Warriors arena would block beauty of bay Proposed S.F. arena would block beauty of waterfront

Recommended Video:

After a breathtakingly fast start, the Warriors were bound to cool off. To come back to earth.

I'm not talking about this season's performance on the court. I'm talking about the organization's proposed waterfront arena.

The Warriors burst out early, with aggressive play and strong defense and got lots of people, including the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Ed Lee, to wave their pom-poms and cheer every move.

But now comes the tricky part. The project to build a 13-story arena on Piers 30-32 just south of the Bay Bridge on the San Francisco waterfront is about to enter the environmental impact review. And this is the part I've been waiting for. The "what the heck are you thinking?" stage of the process.

This is not a dissertation on whether it's morally right for the Warriors to abandon the city of Oakland and the denizens of Oracle Arena who have supported them through all the terrible times. The Warriors' new ownership made it clear from the moment they bought the team - from their debut press conference at a restaurant on the Embarcadero to their insistence on holding most team functions at a San Francisco hotel - that they want to move across the bay.

Nor is this a treatise on the need for a nice arena in San Francisco to hold a variety of events (yes, let Bruce Springsteen play in the city) or the impact of two years of construction on one of the city's already most-congested arteries (it will be horrendous) or the importance of keeping Red's Java House on its present site.

A rendering shows how the Warriors' proposed 13-story arena on Piers 30-32 will block San Francisco's waterfront. A rendering shows how the Warriors' proposed 13-story arena on Piers 30-32 will block San Francisco's waterfront. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle Image 1 of / 13 Caption Close Warriors arena would block beauty of bay 1 / 13 Back to Gallery

Rather, this is a simple thought about the thing that makes San Francisco uniquely San Francisco: our beautiful waterfront. Why - on so many environmental and aesthetic levels - would you want to build an enormous structure directly in the bay?

"There are a lot of issues and concerns," said David Lewis, the director of Save the Bay.

Save the Bay was founded almost 50 years ago to combat what was - at the time - a modern vision of progress: filling in the bay and building structures right on top of the water. Half a century later, haven't we learned that this isn't the best use of our waterfront land?

Freeway in the way

Newbies to the city will forget that our waterfront once was mostly walled off from us, both by working piers and by a concrete monstrosity called the Embarcadero Freeway. But after the Loma Prieta earthquake, the damaged freeway was torn down, there was less hard-core maritime activity along the Embarcadero and suddenly the waterfront opened up to the public. Sweeping vistas. A sense of openness. A synergy between land and water.

We are supremely lucky to have as much gorgeous waterfront access as we do. But now the Warriors want to turn one stretch of open bayfront property into an 18,000-seat, billion-dollar arena.

"We have to protect our precious asset," said former mayor Art Agnos, who pushed for the removal of the Embarcadero Freeway. "To put that structure over the water and destroy the advances that we've made in that part of the city would be an abomination."

Aside from the aesthetic issues, with our newfound awareness about climate change and rising tides, does building an arena on the water seem like the smartest, most environmentally sound move?

The Warriors want to compare the proposed building to other iconic waterfront landmarks like the Sydney Opera House. They might want to also note that recent studies show that the Sydney Opera House is considered at considerable risk because of climate change.

Look cool on TV

The Warriors' owners - with their Hollywood state of mind - want a building that will look cool on television, be used in movie shots and engender envy. But there are other spots in San Francisco that probably would be more appropriate for an arena.

The Warriors have met any arguments against the proposed arena by challenging their doubters if they felt the same about AT&T Park. But when AT&T Park was built in the late 1990s, that side of the city was vastly different, in terms of density and traffic. And the ballpark wasn't built out into the bay, but on an inlet.

The Warriors' most compelling argument is that Piers 30-32 are crumbling, and they're providing a much-needed service by renovating the piers. The $120 million cost of refurbishing the pilings is built into the billion-dollar cost of the arena, which the Warriors promise will be privately financed.

It's true that the old pier is just an empty parking lot now and that the decaying structure needs to be replaced.

Obsolete in 2 decades?

But is that worth trading away a piece of the waterfront forever, particularly for a building which - if the sports climate continues at its current pace - will likely be considered obsolete within two decades?

Lewis and his organization are concerned about what else might be approved if the Warriors arena sails through the process.

"It's the precedent," Lewis said. "If this is considered appropriate pier use, where do you draw the line?"

There's been a lot of civic boosterism surrounding the arena: Mayor Lee, who is watching the 49ers pack up and move, even included the theoretical arena in his plans for bidding for the 2024 Olympics.

But an arena won't make San Francisco special. What makes San Francisco special is what the Warriors arena would block off: our beautiful waterfront.