The Warriors Island Arena And Aptly Named WatermarkMarch 31, 2014
Of the six key design issues for the proposed Warriors arena upon San Francisco’s Piers 30-32, how the proposed public access areas of the development will perform under the latest estimates for sea level rise and a 100-year flood is number six.
While we’re happy to report that the public access areas of the proposed arena should be just fine based on the latest estimates for sea rise and flooding, they could end up being on an island for a bit. And it’s looking a little wet for the aptly named Watermark at 501 Beale and Portside down the street (click image to enlarge).
Comments from Plugged-In Readers
Looks like a success story to me. Can’t wait to see this built!
Well, you may have to wait a long time. Prop B will pass without a doubt (and by a ginormous margin now that backers include just about everyone…Jane Kim, Ammiano, Avalos, Campos, Leno, etc.). Voters aren’t going to allow the currently proposed condos and hotel to be built on SWL 330….so there goes the principal funding for the arena. Stay tuned for the backup plan.
Why don’t the Warriors buy a Transbay parcel, which they can develop 5x taller/ more lucrative?
Or the Mission Bay Salesforce parcels?
I’m not suggesting moving the arena there, just the condo/ hotel portion.
Why are we looking at the rising tide issue piece meal? The Golden Gate provides a natural opportunity to deal with this issue. Expensive? Yes. But it has to be cheaper than protecting every property in low areas separately around the Bay.
I agree Marten. Damming the Golden Gate will be an environmental disaster of a different sort, but it could save a huge amount of SF Bay real estate. The Re-Reber plan
It’s not as simple as damming the Golden Gate. Where would you put it? Sacrifice the Sunset but save Sea Cliff? The channel drains 40 percent of the state. Damming the Golden Gate would require an untold number of additional dams throughout California. The Port of Oakland is the third largest container port on the west coast. There are additional ports in Richmond, Redwood City, Benicia, Sacramento, West Sacramento and Stockton (would admittedly, may no longer be viable under some sea level rise scenarios). Where would you construct the locks necessary to allow ships continued access to these ports? The cost to “save” the “huge amount of Bay Area real estate” would never pencil out.
Imaging trying to get consensus among people in SF, the Bay Area, the State, the feds (who have jurisdiction and would have to pay for the majority of the project), Democrats, Republicans…. It took poor little San Francisco over 10 years just to get consensus on the demolition of a dilapidated church!
I’m not saying that it would be easy or even that damming the GG is a good idea. It is much better to directly address global warming. But given the wealth in this state and the rest of the nation’s and the world’s apathy about global warming, such a Re-Reber plan might actually get built.
Comments are closed.