Posted by CameronRex

    Ditto Turin – The park should be required FIRST not in 10 years.

  10. Posted by sleepiguy

    I’m always amused at these photos that show people wandering about in a grassy field while standing on the edge of the bay. I’ve never been to this area, and while I imagine that it’s warmer than west SF, I can’t believe that it’s not going to be horrifically windy 90% of the time. Seriously, how’s the weather down there?

  11. Posted by Joe

    Because this is literally the ONLY place that would be viable for an arena in SF. Fishers museum is not an option for this site – period. It doesnt matter that people think it would be a great fit.
    Why should San Franciscans travel to Oakland or San Jose to see a concert?

  12. Posted by anon

    Now with the delays in the project’s, seems like a no brainer to put a basketball arena here for the Warriors to move to when their lease expires in 2018 (approx.) It would put the Giants’ parking lot to productive use another 45 days a year, and provide the city with an asset that every other decent city in America has(a large arena.)

  13. Posted by Legacy Dude

    Yes, let’s also build a NASCAR track, and maybe an indoor ski slope ala Dubai. We can put it next to the new cruise ship terminal. Plus we’d finally show up our bigger neighbor down south, since the bitter Angelinos can can hop on the HSR and be up here in like 2 hours to see what a real world class city looks like! They can get out at the new TransBay Terminal and walk past Two Rincon Hill and Turnberry on their way to this theme park. Sweet.
    Where’s all this money coming from again?

  14. Posted by anonn

    Sleepiguy, that area has the best weather in the city.

  15. Posted by anon

    Arenas and stadia are regional resources. Why build an arena here when Oracle Arena isn’t in use half of the time? It’s not like it’s hard to get there. Most cities in America have these places because most cities cover a lot more ground than 47 square miles. In most places, the Oakland Arena would BE in the city.

  16. Posted by anon

    These petty “SF must have everything within its city limits and the rest of the region must have nothing!” arguments are ridiculous. I can’t stand the every city (or county or whatever) is a mini-kingdom attitude. Is taking BART to the Oracle Arena for a concert that hard? Hard enough to merit spending billions to build another one here so that we don’t have to have a 30 minute ride (or drive!) to “the other scary side?”
    It takes longer to get from downtown in Manhattan to a Yankees game or Jets game or Giants game than it does to get from downtown here to a Warriors game. Should Manhattan be demanding a couple new stadiums so that it can be a real city?

  17. Posted by anonn

    But I mean look at the rendering. The site would be perfect for an open air arena.

  18. Posted by Joe

    Um, nobody said anything about the dark side.
    Madison SQ. garden is IN manhattan which is 23 sq miles.
    I would rather my concert dollars go to SF instead of San Jose or Oakland. I would also like to not have to drive to San jose or wait for a BART train at 11 to transfer to SF because BART doesnt run any direct trains to SF on that line after a certain hour.

  19. Posted by anon

    AT&T Park is in San Francisco. Candlestick is in San Francisco. Most of the better venues as far as theaters go are in San Francisco. Does everything of a regional scope have to be in San Francisco? The South Bay doesn’t have a ballpark (baseball or football). Neither the East Bay or the South Bay have as many theaters and similar performance houses as we do. Do we have to have it all? Guess so.
    You absolutely proved my point that everyone only cares about their little kingdom with your tax dollars comment.

  20. Posted by luigimail

    sleepiguy: the weather is the best in the city and even out of the wind tunnels that are SOMA streets mission, howard, folsom, etc…
    I walk my dog almost every day in this area, I think it would be great to have soo much more open space, but I am sort of sad to see the SF giants t-ball field not in the plan. Why not add a couple of little league fields in the open space and then the use of the space could go up?

  21. Posted by luvinmissionbay

    Sleepiguy…you’d be seriously amazed at how much different the weather is south of the ballpark. To me it seems like it hardly ever rains over there and there is absolutely no fog. Go spend a nice Sunday at the Ramp and you’ll get the picture.

  22. Posted by Joe

    Um, let me help you out then. This is a blog about SF. I could care less whether the south bay has a ball park. I never said, everything has to be IN SF – i said that this parcel was a great opportunity to build something new in town.
    I care as much about development in the E/S/N bays as people who live there do about development in SF.
    Maybe some day we can all hold hands and sing Kum Bay Yah, but as a region in 2009 – we arent there.

  23. Posted by anon

    i said that this parcel was a great opportunity to build something new in town.
    Um, no. You said:
    I dont support any development on that site which doesnt include an arena of some type. It would be a huge loss to not develop something like that on this site.
    The concept shown above is something new. You said that you would support other new things ONLY if a new arena was included. That is very NIMBYish (Don’t you be go buildin’ nuthin’ if I’sa ain’t gettin’ my arena!) and the reason that not much new stuff actually gets built in SF.

  24. Posted by Joe

    Uh, right. I’m a NIMBY. I think planning this development without an arena in the mix is a mistake. Since I am not connected to development and I am simply a citizen of the city – my opinion carries no weight. It is simply MY opinion.
    For the record, I would support removing the 40 foot height limit city wide. Raising the limit to 100′ on geary to the ocean, on all roads bordering the park and on mission. I would also allow at will development of any project that was 100% within the zoning rules for its site.
    So yeah. TOTAL NIMBY.

  25. Posted by anon

    Good to hear. You sounded NIMBYish by that first comment, but it sounds like you were just being hyperbolic. That’s nice.

  26. Posted by Jamie

    For those who are fans of an amphitheatre, what do you think about an amphitheatre on one of the wings of the new Transbay Transit Center?

  27. Posted by Jamie

    On one end of the park, that is ..

  28. Posted by anon

    Actually, the South bay is getting closer and closer to having an indoor arena, a football stadium and a baseball stadium. Your probably one of those people that is all for the Niners moving, no?
    But you’re right, that area definitely needs more high rise condos and a dog run instead of something that adds to the richness of City living. And for financing, the Giants were able to get it done privately right next door. Why do you assume that they are the only ones who can pull that off?

  29. Posted by Legacy Dude

    “…something that adds to the richness of City living”
    Say what? A giant crater that’s empty 99% of the time adds to the richness of City living? More than residential over retail surrounded by greenbelt? Please elaborate.

  30. Posted by anon

    Yeah, your right. ATT stadium is a real drag on the neighborhood. Instead, they should have made more soulless condos over starbucks and furniture stores, like the other 10 blocks in that neighborhood.
    Residential is only good for the people who live there. On the other hand, an Arena’s benefits are shared by everyone. Pretty simple.
    And if Manhattan didn’t have Madison Sq. Garden, there was a huge empty lot with a ton of preexisting underutilized parking in a perfect location with good transit, and an over saturated residential and commercial market, you can be damn sure they’d build an arena there instead of driving to Jersey to watch the Nets, Devils and Bruce Springsteen.

  31. Posted by Rillion

    “Yes, let’s also build a NASCAR track, and maybe an indoor ski slope ala Dubai. We can put it next to the new cruise ship terminal. Plus we’d finally show up our bigger neighbor down south, since the bitter Angelinos can can hop on the HSR and be up here in like 2 hours to see what a real world class city looks like! They can get out at the new TransBay Terminal and walk past Two Rincon Hill and Turnberry on their way to this theme park. Sweet.
    Where’s all this money coming from again?”
    The new “internet snark tax”. $1 dollar for every snarking or sarcastic comment on a blog. It will raise billions!

  32. Posted by Legacy Dude

    A multi-purpose venue like the Garden is a decent idea, and may work provided it could be built with entirely private funds. That said, I don’t think it could be pulled off profitably. It’d likely cannibalize the business currently going to other arenas in the Bay area, creating yet another boondoggle for SF citizens to subsidize. Might as well build a giant jazz district.
    That aside, single-purpose structures like baseball and football stadiums are a horrific waste of resources in a space-constrained city like SF, IMO. Plus we already have one of each in the city anyway.

  33. Posted by Curious

    Does anyone think less of Los Angeles because it no longer has a football franchise? I actually think Los Angelenos attitude has become more grown up as they seem to ignore wanting to play the sports stadium competition game and vote down every attempt to build a new football stadium. Worrying about having the latest sports franchise venues is what second rate cities have obsessed over. Let San Jose have the stadiums and let us keep the Opera and the Symphony.

  34. Posted by sf

    Posted by: SC at May 12, 2009 10:28 AM
    [Chris Daly] takes so damn long to approve these things that will gentrify our city, yet [Chris Daly] lets One Rincon Hill to be built right next to the bay bridge without any hesitation.

  35. Posted by anon

    That’s the thing though. Nothing they build there will be profitable. Hence the delay and downsizing.
    They should get the plans shovel ready, so that after the developers go belly up, Governor Newsome can hit up Obama for some stimulus funds, the Warriors can trade for an aging Lebron, and the dead can open the place up with a 7 night run.

  36. Posted by Jer

    Fisher’s museum would be a perfect fit and a great replacement for the silly entertainment/food zone in the original plan. What SF does not need is another museum located in a remote park without public transportation —i.e., the plan to put the Fisher museum in the Presidio. Bring it to Mission Bay!!!!

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles