Skip to content

Will the Giants rush to a new Wall on the Waterfront?

May 17, 2015

By and sfexaminer – excerpt

In June, on the heels of voters’ rejection of luxury waterfront condos at 8 Washington St., San Francisco overwhelmingly approved Proposition B, which gave voters the right to approve increases in building heights on public waterfront land.

Five months later, 70 percent of voters approved a doubling of heights at Pier 70 — proving that neighborhood engagement, coupled with a well-conceived, publicly vetted plan, could achieve broad electoral support from San Franciscans suspicious of waterfront development.

Unfortunately, the Giants’ property development team may be ignoring the lessons of Pier 70. The Giants have been noticeably silent about their development plans for Seawall Lot 337, the publicly owned waterfront land south of AT&T Park now used for parking.

Press inquiries about the Mission Rock development project have been rebuffed, and there has been little outreach to nearby neighborhoods that have worked closely with the Port of San Francisco, The City and private developers on waterfront issues in past years…

While we celebrate the on-field exploits of our local team, this lack of community engagement by the Giants’ front office is concerning because the Mission Rock proposal would build a far taller wall on the waterfront than either 8 Washington or the abandoned Warriors development on the piers… (more)

Are we seeing a theme here? Big money disdains public opinion. Rushes to ballot instead of negotiating table. Runs the risk of losing public trust and approval of the project.

This feels a lot like the way they rolled out the General Hospital plan. Neighbors, employees, workers, patients and medical professionals were left in the dark on both of these huge projects. And they wonder why we don’t trust them?

One Comment leave one →
  1. May 20, 2015 2:51 pm

    The Giants have met many times with the Mission Bay Citizens’ Advisory Committee, including last Thursday, May 14. In the past, the Giants met with Central Waterfront Advisory Group on more than one occassion. And I am sure that there are many other organizations that have heard their presentation and have had opportunities to offer suggestions. On the 14, we learned that the overall plan in terms of land use, parks, childcare and having Anchor Steam as the anchor tenant at Piers 48, sheds A and B are much the same. The human powered boat launch, named for Paul Nixon, is still there, as well as the charming square in the middle of the project and the much needed retail that doesn’t exist in Mission Bay. The heights have been dropped from the original, the garage will be solar, and most importantly, the 33% of all the units (rental) will be affordable.

    It is obvious that any new project on Port property is going to be contentious, since all projects whether audacious or mundane, must seek voter approval and spend millions to get out the word City-wide, if there is a height change. Since the Giants lot has zero heights, they have no choice except to get attention and support from ever nook and cranny of San Francisco including all the nearby neighbors.

    If in fact, the Giants have not met with SouthBeachRinconMission Bay, or Dog Patch or
    Potrero Boosters or SOMA groups then they should do so as soon as possible. On the
    other hand, when looking at a project such as Mission Rock, it is important to look at all aspects of the project, not exclusively the question of heights, but the other attributes, too.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: