Golden State Warriors Mission Bay Site Plan

The conceptual plan for the Golden State Warriors’ proposed sports and entertainment center to rise in Mission Bay has been unveiled.  The key components and layout for the 12-acre, mixed-use development include:

  1. A state-of-the-art arena and event space with approximately 18,000 seats,
  2. Two twelve-story office buildings with 500,000 square feet of space,
  3. Between 55,000 and 95,000 square feet of retail,
  4. Three acres of plazas, landscaping, and other public space (over 25% of the site), and
  5. 700 enclosed parking for office users and visitors

As envisioned, the arena will be located on the eastern portion of the site with the office buildings on the two western corners at South and Third Streets (northwest corner) and Third and 16th Streets (southwest corner).

Retail will be concentrated around a Third Street Plaza, within the ground floor of the office buildings, and along Terry Francois Boulevard at the east end of South Street.

Detailed renderings for the arena are slated to be released next month.

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by sassyboyfrisco

    FABULOUS…pic looks like giant toilet seat…hahaha
    LUV IT!

    • Posted by g

      ha! it does, that’s awesome!

    • Posted by whywhywhy

      “LUV” your sophisticated critique “sassyboyfrisco.”

    • Posted by NJ

      I can see a forthcoming camp sci-fi film where some godzilla monster emerges from the depths, rampages over, and lifts the lid…

    • Posted by jlasf

      The Super Bowl. The Orange Bowl. The Toilet Bowl.

    • Posted by san FronziScheme (formerly known as lol)

      Makes me think I need to find a GGB decal for my lid. Now THAT is a good idea.

      • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

        Looks like they were going for the new Eastern Span of the BB, but whatever floats your floater.

    • Posted by Rick Alber

      I hope they implement the slow-close lid. They’re really great.

  2. Posted by anon94123

    In most cities, they would get the subway transit infrastructure built FIRST before building an arena such as this and the station would be adjacent or under the facility. Why could we not expect the same? Mission Bay should have allowed an opportunity for much better transit planning and construction.

    • Posted by Keepitup

      See name link

      • Posted by Invented

        Band aid adjustments for a city that has no real transit vision. As the city grows, no one will be going anywhere (unless you’re on bike ayor).

      • Posted by curmudgeon

        I reluctantly agree that Third Street light rail and improvements to the 16th Street corridor will not be sufficient to deal with event surges for an 18,000 seat arena. In that respect, the new site is worse than the old one, because at least that was in walking distance of BART & Caltrain. It’s sad that SF doesn’t have more high occupancy transit corridors, but that decision was made long long ago.

        • Posted by zig

          Under what scenario would there be heavy rail on 3rd street?

        • Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

          Agreed on BART. According to Google Maps, its pretty much equal distant for Caltrain.

          • Posted by zig

            Caltrain is planned to come to Transbay some day we hope

    • Posted by sfrepro


    • Posted by zig

      Who should pay for that?

      A better idea would have been to put it in the first location near existing heavy rail

    • Posted by Bob

      Uh, no they dont. What planet do you live on that cities lay out subways out to nowhere before the demand exists? Do you know how much a subway costs? Tell me what city is in the position to lay out billions (using Central subway numbers) to build out to an area which doesnt even have an adequate tax base yet.
      Troll post.

      • Posted by BobN

        “What planet do you live on that cities lay out subways out to nowhere before the demand exists? ”

        Right, we only do that with BART.

  3. Posted by anon94123

    Like Invented said, I was not looking for a “multimodal” band aid, but a real transit solution. Adding a bike lane as proposed in the link is not going to create less traffic at this facility.

    • Posted by anon

      Well, most cities would have been fine building the arena in a proposed location within a few blocks walk of the most transit friendly location west of Chicago. But this is SF, so we decided to move it to a location with crappy transit to preserve a crumbling pier.

      • Posted by jill

        exactly, the embarcadero was a perfect location for transit and to avoid gridlock. moving it here encourages the majority of patrons to drive

      • Posted by zig

        When you say most you are not talking about Staples in LA or the United Center in Chicago. So which cities are you referring to?

        • Posted by anon

          I’m talking about most cities – in other words, not those in the US.

    • Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

      I’m not saying this is a cure, but there is a chance that there could be three light rail lines servicing this complex – The T, E, & K. Add in a bus line or two from 16th, and maybe a little pressure gets eased. I’d really like to see the city’s response….

      • Posted by zig

        T/K is the same thing and the E is mickey mouse

        • Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

          @zig, from what I can tell on the “Central Subway” website, the K will terminate at Embarcadero and head up/down Market as it does today and the T would be exclusively up/down 3rd to Chinatown. Just extend the K back down through the Embarcadero and 3rd as it does today. One more line servicing Mission Bay and beyond.

          Agreed on the E. As I mentioned below, I think that line should also be two-car muni cars we have today. I have heard of plans to possibly terminate the E not at Caltrain, but at a new loop built at 3rd & 16th. More help for Mission Bay.

          Also, I’d argue that this is a good reason to get a T stop built in North Beach.

      • Posted by saurus

        Caltrain runs a few blocks up on 16th Street, under the 280. Maybe they can build a station right there.

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          There’s already a Caltrain station at 22nd, it’d be stupid to build yet another at 16th.

        • Posted by Alex740

          I think a special event station could make a lot of sense at 16th. Wouldn’t be used anytime except for game days and wouldn’t be much more than a simple loading area. The Metra in Chicago has these for venues it passes and they work very well.

      • Posted by Transit 101

        The SFMTA will have to build a large boarding platform to handle the swell, perhaps long enough for 4 cars. I’ve seen proposals to do a 4th and King-style switch back along South Street as well to store cars for the rush. The T line will also have classic street cars on it, both of which will have a loop they can use in Dogpatch to give more options for crowd loading.

        Don’t forget that the agency just placed an order for 260 Siemens light rail cars, which will be in service by the time this stadium opens.

        • Posted by Can't think of Cool Name

          Personally, I’d like to see the historic cars confined to Market. That would allow the E to be the two-car street cars (eventually the new Siemens when they’re ready), not the historic cars as planned.

          • Posted by Sierrajeff

            Yes, they’re cute to see on Embarcadero, but I think both locals and tourists would be better served by having this service provided via regular cars in regular Muni livery.

        • Posted by curmudgeon

          Can’t normally do 4 car trains for anything running on the street, due to train lengths exceeding block lengths. I’m not intimately familiar with the T, but I’m assuming that is true for that line as well. (Plus needing to reconstruct all the platforms to accommodate 4 car trains…). Why oh why didn’t we do low floor boarding years ago???? Of course 4 car trains would be WELCOME in the underground.

          • Posted by anon

            The underground stations are not built for anything longer than 2 cars, so 4 car trains are out of the question permanently, until we rebuild the Central Subway for $17 billion in 2025.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      I continue to lobby for a cross-town line along 16th – interconnect at Castro, the J-Church, and 16th Street BART, while also serving, say, Guerrero, each side of Potrero Hill, and Mission Bay/Arena. Could conceivably even relieve pressure off the Market Street lines, for people headed from west of Twin Peaks / Noe / Castro to the southern reaches of SoMa.

      • Posted by jill

        that should fall behind the priority of a subway down both geary and van ness where the need is already great. the stadium was perfect at pier 30 for transit. i do not support building new transit to a stadium that hasnt even broke ground when the transit need is already so high in other developed parts of the city. the stadium should go where transit already exists. meanwhile, those trying to go from west to downtown have no viable options except the crappy 38 or 5 muni systems. and forget getting to the marina from anywhere as well. marina, inner richmond, pac hts, NOPA, Western addition, outer richmond all desperately need transit options.

        • Posted by rabbits

          Glancing at that list of neighborhoods I’d think that if those citizens really wanted a subway they could lobby for it. I don’t think it’s a real priority for anyone living in Pac Heights. The avenues maybe, but not Pac Heights or the Marina. Just as well for me because I own property in the 94114, which continues to appreciate due to the ease of getting around.

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          Don’t disagree with you as to priority – I live in the Inner Richmond, and would gladly pay more property taxes if it meant a subway down Geary. But a guy can dream, and eventually this city’s going to need move more to cross-town or grid service, and away from the Market Street “funnel” model.

          • Posted by NoeValleyJim

            People have been trying to build a subway down Geary since, well, forever. The merchants always shoot it down. And the last time it was on the ballot, the anti-tax crowd defeated it.

      • Posted by Alex740

        I like the idea of a 16th street subway, makes me also wonder if a 24th street cross town might make sense too. It could tunnel south from Castro into Noe, travel down 24th to hit J-Church and 24th street Bart and then connect to 22nd street Caltrain before reconnecting to the 3rd street T.

        And while we are all wishing about dream subway lines, I’d really like to see a new BART tube from the East Bay connect to the new Transbay Terminal and then head south down Potrero to 101, out to the airport and continue down 101 to SJ. I think this would really help to relieve Caltrain and 101 congestion and I’d vote for a tax increase in a heart beat for a major Bart expansion.

        • Posted by modernedwardian

          i think the cheapest way to get from the mission to the Potrero train station would be to go UP. a gondola lift or even a funicular. would surely beat the 40 minute bus ride or 35 minute walk over the hill.

  4. Posted by wiger toods

    I call BS on the 25% public space. Pedestrian circulation ramps and loading dock ramps shouldn’t count in my book. Would like to see a diagram of the calc.

    • Posted by BobN

      No kidding. Even running around it will require squeezing down to almost standard sidewalk width on one side.

    • Posted by formidable doer of the nasty

      There’s a huge new waterfront park right across the realigned Terry Francois Blvd. That has all the public space you could ask for.

  5. Posted by ruth

    this is an appropriate place for a stadium.

    -your local nimby 🙂

  6. Posted by Larr

    Hope they put Solar Panels on the buildings!

  7. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Is that an accurate depiction of Terry Francois Blvd.? They make it look quite narrow; I though it was to be akin to The Embarcadero.

  8. Posted by jill

    still pissed the rich embarcadero and telegraph hill nimbys killed that beautiful artchitectural gem that was planned for pier 30. it woul have been the 2nd most beautiful thing in SF next to GGB. it was near major transit and in an ideal location.

    because of selfish rich viewhoggers in this city, the majority of people are stripped from really nice things.

    • Posted by gml

      Nah. The whole downtown would have been grid-locked every time there’s an event at the arena (once a week??). It’s bad enough with the ballgames today.

      Good that they moved the arena.

      Now tear down 280 and make it exit at 16th street and the transportation problem is solved.
      Plenty of parking spaces during non-business hours in Mission Bay.

  9. Posted by SFredtape

    Looks great. Now, start building!

  10. Posted by RT

    I so agree with Jill. This location is ridiculous. Next to a medical complex and in the middle of a research campus. Selfish nimbys.

  11. Posted by Zugamenzia Farnsworth

    I hope the stadium’s plan view doesn’t infer the team’s luck will head “Down the toilet,” or “Down the drain.”

    I can see the throngs of fans all on the zippy T line. I can’t figure out why they don’t start charging developers something like a 5 % fund called “Dig It,” to be used for citywide subways. I’m not sure transit fixes like painting one lane of Geary Blvd. red are really going to fix local transit. We almost average one pedestrian death a month already and most of the big fat stuff isn’t even built nor occupied yet. At one time developers may have been shy about doing business in San Francisco but I notice they’ve all gotten extroverted awfully fast.

  12. Posted by Alvin

    I’d wish they have a pedestrian overpass a la Doyle Drive (over Francois Blvd) to connect it to Bay Front park.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      god no. pedestrian overpasses are fugly structures that basically signify “we’ve thrown up our hands and surrender to the car”. And if The Embarcadero can do just fine (and thrive) without pedestrian overpasses, then there’s surely no need for one here; T.F. Blvd shouldn’t have that much traffic to begin with (it doesn’t even really go anywhere…).

    • Posted by jose

      I totally agree that we should considering ways to get pedestrians to the bay front without competing with street level transit. The solution at Doyle Drive is great for a number of reasons. Pedestrian traffic, including bikes, are constantly surrendering to auto traffic, it would be a victory to have a separate but equal path for human powered transit options. Copenhagen has a new state of the art example.

      • Posted by frog

        So they’ve pretty much created a bicycle version of the Embarcadero freeway?

      • Posted by Sierrajeff

        “I totally agree that we should considering ways to get pedestrians to the bay front without competing with street level transit”

        Well, again, first of all The Embarcadero seems to work fine, despite massive numbers of pedestrians (both local and tourists). Ditto getting from the Marina to the bayfront; seems to work just fine without ugly looming pedestrian bridges (and their attendant approach ramps). But in lieu of an ugly (and underused) pedestrian overpass structure, how about:

        * burying Terry Francois Blvd (all, or part)?
        * converting Terry Francois Blvd to bikes and peds only (is it really going to get that much use anyway)?

  13. Posted by Alvin

    My initial thought was that it should be more connected to the park and overpass came to mind first…I’d just wish it be more connected to the park somehow. With most of the retail and offices on third street it seems like Francoise blvd will just become desolated.

    • Posted by Alvin

      I guess it also depends where the main entrances are.

    • Posted by frog

      Have the cars dip underground for a block. Put bike lanes with bike traffic lights across a surface level pedestrian walkway. That way bikes don’t wind up in a tunnel with cars and it’s only cars that have to go underground.

  14. Posted by Joseph A

    Okay a reality check about what is walkable ,

    I work on 2nd Street , and see thousands of persons on game days make the walk from Market St to AT&T Park , which is a longer walk then the one from the Caltain Station to the Arena location at 3rd and South ,

    What is needed though is a turn around so that Express MUNI trains can run between the Embaredero & the Arena

    • Posted by anon

      The big difference is that walking to Market St gets you service to the East Bay, where walking to Caltrain um, doesn’t.

  15. Posted by Rickrocket

    Will there be ER facilities in the UCSF expansion and the new Kaiser building? Good luck getting an ambulance to there during an event.

    • Posted by Keepitup

      Yeah….and who wants to be the next patient in the OR having brain surgery during the next Beyonce concert at the arena……lol? Thump…thump…thump….thump…bump…bump…bump….oh baby…..oh baby…bump…bump…thump….thump……..

    • Posted by Jake

      The new children’s hospital will have an emergency room. The ambulance entrance will be on the 4th St side at Mariposa. There will also be helipad on the roof. Some design details including traffic circulation map in the pdf at namelink. The main trauma ER for SF will still be at SF General less than 2 miles away.

      BTW, the roughly 4000 cars per event expected (based on 50% drive at 2.3/car similar to Giants) will have a much smaller impact than if 280 is torn down back to 16th St or so. That section of 280 carries 150,000+ cars per day, according to the Caltrans count.

    • Posted by Alai

      Seems to me the ambulances could drive on the Muni tracks. Practically a reserved lane, and they can go around trains, as long as they aren’t stopped right next to each other (which the operators can be trained to avoid when they hear sirens).

      In fact, I’ve seen a video of this happening on the Embarcadero.

      Should work well with the BRT lanes, too.

    • Posted by Jake

      UCSF identified Owens as the primary EMS route. Owens will have as many lanes as 3rd with less foot and car traffic and without muni trains. All the EMS and patient drop off is designed for the 4th st side one block from Owens and with exclusive access roads from Owens so they don’t have to use either 16th or Mariposa.

      FWIW, the quickest way to the ER from SOMA around King at 3rd or Brannan at 4th would be to use 280 to Mariposa. Worst case you only have to fight through 2 blocks of traffic to get to 280 and that hwy segment southbound to Mariposa almost never has congestion.

      The 280/Mariposa hwy on/off ramps will be redone to add capacity as will many feeder intersections on the west side of Mission Bay.

      If the growth of Mission Bay eventually makes it’s portion of 3rd St very congested, you should be able to get around it via 7th, Owens, and 280. Or at least you will if 280 isn’t torn down.

  16. Posted by jlasf

    Does anyone know what dining and retail will be around this area? The major gain for Mission Bay is that the arena will bring lots of people to support any dining/retail in the area. If people stay at bars/restaurants nearby, that might help mitigate the traffic problems before/after an event.

Comments are closed.

Recent Articles