Comments on: Warriors release arena site plan renderings

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:44:38 +0000

Only thing I can figure with the 17,500 is that smaller is what the NBA is asking for these days. I mean the new Brooklyn arena only holds 17,734 despite being in the largest metro area in the US (and returning a top level pro team to Brooklyn for the first time in over 50 years). I mean Barclay’s Center has an even smaller hockey capacity than you’d expect too due to it’s design (14,500).

By: LoneStranger

LoneStranger — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:57:55 +0000

@A’sFan – “and have a strong and extremely dedicated (yet small) fanbase that won’t go away no matter what.”
.
Unless, of course, they hate the owner, right? Isn’t that what is claimed? (No, I actually doubt that anyone who says they dislike ownership is not attending games they would have otherwise attended.)

By: A'sFan

A'sFan — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:23:16 +0000

A lot of people are complaining about the inconsistency of the fan reactions in terms of the A’s move to SJ and the Warriors move to SF. Yes, the A’s don’t draw well and would draw bigger crowds in SJ. Yes, the Warriors do draw well and are moving to San Francisco to draw smaller crowds paying exorbitant amounts of money for tickets. Here’s the difference: the Warriors are the BAY AREA’s team. I think everybody can agree that in terms of a Bay Area team playing in the most iconic and accessible location, San Francisco is the way to go, especially a half mile from the Bay Bridge.

The A’s, on the other hand, are representative of the East Bay in a way that the Warriors just aren’t. They’re blue collar, scrappy, play in a dilapidated building, and have a strong and extremely dedicated (yet small) fanbase that won’t go away no matter what. The A’s leaving Oakland represents a shift in the Bay Area pecking order. It’s a slap in the face to the East Bay, a region that as stated above gets no credit for being unique and amazing in its own way, completely independent of San Francisco.

The East Bay is embodied culturally by the A’s. But the Warriors don’t play for Oakland. They play for the Bay Area, and I don’t think anybody is offended by the Warriors’ departure. I know that as an East Bay resident, I’m not.

Now on a separate note, what’s with the 17,500 capacity? I’d hoped that we’d build a 22,000 seat arena and draw the NBA’s biggest crowds on a nightly basis. Because after all, if Warriors fans can average 18,500 in the worst part of Oakland, isn’t the sky the limit for the nicest part of San Francisco?

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:19:26 +0000

Wow can’t wait for the new arena. Warriors will be able to attract the highly best players in.the NBA for the first time in years. Hhhmm maybe jeremey Lin makes a return to the bay of it does not work in h town…or Chris Paul or lebron lol jk… But this move actually is going to be great for the warriors and bay area basketball culture. Also Dublin Raiders not bad. Just that 580 would be a nightmare unless u know the secret streets…..does anybody know if San Jose would be intrested in the Raiders as well as A’s… Would it work?

SJ will never publicly finance a stadium, especially a football venue that could exceed $1B. And of course, the Raiders will never privately finance one themselves and put the bill upon the city instead.

By: berry

berry — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:11:51 +0000

Wow can’t wait for the new arena. Warriors will be able to attract the highly best players in.the NBA for the first time in years. Hhhmm maybe jeremey Lin makes a return to the bay of it does not work in h town…or Chris Paul or lebron lol jk… But this move actually is going to be great for the warriors and bay area basketball culture. Also Dublin Raiders not bad. Just that 580 would be a nightmare unless u know the secret streets…..does anybody know if San Jose would be intrested in the Raiders as well as A’s… Would it work?

By: LoneStranger

LoneStranger — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:01:31 +0000

He has to mention Dublin. He has to get something to compete with Oakland so he can get a more favorable deal. He dismisses Santa Clara, which I think is dumb because it could also be used for leverage, but I bet they eventually commit to two years there while the new place is built on the Coliseum grounds.

By: letsgoas

letsgoas — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:48:52 +0000

o/t but here’s a tweet regarding the raiders.
…
Jason Cole ‏@JasonColeYahoo
Good convo w/ Oak owner Mark Davis. Wants to give Oak every chance to get new stadium. Dublin in mix. Not eager to play at new 49ers place
…
dublin in the mix, i thought that train passed by. i have doubts people inland want a football venue right smack dab in their community.

By: Sid

Sid — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:17:20 +0000

Difference here and Howard Terminal is the city of SF has revenue streams to reimburse the Warriors for fronting the 120M to redo the Piers.

In Oakland, the city does not have the same revenue streams from Howard Terminal to embark on such an endeavor.

Plus environmental cleanup is an animal that is a big unknown at HT.

This is a great Public-Private partnership SF and the Warriors have. Too bad Oakland could never take note and get creative….They want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:04:19 +0000

It looks like the W’s are negotiating for SF to pay for the pier infrastructure upgrades, which is estimated to cost $120M:

The team in return would build and pay for the arena and other buildings as well as the open spaces. It would be the team’s responsibility to strengthen the dilapidated piers, an endeavor that city officials say would cost an estimated $120 million.
The proposed deal calls for the city to reimburse the team up to that amount for infrastructure upgrades.

By: Marine Layer

Marine Layer — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:27:27 +0000

@LS – Giants/W’s true. Concerts/wrestling/ice shows and Giants games – lots of potential conflicts. Same goes for SJ ballpark/Cisco Field.