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.
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.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/warriors/article/Warriors-arena-would-block-beauty-of-bay-4280364.php#ixzz2KzEyUDB8
Warriors arena would block beauty of bay
San Francisco Chronicle | Feb 15