New renderings of the SF arena

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
All Star
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 1:05 am
Location: Oakland California
Poster Credit: 35
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:29 am
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2 ... gainst-us/

Update on the move to SF.
From "we believe", to "we belong", to "we gon beatcho ass!"

Image
Image
Image

Image
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:21 am
Location: San Francisco
Poster Credit: 9
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:28 pm
Oh god I hope this isn't so. I want them to get this done. It would hurt me if they got rejected to move to San Francisco. I really can't wait for the arena. Would Pier 48 look much different if they had to build it there?
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13509
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 51
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:31 pm
First and foremost, get it done RIGHT.

I'm excited about this move purely because of the specs and designs of the new arena, not because of the location change. We've been promised the premiere stadium in all of basketball. If it takes a little longer, by all means, do it right the first time.

I'm an SJ resident. I hold no stake in the SF vs Oaktown battle. WHERE the arena is doesn't matter as much as WHAT the arena is. If it takes an extra 2-3 years to get it right, there's nothing wrong with keeping the team in Oracle until everything is up to snuff. By the time this arena is finished, the wow-factor will be off the charts. 2017 seemed like a stretch to begin with. 2018 sounds really soon, too. I think as long as the place is up by 2020, everything is kosher. As long as we get a sick arena, I'm happy. Clearly, management has altered the culture here to a destination attractive to free agents. At this point, the arena is simply cosmetic. Those things can wait.

The big question is: if the Warriors win a title before the move, does Oakland move to suggest that a move is unnecessary? And what if Oakland develops a property in the interim? More time simply means more options.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:21 am
Location: San Francisco
Poster Credit: 9
PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:55 pm
I appreciate your response 32, but I cannot wait after 2017. Do you realize what a San Francisco arena means, especially on a Nationally televised level? 2020 is so far away, it won't get me excited. But 2017 or even 18 is that much closer. But i want the arena in San Francisco. Bob Fitzgerald even said that it's crazy how San Francisco, one of the top cities, has never ever had it's own arena. So true and so awful. All major cities have their own arena. And he went on to say that the Cow palace doesn't count, which I don't think it does either. The Warriors need to bounce on this fast and get it done. They don't need to wait 2 or 3 more years. If they win a ring in Oracle, they can win many in San Francisco. I want it in San Francisco period. We can keep the name for the time being, unless we were better off using SF for marketing. 32, you don't want this arena overlooking the bay bridge? If it doesn't have those kinds of features, we might as well stay at the Oracle. Someone suggested to me that we should put the arena at Candlestick. No way. I don't care that technically Candlestick is in SF. I would rather just play in Oracle than that part of town. Having this arena on the Embarcadaro means big things and it simply is what we deserve. We deserve the best, an iconic location as well as a sick arena. I want iconic. Nobody else has SF, so we must take advantage. I'm not saying cosmetics are everything, but you must take advantage when you have the opportunity. We deserve the best. We are loyal fans. We deserve Cosmetics, great owners, great team, championships, everything. Also, I don't get why some East Bay fans are offended. Life could be worse than driving across the bridge to get to Madison Square Garden. If I was in the East Bay, I would prefer the arena in SF. It never was the Oakland Warriors. we all deserve the best, including the East Bay and South Bay. The renderings of the new arena is the best.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13509
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 51
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:45 pm
Bro, I feel you. But to promise sufficient reinforcement on a decrepit pier that has been used as a yacht dock and a seagull colony for the past few decades - without regard for the well-being and safety of up to 15,000 people traversing the surface - in a matter of 5 years is like spinning straw into gold.

AT&T Park was first being discussed in 1995, the plans were put forth in 1996, they broke ground in 1997, and the park opened in 2000. That was on a piece of property that didn't need a FRACTION of the renovation and overhaul that Pier's 30 and 32 will require. To even get the property READY for construction might take a year. And we're getting way ahead of ourselves at that: the project still needs to be presented to the city council, with proof that the hazards to public safety have been addressed, and greenlit by a board who isn't swayed by killjoy hippie locals like these, that are trying to derail the project by claiming that it's a pollution threat to the area (their strongest argument is "noise pollution" :roll:) and an impossible addition to the Embarcadero's already Japan-like traffic (fair point, if you disregard the fact that you BOUGHT PROPERTY ON THE SAN FRANCISCO EMBARCADERO... that's like buying a house in Seattle and complaining about the rain).

The point is, there's a LOT of yellow (and red) tape that needs to be waded through in order for this project to come to fruition. I won't doubt the resolve of Lacob; he hasn't steered us wrong yet, but to expect (in the year 2013) that an entire, world-class stadium with top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art technology, architecture, and customer accommodations will all be completed by the year 2017 when the property hasn't even begun the process of reinforcing the foundations... well, it just sounds like pie in the sky to me.

I saw the renderings in the OP. I was more stoked about the Bridge view from court side than anyone. I'm just saying: 2017 sounds like fool's gold. We're nearly in the 4th quarter of 2013. You're telling me an arena can be erected in a matter of 3 years when the project technically hasn't even been OK'd yet?
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
User avatar
Role Player
Posts: 286
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:21 am
Location: San Francisco
Poster Credit: 9
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:16 am
Well they need to get approved in the next year right? My father is an engineer and he claims that the wooden piers are stronger than you think, will not deteriorate, they will hold. After that it can take a couple of years to build the arena. But a basketball arena is not as big as a baseball stadium. Hopefully, they are taking the right strides every single day. Do you think Pier 48 would look just as good? From the Giants parking lot, you can still see the bridge clearly.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13509
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Golden State
Poster Credit: 51
PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:36 am
I think Pier 48 has less yellow tape, but you can't beat the view from 30-32.

I'm no engineer. I hope your father is right.
Image
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS DIE HARD
Image
Image
Previous

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests

cron