CFAH

AC34 Venue Rendering: Piers 27-29

A plugged-in tipster delivers a copy of the most recent presentation from the organizers of the 34th America’s Cup to the S.F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission Design Review Board which includes the latest renderings for the proposed build out of Piers 27-29 (above), Marina Green and Piers 30-32 (below) for use in 2012 and 2013.

AC34 Venue Rendering: Marina Green

AC34 Venue Rendering: Piers 30-32

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Do any of the renderings include that proposed new marina in the bay between Pier 1 and the Bay Bridge? I’m just wondering whether that part of the boondoggle is still in play.

  2. Posted by MarinaBoy

    Looks Fantastic! Can’t wait for the racing to begin!

  3. Posted by sf

    How world class (not!)

  4. Posted by Whereisreds

    So…where’s Red’s Java House???? and the Brannan street wharf..????

  5. Posted by JMK

    Surpise! Moving toward a much watered down version of the original pitch: https://socketsite.com/archives/2010/09/the_pitch_and_plans_to_bring_the_americas_cup_to_san_fr.html
    Smoke and mirrors.

  6. Posted by lol

    Milkshake,
    The plans for the we-will-rub-our-money-in-your-face-and-rob-you-blind-of-your-public-views Marina are dead in the water (pun intended)
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2011/10/22/MNGQ1LKSFS.DTL

  7. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    Looks like some of the yachts from dead marina have shown up at the location of the soon to be gone Brannan St. pier…

  8. Posted by SimonSays

    Wow.. the before and after is staggering. How lame.

  9. Posted by EH

    Notice there are very few sails.

  10. Posted by Legacy Dude, on behalf of 97% of the bay area

    I’m sorry, I haven’t been paying attention. The America’s what? Is this a new street fair?

  11. Posted by 47yo hipster

    Niiiice!

  12. Posted by Delancey

    The PDF docs are available from here:
    http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/meetings/drb/2011/11-07AC34.pdf
    and here (warning, this one is large, though only about 40 pages): http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/meetings/drb/2011/11-07ExAC34.pdf
    Some more solid information on dates from these docs:
    2012: 18-26 days mid-August to mid-Sept, major venues such as Crissy Field, Marina Green, Pier 27-29 & 30-32 expected to be tied up from 10AM-10PM on race days.
    2013: “approximate” 50 days from early July to late Sept, same 10AM-10PM usage of sites.

  13. Posted by Delancey

    @lol, @MoD
    The dead marina isn’t so dead. They’ve wisely decoupled it from the event, but apparently retain the post-event option to negotiate to build a marina. Gavin Newsom may yet be known as the man who gave away the bay bridge (view). From the sfgate article linked above:
    Future marina feasible
    One thing that hasn’t changed: the agreement between the city and the event authority still allows race organizers to negotiate for the right to build a permanent commercial marina at Rincon Park after the regatta is finished. That option also exists for the open basin between Piers 32 and 36.
    However, Martin stressed that the right to negotiate is not the same as a formal approval – especially since any change of that magnitude must be blessed at some point by the BCDC. Nor is it part of current negotiations.
    “It’s not going to be a rubber stamp,” Martin said.
    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/21/BAGQ1LKSFS.DTL#ixzz1caOzv873

  14. Posted by lol

    post-event they will not have the leverage of “we WILL bring hoards of business to the city” like today. This makes this proposition quite unlikely to be approved, imho.

  15. Posted by chris

    @whereisreds – There is no way to tell from the rendering if Red’s is there or not. I seem to recall a push to keep it and Hi Dive in place.

  16. Posted by Delancey

    lol, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. I think they backed off on the marina because opposition to it had the potential to derail the whole event (which has yet to be formally approved), and would have presented the marina in the worst light during the event.
    whereisreds, pages 19 and 41 of this doc appear to show Red’s and the Hi-Dive still in place during the 2012 and 2013 events, though I do not know at what point these docs become legally binding: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/meetings/drb/2011/11-07ExAC34.pdf

  17. Posted by James

    Wasn’t there supposed to be a public viewing amphitheater at pier 32? Is the tent city in these renderings in anticipation of the “Occupy America’s Cup” crowds?

  18. Posted by joe

    People who use the term “boondoggle” in reference to any planned development in SF = a##sholes

  19. Posted by lol

    Delancey,
    Yeah, we’ll see. I for one think this is an issue fighting for. If the past few weeks have shown us anything is that the plebe (aka majority) can have a voice. When they are loud enough they are heard. They will be if pols try to cater to the few at the expense of the many.

  20. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I’m with you lol. This particular view is priceless and enjoyed by many. There are plenty of places to establish a new marina along SF’s shoreline that wouldn’t have as much of a detrimental effect on views. How about any one of several mothballed piers that already exist? And then there’s Treasure Island too.
    —-
    joe – what term would you use for someone who incorrectly generalizes a statement to justify calling someone an “a##shole”?

  21. Posted by SocketSite

    Wasn’t there supposed to be a public viewing amphitheater at pier 32?
    The amphitheater originally proposed for Pier 32 was redesigned and moved to Pier 27 as is illustrated in the first image above.

  22. Posted by DanielBurnham

    This has become one of the most astonishing unimaginative designs I have seen for a major city’s waterfront in a long time. People stand up and cheer because palms were planted, and sailboat races will have a place to dock, when what was/is really needed is a large comprehensive plan for the ENTIRE urban waterfront that creates bolder solutions such as the often discussed Chicago example. The design shown in the second image is unacceptable for a “world class” city waterfront. Every day will not be race day so all of the images of flags, banners, crowds and activity are not a true representation of what the typical daily use view should provide.

  23. Posted by modernedwardian

    so public viewing for an event on the bay means sitting in a crowd with my back to the water and looking at a large TV screen? really?
    about as much fun as following the twitter stream. no thanks.

  24. Posted by @DanielBurnham

    Don’t be so negative- I’m sure that lawn (sod?) is gong to be of world class quality!

  25. Posted by Delancey

    DanielBurnham —
    You do realize that second image is of temporary* hospitality tents erected on Marina Green, a rather popular public park that we do insist on returning to the public after the event?
    * The 2013 schedule has them kicking off July 4 and finishing in late Sept. They will need to resod the park from the effect of the tents. Why does america’s cup need 3 months to resolve a contest of 8 boats, max? The olympics needs only 15 days for hundreds of boats among a dozen classes.

  26. Posted by Hercules65

    YAWN! What happened to the cool sail thingy when staging was south of the bridge? Looks like Tuff Shed will make a killing!

  27. Posted by anon

    Red’s Java House is a historical landmark and cannot be gotten rid of. Red’s is fully supportive of the cup…tons more business from cup workers and spectators. Hi Dive is not going anywhere either.

  28. Posted by 47yo hipster

    Oh thanks god…was loosing sleep over that one.

  29. Posted by Can't think of cool name

    Looks like Red’s also gains a boat dock as well. Hopefully, the folks on the deck out back don’t spill anything over the railing…

  30. Posted by curmudgeon

    ^47yohipster…please see below (or namelink) 🙂
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling

  31. Posted by Alai

    What does “negotiate for the right to build” mean anyway? I mean, heck, I can negotiate for the right to build– it’s just that the city’s response will probably be a form letter. Is the city obligated to actually do anything?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles