Warriors Mission Bay Arena West Side Aerial

UCSF’s support for the Golden State Warriors’ proposed Arena and Events Center to rise in Mission Bay will be contingent on securing a binding and funded agreement “to address traffic concerns that are projected to result when large, dual or overlapping events occur at the proposed Warriors complex and nearby AT&T Park.”

As outlined in a just revealed “Win-WinSF” campaign, UCSF will require three pieces to be in place in order to support the arena:

1. An agreed-upon strategy for real-time monitoring and management of traffic during large dual or overlapping events

2. A mechanism for managing the scheduling of large dual or overlapping events, if needed, to protect patient safety and ensure access to the Mission Bay hospitals.

3. A means for ensuring follow through on the commitments for years to come.

Keep in mind that around 1,500 UCSF health care workers change shifts each day at 7 p.m., which is often peak time for arena events and is likely fueling the California Nurses Association’s opposition to the arena.

39 thoughts on “UCSF’s Support For Warriors Arena Contingent On Traffic Plan”
  1. When the Warriors Arena was first proposed it was for Pier 32 near the Bay Bridge. Since then, we have a storm of new construction and population density in Mission Bay & surrounds that, in my humble opinion, makes more congestion ludicrous. Not to mention the new medical center and the adverse impact a sports arena will have on it.

    Unleash thousands of rowdy sports fans on the local streets before and after the games and you’ll end up with nothing but a recipe for disaster. And it’s not that I’m against the Warriors arena, it’s just that I am for a sound & logical solution that addresses their – and the community’s needs.

    1. definitely pier 32 would’ve been a better location for traffic and public transport, but the NIMBYs pushed hard against it.

      1. A site that allows access from all sides is optimal because it spreads the traffic impact out. On a pier, or close to the water, traffic impact is concentrated. Arenas are bad enough as it is, because arrivals and exits are so super concentrated. This is why I don’t favor any arena on the waterfront, no matter what team it is, or what city it is, it’s just bad planning for the sake of a good view.

        1. No. Arenas belong next to pedestrian dead zones, otherwise they spread deadness all around to neighboring streets. Urban planning 101 puts all arenas and stadiums on a waterfront or wedged up against a mountain, unless you’re in a hellish suburb with parking lots surrounding it.

          1. totally agree and the Pier 30-32 plan #1) improved the waterfront view for pedestrians (although may have hampered for the luck few uberwealthy in nearby condos) #2) was much closer to a wide variety of public transit options #3) not near the hospital and #4) furhter from Giants. It was a 10x better location, and also 10X more beautiful design

    1. The city should force the Warriors to sell them the land for 120% of it’s value, donate most of it to UCSF, and use the rest for a 1000 room SRO complex.

      1. if the new mission buy by the city is any indicator, the warriors could probably sell the land to the city for 6x what they paid. I agree that it would be awesome to put a 1500 unit BMR building here and see if they like it better

  2. To John & Sassyboyfrisco:
    1) There was nowhere near as much congestion & traffic when AT&T Park was planned (in the 90s) and opened – in March 2000. Have you visited Mission Bay lately? Every time I go there, more available space has been gobbled up with new construction. It’s chock a block full of new housing, biotech companies, UCSF campus & research facilities, and the new hospital. Those weren’t there when Giants Stadium was planned & built.
    2) Hey that’s not fair! baseball vs basketball? They both rock in my book; I’m sure patients feel the same.

    1. Yeah, why I was down there just this weekend during a Giants game, and would you believe that at some of the stoplights on 4th, there were actually a two or even 3 cars lined up waiting? It’s almost like it’s a big city or something.

      I swear we should take up a collection and fly all the head-in-the-sand NIMBYs to Manhattan. Every time a business trip takes me there, I realize how we are multiple levels of magnitude away from having something that can actually be called “density” and “traffic” and, for that matter, “vibrant neighborhoods”. But yeah, let’s put the kibosh on the arena, because god forbid it actually create some exciting urban dynamic.

  3. Should either a) stay in Oakland with their devoted fans or 2) go into into space by civic center – bill graham center. Bart, Muni, subway, ferry to embarcadero, taxis, etc. eliminates all transportation issues and supports the proveme to of upper market.

    1. There are far more moneyed fans in SF, which is what matters in professional sports.

      Bill Graham Civic Center is about 50% too small to work as a venue. Maybe if they tore it down and built the arena to take up that spot and the park in front of city hall, but that’s not going to happen and seems like a terrible idea. Not sure why you’d support it.

  4. How about just building it in Mission Bay as planned but without ANY parking. Make everybody–fans, players, owners, management–get there by public transit, limo, cab or Uber.

    And by the way, UCSF can’t schedule their shift changes other than at 7 PM because . . . ??

    1. they couldve possibly done that at pier 30-32, but the dearth of public transportaion in the new location prevents it

    2. Why should UCSF schedule their shift changes other than at 7 PM ?
      Change shifts just so a bunch of millionaire team owners can make more money?
      Hospitals are 24/7 operations – you change one shift you have to change all three – that’s lots and lots of people that have to re-arrange their lives permanently for the Warriors convenience.
      The adjacent UCSF pion employees do not have as much money to give to Mayor Lee as the Warrior owners do – Joe Lacob, Peter Guber, Vivek Ranadivé, Erika Glazer, Fred Harman, Bob Piccinini, Larry Bowman, Danny German, Marty Glick, Chad Hurley, Craig R. Johnson, Bruce Karsh, Jeffrey A. Miller, Paul Schaeffer, David Scially, Nick Swinmurn, Harry Tsao, John Walecka and Dennis Wong –
      But the nurses, janitors, cafeteria staff who work in the hospital are people – lots of people – and in a democracy – we should at least pretend to take their opinions into consideration.

      1. Um, the people they’d be changing for are the Warriors fans and other attendees to arena events. You know, the millions of people that would be attending games and/or events each and every year. Very selfish of the hospital to put their wants ahead of the millions of people in the Bay area.

  5. um, this objection is a minor one. that’s the point. it’s a wrap. the other piece of news is that a poll came out and it’s a landslide, people want the warriors in SF. all you naysayers, now is the time to eat your crow or else go away …

        1. and after they won the championship, im sure there would be an even higher vote for them to be here.

  6. Golden Gate Park, 1871 — had Ed been in charge it would be Golden Gate Park Suites. This waterfront gem of a spot should be a park, and the obnoxious Arena would fit neatly into the shell of Candleschtick, among the gang warriors. Ballot vote anyone?

    1. “Among the gang warriors” is one of the more offensive things I’ve seen posted here. But I guess it’s become okay to say offensive things when Ed Lee bashing is at stake.

      1. @kbbl, are you saying there are not gangs in those neighborhoods? My cousin is a SFPD officer and would beg to differ.

  7. Bring the Warriors back to SF! There is no better location then the Mission Bay. The traffic will be milder for the new Warriors stadium then what is experienced during a Giants game due to being well positioned between 2 freeway on ramps, walking distance to 2 caltrains stops, and also close to muni.

    Kinda sounds like UCSF just wants to hoard the mission bays allocated special events.

  8. The Warriors Arena should go in Parking Lot A across McCovey Cove from ATT, period. Instead we have the Giants pushing a ridiculous plan for offices and housing with very deceptive mailers and their campaign about about adding “affordable housing” (in 11 buildings from 9-24 stories) Note their publicity ads and brochures only show their green space, never the many buildings they plan to build. There will be a ballot measure on the Giants plans because they need variances for height limits.

    Enough! Get the Warriors and Giants to get together and build a great sports/entertainment complex like LA Live/Staples Center. The Mayor and Planning department need to put the mega millionaire owners of both teams in a room and let them hash out a deal that works for the people of SF and the Bay Area. United they stand, divided they will fail.

  9. Warriors should build where they plan to, they paid for it fair and square. UCSF should shut up, they got their land for FREE. Talk about spoiled

    1. Uh, as far as I understand, the Warriors did not pay jack squat. They simply entered into an agreement to buy the land from Salesforce. The Warriors don’t want to be left holding the bag if the arena does not get built at that location – still a very real possibility for a variety of reasons.

  10. That’s not the point. If the stadium gets built, its 100% privately funded by them versus being subsidized by tax payer/city money. This stadium is getting built. It has support from the Mayor, Governor CA, the mission bay neighbors (including me) and the person who built that hospital (Benioff). UCSF can waste all the money on lawyers they want but its not going to stop the project.

    1. 100% privately funded ? Thats just plain duplicitous. The Stadium is getting huge subsidies the mayor does not want to talk about. The T-line was federally funded. The T-line extension at 18th they want to build to serve this Stadium is expensive – as is all the new Muni cars they say they are going to buy for the T-line. The sewers and water pipes and the traffic improvements all cost money – a lot of money in a City like SF. If you believe the Warriors are paying for all of that I’ve got a fixer-upper bridge to sell you that goes to Oakland. Only needs a little work….

  11. These are very reasonable demands made by UCSF. Pretty easy to tell those apart from all the shrill hyperbolic NIMBY nonsense this project is also facing (along with this and every other thread on SocketSite).

  12. The idea that biotech has a monopoly on Mission Bay is ridiculous. The Genentech/UCSF land grab is over. The music stopped and the Dubs got the last plot. Stop crying and move on. When I heard their spokesman claim that they’ll “fight until hell freezes over and then fight on the ice.” is just the kind of preposterous ridicule you’d expect from a corporate welfare shrill.

    1. i hope you realize Genentech doesnt have an office in Mission Bay. The building is just named after them. The biotech footprint in mission bay is actually very tiny

Leave a Reply

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